PesoRama sought leave to appeal the chambers justice’s decision permitting arbitration of Mr. Sivitilli’s wrongful dismissal claim, arguing the arbitration agreement was invalid.
Leave to appeal on this issue was denied as the chambers justice’s decision was based on settled legal principles.
PesoRama also sought to appeal under section 6(c) of the Arbitration Act, arguing arbitration would be duplicative and unfair. No leave was required for this ground.
Mr. Sivitilli’s cross-appeal on costs was denied, as the chambers justice had exercised proper discretion in ordering that each party bear its own costs, except for costs awarded to PesoRama for defending the oppression claim.
2025 ABCA 56 Decision
PesoRama’s appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the chambers justice’s finding that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable.
The court rejected PesoRama’s claim that arbitration was duplicative of litigation, affirming that the oppression claim related to shareholder issues while arbitration addressed employment matters.
The court held that section 6(c) does not permit courts to stay arbitration on the basis of duplicative proceedings.
PesoRama’s argument that Mr. Sivitilli had repudiated arbitration by filing a lawsuit was rejected, as the claims pursued in court and arbitration were distinct.
Outcome
Arbitration proceeds. PesoRama’s appeal failed. No further costs were awarded.
