Québec Archives - Arbitration Matters

March 30, 2023March 27, 2023

Québec – Interpretation of two shareholder agreements requires more than a superficial analysis – #725

In Gifran inc. c. 9225-2071 Québec inc., 2023 QCCA 311, the Québec Court of Appeal (the “Court”) recalled the principles governing an exception to the compétence-compétence principle and ordered a stay in favor of arbitration, overturning the Superior Court Judge’s decision. The Court commented on the scope of the exception relating to questions of mixed fact and law that require only superficial consideration of the evidence in the record, in the context of a shareholder dispute. It noted that the Superior Court Judge had not provided reasons as to why the exception applied in this case and found that the exception did not in fact apply, because an in-depth analysis of the respective scopes of two separate shareholder agreements (one with an arbitration clause and one without) was required. The Court also held that the mere presence of related third parties in the dispute was not sufficient to deny the stay application.

March 2, 2023February 23, 2023

Québec – Class Actions: rules for referral to arbitration should be followed – #717

In Vidéotron c. 9238-0831 Québec inc. (Caféier-Boustifo), 2023 QCCA 110, the Court of Appeal dismissed Vidéotron’s appeal and confirmed Justice Lussier’s first instance judgement dismissing Vidéotron’s request to limit the definition of the plaintiff group in a class action to only those customers whose contracts do not contain an arbitration clause. After the application for authorization was filed but before it was decided, Vidéotron amended its contracts with all new customers so that they contained an arbitration clause. Almost three years later, it sought to change the definition of the plaintiff group so that it included only those customers with contracts that pre-dated the amendment to include an arbitration clause. Justice Lussier found that Vidéotron was out of time. The Court of Appeal confirmed that section 622 CCP and its 45-day limit for an application for referral to arbitration are applicable to class action proceedings as well as to any other proceedings. Even if this limit is not de rigueur, the party asking for referral to arbitration has the burden of proof to justify any added delay. The Court of Appeal also reaffirmed that, based on an arbitration clause, the motion to request a modification to a plaintiff group in a class action is equivalent to a jurisdiction challenge. The Court of Appeal confirmed Justice Lussier’s ruling that Vidéotron did not meet its burden of proof to justify its delay to file its application to change the definition of the plaintiff class.

February 14, 2023March 17, 2023

Québec – Court rejects foreign state immunity to award enforcement – #710

In CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd v. Republic of India, 2022 QCCS 4785, Justice Pinsonnault rejected the Republic of India’s effort to invoke state immunity in response to an application seeking the recognition and enforcement of two investment treaty awards. He found that the Plaintiffs had met their burden to prove that (1) the commercial activities exception applied, and (2) India had waived state immunity to enforcement proceedings.

November 10, 2022May 12, 2023

Québec – No enforcement of award against alter egos – #681

In a much-anticipated decision, the Québec Court of Appeal overturned Justice Pinsonneault’s first instance decision and quashed the seizure before judgment by garnishment taken against a subsidiary and non-party to an arbitration to answer for the debt of the parent pursuant to an arbitral award. Justice Pinsonneault’s decision was discussed in a previous case note concerning CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Republic of India, 2022 QCCS 7. In Air India, Ltd. v. CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd., 2022 QCCA 1264, the Court of Appeal unanimously granted the appeal of the parent, ruling that a foreign award cannot be enforced against a third party’s assets unless it is proven: (1) that the third party is the debtor’s alter ego; and (2) that the third party was used in order to conceal fraud, abuse of right or a violation of a public order rule by the debtor. The Court of Appeal ruled that the applicable criteria for the enforcement of a foreign award against the shareholder of a condemned party were the same as the applicable criteria to lift the corporate veil, as codified at section 317 CCQ. Here, those criteria were not met, and the court did not lift the corporate veil.

November 9, 2022November 4, 2022

Québec – Court dismisses application challenging arbitral tribunal’s joinder of non-signatory – #680

In Newtech Waste Solutions inc. c. Asselin, 2022 QCCS 3537, Justice Bellavance dismissed an application challenging an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdictional decision to join a non-signatory corporation to an arbitration. Justice Bellavance validated the tribunal’s application of jurisprudence on joinder of non-signatories to arbitrations seated in Québec. Although the non-signatory was a stranger to the arbitration agreement, the arbitral tribunal found, and Justice Bellavance agreed, that it was appropriate to join it based on a prima facie showing that the corporation was one of the parties’ alter ego.

November 7, 2022March 8, 2023

Québec – Fragmentation of shareholders dispute stayed pending appeal on jurisdiction – #678

In Istanboulian v Kalajian, 2022 QCCA 1259, Justice Cournoyer granted leave to appeal from a judgment of the Québec Superior Court, which had referred part of a claim to arbitration. He found that the judgment under appeal caused irremediable injury to the Applicants by possibly preventing them from being heard in the appropriate forum and that it was in the interest of justice to immediately get to the bottom of the jurisdictional issue.

November 3, 2022November 15, 2022

Québec – No clean hands, no security despite stay of homologation application – #677

In Specter Aviation v United Mining Supply, 2022 QCCS 3643, Justice Castonguay granted a stay of an application by the successful party in a foreign arbitration to homologate the award, but denied the applicants’ alternative request for security, pending the unsuccessful party’s annulment application to the Paris Court of Appeal. Despite recognizing that a court should be reluctant to interfere with a successful party’s enforcement efforts, Justice Castonguay found that the annulment application was, “neither futile nor frivolous” and that the successful party did not have clean hands and had resorted to a self-help remedy. He also ordered costs against the successful party.

October 24, 2022January 10, 2023

Quebec – The broad powers of an arbitrator as “amiable composer” – #673

In Investissements immobiliers MB inc. c. SMP Direct inc., 2022 QCCS 3315, Justice Godbout affirmed the broad jurisdiction that an arbitrator has to grant remedies in oppression claims, especially when empowered as an ‘amiable composer’. An ‘amiable composer’ may make a binding decision based on equity (rather than law) and without procedural formalities. It is a role that has its roots in civil law (“amiable compositeur”).

October 13, 2022October 17, 2022

Québec – Solidary liability allegation no bar to referral to arbitration for one defendant – #671

In Nantel v Gonzalez (not reported), Justice Buchholz stayed an action as against one defendant of a group and referred its dispute with the Plaintiffs to arbitration, even though the Plaintiffs alleged solidary (joint) liability as against all Defendants.

October 10, 2022October 7, 2022

Québec –Property Appraisal Process not Contrary to Public Order– #668

In Hypertech Real Estate Inc. v. Equinix Canada Ltd, 2022 QCCS 3368, Justice Corriveau dismissed an application to annul an arbitral award on the basis that a property appraisal process was “contrary to public order” pursuant to Article 646 of the Québec Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”). Under the terms of an option to purchase property (the “Property”), Hypertech Real Estate Inc. (“Hypertech”) and Equinix Canada Ltd. (“Equinix”) submitted appraisal valuations. Purchaser Equinix’s appraisal was some $60,000,000 lower than seller Hypertec’s. In arbitration, Hypertec maintained that Equinix’s appraisal was so flawed it should be excluded from consideration. The arbitral tribunal reviewed the appraisal in “Phase I” of the arbitration and rendered an award finding that the appraisal contained no fundamental flaws. Hypertec unsuccessfully argued before Justice Corriveau that the arbitral tribunal erred in two respects: (1) in its interpretation and application of rules of public order; and (2) that the award reasons were insufficient, which was contrary to public order.