Ottawa (City) v. Coliseum Inc., 2016 ONCA 363

• Judge: MacPherson, van Rensburg and Miller, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: February 25, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2016 ONCA 363;(2016), 352 O.A.C. 199 (CA)

Ottawa v. Coliseum Inc. (2016), 352 O.A.C. 199 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.011

The City of Ottawa (applicant/respondent) v. The Coliseum Inc. (respondent/appellant)

(C60016; 2016 ONCA 363)

Indexed As: Ottawa (City) v. Coliseum Inc.

Ontario Court of Appeal

MacPherson, van Rensburg and Miller, JJ.A.

May 13, 2016.

Summary:

On November 8, 2000 Coliseum Inc. entered into a long-term lease agreement (the Stadium Agreement) with the City of Ottawa. The lease provided Coliseum would have the use of Frank Clair Stadium to operate sports fields under a dome. In 2004 a dispute arose between the parties about Coliseum's right of possession, but it was resolved and the parties signed Minutes of Settlement. A further dispute arose and an arbitrator interpreted the two crucial provisions of the Minutes of Settlement in favour of Coliseum and awarded damages of $2,240,000 against the City for breach of the Minutes of Settlement. The City applied for leave to appeal the arbitrator's decision on the basis of s. 45(1) of the Arbitration Act appealed.

The Ontario Superior Court (applications judge), in a decision with neutral citation 2014 ONSC 3838, granted leave, allowed the appeal and overturned the arbitrator's award. Coliseum Inc. appealed. At issue was whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to review a decision of a Superior Court judge granting leave to appeal an arbitral decision under s. 45(1), and if so, whether the applications judge erred in granting leave to appeal. Also at issue was whether the applications judge erred in finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the Minutes of Settlement was unreasonable.

The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the decision by the applications judge to grant leave to appeal was not subject to review by the Court of Appeal. Therefore, the issue of whether the applications judge erred in granting leave did not arise. The court held that there was nothing in this appeal taking it outside the general rule that judicial review of a commercial arbitration award was to be conducted on a reasonableness standard. The court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the Minutes of Settlement was reasonable, accordingly the applications judge erred by setting aside the arbitrator's interpretation and substituting her own. The fact that the applications judge's interpretation was also reasonable did not affect the result, as the arbitrator was owed deference on his reasonable interpretation. The court, therefore, allowed the appeal and reinstated the arbitrator's award.

Arbitration - Topic 7803

Judicial review (incl. appeals) - General principles - Nature of review proceeding (incl. standard of review) - See paragraphs 23 to 50.

Arbitration - Topic 8403

Judicial review - Grounds - Misconduct - Unreasonable interpretation - See paragraphs 31 to 50.

Arbitration - Topic 8701

Judicial review (incl. appeals) - Practice - Appeals - Leave to appeal or right to appeal - See paragraphs 23 to 30.

Arbitration - Topic 8705

Judicial review (incl. appeals) - Practice - Appeals - Standard of review - See paragraphs 31 to 50.

Practice - Topic 8887

Appeals - Leave to appeal - Appeal from grant or denial of application for leave - See paragraphs 23 to 30.

Counsel:

W.A. Derry Millar, Keith A. MacLaren and Owen Bourns, for the appellant;

Ronald F. Caza and Anne M. Tardif, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 25, 2016, before MacPherson, van Rensburg and Miller, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by MacPherson, J.A., on May 13, 2016.