SEJNOWSKI v POLISH HALL

The Applicant commenced an Action against the Polish Hall and Polish Canadian Society, alleging shortfalls related to governance and financial reporting requirements. The Action was stayed pursuant to the Arbitration Act, because the joint venture agreement contained a mandatory arbitration provision. The parties entered into an arbitration agreement and proceeded with arbitration. The Applicant sought leave to appeal the arbitration award to the Court of King’s Bench pursuant to Section 44 of the Arbitration Act, which requires a party to seek permission of the Court to appeal an arbitration award on a question of law. The Chambers Judge declined to grant permission to appeal on any of the proposed grounds.

The Applicant submitted a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal, where a Case Management Officer advised the “Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal, and your only option is to discontinue it.” The Applicant instead applied to the Court of Appeal, requesting recission of the directions of a Case Management Officer instructing him to discontinue his Appeal.

The Court concluded that the Application was out of time, was brought without persuasive explanation for the delay, and was not accompanied by an application to extend time. As a result, the Court lacked authority or jurisdiction to hear the Application, and the determination of the Case Management Officer remained.

The Court also went on to determine the Application on its merits. The Court acknowledged that although Section 48 of the Arbitration Act contemplates a further appeal of a decision of a Court of King’s Bench Judge made pursuant to Section 44, previous authority had consistently held that the denial of permission to appeal an arbitration award pursuant to Section 44(2) of the Arbitration Act is final, and is not a decision that can be appealed pursuant to Section 48.

The Court further determined that the Case Management Officer did not exceed the jurisdiction bestowed on her by Section 14 of the Court of Appeal Act and Rule 14.36(1). She was correct to inform the Applicant of caselaw that was fatal to his Appeal. In addition, the Court found that the Case Management Officer did not breach procedural fairness in her communication to Applicant. Rather, she provided a fair and reasonable option to discontinue the Appeal without incurring additional expense.