Law360 Canada ( September 30, 2025, 10:01 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the appellants from chambers judge’s order. The respondent commenced an action against his employer, the appellants, which sought to recover unpaid bonuses and commissions he claimed were owed to him according to two annual incentive plans offered to him. The appellants applied to have stayed the action pursuant to an arbitration clause found in both plans that required Wiederhold to have brought any claims relating to the plan before an arbitration panel. The chambers judge dismissed the application, having found that the arbitration clause was void and inoperative. The appellants challenged the dismissal of their application on several grounds. They argued that the judge erred in law and made palpable and overriding errors of fact in determining that the arbitration clause was void and inoperative and in denying the application for a stay. Wiederhold submitted that the judge made no such errors. The issues on appeal were whether the chambers judge erred in concluding that the arbitration clause was unenforceable for want of fresh consideration, that the arbitration clause was unenforceable as being contrary to public policy, and that the application should have been dismissed under the “brick wall” framework....