ADR/Mediation Services - SCJ

The applicants sought to remit an arbitration matter back to the arbitrator under section 46(8) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, arguing that the arbitrator failed to address certain issues and that the purported transfer of shares in Power Investment Properties Inc. should be declared invalid.

The respondents sought enforcement of the arbitral awards.

The court dismissed the applicants' application as time-barred under section 47 of the Arbitration Act, finding that the 30-day deadline for bringing a section 46 application applies to all applications under section 46, including those seeking remittance under section 46(8).

The court granted the respondents' application to enforce the arbitral awards.

The court considered a motion by Salerno Realty Inc., Brokerage to dismiss Intercity Realty Inc., Brokerage’s action for breach of contract and commission entitlement, on the basis that the matter had already been determined by arbitration under the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB) process.

The court found that its jurisdiction was ousted by the TRREB Arbitration Guidelines, which required members to submit commission disputes to arbitration.

The court also found that issue estoppel applied, as the issues had been fully adjudicated in arbitration, and dismissed the action against Salerno.

The decision did not affect Intercity’s claim against the defendant Mr. Cardwell.

This decision concerns an appeal under section 45(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, from an arbitral award regarding four disputes arising out of a major public-private partnership infrastructure project (Highway 427 expansion).

The appellant, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario (as represented by the Minister of Transportation and Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation), challenged the arbitral tribunal’s interpretation of the Project Agreement on four issues: the Crossfall Dispute, the Zenway Boulevard Dispute, the 407 ETR Dispute, and the 2014-2016 Dispute.

The court held that the tribunal correctly identified and applied the principles of contractual interpretation, found no extricable errors of law, and dismissed the appeal.

This decision concerns cross-applications to set aside or enforce two arbitral decisions relating to a commercial property dispute between the Moscone Parties and Edenrock Holdings Inc. and Anthony Marrese.

The Moscone Parties sought to set aside or appeal the arbitral decisions on grounds of procedural unfairness, natural justice, and bias, or in the alternative, to remit the matter to a new arbitrator.

The court dismissed the Moscone Parties’ application, finding no breach of natural justice or procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the arbitration agreement precluded any right of appeal.

The application by Edenrock and Marrese to enforce the arbitral decisions was granted.

JSC Chukotka Mining and Geological Company (Chukotka) sought to recognize and enforce an arbitral award issued by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (ICAC) against Medivolve Inc. (Medivolve).

Medivolve opposed this application and brought a cross-application to set aside the arbitral award, arguing improper notice of the arbitration proceedings, inability to present its case, and unequal treatment by the arbitral tribunal.

The court found that Medivolve had received proper actual notice of the arbitration, despite courier delivery failures, and that its own dilatory actions contributed to its alleged inability to present its case.

The court also determined that the tribunal did not treat the parties unequally.

Consequently, the court granted Chukotka's application to recognize and enforce the arbitral award and denied Medivolve's application to set it aside, awarding costs to Chukotka.

The applicant sought to set aside an arbitration award, arguing that the arbitrator breached procedural fairness by applying the doctrine of res judicata to prevent a limitation defence against a particularized counterclaim for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court found that the arbitrator's decision was a substantive legal one, not a procedural unfairness, and that the arbitration agreement precluded appeals on questions of law.

The application to set aside the award was dismissed.

This costs endorsement addresses the "sunk/wasted" costs incurred by the respondent, Leeds Standard Condominium Corporation No. 41 (LSCC 41), in an application that was stayed pending arbitration.

The court had previously awarded $30,000 in partial indemnity costs and remained seized for any outstanding costs not covered by the arbitration.

LSCC 41 sought an additional $64,797.63, arguing minimal reuse of application materials in the arbitration.

The applicant, Tall Ships Landing Developments, contended there was significant reuse.

The court found substantial overlap in materials and allegations, rejecting LSCC 41's premise.

Applying the principle of reasonableness, the court fixed LSCC 41's additional "sunk/wasted" costs, including costs for the current submissions, at an all-inclusive amount of $15,000.

The defendants, Quintet Ventures Inc. and related entities, brought a motion to stay the action in favour of arbitration, citing arbitration clauses in the Share Purchase Agreement and Shareholders Agreement.

The plaintiffs, Andrew Spasiw and Astute Ventures Ltd., opposed the motion, arguing that their claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and oppression, along with equitable remedies, fell outside the arbitration clauses, and that a stay would violate their Charter rights.

The court found the pith and substance of the plaintiffs' claims to be contractual, falling within the broad scope of the arbitration agreements.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments regarding legal incapacity, invalidity of the agreement, non-arbitrability of the subject matter, undue delay, and alleged Charter violations.

The motion to stay the action was granted, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay costs.

This is an appeal of an arbitration award concerning the beneficial ownership of shares in a company.

The arbitrator had found that an email created an express trust, granting the respondent 50% of the applicant's personal shares.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the arbitrator erred in law by allowing the email to overwhelm the terms of a formal trust agreement.

The court varied the arbitrator's decision, ruling that only the formal Burwell Family Trust existed and the email did not create a separate express trust for the personal shares.

The court upheld the arbitrator's jurisdiction regarding the scope of the arbitration and his decision on the Limitations Act.

The issue of proprietary estoppel was remitted back to the arbitrator for determination and final disposition.

The applicants, Baffinland Iron Mines LP and Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (BIM), sought to set aside an arbitration award of over $70 million and a subsequent costs award in favour of the respondent, Tower-EBC G.P./S.E.N.C. (TEBC), pursuant to s. 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, and for leave to appeal under s. 45(1) of the Act.

The court dismissed BIM's application, finding no grounds to set aside the award for lack of jurisdiction or procedural unfairness, and further held that the arbitration agreement precluded an appeal from the Tribunal's decision.

This case involved four consolidated applications concerning arbitrations over construction defects at two hospitals.

PCL Constructors Canada Inc. challenged the arbitrators' jurisdiction, arguing non-compliance with procedural prerequisites and a limited scope of the arbitrators' power to award remedies.

Johnson Controls Canada LP sought declaratory relief regarding the nature of a contractual "Reconsideration Right" of the arbitrators' decisions, specifically whether it entailed a de novo hearing or an appeal.

The court dismissed all four applications, upholding the arbitrators' jurisdiction and declining to rule on the hypothetical future reconsideration right, stating the issue had not yet crystallized.

The Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1466 (the "Condominium") sought to enforce an arbitration award compelling a unit owner, Stuart Weinstein, to replace defective Kitec pipes in his unit and pay associated costs.

Mr. Weinstein brought a counter-application to set aside the arbitral award, arguing lack of jurisdiction, bias, and fraud/corruption, and to remove a lien registered on his property for unpaid costs.

The court found Mr. Weinstein's application to set aside the award was out of time and, in the alternative, dismissed it on its merits, finding no evidence of jurisdictional error, bias, fraud, or corruption.

The court also upheld the validity of the lien, despite an arbitrator's error in including mediation costs in the arbitration award, as the Condominium's declaration and by-laws independently allowed for such costs to be treated as common expenses.

The Condominium's application to enforce the arbitral award was granted.

The respondent sought a stay of the applicant's court proceeding, arguing that an Interim Parenting Agreement constituted a binding arbitration agreement requiring disputes to be resolved through mediation/arbitration.

The applicant contended the agreement did not bar her from court.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion for a stay, holding that the Interim Parenting Agreement did not comply with the mandatory formal requirements for family arbitration agreements under the Arbitration Act and its Regulation, and that such terms could not be implied.

The defendants, Tall Ships Landing Developments Inc. and Simon Fuller, brought a motion to stay the proceeding commenced by the plaintiff, Leeds Standard Condominium Corporation No. 41, in favour of arbitration.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to convert a previously commenced application into an action and consolidate it.

The court granted the defendants' motion to stay, finding that the pith and substance of the dispute related to alleged non-compliance with or fairness of the Shared Facilities Agreement and Shared Amenities Agreement, which fell within the scope of the contractual dispute resolution clause requiring mediation and arbitration.

The court emphasized the strong judicial favour for enforcing arbitration agreements and the "competence-competence principle." Consequently, the plaintiff's cross-motion and the defendants' alternative motions to strike or for particulars were not addressed.

Costs were awarded to the defendants.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought relief from forfeiture, an order compelling arbitration, and rent abatement after the respondent landlord issued a notice to quit upon the expiration of their lease.

The court found that relief from forfeiture was unavailable because the lease had expired by its terms, not due to a breach or default by the tenant.

The court also determined that the parties had abandoned their agreement to arbitrate by failing to appoint an arbitrator within the stipulated timeframe.

Consequently, the claims for arbitration and rent abatement, which was an issue for arbitration, were dismissed.

Alectra Utilities Corporation sought to set aside an arbitration award of $12.3 million in favour of Solar Power Network Inc. (SPN), while SPN sought to enforce it.

The arbitration arose from a dispute over the termination of a Fee-In Tariff Programme agreement (PAMA) by Alectra's predecessor, PowerStream, which the arbitrator found to be in bad faith.

The court upheld the arbitrator's jurisdiction to consider bad faith in the exercise of a contractual right, finding that the PAMA's "sole discretion" and "not subject to dispute" clauses did not insulate bad faith termination.

However, the court found the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by awarding damages for loss of profits, as the PAMA explicitly excluded such damages for breaches of covenant, and SPN's claim was deemed a breach of an implied covenant of good faith.

Alectra's application to set aside the award regarding damages for loss of profits was granted, and SPN's application to enforce the award was denied.

The Applicants, ICP and JCP, each sought the appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitrations Act, 1991, for disputes arising from a share offer and acceptance.

The court addressed whether the arbitrations should be consolidated, the appropriate size of the arbitration panel (single vs. three arbitrators), and the composition of the panel, including issues of res judicata regarding a prior ruling on panel size and reasonable apprehension of bias concerning a nominated arbitrator.

The court determined that separate arbitrations were required for QSA and PSA disputes, that a three-member panel was intended by the QSA, and appointed Mr. Ferrier and Mr. Scott to the QSA panel, rejecting Mr. Cunningham due to apprehension of bias.

The defendant, Karen Pacey, brought a motion to stay a proceeding initiated by Allied Accounting & Tax Services Limited and Allied Associates LLP, arguing that the dispute fell under an arbitration clause in a Shareholders’ Agreement (SA).

The plaintiffs alleged breaches of confidentiality and non-competition provisions in both the SA and a Representative’s Contract, the latter lacking an arbitration clause.

The court found that the SA's arbitration clause was qualified by other provisions explicitly referring to "court" for equitable relief, indicating an exclusion for such disputes from arbitration.

Additionally, the court found that the defendant unduly delayed in bringing the motion for a stay, which would have been a separate ground for refusal.

The motion to stay the proceeding was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's awards concerning the use of condominium units and associated costs.

The arbitrator had found the appellant in breach of a single-family use restriction but granted a nine-month grace period for compliance, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The appellant sought to vary the compliance period and the costs award.

The court granted an extension of time for filing the appeal and leave to appeal on questions of law.

However, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the arbitrator's findings regarding the condominium corporation's duty to enforce, the non-waiver provision, and the commercially reasonable time for compliance.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

The applicants sought leave to appeal and appeal two commercial arbitration awards concerning Cogeco's breach of Wide Area Network (WAN) agreements.

The Arbitrator had applied damages caps and denied specific performance.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding that the applicants' grounds raised questions of mixed fact and law, not pure questions of law as required by the Arbitration Act.

The court also found the Arbitrator's decisions to be reasonable on the merits, upholding the application of damages caps and the denial of specific performance due to the applicants' failure to demonstrate the absence of a readily available substitute service.