COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00666823-0000
DATE: 20211223
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ALBERTA CRICKET ASSOCIATION
Applicant
- and -
ALBERTA CRICKET COUNCIL and CRICKET CANADA
Respondents
Carlos Sayao for the Applicant
Tahir A. Chaudhary for the Respondent Alberta Cricket Council
HEARD: November 26, 2021
PERELL, J.
REASONS FOR DECISION
A. Introduction
[1] The Applicant, Alberta Cricket Association (the “Association”) brings this application to set aside the arbitration award and the supplemental arbitration award of Janice Johnson, an arbitrator of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (the “Centre”). The arbitral award was made in a dispute between the Association, and the Respondents Cricket Canada and the Alberta Cricket Council (the “Council”).
[2] The Arbitrator’s award declared that the Council has demonstrated “effective control” of organized competitive cricket within the province of Alberta and should therefore be considered a member of Cricket Canada with voting privileges at any meeting of the members. The Arbitrator also awarded the Council “PSO” (“Provincial Sport Organization”) status for cricket in Alberta. In a supplementary award, the Arbitrator clarified that the Council had replaced the Association as the member of Cricket Canada and the Association was no longer a PSO for Alberta.
[3] The Association seeks an order pursuant to s. 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991,[^1] setting aside the Arbitrator’s award. The Association attacked the award on a multitude of grounds. The Council resists the application and it supports the Arbitrator’s decision. Cricket Canada took no position, and it did not appear for the application.
[4] For the reasons, that follow, I grant the Association’s application. I set aside the Arbitrator’s awards. I direct a new arbitration be conducted by a new arbitrator in accordance with the Sport Dispute Resolution Code.
[5] I foreshadow to say that it shall not be necessary for me to make a decision on all of the grounds of appeal. Since I shall be ordering a restart of the arbitration, I shall say little about the merits of those various grounds. I grant the application because contrary to s. 38 (1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, the Arbitrator’s award did not state, as is mandatory, the reasons on which it was based.
B. Legal Background to the Association’s Application
[6] The following provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1991 are pertinent to the Association’s application; namely sections 19, 33, 35 38 (1), and 46, which state:
Equality and fairness
- (1) In an arbitration, the parties shall be treated equally and fairly.
Idem
(2) Each party shall be given an opportunity to present a case and to respond to the other parties’ cases.
Application of arbitration agreement, contract and usages of trade
- The arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordance with the arbitration agreement and the contract, if any, under which the dispute arose, and may also take into account any applicable usages of trade.
Mediation and conciliation
- The members of an arbitral tribunal shall not conduct any part of the arbitration as a mediation or conciliation process or other similar process that might compromise or appear to compromise the arbitral tribunal’s ability to decide the dispute impartially.
Form of award
38 (1) An award shall be in writing and, except in the case of an award made on consent, shall state the reasons on which it is based.
Setting aside award
46 (1) On a party’s application, the court may set aside an award on any of the following grounds:
A party entered into the arbitration agreement while under a legal incapacity.
The arbitration agreement is invalid or has ceased to exist.
The award deals with a dispute that the arbitration agreement does not cover or contains a decision on a matter that is beyond the scope of the agreement.
The composition of the arbitral tribunal was not in accordance with the arbitration agreement or, if the agreement did not deal with that matter, was not in accordance with this Act.
The subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of being the subject of arbitration under Ontario law.
The applicant was not treated equally and fairly, was not given an opportunity to present a case or to respond to another party’s case or was not given proper notice of the arbitration or of the appointment of an arbitrator.
The procedures followed in the arbitration did not comply with this Act.
An arbitrator has committed a corrupt or fraudulent act or there is a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The award was obtained by fraud.
The award is a family arbitration award that is not enforceable under the Family Law Act.
[7] Focusing on s. 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991:
• On an application to set aside an arbitral award pursuant to s. 46 (1) paragraph 3 because the award contains a decision on a matter that is beyond the scope of the agreement, the standard of review is correctness.[^2]
• On an application to set aside an arbitral award pursuant to s. 46 (1) paragraphs 6 and 7 because a party was not treated equally and fairly or the procedures followed did not comply with the Act, the standard of review is correctness.[^3]
C. Facts
1. Cricket Canada
[8] Cricket Canada is a federal non-profit corporation governed by the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act.[^4] Cricket Canada is the governing body for the sport of cricket in Canada and is federally sanctioned as a “national sport organization” (“NSO”). Cricket Canada receives funding from the International Cricket Council. Cricket Canada also receives funding from the federal government through Sport Canada. A condition of federal funding for a NSO is that the organization submit disputes of its members for resolution by the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre (the “Centre”).
[9] Pursuant to federal Physical Activity and Sport Act,[^5] the Centre has jurisdiction to resolve certain sport-related disputes. Disputes referred to the Centre are governed by the rules set out in the Sport Dispute Resolution Code and by Ontario’s Arbitration Act, 1991.
[10] Under its 2019 Bylaws, Cricket Canada has one category of membership, namely “provincial members”. A Provincial Member is defined as follows:
Any provincial cricket association that demonstrates effective control of organized competitive cricket within the province concerned will be considered a member with voting privileges at any meeting of the members.
[11] As shall become apparent from the discussion below, the key determinant of membership is that the provincial association “demonstrates effective control of organized competitive cricket within the province.” The 2019 Bylaws do not define or elucidate this key determinant.
2. The Alberta Cricket Association
[12] The Alberta Cricket Association (the “Association”) is an Alberta not-for-profit society that has been operating since 1882 to encourage and foster the playing of cricket in Alberta. It was incorporated in 1975. The Association has been a member of Cricket Canada for the province of Alberta since 1970. The president of the Association is Salman Khan.
3. The Alberta Cricket Council
[13] The Alberta Cricket Council (the “Council”) is a non-profit organization registered pursuant to Alberta’s Societies Act.[^6] It was registered on November 28, 2018. The Council represents district and provincial level cricket associations in the province of Alberta and is made up of athletes who play amateur cricket in Alberta.
[14] The Council was created by a group of dissident members of the Association. The dissidents had voted to remove Mr. Khan as president of the Association and to expel him from membership because of allegations of misappropriation of funds. The dissidents were disappointed when Cricket Canada apparently continued to recognized Mr. Khan’s presidency, and the group decided to form a rival organization.
[15] On December 3, 2018, the newly formed Council wrote Cricket Canada asking for instructions on how to apply to become a provincial member for Alberta, and in the following months, the Council followed up by providing Cricket Canada with information to apply for membership.
4. The Submission to Arbitration
[16] The Council’s membership application stalled. Throughout 2019, the Council attempted unsuccessfully to have Cricket Council resolve the Council’s application for membership. Finally, on November 22, 2019, the Council filed a Request with the Centre against Cricket Canada in an effort to secure membership.
[17] In effect, the Council was asking that its membership application be submitted to arbitration. The Council claimed that Cricket Canada had not adequately responded to its membership application. The Council requested the Centre to compel Cricket Canada to review the Council’s application.
[18] The Centre assumed jurisdiction over the dispute between the Council and Cricket Canada. The Centre added the Association as “affected party” pursuant to the Sport Dispute Resolution Code.
[19] All three parties unanimously chose to proceed by way of binding arbitration, and they agreed on Janice Johnston as the Arbitrator.
5. The Interim Awards and the Investigation
[20] On April 22, 2020, the Arbitrator made an Interim Award. In her Interim Award, she confirmed the Centre’s jurisdiction over the dispute, and she ordered Cricket Canada to retain and independent investigator to report back on the issues raised in the arbitration.
[21] On May 6, 2020, pursuant to s. 17 (8) of the Arbitration Act, 1991,[^7] Cricket Canada appealed the Arbitrator’s ruling on jurisdiction. Cricket Canada submitted that the dispute was not a “sports-related dispute” as defined in the Sport Dispute Resolution Code. Rather, it submitted that the dispute was an internal matter of a private corporation’s right to self-determine matters relating to its governance and membership. Cricket Canada sought an order setting aside the Arbitrator’s holding on the issue of jurisdiction and an order declaring that the Centre had no jurisdiction to hear the dispute between the Council and Cricket Canada. The Association supported Cricket Canada’s position.
[22] On June 18, 2020, Justice Koehnen dismissed Cricket Canada’s appeal.[^8] He held that the Centre had jurisdiction over the Arbitration. He characterized the dispute as determining "whether a particular organization should or should not be a member of Cricket Canada."
[23] Justice Koehnen stated that that the nub of the dispute was whether the Council demonstrates effective control of organized competitive cricket in Alberta pursuant to section 2.2 of Cricket Canada's 2019 bylaws. In his Reasons for Decision, Justice Koehnen stated at paragraphs 13 and 27:
[…] Membership in Cricket Canada is an entitlement of anyone who can demonstrate effective control of competitive organized cricket in their province.
The definition of Sports-Related Dispute includes a dispute “affecting participation of a Person in a sport program or a sport organization.” Here, the dispute affects the participation of the [Council] Canada Cricket. While participation can include membership, it can also include something short of membership including participating in a process to demonstrate to Cricket Canada that one has effective control of organized competitive cricket in a province.
The Centre’s exercise of jurisdiction over a dispute which determines whether a particular organization should or should not be a member of Cricket Canada is consistent with the overall purpose for which the Centre was created namely to ensure “the full and fair participation of all persons in sport and the fair, equitable, transparent and timely resolution of disputes” relating to the participation of a person in a sports organization.
[24] On June 23, 2020, the Arbitrator issued a second Interim Award. In her award, she stated that the investigation should address whether the Council has effective control of cricket in Alberta. She also directed that the investigator examine the allegations raised in the Council’s submissions pertaining to the internal financial and governance affairs of the Association.
[25] In her June 2020 award, the Arbitrator explained that the purpose of the investigation was to avoid engaging in what would have been a very lengthy arbitration process. She directed the investigator to meet with the parties to try to discover what has and is happening with regard to organized cricket in Alberta. She ordered that the investigator prepare a report that would not be provided to the parties until she had an opportunity to review it.
[26] On July 13, 2020, shortly after retaining counsel for the first time, the Association wrote to the Arbitrator objecting to the investigation. The Association submitted that the parties should have the right to review and respond to any investigation report and that ordering an investigation into the Association’s internal affairs was not within the scope of the arbitration or the authority of the Arbitrator. However, the Association indicated that, notwithstanding its objections, it was willing to cooperate, but it reserved its objections for the resumption of the Arbitration.
[27] Cricket Canada retained Kris Ramchandar to be the investigator. He had been an investigator for the Manitoba Ombudsman for twenty-eight and was then Commissioner with the Residential Tenancies Commission in Winnipeg, Manitoba since 2013.
[28] The Association wrote to Mr. Ramchandar requesting participation in the investigation and the right to submit documentation. The Association says that notwithstanding its request, it was excluded from participating in the investigation. The Council disputes that the Association was excluded from participating in the investigation.
[29] In his report, Mr. Ramchandar stated:
The concerns expressed by [the Council] ought to be given serious consideration by Cricket Canada. Their desire to improve cricketing activities in the Province of Alberta is genuine. The current representation does not appear to be fully inclusive of all the interest in the province and, hence, is not effective.
[30] On November 9, 2020, the Arbitrator released the report she had received from Mr. Ramchandar. In her covering letter to the parties, the Arbitrator wrote: "the Investigator has conducted a thorough investigation and has written a thoughtful and articulate report. " The Arbitrator wrote that it was her "sincere hope that the parties can come to some mutually agreeable resolution in this case" based on the Investigation Report.
[31] After the release of the investigator’s report, the Association brought an application to the Centre to have the Arbitrator removed on the grounds of a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Association’s application was dismissed on February 23, 2021.
6. The Third Interim Arbitral Award and the Review Panel
[32] The Association and the Council could not resolve their rivalry. On March 23, 2021, the Arbitrator issued an Award setting out how the arbitration should be decided on the merits. In this Award:
a. The Arbitrator directed Cricket Canada to appoint a three-member expert Review Panel to consider the Association’s and Council's submissions and to issue a decision about effective control based on a review of activities in 2019.
b. The Arbitrator defined in considerable detail a set of criteria for how “effective control” of competitive cricket in Alberta was to be determined pursuant to section 2.2 of Cricket Canada’s 2019 bylaws.
c. The Arbitrator directed the Association and the Council to file written submissions and evidence to support their respective assertions that they had effective control of organized competitive cricket within the province of Alberta.
d. The Arbitrator specified that the Association or Council could request her to reconsider the Review Panel’s decision “in the event that they felt that … the Review Panel did not review their submissions and/or render a decision in a fair or unbiased manner.”
[33] A Review Panel was appointed. It was comprised of the Executive Director of Football Canada (the national governing body for the sport of football) and two representatives from provincial cricket organizations.
[34] On May 31, 2021, after several rounds of voluminous written evidence and submissions from Association and Council, the Review Panel issued its decision.
[35] The Review Panel stated that it had conducted a full review of the current status (i.e. the 2021 situation) and concluded that the Association maintains effective control of cricket in Alberta.
7. The Arbitrator’s Reconsideration of the Review Panel Decision and the Final Award
[36] The next day, on June 1, 2021, Council wrote to the Arbitrator requesting reconsideration of the Review Panel’s decision.
[37] The Council and the Association filed extensive written submissions with the Arbitrator. These materials pertained not only to the question of whether the Review Panel’s decision should be set aside, but also to the substantive issue on the merits of the arbitration, namely whether the Association or the Council maintained effective control of competitive cricket in the province of Alberta.
[38] On July 13, 2021, the Arbitrator issued a Final Award.
[39] In her final award, the Arbitrator did not accept the Association’s submissions on the limited scope of the reconsideration and its submission that deference should be given to the Review Panel’s decision.
[40] The Arbitrator concluded that the Review Panel’s decision could not be upheld. She arrived at that conclusion because she considered that the Review Panel did not exclusively use 2019 as the period for the review and wrongly, in her view, examined the current situation in Alberta.
[41] The Arbitrator decided to make her own decision without deference to the opinion of the Review Panel. On the merits of the issue about “effective control of organized competitive cricket within the province of Alberta” in her final award, the Arbitrator stated:
AWARD
This is the fifth formal decision I have written in this matter. I have also issued numerous directions to the parties. I can safely say that this is the longest running and most acrimonious dispute I have ever been called upon to arbitrate at the SDRCC.
The issue in this case is which organization, the Claimant, the Alberta Cricket Council (the "ACC") or the Affected Party, the Alberta Cricket Association (the "ACA") exercises effective control over organized competitive cricket within the province of Alberta. The version of Cricket Canada's By-laws effective in 2019, Section 2.2 states:
2.2 Provincial Member - Any provincial cricket association that demonstrates effective control of organized competitive cricket within the province concerned will be considered a Member with voting privileges at any Meeting of the members. [Emphasis added]
Therefore, the decision of the Review Panel cannot stand. I am very sorry to come to this conclusion as it renders all of the work by the Review Panel done in vain.
Under Section 6.17 of the 2015 Canadian Sport Dispute Resolution Code, I have the jurisdiction to determine this matter. Both parties in their submissions have acknowledged my jurisdiction to determine this matter. The parties also agreed very early on in this process, that the matter could be determined based on the written submissions filed by the parties.
The parties in this case have filed 573 pages of documents, correspondence and submissions. I have reviewed them all and the level of detail submitted required and resulted in hours and hours of review on my part. The pleadings are very acrimonious and both sides repeatedly accuse the other of falsehoods and misstatements. I am not going to set out at this point the volumes and volumes of evidence I have repeatedly been called upon to review while making this decision and the four decisions that preceded it. In my view it would be a disservice to cricket in Alberta were I to do so. My decision is a public document and setting out the accusations and unpleasantness that form a significant part of the pleadings in this case would not assist in the mending of relationships that needs to occur.
Both the ACC and the ACA have supporters and to a greater or lesser extent meet the criteria set out in paragraph four of this decision. They could likely both be an effective PSO in Alberta for the sport of cricket. However, only one of them can be named the PSO.
At this point in time, the sport of Cricket in the province of Alberta is very polarized and dysfunctional. This occurred under the stewardship of the ACA. Initially and before these proceedings even commenced, the group of individuals who ultimately formed the ACC brought concerns forward to the ACA. They were not appropriately dealt with and the saga with which I have been dealing began. Accordingly, after long and careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that it is time for fresh leadership in the sport of cricket in Alberta. I do not reach this decision lightly, but I am satisfied that it is the correct decision after having been involved in this case for more than a year and having spent countless hours reviewing the submissions and multitudinous documents filed in this case. I am satisfied that, pursuant to By-law 2.2, the ACC has demonstrated effective control of organized competitive cricket within the province of Alberta and should henceforth be considered a Member with voting privileges at any meeting of the members.
To be very clear, I therefore award PSO status for the province of Alberta to the ACC.
8. The Arbitrator’s Supplemental Award
[42] After the release of the Arbitrator’s Award, Cricket Canada made a request for clarification and on July 26, 2021, the Arbitrator issued a Supplemental Award.
[43] In the Supplemental Award, the Arbitrator clarified that the Association was stripped of membership in Cricket Canada, stating:
I found that Council was to replace Association as the ‘member’ or PSO for the province of Alberta. Therefore, the Association is no longer a ‘member’ or the PSO for the province of Alberta.
9. The Council Suspends the Association
[44] On August 16, 2021, the Council sent a “Notice of Sanctions” to the Association and to several of its officers and directors. The Council disqualified the Association, its members, and its officers and directors from participating in any official matches or events in Alberta for a period of one year.
[45] On August 20, 2021, the Association brought this application pursuant to the Arbitration Act, 1991.
D. The Association’s Submissions for Setting Aside the Arbitrator’s Award and Ordering a New Arbitration
[46] Pursuant to 46 (1), paragraph 3 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 an arbitral award may be set aside on the ground that the award deals with a dispute that the arbitration agreement does not cover or contains a decision on a matter that is beyond the scope of the agreement. In the immediate case, the Association submits that the Arbitrator decided matters beyond the scope of the agreement by:
a. terminating the Association’s membership in Cricket Canada, which was a matter for Cricket Canada to determine under its by-laws and the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act;
b. granting PSO status to the Association, which is a matter distinct from membership in Cricket Canada and a matter to be determined by a provincial government;
c. treating the proceeding as a mediation/arbitration, encouraging the parties to come to their own mutually agreeable resolution, and ultimately delegating the fact-finding and adjudicative function to third parties, which she had no authority to do.[^9]
[47] Pursuant to 46 (1), paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, an arbitral award may be set aside on the ground that the arbitrator breached a party’s right to equal and equal treatment or the arbitrator failed to comply with the mandatory procedures and standards set out in the Arbitration Act, 1991. In the immediate case, the Association submits that the Arbitrator’s award should be set aside for the following reasons:
a. The Arbitrator implemented steps in the process that were unfair to the Association and contrary to the Act.
b. The Investigator’s Report, which was based on a flawed, one-sided and prejudicial investigation, ought not to have formed part of the materials considered by the Arbitrator.
c. It was unfair to the Association for the Arbitrator to have overturned the decision of the Review Panel with no deference having been given to the panel’s expertise and with no reasons explaining why should reached a conclusion opposite to the conclusion reached by the Review Panel.
d. Contrary to s. 38 (1) of the Act, the Arbitrator did not provide reasons to support her findings and conclusions.
E. Discussion and Analysis
[48] The Council and the Association are both provincial cricket associations in Alberta, and while far from a simple task, the task of the Arbitrator was to answer the question of which between them had demonstrated “effective control of organized competitive cricket” within Alberta.
[49] The Arbitrator was charged with answering that question, and her answer would determine which organization would be considered a member of Cricket Canada with voting privileges at any meeting of the members.
[50] After an arduous process and an arduous amount of labour including the intellectual endeavour of providing guidelines about the qualitative and quantitative criteria and factors for determining what counts for “effective control of organized competitive cricket within Alberta, the Arbitrator did answer the question that was posed by the submission to arbitration.
[51] The Arbitrator concluded that the Council had effective control. This conclusion entailed that the Council be a member of Cricket Canada. In the Arbitrator’s view, her conclusion also entailed that the Association was no longer a member of Cricket Canada and that the Council had replaced it as a member and was the PSO for Alberta.
[52] However, having from her prodigious labour made an arbitral award, the task of the Arbitrator was not done. Section 38 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 obliged the Arbitrator “to state the reasons on which it is based.”
[53] I agree with the Association that the Arbitrator never states the reasons why she had concluded that the Council - and not the Association - had effective control of organized competitive cricket within Alberta. I agree with the following comments from paragraphs 71-76 of the Association’s factum:
The Awards provide no reasons on the central issue on the merits of the Arbitration, namely whether [the Council] had effective control of cricket in Alberta. […]
In her Award dated March 23, 2021, the Arbitrator adopted a list of criteria to inform the analysis of “effective control”, given that this phrase is not defined in Cricket Canada’s 2019 bylaws. The criteria […] are extensive and touch on a wide range of issues, including membership numbers, governance practices and policies, and developmental programs. Both [the Council] and [the Association] filed hundreds of pages of material with the Arbitrator on each of the criteria for effective control.
The Awards contain no analysis whatsoever on how the Arbitrator applied any of the effective control criteria, nor does the Award refer to a single finding of fact. For example, there is no indication of which years of data the Arbitrator considered (which is concerning given that this was the basis upon which she overturned the Review Panel’s decision) or how she resolved significant conflicts between the evidence of [the Association] and [the Council] regarding membership numbers.
The Awards also fail to state the basis for the Arbitrator’s ultimate conclusion that “ACC has demonstrated effective control … and should henceforth be considered a member” of Cricket Canada. Instead, the Arbitrator opines that “it is time for fresh leadership in the sport of cricket in Alberta.” […]
[…] the Arbitrator’s failure to provide reasons supporting her decision on the central issue in this Arbitration is not mere “technical non-compliance.” Instead, her failure strikes at the heart of the fairness of the Arbitration, particularly given that her decision reversed the prior decision of the expert Review Panel in [the Association’s] favour. In reversing the decision of the Review Panel to whom she delegated her authority, it was incumbent on the Arbitrator to provide substantive reasoning as a matter of fundamental fairness to [the Association]. Her failure to provide reasons and instead rely only on her subjective and bald assertion that a “leadership change” was warranted is a fatal procedural breach that should lead the Court to set aside the Awards.
[54] In my opinion, the Arbitrator’s written reasons were inadequate and did not provide an explanation for her award.
[55] Written reasons show the parties that the adjudicator has paid attention to their arguments and treated them fairly and with due process. Providing reasons for a decision removes the appearance of arbitrariness, makes the process transparent, and makes the decision-maker accountable because he or she is called on to explain and justify the decision. The question of the adequacy of reasons for decision is whether the reasons, viewed in light of the record and counsel’s submissions on the live issues presented by the case, explain why the decision was reached, by establishing a logical connection between the evidence and the law on the one hand, and the decision on the other.[^10] The critical question is whether in the context of the record, the issues and the submissions of the parties, the judgment is sufficiently intelligible to show that the adjudicator understood the substance of the matter and addressed the necessary and critical issues.[^11] In the immediate case, the Arbitrator did not meet the standard.
[56] The Arbitrator never explains why the Association lost. The Arbitrator’s explanation for the outcome seems to be that it was time for change in leadership in who controlled competitive cricket in Alberta.
[57] That explanation, however, is to explain the answer to a political question and a question much different from the legal question of which organization had demonstrated effective control of organized cricket in Alberta. The Arbitrator was charged with answering a legal question not a political one.
[58] An arbitrator’s decision may be set aside if he or she fails to comply with s. 38 (1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 and a new arbitration may be ordered.[^12] That is the appropriate determination for the Association’s application in the immediate case.
F. Conclusion
[59] For the above reasons I grant the Association’s application. I set aside the Arbitrator’s awards. I direct a new arbitration be conducted by a new arbitrator in accordance with the Sport Dispute Resolution Code.
[60] If the parties cannot agree about the matter of costs, they may make submissions in writing beginning with the Association’s submissions within twenty days of the release of these Reasons for Decision followed by the Council’s submissions within a further twenty days.
Perell, J.
Released: December 23, 2021.
COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00666823-0000
DATE: 20211223
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ALBERTA CRICKET ASSOCIATION
Applicant
- and -
ALBERTA CRICKET COUNCIL and CRICKET CANADA
Respondents
REASONS FOR DECISION
PERELL J.
Released: December 23, 2021
[^1]: S.O. 1991, c. 17. [^2]: Mensula Bancorp Inc. v. Halton Condominium Corporation No. 137, 2021 ONSC 2575 ( Parc-IX Limited v The Manufacturer's Life Insurance Company, 2021 ONSC 1252 at paras. 39-40; Tall Ships Landing Dev. Inc. v. City of Brockville, 2020 ONSC 5527 at para. 19; Alectra Utilities Corporation v Solar Power Network Inc, 2019 ONCA 254, leave to appeal to SCC ref’d 2019 CanLII 104253, at para. 24; FCA Canada Inc. v. Reid-Lamontagne, 2019 ONSC 364 at para. 54; Cricket Canada v Bilal Syed, 2017 ONSC 3301 at paras 31-34; Lockman v Rancourt, 2017 ONSC 2774 at paras. 21-22; Webster v Wendt, [2001] O.J. No. 622 at paras. 58-59, 62 (S.C.J.). [^3]: Tall Ships Landing Dev. Inc v City of Brockville, 2020 ONSC 5527 at para 19; Tall Ships Landing Dev. Inc. v. City of Brockville, 2019 ONSC 6597 at para 40; Alectra Utilities Corporation v. Solar Power Network Inc, 2019 ONCA 254 at para. 24, leave to appeal to SCC ref’d 2019 CanLII 104253; Lockman v. Rancourt, 2017 ONSC 2774 at paras 21-22; Kucyi v. Kucyi, 2007 ONCA 758; Webster v Wendt, [2001] O.J. No. 622 at paras. 58-59, 62 (S.C.J.). [^4]: S.C. 2009, c. 23. [^5]: S.C. 2003, c.2, s. 10 [^6]: R.S.A. 2000 c. S14. [^7]: S.O. 1991, c. 17 [^8]: Cricket Canada v. Alberta Cricket Council, 2020 ONSC 3776. [^9]: O’Reilly’s Irish Bar Inc v 10385 Nfld Ltd, 2003 NLSCTD 143 at para. 125, rev’d on other grounds 2006 NLCA 16, leave to appeal to SCC ref’d 2006 CanLII 29076, at para 125. [^10]: R. v. M. (R.E.), 2008 SCC 51, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3 at para. 41. [^11]: National Gallery of Canada v. Lafleur de la Capitale Inc., 2017 ONCA 688 at para. 12 (C.A.); R. v. M. (R.E.), 2008 SCC 51. [^12]: Tall Ships Landing Dev. Inc v. City of Brockville, 2019 ONSC 6597 and 2020 ONSC 5527; Peters v. D'Antonio 2016 ONSC 7141; Kalatzis v. Daniels, [2002] O.J. No. 5928 (S.C.J.), leave to appeal to the C.A. ref’d [2002] O.J. No. 5929 (C.A.).