Ekin Cinar

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its application to set aside an arbitral award arising from a post-closing earnout dispute in an international commercial arbitration.

It argued that the application judge improperly assessed alleged breaches of natural justice on a reduced procedural fairness standard because the arbitrator was an accountant rather than a legally trained adjudicator.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge correctly applied the governing principles, made factual findings open on the record, and repeatedly grounded the analysis in the parties' agreed arbitral process.

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondents were awarded all-inclusive partial indemnity costs.

The appellant appealed a decision recognizing and enforcing a foreign arbitral award from the Dubai International Financial Centre.

The appellant argued the application judge erred under Article V 1(d) of the Convention by considering Dubai law to determine the applicable arbitral procedure, rather than strictly applying the rules specified in the parties' agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge correctly interpreted the agreement as incorporating amended rules and properly considered Dubai law to determine what those amended rules were.

The court also rejected arguments that the procedure was unfair or contrary to public policy.

The court considered an application by InFrontier AF LP to recognize and enforce an arbitral award issued in its favour by a Dubai-based arbitrator under the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) Rules.

The respondent, Roeen Rahmani, opposed the application, arguing that the arbitration was not conducted in accordance with the parties’ agreement, that he was denied a fair hearing, and that enforcement would be contrary to Ontario public policy.

The court found that, due to legislative changes in Dubai, the DIAC Rules properly replaced the DIFC-LCIA Rules referenced in the parties’ agreement, and that the respondent had not established any procedural unfairness or public policy violation.

The application to recognize and enforce the award was granted.

The plaintiff, Mr. Im, and the defendants (BMO InvestorLine Inc./Bank of Montreal and CIBC Investor Services Inc./Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce) each brought motions for summary judgment regarding Mr. Im's allegations of improper trade prohibitions in his investment accounts.

Mr. Im claimed damages for malice, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, emotional distress, and forfeited profits.

The court found that the financial institutions did not owe fiduciary duties to Mr. Im, did not breach their contractual obligations, were not negligent, and did not engage in intentional infliction of emotional suffering, injurious falsehood, or conspiracy.

The court granted leave to amend the pleading to substitute CIBC ISI for CIBC for the limitations defence but ultimately dismissed Mr. Im's claims on their merits.

Mr. Im's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, resulting in the dismissal of all of Mr. Im's claims.

The respondents brought a motion to stay an application by the applicant to set aside an arbitral award.

The core dispute revolved around whether a forum selection clause in an asset purchase agreement, which designated New York courts, applied to the application to set aside the award, or if Ontario's International Commercial Arbitration Act and the Model Law governed due to the arbitration's "place" being Toronto.

The court found that the arbitration procedure was subject to an exception in the forum selection clause and that Toronto was the agreed or deemed "place" of arbitration.

Consequently, Ontario law and jurisdiction applied for setting aside the award.

The motion to stay was dismissed.