According to the post on Blake, Cassels & Graydon's blog, a customer was seeking a court order declaring contracts with Just Energy void.
Just Energy sought arbitration of the dispute, citing a clause in the contract which requires use of arbitration for a, "concern or dispute under this Agreement"
A decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that this arbitration clause cannot be used to compel the customer into arbitration for dispute concerning the validity of the contract itself.
"The court reasoned that the arbitration clause in the alleged 2010 agreement applied only to disputes 'under' the agreement (i.e. the discharge of rights and obligations under the agreement), and not to a challenge to the existence of the agreement itself. The court contrasted the arbitration clause at issue with clauses in other cases that used broader wording such as 'in connection with' or 'arising out of' or 'touching or concerning'"
The Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP blog does call the Ontario court's ruling "curious", citing other cases, but warns that, "Parties who wish to take advantage of the benefits of arbitration should incorporate clauses that clearly set out the types of disputes that are subject to arbitration and those that are not."