Rarotonga, 2010

Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

(Ontario/Canada)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | SPPA / Fairness (Administrative)
SMALL CLAIMS / CIVIL LITIGATION / CIVIL APPEALS / JUDICIAL REVIEW / Practice Directives / Civil Portals

home / about / Democracy, Law and Duty / testimonials / Conditions of Use

Civil and Administrative
Litigation Opinions
for Self-Reppers


TOPICS


Arbitration - Stay

. Ismail v. First York Holdings Inc.

In Ismail v. First York Holdings Inc. (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considers s.7(1) of the Arbitration Act, which allows a party to stay a court proceeding when it is subject to arbitration, and s.7(6) which bars a court appeal from a s.7 order:
(1) Does s. 7(6) of the Arbitration Act preclude this appeal?

[23] Section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act provides that there is no appeal from the court’s decision made under s. 7.

[24] Section 7(1) requires the court to stay an action where there is an arbitration clause that applies. Section 7(2) provides 5 circumstances where the court may refuse a stay. In this case, the court refused a stay. There is no appeal if the decision to refuse a stay was made under s. 7 of the Act.

[25] However, where the decision to refuse a stay is based on a finding that there is no arbitration agreement, then the decision to refuse a stay is not made under the Act, and therefore an appeal is not barred by s. 7(6): Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1628 v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1636, 2020 ONCA 612, 454 D.L.R. (4th) 126, at paras. 4, 47-49, 62; Huras v. Primerica Financial Services Ltd. (2000), 137 O.A.C. 79 (C.A.), 2000 CanLII 16892. That is the situation in this case; s. 7(6) does not preclude this appeal.

...

[35] The motion judge proceeded by considering the five question test set out in this court’s decision in Haas v. Gunasekaram, 2016 ONCA 744, 62 B.L.R. (5th) 1, at para. 17.[3] The five questions are:
1) Is there an arbitration agreement?

2) What is the subject matter of the dispute?

3) What is the scope of the arbitration agreement?

4) Does the dispute arguably fall within the arbitration agreement?

5) Are there grounds on which the court should refuse to stay the action?
[36] This five part test arises from ss. 7(1) and 7(2) of the Arbitration Act which read:
7(1) If a party to an arbitration agreement commences a proceeding in respect of a matter to be submitted to arbitration under the agreement, the court in which the proceeding is commenced shall, on the motion of another party to the arbitration agreement, stay the proceeding.

(2) However, the court may refuse to stay the proceeding in any of the following cases:
1. A party entered into the arbitration agreement while under a legal incapacity.

2. The arbitration agreement is invalid.

3. The subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of being the subject of arbitration under Ontario law.

4. The motion was brought with undue delay.

5. The matter is a proper one for default or summary judgment.
[37] The motion judge asked the first question from the Haas test and concluded that there was no arbitration agreement. The text of s. 7(1) makes clear that a decision on whether to stay a proceeding under s. 7 requires the existence of an arbitration agreement. He therefore did not need to proceed any further with the analysis.
. Goberdhan v. Knights of Columbus

In Goberdhan v. Knights of Columbus (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered Arbitration Act [s.7(6): 'no appeal of court stay of court proceedings where arbitration'], and which statute the appeal jurisdiction lay in the case of conflict between multiple appeal jurisdictions:
(1) Jurisdiction to hear the appeal

[6] The respondent relied on s. 7(6) of the Arbitration Act as foreclosing an appeal of the motion judge’s decision. Section 7(6) states that “there is no appeal from the court’s decision” on a motion to stay brought under section 7(1) of the Act. The respondent asserted that the appellant’s motion was brought under s. 7(1) and that the motion judge, after determining that there was an absence of consideration for the agreements containing a mandatory arbitration clause, concluded that the arbitration agreements were invalid and dismissed the motion under s. 7(2). The respondent relied on a statement from the Supreme Court’s decision in TELUS Communications Inc. v. Wellman, 2019 SCC 19, [2019] 2 S.C.R. 144, at para. 91:
Given the absence of any qualifying language, s. 7(6) must be taken as referring to a “decision” made under any subsection contained in s. 7 [and] would include, for example, a decision to stay the proceeding under s. 7(1), a decision to refuse a stay under s. 7(2), or a decision to order a partial stay under s. 7(5).
[7] We did not give effect to this argument.

[8] The fact that the appellant brought its stay motion relying on the Arbitration Act, and that the motion judge’s determination was that the arbitration agreement was “invalid” under s. 7(2), are not determinative. In Huras v. Primerica (2000), 2000 CanLII 16892 (ON CA), 137 O.A.C. 79 (C.A.), this court stated that, where a court finds that there is no arbitration clause (in that case because the clause was unconscionable), the Arbitration Act has no application, and the dispute lies beyond the scope of s. 7: at paras. 9-10. The court noted that “it follows that if the court has decided that the Act is not applicable, then the prohibition against an appeal in s. 7(6) is equally not applicable”: at para. 10.

[9] The authority of Huras, and the jurisprudence that followed it, was recently confirmed by a five-judge panel of this court in Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1628 v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1636, 2020 ONCA 612, at paras. 3-8. In that case, Jamal J.A. (as he then was) addressed and rejected the argument made here, that Wellman changed the law in respect of the scope and application of s. 7(6). He concluded that Wellman “did not disturb the Huras line of cases on the interpretation of s. 7(6)”, and that “the Huras line of cases was correctly decided”: at para. 6.
. Goberdhan v. Knights of Columbus

In Goberdhan v. Knights of Columbus (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered an appeal from a motion to stay under the Arbitration Act:
(2) Did the motion judge err in refusing to stay the action?

[11] The appellant argued that the motion judge erred in two ways when he refused to stay the action.

[12] First, the appellant asserted that the motion judge was required to grant a stay so long as it was “arguable” that the dispute fell within the scope of arbitral jurisdiction. It would then fall to the arbitrator to determine whether the arbitration clause applied. The appellant relied on Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41, 475 D.L.R. (4th) 1, at para. 39, to argue that the determination of arbitral jurisdiction is a question for an arbitrator to make. The only exceptions are where the challenge to jurisdiction raises a pure question of law or questions of mixed fact and law requiring only superficial consideration of the evidentiary record: at para. 42. See also Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16, [2020] 2 S.C.R. 118, at paras. 31-36 and Irwin v. Protiviti, 2022 ONCA 533, at paras. 10-11.

[13] We did not accept this submission.

[14] Peace River sets out a two-step process to be applied in determining whether court proceedings should be stayed in favour of arbitration. First, the party relying on an arbitration provision must establish the technical requirements for a mandatory stay of proceedings, including that there is an agreement to arbitrate: at para. 83. Then, a stay in favour of arbitration will follow unless the opposing party establishes one of the exceptions (in Ontario, under s. 7(2)): at paras. 79, 87-90.

[15] The court went on to note that a stay application should only be dismissed on the basis of a statutory exception in a “clear case”, “for example, one in which the party seeking to avoid arbitration has established on a balance of probabilities that the arbitration agreement is void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. Where the invalidity or unenforceability of the arbitration agreement is not clear (but merely arguable), the matter should be resolved by the arbitrator”: at para. 89. See also Dalimpex Ltd. v. Janicki (2003), 2003 CanLII 34234 (ON CA), 64 O.R. (3d) 737 (C.A.), at para. 22.

[16] In our view this was a clear case where the motion judge was able to determine the question at issue – whether there was fresh consideration to support the contracts containing arbitration clauses – on the evidence before him. In this case, the motion judge was able to find on the evidence before him that there was no fresh consideration for the agreements containing an arbitration clause. This was not a proposition that was “merely arguable”. Accordingly, we did not accept the appellant’s first challenge to the motion judge’s decision.
. Paulpillai Estate v. Yusuf

In Paulpillai Estate v. Yusuf (Ont CA, 2020) the Court of Appeal held that it had no appeal jurisdiction over a refusal of a stay under the Arbitration Act:
[47] Even if the motion judge is viewed as having exercised discretion because of undue delay under s. 7(2)4 of the Arbitration Act to refuse to stay the court proceeding and refer the dispute to arbitration — despite the silence of the order on this point — this court would still lack appellate jurisdiction over this aspect of the order. Section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act provides: “There is no appeal from the court’s decision.” The appeal bar in s. 7(6) applies to any decision under s. 7, including a decision to refuse a stay under s. 7(2): see TELUS Communications Inc. v. Wellman, 2019 SCC 19, [2019] 2 S.C.R. 144, at para. 91; Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1628 v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1636, 2020 ONCA 612, at paras. 62, 66-68, and 95.
. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1628 v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1636

In Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1628 v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1636 (Ont CA, 2020) the Court of Appeal addressed an awkward issue from the Arbitration Act. The Act provides that when a party commences a civil proceeding with respect to a matter that should be, by contract, arbitrated - that the court shall stay the proceeding in favour of the arbitration. It also says there is no appeal from the stay order. But in this appeal the stay order was denied because the respondent asserted that some of the issues were arbitrable and some not. A prior case, Huras v. Primerica Financial Services Ltd. (2000) (Ont CA, 2000), that dealt with this situation was being challenged (the challenge lost):
[1] Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1628 (“Condo 1628”) moves to quash an appeal brought by Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1636 (“Condo 1636”), Soho Grand Condominiums Inc. (“Soho”), and Soinco Ltd. (“Soinco”) from the order of the motion judge refusing to stay a court proceeding in favour of arbitration. Condo 1628 claims this court lacks jurisdiction because the appeal is barred by s. 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 (“Arbitration Act”).[1]

[2] Subject to certain exceptions under ss. 7(2) and 7(5), s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act provides that if a party to an arbitration agreement commences a court proceeding about a matter they agreed would be submitted to arbitration, the court shall, on the motion of another party to the arbitration agreement, stay the court proceeding. Under s. 7(5), when arbitrable and non-arbitrable matters are combined in a single court proceeding, if certain conditions are met, the court may stay the proceeding with respect to the matters dealt with in the arbitration agreement and allow it to continue with respect to the other matters. Section 7(6) decrees: “There is no appeal from the court’s decision.”

[3] This motion concerns the scope of s. 7(6). Condo 1628 asks this court to overrule 20 years of its jurisprudence on when s. 7(6) bars an appeal.

[4] This court’s leading decision interpreting s. 7(6), Huras v. Primerica Financial Services Ltd. (2000), 2000 CanLII 16892 (ON CA), 137 O.A.C. 79 (C.A.), held that if a motion judge decides that an arbitration agreement does not apply to the dispute before the court, then the Arbitration Act also does not apply, including the bar on appeals in s. 7(6). Huras has been followed by this court in seven unanimous decisions, including by two five-judge panels, and adopted as persuasive authority by the appeal courts of three other provinces with provisions identical to s. 7(6) in their arbitration statutes.

[5] Condo 1628 invites this court to overrule the Huras line of cases and quash this appeal based on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in TELUS Communications Inc. v. Wellman, 2019 SCC 19, [2019] 2 S.C.R. 144. In Wellman, Moldaver J. for the majority held that s. 7(5) “does not grant the court discretion to refuse to stay claims that are dealt with in an arbitration agreement”: at para. 8. He ruled that s. 7(5) “does not … permit the court to ignore a valid and binding arbitration agreement”: at para. 103. Wellman overturned this court’s contrary interpretation of s. 7(5) in Griffin v. Dell Canada Inc., 2010 ONCA 29, 98 O.R. (3d) 481, leave to appeal refused, [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 75, which had construed s. 7(5) as granting a motion judge discretion to refuse to stay claims dealt with in an arbitration agreement.

[6] As I elaborate below, although Wellman overturned Griffin on the interpretation of s. 7(5), it did not disturb the Huras line of cases on the interpretation of s. 7(6). In my view, the Huras line of cases was correctly decided.

[7] I also conclude that s. 7(6) does not bar an appeal from the motion judge’s order in this case. The motion judge found that the proceeding before the court combines matters that are dealt with in the arbitration agreement with other matters that are not dealt with in the arbitration agreement. Because the motion judge did not have the benefit of Wellman at the time of his decision, he applied this court’s decision in Griffin, refused to stay any part of the proceeding under s. 7(5), and allowed the entire proceeding to continue before the court. But as Wellman later confirmed, s. 7(5) does not grant the court discretion to refuse to stay claims that are dealt with in an arbitration agreement, and does not permit a court to ignore a valid and binding arbitration agreement. Because the motion judge granted relief that was unavailable under s. 7(5) or elsewhere in s. 7, he did not make a decision under s. 7, so an appeal is not barred by s. 7(6). And because this was a final order — terminating potential proceedings before the arbitrator and overriding a substantive contractual right to arbitrate — an appeal lies to this court under s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.



CC0

The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.




Last modified: 11-05-23
By: admin