Canada: The Appeal In Teal: Challenging Commercial Arbitration Awards In Canada

Last Updated: February 27 2017
Article by Andrew D. Little

How final is a final award in a commercial arbitration? The scope of appeal rights against commercial arbitration awards is again before the Supreme Court of Canada. Will this be the last word on the subject?

In 2014, the Supreme Court decided a case that made commercial arbitration awards harder to appeal, and those appeals harder to win—at least when the parties are private commercial entities who voluntarily agreed to arbitrate their dispute, and the dispute turned on the interpretation of their contract.

The Court's pending decision in Teal Cedar Products v. British Columbia will decide whether the same principles apply when one party is a government, provincial legislation requires the dispute to be arbitrated, and the merits of the case turn on the interpretation of a statute.

At stake are millions of dollars from the public purse in the specific case, and whether the Court will apply its 2014 ruling or alter it for the different circumstances. Also at stake is whether future arbitration appeals will argue about what standard of appellate review should apply to arbitration awards in each case.

This is not just a concern for arbitrating parties, litigation lawyers and judges. The scope of possible appeals to court affects whether to select arbitration in the first place, and how to draft arbitration clauses.

Limited Appeal Rights

Commercial arbitration awards are often hard to challenge in Canadian courts. In international commercial arbitrations seated in Canada and under federal legislation, there are no statutory appeal rights and limited other ways to challenge an award in court. For arbitrations under provincial legislation, appeal rights may be agreed; if not, appeals are usually limited to one or more "questions of law" and then only with permission of the court on a formal application.1

The Supreme Court's decision in Sattva Capital v. Crestor Moly (2014)2 decided that when private commercial entities arbitrate the interpretation of their contract, only unreasonable interpretations will be reversed by a court on appeal. That assumes a case even gets there: the Court also effectively narrowed the path to court by concluding that the interpretation of a contract is usually not a pure "question of law". Rather, most contract interpretation questions are questions of mixed law and fact.

In short, those who choose private dispute resolution now have limited recourse to publicly-funded courts. Finality of commercial arbitration awards carried the day in Sattva.

When Should Courts Intervene?

Sattva raised a policy problem on the role of Canadian courts: do courts correct errors of law in a commercial arbitration award, like in an appeal from a lower court decision? Or is an appeal of an award more like an administrative law review, in which the court defers to a tribunal's decision and only intervenes if the legal interpretation is unreasonable?

The Court found in Sattva that an appeal of an arbitral award is analogous to a court's review of an administrative decision, and applied a reasonableness standard of review.

The Supreme Court is in the midst of a running debate about the applicable standard of review (or deference) by courts under all sorts of legislation, from different kinds of administrative tribunals and decision-makers. Generally, courts will defer to decisions made by a specialized tribunal within its area of expertise, or when it interprets its "home" statute, and if the legislature has included a privative clause in the statute. But courts will intervene to reverse an incorrectly-decided constitutional question or legal question of general importance to the legal system, and when the legislature has expressly provided for a full right of appeal in the statute (the presumption of deference is rebutted by the language of the statute).3

In practice there is considerable nuance to the legal arguments about what standard of review should apply to different kinds of legal questions and to decisions of different tribunals. Recent Supreme Court cases indicate that individual members of the Court itself sometimes have divergent views in the same case.4

The Appeal in Teal

Enter Teal, which was argued at the Supreme Court in late 2016. It involves an arbitration of a commercial dispute about the compensation for harvesting rights that were taken by a British Columbia statute, the Forestry Revitalization Act. The parties chose their own arbitrator, a retired judge. The statute described the arbitrator's mandate but not the method for valuing the rights. The Province could have, but did not, pass regulations on the proper valuation method. So the arbitrator had to decide.

The B.C. Court of Appeal concluded that the arbitrator was both wrong and unreasonable in his interpretation of the Forestry Revitalization Act. That court distinguished the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Sattva, noting that the arbitrator had no specialized expertise, the parties had not agreed to arbitration (it was required by statute) and that the arbitrator was not interpreting his "home" statute. As well, he was interpreting the statute in the very first case of its kind.

Finality Matters

Looking beyond the facts and particular forestry legislation in Teal, it may seem an attractive option for the Supreme Court simply to apply its decision in Sattva for predictability and consistency reasons. One rule is better than multiple rules. The Court could also make clear that the interpretation of a statute is usually a question of law reviewed on a correctness standard. That would address the public interest in ensuring the correct and consistent interpretation of a statute enacted by the legislature. But that would also imply that parties may be forced to arbitrate under a statute, and also be exposed to the extra cost and delay of an appeal by the government if it alleges that the arbitrator misinterpreted a statute.

As in appeals from tribunals in other contexts, the legislature may clearly and expressly state its intentions as to the scope of appeals of arbitral awards. There are also core underlying arbitration principles, including the finality of arbitral awards. Finality was raised by Chief Justice McLachlin at the Supreme Court's oral hearing in Teal.

Finality is embedded in most Canadian commercial arbitration legislation. Canadian statutes based on the UNCITRAL Model Law establish a limited role for the courts, including limited grounds to challenge awards by appeal or to apply to set aside awards. Similarly, finality is a principle supporting limits on courts' ability to decline to enforce foreign awards due to the adoption of the New York Convention under provincial international commercial arbitration laws. There is no review of a foreign award on the merits, or for an error of law.

Finality at the arbitration stage may support commercial parties' contractual choices, such as requiring specific expertise as a prerequisite for an arbitrator. Other important interests such as efficiency and speed are supported by targeted court appeals that are faster and less expensive. A narrow appeal may also have the salutary effect of supporting other objectives of commercial arbitration, such as maintaining the confidentiality of business records and testimony.

Whether the Supreme Court applies its ruling in Sattva or modifies it for the different context, it should establish a predictable approach that minimizes future litigation on the proper standard of review. Doing so would enable appellate courts to decide arbitration cases that turn on the merits of the substantive questions of law, not the process used to get to court. Perhaps it would also be the final word on the finality of commercial arbitration awards.

Footnotes

1. See Arbitration Act, 1991 (Ontario), s. 45; Arbitration Act (Alberta), s. 44; Arbitration Act (British Columbia), s. 31.

2. Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., [2014] 2 SCR 633.

3. The correctness standard applies to constitutional questions and questions of central importance to the legal system as a whole and outside the adjudicator's expertise:  Sattva, at para 106. The presumption of deference to the Tribunal's interpretation of its home statute was rebutted by statutory language in Tervita v. Canada (Commissioner of Competition), [2015] 1 SCR 161 (majority, on appeal from the Competition Tribunal). In arbitration matters, certain questions of jurisdiction attract a non-deferential (correctness) standard of review: see Mexico v. Cargill, Inc. (2011), 107 OR (3d) 528 (CA).

4. See for example, Edmonton (City) v. Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Ltd., 2016 SCC 47; Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., 2016 SCC 29; Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (Ville), 2015 2 SCR 3.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Andrew D. Little
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions