Latest News
Assessing the Suspension of Proceedings in Ruby River Capital LLC v. Canada: Tribunal's Decision Sets a Standard
Assessing the Suspension of Proceedings in Ruby River Capital LLC v. Canada: Tribunal's Decision Sets a Standard
Introduction:
In the case of Ruby River Capital LLC v. Canada (ICSID Case No. ARB/23/5), the Tribunal faced a pivotal decision under Rule 54(2) of the ICSID 2022 Arbitration Rules, marking the first time it had to rule on a request for suspension of the proceeding. Canada's request for suspension was linked to the ongoing TC Energy Corporation and TransCanada Pipelines Limited v. United States (ICSID Case No. ARB/21/63), which involved a preliminary objection regarding the scope of Annex 14-C of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The Tribunal ultimately rejected the request, reasoning that the suspension was "unwarranted and unjustified."
Legacy Investment Claims under NAFTA: Uncertain Jurisdiction
The crux of the issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of "legacy investment claims" under Annex 14-C of the USMCA, following the termination of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Unlike NAFTA Chapter 11, which offered a broad investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, USMCA Chapter 14 restricts ISDS claims, particularly between Canada and the United States. These two countries agreed only to permit ISDS claims concerning "legacy investments" made between January 1, 1994, and the termination of NAFTA in 2020. The ambiguity arises because Annex 14-C does not explicitly address whether tribunals have jurisdiction over claims for measures taken after NAFTA's termination. Canada's request for suspension was tied to this ambiguity, arguing that the tribunal in TC Energy should first resolve a similar jurisdictional issue before the Ruby River proceedings continued.
The Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal in Ruby River Capital LLC v. Canada outlined the criteria for considering a request for suspension under Rule 54(2), which does not provide for automatic suspension. Instead, it grants the Tribunal discretion, guided by general duties of good faith, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness as outlined in Rule 3. The Tribunal considered four key criteria: balance of convenience, costs and efficiency, procedural propriety, and fairness and prejudice.
In rejecting Canada's request, the Tribunal noted several factors, including Canada's failure to raise the issue of Annex 14-C's scope when establishing the procedural calendar and the speculative nature of the timing of the decision in TC Energy. Additionally, the Tribunal emphasized that suspending the proceedings would be procedurally improper, given that Canada did not articulate a clear position on the scope of Annex 14-C.
The Political Context and Implications:
The Tribunal's decision highlights the broader political context influencing Canada's request. Unlike the United States and Mexico, which clearly argued that tribunals lack jurisdiction over post-NAFTA measures, Canada avoided taking a definitive stance. This reluctance likely stemmed from the potential impact on Canadian investors in other ongoing cases, such as TC Energy Corporation and TransCanada Pipelines Limited v. United States and Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission v. United States. Canada’s request for suspension appeared to be a strategy to avoid making arguments that could have adverse effects in these related cases.
Conclusion:
The decision in Ruby River Capital LLC v. Canada establishes a clear standard for evaluating future requests for suspension under the ICSID 2022 Arbitration Rules. The Tribunal's criteria ensure that proceedings are conducted efficiently and expeditiously, preventing parties from using suspension requests as a tactic to delay proceedings or avoid making difficult arguments. This case underscores the importance of articulating a clear legal position when seeking procedural relief and the impact of political considerations on arbitration strategy.
- The Tribunal considered four key criteria: balance of convenience, costs and efficiency, procedural propriety, and fairness and prejudice.
- Canada’s request for suspension appeared to be a strategy to avoid making arguments that could have adverse effects in these related cases.
- The decision in Ruby River Capital LLC v. Canada establishes a clear standard for evaluating future requests for suspension under the ICSID 2022 Arbitration Rules.
