Conconi Developments Ltd. v. DR4 Developments Ltd.

Conconi Developments Ltd. v. DR4 Developments Ltd.

The court held that the applicants did not take any step in the proceedings that would bar relief under s.15(1); the joint application to strike did not amount to a prior step and the informal letter requesting documents was not a procedural step under the Rules of Court, therefore the stay was not barred and recourse to arbitration remained available.

Citation
2014 BCSC 1101
Parties
Plaintiff: Conconi Developments Ltd.; Plaintiff: Namor Capital Corporation; Defendant: DR4 Developments Ltd.; Defendant: Hudson Holdings Ltd.; Defendant: Joseph David Mooney also known as David Mooney
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil (arbitration) / Application for Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
No prior steps taken that bar recourse to arbitration; stay not barred
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Arbitration Agreement Enforcement, Application to Strike, Steps Barring Stay Under Statute
Source Language
English

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Conconi Developments Ltd.

Plaintiff

Namor Capital Corporation

Plaintiff

DR4 Developments Ltd.

Defendant

Hudson Holdings Ltd.

Defendant

Joseph David Mooney also known as David Mooney

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (arbitration) / Application for Stay of Proceedings

  1. 1 Whether the dispute is subject to arbitration under the joint venture agreement
  2. 2 Whether defendants took prior steps in the court proceeding that bar a stay under s.15(1) of the Arbitration Act
  3. 3 Whether an application to strike or a letter requesting documents constitute 'any other step' under s.15(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants did not take any step in the proceedings that would bar relief under s.15(1); the joint application to strike did not amount to a prior step and the informal letter requesting documents was not a procedural step under the Rules of Court, therefore the stay was not barred and recourse to arbitration remained available.

Court Disposition

No prior steps taken that bar recourse to arbitration; stay not barred

Orders

  • Proceedings stayed pending arbitration
  • Costs in the cause