Ontario Civil


Failure to have parties personally sign rules of arbitration did not render agreement null and void

Application by plaintiff for judicial review, pursuant to s. 17(8) of Arbitration Act, 1991 (Ont.), decision of arbitrator determining that Arbitration Agreement was valid. Arbitrator determined that failure to have parties personally sign rules of arbitration did not render Agreement null and void. Application dismissed. Arbitrator’s decision was correct. Articles 19 and 25 of Agreement when read in context of Agreement as whole, and Act, did not require parties to personally sign Arbitration Rules. To require parties personally to sign agreement to reflect each step in implementation of Agreement would produce cumbersome result at odds with authorization of legal representative to act on behalf of each of parties to arbitration proceedings and timely resolution of dispute as articulated in Act and Agreement.

Malkin v. Bulman

(Nov. 21, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., Thorburn J., File No. CV-11-428117) 210 A.C.W.S. (3d) 13 (6 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

An Ontario judge has ruled he has jurisdiction to review decisions by student unions at three post-secondary institutions that denied official status to other student groups. Do you agree with this finding?