Seidel v. Telus Communications Inc., [2011] SCJ No 15 (QL)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 12, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: [2011] SCJ No 15 (QL);82 BLR (4th) 1;301 BCAC 1;[2011] N.R. TBEd. MR.020;[2011] 6 WWR 229;16 BCLR (5th) 1;[2011] EXP 936;EYB 2011-187826;329 DLR (4th) 577;[2011] 1 SCR 531;JE 2011-498;2011 SCC 15;412 NR 195

Seidel v. Telus Com. Inc. (SCC) - Consumer protection - Contracts - Arbitration clauses - Stay of class actions

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for N.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

Temp. Cite: [2011] N.R. TBEd. MR.020

Michelle Seidel (appellant) v. TELUS Communications Inc. (respondent) and Barreau du Québec, Canadian Arbitration Congress and ADR Chambers Inc. (interveners)

(33154; 2011 SCC 15; 2011 CSC 15)

Indexed As: Seidel v. Telus Communications Inc.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.

March 18, 2011.

Summary:

The plaintiff, a customer of TELUS cellular services, commenced an intended class action against TELUS. The statement of claim included a variety of complaints, including some that invoked rights, benefits or protections under the British Columbia Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA). Section 172 of the BPCPA allowed "a person other than a supplier, whether or not the person bringing the action has a special interest or any interest under this Act or is affected by a consumer transaction that gives rise to the action, may bring an action in Supreme Court" to enforce the statute's consumer protection standards. Under s. 3 of the BPCPA, any agreement between the parties that would waive or release "rights, benefits or protections" conferred by the BPCPA was "void". TELUS applied to stay proceedings under s. 15 of the Commercial Arbitration Act, relying on an arbitration clause in the plaintiff's renewal contract which provided that disputes would be settled by "private and confidential" mediation or arbitration.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 573, denied the stay. TELUS appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 267 B.C.A.C. 266; 450 W.A.C. 266, allowed the appeal and stayed the plaintiff's action in its entirety. The plaintiff appealed. At issue was whether the BPCPA manifested a legislative intent to intervene in the marketplace to relieve consumers of their contractual commitment to "private and confidential" mediation/arbitration and, if so, under what circumstances. Also there was a procedural issue as to whether these questions ought to be decided in the first instance by the court or an arbitrator.

The Supreme Court of Canada, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., dissenting (Abella and Charron, JJ., concurring), allowed the appeal in part, and lifted the stay in relation to the claims under s. 172 of the BPCPA, allowing those claims to go forward as candidates for certification. The majority opined that to the extent that the plaintiff's claim in the Supreme Court invoked s. 172 remedies in respect of "rights, benefits or protections" conferred by the BPCPA, the court action had to be allowed to proceed notwithstanding the mediation/arbitration clause. That included her claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and, if granted, ancillary relief in the form of restoration to consumers of any money acquired by TELUS in contravention of the BPCPA. As to the plaintiff's alternative complaints, whether under other sections of the BPCPA, the now repealed Trade Practice Act, or at common law, the TELUS arbitration clause was valid and enforceable. As to those claims, her court action should be stayed pursuant to s. 15 of the Commercial Arbitration Act. The court noted that it was not ruling on whether the allegations against TELUS could be proven or whether the s. 172 claims should be certified as a class action.

Arbitration - Topic 102

Right to arbitration - What matters arbitrable - [See all Arbitration - Topic 2502.1 ].

Arbitration - Topic 2502.1

Stay of proceedings - Jurisdiction - The plaintiff, a customer of TELUS cellular services, commenced an intended class action against TELUS, invoking, inter alia, rights, benefits or protections under s. 172 of the British Columbia Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA) - TELUS applied to stay proceedings on the basis of an arbitration clause in the plaintiff's renewal contract - TELUS relied on Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs and Muroff v. Rogers Wireless (both 2007 Supreme Court of Canada decisions), in which Quebec class certification proceedings were stayed pending the arbitration of consumer disputes - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the plaintiff had a statutory right to proceed with her s. 172 claims - The court opined that this outcome was not in conflict with Dell and Muroff - The court stated that for purposes of the TELUS appeal, the relevant teaching of Dell and Rogers Wireless was simply that whether and to what extent the parties' freedom to arbitrate was limited or curtailed by legislation depended on a close examination of the law of the forum where the irate consumers commenced their court case - Dell and Rogers Wireless stood for the enforcement of arbitration clauses absent legislative language to the contrary - See paragraphs 41 and 42.

Arbitration - Topic 2502.1

Stay of proceedings - Jurisdiction - At issue on this appeal was whether, as a matter of statutory interpretation, s. 172 of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA) placed limitations on arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, and if so, the extent and effect on the plaintiff's action in this particular case - A procedural issue arose as to whether those questions ought to be decided in the first instance by a court or an arbitrator - The Supreme Court of Canada noted that British Columbia had adopted the competence-competence principle whereby an arbitral tribunal had the jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction, however, that principle was not violated in this case - The court stated that absent legislated exception, any challenge to an arbitrator's jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim should first be determined by an arbitrator, unless the challenge involved a pure question of law, or one of mixed fact and law that required for its disposition "only superficial consideration of the documentary evidence in the record" - Here, the s. 172 issue was a question of law to be determined on undisputed facts - Accordingly, it was properly entertained by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the first instance - See paragraphs 27 to 30.

Arbitration - Topic 2502.1

Stay of proceedings - Jurisdiction - Section 172 of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA) contained a remedy whereby certain aggrieved persons "may" bring an action in Supreme Court" to enforce the statute's consumer protection standards - Under s. 3 of the BPCPA, any agreement between the parties that would waive or release "rights, benefits or protections" conferred by the BPCPA was "void" - At issue on this appeal was whether s. 172 overrode a mediation/arbitration clause in a consumer contract (in this case a cell phone contract between the plaintiff and TELUS Communications) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the plaintiff possessed a statutory "right" to take her complaint to the Supreme Court - The court stated that "s. 172 offer remedies different in scope and quality from those available from an arbitrator and constitutes a legislative override of the parties' freedom to choose arbitration. Unlike Quebec and Ontario, which have decided to ban arbitration of consumer claims altogether, or Alberta, which subjects consumer arbitration clauses to ministerial approval, the B.C. legislature sought to ensure only that certain claims proceed to the court system, leaving others to be resolved according to the agreement of the parties. It is incumbent on the courts to give effect to that legislative choice ..." - See paragraphs 31 to 40.

Arbitration - Topic 2502.1

Stay of proceedings - Jurisdiction - Section 172 of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA) contained a remedy whereby certain aggrieved persons "may" bring an action in Supreme Court" to enforce the statute's consumer protection standards - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "may" in s. 172 - The court held that "may" meant that an individual had the option to complain or not complain; however, if a s. 172 action was taken it had to be taken in the Supreme Court - The court stated that the statutory purpose of the BPCPA was all about consumer protection, and as such, its terms should be interpreted in favour of consumers - The policy objectives of s. 172 would not be well served by low-profile, private and confidential arbitrations where consumers of a particular product may have little opportunity to connect with other consumers who may share their experience and complaints and seek vindication through a well-publicized court action - See paragraphs 33 to 37.

Arbitration - Topic 2502.1

Stay of proceedings - Jurisdiction - The plaintiff, a customer of TELUS cellular services, commenced an intended class action against TELUS - The plaintiff's renewal contract, however, contained an arbitration clause and a waiver of any right to participate in a class action against TELUS - The statement of claim invoked, inter alia, rights, benefits or protections under s. 172 of the British Columbia Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA) - Under s. 3 of the BPCPA, any agreement that waived "rights, benefits or protections" conferred by the BPCPA was "void" - TELUS sought a stay of proceedings relying on an arbitration clause in the plaintiff's renewal contract - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the plaintiff had a statutory right to assert her s. 172 right before the Supreme Court of British Columbia - The court held further that as a matter of interpretation, the TELUS class action waiver was not severable from the arbitration clause as a whole, and as a whole it was rendered void by s. 3 of the BPCPA (i.e., the plaintiff was not contractually barred from continuing to seek certification of her s. 172 claims as a class action) - TELUS was not entitled to a stay of the s. 172 claims - See paragraphs 31 to 51.

Arbitration - Topic 2504

Stay of proceedings - Arbitration clause - Enforcement of - [See all Arbitration - Topic 2502.1 ].

Arbitration - Topic 2507

Stay of proceedings - When available - [See all Arbitration - Topic 2502.1 ].

Arbitration - Topic 2514.1

Stay of proceedings - Bar to stay - Class proceedings - [See fifth Arbitration - Topic 2502.1 ].

Consumer Law - Topic 8

General - Interpretation of legislation - [See fourth Arbitration - Topic 2502.1 ].

Consumer Law - Topic 227

Consumer contracts - General - Nullity of contract or reduction of obligations - Dispute resolution (incl. mandatory arbitration clauses) - [See all Arbitration - Topic 2502.1 ].

Practice - Topic 210.1

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Procedure - General (incl. stay of proceedings) - [See fifth Arbitration - Topic 2502.1 ].

Statutes - Topic 2417

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - "May" and "shall" - [See fourth   Arbitration - Topic 2502.1 ]

Words and Phrases

May - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "may" in s. 172 of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 2 - See paragraphs 33 to 37.

Cases Noticed:

Griffin v. Dell Canada Inc. (2010), 259 O.A.C. 108; 98 O.R.(3d) 481; 2010 ONCA 29, refd to. [para. 1].

Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs et al., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801; 366 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 34, refd to. [paras. 4, 65].

Muroff v. Rogers Wireless Inc., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 921; 365 N.R. 177; 2007 SCC 35, refd to. [paras. 12, 65].

MacKinnon v. National Money Mart Co. et al. (2004), 203 B.C.A.C. 103; 332 W.A.C. 103; 50 B.L.R.(3d) 291; 2004 BCCA 473, refd to. [paras. 14, 62].

MacKinnon v. National Money Mart Co. et al. (2009), 267 B.C.A.C. 276; 450 W.A.C. 276; 89 B.C.L.R.(4th) 1; 2009 BCCA 103, refd to. [paras. 15, 73].

Bisaillon v. Concordia University, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666; 348 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 19, refd to. [paras. 23, 67].

GreCon Dimter Inc. v. Normand (J.R.) Inc. et al., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 401; 336 N.R. 347; 2005 SCC 46, refd to. [paras. 23, 99].

Desputeaux v. Editions Chouette (1987) inc., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 178; 301 N.R. 220; 2003 SCC 17, refd to. [paras. 23, 89].

Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63; 306 N.R. 201; 176 O.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 29].

Smith v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 129; 286 N.R. 178; 158 O.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 37].

ACS Public Sector Solutions Inc. et al. v. Courthouse Technologies Ltd. et al. (2005), 219 B.C.A.C. 220; 361 W.A.C. 220; 48 B.C.L.R.(4th) 328; 2005 BCCA 605, refd to. [para. 37].

Gibbens v. Co-operators Life Insurance Co., [2009] 3 S.C.R. 605; 396 N.R. 165; 278 B.C.A.C. 283; 471 W.A.C. 283; 2009 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 47].

Bauer v. Bank of Montreal, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 102; 32 N.R. 191, refd to. [para. 47].

Horton v. Sayer (1859), 4 H. & N. 643; 157 E.R. 993, refd to. [para. 89].

Lee v. Page (1861), 30 L.J. Ch. 857, refd to. [para. 89].

Edwards v. Aberayon Mutual Ship Insurance Society Ltd. (1876), 1 Q.B.D. 563, refd to. [para. 89].

Doleman & Sons v. Ossett Corp., [1912] 3 K.B. 257, refd to. [para. 89].

Scott v. Avery (1856), 5 H.L.C. 811; 10 E.R. 809, refd to. [para. 90].

Johnston v. Western Assurance Co. (1879), 4 O.A.R. 281, refd to. [para. 90].

Nolan v. Ocean, Accident and Guarantee Corp. (1903), 5 O.L.R. 544 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 90].

Cayzer, Irvine and Co. v. Board of Trade, [1927] 1 K.B. 269, refd to. [para. 90].

Brand v. National Life Assurance Co. (1918), 44 D.L.R. 412 (Man. K.B.), refd to. [para. 90].

Altwasser v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, [1933] 2 W.W.R. 46 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

Rootes Motors (Canada) Ltd. v. Halliday (Wm.) Contracting Co., [1952] 4 D.L.R. 300 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 90].

Burns and Roe of Canada Ltd. v. Deuterium of Canada Ltd. et al. (1970), 15 D.L.R.(3d) 568 (S.C.), revd. (1971), 2 N.S.R.(2d) 703; 21 D.L.R.(3d) 568 (C.A.), revd. [1975] 2 S.C.R. 124, refd to. [para. 90].

Procon (Great Britain) Ltd. v. Golden Eagle Co., [1976] C.A. 565, refd to. [para. 90].

Vancouver (City) v. Brandram-Henderson of B.C. Ltd. (1959), 18 D.L.R.(2d) 700 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].

National Gypsum Co. v. Northern Sales Ltd., [1964] S.C.R. 144, refd to. [para. 94].

Vinette Construction ltée v. Dobrinsky, [1962] B.R. 62 (Que.), refd to. [para. 95].

Gordon and Gotch (Australasia) Ltd. v. Montreal Australia New Zealand Line Ltd. (1940), 68 B.R. 428 (Que.), refd to. [para. 95].

Zodiak International Productions Inc. v. Polish People's Republic, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 529; 47 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 97].

Grandby (Ville) v. Désourdy Construction ltée, [1973] C.A. 971 (Que.), refd to. [para. 98].

Sport Maska Inc. v. Zittrer, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 564; 83 N.R. 322; 13 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 99].

Boart Sweden AB v. NYA Strommes AB (1988), 41 B.L.R. 295 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 100].

Automatic Systems Inc. v. Bracknell Corp. et al. (1994), 74 O.A.C. 111; 12 B.L.R.(2d) 132 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].

BWV Investments Ltd. v. Saskferco Products Inc. et al. (1994), 125 Sask.R. 286; 81 W.A.C. 286 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].

Quintette Coal Ltd. v. Nippon Steel Corp., [1991] 1 W.W.R. 219 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].

Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Canadian National Railway Co. (1995), 59 B.C.A.C. 97; 98 W.A.C. 97 (C.A.), revd.  [1997] 1 S.C.R. 5; 207 N.R. 243; 85 B.C.A.C. 161; 138 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 100].

Condominiums Mont St-Sauveur Inc. v. Constructions Serge Sauvé ltée, [1990] R.J.Q. 2783 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].

Gulf Canada Resources Ltd. v. Arochem International Ltd. (1992), 11 B.C.A.C. 145; 22 W.A.C. 145; 66 B.C.L.R.(2d) 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Collins (R.) et al. (2000), 140 B.C.A.C. 311; 229 W.A.C. 311; 2000 BCCA 437, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. St. Lawrence Cement Inc. (2002), 162 O.A.C. 363; 60 O.R.(3d) 712 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 111].

British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Minister of Health Services) et al. (2007), 245 B.C.A.C. 39; 405 W.A.C. 39; 2007 BCCA 379, refd to. [para. 111].

Dalimpex Ltd. v. Janicki et al. (2003), 172 O.A.C. 312; 64 O.R.(3d) 737 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].

Dawson (City) v. TSL Contractors Ltd. et al. (2003), 180 B.C.A.C. 205; 297 W.A.C. 205; 2003 YKCA 3, refd to. [para. 116].

Dancap Productions Inc. et al. v. Key Brand Entertainment Inc. et al. (2009), 246 O.A.C. 226; 2009 ONCA 135, refd to. [para. 116].

Jean Estate et al. v. Wires Jolley LLP (2009), 265 O.A.C. 1; 96 O.R.(3d) 171; 2009 ONCA 339, refd to. [para. 116].

No. 363 Dynamic Endeavours Inc. v. 34718 B.C. Ltd. (1993), 31 B.C.A.C. 126; 50 W.A.C. 126; 81 B.C.L.R.(2d) 359 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].

Kaverit Steel and Crane Ltd. et al. v. Kone Corp. et al. (1992), 120 A.R. 346; 8 W.A.C. 346; 87 D.L.R.(4th) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

Mind Star Toys Inc. v. Samsung Co. (1992), 9 O.R.(3d) 374 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 117].

Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co. (1974), 417 U.S. 506, refd to. [para. 117].

Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. et al. v. Dutton et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 534; 272 N.R. 135; 286 A.R. 201; 253 W.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 135].

Hollick v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 158; 277 N.R. 51; 153 O.A.C. 279; 2001 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 135].

Marcotte et al. v. Longueuil (Ville), [2009] 3 S.C.R. 65; 394 N.R. 1; 2009 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 135].

Jedfro Investments (U.S.A.) Ltd. et al. v. Jacyk Estate et al., [2005] O.T.C. Uned. 133; 2 B.L.R.(4th) 151 (Sup. Ct.), affd. (2006), 210 O.A.C. 153; 80 O.R.(3d) 533 (C.A.), affd. [2007] 3 S.C.R. 679; 369 N.R. 329; 232 O.A.C. 385; 2007 SCC 55, refd to. [para. 137].

Ting v. AT&T (2003), 319 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 172].

Szetela v. Discover Bank (2002), 118 Cal. Rptr.2d 862 (Ct. App.), refd to. [para. 172].

Statutes Noticed:

Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 2, sect. 3 [paras. 21, 131]; sect. 8 [para. 21]; sect. 171 [paras. 21, 128]; sect. 172(1) [paras. 21, 129]; sect. 173(2) [para. 129]; sect. 172(3) [paras. 21, 130].

Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50, sect. 4(1), sect. 4(2), sect. 13 [para. 21].

Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 55, sect. 15 [paras. 21, 110]; sect. 22 [paras. 21, 111].

Domestic Commercial Arbitration Rules of Procedure (B.C.), rule 20 [paras. 21, 111].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bachand, Frédéric, Should No-Class Action Arbitration Clauses Be Enforced?, in Rovine, Arthur W., Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation: The Fordham Papers 2008 (2009), p. 162 [para. 23].

British Columbia, Law Reform Commission, Report on Arbitration (1982), generally [para. 104].

Bromfield, Heather, The Denial of Relief: The Enforcement of Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements (2009), 43 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 315, generally [para. 166].

Casey, J. Brian, and Mills, Janet, Arbitration Law of Canada: Practice and Procedure (2005), pp. 2, 3 [para. 89]; 147 [para. 28]; 151 [para. 145]; 228, 229 [para. 102].

Côté, Pierre André, Beaulac, Stéphane, and Devinat, Mathieu, Interprétation des lois (4th Ed. 2009), para. 286 ff. [para. 111].

Earle, Wendy J., Drafting ADR and Arbitration Clauses for Commercial Contracts (2005) (2008 Looseleaf Update, Release 2), pp. 2-13, 2-14 [para. 38].

Fortier, L. Yves, Delimiting the Spheres of Judicial and Arbitral Power: "Beware, My Lord, of Jealousy" (2001), 80 Can. Bar Rev. 143, pp. 143, 144, 145 [para. 102].

Glover, J. Maria, Beyond Unconscionability: Class Action Waivers and Mandatory Arbitration Agreements (2006), 59 Vand. L. Rev. 1735, generally [para. 166].

Lawyers' Arbitration Letters 1980-1989 (1990), pp. 218, 219 [para. 109].

Little, Andrew D., Canadian Arbitration Law After Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs (2007), 45 Can. Bus. L.J. 356, pp. 378, 379 [para. 167].

McEwan, J. Kenneth, and Herbst, Ludmila B., Commercial Arbitration in Canada: A Guide to Domestic and International Arbitrations (2009), pp. 1-7 [para. 109]; 1-10 [para. 104]; 3-63 ff. [para. 117].

Mingie, Christine J., British Columbia Commercial Arbitration - An Annotated Guide (2004), p. 37 [paras. 106, 107].

Model Law - see United Nations, UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

Mustill, Michael J., and Boyd, Stewart C., The Law and Practice of Commercial Arbitration in England (2nd Ed. 1989), p. 465 [para. 117].

New York Convention - see United Nations, Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

Rovine, Arthur W., Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation: The Fordham Papers 2008 (2009), p. 162 [para. 23].

Saumier, Geneviève, Consumer Arbitration in the Evolving Canadian Landscape (2008-2009), 113 Penn. St. L. Rev. 1203, generally [para. 166].

Sternlight, Jean R., and Jensen, Elizabeth J., Using Arbitration to Eliminate Consumer Class Actions: Efficient Business Practice or Unconscionable Abuse? (2004), 67 Law & Contemp. Probs. 75, generally [para. 166].

Thuilleaux, Sabine, L'arbitrage commercial au Québec: Droit interne - Droit international privé (1991), p. 5 [para. 23].

United Nations, Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 330 U.N.T.S. 3, generally [paras. 17, 53].

United Nations, UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, U.N. Doc. A/40/17 (1985), Ann. I, generally [paras. 17, 53]; arts. 8 [paras. 107, 110]; 16 [para. 112].

Counsel:

Arthur M. Grant and Bruce W. Lemer, for the appellant;

Robert S. Anderson, Q.C., Sean Hern and Nicholas T. Hooge, for the respondent;

Babak Barin, Gaston Gauthier and Frédéric Côté, for the intervenor, Barreau du Québec;

Ivan G. Whitehall, Q.C., and Alejandro Manevich, for the intervenor, the Canadian Arbitration Congress;

Barry Leon, Andrew de Lotbinière McDougall and Daniel Taylor, for the intervenor, ADR Chambers Inc.

Solicitors of Record:

Grant Kovacs Norell, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant;

Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy, Vancouver, B.C., for the respondent;

B C F, Montréal, Quebec, for the intervenor, Barreau du Québec;

Heenan Blaikie, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Arbitration Congress;

Perley-Robertson, Hill & McDougall, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, ADR Chambers Inc.

This appeal was heard on May 12, 2010, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was rendered on March 18, 2011, when the following opinions were filed in both official languages:

Binnie, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Fish, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 51;

LeBel and Deschamps, JJ. (Abella and Charron, JJ., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 52 to 176.