Urban Communications Inc. v. BCNET Networking Society, 2015 BCCA 297

• Judge: D. Smith, Bennett and Willcock, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: March 06, 2015
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2015 BCCA 297;(2015), 376 B.C.A.C. 15 (CA)

Urban Com. Inc. v. BCNET (2015), 376 B.C.A.C. 15 (CA);

    646 W.A.C. 15

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JL.012

Urban Communications Inc. (respondent/petitioner) v. BCNET Networking Society (appellant/respondent)

(CA41741; 2015 BCCA 297)

Indexed As: Urban Communications Inc. v. BCNET Networking Society

British Columbia Court of Appeal

D. Smith, Bennett and Willcock, JJ.A.

June 29, 2015.

Summary:

BCNET Networking Society (BCNET) appealed a Chambers judge's order that granted Urban Communications Inc. leave to appeal a commercial arbitral award under s. 31 of the Arbitration Act (B.C.), allowed the appeal and amended the award. See [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 485 and [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1045. After the order was granted, but before the hearing of the appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada decided Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp. (Sattva), which changed the legal landscape in which applications for leave to appeal and appeals from arbitral awards under s. 31 of the Act were determined. The parties provided additional written submissions on the new approach.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. Applying the legal principles established in Sattva, Urban could not establish a pure question of law arising from the arbitrator's interpretation of Article 4.1 of the parties' Agreement, being an option to renew, and a July 18, 2011 letter in which BCNET purported to exercise that option. There was no consensus between the parties on the meaning of the words in the contractual documents. The arbitrator had to determine the true meaning of the words in the context and surrounding circumstances in which they were written. This engaged questions of mixed fact and law, which were not reviewable under s. 31(1) of the Act. Therefore, the threshold requirement for granting leave to appeal under s. 31 had not been met. A proper application of the Court of Appeal's pre-Sattva jurisprudence would have led to the same conclusion. The court: 1. set aside the Chambers judge's order that granted leave to appeal the arbitral award, allowed the appeal, and varied the award; 2. dismissed the application for leave to appeal the award to the Supreme Court; and 3. reinstated the award.

Arbitration - Topic 8701

Judicial review (incl. appeals) - Practice - Appeals - Leave to appeal or right to appeal - See paragraphs 1 to 72.

Contracts - Topic 2109

Terms - Express terms - Renewal clauses - See paragraphs 1 to 72.

Cases Noticed:

Creston Moly Corp. v. Sattva Capital Corp. (2014), 461 N.R. 335; 358 B.C.A.C. 1; 614 W.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 53, appld. [para. 2].

Gilchrist v. Western Star Trucks Inc. et al. (2000), 133 B.C.A.C. 144; 217 W.A.C. 144; 2000 BCCA 70, refd to. [para. 19].

Group Eight Investments Ltd. v. Taddei et al. (2005), 217 B.C.A.C. 184; 358 W.A.C. 184; 2005 BCCA 489, refd to. [para. 38].

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. 38].

Domtar Inc. v. Belkin Inc. (1988), 29 B.C.L.R.(2d) 224 (S.C.), affd. (1989), 62 D.L.R.(4th) 530 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Mackay v. British Columbia (2011), 314 B.C.A.C. 6; 534 W.A.C. 6; 2011 BCCA 470, refd to. [para. 39].

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. 39].

Pioneer Shipping Ltd. v. B.T.P. Tioxide Ltd., [1982] A.C. 724 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 40].

Roots v. Carey (1914), 49 S.C.R. 211, refd to. [para. 45].

Mitsui & Co. (Canada) v. Royal Bank of Canada, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 187, refd to. [para. 45].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Rostrust Investments Inc., [2009] O.T.C. Uned. U68 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 46].

Hume & Rumble Ltd. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 213, [1954] 3 D.L.R. 805 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 46].

Janzen v. Janzen, [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1146; 2011 BCSC 1146, refd to. [para. 46].

United Pacific Capital Ltd. v. Piché et al., [2004] B.C.T.C. 1524; 2004 BCSC 1524, refd to. [para. 46].

Baughman v. Rampart Resources Ltd. (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 27; 96 W.A.C. 27; 4 B.C.L.R.(3d) 146 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Begley v. Imperial Bank of Canada, [1935] S.C.R. 89, refd to. [para. 49].

Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al. v. Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees (2006), 257 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 112; 776 A.P.R. 112; 2006 NLTD 79, refd to. [para. 49].

Cusac Industries Ltd. v. Erickson Gold Mining Corp. (1990), 45 B.C.L.R.(2d) 347 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

British Columbia v. Board of Education of School District No. 36 (Surrey) (2005), 208 B.C.A.C. 282; 344 W.A.C. 282; 2005 BCCA 106, refd to. [para. 51].

Grace Residences Ltd. v. Whitewater Concrete Ltd. (2009), 269 B.C.A.C. 63; 453 W.A.C. 63; 2009 BCCA 144, refd to. [para. 51].

JEL Investments Ltd. v. Boxer Capital Corp. et al. (2011), 303 B.C.A.C. 79; 512 W.A.C. 79; 2011 BCCA 142, refd to. [para. 51].

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 366, leave to appeal refused (2013), 448 N.R. 410; 343 B.C.A.C. 320; 586 W.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

269893 Alberta Ltd. v. Otter Bay Developments Ltd. et al. (2009), 266 B.C.A.C. 98; 449 W.A.C. 98; 2009 BCCA 37, refd to. [para. 52].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 63].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 66].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 66].

Statutes Noticed:

Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 55, sect. 31 [para. 3].

Counsel:

D. Church, Q.C., and A. Pearson, for the appellant;

M. Smith, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 19-21, 2015, by D. Smith, Bennett and Willcock, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, with further submissions received on February 20 and March 6, 2015. D. Smith, J.A., delivered the following decision for the court on June 29, 2015.