Gabriel Poliquin

The applicant sought to set aside several arbitral awards made against him in favour of the respondent companies, arguing jurisdictional errors and procedural unfairness under s. 46(1) of the Arbitration Act.

The arbitrator had dismissed the applicant's claims for wrongful dismissal and ordered him to repay misappropriated corporate funds, applying the doctrine of laches to defeat his limitation period defence.

The Superior Court applied the reasonableness standard of review from Vavilov, finding that the arbitrator acted within his jurisdiction and afforded procedural fairness.

The application to set aside the awards was dismissed, and the cross-application to enforce the awards was granted.

The plaintiff, a shareholder in a residential development company, brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation against 6 lots in a development project.

The plaintiff claimed an oral agreement entitled it to 25% of the lots in the project, and sought specific performance.

The court found that the plaintiff's partial performance of the oral agreement was sufficient to overcome the requirement for a written contract under the Statute of Frauds.

Applying the criteria for granting a certificate of pending litigation, the court concluded that the plaintiff had a viable claim, damages would be difficult to quantify, and the balance of convenience favoured granting the certificate to protect the plaintiff's interest in the specific lots.