Case number: 69
Article number: model arbitration law / 8(1)
Thessaurs issue:
Country of decision: Canada
Year of decision: 1994
Type of decision: Judicial decision

Case 69: MAL 8(1)
Canada: Ontario Court of Justice, General Division (Blair J.) 24 January 1994
Onex Corp. v. Ball Corp.
Original in English
Unpublished

A dispute arose between the plaintiff and the defendant as to whether the plaintiff had the right under their joint venture
agreement to acquire the defendant's share in the joint venture. The parties agreed that the matter should be submitted to
arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause contained in their agreement. However, the plaintiff sought from the court to rectify
a provision of the agreement or, alternatively, to declare that provision void on the ground that it contained a drafting mistake
and did not actually reflect the parties' agreement. The defendant sought a stay of proceedings and submission of the whole
dispute to arbitration.

The court found that the issue whether the arbitral tribunal had the power to rectify the parties' written agreement was a matter
of interpretation of the arbitration agreement. It was held that, while the expression arising "under" or "in relation to the
construction" of the agreement contained in the arbitration clause was not as broad as the expression "all disputes arising in
connection with", which was held by courts to be sufficient to cover the equitable remedy of rectification, it was broad enough
to cover rectification of the agreement. The court, citing its decision on Gulf Canada etc. (case 31) noted that in doubt the
arbitration clause should be interpreted in a manner that would be conducive to arbitration. The court granted a stay of the
proceedings and referred the matter to arbitration.