Category: Others

The Supreme Court of Canada, in its recent decision on Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41 clarifies whether and in what circumstances a contractual agreement to arbitrate governed by the Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.55, should give way to the public interest in the orderly and efficient resolution of a court-ordered receivership under s. 243 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.C.S. 1985, c. B-3. A court may decline to grant a stay where the party seeking to avoid arbitration establishes that the arbitration agreement at issue is “void, inoperative or incapable of being performed” within the meaning of s. 15(2)” (See para. 34 of the Decision). In the context of bankruptcy and insolvency law, an arbitration agreement may be inoperative if enforcing it would compromise the orderly and efficient resolution of the receivership. It is worth to note that the Supreme Court of Canada reminds us that the exercise required to determine if a stay of proceedings should be granted in favour of arbitration is highly factual. 

When a third person wishes to intervene as a friend of the court as per Art. 187 C.c.p. in a private dispute, the third person is required to convince the Court that it will offer an additional and useful perspective on the issues (particularly difficult and new) at stake that the parties are not able to submit themselves. In Mullen c. Nakisa inc., 2022 QCCS 1164, the Canadian Commercial Arbitration Center (“CCAC”)’s application to intervene as a friend of court is rejected by Mr. Justice Stéphane Lacoste, j.c.s. in or around April 2022 as in the Court’s view, CCAC’s observations on the international commercial arbitration rules and the operation of commercial arbitration in Québec could be the mere repetition of Nakisa’s positions in the hope of amplifying their importance.  

À la suite du jugement rendu par l’honorable Monsieur le juge Bachand qui a accordé la permission d’appeler (Specter Aviation c. Laprade, 2021 QCCA 183), en décembre 2021, la Cour d’appel du Québec a rendu le jugement accueillant l’appel (Specter Aviation c. Laprade, 2021 QCCA 1811). Cette décision de la Cour d’appel nous enseigne que (1) l’article 3152 C.c.Q. vise à définir les limites de la compétence internationale des autorités judiciaires du Québec, mais n’entend pas exclure le processus d’arbitrage; (2) la reconnaissance de la compétence en matière de conflit de juridictions doit être faite de façon claire et évidente, et chaque cas sera un cas d’espèce.

While the contractual interpretation generally constitutes mixed questions of fact and law, the interpretation of a standard-form contract would be considered as a question of law when there is no meaningful factual matrix that is specific to the parties in dispute to assist the interpretation process and the interpretation would have presidential value (para. 24 of Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37). This article aims to summarize the Quebec Court of Appeal’s decision on a declamatory exception claim based on the ambiguous dispute resolution clauses in a standard-form insurance policy (9369-1426 Québec inc. (Restaurant Bâton Rouge) c. Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company, 2021 QCCA 1594). Having studied the insurance policy in dispute and numerous Supreme Court of Canada and Quebec Court of Appeal decisions as well as doctrines on arbitration and contractual interpretation, the Quebec Court of Appeal confirms that the trial judge is right to refer the matter to arbitration and that the arbitration clause should be interpreted in a large and liberal manner (para. 13 of the Decision)

Some readers and friends write to me these days asking if I will continue sharing articles on the case laws. Indeed, in the past few days, although I have been reading court decisions on daily basis for work and leisure, I did not share my summary and analysis of the case laws here.

In the past few days, I moved from my previous apartment in downtown Montreal with serious construction issues (the construction noise sometimes starts at 7 a.m. since May this year) to a cozy condo with beautiful view and kind neighbours in Town of Mount Royal. In the past few days, I managed to facilitate the communications between my clients and the opposing parties in some family files so that they reach consent for the best interests of their children and move forward in their life with peace of mind; In the past few days, I managed to prepare legal proceedings for a Court of Appeal case on private international law, which I received the mandate two days before the deadline (big thanks to the teamwork); I also handled a few pre-trial examinations in French and some negotiations in English for some civil files; Besides, I have appeared in front of the Municipal Court to help the client to get his justice etc.

In November and December, I will participate in the 19th CIETAC CUP as an arbitrator again. And I am taking more trainings on arbitration organized by Barreau du Québec in the coming days. Apparently, thanks to the readers’ comments and support on my website, I would love to continue publishing more summary and analysis of the case laws here so that I could build up connections with experienced lawyers in Quebec and with jurists from different countries and jurisdictions.

This post aims to summarize the analysis of Mr. Justice Lukasz Granosik, j.c.s.  on Mullen c. Nakisa inc., 2021 QCCS 4388. It is worth to mention in the very beginning that this legal proceeding is governed by Art. 530 (2) C.C.P. i.e. an application for judicial review of a decision made by an arbitrator during a case management conference on July 30, 2021.

The arbitration mechanism created by the Regulation respecting the Guarantee Plan for new residential buildings, CQLR c B-1.1, r 8 (“Regulation”) is an administrative proceeding as it does not allow the parties renounce to it once the dispute arises. In Consortium MR Canada ltée c. Morissette, 2021 QCCS 2847, Mr. Justice Philippe Bélanger conducts the judicial review over the arbitral award from the arbitration proceeding organized according to the Regulation based on the reasonableness standard as indicated in the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada on Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. Mr. Justice Bélanger held that the Arbitrator did not commit an unreasonable error in concluding that Consortium MR Canada Ltd. (“MR”) breached its obligation of result to the buyers of the newly-built condominiums/the Beneficiaries of the Guarantee Plan.