Ontario Archives - Arbitration Matters

July 27, 2026July 27, 2026

Ontario – JAMS arbitration clause survives bias and unconscionability challenges – #954

Abouzeid v. eXp Realty of Canada Inc et al., 2026 ONSC 3329 confirms that speculative concerns regarding institutional bias in the administration of an arbitration, absent evidence of actual unfairness or an inability to appoint an independent and unbiased arbitrator, will not render an arbitration agreement invalid, unconscionable, or incapable of performance, and will not prevent a mandatory stay under s. 7(1) of Ontario’s Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 (the “Arbitration Act”). The Court rejected the plaintiff’s two principal arguments: first, that the administering authority under the relevant arbitration agreement (JAMS) would be unable to administer an unbiased arbitration because the respondent frequently selected JAMS as an administering institution; and second, that the limited size of the Canadian JAMS arbitrator roster rendered the arbitration agreement incapable of performance (an issue for Canadian administering institutions to consider). These arguments failed because the parties were free to select any arbitrator – they were not restricted to the JAMS roster – and because repeat use of an administering authority does not give rise to bias.

July 27, 2026July 27, 2026

Ontario – Award enforced despite parties’ agreed institution and applicable rules changed – #953

InFrontier AF LP v. Rahmani, 2026 ONCA 289, was an appeal from an order enforcing an arbitral award made in Dubai. The primary issue was whether the application judge erred in considering the law of Dubai (the seat) in considering whether the arbitral procedure accorded with the parties’ agreement after the arbitration proceeded under a different institution and Rules regime than the ones specified in the parties’ agreement. The application judge found that the parties had agreed to procedural Rules that contemplated an amendment and that the new Rules were an amendment of the Rules specified by the parties in their agreement. The Court dismissed the appeal and accorded the application judge significant deference, finding that there was no extricable legal error in his interpretation of the parties’ agreed procedure.

June 29, 2026June 29, 2026

Ontario – Counsel disqualified in action and arbitration over access to privileged documents in arbitration – #949

In Specialty Life Inc. v. Daumier Financial Services Inc., 2026 ONSC 1869, the Court ordered the disqualification of plaintiffs’ counsel because it had requested, received, and reviewed some of the defendants’ privileged documents as counsel for the plaintiffs in a related arbitration, albeit for a legitimate purpose in that arbitration. The Court found that there were no steps, short of disqualifying plaintiffs’ counsel in both the action and the arbitration that would “avoid the mischief resulting from use of the [defendants’] privileged information”.

May 6, 2026May 6, 2026

Ontario – Aroma Round 2: no set-aside where procedural breach on non-material issue – #945

In Aroma Franchise Company, Inc. et al v. Aroma Espresso Bar Canada Inc. et al, 2026 ONSC 768, the Court dismissed a second application to set aside two arbitral awards in the “Aroma saga”, this time on various grounds pursuant to Article 34 of the Model Law (procedural breach relating to inability to present one’s case on an issue, jurisdiction, and sufficiency of reasons – the ground relating to jurisdiction was straightforward and is not addressed in this case summary). Although the Court found that the Applicants were unable to present their case on one issue (whether one individual was a proper party to the arbitration), such that Article 34(2)(ii) of the Model Law was met, it concluded that this issue was superfluous and accordingly did not exercise its discretion to set aside the award because the issue was not material.

March 11, 2026March 11, 2026

Ontario – Parties must pay arbitrator as part of good faith contractual performance – #937

In Ongko (Boswell) v. Ongko, 2025 ONSC 7235, the applicant was precluded from bringing her set-aside application. She was not only time-barred from doing so because she commenced the application after the statutory 30-day period, but the Court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to set aside an award and to remove an arbitrator for bias where a party fails to comply with the arbitrator challenge requirements of the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17 and the terms of their arbitration agreement, which provided for a mandatory challenge process if either party had concerns about the arbitrator’s neutrality. The applicant elected not to proceed with the challenge before the arbitrator after she refused to pay the arbitrator’s fees. She then chose not to participate in the arbitration. The Court made clear that parties must continue to pay the arbitrator’s fees to complete the contractually agreed dispute resolution process. It also found that there was also no procedural unfairness stemming from her own choices.

February 12, 2026March 11, 2026

Ontario – Anti-suit injunction granted restraining foreign arbitration by affiliate – #935

In Lochan v Binance Holdings Limited, 2025 ONSC 6493, the Court granted an anti-suit injunction that prevents Binance Holdings Limited (“Binance”) and affiliates from pursuing arbitration in Hong Kong against the representative plaintiffs in a certified class action in Ontario. The Court determined that Binance was using an affiliated entity, Nest Services Limited (“Nest”), as an alter ego to bypass previous Ontario rulings that found the arbitration clause in its contract with members of the class to be unconscionable and void.

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.