The Province of Ontario (“Ontario”) was partly successful on appeal of a motion judge’s order to stay its Superior Court application on the ground that an arbitration process ought to have been followed in a dispute with Imperial Tobacco (“Imperial”) regarding the scope and effect of a release Ontario provided as a term of settlement of a civil claim against Imperial

27. September 2011 0
Administrative law – Arbitration – Scope of arbitration agreement – Arbitrators – Jurisdiction – Class proceedings – Settlements – Releases – Judicial review – Stay of proceedings – Parties – Remedies – Declaratory relief Ontario v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., [2011] O.J. No. 3392, 2011 ONCA 525, Ontario Court of Appeal, July 20, 2011, S.T. ...

The Applicants, who were not allowed to participate in the arbitration process due to their failure to pay the required fees, successfully argued that it was manifestly unfair for the arbitrator to render a decision against them. The Applicants ought to have been given the opportunity to make submissions with respect to the Respondent’s claim against them.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Arbitration Board – Arbitrators – Powers – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Compliance with legislation Mericle v. Basement Systems (Calgary) Inc., [2010] A.J. No. 221, 2010 ABQB 137, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, February 22, 2010, W.A. Tilleman J. This was ...

The Appeal by Team Transport from the dismissal of its application for judicial review of the decision of two joint arbitrators was dismissed where the Court found that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias and Team Transport’s motive appeared to be a collateral attack on the legal validity of an Agreement which had been incorporated into an Order in Council, the constitutionality of which had been upheld

Administrative law – Labour law – Arbitration – Arbitration agreements – Terms of agreement – Arbitrators – Powers – Judicial review – Appeals – Bias – Legislation – Orders-in-council – Validity – Jurisdiction Team Transport Services Ltd. v. Klair, [2008] B.C.J. No. 953, British Columbia Court of Appeal, May 28, 2008, M.A. Rowles, N.V. Newbury ...

The Court upheld the decision of an Arbitrator to make a success-based costs award in the face of a provision in the arbitration agreement that provided for the costs of the arbitration to be borne equally by the parties

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Arbitration Board – Arbitrators – Right to award costs – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Metro Canada Logistics Inc. v. UWG Inc., [2007] O.J. No. 1501, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, April 23, 2007, H.T. Spiegel J. The parties had entered into a ...

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. ...

The Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (the “HLDAA”)dictates that disputes over collective agreements in Ontario hospitals and nursing homes have to be resolved by compulsory arbitration. The Minister of Labour appointed retired judges to chair arbitration boards. The Respondents, Canadian Union of Public Employees and Service Employees International Union, objected to the appointments on the basis that the retired judges lacked expertise, experience, tenure, and independence from government. The Appellant Minister of Labour in exercising his power of appointment under the HLDAA is required to be satisfied that the prospective chairpersons are not only independent and impartial but possess appropriate labour relations expertise and are recognised in the labour relations community as generally acceptable to both management and labour. The appropriate standard of review is patent unreasonableness. The majority found that the appointments were patently unreasonable because the Minister expressly excluded relevant factors that went to the heart of the legislative scheme.

22. July 2003 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Arbitrators – Appointment – Bias – Ministerial powers – Judicial review – Statutory powers – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] S.C.J. No. 28, Supreme Court of Canada, May 16, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iaccobucci, Major, Bastarache, ...

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.

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 ...