Stay/Declinatory Exception Archives

March 11, 2026March 11, 2026

Northwest Territories – Peace River Analogized in Oppression-Driven Disclaimer of Arbitration – #938

In TSA CORPORATION et al v KPMG LLP, 2026 NWTSC 2, the Court approved a Receiver’s request to disclaim arbitration agreements between companies in receivership (the “LKDFN Companies”) and KPMG, which the LKDFN Companies’ former CEO had engaged to provide accounting services and tax advice. The Receiver had been appointed to facilitate the LKDFN Companies’ recovery from oppression at the hands of their former CEO. Relevant statutes, and the Receiver’s appointment order, authorized a broad range of potential remedies, expressly including the power to disclaim contracts with third parties. Reasoning by analogy to Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41, the Court approved the Receiver’s request because “not doing so would compromise the fair and orderly correction” of “a scenario of exploitation, unfairness, and the obliteration of autonomy.” The Receiver’s disclaimer rendered arbitration agreements between the LKDFN Companies and KPMG unenforceable under the Arbitration Act, SNWT 2022, c 14. As a result, the Court denied KPMG’s application to stay derivative actions brought against it.

The social context of this case was key. The LKDFN Companies’ former CEO had “knowingly breached his fiduciary duties to the LKDFN Companies, including failing to disclose his own interests, which were significant, and he caused them to enter into agreements, transactions, and governance structures which were unfair and prejudicial.” The LKDFN Companies had been organized to serve economic and other needs of the First Nation, infusing this case with the “special social context attendant to the exploitation of a vulnerable indigenous group.” This context situated the case in the process of truth and reconciliation with Canada’s First Nations, including the interpretive lens of federal and territorial legislation implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

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.

October 3, 2025October 7, 2025

Federal – No Stay Where Case a Proper One for Summary Judgment – #919

In QSL Canada Inc. v. Canpotex Terminals Limited, 2025 FC 1012, the Court dismissed the Defendant’s motion to stay the action in favour of arbitration and granted the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. In so doing, the motion judge analyzed contractual and legal issues that were plainly subject to the parties’ arbitration agreement. This is permitted by the statutory exceptions to stay motions found in the arbitration legislation across the country demonstrating that the policy behind courts respecting parties’ agreement to arbitrate is not absolute. One of the limited exceptions applies to cases where it is found that summary judgment is appropriate. Interestingly, the Defendant also brought the stay motion under the Federal Court general stay provision.

September 16, 2025September 23, 2025

Alberta – Exercise of Share Purchase Option Precludes Arbitration of Oppression Claims – #918

In ONE Properties Holdings Corp v Turtle Bay Investments Ltd, 2025 ABKB 313, the Court held that the exercise of a contractual option to buy out a minority shareholder and the accompanying independent share valuation mechanism extinguished parallel oppression claims brought by the minority shareholder pursuant to the arbitration agreements in unanimous shareholder agreements (“USAs”). At the time, the separate option agreement had already been exercised and the minority shareholders’ shares, in respect to which the oppression was being invoked, were already subject to the independent valuation mechanism. The Court declared that, under s. 47(2) of the Alberta Arbitration Act, the arbitration provisions in the two USAs were either invalid or ceased to exist.

September 16, 2025September 23, 2025

Ontario – A first: arbitration an appropriate alternative to judicial review – #917

BizTech v Accreditation Canada, 2025 ONSC 2689 appears to be the first application of section 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17(the “Arbitration Act”) , or any comparable provisions in other Canadian arbitration legislation, to stay a judicial review proceeding (para. 151). The decision establishes that staying a judicial review proceeding under section 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, in order to allow an arbitration to proceed, is not at odds with an individual’s right to apply for judicial review, depending on the facts of the case.,

September 16, 2025September 23, 2025

Québec – Arbitration clause in contract of adhesion abusive and null – #916

In Hydro-Québec v. Terrassement St-Louis inc., 2025 QCCA 900, the Court dismissed the demand of Appellant Hydro-Québec’s (“Hydro-Québec”) to refer the file to arbitration. Although the parties were bound by a valid arbitration agreement, the Court confirmed the first instance judge’s conclusion that the arbitration agreement was included in a contract of adhesion and that the arbitration agreement itself was abusive; because of the small amount in dispute, the three-arbitrator panel prescribed by the arbitration agreement resulted in a denial of justice for the Respondent. Therefore, the arbitration agreement was declared null under section 1437 C.C.Q. According to the Court’s reasoning, the arbitration agreement should have been flexible to take into consideration smaller amount disputes by having the option of a sole arbitrator and/or expedited arbitration rules.

June 9, 2025June 9, 2025

Ontario – Technical requirements for stay are precondition to competence-competence principle – #909

In Sherif Gerges Pharmacy Professional Corporation et al. v Niam Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., 2025 ONSC 2058, the court granted the applicant leave to bring derivative actions, rather than refusing leave based on the respondents’ argument that leave should be denied because of an arbitration agreement contained in a shareholders agreement. In Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized four technical requirements for a stay of court proceedings in favour of arbitration, one of which is that the party applying for a stay of the court proceedings has not taken a step in the proceeding. Rather than bringing a motion to stay the applicant’s leave request under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17, the respondents participated in the litigation and only raised arguments about an arbitration agreement in their factum responding to the applicants’ leave application. The court applied Peace River, which would have applied had the respondents brought a stay motion, and found that the respondents did not satisfy the technical requirements for a stay, having taken a step in the court proceeding. Because those requirements are a precondition to a stay, the court did not engage with the respondents’ arguments related to the competence-competence principle, and refused to dismiss the application for leave to bring derivative actions on the basis that the court proceeding should proceed by way of arbitration.

June 9, 2025June 9, 2025

Nunavut – Court grants stay on grounds that “may arbitrate” clause is mandatory – #907

In Nuqsana Inc. v. Tangmaarvik Inland Camp Services Inc. et. al., 2025 NUCJ 13, the Court granted a stay in favour of arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement provided for mandatory arbitration once either party elected to pursue a dispute by arbitration. The Court interpreted the arbitration clause and found that after mandatory “private amicable discussion and negotiation…”, the language “then any of the Parties may refer the Dispute to Arbitration” required arbitration if one party invoked the clause. The stay provision in Nunavet’s arbitration legislation is significantly different than others among common law provinces.

May 9, 2025May 12, 2025

B.C. – Stay decision unnecessarily applies convenient forum test. – #905

In Mavrakis v TELUS International (Cda) Inc., 2025 BCSC 378, the Court ruled that civil proceedings in B.C. should be stayed in favour of arbitration underway in Virginia pursuant to s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, SBC 2020, c. 2 (the “Act”). All well and good. However, the Court then performed a forum non conveniens analysis under s. 11(1) of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SBC 2003, c. 28 (“the CJPTA”) and again determined that the B.C. action should be stayed. The Act provides a complete and exclusive answer on stays of court proceedings relating to arbitration. A convenient forum analysis from a different statute for different purposes is not part of the stay of proceedings design in the Act.

April 7, 2025April 7, 2025

Alberta – Multiplicity of Proceedings No Basis for Stay of Arbitration – #901

In Sivitilli v PesoRama Inc., 2025 ABCA 56, the Court clarified that the grounds for staying an arbitration are exhaustively set out in Section 7(2) of the Alberta Arbitration Act, which does not provide for a stay in the event of a multiplicity of proceedings. Section 6(c) of the Arbitration Act does not provide any further discretion to stay an arbitration. This decision is in line with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in TELUS Communications Inc. v. Wellman, 2019 SCC 19.