Jing (Catherine) Ou

The yoga practitioners must have heard of lululemon. Indeed, headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, lululemon is the high-end yoga-focused chain featuring stylish athletic wear and accessories. It sells its products in retail stores and directly to consumers through their online platforms. Industrial Color Productions Inc. (“ICP”) is a professional media production company located across the USA. ICP provided professional media production services and photography for lululemon’s e-commerce platforms since October 2017. However, in May 2019, lululemon notified ICP that it intended to terminate the Agreement. Their contractual disputes were brought to the arbitral tribunal seated in Vancouver, Canada. In April 2020, the arbitrator rendered his award, requiring lululemon to pay to ICP, inter alia, an amount of US$1,081,967 and applicable interest as the damages for breach of contract. lululemon seeks to set aside this portion of the award before the Supreme Court of British Columbia as it claims that the arbitrator went beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration in making an award that ICP did not plead during the arbitral hearing (lululemon athletica canada inc. v Industrial Color Productions Inc., 2021 BCSC 15).

This court decision reminds us that the standard of reasonableness and not correctness will generally best serve to preserve the autonomy of the forum consensually selected by the parties and to minimize judicial intervention. It points out that although the Ontario courts applied standard of correctness on reviewing question of jurisdiction in The United Mexican States v. Burr, 2020 ONSC 2376 and Mexico v. Cargill, Incorporated, 2011 ONCA 622, a commercial dispute involving two private companies is “foundationally different than” an investment dispute between a state and foreign investors. In addition, Mr. Justice Funt noted that the parties’ expectations as to the completeness of the arbitrator’s reasons should be less than those of the parties engaged in the commercial litigation before the judicial tribunal.

Les faits pertinents (Caron c. 7834101 Canada inc. (Triviom à Charlemagne ), 2020 QCCS 2859)

En janvier 2015, dans l’affaire Saindon c. Triviom (Saindon c. 7834101 Canada Inc., 2015 QCCQ 682), la Cour du Québec rejette une demande d’exception déclinatoire de la défenderesse Triviom parce que la clause d’arbitrage en litige est rédigée à l’avantage de Triviom en ce sens qu’elle contrôle l’identité et la qualité des trois arbitres possibles à solutionner le conflit. La Cour du Québec conclut que la procédure de nomination de l’arbitre est nulle parce qu’elle est contraire à l’article 2641 C.c.Q.

Triviom ne porte pas cette décision de la Cour du Québec en appel.

Le 14 avril 2017, malgré la décision Saindon, Triviom et Caron concluent le Contrat préliminaire de vente de condominium qui inclut la même clause d’arbitrage. Ce contrat a pour objet la construction d’une unité de condominium, livrable en novembre 2017. La clause 5.10 se lit comme suit:

I have participated in the 18th CIETAC Cup Commercial Arbitration Moot Competition as an arbitrator last week on a videoconference platform named VooV Meeting. It has been my great honour and privilege to sit with the experienced arbitrators and lawyers from different jurisdictions during this event. And we are glad to see that the students in China are able to plead the CISG related matters fluently in English and to answer our questions directly and effectively during their deliberations (See my one-minute speech as the Arbitrator of CIETAC Cup).

As you may already know, this year, the Problem concerns the applicability of United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”) on the purchase and license agreement on the viral sectors for the production of vaccines against respiratory diseases, such as COVID-19. In the Problem, Claimant only requires the arbitral tribunal to declare the existence of a breach of contract of the Respondent as Claimant is not yet in a position, to exactly identify the specific remedy required. Out of curiosity, I have read a recent decision of Superior Court of Quebec to learn how the Quebec courts evaluate the worldwide damages in the epidemic of defective computer graphic cards litigation.