Gulf Canada Resources Ltd. v. Arochem International Ltd., (1992) 11 B.C.A.C. 145 (CA)

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Judge: Hinkson, Southin and Cumming, JJ.A.
• Citation: (1992), 11 B.C.A.C. 145 (CA),1992 CanLII 4033 (BC CA),66 BCLR (2d) 113,11 BCAC 145,43 CPR (3d) 390,[1992] BCJ No 500 (QL),22 WAC 145,32 ACWS (3d) 197
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Date: 10 March 1992

Gulf Can. Resources v. Arochem Intl. (1992), 11 B.C.A.C. 145 (CA);

    22 W.A.C. 145

MLB headnote and full text

Gulf Canada Resources Limited/Ressources Gulf Canada Limitée (plaintiff/appellant) v. Arochem International Ltd. and Arochem International Inc. (defendants/respondents)

(CA13810)

Indexed As: Gulf Canada Resources Ltd. v. Arochem International Ltd.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Hinkson, Southin and Cumming, JJ.A.

March 10, 1992.

Summary:

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for breach of a contract for the supply of oil. The defendants applied for a stay of court proceedings, relying on an arbitration clause.

The British Columbia Supreme Court granted the stay of proceedings. The plaintiffs appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Arbitration - Topic 102

Right to arbitration - What matters arbitrable - [See Arbitration - Topic 2504 ].

Arbitration - Topic 2501

Stay of proceedings - General principles - Section 8 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act provided for a stay of legal proceedings in certain situations - The British Columbia Court of Appeal interpreted s. 8 and discussed the court's jurisdiction thereunder.

Arbitration - Topic 2504

Stay of proceedings - Arbitration clause - Enforcement of - Gulf agreed to sell oil to two Arochem companies at a set price - The agreement contained an arbitration clause - Gulf commenced preparations for delivery - The price of oil dropped and the Arochem companies repudiated the contract - Gulf accepted the repudiation, advised the companies of anticipated substantial damages and commenced court proceedings - The Arochem companies applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 8 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed the granting of the stay, where the matters in issue were within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.

Cases Noticed:

Heyman v. Darwins Ltd., [1942] 1 All E.R. 337, refd to. [paras. 26, 44].

Statutes Noticed:

Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 18, sect. 6 [para. 16 et seq.].

Arbitration Act (U.K.), 1889, 52 & 53 Vict., c. 49, generally [para. 18].

Arbitration Rules, International Chamber of Commerce, art. 1 [para. 53].

International Commercial Arbitration Act, S.B.C. 1986, c. 14, preamble [para. 15]; sect. 5 [para. 20]; sect. 7 [para. 59]; sect. 8 [paras. 1, 21 et seq.]; sect. 16 [paras. 22, 36, 55, 56].

Counsel:

Chris W. Sanderson and Peter C.P. Behie, for the appellant;

   David F. McEwen, for the respondent Arochem International Ltd.;

Michael J. Bird, for the respondent Arochem International Inc.

This appeal was heard before Hinkson, Southin and Cumming, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on March 10, 1992, including the following opinions:

Hinkson, J.A. (Cumming, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 48;

Southin, J.A. (concurring reasons) - see paragraphs 49 to 60.