55:
Construction LP by its general partner
Petrowest GP Ltd, carrying on business as Quigley Contracting, Petrowest Services Rentals LP by its general partner Petrowest GP Ltd, carrying on business as Nu-Northern Tractor Rentals, Petrowest GP Ltd, as general partner of Petrowest Civil Services LP, Petrowest Construction LP and Petrowest Services Rentals LP, Trans Carrier Ltd and Ernst & Young Inc in its capacity as court-appointed receiver and manager of Petrowest Corporation, Petrowest Civil Services LP, Petrowest Construction LP, Petrowest Services Rentals LP, Petrowest GP Ltd and Trans Carrier Ltd
409:
a stay of legal proceedings in favour of arbitration, and any dispute as to the scope of the arbitration agreement or the arbitrator’s jurisdiction should be left to the arbitrator to resolve. As is evident from the foregoing, valid arbitration agreements are generally to be respected. This presumption in favour of arbitral jurisdiction is supported by this Court’s longstanding jurisprudence, the pro‑arbitration stance adopted in provincial and territorial legislation nationwide, and the foundational principle that contracting parties are free to structure their affairs as they see fit.
29:
266:
413:
proceedings, both to ensure the timely resolution of the parties’ dispute and to protect the public interest in the orderly restructuring or dissolution of the debtor and the equal treatment of its creditors. This authority arises from the statutory jurisdiction conferred on superior courts under ss. 243(1) and 183(1) of the
422:
The appeal was dismissed, with costs throughout. The BC Court of Appeal erred in holding that the
Receiver was not a party to the arbitration agreements. However, the judge at first instance was entitled to refuse to grant a stay, and in the circumstances she correctly dismissed the stay application.
408:
In many cases, the shared interests in expediency, procedural flexibility, and specialized expertise will converge through arbitration. In such a scenario, the parties should be held to their agreement to arbitrate notwithstanding ongoing insolvency proceedings. In other words, the court should grant
377:
the
Receiver is a court-appointed officer, and by acting in that capacity "the receiver acts not as agent of the debtor (Petrowest), who has been legally paralyzed from acting, but rather acts in fulfilment of its own court-authorized and fiduciary duties, owed to all stakeholders. Petrowest, on the
412:
However, in certain insolvency matters, it may be necessary to preclude arbitration in favour of a centralized judicial process. This may occur when arbitration would compromise the orderly and efficient conduct of a court‑ordered receivership. In such a scenario, a court may assert control over the
530:
The test outlined by Côté J is relevant to suits or proceedings brought by a debtor, as those against a debtor are normally stayed in insolvency cases. In view of the SCC's preference for "efficiency and expediency, procedural flexibility, and expert decision‑making", legal observers suggest that
521:
argued that the
Receiver was operating under the terms granted by the underlying receivership order (which gave the Receiver the choice of pursuing either arbitration or court proceedings), and the arbitration agreements were accordingly disclaimed by his choosing to sue in court for the disputed
434:
noted that the result was "context‑specific", as "arbitration law and insolvency law ... have much in common, including an emphasis on efficiency and expediency, procedural flexibility, and expert decision‑making." While arbitration is generally to be favoured, insolvency law may require it to be
324:
for amounts allegedly owed under the partnership agreement (together with connected purchase orders and subcontracting agreement), as well as pursuing
Acciona and Samsung for amounts said to be owed under related guarantee and cross-indemnity agreements. The defendants argued that the agreements
54:
Peace River Hydro
Partners, Acciona Infrastructure Canada Inc, Samsung C&T Canada Ltd, Acciona Infraestructuras SA and Samsung C&T Corporation v Petrowest Corporation, Petrowest Civil Services LP by its general partner, Petrowest GP Ltd, carrying on business as RBEE Crushing, Petrowest
325:
contained clauses that required disputes to be submitted to arbitration, while the plaintiffs stated that, as a court-appointed officer, the
Receiver was not bound by the debtor's contracts, and could seek the direction of the court in order to achieve the objectives of the
124:
The
Arbitration Agreements are inoperative. The multiple arbitral processes contemplated in them would compromise the orderly and efficient resolution of the receivership, contrary to the objectives of the
355:". Accordingly, the BC Act does not prevent a court from exercising its discretion, such discretion was appropriate in this case, and the defendants' application to stay proceedings was therefore refused.
840:
555:
505:, as the Receiver was a party to the agreements, but enforcing them "would compromise the orderly and efficient resolution of the receivership, contrary to the purposes of the
1035:
718:
542:
531:
arbitration agreements be as simple, efficient and cost-effective as possible, in order to survive after a party goes into bankruptcy or insolvency.
1059:
1074:
465:"void" encompasses agreements obtained by "undermined by fraud, undue influence, unconscionability, duress, mistake, or misrepresentation"
302:
1069:
381:
the
Receiver had disclaimed the arbitration clauses, they became "void, inoperative or incapable of being performed", and therefore the
739:
1079:
321:
359:
522:
amounts. If his action is challenged, it is up to the court to determine whether he was acting within the scope of the order.
362:, the appeal was dismissed for different reasons than were given in the Supreme Court. In a unanimous ruling, Grauer JA held:
859:
468:"inoperative" circumstances "include frustration, discharge by breach, waiver, or a subsequent agreement between the parties"
374:, the doctrine of separability holds that arbitration clauses constitute agreements separate from their underlying contracts.
370:
471:
an agreement is "incapable of being performed" where there is "a physical or legal impediment beyond the parties’ control"
327:
253:
213:
435:
displaced to ensure a more timely resolution. She gave guidance as to which course is preferable in given circumstances.
1064:
907:
841:"B.C. – doctrine of separability allows receiver to disclaim agreement to arbitrate while litigating main contract"
103:
453:
the party applying for a stay in favour of arbitration does so before taking any “step” in the court proceedings.
301:. In 2017, Petrowest was ousted from the partnership, and its lenders subsequently obtained permission from the
579:"Petrowest Corporation et al (Role: Court Appointed Receiver, Receiver and Manager and Trustee in Bankruptcy)"
556:"Petrowest: SCC affirms primacy of parties' arbitration agreement, creates narrow exception for insolvencies"
459:
A stay may be refused where an arbitration agreement is "void, inoperative or incapable of being performed":
808:
744:
638:
240:
153:
95:
34:
142:
87:
696:
644:
348:
314:
265:
161:
481:
gives a court jurisdiction to find an agreement "inoperative", having regard to the following factors:
450:
the court proceedings are in respect of a matter that the parties agreed to submit to arbitration; and
28:
864:
236:
1036:"Arbitration agreements may be inoperative due to receivership proceedings: Supreme Court of Canada"
501:
Applying these tests to the case at hand, a mandatory stay of proceedings was available under the
664:
659:
431:
157:
586:
310:
294:
173:
149:
395:
723:
578:
169:
719:"Petrowest Corp. is operating on borrowed time from its lenders as EBITDA cut in half"
343:
was engaged in the current case, but current insolvency jurisprudence stated that the
1053:
546:
543:"The Supreme Court of Canada Rules on Intersection of Insolvency and Arbitration Law"
488:
The relative prejudice to the parties from the referral of the dispute to arbitration
298:
297:. At the time, Petrowest was reported to be experiencing difficulties in meeting its
61:
518:
388:
it was unnecessary to consider the question of inherent jurisdiction in the matter.
306:
248:
177:
165:
282:
244:
290:
494:
The applicability of a stay of proceedings under bankruptcy or insolvency law
447:
court proceedings have been commenced by a party to the arbitration agreement
1039:
1034:
Noel, Mike; Opolsky, Jeremy; Lax, T. Ryan; Bish, David (November 11, 2022).
286:
485:
The effect of arbitration on the integrity of the insolvency proceedings
563:
351:
to control its own processes in order to promote the objectives of the
278:
274:
554:
Schafler, Michael D.; Howie, Rachel; Cinar, Ekin (November 10, 2022).
438:
Stays of proceedings in favour of arbitration are preferred where:
541:
Meyer, Kelsey; Mackey, Ciara; Williams, Adam (November 10, 2022).
497:
Any other factor the court considers material in the circumstances
264:
904:
Peace River Hydro
Partners, et al v Petrowest Corporation, et al
100:
Peace River Hydro Partners, et al v Petrowest Corporation, et al
611:
192:
Côté J, joined by Wagner CJ and Moldaver, Rowe and Kasirer JJ
339:
At the BC Supreme Court, Iyer J held that the province's
740:"Leading Site C contractor to be placed in receivership"
602:
509:." Accordingly, they were inoperative under the Act.
517:
While agreeing with the majority as to the outcome,
200:
Jamal J, joined by Karakatsanis, Brown and Martin JJ
90:, 43 BCLR (6th) 8 (30 November 2020), affirming
204:
196:
188:
183:
133:
118:
110:
84:
Petrowest Corporation v. Peace River Hydro Partners
78:
70:
60:
49:
42:
21:
394:In June 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada granted
313:was appointed as Receiver, and it also became the
98: (20 December 2019). Leave to appeal granted,
92:Petrowest Corporation v Peace River Hydro Partners
676:under s. 15(2) of the BC Act in force at the time
281:, formed Peace River Hydro Partners in 2015 as a
1029:
1027:
406:
738:Preprost, Matt; Yoon, Sean (August 16, 2017).
8:
936:
934:
642:, RSBC 1996, c. 55 , since replaced by the
232:Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest Corp
22:Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest Corp
857:BCCA par. 50, citing (among other cases)
239: (10 November 2022) is a case of the
305:to place it and all its affiliates into
867: at par. 221-225 (26 June 2020)
811: at par. 126 (12 November 2009)
689:
630:
18:
273:Petrowest Corporation, together with
7:
491:The urgency of resolving the dispute
839:Urbas, Daniel (December 10, 2020).
697:SCC Case Information - Docket 39547
347:allowed the court to exercise its "
269:Site C dam site, looking downstream
14:
322:Supreme Court of British Columbia
303:Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
444:an arbitration agreement exists;
360:British Columbia Court of Appeal
27:
860:Uber Technologies Inc v Heller
402:At the Supreme Court of Canada
371:Uber Technologies Inc v Heller
320:The Receiver sued PRHP in the
1:
1060:Supreme Court of Canada cases
660:Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
368:as was recently discussed in
345:Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
328:Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
254:Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
214:Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
1075:Canadian insolvency case law
560:commerciallitigationblog.com
378:other hand, can do nothing."
16:Supreme Court of Canada case
317:of the affiliates in 2018.
247:laws on the authority of a
1096:
1070:Canadian contract case law
603:Peace River Hydro Partners
385:was therefore not engaged.
45:Judgment: 10 November 2022
1080:2022 in Canadian case law
209:
138:
123:
43:Hearing: 19 January 2022
26:
805:Re Pope & Talbot Ltd
243:on the applicability of
803:BCSC, par. 38, quoting
745:Victoria Times-Colonist
699:Supreme Court of Canada
667:1985, c. B-3, s. 243(1)
241:Supreme Court of Canada
154:Andromache Karakatsanis
35:Supreme Court of Canada
845:arbitrationmatters.com
612:Site C Project website
419:
270:
583:documentcentre.ey.com
349:inherent jurisdiction
315:trustee in bankruptcy
268:
727:. December 30, 2015.
620:Notes and references
526:Impact and aftermath
285:to perform work for
251:appointed under the
910: (10 June 2021)
291:Site C project site
106: (10 June 2021)
919:SCC, par. 189, 199
271:
1065:Arbitration cases
1012:SCC, par. 191-193
1003:SCC, par. 186-188
994:SCC, par. 155-158
908:2021 CanLII 49685
587:Ernst & Young
311:Ernst & Young
228:
227:
104:2021 CanLII 49685
1087:
1044:
1043:
1031:
1022:
1019:
1013:
1010:
1004:
1001:
995:
992:
986:
983:
977:
974:
968:
965:
959:
956:
950:
947:
941:
938:
929:
926:
920:
917:
911:
901:
895:
892:
886:
883:
877:
874:
868:
855:
849:
848:
836:
830:
827:
821:
818:
812:
801:
795:
792:
786:
783:
777:
774:
768:
765:
759:
756:
750:
749:
735:
729:
728:
715:
709:
706:
700:
694:
677:
674:
668:
655:
649:
648:, SBC 2020, c. 2
635:
615:
614:
606:
605:
597:
595:
593:
567:
550:
335:The courts below
295:British Columbia
293:in northeastern
174:Nicholas Kasirer
150:Michael Moldaver
147:Puisne Justices:
134:Court membership
114:Appeal dismissed
31:
19:
1095:
1094:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1033:
1032:
1025:
1020:
1016:
1011:
1007:
1002:
998:
993:
989:
984:
980:
975:
971:
966:
962:
957:
953:
949:SCC, par. 72-73
948:
944:
939:
932:
927:
923:
918:
914:
902:
898:
893:
889:
884:
880:
875:
871:
856:
852:
838:
837:
833:
828:
824:
819:
815:
802:
798:
793:
789:
784:
780:
775:
771:
766:
762:
757:
753:
737:
736:
732:
717:
716:
712:
707:
703:
695:
691:
686:
681:
680:
675:
671:
656:
652:
645:Arbitration Act
639:Arbitration Act
636:
632:
627:
622:
610:
609:
601:
600:
591:
589:
577:
574:
553:
540:
537:
535:Further reading
528:
515:
503:Arbitration Act
429:
420:
404:
396:leave to appeal
383:Arbitration Act
341:Arbitration Act
337:
263:
224:
219:Arbitration Act
145:
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1093:
1091:
1083:
1082:
1077:
1072:
1067:
1062:
1052:
1051:
1046:
1045:
1023:
1014:
1005:
996:
987:
978:
969:
960:
951:
942:
930:
921:
912:
896:
887:
878:
869:
850:
831:
822:
813:
809:2009 BCSC 1552
796:
787:
778:
769:
760:
751:
730:
724:Financial Post
710:
701:
688:
687:
685:
682:
679:
678:
669:
650:
629:
628:
626:
623:
621:
618:
617:
616:
607:
598:
573:
572:External links
570:
569:
568:
551:
536:
533:
527:
524:
514:
511:
499:
498:
495:
492:
489:
486:
475:
474:
473:
472:
469:
466:
457:
456:
455:
454:
451:
448:
445:
428:
425:
405:
403:
400:
392:
391:
390:
389:
386:
379:
375:
336:
333:
299:debt covenants
262:
259:
226:
225:
223:
222:
216:
210:
207:
206:
202:
201:
198:
194:
193:
190:
186:
185:
181:
180:
170:Sheilah Martin
143:Richard Wagner
140:Chief Justice:
136:
135:
131:
130:
121:
120:
116:
115:
112:
108:
107:
96:2019 BCSC 2221
80:
76:
75:
72:
68:
67:
64:
58:
57:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1092:
1081:
1078:
1076:
1073:
1071:
1068:
1066:
1063:
1061:
1058:
1057:
1055:
1041:
1037:
1030:
1028:
1024:
1021:SCC, par. 197
1018:
1015:
1009:
1006:
1000:
997:
991:
988:
985:SCC, par. 144
982:
979:
976:SCC, par. 139
973:
970:
967:SCC, par. 136
964:
961:
955:
952:
946:
943:
937:
935:
931:
928:SCC, par. 5-7
925:
922:
916:
913:
909:
905:
900:
897:
894:BCCA, par. 58
891:
888:
885:BCCA, par. 29
882:
879:
876:BCCA, par. 44
873:
870:
866:
862:
861:
854:
851:
846:
842:
835:
832:
829:BCSC, par. 59
826:
823:
820:BCSC, par. 41
817:
814:
810:
806:
800:
797:
794:BCSC, par. 34
791:
788:
782:
779:
776:BCSC, par. 10
773:
770:
764:
761:
755:
752:
747:
746:
741:
734:
731:
726:
725:
720:
714:
711:
705:
702:
698:
693:
690:
683:
673:
670:
666:
662:
661:
654:
651:
647:
646:
641:
640:
634:
631:
624:
619:
613:
608:
604:
599:
588:
584:
580:
576:
575:
571:
565:
561:
557:
552:
548:
547:Bennett Jones
544:
539:
538:
534:
532:
525:
523:
520:
512:
510:
508:
504:
496:
493:
490:
487:
484:
483:
482:
480:
470:
467:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
452:
449:
446:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
436:
433:
426:
424:
418:
416:
410:
401:
399:
397:
387:
384:
380:
376:
373:
372:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
361:
356:
354:
350:
346:
342:
334:
332:
330:
329:
323:
318:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
267:
260:
258:
256:
255:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
233:
220:
217:
215:
212:
211:
208:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
184:Reasons given
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
162:Russell Brown
159:
155:
151:
148:
144:
141:
137:
132:
128:
122:
117:
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
89:
88:2020 BCCA 339
85:
81:
79:Prior history
77:
73:
69:
65:
63:
59:
56:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
1017:
1008:
999:
990:
981:
972:
963:
958:SCC, par. 83
954:
945:
940:SCC, par. 10
924:
915:
903:
899:
890:
881:
872:
858:
853:
844:
834:
825:
816:
804:
799:
790:
785:BCSC, par. 9
781:
772:
767:BCSC, par. 8
763:
758:BCSC, par. 7
754:
743:
733:
722:
713:
708:BCSC, par. 1
704:
692:
672:
658:
653:
643:
637:
633:
590:. Retrieved
582:
559:
529:
516:
506:
502:
500:
478:
476:
458:
437:
430:
421:
414:
411:
407:
393:
382:
369:
357:
352:
344:
340:
338:
326:
319:
307:receivership
272:
252:
231:
230:
229:
218:
205:Laws applied
178:Mahmud Jamal
166:Malcolm Rowe
158:Suzanne Côté
146:
139:
126:
99:
91:
83:
82:APPEAL from
53:
33:
865:2020 SCC 16
513:Concurrence
283:partnership
245:arbitration
237:2022 SCC 41
197:Concurrence
66:2022 SCC 41
1054:Categories
684:References
657:under the
592:7 November
261:Background
71:Docket No.
1040:Torys LLP
62:Citations
427:Majority
287:BC Hydro
249:receiver
189:Majority
906:,
863:,
807:,
564:Dentons
519:Jamal J
358:At the
289:on its
279:Samsung
275:Acciona
235:,
119:Holding
102:,
94:,
86:,
665:R.S.C.
432:Côté J
111:Ruling
74:39547
625:Notes
594:2022
477:The
277:and
221:(BC)
507:BIA
479:BIA
415:BIA
353:BIA
127:BIA
1056::
1038:.
1026:^
933:^
843:.
742:.
721:.
663:,
585:.
581:.
562:.
558:.
545:.
417:.
398:.
331:.
309:.
257:.
176:,
172:,
168:,
164:,
160:,
156:,
152:,
1042:.
847:.
748:.
596:.
566:.
549:.
129:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
