{"id":2261,"date":"2016-10-24T01:17:53","date_gmt":"2016-10-24T05:17:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.zeilikmanlaw.com\/case-summaries\/arbitrators-decision-prevails-in-court-of-appeal\/"},"modified":"2022-06-27T11:23:40","modified_gmt":"2022-06-27T15:23:40","slug":"arbitrators-decision-prevails-in-court-of-appeal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.zeilikmanlaw.com\/arbitrators-decision-prevails-in-court-of-appeal\/","title":{"rendered":"Arbitrator\u2019s Decision Prevails in Court of Appeal"},"content":{"rendered":"

FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Court of Appeal recently decided whether or not to overturn an arbitrator\u2019s award for $2,240,000 arising out of a commercial dispute.<\/p>\n

The Appellant\u2014The Coliseum Inc. (\u201cColiseum\u201d)\u2014entered into a long-term lease agreement with the City of Ottawa (\u201cCity\u201d) to operate an indoor sports and recreation facility at Frank Clair Stadium. The dispute centered on the terms of the Minutes of Settlement previously entered into by both parties, with a focus on two key paragraphs which gave Coliseum an option to renew the contract, conditional upon and subject to the City\u2019s\u00a0bona fide\u00a0<\/em>redevelopment plans. In the event the City, acting in good faith, initiated\u00a0bona fide\u00a0<\/em>redevelopment plans, Coliseum would be given the option to lease a portion of Ben Franklin Park or a similar City-owned property. At arbitration, Coliseum claimed the City breached the Minutes of Settlement by offering to Coliseum a lease agreement for Ledbury Park. The Arbitrator found that although Ledbury Park was \u201csimilar\u201d to Ben Franklin Park within the meaning of the Minutes, the City failed to take \u201cmeaningful steps\u201d to determine that it was appropriate for Coliseum\u2019s operations.<\/p>\n

The City brought an application to appeal under section 45(1) of the\u00a0Arbitration Act<\/em>, which allows parties to appeal an arbitrator\u2019s decision on a question of law. The application judge granted leave to appeal.<\/p>\n

The Court of Appeal was charged with deciding two issues: (1) whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to review a decision of the Superior Court judge granting leave to appeal an arbitral decision under section 45(1) of the\u00a0Arbitration Act<\/em>; and (2) the reasonableness of the arbitrator\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n

The Court ruled in the negative on the first issue, finding that an application judge\u2019s decision to grant leave to appeal was not itself appealable. With respect to the second issue, writing for the court, MacPherson J.A. found that there were insufficient grounds to overturn the Arbitrator\u2019s decision because the Arbitrator\u2019s interpretation of the Minutes of Settlement was not \u201cunreasonable\u201d.<\/p>\n

OUR THOUGHTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Arbitration clauses are relatively common in the world of commercial litigation. Businesses tend to like them because they avoid the publicity of trial and they can often be more stream-lined than litigation through the court system, especially when issues of jurisdiction may arise. Courts tend to give a high level of deference to arbitrators and arbitration clauses. In this case, the Court of Appeal refused to overrule the Arbitrator\u2019s decision despite having acknowledged at least one other reasonable interpretation of the relevant paragraphs of the Minutes of Settlement. MacPherson, J.A. found that, in light of the principles of contract interpretation which require \u201cdetermining the intent of the parties and the scope of their understanding,\u201d the Arbitrator\u2019s decision was not unreasonable. The Court found that the arbitrator was in a better position to make factual findings and appraise the parties\u2019 respective positions when interpreting the contract.<\/p>\n

This decision acts as a reminder to businesses that courts typically lend a high level of deference to the decisions of arbitrators. This is partly because of the confidence the court system has in arbitrators’ fact-finding powers, and further because courts generally welcome methods of steering disputes out of the court system. The finality of an arbitrator\u2019s decision can be either a plus or a minus depending on one\u2019s situation. When entering into a contract, parties should always consider the strategic advantages or disadvantages of arbitration, specifically with respect to the finality of arbitrators\u2019 decisions.<\/p>\n

See: Ottawa (City) v. Coliseum Inc<\/em>., 2016 ONCA 363<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

FACTS The Court of Appeal recently decided whether or not to overturn an arbitrator\u2019s award for $2,240,000 arising out of a commercial dispute. The Appellant\u2014The Coliseum Inc. (\u201cColiseum\u201d)\u2014entered into a long-term lease agreement with the City of Ottawa (\u201cCity\u201d) to operate an indoor sports and recreation facility at Frank Clair Stadium. The dispute centered on […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":5196,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,35],"tags":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.zeilikmanlaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/Case-Summary.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.zeilikmanlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2261"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.zeilikmanlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.zeilikmanlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.zeilikmanlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.zeilikmanlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2261"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.zeilikmanlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2261\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5117,"href":"https:\/\/www.zeilikmanlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2261\/revisions\/5117"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.zeilikmanlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5196"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.zeilikmanlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2261"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.zeilikmanlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2261"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.zeilikmanlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2261"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}