In Gestion PMOD Inc. v. 9e Bit (2015) Inc., 2019 QCCS 1154, Mr. Justice Steve J. Reimnitz homologated an award despite one of the dispositive orders omitting mention of the exact amounts due by respondent. Contrary to the opposite result in Carpenter v. Soudure Plastique Québec Inc. 2019 QCCS 321 in which the court refused to homologate an order which did not liquidate damages, Reimnitiz J. held that the award was capable of being executed. The award referred to an exhibit listing the amounts due as well as respondent’s admission that they were due.
Continue reading “Québec – award still capable of being executed despite order not mentioning amounts owing by respondent”Québec – arbitration agreement prevents defendant from adding third party as defendant-in-warranty
In Svensson v. Groupe Ovo inc., 2019 QCCS 1278, Mr. Justice Yves Poirier refused a defendant’s motion to implead a third party as its defendant-in-warranty because the civil procedure allowing defendant to do so must yield to the parties’ arbitration agreement. The court’s procedural solution allowing a defendant to join its proposed action-in-warranty to an existing litigation is suppletive and gives no jurisdiction to the court to grant the motion or override the primacy of arbitration procedure.
Continue reading “Québec – arbitration agreement prevents defendant from adding third party as defendant-in-warranty”Québec – parties’ autonomy favours allowing arbitrator to decide jurisdiction first even if some claims appear beyond it
In 9338-3941 Québec inc. v. 9356-2379 Québec inc., 2019 QCCS 1221, Madam Justice Danye Daigle referred the parties to arbitration despite the possibility that some of relief sought might not be covered by the arbitration agreement. Daigle J. preferred to have the arbitrator rule first on jurisdiction and then allow the parties to apply to the court for review or decision, rather than the reverse sequence. Doing so would respect the parties autonomy to choose how to resolve their disputes.
Continue reading “Québec – parties’ autonomy favours allowing arbitrator to decide jurisdiction first even if some claims appear beyond it”B.C. – no abuse of court process by either litigant simply by seeking or resisting arbitration
In Grewal v. Mann, 2019 BCSC 433, Mr. Justice Dennis Hori held that neither party was entitled to special costs following one party’s decision to file an action in court and the other party’s decision to apply for a stay of proceedings. In a dispute familiar to courts across Canada, both parties disputed the role of arbitration but, as Hori J. held, each appeared to genuinely pursue their legal remedies and in doing so did not commit any abuse of the court’s process.
Continue reading “B.C. – no abuse of court process by either litigant simply by seeking or resisting arbitration”Québec – arbitration agreement with optional wording not a complete undertaking to arbitrate
In Prométal inc. v. Maxim Construction inc., 2019 QCCS 1207, Mr. Justice Bernard Tremblay refused to refer the litigants to arbitration, holding that they had failed to agree in a clear and unequivocal way to exclude the resolution of their disputes from the courts. To allow defendant to present its motion for referral, Tremblay J. applied the longer 90 day delay available under article 622 of Québec’s Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR c C-25.01 to do so, holding that the standard, shorter 45 day delay did not apply because some of the dispute involved elements outside of Québec.
Continue reading “Québec – arbitration agreement with optional wording not a complete undertaking to arbitrate”