Natasha Williams

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its application to set aside an international arbitral award under NAFTA.

The arbitral tribunal had ordered the appellant to pay over $80 million in damages for revoking the respondents' gambling permit and shutting down their casinos without a valid regulatory reason.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge applied the correct standard of review and properly concluded that there was no breach of procedural fairness in the tribunal's proceedings.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Leiper J. dated October 23, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 all inclusive.

Mexico sought to set aside an international arbitral award rendered under NAFTA Chapter 11 in which an arbitral tribunal found Mexico liable for breaching the fair and equitable treatment standard and ordered Mexico to pay damages of approximately USD $80.9 million to American investors who operated casinos in Mexico.

Mexico alleged that the tribunal denied it a full and fair opportunity to present its defense by: (1) denying production of certain documents Mexico characterized as "key documents"; and (2) failing to address Mexico's argument regarding the availability of judicial review remedies in Mexican courts.

The court dismissed Mexico's application, finding that the arbitral proceedings were comprehensive and fair, that Mexico's document production denials were reasonable exercises of tribunal discretion, and that Mexico's failure to receive explicit reference to a minor argument did not constitute procedural unfairness.

The plaintiff in a class action brought an unopposed motion for approval of a third-party funding agreement under s. 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The agreement provided indemnity for adverse costs in exchange for a premium of up to 10% of the litigation proceeds.

The court approved the agreement, finding it fair and reasonable, protective of the plaintiff's control over the litigation, and supported by the funder's financial capacity.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application to set aside a NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration award.

They argued the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by misapplying the causation standard and that the award violated public policy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the narrow scope of judicial review for arbitration awards under the Commercial Arbitration Code.

The court held that the tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and that the award did not conflict with Canadian public policy, which requires a very high standard for intervention.