Stay/Declinatory Exception Archives - Page 7 of 12

January 31, 2023January 26, 2023

Alberta – Power to prevent “manifestly unfair treatment” not power to stay arbitration – #706

In IBI Group Architects (Canada) Inc. v Edmonton (City), 2022 CarswellAlta 1805, the applicants, IBI Group Architects (Canada) Inc. and a related party (“IBI”), applied to stay an arbitration commenced by the City of Edmonton in favour of court proceedings. Although there is no express power to stay arbitrations under the Alberta Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c A-43(“the Act”), the application was brought under subsection 6(c) which provides “[n]o court may intervene in matters governed by this Act, except for the following purposes as provided by this Act…(c) to prevent manifestly unfair or unequal treatment of a party to an arbitration agreement”. Previously, the Alberta Court of Appeal held in New Era Nutrition Inc. v Balance Bar Company, 2004 ABCA 280 (“New Era”), that courts could use subsection 6(c) to provide a remedy to cure unfairness arising from matters not covered by the specific language of the Act and that it could be used to allow “a party, faced with both a statement of claim and a notice to arbitrate, to apply to stay the arbitration on the basis that the matters in the two proceedings overlap and cannot be reasonably separated” in order to avoid unfairness (para. 43). IBI argued, among other things, that it needed the full participation and evidence of non-parties to the arbitration clause to defend itself and so if it were forced to arbitrate it would be unable to meet the case against it, which was manifestly unfair and so the arbitration should be stayed. Justice Dunlop, delivering his decision from the bench, refused the application to stay the arbitration as he determined that he had no jurisdiction to do so under the Act. He concluded that New Era “was no longer good law” in Alberta as the case had been considered and expressly overruled by the Supreme Court of Canada in TELUS Communications Inc. v. Wellman, 2019 SCC 19 (CanLII), [2019] 2 SCR 144 (“Telus v Wellman”).

January 16, 2023March 13, 2023

Eric/James 2022 Hot Topic: What is next for arbitration and insolvency? (Part 2) – #701

By James Plotkin and Eric Morgan .

Our last Case Note reviewed the Ontario Court of Appeal’s Mundo decision. Here we consider the more recent decision of Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest, 2022 SCC 41 (“Petrowest”).

January 5, 2023March 13, 2023

Eric/James’s 2022 Hot Topic: What is next for arbitration and insolvency? (Part 1) – #698

By Eric Morgan and James Plotkin.

This past year brought two important decisions about the interrelationship between arbitration and insolvency proceedings: the Supreme Court’s decision in Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest, 2022 SCC 41 (“Petrowest”) and the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Mundo Media Ltd. (Re), 2022 ONCA 607 (“Mundo”). Both decisions, in different ways, concern the tension between judicial authority to supervise proceedings brought by a receiver or trustee under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (“BIA”) and parties’ autonomy to choose to have their disputes determined through arbitration. While the two Courts reached the same bottom-line conclusion – that the particular arbitration clauses were “inoperative” in the circumstances of an insolvency and thus not binding on receivers or trustees – the decisions leave unanswered questions about the ways that insolvency and arbitration continue to interact with each other.

January 4, 2023March 13, 2023

Marie-Claude’s 2022 Hot Topic: Binding non-signatories – A new trend arising in Québec? – #697

The last year has seen several judgments which bind third parties to arbitration, specifically in Québec. The basic principles remain unchanged: the rule is still that a contract has effect only between the contracting parties (sec. 1440 CCQ). However, there is a trend, which seemed clear starting in 2021 and continues into 2022, to bring non-signatories into arbitration in certain circumstances, as set out in Québec’s recent judgments. Many reasons explain these decisions: let’s explore why this new trend is arising in Québec.

December 16, 2022December 15, 2022

Ontario – Participation in litigation beyond pleadings waives arbitration agreement – #693

In Azam v Multani Custom Homes Ltd., 2022 ONSC 6536, Justice Chang denied the defendant’s application to stay litigation under section 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17 (“Arbitration Act”) upon finding the defendant unduly delayed bringing the application for a stay, after having actively participated in many steps to advance the litigation over a 16-month period, with the effect that the defendant had abandoned its rights to rely upon the arbitration clause and it was therefore invalid.

December 6, 2022December 9, 2022

Ontario – Shareholders dispute stayed where 2 of 3 agreements had arbitration clauses – #690

In 12823543 Canada Ltd. v Mizrahi Commercial (The One) GP Inc., 2022 ONSC 6206, Justice Penny granted an application to stay the proceeding commenced before the Superior Court of Justice and referred the matter to the appropriate arbitral tribunal to decide its jurisdiction. He found that the moving parties had raised an arguable case as to the application of the relevant arbitration agreements to the dispute and that the principle of compétence-compétence therefore favoured directing the parties to address their arguments to the arbitral tribunal regarding its jurisdiction. Only two of the three agreements at issue contained an arbitration agreement and yet Justice Penny was swayed by the nature of the dispute, grounded in a broad oppression claim, and considered that the Applicant’s allegations raised issues that went straight to the ability of the shareholders to make decisions of fundamental significance to their joint project.

December 1, 2022December 1, 2022

Supreme Court – Peace River v Petrowest Part 2: no conflict between arbitration, bankruptcy law – #687

In Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest, 2022 SCC 41, the central issue was whether a receiver/trustee in bankruptcy may disclaim the arbitration clause in a contract and sue in the courts when it seeks to enforce the debtor’s contractual rights against third parties. The case concerned the tension between the court’s supervisory power over all proceedings brought by a receiver/trustee under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) RSC 1985, c. B-3, and party autonomy to contract out of the courts. Section 15 of the British Columbia (former) Arbitration Act, RSBC 1996 c. 55 required a stay of proceedings where a party to an arbitration agreement has commenced a court proceeding in respect of a matter to be submitted to arbitration, unless the arbitration agreement is “void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed”. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the stay application of the defendant sued by the receiver/trustee, but split 5-4 on the reasons. The majority found that the arbitration clauses at issue were “inoperative” because enforcing them would compromise the orderly and efficient resolution of the receivership. This authority arises from the statutory jurisdiction conferred on provincial superior courts under ss. 243(1) and 183(1) of the BIA. It found that this interpretation of the stay provision ensures that provincial arbitration legislation and federal bankruptcy legislation are not in conflict. The minority found that the specific language of the “template” Receivership Order authorized the Receiver/Trustee to disclaim the arbitration agreements, rendering them inoperative.

November 23, 2022November 28, 2022

Ontario – Refusal to respond not a waiver to arbitrate – #686

In Justmark Industries Inc. v. Infinitus (China) Ltd., 2022 ONSC 5495, Justice Williams granted the Defendant/Moving Party’s motion to stay the court action in favour of arbitration. The Plaintiff/Responding Party Justmark Industries Inc. (“Justmark”) commenced the court action for breach of contract against the Defendant/Moving Party Infinitus (China) Ltd. (“Infinitus”). The contract, however, contained an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be arbitrated in Hong Kong by the Arbitration Committee of the International Trade Council (the “ITC”) pursuant to the law of the United Kingdom. As such, Infinitus brought a motion under s 9 of Ontario’s International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017 (the “ICAA”), which incorporates Article 8(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”), to stay the proceedings. In response, Justmark alleged that Infinitus had waived its right to arbitration and thus rendered the arbitration agreement “inoperative” under Model Law Article 8(1). Justmark claimed that Infinitus’s failure to respond to its requests to commence arbitration amounted to waiver. Justice Williams, however, dismissed Justmark’s argument on the grounds that there was no evidence that “[16] … Infinitus had the requisite ‘unequivocal and conscious intention,’ or any intention, to abandon its right to arbitrate.”

November 21, 2022November 22, 2022

Ontario – Defendant to stayed action may commence arbitration – #684

In Star Woodworking Ltd. v. Improve Inc., 2022 ONSC 5827, the defendant condominium corporation sought an order that the Court appoint an arbitrator to hear and resolve the plaintiffs’ claims against it. The plaintiffs had originally commenced actions in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and a number of claims were stayed as they were required to be brought in arbitration pursuant to the Condominium Act, 1998, SO 1998, c 19, and the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17. Justice Myers rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that they could not be forced to be claimants in an arbitration if they did not wish to do so. Justice Myers held that the arbitration was properly commenced pursuant to section 23 of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

November 18, 2022November 23, 2022

Federal – Amazon purchasers’ class-action competition claims referred to arbitration – #683

In Difederico v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2022 FC 1256, Justice Furlanetto of the Federal Court granted Defendants’ motion to refer to arbitration claims asserted under section 45 of the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34 (the “Competition Act”) by a proposed class representative plaintiff. Of interest to arbitration observers, the judgment considered the circumstances which qualify as “commercial legal relationships” within the meaning of the United Nations Foreign Arbitral Awards Convention Act, RSC 1985, c 16 (2nd sup) (“UNFAACA”), the statute which implements the New York Convention into the federal law of Canada. The New York Convention, Article II(3), requires a court of a contracting State, at the request of a party, to refer claims covered by an arbitration agreement to arbitration, unless the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed. This case also features detailed analysis of the access-to-justice exception to the competence-competence principle recognized in Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16 (“Uber”).