Quanta's Appeal: Quanta sought leave to appeal an arbitration decision, arguing the arbitrator misinterpreted the Subcontract.
Bremar's Position: Bremar contended that Quanta’s issues were factual or mixed fact and law, not pure legal questions, failing the statutory test for appeal.
Background
Prime Contract: Between Quanta and ENMAX for a duct and manhole system in Calgary.
Subcontract: Between Quanta and Bremar, based on the standard CCA 1-2008 form.
Dispute: Involved the cost responsibility for removing and replacing parts of the duct bank installed by Bremar.
Arbitration and Decision
Arbitration Hearing: March 6-15, 2023
Decision Date: July 12, 2023
Arbitrator's Findings:
Quanta could order inspections but had to bear costs if work was not defective.
Quanta's directions were considered inspections, not defect determinations.
Bremar met notice requirements; Quanta's decision didn’t trigger the notice period.
Awarded Bremar $8,137,116 plus 80% of legal fees.
Court's Analysis
Arbitration Act s 44: Allowed appeals on legal questions unless otherwise agreed.
Importance to the Parties: The appeal's financial stakes ($5,121,518) and broader industry implications were significant.
Questions of Law: The court found no pure legal questions, only mixed fact and law.
Conclusion
Application Denied: The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, affirming the arbitrator’s decision.
