Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Costs addressed after the court set aside an arbitral award and related costs award for procedural unfairness under s. 46 of the Arbitration Act.

• Full success on the application created a prima facie entitlement to partial indemnity costs against Dr. Frank Fowlie.

• Respondent’s active opposition and support for the arbitrator’s mid-hearing shift to a written process weighed in favour of awarding costs.

• Serious stakes (potential career-ending suspensions) and a dense seven-volume record supported the reasonableness of the quantum.

• Alleged applicant misconduct did not cause the arbitrator’s unfair procedural rulings; other solutions were available.

• No basis to shift any portion of costs to Wrestling Canada Lutte, which did not oppose the relief.

Facts and procedural history leading to the costs award
The applicants—David Spinney, Ahmed Shamiya, and Mara Shiavulli—were successful in an application under section 46 of Ontario’s Arbitration Act, 1991, setting aside an arbitral award dated November 22, 2024, and a related costs award dated December 16, 2024, from proceedings under the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada. The court’s earlier reasons are referenced at 2025 ONSC 2632. The application addressed sanctions that included lengthy suspensions for two applicants, which the court recognized as potentially career-ending in the amateur wrestling context.

The parties’ positions
The applicants sought $49,636.38 in partial indemnity costs (inclusive of HST and disbursements) from Dr. Frank Fowlie, emphasizing his support for the arbitrator’s unilateral change from an oral to a written procedure and his vigorous opposition to their court application. They did not seek costs against Wrestling Canada Lutte (WCL), which did not oppose the relief. Dr. Fowlie argued each party should bear its own costs because he was not responsible for the arbitrator’s conduct, or alternatively that any costs should be reduced due to alleged applicant misconduct during the arbitration. He also argued that if costs were awarded, some portion should be borne or indemnified by WCL.

Court’s analysis on costs
The court held that the applicants were entirely successful and therefore prima facie entitled to partial indemnity costs against Dr. Fowlie. It accepted that Dr. Fowlie’s active support for the arbitrator’s mid-hearing procedural change and his vigorous opposition to the application weighed in favour of awarding costs. As to quantum, the court found the amount fair and reasonable given the career-impacting stakes, the 2.5-day hearing, the seven-volume record exceeding 2,600 pages, and reasonable counsel rates and docketing practices. The court acknowledged scheduling and communication issues during the arbitration, including periods of self-representation by one or more applicants, but concluded the arbitrator’s steps created unfair and unequal treatment; the applicants’ conduct did not cause the impugned rulings, and other solutions were available had counsel’s submissions or reconsideration been allowed.

Attempt to shift costs to WCL
The court rejected any cost-sharing with WCL. It noted WCL had been designated a respondent by the SDRCC rather than by choice, took no active role in the arbitration, and its limited court step (seeking to strike certain paragraphs) was advanced on consent, including by Dr. Fowlie; accordingly there was no basis to award costs against WCL.

Outcome
The court awarded the applicants their costs of $49,636.38 on a partial indemnity basis, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by Dr. Frank Fowlie alone. The decision (costs) was released by Hackland J. on August 5, 2025, on written submissions.