Applicant, Chinese company, constructed moulds and delivered parts to respondent, Ontario company, in accordance with various agreements. Respondent failed or refused to pay for moulds and parts. Applicant commenced arbitration to recover unpaid amounts from respondent. Applicant succeeded in international arbitration against respondent heard before Shanghai International Arbitration Commission. Commission found that respondent breached agreements by failing to make timely payments for goods and moulds that applicant produced and delivered. Commission found that all agreements were valid and lawful and binding on parties. Commission found applicant performed its obligations in accordance with orders placed by respondent and quality of moulds delivered conformed to relevant quality standards. Commission ordered respondent to pay to applicant CNY 53,403,56 on account of parts it received but did not pay for and CNY 3,404,909.25 on account of moulds that applicant constructed at respondent’s request that it did not pay for. Applicant sought to have award recognized in Ontario pursuant to UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Application granted. International Commercial Arbitration Act (Ont.), provided that Model Law was in force in Ontario. There was no reason not to recognize and enforce award. Applicant filed certified copy of award, certified copy of arbitration agreement and certified translations of each. Applicant complied with its Model Law obligations. It could not be said that respondent was unable to present its case. Respondent had not met its onus to establish that it was denied natural justice. Public policy defence had no application to facts here. Procedure commission followed did not offend principles of justice and fairness in fundamental way. Dispute with respect to payment of moulds was properly within jurisdiction of commission and ought to be enforced. Respondent raised no issue of jurisdiction with commission. Dispute over payment of moulds was dispute arising from agreements and was subject to arbitration agreement.
Depo Traffic Facilities (Kunshan) Co. v. Vikeda International Logistics and Automotive Supply Ltd. (Feb. 18, 2015, Ont. S.C.J., Chiappetta J., File No. CV-13-483322) 250 A.C.W.S. (3d) 375.