No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 September 2016
Treaty obligations to afford foreign investors a minimum standard of treatment (MST) and/or fair and equitable treatment (FET) are hallmarks of international investment law. However, the relationship between such treaty-based obligations and customary international law has been the subject of considerable debate. In the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) context, the majority tribunal decision and dissenting opinion in Clayton and Bilcon of Delaware Inc. v Government of Canada (Bilcon) reflect ongoing disagreement regarding the threshold for breach of the MST under NAFTA Article 1105. This article charts NAFTA investment tribunals’ decisions regarding FET claims under Article 1105 and the development of the customary international MST on which that provision is based, in particular, the prohibition on arbitrary treatment. It argues that the majority in Bilcon applied an inappropriately low threshold in finding a breach of Article 1105, which could represent a new and unwelcome direction in NAFTA Chapter 11 jurisprudence.
Les obligations conventionnelles d’accorder aux investisseurs étrangers une norme minimale de traitement (NMT) et/ou un traitement juste et équitable (TJE) sont des éléments clés du droit international de l’investissement. Toutefois, la relation entre ces normes conventionnelles et le droit international coutumier fait l’objet d’importants débats. Dans le contexte de l’Accord sur le libre échange nord-américain (ALÉNA), la décision majoritaire du tribunal et l’opinion dissidente dans l’affaire Clayton et Bilcon of Delaware Inc. c Gouvernement du Canada (Bilcon) reflètent un désaccord concernant le seuil de conduite nécessaire pour fonder une violation de l’obligation NMT en vertu de l’Article 1105 de l’ALÉNA. Cet article passe en revue les décisions des tribunaux d’investissement ALÉNA portant sur le TJE sous l’Article 1105, ainsi que le développement de la NMT coutumière sur laquelle se fonde l’Article 1105, particulièrement l’interdiction du traitement arbitraire. Il soutient que la majorité du tribunal Bilcon a appliqué un seuil juridique trop bas pour fonder une violation de l’Article 1105, et que ceci représente peut-être une orientation nouvelle et importune dans la jurisprudence sous le chapitre 11 de l’ALÉNA.
1 Paparinskis, Martins, International Minimum Standard and Fair and Equitable Treatment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) at 1–2 [Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard”].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 North American Free Trade Agreement, 17 December 1992, 32 ILM 289, 605 (1993) [NAFTA]. For an example of a bilateral investment treaty (BIT), see the Agreement between the Government of the French Republic and the Government of the Republic of Ecuador on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, 7 September 1994, 1980 UNTS 167.
3 See NAFTA, supra note 2, arts 1102–03, 1110.
4 A fair and equitable treatment (FET) requirement is codified in NAFTA, ibid, art 1105(1). For the purposes of this article, the acronym “MST” refers to the customary international minimum standard of treatment.
5 Jacob Stone, “Arbitrariness, the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard, and the International Law of Investment” (2012) 25 Leiden J Int’l L 77 at 98; Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 4.
6 Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 3.
7 Potential examples of such criteria include the significance of the interference (regarding expropriation) or comparative treatment (regarding national treatment (NT) or most-favoured-nation (MFN) obligations). See Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 3–4.
8 See Roland Kläger, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment’ in International Investment Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), online: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511974915>; Patrick Dumberry, “The Prohibition against Arbitrary Conduct and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard under NAFTA Article 1105” (2014) 15 J World Inv & Trade 117; Martins Paparinskis, “Good Faith and Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Law” in Andrew D Mitchell, M Sornarajah & Tania Voon, eds, Good Faith and International Economic Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) 143 [Paparinskis, “Good Faith”]; Stone, supra note 5; Achmea BV v Slovakia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 2008-13, Award (7 December 2012); F-W Oil Interests, Inc. v The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, ICSID Case No ARB/01/14, Award (3 March 2006); Perenco Ecuador Ltd v Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador), ICSID Case No ARB/08/6, Decision on Remaining Issues of Jurisdiction and on Liability (12 September 2014); Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v United States of America, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/12/1, Award (25 August 2014); International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v The United Mexican States, UNCITRAL, Award (26 January 2006) (NAFTA Chapter 11 Panel) [Thunderbird]; Waste Management, Inc. v United Mexican States (“Number 2”), ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/00/3, Award (30 April 2004) [Waste Management II].
9 Willian Ralph Clayton, William Richard Clayton, Douglas Clayton, Daniel Clayton and Bilcon of Delaware Inc. v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 2009-04, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability (17 March 2015) [Bilcon].
10 Willian Ralph Clayton, William Richard Clayton, Douglas Clayton, Daniel Clayton and Bilcon of Delaware Inc. v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 2009-04, Dissenting Opinion of Donald McRae [Bilcon Dissent].
11 Mesa Power Group LLC v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 2012-17, Claimant Observations on the Bilcon Award (14 May 2015) at paras 47–50.
12 Mesa Power Group LLC v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 2012-17, Canada Observations on the Bilcon Award (14 May 2015); Mesa Power Group LLC v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 2012-17, Mexico Submission on the Bilcon Award (12 June 2015); Mesa Power Group LLC v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 2012-17, United States Submission on the Bilcon Award (12 June 2015).
13 See Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, 5 October 2015, art 9.6, online: Global Affairs Canada <http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/tpp-ptp/text-texte/09.aspx?lang=eng> [TPP].
14 See Global Affairs Canada, “Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions (NAFTA Free Trade Commission, July 31, 2001),” online: Global Affairs Canada <http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/NAFTA-Interpr.aspx?lang=eng> [FTC Note].
15 Waste Management II, supra note 8; Merrill & Ring Forestry LP v The Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, ICSID Administered Case, Award (31 March 2010) [Merrill & Ring].
16 Mesa Power Group LLC (USA) v Government of Canada, PCA Case No 2012-17, Award (24 March 2016) at paras 12, 503.
17 Bilcon, supra note 9 at paras 122–24.
18 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, SC 1992, c 37 (since superseded by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, SC 2012, c 19.
19 Bilcon, supra note 9 at para 152.
20 Ibid at para 742. The issues arising under Articles 1102 and 1103 are not material to the analysis of the customary MST under Article 1105 and so are not discussed in this article.
21 Ibid at paras 447–50, 591, 604 [emphasis added]. The tribunal specifically referred to several other NAFTA decisions in determining the threshold for finding a violation of art 1105: “[The Waste Management Tribunal] noted obiter that the breach of reasonably relied-on expectations could be a relevant factor ... The ADF tribunal suggests that only representations made by authorized officials qualify for consideration in this context” (at para 445).
22 Ibid at paras 449, 453.
23 Schill, Stephan W, “Fair and Equitable Treatment, the Rule of Law, and Comparative Public Law” in Schill, Stephen W, ed, International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar 151 [Schill, “FET and the Rule of Law”]; Stone, supra note 5 at 98.
24 See Tudor, Ioanna, The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in the International Law of Foreign Investment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) at 74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stone, supra note 5 at 98. The FTC Note, supra note 14, makes this relationship much less murky in the NAFTA context; however, this section considers FET in treaty and arbitral practice more generally. See also Paparinskis, “Good Faith,” supra note 8 at 5.
25 See Stone, supra note 5 at 81; Margaret Claire Ryan, “Glamis Gold, Ltd. v. The United States and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard” (2011) 56 McGill LJ 919 at 928, 930–31, n 40; FA Mann, “British Treaties for the Formation and Protection of Investment” (1981) 52 Brit YB Int’l L 241 at 244, cited in Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 5. The general rules of treaty interpretation are embodied in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 [VCLT]. The VCLT itself reflects customary international law (CIL), and thus the rules it espouses are binding on all states and are consistently applied by arbitral tribunals in the interpretive process. See John Currie et al, International Law: Doctrine, Practice, and Theory, 2nd edition (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2014) at 49.
26 See Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 6, nn 31–34.
27 VCLT, supra note 25, art 31(1), (3)(c), (4). See Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 6, 155.
28 See Ryan, supra note 25 at 925.
29 Ibid at 926–27.
30 Ibid at 927.
31 See Tudor, supra note 24 at 65–84.
32 Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 88–94, 172.
33 Ibid at 172.
34 Tudor, supra note 24 at 72–83.
35 Paparinskis, “Good Faith,” supra note 8 at 23 (although here the author is discussing the novel application of the good faith principle to rules regarding state contracts.)
36 Tudor, supra note 24 at 83. This somewhat resembles an argument that FET amounts to a general principle of international law. General principles of law are the third source of international law, in addition to treaties and CIL, identified by the Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945, 59 Stat 1031, art 38(1)(c), online: <http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/?p1=4&p2=2#CHAPTER_II> [ICJ Statute]. See generally Currie et al, supra note 25 at 140–45.
37 Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 173–74.
38 Ibid at 174–75. Although here the author is arguing against the use of general principles of law to help define the content of the customary MST, the logic is the same.
39 Ryan, supra note 25 at 931. The reference in the FTC Note, supra note 14, to the customary MST is a binding interpretation of Article 1105, which omits such an explicit reference. However, both the Canadian and American model BITs now contain explicit references to CIL. See Investment Treaties, online: ITA Law <http://www.italaw.com/investment-treaties>.
40 Mann, supra note 25 at 244, cited in Ryan, supra note 25 at 930, n 40.
41 MTD Equity Sdn Bhd and MTD Chile SA v Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No ARB/01/7, Award (25 May 2004); Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, SA and Vivendi Universal SA v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/97/3, Award (20 August 2007). It should be noted, however, that the France–Argentina BIT governing the latter case refers to principles of international law, not CIL. See Agreement between the Republic of France and the Republic of Argentina on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, 3 July 1991, 1728 UNTS 281, art 3. See also Ryan, supra note 25 at 933, nn 52–58.
42 Ryan, supra note 25 at 934.
43 NAFTA, supra note 2, art 1105(1). Articles 1105(2) and (3) deal with situations of armed conflict and interaction with other provisions, respectively, and are not relevant to this discussion.
44 Ryan, supra note 25 at 936.
45 Metalclad Corporation v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No Arb(AF)/97/1, Award (30 August 2000) at paras 70, 76, 88 [Metalclad]. See Ryan, supra note 25 at 937.
46 United Mexican States v Metalclad Corp, 2001 BCSC 664, [2001] 89 BCLR (3d) 359 [Mexico v Metalclad]; see Ryan, supra note 25 at 937, n 75. The British Columbia Supreme Court took jurisdiction because the contract underlying the investment had set the place of arbitration as Vancouver.
47 Pope & Talbot Inc v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Award on the Merits of Phase 2 (10 April 2001) at 105ff (NAFTA Chapter 11 Tribunal) [Pope & Talbot (Merits)]. See Ryan, supra note 25 at 937, n 76.
48 Ryan, supra note 25 at 938, nn 80–82. The Canadian and American government submissions were made under NAFTA, supra note 2, art 1128.
49 Pope & Talbot (Merits), supra note 47 at para 111.
50 See, eg, SD Myers, Inc v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Second Partial Award (21 October 2002) (NAFTA Chapter 11 Tribunal) at para 266 [SD Myers], where a majority of the tribunal found that Canada had breached Article 1105 through its breach of Article 1102.
51 FTC Note, supra note 14, “Minimum Standard of Treatment in Accordance with International Law.”
52 See NAFTA, supra note 2, art 1131(2). The MST threshold test is discussed later in this article.
53 Pope & Talbot Inc v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Award in Respect of Damages (31 May 2002) at paras 53–66 [Pope & Talbot (Damages)]. The tribunal refrained from applying this expansive standard, however, instead finding a breach of Article 1105 under the more restrictive approach proposed by the respondent. Ibid at paras 67–69.
54 Waste Management II, supra note 8 at para 98.
55 See Ryan, supra note 25 at 942–43. A full account of these cases is beyond the scope of this article, but those related to the arbitrariness standard at issue in Bilcon are discussed later in this article.
56 ICJ Statute, supra note 36, art 38(1)(b).
57 See generally Currie et al, supra note 25 at 116–39; see also Tudor, supra note 24 at 72–73.
58 Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 43.
59 E Root, “The Basis of Protection to Citizens Residing Abroad” (1910) 4 ASIL Proceedings 16 at 22–27, cited in Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 43, nn 29–30.
60 Ibid at 48.
61 See, eg, Stone, supra note 5 at 81; Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 49; Ryan, supra note 25 at 929.
62 LFH Neer and Pauline E Neer (USA) v United Mexican States, United States and Mexico General Claims Commission Decision (15 October 1926), reprinted in [1926] 4 UNRIAA 60 at 61–62 [Neer].
63 Significantly, Neer established the same standard for denial of justice by executive, legislative, and judicial authorities. See Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 49.
64 Ibid at 51.
65 Ibid at 63.
66 Ibid at 68.
67 This was acknowledged, without subsequent criticism, by the tribunal in CME Czech Republic BV v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award (14 March 2003) at para 497; see Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 68.
68 See, eg, White Industries Australia Limited v India, UNCITRAL, Final Award (30 November 2011) at paras 10.4.5–10.4.9; Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 163, n 52.
69 Ibid at 182, 206.
70 Loewen Group Inc and Raymond R. Loewen v United States of America, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/98/3, Award (26 June 2003) at paras 151–56 [Loewen].
71 Ibid at paras 207–08.
72 Ibid at paras 209–17.
73 Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 206–07.
74 MCO Asia Corporation and others v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No ARB/81/1, Award (20 November 1984) at para 137, cited in Paulsson, Jan, Denial of Justice in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) at 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
75 Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 209.
76 Paparinskis, “Good Faith,” supra note 8 at 27. See also Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 194, 214–15.
77 See Bilcon, supra note 9 at paras 492, 508, 514, 569.
78 FV García-Amador, “Report on International Responsibility,” UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/1956/Add 1 (1956) 2 Yearbook ILC 173 at 223, cited in Paparinskis, “Good Faith,” supra note 8 at 28.
79 Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 215–16.
80 Bilcon, supra note 9 at paras 546–47.
81 Ibid at para 591.
82 Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 224–26.
83 Ibid at 174–75.
84 See generally Reiner, Clara & Schreuer, Christoph, “Human Rights and International Investment Arbitration” in Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich & Francioni, Francesco, eds, Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009) 82.Google Scholar
85 Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 238.
86 Ibid at 175–76.
87 Mondev International Ltd v United States of America, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/99/2, Award (11 October 2002) at paras 138, 141–44 [Mondev].
88 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 221 [ECHR]. See Reiner & Schreuer, supra note 84 at 94.
89 See Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 178.
90 Bilcon, supra note 9 at paras 427, 442–45.
91 Waste Management II, supra note 8 at para 98. For a list of cases that have accepted this formulation in applying the customary MST, see Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 238, n 188.
92 Ibid at 239.
93 A more detailed survey of MST elements, other than arbitrariness, is beyond the scope of this article. For such a review, see Andrew Newcombe & Lluís Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties (Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2009) at 233–98.
94 Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 245. See SD Myers, supra note 50.
95 FTC Note, supra note 14 at para 2(3). Although Paparinskis notes that the content of CIL is not altered by agreement between the parties, the application of specific CIL elements as between the parties may be explicitly excluded in a treaty. See Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 245. See also Paparinskis, “Good Faith,” supra note 8 at 24.
96 Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 246.
97 Tecnicas Medioambientales TECMED SA v Mexico, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/00/2, Award (29 May 2003) at para 154 [Tecmed]. See Paparinskis, “Good Faith,” supra note 8 at 29.
98 Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 248–50.
99 See, eg, Metalclad, supra note 45 at paras 185–86. See also Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 248.
100 ADF Group v United States of America, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/00/1, Award (9 January 2003) at para 189 [ADF].
101 Metalclad, supra note 45 at paras 81–87.
102 Thunderbird, supra note 8 at paras 151–65. See Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 249.
103 Bilcon Dissent, supra note 10 at para 5.
104 Thunderbird, supra note 8 at paras 197–201. See Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 250.
105 Ibid at 251.
106 Newcombe & Paradell, supra note 93 at 279.
107 Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/84/3, Award (20 May 1992) at paras 82–83.
108 Waste Management II, supra note 8 at para 98.
109 William Nagel v Czech Republic, SCC Case No 049/2002, Award (9 September 2003) at 164, cited in Newcombe & Paradell, supra note 93 at 280.
110 Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 243.
111 Tecmed, supra note 97 at para 153; ADF, supra note 100 at para 191. See also Paparinskis, “Good Faith,” supra note 8 at 1–5.
112 Newcombe & Paradell, supra note 93 at 276.
113 Paparinskis, “Good Faith,” supra note 8 at 7–11; Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 243.
114 Paparinskis, “Good Faith,” supra note 8 at 34.
115 Stone, supra note 5 at 97, 103, cited in Dumberry, supra note 8 at 151, n 207.
116 Stone, supra note 5 at 103.
117 See ibid at 94, n 109; Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed, sub verbo “arbitrary,” cited in Stone, supra note 5 at 85, n 51.
118 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, “Fair and Equitable Treatment,” UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II (2012), online: <http://unctad.org/en/Docs/unctaddiaeia2011d5_en.pdf> at 78 [UNCTAD 2012], cited in Dumberry, supra note 8 at 121.
119 Loewen, supra note 70 at para 131, cited in UNCTAD 2012, supra note 118 at 79, n 77 [emphasis added]; Elettronica Sicula SpA (United States of America v Italy), Judgment, [1989] ICJ Rep 15 [ELSI].
120 See especially Stone, supra note 5 at 88–92.
121 ELSI, supra note 119 at paras 124, 128 [emphasis added].
122 Neer, supra note 62.
123 Paparinskis, “International Minimum Standard,” supra note 1 at 240.
124 Stone, supra note 5 at 92.
125 Ibid at 90.
126 Sean D Murphy, “The ELSI Case: An Investment Dispute at the International Court of Justice” (1991) 16 Yale J Int’l L 391 at 433–34 [Murphy], cited in Newcombe & Paradell, supra note 93 at 248.
127 ELSI, supra note 119 at 108–21.
128 Newcombe & Paradell, supra note 93 at 248–49.
129 Bilcon, supra note 9 at paras 20, 507–14.
130 Dumberry, supra note 8 at 126. See also generally Newcombe & Paradell, supra note 93 at 249–50.
131 See Dumberry, supra note 8 at 144–45 [emphasis in original].
132 Ibid at 145.
133 Stone, supra note 5 at 99–100.
134 Glamis Gold, Ltd v United States of America, Award, 8 June 2009, UNCITRAL, online: <http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0378.pdf> [Glamis Gold]. See Stone, supra note 5 at 101.
135 Dumberry, supra note 8 at 127.
136 Waste Management II, supra note 8 at paras 98–115. See also Dumberry, supra note 8 at 128–29.
137 Waste Management II, supra note 8 at para 115.
138 GAMI Investments, Inc v United Mexican States, UNCITRAL, Award (15 November 2004) [GAMI]. See Dumberry, supra note 8 at 130.
139 GAMI, supra note 138 at para 91. This reasoning was cited by the dissenting arbitrator in Bilcon, although the dissenting arbitrator seems to have mistakenly cited para 95 of the GAMI award, which makes no such statement. See Bilcon Dissent, supra note 10 at para 3, n 6, para 31, n 44.
140 GAMI, supra note 138 at para 103.
141 Cargill, Inc v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/05/2, Award (18 September 2009) [Cargill].
142 Ibid at paras 118–20.
143 Ibid at para 293. See also Dumberry, supra note 8 at 138.
144 Cargill, supra note 141 at para 299.
145 Ibid at para 293 [emphasis added].
146 Ibid at paras 298–300. See also Dumberry, supra note 8 at 139.
147 See Dumberry, supra note 8 at 132. See also Ryan, supra note 25 at 923–25.
148 Glamis Gold, supra note 134 at paras 616, 627 [emphasis added].
149 Ibid at para 614, citing the decisions in Thunderbird, supra note 8; SD Myers, supra note 50; and Mondev, supra note 87. See also Ryan, supra note 25 at 945.
150 Glamis Gold, supra note 134 at para 625 [emphasis in original].
151 See Dumberry, supra note 8 at 134–35.
152 Glamis Gold, supra note 134 at paras 807–12.
153 Ryan, supra note 25 at 921–22.
154 Ibid at 952, n 145, citing Mondev, supra note 87; ADF, supra note 100; Ryan, supra note 25 at 953.
155 Ryan, supra note 25 at 953.
156 Ibid at 952.
157 Ibid at 954–56.
158 Merrill & Ring, supra note 15 at paras 211–13.
159 Ibid at paras 212–13.
160 Eg, due process (Pope & Talbot, supra note 47), arbitrariness (Glamis Gold, supra note 134), and legitimate expectations (Thunderbird, supra note 8). See Dumberry, supra note 8 at 125, nn 40–43.
161 See, eg, Newcombe & Paradell, supra note 93 at 249–50; Dumberry, supra note 8 at 124–25.
162 Stone, supra note 5 at 101. See also Dumberry, supra note 8 at 146–47.
163 See text accompanying note 117. See also Stone, supra note 5 at 101.
164 Bilcon, supra note 9 at para 453 [emphasis added].
165 Ibid at para 589. Governmental encouragement included a personal invitation by the Nova Scotia minister of natural resources to “continue to move the project forward.” See ibid at para 468.
166 Bilcon Dissent, supra note 10 at para 5.
167 See text accompanying note 108.
168 See text accompanying notes 100–02; Metalclad, supra note 45 at paras 81–87.
169 Bilcon, supra note 9 at para 589.
170 See text accompanying note 101.
171 Bilcon, supra note 9 at paras 573–74. See also text accompanying note 151.
172 See text accompanying note 145.
173 Bilcon, supra note 9 at paras 451–52.
174 Waste Management II, supra note 8 at para 115.
175 See text accompanying note 129.
176 Bilcon, supra note 9 at para 591.
177 Bilcon Dissent, supra note 10 at para 34.
178 Ibid at para 42.
179 Bilcon, supra note 9 at para 738.
180 Bilcon Dissent, supra note 10 at para 48.
181 Bilcon, supra note 9 at para 435.
182 Ibid at para 438.
183 See Ryan, supra note 25 at 950–55.
184 Ibid at 950–51.
185 See text accompanying note 12.
186 Stone, supra note 5 at 107.