Partout au Canada, comme ailleurs dans le monde, la pandémie de COVID-19 force les gens à s'adapter à de nouvelles façons de vivre et de faire des affaires. Nous avons récemment publié un article sur les changements qui ont été apportés aux disponibilités des tribunaux (en anglais seulement) ainsi que sur la modification des délais de prescription en Alberta et en Ontario (en anglais seulement) par suite des arrêtés ministériels qui ont été pris dans ces provinces.
Comme vous le verrez à la lecture des articles plus bas (pour le moment, seul l’article sur le Québec est disponible en français), les parties à une convention d’arbitrage interne ne devraient pas présumer que les délais de prescription applicables sont tous visés par les arrêtés ministériels provinciaux. Afin de savoir si les délais de prescription sont suspendus, les parties devront examiner le libellé de chaque arrêté ainsi que les clauses de la convention d’arbitrage.
Pour obtenir de plus amples renseignements, veuillez communiquer avec un membre du groupe Litiges et règlement des différends de Dentons.
Article rédigé par Catherine Dagenais et Marianne Bastille-Parent
Le 13 mars 2020, en réponse à la pandémie de COVID-19, le gouvernement du Québec a adopté le décret 177-2020, déclarant ainsi l’état d’urgence sanitaire sur tout le territoire québécois, conformément à l’article 118 de la Loi sur la santé publique (RLRQ c S-2.2).
Le 15 mars 2020, la juge en chef du Québec et la ministre de la Justice ont émis conjointement l’arrêté ministériel 2020-4251, en vertu de l’article 27 du Code de procédure civile du Québec (C.p.c.), qui suspend, pour la première fois de l’histoire, tous les délais de prescription et de déchéance en matière civile ainsi que les délais de procédure civile, à l’exception des affaires jugées urgentes par les tribunaux (p. ex. les demandes d'injonction provisoire, les ordonnances de sauvegarde, les saisies avant jugement, les ordonnances d'éviction, etc.), jusqu’à ce que l’état d’urgence sanitaire décrété le 13 mars 2020 soit levé.
Il est intéressant de noter que l'arrêté ministériel du Québec ne fait pas mention des procédures d'arbitrage interne ou, plus largement, des modes privés de règlement des différends. Le C.p.c. contient une disposition selon laquelle les parties sont tenues de considérer le recours aux modes privés de prévention et de règlement des différends, incluant l’arbitrage, avant de s’adresser aux tribunaux. Dans ce contexte, il est intéressant d'analyser si l'arrêté ministériel a une incidence sur les procédures d'arbitrage.
Au Québec, les délais de prescription extinctive en matière civile (c'est-à-dire les délais au terme desquels certains droits ne peuvent plus être exercés) sont régis par le Code civil du Québec (C.c.Q.).
Si la convention d'arbitrage stipule que le droit applicable au fond d’un litige est le droit québécois, et donc le C.c.Q., les parties peuvent considérer que l’arrêté 2020-4251 a pour effet de suspendre le délai de prescription qui les concerne.
Il est intéressant de noter que les parties à une convention d'arbitrage régie par le droit québécois ne pourraient pas convenir d’un délai de prescription plus long ou plus court que celui qui est prévu par la loi, car cela irait à l’encontre de l'article 2884 du C.c.Q., qui est une disposition d'ordre public.
En ce qui a trait à la suspension des délais de prescription, l’arrêté ministériel s’applique donc indépendamment de si les parties entendent s’adresser aux tribunaux ou plutôt instituer une procédure d’arbitrage.
Les délais de procédure que l’arrêté ministériel suspend sont les délais qui s’appliquent devant les tribunaux, tels que régis par le C.p.c. et les règles de pratique propres à chaque tribunal. Par exemple, les délais pour déposer une réponse, conclure un protocole de l’instance et déposer une demande d’inscription pour instruction et jugement, pour n'en citer que quelques-uns, sont actuellement suspendus.
L’arbitrage, de son côté, est principalement régi par les principes de la flexibilité procédurale et du consentement des parties, et s’exerce « en marge » du système judiciaire.
Les parties doivent donc examiner attentivement leur convention d'arbitrage, car les délais applicables à la tenue de la procédure arbitrale s’y trouvent. Ces délais sont donc essentiellement contractuels et ne sont pas suspendus par l’arrêté ministériel. Il convient alors de mentionner que la flexibilité qu'offre l'arbitrage pourrait permettre aux parties et au tribunal d’arbitrage de convenir de nouveaux délais, s'ils jugent qu’une telle mesure est appropriée.
Toutefois, le C.p.c. peut régir certains délais dans la procédure d'arbitrage, que ce soit par l’entremise de règles supplétives ou de règles obligatoires. Ces délais spécifiques pourraient être suspendus par l’arrêté ministériel. Par exemple, les demandes de renvoi à l'arbitrage, les demandes de nomination d’arbitres ou les contestations de telles nominations, et les contestations et les demandes d'homologation des sentences arbitrales, qui nécessitent une intervention judiciaire, seraient ainsi affectées par l'arrêté ministériel. Les parties peuvent donc considérer que les délais applicables à ces demandes sont suspendus, à l’exception des affaires jugées urgentes par les tribunaux.
Veuillez prendre note que les renseignements fournis dans le présent article ne constituent pas un avis d’ordre juridique ou professionnel, ni une opinion. Si vous avez besoin d'aide pour résoudre des questions juridiques relatives aux délais de prescription et aux délais légaux, veuillez communiquer avec un membre du groupe Litiges et règlement des différends de Dentons.
Note : Pour le moment, seul l’article sur le Québec est disponible en français.
Authored by Chloe Snider and Dennis Wong
In Ontario, limitations periods and procedural deadlines have been suspended since March 16, 2020 pursuant to Ontario Regulation 73/20, as amended (the Suspension Order) made under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, RSO 1990, c E.9 (the Act). The Suspension Order will continue in effect until May 12, 2020, subject to further amendments. Further discussion of the scope and duration of the Suspension Order is available on our Dentons Limitations Law Blog.
Companies and others involved in private dispute resolution mechanisms, like arbitration, should carefully consider whether and how the Suspension Order might affect the limitation periods and procedural deadlines in their proceedings. Importantly, while the Suspension Order may affect limitation periods applicable in domestic arbitrations, it is less clear that it would impact arbitral procedural deadlines that have been established either by agreement or by selected arbitration rules.
In order to answer this question, a party must look at the Suspension order, along with the Arbitration Act, 19911 (the Domestic Act), the arbitration agreement and the applicable arbitral rules (if any):
The Suspension Order suspends statutory limitation periods that are applicable to domestic arbitration claims, e.g., generally, the basic two-year limitation period under the Ontario Limitations Act, 2002.2 This is because the Domestic Act provides that the law with respect to limitation periods applies to an arbitration as if the arbitration were an action.3 As such, the statutory limitation periods applicable to actions and causes of action, and therefore domestic arbitrations and domestic arbitral claims, would be captured by paragraph 1 of the Suspension Order, which provides that “[a]ny provision of any statute , regulation, rule, by-law or order of the Government of Ontario establishing any limitation period shall be suspended for the duration of the emergency […]” [emphasis added].
However, the Suspension Order may not suspend any agreement respecting limitation periods made between litigants or proposed litigants, because such agreement does not constitute a “provision of any statute, regulation, rule, by-law or order of the Government of Ontario establishing any limitation period” as set out in paragraph 1 of the Suspension Order.
Paragraph 2 of the Suspension Order provides that “[a]ny provision of any statute , regulation, rule, by-law or order of the Government of Ontario establishing any period of time within which any step must be taken in any proceeding in Ontario, including any intended proceeding, shall, subject to the discretion of the court, tribunal or other decision-maker responsible for the proceeding, be suspended for the duration of the emergency […]” [emphasis added]. Accordingly, the Suspension Order suspends any procedural deadlines set out in the Domestic Act.
However, the Suspension Order would not suspend any procedural deadline set by agreement of the parties or pursuant to any arbitration rules selected by the parties, because such agreement is not a “provision of any statute, regulation, rule, by-law or order of the Government of Ontario establishing any period of time within which any step must be taken in any proceeding in Ontario” as set out in paragraph 2 of the Suspension Order. (In any event, the suspension of procedural deadlines is subject to the discretion of a decision-maker responsible for the proceeding.)
Authored by Mike Sestito, David Cowley-Salegio and Robert Gilroy
Alberta’s litigation landscape has temporarily changed following the provincial government’s declaration of a public health emergency on March 17, 2020 due to pandemic COVID-19. Courts have adjourned the vast majority of applications, drastically reduced the scope of matters for which they will grant a hearing, and suspended most filing deadlines.
On March 30, 2020, Alberta’s Justice Minister issued Ministerial Order (MO 27/2020) under the authority of the Public Heath Act, suspending limitation periods from March 17, 2020 to June 1, 2020. Specifically, the Ministerial Order states:
Appendix A to the Ministerial Order lists the effected legislation, including the Limitations Act. As such, the Ministerial Order modifies the application of Alberta’s Limitations Act, which, under normal circumstances, would cause a claim to expire if proceedings were not brought within the prescribed timeframe. However, while Appendix A to the Ministerial Order includes the Arbitration Act as an enactment for which limitation periods are suspended, it does not necessarily follow that limitation periods for commencing all domestic arbitration are suspended.
Alberta’s Arbitration Act specifies that the law with respect to limitation periods (including the Limitations Act) applies to arbitrations (s. 51) as if they were proceedings in the public court system. Therefore, based on the Ministerial Order, the limitation periods for commencing arbitration are presumably suspended. Yet this is not the end of the analysis: ultimately, whether or not the limitation to bring a specific arbitration claim is suspended depends on the wording of the arbitration agreement itself. The Arbitration Act (and, through s. 51, the Limitations Act) will apply to arbitrations conducted under an arbitration agreement unless the parties have agreed that it does not (s. 2(1)(a)). It is not uncommon for parties to arbitration agreements to set out comprehensive sets of rights and procedures and then to exclude the Arbitration Act. In such a case, the parties’ agreed-upon limitation periods for commencing arbitration may not be suspended by virtue of the Ministerial Order.
The Ministerial Order may also affect procedural deadlines in arbitration.
Unlike other provinces, the procedural deadline suspension in Alberta’s Ministerial Order is not expressly qualified as being limited to the suspension of deadlines under legislation or act of the government. Instead, the Ministerial Order simply states that “[a]ny period of time within which any step must be taken in any proceeding or intended proceeding is suspended.” Without any qualification, this is potentially ambiguous on the question of whether purely contractual procedural deadlines, or those under any arbitral rules of procedure are suspended. In particular, as such suspension is “subject to the discretion of the court, tribunal, or other decision-maker,” the Court has recently taken steps to proceed with enforcement applications on arbitral awards and “the Court is encouraging counsel and the public to access alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including mediation and arbitration.”
Going forward, in customizing their dispute resolution procedures, parties to arbitration agreements may want to consider referencing those procedures and deadlines that have now been suspended. To the extent that an arbitration agreement incorporates procedures that have been affected, the parties’ procedural obligations may have changed. Nevertheless, contractual autonomy persists: parties retain the ability to amend their arbitration agreements to circumvent ambiguity brought on by the pandemic or imposed by the Ministerial Order — subject, as always, to the terms of the agreements themselves and the parties ability to come to a new agreement (or any decision of a tribunal).
Authored by David Wotherspoon and Carina Chiu
On March 18, 2020, in response to COVID-19 pandemic, the BC government declared a state of emergency, currently in place until April 28, 2020. Regular court operations, and access to the courts, have also been restricted to primarily urgent matters. Limitation periods have been suspended since March 26, 2020 by Ministerial Order. The Ministerial Order is valid for the duration of the state of emergency. In this context, it is important for parties to understand the impact of the Ministerial Order on their rights to ensure that any claims they may want to pursue in arbitration do not become inadvertently time-barred.
Generally, B.C.’s Limitation Act requires that claims be commenced within a certain time period. Any claims brought outside their applicable time period are considered expired, which can be raised by the defendant as a complete defence. The government has already clarified that the Ministerial Order does not suspend limitation periods under the Builders Lien Act. Therefore, these claims must still be commenced in a timely way.
It is less clear whether the Ministerial Order also suspends limitation periods for claims being pursued by arbitration instead of through the court system.
B.C.’s Limitation Act applies to claims brought in the Province. A “claim” is defined very broadly and means “a claim to remedy an injury, loss or damage that occurred as a result of an act or omission” (s. 1). On its face, this definition includes claims brought through arbitration.
If a limitation period is established by some other piece of legislation, then the time limits established by the Limitation Act does not apply to those claims, except to the extent provided for in that other legislation (s. 3(2)).
As the Arbitration Act does not establish any limitation periods, as a starting point, the Limitation Act applies to claims brought through arbitration. As such, it would seem that the limitation periods for arbitral claims are currently suspended by the Ministerial Order.
However, parties to arbitration agreements, as with other contracts, have the ability to comprehensively define their rights and obligations, including with respect to whether arbitration must be commenced within a certain time period. Therefore, it is key to examine the wording of the arbitration agreement.
If the parties have agreed that arbitration must be commenced within a certain time period, failing which the claim will be time-barred, then that time period is not suspended by the Ministerial Order. As such, it is important for those parties to commence any claims they may wish to pursue through arbitration in accordance with the time limit established by their arbitration agreement.
If the arbitration agreement does not require that arbitration be commenced within a certain time period, then the limitations period in respect of those arbitral claims is likely suspended by the Ministerial Order.
On March 5, 2020, Bill 7, which will repeal and replace the Arbitration Act,received Royal Assent. Currently, we do not have information as to when this new legislation may come into effect.
Depending on how long B.C.’s state of emergency lasts, it is possible that the new arbitration legislation will come into force while the Ministerial Order is still in effect. Unlike the current Arbitration Act, the new legislation expressly provides that the law with respect to limitation periods applies to the commencement of arbitral proceedings (s. 11).
This means that, regardless if the current Arbitration Act or the new legislation is in effect, parties wishing to pursue arbitral claims need to do the following to determine whether the applicable limitation periods are suspended:
Please note that the information provided in this article does not constitute legal or professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. If you require any assistance regarding specific legal issues with respect to limitation periods and statutory timelines, please reach out to any member of Dentons’ Litigation and Dispute Resolution group.
Les courriels non sollicités et les autres renseignements envoyés à Dentons ne seront pas considérés comme confidentiels, pourraient être communiqués à des tiers ou ne pas obtenir de réponse et ne créent pas de relation avocat client. Si vous n’êtes pas un client de Dentons, vous ne devriez pas nous envoyer de renseignements confidentiels.
Ce contenu est disponible en anglais seulement. S'il vous plaît cliquer sur Continuer ci-dessous pour lire cela en anglais.
Vous quittez maintenant le site Web de Dentons. Vous serez redirigé vers le site Web de $redirectingsite en anglais. Pour continuer, cliquez sur « Continuer ».
Vous quittez maintenant le site Web de Dentons. Vous serez redirigé vers le site Web de Beijing Dacheng Law Offices, LLP. Pour continuer, cliquez sur « Continuer ».