The applicant sought an order to appoint an arbitrator and compel the respondent to participate in arbitration regarding disputes arising from construction contracts.
The respondent brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application or stay it, arguing that a different contract's dispute resolution clause (requiring court adjudication) applied and that Hydro One was a necessary party to any arbitration.
The court found that the broader CCDC Contract's arbitration clause governed the disputes, not the more specific Construction Contract's court adjudication clause.
The court dismissed the respondent's motion in its entirety and granted the applicant's request for arbitration, holding that questions of an arbitrator's jurisdiction, including whether Hydro One was a necessary party, should be left to the arbitrator under the competence-competence principle.
