Stay/Declinatory Exception Archives - Page 8 of 9

February 3, 2022October 19, 2022

B.C. – Claims against non-party to arbitration agreement stayed with claims against parties – #581

In Goel v Dhaliwal, 2021 BCSC 2382, Justice MacDonald dismissed as premature a motion to lift a stay of court proceedings in favour of arbitration for the limited purpose of allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended Statement of Claim with respect to claims against a defendant who was not a party to the arbitration. The parties did not agree on whether these claims were new or not. The arbitration had not yet concluded and the proposed amendments appeared to raise issues that overlapped with those which were before the arbitrator. Justice MacDonald found that the extent of the overlap, if any, would be clearer after the arbitration was concluded. In addition, the plaintiffs had also brought an application for judicial review of a Partial Final Award issued by the arbitrator which had not yet been disposed of. Justice MacDonald found that it was not clear whether the plaintiffs would pursue the amendments if they were successful on the judicial review application.

January 27, 2022May 4, 2022

Québec – Arbitration 101: parallel proceedings, multiple arbitration clauses, competence-competence, arbitrability, separability, waiver – #577

In Specter Aviation v Laprade, 2021 QCCA 1811, the Court of Appeal faced circumstances in which both the court and an arbitral tribunal found that they had jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute. The applicant/appellant Specter and related corporation third-party/appellant United Mining Supply appealed the order of Justice Castonguay, who dismissed their request to stay the defendants’/respondents’ defence and counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction on the basis of an arbitration clause in one of the parties’ agreements. At about the same time, an arbitral tribunal ruled that it had jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute. Justice Sansfaçon, for the Court of Appeal, granted the appeal and stayed the counterclaim pending determination of the parties’ dispute by arbitration.

January 20, 2022May 4, 2022

Saskatchewan – Waiver of arbitration in joint venture agreement read strictly – #576

In Beauchamp v Beauchamp, 2021 SKCA 148, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a case management judge’s decision, which provided for how farming operations would be conducted for the following year, on an interim basis, until a dispute involving a Joint Venture Agreement (“JVA”) governing those operations was finally resolved. The appellant alleged that the judge misinterpreted his waiver of the right to arbitrate contained in the JVA. This waiver was provided on three occasions, in his agreement to put matters to the case management judge for the sake of expediency and urgency and in two written briefs, each using slightly different language. In these, the appellant agreed: 1) the case management judge could “make an order providing for how this grain farm is [to be] operated for the 2021 to 2022 crop year”; 2) he “will waive his reliance on the arbitration clause if” the judge was distributing the farming equipment or dividing the farming operation on an interim basis, but would not waive these rights if the judge were to order the entirety of the farming operation be divided exclusively among the only the other parties in the dispute; and 3) he “will waive his reliance on the arbitration clause if the Court’s authority to distribute the equipment of New Age Farms on an interim basis is an issue to the extent necessary to effect the dividing of the farm operation.” The Court of Appeal found that because the case management judge did not order the farming operation be exclusively undertaken by the other parties, and directed on an interim basis only how farming operations were to proceed, the judge did not violate the terms of the waiver. Indeed the case management judge had expressly held that the jurisdiction issue raised by the appellant needed to be resolved before the underlying litigation could proceed.

December 8, 2021May 4, 2022

BC – Stay granted where two relevant agreements, only one having arbitration clause – #562

In Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canadian National Railway Company, 2021 BCSC, Justice Iyer ordered a stay of an action in favour of arbitration in circumstances in which she found that it was arguable that the parties’ dispute fell within two contracts between the parties – one that contained a mandatory arbitration clause and one that did not. Which agreement governed the dispute was an issue for the arbitrator to decide.

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.

December 6, 2021May 4, 2022

BC – Franchisor addresses Uber arbitration agreement flaws to obtain stay of proceedings – #560

In Kang v Advanced Fresh Concepts Franchise Corp., 2021 BCPC 262, Small Claims Court Judge S. Archer granted a motion to stay an action in favour of arbitration under either section 8 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 c.233 or, in the alternative, section 7 of the B.C. Arbitration Act, S.B.C. 2020, c.2. Judge Archer concluded that the international Act applied because the parties, at the time of their agreement, had their places of business in different countries, but that it didn’t matter because the test for a stay was essentially the same. Moreover, she distinguished the facts from those in Uber Technologies Inc. v Heller, 2020 SCC 16; the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable because the income earned by the claimant franchisee was “significant” as compared with the cost to commence an arbitration under the ICDR Rules.

November 26, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Motion to quash appeal dismissed in light of conflicting policy implications – #558

In considering whether to grant a motion to quash an appeal in Leon v. Dealnet, 2021 ONSC 7192, Justice Kristjanson of the Ontario Divisional Court was faced with two conflicting policy concerns: respect for and giving effect to arbitration agreements and protecting vulnerable workers by ensuring that the arbitration agreement did not constitute a contracting out of an employee’s statutory rights

November 12, 2021May 4, 2022

Québec – Stay of arbitrator’s decision to add third parties, force them to meet timetable, and refusal to hear them without payment – #553

In Mullen v Nakisa inc., 2021 QCCS 4388, Justice Granosik granted applications to stay an arbitration as against parties who were added as cross-respondents, even though they were not parties to the arbitration agreement, pending judicial review of the arbitrator’s decision to add them. Justice Granosik was concerned that the applicants could be deprived of their right to have a matter determined by a court, and even risked having the arbitration take place in their absence.

October 27, 2021May 4, 2022

Québec – No referral to arbitration; arbitration clauses intended to “subvert” litigation process – #547

In Sigounis c. Sigounis, 2021 QCCS 4185, as part of his ruling addressing several interim applications, Justice Pinsonnault refused to refer the parties to arbitration in a drawn-out family dispute. The underlying oppression remedy action was commenced by the Plaintiff Jimmy Sigounis against his father, Defendant Nicolas Sigounis, and sister, Defendant Argyro Sigounis (“Argyro”), regarding the family’s interests in various private corporations (the “Chenoy Corporations”). While the action was ongoing, the father sold his interests in the Chenoy Corporations to co-Defendant Argyro (the “Transaction”). Thereafter, the father passed away and his widow (the Plaintiff’s, mother Eleni Sigounis), who had previously not been involved in the action, took over as “Defendant in Continuance of Suit” in her capacity as the estate’s liquidator and universal legatee. The Plaintiff and his mother then learned of the Transaction, which they both viewed as prejudicial to their interests; including that the Transaction potentially left the estate insolvent. Accordingly, the mother made several filings with the Court, including a Cross-Application and a Declaration of Intervention against Argyro (the “Filings”), seeking the cancellation of the Transaction. In response, Argyro brought the subject interim applications, including an application to refer all matters raised in the Filings to arbitration pursuant to the identical arbitration clauses in the Transaction agreements. In rejecting Argyro’s application, Justice Pinsonnault found that the dispute, as a whole, fell within one of the exceptions in the arbitration clauses as “a severe dispute over family matters” thus rendering the dispute outside the scope of the arbitration clauses in the Transaction agreements. In addition, Justice Pinsonnault took issue with the timing of the Transaction, which took place over two years after the action was commenced, and the Defendants’ intentions of subverting the litigation process by including the arbitration clauses in the event that the Transaction was contested.

October 13, 2021May 4, 2022

Québec – Court favors arbitration even for related, but non-signatory, parties – #541

In 10053686 Canada inc. v. Tang, 2021 QCCS 3467, Justice Geeta Narang declined jurisdiction with respect to a dispute arising out of a Franchise Agreement. Plaintiffs were the franchisees and a director of a franchisee. Defendants were directors and shareholders of the franchisor. Justice Narang referred the case to private arbitration following Defendants’ demand for declinatory exception because the Franchise Agreement contained an arbitration clause. Justice Narang first concluded that the arbitration agreement was a “complete undertaking to arbitrate”, in conformity with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Zodiak International v. Polish People Republic, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 529. She concluded that all allegations in the Plaintiffs’ claim were related to the franchisor-franchisee relationship and covered by the arbitration agreement. Secondly, she recognized the Legislator’s intention to favor a private dispute resolution mechanism over the public justice system whenever the parties have expressed the intention to resolve their dispute out of court. Thirdly, she granted Defendants’ demand for a declinatory exception, even though all Defendants and one of the Plaintiffs were non-signatories to the arbitration agreement. In interpreting the arbitration agreement liberally, she concluded that in this context ignoring the arbitration agreement because the Defendants were not parties to the arbitration agreement would be to rely upon a “blind technicality”.