Arbitration is about decision-making. A reliable means to choose arbitrators may be found in their published decisions, if available. Decisions provide a “behind the curtain” exposure of the Arbitration candidate’s work-ethic, treatment of factual evidence, legal analytical abilities, decision-making methodology and clarity of reasoning, all of which are helpful in assessing a potential arbitrator’s suitability to conduct your Arbitration.
I therefore offer a sampling of some of my decisions as an introductory means to assess my suitability to arbitrate your parties’ disputes.
1. Envoy Relocation Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)
My commitment to thoroughness, analytical abilities and decision-making methodology is perhaps best demonstrated in the unique, factually complex, and legally challenging procurement decision of Envoy Relocation Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General). For those who are interested in learning about my approach to decision-making, please use the link below to access further comments and the decision proper.
LINK to further comments on Envoy
2. Yates v. Fedirchuk
This case provides an example of a solution-based approach to attaining a just and reasonable decision adding another page to nuisance law and protecting tress, even when the facts are not in dispute involving a motion for default judgment, ordinarily a half hour affair at most. For those who are interested in learning about the case, please use the link below to access further comments and the decision.
LINK to further comments on Yates and decision
3. Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Idenix Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This matter involved a “revolutionary” drug that was a significant breakthrough in the treatment of the Hepatitis C virus, a disease said to infect more than 2.2% of the world’s population. Gillead was my first and only patent law decision (the assignment was based on language and knowledge of the Envoy decision).
The reasons speak to my adaptability of responding to a wide variety of civil cases, no matter how esoteric and intractable the facts and in an area of law not previously encountered. Please use the link below to access further comments and the decision proper.
LINK to further comments and decision in Gilead
4. Iggillis Holdings Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue)
The Federal Court decision in Iggillis Holdings Inc was the first case in Canada challenging the legitimacy of Transactional Common Interest Privilege [TCIP]. Developed in the 1980s from American case law, commercial lawyers strongly endorse it, but in its application in trials it significantly undermines the administration of justice in support of potentially questionable agreements. The Federal Court of Appeal overturned the decision, but it remains contentious. For those interested in learning more about the case and the on-going debate, please use the link below to access further comments and the two decisions.
LINK to further comments on Iggillis
5. Dionne v. Canada (Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions)
The difficult issue in the Dionne decision, argued in French, concerned the balancing of the language rights of co-working bilingual Francophones and unilingual Anglophone in federal institutions across the country. The Federal Court of Appeal overturned the decision, but not in terms of the reasons of the Federal Court.
For those who are interested in learning about the case, please use the link below to access further comments on the Dionne decision and that of the Federal Court of Appeal in OSFI and their published decisions.
LINK to further comments on Dionne
6. R. v. Van Bree
The reasons in Van Bree considered one of the most problematic issues of bias in experts’ opinion. Police officer’s expert evidence on the culture and indicia of drug trafficking was permitted, but the conclusory opinion that the accused was trafficking was excluded.
The decision was cited in Ontario (Natural Resources and Forestry) v., 2022 ONCA 315, R. v. Mills, 2019 ONCA 940, (expertise of police officers being obtained on certain matters through practical experience gathered in the course of their duties over many years.) The Biases of Experts: An Empirical Analysis of Expert Witness Challenges, 2019 CanLIIDocs 2802, pp. 31 & 44, (Reliability concerns can reflect the extent to which the expert is shown to be impartial and objective).
For those who are interested in reviewing the decision of Van Bree, 2011 ONSC 4273,
please visit this LINK to the decision.
7. Kallab v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Several contentious evidentiary rules had been adopted in immigration and refugee law over the years and were the subject of this decision. The rulings were made with the (unfulfilled) expectation that, if certified for appeal, the case would be appealed to the FCA.
The reasons addressed three issues of evidence: (1) the application of the Supreme Court tenets in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 that declared that appellate courts were not permitted to carry out a ‘reasonability analysis’ as an insufficiently strict limitation when reviewing the inference drawing step of an inference finding of fact; (2) that a witness swearing to a fact does not raise a presumption of its trustworthiness, i.e., not requiring corroboration; and (3) rejecting a statement of law that an administrative tribunal is limited in making ‘plausibility’ credibility findings, (i.e. credibility inferences), only in the ‘clearest of cases’.
LINK to Kallab Decision
8. Peter v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2014 FC 1073, [2016] 2 FCR 501
The Peter decision involved the constitutionality of an amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The amendment prohibited what is described as a “pre-removal risk assessment protection application” (PRRA) from being brought by an unsuccessful refugee within 12 months after a refugee protection claim was last rejected. The provision is commonly described as the one-year PRRA bar. The test used in a PRRA application was like that used in a refugee determination case, except rendered by a removals officer based, normally on written submissions.
The amendment was significant because during the one-year bar period the unsuccessful refugee could be removed from Canada, thereby preventing any further engagement with procedures like the PRRA or humanitarian claims. In proceeding with such claims, unsuccessful refugees are permitted to extend their time in Canada, and thereby, their opportunities to become a Canadian permanent resident or if unsuccessful removed at a later date.
The applicant claimed that the one-year PRRA bar infringed his Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 right (“to life, liberty and security of the person except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”). The headnote describing the reasons is sufficient to convey the essence of my reasons dismissing the claim on the basis that it did not infringe section 7 of the Charter.
LINK to Peter Decision
If requiring further information, you may contact me at the coordinates in the footer below or on the Terms page.
Peter Annis Dispute Resolution 