Christopher Sparling

The applicant and respondents were involved in a long-standing dispute over a Joint Venture Agreement for a gas bar on a First Nation.

The respondents brought pre-hearing motions to bifurcate the hearing to address the Indian Act issue first, for interim possession of the business, and for the return of $15,000 paid into court as security for costs.

The applicant brought a motion to call oral evidence at the hearing.

The court denied the bifurcation and interim possession motions, granted the motion to call oral evidence, and ordered the return of the $15,000 to the respondent.

The applicant sought leave under s. 45 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 to appeal an arbitration award enforcing Minutes of Settlement that required him to indemnify the respondents and sign mutual releases.

He argued the arbitrator erred in law by rejecting claims for rectification or partial rescission of the settlement based on alleged nondisclosure of a municipal inspection revealing illegal residential units.

The court held that the proposed grounds raised questions of mixed fact and law rather than pure questions of law, and therefore did not satisfy the statutory threshold for leave to appeal.

The court further held that the alleged damages claim was legally meritless because the inspection did not cause the failed property sale and there was no duty of disclosure in the circumstances.

Leave to appeal was refused and the application dismissed.