Standard of review Archives - Page 3 of 4

February 11, 2022May 4, 2022

Alberta –No appeal of decision refusing leave to appeal arbitration award, despite s. 48 of Alberta Arbitration Act – #583

In 719491 Alberta Inc v Canada Life Assurance Company, 2021 ABCA 419, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal of Alberta denied the applicant’s requests (i) for permission to appeal the chambers judge’s order refusing leave to appeal the arbitration award (the “Leave to Appeal Request”)and (ii) for permission to appeal the chambers judge’s dismissal of its application to set aside the award (the “Set Aside Request”). As a preliminary matter on the Leave to Appeal Request, the applicant asked the Court to reconsider its previous decision in Sherwin-Williams Company v. Walls Alive (Edmonton) Ltd., 2003 ABCA 191(“Sherwin-Williams”), which held that leave to appeal decisions are not appealable to the Court of Appeal under s. 48 of Alberta’s Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c A-43 (the “Arbitration Act”). Section 48 provides, in relevant part, that an appeal from the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench on an appeal of an award (s. 44) may be made to the Court of Appeal with leave. However, based on the case law on the test for leave to reconsider a previous decision, which includes whether the decision has some “obvious, demonstrable flaw,” the Court denied leave and ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the Leave to Appeal Request. The Court similarly rejected the applicant’s Set Aside Request based on the finding that the chambers judge did not err in holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his jurisdiction.

January 12, 2022May 4, 2022

Ontario – Fresh evidence test the same on set aside applications on fairness grounds and judicial review applications – #572

In Vento Motorcycles Inc. v United Mexican States, 2021 ONSC 7913, Justice Vermette set out the test for when fresh evidence may be adduced to support a set aside application on lack of fairness or natural justice grounds. The test is the same as that which applies on a judicial review; the record is restricted to what was before the decision-maker, except where there are natural justice or fairness issues raised that cannot be proven by reference to the existing record and that could not have been raised before the decision-maker.

January 7, 2022May 4, 2022

Myriam’s 2021 Top Pick: B.C. – lululemon athletica inc. v. Industrial Color Productions Inc. – #571

Famed Canadian athletic wear company lululemon athletica generated a noteworthy court decision this year, which has nothing to do with the controversy surrounding the sartorial choices it has made in designing Team Canada’s (very red!) uniform for the Beijing Olympics. Rather, the case adds to the significant number of decisions rendered of late in which the courts have grappled with their role – and the tests they must apply – when an application to set aside an international arbitral award comes before them under the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (for a deep dive on this topic, see Lisa’s top pick, Russian Federation v. Luxtona Limited).

January 5, 2022May 4, 2022

Laura’s 2021 Top Pick: B.C. – Spirit Bay Developments Limited Partnership v. Scala Developments Consultants Ltd. – #569

Spirit Bay Developments Limited Partnership v Scala Developments Consultants Ltd., 2021 BCSC 1415, is part of a series of cases that leave an important question undetermined at the end of 2021: what is Vavilov’s impact on commercial arbitration appeals? Although on its own Spirit Bay is not the most significant case of the year, the impact of the Vavilov on commercial arbitration appeals will be studied with interest by arbitration practitioners in 2022 and is an important aspect of arbitration jurisprudence in 2021.

January 4, 2022May 4, 2022

Lisa’s 2021 Top Pick: Ontario – Russian Federation v Luxtona Limited (Part 2) – #568

In Part 1 (case update #564), I reviewed the decision of Russian Federation v Luxtona Limited, 2018 ONSC 2419, 2019 ONSC 7558, and 2021 ONSC 4604 on the standard of review to be applied on an application to the court pursuant to Model Law Article 16(3) “to decide the matter” where the tribunal has decided jurisdiction “as a preliminary question” and what evidence is admissible on such an application. In this, Part 2, I discuss the interplay between Articles 16(3) and Art 34(2)(a)(iii). So far as I have been able to determine, this issue does not seem to have been categorically resolved anywhere under the Model Law.

December 20, 2021May 4, 2022

James’s 2021 Top Pick: B.C. – Wastech Services Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – #565

My top pick for 2021 is Wastech Services Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, 2021 SCC 7 [Wastech]. For most, Wastech’s primary importance relates to the common law duty of good faith in the exercise of contractual discretion. But for arbitration aficionados, another key aspect is what the Supreme Court of Canada’s concurring Justices said, and what the majority Justices declined to say, about the standard of review applicable to appeals from arbitral awards.

December 16, 2021May 4, 2022

Lisa’s 2021 Top Pick: Ontario – Russian Federation v Luxtona Limited (Part 1) – #564

A review of the 2021 case law shows that the appropriate standard of review of an arbitral award remains uncertain. Russian Federation v Luxtona Limited is interesting because it did not involve an appeal of an arbitral award or a set-aside application, in respect of which there are many court decisions. It considered the standard of review by a court where a tribunal has ruled “as a preliminary question” that it has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 16(3) of the Model Law. It provides that following such a determination by the tribunal, any party may apply to the court to “decide the matter”, which decision shall not be subject to appeal. Comparable provisions also appear in domestic legislation. The question is the role of the reviewing court asked to “decide the matter”. Confusion exists as to whether such a hearing is a “review” or hearing de novo and whether that determination has any bearing upon the standard of review of the arbitral tribunal’s preliminary jurisdiction determination.

December 9, 2021May 4, 2022

Québec – partial award may determine scope of arbitration agreement for final award – #563

In Maïo v Lambert, 2021 QCCS 3884, Justice Castonguay denied an application to annul in part and modify a final award. He found that the arbitrator did not exceed the scope of his mandate, including in how he ruled on matters that had been circumscribed in a prior partial award, and that the applicant was essentially seeking an improper review of the merits of the dispute.

December 7, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – A reminder of the “hands off” approach of courts in arbitration even with oppression claims and injunctions – #561

In TSCC No. 2364 v. TSCC No. 2442, 2021 ONSC 7689, Justice Myers affirmed the “hands off” approach courts take regarding disputes that are properly the subject of an arbitration clause. The applicant condominium corporation sought an order by way of an oppression remedy or an injunction precluding the respondent condominium corporation from drawing amounts from a bank account for shared management services. The parties had already been through a lengthy arbitration regarding various disputes between them pursuant to a shared facilities agreement. Justice Myers held that the proper forum for the new disputes was arbitration.

November 25, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Appeal of award dismissed after party refused to participate – #557

In Vanhof & Blokker Ltd. v Vanhoff & Blokker Acquisition Corp., 2021 ONSC 7211, the Respondents/Appellants on Appeal (“the Sellers”) sold the assets of their horticultural and garden supply business to the Applicants/Respondents on Appeal (“the Purchasers”) pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement dated December 29, 2014. The Sellers alleged that the Purchasers breached the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement and they therefore refused to make payments under the Agreement, claiming that they were induced to enter into the Agreement by fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations made by the Purchasers. The Sellers refused to participate in an arbitration of the dispute and then appealed the final award. Justice Pollack dismissed the appeal, relying upon s. 27(3) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, on the basis that the Sellers had been advised of the date for the arbitration and had filed material, but had failed to participate. They were obliged to raise their objections about the arbitrator’s jurisdiction before the arbitrator at the hearing, rather than by letter.