Category: Canada – China

It’s getting warmer outside. People are starting to talk about their summer plans. I have been enjoying drafting argumentation plans for numerous trials and hearings in the Québec courts in the last few months. I am also getting some precious opportunities to draft Notice of Application, Statement of Claim and Notice of Motion for some litigation files in Ontario, a common law jurisdiction.  

Last weekend, when I was sipping on my coffee beside the windows, I happened to read the judgment rendered by the Honorable Chantal Corriveau, J.S.C. on Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd. c. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2024 QCCS 988 and the judgment rendered by the Honorable David R. Collier, J.S.C. Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd. c. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2023 QCCS 791. These two judgments show us how the Québec judiciary facilitates the execution of a foreign investment arbitral award, Zhongshan Fucheng v. Nigeria, rendered by a three-arbitrators tribunal in London, United Kingdom on March 26, 2021. These judgments also bring us to revisit the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, also known as the “New York Arbitration Convention” and State Immunity Act, RSC 1985, c S-18.  

Cet article vise à résumer un jugement rendu par la Cour supérieure du Québec, district de Longueuil en 2017 concernant une demande en exception déclinatoire fondée sur une clause d’arbitrage dans le Contrat de commission (7847866 Canada inc. c. Gree Electric Appliances Inc. of Zhuhai, 2017 QCCS 1723). Le contrat accorde à la demanderesse la distribution exclusive de produits de climatisation de la défenderesse pour l’ensemble du Canada avec utilisation de la marque de commerce « Gree », qui est bien connue en Chine comme « 格力电器 ».

Cette décision nous rappelle que 1) en employant le verbe « renvoyer » à l’article 622 du Code de procédure civile du Québec (ci-après « C.p.c. »), le législateur du Québec a signalé que le tribunal n’a aucun pouvoir discrétionnaire de refuser de renvoyer l’affaire à l’arbitrage à la demande de l’une des parties, lorsque les conditions requises sont remplies ; 2) une clause d’arbitrage est une clause  compromissoire parfaite, lorsque la clause prévoit que les parties s’obligent à l’avance à soumettre à l’arbitrage les litiges qui pourraient naître relativement à leur contrat et implique que la sentence rendue sera finale et liera les parties (Zodiak International c. Polish People’s Republic, [1983] 1 RCS 529).

While the Omicron variant of COVID-19 spread continues, I have spent most of my time at home reading books, cooking delicious and healthy food, playing the piano and doing workout during the Christmas holiday. Of course, I watch Netflix from time to time. One day, when I was surfing the web, I read a recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision on the recognition and enforcement of a CIETAC arbitral award (China Yantai Friction Co. Ltd. v. Novalex Inc., 2021 ONSC 7714). I would like to share my case summary of this court decision here. I believe the readers would be happy to learn from this post that a) a foreign arbitral award creditor will not be ordered by Canadian courts to post security for costs simply by virtue of being a non-resident seeking to recognize and enforce an arbitral award in Canada; b) Canada is a country with arbitration-friendly jurisdictions and the Canadian courts respect the principles of international arbitration and cherish their relationship with the courts and tribunals of other countries (See also Specter Aviation c. Laprade, 2021 QCCA 1811).

Factual Background

On 14 September 2014, Emphor FZCO (“Emphor”) signs a shipbuilding contract (“Shipbuilding Contract”) with Guangdong Yuexin Ocean Engineering Co., Ltd. (“Yuexin”) for the purchase of a 60.6 meters anchor handling tug supply vessel. They agree that Yuexin should fulfil its delivery obligations on or before March 3, 2016 and that if Yuexin fails to fulfill its delivery obligations due to the force majeure, Emphor can terminate the contract after an excessively delayed delivery of over 210 calendar days. As a consequence, Yuexin should refund all payment for bookings and pay the interests at an annual rate of 6%.

On December 3, 2013, their Contract comes into effect.

On October 10, 2016, as Yuexin fails to fulfil its delivery obligations, Emphor notifies Yuexin that Emphor is going to terminate the contract. Moreover, Emphor also requests Yuexin to refund US$ 2,780,000 that Emphor has prepaid for the vessel and the interests to Emphor.