Metso Minerals Canada Inc. and Metso Minerals Industries Inc. v. ArcelorMittal Exploitation Minière Canada and ArcelorMittal Canada Inc.

At a glance

Parties

Metso Minerals Canada Inc. and Metso Minerals Industries Inc. (applicants) v. ArcelorMittal Exploitation Minière Canada and ArcelorMittal Canada Inc. (respondents); SNC Lavalin Inc. (intervener)

Case no.

Superior Court of Québec (Commercial Division), No. 500-11-056231-190; 2020 QCCS 1103

Court

Superior Court of Québec, District of Montreal (Marie-Anne Paquette, J.S.C.)

Underlying award(s)

ICC Case No. 22034/RD, award of 20 March 2019, made in New York

Forum and rules

Recognition under article 652 of the Québec Code of Civil Procedure; New York Convention (Article III); UNCITRAL Model Law (Article 35)

Sector

Mining equipment (grinding mill and vibrating feeders)

Outcome

Recognition granted. The Court rejected ArcelorMittal's argument that recognition was moot because the award had already been paid.

Amount

Award (by majority): ArcelorMittal's AG Mill claim dismissed. ArcelorMittal ordered to pay Metso USD 258,900 (80% of arbitration costs fixed at USD 863,000.00) and USD 4,503,797.32 in legal costs. ArcelorMittal had already paid these sums. Court costs to follow.

The dispute

Metso sold ArcelorMittal an autogenous grinding mill (AG Mill) and vibrating feeders. ArcelorMittal claimed that the equipment was defective and that the defects had caused it loss. The dispute went to ICC arbitration in New York. By an award of 20 March 2019, the majority of the tribunal dismissed ArcelorMittal's claim for the AG Mill's defects and ordered ArcelorMittal to pay most of the arbitration and legal costs. A New York court confirmed the award, and ArcelorMittal paid the monetary amounts. Metso then asked the Québec Superior Court to recognise the award under article 652 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ArcelorMittal argued that recognition was a theoretical question with no purpose, because the award had been fully executed.

Key holdings

1. The parties did not dispute that the conditions of article 652(1) CCP were met: the dispute could have been arbitrated in Québec, and recognition is not contrary to public order. ArcelorMittal accepted that none of the exceptions in article 653(2) CCP applied. ¶¶ 11–12
2. Courts refuse recognition and enforcement only in exceptional cases. The New York Convention aims to make foreign arbitral awards easy to recognise and circulate. ¶ 13
3. Recognition and enforcement are distinct. Recognition gives an award binding effect, the same as a judgment of the Court. Enforcement means the award is carried out. A party may seek recognition on its own, for example to use the award as a shield in other proceedings. ¶¶ 18–21
4. The mootness argument is untenable. Metso and ArcelorMittal are parties to two pending Superior Court cases about the same AG Mill, and Metso intends to rely on the award in its defence. Whether the award has a practical effect on those claims must be decided in those cases, not in the recognition proceeding. ¶¶ 22–24
5. The Court recognised the award of 20 March 2019 (ICC Case No. 22034/RD) in Québec and declared it to have the same force and effect as a judgment of the Superior Court. Legal costs to follow. ¶¶ 25–27

Procedural history

1. 20 March 2019ICC award (Case No. 22034/RD), made in New York: by majority, ArcelorMittal's AG Mill claim dismissed and costs awarded to Metso.
2. A New York court confirmed the award after dismissing ArcelorMittal's objection. ArcelorMittal paid the monetary amounts, and a Declaration of Satisfaction of Judgment was filed in the New York court.
3. Metso amended its Québec application to drop the request for enforcement and seek recognition only.
4. 25 February 2020Hearing before the Superior Court of Québec.
5. 10 March 2020Superior Court of Québec judgment: the award is recognised and declared to have the force and effect of a judgment of the Court.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Marie-Anne Paquette Judge, Superior Court of Québec

For the claimant

Miller Thomson SENCRL

For the respondent

Langlois Avocats s.e.n.c.r.l.

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• recognition of foreign arbitral award
• New York Convention Article III
• UNCITRAL Model Law Article 35
• article 652 Code of Civil Procedure
• article 653 CCP
• Québec
• mootness
• recognition versus enforcement
• award already satisfied
• ICC
• AG Mill
• grinding mill
• vibrating feeders
• mining equipment
• Metso
• ArcelorMittal
• res judicata defence

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.