El pasado 7 de septiembre, el juez Justice Macintosh, de la Corte Suprema de la provincia canadiense de Columbia Británica, decidió enviar la demanda de 1,24 millones de dólares de la farmacéutilca panameña Northwestpharmacy.com, relacionada con los sistemas de procesamiento de pagos sin tarjeta de crédito, a arbitraje, a pesar de que los demandados no habían firmado el convenio arbitral.
Justice Macintosh basa su decisión de llevar el conflicto al arbitraje de la American Arbtration Association (AAA) dada la firma de un contrato con cláusula arbitral entre Northwestpharmacy y Omega Group Inc., empresa a la que la farmacéutica había evitado demandar buscando eludir el arbitraje, ya que varios de los individuos inmiscuidos en la demanda pertenecían a esta compañía no demandada.
En la conclusión el juez explica:
“A primary reason the Plaintiff did not join Omega in the action was in an attempt to avoid the arbitration clause which the Plaintiff successfully sought to have inserted in the written contract. If the Defendants succeed in their request for a stay, the dispute will be in the hands of the American Arbitration Association, and a sole arbitrator appointed pursuant to its rules.”
Y, entre otros, se cita la “Section 8 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act (ICAA)”:
“(1) If a party to an arbitration agreement commences legal proceedings in a court against another party to the agreement in respect of a matter agreed to be submitted to arbitration, a party to the legal proceedings may, before service of any pleadings or taking any other step in the proceedings, apply to that court to stay the proceedings.
(2) In an application under subsection (1), the court must make an order staying the legal proceedings unless it determines that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.”
Consultar: Northwestpharmacy.com Inc. v. Yates, 2017 BCSC 1572 – 2017/09/07
Supreme Court.
