Case number: 16
Article number: model arbitration law / 1; 5; 23(1); 34; 34(2)(a)(iii)
Thessaurs issue:
Country of decision: Canada
Year of decision: 1990
Type of decision: Judicial decision

Case 16: MAL 1; 5; 23(1); 34, especially 34(2)(a)(iii)
Canada: British Columbia Court of Appeal (Hutcheon, Proudfoot and Giggs, JJ.A.) 24 October 1990
Quintette Coal Limited v. Nippon Steel Corp. et al.
Published in English and French: Canada Supreme Court Reports 1990 volume 2

The appropriate standard of review of arbitral awards is one which preserves the autonomy of the forum chosen by the parties
and minimizes judicial intervention.

Quintette, a Canadian company, agreed to supply coal to the respondent, a Japanese company. Their agreement provided that
any contract disputes would be submitted to binding arbitration under British Columbia Law. Accordingly, a dispute
concerning the interpretation of a contract clause outlining a pricing mechanism was referred to arbitration and an award
rendered. Quintette, relying on sections 5 and 34 of the Model Law as enacted by the International Commercial Arbitration
Act, Statutes of British Columbia, 1986, c. 14 sought to set aside the award on the grounds that the arbitrators had exceeded
their jurisdiction by dealing with a matter not contemplated by or falling within the scope of the submission to arbitration.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's affirmation of the award. The Court noted the world-wide trend toward
restricting the scope of judicial intervention into commercial arbitration. The award could be justified under the terms of the
contract so the Court was prevented from intervening under article 34(2)(a)(iv) of the British Columbia Act (which is the same
as article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law).

(The Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal from the British Columbia Court of Appeal judgment on 13 December
1990.)