Ontario Archives - Page 8 of 32 - Arbitration Matters

March 15, 2023March 9, 2023

Ontario – no jurisdiction over dispute not properly raised in arbitration – #720

In EBC Inc. v. City of Ottawa, the parties’ primary construction contract contained a multi-tier dispute resolution clause that provided for notice, negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. The parties also negotiated an agreement that contained a Claims Process applicable to disputes between them that provided for the exchange of documentation, negotiation, mediation and arbitration. The parties followed the Claims Process and proceeded to arbitration on a number of issues consisting of a jurisdiction motion and then three arbitral phases. As part of the jurisdiction motion the Arbitrator held that the arbitration could only address claims that had been advanced prior to September 2018. After completion of the arbitration, EBC brought an application for payment of money from the Respondent City, which was an issue that had not been raised in the Claims Process. Justice P. J. Boucher rejected EBC’s application on the basis that as the dispute arose after September, 2018, it should have been raised using the dispute resolution process in the Contract, and not before the court.

February 2, 2023February 9, 2023

Ontario – ‘Parochial’ perspective on expert determination rejected – #708

In KMH Cardiology Centres Incorporated v Lambardar Inc., 2022 ONSC 7139, Justice Myers referred a dispute for expert determination pursuant to the parties’ agreement. He concluded that the parties intended the dispute to be determined by an expert, and not arbitration, even though it required the expert to engage in the exercise of contractual interpretation and not simply a mathematical calculation.

February 1, 2023January 26, 2023

Ontario – Set-aside application can’t bootstrap appeal– #707

In Tall Ships Development Inc. v. Brockville (City), 2022 ONCA 861, a unanimous Ontario Court of Appeal found the Superior Court committed multiple errors in its review of three arbitral awards under s. 45 and s. 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 (AA). The Court saw no extricable errors of law capable of appeal, only unreviewable findings of mixed fact and law. The Court also identified no breaches of procedural fairness justifying a set aside of the awards. The decision provides important instructions for curial review of arbitral awards, including:

January 6, 2023March 13, 2023

John’s 2022 Hot Topic: Summary judgment in arbitration – #699

My “hot topic” for 2022 is the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s confirmation that an arbitration can be determined by summary judgment. In Optiva Inc. v. Tbaytel, 2022 ONCA 646, the Court approved proceeding by summary judgment motion where such a motion is consistent with the parties’ arbitration agreement. While the case addressed four grounds of appeal, including whether the arbitrator’s ruling to proceed by summary judgment was a procedural order or a jurisdictional award, the central issue, and my “hot topic,” is whether the arbitrator’s partial award, which decided a summary judgment motion should be set aside. For a summary of the decision, see Case Note – No oral hearing required even if one party requests it #667.

December 20, 2022December 15, 2022

Ontario – BIA trustee cannot delegate claims determination to arbitrator – #695

In Re YG Limited Partnership, 2022 ONSC 6138, Justice Kimmel held that the Trustee appointed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (the “BIA“) could not delegate to an arbitrator its authority, pursuant to section 135 of the BIA, to determine and value claims against the debtor. That put the Trustee in the position of an adversary, rather than a decision maker. As such, she found that a continuation of an arbitration to determine damages was not a valid exercise of the Trustee’s authority. She refused to order the Sponsor, who had agreed to indemnify the Trustee for all administrative fees and expenses incurred in relation to the resolution of unresolved claims against the debtor, to fund the administrative fees and expenses connected with Phase 2 of the arbitration (damages) following Phase 1 (liability). The issue of the Phase 1 administrative fees was not before her.

December 16, 2022December 15, 2022

Ontario – Participation in litigation beyond pleadings waives arbitration agreement – #693

In Azam v Multani Custom Homes Ltd., 2022 ONSC 6536, Justice Chang denied the defendant’s application to stay litigation under section 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17 (“Arbitration Act”) upon finding the defendant unduly delayed bringing the application for a stay, after having actively participated in many steps to advance the litigation over a 16-month period, with the effect that the defendant had abandoned its rights to rely upon the arbitration clause and it was therefore invalid.

December 15, 2022December 15, 2022

Ontario – Leave to appeal award application and appeal dismissed together – #692

In The Tire Pit Inc. v Augend 6285 Yonge Village Properties Ltd., 2022 ONSC 6763, Justice Vermette dismissed an application for leave to appeal an award and the appeal itself. The grounds of appeal did not raise questions of law which were subject to appeal pursuant to subsection 45(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 (“Act”) and had no importance beyond the parties. In any event, if she was wrong, she found that they lacked merit.

December 6, 2022December 9, 2022

Ontario – Shareholders dispute stayed where 2 of 3 agreements had arbitration clauses – #690

In 12823543 Canada Ltd. v Mizrahi Commercial (The One) GP Inc., 2022 ONSC 6206, Justice Penny granted an application to stay the proceeding commenced before the Superior Court of Justice and referred the matter to the appropriate arbitral tribunal to decide its jurisdiction. He found that the moving parties had raised an arguable case as to the application of the relevant arbitration agreements to the dispute and that the principle of compétence-compétence therefore favoured directing the parties to address their arguments to the arbitral tribunal regarding its jurisdiction. Only two of the three agreements at issue contained an arbitration agreement and yet Justice Penny was swayed by the nature of the dispute, grounded in a broad oppression claim, and considered that the Applicant’s allegations raised issues that went straight to the ability of the shareholders to make decisions of fundamental significance to their joint project.

December 2, 2022December 1, 2022

Ontario – Narrow basis for excess jurisdiction set aside challenges reaffirmed – #688

In Mensula Bancorp Inc. v. Halton Condominium Corporation No. 137, 2022 ONCA 769, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a Superior Court set aside decision and restored an arbitral award. The Court reiterated and underscored directives from Alectra Utilities Corporation v. Solar Power Network Inc., 19 ONCA 254: There is a narrow basis for set aside challenges to arbitral awards on the ground of alleged excess of jurisdiction. Review of the substance of the arbitral award is not authorized. The correctness or reasonableness of the arbitrator’s decision is irrelevant. Set aside is not an appeal.

November 23, 2022November 28, 2022

Ontario – Refusal to respond not a waiver to arbitrate – #686

In Justmark Industries Inc. v. Infinitus (China) Ltd., 2022 ONSC 5495, Justice Williams granted the Defendant/Moving Party’s motion to stay the court action in favour of arbitration. The Plaintiff/Responding Party Justmark Industries Inc. (“Justmark”) commenced the court action for breach of contract against the Defendant/Moving Party Infinitus (China) Ltd. (“Infinitus”). The contract, however, contained an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be arbitrated in Hong Kong by the Arbitration Committee of the International Trade Council (the “ITC”) pursuant to the law of the United Kingdom. As such, Infinitus brought a motion under s 9 of Ontario’s International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017 (the “ICAA”), which incorporates Article 8(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”), to stay the proceedings. In response, Justmark alleged that Infinitus had waived its right to arbitration and thus rendered the arbitration agreement “inoperative” under Model Law Article 8(1). Justmark claimed that Infinitus’s failure to respond to its requests to commence arbitration amounted to waiver. Justice Williams, however, dismissed Justmark’s argument on the grounds that there was no evidence that “[16] … Infinitus had the requisite ‘unequivocal and conscious intention,’ or any intention, to abandon its right to arbitrate.”