Canada: Arbitrability Exception Struck Down

International trends continue to favour the promotion of arbitration, with courts holding that intervention into the arbitral process should be limited where possible. In Henry Schein, Inc. et al. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc., Supreme Court of the United States, No. 17-1272, the Supreme Court (the "U.S.Supreme Court") held that pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (the "Act") arbitration is a matter of contract and as such is to be enforced under such contracts in accordance with their terms. By contrast, some Circuit courts had previously held that where the arbitrability of a claim was 'wholly groundless', then the court may direct the dispute to proceed by litigation before the courts. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has now clarified that if there is clear and unmistakeable evidence that contracting parties delegated the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator, then courts may not interfere with the question of whether claims are indeed subject to arbitration and must leave that to the arbitrator.[1]


Archer & White Sales Inc. ("Archer & White") acted as a distributor of dental equipment to Henry Schein Inc.'s ("Schein") predecessor, a dental equipment manufacturer. Their business relationship crumbled and Archer & White sued Schein, alleging Schein had violated federal and state antitrust laws, seeking both damages and injunctive relief in the interim. The contract between the parties contained a dispute resolution clause, which provided for arbitration, with certain exceptions, including an exception for actions seeking injunctive relief.[2]

Archer & White argued that the arbitration provision from the contract should not apply because part of the relief they sought pertained to an injunction. Schein countered that only an arbitrator – not the courts – had the power to address the 'gateway' question of arbitrability.

The District Court held in favour of Archer & White's argument that Schein's request for arbitration was 'wholly groundless', and therefore excluded the dispute from the jurisdiction of an arbitrator. The District Court found that the threshold arbitrability question was to be resolved by the court. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgement.[3]

The U.S. Supreme Court Decision

The Act allows for parties to contract for dispute resolution to be dealt with by way of arbitration, rather than by the courts. The Act provides:

"A written provision in ... a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract ... shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable ..."[4]

The question of whether an arbitration agreement applies – the threshold arbitrability question – has been determined to be a question of contract.[5]

In vacating the judgement of the Fifth Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized jurisprudence affirming that arbitration is a matter of contract and that contracts are to be enforced in accordance with their terms. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that it was well established law that parties may contract for an arbitrator to decide 'gateway' questions with respect to arbitrability of a dispute as well. The 'gateway' question of arbitrability is merely an "additional, antecedent agreement" that the courts are being asked to enforce.[6] The U.S. Supreme Court stressed that both the Act and the contract must be interpreted as written.[7]

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the following four arguments of Archer & White, all of which it rejected:

  1. That sections 3 and 4 of the Act imply that a court must always determine arbitrability. These sections provide that a court must stay litigation where it is satisfied an issue can be referred to arbitration or compel arbitration in accordance with the terms of an agreement.[8] The U.S. Supreme Court stated that this argument had been previously rejected by it and reiterated that once a court has determined a valid arbitration agreement is in existence, the matter turns to an arbitrator. [9]
  2. That section 10 of the Act, which provides only for judicial review of a decision where an arbitrator has 'exceeded' his or her powers, supports the idea that a court should be able to find that a dispute is not arbitrable. The U.S. Supreme Court held that such an approach is inconsistent with how Congress had designed the Act.[10]
  3. That it is more efficient and economical to have the courts deal with the question of whether a claim for arbitration is 'wholly groundless'. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Act contains no such exception and the courts could not impose such an exception on the Act of their own accord.[11] It was noted that such an exception would also lead to inevitable collateral litigation, consuming further time and resources to prove whether or not the exception applied.
  4. That from a policy perspective, having the courts decide on the arbitrability question will deter frivolous motions attempting to compel arbitration. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that arbitrators are more than capable of disposing and deterring of frivolous cases, an issue, it noted, which has not arisen in Circuits that have not recognized the 'wholly groundless' exception.[12]

The U.S. Supreme Court left open the question of whether the contract in the case at bar in fact delegated authority of the arbitration question to an arbitrator to the Fifth Circuit.


This decision underscores the continued trend of deference to arbitral proceedings and the importance of interpreting contracts in accordance with terms agreed upon by the parties, including where the question of 'arbitrability' is delegated to an arbitrator. In rejecting the 'wholly groundless' exception, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "When the parties' contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, the courts must respect the parties' decision as embodied in the contract."[13] This decision further reinforces the ability of companies to resolve disputes outside of the court process, allowing them greater control over their resolution processes. However, it also brings with it a word of caution, reminding contracting parties that if they wish to enforce arbitration, it is best practice to demonstrate 'clear and unmistakeable evidence' of such an intent by specifically contracting for the arbitrability question to be determined by an arbitrator.

The Supreme Court of Canada (the "SCC") has made similar pronouncements that courts should avoid interference with the arbitral process where possible, and rather encourage and defer to parties' independence and the dispute resolution processes they choose.[14] Specifically, the SCC has emphasized "respect for the forum of arbitration chosen by the parties", indicating that, if possible, the discretion of the courts should not be utilized to address arbitration matters.[15] As we discussed in a previous blog post, arbitration-friendly decisions are becoming the norm in Ontario as well, with courts showing general respect and deference to arbitral decisions.[16] The U.S. Supreme Court joins the SCC in a general pro-arbitration stance, awarding deference to arbitrators on gateway questions and merits of arbitrability, especially where the parties have specifically contracted to that effect.


[1] Henry Schein, Inc. et al. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc., Supreme Court of the United States, No. 17-1272 ("HenrySchein").

[2] Henry Schein, supra at page 2.

[3] Archer & White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-572-JRG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169245 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2016), aff'd, 878 F.3d 488(5th Cir. 2017), rev'd, No. 17-1272 (U.S. Jan. 8, 2019).

[4] Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 2.

[5] Henry Schein, supra at page 1.

[6] See e.g. comments in Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 67.; AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U.S. 643, 649-650.

[7] Henry Schein, supra at page 5.

[8] Henry Schein, supra at page 6.

[9] See e.g. First Opulations of Chicago,Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944.

[10] Henry Schein, supra at page 6.

[11] Henry Schein, supra at page 7.

[12] Henry Schein, supra at page 8.

[13] Henry Schein, supra at page 8.

[14] See e.g. comments in Sattva Capital Corp. v Creston Moly Corp., [2014] 2 SCR 633, 2014 SCC 53 ["Sattva"]; Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v British Columbia, [2017] 1 SCR 688, 2017 SCC 32.

[15] Sattva, supra at para 89.

[16] To read more about this jurisprudence, please refer to our previous blog post: Ontario Court of Appeal assesses the enforceability of arbitral awards in Popack v Lipszyc.

To view the original article click here

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

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

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Sign Up
Gain free access to lawyers expertise from more than 250 countries.
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Newsalert
Select Topics
Select Regions
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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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