Category: Arbitration

Le jugement sur Langlois v. Langlois, 2020 QCCS 2959 nous enseigne que la « valeur en litige » au sens de l’ancien Tarif des honoraires judiciaires des avocats n’équivaut pas au « valeur du litige » . Il n’est pas nécessaire de trouver la valeur en litige dans les conclusions de la procédure. En effet, la greffière spéciale peut aller consulter « les procédures, les pièces, la sentence arbitrale après le procès etc. » pour déterminer cette valeur.

Les faits pertinents

Depuis 1987, trois générations de Langlois ont créé, établi, développé et investi dans l’entreprise familiale de transformation et de vente de crevettes, Crustacés des Monts inc. (ci-après « CDM »).

Depuis le début de l’année 2011, un conflit éclate entre les membres de la famille Langlois. Les demandeurs, Michel et Yvon, actionnaires minoritaires et administrateurs de CDM sont exclus et écartés de l’administration et de la gestion de CDM. Après avoir offert leurs actions à leurs coactionnaires pour un prix équivalent à leur juste valeur marchande, mais en vain, ils s’adressent à la Cour supérieure en vertu des articles 450 et suivants de la Loi sur les sociétés par actions (ci-après « LSA »), pour obtenir le rachat de leurs actions à leur valeur marchande. Les défendeurs demandent le rejet de toutes les conclusions recherchées dans la demande introductive d’instance.

This dispute arose between the United Mexican States and the United States of America nationals. The Respondents alleged that they suffered USD$100 million in damages when the Applicant closed down the casinos the Respondents had been operating in Mexico (The United Mexican States v. Burr, 2020 ONSC 2376). Attempts at settlement failed, the Respondents submitted their claims to arbitration according to Chapter 11 of the North America Free Trade Agreement between the Government of Canada, the Government of Mexico and the Government of the United States (NAFTA). The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) registered the claim to arbitration. Toronto, Canada was determined as the seat of the arbitration. In May 2018, the Tribunal held a five-day hearing on jurisdiction in Washington, DC as the Applicant insisted that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction on this matter. The Tribunal dismissed all three of the Applicant’s jurisdictional objections in July 2019 ((B-Mex, LLC and Others v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/16/3)). Consequently, the Applicant brought this applicant to the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario for a declaration that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction or had limited jurisdiction to decide the claims before it.

Truth be told, I started using UberEats App to order food delivery after the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision on the Uber case (Heller v. Uber, 2019 ONCA 1). Although I like cooking very much, I have to admit that UberEats provides efficient food delivery service that allows me to save some time that I should have spent in the kitchen in order to immerse myself in my work and writing when necessary. The day when I downloaded the App to my cellphone as a consumer, I saw the Terms and Conditions that oblige me to refer a dispute to binding individual arbitration. I am conscious of the existence of the Terms and Conditions. And I disagree with it. But I still downloaded it and used this App because a) I was starving; b) I think the arbitration clause won’t apply to me, a Quebec consumer living at Montreal, who is well protected by the Consumer Protection Act, CQLR c P-40.1 (See Art. 11.1).

Having determined that a court should resolve whether the arbitrator has jurisdiction over the dispute between Heller and Uber, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the Arbitration Clause of Uber’s Services Agreement is invalid. This Arbitration Clause is invalidated because it is considered unconscionable and detrimental to access to justice. Hence, this article discusses the unconscionability issue and the accessibility issue of the Arbitration Clause in Uber’s Services Agreement. 

The Supreme Court of Canada released the judgement on Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16 on June 26, 2020. In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court found that the Court has jurisdiction on determining the issue of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction in this case and that the Arbitration Clause between Uber and Heller is invalid. This decision has raised arbitration lawyers’ concerns and discussions these days. The Canadian Journal of Commercial Arbitration and Arbitration Place has organized a Webinar entitled “Uber v. Heller: First Impression” on July 3 at 12PM to discuss on this judgement. Mr. Daniel Urbas has also published a case comment on this judgement (See Supreme Court – courts should not refer jurisdiction challenge to arbitrator if real prospect that challenge might never be resolved)

This article discusses the Supreme Court of Canada’s majority reasoning on whether the Court can decide the challenge of arbitrator’s jurisdiction on the validity of the Arbitration Clause.

Questions of Mixed Fact and Law on Contractual Interpretation: A Preliminary Study of the Supreme Court of British Columbia’s Decision on Gormac Developments Ltd. v. Teal Cedar Products Ltd., 2020 BCSC 712 – WriteToLearn Evening Notes

The contractual interpretation is an exercise involving either a question of law or a question of mixed fact and law (para. 45 of Sattva). The questions of mixed fact and law involve aspects of law (para. 45 of Teal Cedarand para. 65 of Richmont Mines). And the Canadian courts may grant leave to appeal if the aspects of law in the contractual interpretation could be extricated from the factual matrix and if the questions of law have the degree of generality or a “great precedential value” (see para. 37 of Southamand Art. 31 (2) Arbitration Act, RSBC 1996, c55). A narrow scope for extricable questions of law is defined by the Canadian courts in order to keep consistent with the key policy objectives of consensual arbitration, namely efficiency and finality.