Background David accepts appointments as a commercial arbitrator, international commercial arbitrator and as a business dispute arbitrator, at reasonable hourly rates and with good availability. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has appointed David in arbitration matters. David is a member of the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society, and has successfully completed their Gold Standard Course in Commercial Arbitration. David has lived and practiced commercial litigation and arbitration in Ontario, England, Bermuda and Dubai, in a wide variety of disputes in a diverse range of businesses and industries. He is also admitted in New York State. His LL.B (Osgoode) and LL.M (Lond.) – Commercial and Corporate, were granted in 1980 and 1988, respectively. David has acted as counsel in both domestic and international arbitration, including institutional and ad hoc arbitration. David has appeared as a barrister in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (including the Commercial List), the Divisional Court, the Ontario Court … Read More
Popack v. Lipszyc: Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitration Awards – Clarifying the term “binding”
Popack v. Lipszyc appears to be the first Ontario Court of Appeal case on the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards under the 2017 International Commercial Arbitration Act (“ICAA”). The ICCA includes the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“New York Convention”) and the 2006 amended version of UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”). The appellants used articles 35 and 36 of Model Law to apply for the recognition and enforcement of the international commercial arbitration award they received in August 2013 against the respondents. While the application judge dismissed the application, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The Court of Appeal stated that “in Ontario, a strong “pro-enforcement” legal regime” exists for the recognition and enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards, as grounds for refusal are “to be construed narrowly”. Importantly, the Court, and not the tribunal, is the proper avenue to … Read More
Grounds for Judicial Intervention on International Arbitral Awards – Key Takeaways
In Consolidated Contractors Group S.A.L. (Offshore) v. Ambatovy Minerals S.A., a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, a USD$258 million project for the construction of a slurry pipeline from a nickel mine in the mountains of Madagascar to the coast lead to arbitration between the appellant (the contractor) and the respondent (tendered the project). After mutually agreeing to by-pass the adjudication stage of their three-stage dispute resolution process and go straight to a Tribunal, the appellant was only awarded $7M of its $91M claim and the respondent was awarded nearly $25M on its counterclaim. These awards were challenged on appeal as being made without jurisdiction, in breach of procedural fairness, and violating public policy. However, the appeal was dismissed. Judicial intervention in international arbitral awards under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law (the “Model Law”) – though given the force of law by the International Commercial Arbitration Act … Read More
Greater Harmonization of International Commercial Arbitration Laws
Legislation based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), with amendments as adopted in 2006 (the “Model Law”) has been adopted in 78 States of a total of 109 jurisdictions, including Canada, Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Yukon. The legislation in Ontario, Canada, amends previous legislation based on the Model Law and is based on the text, with amendments as adopted in 2006, of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Recent jurisdictions to enact Model Law legislation include: In 2017: Australian Capital Territory, Fiji, Jamaica, Mongolia, Qatar, and South Africa. In 2016: Myanmar, Republic of Korea, and Uganda. The continued expansion of an already substantial number of jurisdictions enacting Model Law legislation means even greater harmonization of national laws through all stages of the commercial arbitration process, from the arbitration agreement itself, to the recognition and … Read More
Ontario’s New International Commercial Arbitration Act Now In Force
Ontario’s new International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017 (the “ICAA”) came into force on March 22, 2017. The new ICAA contains a number of changes from its predecessor, including: Adoption of the the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (also known as the “New York Arbitration Convention”). Essentially, Ontario has confirmed that it will recognize and enforce an arbitral award made in a state which is party to the Convention. Changes to the limitation period in which a proceeding must be commenced to enforce an arbitral award. Both the ICAA and the Ontario domestic Arbitration Act, 1991 now provide for a 10 year limitation period to commence a proceeding to enforce an arbitration award. (The ICAA previously provided for a two year limitation period.) Adoption of the 2006 amendments to the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law … Read More
Court of Appeal Holds that Two Year Limitation Period Applies To Foreign Judgments
There was conflicting case law in Ontario regarding whether a two-year limitation period applied to an action to enforce a foreign judgment in Ontario (from a jurisdiction to without a reciprocal enforcement agreement). The Court of Appeal addressed that conflicting case law in Independence Plaza 1 Associates, L.L.C. v. Figliolini, 2017 ONCA 44. The debate turned on whether an action to enforce a foreign judgment was a claim within section 16(1) of the Limitations Act, 2002, which creates a class of claims to which no limitation period applies. Specifically, the question was whether a claim to enforce a foreign judgment is a claim to “enforce an order of a court or any other order that may be enforced in the same way as an order of a court” (under section 16(1)(b)). The Court stated that a foreign judgment cannot be directly enforced in Ontario in the absence of reciprocal enforcement legislation. A … Read More
Toronto Attorneys for Enforcement of U.S. Judgments in Ontario, Canada
American judgments, from either State or U.S. Federal Courts may be recognised and enforced in Ontario, Canada. The test for whether the Court of Ontario will recognize and enforce a U.S. judgment is as follows: did the U.S. Court have jurisdiction, in accordance with the principles of private international law as applied by Canadian courts? is the judgment final and conclusive? is the judgment for a definite and ascertainable sum of money or, if not a money judgment (e.g. an injunction), are its terms sufficiently clear, limited in scope and do the principles of comity require the domestic court to enforce it? The Ontario Court will also consider the following, limited defences of: fraud (i.e. whether the U.S. judgment was obtained by fraud); natural justice (i.e. whether the U.S. proceedings were contrary to Canadian notions of fundamental justice); and public policy (i.e. whether the U.S. judgment was contrary to our view … Read More
Joint Venture Disputes and International Joint Venture Arbitration
Joint ventures are often established to synergize what each member of the joint venture can add to the consortium. Sometimes a joint venture is the structure chosen because those members engaged in the joint venture are located in different jurisdictions, a consideration which may be pivotal for its success. While invariably created by contractual agreement, some joint ventures have been held by the courts to be a partnership, while others have been determined to be merely contractual, without comprising a partnership. A myriad of considerations have been used by the courts in determining whether a joint venture is a partnership. Issues have also arisen concerning the management and operational structure of a joint venture and whether such structure necessarily results in the joint venture being found to comprise a partnership. Historically the distinction between partner and contractor has been important, since the law only imposed a fiduciary duty upon partners, and not … Read More
Enforcement of Ontario Judgment in US (U.S.A and American States)
If you are looking for Enforcement of US Judgment in Ontario, Canada, then click here. ____ Enforcement of Ontario Judgment in US (U.S.A and American States) We sometimes act for clients in litigation against defendants located in an American state, or having assets located in one or more U.S. states. Other times we are retained simply to assess and / or seek enforcement of an Ontario or other Canadian judgment in an U.S. state. Accordingly, the consideration sometimes arises whether a money judgment obtained in a court of Ontario or Canada is readily enforceable in a particular US state. Neither Ontario nor Canada is a party to any bilateral enforcement of money judgement treaty or convention with the U.S. or any particular state in the U.S.. However many U.S. states have enacted statutes concerning the enforcement of foreign (including Ontario and Canada) money-judgments in that state. Since this is largely … Read More
London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) – New Rules Include Expanded Provisions on Emergency Relief
The London Court of International Arbitration has announced that its new LCIA Arbitration Rules have been formally adopted by the LCIA Court and the LCIA Board of Directors and will come into effect on 1 October 2014. Article 9B of the new LCIA Arbitration Rules – Emergency Arbitrator provides that in the case of emergency at any time prior to the formation or expedited formation of the Arbitral Tribunal , any party may apply to the LCIA Court for the immediate appointment of a temporary sole arbitrator to conduct emergency proceedings pending the formation or expedited formation of the Arbitral Tribunal. By Article 9.14 of the New Rules, Article 9B does not apply where the parties have concluded their arbitration agreement before 1 October 2014 have not agreed in writing to ‘opt in’ to Article 9B, or the parties have agreed in writing at any time to ‘opt out’ of Article 9B. Reference should be had in this regard to … Read More
Service of Foreign Process (including U.S. Proceedings) in Ontario, Canada
Since 1989 Canada has been a member of Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, (the Hague Service Convention). The Hague Service Convention requires its member States to designate a “Central Authority” to accept incoming requests for service. The Central Authority in Canada, on the federal level, is the Attorney General for Canada, and the Central Authority on the provincial level, in Ontario is the Attorney General, the Ministry of the Attorney General or the Minister of Justice. In Ontario, service of foreign proceeding under the Hague Service Convention requires that a completed Request for Service Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents Form together with the prescribed number of originating process documents and prescribed fee to the Ministry of the Attorney General for Ontario. There are alternatives to the Hague Service Convention service of foreign process in Ontario. If you are seeking advice or … Read More
German Arbitral Award Recognized and Enforced by Ontario Court
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released its endorsement in Alfred Wegener Institute v. ALCI Aviation Ltd., 2014 ONCA 398, upholding an order from the application judge that a German arbitral award be recognized and enforced in Ontario as if it were a judgment or order of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. After the appellants failed to appear at the German arbitration and the Ontario application to enforce the German arbitral award, the appellants finally responded by bringing this appeal based on a technical argument under Article 35(2) of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.9, which required the party relying on the foreign arbitral award to supply a certified copy of the original award to the application judge. The appellants argued that the translation of the arbitral award before the application judge was not a duly certified copy. The Court of Appeal rejected the appellant’s argument and held that the application judge could properly find that the arbitral award met … Read More
Dubai’s DIFC Announces Amendment of Arbitration Law to Accord with New York Convention
Canada and UAE – New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards In 2006, United Arab Emirates joined 137 other nations in acceding to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the so-called 1958 New York Convention). Canada acceded to the New York Convention in 1986 declaring that it would apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, that were considered commercial under the laws of Canada, except in the case of the Province of Quebec where the law did not provide for such limitation. In Ontario, it found its way into the International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSO 1990, c I.9 to the extent it is contained in the UNCITRAL Model Law, a schedule thereto. Respect of Arbitration Agreements under the New York Convention By Article II (3) of the New York Convention “The court of a Contracting State, when seized of … Read More