|
By Timothy Froese and Sierra Bilyk
  It is not uncommon for parties in long-term commercial relationships to become involved in multiple related arbitrations. If so, the parties may consolidate the arbitrations into a single proceeding for the sake of consistency and efficiency. But when is consolidation appropriate? And what happens if the parties do not agree? Depending on the governing legislation, the court may intervene. That was the issue in the Pricaspian case where the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held it had the jurisdiction to order consolidation under the Alberta International Commercial Arbitration Act, even over the objections of one of the parties.
par Timothy Froese et Sierra Bilyk
Il n'est pas rare que des parties ayant établi des relations commerciales à long terme se voient engagées dans plusieurs procédures d'arbitrage l'une avec l'autre. Si tel est le cas, les parties ont la possibilité de consolider les différentes procédures d'arbitrage en une seule pour des raisons de cohérence et d'efficacité. Quand convient-il de procéder à une telle consolidation? Que se passe-t-il si les parties ne sont pas d'accord? Selon la législation applicable, les tribunaux pourraient intervenir. C'est ce qui s'est produit lors du cas Pricaspian : la Cour du Banc de la Reine de l'Alberta (cour d'appel) a jugé qu'elle avait le pouvoir d'ordonner la consolidation, en vertu de l'International Commercial Arbitration Act de l'Alberta, malgré les objections d'une des parties.
|
Time is money. When disputes arise, we all look for fast, efficient and fair methods of resolution. Fast track arbitration protocols developed by ADR Institute of Canada can save time and money. They provide a framework to resolve many disputes within as little as three months.
Without prejudice communications are common to court-based litigation and, its faster, cheaper sibling, arbitration. Arguably, the entirety of mediation is without prejudice since its existence in any dispute is based on joint efforts toward resolution. Yet despite the ubiquitous nature of the phrase itself, confusion still reigns. What exactly does the phrase “without prejudice” mean? Is it necessary to write these magic words on every communication made in the course of the settlement process? And if so, does the failure to explicitly state them render them powerless?
In an article in the last edition of ADR Perspectives, Murray Smith suggested that arbitration is losing its appeal and that the only way to correct that is to provide greater recourse to the courts to correct “aberrant results”. However, the opposite can be said to be true.
