Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 28 FEBRUARY 2024

'Lacuna Matata': Should We Worry About A Gap In B.C.'s Domestic Arbitration Scheme?

The Court of Appeal for British Columbia's decision in Bollhorn v. Lakehouse Custom Homes Ltd., 2023 BCCA 444, highlights an apparent "lacuna", or gap, in the domestic arbitration scheme...

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

The Court of Appeal for British Columbia's decision in Bollhorn v. Lakehouse Custom Homes Ltd., 2023 BCCA 444, highlights an apparent "lacuna", or gap, in the domestic arbitration scheme arising out of the combined effect of the Arbitration Act and the Vancouver International Arbitration Centre's (VanIAC) Domestic Rules for Arbitration (the Rules). Mr. Bollhorn applied for leave to appeal under the appeal mechanism in the Act, arguing that the arbitrator erred in law when he dismissed his arbitration claim on the basis of res judicata — that his case had already been heard and resolved. In response, Lakehouse Custom Homes Ltd. argued that even if Mr. Bollhorn was correct, the Court could not hear the appeal: the Rules prohibit parties from appealing an arbitrator's decision for disputes not exceeding $250,000.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from