Ontario Court of Appeal Sets Aside NAFTA Award Owing to Apparent Bias of Party-Appointed Arbitrator │ Canada
In this Chambers Expert Focus article, Craig AB Ferris, KC and Scott Lucyk of Lawson Lundell LLP look at what happened after the Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld an international arbitration award despite a finding of bias with regard to a party-appointed arbitrator.
Scott Lucyk
View firm profileIn Vento Motorcycles, Inc v Mexico, 2024 ONCA 82, the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside an award on the basis that Mexico offered undisclosed professional opportunities to its party-appointed arbitrator.
In overturning a lower court decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified that an arbitral award must be set aside where there is a reasonable apprehension of bias with regard to one of the tribunal members. A party does not have to prove that bias may have impacted the outcome of the award.
This article highlights the different approaches of the application judge and the Ontario Court of Appeal, as well as the key takeaways for parties and their counsel.
Arbitral award initially upheld despite bias
Vento Motorcycles Inc (“Vento”) brought a claim against the United Mexican States (“Mexico”) under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). After the arbitral panel rendered the final award in favour of Mexico, Vento learned that:
- Mexico’s appointed arbitrator had a series of undisclosed communications during the arbitration with the Mexican government, including with Mexico’s lead counsel in the arbitration; and
- those communications included discussions about the arbitrator’s potential inclusion in two of Mexico’s rosters for trade agreement arbitration panels.
In response, Vento applied to set aside the award based on a reasonable apprehension of bias.
“Once a finding of reasonable apprehension of bias is made, the adjudicator must be disqualified, Nothing less will do.”
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found a reasonable apprehension of bias arising from Mexico’s offer of prestigious and valuable professional opportunities to the arbitrator. Although a finding of reasonable apprehension of bias provided the Ontario Superior Court of Justice with a ground to set aside an arbitral award under the UNCITRAL Model Law, it declined to do so. The court cited a number of factors, as follows.
- The other two panel members were not tainted by the bias.
- The breach was not sufficiently serious. Nothing in the arbitrator’s conduct during the hearing itself gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. There was also no evidence that the arbitrator had any ex parte communications with Mexico about the arbitration.
- It would be costly to set aside the award, given that the arbitration took five years to complete.
In the court’s view, the potential impact of the breach on the result of the hearings was the most important factor. The arbitrator did not have a deciding vote on the matter. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that bias neither undermined the reliability of the result nor produced any real unfairness or real practical injustice.
Ontario Court of Appeal sets the award aside
Vento appealed the decision. In response, Mexico did not challenge the finding that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias, but argued that the lower court properly exercised its discretion to uphold the award.
The Ontario Court of Appeal found that the judge erred in failing to set aside the award. The decision held that, once a finding of reasonable apprehension of bias is made, the adjudicator must be disqualified and the decision is void if it has already been reached. In the words of the court, “nothing less will do”.
The court made the following key points in denying the application judge’s discretion to not set aside the award.
- A reasonable apprehension of bias is a “major” breach of procedural fairness that irreparably undermines the integrity and legitimacy of the adjudicative process.
- The court cannot refuse to remedy a reasonable apprehension of bias by determining the bias was not sufficiently serious or because remedying would cause considerable inconvenience.
- Finality and efficiency of the arbitral process cannot be achieved at the expense of impartiality.
Ultimately, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that that the bias of the arbitrator tainted the decision of the entire panel because “it is impossible to know whether – or to what extent – the participation of a biased member affected a panel’s decision”. The appeal was allowed and the award was set aside.
Key takeaways
This decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal clarifies a court’s discretion where bias is found with regard to one tribunal member. The remedy is to set aside the award.
Counsel and arbitrator must carefully monitor and manage any potential bias throughout all stages of an arbitration. The Ontario Court of Appeal decision reinforces a party’s right to an impartial and independent tribunal, even where setting aside a decision may be costly.
Lawson Lundell LLP
16 ranked departments and 49 ranked lawyers
Learn more about the firm's ranking in Chambers Canada
View firm profile