Background
The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard this matter on October 29, 2026, and released its reasons on November 2, 2026. The formal parties were Sitzer Group Holdings No. 1 Limited and Concord Property Management Limited, identified as the Applicants (Respondents/Moving Parties/Responding Parties), and Grall Corporation Limited, Natweiss Investments Limited and 967933 Ontario Limited, identified as the Respondents (Appellants/Responding Parties/Moving Parties). The docket was M57129 (COA-26-CV-0585) and COA-26-OM-0231.
Grall Corporation Limited, Natweiss Investments Limited and 967933 Ontario Limited were the appellants seeking leave to appeal in COA-26-OM-0231. Sitzer Group Holdings No. 1 Limited and Concord Property Management Limited were the respondents on that leave motion. The appellants were represented by Eli Lederman, Madison Robins and Lauren Di Felice; Andrew Gray and Emily Sherkey acted for the respondents/moving parties on M57129 and responding parties on COA-26-OM-0231.
The proposed appeal concerned an application judge’s treatment of an arbitrator’s award. The appellants sought leave on three issues drawn from paragraphs 10(a) and 35 of their factum: whether the application judge erred in determining that the award was appealable under section 45 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17; whether the judge erred in determining that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract constituted an extricable error of law; and whether the judge erred in determining that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction under section 46 of the Act.
The Court’s Holding
The court allowed the appellants’ motion for leave to appeal on all three issues. The respondents on the leave motion accepted, for purposes of their argument, that leave might be granted on issues (ii) and (iii), but submitted that the court lacked authority to grant leave on issue (i). They relied on Ottawa (City) v. Coliseum Inc., 2016 ONCA 363.
The panel rejected that position. It explained: “We disagree with the respondents’ position. Unlike in Coliseum, issue (i) is not concerned with whether the leave test was met or whether the appeal from the arbitration award engaged a question of law. Rather, issue (i) is concerned with the interpretation of the parties’ arbitration agreement and whether the parties agreed that there would be no appeals from the arbitration award.” The court therefore treated issue (i) as a distinct question about the arbitration agreement, not as the Coliseum issue described by the respondents.
The court analogized the case to Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 v. Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27 et al. (1997), 34 O.R. (3d) 472, where it had considered whether the court below erred in interpreting an arbitration agreement as providing for a right of appeal. It said the same issue arose here. The panel saw no basis for precluding the moving parties from appealing issue (i), along with the other issues, provided the other leave criteria were met. It was satisfied that those criteria were met and that leave was warranted.
Because leave was granted, the court found it unnecessary to determine the respondents’ motion to quash and dismissed that motion. The appellants’ appeal in COA-26-CV-0585 was stayed without prejudice to the appeal in COA-26-OM-0231. As agreed by the parties, the appellants were entitled to their costs of both motions from the respondents in the all-inclusive amount of $25,000.
Key Takeaways
- Leave to appeal was allowed on all three issues concerning appealability under section 45, an alleged extricable error of law, and alleged excess of jurisdiction under section 46.
- The court distinguished Coliseum: issue (i) concerned interpretation of the arbitration agreement and whether the parties had agreed that there would be no appeals.
- The respondents’ motion to quash was dismissed without determination; COA-26-CV-0585 was stayed without prejudice to COA-26-OM-0231.
- The appellants were awarded agreed, all-inclusive costs of $25,000 for both motions, payable by the respondents.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies the scope of the court’s authority on this leave motion. A challenge to whether an arbitration agreement permits appeals is not necessarily the same as a dispute over the leave test or whether an appeal raises a question of law. The court’s reliance on Labourers’ shows why the wording of the arbitration agreement mattered to issue (i).
The ruling is procedural: it grants leave and does not decide the merits of the three appellate issues. It also resolves the related motions by dismissing the motion to quash, staying the separate appeal without prejudice, and fixing costs as agreed.