Focus On

BINDING ARBITRATION - Legislation - Interpretation - Jurisdiction of the court to review

Friday, November 13, 2020 @ 6:24 AM  

Motion by Toronto Standard Condominium Corp. No. 1628 (Condo 1628) to quash the appeal brought by Toronto Standard Condominium Corp. No. 1636 (Condo 1636), Soho Grand Condominiums and Soinco Ltd. from an order of a motion judge that refused to stay a court proceeding in favour of arbitration. The parties disputed amounts owing under a cost-sharing agreement for the costs of common facilities in two adjoining condominium projects. The agreement contained an arbitration provision. Condo 1628 and Condo 1636 mediated the dispute but when mediation failed, Condo 1628 refused to arbitrate and initiated a court application against the appellants that sought remedies for oppression and for providing false, deceptive or misleading material information. The motion judge found the proceeding combined matters that were dealt with in the arbitration agreement with other matters that were not, and it was not appropriate to bifurcate the arbitrable and non-arbitrable claims.

HELD: Motion dismissed. Huras v. Primerica Financial Services and the line of cases that followed it were correctly decided. The Supreme Court in TELUS Communications Inc. v. Wellman did not overrule the Huras line of cases on the interpretation of s. 7(6) of the Arbitration Act. Because the motion judge granted relief that was unavailable under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, he did not make a decision under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act. Section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act did not bar an appeal from the motion judge’s order. An appeal lay to the Court of Appeal under s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Toronto Standard Condominium Corp. No. 1628 v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corp. No. 1636, [2020] O.J. No. 4166, Ontario Court of Appeal, G.R. Strathy C.J.O., J.C. MacPherson, G.I. Pardu, G. Huscroft and M. Jamal JJ.A., October 1, 2020. Digest No. TLD-November92020009