Westnav Container Services Ltd. v. Freeport Properties Ltd.

Westnav Container Services Ltd. v. Freeport Properties Ltd.

The court held the arbitrator did not exceed his jurisdiction in issuing the Correction Ruling because the amendment constituted permissible clarification and supplementation of reasons under s.27 rather than impermissible new analysis; the arbitrator did not deny natural justice and the application under s.30 to set aside the award was dismissed; costs in the cause.

Citation
2009 BCSC 184
Parties
Petitioner: Westnav Container Services Ltd.; Respondent: Freeport Properties Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Commercial Arbitration Act to Set Aside an Arbitration Award / Judgment on S.30 Application to Set Aside Award and Challenge to S.27 Correction/clarification
Outcome
Application dismissed; award not set aside
Legal Topics
Arbitral Error, Slip Rule (s.27), Natural Justice, Award Clarification, Jurisdiction, Setting Aside Award, Section 27, Section 30
Source Language
English
Commercial Arbitration Administrative Law Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Arbitral Error Slip Rule (s.27) Natural Justice +5 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Westnav Container Services Ltd.

Petitioner

Freeport Properties Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under the Commercial Arbitration Act to Set Aside an Arbitration Award / Judgment on S.30 Application to Set Aside Award and Challenge to S.27 Correction/clarification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by amending the award beyond permissible correction under s.27
  2. 2 Whether the Correction Ruling amounted to new reasoning (impermissible second thoughts) or was a permissible clarification/supplemental reasons
  3. 3 Whether the manner of correction breached rules of natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the arbitrator did not exceed his jurisdiction in issuing the Correction Ruling because the amendment constituted permissible clarification and supplementation of reasons under s.27 rather than impermissible new analysis; the arbitrator did not deny natural justice and the application under s.30 to set aside the award was dismissed; costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; award not set aside

Orders

  • Application under s.30 of the Commercial Arbitration Act dismissed
  • Costs payable in the cause