CanArb Week 2026: Canada is Ready to Meet the Moment

CanArb Week recently brought together Canadian and international arbitration practitioners in Toronto for its seventh iteration. 

Wrapping up just three days before Canada kicked off its co-hosting duties for the FIFA World Cup, the three-day CanArb Week conference highlighted what also makes Canada such an attractive host of international arbitration, particularly in “an era of change” (the theme of this year’s conference).  Major Canadian cities like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, offer several key advantages as attractive arbitral seats: strong rule of law, political neutrality, a bijural and bilingual legal system and culture, independent and arbitration-friendly courts, modern arbitration legislation (Canada was the first country to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law and is a New York Convention signatory), sophisticated counsel and arbitrators and accessible cities with world-class hearing infrastructure.  You would be forgiven for mistaking the key message from CanArb Week with Canada’s message as World Cup co-host: Canada is ready to increase its visibility on the international stage and welcome the (arbitration) world with open arms.

As in years past, this year’s CanArb Week featured panels organized by leading Canadian and international arbitration organizations, including the Vancouver International Arbitration Centre (VanIAC), the ICC Canada Arbitration Committee, the ADR Institute of Canada (ADRIC) and the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) Canada. Some highlights from these panels are discussed below.

Ad Hoc vs. Institutional Arbitration: What Best Serves Canada’s Future?

The ICDR Canada panel, moderated by ICDR-AAA Vice President, Yanett Quiroz, explored the differences between ad hoc and institutional arbitrations and examined the respective advantages of each.  Robert Deane, KC (Borden Ladner Gervais LLP) based in Canada, Sofía Gómez Ruano, FCIArb (International Arbitrator, Mediator and Counsel) based in Mexico and Gary L. Benton (International Arbitrator, Mediator and Counsel) based in the United States, each offered reflections based on the practices in their home jurisdictions.

It became clear that of the three jurisdictions represented on the panel, ad hoc arbitration is more common in Canada than in the United States and Mexico where institutional arbitration is the default.  To the extent that there is a domestic arbitration without an international component and the arbitration is seated in a region of Canada without a strong history of institutional arbitration, such as the Prairies and the Maritimes, ad hoc arbitration remains an attractive choice for parties, particularly where there is experienced arbitration counsel on both sides.  The procedural flexibility and efficiency afforded by ad hoc arbitration falls away if the parties are not cooperative.

The panelists also discussed the many potential advantages offered by institutions, including predictability and having clear rules and systems in place for the appointment of arbitrators and emergency relief.  Qualities of top-tier institutions that were discussed include institutions that take a bespoke approach to each case, offer a seamless file opening experience and deal with matters that arise expeditiously.

In my experience, first impressions are important.  Institutions typically provide the most value to parties at the front-end of the process.  Seamless file opening, commencement and appointment process are therefore critical for instilling party confidence in the institution.

The Role of the Arbitrator: Activist or Deferential?

Hosted by ADRIC and introduced by ADRIC’s President, Mike Schafler, FCIArb, QArb (Dentons), a panel of three independent arbitrators – Stephanie Cohen, Mary Comeau, FCIArb, and Joel Richler, FCIArb – engaged in a lively discussion about the source and limits of arbitral authority to manage the arbitral process, ask questions, test evidence and make procedural choices that promote both fairness and efficiency.

There was consensus among the three experienced arbitrators that parties hire arbitrators to act as activists.  Parties select arbitrators for their expertise and expect arbitrators to take the steps necessary to control the arbitral process.  Arbitrators should therefore approach procedural decisions with confidence.

The panelists acknowledged the limited guidance that exists for arbitrators to precisely self-identify when they have “crossed the line”.  With reference to recent Canadian case law – including Dufferin v. Morrison Hershfield and Baffinland v. Tower-EBC – the panelists discussed practical tips to inoculate awards from future challenge.  For example, setting out fundamental procedural matters in Procedural Order No. 1 can help manage party expectations at the outset of the arbitration and minimize the grounds for later challenges.  At every stage of the arbitration, arbitrators would also do well to bear in mind fair treatment of the parties and their overall truth-seeking function.

Hot Topics in Arbitration: Arbitrators Under Challenge and ISDS in an Era of Great Power Rivalry

ICC Canada hosted two break-out discussions on topical issues in modern arbitral practice: arbitrator challenges and the ISDS’ role in a changing geopolitical order.  Ekin Cinar, FCIArb (Dentons) and Mike Schafler, FCIArb, QArb (Dentons) examined arbitrator independence, disclosure and repeat appointments, asking whether broader disclosure improves confidence or creates new risks when parties later seek to challenge awards.  The panel’s practical guidance – when in doubt, disclose – reflects a sensible default, but the discussions revealed that deeper issues with consistency and intelligibility remain. My own view, in light of the Aroma decision, is that a more conservative approach to disclosures, especially among younger or less experienced arbitration practitioners, seems likely unless and until clearer guidance emerges.

Benedict Wray, PhD FCIArb (Tereposky & DeRose LLP) and Vasuda Sinha (McCarthy Tetrault LLP) considered ISDS amid great power rivalry, contrasting retreat from ISDS in some FTA negotiations with continued reliance on multilateral enforcement architecture. 

Across both panels, the message was a pragmatic one: transparency, common sense and credible institutions remain essential to the legitimacy of the arbitral process and the enforceability of arbitral awards.

The Western Canada Arbitration Story

In celebration of VanIAC’s 40th anniversary, Romeo Rojas, FCIArb, VanIAC’s Secretary General, moderated a fireside chat between Gerald W. Ghikas, KC, FCIArb (Arbitrator), Joanne Luu, FCIArb (Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP) and Yarden Gershony, FCIArb (Rush, Ihas, Hardwick LLP) that traced VanIAC’s role in the history of Western Canadian arbitration practice through to the present.

The panel discussion began with the arbitration origin story of British Columbia, the first jurisdiction to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law.  VanIAC (formerly the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre, BCICIAC) emerged in the mid-1980s, around the same time British Columbia adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law and implemented the New York Convention, as part of a broader effort to position Vancouver as an international commercial hub, alongside initiatives such as Expo 86 and increased engagement with Asia (as previously discussed in an interview with VanIAC’s past managing director).  Because the early architects of BCICIAC were internationally-trained practitioners, arbitration practice in British Columbia has always been institutionally-oriented and influenced by international practice.

The discussion also highlighted how VanIAC continues to evolve and respond to current pressures in the marketplace. These include efforts to modernize VanIAC’s rules (which were previously discussed on this blog here), expand its expedited procedures, and consolidate domestic and international frameworks.  There is a clear focus on developing the next generation of arbitrators through expedited panels and training initiatives, including tribunal secretary programs.  VanIAC is also actively considering emerging issues such as the use of artificial intelligence in arbitral practice.

The VanIAC anniversary panel was a particularly fitting way to think about Canada’s broader arbitration story. British Columbia’s arbitration infrastructure did not develop by accident. It emerged from a conscious effort to position Vancouver as an international commercial arbitration centre, supported by legislative reform, institutional development and practitioners with a global outlook.  Forty years later, that same project feels newly relevant.  As geopolitical and trade patterns shift, parties look for neutral and reliable venues, and users demand more efficient and technologically responsive processes, Canada has both the foundation and the momentum to play a leading role in the future of international arbitration.