Source: https://mjdr-rrdm.ca/international-steel-v-dynatec-madagasgar-legitimacy-of-emergency-arbitration-acknowledged-by-canadian-court-of-first-instance/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:34:28+00:00

Document:
As part of the ongoing international debate surrounding awards and orders coming out of emergency arbitration proceedings, the Superior Court of Ontario’s recent ruling in International Steel v Dynatec Madagasgar adds a new chapter to the story.  This article summarizes the new practice, reasons for its development, and its current challenges. It then discusses Justice Newbould’s recent decision and its implications going forward.
Interim remedies such as interlocutory injunctions have long been available during litigation as a means of preserving assets or maintaining the status quo of the parties’ relationship.  As a temporary measure, they are useful in situations threatening immediate and irreparable harm to a right.
Split decisions across jurisdictions highlight the fact that there is still an ongoing debate in the courts over how to understand decisions coming out of these proceedings. In the absence of a more authoritative appellate-level decision, each new ruling merits some attention.
To that end, the 2016 International Steel v Dynatec Madagasgar decision is important because it marks the first time a Canadian court has waded into the debate – albeit indirectly.
This judgement is obviously no guarantee that an emergency award would have been enforced.  Unlike cases out of the United States and Switzerland, it did not engage in a discussion about the merits of these remedies as they related to international conventions and local arbitration legislation. There was no analysis of whether sufficient finality or determinativeness of an interim award would have existed. Nevertheless, it can be aptly characterized as a preliminary endorsement of the merits of the process, in-line with the court’s traditional desire to make contractual agreements enforceable. For proponents of these emergency measures and their benefits to the legitimacy of arbitration as an effective method dispute resolution in international commerce, this is an encouraging step forward.
 Halsbury’s Laws of Canada (online), Equitable Remedies, “Injunctions” at HER-39 “Types of Injunctions”; Erin Collins, “Pre-Trial Emergency Relief in International Commercial Arbitration” (2012) 10:1 Loyola UC Int’l Law Rev 105 at 105.
 See e.g. International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Rules 2012 at art 28 [ICC Rules].
 Collins, supra note 2 at 121.
 Charlie Caher & John McMillan, “Emergency Arbitration: The Default Option for Pre-Arbitral Relief?” in Steven Finizio & Charlie Caher, eds, International Comparative Legal Guide to: International Arbitration 2015, 2nd ed (London, UK: Global Legal Group, 2015) at 1.
 See Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 10 June 1958, 330 UNTS 4739 (entered into force on 7 June 1959) at 2-3 [New York Convention].
 Caher & McMillan, supra note 5 at 2.
 ICC Rules, supra note 3 at art 29(2).
 London Court of International Arbitration, LCIA Rules, London: 2014, art 9(8).
 Singapore International Arbitration Center, SIAC Rules, Singapore: 2013, schedule 1(6).
 Hong Kong International Arbitration Center, HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules, Hong Kong: 2013, schedule 4(12).
 American Arbitration Association, International Dispute Resolution Procedures, 2014 at art 6(4).
 New York Convention, supra note 7 at art V(1)(e).
 See discussion of Yahoo! v. Microsoft & Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan v. Medimpact Healthcare Systems in Caher & McMillan, supra note 5 at 2.
 Since the arbitration clause concluded by the parties referred to the 1998 version of the Rules, the opposing party’s consent was need to initiate emergency proceedings (cf. Art. 6(1) 2012 ICC Rules).
 International Steel, supra note 1 at para 31.
 Yet it should be noted that under sec 2(1)(a) of BC’s International Arbitration Act, interim measures can, for enforcement purposes, take the form of awards. This suggests, in turn, that if emergency arbitration’s goal is that of granting interim measures, then emergency decisions should be enforceable as any other type of interim measure.
About the author: Benjamin is currently completing joint Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Civil Law degrees at McGill University. He is an editor for the McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution, as well as a researcher for the MShares Shareholder Activism project. Previous experience includes work in bankruptcy and financial services. He also holds an Honours Bachelor of Social Sciences degree from the University of Ottawa.

References: art 28
 art 29
 art 9
 art 6
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 6