Source: https://www.globallegalinsights.com/practice-areas/international-arbitration-/global-legal-insights---international-arbitration-3rd-ed./canada
Timestamp: 2018-02-22 09:06:47
Document Index: 365402286

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 7', 'art 2', 'Art. 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'Art. 16', 'art 4', 'Art. 16', 'art 4', 'Art. 16', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'Art. 21', 'art 5', 'Art. 3', 'art 1', 'Art. 18', 'art 5', 'Art. 19', 'art 5', 'Art. 19', 'art 5', 'Art. 26', 'art 5', 'Art. 10', 'art 3', 'Art. 11', 'art 3', 'Art. 12', 'art 3', 'Art. 13', 'art 3', 'Art. 13', 'art 3', 'Art. 14', 'art 3', 'Art. 14', 'art 3', 'Art. 17', 'Art. 17', 'Art. 17', '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 8', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 36', 'art 8', 'Art. 36', 'Art. 36', 'art 8', 'Art. 36', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 2924']

International Arbitration 2017 | Canada | Laws and Regulations | GLI
Home Practice areas International Arbitration International Arbitration 2017 Canada
Canada is a federal state, made up of 10 provinces and three territories. Under the Canadian Constitution, the administration of justice falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Accordingly, each province has enacted its own legislation governing arbitrations. In addition, the federal government has enacted legislation which governs arbitrations involving a department of the federal government, a Crown corporation, or raising issues of maritime or admiralty law.1
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
For ease of reference, this chapter will focus on the law governing international arbitrations in Ontario and British Columbia. To the extent that arbitration is being considered in other provinces or under the federal statute, the relevant legislation should be consulted.
There are a number of local arbitration bodies, including ADR Chambers International (in Ontario), the ADR Institute of Canada (in Ontario), the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre and the Canadian Commercial Arbitration Centre (in Quebec). Each of these institutions has its own set of procedural rules.
And, if parties so desire, they can also avail themselves of the services of international arbitral institutions, such as the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce or the London Court of International Arbitration, for international arbitrations conducted in Canada.
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, 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.
The arbitration agreement may be entered into either before or after the dispute arises. Most commonly, the arbitration agreement is set out in the commercial document which establishes the relationship between the parties (for example, purchase and sale agreement, joint venture agreement, licence agreement, etc.).
The international arbitration statutes apply only to “commercial” arbitrations.10 Within the scope of “commercial” activity, the arbitration agreement can be as narrow or broad as the parties wish. The broadest arbitration agreement can provide that all disputes between the parties be resolved by arbitration. More commonly, however, disputes arising out of, or in connection with, the particular agreement in which the arbitration agreement is contained are submitted to arbitration. Alternatively, parties can agree to arbitrate only very specific disputes – for example, purchase price adjustment disputes arising out of a purchase and sale agreement.
The availability of arbitration may be limited by legislation. For example, certain provincial consumer protection statutes have been held to oust the jurisdiction of an arbitrator, at least in connection with that aspect of the parties’ dispute that is addressed by the statute.11
Both the British Columbia statute and the Ontario statute provide that the arbitral tribunal is competent to determine its own jurisdiction, including determinations as to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement.12 That principle has been consistently enforced by Canadian courts.13 A decision by the arbitral tribunal as to its jurisdiction may be appealed to the court within 30 days.14 At first instance, a court must limit itself to a prima facie analysis of the application of the arbitration clause, and must defer all other jurisdictional issues to the arbitration tribunal.15
The statutes also provide that an arbitration clause that forms part of a larger contract shall be treated as independent and separable.16 Again, the Canadian courts have interpreted and applied those statutory provisions in a consistent and predictable manner.17
The Model Law does not provide for consolidation of arbitration proceedings. However, both the Ontario and the British Columbia statutes provide that the court may order consolidation of proceedings, if all parties consent.18 (Such a consolidation order can be made upon application of all parties.) These provisions are useful in circumstances where the parties have agreed in the arbitration agreement (or subsequently) to consolidation, but cannot agree on the process to be followed, as it provides a mechanism for the court to grant directions. The statutes also provide that parties can agree to consolidate arbitration proceedings without a court order.19
Neither an arbitral tribunal nor a court can compel a third party who is not subject to the arbitration agreement to join in the arbitral proceedings. A court also cannot consolidate or join arbitral proceedings unless all parties consent or unless provided for in the arbitration agreement.20 For this reason, parties are well-advised to ensure that the arbitration agreement requires all subcontracts or related agreements to contain a consolidated arbitration clause.
Both the British Columbia and Ontario statutes provide that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, arbitral proceedings are deemed to commence on the date on which a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent.21
The statutes do not impose any particular requirements with respect to the form of the request or with respect to the manner of delivery, beyond stating that the request can be delivered personally or to the respondent’s place of business, habitual residence or mailing address.22
However, if the arbitration agreement provides that the initiating request for arbitration is to take a particular form or is to be delivered in a particular manner, or that certain procedural steps must be completed to commence the arbitration, then those requirements must be satisfied. Thus, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that an arbitration had not been commenced within the required 12-month period specified in the contract because the notice of arbitration, despite having been served on the other party, had not been filed with the relevant institution as required by the arbitration agreement.23
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)
The seat or place of the arbitrationwill determine the procedural law (lex arbitri) governing the arbitration (which may be different from the substantive law governing the dispute).25
Ordinarily, the hearing will be held in the seat of the arbitration, although the parties can agree otherwise. For example, if an arbitration agreement provides for the arbitration to take place in Toronto, Ontario, the parties could agree for the hearings to be held in Vancouver, British Columbia and be deemed to be taking place in Toronto. In such circumstances, the Ontario statute would still govern the procedure of the arbitration and, if the parties were in need of court assistance (for example, in appointing an arbitrator), they would have to apply to the Ontario courts.26
Procedural rules and evidence
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.
If, however, the arbitration agreement is silent on the question, then the various statutes generally defer the choice of procedures 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
It is recommended that parties address confidentiality obligations expressly in the arbitration agreement (including any applicable exceptions, for example, public company disclosure obligations). Alternatively, the parties can incorporate the rules of an institution that satisfactorily address confidentiality obligations.
Both the Ontario and British Columbia statutes are silent on confidentiality, and the Canadian courts have not 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.
The arbitration agreement can specify the number of arbitrators and the method of appointment or can refer to the rules of an institution which will determine the number of arbitrators. Where the arbitration agreement is silent, the Ontario and British Columbia statutes both provide that the arbitral tribunal shall be composed of three arbitrators (this is contrasted with their respective domestic acts which default to a single arbitrator), with one arbitrator being appointed by each of the parties and the third being appointed by agreement of the two appointees.31 Where there is a failure to comply with the appointment procedure (either the one agreed to by the parties or the one imposed by statute, as applicable), a party may apply to the court for assistance in appointing the tribunal.32
Under both the Ontario and the British Columbia statutes, an arbitrator may be challenged only if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his or her impartiality or independence, or if he or she does not possess qualifications agreed to by the parties.33 Any challenge to an arbitrator must be advanced within 15 days of the party becoming aware of the issue,34 and shall be made initially to the arbitral tribunal (or in accordance with the procedure agreed upon by the parties) and, if not successful, to the court.35
In determining whether there are justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence, Canadian courts have recently begun referring to the 2014 IBA Guidelines for Conflict of Interest as an authoritative source.36 The Guidelines are, to a large degree, consistent with the already-developed jurisprudence.
Both the Ontario and the British Columbia statutes provide that an arbitrator’s mandate terminates if he or she becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his functions or for other reasons fails to act without undue delay, and he or she withdraws from office or the parties agree on the termination.37 If a dispute remains concerning the arbitrator continuing to act (for example, if only one party alleges that the arbitrator has become unable to act or has unduly delayed), a party may ask the court to decide on the termination of the mandate.38
Arbitrators who are acting in a “judicial or quasi-judicial capacity” are generally immune from civil liability in Canada absent fraud or bad faith.39 The requirement for acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity means that an arbitrator who is performing a valuation function may not enjoy the benefits of immunity.40 The factors that must be present for immunity are:
the arbitrator must be fulfilling his or her function as an independent party, in compliance with the mandatory provisions of the applicable legislation.41
Depending on the terms of the arbitration agreement and the applicable procedural rules, parties to an international arbitration may have access to a broad range of interim relief in Canada. That interim relief may be sought either from the arbitral tribunal or from the courts.42
In British Columbia, section 17 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act provides that an arbitral tribunal may order interim relief, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.43
In Ontario, the powers to award interim relief have been expanded by the coming into force of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017. The jurisdiction to award interim relief is granted by Article 17 of the Model Law, which permits an arbitral tribunal, at the request of a party, and absent an agreement to the contrary, to “grant interim measures” in order to:
(d) preserve evidence that may be relevant and material to the resolution of the dispute.44
Such interim relief may be granted only if the moving party proves that:
(a) irreparable harm is likely to result without the interim relief;
(b) the irreparable harm “substantially outweighs” the harm that is likely to be caused by the granting of the interim relief;
(c) there is a “reasonable possibility” that the moving party will succeed on the merits for the claim;45 and
(d) the harm is not adequately reparable and order the detention, preservation or inspection of property and/or documents related to the arbitration or maintain or restore the status quo pending a determination of a dispute.46
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.47
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.48 Enforcement may only be refused in limited circumstances (e.g., incapacity of the responding party, lack of notice, contrary to public policy).49
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.50 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.51 If relief is granted on an ex parte basis, notice shall be given immediately afterwards to the other party,52 and an opportunity shall be given “at the earliest practicable time” for that party to present its objection to the interim relief.53 It should be noted, however, that such an order, made without notice, is not enforceable by the court and does not constitute an award.54
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.55 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.56
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.57
Both the Ontario and the British Columbia statutes require that the award be in writing and signed by the arbitrator(s).58 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).59 The award, once signed by the tribunal, must be delivered to each party.60 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.61 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.62
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.63 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.64
The mandate of the arbitral tribunal, along with the arbitral proceedings themselves, are terminated by the tribunal’s final award.65 Alternatively, the arbitral tribunal may terminate the proceedings before giving a final award, if:
the claimant withdraws his claim and the respondent does not object;
the parties agree on the termination of proceedings; or
the arbitral tribunal determines that the continuation of the proceedings is either unnecessary or impossible.66
Neither the Ontario statute nor the British Columbia statute provide a right of appeal on the merits of an award.67 It is not clear whether such a right can be granted by agreement of the parties.68
However, a party may apply to the courts to set aside the award.69 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:
34(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the court specified in article 6 only if:
(i) a party to the arbitration agreement referred to in article 7 was under some incapacity, or the said arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it, or failing any indication thereon, under the Law of this State; or
(iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by, or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, provided that, if the decisions on the matter submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the award which contains a decision on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside (which decisions can be separated from matters within the submission to arbitration); or
(i) the subject matter of the dispute submitted to arbitration is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of this State; or
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.70 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.71
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.72 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.73 The formalities of the award, as set out above, apply equally to any corrections or interpretations made.74
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.75 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.76
For those provinces that adopted or incorporated the New York Convention, it should be noted that Canada made two reservations to the Convention: first, the Convention will apply only to the recognition and enforcement of awards made in the territory of another contracting state which has signed, ratified or acceded to the New York Convention;77 andsecond, the Convention will apply only to awards that are made in arbitrations that are considered “commercial” under the laws of Canada.78
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).79 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.80
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,81 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.”82
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.83 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”.84 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.85
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.86 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.87
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.88 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 ten-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.89 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.90 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.91
In recent years, Canada has emerged as a leading state in international investment arbitration. As of March 1, 2017,Canada has ratified 30 bilateral investment treaties, which are known in Canada as Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (“FIPAs”). Notably, Canada has ratified FIPAs with over 30 trading partners, including China and Russia.92 In addition, Canada has concluded negotiations on (but has not ratified) a further nine FIPAs93 and is in the process of negotiating nine more.94
Canada has also ratified 11 free trade agreements (“FTAs”), including the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”).95 And it is a signatory to (but has yet to ratify) the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union. That agreement was recently approved by the European Parliament96 and is now being considered by the national parliaments of EU Member States.97 Finally, Canada is a signatory to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (“TPP”).98 However, given the United States’ recent withdrawal from the TPP, the future of that agreement is in serious doubt.
The FIPAs and FTAs to which Canada is a signatory generally provide that investors may submit a claim to arbitration under:
the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Dispute (“ICSID”) rules – which are appropriate for matters arbitrated under the ICSID Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States;
the ICSID Additional Facility Rules – which are appropriate if one (but not both) of the parties to the dispute is a contracting member state or a national of a contracting member state under the ICSID Convention;
another body of rules approved by the parties to the agreement (e.g., the London Court of International Arbitration Rules).99
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 states100and who find themselves in a dispute relating to that investmentmay rely upon an arbitration under the ICSID Convention to resolve their disputes.101 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.102 Foreign investors who are nationals of ICSID member states also have reciprocal rights under the ICSID Convention in Canada.103
According to the information made public by the Canadian Government, as at March 1, 2017, Canada is a party to 11 active investment arbitration disputes. Ten of those disputes were brought under Chapter 11 of NAFTA.104 The remaining dispute, which was commenced within the last year, 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”.105
Canada’s Model FIPA
The Canadian government introduced its “Model FIPA” in 2004.106 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’s enforcement of investment arbitration awards
Canada is generally an enforcement-friendly jurisdiction. For example, in United Mexican States v. Cargill Inc.,107 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.108
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.109 The Supreme Court of Canada subsequently rejected Mexico’s application for leave to appeal.110 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.111 As is the case with international arbitration awards generally, the Canadian courts are loath 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.112
1. Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 17, as amended, s. 5(2).
2. The province of Quebec does not have an international arbitration statute. Instead, all arbitrations that take place in the province are subject to the provisions of the Civil Code of Quebec, CQLR c. C-1991, Part XVIII and other sections, including section 2895, 3121, 3133 and 3148.
3. Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, s. 2(1), which states that the act applies to all arbitrations in the province unless its application is excluded by law, or unless the International Commercial Arbitration Act applies.
4. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, s. 5(3).
5. International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, chapter 233.
6. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, s. 5(1).
7. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter II, Art. 7(2), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 2, s. 7(3).
8. Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, s. 5(3), see also Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 55, s. 1 definition of “arbitration agreement”.
9. Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, s. 2(1), see also Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 55, s. 1 definition of “arbitration agreement”.
10. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter I, Art. 1(1), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 233, part 1, s. 1(1). The British Columbia statute provides a non-exclusive list of when an arbitration will be considered “commercial”, for example, disputes relating to a trade transaction for the supply or exchange of goods or services, a joint venture, construction, insurance, licensing, financing, banking, etc. (International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 233, part 1, s. 1(6)). The various domestic arbitration statutes are not limited to “commercial” arbitration.
11. Seidel v. TELUS Communications, 2011 SCC 15.
12. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV, Art. 16(1), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 4, s. 16(1).
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.
14. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV, Art. 16(3), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 4, s. 16(6).
15. Dell Computer Corp v. Union des Consommateurs, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801.
16. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV, Art. 16(1), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 4, s. 16(1).
17. DG Jewelry Inc. v. Cyberdiam Canada Ltd (2002), 21 CPC (5th) 174 (Ont. S.C.J.) para 20, Krutov v. Vancouver Hockey Club Ltd. 1991, 30 A.C.W.S. (3d) 164, para 15.
18. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, s. 8(1), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 5, s. 27(2)
19. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017 c. 2, s. 8(2) and 8(3), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 5, s. 27(3).
20. Liberty Reinsurance Canada v QBE Insurance and Reinsurance (Europe) Ltd (2002), 42 C.C.L.I. (3d) 249 (Ont. S.C.J.) para 22-23.
21. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter V, Art. 21, see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 5, s. 21.
22. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter I, Art. 3, see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 1, s. 3.
23. Bell Canada v The Plan Group, 2009 ONCA 548.
24. Limitations Act, 2002, SO 2002, c. 24 schedule B, s. 4; Limitation Act, SBC 2012, c. 13, s. 6. Limitation periods vary by province.
25. Brian Casey, Arbitration Law of Canada: Practice and Procedure, 2nd ed. (New York: JurisNet, LLC, 2011) at 56; McEwan and Herbst, Commercial Arbitration in Canada, A Guide to Domestic and International Arbitrations, (Toronto: Canada Law Book 2014) at 7:10.
26. See, e.g., United Mexican States v Karpa (2005), 136 A.C.W.S. (3d) 200 (ONCA), para 1.
27. For example, the parties cannot contract out of the requirement that the parties be treated with equality and that each party be given a full opportunity of presenting his or her case (International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter V, Art. 18, see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 5, s. 18).
28. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter V, Art. 19, see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 5, s. 19.
29. International Commercial Arbitration Act, R2017, 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).
30. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter V, Art. 26, see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 5, s. 26.
31. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter II, Art. 10 and 11, see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 3, s. 10 and 11.
32. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter II, Art. 11, see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 3, s. 11.
33. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter III, Art. 12(2), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 3, s. 12(3).
34. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter III, Art. 13(2), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 3, s. 13(2).
35. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter III, Art. 13, see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 3, s. 13.
36. Jacob Securities Inc. v Typhoon Capital BV, 2016 ONSC 604, para 41.
37. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter III, Art. 14(1), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 3, s. 14(1).
38. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter III, Art. 14(1), see also International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 3, s. 14(2).
39. See, for example, Flock v Beattie, 2010 ABQB 193. Although this case was an Alberta case regarding the Alberta domestic Act, it also canvasses the applicable Canadian and international law.
40. Brian Casey, Arbitration Law of Canada: Practice and Procedure, 2nd ed. (New York: JurisNet, LLC, 2011) at 154.
41. Brian Casey, Arbitration Law of Canada: Practice and Procedure, 2nd ed. (New York: JurisNet, LLC, 2011) at 154, citing Sport Maska Inc. v. Zittrer, [1988] 1 SCR 564 and certain English cases.
42. With respect to the courts’ jurisdiction to grant interim relief, see: African Mixing Technologies (PTY) Ltd. v. Canamix Processing Systems Ltd., 2014 BCSC 2130 at para. 55; and see: TLC Multimedia Inc. v. Core Curriculum Technologies Inc., [1998] B.C.J. No. 1656 at para. 35 (S.C.). In addition, in Ontario, the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017 expressly provides that interim relief can be sought from the courts. S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV A, Art. 17 J.
43. Section 17 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act R.S.B.C. 1996, chapter 233.
44. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV A, Art. 17.
45. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV A, Art. 17 A(1).
46. Section 9 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.9.
47. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV A, Art. 17 G.
48. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV A, Art. 17 H(1).
49. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV A, Art. 17 I.
50. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV A, Art. 17 B.
51. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV A, Art. 17 F(2).
52. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV A, Art. 17 C(1).
53. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV A, Art. 17 C(2).
54. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Model Law, Chapter IV A, Art. 17 C(5).
55. ICC Rules, Art. 29.
56. ICDR Rules, Art. 6.
57. Kenneth J. McEwan, Commercial Arbitration in Canada: A Guide to Domestic and International Arbitrations (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2004+) at 6-31.
58. 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.
59. 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).
60. 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).
61. 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).
62. 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).
63. 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.
64. International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 233, part 6, s. 31(7) – (8).
65. 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).
66. 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).
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. 392.
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. 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).
71. 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).
72. 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).
73. 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).
74. 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).
75. 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.
76. Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q. c. C-25.01, s. 948-949.
77. McEwan and Herbst, Commercial Arbitration in Canada, A Guide to Domestic and International Arbitrations (Toronto: Canada Law Book 2014) at 1:40.
78. 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.).
79. 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).
80. 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).
81. 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).
82. 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).
83. 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.).
84. 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.).
85. 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.).
86. Popack v. Lipsyzc, 2016 ONCA 135, affirming Popack v. Lipsyzc, 2015 ONSC 3460 at para. 28-29.
87. 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.
88. 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.
89. International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, part III, Art. 10.
90. Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q. c. C-25.01, s. 951.2.
91. 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.
92. 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.
93. 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.
94. 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.
95. 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.
96. 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.
97. 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.
98. 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.
99. 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.
100. 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.
101. Article 25 of the ICSID Convention.
102. Article 26 of the ICSID Convention.
103. Article 25 of the ICSID Convention.
104. 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.
105. 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.
106. 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.
107. United Mexican States v. Cargill Inc., 2011 ONCA 622, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 528.
108. United Mexican States v. Cargill Inc., 2010 ONSC 4656.
109. United Mexican States v. Cargill Inc., 2011 ONCA 622 at para 74.
110. United Mexican States v. Cargill Inc., [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 528.
111. 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.
112. Alan Redfern and Martin Hunter, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration 3rd ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell 1999) at p. 433.