Bell Mobility Inc. v. MTS Allstream Inc., 2009 MBCA 28

• Judge: Scott, C.J.M., Steel and Hamilton, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: March 13, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2009 MBCA 28;(2009), 236 Man.R.(2d) 167 (CA)

Bell Mobility v. MTS Allstream Inc. (2009), 236 Man.R.(2d) 167 (CA);

      448 W.A.C. 167

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.021

Bell Mobility Inc. (applicant/appellant) v. MTS Allstream Inc. (respondent/respondent)

(AI 08-30-06957; 2009 MBCA 28)

Indexed As: Bell Mobility Inc. v. MTS Allstream Inc.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Scott, C.J.M., Steel and Hamilton, JJ.A.

March 13, 2009.

Summary:

MTS alleged that Bell breached an agreement between them. Section 17 of the agreement provided for resolution of disputes by negotiation and arbitration. Claims for interim or interlocutory injunctions were specifically excluded from arbitration in favour of court proceedings. MTS issued a notice of arbitration and also applied to the court for interim and interlocutory injunctive relief. Bell sought to strike the notice of arbitration, which would stay the arbitration proceedings, submitting that MTS, by commencing court proceedings, elected to have the dispute resolved in court and not by arbitration. Bell also claimed that commencement of the simultaneous proceedings was an abuse of process.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported at (2008), 229 Man.R.(2d) 97, dismissed the application. The agreement provided for mandatory arbitration of disputes and proceeding in court for interim or interlocutory injunctive relief did not constitute simultaneous or duplicative proceedings giving rise to an abuse of process. Section 17 did not provide the parties with an election to choose to proceed either by arbitration or court action. Bell appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The trial judge correctly interpreted s. 17 of the agreement.

Arbitration - Topic 5

General principles - Arbitration v. action - [See Arbitration - Topic 170 ].

Arbitration - Topic 170

Agreement to arbitrate - Arbitration of injunctive relief excluded in favour of court proceedings - MTS alleged that Bell breached an agreement between them - Section 17 of the agreement provided for resolution of disputes by negotiation and arbitration - Claims for interim or interlocutory injunctions were specifically excluded from arbitration in favour of court proceedings - MTS issued a notice of arbitration and also applied to the court for interim and interlocutory injunctive relief - Bell sought to strike the notice of arbitration, which would stay the arbitration proceedings, submitting that MTS, by commencing court proceedings, elected to have the dispute resolved in court and not by arbitration - Bell also claimed that commencement of the simultaneous proceedings was an abuse of process - The trial judge held that arbitration of disputes was mandatory and proceeding in court for interim or interlocutory injunctive relief did not constitute simultaneous or duplicative proceedings giving rise to an abuse of process - Section 17 did not provide the parties with an election to choose to proceed either by arbitration or court action - The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed Bell's appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly interpreted s. 17.

Contracts - Topic 7400

Interpretation - General principles - General - At issue was the standard of review of a trial judge's interpretation of a contractual clause - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that a deferential standard applied to the extent that the task of interpretation involved consideration of extrinsic evidence or a determination of the factual matrix - However, where the interpretation involved only the words of the contract (question of pure contractual interpretation), a question of law was involved and the standard of review was correctness - See paragraphs 28 to 41.

Practice - Topic 8800.2

Appeals - General principles - Duty of appellate court regarding findings of law - [See Contracts - Topic 7400 ].

Cases Noticed:

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 495; 198 N.R. 161; 78 B.C.A.C. 162; 128 W.A.C. 162, refd to. [para. 14].

Kassem v. Secure Distribution Services Inc. et al., [2004] O.T.C. 117; 43 B.L.R.(3d) 277 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 14].

Bradscot (MCL) Ltd. v. Board of Education (Roman Catholic Separate) of Hamilton-Wentworth et al. (1999), 116 O.A.C. 257; 42 O.R.(3d) 723 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Prairie Petroleum Products Ltd. v. Husky Oil Ltd. et al. (2008), 231 Man.R.(2d) 1; 437 W.A.C. 1; 2008 MBCA 87, refd to. [para. 28].

Barcode Systems Inc. v. Symbol Technologies Canada Inc. et al. (2008), 225 Man.R.(2d) 312; 419 W.A.C. 312; 2008 MBCA 47, refd to. [para. 30].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 30].

Martens v. Gulfstream Resources Canada Ltd. (1999), 250 A.R. 62; 213 W.A.C. 62; 1999 ABCA 283, refd to. [para. 31].

MacDougall v. MacDougall (2005), 205 O.A.C. 216; 262 D.L.R.(4th) 120 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Moore (Geoffrey L.) Realty Inc. v. Manitoba Motor League (2003), 173 Man.R.(2d) 300; 293 W.A.C. 300; 2003 MBCA 71, refd to. [para. 31].

3869130 Canada Inc. et al. v. I.C.B. Distribution Inc. et al. (2008), 239 O.A.C. 137; 45 B.L.R.(4th) 1; 2008 ONCA 396, refd to. [para. 34].

Double N Earthmovers Ltd. v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2005), 363 A.R. 201; 343 W.A.C. 201; 6 M.P.L.R.(4th) 25; 2005 ABCA 104, affd. [2007] 1 S.C.R. 116; 356 N.R. 211; 401 A.R. 329; 391 W.A.C. 329; 2007 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 37].

Conway v. Zinkhofer, [2008] A.R. Uned. 306; 2008 ABCA 392, refd to. [para. 38].

Freyberg v. Fletcher Challenge Oil and Gas Inc. et al. (2005), 363 A.R. 35; 343 W.A.C. 35; 252 D.L.R.(4th) 365; 2005 ABCA 46, refd to. [para. 39].

885704 Alberta Ltd. et al. v. Oxford Properties Group Inc. et al. (2005), 371 A.R. 178; 354 W.A.C. 178; 34 R.P.R.(4th) 159; 2005 ABCA 274, refd to. [para. 39].

White v. E.B.F. Manufacturing Ltd. et al. (2005), 239 N.S.R.(2d) 270; 760 A.P.R. 270; 12 B.L.R.(4th) 1; 2005 NSCA 167, refd to. [para. 39].

Minister of National Revenue v. General Motors of Canada Ltd. (2008), 379 N.R. 60; 292 D.L.R.(4th) 331; 2008 FCA 142, refd to. [para. 39].

Consolidated-Bathurst Export Ltd. v. Mutual Boiler and Machinery Insurance Co., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 888; 32 N.R. 488, refd to. [para. 42].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hall, Geoff R., Canadian Contractual Interpretation Law (1st Ed. 2007), pp. 106, 107 [para. 29].

Counsel:

P.J. Lukasiewicz, D.G. Hill and D.M. Olson, for the appellant;

E.W. Olson, Q.C., J.G. Edmond and R.A. McFadyen, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 19, 2008, before Scott, C.J.M., Steel and Hamilton, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

On March 13, 2009, Hamilton, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.