Non-parties/non-signatories Archives - Page 3 of 3

February 3, 2022October 19, 2022

B.C. – Claims against non-party to arbitration agreement stayed with claims against parties – #581

In Goel v Dhaliwal, 2021 BCSC 2382, Justice MacDonald dismissed as premature a motion to lift a stay of court proceedings in favour of arbitration for the limited purpose of allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended Statement of Claim with respect to claims against a defendant who was not a party to the arbitration. The parties did not agree on whether these claims were new or not. The arbitration had not yet concluded and the proposed amendments appeared to raise issues that overlapped with those which were before the arbitrator. Justice MacDonald found that the extent of the overlap, if any, would be clearer after the arbitration was concluded. In addition, the plaintiffs had also brought an application for judicial review of a Partial Final Award issued by the arbitrator which had not yet been disposed of. Justice MacDonald found that it was not clear whether the plaintiffs would pursue the amendments if they were successful on the judicial review application.

January 31, 2022May 4, 2022

Québec – Enforcement of foreign award against alter egos – #578

In CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Republic of India, 2022 QCCS 7, Justice Pinsonnault was seized with several questions with respect to two seizures before judgment by garnishment, which were authorized within the context of an application for recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards rendered outside of Québec. What makes this situation of interest is the fact that the seizures before judgment involved assets (money) owned by third parties who were not defendants to the arbitration or named in the awards for which recognition is sought (still pending). They are not implicated at all in the facts alleged in the dispute leading to these awards and they are not targeted in the awards either. Nonetheless, Justice Pinsonnault concluded that the allegations against these third-party corporations (fully owned by the respondent, Republic of India) were sufficient to cause him to confirm the seizure against one of them, although with a revised scope. The seizure against the other corporation was dismissed for other reasons related to the State Immunity Act. The application for recognition and enforcement of the awards remains pending.

January 18, 2022May 4, 2022

Ontario – tolling agreement from arbitration overcomes limitation defence at pleadings amendment stage – #574

In Vale Canada Limited v. Solway Investment Group Limited et al, 2021 ONSC 7562, Justice Koehnen considered, in the context of a motion to amend a Statement of Claim, the impact of a tolling agreement made in respect of claims made in arbitrations that had been commenced and concluded five years previous. In a decision that canvasses the law on the interaction of motions to strike and motions to amend, Justice Koehnen ultimately permitted the amendments, without prejudice to the defendants to plead a limitation defence and to bring a motion to strike.

November 12, 2021May 4, 2022

Québec – Stay of arbitrator’s decision to add third parties, force them to meet timetable, and refusal to hear them without payment – #553

In Mullen v Nakisa inc., 2021 QCCS 4388, Justice Granosik granted applications to stay an arbitration as against parties who were added as cross-respondents, even though they were not parties to the arbitration agreement, pending judicial review of the arbitrator’s decision to add them. Justice Granosik was concerned that the applicants could be deprived of their right to have a matter determined by a court, and even risked having the arbitration take place in their absence.

October 13, 2021May 4, 2022

Québec – Court favors arbitration even for related, but non-signatory, parties – #541

In 10053686 Canada inc. v. Tang, 2021 QCCS 3467, Justice Geeta Narang declined jurisdiction with respect to a dispute arising out of a Franchise Agreement. Plaintiffs were the franchisees and a director of a franchisee. Defendants were directors and shareholders of the franchisor. Justice Narang referred the case to private arbitration following Defendants’ demand for declinatory exception because the Franchise Agreement contained an arbitration clause. Justice Narang first concluded that the arbitration agreement was a “complete undertaking to arbitrate”, in conformity with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Zodiak International v. Polish People Republic, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 529. She concluded that all allegations in the Plaintiffs’ claim were related to the franchisor-franchisee relationship and covered by the arbitration agreement. Secondly, she recognized the Legislator’s intention to favor a private dispute resolution mechanism over the public justice system whenever the parties have expressed the intention to resolve their dispute out of court. Thirdly, she granted Defendants’ demand for a declinatory exception, even though all Defendants and one of the Plaintiffs were non-signatories to the arbitration agreement. In interpreting the arbitration agreement liberally, she concluded that in this context ignoring the arbitration agreement because the Defendants were not parties to the arbitration agreement would be to rely upon a “blind technicality”.

September 29, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Participating party in arbitration not granted leave to intervene in appeal/set aside application – #537

In Baffinland Iron Mines v Tower-EBC, 2021 ONSC 5639, the parties were engaged in a dispute about a project to build a railway to transport ore in Nunavut. They entered into two contracts which contained an arbitration clause. After delays in the project, one party terminated the contracts; the other claimed breach of contract and commenced an arbitration for its own losses and the losses of its sub-contractor, which participated in the hearing and had counsel present. However, that participation expressly did not constitute an agreement that the sub-contractor was a party to the arbitration. The tribunal issued a Final Partial Award finding that the contract had been wrongfully terminated, however, the tribunal was split on whether the innocent party was also entitled to recover the damages of the sub-contractor. The innocent party brought an application to set aside the award pursuant to s. 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, and for leave to appeal the award under s. 45(1) of the Act. The sub-contractor sought leave to intervene in the application on the ground that it had an interest in the subject matter of the proceeding and would be adversely affected by the judgment. Justice Pattillo dismissed the motion, in part, because “courts are reluctant to permit third parties to intervene in purely private and commercial litigation” and that this is “more so where private arbitration is involved.”

September 24, 2021May 4, 2022

B.C. – Stay motion: pleadings sufficient for “arguable case” that arbitration clause applies, despite contrary evidence – #534

In Beck v Vanbex Group Inc., 2021 BCSC 1619, Justice Fleming granted a partial stay of a proposed class action under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, S.B.C. 2020, c. 2. The issue before her was whether the Defendants had any evidentiary burden to meet to establish an “arguable case” that they were both proper parties to the arbitration agreement, thereby warranting a stay. The Plaintiffs argued that although one of the Defendants was not a signatory to the business agreement upon which they were suing and which contained the arbitration clause, both corporate Defendants were essentially alter egos of one another and both were liable to them. However, they argued that the Defendants’ stay application must be dismissed in the face of the Defendants’ evidence that the two corporate Defendants were entirely separate and one of them was not a proper party to the arbitration agreement. The Defendants agreed that, in the arbitration or at trial, their position would be that one of the Defendants was not a party to the arbitration agreement; however, they were entitled to a stay because: (1) if the Plaintiffs were correct, the action should be stayed; and (2) if the Plaintiffs were not correct, the Plaintiffs had no claim against the non-party Defendant anyway and the action would be dismissed. Justice Fleming agreed that the issues pleaded by the Plaintiffs demonstrated that it was arguable that both corporate Defendants were proper parties, notwithstanding the evidence adduced by the Defendants to the contrary.

August 27, 2021May 4, 2022

B.C. – Under new B.C. Act, third party may apply to arbitrator OR court to set aside subpoena issued by arbitrator – #524

In Terrace Community Forest LLP v Skeena Sawmills Ltd., 2021 BCSC 1522, Justice Milman dismissed an application brought by the petitioner, Terrace Community Forest LLP (TCF), for an order under s. 29(4) of the new British Columbia Arbitration Act, S.B.C 2020, c. 2, to set aside a subpoena requested by the respondent, Skeena, and issued by the arbitrator. The subpoena required TCF to produce documents in an ongoing arbitration under the Act. TCF was not a party to the arbitration, but was a third party and was alleged to have documents that were relevant to the arbitration. Justice Milman’s decision turned on the meaning of the word “or” in s. 29(4), which provides that a subpoena issued to a third party may be set aside on application by the person named in the subpoena to the arbitral tribunal “or” the Supreme Court. Justice Milman held that the word “or” in this context was to be read exclusively, rather than inclusively, because: (a) by its plain meaning, s. 29(4) contemplates an application by the third party in the first instance to either the arbitrator or the court, but not both, and the Legislature could not have intended that a third party could make sequential applications to set aside the same subpoena if dissatisfied with the first answer it received (b) there is no provision in the Act for the third party to bring an appeal or seek a review of an arbitrator’s decision under s. 29(4) and (c) s. 4 of the Act precludes any review of an arbitrator’s order by the court except as provided in the Act.

August 6, 2021May 4, 2022

Québec – case referred to arbitration despite some parties and some claims possibly not covered by the arbitration agreement – #517

In Césario v Régnoux, 2021 QCCS 3009, Justice Johanne Mainville granted Defendants’ application to the Court to decline jurisdiction and refer the parties to arbitration (declinatory exception). Justice Mainville held that the record did not allow her to rule on the Court’s jurisdiction because of unanswered questions regarding the relationship between the parties and their conduct prior to executing the arbitration agreement. The arbitrator must therefore first rule on its own jurisdiction, even though Justice Mainville noted that some parties and some claims were possibly not covered by the arbitration agreement.

July 22, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario –Arbitrator has jurisdiction to appoint inspector under the Ontario Business Corporations Act if terms of parties’ arbitration agreement allows, but court assistance needed if third parties affected – #510

In Randhawa v. Randhawa, 2021 ONSC 3643, Justice Koehnen considered whether the arbitrator appointed by the parties had jurisdiction when he issued an award appointing an inspector to conduct an investigation. The applicant (Paul) and the respondent (Rana) were brothers, who were involved in a dispute about the separation of their interests in various businesses which they once ran together. Paul commenced an oppression remedy application in March 2018, which was resolved by Minutes of Settlement dated October 1, 2018. The Minutes of Settlement called for the dissolution or sale of the businesses and provided that any disputes arising from the implementation of the Minutes of Settlement were to be resolved by way of arbitration. Disputes arose and the arbitrator issued an award under the Ontario Business Corporations Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. B. 16, appointing an inspector to conduct an investigation. During the arbitration, Paul brought a court application for the appointment of a receiver over a portion of the brothers’ businesses. Although Rana agreed to the receiver’s appointment, he contested the receiver’s right to conduct an investigation that involved third parties. He also contested the arbitrator’s jurisdiction when he awarded the appointment of an investigator under the OBCA at all and because the investigation included the affairs of a third party. Justice Koehnen granted Paul’s application. He found that there was no previous case and nothing in the parties’ arbitration clause that prohibited an arbitrator from awarding a statutory remedy, including the appointment of an inspector. The arbitrator acknowledged that his jurisdiction was limited to the parties to the arbitration agreement and that any investigation of a third party would require the assistance of the court, which Justice Koehnen ordered. In addition, the parties had agreed to the appointment of a receiver and there was ample evidence of the need to investigate the affairs of the third party as they affected the issues in the dispute between the brothers.