A natural tension exists where a company that is subject to insolvency proceedings (such as bankruptcy) is also a party to an arbitration agreement. In such cases, there may be conflicting decisions issued by the arbitrator and the insolvency court, or there may be disagreement about which forum has the authority to hear the dispute. The modern view has tended to be that agreements to arbitrate should be honored, consistent with the principles of party autonomy and freedom of contract. Insolvency procedures, however, favour a centralized judicial process and can override certain pre-insolvency agreements in order to achieve objectives in the best interests of creditors. In a much-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) recently weighed in on these conflicting principles in Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., and, in doing so, addressed a key intersection of insolvency and arbitration law.
This is a cautionary tale about attention to clerical detail! Can a typo in a contract prevent a deal from being reached? Apparently, yes, at least insofar as essential terms of the contract are concerned. In 1132080 B.C. Ltd. v 1055616 B.C. Ltd., one mistake in the party’s name invalidated a contract related to the land and its subsequent assignments.