David de Groot

In a standalone costs decision following a partially successful stay motion in construction lien litigation, the court determined costs based on overall success rather than issue-by-issue outcomes.

The moving party obtained one of three requested stays and was found to have achieved the motion's primary objective of securing a stay.

The court considered proportionality, complexity, and reasonable litigation expectations in assessing quantum.

Although the successful party sought substantially higher partial indemnity costs, the award was reduced to reflect limited success on the more time-consuming stay arguments.

Partial indemnity costs of $12,000 were ordered payable within 30 days.

The appellants sought a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration under s. 15 of the Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 55, after the court-appointed receiver commenced a civil claim to collect amounts allegedly owed under contracts containing mandatory arbitration clauses.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a court-appointed receiver may be a party to a debtor's pre-receivership arbitration agreement, but that an arbitration agreement may be found inoperative under s. 15(2) where enforcing it would compromise the orderly and efficient resolution of a court-ordered receivership under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The majority applied a two-part framework: the technical prerequisites for a mandatory stay were met, but the arbitration agreements were inoperative because the multiple overlapping arbitral proceedings contemplated would compromise the objectives of the BIA.

The concurring judges agreed on the result but reasoned that the Receivership Order itself authorized the receiver to sue in court and thereby disclaim the arbitration agreements.