Top 10 Canadian Arbitration Cases of 2025: The decisions shaping practice for in-house counsel

Foreword

2025 has been another banner year for arbitration in Canada. The 10 key decisions we review this year reflect a mix of recalibration and retrenchment in Canadian arbitration law. Across jurisdictions and statutory regimes, courts continued to articulate strong support for arbitration’s core objectives: party autonomy, efficiency, and finality. At the same time, the courts reaffirmed the non-derogable limits of arbitral authority and the judiciary’s supervisory role. Taken together, these cases demonstrate a maturing jurisprudence that is increasingly attentive to context: the nature of the parties, the statutory framework engaged, and the practical realities of arbitral process and enforcement.

A recurring theme is the insistence that arbitration remain fair and accessible, and not be used as a means to stifle any form of realistic redress in the event of a dispute. Decisions such as Lochan v. Binance and Spinney v. Fowlie underscore that efficiency and recourse to arbitration cannot come at the expense of procedural fairness and abuse of the court’s process. The integrity of the arbitral process was also front and centre in the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Vento Motorcycles v. Mexico, in which the Court sent an unambiguous message that impartiality is indispensable. A reasonable apprehension of bias, even affecting a single arbitrator on a multi-member tribunal, is a fatal defect requiring the award to be set aside. This bright-line approach reflects a concern not only with actual fairness, but with the appearance of fairness and the legitimacy of arbitral outcomes.

Another prominent thread is the careful delineation of institutional roles between courts, arbitrators, and other legal regimes. Several decisions grapple with the boundaries of arbitral primacy. Buffalo Point is another entry in the long-running saga over which standard of review applies to appeals from arbitral awards coming down on the side of applying the deferential reasonableness standard.

Mayfield Investments (Re) illustrates how insolvency proceedings may take precedence over arbitration where statutory stay mechanisms are not engaged and practical considerations demand centralized resolution. Meanwhile, J.P. Thomson Architects and Fisher v. Airfoam take on the thorny issue of multi-tier dispute resolution clauses and reaffirm the well-established competence-competence principle—that the arbitral tribunal should generally be the first to decide on whether a dispute is within its jurisdiction.

The cases also reflect heightened judicial attention to post-award realities. Inter Pipeline v. Teine Energy and Sinclair v. TDMC Holdings highlight the procedural and strategic consequences of enforcement, appeal deadlines, and confidentiality once arbitration intersects with the courts. Parties are reminded that arbitration does not always or completely insulate disputes from public scrutiny or procedural rigidity once judicial intervention is sought, and that careful drafting—particularly regarding stays, timelines, and confidentiality—is essential.

Finally, the Supreme Court of Canada’s refusal of leave to appeal in Republic of India v. CCDM Holdings elevates Canadian arbitration law within the international enforcement landscape. The Québec Court of Appeal’s analysis of state immunity, waiver, and alter ego liability demonstrates a pragmatic approach that gives effect to states’ commitments to arbitration while safeguarding the enforceability of awards. The decision has practical implications regarding the negotiation of waiver of immunity clauses where there is also an arbitration clause.

Collectively, these decisions show Canadian courts as neither reflexively interventionist nor uncritically deferential. Instead, they reveal a jurisprudence focused on preserving arbitration’s legitimacy: enforcing bargains to arbitrate, respecting tribunal authority, and intervening decisively when fairness, accessibility, or systemic integrity are at stake.

Index

• Lochan v. Binance Holdings Limited
  Ontario Court issues an anti-arbitration injunction against a Hong Kong-seated arbitration brought to circumvent the Court’s previous ruling that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable.

• Vento Motorcycles, Inc. v. United Mexican States
  Court of Appeal for Ontario sets aside award upon finding justifiable doubts as to impartiality of one member of a three-member tribunal.

• Buffalo Point First Nation v. Buffalo Point Cottage Owners Association Inc
  Manitoba Court of Appeal confirms that the reasonableness standard continues to govern appeals from commercial arbitral awards, notwithstanding Vavilov.

• Inter Pipeline Ltd v. Teine Energy Ltd
  The Alberta Court sets expectations for the granting of a stay of enforcement of an award pending appeal, as well as the high bar for the preservation of confidentiality on the open court record.

• Spinney v. Fowlie
  Ontario Court sets aside award for want of procedural fairness after arbitrator switches hearing format mid-arbitration and refuses to consider written closing submissions.

• Fisher v. Airfoam Industries Ltd. (Quad-Lock Building System)
  British Columbia Court held that arbitration terms incorporated by reference through online terms of sale were enforceable and not “inoperative” where the buyer signed order forms referring to those terms.

• Mayfield Investments Ltd (Re)
  Alberta Court of King’s Bench finds primacy of receivership proceedings over arbitration proceedings when mandatory statutory stay of arbitration is not engaged.

• Republic of India c. CCDM Holdings
  The Supreme Court of Canada declines leave to appeal the Québec Court of Appeal’s decision clarifying state immunity, seizure, and alter ego exposure in investor-state awards.

• Sinclair v. T.D.M.C. Holdings Ltd.
  The British Columbia Court of Appeal holds that any party seeking to cross appeal an award must do so within the same 30-day deadline that applies to an appeal of an arbitral award.

• J.P. Thomson Architects v. Greater Essex CDSB
  Ontario’s Court of Appeal clarifies that a 30 day reference in a standard-form multi tier dispute resolution clause is a minimum resolution period, not a strict deadline, and confirms that arbitrators decide scope where jurisdiction is at least arguable.