ONTARIO – An arbitration clause implicitly includes the power to award damages unless a contrary intention appears. A commercially unreasonable interpretation of the arbitration clause will not oust the arbitrator’s jurisdiction. Where an arbitration agreement provides that all disputes are subject to arbitration, correctable procedural irregularities do not oust the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.
Continue readingCase #041D – Royal Bank of Canada v. Mundo Media Ltd.
ONTARIO – Court appointed receiver not bound by contractual arbitration agreement requiring the Receiver to arbitrate in New York as such a requirement would be unfair to the debtor’s creditors and inconsistent with the Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act.
Continue readingCase #040D – 1107051 Ontario Ltd. v. GG Kingspa Enterprises Limited Partnership
ONTARIO – Arbitral award set aside as the parties did not grant the Arbitrator express authorization to determine the disputes between them. In arbitrations under the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991 S.O. 1991, c.17 (“Act”) or the Model Law (UNICITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration), the Tribunal may decide “ex aequo et bono, or as amiable compositeur” only in circumstances where the parties have expressly authorized it to do so.
Continue readingCase #039D – Nelson v. The Government of the United Mexican States
ONTARIO – International arbitral award not set aside as due process and procedural standards met. Merely disagreeing with the outcome does not give rise to a review under the guise of Article 34(2)(a)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law as adopted in the Ontario International Commercial Arbitration Act.
Continue readingCase #038E – Electek Power Services Inc. v. Greenfield Energy Centre Limited Partnership
ONTARIO – An application to set aside an arbitrator’s decision as to jurisdiction on the basis that there was no arbitration agreement is a hearing de novo not an appeal.—There is no binding arbitration agreement where there was no meeting of the minds of the parties to arbitrate.— Where a Court sets aside an arbitral award on the basis that there was no arbitration agreement, section 17(9) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 is inapplicable and there is a right of appeal.
Continue readingCase #037E – Dealer’s Choice Preferred Collision Centre Inc. v. Kircher et. al.
ONTARIO – Where a plaintiff seeks to amend or substitute another entity for itself, the Court should not make the order unless the “new” plaintiff was an intended plaintiff when the action was commenced, and the defendant reasonably ought to have been aware of which entity was “pointing its litigating finger” in its direction.
Continue readingCase #036E – Guaranteed Funeral Deposits of Canada (Fraternal) v. Assurant Life of Canada
ONTARIO – Interpretation of Contracts — Rescission — Where a party misrepresented the nature and purpose of an amendment to an agreement, the other party was entitled to rescission, even if the misrepresentation was innocent. Where an important amendment to an agreement is being made, the party proposing it must ensure that knowledge of the amendment comes to the other side.
Continue readingCase #035D – Maisonneuve v. Clark
ONTARIO – An arbitration clause did not require specific steps before arbitration could be commenced. Therefore, the limitation period began to run when one side informed the other that they would not enter into further negotiations.
Continue readingCase #034D – Parekh et al v. Schecter et al
ONTARIO – Court grants interlocutory injunction enforcing non-competition and non-solicitation covenants contained in a Dentist Associate Agreement related to the sale of a business, preventing the associate of dental practice from i) practicing within a 5 km radius ii) from soliciting clients and iii) from using confidential patient information from the purchased business.
Continue readingCase #033D – MacBryce Holdings Inc. et al. v Magnes Partnership et al.
ONTARIO – An “Estimate of Fair Market Value” clause of a Shareholders Agreement was held to provide for an arbitration, not a valuation, even though the nominee had to be a chartered accountant. The arbitrator, not the Court, should determine the valuation date. If the parties could not agree on the selection of the arbitrator, the Court will do so.
Continue reading