In Pezo v Pezo, 2021 ONSC 5406, the applicant Elma Pezo brought two claims: a family law claim against her spouse Kabir Pezo; and an oppression remedy claim against Kabir and his friend Hadis Kozo regarding a business they had all operated together. Kazo sought a stay of all claims against him on the basis that the parties had entered into a Shareholders’ Agreement with respect to the business that contained a mandatory arbitration clause. However, Elma argued that it was invalid because the two claims intersected and had to be heard together, but the arbitration clause did not meet the requirements for a family law arbitration set out in Ontario Regulation 134/07 of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17. Justice Kraft disagreed. She found that the arbitration clause covered only the oppression remedy claims and that she had the discretion to grant a partial stay under s. 7(5) of the Arbitration Act because its two pre-conditions had been met: (a) the agreement dealt with only some of the matters in respect of which the proceeding was commenced; (b) it was reasonable to separate the matters dealt with in the agreement from other matters. She stayed the family law claims an ordered an arbitration with respect to the oppression claims to proceed before the action so that the findings of the arbitrator on issues that could affect the family law claim would be before the court.
Continue reading “Ontario – Partial stay; oppression claim arbitration to precede related family law action – #528”Ontario – Court refers part of dispute to arbitration despite concluding dividing the issues was “unreasonable” in the circumstances – #520
In Star Woodworking Ltd. v. Improve Inc., 2021 ONSC 4940, Justice F.L. Myers of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice concluded he was required to refer to arbitration parts of a multi-action litigation even though dividing the issues and parties was, in the Court’s view, unreasonable in the circumstances. In granting the stay, Justice Myers followed the Supreme Court of Canada’s holding in TELUS Communications Inc. v. Wellman, 2019 SCC 19 (Wellman) to the effect that unless a party establishes one of the bases for refusing a stay under subsection 7(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, the Court lacks discretion to refuse the partial stay motion under subsection 7(5). He stayed portions of two of the joined actions on certain issues as against one of the Defendants but allowed them to continue on the remaining issues as against the other Defendants.
Continue reading “Ontario – Court refers part of dispute to arbitration despite concluding dividing the issues was “unreasonable” in the circumstances – #520”Ontario – Party’s conduct in suing in foreign jurisdiction constituted “strong cause” why arbitration clause should not be enforced under ONCA Novatrax principles – #519
In CSI Toronto Car Systems Installations Ltd. v Pittasoft Co., Ltd., 2021 ONSC 5117, Justice Mohan D. Sharma dismissed a motion by Pittasoft for a stay of CSI’s Ontario action in favour of arbitration on the grounds that: (1) under Article 8(1) of the Model Law, the arbitration agreement was “null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed” because Pittasoft was estopped by its own conduct from relying upon it and also that Pittasoft had brought its stay motion too late; and (2) these findings constituted “strong cause” why the arbitration clause should not be enforced in accordance with the principles articulated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Novatrax International Inc. v Hagele Landtechnik GmbH, 2016 ONCA 771 , that apply “when a litigant seeks to displace a forum selection clause agreed upon in a commercial contract”.
Continue reading “Ontario – Party’s conduct in suing in foreign jurisdiction constituted “strong cause” why arbitration clause should not be enforced under ONCA Novatrax principles – #519”Québec – case referred to arbitration despite some parties and some claims possibly not covered by the arbitration agreement – #517
In Césario v Régnoux, 2021 QCCS 3009, Justice Johanne Mainville granted Defendants’ application to the Court to decline jurisdiction and refer the parties to arbitration (declinatory exception). Justice Mainville held that the record did not allow her to rule on the Court’s jurisdiction because of unanswered questions regarding the relationship between the parties and their conduct prior to executing the arbitration agreement. The arbitrator must therefore first rule on its own jurisdiction, even though Justice Mainville noted that some parties and some claims were possibly not covered by the arbitration agreement.
Continue reading “Québec – case referred to arbitration despite some parties and some claims possibly not covered by the arbitration agreement – #517”