Canada, Ontario Court (General Division)
Available documents (3)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Canada / 07 May 1996 / Canada, Ontario Court (General Division) / ABN Amro Bank Canada v. Krupp Mak Maschinenbau GmbH / 92-CQ-29496A
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Court (General Division) Date 07 May 1996 Parties ABN Amro Bank Canada v. Krupp Mak Maschinenbau GmbH Case number 92-CQ-29496A Source online: CanLII
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5651&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Court (General Division) Date 07 June 1995 Parties ABN Amro Bank Canada v. Krupp Mak Maschinenbau GmbH Case number 92-CQ-29496 Source online: CanLII
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5920&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Court (General Division) Date 13 February 1992 Parties Schreter v. Gasmac Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source [1992] O.J. No. 257 | online: CanLII
Languages English Summary In 1987, Schreter entered into a sales contract with Gasmac Inc. (“Gasmac”) which contained an arbitration clause providing for the resolution of all disputes arising under the contract through arbitration in Atlanta, Georgia, under the rules of the American Arbitration Association. Schreter initiated arbitration proceedings against Gasmac in 1989 for breach of contract and obtained a favourable award. Schreter applied to enforce the award in Ontario. Gasmac opposed the enforcement, claiming that the arbitrator’s award granting accelerated damages violated public policy in Ontario. The Ontario Court granted enforcement of the award, finding that its enforcement would not violate public policy. Although its decision was based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “UNCITRAL Model Law”), it referred to the scope of the “public policy” exception under Article V(2)(b) NYC. The Court reasoned that the purpose of imposing the public policy of a province or state on foreign awards was to safeguard against the enforcement of an award which offended fundamental notions and principles of justice. The Court noted that this could not warrant the reopening of the merits of an arbitral decision and that such an action could bring the enforcement procedure of the UNCITRAL Model Law into disrepute. The Court found that in the present case, Gasmac had had a full hearing and made arguments during the arbitral proceedings, and that the award of accelerated damages would not violate public policy in Ontario. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=904&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
