The United Mexican States (“Mexico”) appealed the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice upholding an award by a NAFTA arbitration tribunal which had found that Mexico had engaged in discriminatory conduct by granting tax rebates to domestic companies that were denied to a company engaged in a similar business owned by a U.S. citizen (“Karpa”). The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that the arbitration tribunal was entitled to a high degree of deference and Mexico had not shown any basis upon which to interfere with the arbitration award.

22. February 2005 0
Administrative law – Arbitration and award – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Arbitration Board – NAFTA – Tax rebates – Companies – Less favourable treatment – Discrimination – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Disclosure United Mexican States v. Karpa, [2005] O.J. No. 16, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 11, 2005, D.H. Doherty, R.P. Armstrong ...

The decision of an arbitrator appointed under the British Columbia Strata Property Act with respect to issues of liability was not clearly wrong and therefore the Applicant’s petition under the Judicial Review Procedure Act was dismissed. With respect to the arbitrator’s award of costs, the court held that the only costs the arbitrator was entitled to award were for party-and-party costs or special costs pursuant to the British Columbia Rules of Court. The arbitrator therefore erred in basing the award on the actual costs incurred. In addition, the arbitrator was not entitled to award costs in relation to the court applications made subsequent to the commencement of the arbitration and he also erred in law in awarding costs to the strata corporation based on the strata council bylaws. The court set aside the arbitrator’s award of costs and held that they should be assessed on a party-and-party basis.

26. October 2004 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Decisions reviewed – Arbitration and award – Arbitrators – Right to award costs – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Blackmore v. Strata Plan VR-274, [2004] B.C.J. No. 1719, British Columbia Supreme Court, August 20, 2004, Goepel J. An arbitrator appointed under the British Columbia Strata Property Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. ...

A homeowner (“Covey”) who had leased his home under a one year lease to tenants who later terminated their tenancy on the advice of their physician, applied for judicial review of two decisions of an arbitrator under the Residential Tenancy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 406. In the first decision, the arbitrator had ruled in favour of the tenants and, in the second one, the arbitrator reviewed and rejected fresh evidence that Covey brought forward in support of his position. The court dismissed Covey’s application on the basis that the decision of the arbitrator and his review of that decision were not patently unreasonable.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Landlord and tenant – Leases – Termination – Evidence – Damages – Arbitration and award – Judicial review application – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Covey v. St. Denis, [2003] B.C.J. No. 1795, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 22, 2003, Melnick J. Covey had rented his house to Tyrone and Rosemarie St. Denis ...

The applicants’ employer unsuccessfully sought an Order removing the arbitrator of a constructive dismissal claim and declaring void an arbitration between the applicant and the respondent employee on the grounds of reasonable apprehension of bias. The allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias was based on a lawyer in the arbitrator’s law firm obtaining information from a client and writing a letter on his behalf to a subsidiary of the parent corporation of a party to the arbitration. No reasonable apprehension of bias was found and the application was characterized as an opportunistic attack on the arbitration and attempt to derail the arbitration. Costs on a partial indemnity scale were awarded to the respondent to sanction the applicants’ conduct.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Arbitration and award – Arbitrators – Judicial review – Reasonable apprehension of bias – Test A.T. Kearney Ltd. v. Harrison, [2003] O.J. No. 438, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 10, 2003, Lax J. Following a 26-day arbitration concerning a wrongful dismissal claim, the employer applied pursuant to the Arbitration Act, 1991 S.O. ...

Idowu was successful in his application to set aside an arbitrator’s award on the basis of reasonable apprehension of bias where the court found that the law firm for the opposing party had proposed the arbitrator but had failed to notify Idowu that two of their lawyers were directors of the company which employed the arbitrator and that one of their partners had a financial interest in that company.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – Arbitration and award – Arbitrators – Judicial review – Bias Idowu v. York Condominium Corp. No. 128, [2002] O.J. No. 2102, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 21, 2002m Nordheimer J. Idowu owned three units in York Condominium. An issue arose as to whether Idowu was using these units as “rooming houses” contrary ...

The Petitioner sought leave under section 31 of the Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.55 to appeal the decision of an Arbitrator in a motor vehicle case who awarded court order interest to the Respondent motorist (“Lopatka”) after the initial award for damages had been made. The court refused to grant leave, holding that the merits of the appeal did not have sufficient substance to warrant leave and it was important that the principle of finality in arbitrations be maintained.

27. August 2002 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicle accidents – Arbitration and award – Arbitrators – Jurisdiction – Appeals – Leave to appeal – Test Maruna v. Lopatka, [2002] B.C.J. No. 1706, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 19, 2002, Brooke J. Lopatka was involved in four motor vehicle accidents. Pursuant to section 148 of the Regulations to the Insurance ...