Injector Wrap Corp. v. Agrico Canada Ltd., (1990) 65 Man.R.(2d) 259 (QB)

• Judge: Krindle, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: April 24, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1990), 65 Man.R.(2d) 259 (QB)

Injector Wrap v. Agrico Can. Ltd. (1990), 65 Man.R.(2d) 259 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Injector Wrap Corp. Ltd. (plaintiff) v. Agrico Canada Limited (defendant)

(Suit No. CI 89-01-41536)

Indexed As: Injector Wrap Corp. v. Agrico Canada Ltd.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Krindle, J.

April 24, 1990.

Summary:

The defendant applied to stay the plaintiff's action on the ground that the parties had agreed to submit their differences to arbitration or that Ontario rather than Manitoba was the forum conveniens for trial.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application on the ground that civil action should be stayed in favour of arbitration. The court also stated that Manitoba would have had jurisdiction over the action.

Arbitration - Topic 2504

Stay of proceedings - Arbitration clause - Enforcement of - The plaintiff designed and leased farm equipment to the defendant - The lease contained a simple, very broad clause providing for the resolution of disputes by arbitration - A dispute arose respecting the performance of the equipment - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench stayed the plaintiff's civil action, in favour of arbitration - The court considered that the legal questions involved were not difficult ones and the factual questions were likely to be highly technical and difficult, involving the testimony of experts - See paragraphs 2 to 14.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 7286

Contracts - Jurisdiction - Choice of forum by parties - The plaintiff Manitoba corporation leased farm equipment to the defendant Manitoba corporation - The contract was entered into in Ontario - The defendant took delivery of the equipment in Manitoba and transported it to Eastern Canada - The plaintiff sued the defendant in Manitoba; the action arose respecting alleged defects in the equipment - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench opined that the Manitoba court had jurisdiction - See paragraph 15.

Cases Noticed:

Morton et al. v. Asper et al. (1988), 55 Man.R.(2d) 61, appld. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Arbitration Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. A-120; C.C.S.M., c. A-120, sect. 7 [para. 2].

Counsel:

R.J. Handlon, for the plaintiff;

S.F. Vincent, for the defendant.

This application was heard before Krindle, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, whose decision was delivered on April 24, 1990.