Greenfield Ethanol Inc. v. Suncor Energy Products Inc.

Greenfield Ethanol Inc. v. Suncor Energy Products Inc.

The arbitration clause in s.36.1 is broad enough that claims alleging fiduciary duties arising from the 1996 Agreement are not clearly outside its scope; therefore those disputed claims must be referred to arbitration and the court must not substitute a merits determination for the arbitrator's role.

Citation
2007 ONCA 823
Parties
Applicant/respondent on Appeal: Greenfield Ethanol Inc. (formerly known as Commercial Alcohols Inc.); Respondent/appellant on Appeal: Suncor Energy Products Inc. (formerly Sunoco Inc.)
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice (application Judge Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Arbitrability, Interpretation of Arbitration Clause, Contractual Fiduciary Duties, Referral to Arbitration, Costs
Source Language
English
Arbitration Contract Fiduciary Duty Civil Procedure Remedies Arbitrability Interpretation of Arbitration Clause Contractual Fiduciary Duties +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Greenfield Ethanol Inc. (formerly known as Commercial Alcohols Inc.)

Applicant/respondent on Appeal

Suncor Energy Products Inc. (formerly Sunoco Inc.)

Respondent/appellant on Appeal

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice (application Judge Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disputed claims are arbitrable under the 1996 Agreement arbitration clause
  2. 2 Whether claims alleging fiduciary duties arising from the contract fall within the arbitration clause
  3. 3 Whether the application judge usurped the arbitral tribunal by determining arbitrability conclusively

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitration clause in s.36.1 is broad enough that claims alleging fiduciary duties arising from the 1996 Agreement are not clearly outside its scope; therefore those disputed claims must be referred to arbitration and the court must not substitute a merits determination for the arbitrator's role.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Disputed claims declared arbitrable and referred to arbitration under s.36 of the 1996 Agreement
  • Costs of this appeal to CAI fixed at $15,000 including GST and disbursements