Michael Valo

The applicants sought to remove the sole arbitrator in a complex construction arbitration, alleging his extensive questioning of witnesses created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court found it had jurisdiction to hear the application under the Arbitration Act, 1991, and that the application was not out of time.

However, the court dismissed the application on the merits, finding that the arbitrator's interventions were a legitimate exercise of his truth-seeking function and subject matter expertise, and did not demonstrate bias or pre-judgment.

The applicant sought judgment for $7.45 million pursuant to a settlement agreement.

The respondent claimed a right of set-off for insurance deductibles under the construction contract's owner-controlled insurance policies.

The applicant argued that a release executed as part of the settlement extinguished the respondent's right to claim the deductibles.

The court interpreted the release in its factual matrix and concluded it was limited to the five specific disputes settled, and did not terminate the applicant's ongoing obligation to pay deductibles under the continuing contract.

The application was dismissed.

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.