On Call Internet Services Ltd. v. Telus Communications Co., 2013 BCCA 366

• Judge: Kirkpatrick, Chiasson and Neilson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: August 14, 2013
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2013 BCCA 366;(2013), 343 B.C.A.C. 140 (CA)

On Call Internet v. Telus Com. Co. (2013), 343 B.C.A.C. 140 (CA);

    586 W.A.C. 140

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AU.018

On Call Internet Services Ltd. (appellant/petitioner) v. Telus Communications Company (respondent/respondent)

(CA038120; 2013 BCCA 366)

Indexed As: On Call Internet Services Ltd. v. Telus Communications Co.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Kirkpatrick, Chiasson and Neilson, JJ.A.

August 14, 2013.

Summary:

On Call Internet Services Ltd. and Telus Communications Co. were engaged in a long-running dispute over billing. They agreed to arbitration. The arbitrator made a final award. On Call petitioned under s. 30 the Commercial Arbitration Act to set aside the award, or, in the alternative, sought leave to appeal the final award under s. 31 of the Act. Telus petitioned to enforce the final award under s. 29 of the Act.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1031, dismissed On Call's petition under s. 30 and denied leave to appeal the final award. The court allowed Telus' petition to enforce the award under s. 29. On Call appealed and applied to adduce new evidence on the appeal.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the application to adduce new evidence and dismissed the appeal.

Arbitration - Topic 8301.1

Judicial review (incl. appeals) - Grounds - General - Questions of law - See paragraphs 28 to 36 and 71 to 90.

Arbitration - Topic 8701

Judicial review (incl. appeals) - Practice - Appeals - Leave to appeal or right to appeal - See paragraphs 28 to 36 and 71 to 90.

Practice - Topic 9012

Appeals - Restrictions on argument on appeal - Issues or points not previously raised - See paragraphs 64 to 70.

Practice - Topic 9031

Appeals - Evidence on appeal - Admission of "new evidence" or "fresh evidence" - See paragraphs 38 to 63.

Cases Noticed:

Student Association of the British Columbia Institute of Technology v. British Columbia Institute of Technology (2000), 142 B.C.A.C. 129; 233 W.A.C. 129; 2000 BCCA 496, refd to. [para. 20].

Dowling (Greg) Architects Inc. et al. v. Griffin (J. Raymond) Architect Inc. et al. (2012), 327 B.C.A.C. 155; 556 W.A.C. 155; 2012 BCCA 336, refd to. [para. 33].

Hayes Forest Services Ltd. v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (2008), 250 B.C.A.C. 286; 416 W.A.C. 286; 2008 BCCA 31, refd to. [para. 33].

VIH Aviation Group Ltd. et al. v. CHC Helicopter LLC, [2012] B.C.A.C. Uned. 27; 2012 BCCA 125, refd to. [para. 34].

Bulley (Ed) Ventures Ltd. v. Eton-West Construction Inc. (2002), 18 C.L.R.(3d) 177; 2002 BCSC 826, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759; 30 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 47].

Petrelli v. Lindell Beach Holiday Resort Ltd. (2011), 310 B.C.A.C. 196; 526 W.A.C. 196; 2011 BCCA 367, refd to. [para. 48].

Pinto v. Revelstoke Mountain Resort Limited Partnership (2011), 304 B.C.A.C. 193; 513 W.A.C. 193; 2011 BCCA 210, refd to. [para. 65].

O'Bryan v. O'Bryan (1997), 97 B.C.A.C. 62; 157 W.A.C. 62; 43 B.C.L.R.(3d) 296 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Emmett et al. v. Arbutus Bay Estates Ltd. et al. (No. 2) (1994), 48 B.C.A.C. 26; 78 W.A.C. 26 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Ulmer v. British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2010), 295 B.C.A.C. 282; 501 W.A.C. 282; 11 B.C.L.R.(5th) 324; 2010 BCCA 519, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Winfield (P.A.) (2009), 273 B.C.A.C. 152; 461 W.A.C. 152; 2009 YKCA 9, refd to. [para. 66].

Counsel:

J. Aiyadurai, for the appellant;

D. Wotherspoon and J. Payne, for the respondent.

This application and appeal were heard at Vancouver, B.C., on June 4 and 5, 2013, by Kirkpatrick, Chiasson and Neilson, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. On August 14, 2013, Kirkpatrick, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court.