Tag: Ontario

In Hunt’s Transport Limited v. Eagle Street Industrial GP Inc., 2020 ONSC 5768, Mr. Justice David A. Broad refused to exercise his discretion to grant a commercial tenant relief from forfeiture given tenant’s refusal to abide by its obligation to continue performance during arbitration of its disputes with the landlord.  Broad J. held that tenant’s conduct qualified as “wilful” self-help and justified the court in holding tenant to its obligations pending resolution of issues exclusively reserved for arbitration.  Tenant’s unilateral decision to withhold payments, prior to their determination exclusively reserved in the lease to the arbitrator, played a key role in Broad J.’s reasons.

Continue reading “Ontario – court denies tenant relief from forfeiture where tenant disregards arbitration – #376”

In McEwen (Re), 2020 ONCA 511, Ontario’s Court of Appeal repurposed an exception, developed in its  1996 decision involving leave to appeal an arbitration award, which permitted a three (3) member panel to review the decision of a single judge denying leave to appeal.  McEwen (Re) involved a panel’s jurisdiction under Ontario’s Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43 to review the decision of a single judge denying leave to appeal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3. The Court’s reasons highlighted the distinction between (i) leave to appeal decisions which mistakenly decline jurisdiction and (ii) leave to appeal decisions which decide the merits of the application for leave to appeal. Only the former qualifies for the exception to “apparently absolute rule”.

Continue reading “Ontario – exceptional case grants appeal court jurisdiction over single judge’s decision mistakenly denying leave to appeal – #373”

In Camerman v. Busch Painting Limited et al., 2020 ONSC 5260, Mr. Justice Paul B. Schabas both varied and set aside a portion of an award due to the arbitrator’s contractual interpretation of the scope of issues subject to arbitration under a settlement.  Schabas J. determined that the parties, by their settlement, had “reset the dial” between them and the award breached the scope of disputes subject to arbitration.  The arbitrator’s award relied on his interpretation of the settlement and exceeded the terms of the settlement.  That interpretation raised an extricable question of law identified by Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, qualifying that issue for leave to appeal under section 45(1) of Ontario’s Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17. Schabas J. also held that the same facts demonstrated a jurisdictional error covered by section 46(1)3 and an order setting aside the same portion of the award.

Continue reading “Ontario – arbitrator’s interpretation of settlement raises extricable question of law and jurisdictional issue – #370”

In Borschel v. Borschel, 2020 ONSC 4395, Mr. Justice Lorne Sossin issued an anti-suit injunction restraining a party to arbitration awards subject to Ontario law from pursuing parallel proceedings in a U.S. jurisdiction.  Sossin J. also dismissed arguments challenging enforcement of the awards based on legislative provisions requiring parties to sign any agreement reached as part of the court process. Sossin J. held that the provisions did not serve to invalidate awards which had issued on consent and where consent of the parties had been communicated by counsel.

Continue reading “Ontario – anti-suit injunction restrains party bound by Ontario arbitration award from pursuing parallel U.S. litigation – #368”

In HQIC and Circlemed Inc. v. Hamdani, 2020 ONSC 3403, Madam Justice Cynthia Petersen considered allegations made by clients against their former counsel of record in an arbitration and the negotiations which resolved the arbitration. Though her reasons focus on whether the record was sufficient/appropriate to allow her to grant summary judgment (no, it was not), Petersen J.’s analysis disclosed certain risks inherent for counsel in commercial arbitration when (i) stepping into a new brief and (ii) responding post-resolution to a client’s alleged dissatisfaction over the conduct and settlement of the arbitration.  The record also highlights the opportunities for preliminary skirmishing created by inserting procedural options into an agreement to arbitrate which can be triggered merely by how either party frames its action.

Continue reading “Ontario – professional negligence claims stem in part from arbitration agreement’s procedural options – #364”

In awarding costs on a substantial indemnity basis in Ndrive v. Zhou, 2020 ONSC 4568, Mr. Justice John R. McCarthy drew attention to a defendant’s conduct which “unnecessarily extended and complicated” Mareva injunction proceedings in which arbitral award funds were the “core of the dispute between the parties”.  McCarthy J. underlined the importance of Mareva injunctions as a tool in civil litigation “to address the problem posed when a defendant utilizes the time lag between a claim being prosecuted and a plaintiff’s attainment and execution upon a judgment to divest itself of assets which would otherwise be available to satisfy that judgment in whole or in part”.  Also, see notes regarding an arbitrator’s jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17 to issue ex parte preservation orders against arbitral parties and an arbitrator’s lack of jurisdiction to issue Mareva injunctions against non-parties.

Continue reading “Ontario – Mareva injunction and increased costs ordered where arbitral award funds were core of dispute – #363”

In The United Mexican States v. Burr, 2020 ONSC 2376, Madam Justice Bernadette Dietrich accepted that legal submissions by parties to the North America Free Trade Agreement Between the Government of Canada, the Government of Mexico and the Government of the United States, 17 December 1992, Can TS 1994 No 2 can qualify as “subsequent practice” under article 31(3) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Can TS 1980 No 37 but that the facts fell short of meeting the standard in Mexico v. Cargill, Incorporated, 2011 ONCA 622 of a “clear, well-understood, agreed common position”.  Dietrich J. also distinguished between an objection to jurisdiction which relates to the authority of a tribunal to hear a dispute and an objection to admissibility which refers to the characteristics of the claim, determining that she had jurisdiction to review the former but not the latter.  She dismissed a challenge to an award on jurisdiction in which the tribunal found that investors had properly given notice of their intention to arbitrate by filing powers of attorneys authorizing legal counsel to initiate arbitration and to act on their behalf.  Dietrich J. held that non-compliance with the formal requirements of Articles 1119 did not vitiate the state’s consent to arbitrate under Article 1122(1).

update – August 18, 2020 Notice of Appeal filed August 24, 2020 by The United Mexican States. See notes for grounds of appeal.

Continue reading “Ontario – states’ legal submissions can qualify as “subsequent practice” in investor-state arbitration – #360”

In Magotiaux v. Stanton, 2020 ONSC 4049, Madam Justice Jennifer Mackinnon denied to stay court proceedings, having determined that the parties’ otherwise detailed agreement to arbitrate was subject to, but did not comply with all of, certain formal requirements required by the Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c F.3 and the Family Arbitration, O Reg 134/07, the sole regulation made to the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17. Mackinnon J. recognized that courts can imply terms into a contract following the approach in Pacific Hotels Ltd. v. Bank of Montreal, 1987 CanLII 55 (SCC) but, where legislation has mandated express terms, courts cannot imply terms to produce a binding agreement to arbitrate compliant with that legislation. 

Continue reading “Ontario – courts cannot imply terms which legislation requires be express to have valid arbitration agreement – #354”

In Hristovski v. Hristovski, 2020 ONSC 4021, Madam Justice Francine Van Melle held she had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal of an arbitrator’s pre-merits hearing denial of further document disclosure. Despite use of the term “award” to title the decision, Van Melle J. determined that the denial was an interim procedural order. Unlike an award which disposes of disputes between parties, the order was not eligible for appeal, being “immune from review” under the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17.  Van Melle J.’s reasons do not assert that interim decisions cannot later be challenged when appealing the final award if an interim decision impacts on the result. As neither party argued whether leave had to be sought/obtained, Van Melle J. made no comment on the issue.

Continue reading “Ontario – interim procedural orders “immune from review” during arbitration even when titled “award” – #353”

In Cricket Canada v. Alberta Cricket Council, 2020 ONSC 3776, Mr. Justice Markus Koehnen upheld an arbitrator’s determination that she had jurisdiction over both the complainant and the dispute, consistent with not only the applicable dispute resolution rules but also the administering institution’s enabling legislation.  Koehnen J. held that the arbitrator had not taken it upon herself the power to determine membership in a private corporation, had not undertaken any corporate reorganization or attempted any unjustified removal of a right to self-determine membership.  Rather, the arbitrator was correct in her determination that claimant’s status and the nature of the dispute fell within her jurisdiction and that of the administering institution which adopted the dispute resolution rules.

Continue reading “Ontario – arbitrator determines complainant’s status as member of respondent and eligible to arbitrate dispute – #346”