Case number: 19
Article number: model arbitration law / 8
Thessaurs issue:
Country of decision: Canada
Year of decision: 1991
Type of decision: Judicial decision

Case 19: MAL 8
Canada: British Columbia Supreme Court (Chambers) (Harvey J.) 22 November 1991
Krutov v. Vancouver Hockey Club Limited
Original in English

The mere presence of procedural irregularities in the implementation of the arbitration process, under either the agreement itself
or the collective bargaining agreement, will not prevent the dispute from proceeding to arbitration.

Krutov, a hockey player residing in Moscow and the Club, a British Columbia corporation, had a contract for playing services
of three years' duration. The Club refused to pay Krutov for the second and third seasons and Krutov in turn refused to play.
The Club sent the dispute to arbitration pursuant to the agreement. The Club argued that the dispute was automatically subject
to arbitration and that article 8 of the Model Law as enacted by the International Commercial Arbitration Act, Statutes of
British Columbia, 1986, c.14 contains no discretion for the court to deflect a consensual arbitration. Krutov argued that the
contract was null and void and thus there was no arbitration agreement. Krutov also argued that procedural irregularities
existed making referral to arbitration impossible.

The Court found that the agreement was not null and void within the meaning of section 8 of the Act. The procedural
irregularities referred to by Krutov concerned time limits and notice requirements. The Court concluded that such irregularities
in themselves would not prevent the parties from proceeding to arbitration.

(In making this finding, the court placed particular emphasis on the decision reported as Case 9.)