The moving parties sought a stay of five construction lien actions commenced by the construction manager and general contractor, arguing the disputes were subject to contractual arbitration clauses.
The dispute arose from a large construction project involving numerous subcontractors and more than fifty lien claims consolidated into a construction lien reference under the Construction Lien Act.
The court considered whether arbitration should proceed despite the risk of multiplicity of proceedings and the exclusion of subcontractor lien claimants from the arbitral process.
The court held that the moving parties had waived arbitration by first commencing litigation, had delayed unduly before seeking arbitration, and that a stay would cause unfairness and fragmented proceedings.
Exercising discretion under the Arbitration Act, 1991 and the Courts of Justice Act, the court refused the stay so that all disputes could proceed in the single court reference.
