CANADA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Craig A B Ferris, Michael J Donaldson and Scott Lucyk, Lawson Lundell LLP
Introduction In this year’s Canada Trends and Developments chapter for the International Arbitration Global Prac - tice Guide, we begin with a discussion of the Ontar - io Court of Appeal’s decision in InFrontier AP LP v Rahmani , 2026 ONCA 289. This decision recognised and enforced an arbitral award made in Dubai after the parties’ chosen arbitral institution, the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre, was unexpectedly dissolved. Next, we review the Ontario Superior Court of Jus - tice’s decision in Feicheng Mining Group v Liu , 2026 ONSC 1969, which confirms Canada’s pro-arbitration stance and the “exceptionally high bar to meet” when invoking the public policy defence to the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. The court also considered the difference between “repugnant laws” and “repug - nant facts” when considering a public policy objec - tion. Finally, we review the decision in TSA CORPORATION et al v KPMG LLP , 2026 NWTSC 2, in which the court set aside an arbitration agreement as a remedy for oppression. The court did not outline a test for when an arbitration agreement should be set aside as a rem - edy for oppression. It did, however, list the factors it considered in its analysis. Despite ostensibly mak - ing arbitration agreements more vulnerable, the court emphasised the unique facts underlying its decision and the exceptional use of the oppression remedy in this case. It remains to be seen whether this decision will impact the courts’ approach to other cases involv - ing oppression or other corporate remedies. Dubai Arbitral Award Recognised in Ontario Notwithstanding a Change in Applicable Rules In InFrontier v Rahmani , 2026 ONCA 289, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a previous decision to recognise and enforce an arbitral award of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC). This case arose from uncertainty following the dissolution of the DIFC- LCIA Arbitration Centre. It highlights the importance of contractual provisions related to rules of procedure and the impact of amendments to those rules. The appellant, Roeen Rahmani (Rahmani), founded several schools in Afghanistan that were financed in part by a loan from the respondent, InFrontier AF LP
(InFrontier). The 2020 loan agreement specified that any disputes were to be resolved by arbitration in the DIFC under the applicable rules. At the time of the loan agreement, the DIFC operated in partnership with the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) as the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre. The operational partnership between the two arbitration centres had enacted a set of rules known as the Rules of Arbitra - tion of the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre (the DIFC- LCIA Rules). The preamble to the DIFC-LCIA Rules stated that par - ties agreeing to arbitrate under these Rules accepted both the rules in effect at the time of their agreement and any future amendments to those rules. InFrontier commenced arbitration proceedings against Rahmani in 2023, alleging a December 2022 default on the loan repayment. In the eventual arbitration pro - ceedings, the initially agreed-upon DIFC-LCIA Rules had changed. In September 2021, Dubai enacted Decree 34, which abolished the DIFC and transferred its rights and obligations to the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). Under Decree 34, the DIAC was to continue using the DIFC’s rules until the DIAC’s own rules were approved in March 2022. After adopting its own rules, the DIAC issued a press release with the LCIA stating that all arbitrations com - menced after March 21, 2022, under agreements that referred to the DIFC-LCIA Rules, would be adminis - tered under the new DIAC rules unless the relevant parties agreed otherwise. Despite Rahmani’s objection, the arbitration between the parties proceeded under the DIAC rules. The tribu - nal issued an award requiring Rahmani to pay InFron - tier USD2.5 million plus interest, penalties and costs. InFrontier applied to the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario for an order recognising and enforcing the award under Ontario’s International Commercial Arbi- tration Act ( ICAA ) (which is based on the Model Law). The application judge relied on Decree 34 and found that the DIAC rules were an amendment to the DIFC- LCIA Rules and were correctly applied. The applica - tion judge recognised and enforced the award against Rahmani.
198 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook