Court File and Parties

CITATION: L-3 Communication Spar Aerospace Limited v. CAE Inc., 2011 ONCA 435

DATE: 20110606

DOCKET: C53222

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Laskin, Goudge and Gillese JJ.A.

BETWEEN

L-3 Communication Spar Aerospace Limited

Applicant (Appellant)

and

CAE Inc.

Respondent

Counsel: Brian C. Elkin, for the appellant Adrian C. Lang and Paloma Ellard, for the respondent

Heard: June 3, 2011

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Stanley J. Kershman of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 23, 2010.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] In our view the application judge interpreted Article 25.3.1 correctly. The commercially reasonable interpretation is that a dispute over failure by SPAR to deliver information as required together with the cost consequences caused thereby is one that the parties were obliged to attempt to resolve between themselves. Failing agreement either party is entitled to take the dispute to arbitration. The application judge found that the failure to agree did not occur until at least the fall of 2007. We therefore agree that the CAE submission to arbitration is not time barred.

[2] In light of this conclusion we need not deal with the issue of promissory estoppel.

[3] The appeal must be dismissed with costs fixed at $14,431.59 all inclusive.

“S. T. Goudge J.A.”