Caron v. Attorney General of Canada: The Superior Court clarifies the proper interpretation of section 3(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act – #32

Benjamin was born in the Netherlands in a same-sex parented family. His Canadian citizenship application was refused by the government because there is no biological link between Benjamin and his Canadian parent, which was interpreted as an essential requirement for derivative citizenship according to section 3(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act (“Act”). Instead of applying for judicial review before the Federal Court of Canada, the plaintiffs seek an order declaring that the government’s interpretation of s. 3(1)(b) of the Act breached and continues to breach their Charter right to equality before the Superior Court of Quebec. Interestingly, the Attorney General of Canada also agrees with the plaintiffs that the government’s interpretation of s. 3(1)(b) brings it in conflict with s. 15(1) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”). In July 2020, Mr. Justice Frédéric Bachand declared that in order to conform with Canadian human rights legislation as well as with the Charter, the interpretation requiring a biological link between Benjamin and his Canadian parent breaches his Charter right and that the terms “père et mère” in the French text should refer to both biological and legal parentage. This judgment protects same-sex couples’ rights to start and raise families of their own in Canada (Caron c. Attorney General of Canada2020 QCCS 2700).

Continue reading “Caron v. Attorney General of Canada: The Superior Court clarifies the proper interpretation of section 3(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act – #32”

L’affaire Grand-Maison : L’accès au terrain du voisin et la réparation du préjudice – #31

Au Québec, le voisin peut avoir l’accès au votre terrain pour effectuer une construction sur son propre terrain lorsque les travaux ne peuvent pas être réalisés sans passer par votre terrain (Art. 987 C.c.Q.). Vous ne pouvez pas refuser l’accès à moins que vous ne puissiez démontrer que l’accès à votre terrain n’est pas nécessaire ou qu’il y a d’autres moyens d’effectuer les travaux (paragr. 23, Murphy c. Caldareri, 2008 QCCS 6721; page 395, LAFOND, Pierre-Claude, Précis de droit des biens, 2e édition). En outre, si l’accès au votre terrain vous cause des inconvénients anormaux, le voisin devient responsable de plein droit, sans qu’il y ait faute (Art. 976 C.c.Q.).

Continue reading “L’affaire Grand-Maison : L’accès au terrain du voisin et la réparation du préjudice – #31”

Mexico v. Burr: Judicial Review of Ontario Court on Investor-State Arbitration Tribunal’s Partial Award on Applicant’s Jurisdictional Objections – #30

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 StatesICSID 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.

Continue reading “Mexico v. Burr: Judicial Review of Ontario Court on Investor-State Arbitration Tribunal’s Partial Award on Applicant’s Jurisdictional Objections – #30”

Cao v. Chen: Should the Chinese Judgment be recognized by British Columbia Court? – WriteToLearn Notes

A court enforcing a foreign judgment is enforcing the obligation created by that judgment (Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc. 2006 SCC 52). The principle of the separation of judicial systems reminds us that as long as the foreign court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, absent evidence of fraud or a judgment contrary to natural justice or public policy, the enforcing court is not interested in the substantive or procedural law of the foreign jurisdiction (para. 89 of Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc. 2006 SCC 52). This article summarizes the reasoning of the Supreme Court of British Columbia on Cao v. Chen2020 BCSC 735 on the matter of the recognition and enforcement of a Chinese judgment on family matters.

Continue reading “Cao v. Chen: Should the Chinese Judgment be recognized by British Columbia Court? – WriteToLearn Notes”

Daesung v Praxair: Non-Chinese Institutions Can Administer Arbitrations Seated in China

In August 2020, the Shanghai Court rules that if the parties have chosen a non-Chinese arbitration for an arbitration seated in China, as long as the arbitration agreement complies with other requirements within Article 16 of the PRC Arbitration Law, then the arbitration agreement is valid (Daesung Industrial Gases Co. Ltd. v Praxair (China) Investment Co. Ltd. [2020] Shanghai 01 Civil Special 83).

Continue reading “Daesung v Praxair: Non-Chinese Institutions Can Administer Arbitrations Seated in China”

L’affaire Hengyun : L’impact de la COVID-19 en matière de louage commercial au Québec — WriteToLearn Notes

Le 16 juillet 2020, la Cour supérieure du Québec a rendu un jugement (Hengyun International Investment Commerce Inc. v. 9368 — 7614 Québec inc.2020 QCCS 2251) donnant, entre autres, son analyse complète sur la disponibilité du COVID-19 pandémie comme défense de force majeure en matière de louage commercial. La Cour supérieure du Québec a affirmé que la fermeture obligatoire des commerces en raison de la pandémie de COVID-19 constitue un cas de force majeure en ce cas et que le locataire n’a pas à payer les loyers dus pendant la période de fermeture obligatoire. Cette décision peut avoir un impact important sur les litiges entre les locataires et les propriétaires résultant de la fermeture forcée des commerces à venir. 

Continue reading “L’affaire Hengyun : L’impact de la COVID-19 en matière de louage commercial au Québec — WriteToLearn Notes”

Uber v Heller: The Reasoning by the Honorable Madam Justice Côté

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).

Continue reading “Uber v Heller: The Reasoning by the Honorable Madam Justice Côté”

Uber v Heller: The Arbitration Clause of Uber’s Services Agreement is Unenforceable and Invalid

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. 

Continue reading “Uber v Heller: The Arbitration Clause of Uber’s Services Agreement is Unenforceable and Invalid”

Uber v Heller: Only Superficial Review of the Documentary Evidence is Sufficient for the Court to Resolve the Issue of Arbitral Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court of Canada released the judgement on Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller2020 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.

Continue reading “Uber v Heller: Only Superficial Review of the Documentary Evidence is Sufficient for the Court to Resolve the Issue of Arbitral Jurisdiction”

The Supreme Court of Canada (7:0) allowed the appeal and reinstated the supervising judge’s order under the CCAA

Bankruptcy and insolvency can trigger catastrophic consequences. Often, large claims of unsecured creditors are left unpaid (Para. 1 of Sun Indalex Finance v. United Steelworkers2013 SCC 6). The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) is one of the three principal insolvency statutes in Canada. The CCAA pursues an array of overarching remedial objectives. These legislative objectives include: “providing for timely, efficient and impartial resolution of a debtor’s insolvency; preserving and maximizing the value of a debtor’s assets; ensuring fair and equitable treatment of the claims against a debtor; protecting the public interest; and, in the context of a commercial insolvency, balancing the costs and benefits of restructuring or liquidating the company.” (Para. 40 of Callidus2020 SCC 10)

Continue reading “The Supreme Court of Canada (7:0) allowed the appeal and reinstated the supervising judge’s order under the CCAA”