Category: Arbitration

Les faits pertinents (Caron c. 7834101 Canada inc. (Triviom à Charlemagne ), 2020 QCCS 2859)

En janvier 2015, dans l’affaire Saindon c. Triviom (Saindon c. 7834101 Canada Inc., 2015 QCCQ 682), la Cour du Québec rejette une demande d’exception déclinatoire de la défenderesse Triviom parce que la clause d’arbitrage en litige est rédigée à l’avantage de Triviom en ce sens qu’elle contrôle l’identité et la qualité des trois arbitres possibles à solutionner le conflit. La Cour du Québec conclut que la procédure de nomination de l’arbitre est nulle parce qu’elle est contraire à l’article 2641 C.c.Q.

Triviom ne porte pas cette décision de la Cour du Québec en appel.

Le 14 avril 2017, malgré la décision Saindon, Triviom et Caron concluent le Contrat préliminaire de vente de condominium qui inclut la même clause d’arbitrage. Ce contrat a pour objet la construction d’une unité de condominium, livrable en novembre 2017. La clause 5.10 se lit comme suit:

I have participated in the 18th CIETAC Cup Commercial Arbitration Moot Competition as an arbitrator last week on a videoconference platform named VooV Meeting. It has been my great honour and privilege to sit with the experienced arbitrators and lawyers from different jurisdictions during this event. And we are glad to see that the students in China are able to plead the CISG related matters fluently in English and to answer our questions directly and effectively during their deliberations (See my one-minute speech as the Arbitrator of CIETAC Cup).

As you may already know, this year, the Problem concerns the applicability of United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”) on the purchase and license agreement on the viral sectors for the production of vaccines against respiratory diseases, such as COVID-19. In the Problem, Claimant only requires the arbitral tribunal to declare the existence of a breach of contract of the Respondent as Claimant is not yet in a position, to exactly identify the specific remedy required. Out of curiosity, I have read a recent decision of Superior Court of Quebec to learn how the Quebec courts evaluate the worldwide damages in the epidemic of defective computer graphic cards litigation.

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.