Arbitral Digest

Matter

United Parcel Service of America Inc. v. Canada (ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1)

Case no.
UNCT/02/1
Seat
United States
Applicable rules
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules
  1. 17 April 2001United States

    17 April 2001United States

    Procedural Decision No. 1 dated 17 April 2001

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    Decision summary
    The Tribunal required further submissions on the place of arbitration and the filing of a statement of defence, and addressed administrative services, confidentiality, document delivery, non-disputing NAFTA party participation, and petitions for intervention.

    Supporting details

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
  2. 17 April 2001United States

    17 April 2001United States

    Procedural Decision No. 2 dated 17 April 2001

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    Decision summary
    The Tribunal directed the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the Council of Canadians to file briefs on their request for intervention, with replies by the parties; the briefs could also address amicus briefs.

    Supporting details

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    6 months later · 183 days

  3. 17 October 2001United States

    17 October 2001United States

    Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions for Intervention and Participation as Amici Curiae dated 17 October 2001

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    Decision summary
    The Tribunal rejected the petitions to add the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the Council of Canadians as parties, declared that it had power to accept written amicus briefs, and would consider receiving them at the merits stage subject to consultation and conditions.

    Supporting details

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
  4. 17 October 2001United States

    17 October 2001United States

    Decision of the Tribunal on the Filing of a Statement of Defence dated 17 October 2001

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    Decision summary
    The Tribunal directed that Canada's jurisdictional notice of motion be addressed before the statement of defence and required the parties to make representations on the schedule for submissions and argument.

    Supporting details

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
  5. 17 October 2001United States

    17 October 2001United States

    Decision of the Tribunal on the Place of Arbitration dated 17 October 2001

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    Decision summary
    The Tribunal decided that the place of arbitration would be Washington, DC, United States of America.

    Supporting details

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    1 year, 1 month and 5 days later · 401 days

  6. 22 November 2002United States

    22 November 2002United States

    Award on Jurisdiction dated 22 November 2002

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    Decision summary
    The Tribunal upheld Canada's jurisdictional challenge in part, struck specified claims and related allegations, joined specified issues to the merits, dismissed other jurisdictional challenges, dismissed the challenge to the adequacy of the amended statement of claim, and ordered the parties to bear their own costs of that phase.

    Supporting details

    1 authority
    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    Authorities cited

    1
    • North American Free Trade Agreement
      statute

    4 months and 13 days later · 133 days

  7. 4 April 2003United States

    4 April 2003United States

    Procedural Directions and Confidentiality Order dated 4 April 2003

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    Decision summary
    The Tribunal issued procedural directions for the arbitration and a confidentiality order governing confidential and restricted-access material.

    Supporting details

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
  8. 4 April 2003United States

    4 April 2003United States

    Procedural Directions for Amicus Submissions dated 4 April 2003

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    Decision summary
    The Tribunal maintained its earlier decision on written amicus briefs, limited them to written submissions without adducing evidence, and set procedural conditions including access restrictions and rights of response.

    Supporting details

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    3 months and 28 days later · 119 days

  9. 1 August 2003United States

    1 August 2003United States

    Direction of the Tribunal on the Participation of Amici Curiae dated 1 August 2003

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    Decision summary
    The Tribunal directed the parties on document production and interrogatories, required Canada to produce relevant documents notwithstanding alleged jurisdictional issues, and reserved further decisions on document production.

    Supporting details

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    10 months and 20 days later · 325 days

  10. 21 June 2004United States

    21 June 2004United States

    Decisions of the Tribunal Relating to Document Production and Interrogatories dated 21 June 2004

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    Decision summary
    The Tribunal dismissed Canada's application concerning the investor's refusal to produce certain documents, made no further order at that stage concerning restricted documents, and directed Canada to submit more specific factual interrogatories that did not require document disclosure.

    Supporting details

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    3 months and 17 days later · 109 days

  11. 8 October 2004United States

    8 October 2004United States

    Decision of the Tribunal Relating to Canada's Claim of Cabinet Privilege dated 8 October 2004

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    Decision summary
    The Tribunal concluded that Canada's claim to Cabinet privilege was not made out on the record because the required weighing of the public interest in disclosure had not been undertaken. It directed Canada to reconsider the claims by reference to particular public interests and to weigh those interests against disclosure for the arbitration.

    Supporting details

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    5 months and 6 days later · 157 days

  12. 14 March 2005United States

    14 March 2005United States

    Procedural Direction of the Tribunal dated 14 March 2005

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    Decision summary
    The Tribunal set filing deadlines for the merits phase, accepted the proposed means of production, addressed redaction and confidential information, and directed arrangements for non-disputing parties.

    Supporting details

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    21 days later · 21 days

  13. 4 April 2005United States

    4 April 2005United States

    Tribunal Ruling dated 4 April 2005

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    Decision summary
    The Tribunal decided that it need take no action at that stage because the United States and Mexico were obliged under NAFTA Article 1129 to treat confidential information as if they were disputing parties and had undertaken to keep identified information confidential.

    Supporting details

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    2 years, 1 month and 20 days later · 780 days

  14. 24 May 2007United States

    24 May 2007United States

    Award on the Merits dated 24 May 2007

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    Decision summary
    The Tribunal rejected as a whole the claim brought by UPS and ordered the parties to bear the arbitration costs equally and their own costs.

    Supporting details

    2 authorities · 16 participants
    United Parcel Service of America Inc
    Representative
    Barry Appleton (For: United Parcel Service of America Inc)
    Representative
    Stanley Wong (For: United Parcel Service of America Inc)
    Representative
    Alan Willis (For: United Parcel Service of America Inc)
    Representative
    Appleton & Associates (For: United Parcel Service of America Inc)
    Government of Canada
    Representative
    Robert Wisner (For: Government of Canada)
    Representative
    Ivan G. Whitehall (For: Government of Canada)
    Representative
    Thomas Conway (For: Government of Canada)
    Representative
    Kirsten Hillman (For: Government of Canada)
    Representative
    Sylvie Tabet (For: Government of Canada)
    Representative
    Rodney Neufeld (For: Government of Canada)
    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
    Arbitrator
    L Yves Fortier
    Arbitrator
    Kenneth Keith
    Tribunal secretary
    Eloise Obadia

    Authorities cited

    2
    • North American Free Trade Agreement
      statute
    • Canada Post Corporation Act 1981
      statute

Matter record

Report a correction

United Parcel Service of America Inc. v. Canada (ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1) · Matter