South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority v. BMT Fleet Technology Ltd.

South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority v. BMT Fleet Technology Ltd.

The April 1, 2011 Notice to Arbitrate, though procedurally irregular (single notice and single fee), objectively communicated TransLink's intention to refer the respective disputes to arbitration and contained the substantive information required by the Rules; BCICAC's April 4, 2011 deeming letter therefore effected...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 BCSC 1683
Parties
Petitioner: South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority dba TransLink; Respondent: BMT Fleet Technology Ltd.; Respondent: International Marine Consultants Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Petition Under the Arbitration Act / Judgment on Petition
Outcome
petition granted in part
Legal Topics
Commencement of Arbitration, Nullity Vs Irregularity, Appointment of Arbitrator, Consolidation of Arbitrations, Institutional Arbitration Rules, Fees and Administration
Source Language
english
Arbitration Commercial Law Contract Law Procedural Law Commencement of Arbitration Nullity Vs Irregularity Appointment of Arbitrator Consolidation of Arbitrations +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority dba TransLink

Petitioner

BMT Fleet Technology Ltd.

Respondent

International Marine Consultants Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition Under the Arbitration Act / Judgment on Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a single Notice to Arbitrate against multiple parties under multiple contracts was a nullity or an irregularity
  2. 2 Whether arbitration proceedings were validly commenced against BMT and IMC
  3. 3 Whether Mr. Murray Smith should be appointed as arbitrator

Ratio Decidendi

The April 1, 2011 Notice to Arbitrate, though procedurally irregular (single notice and single fee), objectively communicated TransLink's intention to refer the respective disputes to arbitration and contained the substantive information required by the Rules; BCICAC's April 4, 2011 deeming letter therefore effected commencement of separate arbitrations against BMT under two contracts, IMC under its contract, and Victoria Shipyards; the irregularities are administrative and susceptible to cure; s.17 empowers the court to appoint an arbitrator and, in absence of substantive objection, Murray Smith is appointed for the arbitrations against BMT and IMC.

Court Disposition

petition granted in part

Orders

  • Declaration that TransLink's April 1, 2011 Notice to Arbitrate was an irregularity but effective to commence separate arbitrations against: (1) BMT under the First BMT Contract; (2) BMT under the Second BMT Contract; (3) IMC under the IMC Contract; (4) Victoria Shipyards
  • Order appointing Mr. Murray Smith as arbitrator in the arbitrations against BMT under the First and Second BMT Contracts and against IMC under the IMC Contract