La recherche de l'intention commune des parties quant à l'application d'un clause compromissoire

par Karim Renno
Irving Mitchell Kalichman s.e.n.c.r.l.

En septembre dernier, nous attirions votre attention sur la jurisprudence récente provenant de la Cour d'appel qui encourageait l'interprétation libérale des clauses compromissoires afin de donner acte à la volonté des parties. L'Honorable juge Brian Riordan vient de rendre une décision qui s'inscrit bien dans ce courant dans l'affaire Abitibi Royalties Inc. c. Osisko Mining Corporation (2014 QCCS 2817).

 

Dans cette affaire, la Demanderesse intente des procédures judiciaires contre la Défenderesse pour bloquer certaines transactions, incluant la vente de toutes ses actions à deux autres compagnies minières.

En réponse à ces procédures, la Défenderesse dépose une exception déclinatoire dans laquelle elle invoque l'existence d'une clause compromissoire dans l'entente entre les parties et elle demande le renvoi de l'affaire à l'arbitrage.

La difficulté en l'instance provient du fait que deux clauses du contrat semblent possiblement contradictoire. En effet, alors que la première contient une clause compromissoire parfaite, la deuxième indique que les tribunaux québécois sont compétents pour entendre tout litige découlant de la convention. Les clauses se lisent comme suit:

11.12 (a) If there is a dispute between the parties with respect to this Agreement, or the interpretation of this Agreement … the aggrieved party ("Claimant") shall, pursuant, to Section 9.1 herein, deliver a notice of arbitration ("Notice of Arbitration") to the other party (the "Respondent") detailing the nature of the dispute, the facts and the relevant evidence. ... The two nominees shall … select a single arbitrator (the Arbitrator) to settle all matters arising from the dispute. 

…  

(d) The award made by the Arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties, and shall in all respects be kept and observed. The Arbitrator shall have the authority to award and direct that the parties, or either of them, execute and deliver such releases, conveyances, deeds, assurance and other documents as the Arbitrator thinks fit and those releases, conveyances, deeds, assurance and other documents shall be executed and delivered accordingly. 

11.13 Governing Law and Attornment. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Province of Quebec and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein and the parties hereby irrevocably attorn to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the Province of Quebec. For the purpose of all legal proceedings, this Agreement shall be deemed to have been executed in the Province of Quebec and the courts of the Province of Quebec shall have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain any action arising under this Agreement. The parties hereto each hereby attorn to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of Quebec. (The Court's emphasis)

Après analyse, le juge Riordan est d'opinion que la volonté manifeste des parties était de prévoir l'arbitrage. Ce faisant, suit le courant récent des tribunaux québécois qui donnent une place importante à l'arbitrage et à la volonté des parties:



[10] The Court cannot conceive that the common intention of the parties here would not have been to submit a dispute of this nature to arbitration. It deals solely and directly with the interpretation of two sections of the Option Agreement. This is precisely the type of thing that modern commercial partners would want to see arbitrated. 

[11] But there is more. The Court is satisfied that the words themselves do not result in a contradiction between the two sections. They can be, and arguably must be, interpreted so as to be in perfectly harmonious partnership. 

[12] Section 11.13 does not say "the courts of the Province of Quebec shall have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain any action with respect to this Agreement or its interpretation", as is the case with the Arbitration clause. Section 11.13 limits itself to any action "arising under this Agreement". The Court sees that as referring to actions that are "permissible" under the agreement.   

[13] If a dispute is one that, under the terms of the agreement, should be referred to arbitration, then it is not permissible under the agreement. In that sense, it does not arise under the agreement and the courts of the Province of Quebec have no jurisdiction. 

[14] Accordingly, we shall refer the matter to arbitration. Should Abitibi wish to pursue its position, it must follow the procedure for arbitration set out in the Option Agreement.

Référence : [2014] ABD 250