Ontario Archives - Page 15 of 32 - Arbitration Matters

September 30, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Stay motion denied: case was a proper one for summary judgment, but summary judgment not sought – #538

In Jencel 407 Yonge Street Inc. v. Bright Immigration Inc., 2021 ONSC 6030, Justice Akbarali dismissed the Defendant’s motion to stay the action in favour of arbitration. The Plaintiff argued that the stay motion should be dismissed because the action was a proper one for summary judgment, relying upon s. 7(2)5 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17. Justice Akbarali agreed. The key facts were uncontested and the Defendant’s position in the action, which consisted mostly of “bald assertions and unarticulated legal and factual arguments”, did not give rise to any genuine issue requiring a trial. However, the Plaintiff did not move for summary judgment.

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 15, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Courts decide consent to arbitration de novo, without deference to arbitral tribunal – #532

In Hornepayne First Nation v. Ontario First Nations (2008) Limited Partnership, 2021 ONSC 5534, Justice Fitzpatrick held that a court hearing an application to “decide the matter” of arbitral jurisdiction must decide the question de novo. This was an application to the court under section 17(8) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991. That section provides that, if an arbitral tribunal finds as a preliminary question that is has jurisdiction, any party may apply to the court to “decide the matter”. Justice Fitzpatrick followed the Divisional Court’s decision in Russian Federation v. Luxtona, 2021 ONSC 4605, which interpreted a similar provision in Article 16(3) of the Model Law. He held that the court’s role on such an application is to decide de novo whether the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction.

September 2, 2021November 29, 2022

Ontario – Partial stay; oppression claim arbitration to precede related family law action – #528

In Pezo v Pezo, 2021 ONSC 5406, the applicant Elma Pezo brought two claims: a family law claim against her spouse Kabir Pezo; and an oppression remedy claim against Kabir and his friend Hadis Kozo regarding a business they had all operated together. Kazo sought a stay of all claims against him on the basis that the parties had entered into a Shareholders’ Agreement with respect to the business that contained a mandatory arbitration clause. However, Elma argued that it was invalid because the two claims intersected and had to be heard together, but the arbitration clause did not meet the requirements for a family law arbitration set out in Ontario Regulation 134/07 of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17. Justice Kraft disagreed. She found that the arbitration clause covered only the oppression remedy claims and that she had the discretion to grant a partial stay under s. 7(5) of the Arbitration Act because its two pre-conditions had been met: (a) the agreement dealt with only some of the matters in respect of which the proceeding was commenced; (b) it was reasonable to separate the matters dealt with in the agreement from other matters. She stayed the family law claims an ordered an arbitration with respect to the oppression claims to proceed before the action so that the findings of the arbitrator on issues that could affect the family law claim would be before the court.

September 1, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – “Cumulative series of events” complaint does not extend deadline for raising arbitrator bias – #527

In Spivak v. Hirsch, 2021 ONSC 5464, Justice Jarvis heard a motion to remove an arbitrator pursuant to sections 13 and 15(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 on the basis that the arbitrator demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias, actual bias and had not treated the applicant fairly and equally. The applicant raised concerns which she said, cumulatively, constituted bias. Essentially, the applicant argued bias on the basis of awards issued against her and that she was not being afforded the same litigation latitude as the respondent. The court dismissed the application. A reasonable person, when considering the applicant’s concerns in the context of the entirety of the arbitration proceedings, would not think this amounted to bias. In any event, the applicant was out of time. Section 13 of the Arbitration Act makes it mandatory that a person who wishes to challenge an arbitrator must do so within 15 days of becoming aware of the grounds for challenge. There is no discretion to extend the time to take into account earlier incidents of alleged bias.

August 18, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Court application stayed; jurisdictional issues required analysis of contract’s factual matrix, should be decided by arbitrator – #522

In 743584 Ontario Inc. v. LAC Otelnuk Mining Ltd., 2021 ONSC 5255, Master Jolley stayed a court application in favour of arbitration. Applying the competence-competence principle and the general rule adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Dell Computer Corporation v. Union des consommateurs 2007 SCC 34, she held that the question of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction should be decided by the arbitrator, except if the challenge to jurisdiction is based solely on a pure question of law or a question of mixed fact and law that requires only a superficial consideration of the documentary evidence in the record. She stayed the application in favour of arbitration, because the jurisdictional issues raised were questions of mixed fact and law that could not be determined on superficial consideration of the evidence.

August 16, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Court refers part of dispute to arbitration despite concluding dividing the issues was “unreasonable” in the circumstances – #520

In Star Woodworking Ltd. v. Improve Inc., 2021 ONSC 4940, Justice F.L. Myers of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice concluded he was required to refer to arbitration parts of a multi-action litigation even though dividing the issues and parties was, in the Court’s view, unreasonable in the circumstances. In granting the stay, Justice Myers followed the Supreme Court of Canada’s holding in TELUS Communications Inc. v. Wellman, 2019 SCC 19 (Wellman) to the effect that unless a party establishes one of the bases for refusing a stay under subsection 7(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, the Court lacks discretion to refuse the partial stay motion under subsection 7(5). He stayed portions of two of the joined actions on certain issues as against one of the Defendants but allowed them to continue on the remaining issues as against the other Defendants.

August 13, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Party’s conduct in suing in foreign jurisdiction constituted “strong cause” why arbitration clause should not be enforced under ONCA Novatrax principles – #519

In CSI Toronto Car Systems Installations Ltd. v Pittasoft Co., Ltd., 2021 ONSC 5117, Justice Mohan D. Sharma dismissed a motion by Pittasoft for a stay of CSI’s Ontario action in favour of arbitration on the grounds that: (1) under Article 8(1) of the Model Law, the arbitration agreement was “null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed” because Pittasoft was estopped by its own conduct from relying upon it and also that Pittasoft had brought its stay motion too late; and (2) these findings constituted “strong cause” why the arbitration clause should not be enforced in accordance with the principles articulated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Novatrax International Inc. v Hagele Landtechnik GmbH, 2016 ONCA 771 , that apply “when a litigant seeks to displace a forum selection clause agreed upon in a commercial contract”.

August 4, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Party can sue and not required to arbitrate where opposing party obviously will not participate – #514

In 1100 Walkers Line Inc. v Elliott Sports Medicine Clinic Inc., 2021 ONSC 5067, Justice E.M. Morgan considered a commercial lease containing a renewal provision, which stated that if the parties could not agree on the applicable market rent to be paid during the renewal term, that issue “shall be determined by arbitration”. When the Tenant terminated the lease, but did not give the required 6 months’ written notice and thereafter vacated the premises, the Landlord sued, asserting that the automatic renewal provision was triggered and rent during the renewal term was owing. The Tenant claimed that the renewal provision was ambiguous and unenforceable, in part, because the applicable market rent during the renewal term had never been agreed upon by the parties, nor determined by arbitration since neither party had commenced an arbitration. Justice Morgan found that the renewal provision was unambiguous and enforceable and that the mandatory arbitration clause did not require the Landlord to initiate an arbitration in which the Tenant would obviously not participate. Further, because only the Landlord adduced any evidence of the applicable market rent, the arbitrator would have fixed the rent at that rate. Therefore, Justice Morgan granted judgment in favour of the Landlord.

July 22, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Court application under Model Law Art. 16(3) to “decide the matter” of the tribunal’s jurisdiction is a hearing de novo and not a “review” of the tribunal’s decision – #513

In Russian Federation v. Luxtona Limited, 2021 ONSC 4604, the Divisional Court heard an appeal by Russia of an interlocutory decision of Justice Penny of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Russia Federation v. Luxtona Limited, 2019 ONSC 7558. Justice Penny had declined to allow Russia to adduce fresh evidence on an application brought under Model Law Art. 16(3) to set aside an interim arbitral award finding that Russia had consented to arbitrate Luxtona’s claims and that the tribunal therefore had jurisdiction. The proposed fresh evidence related to the jurisdictional issue and had not been before the tribunal. The appeal turned on whether the application before Justice Penny was a “review” of the tribunal award on jurisdiction or a hearing de novo. The Divisional Court, in a decision written by Justice D.L. Corbett, held that Russia was entitled to adduce fresh evidence as of right because the application was a hearing de novo. The court relied upon two key decisions raised by the parties. Mexico v Cargill, 2011 ONCA 622 held that a set aside application brought in the Superior Court of Justice under Art. 34 of the Model Law is a “review” and not a hearing de novo, but in that case there was no challenge to the tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute. Therefore, the Divisional Court was not bound by it. The English Supreme Court decision of Dallah v Pakistan, [2011] AC 763, held that the court’s role where one party took the position that it had not consented to the arbitration was “to reassess the issue [of jurisdiction] itself” and not to “review” the tribunal’s decision. The Divisional Court found that this approach is supported by the language in the Model Law and the weight of international authority and Art. 2A of the Model Law, which promotes the uniformity of the application of the Model Law internationally.