Ontario Archives - Arbitration Matters

September 27, 2024September 27, 2024

Ontario – Alleged error in applying the law not a jurisdiction issue – #865

In Clayton v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 ONCA 581, the Court dismissed an appeal from an order dismissing an application to set aside an arbitral award made under Chapter 11 of NAFTA (“the Award”). The appellants sought to set aside the award on the grounds that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and that the award violated public policy. The Court rejected both arguments. In the underlying arbitration, which was bifurcated into liability and damages hearings, the tribunal found that the respondent had breached the relevant NAFTA provisions, but that the appellants did not establish that the breach caused the damages sought. The appellants applied to the Ontario Superior Court to set aside the Award, arguing that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by not properly applying the law, and that the Award violated public policy because it was “so unreasonable as to be unenforceable”. The Superior Court dismissed the application. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Challenges to arbitral awards on jurisdictional grounds are restricted to “true jurisdictional questions”, and there is a very high burden to set aside an award for public policy reasons.

September 23, 2024September 20, 2024

Ontario – Arbitrator jurisdiction – dispute arose from Consent Order after earlier arbitration – #863

In The Joseph Lebovic Charitable Foundation, The Dr. Wolf Lebovic Charitable Foundation, the Estate of Joseph Lebovic and Wolf Lebovic v Jewish Foundation of Greater Toronto and Joseph and Wolf Lebovic Jewish Community Campus, 2024 ONSC 4400, the Court upheld the arbitrator’s order that he had jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute that arose after a Consent Order made in an earlier arbitration. The parties’ first dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause in their agreement. They settled that dispute and the arbitrator issued a Consent Order that contained a term that referred, “any disputes regarding the matters referred to in this Order” back to him for resolution. A second arbitration did not proceed. The same arbitrator was appointed to decide the issues in dispute in a third arbitration. The respondents in the arbitration (“Lebovic”) argued that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction because the issues raised were grounded in the Consent Order and not in the agreement that contained the arbitration clause. The arbitrator decided that he had jurisdiction, in part, because: (1) resolving this third dispute would necessarily involve factual consideration of the contract terms, and obligations and conduct of the parties under both the parties’ agreement and the Consent Order; and (2) the issues raised by Lebovic were all grounded in rights and obligations which were initiated by the terms of their agreement. Lebovic maintained their objection and applied to the Court under section 17(8) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 17, “to decide the matter”. The focus of this case note is the arbitrator’s decision, because the application was decided on the basis of waiver.

August 12, 2024August 9, 2024

Ontario – Partial Summary Judgment Test Applied on Recognition of Foreign Award Motion – #853

In Shanghai Investment Co. Ltd. V. Lu et al., 2024 ONSC 2762 the Chambers Judge concluded that to grant a motion asking that a foreign award be “domesticated” (that is, recognized and made enforceable as a judgment of the Ontario Court), the motion must also meet the additional requirements for partial summary judgment. In this case, the recognition of the foreign award was pleaded as a threshold issue and formed part of a larger enforcement action. As a result, if the motion for recognition were granted, it would bifurcate the action. Although the Ontario Court of Appeal in cases like Butera v. Chown, Cairns LLP, 2017 ONCA 783 (“Butera”) has held that partial summary judgment should rarely be granted as it usually not efficient nor cost effective, the Chambers Judge determined that it was appropriate in this case. Among other factors she noted was that the recognition portion of the action was distinct from the rest and there was no risk of inconsistent findings.

July 31, 2024July 25, 2024

Ontario – Court won’t intervene in arbitration to order disclosure against a party – #851

In Medjuck v Medjuck, 2024 ONSC 2980,the Court dismissed an application for a de novo hearing to decide the matter of disclosure requests that were denied in part by the Arbitrator on several grounds, including that he did not have jurisdiction to grant some of the requests. The Court held that it did not have authority to intervene in the arbitration so as to hear and rule on the disclosure request de novo. It found that the request did not fall under any of grounds listed at section 6 (court intervention limited) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17.

July 29, 2024July 25, 2024

Ontario – Missed Opportunity re Implications of Set-Aside Test for Procedural Unfairness? – #850

In Vento Motorcycles, Inc. v. United Mexican States, 2024 ONCA 480 (CanLII) (for ease of reference, “Vento-CIPPIC“), the Court addressed The Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic’s (“CIPPIC’s”) application to intervene in Vento’s appeal of last year’s Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s dismissal of Vento’s application to set aside a 2020 international arbitration award [Vento Motorcycles, Inc. v. United Mexican States, 2023 ONSC 5964 (CanLII), (“Vento”)]. That and related decisions were discussed in several Arbitration Matters previous blogs, including 810, 796, 572, and 807. CIPPIC’s application was unsuccessful. The Court rejected its application for three reasons: (1) it hadn’t shown a sufficient link between its expertise and the issues in the appeal or its unique perspective; (2) the higher threshold to be granted leave to intervene in a private dispute; and (3) the risk CIPPIC’s intervention would unjustifiably expand the scope of the appeal.

July 22, 2024July 25, 2024

Ontario – Motion to strike civil claims in court waives arbitration rights – #847

In RH20 North America Inc. v. Bergmann, 2024 ONCA 445, the Court upheld the dismissal of a motion to stay court proceedings. Before a motions judge, several defendants succeeded in striking a number of civil claims on the basis that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action. But seeking such relief in court was treated as waiver of an agreement to arbitrate disputes. As a result, instead of international arbitration in London, breach of contract and conspiracy claims will now be determined by the Ontario courts.

June 19, 2024June 25, 2024

Ontario – Arbitrator’s relationship with party’s lender not sufficient for bias – #842

In Ballantry Construction Management Inc. v GR (CAN) Investment Co. Ltd., 2024 ONSC 2129 (“Ballantry”), the applicant, Ballantry Construction Management Inc. (“Applicant”), brought a motion for (among other things) an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Respondent from transferring or encumbering its assets pending the hearing of: (1) the Applicant’s application to enforce two arbitral awards; and (2) the Respondent’s application to set aside the awards on the grounds of a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Arbitrator. On the second issue, the Court concluded that while a “business relationship” between a party and the Arbitrator may create a reasonable apprehension of bias, here, the fact that the Arbitrator was a director and shareholder of the parent of a company that had provided a loan to the Respondent did not support a finding of bias. This case considers how close a relationship between an arbitrator and a party is “too close” if a party seeks to set aside an award based on alleged arbitrator bias.

June 7, 2024June 7, 2024

Ontario – Court dismisses action for issue estoppel based on prior arbitration – #840

In Ford v. GMP Securities LP, 2024 ONSC 271, the Court partially dismissed an action for issue estoppel, relying on a 2022 arbitral award that had been rendered as a result of a dispute between a group of shareholders (of which the plaintiff was a part) and an entity that the defendants (investment dealer and senior investment banker) had represented in a reverse take-over process. The defendants were found to be privies of the parties to the previous arbitration, even though they were not parties themselves. The only claims remaining in the Ontario action were the ones that had not been raised or decided in the previous arbitration.

June 5, 2024May 30, 2024

Ontario – International award enforced despite respondent’s non-participation – #839

Medivolve Inc. v. JSC Chukotka Mining and Geological Company, 2024 ONSC 2200, the Court refused Medivolve’s application to set aside an international arbitration award issued by a Moscow-seated tribunal, instead granting Chukotka’s application to recognize and enforce the award. Medivolve failed to appear at the arbitration and claimed that it had not been given proper notice or an opportunity to be heard. The Court found that Medivolve had proper notice of the arbitration within the meaning of Art. 36(1)(a)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”). It had received actual notice, by email, of the pendency and status of the arbitration well before the award was rendered even though it changed offices (without notifying the opposing party).

May 24, 2024May 24, 2024

Ontario – Court can hear set aside despite NY forum selection clause – #837

In Tehama Group Inc v Pythian Services Inc, 2024 ONSC 1819, the Court declined to stay an application to set aside an arbitration award. The stay application was based on a forum selection clause in favour of the courts of New York. In denying the stay, the Ontario court applied an exception in that forum selection clause regarding certain types of disputes under the parties’ agreement that were to be referred to arbitration. The key issue in the case concerned establishing the “place” of the arbitration, which had not been expressly set out by the parties or determined by the arbitrator. Applying the International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSO 1990, c I.9 (“ICAA”) and UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law“) the Court determined that Toronto, Ontario, was the place of arbitration and that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was therefore the only competent forum to decide the set-aside application.