Canada, Court of Appeal of Alberta
Available documents
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Canada / 05 August 2008 / Canada, Court of Appeal of Alberta / Yugraneft Corporation v. Rexx Management Corporation
Country Canada Court Canada, Court of Appeal of Alberta Date 05 August 2008 Parties Yugraneft Corporation v. Rexx Management Corporation Source 2008 ABCA 274 | online: CanLII
Languages English Summary The Yugraneft Corporation (“Yugraneft”) and Rexx Management (“Rexx”) concluded a supply agreement containing an arbitration clause providing for the resolution of all disputes by a panel of three arbitrators in Moscow under the rules of the Russian International Commercial Arbitration Court (“ICAC”). A dispute arose between the parties. Yugraneft obtained a favourable award and brought an application for enforcement in Alberta. Rexx sought dismissal of the application on the grounds that the application was time-barred as it had not been brought within the two-year limitation under Section 3(1)(a) of the Alberta Limitations Act (the “Limitations Act”), and that enforcing the award would be contrary to public policy in Alberta as the arbitral tribunal had refused to hear and deliberate on one of Rexx’s key arguments regarding the illegal takeover of Yugraneft. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench refused to enforce the arbitral award on the ground that the application was time-barred under the Limitations Act. Rexx appealed. The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, finding that the application for enforcement was time-barred under the Limitations Act. As such, the Court considered it unnecessary to consider Rexx’s argument that enforcement of the award would be contrary to public policy in Alberta. affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=953&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Court of Appeal of Alberta Date 13 March 2008 Parties Resin Systems Inc. v. Industrial Service & Machine Inc. Case number 0701-0343-AC Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source 2008 ABCA 104 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5404&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Court of Appeal of Alberta Date 16 January 1992 Parties Kaverit Steel v. Kone Corp. Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) | II | II(1) | II(2) Source 1992 ABCA 7 | online: CanLII
Languages English Summary Kaverit Steel and Crane (“Kaverit Steel”) was a licensee and distributor of crane equipment and parts under written agreements with Kone Corporation (“Kone”), each of which included clauses for the resolution of all disputes by arbitration in Stockholm, Sweden, under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”). A dispute arose and Kaverit Steel initiated court proceedings against Kone. Kone brought an application to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench to stay the action and refer the matter to arbitration, which was dismissed on the grounds that some of the issues in the action fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause, and that some parties to the action were not parties to the arbitration agreements. Kone appealed. The Court of Appeal of Alberta reversed the judgment refusing to stay the action and referred Kaverit’s claims in contract, and some of its claims in tort, to arbitration. The Court of Appeal accepted the lower court’s finding that Kaverit had raised some claims directed at third parties to the arbitration agreement, and that such parties could not be compelled to arbitrate without consenting to do so. It noted that the Alberta International Commercial Arbitration Act (the “ICAA”) adopts the test under Article II(1) NYC, which provides that the NYC applies only to “an agreement in writing under which the parties undertake to submit to arbitration” and that Article II(2) NYC clarifies that “parties” are the parties signatory to the agreement by stating that the term “‘agreement in writing’ shall include an arbitral clause in a contract signed by the parties.” The Court of Appeal considered that the mere fact that a claim sounds in tort does not exclude its arbitrability. It confirmed this reasoning by looking to Section 2 of the ICAA, which limits its scope to “differences arising out of commercial relationships, whether contractual or not”, and to Article I(3) NYC, which leaves signatory states to decide whether the NYC applies only to contractual differences or all types of differences. The Court of Appeal found that in the case before it, because the parties had agreed to arbitrate disputes “arising out of or in connection with” their contract, extra-contractual claims could also fall within the scope of that clause if either the claimant or defendant relied on the existence of the contractual obligation as a necessary element to create or defeat the claim. It held that even if referring some of the parties’ disputes to arbitration could pose a risk of multiple and contradictory findings, Article II(3) NYC directed courts of signatory states to hold parties to their agreement to arbitrate unless such an agreement was “null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.” reverses : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=954&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
