Set aside/Annulment Archives - Arbitration Matters

February 12, 2026February 12, 2026

Ontario – Court dismisses review of leave decision finding no extricable error of law – #936

In Hilmer Motorsport GmbH v. Mason, 2025 ONCA 875, the Court dismissed an appeal from a summary judgment enforcing a German default judgment in which the appellants were found to have breached an agreement between the parties. The decision addresses the intersection between foreign judgment enforcement and arbitration agreements. The agreement provided that any dispute between the parties was to be resolved by arbitration and the appellants contended that it would therefore be against public policy to recognize and enforce the judgment of the German court. In its ruling, the Court held that the mere existence of an arbitration clause does not, without more, deprive a foreign court of jurisdiction or render its judgment unenforceable in Ontario. The appellants had failed to defend the German action and could not resist judgment on the basis of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.

February 12, 2026March 4, 2026

British Columbia – On appeal, question of procedural fairness is question of law – #934

In Green Light Solutions Corp. v Kern BSG Management Ltd., 2025 BCCA 408, the applicant sought leave, pursuant to s. 29 of the Court of Appeal Act, S.B.C. 2021, c.6, to vary the order of a chambers judge, who had denied it leave to appeal the costs portion of a final award. Applying s. 59(2) of the British Columbia Arbitration Act, SBC 2020 c. 2, the chambers judge found that the applicant had failed to identify a question of law. The applicant’s complaint was that there was a breach of the parties’ right to make submissions on costs before the award was made. The Court of Appeal overturned that decision on the basis that the proposed appeal raised a question of procedural fairness, which is a question of law. Moreover, the legislation permits questions of law based on an allegation that a party was not given the opportunity to present its case to be raised in both an appeal and a set-aside application.

January 19, 2026January 19, 2026

Québec – New small claims arbitration in Québec – #931

In Multi Chariots Élévateurs inc. v. 9191-0216 Québec inc., 2025 QCCQ 6048, the Court granted the Defendant’s application to annul the arbitration award rendered in a small claims arbitration process due to non-compliance with the applicable procedure and violation of the Defendant’s right to be heard; the Defendant had no notice of the arbitration. Small claims arbitration in Quebec, as discussed in this decision, is a new procedure resulting from the coming into force of the Regulation respecting mediation and arbitration of small claims, C-25.01, r. 0.6.1. This regulation stipulates that a claim of less than $5,000 brought before the Court of Quebec Small Claims Division shall be referred to arbitration (at no cost) after mandatory mediation has failed to resolve the matter. The Rules provide for a specific arbitration procedure, requiring the state- appointed arbitrator to expressly validate the parties’ consent to proceed by way of arbitration, or the matter will proceed in the courts.

November 28, 2025November 28, 2025

Rebecca’s Reflections (2025): Vento and the Hard-Line Consequences of Reasonable Apprehension of Bias – #925

Over the last couple of years, arbitration practitioners across the country have had their eyes on the Ontario courts, which have considered several cases on the issue of reasonable apprehension of bias. For this reason, I’ve chosen to focus on Vento Motorcycles, Inc. v Mexico, 2025 ONCA 82, as a year-end reflection for 2025. Vento is an important reminder of the centrality of arbitrator independence to the institution of arbitration, and how its absence (whether real or perceived) can crumble the foundation of the arbitration process.

November 5, 2025November 5, 2025

Ontario – Set Aside not available for bespoke process – #923

In Tehama Group Inc. v. Pythian Services Inc, 2025 ONSC 4134, the Court denied an application to set aside an international award on the basis of alleged procedural flaws in an accounting arbitration to resolve a dispute about whether a purchase price adjustment payment was owing to the seller of a business. The Court reviewed the terms of the parties’ bespoke arbitration agreement and the arbitral award and concluded that the specialist arbitrator, an accounting firm, had followed the summary dispute resolution process to which the parties had agreed. The Court ruled there was no breach of natural justice. Instead, the parties got the process they bargained for: “determinations strictly from a financial accounting perspective” and not “legal guidance or opinion [or] legal interpretation.”

July 3, 2025July 4, 2025

Alberta – Court enforces med/arb consent award over bias objection – #910

In Heine v Worsfold, 2025 ABKB 307, the court enforced a consent award rendered in a family dispute over objections that the arbitrator – who had also mediated the parties’ settlement – had demonstrated bias against the Applicant in the mediation. While the case raised a plethora of other issues, at the core were allegations about the mediator/arbitrator’s conduct in the mediation process.

May 9, 2025May 12, 2025

Québec – Court declines to set aside on grounds of infra petita. – #906

In EDT GCV Civil c Société de transport de Montréal, 2025 QCCS 256,the Court dismissed an application to set aside a domestic arbitral award based, among other grounds, on a refusal to exercise jurisdiction. Plaintiff, EDT GCV Civil (“EDT”), contended, among other things, that the arbitral tribunal refused to exercise jurisdiction over certain claims and that this constituted jurisdictional error based on the doctrine of infra petita described especially in international commercial arbitration. In its judgment, the Court regrettably declined to comment on whether this doctrine may apply under Québec law as a ground to set aside a domestic arbitral award.

February 24, 2025February 24, 2025

Ontario – Natural justice does not require second opportunity to make submissions – #897

In Edenrock Holdings Inc. v. Moscone, 2025 ONSC 32, the Court refused to set aside an arbitral award, or grant leave to appeal, with respect to a claimed breach of natural justice, the supposed improper re-opening of earlier decisions, or the alleged apprehension bias of the Arbitrator who issued the Award. The Court found that there was no denial of natural justice when the Arbitrator ruled on a matter in respect of which the Applicants did not make submissions because they argued that the Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction. They argued they should have been given a separate opportunity after the Arbitrator ruled that he had jurisdiction.

February 7, 2025February 10, 2025

Alberta – Court rejects Ontario approach to stays of enforcement – #892

In Inter Pipeline Ltd v Teine Energy Ltd, 2024 ABKB 740 (“Inter Pipeline”), the Court set out the three-part test a party must meet to obtain a stay of enforcement of a domestic arbitration award in Alberta, rejecting as “not principled” the two-part test that applies in Ontario. The Court also addressed the argument that refusing a sealing order in these circumstances would put a chill on challenges to arbitral awards.

January 10, 2025January 10, 2025

Colin’s 2024 Hot Topic: ONCA weighs in on Bias in Aroma – #888

In Aroma Franchise Company, Inc. v Aroma Espresso Bar Canada Inc., 2024 ONCA 839, the Court overturned a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which had set aside two international arbitration awards on the basis of the existence of a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Arbitrator. Undoubtedly, this was the arbitration case of 2024. The first instance decision and related proceedings have previously been canvassed by Arbitration Matters (see Ontario – Multiple arbitral appointments give rise to reasonable apprehension of bias – #734 – Arbitration Matters, Lisa Reflects (2023): Aroma – the blockbuster case of 2023? – #804 – Arbitration Matters, and Ontario – Arbitrator no jurisdiction to hear challenge for bias after partial final award – #691 – Arbitration Matters). It is a multiple appointments case. It arose out of a decision by the Arbitrator to take on a second appointment by the same counsel acting in the Aroma arbitration that was only disclosed by accident with the issuance of the final award. The first Instance decision generated buzz in the arbitration community for, among other things: (1) the Judge below finding it was a “bad look” for the Arbitrator to have accepted an appointment in another arbitration part way through the Aroma arbitration by the same lead counsel in both matters; (2) the Judge considering relevant the parties’ pre-appointment communications on the criteria for the arbitrator to be appointed; and (3) the unresolved question of the impact, if any, of an arbitrator’s financial interest in appointments. It is the second issue that has received the most commentary on this decision.