On May 2, 2022, the Young Canadian Arbitration Practitioners (“YCAP”) hosted its 2022 Spring Symposium in Calgary, Alberta. YCAP is an organization with an interest in promoting international arbitration in Canada and around the world.

In Husky Food Importers & Distributors Ltd. v. JH Whittaker & Sons Limited, 2022 ONSC 1679 (“Husky Food Importers”), JH Whittaker & Sons Limited (“Whittaker’s), a New Zealand incorporated chocolate manufacturer, successfully brought a motion to stay an action commenced against it by an Ontario company, Husky Food Importers & Distributors Ltd (“Husky”), and refer Husky’s action to arbitration in New Zealand.

In Enrroxs Energy and Mining Group v Saddad, 2022 BCSC 285, Justice Crerar of the British Columbia Supreme Court had to determine whether the potential for double recovery justified refusing to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award based on the public policy exception.

Parties involved in certain industries, such as construction and engineering, oil and gas, and mining, often elect international arbitration as their go to forum for dispute resolution in their contracts, as they are able to appoint adjudicators with specialized knowledge. As such, these parties make up a large number of disputes heard by international arbitral institutions, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”). By contrast, parties operating in the world of financial services have turned to arbitration with far less frequency.

In Alberta Cricket Association v. Alberta Cricket Council, 2021 ONSC 8451, Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice set aside an arbitral award on the basis that that the Arbitrator failed to provide adequate reasons and did not provide an explanation for the award, contrary to section 38 (1) of the Ontario’s Arbitration Act, 1991[1] (the “Act”). Justice Perell also ordered a new arbitration be conducted by a new arbitrator.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Electek Power Services Inc. v. Greenfield Energy Centre Limited Partnership, 2022 ONSC 894 (“Electek”) recently set aside a preliminary jurisdiction decision by an arbitral panel that it had jurisdiction over the matter before it. In setting aside the arbitral panel’s decision, the Court considered recent jurisprudence under s. 17(8) of the Arbitration Act[1], and found that it was required to determine the issue on a de novo basis, and not as an appeal in which administrative law or appellate standards set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (“Vavilov”) would apply. 

In CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. c. Republic of India, 2022 QCCS 7, the Superior Court of Quebec had to determine whether the assets of two state-owned agencies were validly seized ex parte pending the homologation[1] of two foreign arbitral awards rendered against the Republic of India in favour of the Plaintiffs.

In the 2019 decision of Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (“Vavilov”), the Supreme Court of Canada overhauled the standard of review in the context of administrative decisions. It ruled that administrative decisions subject to a statutory right of appeal should be reviewed under the appellate standard: correctness for questions of law, and palpable and overriding error for questions of mixed fact and law.