notes on new arbitration cases in Canada
In Johnson Bros. Corporation v. Soletanche Bachy Canada Inc., 2024 ONSC 6296, the Court found that the parties had contracted out of the right to appeal on the basis that the arbitration agreement provided that disputes were to be “finally resolved” by arbitration.
Continue reading “Ontario – “Finally Resolved” means “Final and Binding” – #890”
In Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2299 v Distillery SE Development Corp., 2024 ONCA 712, the Court held that there could be no appeal from an order appointing an arbitrator, even though the order did not explicitly indicate that it was made pursuant to s. 10 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17. Section 10(1) provides that the court may appoint an arbitrator on a party’s application if, for example, the arbitration agreement provides no appointment procedure. Pursuant to s. 10(2), there is no appeal from the court’s appointment. Here, the application for an order appointing an arbitrator did not refer to s. 10 of the Arbitration Act but did refer to Rule 14.05 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194 (the general rule pertaining to applications and what types of relief may be sought by application, including a determination of rights under a contract). This reference to Rule 14.05 did not engage s. 6 of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43, which sets out the matters over which the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction and provides for an appeal as of right in respect of most final orders of Superior Court judges. The appeal of the appointment order was quashed based on the appeal prohibition in s. 10(2) of the Arbitration Act.
Continue reading “Ontario – Appeal prohibition applies beyond limits of arbitral appointment applications – #889”
In Lochan v Binance Holdings Limited, 2024 ONCA 784 (“Binance”), the Court considered the appeal of the Motion Judge’s finding that an arbitration clause in a crypto trading agreement was void because it was contrary to public policy and unconscionable. The arbitration clause was part of a standard form contract between the appellant and crypto users. It provided that the appellant could change any part of the arbitration agreement, including the forum and governing law, and that users agreed to any amendments. On appeal, the appellant argued that the Motion Judge had failed to first consider the competence-competence principle in his analysis. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Motion Judge had followed the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada in Dell Computer Corp. v Union des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34 (“Dell”) and Uber Technologies Inc. v Heller, 2020 SCC 16 (“Uber”) when he considered the competence-competence principle before he considered if an exception to that principle applied to allow the court to consider if the clause was unenforceable.
Continue reading “Ontario – Order of competence-competence analysis on stay motion challenged – #880”
In Burwell v. Wozniak, 2024 ONSC 1234, the Court grappled with the appropriate standard of review to apply to arbitral awards. The heart of the underlying dispute was whether the appellant Burwell’s promise of shares in his company was sufficient to establish an estoppel against him in favour of his former partner, Wozniak. This case is noteworthy because most cases since Vavilov have not weighed in on the issue and have simply said that, regardless of the standard of review, the appellant does not meet it.
Continue reading “Ontario – Court weighs in on standard of review post-Vavilov (and decides) – #879”
In Maharajh v Mathura, 2024 ONSC 5737 (“Maharajh”), the Court granted an application to remove an Arbitrator for undue delay. The Arbitrator went silent for four months without explanation and then consented to the Applicant’s request that she resign. The Court was required to rule on the issue when the Respondent refused to consent. The delay was “undue” because the Applicant was prejudiced by it. This undermined the arbitration agreement. The parties could not cooperate, so their dispute returned to court.
Continue reading “Ontario – Court Grants Extraordinary Remedy of Removing Arbitrator for Undue Delay – #878”
In Royal and Sunalliance Insurance v Ontario Provincial Police, 2024 ONSC 5505, the Court interpreted section 29(4) of Ontario’s Arbitration Act, 1991 (the “Act”) to allow courts to order non-party disclosure before an arbitration hearing. Section 29(4) states, “[o]n the application of a party or of the arbitral tribunal, the court may make orders and give directions with respect to the taking of evidence for an arbitration as if it were a court proceeding.” The Court’s order permits pre-hearing “discovery” of a non-party to the arbitration, as opposed to the taking of evidence at a hearing. The case sets out some considerations that may be relevant to future applications under this provision of the Act. This case highlights the need for parties seeking non-party disclosure in arbitration to carefully review the applicable legislation and frame requests for Court assistance accordingly.
Continue reading “Ontario – Court endorses pre-hearing disclosure from non-parties to assist arbitration – #876”
In Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana De Salud S.A. v Webuild S.P.A, 2024 ONSC 4491 the Court considered whether to grant an application to enforce an arbitral award against a non-party to the arbitration. The non-party had purchased assets of the unsuccessful party to the arbitration as part of a restructuring proceeding in Italy. The successful party to the arbitration and the non-party disagreed on whether the asset purchase included the transfer of the unsuccessful party’s obligations under the award to the non-party. The Court stayed the enforcement application pending a determination of that threshold issue by the Italian courts.
Continue reading “Ontario – Application to enforce award against non-party to arbitration stayed – #875”
In NorthStar Earth & Space Inc. v. Spire Global Subsidiary, Inc., 2024 ONSC 5060, the Court granted an interim injunction before the applicant had commenced an arbitration. The Court did so even though it acknowledged that the applicant would not have met the test under Ontario law for a mandatory injunction (the strong prima facie case standard). Instead, because of the urgency, the Court applied the injunction test that would otherwise have been applied by the arbitral tribunal under Article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Article 17 requires a lower threshold of showing the claim has a “reasonable possibility” of success. The Court therefore modified the test for granting an interim injunction in the context of an international arbitration.
Continue reading “Ontario – Court Modifies Injunction Test in Context of International Arbitrations – #873”
In Dhaliwal v Richter International Ltd., 2024 ONSC 5103, the Court dismissed an application to remove an arbitrator for reasonable apprehension of bias. This was a multiple appointments case. The application arose from the non-disclosure of a concurrent mandate, in which counsel for the Respondents also was counsel in another arbitration before the same arbitrator. The Applicants’ challenge for bias was not brought in a timely manner, as required by s. 13(3) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17. In any event, overlapping counsel alone was not a sufficient ground for claiming bias, and no contextual circumstances necessitated disclosure of the concurrent mandate. Also, the arbitrator’s rejection of the Applicants’ evidence of what had been disclosed about the concurrent mandate did not give rise to actual bias.
Continue reading “Ontario – Common counsel insufficient for multiple arbitral appointments to raise bias – #872”
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.
Continue reading “Ontario – Alleged error in applying the law not a jurisdiction issue – #865”