Tag: Ontario

In Laliberté v. Monteith, 2021 ONSC 14, Madam Justice Sandra Nishikawa ordered Respondent to answer questions and to provide his lawyer’s complete file. First, she determined that Respondent had waived solicitor-client privilege over exchanges relating to a disputed, negotiated settlement.  Though Respondent’s pleadings were “carefully drafted to avoid putting the Respondent’s state of mind, and any legal advice that might have had an impact on his state of mind, at issue”, Respondent’s denials did put in issue his state of mind and his reliance on legal advice in not disclosing facts material to Applicant’s decision to enter into the settlement. Second, Nishikawa J. further held that the record justified applying an exception to settlement privilege, namely where “a party perverts the purpose of a settlement negotiation and attempts to use it to mislead the other party into changing its position”.

Continue reading “Ontario – exceptions to solicitor-client and settlement privileges arise in post-settlement dispute – #410”

In Hodder v. Eouanzoui, 2020 ONSC 7905, Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin asserted jurisdiction under section 16(3) of Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17 to appoint a substitute arbitrator in an administered arbitration where neither the parties’ agreement to arbitrate nor the administering institution’s rules provided a process to appoint a substitute. The institution temporarily lacked a sufficient number of bilingual arbitrators on its roster and, during that period, Applicant applied to the court for assistance.  The requirement that the arbitrator be bilingual did not appear in the agreement to arbitrate, arising after service of the notice to arbitrate, and appeared to result by consensus, combining the parties’ respective positions on the appropriate language of the arbitration. When confirming his orders, Beaudoin J. also formalized the bilingual status of the arbitration.

Continue reading “Ontario – omission to stipulate language of arbitration and then require bilingual arbitrator creates delays – #406”

Following an unsuccessful mediation phase before a mediator regarding disputes under a 2011 agreement, the parties in The Corporation of the Township of South Stormont v. The Kraft Heinz Company, 2020 ONSC 7641 engaged in arbitration before another professional during which the parties negotiated a 2017 settlement and agreed to arbitrate disputes before the mediator.  When disputes arose over the settlement, one party sought to resume the earlier arbitration but to appoint a new arbitrator.  The other party resisted, arguing that they had agreed to submit disputes regarding the settlement to the mediator. Mr. Justice James E. McNamara held that the dispute was not under the main 2011 agreement but fell within the express terms of the 2017 settlement. The dispute resolution in the parties’ settlement arguably constituted a med-arb agreement.

Continue reading “Ontario – mediator appointed as arbitrator for disputes involving settlement negotiated during later arbitration – #403”

In dismissing appellant’s claims that the trial judge erred in interpreting a common form of insurance contract used in the construction industry, the Court of Appeal in Sky Clean Energy Ltd. (Sky Solar (Canada) Ltd.) v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2020 ONCA 558 noted that the litigants had agreed that findings of fact made in an arbitration award would bind the trial judge.  Though plaintiff had unsuccessfully challenged that same award and defendant had not been a party to the arbitration, both accepted not to relitigate the findings of fact when litigating their own dispute regarding those facts.

Continue reading “Ontario – trial judge and appeal court rely on litigants’ agreement to repurpose arbitral award findings of fact – #402”

In Converaidem, Inc. v. Mulcahy, 2020 ONSC 6747, Madam Justice Breese Davies dismissed an attempt to appeal interim procedural orders.  One section of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate described rulings on procedural matters as “awards” and a later section allowed the parties to appeal “awards” on a question of law. Davies J. held that, as a general rule, the same word will be presumed to bear the same meaning throughout a contract but that the presumption of consistent expression may not apply if the resulting meaning is absurd or commercially unreasonable. Her reading of the various sections, individually and together, supported her conclusion that allowing appeals of the challenged procedural orders, despite being termed “awards”, would be commercially unreasonable.

Continue reading “Ontario – interpreting agreement to allow appeal of procedural orders is commercially unreasonable – #395”

In Wang v. Mattamy Corporation, 2020 ONSC 7012, Mr. Justice Michael A. Penny dismissed Plaintiffs’ application to extend the delay in which to appeal a Master’s decision staying their action in favour of arbitration. As part of his decision making, he had to determine the merits of their proposed appeal.  Based on section 7(6) of Ontario’s Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17 which prohibits appeals of decisions under section 7, he held that the Master’s decision “falls squarely” within section 7 and “it is not appropriate for the court to engage in an analysis of the Master’s decision because any review of it is precluded” by section 7(6).

Continue reading “Ontario – application to extend time to file appeal denied because review of stay decision precluded – #394”

In Way v. Schembri, 2020 ONCA 691, Ontario’s Court of Appeal set aside a decision granting summary judgment which, among other determinations, had held that it was “commercially unreasonable” to consider that arbitration was suitable to resolve disputes over an ambiguous non-competition clause.  As part of his reasoning, the judge in first instance had observed that one party’s “suggestion that the answer to the ambiguities and lack of details in [non-competition clause] would be resolved by an arbitrator is commercially unreasonable and something that no businessperson would agree to”.  The Court of Appeal disagreed, noting that “[g]iven the presence of arbitration provisions in countless business agreements, it cannot be that their existence alone is commercially unreasonable”.

Continue reading “Ontario – resort to arbitration commercially reasonable to resolve ambiguous non-compete clause – #393”

In George v. Wang, 2020 ONSC 6175, Mr. Justice James F. Diamond dismissed a defendant’s challenged to the court’s jurisdiction, determining that defendant had effectively waived the application by conduct in court. Having participated in case conferences and motions, including seeking relief on separate cross-motions, Diamond J. determined that defendant had effectively waived the application of the otherwise-valid agreement to arbitrate.  Diamond J. also underlined that the court’s jurisdiction arose from plaintiff’s application as originating document and not from an earlier court order in the action.

Continue reading “Ontario – court’s jurisdiction “not an elastic concept” – it either has or has not jurisdiction – #389”

In Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1628 v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1636, 2020 ONCA 612, Ontario’s Court of Appeal delivered a masterclass in judicial reasoning/drafting.  It set out the role of judicial interpretation of statutes, observed how a wrong interpretation is never right, set out its approach to overruling its own precedents, acknowledged new guidance given in TELUS Communications Inc. v. Wellman, 2019 SCC 19 (CanLII), [2019] 2 SCR 144 on section 7(5) of Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17 but distinguished its impact from the Court of Appeal’s well-accepted reasoning in Huras v. Primerica Financial Services Ltd., 2000 CanLII 16892 (ON CA) on section 7(6)’s application.  Reasserting its interpretation on section 7(6), the Court held that it did have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a motion judge’s decision purporting to exercise discretion under section 7(5) to deny a stay. On the merits of the appeal, the Court then applied the Supreme Court’s interpretation which overturned the Court of Appeal’s interpretation on section 7(5).

Continue reading “Ontario – appeal court reaffirms jurisdiction for appeal of stay decision where decision holds arbitration agreement does not apply – #385”

In Paulpillai Estate v. Yusuf, 2020 ONCA 655, Ontario’s Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a motion judge’s order regarding a stay in favour of arbitration.  No formal motion had been made to refer the dispute to arbitration, the motion judge’s dispositive order was silent on the issue of arbitration and any comments on waiver of arbitration were merely obiter.  Even assuming that an order might have been made, the Court held it lacked jurisdiction because section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17 stipulated no appeal lay from a decision under section 7. For a more in-depth look at how and whether section 7(6) applies to limit appeals, see the equally recent Court of Appeal decision in Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1628 v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1636, 2020 ONCA 612 and the related Arbitration Matters note “Appeal court reaffirms jurisdiction for appeal of stay decision where decision holds arbitration agreement does not apply“.

Continue reading “Ontario – no appeal lies from an order refusing a stay whether order was made or not – #384”