Case information

Arbitration – Commercial arbitration – Civil procedure – Homologation of judgments – Motions in revocation – Conflict of interest – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a contractual arbitrator is only in a position of conflict of interest if he or she is proven to be aware of said conflict of interest – In that regard, whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to completely depart from leading international decisions on that point – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicants’ right to be fully and correctly informed of any potential source of conflict and to freely choose their contractual arbitrator – In doing so, whether the Court of Appeal annihilated the right of every party to contractual arbitration to make a free and informed choice on the identity of their arbitrator or arbitrators – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the findings of fact of the motion judge regarding the existence of a conflict and on the discovery of new evidence absent palpable and overriding error – Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR c C-25.01, art. 345 – Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR c C-25, art. 483(7).

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In 2001, the parties entered into an agreement regarding the development and ownership of a property in Northern Quebec. The agreement provided for binding arbitration before a single arbitrator. The respondent Canadian Royalties Inc. (“CRI”) called for arbitration in 2010, claiming that it was entitled to the applicants’ remaining 20% interest in the property. CRI proposed an arbitrator, a well-known and well-respected jurist who was a retired judge of the Court of Appeal of Quebec and who, at the time, worked for Fasken. After conflict checks on all sides, including by the arbitrator himself, the arbitration began. The process ended in 2014 with an award favourable to CRI. On consent of the parties, the award was subsequently homologated by the court. Almost a year later, the applicants discovered that Fasken had represented the underwriters involved in CRI’s public offerings in 2007 and 2008, the purpose of which was to raise funds for the property development. As a result, they filed a motion in the Superior Court, asking that the judgment homologating the award be revoked on the grounds of conflict of interest. The motion judge granted the motion. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision.