Benedict Wray

The respondent moved to quash an appeal of a stay order granted under section 9 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, arguing that the stay order was temporary and therefore interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash, holding that a stay order under section 9 of the ICAA is generally final in nature for purposes of determining the proper appeal route, as it effectively ends the action before the court.

The court rejected arguments that the stay was temporary merely because the arbitral tribunal might decline jurisdiction, and clarified that statements in cost submissions and the motion judge's characterization of the order do not alter its legal nature for appeal purposes.

The applicant sought a declaration regarding the end date of a contract for the supply of telephones, televisions, and multimedia terminals to the applicant's inpatient facilities.

The original agreement commenced in September 2003 for 9.5 years.

An amending agreement in 2009-2010 extended the term by 7 years to March 1, 2020, and introduced new multimedia terminals.

The respondent argued the contract contained an alternative term triggered upon completion of terminal installation in July 2014, extending the contract to January 2031.

The court applied principles of contract interpretation and found the alternative term was vague and unenforceable.

The court also found the respondent was precluded by the doctrine of election from asserting the alternative term, having previously relied on the contract's terms in the commission dispute.

The court declared the contract term to be September 1, 2003 to March 1, 2020.

The court considered whether to stay Bombardier Inc.'s Ontario action against Alstom Rail Sweden AB for a tax loss purchase price adjustment, pending arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce.

The dispute centered on whether the claim fell within the scope of an arbitration agreement in a 2020 share purchase agreement, or was carved out by a prior 2017 agreement that conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Ontario courts.

Applying the Supreme Court’s guidance in Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., the court found Alstom Sweden had established an arguable case that the dispute was subject to arbitration and stayed the action.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's 2006 breach of contract action for delay.

The court found that the 11-year delay was inordinate and inexcusable, but noted that the defendants had condoned the delay by consenting to set aside a previous dismissal order and allowing amendments to the statement of claim.

Furthermore, the court found no substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible, as witnesses were available and documentary evidence was preserved.

The motion was dismissed.