Canada / 14 May 1991 / Canada, Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta / Kaverit Steel and Crane v. Kone Corp.
| Country | Canada |
| Court | Canada, Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta |
| Date | 14 May 1991 |
| Parties | Kaverit Steel and Crane v. Kone Corp. |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | I | I(1) | II | II(3) |
| Source |
1991 A.J. No. 450 |
| 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 applied to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench to stay the action and refer the matter to arbitration, relying on the discretion granted to the courts under the Alberta Arbitration Act to stay court proceedings. Kaverit Steel argued that the International Commercial Arbitration Act (“ICAA”), to which the NYC is appended as a schedule, was applicable and not the Alberta Arbitration Act. It further argued that the ICAA could not be invoked to stay the proceedings, as the parties to the arbitration agreement did not include all the litigants raising a claim against Kone and therefore there was no arbitration agreement binding all the parties. This, they argued, would warrant a refusal to refer the parties to arbitration under Article II(3) NYC, since the agreement would be “inoperative or incapable of being performed.” The Court of Queen’s Bench ruled that the ICAA and not the Alberta Arbitration Act was applicable as the arbitration was to take place in Sweden, thereby falling under the scope of Article I(1) NYC. It further held that the other litigants in the action, who were not party to the arbitration agreements, had raised legitimate claims connected to the main breach of contract that should be tried in the same proceeding. The Court of Queen’s Bench considered that this would render the arbitration clause inoperative under Article II(3) NYC. |
| reversed by : | |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Pending Adobe Acrobat PDF |
