37722 in the Supreme Court of Canada (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario)

SCC File No.: 37722 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) BETWEEN: TELUS COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, TELE-MOBILE COMPANY and TELUS COMMUNICATIONS INC. APPELLANTS (Appellants) -and- AVRAHAM WELLMAN RESPONDENT (Respondent) REPLY (AVRAHAM WELLMAN, RESPONDENT) (Pursuant to the Order of Justice Martin, dated August 16, 2018) ROCHON GENOVA LLP SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP 900-121 Richmond Street West 340 Gilmour St., Suite 100 Toronto, ON M5H 2K1 Ottawa, ON K2P 0R3 Joel P. Rochon Marie-France Major Peter Jervis Tel.: (613) 695-8855 Golnaz Nayerahmadi Fax: (613) 695-8580 Tel.: (416) 548-9874 Email: [email protected] Fax: (416) 363-0263 Email: [email protected] Agent for Counsel for the Respondent [email protected] [email protected] MORGANTI LEGAL 1 Yonge Street, Suite 1506 Toronto, ON M5E 1W7 Eli Karp Tel: (647) 344-1900 Fax: (416) 352-7638 Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent FASKEN MARTINEAU DUMOULIN LLP FASKEN MARTINEAU DuMOULIN LLP 550 Burrad Street, Suite 2900 55 Metcalfe Street, Suite 1300 Vancouver, BC V6C 0A3 Ottawa ON, K1P 6L5 D. Geoffrey Cowper, Q.C. Sophie Arseneault Gerald L. R. Ranking Tel.: (613) 236-3882 Andrew Borrell Fax: (613) 230-6423 Alexandra Mitretodis Email: [email protected] Tel: (604) 631-3131 Fax: (604) 631-3232 Agent for the Appellants Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Appellants BENNETT JONES LLP BENNETT JONES LLP One First Canadian Place World Exchange Plaza Suite 3400, PO Box 130 1900-45 O'Connor Street Toronto, Ontario M5X 1A4 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1A4 Michael A. Eizenga Mark Jewett Andrew Little Tel: (613) 683-2328 Ranjan Agarwal Fax: (613) 683-2323 Charlotte Harman E-mail: [email protected] Tel: (416) 863-1200 Fax: (416) 863-1716 Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, ADR E-mail: [email protected] Chambers Inc. Counsel for the Intervener, ADR Chambers Inc. MCCARTHY TÉTRAULT LLP GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP Suite 5300 2600 - 160 Elgin Street Toronto Dominion Bank Tower P.O. Box 466, Stn. A Toronto, Ontario M5K 1E6 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1C3 Brandon Kain Matthew Estabrooks Adam Goldenberg Tel: (613) 786-8695 Ljiljana Stanic Fax: (613) 563-9869 Tel: (416) 601-8200 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (416) 868-0673 E-mail: [email protected] Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Chamber of Commerce Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Chamber of Commerce SOTOS LLP CAZASAIKALEY LLP 180 Dundas Street West 220 avenue Laurier Ouest Suite 1200 Ottawa, Ontario Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 K1P 5Z9 Mohsen Seddigh Alyssa Tomkins Daniel Hamson Tel: (613) 565-2292 Tel: (416) 572-7320 Fax: (613) 565-2087 Fax: (416) 977-0717 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Counsel for the Intervener, Consumers Consumers Council of Canada, Public Council of Canada, Public Interest Interest Advocacy Centre Advocacy Centre CANADIAN FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITÉ D'OTTAWA INDEPENDENT BUSINESS (CFIB) Common Law Section National Affairs and Partnerships 57 Louis Pasteur St. 1202 - 99 Metcalfe Street Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6L7 David Fewer Anthony Daimsis Tel: (613) 562-5800 Ext: 2558 Tel: (613) 562-5800 Ext: 2558 Fax: (613) 562-5417 Fax: (613) 562-5124 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Canadian Federation of Independent Federation of Independent Business Business SAMUELSON-GLUSHKO CANADIAN UNIVERSITÉ D'OTTAWA INTERNET POLICY & PUBLIC Common Law Section INTEREST CLINIC 57 Louis Pasteur St. University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5 57 Louis Pasteur Street Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5 David Fewer Tel: (613) 562-5800 Ext: 2558 Marina Pavlovic Fax: (613) 562-5417 Tel: (613) 562-5800 Ext: 2675 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (613) 562-5417 E-mail: [email protected] Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Counsel for the Intervener, Samuelson- Policy and Public Interest Clinic Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic SISKINDS LLP MICHAEL J. SOBKIN 100 Lombard Street 331 Somerset Street West Suite 302 Ottawa, Ontario Toronto, Ontario K2P 0J8 M5C 1M3 Tel: (613) 282-1712 Daniel Bach Fax: (613) 288-2896 Elizabeth deBoer E-mail: [email protected] Tyler Planeta Tel: (416) 594-4376 Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Fax: (416) 594-4377 Consumers’ Association of Canada E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Consumers’ Association of Canada ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH NOËL & ASSOCIÉS COLUMBIA 111, rue Champlain 1001 Douglas Street, 3rd floor Gatineau, Quebec J8X 3R1 Legal Services Branch Victoria, British Columbia V8W 9J7 Pierre Landry Tel: (819) 771-7393 Jonathan Eades Fax: (819) 771-5397 James Leo Maxwell E-mail: [email protected] Tel: (250) 387-2789 Fax: (250) 953-3557 Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, E-mail: [email protected] Attorney General of British Columbia Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of British Columbia TABLE OF CONENTS Page PART I – OVERVIEW ..............................................................................................................1 PART II – STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................2 PART III – TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................6 PART I – OVERVIEW 1. In the main, the interveners’ submissions do not challenge the correctness of the lower courts’ interpretation of s. 7(5) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991 as conferring a broad discretion to stay, or refuse to stay, arbitrable matters in any proceeding, including a class proceeding. Rather, their submissions are directed primarily at the factors to be considered in the exercise of that discretion. The exercise of the motion judge’s discretion is not at issue on this appeal, nor was it at issue before the Court of Appeal.1 2. The sole issue on appeal is a question of law: does s. 7(5) grant the court a broad discretion to either stay, or refuse to stay, matters subject to an arbitration agreement, when those matters are advanced in the same proceeding as “other matters” that are not subject to an arbitration agreement? 3. The answer to this question is unequivocally “yes”. The discretion conferred by s. 7(5) is binary: the court may stay the matters subject to an arbitration agreement if it is reasonable to separate these matters from other non-arbitrable matters in the proceeding, or the court may refuse to separate those arbitrable matters from the other matters in the proceeding, thus permitting all matters to proceed for adjudication by the court.2 4. Section 7(5) manifests an express legislative intent to defer this determination to the court. The sole restriction on the court’s exercise of discretion under s. 7(5) is that the separation of arbitrable and non-arbitrable matters be “reasonable”. 1 Wellman v. TELUS Communications Company, 2017 ONCA 433 at para. 20. 2 The Factum of the Interveners Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Consumers Council of Canada at para. 5 (“Public Interest Advocacy Centre”), the Factum of the Intervener ADR Chambers Inc. at paras. 15 and 17 (“ADR Chambers”), and the Factum of the Intervener Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses at para. 8 (“CFIB”) expressly support the Respondent’s interpretation. See Penn-Co Construction Canada (2003) Ltd. v. Constance Lake First Nation, [2007] O.J. No. 3940, 66 C.L.R. (3d) 78 (ONSC), affirmed Penn-Co Construction Canada (2003) Ltd. v. Constance Lake First Nation, 2008 ONCA 768; Radewych v. Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Ltd., 2007 ONCA 721; Shaw Satellite G.P. v. Pieckenhagen, 2011 ONSC 4360, aff’d Shaw Satellite G.P. v. Pieckenhagen, 2012 ONCA 192; Rosedale Motors Inc. v. Petro-Canada Inc., 42 O.R. (3d) 776 (ON SC). 2 PART II – STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT 5. Section 7 and indeed the entire Arbitration Act, 1991 are silent as to the specific factors that the court may or shall consider in determining whether it is reasonable to separate arbitrable and non-arbitrable matters in a given proceeding. The legislature has not narrowed the application of s. 7(5) based on the nature of the proceeding, the number of, or the relationship between, the parties to the proceeding.3 These are not lacunae in the law. These are legislative choices that attract deference. 6. Notably, none of the interveners support the highly restrictive interpretation of s. 7(5), proffered by the Appellant, that the discretion conferred by s. 7(5) is limited to a choice between a mandatory stay of any matter in the proceeding subject to an arbitration agreement, or a stay of all matters in the proceeding, including those that are not subject to an arbitration agreement. This interpretation would preclude the adjudication, in any forum, of matters that are not subject to an arbitration agreement in circumstances where a stay of all matters is ordered. This would result in legal absurdity. 7. Section 7(5) was enacted to address the reasonableness of separating matters subject to valid arbitration agreements from the other matters in the proceeding. The discretion conferred by s. 7(5) and its equivalents has been exercised by courts in a myriad of procedural contexts, including multi-party and class proceedings involving businesses.4 It is erroneous to suggest that s. 7(5) is presumptively inapplicable to proceedings that involve valid arbitration agreements.5 3 While the Arbitration Act, 1991 does not define “proceeding”, Rule 1.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1994, Reg 194, defines a “proceeding” in the Superior Court of Justice as an “action” or an “application”. 4 See, e.g., New Era Nutrition, Inc., v. Balance Bar Company, 2004 ABCA 280 at paras. 30-39, 44-47; Briones v. National Money Mart Co. at al., 2014 MBCA 57 at paras. 40-42; Briones v.

Load more