Stay/Declinatory Exception Archives

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.

March 7, 2025March 7, 2025

Québec – Filing an action is not a waiver to arbitrate by Plaintiffs – #900

In Gauvin v. SBYC1935 Inc., 2025 QCCS 11, the Court granted an application by the Plaintiffs to have their own action stayed and referred to arbitration. The Defendant contested the application, arguing waiver of arbitration and tardiness in the filing of the application to stay, as the statutorily prescribed deadline to seek a stay was well past. The Defendant also argued the application was dilatory and an abuse of process by the Plaintiffs. The Court found that there was insufficient evidence of waiver and, noting that the deadline to seek a stay is not strict, it exercised its discretion to relieve the Plaintiffs’ delay.

March 7, 2025October 7, 2025

Ontario – More efficient expert determination process to proceed ahead of litigation – #899

The decision in CLEAResult Canada Inc. v. Santomero, 2024 ONSC 6054 reinforces the principle that courts will generally uphold private dispute resolution mechanisms unless there is prima facie evidence that the process is fundamentally flawed (see para. 67). Here, the court held that the more expeditious, efficient and simple process before an accounting expert (BDO Canada LLP) to determine the Reverse Earn-out Amount in an M&A dispute was to proceed in tandem with other litigation between the parties, and was not to be held up by that litigation.