Ontario Archives - Page 4 of 32 - Arbitration Matters

May 22, 2024May 24, 2024

Ontario – Arbitrators cannot ignore the law or defy the Court – #836

In Eyelet Investment Corp. v. Song, 2024 ONSC 2340, the Divisional Court’s decision starts with: “Domestic arbitrations in Ontario must be decided in accordance with the law. Arbitrators are accorded broad deference for matters within their jurisdiction and in defining the scope of their jurisdiction. But they are not free to ignore the law or to decide cases in accordance with their whims”. In Eyelet, the Court set aside the damages award from an arbitration concerning repudiated real estate transactions. The Court identified multiple instances where the arbitrator defied directions from the Supreme Court to determine the claims and remedies on remittal. Rather than following the law, the arbitrator addressed damages in accordance with his sense of fairness. The Court directed the damages and cost determinations to a new arbitrator.

May 21, 2024May 28, 2024

Ontario – Parties share responsibility to keep arbitration moving – #835

In Bank-Strox Renovation Inc. v. Lugano View Limited, (“Bank-Strox”) the Court dismissed the defendant’s motion to dismiss a construction lien action for delay where the had parties agreed to have their dispute resolved by arbitration. As a reminder of the sharp distinction between litigation and arbitration, the Court held that a respondent in an arbitration has the same, or in some circumstances a greater, contractual obligation to keep the arbitration moving as the claimant. Simply sitting back and doing nothing is not a basis to later seek dismissal of the claim for delay. That might work in a court case but it won’t where the parties have agreed to move their dispute to arbitration.

May 6, 2024May 3, 2024

Ontario – Award unreasonable where tribunal failed to follow binding law on frustration – #832

In Taseko Mines Limited v. Franco-Nevada Corporation, 2023 ONSC 2055, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) granted an appeal from an arbitral award due to, among other things, the arbitrator’s failure to apply binding precedent on frustration of contract. Although the Court applied a deferential reasonableness standard, it concluded the arbitrator’s departure from binding jurisprudence rendered the award unreasonable.

April 22, 2024April 19, 2024

Ontario –“Fraud” does not include “constructive fraud” for set-aside application deadline – #829

Campbell v Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2600, 2024 ONCA 218, considered the meaning of “fraud” under section 46(1)9 of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c, 17. It provides that a court may set aside an award on the ground that, “the award was obtained by fraud.” The first issue before the Court was whether “fraud” includes “constructive fraud.” The main issue, however, was the interpretation to be given to sections 47(1) and (2), which provide that an application to set aside an award shall be commenced within 30 days after the applicant has received the award – except if the applicant alleges corruption or “fraud”. The Court found that “fraud” does not include “constructive fraud, which means that the Respondents were out of time to bring their set-aside application. It found that a broadening of the definition of fraud is not consistent with the statutory objectives to narrow the grounds for court interference in arbitrations. The Court expressed the view that the allegation of constructive fraud was made for the purpose of circumventing the statutory time limit for bringing a set-aside application. (This case is also useful for its summary of basic arbitration law principles. If you need a quick update or refresher of these, see my Editor’s Notes below for a “cheat sheet”.)

April 10, 2024April 5, 2024

Ontario – Abuse of process precludes re-litigating arbitrator bias allegation – #827

La Française IC 2 v. Wires, 2024 ONCA 171 involved an appeal from a judgment recognizing and enforcing an arbitration award obtained by the Respondent. The Appellant/Claimant in the arbitration, entered into a funding agreement. The arbitration arose when the Appellant/Claimant commenced proceedings seeking recovery of fees under the funding agreement. The central issue before the Court was whether the doctrine of abuse of process prevented the Appellant/Claimant from arguing on the application to enforce the judgment that the arbitrator was biased, when that issue had already been dismissed by the arbitral institution that heard and decided the challenge.

March 27, 2024April 1, 2024

Ontario – Affidavits of “reasonable and informed persons” inadmissible in bias challenge – #824

In The Law Society of British Columbia and Valerie Frances Hemminger, 2024 LSBC 7, a hearing panel of the Law Society of British Columbia Tribunal refused to admit twelve affidavits offered to support the Respondent’s allegation of a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the panel. The panel found the affidavits were inadmissible primarily because the “reasonable and informed person” part of the test for reasonable apprehension of bias is an objective legal fiction, not informed by a subjective person whose views may be assessed by evidence and then applied by a decision maker. Accordingly, the affidavits – which offered the opinions of self-professed “reasonable” people about the implications of procedural decisions at the heart of the Respondent’s challenge – were inadmissible.

March 11, 2024March 8, 2024

Ontario – Arbitrator’s stand-alone jurisdiction decision a preliminary “ruling” open to de novo review – #820

In Clost v Rennie, 2023 ONSC 6998, the Court ruled that an arbitration agreement was invalid after a de novo hearing to “decide the matter” of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction under section 17(8) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 17 (the “Act”). The Applicant (also referred to in the decision and herein as “Norm”) contended that the arbitration agreement was invalid because it was contained in a lease agreement which he alleged was fraudulent because his signature was forged. The parties first submitted the jurisdictional issue to a sole arbitrator, who found the arbitration agreement to be valid. The Court accepted that a de novo hearing under s. 17(8) of the Act was required, finding that the Arbitrator had rendered a “ruling” on a preliminary question of jurisdiction rather than an “award”, even though the sole question he was asked to determine was jurisdiction. There was an extensive evidentiary record before the arbitrator relative to the jurisdictional issue. This raised for debate the difference between an “award” and a “ruling” on a preliminary question which can be decided by the Court on a hearing de novo. The Court completed its own review of the extensive evidentiary record and ultimately concluded that the lease (and therefore the arbitration agreement) was fraudulent and invalid and the arbitrator had no jurisdiction

February 26, 2024February 22, 2024

Ontario – Principles applicable to awarding costs in domestic arbitrations clarified – #817

In Schickedanz v. Wagema Holdings Limited, 2023 ONSC 7219, the Court dismissed an appeal of an arbitrator’s costs award and in so doing, clarified two principles applicable to the awarding of costs in domestic arbitrations arising under the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 (the “Arbitration Act”). First, whereas in civil litigation, leave is required for an appeal from an order as to costs, the same is not true in relation to appeals from arbitral cost awards pursuant to Section 45 of the Arbitration Act. Second, the Court confirmed that unlike the Rules of Civil Procedure, arbitrators awarding costs pursuant to the Arbitration Act may award reasonable legal fees without reference to any court scale. Therefore, partial indemnity costs are not the governing presumption in domestic arbitrations and full indemnity costs may be awarded as reasonable without establishing undue or improper conduct.

February 12, 2024February 9, 2024

Ontario – Crypto Trading Platform Arbitration Agreement Found Unenforceable – #814

In Lochan v. Binance Holdings Limited, 2023 ONSC 6714, the Court refused to stay a proposed class action against the defendant cryptocurrency trading platform in favour of arbitration. The underlying claim concerns allegations that the defendant sold cryptocurrency derivatives without filing a prospectus, contrary to Ontario’s securities laws. The Court held that the arbitration agreement, embedded in the defendant’s website terms and conditions, was both unconscionable and contrary to public policy – based on the cost of the arbitration contemplated by the agreement and based on the clause’s complexity and lack of transparency. The Court’s overarching concern was that the arbitration provisions were not fair to platform users. The Court also provided a helpful difference between unconscionability and a violation of public policy.

December 6, 2023December 8, 2023

Ontario – Court dismisses motion to quash notice of arbitration – #798

In Katerinaville Developments Ltd., v. Garthwood Homes Ltd.et al., 2023 ONSC 6267, the Court held that the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 (the “Act”), does not allow a plaintiff to quash a notice of arbitration in favour of a court proceeding, deferring to the arbitral tribunal for any determination of the unconscionability of an arbitration clause. Additionally, the Court emphasized that duplication of proceedings in Court and arbitration does not necessarily render the arbitration unfair.