Penn-Co Construction Canada (2003) Ltd. v. Constance Lake First Nation

Penn-Co Construction Canada (2003) Ltd. v. Constance Lake First Nation

The motions judge properly exercised her discretion under ss.101 and 106 of the Courts of Justice Act to refuse to order arbitration because the appellant's statement of claim encompassed non-arbitrable claims and multiple parties not bound by the arbitration clause, and compelling arbitration of part of the dispute...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2008 ONCA 768
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Penn-Co Construction Canada (2003) Ltd.; Defendant (respondent): Constance Lake First Nation; Defendant (respondent): Constance Lake Education Authority; Defendant (respondent): Donald Courtnage; Defendant (respondent): Paul Allan Seguin c.o.b. as Anokii & Associates; Defendant (respondent): Anokii & Associates; Defendant (respondent): Eric Leat; Defendant (respondent): The Attorney General of Canada representing The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract/construction Dispute) / Appeal From Motions Judge Decision Denying Mandatory Order to Compel Arbitration (interlocutory)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; motions judge's denial of mandatory order compelling arbitration upheld.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Arbitration, Mandatory Interlocutory Order, Stay of Proceedings, Multiplicity of Proceedings, Termination for Default, Costs
Source Language
english
Contract Arbitration Civil Procedure Construction Law Indigenous Law Compulsory Arbitration Mandatory Interlocutory Order Stay of Proceedings +3 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Penn-Co Construction Canada (2003) Ltd.

Plaintiff (appellant)

Constance Lake First Nation

Defendant (respondent)

Constance Lake Education Authority

Defendant (respondent)

Donald Courtnage

Defendant (respondent)

Paul Allan Seguin c.o.b. as Anokii & Associates

Defendant (respondent)

Anokii & Associates

Defendant (respondent)

Eric Leat

Defendant (respondent)

The Attorney General of Canada representing The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/construction Dispute) / Appeal From Motions Judge Decision Denying Mandatory Order to Compel Arbitration (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant a mandatory order compelling respondents to proceed to contractual dispute resolution/arbitration under Courts of Justice Act ss.101 and 106
  2. 2 Whether partial arbitration should be ordered where the plaintiff's statement of claim includes non-arbitrable claims and multiple non-contracting parties
  3. 3 Whether the motions judge properly exercised discretion to decline arbitration given risk of duplication, cost and inconsistent results

Ratio Decidendi

The motions judge properly exercised her discretion under ss.101 and 106 of the Courts of Justice Act to refuse to order arbitration because the appellant's statement of claim encompassed non-arbitrable claims and multiple parties not bound by the arbitration clause, and compelling arbitration of part of the dispute would risk duplication, increased cost and inconsistent results; therefore the appeal against that discretionary decision was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; motions judge's denial of mandatory order compelling arbitration upheld.

Orders

  • Mandatory order compelling respondents to proceed to arbitration denied
  • Appeal dismissed