Standard of review Archives - Arbitration Matters

June 5, 2023June 5, 2023

Ontario – No hearing de novo in case of challenge to procedural fairness – #742

In All Communications Networks of Canada v. Planet Energy Corp., 2023 ONCA 319, the Court dismissed the appeal of a judgment upholding an arbitral award in favour of Respondent All Communications Networks of Canada (“ACN”) in the amount of $29,259,787 and made an order enforcing the award. In first instance, Planet Energy Corp. (“Planet”) sought to set aside the arbitral award based on the failure of due process, arguing: (1) that it was not given the opportunity to present its case; and (2) that the Arbitrator’s ruling violated public policy. Before the Court of Appeal, Appellant Planet raised the additional argument that the first instance judge failed to apply the right standard of review. Planet argued that a de novo hearing was required to examine properly the arguments raised against the arbitral award. The Court of Appeal dismissed Planet’s arguments and confirmed that a party seeking to set aside an arbitral award based on a failure of due process must prove that the Arbitrator’s conduct is serious enough to dismiss the application to enforce the award under the law of the enforcing State (here, Ontario). The Court of Appeal also confirmed that a party seeking to set aside an award based on a violation of public policy shall demonstrate that the award offends Ontario’s principles of justice and fairness in a fundamental way.

May 9, 2023May 5, 2023

B.C. – No error of law where some evidence supports findings of fact – #735

In 1550 Alberni Limited Partnership v. Northwest Community Enterprises Ltd., 2023 BCCA 141, the British Columbia Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of Justice Groves, who refused to grant leave to appeal from an arbitral award that turned largely on the Arbitrator’s interpretation of the parties’ agreement, as modified during the course of its performance. The Court found that the petitioner failed to establish that the proposed appeal raised an extricable question of law – because there was some evidence that supported the findings of fact. In so doing, the Court left the issue of the standard of review of the Arbitrator’s decision following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653 for another day.

April 27, 2023April 24, 2023

Ontario –Arbitrator erred by allowing surrounding circumstances to overwhelm written agreement – #733

In Burwell v. Wozniak, 2023 ONSC 1685, Justice Jensen of found that the Arbitrator erred in law by allowing a promise in an email to overwhelm the words of a subsequent formal trust agreement. The Court varied the Arbitrator’s decision about the formation of a trust, holding that the Arbitrator’s reliance on surrounding circumstances while downplaying the words of the subsequently formalized agreement, gave rise to an extricable error of law.

February 17, 2023February 10, 2023

B.C. – Appeal requires legal errors to affect outcome – #713

In Spirit Bay Developments Limited Partnership v. Scala Developments Consultants Ltd., 2022 BCCA 407 (“Spirit Bay”) the Court affirmed the principle that courts should be reluctant to intrude in arbitral proceedings – even in cases where the award contains unhelpful discursions into irrelevant legal principles and legal errors that don’t affect the outcome.

February 13, 2023February 10, 2023

Manitoba – Vavilov inapplicable to arbitration appeals – #709

In Christie Building Holding Company, Limited v. Shelter Canadian Properties Limited, 2022 MBKB 239, Christie Building Holding Company, Limited (“Christie”), applied for leave to appeal two arbitral awards under section 44 of the Manitoba Arbitration Act, CCSM c. A120. Christie asserted six separate grounds for leave to appeal, one of which consisted of four alleged errors of contractual interpretation. It also argued that a portion of the main award should be set aside because: the respondent did not comply with the Arbitration Agreement on issues of document production; that it was not given a fair opportunity to examine parties; and the arbitrator relied on case law not cited by the parties. Chief Justice Joyal dismissed all applications. In holding that none of Christie’s arguments for leave to appeal gave rise to a question of law of arguable merit, he considered the applicable standard of review. He found that “the standard of review on which the merits of this appeal would have to be judged, assuming leave was granted, is reasonableness. Until the Supreme Court of Canada has answered the question of what effect, if any, Vavilov has on Teal Cedar and Sattva, those authorities remain good law and are binding on this court” (paragraph 95). He also stated that if the applicable standard of review was, in fact, correctness, he would have still denied leave as the incomplete record from the arbitration compromised his ability to conduct a meaningful review, even for the narrow purpose of assessing leave. He held it would, therefore, be “unfair to grant leave and proceed with an appeal when a proper and meaningful review would ultimately be impossible” (paragraph 102). This case summary will focus on the analysis of the applicable standard of review.

January 30, 2023August 8, 2023

Alberta – Alberta never bound by Sattva and Teal Cedar – #705

In Esfahani v Samimi, 2022 ABKB 795, the parties’ marriage broke down and they agreed that certain issues would be decided by way of arbitration and other matters by litigation. The Arbitrator issued an award, which Husband appealed and sought to set aside pursuant to s. 44(1) (appeals) of the Alberta Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c A-43, but not s. 45 (set asides) of the Act. Ultimately, Justice Marion dismissed the appeal and declined to set aside the award, but varied and remitted certain issues back to the Arbitrator. This Case Note focusses on the following two issues:

September 26, 2022September 26, 2022

Alberta – Court reviews preliminary jurisdictional award for correctness de novo – #663

In Ong v Fedoruk, 2022 ABQB 557, Justice Bourque confirmed that under subsection 17(9) of the Alberta Arbitration Act(“the Act“), the court reviews preliminary jurisdictional awards in domestic arbitrations for correctness on a de novo basis. In doing so, Ong aligned the standard of review and procedure in Alberta with the decision of the Ontario Divisional Court in The Russian Federation v. Luxtona Limited, 2021 ONSC 4604 (“Luxtona”), a case decided under the comparable provision of Ontario’s International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 2, Sch 5 (“ICAA”), which implements the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”). However, it diverged from Ace Bermuda Insurance Ltd. v Allianz Insurance Company of Canada, 2005 ABQB 975 (“Ace Bermuda”), an international case which applied a review standard of “reasonableness, deference & respect” under Alberta’s International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c I-5, which also implements the Model Law. That case as a precedent may now be in doubt, considering the trend in Canadian and other Model Law jurisdictions in favor of non-deferential review of preliminary jurisdictional decisions of arbitral tribunals.

July 5, 2022July 5, 2022

Alberta – No set aside for document disclosure complaints – #633

In ENMAX Energy Corporation v. TransAlta Generation Partnership et al, 2022 ABCA 206, the Alberta Court of Appeal (Paperny, Rowbotham, and Strekaf, JJA) upheld the chambers justice’s decision to refuse to set aside an arbitral award (the “Award”) under section 45(1)(f) of the Alberta Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c A-43 (the “Act“). It agreed that the (“Tribunal”) document disclosure rulings of the arbitral tribunal (“Tribunal”) in relation to a narrow sub-issue did not prevent the Appellants from making their case, nor did it result in manifest unfairness. Among other things, the Court of Appeal found that the Tribunal did not foreclose the possibility of further document production, but that it was the Appellants who opted not to apply for the records whose absence they now complained about. The Court also held that, when viewed in context, the Tribunal relied on other evidence to reach its conclusion and the absence of the records sought by the Appellants did not preclude them from presenting their case.

June 6, 2022May 27, 2022

Alberta – Appeal process under s. 44(2) of the Arbitration Act clarified – #623

In Esfahani v. Samimi, 2022 ABCA 178, the Court of Appeal for Alberta set out the procedure to be undertaken by the Court of Queen’s Bench when an arbitral award is appealed under s. 44(2) of the Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c A-43. It states that if the arbitration agreement does not provide that the parties may appeal an award to the court on a question of law, a party may, with the permission of the court, appeal an award to the court on a question of law. The Court of Appeal held that the procedure is as follows: (a) an appeal does not exist unless permission to appeal is granted; (b) if parties do not make the required election in their arbitration agreement, permission to appeal is required and will be granted on questions of law only, subject to s 44(3) of the Arbitration Act (which provides that a party may not appeal an award to the court on a question of law that the parties expressly referred to the arbitral tribunal for decision); and (c) an application for permission to appeal must be heard and decided first, and separately, not contemporaneously with the appeal of the arbitral award.

May 12, 2022May 10, 2022

Ontario – Set- aside application failed; dispute covered by arbitration agreement, no objection to jurisdiction – #616

In Baffinland v Tower-EBC, 2022 ONSC 1900, Justice Pattillo dismissed both: (1) an application to set aside an award from a majority of an arbitral tribunal (the “Majority Award”) under section 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 (the “Act”); and (2) an application for an order granting leave to appeal the Majority Award and Costs Award under section 45(1) of the Act. Justice Pattillo found there were no grounds upon which to set aside the Majority Award; there was no lack of jurisdiction or failure to be treated equally and fairly. Nor could leave to appeal be granted under section 45(1) of the Act because the arbitration agreement precluded an appeal.