Tag: Ontario

In Carleton Condominium v. Poirier, 2021 ONSC 3778, Mr. Justice Paul B. Kane refused to convert Applicant’s application into an action despite Respondents’ submissions that Applicant had not engaged in mediation and arbitration before commencing the application.  An application would proceed on a record comprised of affidavit and cross-examination evidence whereas an action would lead to a hearing with viva voce witnesses and more extensive pre-trial procedural steps. Even though some of Applicant’s relief appeared to qualify as a disagreement for which the Condominium Act, 1998, SO 1998, c 19 imposed mediation and arbitration, Kane J. determined that (i) the “substance” of the application involved breaches of the legislation for which mediation and arbitration were not imposed and (ii) Applicant’s reliance on those breaches was not “to avoid mediation and arbitration”. 

Continue reading “Ontario – statutory undertaking to mediate/arbitrate contract disputes inapplicable if dispute’s “substance” involves breach of legislation – #497”

In Bogue v. Miracle, 2021 ONCA 278, Ontario’s Court of Appeal remitted back to the applications judge an order appointing a receiver because the record did not provide the Court with a record relevant to argument that the order contravened exemptions from seizure provided in the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1-5. The order issued pursuant to section 101 of Ontario’s Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43 and upon application by the attorney for the successful arbitration party ACM who had signed a contingency agreement with that attorney as part of his retainer to represent ACM in the arbitration. The attorney sought the appointment of a receiver to “realize upon the debt for his benefit and [ACM]’s other creditors”.

Continue reading “Ontario – court to consider application of Indian Act seizure exemptions to contingency agreement related to arbitration award – #496”

In Kumer v. MTCC No. 775, 2021 ONSC 1181, Madam Justice Audrey P. Ramsay determined that a correctness standard applied to appeals of arbitration awards rendered under the Condominium Act, 1998, SO 1998, c 19.Ramsay J. observed that neither party argued Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 and she accepted the guidance set out in (i) 90 George Street Ltd. v. Ottawa-Carleton Standard, 2015 ONSC 336 which noted that “arbitration pursuant to the Condominium Act is distinguishable and very different from the arbitration of a commercial dispute” and (ii) Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 590 v. The Registered Owners and Mortgagees of Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 590, 2020 ONCA 471 which remarked that a condominium declaration is “a special form of contract, the structure of which is prescribed by statute. It must adhere to certain statutory requirements”.  Both decisions distinguished Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 (CanLII), [2014] 2 SCR 633 because it concerned commercial arbitration. Ramsay J. agreed with the Court of Appeal’s comments in 2020 that “while a declaration under the Condominium Act could be characterized as a contract, [it] is not the type of private contract negotiated between two parties, to which the comments in Sattva were directed. A declaration is a special form of contract, the structure of which is prescribed by statute. It must adhere to certain statutory requirements”.

Continue reading “Ontario – correctness standard applies on appeal of arbitration award under contract prescribed by statute – #494”

In Mensula Bancorp Inc. v. Halton Condominium Corporation No. 137, 2021 ONSC 2575, Madam Justice Marie-Andrée Vermette set aside an award in which the arbitrator, unsatisfied with the interpretation given by the “plain language” of a condominium declaration, “purported to deal with and correct what he thought were errors and inconsistencies”.  Doing so “crossed the line between interpretation and correction/amendment” and decided a matter beyond the scope of the agreement to arbitrate, justifying Vermette J.’s intervention under section 46(1)3 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17.  Because a condominium declaration is “the equivalent of the constitution of a condominium corporation” and, registered, impacts current and prospective condominium owners, section 109 of the Condominium Act, 1998, SO 1998, c 19 reserves jurisdiction to the Superior Court to correct alleged errors and inconsistencies. The parties also reiterated that jurisdiction in their agreement to arbitrate which itself appeared in their applicable documents by virtue of that same legislation.

Continue reading “Ontario – jurisdiction to correct/amend document affecting others reserved to Superior Court by legislation – #493”

Despite section 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17 requiring that a stay application be brought by the party which did not commence the court proceeding, Mr. Justice Christopher de Sa in Deluxe Windoors Manufacturing Inc. v. Bruhm, 2021 ONSC 3616, accepted that the parties’ agreement to arbitrate authorized either party to apply for stay.  Ostensibly authorized to apply to stay its own action, Plaintiffs’ own activity in the action nonetheless prompted de Sa J. to follow Lansens v. Onbelay Automotive Coatings Corp., 2006 CanLII 51177 (ON SC) which dismissed a stay application because defendant seeking the stay had taken several steps in the action before applying for a stay. Regarding Plaintiffs’ application for a stay, de Sa J. stated that “I agree with the Defendant that the Plaintiffs have acted no differently than the defendants in Lansens, in fact they did not simply respond, they initiated this claim”.

Continue reading “Ontario – though authorized, plaintiffs fail to justify stay of their own action after taking too many steps – #491”

In Leon v. Dealnet Capital Corp., 2021 ONSC 3636, Master Barbara McAfee declined to exercise her discretion under section 7(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17 to refuse a stay.  She dismissed the senior executive’s reliance on Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16 to invalidate the agreement to arbitrate contained in the employment agreement, noting that the governing law preserved the executive’s right to file an Employment Standards Act, 2000 S.O. 2000, c.41 complaint.  Master McAfee also disagreed that (i) the Business Corporations Act, RSO 1990, c B.16 oppression claim, contained in employer’s counterclaim, was not arbitrable or (ii) the employer had attorned by filing a defense and counterclaim or applied for a stay with “undue” delay. Master McAfee confirmed there was no evidence that employer or its current counsel “noticed” the agreement to arbitrate contained in the employment agreement until later in the action.

Continue reading “Ontario – agreement to arbitrate not unconscionable where governing law preserves executive’s Employment Standards Act rights – #490”

In Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1628 v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1636, 2021 ONCA 360, Ontario’s Court of Appeal held that wording in the Condominium Act, 1998, SO 1998, c 19 which permits an application to the Superior Court for relief regarding oppression set out in that legislation “does not oust the jurisdiction of an arbitrator to consider the same relief, if that relief is part of the dispute in question that properly falls within the terms of the arbitration provision”.  The Court also expressly accepted that a stay order would result in “parallel proceedings” – arbitration between two (2) parties and court litigation with all four (4) over the balance of the dispute – but concluded that parallel proceedings did not “detract from the central point” that two (2) of the parties must arbitrate.  The Court did observe that the other non-parties to the arbitration “might voluntarily agree to be part of the arbitration proceedings”.

Continue reading “Ontario – legislation permitting application to court does not oust arbitrator’s jurisdiction for same remedy – #485”

In Kore Meals LLC v. Freshii Development LLC, 2021 ONSC 3736, Mr. Justice Edward M. Morgan provided guidance on how to make an offer to settle in advance of an application to stay which would qualify for the increased costs eligible under Rule 49.10(2) of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194.  Morgan J. observed that advising that “Defendants were right and the Plaintiff was wrong” and that defendants would apply for a stay contains no real compromise.  Defendants’ offer to refrain from defending or seeking a stay of proceedings if plaintiff would walk away from the claim is not an offer which attracts increased costs.   Morgan J. nonetheless granted costs on a partial indemnity scale, qualifying them as reasonable.  He determined that the motion required “considerable legal research”, counsel “did what it to took to win the motion” and he was “not inclined to second guess [FD]’s counsel’s investment of time and effort” regarding an amount of fees which would not surprise “a sophisticated corporate party”.

Continue reading “Ontario – offer to settle in advance of stay application must contain real compromise to justify higher costs – #482”

In China Yantai Friction Co. Ltd. v. Novalex Inc., 2021 ONSC 3571, Ontario’s Divisional Court granted leave to appeal (i) a decision dismissing an application to order that the award debtor deposit the award amount pending opposition to recognition of the award and (ii) a decision granting an order for security for costs against the non-resident award creditor seeking recognition.  The award debtor had not applied to set aside or suspend the award in Beijing where the award was made and had not argued any of the grounds listed in article 36(1)(a) of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 2, Sch 5 to resist recognition.  The Divisional Court held there was “reason to doubt the correctness of the decision”.  Though the matter involved recognition of an arbitral award issued outside of Canada rather than a court decision, the Divisional Court considered the appeal “important because it speaks to the response of Canadian courts to international comity and our relationship to the courts of other countries”.

Continue reading “Ontario – security for costs order in recognition application appealable “because it speaks to the response of Canadian courts to international comity” – #479”

In Maisonneuve v. Clark, 2021 ONSC 1960, Madam Justice Sally Gomery held she had jurisdiction to determine whether an application for referral to arbitration was time-barred because (i) the record provided sufficient insight with respect to limitation issues despite having to draw some inferences and (ii) Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194 urged that they be “liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination” of the limitation issue.  Gomery J. commented that those reasons justified her deciding the issue, thereby relieving parties of having to reargue it before arbitrator.  Gomery J. also observed that “the exercise of interpreting a contract is different than the exercise of interpreting a statutory provision”.  The latter is a question law, requiring courts to “discern the mischief that the legislator intended to address in enacting legislation, and to interpret the statutory language to further the legislator’s purpose, sometimes to address problems that were not even contemplated when the law was passed”.  The former is a mixed question of fact and law.  “A contract is not made to address a societal issue or need. It is made to order the relationship between the parties or to resolve a specific problem they have at a particular time”.

Continue reading “Ontario – ability to decide limitation issue before referral to arbitrator relieves parties from rearguing issue – #478”