Ontario Archives - Arbitration Matters

November 5, 2025November 5, 2025

Ontario – Set Aside not available for bespoke process – #923

In Tehama Group Inc. v. Pythian Services Inc, 2025 ONSC 4134, the Court denied an application to set aside an international award on the basis of alleged procedural flaws in an accounting arbitration to resolve a dispute about whether a purchase price adjustment payment was owing to the seller of a business. The Court reviewed the terms of the parties’ bespoke arbitration agreement and the arbitral award and concluded that the specialist arbitrator, an accounting firm, had followed the summary dispute resolution process to which the parties had agreed. The Court ruled there was no breach of natural justice. Instead, the parties got the process they bargained for: “determinations strictly from a financial accounting perspective” and not “legal guidance or opinion [or] legal interpretation.”

September 16, 2025September 23, 2025

Ontario – A first: arbitration an appropriate alternative to judicial review – #917

BizTech v Accreditation Canada, 2025 ONSC 2689 appears to be the first application of section 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17(the “Arbitration Act”) , or any comparable provisions in other Canadian arbitration legislation, to stay a judicial review proceeding (para. 151). The decision establishes that staying a judicial review proceeding under section 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, in order to allow an arbitration to proceed, is not at odds with an individual’s right to apply for judicial review, depending on the facts of the case.,

July 31, 2025August 1, 2025

Ontario – Interpretation of Standard Form Multi-Tier Dispute Resolution Clauses Still Vexing – #914

In J.P. Thomson Architects Ltd. v. Greater Essex County District School Board, 2025 ONCA 378 (the “Decision”), the Court provides important guidance on the interpretation of multi-tier dispute resolution clauses.

History of the Dispute – J.P. Thomson Architects Ltd. (“Thomson”) is an architecture firm which provided services to the Greater Essex County District School Board (the “Board”) for nearly 50 years. The contracts in question contained a standard form Ontario Association of Architects multi-tier dispute resolution clause (as it existed at the time of contract).

June 9, 2025June 9, 2025

Ontario – Technical requirements for stay are precondition to competence-competence principle – #909

In Sherif Gerges Pharmacy Professional Corporation et al. v Niam Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., 2025 ONSC 2058, the court granted the applicant leave to bring derivative actions, rather than refusing leave based on the respondents’ argument that leave should be denied because of an arbitration agreement contained in a shareholders agreement. In Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized four technical requirements for a stay of court proceedings in favour of arbitration, one of which is that the party applying for a stay of the court proceedings has not taken a step in the proceeding. Rather than bringing a motion to stay the applicant’s leave request under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17, the respondents participated in the litigation and only raised arguments about an arbitration agreement in their factum responding to the applicants’ leave application. The court applied Peace River, which would have applied had the respondents brought a stay motion, and found that the respondents did not satisfy the technical requirements for a stay, having taken a step in the court proceeding. Because those requirements are a precondition to a stay, the court did not engage with the respondents’ arguments related to the competence-competence principle, and refused to dismiss the application for leave to bring derivative actions on the basis that the court proceeding should proceed by way of arbitration.

April 7, 2025April 7, 2025

Ontario – “No appeal” means “no appeal” (and other stuff) – #903

In Joseph Lebovic Charitable Foundation, et al v. Jewish Foundation of Greater Toronto, et al, 2024 ONCA 933,(“Lebovic“) the Court confirmed its prior ruling in Iris Technologies Inc. v. Rogers Communications Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 634 (“Iris”). In both cases the arbitrator ruled, as a preliminary question, they had jurisdiction to decide the matter before them. In both cases one of the parties unsuccessfully sought a review of that ruling pursuant to s. 17(8) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991. In both cases that party attempted to appeal to the Court of Appeal. And in both cases the motion to appeal was quashed with the Court of Appeal holding that s. 17(9) clearly prohibits any appeal from such a review.

March 7, 2025October 7, 2025

Ontario – More efficient expert determination process to proceed ahead of litigation – #899

The decision in CLEAResult Canada Inc. v. Santomero, 2024 ONSC 6054 reinforces the principle that courts will generally uphold private dispute resolution mechanisms unless there is prima facie evidence that the process is fundamentally flawed (see para. 67). Here, the court held that the more expeditious, efficient and simple process before an accounting expert (BDO Canada LLP) to determine the Reverse Earn-out Amount in an M&A dispute was to proceed in tandem with other litigation between the parties, and was not to be held up by that litigation.

March 7, 2025March 7, 2025

Ontario – Award set aside where one of three arbitrators biased – #898

Vento Motorcycles, Inc. v The United Mexican States, 2025 ONCA 82 is the second recent Ontario decision (after Aroma Franchise Company, Inc. v. Aroma Espresso Bar Canada Inc., 2024 ONCA 839 on the issue of reasonable apprehension of bias of an arbitrator, which arbitration practitioners have been awaiting. In this decision, there was no challenge to the finding in the Court below that the conduct of one of the arbitrators on a panel of three met the test for reasonable apprehension of bias. The appellant argued that the judge below was wrong to exercise her discretion to not set aside the award. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the award. It found that it was impossible to determine whether one arbitrator’s bias affected the outcome. Reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the arbitrator is such a serious breach of procedural fairness that the award must be set aside, even if it requires a re-hearing of the arbitration.

February 24, 2025February 24, 2025

Ontario – Natural justice does not require second opportunity to make submissions – #897

In Edenrock Holdings Inc. v. Moscone, 2025 ONSC 32, the Court refused to set aside an arbitral award, or grant leave to appeal, with respect to a claimed breach of natural justice, the supposed improper re-opening of earlier decisions, or the alleged apprehension bias of the Arbitrator who issued the Award. The Court found that there was no denial of natural justice when the Arbitrator ruled on a matter in respect of which the Applicants did not make submissions because they argued that the Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction. They argued they should have been given a separate opportunity after the Arbitrator ruled that he had jurisdiction.

February 7, 2025February 10, 2025

Ontario – Breach of arbitration clause gives rise to cause of action – #894

In Fowlie et al v Wrestling Canada Lutte et al, 2024 ONSC 7196 (“Fowlie”), the Court considered the appeal of a motion judge’s order declining to strike a breach of contract claim made by a sports dispute resolution expert (“Expert”) against Wresting Canada Lutte (“WCL”). The Expert claimed that WCL had breached their contract by failing to engage in a contractual dispute resolution process before WCL terminated the contract without cause. The dispute resolution clause in the parties’ contract included the option to refer disputes to arbitration. The Court granted the appeal and struck the Expert’s claim. The Court held that the dispute resolution clause only applies when a “dispute” arises. Because there was no dispute as between the Expert and WCL about the validly of the without-cause termination while the contract was in force, there was no “dispute” to which to apply the dispute resolution clause. This decision is surprising in view of the separability principle that arbitration agreements survive contract termination. Arbitration jurisprudence suggests that the arbitration agreement in the contract between WCL and the Expert should have been treated as an independent agreement that survived termination of the main contact.

January 24, 2025January 24, 2025

Ontario – “Finally Resolved” means “Final and Binding” – #890

In Johnson Bros. Corporation v. Soletanche Bachy Canada Inc., 2024 ONSC 6296, the Court found that the parties had contracted out of the right to appeal on the basis that the arbitration agreement provided that disputes were to be “finally resolved” by arbitration.