Ontario Archives - Page 12 of 32 - Arbitration Matters

April 22, 2022April 22, 2022

Ontario – Best practices: pre-appointment communications and application to appoint arbitrator – #607

In Magna International Inc. v Granite Real Estate Inc., 2022 ONSC 2200, Justice Myers granted the application of Magna, the tenant in a lease agreement, for an order appointing an arbitrator to fix the rent for a renewal term of the lease. The parties agreed that the tenant had validly renewed the lease, but could not agree on the rent for the renewal period. Respondent Granite, the landlord, opposed the appointment of the arbitrator for two reasons: (1) the evidence in support of the application was insufficient; and (2) the arbitration clause in the lease was invalid because it contained permissive, rather than mandatory, language and was too vague because it did not specify either the seat or the applicable rules of the arbitration. Justice Myers set out the preferred approach for both communicating with the proposed arbitrator in circumstances in which the parties are not cooperating and the kind of evidence that should be adduced on an application for a court order appointing the proposed arbitrator, using the analogy of the process for the court appointment of a receiver/trustee in bankruptcy. Also, he found that the issues relating to the validity of the arbitration clause were to be referred to the arbitrator under the competence-competence principle.

April 15, 2022April 13, 2022

Ontario – Continuing confusion over nature of court review of arbitration – #606

In PCL Constructors Canada Inc. v Johnson Controls, 2022 ONSC 1642, Justice Conway heard and dismissed four applications, two by PCL and two by Johnson, relating to two arbitrations arising out of disputes over the construction by PCL of the Humber River Regional Hospital (“the Humber Arbitration) and the Milton District Hospital (“the Milton Arbitration”). PCL brought applications to the court, pursuant to s. 17(8) of Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 (“the Act”), to “decide the matter” of the tribunal’s ruling on jurisdiction as a preliminary matter. Justice Conway applied the “correctness” standard of review; the arbitrators both ruled correctly that they had jurisdiction and that the prerequisites to arbitration in the arbitration clause did not constitute conditions precedent to arbitration. Johnson brought applications under s. 8(2) of the Act, which provides that the court may determine any question of law that arises during an arbitration on an application if the parties or the tribunal consent. The issue concerned a party’s right under the contract to apply to the court for a reconsideration of the arbitrator’s determination. That right had not crystallized because the arbitration continued and no determination had been made.

April 8, 2022April 7, 2022

Ontario – Order denying leave to appeal award interlocutory, leave to appeal required – #602

In Mills v Thompson, 2022 ONSC 1525, Justice Charney, sitting as an Ontario Divisional Court judge, quashed an appeal of the decision of a Superior Court judge denying leave to appeal an arbitral award. The question before him was, “whether a party requires leave to appeal from a decision denying leave to appeal [an arbitral award on a question of law] or may appeal a denial of leave to appeal as of right”. Justice Charney confirmed recent Ontario Court of Appeal jurisprudence holding that a decision of the Superior Court of Justice granting or denying leave to appeal an arbitral award is an interlocutory order in respect of which leave to appeal is required under s. 19(1) of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. 43, as amended. Any other conclusion would defeat the purpose of the appeal provision in the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, s. 45, which is intended to minimize judicial interference in arbitration. It would be incongruous to allow an appeal of a denial of leave decision as of right, when no such right is provided with respect to an appeal of the correctness of the award itself. The Appellant had not sought leave of the Divisional Court to appeal. Justice Charney quashed the appeal.

March 30, 2022March 28, 2022

Ontario – Opportunity to clarify how arbitration interfaces with registering land interests – #599

In Green Urban People Ltd. v. Berthault, 2022 ONSC 737, the Divisional Court (Justices Sachs, Morgan and D.L. Edwards) granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether a certificate of pending litigation (“CPL”) can be issued by the court in face of an arbitration agreement.

March 29, 2022April 5, 2022

Alberta – Rights of appeal must be explicit in arbitration agreement – # 598

In Sheridan v Sheridan, 2022 ABQB 180, Justice Jerke dismissed the appeal of an arbitral award for which leave had not been sought. The appellant Husband argued that by providing in the parties’ arbitration clause that any award was “subject to the rights of appeal under s. 44” of the Alberta Arbitration Act, RSO 2000, c. A-43, he was entitled to appeal on all of the grounds set out in s. 44(1) – on a question of law, on a question of fact or on a question of mixed law and fact. However, Justice Jerke found that this language meant that the award was also subject to s. 44(2) of the Act, which provides that where the arbitration agreement does not provide that the parties may appeal an award on a question of law, leave is required. This means that the arbitration agreement must explicitly allow an appeal on the s. 44(1) specified grounds, or the parties may appeal only a question of law, with leave of the court. Because the parties’ arbitration agreement did not explicitly do so, the appeal was dismissed because the Husband had not sought leave.

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”.

March 14, 2022May 4, 2022

Ontario – Court rejects cross-applications to appoint valuators as the arbitrator – #593

In MacBryce Holdings Inc. et al. v. Magnes Partnership et al, 2022 ONSC 321, Justice Gilmore of the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice refused competing applications by parties to appoint their respective proposed candidates as arbitrator. Each proposed arbitrator was also a qualified valuator, whose mandate was to determine the fair market value (“FMV”) of shares pursuant to a shareholders agreement. Justice Gilmore rejected the argument that the conduct of the arbitration was to be confined to a more truncated and informal process of reviewing existing valuation reports, which was the process as set out in the agreement. She found that the parties clearly agreed upon an arbitration, rather than a valuation, which invoked certain procedural protections. She ordered that the parties choose an arbitrator (who would be neither of their proposed candidates) and gave further directions on the conduct of the arbitration.

March 10, 2022May 4, 2022

Ontario – Start of limitation period determined by interpretation of stepped arbitration clause – #592

In Maisonneuve v Clark, 2022 ONCA 113, the Ontario Court of Appeal interpreted the language of an arbitration agreement to determine the applicable limitation period. It found that the application judge’s interpretation of that language was entitled to deference and that the palpable and overriding error standard of review applied. The application judge found that the following language in the arbitration clause made an attempt at informal resolution a pre-requisite to arbitration: “[i]f the parties are unable to resolve the Excluded Issue as between them, then the Excluded Issue shall be fully and finally referred to the Arbitrator for resolution”. The application judge found that the word “then” made the clause “both temporal and conditional”, after considering the wording of the arbitration clause and the factual matrix. The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error and dismissed the appeal. Maisonneuve’s application to appoint an arbitrator was not time-barred; he had brought his application within two years of the date when he knew that a negotiated resolution was not possible.

March 3, 2022May 4, 2022

Ontario – No issue estoppel regarding arbitrator’s findings in later litigation – #591

In The 6^th Line Mofos Limited v Stewart, 2022 ONSC 520, Justice Healey dismissed a summary judgment motion brought by parties to court proceedings, who argued that issue estoppel applied to prevent the court from making findings that were inconsistent with those made in a previous arbitration. The plaintiffs, who were adverse in interest in the arbitration, sued a land appraiser whose report was central to their dispute and which the arbitrator found did not meet the requisite professional standards. The plaintiffs argued that this finding was sufficient to establish the negligence of the defendant appraiser and they sought in damages recovery of the costs they had incurred in relation to the arbitration. Justice Healey disagreed and found that two elements of issue estoppel could not be met: (1) the same question was not before both the court and the arbitrator; and (2) the defendant appraiser was a witness in the arbitration and was not a party or its privy.

February 16, 2022May 4, 2022

Ontario – Court overturns decision, “deciding the matter” of jurisdiction de novo – #586

In Electek Power Services Inc. v. Greenfield Energy Centre Limited Partnership, 2022 ONSC 894, Justice Perell set aside a preliminary jurisdiction decision rendered by a three-person arbitral tribunal. The tribunal found that the parties had agreed to arbitrate their dispute. The matter came before the court as an application under section 17(8) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, which provides that the court may “decide the matter” of a jurisdictional objection where the arbitral tribunal rules on the objection as a preliminary question. Following the approach set out by the Divisional Court in The Russian Federation v. Luxtona Limited, 2021 ONSC 4604 (Lisa’s 2021 Top Pick: Ontario – Russian Federation v. Luxtona Limited (Part 1) – #564), Justice Perell held that he was required to “decide the matter” of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate on a de novo basis. He explicitly rejected the submission that administrative law or appellate standards of review have any relevance in an application to the court to “decide the matter” of whether parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute.