Canada / 11 December 2002 / Canada, Court of Appeal of Manitoba / Sheldon Proctor v. Leon Schellenberg / AI02-30-05317
| Country | Canada |
| Court | Canada, Court of Appeal of Manitoba |
| Date | 11 December 2002 |
| Parties | Sheldon Proctor v. Leon Schellenberg |
| Case number | AI02-30-05317 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) | V |
| Source |
2002 MBCA 170 | online: CanLII |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | The Respondent opened a trading account with First Options of Chicago (“First Options”), a brokerage house, and signed, among other documents, an Arbitration Agreement containing a reference to First Options. First Options did not sign the Arbitration Agreement. The Respondent’s account was then transferred to E. D. & F. Man International, Inc. (“Man International”). The Respondent continued to use the account until it was closed due to differences between the Respondent and the Applicant, who had been the Respondent’s broker during the duration of the account and who demanded that the Respondent pay the deficit in his account at the time it was closed. The Respondent replied by sending the Arbitration Agreement to the Applicant’s counsel. The Respondent’s trading account was subsequently assigned to the Applicant by Man International. The Applicant commenced arbitration proceedings in Illinois and obtained a favourable award against the Respondent, who did not participate in the proceeding. The Applicant obtained enforcement of the award before the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba. The Respondent appealed, arguing that the Applicant had failed to satisfy Article IV(1)(b) NYC by failing to supply the court with an “agreement in writing” as referred to in Article II(2) NYC. The Court of Appeal of Manitoba upheld the decision of the lower court granting enforcement. It considered that an “agreement in writing” under Article II(2) NYC can take various forms and the term must be given a functional and pragmatic interpretation. In this case, after the Applicant made its demand for arbitration, the Respondent had replied by faxing a copy of the Arbitration Agreement to the Applicant, whose counsel accepted the document. The Court of Appeal considered that this met the requirements of Article II(2) NYC and that it was unnecessary to decide on the other questions raised. |
| affirms : | |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
