Key Issues
- Application for Stay: Arsopi sought to stay ARVOS’s third party claim under the International Commercial Arbitration Act (ICAA) due to an arbitration clause.
- Arbitration Clause: The contract required arbitration under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Frankfurt, Germany.
- Competence-Competence Principle: Determined whether the court or an arbitrator should rule on the arbitration clause's applicability.
- German Law: Expert evidence discussed German arbitration law and limitation periods.
Court's Findings
- Competence-Competence: The court decided it must determine the jurisdiction due to potential issues preventing arbitration.
- Proper Law: Confirmed that German law applied to the arbitration clause, covering all disputes arising from the contract.
- Claims Assessment:
- Orica’s Tort-Feasors Act Claim: Not subject to the arbitration clause and governed by Canadian law.
- ARVOS’s Contract and Tort Claims: Subject to the arbitration clause and governed by German law.
- German Limitation Laws: Likely barred ARVOS’s claims but did not invalidate the arbitration agreement.
Decision
- Orica’s Claims: Proceed in Alberta.
- ARVOS’s Claims: Stayed pending arbitration in Germany.
- Strike Request: Rejected due to procedural issues.
The ruling upheld the arbitration clause, directing ARVOS’s claims to arbitration despite potential limitations under German law. The decision does not specify a total monetary award, costs, or damages.
