BC Court of Appeal clarifies time limit for cross-appeal of arbitral awards

The Court of Appeal for British Columbia recently clarified the deadline to file cross-appeals from arbitral awards.

In Sinclair v. TDMC Holdings Ltd., 2025 BCCA 402, a Division of the Court overruled the Court of Appeal chambers judge, confirming that the 15-day filing timeline for cross-appeals under the Court of Appeal Rules, BC Reg 120/2022 does not apply to challenges to arbitral awards. Applications for leave to appeal or cross-appeal of arbitral awards must be filed within 30 days after receiving the arbitral award pursuant to the Arbitration Act, SBC 2020, c 2.

Background

In Sinclair, both parties sought to appeal an arbitral award. Sinclair filed a notice of appeal and an application for leave to appeal exactly 30 days after receiving the arbitral award. TDMC filed a notice of cross-appeal outside of the 30-day statutory limit under the Arbitration Act but within the 15-day period for cross-appeals under the Court of Appeal Rules.

Sinclair applied to quash TDMC’s application, asserting that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear a cross-appeal brought outside the 30-day limit in the Arbitration Act. In response, TDMC argued that because the Arbitration Act is silent on cross-appeals, once an appeal is commenced the Court of Appeal Act, SBC 2021, c 6 applies, including the 15-day timeline for cross-appeals provided in the Court of Appeal Rules.

Court of Appeal – Chambers judge decision (Sinclair v. TDMC Holdings Ltd., 2025 BCCA 322)

The Court of Appeal chambers judge found in favour of TDMC and dismissed Sinclair’s application to quash. The chambers judge held that while the Arbitration Act confers jurisdiction and imposes time limits on initiating appeals, it does not govern procedures once jurisdiction is engaged. The chambers judge concluded that cross-appeals are procedural steps governed by the Court of Appeal Act, and as such the 15-day time limit in the Court of Appeal Rules applied to TDMC’s cross-appeal.

Court of Appeal – Division of the Court decision (Sinclair v. TDMC Holdings Ltd., 2025 BCCA 402)

The Division of the Court overturned the decision of the chambers judge and quashed the application for leave to cross-appeal. The Court rejected the chambers judge’s approach of separating jurisdiction from procedure, finding that the approach would lead to an untenable result. The Court confirmed that the sole source of its jurisdiction to hear an application for leave to appeal an arbitral award is section 59 of the Arbitration Act.

The Court held that the Arbitration Act is not silent on cross-appeals, as the only tenable interpretation of the word “appeal” in the Arbitration Act would not distinguish between appeals and cross-appeals. The Court also noted that because a cross-appeal must be treated as an appeal under section 14(2) of the Court of Appeal Act, it should be treated as an appeal for Arbitration Act purposes as well.

In making its decision, the Court acknowledged that the strict 30-day statutory limit for filing a cross-appeal could create an incentive for parties to appeal to preserve their rights, even where they would otherwise not do so. While the Court ultimately concluded that it cannot override the language of the Arbitration Act, the Court urged the Legislature to address these practical issues through legislative amendment.

Key takeaways

This decision confirms that all appeals from arbitral awards are subject to the 30-day timeline in the Arbitration Act, regardless of the Court of Appeal Rules. This timeline cannot be extended by the Court, even in the case of cross-appeals. Parties should note the strict 30-day time limit to file a cross-appeal, as parties issued an arbitral award may wish to preserve their rights in the event the other side appeals.

The MLT Aikins litigation group has strong and deep credentials in all types of litigation. Our lawyers have been involved in a large number of significant cases involving products liability and other mass tort actions, securities and other investors’ claims, pensions and commercial claims, and they regularly participate in multi-jurisdictional class proceedings.

Share