Canada / 29 June 2007 / Canada, Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta / Yugraneft Corporation v. Rexx Management Corporation
| Country | Canada |
| Court | Canada, Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta |
| Date | 29 June 2007 |
| Parties | Yugraneft Corporation v. Rexx Management Corporation |
| Source |
2007 ABQB 450 | 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 because 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. Concerning Rexx’s defence to enforcement based on public policy, the Court noted that the enforcement of international arbitral awards in Alberta was governed by the Alberta International Commercial Arbitration Act, which incorporated both the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “UNCITRAL Model Law”) and the NYC. The Court of Queen’s Bench noted that while both the UNCITRAL Model Law and NYC state that a court can refuse to enforce an international arbitration award that offends public policy in the state in which recognition is sought, this ground for non-enforcement had been interpreted narrowly by Canadian case law. It referred to the decision in Schreter v. Gasmac, where the Ontario Court of Justice stated that the term “public policy” under the NYC covered only fundamental principles of law and justice. The Court of Queen’s Bench considered that in the case at hand, Rexx had not demonstrated that enforcing the award would offend these basic principles. |
| affirmed by : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
