Bilcon of Delaware, Inc

Bilcon of Delaware, Inc

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER ELEVEN OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND THE UNCITRAL RULES OF 1976 (“UNCITRAL RULES”) - between - WILLIAM RALPH CLAYTON, WILLIAM RICHARD CLAYTON, DOUGLAS CLAYTON, DANIEL CLAYTON AND BILCON OF DELAWARE, INC. (the “Investors”) - and - GOVERNMENT OF CANADA (the “Respondent” and, together with the Investors, the “Parties”) AWARD ON JURISDICTION AND LIABILITY 17 MARCH 2015 ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL: Judge Bruno Simma (President) Professor Donald McRae Professor Bryan Schwartz SECRETARY: Dr. Dirk Pulkowski Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Case No. 2009-04 PCA 122204 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. I GLOSSARY OF DEFINED TERMS ......................................................................................................... VII I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 A. THE PARTIES...................................................................................................................... 1 B. THE ESSENCE OF THE INVESTORS’ CASE ........................................................................ 2 C. THE ESSENCE OF THE RESPONDENT’S CASE ................................................................... 8 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ..................................................................................................... 11 A. COMMENCEMENT OF THE ARBITRATION ...................................................................... 11 B. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 13 1. The Process for Document Requests and Objections .................................................. 13 2. Documents Not Produced for Reasons of Privilege .................................................... 14 4. Documents Post-dating 5 February 2008 .................................................................... 18 C. INTERROGATORIES .......................................................................................................... 19 D. WRITTEN PLEADINGS...................................................................................................... 20 E. HEARING ON JURISDICTION AND MERITS ..................................................................... 20 III. THE PARTIES’ REQUESTS .................................................................................................. 23 A. THE INVESTORS ............................................................................................................... 23 B. THE RESPONDENT ........................................................................................................... 23 IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................................... 23 A. THE REQUEST FOR AN INDUSTRIAL APPROVAL TO OPERATE A 3.9 HA QUARRY ....... 25 1. Undisputed Facts ......................................................................................................... 25 2. Disputed Facts ............................................................................................................. 27 (a) Whether Digby Neck was an Industrialized Area .................................................. 27 i. The Investors’ Position ................................................................................... 27 ii. The Respondent’s Position ............................................................................. 28 (b) Whether the Investors were Encouraged to Invest in the Digby Neck Area .......... 28 i. The Investors’ Position ................................................................................... 28 ii. The Respondent’s Position ............................................................................. 29 (c) Whether the DFO had Authority to Issue Blasting Conditions .............................. 30 i. The Investors’ Position ................................................................................... 30 ii. The Respondent’s Position ............................................................................. 30 (d) Whether Nova Stone’s Blasting Plans were Inappropriately Disapproved ............ 32 i. The Investors’ Position ................................................................................... 32 ii. The Respondent’s Position ............................................................................. 33 PCA 122204 i B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT LEADING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 35 1. Undisputed Facts ......................................................................................................... 35 2. Disputed Facts ............................................................................................................. 36 (a) Whether There Was Sufficient Basis to Refer the Project to a JRP ....................... 36 i. The Investors’ Position ................................................................................... 36 ii. The Respondent’s Position ............................................................................. 37 (b) Whether the Investors Were Misled About the Form the Assessment Would Take ........................................................................................................................ 38 i. The Investors’ Position ................................................................................... 39 ii. The Respondent’s Position ............................................................................. 40 (c) Whether the Scope of the EA Was Overly Broad .................................................. 43 i. The Investors’ Position ................................................................................... 43 ii. The Respondent’s Position ............................................................................. 44 C. THE ESTABLISHMENT AND WORK OF THE JRP ............................................................ 45 1. Undisputed Facts ......................................................................................................... 45 2. Disputed Facts ............................................................................................................. 47 (a) When the Investors Were Notified of the Referral to the JRP................................ 47 i. The Investors’ Position ................................................................................... 47 ii. The Respondent’s Position ............................................................................. 48 (b) Whether the Appointment of the JRP Members was Fair ...................................... 48 i. The Investors’ Position ................................................................................... 48 ii. The Respondent’s Position ............................................................................. 49 (c) Whether the JRP’s Work Conformed to Statutory Requirements and its TOR ...... 50 i. The Investors’ Position ................................................................................... 50 ii. The Respondent’s Position ............................................................................. 51 (d) Whether the Investors Delayed the Review Process .............................................. 53 i. The Investors’ Position ................................................................................... 53 ii. The Respondent’s Position ............................................................................. 53 (e) Whether the Hearing Held before the JRP was Conducted Fairly and Impartially 55 i. The Investors’ Position ................................................................................... 55 ii. The Respondent’s Position ............................................................................. 56 (f) Whether the JRP Unlawfully Recommended Rejection of the Project .................. 56 i. The Investors’ Position ................................................................................... 56 ii. The Respondent’s Position ............................................................................. 57 (g) Whether the Local Community Support for the Whites Point Project was Extensive ................................................................................................................ 58 PCA 122204 ii i. The Investors’ Position ................................................................................... 58 ii. The Respondent’s Position ............................................................................. 58 D. THE WHITES POINT EA GOVERNMENT DECISIONS ..................................................... 59 1. Undisputed Facts ......................................................................................................... 59 2. Disputed Facts ............................................................................................................. 59 (a) Whether the Governments’ Adoptions of the JRP’s Recommendations were Appropriately Reasoned ......................................................................................... 59 i. The Investors’ Position ................................................................................... 59 ii. The Respondent’s Position ............................................................................. 60 (b) Whether the Federal and Provincial Governments Considered the JRP’s Recommendations

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    229 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us