Set aside/Annulment Archives - Arbitration Matters

April 22, 2024April 19, 2024

Ontario –“Fraud” does not include “constructive fraud” for set-aside application deadline – #829

Campbell v Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2600, 2024 ONCA 218, considered the meaning of “fraud” under section 46(1)9 of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c, 17. It provides that a court may set aside an award on the ground that, “the award was obtained by fraud.” The first issue before the Court was whether “fraud” includes “constructive fraud.” The main issue, however, was the interpretation to be given to sections 47(1) and (2), which provide that an application to set aside an award shall be commenced within 30 days after the applicant has received the award – except if the applicant alleges corruption or “fraud”. The Court found that “fraud” does not include “constructive fraud, which means that the Respondents were out of time to bring their set-aside application. It found that a broadening of the definition of fraud is not consistent with the statutory objectives to narrow the grounds for court interference in arbitrations. The Court expressed the view that the allegation of constructive fraud was made for the purpose of circumventing the statutory time limit for bringing a set-aside application. (This case is also useful for its summary of basic arbitration law principles. If you need a quick update or refresher of these, see my Editor’s Notes below for a “cheat sheet”.)

March 11, 2024March 8, 2024

Ontario – Arbitrator’s stand-alone jurisdiction decision a preliminary “ruling” open to de novo review – #820

In Clost v Rennie, 2023 ONSC 6998, the Court ruled that an arbitration agreement was invalid after a de novo hearing to “decide the matter” of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction under section 17(8) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 17 (the “Act”). The Applicant (also referred to in the decision and herein as “Norm”) contended that the arbitration agreement was invalid because it was contained in a lease agreement which he alleged was fraudulent because his signature was forged. The parties first submitted the jurisdictional issue to a sole arbitrator, who found the arbitration agreement to be valid. The Court accepted that a de novo hearing under s. 17(8) of the Act was required, finding that the Arbitrator had rendered a “ruling” on a preliminary question of jurisdiction rather than an “award”, even though the sole question he was asked to determine was jurisdiction. There was an extensive evidentiary record before the arbitrator relative to the jurisdictional issue. This raised for debate the difference between an “award” and a “ruling” on a preliminary question which can be decided by the Court on a hearing de novo. The Court completed its own review of the extensive evidentiary record and ultimately concluded that the lease (and therefore the arbitration agreement) was fraudulent and invalid and the arbitrator had no jurisdiction

February 14, 2024February 12, 2024

Quebec – No abuse of process where parallel arbitration and court proceedings – #815

In Gaston Gagné inc. c. Gagné, 2023 QCCS 4552, the Court confirmed that arbitration clauses should receive a broad and liberal interpretation, dismissed an application to annul a final arbitral award, homologated the award, and dismissed a claim in damages based on an alleged abuse of process by the party opposing homologation. Even though one party decided to bring court proceedings on the same issue he put before the arbitrator, there was no abuse of process because his court proceeding did not impede the arbitration.

January 30, 2024January 26, 2024

Québec – No revocation of a homologated award without the prior revocation of the judgment – #812

In Investissements Immobiliers MB inc. v. SMP Direct inc., 2023 QCCS 4526, the Superior Court dismissed the application of Investissements Immobiliers MB inc (“Plaintiff”) to partially revoke a judgment homologating an arbitration award. In her decision, the Judge ruled that the Plaintiff had delayed acting without justifying the delay and that the application for revocation of the homologating judgment had no reasonable chance of success. The background is complicated. The application followed multiple proceedings between the court and the Arbitrator. The Plaintiff (Claimant in the Arbitration) applied to the court to annul the arbitration award on the basis that the Arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction. Then, before that application was decided, the Plaintiff returned to the Arbitrator for revocation of the award based on the fact that there was subsequent information that he had not considered that would affect the result. The Arbitrator refused to hear Plaintiff’s demand before the Court ruled on the Plaintiff’s annulment application. The Court homologated the award. Plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The Arbitrator then dismissed the application for revocation. He found that the Court must revoke the homologating judgment first, which made the issues ruled in the arbitration award revocation issue because the homologating judgment give the award the force of res judicata. The Plaintiff’s later return to the court to revoke the homologating judgment was too late – five months later. The lesson? An arbitrator has no jurisdiction to revoke an award that has been homologated in a court judgment.

January 18, 2024January 19, 2024

Jim Reflects (2023): Browne v Dunn is just a rule of fairness: a comment on the Vento case – #810

I’ll take Vento Motorcycles, Inc. v. United Mexican States 2023 ONSC 5964 (Vento) as my top pick for 2023. It’s a reminder that just because the strict rules of evidence may not apply in an arbitration doesn’t mean the rationale for some of those rules should be ignored. In this case, it was an alleged breach of the rule in Browne v Dunn, the very rule all Commonwealth litigators had beaten into their heads by their professors, their principals, or, for some of the less fortunate among us, a judge. At heart Browne v Dunn is about fairness, and ensuring fairness is a, perhaps the, cornerstone of arbitration.

January 17, 2024December 18, 2023

Timothy Reflects (2023): Are arbitral tribunals soft targets for bad actors? – #809

This case note reflects on emerging procedural and systemic vulnerabilities of arbitration, a timely and important topic in light of the recent decision of the High Court of England and Wales in Process & Industrial Development v Federal Republic of Nigeria, [2023] EWHC 2638 (Comm) (“P&ID v Nigeria”). In that case, Justice Robin Knowles remarked:

January 15, 2024January 19, 2024

Chris Reflects (2023): Arbitrator Bias and the Unanimous Award – #807

When will a court confirm a unanimous arbitral award issued by a three-person panel where one of those arbitrators was biased? This case note reviews three cases that try to answer that question. In each, the Court applied the Model Law. In one recent casethe Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld the award, finding that the bias did not cause actual prejudice. The other two cases, one from India, the other from Germany, reached the opposite conclusion, highlighting the pernicious, and often unseen, effect that bias can have on the deliberative process.

January 5, 2024January 9, 2024

Stephanie Reflects (2023): What’s the Standard? Reviews, Appeals and “Decisions of the Matter” – #806

For better or for worse, parties can challenge arbitral decisions through multiple avenues, whether through a review of a preliminary jurisdictional ruling, set-aside application, or appeal. Arbitration case law in 2023 highlighted a striking lack of consistency between the standards of review and appeal applied in each of these different avenues.

December 5, 2023December 1, 2023

Québec – Final Award on arbitrator’s own jurisdiction: what recourse(s)? – #797

In ADREQ (CSD) Estrie c. Centre intégré universitaire de santé et des services sociaux de l’Estrie – CHUS, 2023 QCCA 1315, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal a Superior Court decision dismissing an application for annulment of an arbitration award. The first instance Judge ruled that despite the fact that the arbitrator heard the whole case on the merits and decided in the final award that he had no jurisdiction, the award could not be contested under the annulment provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (sec. 648), but rather must be challenged under the provisions concerning an arbitrator’s ruling on their own jurisdiction (sec. 632). Because of the potential overlap between these provisions and because of the limited jurisprudence on their application, the Court of Appeal deemed that it was a subject of interest for the Court and granted the leave.

December 4, 2023December 14, 2023

Ontario – No unfairness despite Browne v Dunn violation and arbitrator reasonable apprehension of bias – #796

In Vento Motorcycles, Inc. v. United Mexican States, 2023 ONSC 5964, the Court dismissed an application to set aside an investor-state arbitration award on the grounds that the arbitral tribunal denied procedural fairness, and that one of the tribunal members was biased. Although the Court found no unfairness, it acknowledged a reasonable apprehension of bias in respect of the impugned arbitrator. The Court nonetheless exercised its discretion under art. 34 of the Model Law to dismiss the set–aside application.