Darim Masonary Limited v. The Roy Building Limited

Darim Masonary Limited v. The Roy Building Limited

Because the contract's Article 8.2.7 unambiguously provided that failure to give the required written notice under 8.2.6 rendered the arbitration agreement non-binding and permitted the parties to refer the dispute to the courts, the Defendant's contention that arbitration precluded court proceedings failed; the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2021 NSSM 23
Parties
Claimant: Darim Masonary Limited; Defendant: The Roy Building Limited
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Construction Contract Debt / Preliminary Motion on Jurisdiction/arbitration (motion Heard March 5, 2021)
Outcome
Defendant's motion dismissed; proceeding to full hearing on the merits ordered.
Legal Topics
Arbitration Clause Enforcement, Jurisdiction, Preliminary Motion, Stay of Proceedings, Statutory Interpretation of Small Claims Court Act
Source Language
english
Contract Arbitration Construction Law Civil Procedure Arbitration Clause Enforcement Jurisdiction Preliminary Motion Stay of Proceedings +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darim Masonary Limited

Claimant

The Roy Building Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Construction Contract Debt / Preliminary Motion on Jurisdiction/arbitration (motion Heard March 5, 2021)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration agreement precludes the Small Claims Court from hearing the dispute
  2. 2 Whether failure to give the contractually required written notice under Article 8.2.6 rendered the arbitration agreement non-binding
  3. 3 Whether s.14 of the Small Claims Court Act is inconsistent with ss.8-9 of the Commercial Arbitration Act and which statute prevails

Ratio Decidendi

Because the contract's Article 8.2.7 unambiguously provided that failure to give the required written notice under 8.2.6 rendered the arbitration agreement non-binding and permitted the parties to refer the dispute to the courts, the Defendant's contention that arbitration precluded court proceedings failed; the motion to bar or stay the Small Claims Court proceeding was dismissed and the matter ordered to proceed to a full hearing. The statutory conflict between s.14 of the Small Claims Court Act and ss.8-9 of the Commercial Arbitration Act was not decided.

Court Disposition

Defendant's motion dismissed; proceeding to full hearing on the merits ordered.

Orders

  • Dismissed Defendant's motion to bar or stay the claim based on the arbitration agreement.
  • Direct that the proceeding proceed to a full hearing on the merits to be organized shortly.