BRITISH COLUMBIA – Arbitration – Application to Stay Proceedings – Under s. 8(1) of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, the party applying for a stay has the onus of establishing an arguable case that the prerequisites for a stay have been met. Where those prerequisites are met, under s. 8(2) of the ICAA, the party opposing the stay has the onus of showing that the arbitration agreement was void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.

ONTARIO – Share Division – Where there is evidence supporting a division of shares that is different from the original division found in the corporate records, including an agreement between the shareholders, the corporate records alone are not dispositive of the issue of share division.

ONTARIO – Arbitration – Arbitration Agreement for online purchasing is binding in consumer claims of a commercial nature. In the absence of any indication of Parliamentary intent to do so, mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer adhesion contracts will be enforced.

ONTARIO – Mareva/Norwich Orders. In cases where there is a strong prima facie case of fraud, breach of trust or breach of fiduciary duty, non-disclosure on the investment details, and evidence of dissipation of assets, the court will issue an interlocutory Mareva injunction and an interim Norwich order requiring production of documentation from third party financial institutions.

ONTARIO – Arbitration – Jurisdiction. The Arbitration Act, 1991 (“Act”) has no application where the court finds that, due to a failure of consideration, there is no contract and thus, no arbitration clause. In those circumstances, s. 7(6) does not apply and does not prohibit an appeal.

ONTARIO – Arbitration – On an application to set aside an arbitral award pursuant to Art. 34(2)(a)(iii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017 on the ground that a party was denied the right to present its case, the test is whether the arbitrator’s decision offends our most basic notions of morality and justice. ONCA dismissed an appeal from the application judge’s decision upholding the arbitral award despite the Respondent’s late delivery of a few highly relevant documents. The Appellant failed to adduce evidence that the Respondent’s late delivery of documents prevented cross-examinations or responding evidence, or affected its closing argument.