Hugh Meighen

The appellant commenced an action in Ontario for breach of a share purchase agreement.

The respondent successfully moved to stay the action in favour of an ongoing International Chamber of Commerce arbitration, relying on an arbitration clause in a subsequent agreement to which it was not a named party.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge erred in finding an arbitration agreement existed between the parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding an 'arguable case' that the respondent was an affiliate entitled to benefit from the arbitration clause, thereby engaging the competence-competence principle.

The appellant sought to enforce a Chilean arbitral award in Ontario against the respondent, a non-party to the arbitration, arguing the respondent assumed the judgment debtor's liabilities through an Italian spin-off agreement.

The motion judge stayed the enforcement application on the basis of forum non conveniens, finding that the threshold issue of liability must be determined first and that Italy was the clearly more appropriate forum.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge did not err in severing liability from enforcement, applying the forum non conveniens doctrine, or granting a temporary stay pending the resolution of Italian proceedings.

The respondent moved to quash an appeal of a stay order granted under section 9 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, arguing that the stay order was temporary and therefore interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash, holding that a stay order under section 9 of the ICAA is generally final in nature for purposes of determining the proper appeal route, as it effectively ends the action before the court.

The court rejected arguments that the stay was temporary merely because the arbitral tribunal might decline jurisdiction, and clarified that statements in cost submissions and the motion judge's characterization of the order do not alter its legal nature for appeal purposes.

An appeal from an arbitrator's decision in a long-running dispute between law firms regarding a Professional Services Agreement.

The appellants challenged the arbitrator's handling of a solicitor-client privilege objection to spreadsheets and her refusal to remove respondents' counsel who received the allegedly privileged documents.

The court upheld the arbitrator's decision to dismiss the privilege motion while reserving the right to reconsider the issue after further evidence, and upheld the decision not to remove counsel.

The court found the arbitrator acted within her discretion and applied the law reasonably to the circumstances.

The court considered whether to stay Bombardier Inc.'s Ontario action against Alstom Rail Sweden AB for a tax loss purchase price adjustment, pending arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce.

The dispute centered on whether the claim fell within the scope of an arbitration agreement in a 2020 share purchase agreement, or was carved out by a prior 2017 agreement that conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Ontario courts.

Applying the Supreme Court’s guidance in Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., the court found Alstom Sweden had established an arguable case that the dispute was subject to arbitration and stayed the action.

The respondent, Webuild S.P.A., brought a motion to stay an application by Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana De Salud S.A. (SCMS) to enforce a Chilean arbitral award in Ontario.

The award was originally against Astaldi S.p.A., and SCMS sought to enforce it against Webuild, arguing Webuild assumed Astaldi's liabilities through an Italian restructuring proceeding.

Webuild contended that the threshold issue of liability assumption under Italian law should be determined in Italy.

The court granted Webuild's motion for a temporary stay, finding Italy to be the forum non conveniens for this complex issue, citing the need to avoid conflicting judgments and costly duplication of resources across multiple jurisdictions.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal and a motion to quash.

The respondent, successful on the appeal, sought substantial indemnity costs of over $230,000.

The appellants argued for a net award of $30,000.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity, agreeing that costs for the unsuccessful motion to quash should be deducted.

The court ultimately awarded the respondent $90,000 in all-inclusive partial indemnity costs, finding the amounts and issues involved in the appeal significant.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision that denied leave to appeal an arbitration award exceeding $100 million.

The central issue was whether the arbitration agreement precluded appeals on questions of law, specifically interpreting phrases like "finally settled" and "final and binding" in the context of the Arbitration Act, 1991 and ICC Rules.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the arbitration agreement precluded appeals, thereby confirming that leave to appeal was not available.

The court also addressed and dismissed a motion to quash the appeal, clarifying the narrow circumstances under which a denial of leave to appeal by a Superior Court judge can be appealed to the Court of Appeal.

This motion concerned an application by Tower-EBC G.P./S.E.N.C. (TEBC) to enforce two arbitral awards (a Partial Final Award on liability and damages, and a Final Award on costs) against Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation and Baffinland Iron Mines LP (BIM).

BIM raised several defenses, including a pending application to set aside or appeal the awards, which had previously been dismissed by the court.

The court granted TEBC's application to enforce both awards, confirming the awarded amounts for damages and costs, with a condition regarding the transfer of equipment title and excluding "applicable taxes" as not provided for in the original arbitral awards.

Pre-judgment interest was maintained as per the Tribunal's award.

The applicants, Baffinland Iron Mines LP and Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (BIM), sought to set aside an arbitration award of over $70 million and a subsequent costs award in favour of the respondent, Tower-EBC G.P./S.E.N.C. (TEBC), pursuant to s. 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, and for leave to appeal under s. 45(1) of the Act.

The court dismissed BIM's application, finding no grounds to set aside the award for lack of jurisdiction or procedural unfairness, and further held that the arbitration agreement precluded an appeal from the Tribunal's decision.

The United Mexican States appealed a Superior Court of Justice decision that affirmed an arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction in a claim brought by Burr et al. under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The arbitral tribunal had bifurcated proceedings into jurisdiction and merits phases, ruling it had jurisdiction over most claims.

Mexico's application to the Superior Court to set aside this jurisdictional ruling was dismissed.

Burr et al. moved to quash Mexico's appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, holding that the arbitral tribunal's ruling was a preliminary question of jurisdiction under Article 16(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

This article stipulates that a Superior Court's decision on such a preliminary jurisdictional ruling is 'subject to no appeal'.

The Court found that Mexico had not substantively pursued arguments under Article 34, which would permit an appeal, before the application judge.

The United Mexican States applied to set aside a partial arbitral award on jurisdiction in a NAFTA Chapter 11 investor-state dispute.

The applicant argued the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction because certain claimants failed to provide a timely notice of intent under Article 1119 and failed to provide proper consent under Article 1121.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the tribunal was correct in concluding that the procedural defects related to admissibility rather than jurisdiction, and that the applicant's consent to arbitrate was not conditioned on strict compliance with Article 1119.

The court also found no jurisdictional error in the tribunal's treatment of submissions from the USA and Canada.