Ontario Civil


All alleged errors potentially decisive to outcome of arbitration

Tenant was company that leased stadium from municipal landlord. Dispute resulted in settlement agreement that provided, inter alia, landlord could terminate lease in event of bona fide redevelopment plans for stadium. In event of termination, tenant had option to lease another municipal property. Landlord terminated lease pursuant to agreement. Parties were unable to reach agreement regarding another municipal property. Tenant alleged landlord breached agreement. Parties proceeded to arbitration, and arbitrator found in tenant’s favour. Landlord brought motion for leave to appeal. Motion granted. Three grounds for appeal put forth by landlord raised extricable legal errors in interpretation of settlement agreement. As such, these were questions of law as required by s. 45(1) of Arbitration Act, 1991 (Ont.), and not questions of mixed fact and law. All alleged errors were potentially decisive to outcome of arbitration. There was also arguable merit to position taken by landlord that arbitrator’s decision was at least unreasonable.

Ottawa (City) v. Coliseum Inc. (Sep. 9, 2014, Ont. S.C.J., J. Mackinnon J., File No. 14-60108) 245 A.C.W.S. (3d) 268.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?