Tag: Saskatchewan

Upon application, Madam Justice Brenda R. Hildebrandt in Rosetown (Town) v. Bridge Road Construction Ltd., 2020 SKQB 3 approved an agreement between two (2) arbitral/litigation parties T and BR to release BR from litigation involving a third party S which did not participate in that agreement.  The agreement, known as a Pierringer agreement, left S open to its proportionate share of responsibility in the litigation pursued by T.  Having examined the Pierringer agreement in light of its impact on S, Hildebrandt J. approved its application and amendments to the pleadings in court to implement it.

Continue reading “Saskatchewan – court approves arbitral parties’ Pierringer agreement in litigation against third party – #294”

In Antoniadou v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance, 2020 SKCA 20, Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal reiterated a basic premise in dispute resolution that a dispute must exist between parties subject to the dispute resolution, whether by statute or otherwise.  Though the dispute resolution involved naming an umpire under a statutory scheme, the Court’s reasons apply equally to commercial arbitration and remind parties that not all disagreements over a set of facts falls within the scope of the dispute resolution.

Continue reading “Saskatchewan – referral to statutory arbitration requires a dispute between parties subject to legislation – #293”

In 605499 Saskatchewan Ltd. v. Rifle Shot Oil Corp., 2019 SKCA 133, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that an arbitration board, created by legislation, qualified as a government institution under Saskatchewan regulation and was subject to access to information rules and procedure.  The decision reminds parties that the documents they file during their dispute resolution process may be subject to additional legislation preventing or facilitating their disclosure. The Court provided an express caution, indicating that it did not endorse the arbitration board’s conclusion that documents filed with the arbitration board were, as a category, always exempt from production. 

Continue reading “Saskatchewan – arbitral board created by statute subject to access to information legislation procedures – #250”

In Veolia Water Technologies, Inc. v. K+S Potash Canada General Partnership, 2019 SKCA 25, Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal expressly signalled its willingness to grant an injunction against a beneficiary attempting to draw on a letter of credit if the draw breached an express contractual restriction in the main contract.   Having commenced arbitration, applicant sought the injunction until a court or an arbitral tribunal had determined the beneficiary’s right to draw on the letter. The Court recognized the autonomy of the letter of credit from the main contract and acknowledged a financial institution’s limited concern regarding whether to pay out on the draw made under its letter of credit. 

Continue reading “Saskatchewan – limited scope to enjoin beneficiary from drawing on letter of credit despite arbitration – #226”

In Gustafson v. Future Four Agro Inc., 2019 SKCA 68, Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal upheld the litigants’ agreement to dismiss a party’s Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for failure to complete an agreed-upon procedural step by the date set.  The Court held that such agreements are “Contracts” which can be enforced by a consent order and do not constitute contracting out of legislation designed to protect the public interest.  The reasoning can apply by analogy to procedural agreements made and enforced in arbitration.

Continue reading “Saskatchewan – litigants’ autonomy to consent to drop dead orders not contrary to public policy – #219”

In Graham Design Builders LP v. Black & McDonald Limited, 2019 SKQB 161, Mr. Justice G.M. Currie denied leave to appeal on a question of law because the arbitrator’s repeat mention of “in my experience” did not qualify as taking arbitral notice of a practice in the relevant market.  Rather, the remarks were “mere passing comments” which did not affect the award based on the factual matrix in evidence and relevant contractual provisions.  In a subsidiary analysis, Currie J. did accept that, had one of the challenges qualified as a question of law, he would have considered it important enough to grant leave to appeal by applying a $1 million threshold he identified as ‘significant’ in his one of his earlier decisions.

Continue reading “Saskatchewan – arbitrator’s mentions of “in my experience” insignificant and raise no question of law – #213”

In NewAgco Inc. v. Syngenta Crop Protection, 2019 SKQB 56, Mr. Justice G.A. Meschishnick vacated an earlier ex parte Queen’s Bench decision enforcing a U.S. court decision under Saskatchewan’s The Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, SS 2005, c E-9.121.  The U.S. decision stemmed from a settlement agreement negotiated between parties to an arbitration and which had resulted in a consent ‘judgment’ of the arbitration tribunal.  Having successfully applied to a U.S. court to confirm that arbitration judgment as a U.S. court decision, the U.S. corporation failed to enforce that same U.S. court decision in Saskatchewan against a Saskatoon corporation bearing the same corporate name, unsuccessfully arguing that the Saskatoon corporation was bound by the settlement and U.S. court decision.

Continue reading “Saskatchewan – privity of contract prevents enforcing court-approved arbitral consent award against third party – #169”

[:en]Invoking the integrity of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 restructuring system and without the need to mention any arbitration legislation, in In Golden Band Resources Inc. (Re), 2018 SKQB 284, Mr. Justice G.A. Meschishnick stayed an arbitration filed by a creditor seeking post-proposal remedies. Meschishnick J. held that a party having both (a) a claim against an asset and (b) knowledge of insolvency proceedings which risks eliminating its claim must alert the debtor, creditors, trustee and the court of that claim, either formally by filing a claim or, at a minimum, giving notice of its position. Drawing parallels to earlier case law under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, RSC 1985, c C-36, the arbitration qualified as a “proceeding” within the meaning of the BIA and can be stayed.   Continue reading “[:en]Saskatchewan – court-approved insolvency proposal eliminates tardy arbitral claim – #128[:]”

[:en]The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal distinguished appeals under Saskatchewan’s The Arbitration Act, 1992, SS 1992, c A-24.1 (“AA”) from appeals under Saskatchewan’s The Court of Appeal Rules, Sask Gaz April 18, 1997 (“Appeal Rules”).   In Saskatchewan v. Capitol Steel Corporation, 2018 SKCA 3, the Court held that a chambers judge’s decision that he had no jurisdiction under the AA was a decision subject to appeal under the Appeal Rules. Continue reading “[:en]Saskatchewan – Court of Appeal rules appeal right on court’s jurisdiction not displaced by Arbitration Act – #054[:]”

[:en]Saskatchewan’s Court of Queen’s Bench in Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd. v Bukurak, 2017 SKQB 322 provided a proof-of-concept application of Saskatchewan’s embrace of international commercial arbitration in its straightforward review and grant of an application to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award.  Continue reading “[:en]Saskatchewan – court delivers no-fuss recognition of default foreign arbitral award – #048[:]”