Skip to main content
Top

2017 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention in Canada

Authors : Frédéric Bachand, Fabien Gélinas

Published in: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Canada’s adoption of the New York Convention was part of a coordinated federal-provincial effort to modernize arbitration law throughout the country. What has emerged is that, in general, Canadian courts adhere to the pro-enforcement ethos of the Convention. As such, courts have kept grounds for refusal of enforcement, particularly in respect of public policy and arbitrability, tightly regimented. Further, courts have assumed a residual discretion to recognize and enforce awards even in the presence of an established ground for refusal. The principal problems relating to implementation of the Convention have been the determination of an appropriate standard of review at the referral stage, the determination of the time limitation for seeking enforcement of a foreign award, and the identification of the appropriate interpretive standard to determine subject-matter arbitrability. However as detailed below, the Supreme Court of Canada has, in part, resolved these difficulties.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Footnotes
1
See generally Armand de Mestral & Evan Fox-Decent, “Rethinking the Relationship between International and Domestic Law” (2008) 53 McGill LJ 574.
 
2
Federal: United Nations Foreign Arbitral Awards Convention Act, RSC 1985, c 16 (2d Supp). Alberta: International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c I-5. British Columbia: Foreign Arbitral Awards Act, RSBC 1996, c 154. Manitoba: International Commercial Arbitration Act, SM 1986–87, c 32, CCSM, c C-151. New Brunswick: International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSNB 2011, c 176. Newfoundland and Labrador: International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSNL 1990, c I-15. Nova Scotia: International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSNS 1989, c 234. Northwest Territories: International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSNWT 1988, c I-6. Nunavut: International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSNWT 1988, c I-6, as duplicated for Nunavut by s 29 of the Nunavut Act, SC 1993, c 28. Prince Edward Island: International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSPEI 1988, c I-5. Saskatchewan: Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Act, SS 1988-89, c I-10.2. Yukon: Foreign Arbitral Awards Act, RSY 2002, c 93. It should be noted that the legislative framework for international commercial arbitration in Ontario is undergoing some important changes. In particular, Schedule 5 of Bill 218 (Burden Reduction Act 2016, 1st Sess, 41st Leg, Ontario, 2016) will incorporate the New York Convention into Ontario’s International Commercial Arbitration Act, along with the 2006 version of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.
 
3
UN Doc A/40/17, annex I (1985).
 
4
Foreign Arbitral Awards Act of Ontario, RSO 1986, c 25.
 
5
RSO 1990, c I-9. Note, however, that Schedule 5 of Bill 218 (Burden Reduction Act 2016) will, if enacted, incorporate the New York Convention into Ontario’s International Commercial Arbitration Act.
 
6
See e.g. Kanto Yakin Kogyo Kabushiki-Kaisha v Can-Eng Manufacturing Ltd. (1992), 4 BLR (2d) 108, 7 OR (3d) 770 (Ct J (Gen Div)) (where the court refused to consider the Convention on the ground that proof had not been made that it was in force in Ontario).
 
7
RSQ, c C-25.01.
 
8
Article 652, paragraph 3: “Consideration may be given, in interpreting the rules ... [on the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards made outside Québec], to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards adopted by the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration at New York on 10 June 1958.”
 
9
See GreCon Dimter inc v JR Normand inc, 2005 SCC 46, [2005] 2 SCR 401.
 
10
Sport Maska Inc. v Zittrer, [1988] 1 SCR 564, 38 BLR 221.
 
11
See e.g. Desputeaux v Éditions Chouette (1987) Inc., 2003 SCC 17, [2003] 1 SCR 178; Conseil d’arbitrage des comptes des avocats du Barreau du Québec v Marquis, 2011 QCCA 133.
 
12
British Columbia: “‘arbitral award’ means any decision of the arbitral tribunal on the substance of the dispute submitted to it and includes (a) an interim arbitral award, including an interim award made for the preservation of property, and (b) any award of interest or costs” (International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSBC 1996, c 233, s 2(1)); Ontario: “An order of the arbitral tribunal under article 17 of the Model Law for an interim measure of protection and the provision of security in connection with it is subject to the provisions of the Model Law as if it were an award (International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSO 1990, c I-9, s 9). The latter provision could be repealed by Bill 218, which, if passed, would implement the 2006 version of article 17(2) of the Model Law, according to which interim measures can take the form of either orders or awards, and are enforceable regardless of the form chosen by the arbitral tribunal.
 
14
Section 36: “If the parties settle the dispute during arbitration, the arbitral tribunal shall terminate the arbitration and, if a party so requests, may record the settlement in the form of an award.”
 
15
Section 41: “The arbitral tribunal may make one or more interim awards.”
 
16
Section 42: “The arbitral tribunal may make more than one final award, disposing of one or more matters referred to arbitration in each award.”
 
17
Section 54(4): “If the arbitral tribunal does not deal with costs in an award, a party may, within thirty days of receiving the award, request that it make a further award dealing with costs.”
 
18
See e.g. Inforica Inc. v CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants Inc., 2009 ONCA 642; Gazette v Blondin, 2003 CanLII 33,868 (Qc CA).
 
19
RSQ, c C-25.01.
 
20
Article 652.
 
21
British Columbia: “‘arbitral award’ means any decision of the arbitral tribunal on the substance of the dispute submitted to it and includes (a) an interim arbitral award, including an interim award made for the preservation of property, and (b) any award of interest or costs” (International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSBC 1996, c 233, s 2(1)); Ontario: “An order of the arbitral tribunal under article 17 of the Model Law for an interim measure of protection and the provision of security in connection with it is subject to the provisions of the Model Law as if it were an award (International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSO 1990, c I-9, s 9).
 
22
Activ Financial Systems, Inc. v Orbixa Management Services Inc., 2011 ONSC 7286, 345 DLR (4th) 353.
 
23
RSQ, c C-25.01.
 
24
See e.g. H & H Marine Engine Service Ltd. v Volvo Penta of the Americas Inc., 2009 BCSC 1389; Achilles (USA) v Plastics Dura Plastics (1977) ltée/Ltd., 2006 QCCA 1523; Kaverit Steel and Crane Ltd. v Kone Corp, 1992 ABCA 7, 87 DLR (4th) 129.
 
25
See e.g. Dell Computer Corporation v Union des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34, 284 DLR (4th) 577; Canada (AG) v Reliance Insurance Company (2007), 87 OR (3d) 42 (Sup Ct).
 
26
See e.g. Cecrop Co v Kinetic Sciences Inc., 2001 BCSC 532, 16 BLR (3d) 15.
 
27
See e.g. Bombardier Transportation v SMC Pneumatics (UK) Ltd., 2009 QCCA 861; Instrumenttitehdas Kytola Oy v Esko Industries Ltd., 2004 BCCA 25.
 
28
See e.g. Patel v Kanbay International Inc., 2008 ONCA 867, 93 OR (3d) 588; Ocean Fisheries Ltd. v Pacific Coast Fishermen’s Mutual Marine Insurance Co, [1998] 1 FC 586 (FCA).
 
29
See e.g. Greer v Babey, 2016 SKCA 45; GreCon Dimter inc v JR Normand inc, 2005 SCC 46, [2005] 2 SCR 401; Kaverit Steel and Crane Ltd. v Kone Corp, 1992 ABCA 7, 87 DLR (4th) 129; Gulf Canada Resources Ltd. v Arochem International Ltd. (1992), 43 CPR (3d) 390 (BCCA).
 
30
See Burlington Northern Railroad Co v Canadian National Railway Co, [1997] 1 SCR 5, 34 BLR (2d) 291.
 
31
RSQ, c C-25.01. Cf. Article 622, paragraph 2 (“A court ... is required ... to refer the parties back to arbitration, unless ... [it] finds the arbitration agreement to be null”) [emphasis added].
 
32
See Dell Computer Corporation v Union des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34, 284 DLR (4th) 577. See also MacKinnon v National Money Mart Company, 2009 BCCA 103, 304 DLR (4th) 331.
 
33
Articles V(1)(a), V(1)(d), and V(2).
 
34
RSQ, c 1991, art 3121 (“[f]ailing any designation by the parties, an arbitration agreement is governed by the law applicable to the principal contract or, where that law invalidates the agreement, by the law of the country where arbitration takes place”).
 
35
RSQ, c C-25.01.
 
36
Articles 646(2), 652, paragraph 1, and 653(1), (2), (5).
 
37
See above, Section 2.1.
 
38
See e.g. Methanex New Zealand Ltd. v Fontaine Navigation SA, Tokyo Marine Co Ltd., [1998] 2 FC 583, 142 FTR 81; Mitsui v Oldendorff, 2003 BCSC 1478, 38 BLR (3d) 234.
 
39
See BC Navigation SC (Trustee of) v Canpotex Shipping Services Ltd. (1987), 16 FTR 79 (FCTD).
 
40
Dell Computer Corporation v Union des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34, 284 DLR (4th) 577. While the case originated in Québec, the approach adopted by the Supreme Court has been followed in common law jurisdictions: see e.g. Seidel v TELUS Communications Inc., 2011 SCC 15, [2011] 1 SCR 531; Advantage Engineering Inc. v Polaris Industries Inc., 2016 ONSC 2706; Toyota Tsusho Wheatland Inc v Encana Corporation, 2016 ABQB 209; Groupon Canada inc. v 9178-2243 Québec inc, 2015 QCCA 645; UBS Holding Canada Ltd. v Harrison et al., 2014 NBCA 26; Ontario v Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, 2011 ONCA 525, 338 DLR (4th) 282; Dancap Productions Inc. v Key Brand Entertainment Inc., 2009 ONCA 135, 55 BLR (4th) 1; Patel v Kanbay International Inc., 2008 ONCA 867, 93 OR (3d) 588; EDF (Services) Limited v Appleton & Associates, 2007 CanLII 36,078 (Ont Sup Ct).
 
41
See e.g. Louis Dreyfus, sas (SA Louis Dreyfus & Cie) v Holding Tusculum, bv, 2008 QCCS 5903; Rhéaume v Société d’investissements l’Excellence inc, 2010 QCCA 2269, [2011] RJQ 1.
 
42
See e.g. Popack v Lipszyc, 2016 ONCA 135; Europcar Italia SpA v Alba Tours International Inc. (1997), 23 OTC 376 (available on WL Can) (Ct J (Gen Div)); Javor v Francoeur, 2003 BCSC 350, 13 BCLR (4th) 195; Schreter v Gasmac Inc. (1992), 7 OR (3d) 608 (Ct J (Gen Div)).
 
43
See Schreter v Gasmac Inc. (1992), 7 OR (3d) 608 (Ct J (Gen Div)).
 
44
See Rhéaume v Société d’investissements l’Excellence inc, 2010 QCCA 2269, [2011] RJQ 1.
 
45
RSQ, c C-25.01, article 622, paragraph 3.
 
46
See Noble China Inc. v Cheong (1998), 42 OR (3d) 69 (Ct J (Gen Div)).
 
47
See Food Services of America Inc. v PanPacific Specialties Ltd. (1997), 32 BCLR (3d) 225 (SC).
 
48
Smart Systems Technologies Inc. v Domotique Secant inc, 2008 QCCA 444.
 
49
See Corporacion Transnacional de Inversiones, SA de CV v STET International, SPA (1999), 45 OR (3d) 183 (available on WL Can) (Sup Ct); Yugraneft Corp v Rexx Management Corp, 2010 SCC 19, [2010] 1 SCR 649.
 
50
Smart Systems Technologies Inc. v Domotique Secant inc, 2008 QCCA 444.
 
51
See J Kenneth McEwan & Ludmila B Herbst, Commercial Arbitration in Canada: A Guide to Domestic and International Arbitrations, loose-leaf (updated in December 2009) (Aurora, Ont: Canada Law Book, 2007) ch 12 at 27.
 
52
See Subway Franchise Systems of Canada Ltd. v Laich, 2011 SKQB 249.
 
53
See Grow Biz International, Inc. v DLT Holdings Inc., 2001 PESCTD 27, 199 Nfld & PEIR 135; Znamensky Selekcionno-Gibridny Center LLC v Donaldson International Livestock Ltd., 2010 ONCA 303, 90 CPC (6th) 163.
 
54
See above, Section 2.1.
 
55
See e.g. H & H Marine Engine Service Ltd. v Volvo Penta of the Americas Inc., 2009 BCSC 1389; Achilles (USA) v Plastics Dura Plastics (1977) ltée/Ltd., 2006 QCCA 1523; Kaverit Steel and Crane Ltd. v Kone Corp, 1992 ABCA 7, 87 DLR (4th) 129.
 
56
See e.g. Dell Computer Corporation v Union des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34, 284 DLR (4th) 577; Canada AG v Reliance Insurance Company (2007), 87 OR (3d) 42 (Sup Ct).
 
57
See e.g. Cecrop Co v Kinetic Sciences Inc., 2001 BCSC 532, 16 BLR (3d) 15.
 
58
See e.g. Bombardier Transportation v SMC Pneumatics (UK) Ltd., 2009 QCCA 861; Instrumenttitehdas Kytola Oy v Esko Industries Ltd., 2004 BCCA 25.
 
59
See J Kenneth McEwan & Ludmila B Herbst, Commercial Arbitration in Canada: A Guide to Domestic and International Arbitrations, loose-leaf (updated in December 2009) (Aurora, Ont: Canada Law Book, [2]) ch 8 at 2.
 
60
DG Jewelry Inc. v Cyberdiam Canada Ltd., [2002] OTC 251, 21 CPC (5th) 174 (Sup Ct); Siderurgica Mendes Junior SA v Ice Pearl (The), [1996] 6 WWR 411, 18 BCLR (3d) 182 (SC); Harper v Kvaerner Fjellstrand Shipping AS, [1991] BCJ No 2654 (QL) (SC); OEMSDF Inc. v Europe Israel Ltd. (1999), 42 CPC (4th) 229 (Ont Sup Ct).
 
61
Achilles (USA) v Plastics Dura Plastics (1977) ltée/Ltd., 2006 QCCA 1523.
 
62
See e.g. Corporacion Transnacional de Inversiones, SA de CV v STET International, SPA (1999), 45 OR (3d) 183 (available on WL Can) (Sup Ct); Bayview Irrigation District No 11 v United Mexican States (2008), 2008 CanLII 22,120 (Ont Sup Ct); Louis Dreyfus, sas (SA Louis Dreyfus & Cie) v Holding Tusculum, bv, 2008 QCCS 5903.
 
63
See above, Section 3.1.1.
 
64
See Fabien Gélinas, “Le contrôle de la sentence pour défaut de conformité de la procédure aux règles applicables: quelques questions” in Sylvette Guillemard, ed, Mélanges en l’honneur du professeur Alain Prujiner (Cowansville, Qc: Yvon Blais, 2011) 143.
 
65
See e.g. Corporacion Transnacional de Inversiones, SA de CV v STET International, SPA (1999), 45 OR (3d) 183 (Sup Ct).
 
66
See Lussier v Lussier, [2013] BCJ No 314 (QL) (SC).
 
67
See Arbutus Software Inc. v ACL Services Ltd., [2012] BCJ No 2553 (QL) (SC).
 
68
See Rusk Renovations Inc. v Dunsworth, 2013 NSSC 179.
 
69
See American Marketing Systems Inc. v Old THGI Inc., 2007 ONCA 226.
 
70
See J Kenneth McEwan & Ludmila B Herbst, Commercial Arbitration in Canada: A Guide to Domestic and International Arbitrations, loose-leaf (updated in December 2009) (Aurora, Ont: Canada Law Book, [2]) ch 12 at 28.
 
71
See Corporacion Transnacional de Inversiones, SA de CV v STET International, SPA (1999), 45 OR (3d) 183 (Sup Ct); CE International Resources Holdings LLC v Yeap Soon Sit, 2013 BCSC 1804.
 
72
Bayview Irrigation District No 11 v United Mexican States, 2008 CanLII 22,120 (Ont Sup Ct).
 
73
Corporacion Transnacional de Inversiones, SA de CV v STET International, SPA (1999), 45 OR (3d) 183 (Sup Ct).
 
74
See Corporacion Transnacional de Inversiones, SA de CV v STET International, SPA (2000), 49 OR (3d) 414 (CA).
 
75
Grow Biz International, Inc. v DLT Holdings Inc., 2001 PESCTD 27, 199 Nfld & PEIR 135.
 
76
Xerox Canada Ltd. v MPI Technologies Inc., 2006 CanLII 41,006 (Ont Sup Ct).
 
77
Bayview Irrigation District No 11 v United Mexican States, 2008 CanLII 22,120 (Ont Sup Ct).
 
78
See Morneau v Balian, 2007 QCCA 315.
 
79
Consolidated v Ambatov, 2016 ONSC 7171.
 
80
See Superior Energy Management, a Division of Superior Plus Inc. v Manson Insulation Inc., 2011 QCCS 5100.
 
81
Depo Traffic v Vikeda International, 2015 ONSC 999.
 
82
Louis Dreyfus, sas (SA Louis Dreyfus & Cie) v Holding Tusculum, bv, 2008 QCCS 5903.
 
83
Petro-Canada v Alberta Gas Ethylene Co (1991), 121 AR 199 (QB).
 
84
Ridley Terminals Inc. v Minette Bay Ship Docking Ltd. (1990), 45 BCLR (2d) 367 (CA).
 
85
See e.g. Quintette Coal Ltd. v Nippon Steel Corp (1990), 50 BCLR (2d) 207 (CA); Bayview Irrigation District No 11 v United Mexican States, 2008 CanLII 22,120 (Ont Sup Ct).
 
86
See e.g. United Mexican States v Cargill, Inc., 2011 ONCA 622, 107 OR (3d) 528; Quintette Coal Ltd. v Nippon Steel Corp (1990), 50 BCLR (2d) 207 (CA); Canada (AG) v SD Myers, Inc., 2004 FC 368, 3 FCR 368.
 
87
See e.g. Louis Dreyfus, sas (SA Louis Dreyfus & Cie) v Holding Tusculum, bv, 2008 QCCS 5903; United Mexican States v Cargill, Inc., 2011 ONCA 622, 107 OR (3d) 528.
 
88
See e.g. Attorney General of Canada v Mobil et al., 2016 ONSC 790; United Mexican States v Cargill, Inc., 2011 ONCA 622, 107 OR (3d) 528; Telestat Canada v Juch-Tech Inc., 2012 ONSC 2785, 3 BLR (5th) 282; Nearctic Nickel Mines Inc. v Canadian Royalties Inc., 2012 QCCA 385.
 
89
See Laurentienne-vie, Cie d’assurance inc v Empire, Cie d’assurance-vie, [2000] RJQ 1708 (CA).
 
90
Desputeaux v Éditions Chouette (1987) Inc., 2003 SCC 17 at para 35, [2003] 1 SCR 178, citing Sabine Thuilleaux, L’arbitrage commercial au Québec: droit interne, droit international privé (Cowansville, Qc: Yvon Blais, [3]) at 115.
 
91
Telestat Canada v Juch-Tech Inc., 2012 ONSC 2785, 3 BLR (5th) 282.
 
92
See e.g. Rhéaume v Société d’investissements l’Excellence inc, 2010 QCCA 2269, [2011] RJQ 1; Holding Tusculum, bv v Louis Dreyfus, sas (SA Louis Dreyfus & Cie), 2008 QCCS 5904; Schreter v Gasmac Inc. (1992), 7 OR (3d) 608 (Ct J (Gen Div)); Food Services of America Inc. v PanPacific Specialties Ltd. (1997), 32 BCLR (3d) 225 (SC).
 
93
See above, Section 3.1.1.
 
94
See Popack v Lipszyc, 2016 ONCA 135; Rhéaume v Société d’investissements l’Excellence inc, 2010 QCCA 2269, [2011] RJQ 1.
 
95
See Holding Tusculum, bv v Louis Dreyfus, sas (SA Louis Dreyfus & Cie), 2008 QCCS 5904.
 
96
See Fabien Gélinas, “Le contrôle de la sentence pour défaut de conformité de la procédure aux règles applicables: quelques questions” in Sylvette Guillemard, ed, Mélanges en l’honneur du professeur Alain Prujiner (Cowansville, Qc: Yvon Blais, 2011) 143.
 
97
Assam Company India Ltd v Canoro Resources Ltd, 2014 BCSC 370.
 
98
Louis Dreyfus, sas (SA Louis Dreyfus & Cie) v Holding Tusculum, bv, 2008 QCCS 5903 at para 107.
 
99
See Murmansk Trawl Fleet v Bimman Realty Inc., [1994] OJ No 3018 (QL) (Ct J (Gen Div)).
 
100
See Schreter v Gasmac Inc. (1992), 7 OR (3d) 608 (Ct J (Gen Div)).
 
101
N.Y.S.E. v Orbixa, 2013 ONSC 5521.
 
102
See Murmansk Trawl Fleet v Bimman Realty Inc., [1994] OJ No 3018 (QL) (Ct J (Gen Div)).
 
103
See Schreter v Gasmac Inc. (1992), 7 OR (3d) 608 (Ct J (Gen Div)).
 
104
See Europcar Italia SpA v Alba Tours International Inc. (1997), 23 OTC 376 (Ct J (Gen Div)).
 
105
See e.g. Wires Jolley LLP v Wong, 2010 BCSC 391, 95 CPC (6th) 212; Powerex Corp v Alcan Inc., 2004 BCSC 876.
 
106
See Desputeaux v Éditions Chouette (1987) Inc., 2003 SCC 17, [2003] 1 SCR 178.
 
107
See Carboni v Financière Banque Nationale, 2004 CarswellQue 1770 (WL Can) (SC).
 
108
See Acier Leroux inc v Tremblay, 2001 CanLII 28,564 (Qc CA).
 
109
See Desputeaux v Éditions Chouette (1987) Inc., 2003 SCC 17, [2003] 1 SCR 178.
 
110
See Murphy v Amway Canada Corporation, 2013 FCA 38, 356 DLR (4th) 738.
 
111
For example, article 11.1 of Québec’s Consumer Protection Act (RSQ, c P-40.1) and section 7(2) of Ontario’s Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (SO 2002, c 30).
 
112
See e.g. Dell Computer Corporation v Union des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34, 284 DLR (4th) 577; Rogers Wireless Inc. v Muroff, 2007 SCC 35, [2007] 2 SCR 921.
 
113
See Seidel v TELUS Communications Inc., 2011 SCC 15, [2011] 1 SCR 531.
 
114
See e.g. Corporacion Transnacional de Inversiones, SA de CV v STET International, SPA (1999), 45 OR (3d) 183 (available on WL Can) (Sup Ct).
 
115
See Schreter v Gasmac Inc. (1992), 7 OR (3d) 608 (Ct J (Gen Div)).
 
116
See Corporacion Transnacional de Inversiones, SA de CV v STET International, SPA (1999), 45 OR (3d) 183 (available on WL Can) (Sup Ct); Entes v Kyrgyz Republic, 2016 ONSC 7221.
 
117
See Boardwalk Regency Corp v Maalouf (1992), 6 OR (3d) 737 (available on WL Can) (CA).
 
118
See Holding Tusculum, bv v Louis Dreyfus, sas (SA Louis Dreyfus & Cie), 2008 QCCS 5904 (available on WL Can).
 
119
See Subway Franchise Systems of Canada Ltd. v Laich, 2011 SKQB 249.
 
120
See Smart Systems Technologies Inc. v Domotique Secant inc, 2008 QCCA 444.
 
121
Ibid
 
122
See Yugraneft Corp v Rexx Management Corp, 2010 SCC 19, [2010] 1 SCR 649.
 
123
The time limit is not explicit in every province. For Alberta, see Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12, s 3. See also Yugraneft Corp v Rexx Management Corp, 2010 SCC 19, [2010] 1 SCR 649. For British Columbia, see Limitation Act, RSBC 1996, c 266, ss 3(3)(f), 3(3)(c); Foreign Arbitral Awards Act, RSBC 1996, c 154, s 7. For Québec, see art 2924 CCQ (A right resulting from a judgment is prescribed by 10 years if it is not exercised). See also Norman Bard et Shirley Bard v Randal S Appel, 2015 QCCS 4752 (refusing to enforce a foreign award on the basis of art 2924 CCQ).
 
124
See Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7, s 39(2). See also Compania Maritima Villa Nova SA v Northern Sales Co, 1992 WL 1322847 (WL Can) (SCC). Neither the legislation nor the decided cases discuss the point at which the six-year period should be taken to begin.
 
125
Sistem Mühendislik Insaat Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Kyrgyz Republic, 2012 ONSC 4351.
 
126
See notably GreCon Dimter inc v JR Normand inc, 2005 SCC 46, [2005] 2 SCR 401; Yugraneft Corp v Rexx Management Corp, 2010 SCC 19, [2010] 1 SCR 649.
 
127
See above, Section 2.2.
 
128
See above, Section 4.2.
 
129
See above, Section 3.2.6.
 
130
On the standard of review at the referral stage, see Dell Computer Corporation v Union des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34, 284 DLR (4th) 577; Seidel v TELUS Communications Inc., 2011 SCC 15, [2011] 1 SCR 531. On time limitation, see Yugraneft Corp v Rexx Management Corp, 2010 SCC 19, [2010] 1 SCR 649. On arbitrability, see Seidel v TELUS Communications Inc., 2011 SCC 15, [2011] 1 SCR 531.
 
Literature
go back to reference A de Mestral and E Fox-Decent, ‘Rethinking the Relationship between International and Domestic Law’ (2008) 53 McGill LJ 574. A de Mestral and E Fox-Decent, ‘Rethinking the Relationship between International and Domestic Law’ (2008) 53 McGill LJ 574.
go back to reference J Kenneth McEwan and L B Herbst, Commercial Arbitration in Canada: A Guide to Domestic and International Arbitrations (updated in December 2009) (Aurora, Ontario, Canada Law Book, 2007). J Kenneth McEwan and L B Herbst, Commercial Arbitration in Canada: A Guide to Domestic and International Arbitrations (updated in December 2009) (Aurora, Ontario, Canada Law Book, 2007).
go back to reference S Thuilleaux, L’arbitrage commercial au Québec: droit interne, droit international privé (Cowansville, Québec, Yvon Blais, 1991). S Thuilleaux, L’arbitrage commercial au Québec: droit interne, droit international privé (Cowansville, Québec, Yvon Blais, 1991).
Metadata
Title
Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention in Canada
Authors
Frédéric Bachand
Fabien Gélinas
Copyright Year
2017
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50915-0_6