Case information

Civil Procedure — Stay — Appeals — Court allowing appeal of a stay decision under the Arbitration Act from an applications judge (formerly master in chambers) to a chambers judge of the Court of King’s Bench — Proper interpretation of statutory bar on appeals — Whether s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 deprives provincial legislatures of authority under s. 92(14) to make a decision of a provincially-appointed judicial official final and not subject to review by a superior court judge — Whether “no appeal from the court’s decision” means no appeal — Arbitration Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-43, s. 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.

The applicant contracted with the respondents. The contracts stated that any dispute would be resolved by arbitration. A dispute arose and rather than proceeding to arbitration, the applicant commenced a civil action against the respondents.

The respondents defended the statement of claim and then applied to a master in chambers (now called an “applications judge”) of the Court of King’s Bench under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act to stay or strike the civil action. Section 7 of the Act empowers the court to stay litigation when there is a binding arbitration agreement, subject to narrow exceptions, and provides that there is “no appeal from the court’s decision under this section”.

The master in chambers dismissed the applications to stay or strike; rather than s. 7 of the Act, he relied on his supervisory jurisdiction to allow the action to proceed.

The chambers judge dismissed the applicant’s application to strike the respondents’ appeals—as a matter of statutory interpretation, s. 7(6) did not bar an appeal to a chambers judge. The judge allowed the respondents’ appeals, striking the applicant’s civil action.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal largely for the reasons given by the chambers judge. The dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal so that the master’s decision remained in force.