The applicant, EDE Capital Inc., sought to set aside two arbitral awards: a Partial Award on Damages and a Partial Award on Costs.
The applicant argued that the arbitrator breached procedural fairness by reopening issues and making inconsistent findings, exceeded jurisdiction by affecting non-parties, and mischaracterized claims under the Securities Act.
The court determined that the International Commercial Arbitration Act (ICAA) and the Model Law applied due to one respondent's habitual residence in China.
The court dismissed the application, finding no serious procedural unfairness or excess of jurisdiction, and affirmed the arbitrator's decision, including the costs award.
