seal

Court Case Record HYD-MECH GROUP LIMITED vs. BURTON SAW & SUPPLY, INC. & another 2013-J-0235 UID(8219)


HYD-MECH GROUP LIMITED vs. BURTON SAW & SUPPLY, INC. & another Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2013-J-0235


 
Case Number2013-J-0235
Case TitleHYD-MECH GROUP LIMITED vs. BURTON SAW & SUPPLY, INC. & another
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyWorcester
CourtWorcester Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date06/14/2013
Close Date06/28/2013

Parties

CounselNameType
Alan M. Cohen, EsquireHyd-Mech Group LimitedPlaintiff/Respondent
Michael P. Angelini, EsquireBurton Saw & Supply, Inc.Defendant/Petitioner
Webster Five Cent Savings BankDefendant
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
06/14/2013 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Burton Saw & Supply, Inc. ^
06/24/2013 #2 Opposition to Petition with attachments, filed by Hyd-Mech Group Limited.^
06/28/2013 #3 ORDER: The scope of my review in this matter is limited, and I make no final determinations on the legal questions presented, which will have to be decided by a full panel of this court should the petitioner appeal after final judgment. As to the Ontario court's exercise of personal jurisdiction, I do not see "clear error." Cf. Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 572. As to the judge's determination that under G.L. c. 235, § 23A, the proceedings in the Ontario court were not "contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be settled otherwise than by proceedings in that court," I also see no clear error. The question is one requiring construction of the agreement under Ontario law. There is at least a substantial argument that even though the contract contained an arbitration agreement, respondent was allowed, as a matter of Ontario law, to file suit, and the court was empowered issue a default judgment (such as the one at issue here) if appropriate. See Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, § 7(1)-(2). Because petitioner has not demonstrated clear error or an abuse of discretion, see Jet-Line Servs., Inc. v. Bd. of Selectmen of Stoughton, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 645, 646 (1988), the petition is denied. (Rubin, J.). Notice/attest/Frison, J.