ADR/Mediation Services - OCA

The appellants appealed a decision preventing them from continuing their set-off claims in Ontario.

The parties had previously agreed by a consent order in New York to submit these claims to binding arbitration and dismiss the Ontario action.

The appellants failed to pursue their claims in the arbitration, citing uncollectibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that allowing the appellants to continue their claims in Ontario twelve years later would constitute an abuse of process.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that an oral agreement to settle an action, reached during mandatory mediation, was enforceable.

The appellant argued that because the agreement was not reduced to writing and signed as contemplated by Rule 24.1.15(3), it was unenforceable, and that mediation confidentiality precluded its enforcement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the parties had agreed formal minutes were not required, the appellant had confirmed his agreement, and evidence of what occurred at mediation may be considered when the enforceability of a settlement is in issue.

The parties, former accounting partners, entered into an arbitration agreement to resolve a dispute over the final accounting for the winding-up of their partnership.

The respondent later commenced a court action regarding the same issues, arguing the arbitration agreement was invalid due to a lack of consensus ad idem.

The motion judge agreed and refused to stay the action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the arbitration agreement was clear, unambiguous, and validly executed with the assistance of counsel.

The court held that none of the exceptions in s. 7(2) of the Arbitration Act applied, and therefore a stay of the court proceeding was mandatory under s. 7(1).

The appeal was allowed and the action stayed.

The appellant appealed a judgment granting an order pursuant to s. 50(3) of the Arbitration Act enforcing a family arbitration award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the motion judge as all conditions in s. 50(3) were satisfied.

The Court noted that the appellant's arguments focused on the merits of the award, which is a matter for judicial review, and that the arbitrator had jurisdiction under the separation agreement.

The appellant and respondent entered into a consensual arbitration over a commercial dispute arising from a share purchase agreement containing an earn-out provision.

The arbitrator found in the respondent's favour.

The appellant brought a judicial review application to the Divisional Court, which dismissed the application.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the Divisional Court erred in principle by failing to determine the standard of review before deciding the application.

However, applying either a reasonableness or patent unreasonableness standard, the Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the arbitrator's award, concluding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement was not unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Minister of Transportation appealed a final declaratory judgment interpreting a 60-day cure period provision in the Highway 407 Concession and Ground Lease Agreement.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge lacked jurisdiction to grant a final declaration, as the agreement's comprehensive dispute resolution mechanism reserved such interpretations for an arbitrator.

However, the court found the application judge did have jurisdiction to grant an interim order preserving the parties' rights pending arbitration.

The appeal was allowed and the judgment set aside.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice, arguing the judge lacked jurisdiction and erred in awarding costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's consent effectively amended the right to seek the court's assistance under the arbitration agreement, which, along with Rule 14.05, provided ample jurisdiction.

The court found no error in principle in the costs award.

The appellant appealed an application judge's order appointing an arbitrator and defining the scope of the arbitration regarding a dispute over the use of casino revenues to fund litigation.

The appellant argued the application judge exceeded his authority by defining the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Arbitration Act, 1991 does not grant an arbitrator exclusive authority to decide jurisdictional questions in the first instance.

The court held that the application judge properly exercised his jurisdiction to assist the parties and prevent multiple proceedings by deciding between the competing draft orders.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for fraudulent misrepresentation.

The defendants moved for a stay of proceedings under Rule 21, arguing the parties had an oral agreement to arbitrate disputes before the Beis Din.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding no agreement to arbitrate.

On appeal, the defendants argued the motion judge should have directed the arbitrator to determine if an agreement existed or directed a trial of an issue due to conflicting evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion or her determination of the preliminary jurisdictional issue on the motion record.

In an addendum on costs following a successful appeal, the Court of Appeal declined to award costs to the successful appellants.

The majority held that the appellants' deliberate violation of a confidentiality agreement signed at mediation, combined with the novelty of the legal issues raised regarding mediation, justified a departure from the general rule that a successful party is entitled to costs.

A dissenting judge would have awarded costs, arguing the issues were not sufficiently novel and the appellants were entitled to costs after successfully defending against a serious contempt allegation.

The husband sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from an arbitration award that had been incorporated into a Superior Court judgment.

The agreement to arbitrate purported to allow an appeal directly to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on the court by agreement, and that under the Arbitration Act, 1991, appeals must first go to the Superior Court.

However, given the procedural confusion surrounding the appeal route, the court granted the husband an extension of time to appeal the earlier Superior Court order that had quashed his initial appeal.

The appellants appealed an order finding that the dispute forming the subject-matter of the claim fell outside the ambit of the arbitration clause in the minutes of settlement.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motions judge's conclusion and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The appellant, a defendant in a libel action and publisher of a newspaper, published an article about a mandatory mediation session that failed to reach a settlement.

He later published another article about his experience being examined for discovery.

The plaintiff successfully moved to have the appellant found in contempt of court for breaching the confidentiality of the mediation process.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that neither Rule 24.1.14 nor the mediation confidentiality agreement constituted a court order enforceable by contempt under Rule 60.

Furthermore, the publications did not constitute contempt under the court's inherent jurisdiction as they did not pose a serious risk to the administration of justice.

The court also confirmed that the deemed undertaking rule (Rule 30.1) restricts the discovering party, not the discovered party, and thus was not breached by the appellant.

Dalimpex Ltd. appealed a Divisional Court order staying its civil action against Agros and others pending arbitration in Poland, and a Superior Court judgment provisionally recognizing a Polish arbitral award in favour of Agros.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the first appeal, holding that the identity of the arbitral tribunal and the scope of the arbitration clause were matters best left to the arbitral tribunal where it is arguable that the dispute falls within the agreement.

The Court allowed the second appeal, setting aside the provisional judgment and adjourning the enforcement application pending the final disposition of Dalimpex's appeal of the arbitral award in the Polish courts.

The respondent resigned as a partner from the appellant law firm and commenced an action asserting financial claims, a claim regarding the transfer of client files, and a dispute over a non-competition clause.

The appellant moved to stay the claims on the basis that they were subject to mandatory arbitration under the partnership agreement.

The motion judge declined to order a stay.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the arbitration clause, which covered any dispute 'in connection with' the agreement, was broad enough to encompass all of the respondent's claims.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered that the action be stayed.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal.

The responding party failed to appear despite being advised of the hearing date.

The Court of Appeal proceeded with the motion and held that the appeal was barred by section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and costs of $2,000 were awarded to the moving party.

The appellant appealed an order granting an injunction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's decision and noting that the impact of the decision is a matter for the arbitrator, not the court.

The parties, two dentists, practised together under a Cost Sharing Agreement containing an arbitration clause.

After their relationship broke down, the respondent sued for breach of contract, conversion, and malicious prosecution.

The appellant moved for a stay of proceedings under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, which the motions judge dismissed on the basis that the malicious prosecution claim fell outside the arbitration agreement and the matters could not easily be separated.

The Court of Appeal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal because a finding that a dispute falls outside an arbitration agreement is not barred by s. 7(6).

The Court upheld the motions judge's decision, finding no error in the refusal to grant a partial stay.

The parties entered into a sale agreement containing an arbitration clause that precluded appeals.

A dispute arose, and a subsequent tripartite arbitration agreement was signed to include a third party.

The appellant's claim was dismissed at arbitration, and it sought leave to appeal under section 45(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The application judge held that the original sale agreement governed and precluded an appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the subsequent arbitration agreement was a free-standing agreement that governed the arbitration, thereby permitting the appellant to seek leave to appeal.