1.1 Advantages

Canada is a model law jurisdiction that is favourable to arbitration. Arbitration is increasingly favoured due to the growing court delays across all provinces. Arbitration is notably increasingly favoured in complex infrastructure projects for its confidentiality and finality.

1.2 Disadvantages and common pitfalls

Canada has a federal structure, as described in Section 1.3 below, leading to variations in the numerous arbitration laws between provinces. Some variation is significant, such that specialized counsel is required. For example, there is no appeal from arbitral awards in Québec, but such appeals are possible in the common law provinces (with differences in the possible grounds for appeal).

1.3 Distinctive features

Canada is a federal system comprising 10 provinces and three territories, as well as the federal government. Jurisdiction over international commercial arbitration is shared between the federal government and the provinces.

Each common law province has a different statute governing international and domestic arbitration, with variations between provinces. For example, Ontario and British Columbia (BC) implemented the 2006 amendments to the UNCITRAL Model Law, while other provinces and the federal government continue to implement the 1985 Model Law.

In Québec, a civil law jurisdiction, arbitration law is codified in the Civil Code of Québec (CCQ) and in the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), which apply both to domestic and international arbitration. The CCP incorporates the principles of the 2006 Model Law.

Despite the variations in language and legal traditions across the country, the Supreme Court of Canada, which is the court of final appeal for all jurisdictions, acts as a harmonizing force, cross-pollinating arbitration frameworks and mitigating potential pitfalls arising from Canada’s federal structure.

2.1 Legal framework

Canada is a party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards adopted by the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration in New York on June 10, 1958 (“New York Convention”), as well as the 1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (“ICSID Convention”). The Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) on June 21, 1985 (the “Model Law”), has also been adopted in Canada.

International commercial arbitration in Québec is governed by the CCQ and CCP, while each of the common law provinces has a distinct provincial statute governing international commercial arbitration, for example:

• The International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017 S.O. 2017, Chapter 2, Schedule 5 (“Ontario ICAA”) governs international arbitrations that take place in Ontario.
• The International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, Chapters 1-5 (“Alberta ICAA”) applies to international arbitrations in Alberta.
• The International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSBC 1996, Chapter 233 (“British Columbia ICAA”) governs international arbitrations in British Columbia.

At the federal level, international commercial arbitration is governed by the Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.C., 1985, Chapter 17 (2nd Supp.) (“Federal Arbitration Act”), which applies where (a) at least one of the parties is the federal government; or (b) the arbitration deals with a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction, such as admiralty or maritime matters.

2.2 What qualifies under domestic law as “international arbitration”? Is there a specific statute?

The common law provinces define what makes an arbitration “international” in their respective ICAAs. For example, in Ontario, an arbitration is international if either (a) the parties have their places of business in different states; or (b) the place of arbitration or the place of performance of the obligation is located outside the state in which the parties have their places of business; or (c) the parties have agreed that the subject matter relates to more than one state. British Columbia has the added criterion that an arbitration is international when the place with which the subject matter of the dispute is most closely connected is located outside the state in which the parties have their place of business. In both cases, arbitrations between Canadian provinces are considered domestic.

Québec’s CCQ and CCP govern all arbitrations seated in Québec, regardless of whether they are domestic or international. However, certain additional rules in the CCP apply only to international arbitration (649–651 CCP). In Québec, an arbitration between Canadian provinces is considered to be international.

2.3 Ratification of the New York Convention

The New York Convention entered into force in Canada in 1986. The federal government and all 10 provinces have ratified the New York Convention. The commercial reservation permitted by the New York Convention has been adopted by the federal government and all provincial legislatures except Québec.

2.4 Ratification of the ICSID Convention

Canada signed the ICSID Convention in 2006. It was ratified by the federal government in 2013.

2.5 Other treaties relating to arbitration

Canada is a party to numerous multilateral and bilateral trade and investment treaties, including the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), which entered into force on July 1, 2020, to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Under CUSMA, Canadian and American investors no longer have recourse to investor–state arbitration in each other’s countries. A “joint review” of CUSMA is scheduled for 2026. There is significant political uncertainty at the time of writing.

Canada’s 2021 Model Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (Model FIPA), as well as all the other trade and investment treaties to which Canada is party, contain investment protection provisions. Canada’s Model FIPA serves as a basis for Canada’s trade and investment treaty negotiations; its investment provisions provide for ICSID or UNCITRAL arbitration.

Canada is a party to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Several claims have recently been brought under the CPTPP by Canadian parties, notably against Mexico. Other notable treaties include the Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA), in which Canada agreed with the European Union to replace investment arbitration with a standing “investment court”. CETA has been provisionally in effect since September 2017; the creation of the investment court remains suspended.

2.6 Choice of forum for intra-EU dispute settlement

Not applicable.

2.7 Is the municipal law governing arbitration based on UNCITRAL Model Law?

Yes, as described in Section 1.3 above.

2.8 Recent amendments or reforms in arbitration laws

In 2016, the Uniform Law Conference of Canada adopted the Uniform International Commercial Arbitration Act. In 2020, British Columbia brought into force an updated domestic arbitration act, the Arbitration Act, RSBC 2020 Chapter 2 (BC Domestic Act), to align the province’s arbitration framework more fully with the Model Law. The BC Domestic Act applies to all arbitrations except those to which the British Columbia ICAA applies, including where BC is the seat of the arbitration or BC law governs the dispute. Ontario may proceed with a similar update of its arbitration framework in the coming years.

3.1 Presence of local arbitration institutions

Canadian arbitral institutions include the ADR Chambers International; ADR Institute of Canada (ADRIC); the Vancouver International Arbitration Centre (VanIAC); the Canadian Arbitration Association (CAA); the International Centre for Dispute Resolution of Canada; the Canadian Commercial Arbitration Centre, and the Institut de médiation et d’arbitrage du Québec (IMAQ). Other Canadian organizations, such as Arbitration Place, provide services to identify arbitrators and support hearings.

The international arbitration rules of the VanIAC were updated in 2022. The CAA rules were last amended in 2016, while the ICDR Canadian rules were last amended in 2015. The ADRIC rules were updated in March 2025.

3.2 Does the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) have a local office?

No.

3.3 Does the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) have a local office?

No, but the PCA has organized recent hearings in Montréal and Toronto.

3.4 Does the ICC International Court of Arbitration have a local office?

No, but its New York office, as well as the services provided by SICANA in New York, cover Canada. There is an active local ICC Committee in Canada that promotes the arbitration work of the ICC and advocates for alternative dispute resolution.

3.5 Does the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) have a local office?

The ICDR does not have its own office in Canada, but it has entered into a cooperative agreement with Arbitration Place and other Canadian institutions to supply services on the ICDR’s behalf.

3.6 Agreement entered into with local offices of international arbitration institutions

See previous Sections.

The definition of an arbitration agreement is consistent across the provinces: an agreement or contract by which the parties undertake to submit present or future disputes between them to arbitration (2638 CCQ; Ontario ICAA, Schedule 2, Article 7(1)).

The doctrine of separability of the arbitration agreement applies in all Canadian jurisdictions (Model Law, Article 16; 2642 CCQ).

4.1 Requirements as to content and form

All the provinces require that an arbitration agreement must be in writing. The writing requirement can be satisfied by a document signed by the parties, an exchange of communication, or an exchange of pleadings (Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan) or communication (Québec, Article 2640 CCQ) in which the existence of an arbitration agreement is alleged and not denied.

The Ontario and British Columbia ICAAs incorporated Option 1 of the 2006 Model Law, providing that written arbitration agreements may be concluded orally, by conduct, or by other means.

4.2 Validity of arbitration agreements

An arbitration agreement must meet the formal requirements and must be concluded by persons with capacity and authority. It must not be affected by any contractual invalidity under the applicable law.

An arbitration agreement will be “inoperative” or incapable of being performed in cases where it is otherwise valid, but cannot or should not be carried out, for example where one party becomes insolvent or enters bankruptcy and arbitration would conflict with bankruptcy court proceedings (Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41 (“Peace River”)).

4.3 Special formalities

There are no relevant special formalities.

4.4 Governing law

Parties may designate a law applicable to the arbitration agreement itself, as it is considered a contract independent from the principal contract. In the absence of such designation, 3121 CCQ provides that, in Québec, the arbitration agreement is governed by the law applicable to the principal contract. The law of the place of arbitration applies instead if the law governing the principal contract would invalidate the arbitration agreement (3121 CCQ). In the common law provinces, the arbitration agreement is also governed by the law applicable to the principal contract. If the principal contract does not identify a governing law, then the court will apply the law with the closest and most real connection to the contract, usually the law of the place of arbitration.

5.1 Applicable restrictions

Criminal matters are not arbitrable anywhere in Canada, and a Canadian court would not enforce an agreement to arbitrate a matter of public order. In Québec, matters related to the capacity of persons or family law are not arbitrable (2639 CCQ). Most provincial statutes exclude family matters from commercial arbitration.

The rights of consumers and employees with regard to arbitration vary, but the Supreme Court of Canada has elaborated a flexible doctrine of “unconscionability” whereby courts can refuse to enforce an arbitration agreement on the basis of inequality or improvidence between the parties (Uber Technologies Inc v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16 (“Uber”)). Despite these limitations, Canadian courts remain generally favourable to arbitration.

6.1 Stay of proceedings

In accordance with Article 8(1) of the Model Law, Canadian courts will stay proceedings brought in violation of a valid arbitration agreement to allow the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, per the principle of competence-competence (except where the question of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction is purely a question of law or involves questions of mixed fact and law that require only superficial consideration of the evidentiary record, see Peace River).

In the common law provinces, a stay will be granted if: (i) there is an arguable case that a valid arbitration agreement exists in respect of the matter and the parties before the court, and that the party seeking a stay has not taken any “step” in the court proceedings; and (ii) on the balance of probabilities no statutory exception to granting a stay applies (Peace River). The Ontario Court of Appeal recently ruled that this framework applies equally to domestic and international arbitrations (Husky Food Importers & Distributors Ltd. v. JH Whittaker & Sons Limited, 2023 ONCA 260). In Québec, stays are governed by 622 CCP.

6.2 Anti-suit injunctions

Anti-suit injunctions are available in Canada, but they are not common. Canadian courts have also, in rare circumstances, granted anti-arbitration injunctions enjoining parties from pursuing arbitration (Lac d’Amiante du Canada Ltée c. Lac d’Amiante du Québec Ltée, C.A. 1999-12-06).

7.1 Restrictions on the parties’ freedom to choose arbitrators

In Canada, there are no restrictions on parties’ freedom to choose arbitrators, subject only to the requirements of independence and impartiality described below. There is no requirement for a person to be a lawyer or a member of a legal profession. There are no nationality requirements, except where agreed by the parties (although the British Columbia ICAA prohibits the court from appointing a sole arbitrator that is the same nationality as one of the parties, section 11(9)).

7.2 Requirement of arbitrator independence and impartiality

Arbitrators in all Canadian jurisdictions are required to be independent and impartial. The test for an arbitrator’s independence and impartiality is objective: would the relevant circumstances lead a fair-minded and informed observer to find bias, applied against a backdrop of a strong presumption of impartiality? (Aroma Franchise Company, Inc. v. Aroma Espresso Bar Canada Inc., 2024 ONCA 839 (“Aroma”).)

7.3 Mandatory rules applicable to the appointment process

The parties are free to agree on a procedure for appointing the arbitrator or arbitrators.

7.4 Appointment mechanism in the absence of party agreement or applicable institutional rules

If the parties or appointing authority are not able to appoint an arbitrator, then the applicable legislation will set out the procedure. Under the international acts of the common law provinces, the default requirements in an arbitration of three arbitrators are that each party appoints one arbitrator, and the two appointed arbitrators select the third. If a party fails to appoint an arbitrator, then the court may appoint one upon request.

In Québec, the default number of arbitrators is one if the parties have not agreed otherwise (624 CCP). The parties will appoint a sole arbitrator by agreement unless they appoint a third party to do so. In the case of three arbitrators, the Québec procedure is identical to the common law provinces. A party may also request the court to appoint an arbitrator as needed (625 CCP).

7.5 Mandatory rules applicable to the replacement process

There are no mandatory rules applicable to the replacement process. Under the Ontario ICAA, a substitute arbitrator is appointed according to the rules that were applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being replaced (Schedule 2, Article 15). The same applies in Québec (624 CCP).

7.6 Mandatory disclosure obligations

An arbitrator has an obligation to disclose any circumstances that may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias or cast doubt on the arbitrator’s impartiality.

7.7 Grounds for challenge

In Québec, an arbitrator may be removed if there are serious reasons to question his or her impartiality, or if the arbitrator does not have the qualifications agreed by the parties (626 CCP). The same grounds generally exist under the international acts in the common law provinces. The British Columbia ICAA requires a “real danger of bias on the part of the arbitrator” (section 12(3.1)).

Canadian courts and arbitral tribunals seated in Canada regularly refer to the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration and to the applicable UNCITRAL Model Law, although recognizing that they are not mandatory and they do not override national law or the chosen arbitral rules (see Aroma).

7.8 Mandatory rules governing the challenge of arbitrators

In Québec, requests to the arbitral tribunal for recusal of an arbitrator must be made within 15 days of becoming aware of the appointment or the cause for recusal. A party may subsequently apply to a court to rule on the recusal (626–627 CCP) (see below, Section 8.3). Where the parties have not agreed on a procedure for challenging an arbitrator, the various common law provinces generally allow a party to challenge an arbitrator before the tribunal within 15 days of becoming aware of circumstances giving rise to a doubt, and then before a court within 30 days of the tribunal rejecting the request (Article 13).

7.9 Removal

See Section 7.8 above and 8.3 below.

7.10 Liability and immunity of arbitrators

Arbitrators are generally immune from liability for negligence, except for gross negligence or bad faith. In order for an arbitrator to be protected from liability, the following conditions must be met:

• there must be an existing dispute that the parties have submitted to the arbitrator;
• the arbitrator must be acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial manner (receiving evidence, hearing arguments, and making a determination); and
• the arbitrator must be fulfilling their function independently, in compliance with the mandatory provisions of the applicable legislation.

The various arbitration acts provide that courts can provide assistance to arbitration proceedings.

A recent case held that Québec courts may grant provisional measures or interim relief even if the arbitration is seated outside Québec (GlobeAir Holding GmbH c. Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., 2024 QCCS 2451 (“Pratt & Whitney”)).

8.1 Interim measures

8.1.1 Overview of interim measures

Under the Ontario and British Columbia ICAAs, interim measures from arbitral tribunals can be recognized and enforced by a court in the same way as a final award. This is the same in Québec (638 and 652(1) CCP).

8.1.2 Relevance of availability of emergency arbitrator mechanism

The provincial international arbitration acts, as well as the Federal Arbitration Act, do not provide for an emergency arbitrator mechanism, although where emergency arbitrators are provided for in institutional rules, their orders will generally be recognized by Canadian courts (Pratt & Whitney).

8.2 Taking of evidence

Subject to the agreement of the parties and the obligation of procedural fairness, an arbitral tribunal has discretion to determine the admissibility and assessment of evidence. Across Canada, an arbitral tribunal, or a party with the approval of the arbitral tribunal, may apply to a court for assistance in taking evidence. This may include compelling a witness to attend or produce real evidence in his or her possession (634 CCP). The court will apply its own rules of evidence to the request (Ontario ICAA, Schedule 2, Article 27, British Columbia ICAA section 27, Federal Arbitration Act, Schedule 1, Article 27).

It is common for arbitral tribunals in Canada to refer to the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration.

8.3 Appointment or challenge of arbitrators

A party seeking to challenge an arbitrator does so under the applicable institutional rules (if any), or under the applicable arbitration legislation (see above, Sections 7.4 and 7.8).

8.4 Other available assistance

No other types of assistance to arbitrations are commonly available.

9.1 Domestic scope of sovereign immunity from jurisdiction

Sovereign immunity in Canada is governed at the federal level by the State Immunity Act, R.S.C., 1985, Chapter S-18 (SIA). The SIA recognizes the general immunity of states from the jurisdiction of any court in Canada (section 3(1)), unless the state waives immunity by submitting to the jurisdiction of the Canadian court (section 4(1)). A state ceases to be immune from the jurisdiction of Canadian courts in any proceedings that relate to any commercial activity of that state (SIA section 5), that relate to death or bodily injury or damage to or loss of property (SIA section 6), or that relate to its support of terrorism (SIA section 6.1). A further exception to a state’s immunity from jurisdiction exists for proceedings that relate to a ship owned by a state that is used for commercial activity (SIA section 7). Finally, foreign states are not immune from the jurisdiction of Canadian courts in relation to property located in Canada that is received as a gift or inheritance (SIA section 8).

The international arbitration statutes do not create distinct rules for the immunity of States from jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal of Québec recently recognized that a State renounces its sovereign immunity by submitting disputes to international arbitration under a trade treaty and by ratifying the New York Convention (Republic of India v. CCDM Holdings, 2024 QCCA 1620). As a signatory of the ICSID Convention, Canadian courts recognize ICSID awards against foreign States and enforce damages imposed by such awards.

9.2 Immunity from execution

The property of a foreign state that is located in Canada is immune from execution except where the state has waived its immunity, the property is used for a commercial activity or for terrorism, or the judgment relates to real property located in Canada or to the terrorist activity of the state (SIA section 12). Where Canadian courts have jurisdiction over the agency of a foreign state, then its property is subject to execution (SIA section 12(2)), except in relation to military property of a foreign state or the property of a foreign central bank (SIA section 12(3), (4)).

Parties are free to choose the rules governing the arbitration, but arbitral tribunals are at all times bound by the obligations of procedural fairness and are authorized to conduct proceedings within the bounds of the parties’ agreement. The CCP in Québec also provides that arbitral tribunals must conduct arbitration proceedings in conformity with the adversarial principle and the principle of proportionality (632 CCP).

Arbitrations are confidential, subject to the parties’ agreement (for instance, see 4 CCP). In Québec, this support for confidentiality means that a court will file an arbitration award under seal in the context of homologation proceedings (79411 USA Inc. v. Mondofix Inc., 2020 QCCS 1104). In the common law provinces, an arbitration award becomes public once it enters the court record unless the court grants a sealing order, but this must be specifically requested and supported by evidence.

12.1 Requirements as to content and form

In all Canadian jurisdictions, an award must be in writing, signed by the arbitrators indicating the date and place it was rendered, and it must state the reasons on which it is based. It must be issued to the parties.

12.2 Time limit

In Québec, an award must be issued within three months after the matter is taken under advisement, unless the parties have agreed to a different time limit (642 CCP). In the common law provinces, the Model Law does not impose a time limit for an international arbitral tribunal to issue an award.

12.3 Remedies

Arbitrators have a general power to award remedies. Parties may limit the powers of an arbitral tribunal to grant relief. The domestic arbitration acts in the common law provinces empower arbitral tribunals to order specific performance, injunctions, and other equitable remedies. The international acts do not specify the remedies available to arbitral tribunals. If the substantive law applicable to the dispute allows it, arbitral tribunals may award punitive damages.

13.1 Interpretation and correction of awards

Parties may apply to arbitral tribunals to interpret or correct an arbitration award. In Québec, a party has 30 days from the receipt of the award to do so, and the arbitral tribunal has two months to issue a correction or supplemental award (643 CCP). The process is similar in Ontario and British Columbia (Ontario ICAA, Schedule 2, Article 33; British Columbia ICAA, section 33).

13.2 Challenge of an award

Canadian courts will set aside (or in Québec, “annul”) awards based on the grounds provided in Article V of the New York Convention and Article 34 of the Model Law.

Under the domestic acts of the common law provinces, arbitral awards are appealable in certain circumstances, although the parties can contract out of this right. Under Québec law, arbitral awards cannot be appealed, and can only be challenged by way of an application for annulment (648 CCP), or by resisting homologation of an award (646 CCP), both based on Model Law grounds.

Ontario applies the same Model Law framework. Arbitral awards under the Ontario ICAA are not subject to appeal, but a party may apply to set them aside (Schedule 2, Article 34). This is done by way of application within three months of receiving the award.

13.3 Recognition and enforcement proceedings

In the common law provinces, enforcement of a domestic award is subject to the domestic acts. Enforcement of international awards is subject to the New York Convention (see below, Section 14) or ICSID Convention.

Recognition and enforcement by Québec courts of arbitral awards rendered in Québec, whether domestic or international, takes place through homologation (645, 646 CCP) (see above, Section 13.2). Once an award is homologated, it acquires the force and effect of a court judgment. An award rendered outside Québec can be recognized and enforced by the Québec courts, regardless of whether it has been confirmed by a competent authority (652 CCP). In the case of an international award, a party has 10 years from the date of the final award to bring an application for recognition and enforcement (Itani c. Société générale de Banque au Liban SAL, 2022 QCCA 920).

13.4 Cost of enforcement

In addition to the legal fees required for counsel, each Canadian court has a schedule or tariff on fees applicable to filing an application in civil matters.

13.5 Enforcement of orders of emergency arbitrators

See above, Section 8.1.2.

14.1 Process for enforcing New York Convention awards

In all provinces, a party applies to the court for enforcement by way of an originating application, following the normal rules of civil procedure (filing fees, notification to opposing party, etc).

14.2 Grounds for resisting enforcement of New York Convention awards

All jurisdictions in Canada apply the grounds for resisting enforcement found at Article V of the New York Convention.

14.3 Enforcing non-Convention awards

See above, Sections 13.2 and 13.3.

15.1 Applicable to counsel

Each province in Canada has a separate bar association. Lawyers called in multiple jurisdictions will need to consider their obligations in each jurisdiction.

15.2 Applicable to arbitrators

There are no professional or ethical rules applicable to arbitrators, beyond the rules of any professional order they may belong to.

16.1 Applicable regulatory requirements

Third-party funding rules in Canada are not specific to arbitration. Outside of the insolvency or class action context, there are no rules about disclosure of third-party funding.

16.2 Overview of the third-party funding market

Third-party funding has increased greatly in Canada in the last 10 years. Major international funders are active in the growing Canadian market, funding both litigation and arbitration.

17.1 Types of specialist arbitration

Domestic arbitration in Canada is quite developed; there are many types of specialist arbitrations. Examples of practice areas with robust, specialist arbitration practices in Canada include shipping, construction, infrastructure, and domain name disputes. Labour arbitration and family arbitration are distinct from commercial arbitration, although in some cases they may share some procedural framework.

17.2 Key legal principles

Specialist arbitration that is commercial is subject to the same rules as any other commercial arbitration in a given jurisdiction. Distinct rules may apply for non-commercial arbitrations.

17.3 Types of claims and defences typically brought in that area

In commercial arbitrations, the claims and defences available to parties are determined by the applicable law. In arbitrations subject to specific statutory regimes, there may be specialized claims and defences available.

17.4 Issues and strategic considerations to take note of

Dispute boards are becoming more frequent on large-scale construction projects in Canada. This development, along with the increasing prevalence of multi-party arbitrations in the construction industry, requires careful consideration of the overlap of parallel dispute boards proceedings, arbitrations and court proceedings on major projects.

Commercial arbitration is widely practised in Canada, and it is growing. Canadian arbitrators are often sought after, given the widespread support for arbitration in Canada and the fact that the Canadian legal community encompasses both the common law and civil law traditions.

In the investment arbitration context, Canada continues to support the ISDS system. Recent claims by Canadian parties include claims under the CPTPP, notably against Mexico. The last NAFTA legacy claims are being decided (see above, Section 2.5).