Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
CANADIAN ARBITRATION DECISIONS 1986–1992
William Tetley*
A. Introduction
In 1986 a legislative miracle took place in Canada. The federal Government and the governments of the 10 provinces and the two territories all agreed to put into their own laws the most important international instrument on arbitration—the UNCITRAL Model Law 19851 (enacted in the Commercial Arbitration Act 19862 and Schedule, being the Commercial Arbitration Code) and the most important International Convention on arbitration—the New York Convention 19583 (enacted in the United Nations Foreign Arbitral Awards Convention Act 1986,4 hereafter “UNFAACA”). The legislation has been adopted and is one of those very rare examples of co-operation and concord among and between federal, provincial and territorial governments and legislatures.
In consequence, since 1986, there has been a spate of arbitrations in Canada and two arbitration centres have been opened—one in Quebec City5 and one in Vancouver6—while ad hoc
7 arbitration has flourished as well. Arbitration is particularly
* Q.C., President of the Association of Maritime Arbitrators of Canada (AMAC), President of the International Maritime Arbitration Organization (Paris). The author is indebted to Robert C. Wilkins for his assistance in the preparation and correction of the text.
1. UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) on 21 June 1985 (1985) 24 I.L.M. 1302. Legislation based on the UNCITRAL Model Law has been enacted in Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Hong Kong, Nigeria, Peru, Scotland and, within the United States by the states of California, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, North Carolina, Oregon and Texas.
2. S.C. 1986, c. 22.
3. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, adopted in New York, 10 June 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, TIAS No. 6997, 330 U.N.T.S. 38–49. The following states have ratified or acceded to the New York Convention: Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Belarus, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Holy See, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Yugoslavia.
4. S.C. 1986, c. 21.
5. The Québec National and International Commercial Arbitration Centre.
6. The British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre.
7. Ad hoc, as opposed to institutional, arbitration does not require the parties and arbitrators to submit to the rules, disciplines and fees of a central arbitral institution. On the other hand, the benefits of the institution are lost.
238