CLOUT
  index.

Crystal, a construction company, was a member of the Warranty Programme, a company designed to provide warranty protection to buyers of new homes. The Warranty Programme terminated Crystal's membership. Crystal initiated court proceedings claiming that it was not in default on its obligation to any home buyers and had not received notice of any such default that would entitle the Warranty Programme to exercise its rights. The contract between the parties provided for arbitration of any dispute "with respect to any matter in relation to this agreement".

The court found that the arbitration clause was not limited in scope to matters expressly addressed in the contract or to matters that were addressed by specific terms of the contract. The court distinguished Borowski v. Heinrich Fiedler (Case 111) as a case where specific words qualified the scope of the arbitration clause. A stay was ordered under the Arbitration Act, Statutes of Alberta, 1991, chapter A-43.1. The court concluded that the arbitration clause was not limited to claims for breach of contract but would extend, for example, to a claim in tort for which the existence of the contract was a relevant fact.

The court thought that whether the statute implementing MAL or an arbitration law dealing only with domestic disputes applied was not relevant to the interpretation of the scope of the arbitration clause. Unless the clause was invalid under either law, it was for the parties between them to decide what was arbitrable.

Additional Information published in later CLOUT issue (on "9 February 2000"):

Abstract published in English: [1996] Model Arbitration Law Quarterly Reports, Vol. 2, issue 4, 109

Text of the court decision published in English: [1996] Model Arbitration Law Quarterly Reports, Vol. 2, issue 4, 115

Reproduced on this web site (www.interarb.com) with the kind permission of the United Nations, New York.
Database, typography, layout, etc. © interarb, 1999.