In Khalilian v. Murphy, 2020 QCCS 831, Madam Justice Chantal Chatelain resisted the parties’ joint submission that her intervention on a challenge to an arbitrator’s award on jurisdiction was a judicial review subject to administrative law standards of review. Instead, referring to Québec’s Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR c C-25.01, leading doctrine and case law in Québec, she emphasized that an arbitrator in a contractual arbitration does not qualify as a tribunal subject to a court’s control and supervision. A court can intervene on errors of law committed by the arbitrator when deciding jurisdiction because an arbitrator cannot attribute jurisdiction by incorrectly evaluating the facts and the law.
Continue reading “Québec – court’s intervention on challenge to award on jurisdiction is not judicial review – #296”Québec – court litigation deemed abusive attempt to evade res judicata of homologated award – #292
In Papadakis v. 10069841 Canada inc., 2020 QCCS 32, Madam Justice Judith Harvie held that a litigant cannot avoid application of an arbitral award’s res judicata by litigating new arguments on old facts. Harvie J. held that the litigant ought to have raised its new arguments in arbitration and that it would be against public interest and stability of social relations to allow it to raise new arguments to plead the same cause of action. Harvie J. further declared the proceeding abusive and ordered the litigant to pay some but not all of the other litigant’s legal fees.
Continue reading “Québec – court litigation deemed abusive attempt to evade res judicata of homologated award – #292”Québec – plaintiff’s choice to pursue small claims despite arbitration delays dispute resolution – #290
The Court of Québec in CMAT Marketing inc. v. Gars de Saucisses inc., 2019 QCCQ 7976 granted Defendant’s application to dismiss based on the parties’ agreement to arbitrate, a full year after CMAT Marketing inc. v. Gars de Saucisse inc., 2018 QCCQ 7514 referred the application to a hearing on the merits. Despite the Court of Québec vigilant defence of access to justice initiatives in small claims division and despite the Court of Québec’s support of arbitration, their combined efforts resulted in delays uncommon in Court of Québec but occasioned by Plaintiff’s own decision to initiate court litigation and then resist referral to arbitration.
Continue reading “Québec – plaintiff’s choice to pursue small claims despite arbitration delays dispute resolution – #290”Québec – award homologated but interest rate in contract not added as award omitted mention – #285
In BMLEX Avocats inc. v. Sahabdool, 2019 QCCQ 3552, Mr. Justice Luc Huppé agreed to homologate (recognize and enforce) an arbitral award but declined to modify the terms of the interest owing on the amount because the arbitral award did not mention it. In the same decision, Huppé J. also ordered a third party to be solidarily liable for payment of the award amount. Unlike a similar result in GGL Avocat v. Dumont, 2020 QCCQ 597, Huppé J. made no mention of the special vocation of the small claims court to favour access to justice and debt recovery.
Continue reading “Québec – award homologated but interest rate in contract not added as award omitted mention – #285”Québec – award homologated against arbitral party and non-party held solidarily liable for award amount – #284
In GGL Avocat v. Dumont, 2020 QCCQ 597, Mr. Justice Daniel Lévesque homologated (recognized and enforced) an arbitral award against a party to the arbitration and ordered a third party to be solidarily liable for payment of the award amount. Lévesque J. acknowledged that the legal matrix was “particular” but was prompted to issue the tandem orders because (i) the amount fell within the jurisdiction of small claims court which favours access to justice and debt recovery and (ii) the invoice underlying the award issued against both the arbitral party and the non-party.
Continue reading “Québec – award homologated against arbitral party and non-party held solidarily liable for award amount – #284”Québec – parties urged to mediate/arbitrate to ‘avoid bogging down’ in ‘complex and costly judicial procedures’ – #279
In Équipements de gardien de but Michel Lefebvre inc. v. Sport Maska inc., 2020 QCCS 44, Mr. Justice Frédéric Bachand dismissed an application for a provisional injunction but, in doing so, prompted the parties to seize the opportunity, already consented to in their contract, to undertake mediation and arbitration ‘to avoid bogging themselves down in complex and costly judicial procedures’. Bachand J. also urged the parties to engage in less formal exchanges of information which may allow them to find a faster solution to their dispute.
Continue reading “Québec – parties urged to mediate/arbitrate to ‘avoid bogging down’ in ‘complex and costly judicial procedures’ – #279”Québec – rule shielding employee with Québec residence/domicile from litigating outside province applies to arbitration – #277
In Chung v. Merchant Law Group, 2020 QCCS 398, Mr. Justice Sylvain Lussier held that a clause, removing jurisdiction from the courts of Québec for an employment dispute, had no effect because it violated a rule of public order in Québec’s Civil Code of Québec, CQLR c CCQ-1991. Though the case dealt with a clause by which the parties submitted any issues to the exclusive jurisdiction of Saskatchewan’s Court of Queen’s Bench, the rule has application to related attempts to submit similar employment relationships to arbitration.
Continue reading “Québec – rule shielding employee with Québec residence/domicile from litigating outside province applies to arbitration – #277”Supreme Court – litigation funding agreement approved in insolvency proceedings without need to submit to creditors – #265
The Supreme Court of Canada in 9354-9186 Québec inc. v. Callidus Capital Corp., 2020 CanLII 5612 reinstated a decision in first instance which authorized third-party litigation funding in court-monitored insolvency proceedings and granted the funders a super priority charge and security. The decision was announced with reasons to follow.
Continue reading “Supreme Court – litigation funding agreement approved in insolvency proceedings without need to submit to creditors – #265”Québec – appeal court quashes otherwise valid stay order due to defendants’ subsequent acquiescence – #264
On the basis of Defendant’s acquiescence, the Québec Court of Appeal in Association des copropriétaires du 10355 Ave Bois-de-Boulogne v. Balabanian, 2019 QCCA 2165 agreed to quash the decision in first instance which referred the parties to arbitration. Despite flagging, without deciding, whether a particular aspect of the claims sought could be granted in arbitration, the Court summarily agreed to annul that earlier decision and no argument was made that the decision suffered any flaws.
Continue reading “Québec – appeal court quashes otherwise valid stay order due to defendants’ subsequent acquiescence – #264”Québec – award treated as “judgment” subject to ten (10) year prescription (limitation) period – #259
In Société générale de Banque au Liban SAL v. Itani, 2019 QCCS 5266, Madam Justice Dominique Poulin held that the longer, ten (10) year prescription (limitation) period applied to recognize and enforce an arbitration award made outside of Québec. Notwithstanding comments to the contrary in Yugraneft Corp. v. Rexx Management Corp., 2010 SCC 19 (CanLII), [2010] 1 SCR 649 based on two (2) of its leading cases originating from Québec, Poulin J. reasoned that, to be coherent, the provisions in the Civil Code of Québec, CQLR c CCQ-1991 should be read to treat an arbitration award as a “judgment”, thereby qualifying it for longer prescription (limitation) period.
Continue reading “Québec – award treated as “judgment” subject to ten (10) year prescription (limitation) period – #259”