Enmax Energy Corp. v. TransAlta Generation Partnership, 2015 ABCA 383

• Judge: Paperny, Slatter and McDonald, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: September 10, 2015
• Citations: 2015 ABCA 383;(2015), 609 A.R. 221

Enmax Energy Corp. v. TransAlta Generation (2015), 609 A.R. 221; 656 W.A.C. 221 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. DE.060

Enmax Energy Corporation (respondent/plaintiff) v. TransAlta Generation Partnership (appellant/defendant)

(1501-0082-AC; 2015 ABCA 383)

Indexed As: Enmax Energy Corp. v. TransAlta Generation Partnership

Alberta Court of Appeal

Paperny, Slatter and McDonald, JJ.A.

December 9, 2015.

Summary:

The appellant appealed a chambers judge's decision where he held that the parties to an arbitration were not bound by a prior arbitration award involving the same parties, that a party (in this case, the respondent) was not estopped from taking certain positions in the current arbitration as a result of the prior arbitration decision, and that the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel did not apply to arbitration awards.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Arbitration - Topic 7803

Judicial review (incl. appeals) - General principles - Nature of review proceeding (incl. standard of review) - The appellant was a power producer - It operated a generating plant at Keephills and was party to the "Keephills Power Purchase Arrangement" with the respondent energy corporation under which it sold electricity to the respondent - The present dispute arose under the Arrangement - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that "While this 'Arrangement' looks in many respects like a contract, ... it is actually a regulated form of arrangement that was settled and is enforceable under Part 4.1 of the Electric Utilities Act. Article 19 of the Arrangement contains a tiered system of dispute resolution. Disputes that cannot be resolved by 'senior management' may be arbitrated or litigated ... These provisions displace the normal presumption that the superior courts should defer to the arbitrators." - See paragraphs 20 to 25.

Arbitration - Topic 7909

Judicial review (incl. appeals) - Jurisdiction of the courts - Effect of agreement to arbitrate - [See Arbitration - Topic 7803 ].

Estoppel - Topic 377

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - When applicable - [See Estoppel - Topic 383 ].

Estoppel - Topic 383

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - The appellant appealed a chambers judge's decision where he held that the parties to an arbitration were not bound by a prior arbitration award involving the same parties, that a party (in this case, the respondent) was not estopped from taking certain positions in the current arbitration as a result of the prior arbitration decision, and that the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel did not apply to arbitration awards - The parties described the issue said to give rise to an estoppel as the "Discrete Finding" - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The court held that: prior arbitration decisions were binding in future arbitrations, provided the arbitration involved the same parties; the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel applied to arbitrations, provided that the requisite elements were found to exist; and the respondent was bound by the prior arbitration decision or estopped from taking certain positions in the current arbitration as a result of the prior arbitration decision, to the extent that the issues were decided by the Discrete Finding in the prior arbitration decision - See paragraphs 26 to 55.

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - [See Estoppel - Topic 383 ].

Cases Noticed:

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. 20].

Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp. - see Creston Moly Corp. v. Sattva Capital Corp.

Creston Moly Corp. v. Sattva Capital Corp., [2014] 2 S.C.R. 633; 461 N.R. 335; 358 B.C.A.C. 1; 614 W.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 21].

Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs et al., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801; 366 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 21].

Shell Egypt West Manzala Gmbh & Anor v. Dana Gas Egypt Ltd., [2009] 2 C.L.C. 481, refd to. [para. 35].

Fidelitas Shipping Co. Ltd. v. V/O Exportchleb, [1965] 2 All E.R. 4, refd to. [para. 35].

L'Hirondelle v. Alberta (Minister of Sustainable Resource Development) (2013), 542 A.R. 68; 566 W.A.C. 68; 2013 ABCA 12, refd to. [para. 39].

Loewen v. Manitoba Teachers' Society (2015), 315 Man.R.(2d) 123; 630 W.A.C. 123; 2015 MBCA 13, refd to. [para. 39].

Scotia Realty Ltd. v. Olympia and York S.P. Corp. (1992), 9 O.R.(3d) 414 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 40].

Huck (W. Lee) et al. v. Komol Plastics Co., [1996] B.C.T.C. Uned. B75; 1996 CarswellBC 3825, refd to. [para. 40].

Fidelitas Shipping Co., Ltd. v. V/O Exportchleb, [1966] 1 Q.B. 630 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

1041 Associated Electric and Gas Insurance Services Ltd. v. European Reinsurance Co. of Zürich, [2003] 1 W.L.R. 1041; [2003] UKPC 11, refd to. [para. 40].

Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 832, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 180; 37 N.R. 394, refd to. [para. 41].

Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 832 v. Canada Safeway Ltd. - see Last, Re; Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 832 v. Canada Safeway Ltd.

Last, Re; Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 832 v. Canada Safeway Ltd. (1981), 7 Man.R.(2d) 238; 120 D.L.R.(3d) 42 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Noël v. Société d'énergie de la Baie James, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 207; 271 N.R. 304; 2001 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 44].

Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 616; 423 N.R. 95; 275 Man.R.(2d) 16; 538 W.A.C. 16; 2011 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 44].

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 460; 272 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 45].

Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Human Rights Tribunal (B.C.) et al. (2011), 421 N.R. 338; 311 B.C.A.C. 1; 529 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 45].

Omers Realty Corp. v. Sears Canada Inc., [2005] O.T.C. 123; 74 O.R.(3d) 423 (Sup. Ct.), affd. (2006), 211 O.A.C. 179; 80 O.R.(3d) 561 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Quinlan v. Newfoundland (Minister of Natural Resources) (2000), 192 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 144; 580 A.P.R. 144; 2000 NFCA 49, refd to. [para. 58].

Quadrangle Holdings Ltd. v. Coady et al. (2015), 355 N.S.R.(2d) 324; 2015 NSCA 13, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Punko (J.V.) et al., [2012] 2 S.C.R. 396; 433 N.R. 60; 324 B.C.A.C. 23; 551 W.A.C. 23; 2012 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 60].

Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248; 2 N.R. 397, refd to. [para. 61].

Boucher v. Stelco Inc. - see Bourdon et al. v. Stelco Inc.

Bourdon et al. v. Stelco Inc. (2005), 341 N.R. 207; 2005 SCC 64, refd to. [para. 61].

Hnatiuk v. Assured Developments Ltd. (2012), 522 A.R. 3; 544 W.A.C. 3; 2012 ABCA 97, refd to. [para. 62].

Boxer Capital Corp. et al. v. JEL Investments Ltd. (2015), 366 B.C.A.C. 127; 629 W.A.C. 127; 379 D.L.R.(4th) 712; 2015 BCCA 24, refd to. [para. 62].

Counsel:

M.J. Donaldson and J.J.M. Taylor, for the appellant;

D.W. McGrath, Q.C., and M. O'Brien, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 10, 2015, by Paperny, Slatter and McDonald, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. On December 9, 2015, McDonald, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment reserved for the court.