Case number: 184
Article number: model arbitration law / 8(1)
Thessaurs issue:
Country of decision: Canada
Year of decision: 1994
Type of decision: Judicial decision

Case 184: MAL 8(1)

Canada: Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division) (Strayer J.)
22 March 1994
Continental Resources Inc. v. The East Asiatic Company (Canada) Inc.
Original in English
Unpublished



The court was satisfied that there was an arbitration agreement within the meaning of Article 8 of the Commercial Arbitration Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, 2nd Supplement, Chapter 17, which enacts Article 8(1) MAL, and that, therefore, the matter before it must be referred to arbitration in New York as provided in the charter-party between the litigants. As no statement of defence had been filed by the defendants, they had not submitted any statement on the substance of the dispute to the court so as to justify the refusal of a stay of proceedings.



The court held that there was insufficient evidence that a new agreement had been reached between the parties for arbitration in Vancouver. The court also held that if there was any claim against the defendant vessel, which claim was not precluded by the agreement to arbitrate, it could be stayed pending the conclusion of the arbitration in New York. The court found insufficient evidence to warrant granting such a stay. However, as Article 8 MAL does not address the issue of the terms on which the action before the court should be disposed of, the court used its discretion to grant the stay on condition that the defendants did not rely on prescription or on delay as a defence in the arbitration.