Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 DECEMBER 2024

Aroma Arbitration: Brewing Bias?

The Ontario Court of Appeal's recent decision in Aroma Franchise Company, Inc. v Aroma Espresso Bar Canada Inc. (the "Aroma Decision")...

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

The Ontario Court of Appeal's recent decision in Aroma Franchise Company, Inc. v Aroma Espresso Bar Canada Inc. (the "Aroma Decision")1 explored the grounds of arbitrator impartiality and disclosure obligations under the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Arbitration (the "Model Law"), adopted in the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Sched. 5.

The Model Law contains provisions that promote arbitral impartiality. Article 12(1) imposes a duty on an arbitrator to disclose – before appointment and as the arbitration proceeds – any circumstance likely to give rise to justifiable doubts about the arbitrator's impartiality. Article 12(2) permits a challenge to the arbitrator or the award that was made if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts about the arbitrator's impartiality, as long as the person making the challenge was unaware of the circumstances when they participated in the arbitrator's appointment. Justifiable

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