Source: http://globallegalinsight.com/practice-areas/international-arbitration/global-legal-insights-international-arbitration-2018-4th-ed/canada
Timestamp: 2018-11-17 00:10:59
Document Index: 602843713

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 19', 'art 5', 'Art. 17', 'Art. 17', 'Art. 17', 'Art. 17', 'Art. 17', 'Art. 17', 'Art. 17', 'Art. 17', 'Art. 29', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 31', 'art 6', 'Art. 31', 'art 6', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 31', 'art 6', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 30', 'art 6', 'Art. 30', 'Art. 30', 'art 6', 'Art. 30', 'art 6', 'Art. 32', 'art 6', 'Art. 32', 'Art. 32', 'art 6', 'Art. 32', 'Art. 6', 'art 7', 'Art. 34', 'Art. 34', 'art 7', 'Art. 34', 'Art. 34', 'art 7', 'Art. 34', 'Art. 33', 'art 6', 'Art. 33', 'Art. 33', 'art 6', 'Art. 33', 'Art. 33', 'art 6', 'Art. 33', 'Art. 35', 'art 8', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 35', 'art 8', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 36', 'art 8', 'Art. 36', 'Art. 36', 'art 8', 'Art. 36', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 2924']

International Arbitration 2018 | Canada | Laws and Regulations | GLI
Home Practice areas International Arbitration International Arbitration 2018 Canada
International Arbitration 2018 | Canada
With one exception, each province has enacted two arbitration statutes: one that governs international commercial arbitrations, and one that governs all other arbitrations.2 Thus, for example, the province of Ontario has enacted the Arbitration Act, 1991, which governs domestic arbitrations,3 and the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017 governing international commercial arbitrations.4
Virtually all of the provinces (except Quebec) have incorporated the UNCITRAL 1985 Model Law into their respective statutes. For example, in British Columbia, the International Commercial Arbitration Act5 largely replicates the provisions of the 1985 Model Law. And recently, Ontario became the first jurisdiction in Canada to amend its international commercial arbitration legislation to reflect the changes made to the Model Law in 2006. The International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017 provides that the Model Law “has force of law in Ontario”, albeit subject to certain exceptions and modifications as set out in the Act.6
Both the Ontario and the British Columbia statutes governing international arbitration expressly require arbitration agreements to be in writing, although the writing requirement can be established by an exchange of letters or emails.7 This is a departure from the statutes governing domestic arbitrations in most provinces, which do not require an arbitration agreement to be in writing.8 Because the domestic statutes generally apply to all arbitrations not governed by the international statutes,9 it may be possible to have an oral agreement to arbitrate an international dispute which would be governed by a domestic statute.
Following the requirements set out in the arbitration agreement for commencing the arbitration is particularly important in the context of contractual limitation periods (such as the 12-month period in the above-noted case), as well as statutory limitation periods. Canada generally has fairly short limitation periods for properly initiating claims as compared to other countries. (For example, the general limitation period in Ontario and BC is two years from discovery of the claim.)24
With certain minor exceptions,27 the choice of procedural rules is left up to the parties to decide. Thus, for example, an arbitration agreement can provide that the governing rules shall be those of a particular arbitration institution, for example, the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), ADR Institute of Canada, Canadian Commercial Arbitration Centre, British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre, or the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), among others. Instead of using the rules of an institution, an arbitration agreement can also set out its own ad hoc procedural rules, in as much or as little detail as the parties desire.
If, however, the arbitration agreement is silent on the question of procedure, then the various statutes generally defer the choice of procedure to the arbitral tribunal.28 This includes the power to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of any evidence.29 In that regard, arbitrators in Canada often refer to the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration when making decisions about the production and exchange of documents and the admissibility of evidence.
For those arbitrations that may involve the use of expert evidence, the typical practice in Canada is for the parties to exchange expert reports prior to the hearing. It should also be noted that the statutes governing international arbitrations provide that the arbitral tribunal may appoint its own expert to report to it on specific issues, unless otherwise agreed by the parties,30 although this is quite rare in Canada.
Both the Ontario and British Columbia statutes are silent on confidentiality, and the Canadian courts have not consistently determined whether an arbitration will be subject to an implied obligation of confidentiality absent an express confidentiality provision in the arbitration agreement. Therefore, if confidentiality is desired and if it is not addressed in the arbitration agreement, it is important that the parties enter into a confidentiality agreement or have the arbitral tribunal issue a confidentiality order.
Most of the institutional rules also include a provision exempting the institution and arbitrators from liability, absent wilful wrongful acts. In addition, many arbitrators require that parties sign an arbitration engagement agreement which contains various provisions, including immunity.
(b) the irreparable harm “substantially outweighs” the harm that is likely to be caused by the granting of the interim relief; and
(c) there is a “reasonable possibility” that the moving party will succeed on the merits of the claim.45
The party seeking interim relief shall be liable for any costs and/or damages caused thereby, if the arbitral tribunal later determines that the relief should not have been granted. Such costs or damages may be awarded at any point during the proceedings.46
An interim order (other than one granted ex parte, discussed below) can be enforced upon application to the Superior Court, unless the tribunal provides otherwise.47 Enforcement may only be refused in limited circumstances (e.g., incapacity of the responding party, lack of notice, contrary to public policy).48
The tribunal may grant interim relief without notice to the other party (unless otherwise agreed to by the parties), provided that the tribunal considers that notice would risk frustrating the purpose of the relief sought.49 A party seeking such an ex parte order must make full disclosure to the tribunal of “all circumstances that are likely to be relevant” to the request for relief, with that disclosure obligation continuing until the opposing party has had an opportunity to present its case.50 If relief is granted on an ex parte basis, notice shall be given immediately afterwards to the other party,51 and an opportunity shall be given “at the earliest practicable time” for that party to present its objection to the interim relief.52 It should be noted, however, that such an order, made without notice, is not enforceable by the court and does not constitute an award.53
If the parties have agreed to arbitrate their dispute through an arbitration institution, that institution’s procedures regarding interim relief will govern. The ICC International Court of Arbitration has special emergency procedures whereby the ICC can appoint an arbitrator on an urgent basis, where required.54 Similarly, Article 6 of the International Centre for Dispute Resolution’s International Dispute Resolution Procedures provides for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator to grant interim relief.55
However, parties may be better off seeking interim measures from the courts rather than arbitral tribunals because, unlike arbitrators, courts can make certain orders binding on third parties (e.g., Mareva injunctions). Moreover, seeking relief from the courts may be more practical if the matter is urgent and an ad hoc arbitral tribunal is still being established without the benefit of a set of rules from an arbitral institution that specifically provide for a process and timetable to seek and be awarded urgent interim relief.56
Both the Ontario and the British Columbia statutes require that the award be in writing and signed by the arbitrator(s).57 The award must state the date and place of the arbitration, and must set out the reasons for the decision (unless the parties have agreed that no reasons are to be given).58 The award, once signed by the tribunal, must be delivered to each party.59 No time limits are imposed for the delivery of the award.
If the matter settles prior to delivery of the arbitral award, the parties can ask the arbitral tribunal to prepare an award reflecting the settlement.60 Such an award is binding and is of the same force and effect as an award reflecting the arbitral tribunal’s decision on the merits.61
The Ontario statute is silent with respect to the arbitral tribunal’s ability to award costs and interest. As a result, the tribunal’s power to award costs and/or interest is determined by the arbitration agreement or by the procedural rules adopted for the arbitration, which may contain specific provisions as to costs.62 British Columbia’s legislation provides that, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, costs of the arbitration are at the discretion of the arbitral tribunal. It also provides that the costs of the arbitration may include fees and expenses of arbitrators and expert witnesses, legal fees, administration fees and any other expenses incurred in connection with the arbitral proceedings.63
The mandate of the arbitral tribunal, along with the arbitral proceedings themselves, are terminated by the tribunal’s final award.64 Alternatively, the arbitral tribunal may terminate the proceedings before giving a final award, if:
the arbitral tribunal determines that the continuation of the proceedings is either unnecessary or impossible.65
Neither the Ontario statute nor the British Columbia statute provide a right of appeal on the merits of an award.66 It is not clear whether such a right can be granted by agreement of the parties.67
However, a party may apply to the courts to set aside the award.68 Article 34(2) of the Model Law (adopted as part of the law of Ontario) provides the following grounds upon which an award may be set aside:
Applications to set aside an award must be made within three months of the receipt of the award to the courts of the province constituting the seat of the arbitration.69 The Court may, when asked to set aside an award, where appropriate and if requested by a party, suspend the proceedings to set aside the award for a period of time to allow the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings or take other actions, which, in the tribunal’s opinion, will eliminate the grounds to set aside the award.70
A party may seek to have the arbitral tribunal correct any clerical, typographic or computation errors in an award, or may request the arbitral tribunal to interpret a specific point in the award. Such a request must be made within 30 days of receiving the award.71 The arbitral tribunal may also correct any clerical, typographic or computation errors on its own initiative within 30 days of the date of the award.72 The formalities of the award, as set out above, apply equally to any corrections or interpretations made.73
All Canadian provinces and territories, with the exception of Quebec, have adopted and ratified the New York Convention allowing for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards from its signatory states. Among the adopting provinces, most have appended the New York Convention as schedules to their respective international commercial arbitration statutes, while the remainder have enacted legislation incorporating the New York Convention.74 In Quebec, the Civil Code of Procedure provides that foreign arbitral awards will be recognised and enforced, if the matter in dispute is one that may be settled by arbitration in Quebec and if the award is not contrary to public policy. It also provides that the New York Convention should be “taken into account” when determining the scope of a party’s right to have an award recognised and enforced.75
For those provinces that adopted or incorporated the New York Convention, it should be noted that in Canada, the Convention will apply only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as “commercial” under the laws of Canada,76 except in the case of the Province of Quebec where the law does not provide for such limitation.77
Common to all jurisdictions (other than Quebec) is the requirement that a party seeking to enforce an award must supply an authenticated original award (or a certified copy), and a copy of the arbitration agreement (or a certified copy).78 If the language of the award is not in English, the party seeking to enforce the award must supply a certified translation of the award.79
There are certain limited grounds upon which the court may refuse to enforce an arbitral award. These grounds, as set out in the Model Law,80 are the same as the grounds noted above for setting aside an award, with the addition that an award may not be enforced if the party against whom the award is invoked furnishes proof that “[T]he award has not yet become binding on the parties or has been set asideor suspended by a court of the country in which or under the law of which the award was made.”81
The most commonly cited basis for a refusal to enforce a foreign arbitral award is a failure by the arbitral tribunal to adhere to the norms of procedural fairness. Although the courts also have the power to refuse enforcement on the ground of public policy, they have been much more reluctant to invoke that ground for refusing to enforce an award.82 Thus, for example, in Corporacion Transnacional de Inversiones S.A. de C.V. v. Stet International S.p.A, it was held that the court will only refuse to enforce an award in circumstances where the award offends the most basic and explicit principles of justice and fairness, or if it “evidences intolerable ignorance or corruption on the part of the arbitral tribunal”.83 Among the (admittedly rare) situations where the court will refuse enforcement based on public policy are situations where enforcement of the award would result in the plaintiff enjoying double recovery.84
The Ontario Court of Appeal in Popack v. Lipszyc recently held that reviewing courts have a residual discretion to refuse to set aside an award, or enforce an award, even if the court finds that one of the enumerated grounds in Articles 34 or 36 has been breached. The Court found that this residual discretion is “significantly affected” by the enumerated ground which has been breached.85 Courts in other Canadian jurisdictions have similarly held that the courts retain a residual discretion to enforce or refuse to set aside an award depending on the effect of the breach.86
It should be noted that for most provinces, when a party seeks to enforce a foreign arbitral award, provincial limitation periods apply. For those provinces that have adopted the New York Convention, the provincial limitation periods are applicable by virtue of Article III of the Convention, which provides that each contracting state must recognise arbitral awards in accordance with the rules of procedure of that territory. The Supreme Court of Canada recently held that “rules of procedure” was broad enough to encompass provincial limitation periods.87 Accordingly, in most jurisdictions an arbitral award should be subject to the general limitation period applicable to most causes of action, which in most provinces is two years.
In Ontario and Quebec, however, the situation is slightly different. Ontario’s legislation incorporates a 10-year limitation period to commence an application to recognise or enforce an arbitral award. This limitation period commences from the date the award was made, or, if proceedings at the place of the arbitration were commenced, the date on which those proceedings concluded.88 Quebec’s statutory provision states that an arbitral award (once recognised by the court) is enforceable in the same manner as a judgment or order of the court.89 In such circumstances, at least one author has suggested that an argument could be made that the enforcement of arbitral awards should be treated, for limitations purposes, the same as court orders. The limitation period in this respect is 10 years.90
In recent years, Canada has emerged as a leading state in international investment arbitration. As of February 28, 2018,Canada has ratified 37 bilateral investment treaties, which are known in Canada as Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (“FIPAs”). Notably, Canada has ratified FIPAs with 37 trading partners, including China and Russia.91 In addition, Canada has concluded negotiations on (but has not ratified) a further six FIPAs92 and is in the process of negotiating nine more.93
Canada has also ratified 13 free trade agreements (“FTAs”).94 Historically, the most prominent among those was the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”), between Canada, the United States and Mexico. However, the future of that Agreement is unclear, in light of the ongoing negotiations to “modernize” NAFTA.95 As a result, other free trade agreements are coming to the fore. Most prominent among them is the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union that came into force late in 2017.96 In addition, in light of the announcement by the United States that it would not be ratifying the previously-signed Trans-Pacific Partnership, Canada and the remaining signatories have recently concluded negotiations in respect of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. That Agreement is expected to be signed in the spring of 2018.97
another body of rules approved by the parties to the agreement (e.g., the London Court of International Arbitration Rules).98
In addition, Canada has ratified the ICSID Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States. Pursuant to the ICSID Convention, Canadians who invest in other ICSID member states99and who find themselves in a dispute relating to that investmentmay rely upon an arbitration under the ICSID Convention to resolve their disputes.100 However, unless the investor has the consent of the other parties to the dispute, it is open to a contracting state to ask the investor first to exhaust local administrative or judicial remedies before having recourse to the ICSID process.101 Foreign investors who are nationals of ICSID contracting states also have reciprocal rights under the ICSID Convention in Canada.102
According to the information made public by the Canadian Government, as at February 28, 2018, Canada is a party to seven active investment arbitration disputes. Six of those disputes were brought under Chapter 11 of NAFTA.103 The remaining dispute, which was commenced in 2016, was brought by Global Telecom Holding S.A.E., an Egyptian-based telecommunications services company, under the Canada-Egypt FIPA and claims damages of “at least $1.32 billion CAD”.104
The Canadian government introduced its “Model FIPA” in 2004.105 Although the FIPAs that Canada has entered into with major trading partners, such as China and Russia, typically provide for their own customised procedures for arbitration claims, the FIPAs that Canada has entered into with many smaller countries adopt the procedures set out in the Model FIPA. Such agreements provide for, among other things, fair and equitable treatment in accordance with international law, public access to hearings and a procedure to be followed in accordance with the ICSID Rules, the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules or another body of rules approved by the parties to the agreement (e.g., the London Court of International Arbitration Rules).
Canada is generally an enforcement-friendly jurisdiction. For example, in United Mexican States v. Cargill Inc.,106 Mexico sought to set aside part of a US$77m arbitral award for losses that Cargill and its Mexican subsidiary sustained when Mexico imposed additional duties and permit requirements on the importation of high fructose corn syrup into Mexico. The arbitral tribunal, which was seated in Toronto, determined that Mexico had breached Chapter 11 of NAFTA when it imposed restrictions on the importation of the corn syrup. The tribunal awarded damages for “downstream losses” that Cargill’s Mexican subsidiary suffered, as well as for “upstream losses” that the U.S. parent company suffered when it could no longer sell the corn syrup to its Mexican subsidiary.
Mexico applied to the Ontario Superior Court to set aside the US$41m portion of the arbitral award that related to upstream losses, on the basis that these damages were sustained by a U.S. producer and were therefore unrelated to an “investment” in Mexico as defined in Article 1139 of NAFTA. The application judge dismissed Mexico’s application on the basis that Mexico’s objection went to the merits of the decision, which was beyond the scope of review for the court.107
Mexico’s subsequent appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal determined that the proper standard of review was “correctness”, but held that the arbitral tribunal was correct in holding that it had jurisdiction to decide the scope of damages suffered by Cargill and that NAFTA imposes no territorial limit on those damages.108 The Supreme Court of Canada subsequently rejected Mexico’s application for leave to appeal.109 The decision in Cargill is consistent with the long-standing approach of Canadian courts, which is to proceed on the basis “that an expert international arbitral tribunal acted within its authority”, and that judicial interference should be limited to extraordinary cases.110 As is the case with international arbitration awards generally, the Canadian courts are loathe to interfere with investment treaty arbitration awards, and deference is afforded to the arbitral decision provided that the arbitration has followed the correct procedures and conducted a fair hearing.111
13. See, for example, the Supreme Court of Canada decision of Dell Computer Corp v. Union des Consommateurs, [2007] 2 SCR 801 and the Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Dancap Productions Inc. v. Key Brand Entertainment Inc., 2009 ONCA 135.
23. Bell Canada v. The Plan Group, 2009 ONCA 548.
26. See, e.g., United Mexican States v. Karpa (2005), 136 A.C.W.S. (3d) 200 (ONCA), para 1.
29. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter V, Art. 19(2), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 5, s. 19(3).
36. Jacob Securities Inc. v Typhoon Capital BV, 2016, ONSC 604, para 41.
46. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV A, Art. 17 G.
47. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV A, Art. 17 H(1).
48. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV A, Art. 17 I.
49. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV A, Art. 17 B.
50. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV A, Art. 17 F(2).
51. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV A, Art. 17 C(1).
52. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV A, Art. 17 C(2).
53. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV A, Art. 17 C(5).
54. ICC Rules, Art. 29.
55. ICDR Rules, Art. 6.
56. Kenneth J. McEwan, Commercial Arbitration in Canada: A Guide to Domestic and International Arbitrations (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2004+) at 6-31.
57. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter VI A, Art. 31(1). see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 6, Article 31(1). In Ontario, in proceedings with more than one arbitrator, the signatures of the majority of the tribunal is sufficient, so long as the reason for any omitted signature is stated.
58. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter VI A, Art. Art. 31(2) and (3), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 6, Art. 31(3) and (4).
59. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter VI A, Art. 31(4), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 6, Art. 31(5).
60. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter VI A, Art. 30(1), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 6, Art. 30(2).
61. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter VI A, Art. 30(2), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 6, Art. 30(4).
62. J. Brian Casey, Arbitration Law of Canada: Practice and Procedure, 2nd Ed., (New York: JurisNet, LLC, 2011), s.8.6.2, pgs. 362-363; McEwan and Herbst, Commercial Arbitration in Canada, A Guide to Domestic and International Arbitrations, (Toronto: Canada Law Book 2014) at 11:20.10.
63. International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 6, s. 31(7) – (8).
64. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter VI A, Art. 32(1), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 233, part 6, Art. 32(1).
65. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter VI A, Art. 32(2), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 233, part 6, Art. 32(2).
66. Casey, Arbitration Law of Canada: Practice and Procedure, 2nd Ed., (New York: JurisNet, LLC, 2011), s. 8.10, p. 372, s. 9.2.2 p. 392.
67. Casey, Arbitration Law of Canada: Practice and Procedure, 2nd Ed., (New York: JurisNet, LLC, 2011), s. 8.10, p. 372, s. 9.2.2 p. 393. In Hall Street Associates L.L.C. v. Mattel Inc. 128 S. Ct. 1396, the United States Supreme Court concluded that it was not open to the parties to expand the powers of review granted by statute. See also McEwan and Herbst, Commercial Arbitration in Canada, A Guide to Domestic and International Arbitrations (Toronto: Canada Law Book 2014) at 10:50.20.
68. International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. I.9, Model Law, Chapter 2, Art. 6, wherein the Court is defined as the Superior Court of Justice; see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 233, part 7, Art. 34(2) wherein the Court is defined as the Supreme Court.
69. Casey, Arbitration Law of Canada: Practice and Procedure, 2nd Ed., (New York: JurisNet, LLC, 2011), s. 10.3.2, p. 439-440; International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter VII A, Art. 34(3), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 7, Art. 34(3).
70. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter VII A, Art. 34(4), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 7, Art. 34(4).
71. International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. I.9, Model Law, Chapter VI-A, Art. 33(1), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 6, Art. 33(1) and (2).
72. International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. I.9, Model Law, Chapter VI-A, Art. 33(2), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 6, Art. 33(3).
73. International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. I.9, Model Law, Chapter VI-A, Art. 33(5), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 6, Art. 33(7).
74. Casey, Arbitration Law of Canada: Practice and Procedure, 2nd Ed., (New York: JurisNet, LLC, 2011), s.10.3.1, p. 437. Ontario’s International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, most recently incorporated the New York Convention as Schedule 1.
75. Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q. c. C-25.01, s. 948-949.
76. McEwan and Herbst, Commercial Arbitration in Canada, A Guide to Domestic and International Arbitrations (Toronto: Canada Law Book 2014) at 1:40.
77. The term commercial applies broadly to contractual and non-contractual commercial relationships such as leasing, construction, investment, financing, etc., but does not include labour and employment disputes or consumer claims. McEwan and Herbst, Commercial Arbitration in Canada, A Guide to Domestic and International Arbitrations (Toronto: Canada Law Book 2014) at 1:80; Boroski v. Heinrich Fiedler Perforiertechnik GmbH (1995), 29 C.P.C. (3d) 264 (Alta. Q.B.), see also Patel v. Kanbay International Inc. (2008), 93 O.R. (3d) 88 at paras. 12-13 (C.A.).
78. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter VIII A, Art. Art. 35(2), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 8, Art. 35(2).
79. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter VIII A, Art. 35(2), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 8, Art. 35(3).
80. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter VIII A, Art. 36(1), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 8, Art. 36(1).
81. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter VIII A, Art. 36(1)(a)(v), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 8, Art. 36(1)(a)(vi).
82. See, for example, Schreter v. Gasmac Inc., [1992] O.J. No 257 at paras. 47-52 (Gen. Div.), see also Beals v. Saldhana [2001] O.J. No. 2586 at paras. 34-35, 84-86 (C.A.).
83. Corporacion Transnacional de Inversiones S.A. de C.V. v. Stet International S.p.A [1999] O.J. No. 3573 at para. 30 (S.C.J.) and see Quintette Coal Limited v. Nippon Steel Corp. et al., [1990] B.C.J. No. 2241 at paras. 27 and 32 (C.A.).
84. Subway Franchise Systems of Canada Ltd. v. Laich, 2011 SKQB 249 at para. 40; and see Lambert Re:, [2002] O.J. No. 3163 (C.A.), affirming Lambert Re:, [2001] O.J. No. 2776 at para. 76 (S.C.J.).
85. Popack v. Lipsyzc, 2016 ONCA 135, affirming Popack v. Lipsyzc, 2015 ONSC 3460 at para. 28-29.
86. The United Mexican States v. Metalclad Corporation, 2001 BCSC 664 at para. 127-129; Rheaume v. Société d’investissements l’Excellence Inc., 2010 QCCA 2269 at para. 61.
87. Yugraneft Corp. v. Rexx Management Corp. 2010 SCC 19 at paras. 14-23, see also Casey, Arbitration Law of Canada: Practice and Procedure, 2nd Ed., Jurisnet, 2011, at s. 10.4.2, p. 454-455.
88. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, part III, Art. 10.
89. Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q. c. C-25.01, s. 951.2.
90. Casey, Arbitration Law of Canada: Practice and Procedure, 2nd Ed., (New York: JurisNet, LLC, 2011), at s. 10.4.2, p. 455. Given that the Quebec statutory provision appears to presume that the foreign arbitral award has already been recognised by the local courts, it is not clear whether one would succeed in an argument that there is no limitation period for an application to recognise a foreign arbitral award (as opposed to an application to enforce an award that has already been recognised). See also, Civil Code of Quebec, CQLR c. C-1991, Art. 2924.
91. Canada also has FIPAs in force with the following countries: Argentina; Armenia; Barbados; Benin; Cameroon; Costa Rica; Côte d’Ivoire; Croatia; Czech Republic; Ecuador; Egypt; Hong Kong; Hungary; Jordan; Kuwait; Latvia; Lebanon; Mali, Panama; Peru; Philippines; Poland; Romania; Senegal; Serbia; Slovak Republic; Tanzania; Thailand; Trinidad and Tobago; Ukraine; Uruguay; and Venezuela. See: Global Affairs Canada, “Trade and Investment Agreements”, (6 March 2017) online: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/fipa-apie/index.aspx?lang=eng.
92. Canada has signed (but has not yet ratified) FIPAs with Burkina Faso, Guinea, Mongolia and Nigeria. Canada has concluded FIPA negotiations (but has not yet signed FIPAs) with Albania, Bahrain, Madagascar, Moldova and Zambia. See: Global Affairs Canada, “Trade and Investment Agreements”, (6 March 2017) online: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/fipa-apie/index.aspx?lang=eng.
93. Canada is in the process of negotiating FIPAs with Ghana, India, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Macedonia, Pakistan, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates. See: Global Affairs Canada, “Trade and Investment Agreements”, (6 March 2017) online: https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/index.aspx?lang=eng.
94. Canada also has FTAs with the following countries and organisations: Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; European Free Trade Association (consisting of Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein); Honduras; Israel; Jordan; Korea; Panama; and Peru. See: Global Affairs Canada, “Trade and Investment Agreements”, (6 March 2017) online: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/fta-ale.aspx?lang=eng.
95. Global Affairs Canada, “Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)”, (6 March 2017) online: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/chronology-chronologie.aspx?lang=eng.
96. See: Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, News, “Next steps for the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement”, 30 October 2016, online: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/10/30/next-steps-canada-eu-comprehensive-economic-and-trade-agreement.
97. See: Global Affairs Canada, “Trade and Investment Agreements”, (6 March 2017) online: https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/index.aspx?lang=eng.
98. See, for example, Government of Canada, “Agreement between Canada and [State] for the Promotion and Protection of Investments”, (2004), online: http://www.italaw.com/documents/Canadian2004-FIPA-model-en.pdf [Model FIPA] at pages 26-27; see also: Global Affairs Canada, “Agreement Between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan for the Promotion and Protection of Investments”, (signed 30 November 2014) online: http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=105176&lang=eng at Article 27; see also Global Affairs Canada, “Agreement Between Canada and the Republic of Peru for the Promotion and Protection of Investments”, (signed 14 November 2006) online: http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=105078&lang=eng at Article 27.
99. There are currently 161 ICSID member states. A full list can be found at: International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, “Database of ICSID Member States”, online: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/about/Database-of-Member-States.aspx.
100. Article 25 of the ICSID Convention.
101. Article 26 of the ICSID Convention.
102. Article 25 of the ICSID Convention.
103. Global Affairs Canada, “Cases Filed Against the Government of Canada”, (1 January 2005) online: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/gov.aspx?lang=eng.
104. Global Affairs Canada, “Trade Topics: Dispute Settlement: Global Telecom Holdings S.A.E. v. Government of Canada”, (28 June 2016) online: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/gth_sae.aspx?lang=eng.
105. Government of Canada, “Agreement between Canada and [State] for the Promotion and Protection of Investments”, (2004), online: http://www.italaw.com/documents/Canadian2004-FIPA-model-en.pdf [Model FIPA] at pages 26-27.
106. United Mexican States v. Cargill Inc., 2011 ONCA 622, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 528.
107. United Mexican States v. Cargill Inc., 2010 ONSC 4656.
108. United Mexican States v. Cargill Inc., 2011 ONCA 622 at para. 74.
109. United Mexican States v. Cargill Inc., [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 528.
110. United Mexican States v. Cargill Inc., 2011 ONCA 622 at para. 33; see also Consolidated Contractors Group S.A.L. (Offshore) v. Ambatovy Minerals S.A., 2016 ONSC 7171 at para. 34; and see Canada (Attorney General) v. Mobil Investments Canada Inc., 2016 ONSC 790 at para. 34.
111. Alan Redfern and Martin Hunter, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration 3rd ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell 1999) at p. 433.
Order Chapter as PDF Order the Canada chapter of International Arbitration 2018 in PDF format or read free online FREE ONLINE In stock