Natural justice Archives - Arbitration Matters

July 4, 2023July 4, 2023

Ontario – Arbitration procedurally unfair – arbitrator excluded material evidence despite no objection – #750

In Mattamy (Downsview) Limited v KSV Restructuring Inc. (Urbancorp), 2023 ONSC 3013, Justice Kimmel of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) set aside an arbitral award for violating procedural fairness. She found the Arbitrator acted unfairly in declining to admit relevant evidence on a new issue he himself raised in the arbitration. This decision reminds us that an arbitral tribunal’s procedural discretion, though vast and powerful, is not absolute.

May 25, 2023June 13, 2023

B.C. – Inadequate reasons on central issue a breach of natural justice – #740

In Bromley v. Getzie, 2023 BCSC 446 (“Bromley”), Justice Brongers remitted an arbitral award to the Arbitrator for reconsideration as a remedy for the arbitrator’s failure to observe the rules of natural justice, pursuant to s. 30 of the (former) British Columbia Arbitration Act, RSBC 1996, c. 55 (the “Act”). Justice Brongers found that the Arbitrator had breached principles of natural justice because he provided inadequate reasons on a “central issue” in dispute between the parties. This is a rare finding, but one which appears to rely, in part, on principles of natural justice as they relate to applications for judicial review in administrative proceedings. Regrettably, scant reasons are provided regarding the decision of Justice Brongers to order remittance of the matter to the arbitrator, rather than to set aside the award, as a remedy for the breach of natural justice.

July 5, 2022July 5, 2022

Alberta – No set aside for document disclosure complaints – #633

In ENMAX Energy Corporation v. TransAlta Generation Partnership et al, 2022 ABCA 206, the Alberta Court of Appeal (Paperny, Rowbotham, and Strekaf, JJA) upheld the chambers justice’s decision to refuse to set aside an arbitral award (the “Award”) under section 45(1)(f) of the Alberta Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c A-43 (the “Act“). It agreed that the (“Tribunal”) document disclosure rulings of the arbitral tribunal (“Tribunal”) in relation to a narrow sub-issue did not prevent the Appellants from making their case, nor did it result in manifest unfairness. Among other things, the Court of Appeal found that the Tribunal did not foreclose the possibility of further document production, but that it was the Appellants who opted not to apply for the records whose absence they now complained about. The Court also held that, when viewed in context, the Tribunal relied on other evidence to reach its conclusion and the absence of the records sought by the Appellants did not preclude them from presenting their case.

June 7, 2022May 27, 2022

Ontario: Award set aside for “trickery and injustice” – #624

In Campbell v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corp. No. 2600, 2022 ONSC 2805, Justice Perell of the Ontario Super Court of Justice set aside an arbitral award for “constructive fraud” pursuant to s. 46(1), para. 9 of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991. The arbitral award ordered the Campbells, who were condominium owners (the “Owners”), to pay $30,641.72 to the Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2600 (the “Condo Corp.”), which represented the costs of their arbitration. The matter began as a dispute regarding the Owners’ alleged non-compliance with the rules of the Condo Corp, including noise complaints and short-term rentals. However, the Owners were led to believe that the arbitration would be limited to the reasonableness of Condo Corp.’s legal costs in enforcing compliance up to and including the arbitration. Justice Perell held that the Owners were “tricked” intothe arbitration because it was actually an arbitration on the non-compliance issues.While Justice Perell found that the Condo Corp. was not deceitful, he found that “[2]… it misled, outmanoeuvred, and outsmarted the [Owners]” such that “[t]he court should not countenance the trickery and the injustice.” As a result, the arbitral award was set aside.

March 17, 2022May 4, 2022

Ontario – Standard of review: set aside for applicant’s “inability to present his case” – #596

In Nelson v The Government of the United Mexican States, 2022 ONSC 1193, Justice Penny dismissed Nelson’s application to set aside the award of a three-member tribunal constituted under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”). Nelson relied upon Article 34(2)(a)(ii) of the Model Law, which allows the court to set aside an award on the basis that the applicant was, “otherwise unable to present his case”. Justice Penny relied upon the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision of Consolidated Contractors Group S.A.L. (Offshore) v. Ambatovy Minerals S.A., 2017 ONCA 939, at para. 65, leave to appeal refused, 2018 CarswellOnt 17927 (S.C.C), which held that the standard of review for setting aside an award under Article 34(2)(a)(ii) is whether the tribunal’s conduct is “sufficiently serious to offend our most basic notions of morality and justice” and “that it cannot be condoned under the law of the enforcing State”.

January 12, 2022May 4, 2022

Ontario – Fresh evidence test the same on set aside applications on fairness grounds and judicial review applications – #572

In Vento Motorcycles Inc. v United Mexican States, 2021 ONSC 7913, Justice Vermette set out the test for when fresh evidence may be adduced to support a set aside application on lack of fairness or natural justice grounds. The test is the same as that which applies on a judicial review; the record is restricted to what was before the decision-maker, except where there are natural justice or fairness issues raised that cannot be proven by reference to the existing record and that could not have been raised before the decision-maker.

November 10, 2021May 4, 2022

B.C. – Award challenged for legal error, denial of natural justice after baseball arbitration – #552

In 1150 Alberni Limited Partnership v Northwest Community Enterprises Ltd., 2021 BCSC 2053, Justice Groves heard a petition to set aside an arbitral award or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal the award, as well as a cross-petition to enforce the award. The award arose out of a final offer selection arbitration, which required the arbitrator to accept one party’s submission in its entirety and provide reasons. Justice Groves dismissed the set aside and leave to appeal petitions. The arbitrator had not erred in law or in denying the petitioner natural justice; the losing party was simply re-arguing its case. Justice Groves granted an order enforcing the award.

September 1, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – “Cumulative series of events” complaint does not extend deadline for raising arbitrator bias – #527

In Spivak v. Hirsch, 2021 ONSC 5464, Justice Jarvis heard a motion to remove an arbitrator pursuant to sections 13 and 15(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 on the basis that the arbitrator demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias, actual bias and had not treated the applicant fairly and equally. The applicant raised concerns which she said, cumulatively, constituted bias. Essentially, the applicant argued bias on the basis of awards issued against her and that she was not being afforded the same litigation latitude as the respondent. The court dismissed the application. A reasonable person, when considering the applicant’s concerns in the context of the entirety of the arbitration proceedings, would not think this amounted to bias. In any event, the applicant was out of time. Section 13 of the Arbitration Act makes it mandatory that a person who wishes to challenge an arbitrator must do so within 15 days of becoming aware of the grounds for challenge. There is no discretion to extend the time to take into account earlier incidents of alleged bias.

August 19, 2021May 4, 2022

B.C. – Scope/excess of authority when arbitrator considers variation of award made based upon incorrect facts – #523

In Marchetti v Lane, 2021 BCSC 1259, Justice Tucker dismissed an application brought by the respondent (Lane) to “change or set aside” an arbitral award under s. 19.18 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25. The case has application to commercial arbitration awards and, indeed Justice Tucker looked to the set aside provisions of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 233 (“ICAA”) to determine whether the award should be set aside on jurisdictional grounds. Lane argued, among other things, that the arbitrator had acted outside the scope of the submission to arbitration and outside her authority in varying an earlier “final” award. He argued that the arbitrator had previously declined to clarify or correct the initial award, so it was final and binding upon the parties and subject only to the statutory right of appeal. The parties had agreed to have all their issues in dispute resolved by arbitration and the award which was the subject of this application related merely to one issue. After considering s. 34 of the ICAA, Justice Tucker found that the first award had been based upon facts that turned out not to have been correct and was therefore incapable of being implemented. In varying that award, the arbitrator did not “purport to correct or clarify the award, but determined the application to vary brought before her while her jurisdiction over the matter remained extant under the terms of the submission to arbitration and the applicable statute”.

August 4, 2021May 4, 2022

Federal CA – Arbitrator/Adjudicator expressing “tentative views” in pre-adjudication mediation to foster settlement not indicative of bias – #515

In Fono v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2021 FCA 125, the Federal Court of Appeal heard a second-level appeal of a prothonotary’s decision to strike out parts of the appellant’s notice of application for judicial review and affidavit on the basis that they contained settlement privileged information, specifically, evaluative statements allegedly made by the labour adjudicator in a pre-hearing mediation, which the appellant argued demonstrated bias. The FCA found the Federal Court judge made no error in upholding the prothonotary’s decision, specifically noting that the impugned statements did not demonstrate bias merely because the labour adjudicator expressed tentative views on offers made and positions taken in the dispute with a view to fostering settlement.