Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Available documents (19)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Canada / 13 December 2019 / Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice / The Russia Federation v. Luxtona Limited / CV-17-11772-CL
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 13 December 2019 Parties The Russia Federation v. Luxtona Limited Case number CV-17-11772-CL Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(a) Source 2019 ONSC 7558 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5805&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 08 March 2019 Parties Tianjin Huarong Equity Investment Fund Partnership (Limited Partnership) and Shanghai Liyi Equity Investment Center (Limited Partnership) v. Shuqin Xu Case number CV-18-00602425-00CL Applicable NYC Provisions I | IV | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) Source 2019 ONSC 628 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5501&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 30 January 2018 Parties David Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., Uber Canada Inc., Uber B.V. and Rasier Operations B.V. Case number CV-17-567946CP Source 2018 ONSC 718 | online: CanLII
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5802&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 14 September 2017 Parties 1552955 Ontario Inc. v. Lakeside Produce Inc. Case number CV-15-23140; CV-16-23279; CV-16-23483 Source 2017 ONSC 4933 | online: CanLII
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4607&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 28 November 2016 Parties Consolidated Contractors Group S.A.L. (Offshore) v. Ambatovy Minerals S.A. Case number CV-11386-00CL Source 2016 ONSC 7171 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5653&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 16 November 2016 Parties Entes Industrial Plants Construction & Erection Contracting Co. Inc. v. The Kyrgyz Republic, et al Case number CV-15-11142-00CL Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source 2016 ONSC 7221, online: CanLII
see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3663&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 20 July 2016 Parties Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Case number CV-16-11340-00CL Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | V | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source 2016 ONSC 4693 | online: CanLII
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3662&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 18 February 2015 Parties Depo Traffic Facilities (Kunshan) Co. v. Vikeda International Logistics and Automotive Supply Ltd. Case number CV-13-483322 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source 2015 ONSC 999 | online: CanLII
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3658&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 17 June 2013 Parties Ontario First Nations Limited Partnership v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario Case number CV-12-461369 Source 2013 ONSC 4166 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5415&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 03 February 2009 Parties Thaddeus Griffin v. Dell Canada Inc. Case number 07-CV-325223D2 Source online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5407&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 06 June 2008 Parties Kenneth Smith and Robert Adrien Oriet v. National Money Mart Company and Dollar Financial Group Inc. Source [2008] O.J. No. 2248 | online: CanLII
Languages English Summary The Claimants signed loan agreements with National Money Mart (“Money Mart”) which contained clauses giving Money Mart the right to refer any disputes arising with the borrowers to arbitration. The Claimants initiated an action against both Money Mart and Dollar Financial, a company which they believed controlled Money Mart, alleging that the interest rates charged for the loan repayments violated the Criminal Code. Money Mart brought a motion at the Ontario Superior Court for the action to be stayed and referred to arbitration, which was refused on the grounds that the Claimants had motioned for the certification of their claim as a class action. Money Mart unsuccessfully appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, and thereafter sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was refused. The Claimants’ motion for certification was granted. In 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decisions in Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs (“Dell”) and Rogers Wireless v. Muroff (“Rogers”), holding that a class action is a procedural vehicle that does not modify the substantive rights created by an arbitration clause. Relying on these cases, Money Mart again brought an action for a stay in favour of arbitration and for summary judgment. The Superior Court dismissed the motion to stay the action and the motion for summary judgment. Acknowledging the authority in Dell and Rogers, it noted that the court must send the parties to arbitration when a valid arbitration clause existed between them, as in the case at hand. The Superior Court noted that under the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “UNCITRAL Model Law”) and the NYC, it was confined to determining whether the arbitration agreement was “null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed.” However, it found that the facts of the case corresponded to one of the specific circumstances enumerated in Section 7(2) of the Ontario Arbitration Act which allowed it to refuse to stay proceedings. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=901&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 05 May 2008 Parties Bayview Irrigation District #11 and others v. The United Mexican States Case number 07-CV-340139-PD2 Source online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5405&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 30 November 2006 Parties Xerox Canada Ltd. and Xerox Corporation v. MPI Technologies, Inc. and MPI Tech S.A. Case number 05-CV-301537 Source online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5402&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 08 October 2002 Parties United Laboratories, Inc. v. Abraham and others Case number 99-CV-178058 Source 62 O.R. (3d) 26, [2002] O.J. No. 3985 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5396&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 22 September 1999 Parties Corporacion Transnacional de Inversiones, S.A. de C.V. v. STET International, S.p.A. and others Applicable NYC Provisions V Source 45 OR (3d) 183 | online: CanLII
Languages English Summary The Applicants were four Mexican companies, and referred to interchangeably by their acronyms, DOMOS, CINCO, COTISA and CITEL. The Respondents, together referred to as STET International S.p.A. (“STET”), entered into a share subscription agreement with COTISA, which contained a clause providing for arbitration by a three-person arbitral tribunal pursuant to the Arbitration Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) in Ottawa and the application of Mexican law. A dispute arose and STET initiated arbitration. The arbitral tribunal found that it had jurisdiction in respect of the four applicants, after which COTISA withdrew from the proceeding. The arbitral tribunal then issued interim and final awards, finding that all four applicants were jointly and severally liable to compensate STET for losses incurred by the breach of the share subscription agreement. The Applicants applied to set aside the award pursuant to the Ontario International Commercial Arbitration Act (the “ICAA”), which attaches the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “UNCITRAL Model Law”) as a schedule. The Applicants argued that the award was in conflict with the public policy of Ontario and that they had been denied equality of treatment and an opportunity to present their case because the arbitral tribunal had failed to order disclosure of certain relevant documents. The Applicants further argued that the tribunal was without jurisdiction with respect to three of the Applicants who had not signed the arbitration agreement. STET counter-applied for an order enforcing the award. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice denied the application to set aside and enforced the award. It noted that the grounds for challenging an award under the UNCITRAL Model Law were derived from Article V NYC, and that authorities relating to Article V NYC were applicable to the corresponding provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law. The Court accepted a general rule of interpretation that the grounds for refusal of enforcement are to be interpreted narrowly, and that in particular, the public policy ground should apply only where enforcement would violate Ontario’s most basic and explicit principles of justice and fairness, or where there was evidence of intolerable ignorance or corruption on the part of the arbitral tribunal. Referring to the Report of the UNCITRAL’s 18th session, it noted that the term “public policy” under the NYC covered fundamental principles of justice in its substantive as well as procedural aspects, and that notions of fairness and justice significantly overlap with the issues over the inability to present one’s case. The Court concluded that in the present case, where COTISA had refused to participate in the arbitration proceeding, inter alia, by refusing to participate in the signing of a confidentiality agreement and by withdrawing when the final hearing had commenced, it had deliberately forfeited the opportunity to be heard. The Court dismissed the other grounds for setting aside for reasons unrelated to the NYC. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=956&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 01 February 1996 Parties Carter and others v. McLaughlin and others Case number 95375/95 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) Source 27 O.R. (3d) 792, [1996] O.J. No. 328 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5390&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 23 December 1994 Parties ABN Amro Bank Canada v. Krupp MaK Maschinenbau GmbH and others Case number 92-CQ-29496 Source 21 O.R. (3d) 511, [1994] O.J. No. 3044 | online: CanLII
Languages English see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5389&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 01 October 1992 Parties Canada Packers Inc. and others v. Terra Nova Tankers Inc. and others Case number 92-CQ-22196 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) Source 11 O.R. (3d) 382, [1992] O.J. No. 2035 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5388&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Canada Court Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Date 30 January 1992 Parties Kanto Yakin Kogyo Kabushiki-Kaisha v. Can-Eng Manufacturing Ltd. Case number 27,547/91 Applicable NYC Provisions IV Source 7 O.R. (3d) 779, [1992] O.J. No. 198 | online: CanLII
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5387&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
