In Durham (Regional Municipality) v. Oshawa (City), the court held that the word “may” in an arbitration clause makes the arbitration permissive and not enforceable.  This conclusion is significant for building contracts which often use very similar wording.

Background

In December 2004, the Regional Municipality of Durham (the Region) passed a resolution relating to the jurisdiction over public transportation in the Region. The resolution transferred the jurisdiction over those facilities to the Region from City of Oshawa and certain lower-tiered municipalities which had previously had jurisdiction over them. The bylaw provided that the amount and future payment of exiting and unfunded liabilities was to be determined by negotiations between the region and the lower-tiered municipalities. It stated that “any matter not agreed to within three (3) months of the Effective Date [of the bylaw] may, at the request of the Region or a lower-level municipality, be determined by arbitration under the provisions of the Ontario Arbitration Act.”

There were some complicated issues to be resolved between the Region and the lower-tiered municipalities:  the identity of the facilities to be transferred, the nature of the legal arrangements (sale or lease), and amount and nature of the unfunded liabilities relating to former transit employees. Up until late 2009, it was not known exactly which assets would be transferred.

In early April 2009, the Region settled the issue of the transferred costs and liabilities with all the other lower-tiered municipalities except Oshawa.  On April 1, 2009 the Region requested arbitration. Oshawa asserted that, from the very beginning, it refused to accept responsibility for the unfunded liabilities. On April 21, 2009, Oshawa passed a resolution denying responsibility for the unfunded liabilities and refusing to proceed to arbitration.  On March 22, 2011, the Region commenced an action against Oshawa for payment of those liabilities.

The Regions took the position that the two year limitation period commenced on April 21, 2009 when Ottawa passed its resolution denying responsibility for the unfunded liabilities. The Region said that it was on that date that it “discovered” that there was a dispute with Oshawa, and that its action on March 22, 2011 was commenced within the two year limitation period from that date.

Oshawa asserted that the limitation period commenced in March 2005 when the three month negotiation period expired after the Region’s bylaw and that the Region’s action was barred by the limitation period. In the alternative, Oshawa said that its refusal to accept responsibility for the unfunded liabilities was well known to the Region long before Oshawa’s resolution of April 21, 2009 and that the Region knew or should have known, long before Oshawa’s resolution, that Oshawa denied responsibility for those liabilities and that the limitation period was running.

The Decision

The court held that the Region’s bylaw did not create a mandatory obligation to arbitrate. The words “may…be determined by arbitration” only established a permissive arbitral regime in which either party could opt not to arbitrate.  The court said:

“There is no decision that a permissive clause, in which parties “may” proceed to arbitration, triggers a limitation period. Had the limitation clause instead required  the parties to attend arbitration after three months by using the word “shall”, it would have changed the complexion of Oshawa’s arguments.”

The court also held that the limitation period commenced when Oshawa passed a resolution denying liability for the unfunded obligations, not when the three month period expired after the Region’s bylaw was enacted. The parties had negotiated in good faith right up to April 2009, all apparently in good faith. The relevant financial statements, upon which a resolution of the issues between the municipalities could be resolved, were not available until April 2006. So the limitation period could not sensibly run from the expiry of the three month period after the Region’s bylaw was enacted . Since a municipality can only officially act by resolution, it was not until Oshawa’s resolution of April 21, 2009 that the Region could reasonably know, and therefore discover, that there was a dispute.

Comments

Whether an arbitration clause requires, or merely permits, arbitration is of crucial importance in any contract and, to no less an extent, in a building contract. How does this decision help us understand and apply arbitration clauses?

The Region’s bylaw used the word “shall” at least 15 times.  It would seem that the arrangements instituted by the bylaw were mandatory, that the assets and liabilities were being transferred, with no going back. In those circumstances, what meaning should be given to “may”, at the request of the Region or a lower-tier municipality, be determined by arbitration”? Could the word “may” simply mean that the parties are not required to have a dispute?  Did all the “shall”s in the bylaw mean that the regime itself was mandatory, but that disputes were not mandatory? Did it make sense that the municipalities would have two dispute resolution regimes (arbitration and an action) to resolve their disputes?  Or does it make sense for an arbitration clause to be interpreted as permissive when that would mean that the Region had inserted an unenforceable clause into its bylaw?

This issue is of interest to construction law because wording of the same kind is found in building contracts . For example, GC 8.2 of the CCDC 2 Stipulated Price Contract is the dispute resolution clause in that contract.  GC 8.2 has the word “shall” in it at least six times.  But when it refers to arbitration, it says in GC 8.2.6 “either party may refer the dispute to be finally resolved by arbitration.” Other parts of GC 8.2 may make it clear that arbitration is mandatory if one party wants arbitration. But the use of the word “may” in the pivotal clause, 8.2.6 may confuse the issue if the decision in Durham v. Oshawa is strictly applied.

The decision in Durham v Oshawa may be more readily understood by considering whether the Region’s bylaw was an enforceable document as between the Region and Oshawa. If it was not, then the word “may” makes sense because a mandatory obligation could not be imposed on Oshawa.  If this is the case, then this decision has no application to a contractual arbitration clause.

It is interesting that the Region did not press the point that the arbitration provision was mandatory. It had passed a resolution on April 1, 2009 that the dispute should proceed to arbitration. But when Oshawa passed a resolution on April 21, 2009 refusing to arbitrate, the Region did not try to force Oshawa to proceed with arbitration. Perhaps it did not do so because it was concerned that, on April 1, 2009, the two year limitation period had already passed since its 2004 bylaw and the three month period for negotiation.  But having passed that resolution on April 1, 2009, it seems odd that it could later assert that the limitation period hadn’t even started to run.

There are some other interesting issues arising from this decision. But enough has been said to emphasize the point that limitation periods and arbitration clauses are a troublesome mixture.

Durham (Regional Municipality) v. Oshawa (City) (2012), 113 O.R. (3d) 54 (Ont. S.C.J.)

Construction Law  -  Arbitration  -   Limitation Periods

Thomas G. Heintzman O.C., Q.C., FCIArb                                                                                                                            April 20, 2013

www.heintzmanadr.com

www.constructionlawcanada.com

Or is an agreement to mediate simply not enforceable because an agreement to negotiate is not enforceable? If this is the case, then the limitation period is running and either party can ignore the mediation agreement and go to court or commence arbitration. The Ontario Court of Appeal so held in Federation Insurance Co. of Canada v. Markel Insurance Co of Canada, 2012 ONCA 218.

The uncertainty about the enforceability of mediation agreements creates real dangers for those engaged in dispute resolution under arbitration and building contracts. Fortunately, in Ontario there may be at least a partial solution in section 11 (“section 11”) of the Limitations Act, 2002 of Ontario (“Limitations Act”). This solution is often forgotten but in the recent decision in Tribury v. Sandro, the court held that a mediation agreement, once made, does effectively stop the limitation period from running.

However, there are other dangers arising from mediation agreements and limitation and procedural periods.  The Tribury decision did not expressly determine whether the mediation agreement would suspend the limitation period even if it was not an enforceable agreement to mediate.  In addition, section 11 only applies to limitation periods prescribed under the Limitations Act.  Thus, in Tribury, the court did not apply section 11 to the two year period for setting a lien action down for trial under section 37 of the Construction Lien Act (“section 37”).  What is the effect of mediations on all the other procedural and limitation sections found in Ontario statutes?

Section 11(1) states as follows:

“ If a person with a claim and a person against whom a claim is made have agreed to have an independent third party resolve the claim or assist them in resolving it, the limitation periods established by sections 4 and 15 do not run from the date the agreement is made until,

(a) the date the claim is resolved;

(b) the date the attempted resolution process is terminated; or

(c) the date a party terminates or withdraws from the agreement.”

Background

Tribury was the general contractor on a construction project for Laurentian University.  Sandro was the structural steel subcontractor and Edward was Sandro’s structural steel consultant.  The project started in 2006 and ground to a halt in June 2007 due to the alleged failure of certain steel connections. Apparently, all parties accepted that the claims between the parties were “discovered” in June 2007 for the purposes of the Limitations Act. As will be seen later, one of the issues in the motions in question was whether some of the subsequent proceedings were brought within the basic two year limitation period set out in section 4 of the Ontario Limitations Act or, in effect, by June 2009.

In October 2008, Sandro commenced a construction lien claim against Tribury and Laurentian. The other issue in the motions in question was whether Sandro had set that lien claim down for trial within two years of that date as required by section 37 of the Construction Lien Act, or, in effect, by October 2010.

In December 2008, Tribury counterclaimed in Sandro’s lien action.  In April 2009, Tribury started its own action which was substantially the same as its counterclaim in Sandro’s lien action. While Tribury agreed to withdraw that counterclaim, the order dismissing the counterclaim was not made until November 2010.

The Mediation

In March 2009, Sandro suggested mediation to all parties. In April 2009, counsel for all the parties participated in a conference call and all the parties, with the exception of one party, agreed to participate in mediation. That agreement was confirmed by a letter from Tribury which suggested the names of mediators, proposed deadlines for the mediation briefs and confirmed the parties’ tentative consent to a cost sharing for the mediator’s fees. In July, 2009, Sandro delivered its mediation brief to Edward. In March, 2010 the parties chose a mediator. In August, 2010, a mediation date in November 2010, was scheduled.  On November 10, 2010, counsel for Edward advised the other parties that Edward was not prepared to mediate the “Sandro remediation costs”, namely the remediation costs which Sandro itself had incurred and was now claiming against Edward (as opposed to remediation claims being asserted by others against Sandro which Sandro claimed over against Edward). The mediation was cancelled.

The Impugned Proceedings

On December 3, 2010, Sandro issued a new Statement of Claim against Edward. On December 6, 2010, in Tribury’s 2009 action Sandro served a Statement of Defence, Crossclaim (against Edward) and Counterclaim (against Tribury).

The Motions

Edward then brought a motion to dismiss the December 2010 action and cross claim against it on the ground that the limitation period had expired.

Tribury bought a motion to dismiss Sandro’s lien action on the ground that it had not been set down within the two years period set forth in Section 37 of the Construction Lien Act. Section 37 requires that, within two years of the lien action that perfected the lien, an order must be made for the trial of an action in which the lien may be enforced, or an action in which the lien may be enforced must be set down for trial.  Otherwise, the lien action must be dismissed.

Tibury also sought an order dismissing Sandro’s December 2010 counterclaim on the basis that, by December 2010, the limitation period had expired for that counterclaim to be brought.

The Decision

1.      Section 11

So far as Sandro’s December 2010 claim and cross claim against Edward and its December 2010 counterclaim against Tribury, the Court held that the limitation period for commencing those claims was extended during the whole period from April 2009 to November 2010, and had not expired by the time that Sandro’s December 2010 claim, cross claim and counterclaim were commenced, by virtue of the mediation and the effect of section 11 of the Limitations Act.

First, the Court held that an agreement under section 11 did not have to specify that the limitation period was suspended until the conclusion of the mediation.  The suspension of the limitation period was effected by section 11 itself, without the parties having to say so. Their agreement to mediate, not any words agreeing to a suspension of the limitation period, caused the suspension.

The Court distinguished section 23(3) from section 11 of the Limitations Act. Sub-section 23(3) is the general provision allowing parties to agree to suspend or extend the limitation period.  That sub-section depends, for it to be activated, on the parties’ agreement to do exactly that, namely, suspend or extend the limitation period.  In contract, section 11 depends, for it to be activated, upon the parties’ agreement to mediate. If there is an agreement to mediate, it is section 11 which then suspends the limitation period. The Court said:

Edward has not convinced me that the agreement referred to in section 11 of the Limitations Act requires specific language suspending or extending applicable limitation periods for its efficacy. In my view, what is required is an agreement which is entered into after a dispute has arisen whereby the parties agree to have a third party assist in resolving the dispute, nothing more. In the case before the court, the parties entered into an agreement to mediate in response to a dispute which had arisen among them. They have therefore met the requisite test.

Whether there was an agreement to mediate was disputed. After reviewing the evidence, The Court held there was an agreement to mediate and that it included the Sandro remediation costs.  The Court found as follows:

The correspondence between the parties confirms their mutual intention to mediate the issues which arose following the failure of the steel connectors and I find that all parties decided to mediate these issues on the understanding that all outstanding damages issues would be mediated. Although the confirming letter did not specify which issues were to comprise the subject of the mediation, the agreement was open ended and not restricted in scope. There was a stated requirement in the letter confirming the mediation that both Sandro and Tribury submit damages briefs and there is no evidence that the parties intended that only some of the issues resulting from the failure of the steel connectors were to be mediated.

2.       Section 37

So far as Sandro’s lien claim, the Ontario Superior Court exercised its discretion to permit that claim to proceed as an ordinary contract claim, and struck out the lien itself on the ground that the action had not been set down within the two year period set forth in section 37. In so deciding, it did not consider whether the mediation, and section 11 of the Limitations Act, could extend the time set forth in section 37. Since section 11 only refers to limitation periods in the Limitation Act, the Court presumably thought that it was self-evident that section 11 did not apply to section 37.

Discussion

There is good news (with a condition), bad news and two warnings arising from this decision.

First the conditional good news.  If parties who are involved in a dispute agree to mediate, they thereby suspend the limitation period under section 11.  This is a power that is often forgotten. The parties are not necessarily faced with a “do or die” alternative between commencing the proceeding on the one hand, or mediating and potentially letting the limitation period run out on the other hand.  By reason of section 11, they are protected against the running of the limitation period by a proper mediation agreement.

The condition to the good news is this. In Tribury the Court held that the mediation agreement suspended the limitation period without inquiring whether the mediation agreement was an enforceable mediation agreement, so far as the obligation to mediate is concerned. That is, the Court did not consider whether the mediation agreement contained enough details to make it an enforceable agreement to mediate. There are many recent cases, particularly in the United Kingdom, holding that an agreement to mediate is not enforceable unless that agreement contains sufficient procedural details.

One explanation of the Tribury decision could be that it is not essential that mediation agreement be enforceable as such for it to activate section 11: a           mediation agreement is enforceable to suspend the limitation period by virtue of section 11, even if it does not compel the parties to mediate.

Another explanation is that this issue was simply not considered, and that it is open for another court to conclude that, unless the mediation agreement contains sufficient details, it does not activate section 11.

Second, the bad news. Sections 11 and 23 only refer to limitation periods contained in the Limitations Act. They do not refer to limitation periods in any other Act, including the Construction Lien Act.  For this reason, the parties cannot rely on sections 11 or 23 to extend by agreement the limitation periods for the commencement of a lien action or the statutory period for setting a lien action down for trial.

Nor do sections 11 or 23 apply to limitation periods, or periods for taking steps, in other statutes.  For example, the Arbitration Act, 1991 of Ontario contains a number of limitation periods. Section 52(1) of that Act says that limitation period for an arbitral claim is the same limitation period as for an action. So presumably, sections 11 and 23 should apply to arbitral claims.  Section 47of the Arbitration Act, 1991 establishes a 30 day period for commencing an appeal from an award or an application to set aside an award. Section 52(3) establishes a 2 year period for enforcing an award. Section 3 says that the contracting parties may agree to vary or exclude any provision of the Act, except certain specific mandatory sections.  Sections 47, 52 and 53 are not among the mandatory sections.  So the parties should be able to vary the limitation periods set forth in those sections.

Article 34(3) of the Model Law attached to the Ontario International Commercial Arbitration Act (“ICAA”) establishes a three month period for bringing an application to set aside an international commercial arbitral award.  Article 52(3) establishes a two year limitation period for commencing an application to enforce the award. The ICAA and the Model Law do not contain any express power to grant relief from, or contract out of, those articles.  While the two year enforcement period seems to be based on the two year general limitation period in the Limitations Act, it appears that the parties can vary the latter but not the former, unless a court were to find that parties can generally contract out of the ICAA .

Third –  two warnings:

First, the mediation agreement should be carefully documented. An exchange of correspondence should not be relied upon as that exchange may be subject to dispute and interpretation.  The dispute or disputes that fall within the mediation agreement should be specified. In the present case, Sandro was fortunate that the exchange of correspondence was interpreted by the Court to include all the issues between all the parties.

Second, in a construction lien action, attention should be paid to intersecting limitation and procedural periods, some of which may not be suspended by a mediation agreement. The same warning applies to any action or arbitration involving statutory limitation periods or periods for taking steps which could result in the proceeding being dismissed if not taken. In the present case, Sandro may have thought that the mediation agreement suspended all periods for taking procedural steps.  But it didn’t. It didn’t suspend the two year period for setting the lien action down for trial.

See Heintzman and Goldsmith on Canadian Building Contracts, 4^th ed., Chapter 6, introduction, and Chapter 10, part 6.

Tribury v. Sandro, 2013 ONSC 658

Construction Law  -   Building Contracts   -   Construction and Builders Liens  – Arbitration  -  Mediation  -  Limitation Periods

Thomas G. Heintzman O.C., Q.C., FCIArb                                                                                                                           February 24, 2013

www.heintzmanadr.com

www.constructionlawcanada.com    

Starting the arbitration seems like the easiest thing in the world.  After all, the parties already have an arbitration agreement which provides for the arbitration.  So what is the big deal?

 That approach can lead to real problems.  The commencement of arbitration is as important a step in the proceeding as the commencement of an action in court.  In fact, it’s more important because in the case of arbitration, there is no court in which to issue the initiating document.  Therefore, no court official determines that the document initiating the arbitration is proper.  The party starting the arbitration may be lulled into a false sense of security by the arbitration agreement and may be unaware of the formalities and the choices that are inherent in the arbitral process.

Here are Seven Points to Consider before Commencing an Arbitration:

1.      The limitation period

Some may think that the arbitration is not subject to limitation periods. It is. A limitation period for an arbitral claim may be established in two ways.

First, the arbitration agreement may itself contain a limitation period.  For example, insurance policies often contain limitation periods.  If the period is missed, the claim may be lost.

Second, an arbitral claim will be governed by the general law of limitation of actions.  In Ontario, section 52(1) of the domestic Arbitration Act, 1991 provides that the law with respect to limitation periods applies to an arbitration as if the arbitration were an action and the claim made in the arbitration were a cause of action.  Section 4 of the Ontario Limitations Act, 2002 establishes a general limitation period of two years from the date of discovery of the claim. So, unless another statutory limitation period applies, a domestic arbitral claim governed by Ontario law must be commenced within two years of the discovery of the claim.

As far as international commercial arbitrations are concerned, the Ontario International Commercial Arbitration Act (ICAA) does not establish a limitation period for the commencement of an arbitral claim nor refer to a general limitation period.  If the arbitral claim is subject to Ontario law, then the Ontario Limitations Act, 2002 will presumably apply. There may be arguments about which limitation law applies to a claim in an international commercial arbitration.  The law of the place of the arbitration or the substantive law applicable to the contract are two candidates and the debate may be resolved differently by the courts in different jurisdictions.  So the limitation issue may have to be considered carefully in international commercial arbitrations.

Before leaving the limitation issue, it is well to remember that there is a limitation issue at the other end of the arbitration proceeding, namely, the limitation period for the enforcement of the award. For domestic arbitrations, section 52(3) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991 provides that an application to enforce the award must be made within two years of the date that the applicant receives the award.

The Ontario ICAA does not contain a limitation period for the enforcement of the award. The general two year general limitation period in Ontario Limitations Act, 2002 will presumably apply if the award is sought to be enforced in Ontario.  In Yugraneft Corp. v. Rexx Management Corp., [2010] 1 SCR 649, the Supreme Court of Canada held that Alberta’s general two year limitation period applied to the enforcement in Alberta of an international commercial arbitration award made in Russia. Alberta had no limitation period that specifically applied to international arbitrations.  The Supreme Court held that the application for enforcement of the foreign arbitral award was an application for a “remedial order” within the meaning of the Alberta limitation statute, and therefore subject to the two year limitation period together with the discoverability rule.  It was not a judgment or court order subject to the 10 year period.

 The mediation period

A contract containing an arbitration clause may also contain a mediation clause.  The mediation clause may affect the commencement of the arbitration in two ways.

First, the mediation may be a precondition to the commencement of the arbitration.  If it is, the arbitration may be premature if mediation is not undertaken.  However, the mediation clause may be a permissible procedure, not a required procedure.  In this case, the failure or refusal of the parties, or one of them, to participate in mediation will not be a bar to the commencement of the claim. 

Second, and as a corollary to the first point, if the mediation is, or is not, conducted, the limitation period can be affected.  If mediation is a requirement then the limitation period will not commence until the mediation is completed.  If the mediation is not required, then the limitation period will be running while the parties are fussing about mediation.

These issues were dealt with by the Ontario Court of Appeal recently in L-3 Communications Spar Aerospace Limited v. CAE Inc., 2011 ONCA 435, 2010 ONSC 4133, (reviewed by me in www.heintzmanadr.com, July 17, 2011) and Federation Insurance Co of Canada v. Markt Insurance Co of Canada, 2012 ONCA 218 (reviewed by me in www.heintzmanadr.com, May 5, 2012). 

In the first case, mediation was held to be required.  Therefore, the cause of action did not accrue until the mediation was conducted, and therefore the action was still commenced in time.  In the second case, mediation was held not to be required.  Accordingly, the limitation period was running during the mediation and had expired by the time that the arbitration was commenced.

 In Ontario, section 11 of the Limitations Act, 2002 provides that the limitation period does not run during any period in which the parties have agreed to have an independent third party resolve the claim or assist them in resolving it. The section does not necessarily avoid the issue of whether there was an agreement to mediate and whether that agreement requires mandatory mediation.

 A further complicating factor is whether the mediation agreement is enforceable.  In Sulamerica CIA Nacional De Seguros SA & Ors v Enesa Engenharia SA & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 638 (which I reviewed in www.heintzmanadr.com, July 5, 2012) the English Court of Appeal held that a mediation clause is not enforceable unless the clause contains a minimum amount of procedural certainty.  The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decisions referred to above did not consider this issue. We can expect some party to assert in the future that the mediation agreement was not enforceable and therefore the limitation period was running during the mediation and expired before the arbitral claim was commenced. 

 2.      The Commencement of Arbitration

The claimant in the arbitration must make sure that it uses the proper document and procedure to start the arbitration.  If it does not, then no arbitration will have been commenced and the limitation period may expire in the meantime.

Section 23 of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991 states three ways in which an arbitration may be commenced:   

first, by serving a notice to appoint or participate in appointment of the arbitrator  

second, by serving a notice requiring another party to appoint the arbitrator and

third by serving a notice demanding arbitration

Under article 21 of the Model Law attached to the Ontario ICAA, the arbitral proceeding is commenced by a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration being received by the respondent.

The decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Penn-Co Canada (2003) Ltd. V. Constance Lake First Nation, 2012 ONCA 430; (reviewed by me in www.heintzmanadr.com, August 27, 2012) is a reminder of the importance of serving the right document.  One of the parties had undertaken a good deal of activity relating to the arbitration, including the commencement of court proceedings.  But the Court of Appeal held that it had not served a document qualifying as the commencement of the arbitration. Its later attempt to do so was served outside the limitation period.

3.      Objection to Jurisdiction

An objection to jurisdiction must be made on a timely basis. Under section 17(3) of the domestic Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, the objection must be made no later than the beginning of the hearing, or if there is no hearing, no later than the first occasion on which the party submits a statement to the tribunal.  In addition, the objection to jurisdiction must be made as soon as the jurisdictional matter is raised, although the tribunal has the authority to consider a later objection if it considers the delay to be justified.

Under Article 16(2) of the Model Law attached to the Ontario ICAA, a plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction must be raised no later than the submission of the statement of defence, and a plea that the arbitral tribunal is exceeding the scope of its authority must be raised as soon as the matter alleged to be beyond the scope of its authority is raised during the arbitral proceedings. The arbitral tribunal has authority to admit a later plea if it considers the delay justified.

These time limits are not necessarily the same. In particular, the claimant should be aware of the requirement in the Ontario ICAA to raise a pre-existing jurisdictional objection at time of the delivery of the Statement of Defence.

4.      Appointing the arbitral tribunal

a.      Need for speedy appointment

Before the arbitral tribunal is appointed, there is no way to determine anything within the arbitration.  The respondent cannot be compelled to deliver a defence.  An order that the proceeding has been validly commenced cannot be obtained, and other interlocutory matters cannot be dealt with. So appointing the arbitral tribunal is a key step in the arbitration.

Under section 10 of the domestic Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, if the parties disagree about the identity of the single arbitrator or the chair of the arbitral tribunal, the Ontario Superior Court has power to appoint the tribunal. If the Ontario ICAA applies, then under article 11(4) of the Model Law attached to that statute, the Ontario Superior Court has a similar power to appoint the arbitral tribunal.

If the arbitration is held under the auspices of one of the arbitration institutions (such as the LCIA, ICC or BCICAC), then those organizations will appoint the arbitral tribunal, subject to the input of the parties as their rules may allow. An advantage of these arbitral institutions is that their appointment process may avoid lengthy court proceedings to appoint the arbitral tribunal. A disadvantage may be the lesser input of the parties into the selection of the tribunal.

b.      Discussions with the potential arbitrators

Selecting an appropriate arbitrator or chair of the arbitral tribunal will obviously be important. Identifying and avoiding conflicts of interest of arbitrators is equally important. For this reason, there may be legitimate reasons to write to or speak with a candidate for appointment.

However, these contacts are fraught with peril as they may create circumstances that themselves give rise to an appearance of bias. Thus, if the candidate is asked his opinion about the merits of the dispute, that conversation could well prejudice the candidate’s appointment. 

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators has guidelines about this process which are very helpful. They may be viewed on the Institute’s website: www.ciarb.org. 

 c.   Agreement Appointing Arbitrators

If the arbitrators are appointed by way of agreement, the negotiation of that agreement is a good opportunity to address issues which were not dealt with in the arbitration agreement.  With a dispute now in existence, arrangements can be put in place to ensure that the arbitration is conducted cost effectively. 

Those arrangements may include: the rules of procedure, so that rules appropriate for the specific hearing are used, not the rules of court; the confidentiality of the arbitration; and choice of law.

5.      The First Pre-Hearing Meeting

A significant advantage of arbitration is that it allows the parties to use a process which is suitable for the actual dispute and which will ensure that the dispute is resolved in a cost- effective manner. The time to start that process is the first meeting with the arbitral tribunal. 

At the first meeting, the following procedures can be settled:

The schedule of all events and the date of the final hearing
The nature and dates for the exchange of pleadings
The scheduling of motions
The scope of documentary production and agreement on joint books of exhibits
Limits on discovery, or elimination of discovery
Preliminary lists of witnesses, including experts
The arbitration hearing briefs
The number of days of hearing

At the end of the first pre-hearing meeting, the arbitral tribunal can issue a Procedural and Schedule Order dealing with all these matters.

In order to obtain the maximum buy-in to this process, the parties should be present in person at the first pre-hearing meeting.

6.      Interim Relief

Finally, before the arbitration is commenced, consideration should be given to the necessity to obtain interim relief.

Various factors may relate to that relief: whether the relief must be obtained against third parties; whether the opposing party will likely refuse to obey an order granting the relief; and whether the relief must be enforced outside the jurisdiction of the court or the place of the arbitration.

No simple answer can be given about whether it is better to obtain interim relief from the court or the arbitral tribunal, but an informed decision should be made about that issue. Some of the factors that may be considered include the following:

1. If the motion for interim relief is made to the superior court, then there will be no arguments about the limits of the court’s jurisdiction since the court has plenary powers. There may be a debate about whether the arbitral tribunal has the jurisdiction to grant the particular interim relief which is being sought.

Article 17 of the Model Law attached to the Ontario ICAA says that unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may order such interim measure of protection as the arbitral tribunal may consider necessary in respect of the subject-matter of the dispute, and appropriate security be provided in connection with that measure. Section 18(1) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991 says that an arbitral tribunal may make an order for the detention, preservation or inspection of property and documents that are the subject of the arbitration or as to which a question may arise in the arbitration, and may order that security be provided in that connection.  These provisions do not purport to give the arbitral tribunal unlimited interim powers. Therefore, the respondent to the motion may assert that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant the particular interim relief claimed on the motion.

2.  If it is likely that the opposite party will abide by the order and the parties simply need a preliminary ruling on a matter, and if a faster hearing can be obtained before the arbitral tribunal than before a court, then the motion likely should be brought to the arbitral tribunal.

3.  If the order must be enforced against third parties, then a motion to the court may be more appropriate because an arbitral award is not enforceable against third parties.  In Farah v. Sauvageau Holdings Inc., 2011 ONSC 1819 it was held that an arbitrator did not have authority to grant a mareva injunction against a third party. However, it still may be necessary to first obtain an order against the opposing party from the arbitral tribunal, to show that the arbitral remedy has been exhausted and that the opposing party is bound by that order.

4.  If the order must be enforced out of the jurisdiction of the place of the arbitral tribunal, a court motion may be more appropriate in order to obtain an order that another court will enforce.  An interim arbitral order which is not a final award of the arbitral tribunal may not be enforceable outside the place of the arbitration. While section 9 of the Ontario ICAA says that an order of the arbitral tribunal for an interim measure of protection is subject to the provisions of the Model Law as if it were an award, a court in another jurisdiction may not consider it to be so.  So the law of the place of the arbitration and the place where the interim order of the arbitral tribunal will have to be enforced must be considered to determine whether the interim award will be enforceable.

Commencing an arbitration is not a simple process. There are at least seven matters to consider before doing so. By thinking about them beforehand, the claimant can be ready to bring the claim to a successful conclusion, at least from a procedural standpoint.

See Heintzman and Goldsmith on Canadian Building Contracts, 4^th ed., chapter 10.

Arbitration  -  Commencement  -  Appointment of Arbitrators   -  Limitation Periods  -  Mediation- Jurisdiction  -  Interim Relief

Thomas G. Heintzman O.C., Q.C., FCIArb                                                                                               November 18, 2012

www.constructionlawcanada.com

www.heintzmanadr.com

Background

Alberta Oil Sands Pipeline Ltd. (AOSPL) owned and operated a pipeline between Fort McMurray and Edmonton in Alberta. AOSPL entered into an agreement with Canadian Oil Sands and other companies (the Participants) which had refineries in Fort McMurray.  Under that agreement, AOSPL agreed to build a new portion of the pipeline.  However, AOSPL did not complete 4.1 kilometres of the new pipeline. The Participants said that this failure amounted to a breach of the agreement. AOSPL said that it did not, and that the existing pipeline, together with the new portion it had constructed, satisfied all of the obligations it had undertaken in the agreement. In April 2009, the parties entered into a tolling agreement preserving their right to raise claims and defences with respect to the 4.1 kilometre pipeline dispute.

Then, other disputes also arose. One related to an increased pipeline tariff imposed by AOSPL and another relating to the details of invoices submitted by AOSPL. The Participants asserted their right under the agreements to audit the books and accounts of AOSPL. As a result of the 2009 audit, the Participants submitted a claim against AOSPL. Article 18.3 of the agreement provided for arbitration of audit claims.  The Participants submitted their claim under that article. In June 2010, AOSPL submitted its response and the Participants replied to AOSPL’s response, both within the time period called for in that article. After the 180 day period for resolving disputes referred to in Article 18.3, in November 2010 the Participants delivered a notice of arbitration of their claims.

In December 2010, AOSPL commenced an action for a declaration that the audit claims were not subject to arbitration.  The Participants filed a Statement of Defence asserting that they were subject to arbitration and brought an application to stay the action.  In that motion, AOSPL asserted that the right of audit was only a right to verify its books and records from an accounting or mathematical standpoint, and not from a contractual correctness standpoint and that therefore the arbitration agreement did not apply to the Participants’ claims.  The Participants asserted that the audit and arbitration processes applied to any errors in the books and records of AOSPL.  

In March 2011, AOSPL gave the Participants 60 days’ notice of the termination of the tolling agreement.  The Participants then immediately commenced an action for damages for breach of contract by reason of AOSPL’s failure to complete the 4.1 kilometres of pipeline. Both parties agreed that this claim was not an audit claim and was not arbitrable.  AOSPL brought a motion to consolidate this action with its action relating to the audit claims.

The Decision

The Court found that the arbitration clause applied to the audit claims. It held that “it is unreasonable commercially to accept that the intention of the parties was to resort to two different forums for the resolution of disputes about a single aspect of the pipeline tariff,” one relating to accounting correctness and the other relating to contractual correctness.  The court noted that the Alberta Arbitration Act specifically gave the arbitrator the authority to determine questions of law, and there was nothing in the arbitration agreement that removed that authority.

The judge also held that, if she was incorrect in that interpretation, she would arrive at the same conclusion by reference to the conduct of the parties subsequent to the making of the contract, and this is the interesting point which is addressed in this article.  The judge held that the conduct of the parties was relevant for two reasons:

First, as an aid to interpret the contract, and

Second on the ground of estoppel

The conduct of AOSPL that the judge found relevant was of two kinds. 

First, during the claims process arising from the present dispute, AOSPL had followed the claims and arbitration process and only asserted that the claims were not arbitrable after they had been submitted to arbitration by the Participants.  In that process, personnel of AOSPL made statements, both within AOSPL and in meetings with the Participants, that the claims were arbitrable.

Second, AOSPL had participated in arbitration proceedings relating to audit claims in 2001, 2002 and 2005.  In 2001, when the Participants had issued a Statement of Clam with respect to audit claims, AOSPL had referred the issue to arbitration, the action was stayed and the dispute was arbitrated.

AOSPL submitted that none of this conduct was relevant due to the clause in the contract stating that there was to be no waiver of a party’s rights by virtue of its conduct. To this the judge replied that the relevance of AOSPL’s conduct was not whether it had waived any rights but the proper interpretation of the contract in light of the parties’ conduct.

As to estoppel, the judge found that AOSPL’s conduct amounted to a representation by conduct. AOSPL had participated in the claims process leading to arbitration and that amounted to a representation to the Participants that the “audit procedure …was not disputed.” If it was an essential ingredient in an estoppel that the Participants had altered their position, that alteration was present. If AOSPL had notified the Participants of its position at the outset, then the Participants would have issued a Statement of Claim immediately, and not be faced with the limitations defence that AOSPL now raised.

While silence is not always a representation, the judge concluded that silence is a representation when the parties are in a contractual relationship with each other and engaged in a dispute resolution process. In those circumstances, AOSPL had a duty to respond and to not remain silent about its position that the audit claims were not arbitrable.   

The judge then considered whether the audit claims should proceed to arbitration or be tried with the 4.1 kilometre claim. The judge refused to exercise her discretion to order that the audit claims proceed in court, for two reasons. 

First, the audit and 4.1 kilometre claims were different.

Second, AOSPL had asserted a limitation defence to the audit claims if they proceeded in court. In the result, there was good reason to apply the mandatory language in section 7 of the Alberta Arbitration Act and stay AOSPL’s action brought in the face of the arbitration agreement.

Discussion

The judge’s decision to apply the principles of estoppel to an arbitration agreement is novel, but one could argue that it is heartening.   It is novel because estoppel is usually thought of as either a principle of evidence or a principle of substantive law.  In this case, estoppel was applied in a procedural setting, in the lead-up to the commencement of an arbitration.

But some will see this decision as welcome on the ground that estoppel is an ideal response when contradictory positions are taken in pre-arbitral proceedings, especially when the result is the loss of time and expense and, possibly, a limitation period.  Indeed, in the face of an assertion that a limitation period has been lost, it is hard to imagine that a court could take any other position than sustain the earlier proceeding. 

Estoppel has a particular application to the commencement of arbitration proceedings. As I have commented in a recent article, it is sometimes difficult to know whether an arbitration proceeding has been commenced, or properly commenced.  There is no court office in which the arbitration claim may be issued. When the agreement requires that certain steps be taken before the arbitration is started, there is no court to rule on whether those steps have been properly taken. Even after notice of arbitration is given and before the arbitral tribunal is appointed, there is no body to rule on whether the arbitration has been properly started.  Yet time is passing and a limitation period may go by. The whole process seems dependent on each party stating a timely objection to any steps leading to the appointment of the arbitral tribunal.   

Estoppel also seems appropriate when the parties have an ongoing contractual relationship.  Thus, under a labour, franchise or construction agreement, when the parties deal with each other over a period of time and are not just engaged in a one-off transaction, they make daily decisions which are instantly understood to be acceptable to the other party if there is no objection, and without turning to each other each time and saying “Right?”  True, each party is not expected to be the other party’s lawyer.  But making timely procedural objections does not seem to be too much to ask, or if not made, that the silent party live with the procedural result.

Alberta Oil Sands Pipeline Ltd v. Canadian Oil Sands Limited, 2012 ABQB 524

Arbitration – Stay of arbitration – Limitation Period – Estoppel  -  Refusal to arbitrate

Thomas G. Heintzman O.C., Q.C. FCIArb                                                                       September 4, 2012

www.heintzmanadr.com

www.constructionlawcanada.com

If you had this impression, then the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Penn-Co Construction Canada (2003) Ltd. v. Constance Lake First Nation will quickly disabuse you of that view.  Just like a court action, unless an arbitration is started within the appropriate limitation period, the right to commence the arbitration claim will be lost. The issue may be trickier in an arbitration than in a court action since, unlike in a court action, there is no court office in which to issue the arbitration claim.  But it is still the same question: was the proceeding commenced within the limitation period?

The appeal in the Penn-Co case Court of Appeal was from a 2011 decision of the Ontario Superior Court.  I commented on that decision in my article of November 6, 2011.

The Legal Background

In Ontario, there are two enactments that are relevant to the limitation period for an arbitration claim. 

First, the Limitations Act, 2002 says that the general limitation period in Ontario is two years from the discovery of the facts giving rise to the claim. Section 52(1) of the Ontario Arbitrations Act, 1991 (the Act) says that “the law with respect to limitation periods applies to an arbitration as if the arbitration were an action and a claim made in the arbitration were a cause of action.” So, an arbitration must be commenced within two years of the date that the would-be applicant first had knowledge of the facts giving rise to its claim.

Second, section 23 of the Act says that an arbitration may be commenced “in any way” including three particular ways:

A party to the arbitration agreement serving on the other parties to that agreement a notice to appoint or to participate in the appointment of an arbitrator under the agreement;

If a third party has the power to appoint an arbitrator, serving a notice on that third party to exercise that power, and serving the other parties with that notice;

A party serving on the other parties a notice demanding arbitration under the agreement.  (emphasis added by the Court of Appeal)

As a result, the limitation issue in the Penn-Co case was whether Constance Lake took one of these three steps before the limitation period expired.

The Background Facts

In 2003, the parties signed a standard form building contract for the construction by Penn-Co of a school for Constance Lake.  The contract contained a three-step process for resolving disputes: negotiations involving the consultant, mediation and arbitration.  By the summer of 2005, there were several alleged deficiencies in Penn-Co’s work that were the subject matter of dispute.  In December 2005, Constance Lake served a cure notice on Penn-Co. Penn-Co’s counsel responded by asking for mediation.  Then, on January 20, 2006, counsel for Constance Lake suggested that the parties dispense with the provisions under their contract and proceed directly with arbitration under an amended form of the CCDC 40 Rules for Arbitration of Construction Disputes. In response, Penn-Co’s counsel suggested that the parties proceed with a neutral third party “peer review”. However, the parties could not agree upon the terms of the peer review and by mid-2006 that process was abandoned.

In June 2007, Penn-Co commenced an action against Constance Lake.  In response, in May 2009 Constance Lake instituted a counterclaim in that action.  That counterclaim was instituted more than two years after December 2005 when, as acknowledged in its own cure notice, Constance Lake had knowledge of its claim against Penn-Co.  Penn-Co brought a motion to dismiss the counterclaim on the ground that the counterclaim was barred by the limitation period.

The Superior Court judge had held that the counterclaim was barred, and the Court of Appeal agreed.  It held that the letter of January 16, 2006 did not commence an arbitration.  It said that that this letter, and the other correspondence between the parties, amounted to “mere proposals for an arbitration agreement” and not a notice under the existing arbitration agreement which satisfied section 23 of the Act. The Court of Appeal held that the “parties failed to commence an arbitration under the building contract or any other agreement.” Accordingly, the limitation period to do so had expired.

In these circumstances, the Court of Appeal also held that section 52(2) of the Act had no application. That sub-section gives powers to the court when it sets aside an arbitration award or terminates an arbitration or declares an arbitration to be invalid. In those circumstances, the court may order that the “period from the commencement of the arbitration to the date of the order” is to be excluded from the computation of time for limitation purposes. The Court of Appeal held that, if no arbitration was commenced, then this sub-section had no application.

Finally, the Court of Appeal held that Penn-Co was not estopped by its conduct from relying on the limitation period. None of the elements of estoppel were present.  There was no evidence that Penn-Co gave any assurance or representation that it would not rely on the limitation period, or that Constance Lake relied upon any such assurance. 

Discussion

This decision is a good reminder that an arbitration is a formal proceeding and must be formally commenced. But this decision does not answer the question of what exactly such a formal commencement might encompass.

Section 23 of the Act says that an arbitration may be commenced “in any way recognized by law”.  That is just about as broad a definition as could be drafted.  One wonders what the limit of that definition might be, apart from the examples given in the section.  The legislature has said that a notice demanding arbitration is sufficient.  If that is so, and if that is included within but is not exhaustive of the definition, then something less than such a notice may amount to a commencement. The Court of Appeal has said that proposing arbitration under some other procedure or regime is not sufficient, at least until that regime is agreed to. But exactly what can amount to a “commencement” of an arbitration less than a notice of arbitration is left uncertain.

Several lessons can be learned from this decision.

One is that, before a party suggests alternatives to the arbitration agreement that is already in place, that party should first give notice of arbitration under that agreement.  Then, other dispute resolution solutions can be proposed.

The second lesson is that the institution by one party of mediation or arbitration does not protect the other party.  In the present case, Penn-Co instituted the mediation provisions of the building contract.  Whether the commencement of mediation proceedings stops the limitation period from running is open to question.  As I have commented upon in previous articles, the Ontario Court of Appeal has issued two decisions on this issue which arrived at contradictory results.  But the commencement of mediation proceedings by one party will not likely stop the running of the limitation period against the other party.

Finally, the limitation issue may not entirely deprive Constance Lake of its cause of action.  It may still be able to rely upon that cause of action by way of defence and setoff against the claim by Penn-Co.  The limitation statutes bar the commencement of a claim but not the reliance on the cause of action in any other way.

See Heintzman & Goldsmith on Canadian Building Contracts (4^th ed.) at Chapter 10, part 6

Penn-Con Construction Canada (2003) Ltd. v. Constance Lake First Nation, 2012 ONCA 430

Building Contract  -  Arbitration  -  Limitation Periods  -  Commencement of Arbitration

Thomas G. Heintzman O.C., Q.C., FCIArb                                                            August 27, 2012

www.constructionlawcanada.com

www.heintzmanadr.com