K. Phung

The plaintiffs brought a motion requesting the court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to reconsider a previous decision that stayed their action in favour of arbitration.

The plaintiffs argued that the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 invalidated the arbitration clause.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the failure to consider the Consumer Protection Act was not a clear error that would have changed the outcome, as it was not obvious the plaintiffs were protected consumers or that their claims fell within the scope of the Act's protections.

Furthermore, the interests of justice did not compel reconsideration because the defendants had no notice of the statutory argument during the original motion.

The plaintiffs commenced an action against the supplier and local dealer of materials and design for a cottage, alleging negligence and breach of warranty due to significant wood rot.

The defendant supplier brought a motion to stay the action, relying on an arbitration clause in its standard form Purchase and Sale Agreement.

The court applied the competence-competence principle and the analytical framework from Haas v. Gunasekaram, finding an arguable case that the arbitration agreement existed, bound the parties, and covered the dispute.

The court rejected arguments that the arbitration clause was unconscionable or that the local dealer's filing of a defence precluded a stay.

The motion was granted and the action was stayed in favour of arbitration.