Corporacion Transnacional de Inversiones, SA de CV v. Stet International, SPA
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
(2000) 49 O.R.(3d) 414 (2000)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Corporacion Transnacional de Inversiones, SA de CV (UTISA) (plaintiff) entered a contract with STET International, SPA (STET) (defendant) containing an arbitration agreement. Disputes arose between the parties, and the parties referred the matter to arbitration. Prior to the final hearing, the arbitral tribunal ordered that STET disclose information concerning whether or not UTISA had signed a confidentiality agreement. STET provided information to UTISA by supplying redacted versions of the agreements, and the tribunal found that STET had complied with its order. Although UTISA made no complaint about the disclosure at the final hearing, UTISA subsequently withdrew from the arbitration. The arbitral tribunal later entered an award in favor of STET, and the Canadian lower courts upheld the decisions of the arbitral tribunal. UTISA then appealed to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. UTISA argued the procedure followed by the tribunal deprived them of an adequate opportunity to present their case and therefore offended the principles of justice and fairness in a fundamental way. UTISA further argued that the lower court erred under Article 34(a)(ii) of the Model Law by refusing to find that UTISA were unable to present their case to the arbitral tribunal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.