Background: The case involved a contract dispute over whether Husky Oil, a third-party beneficiary of a contract between a general contractor and subcontractor (Technip), was bound by an arbitration clause for disputes related to warranties.

Issue: Whether Husky, not a signatory to the subcontract, could be forced to arbitrate its claims based on warranties provided in the contract.

Key Arguments:

• Husky argued it was not bound by arbitration because it did not sign the contract and had not agreed to arbitrate.
• Technip claimed that by invoking its third-party warranty rights, Husky must also accept the arbitration provision tied to those rights.

Decision:

• Ruling: Justice M.J. Lema ruled that Husky was bound by the arbitration clause. When Husky sought to enforce the warranties, it effectively agreed to arbitration, as the contract clearly linked the enforcement of warranty rights to arbitration.
• Limitations: The court found that Husky failed to initiate arbitration within the required limitation period, barring its warranty claims.
• Negligence Claim: The court determined that Husky's negligence claims were not subject to arbitration and could proceed independently.

Conclusion: Husky's contract-based claims were dismissed due to the expired arbitration period, while its negligence claims were allowed to continue. The exact quantum of costs awarded was not specified.