CLOUT
  index.

Automatic Systems, Inc., a Missouri corporation, contracted with Bracknell Corp., an Ontario corporation, for the supply and installation of a conveyor system at a Chrysler plant in Ontario. The contract contained an agreement to arbitrate all disputes arising under it in Missouri in accordance with the law of that State. When Bracknell claimed a statutory construction lien against Automatic, the latter applied for an order staying the action and referring the parties to arbitration. The application for an order staying the action was denied and Automatic appealed.

The Court of Appeal held that the construction lien legislation should not have been narrowly construed by the court seized of the stay application, rather the court should have enquired whether that legislation prohibited arbitration. The lien statute did not prohibit arbitration but actually contemplated it. The International Commercial Arbitration Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, Chapter I.9, which enacts article 8(1) MAL, was applied since the case fell within its scope and nothing in the lien statute precluded a claim from being arbitrated under the Act.

The Court of Appeal made extensive reference to the commitment of the province of Ontario

to the policy of international commercial arbitration through enactment of MAL and granted a stay of the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal referred in critical terms to the trial judgement in BWV Investments Ltd. v.Saskferco Products Inc. et.al. and UHDE GmbH (CLOUT case no. 116 [...] ), which was reversed on appeal in a manner consistent with the result in the present case.

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