CANADA Law and Practice Contributed by: John Pirie, Matthew Latella, David Gadsden and Christina Doria, Baker McKenzie
able as though they were a final judgment of a domes - tic court. Recent Ontario decisions illustrate the two sides of the courts’ approach to international awards. In Grace et al v The United Mexican States , 2026 ONSC 2014, the Ontario Superior Court (Commercial List) set aside a NAFTA investment treaty award holding that dual nationals may bring claims under NAFTA, that Arti - cle 1116 is not limited to direct losses, and that an arbitrator’s undisclosed “double-hatting” gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. This decision confirms that Ontario courts will scrutinise defective international awards on a correctness standard. While Grace illustrates the circumstances in which Ontario courts will intervene, the Court of Appeal has continued to reinforce the pro-enforcement frame - work where those thresholds are not met. In InFrontier AF LP v Rahmani , 2026 ONCA 289, the Court upheld enforcement of a Dubai-seated arbitral award, reject - ing challenges under Articles V(1)(d) and V(2)(b) of the New York Convention, confirming that procedural fair - ness and public policy challenges face a high bar even where the rules of the seat have evolved over time. In Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana de Salud SA v Webuild SpA , 2026 ONCA 28, the Court of Appeal affirmed a stay of enforcement proceedings sought by a defendant on forum non conveniens grounds. 4.3 Categories of Arbitral Awards Not Enforced Domestic arbitral awards that extend to parties who are not bound by the arbitration agreement and who have not attorned to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tri - bunal will not be enforced. Generally, the Canadian courts will not enforce a domestic or international arbitral award if the subject matter of the arbitration is not capable of being settled by arbitration under the applicable laws where enforcement is being sought, and will not recognise or enforce an international arbi - tral award if enforcement would be contrary to Cana - dian public policy. 4.4 Process of Enforcing Arbitral Awards Under most domestic arbitration acts, a party can simply apply to the court to have its domestic arbi -
tral award enforced. The limitation period in which to commence enforcement proceedings varies between Canadian provinces, from two to ten years. The enforcement process is relatively streamlined and is intended to facilitate the enforcement of awards, subject only to very narrow caveats. In addition, the court’s decision on whether to grant or deny an appli - cation to enforce a domestic arbitral award may be appealed. In order to enforce an international arbitral award, the enforcing party must apply to the applicable court. The application must include the original or a copy of the award, together with the arbitration agreement, attached as exhibits to an affidavit. Neither the New York Convention nor the Model Law sets out limita - tion periods for the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. However, pursuant to the New York Conven - tion, each contracting state is required to enforce arbi - tral awards in accordance with the rules of procedure in the jurisdiction where the party seeks to enforce it. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the rules of civil procedure of the jurisdiction where enforce - ment of the foreign arbitral award is sought will apply to those proceedings ( Yugraneft Corp v Rexx Manage- ment Corp , 2010 SCC 19). The result is that limitation periods for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards will vary, depending on the province in which enforce - ment is sought. 4.5 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Arbitral Awards The costs and time to enforce domestic or interna - tional arbitral awards depend on the case. A straight - forward application may take eight to 12 months (or longer, depending on court backlog). However, if the defence to enforcement proceedings raises serious issues that could involve a significant inquiry into whether the enforcement could offend public policy (eg, underlying criminality not previously raised before the tribunal), the enforcement proceedings could take longer. In addition, if the party seeking enforcement pursues interlocutory relief (eg, a Mareva injunction to freeze assets) and such steps become subject to set- aside proceedings or other challenges, the progress of the enforcement proceeding may be adversely impacted. Jurisdictional issues related to service can
81 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook