Ontario Decision Further Clarifies The Court's Role When Considering An Arbitral Panel's Ruling On Its Own Jurisdiction

Published date11 March 2022
Subject MatterGovernment, Public Sector, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Constitutional & Administrative Law, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution
Law FirmMcCarthy Tétrault LLP
AuthorThe International Arbitration Blog, Andrew Kalamut and Allison Spiegel (Student)

Overview and Why This Case Matters

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 Act1, 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.

Background and Initial Arbitral Decision

The underlying dispute between Greenfield and Electek relates to repairs performed by Electek on a power-plant operated by Greenfield. Their commercial relationship went back to 2009, at which time Greenfield provided purchase orders containing a "Purchase Order General Terms and Conditions" (the "POGTC"). Contained within the POGTC was an arbitration agreement.

In 2018, Greenfield asked Electek to provide emergency repair services on a transformer. A purchase order was issued that did not annex the POGTC. Electek performed the emergency repairs. Greenfield asserts that in doing so, Electek caused $10 million in damages to the power-plant. In 2020, Greenfield commenced arbitration proceedings against Electek.

Electek disputed the submission to arbitration and asked the arbitrators to rule on their jurisdiction to hear the matter before it. In 2021, the panel unanimously held that it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The determination by the arbitral panel was not about whether the subject matter of the dispute fell within the confines of the arbitration agreement, but whether the arbitration agreement within the POGTC was binding on the parties.

After the arbitral panel rendered its decision, Electek brought an application before the court pursuant to s. 17(8) of the Arbitration Act seeking to set aside the jurisdiction decision of the arbitral panel.

Hearing de novo or a Review of the Arbitral Panel's Decision?

The threshold determination that the Court was required to make was whether it was to determine the question of jurisdiction de novo, or whether it was to conduct an appellate review of the arbitral panel's decision.

Greenfield argued that the principles of Vavilov applied and that the Court was to consider the panel's...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT