Brad Halfin

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike portions of the defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, arguing they pleaded facts protected by settlement privilege.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to amend the pleading.

The court granted leave for the interlocutory motion under the Construction Act.

The court declined to make a pre-emptive ruling on the admissibility of the communications at the pleadings stage, noting the factual dispute over whether they were 'without prejudice' settlement discussions or efforts to mitigate ongoing contractual issues.

The court struck the impugned paragraph but allowed the defendant's proposed amendment, which focused on the plaintiff's knowledge rather than the settlement proposal itself.

The applicant sought to set aside an international commercial arbitration award under the International Commercial Arbitration Act.

The arbitration involved a dispute over the construction of a pipeline in Madagascar.

The applicant argued the arbitral tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, denied the applicant the right to present its case, and made findings contrary to Ontario public policy.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no jurisdictional errors, no denial of procedural fairness, and no double recovery that would offend public policy.

The court also noted it would have exercised its discretion to uphold the award even if minor procedural errors had occurred.

The appellant appealed an order granting a stay of proceedings pending arbitration.

The parties had a Services Agreement with an arbitration clause and a survival clause that did not explicitly list the arbitration clause.

After the respondent terminated the agreement, the appellant sued for breach of contract and torts, and sought a declaration that the arbitration clause did not apply.

The motion judge stayed the proceedings, finding it arguable whether the arbitration clause survived, and referred the jurisdictional issue to the arbitrator under the competence-competence principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the competence-competence principle or his decision to defer the jurisdictional question to the arbitrator.