It counterclaimed, then argued the panel had no power. The judge wasn't persuaded.
On October 8, 2026, Justice Cavanagh of Ontario's Superior Court refused to undo a $52.4-million arbitration award an insurer won against its own broker.
The ruling settled three related court applications. Justice Cavanagh turned away challenges from the brokerage's two companies and four other parties, and granted the insurer's request to enforce the awards. Costs remain open.
Commissions, a freeze and a $73.8-million claim
The brokerage promoted the insurer's policies. The two sides signed a managing general agreement on May 20, 2021, which sends disputes to arbitration, a private hearing instead of a court case. A second broker's agreement, effective on or about August 27, 2023, has no such clause.
In October 2023, the insurer won a Mareva injunction, a court order that freezes assets, against the brokerage and others in a separate lawsuit. On November 28, 2023, it launched arbitration, claiming damages for civil fraud and other causes of action. It sought $73,847,180.96, roughly what it said it had paid the brokerage in commissions and bonuses since 2021.
On August 5, 2025, a three-member panel found the brokerage liable and awarded the insurer $52.4 million in damages, plus $1,753,949.54 in costs. The panel also voided transfers of properties bought in four other parties' names with money the brokerage advanced from the insurer's funds. It ordered the brokerage to sell them and return the money, and placed them in trust for the brokerage. The brokerage's principal called the advances loans, but the panel found there were none.
Fighting the claim meant accepting the panel
The brokerage argued the panel had no say over money the insurer paid after August 27, 2023, because the newer agreement had no arbitration clause and replaced earlier deals on the same subject.
Justice Cavanagh noted the insurer's claim covered all commissions and bonuses since 2021 from day one. Its August 2024 defence and counterclaim, filed while it had lawyers, raised no objection. The panel had already ruled that the 2023 agreement did not replace the original, because the two dealt with different subject matter.
By defending the claim, counterclaiming and taking part, the judge found, the brokerage accepted the panel's authority and “waived its right to object to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.”
Flying solo did not undo the hearings
The brokerage also said it was treated unfairly. Its first law firm stepped away in November 2024 and its second in March 2025, leaving its principal to speak for it. It challenged a ruling that it had waived legal privilege, the handling of cross-examinations and a refused adjournment, and argued the panel appeared biased.
The court disagreed on every point. It found the brokerage chose not to ask for frozen funds to pay arbitration lawyers until its bid to halt the arbitration failed. A consent order on July 18, 2025 then let it use up to $300,000. On privilege, the panel relied on the brokerage's own arguments in that bid, not a single email, and the record did not back the bias claim.
The four parties holding the properties, three numbered companies and an individual, also came up short. The court found they had no standing to ask for the arbitration to be declared invalid and would have refused anyway, since the panel's orders targeted only the brokerage. The voided transfers count only against the brokerage, the judge said, and if those four ever face legal action, they “retain all defences available to them.”
