“ Whether or not the Applicant has a separate dispute with his former counsel, or may wish to attempt to set aside the Arbitration Awards on that basis, the Final Arbitration Awards remain valid and enforceable until a contrary finding is made”. held that the Final Arbitration Awards were valid and enforceable. Applicant also alleged a disagreement with former counsel but provided no evidence of it for Sossin J. The Final Arbitration Award were said to be consistent with the accepted offers to settle and the terms agreed upon by the parties.īy e-mail exchange between counsel in November 2017, counsel for each party confirmed that the draft awards could be forwarded to the arbitrator to execute as arbitral awards.īefore Sossin J., Applicant alleged that he never consented to the Final Arbitration Awards and that he first became aware of them in September 2018. The arbitrator had issued both on the basis of consent of the parties following negotiations between the parties. set out the facts leading to the arbitrator’s signature of the Final Arbitration Awards. Validity and Enforceability of Final Arbitration Awards – At paras 18-23, Sossin J. (v) an order that the Final Arbitration Awards are not enforceable under section 59.6(1) of Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c F.3 and section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17. (iv) an order dismissing the issues in the Ontario case as they will be determined in the Tennessee courts and, (iii) on order enforcing the Final Arbitration Awards. citizens who had moved to Ontario to practice their professions, living in Toronto until 2017 at which time Respondent moved back to Memphis, Tennessee with their children. Further disputes involving spousal support and child support remained but attempts in 20 to schedule a further arbitration proved unsuccessful.īoth parties were U.S. On December 21, 2017, the arbitrator issued two (2) arbitration awards in Ontario (“Final Arbitration Awards”). 18 of Sossin J.’s reason) which they signed after having received advance, independent legal advice.
The parties’ Arbitration Agreement covered a broad variety of issues (see para. Spouses involved in family litigation, Applicant and Respondent entered into an Apagreement to arbitrate (“Arbitration Agreement”). held that the provisions did not serve to invalidate awards which had issued on consent and where consent of the parties had been communicated by counsel. also dismissed arguments challenging enforcement of the awards based on legislative provisions requiring parties to sign any agreement reached as part of the court process. Justice Lorne Sossin issued an anti-suit injunction restraining a party to arbitration awards subject to Ontario law from pursuing parallel proceedings in a U.S. This article was first published on Urbas Arbitral, here.
0 kommentar(er)
