Mr Daniel Grodinsky

Daniel Grodinsky


Arbitration & ADR

Justin Bieber tweets and an international arbitrator listens: court refers defamation claim to arbitration
Canada | 22 June 2017

The Quebec Superior Court recently held that a party promoter's claims of defamation and breach of contract against Justin Bieber were subject to an arbitration clause entered into between the promoter and the pop star's agent. The decision sets out the factors that Canadian courts will consider when deciding whether a sufficient agency relationship exists in order to bind a third party to an arbitration agreement.

Federal Court of Appeal finds Competition Act claims to be arbitrable
Canada | 21 March 2013

In Murphy v Amway Corporation the Federal Court of Appeal affirmed that class claims brought under Section 36 of the Competition Act are arbitrable. The decision reiterates prior jurisprudence that in the absence of legislative language to the contrary, Canadian courts will enforce arbitration agreements and class action waivers.

Quebec Court of Appeal: arbitrators not subject to implicit obligation of confidentiality
Canada | 24 February 2011

A recent Quebec Court of Appeal decision clarified two important issues in the law of arbitration in Quebec: courts should not set aside an arbitration award based on a procedural irregularity when such an irregularity does not substantially prejudice the complaining party; and arbitrators are not subject to an implicit obligation of confidentiality.

Quebec court rules that arbitrators have limited powers to issue injunctive relief
Canada | 25 November 2010

In a recent case the Quebec Superior Court provided guidance on two important issues in the law of arbitration in Quebec: the extent to which an arbitrator can render orders for specific performance or injunction, and the distinction between an arbitrator who interprets a contract and one who amends it.

Administration of Case to be Covered by 'Applicable Arbitration Procedure'
Canada | 30 April 2009

In a recent case the Quebec Court of Appeal held that an arbitration institution did not usurp the jurisdiction of the arbitral panel by following its own institutional rules and determining that the dispute would be heard by a panel of three arbitrators. This decision appears to provide wider latitude to arbitration institutions to administer and apply their own procedural rules to arbitrations prior to the nomination of the arbitral panel.