By Hessam Mehrabi (Borden Ladner Gervais LLP), Ryan Pistorius (Weintraub Huang LLP), Malaika Pervez (DLA Piper), and Shadha Zawawi (Al Tamimi & Company)
As the world congregated in Toronto for the FIFA World Cup, the Canadian arbitration community gathered for CanArbWeek, its premier annual event, held from 7 to 9 June 2026. This year’s theme, “Arbitration in an Era of Change”, challenged practitioners to reflect on the field’s evolution and future directions. Sessions featured presentations from all of the main Canadian arbitration organizations, including the ADR Institute of Canada (ADRIC), ArbitralWomen, CIArb Canada, CPR Canada, ICC Canada, ICDR Canada, Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society, Western Canada Arbitration Society, Vancouver International Arbitration Centre, and Young Canadian Arbitration Practitioners (YCAP). From geopolitical shifts to technological advancements, the discussions offered practical insights for navigating arbitration’s ongoing transformations, with a clear call for Canadian practitioners to lead change, rather than merely follow it.
Kicking Off CanArbWeek 2026: The Canada Story
The week opened with a welcome from CanArbWeek 2026 Chair Janet Walker. Then a keynote address was delivered by Meg Kinnear, former Secretary-General of ICSID, followed by comments from the Honourable Arif Virani, Senior Counsel at Torys LLP and former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. The keynote, and ensuing comments and discussion, reflected on the foundational work laid in Canada and the growth of arbitration practice in the country.
Canada’s position in international arbitration, as reflected in Meg Kinnear’s keynote and Arif Virani’s remarks, can be described as a mismatch between capacity and visibility. While Canada has developed a sophisticated arbitration ecosystem, it has not translated that strength into international prominence. As Kinnear related, Canada entered the field later than established centres but moved quickly, starting in the mid 1980s with the nationwide adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law and the New York Convention (which was driven in part by provincial initiatives, particularly in British Columbia). Since then, an advanced arbitration ecosystem has developed. Canada benefits from a strong rule of law environment, a sophisticated bar, and high quality arbitral infrastructure. Canadian arbitrators and counsel are well regarded, and institutional capacity is not lacking.
However, comparative examples such as Singapore and the United Kingdom illustrate that capacity alone is insufficient. Leading arbitral seats have advanced through coordinated and sustained efforts, including active government support, continuous legislative modernization, and deliberate international promotion. In those jurisdictions, arbitration is treated as an economic sector with broader national value.
Kinnear’s central point was that Canada’s next phase depends on establishing and maintaining that kind of coordination between the public and private sectors. This includes aligning government policy with the needs of arbitration users, ensuring Canadian arbitration legislation is at the cutting edge, increasing Canadian participation in international appointments, strengthening engagement with domestic businesses, and promoting Canada collectively as a seat and dispute resolution services provider.
Virani reinforced this assessment, pointing to limited awareness and persistent underestimation of Canadian capabilities by stakeholders outside Canada. He suggested that framing arbitration as an economic driver could help mobilize government action and overcome structural constraints.
Taken together, the keynote and commentary suggest that Canada’s future role in international arbitration will depend not only on its legislative framework and its tradition of excellence from bench, bar, and other service providers, but also on how effectively Canadian governments and the Canadian arbitration community work together to advance and present these strengths to international audiences.
Keeping Possession: Maintaining Procedural Control
The first panel of the day was presented by the ADR Institute of Canada (ADRIC). Entitled “Arbitrator: Activist or Deferential”, it featured experienced arbitrators Stephanie Cohen, Mary Comeau, and Joel Richler, who explored the scope and use of arbitrators’ powers to manage proceedings. While arbitrators possess express powers derived from the arbitration agreement, institutional rules, and applicable law, questions arise regarding implied or inherent powers in areas not expressly defined, such as questioning fact and expert witnesses, managing evidence, controlling procedure, and addressing counsel misconduct.
As international arbitration matures, it increasingly demands active case management and procedural discipline, moving beyond the passive “umpire” model. Parties often select arbitrators not only for their subject-matter expertise and legal judgement, but also for their case management style and skills. In that sense, “arbitrator activism” is a matter of preparedness and engagement, not necessarily of overstepping. At the same time, as all three panelists emphasized, active case management must avoid any apprehension of bias and ensure fairness, transparency, and balance.
The panelists encouraged arbitrators to provide—and counsel to seek—procedural clarity from the very outset of proceedings. This can include arbitrators employing tools they are often reluctant to wield, such as sanctioning counsel misconduct through costs, applying efficiency principles even to aspects of procedure where the parties have come to an agreement, and responding promptly to timely objections raised by counsel. All of these all essential to preserving the integrity of proceedings, particularly where expectations vary among parties and counsel from different legal traditions. Institutional rules also play a crucial role in both empowering and guiding procedural discretion. As an example of successful rule revision, the panel discussed the 2025 ADRIC Rules, which give tribunals all powers necessary to conduct a fair and effective arbitration. Specifically, Rule 4.9.2 provides that arbitral tribunals have “all the powers necessary to conduct a fair and effective arbitration procedure”, and that these include, “without limitation”, a series of enumerated powers. The panel noted that the broad “without limitation” language provides flexibility, but the enumerated powers help to shape parties’ expectations about what tribunal can and should do.
The Game Plan: Ensuring Enforceability Without Sacrificing Efficiency
The next panel, presented by the Western Canada Commercial Arbitration Society (WCCAS), explored “Enforceability vs. Efficiency”, the enduring tension between procedural fairness and efficient dispute resolution. Moderator Mary Comeau framed the discussion by inviting Bryan Duguid KC and Vasilis Pappas to examine whether arbitral practice has become overly cautious in the name of fairness. Instead of opposing views, the discussion revealed broad agreement that the key challenge lies in calibrating procedures to the dispute so that fairness and efficiency operate together, rather than in competition.
Duguid emphasized that enforceability cannot be reduced to procedural “generosity”. Fairness remains central, but efficiency also matters because delay, procedural drift, or failure to follow agreed timelines create enforcement risk. His point was that tribunals should not become hostage to abstract fairness concerns; rather, they should act with what he described as “prudent courage”, relying on the deference courts generally afford to arbitrators’ procedural decisions. He also explained that fast-track compressed procedures, which can accomplish both efficiency and fairness, work best when they are realistic, carefully designed, and matched to parties’ commercial objectives.
Pappas largely agreed, and stressed that a party’s right to an opportunity to present its case is not an invitation to procedural excess. In his view, inefficiency often arises not from active management, but from timetables that are either unclear at the outset or that become unrealistically compressed later on. Aggressive scheduling, particularly in complex cases, can produce the opposite of efficiency: overbroad document requests, poorly-informed procedural rulings, and hearings too short for the dispute they are meant to resolve.
When prompted to suggest practical solutions, both speakers pointed to the importance of a thoughtful first procedural order, timetables tailored to the particular dispute, and tribunals’ willingness to intervene if party conduct becomes dilatory or disproportionate. The panel’s broader advice was that attention to procedural fairness has not so much “gone too far” as lost sight of the broader context; arbitral procedure works best when fairness and efficiency are treated as mutually reinforcing, not in competition with each other.
Into Play: Hot Topics in Commercial and Investment Arbitration
The ICC Canada Arbitration Committee’s offering, introduced by Scott Lucyk FCIArb, was a pair of parallel “hot topics” workshops, featuring active discussion among attendees.
In “Arbitrators Under Challenge: A Comparative Perspective”, Ekin Cinar FCIArb and Michael Schafler FCIArb led a discussion of contemporary issues in arbitrator challenges. Drawing on their experience as counsel and arbitrators in a variety of jurisdictions, they shared and solicited from participants insights on arbitrator independence, the extent of mandated disclosures, and the danger of repeat appointments, concluding with a comparative summary of (non-)enforcement decisions dealing with allegations of arbitrator bias in a variety of jurisdictions.
Meanwhile, in “ISDS in an Era of Great Power Rivalry: Does the Bargain Still Work?”, Vasuda Sinha and Dr. Benedict Wray FCIArb spoke about recent challenges to ISDS, asking whether the system remained fit for purpose. The panel contrasted current FTA negotiations with the continued adoption of multilateral treaties providing for ISDS, noting that states continue to agree to be bound by various forms of ISDS—whether through ICSID, UNCITRAL, or other mechanisms. In the words of one audience member, “reports of the death of ISDS have been greatly exaggerated”. The panel and audience discussed whether changing views towards ISDS were driven by economic or political factors (and whether these can be cleanly separated from each other), given recent treaty denunciations, such as by Honduras in 2024. However, participants also noted that investment awards continued to experience high rates of compliance and enforcement around the world. This, combined with Ecuador’s rejoining ICSID Convention (having withdrawn from it roughly a decade earlier) suggests that there is no single answer to the question of whether the current mainstream approach to ISDS is the “right” one. Instead, what approach works best is fact-, state-, and time-dependent.
The Playing Field: Ad Hoc or Institutional Arbitration?
The ICDR Canada panel on “Ad Hoc vs. Institutional Arbitration” revealed that this familiar dichotomy is less a binary choice than a matter of context, practice, and market positioning. The discussion highlighted how different arbitration cultures shape procedural preferences, and what that may mean for Canada’s future as an arbitral seat.
From an international perspective, Gary Benton and Sofia Gómez Ruano emphasized that institutional arbitration remains the default in most cross-border disputes. Their accounts from the United States and Mexican perspectives, respectively, pointed to familiar drivers: the need for neutral administration, predictable rules, appointment mechanisms, and support in situations involving urgency, recalcitrant parties, or complex multi-party structures. Institutional frameworks, in this sense, operate as an infrastructure that protects procedural integrity, particularly valuable where trust between parties and their familiarity with the arbitral process are limited.
Robert Deane KC offered a contrasting account, grounded in Canadian practice. He noted the continued prevalence of ad hoc arbitration, particularly in domestic disputes, which reflects a historically smaller and more interconnected arbitration bar, as well as regional differences across the country. In some provinces, such as British Columbia, institutional arbitration has had a stronger foothold, while elsewhere ad hoc practice remains dominant. Deane suggested that this model has functioned effectively because of professional familiarity and relatively low levels of procedural conflict. However, he cautioned that it may become more difficult to sustain such regional diversity as the arbitration community expands and becomes more diffuse. Agreeing with the international panelists, he observed that, in domestic and international arbitration alike, institutional administration becomes more valuable where parties are recalcitrant, where urgency arises, or where procedural certainty is needed at the outset, including in relation to commencement and case management.
As the discussion progressed, a functional distinction emerged. Ad hoc arbitration may work efficiently where parties are cooperative and experienced. Institutional arbitration becomes essential where those assumptions do not hold. For Canada, the panel suggested that both models will continue to play a role, but that strengthening institutional capacity and user experience will be key to supporting Canada’s ambitions to grow as a seat for international disputes.
Playing For Time: Navigating Disruptive Practices by Parties in a Modern Era
The last panel of the day was presented by the CIArb Canada Branch. It brought together Mark Goldstein and Peter Ashford to share “Cautionary Tales” from high-stakes arbitrations. Goldstein described a “parade of horribles” that can derail proceedings: websites spreading fake news, coordinated media campaigns targeting opposing parties and tribunals, parallel litigation aimed at relitigating issues still pending before (or already decided by) the tribunal, and now the misuse of AI tools to mislead tribunals on both factual and legal matters. These threats, argued Goldstein, demand a more rigorous framework for procedural control over bad behaviour.
The panel then turned to tribunal powers to discipline parties and counsel, drawing on Constantine Partasides KC’s concept of “contempt of arbitration”. Ashford focused on the contractual foundation of arbitral authority, tracing how the agreement to arbitrate begins as bilateral and becomes trilateral upon appointment of the tribunal. He proposed a principled approach to establishing jurisdiction over counsel by adapting contractual principles of agency, warranty of authority, and collateral contract. He also discussed tensions within many institutional rules, notably between Article 18.5 of the LCIA Rules (which requires a party to ensure its counsel agrees to comply with behavioural standards listed in the Annex to the Rules) and Article 18.6 (which empowers tribunals to impose sanctions directly upon counsel). While these provisions are intended to discourage counsel misconduct, their practical impact remains limited and unproven, in part because they fail to clarify who bears ultimate responsibility to police unethical conduct.
Goldstein and Ashford then discussed a few recent decisions involving such disruptive practices. They began with the GSI decision, where the tribunal excluded a lawyer to protect the integrity of the process, then pushed the theme further with the series of cases arising from Russia’s “Lugovoy Law”, which empowers Russian courts to assume exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving entities and individuals sanctioned by the Russian government, effectively overriding arbitration and choice-of court agreements. These include Unicredit v RusChem, Eurochem v Tecnimont, and Google v Tsargard. The proliferation of anti-suit, anti-enforcement, anti-anti-suit, and anti-reliance injunctions—some issued in response to Lugovoy Law orders—reflects broader judicial willingness to protect arbitration from external sabotage. The panel also enumerated various remedial measures available to tribunals, including procedural orders, adverse cost consequences, and counsel exclusion as a “nuclear option”.
Finally, the panel touched upon confidentiality, particularly as it constrains arbitrators’ ability to respond publicly to counsel misconduct. Goldstein focused on the practical challenges of implementing confidentiality protections, reflecting on how these can be addressed in a First Procedural Order and drawing an analogy to the self-defence privilege in U.S. law. Ashford laid out a principled legal framework, tracing arbitral confidentiality to a seminal case on the banker-customer relationship, Tournier (1924), which may provide exceptions akin to “duty to the public” and “interests of the bank”. Building on his bilateral-to-trilateral analysis, he concluded that the banker’s exception could sensibly be applied to arbitral tribunals themselves, allowing them to protect themselves to smears in the media and similar disruptive tactics.
The discussion concluded with a broader reflection on a paradigm shift in international arbitration: the traditional conception of arbitration as a private, consensual process giving way to a conception of arbitration as situated within a geopolitical landscape marked by media campaigns, parallel court proceedings, and AI-enabled disruption. These developments underscore the need for tribunals to be active guardians of procedural integrity—a theme that recurred throughout the day.
Keeping Momentum: Canada’s Moment to Press Forward
Two themes ran through the first day of CanArbWeek 2026. First, it is clear that Canadian arbitration lacks nothing in talent, infrastructure, or legal sophistication. The question is whether Canada can convert these strengths into greater international visibility and influence.
Second, across the various panels speakers returned to the theme of procedural control to realize the core arbitral values of fairness, efficiency, and effectiveness. Speakers discussed the need for tribunals to exercise fair but confident procedural control; the importance of adopting procedures that are both enforceable and efficient; the continuing relevance of institutional support; and the growing need to protect arbitration from disruptive tactics, geopolitical pressures, and technological change.
If there was a unifying message, it was that arbitration in an era of change requires more than technical excellence. It requires coordination, confidence, and strategic positioning. Canada has the legal framework, the professional depth, and institutional foundations to be a leading arbitral seat. The challenge now is to act more deliberately to promote modern, efficient procedures at home and to act as “Team Canada” abroad: promoting Canadian arbitration internationally, engaging government and business stakeholders, modernizing where necessary, and presenting a cohesive face to users around the world.