ADR/Mediation Services - SCJ

In a Rule 76 wrongful dismissal and misrepresentation action, the court determined a dispute over whether mandatory mediation should proceed in person or by videoconference.

The court held that Rule 1.08(8) contemplates efficient direction at a case conference and does not support burdensome motion practice over mode of attendance.

On the evidentiary record, there was no objective basis to find that in-person mediation would be more effective than virtual mediation.

Emphasizing proportionality, cost-effectiveness, and current civil practice realities, the court directed that mediation proceed by videoconference, with a hybrid format permitted if all participants agree.

No costs were awarded.

A commercial tenant operating a bar and nightclub sought an urgent application for an interim and permanent injunction to prevent termination of its tenancy and to obtain relief from forfeiture.

The landlord moved to stay the application, arguing that the parties had agreed to resolve disputes through mediation and arbitration.

The court found that the dispute fell squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreement in the lease and granted the landlord's motion to stay the application.

The court declined to grant interim injunctive relief or relief from forfeiture, finding that the alleged breaches—permitting armed individuals to enter the premises leading to a shooting incident and operating an unlicensed adult entertainment facility—were very serious in nature and that the landlord's interests could not be fully vindicated without resort to forfeiture.

La décision porte sur une demande d’annulation d’une sentence arbitrale concernant l’interprétation et l’exécution d’un contrat verbal relatif à la répartition de lots dans le cadre du Projet Oasis.

La Cour conclut que l’arbitre a commis des erreurs de droit en annulant une ordonnance de la Cour supérieure et en liant une société non partie à l’arbitrage, mais que ces erreurs n’affectent pas le résultat.

La Cour confirme que la détention d’une licence Tarion/HCRA est une condition implicite du contrat et que le droit d’acheter les lots appartient à Maisons Lacroix, non à la requérante.

The respondent brought a motion seeking leave to appeal interim arbitral awards, to set aside those awards, for the arbitrator to recuse himself, and to nullify the mediation/arbitration agreement and costs awards.

The applicant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the respondent's motion and to enforce the February 2024 arbitral award.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding his request for leave to appeal the 2019 award was statute-barred and that he failed to identify errors of law for the 2024 award.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias by the arbitrator, no legal incapacity for the agreement, and no basis to invalidate the costs awards.

The applicant's motion to enforce the February 2024 arbitral award was granted due to the respondent's flagrant and willful disobedience of arbitral awards and court orders.

The appellant wife appealed a family law arbitrator's award of $250,000 in lump sum spousal support and costs to the respondent husband.

The husband, a high-earning ophthalmologist, had promised upon separation in 2013 to settle his support obligations later, but paid no spousal support for nine years.

The Superior Court found the arbitrator erred in law by failing to apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs) and by misapplying the criteria for lump sum awards to arbitrarily reduce the retroactive support owed.

The court held the husband was estopped from relying on the wife's delay due to his prior promise.

The appeal was allowed, the spousal support award was increased to $1,893,603, and costs of the arbitration were awarded to the wife.

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement of a Chinese arbitral award under the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

The respondent requested an adjournment to gather evidence to oppose enforcement, alleging procedural irregularities and denial of natural justice during the arbitration.

The court denied the adjournment, citing the respondent's lack of diligence, the insufficient evidentiary basis for the alleged grounds, and the apparent lack of merit in the proposed arguments, which often sought to re-argue the arbitration's merits.

The court then granted the application, recognizing and enforcing the award, and ordered the respondent to pay costs to the applicant.

Rogers Communications Canada Inc. sought an interlocutory injunction and a sealing order against TELUS Communications Inc. The core dispute revolved around whether Rogers' customers, when roaming on the TELUS network, should display "Rogers-EXT" or "TELUS" as the network identifier (NID).

Rogers argued for maintaining the "Rogers-EXT" status quo pending arbitration, while TELUS contended that an expired agreement required "TELUS" display.

The court characterized the injunction sought as mandatory, requiring Rogers to demonstrate a strong prima facie case.

The court found that the NID issue was subject to issue estoppel due to a prior arbitration decision and that Rogers failed to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm.

Consequently, the motion for injunctive relief was dismissed.

The motion for a sealing order for confidential materials, which was unopposed, was granted.

The Applicant condominium sought an order appointing an arbitrator and confirming the arbitrator's jurisdiction over issues in its Fresh as Amended Notice of Arbitration.

The Respondent developer sought to quash the notice, arguing repudiation of a prior agreement to appoint a specific arbitrator and that a third party (Gooderham) should be involved due to new matters.

The court granted the Applicant's request to appoint the agreed-upon arbitrator, finding no repudiation.

However, the court deferred the determination of the arbitrator's jurisdiction, mandate, and whether the third party should be joined to the arbitrator himself, consistent with the principle that arbitrators can rule on their own jurisdiction.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion by The Canada Soccer Association Incorporated (Canada Soccer) for an interim stay of an arbitral award and a cross-motion by Association de Soccer de Brossard (ASB) to enforce the award.

The court had previously dismissed Canada Soccer's motion and granted ASB's cross-motion.

In this endorsement, ASB sought substantial indemnity costs, while Canada Soccer argued for its own costs due to alleged bad faith by ASB or deferral of costs to the application judge.

The court found no evidence of bad faith by ASB and declined to defer costs.

It awarded ASB partial indemnity costs up to the date of its Rule 49.10 offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, totaling $65,367.25, to be paid within 30 days.

The Applicant sought to set aside an arbitration award concerning the sale of a jointly owned property, arguing the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to invalidate prior court orders granting her a right of first refusal.

The Respondent sought dismissal, arguing the prior orders were not final and the arbitrator acted within scope.

The court found the arbitrator correctly determined he lacked jurisdiction to enforce court orders, but erred in concluding he could invalidate them or direct a sale without formal agreement.

The court set aside the portion of the award requiring the property's sale and the reimbursement of expenses, upholding the Applicant's right of first refusal.

The moving party sought an extension of time and leave to appeal a family arbitration award that ordered her to pay $112,140 in retroactive spousal support.

The court granted the extension of time, finding the delay was short, explained, and caused no prejudice.

However, the court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, concluding the moving party failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator made any error of law regarding the recipient's needs, delay, or hardship to the payor.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a family law arbitration award, arguing the arbitrator erred in law by finding that child support for his son was 'suspended' rather than 'terminated' during a gap year before university.

The applicant claimed that a termination of child support would have triggered a de novo review of spousal support under the parties' divorce order.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator made no error of law and correctly determined that the gap year did not terminate the child support obligation, thereby not triggering the spousal support review.

The respondents brought a motion to stay the applicant condominium corporation's application to enforce a settlement agreement regarding shared amenities.

The respondents argued the dispute was subject to mandatory mediation and arbitration under section 132 of the Condominium Act, 1998 and the parties' Reciprocal Agreement.

The court applied the Haas framework and found that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

The motion was granted and the application was stayed in favour of mediation and/or arbitration.

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 Appellant, Houssein Awada, appealed an arbitration award concerning net family property (NFP) equalization and income imputation for child and spousal support.

Mr. Awada argued that two properties (Laurier Avenue and Palmerston Drive) were held in trust for his brother and should not be included in his NFP, and that the Arbitrator erred in calculating his 2016 income and in not imputing a higher income to the Respondent, Sheryl Kristy O’Connell.

The court upheld the Arbitrator's findings on all issues, applying a standard of review of correctness for questions of law and palpable and overriding error for questions of mixed fact and law.

The court found no errors in the Arbitrator's assessment of evidence, credibility, or the imputation of income, emphasizing deference to the Arbitrator's findings.

The Saskatchewan Cricket Association (SCA) sought judicial review of an arbitration award concerning several grounds, including factual findings, solicitor-client privilege, admission of hearsay evidence, public policy considerations, and the awarding of costs.

The court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's factual determinations reasonable, the preclusion of counsel as a witness due to solicitor-client privilege correct, the admission of evidence for its effect (not truth) not hearsay, and no relevant public policy issues.

The court also upheld the arbitrator's costs order as reasonable under the Canadian Sport Dispute Resolution Code.

The defendant insurer, SSQ, Life Insurance Company Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for long-term disability benefits.

SSQ argued that the plaintiff, Judith Marlen Fricke, had waived her right to sue by agreeing to a Medical Appeals Process (MAP) which resulted in a binding decision that she was not totally disabled.

The plaintiff contended that the MAP agreement was not valid or enforceable because SSQ failed to apply the correct legal test for total disability and the independent physician may have exceeded his expertise.

The court dismissed SSQ's motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding whether the correct test for total disability was applied during the MAP process and the enforceability of the MAP agreement given potential issues of bias and fairness.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce Minutes of Settlement, while the plaintiffs cross-moved to dismiss the defendant's motion and enforce the Minutes themselves.

A trial of an issue was held to determine if the plaintiffs had fulfilled their obligations under the settlement.

The court found that the plaintiffs had substantially complied with fence erection terms but failed to complete municipal grading requirements by the agreed deadline, which was an essential term.

Consequently, the plaintiffs were found in breach of the Minutes of Settlement, their motion was dismissed, and the defendant's motion was allowed.

The plaintiffs were ordered to complete the grading work and eliminate fence gaps within 100 days.

The defendant brought a motion seeking to apply the doctrine of res judicata to an arbitral award rendered under Sharia Law in Qom, Iran, which had addressed a dispute over the distribution of proceeds from a jointly owned property in Lebanon.

The plaintiffs, who initiated the Ontario proceedings, argued the arbitration was merely advisory.

The court found that the arbitration was a binding judicial decision by a competent jurisdiction, meeting the preconditions for issue estoppel.

It dismissed the plaintiffs' statement of claim, concluding that the dispute had been finally resolved by the arbitrator and that the International Commercial Arbitration Act's time limits for challenging an award had passed, with no "real unfairness" warranting setting it aside.

The appellant appealed an arbitration award determining retroactive and prospective child support and costs following a dispute arising from a separation agreement.

The arbitrator had found that the payor parent failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and imputed substantial income based on corporate earnings, discretionary expenses, and adverse inferences under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The arbitrator ordered retroactive child support back to 2009 and prospective support based on table amounts, together with significant arbitration costs.

The court held that the arbitrator committed no reviewable error in interpreting the separation agreement, imputing income, attributing corporate pre‑tax income, or awarding retroactive support, and deferred to the arbitrator’s factual and credibility findings.

However, the court found the arbitrator’s reasoning on costs insufficient and reduced the costs award.