4 total
Action stayed where dispute arguably fell within contractual arbitration clause.
The defendants moved for a stay of an action concerning approximately $35 million in reserve funds retained from Casino Rama revenues.
The plaintiff alleged that maintaining the reserves breached limits imposed under a later revenue-sharing agreement, while the defendants argued the dispute arose under an earlier agreement that required arbitration.
The court considered the competence-competence principle and jurisprudence directing courts to defer to arbitration where it is arguable that a dispute falls within an arbitration clause.
Because the dispute arguably arose under the earlier contract incorporating arbitration provisions, the court held that the matter should proceed to arbitration.
The action was therefore stayed pending determination by an arbitrator of whether the dispute falls within the arbitration agreement.
Arbitration stayed pending appeals over jurisdiction and Crown prerogative appointment powers.
The moving parties sought a stay of an arbitration proceeding pending appeals from arbitration panel decisions concerning jurisdiction and party participation.
The dispute arose from an agreement granting the respondent First Nations partnership a right to have a nominee appointed to the board of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation.
The moving parties argued the arbitration panel lacked jurisdiction due to the Crown prerogative over appointments and that the exclusion of the corporation from the arbitration violated natural justice.
Applying the tripartite test for a stay from RJR‑MacDonald, the court found serious issues on appeal regarding jurisdiction, irreparable harm to the public interest if arbitration proceeded prematurely, and that the balance of convenience favoured the moving parties.
The court therefore stayed the arbitration pending determination of the appeals.
A mortgagee in possession cannot terminate a fixed-term residential tenancy before the end of the term.
The appellant, a mortgagee in possession, sought to terminate a fixed-term residential tenancy before the end of the term in order to sell the property.
The appellant served a 60-day notice of termination pursuant to the Mortgages Act and the Tenant Protection Act, 1997.
The Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Tenant Protection Act's requirement that a fixed-term tenancy only be terminated at the end of the term prevailed over the Mortgages Act.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a mortgagee in possession cannot terminate a fixed-term tenancy prior to the end of the fixed term.
Claim for interest on tax overpayment based on unjust enrichment dismissed due to statutory discretion.
The appellant successfully appealed a municipal tax assessment and received a refund for the overpayment of taxes.
The appellant then claimed interest allegedly earned by the city on the overpayment, relying on the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable because section 6(1) of the Municipal Interest and Discount Rates Act, 1982 gave the municipality the discretion to pass a by-law authorizing interest payments, which the city had not done.
