Dan Svantesson

Kanitz v. Rogers Cable Inc - Time to rethink Article 4 of the proposed Hague Convention?
Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, University of New South Wales

DATE: September 2002
SOURCE: Computer Law & Security Report, Vol. 18 Issue 5 (September/October 2002)

View the article (137 K PDF)

Get Acrobat Reader

Tell a colleague

ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT:
Svantesson, Dan J.B. (2002) Kanitz v. Rogers Cable Inc. - Time to rethink Article 4 of the proposed Hague Convention?, Vol 18, no. 5 pp 340-344.
This article is published by Elsevier Copyright © 2002 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved Access publisher version.

ABSTRACT:
On the 22 February 2002, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice handed down its judgment in the dispute between Stefan Kanitz1 and Rogers Cable Inc (hereinafter referred to as Rogers).2 The defendant, Rogers, argued that the plaintiff, Kanitz, was prevented from taking action in court due to an arbitration clause in the service agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. Justice Nordheimer, the judge in the case, agreed with Rogers and ordered a stay of proceedings. On its surface, such a conclusion seems justified; if two parties agree to settle a potential dispute by means of arbitration, it would not be fair to allow one of the parties to bluntly disregard the agreement and take the matter to a court of justice. However, as will be demonstrated below, we will find ourselves in an unreasonable situation unless non_negotiated standard clauses3 relating to a central issue, such as the means of dispute resolution, have to meet a certain standard. The aim of this article is to illustrate the potential danger of an inappropriate application of Article 4 of the proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, by using the Kanitz case as an example.