Ontario Archives - Page 3 of 29 - Arbitration Matters

July 6, 2023June 29, 2023

Ontario – No contracting out of the Model Law – #752

In EDE Capital Inc. v Guan, 2023 ONSC 3273, Justice Vermette dismissed a set-aside application on the basis that the applicant had failed to make out a breach of procedural fairness or lack of jurisdiction. In doing so, Justice Vermette also held that the applicable legislation in this case was the Model Law, despite the fact that the parties’ arbitration agreement referred to the domestic arbitration act.

July 4, 2023July 4, 2023

Ontario – Arbitration procedurally unfair – arbitrator excluded material evidence despite no objection – #750

In Mattamy (Downsview) Limited v KSV Restructuring Inc. (Urbancorp), 2023 ONSC 3013, Justice Kimmel of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) set aside an arbitral award for violating procedural fairness. She found the Arbitrator acted unfairly in declining to admit relevant evidence on a new issue he himself raised in the arbitration. This decision reminds us that an arbitral tribunal’s procedural discretion, though vast and powerful, is not absolute.

June 22, 2023June 19, 2023

Ontario – Doctrine of separability cannot apply where contract nonexistent – #749

In Ismail v. First York Holdings Inc., 2023 ONCA 332, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld an order denying the appellant’s motion to stay an action in favor of arbitration under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act. The motion judge had denied the order because the motion was based on an arbitration clause in an agreement that was never legally formed. This deprived the alleged arbitration clause of any legal force. This case illustrates one of the rare instances to which the doctrine of separability of the arbitration agreement cannot extend.

June 21, 2023June 23, 2023

Ontario – Courts must decide arbitral jurisdiction de novo – #748

In Russian Federation v. Luxtona Limited, 2023 ONCA 393, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that in an application to Ontario courts under the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”), being Schedule 2 to the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, c. 2, Sched. 5, for the court to decide whether an arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction, the court must decide the jurisdictional question de novo. In other words, there is no deference owed to the arbitral tribunal on the question of that tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Court reached this conclusion after considering the strong international consensus to that effect, and reaffirmed the “uniformity principle”, which holds that it is “strongly desirable” for Ontario’s international arbitration regime to be interpreted coherently with that of other countries.

June 20, 2023June 20, 2023

Ontario – No re-litigation when issues have already been fully arbitrated – #747

In Doria v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Canada inc., 2023 ONCA 321, the Court dismissed the appeal of a decision striking Appellant’s Statement of Claim on the ground that it was an abuse of process because it sought to relitigate issues that had already been fully arbitrated. The Court of Appeal confirmed Justice Koehnen’s decision, even though the Statement of Claim sought damages from third parties to the arbitration. Reviewing the application of section 139 (1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, the Court of Appeal confirmed that this section does not give the broad right to sue jointly liable parties separately. That provision states that where persons are jointly and severally liable in respect of the same cause of action, a judgment or release of one of them does not preclude judgment against any other in the same or a separate proceeding. In this case, the provision did not apply. The Appellant’s claim was fully heard, and the Appellant was compensated through the arbitration process and award. Section 139 does now allow for the re-litigation of issues against third parties because the claimant is not satisfied with the decision, whether the decision arose from arbitration or from a court.

June 19, 2023June 20, 2023

Ontario – Appeal allowed where arbitration agreement “invalid”; Arbitration Act not engaged – #746

In Goberdhan v Knights of Columbus, 2023 ONCA 327 , the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of an order dismissing the Defendant’s/Appellant’s motion for a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration. The motion judge found that the contracts containing the arbitration agreements were invalid for lack of consideration. He therefore refused the stay pursuant to s. 7(2)2 of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991 SO 1991, c 17. The Plaintiff/Respondent argued that no appeal was permitted under s. 7(6), which prohibits an appeal of a stay decision. The Court of Appeal disagreed and found that because the contracts and the arbitration clauses were invalid, the Arbitration Act,1991, was not engaged and there was no prohibition on appeal. The appeal was dismissed on its merits.

June 6, 2023June 20, 2023

Ontario – Competing “jurisdiction” clauses result in application for stay being dismissed – #743

In RH20 North America Inc. et al v. Bergmann et al, 2023 ONSC 2378, the moving defendants brought both a motion under Rule 21 striking out certain of the plaintiff’s claims as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and an application for a stay for want of jurisdiction on the basis of arbitration clauses in their underlying contracts with the plaintiffs. They met with divided success. While granting relief on the Rule 21 motion, Justice Valente dismissed the stay application on a variety of grounds, including that there were competing arbitration and jurisdiction clauses and that there was an attornment to the court’s jurisdiction as a result of bringing the Rule 21 motion.

June 5, 2023June 5, 2023

Ontario – No hearing de novo in case of challenge to procedural fairness – #742

In All Communications Networks of Canada v. Planet Energy Corp., 2023 ONCA 319, the Court dismissed the appeal of a judgment upholding an arbitral award in favour of Respondent All Communications Networks of Canada (“ACN”) in the amount of $29,259,787 and made an order enforcing the award. In first instance, Planet Energy Corp. (“Planet”) sought to set aside the arbitral award based on the failure of due process, arguing: (1) that it was not given the opportunity to present its case; and (2) that the Arbitrator’s ruling violated public policy. Before the Court of Appeal, Appellant Planet raised the additional argument that the first instance judge failed to apply the right standard of review. Planet argued that a de novo hearing was required to examine properly the arguments raised against the arbitral award. The Court of Appeal dismissed Planet’s arguments and confirmed that a party seeking to set aside an arbitral award based on a failure of due process must prove that the Arbitrator’s conduct is serious enough to dismiss the application to enforce the award under the law of the enforcing State (here, Ontario). The Court of Appeal also confirmed that a party seeking to set aside an award based on a violation of public policy shall demonstrate that the award offends Ontario’s principles of justice and fairness in a fundamental way.

May 24, 2023May 24, 2023

Ontario – Peace River “arguable case” standard applies to ICAA stay motion – #739

Husky Food Importers & Distributors Ltd v JH Whittaker & Sons Limited and Star Marketing Ltd, 2023 ONCA 260 addresses the standard of proof that a party seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 9 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Sch. 5 (“ICAA”) must meet in order to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement that grounds the stay of proceedings. The Court of Appeal found that Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest Corp, 2022 SCC 41 supersedes the stay analysis articulated in Haas v. Gunasekaram, 2016 ONCA 744.

May 23, 2023May 26, 2023

Ontario – International award not enforced because of improper notice – #738

In Tianjin Dinghui Hongjun Equity Investment Partnership v. Du, 2023 ONSC 1808, Justice Kimmel refused to recognize and enforce a $120 million arbitral award in a Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (“SCIA”) arbitration seated in Shenzhen, China against two individual respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Du, who were resident in both Canada and China. She found that the Dus had not been given proper notice of the arbitration within the meaning of Article 36(1)(a)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”), being Schedule 2 to the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, c. 2, Sched. 5. By extension, the Dus were also unable to present their case.