Canada: Place Of Arbitration Critical To Compelling Pre-Hearing Evidence From Non-Parties

Last Updated: July 19 2007
Article by Barry Leon

Originally published in The Institute for Transnational Arbitration newsletter, Spring 2007.

The importance of the place of arbitration to obtaining evidence for an international arbitration is highlighted by the contrasting outcomes of three court decisions from three different parts of the world: Canada, England and Hong Kong. In each case, the court was asked to assist in the taking of pre-hearing disclosure evidence from a non-party for an international arbitration.

Article 27 of the Model Law, entitled "Court assistance in taking evidence," provides as follows:

The arbitral tribunal or a party with the approval of the arbitral tribunal may request from a competent court of this State assistance in taking evidence. The court may execute the request within its competence and according to its rules on taking evidence.

In 2006, a Canadian court in Jardine Lloyd Thompson Canada Inc. v. SJO Catlin granted its assistance for pre-hearing disclosure (discovery/deposition of witnesses) from a non-party on the basis of article 27.1

Both the English Commercial Court in 2003 in BNP Paribas & Others v. Deloitte & Touche LLP 2 and the Hong Kong High Court in 1994 in Vibroflotation A.G. v. Express Builders Co. Ltd.3 had declined assistance for pre-hearing disclosure, ruling that article 27 (and its English Arbitration Act 1996 equivalent, section 43, "Securing the attendance of witnesses"4) did not apply to enable a party to an arbitration to obtain broad pre-hearing disclosure from a non-party.

The differing outcomes in the interpretation and application of these "taking of evidence provisions" were not due to a lack of consideration of the prior decisions but to the fact that the places of the arbitration were different, and the interpretation and application of these provisions in the place of the arbitration were in accordance with the law and practices in that jurisdiction.

BNP Paribas Decision

The BNP Paribas decision arose from an ICC arbitration in London between BNP Paribas and Avis arising out of BNP’s acquisition of a group of Avis companies. In general terms, BNP alleged that Avis misrepresented the value of the business of the companies. Avis denied the allegations and relied, in part, on the fact that the Avis accounts for the relevant years were audited by Deloitte & Touche LLP, which signed off without qualification. In support of Avis’s case, a witness statement by the Deloitte & Touche audit partner was filed. No allegations were made against Deloitte & Touche in the arbitration. On the basis of the defense and the witness statement, an application was made to the English Commercial Court to issue a witness summons to obtain from Deloitte & Touche specified categories of documents alleged to be relevant to the arbitration and/or referred to in the witness statement.

The court had before it a letter from the arbitral panel expressing its belief that the documents "are or may be relevant to the issues in dispute in this arbitration" and giving its permission to the parties to request production from Deloitte & Touche, if necessary, pursuant to section 43 of the Arbitration Act 1996." Both BNP and Avis had been asking for this approval from the arbitrators, although Avis neither supported nor opposed the court application and did not appear or take any part in it.

The court defined the issue as whether it had power under the Arbitration Act 1996 to order a non-party to disclose documents to enable BNP to see if the documents undermined the reliance by the Avis on the work of Deloitte & Touche and the evidence of its audit partner.

The court held that section 43 did not give the court, in respect of arbitration proceedings, power to order disclosure from a non-party. It reasoned, in part, that Article 27 of the Model Law, from which BNP argued section 43 was derived,

. . . is dealing with the taking of evidence and not with the disclosure process. The taking of evidence is assisted by the issuing of a subpoena to produce, for introduction into the evidence, particular documents. Thus, section 43 gives effect to this Article. There is nothing in the Model Law which suggests that the Court should assist with the process of disclosure. Indeed, disclosure questions have been taken from the court . . . and given back to the arbitral tribunal. This is recognised by sections 33 and 34 of the 1996 Act including 34(2)(d). That subsection makes disclosure by the parties a matter for the arbitral tribunal.

The court concluded that section 43 deals with production of documents in evidence at the hearing, not disclosure, and under that procedure "it is not permissible to go ‘document hunting’ with a view to trawling though documents to see what turns up." The court left open what would be the outcome of a targeted application relating to specific documents that could be said to be required to be adduced in evidence. The court went on to say that it "would have ordered disclosure in this case had I the power to do so because [it] can quite understand BNP’s concerns about their ability effectively to cross-examine" the audit partner. The court noted that it would be for the arbitral tribunal to decide whether the audit partner’s evidence would be admitted without the disclosure and if it were admitted, whether it would have any, and if so what, evidential weight without the disclosure.

Vibroflotation Decision

The Vibroflotation decision arose from the arbitration of a dispute between a sub-subcontractor and a subcontractor on a Hong Kong airport project. As this was an international arbitration, the Model Law was held to be applicable.

The sub-subcontractor issued a writ of subpoena duces tecum against the main contractor for the production of certain documents, alleging that without those documents it would not be in a position to plead its case on the basis of a fundamental breach of the contract by the subcontractor. The lower court set aside the subpoena, and the sub-subcontractor appealed to the High Court.

The High Court expressed sympathy for the sub-subcontractor, which was confident that documents possessed by the non-party would show that the sub-subcontractor’s equipment performed as required, but which would not have access to the documents until the arbitration hearing unless the subpoena was reinstated. The court held that under Hong Kong civil procedure, "parties are not generally allowed to get discovery against non-parties nor are they, as is done in the United States of America, permitted to cross-examine their adversaries at pre-trial deposition hearings" and that subpoenas duces tecum are used for the purposes of having documents brought to trial. The court concluded that the subpoena was correctly set aside "on the ground that it was outside the jurisdiction of the court to grant the same at this stage of the arbitration."

Jardine Decision

The 2006 Jardine decision arose from the arbitration of an insurance-coverage dispute between an insured and its insurers in the Canadian province of Alberta. Western Oil Sands was constructing a northern Alberta oil sands project. It obtained insurance with several insurers, one of which was SJO Catlin. The insurance was arranged through Jardine Lloyd Thompson Canada, an insurance broker. Western claimed that it suffered losses during construction. When it sought to recover from its insurers, the coverage dispute arose. Western commenced an arbitration against the insurers. Jardine Lloyd Thompson Canada was not a party to either the insurance contract or the arbitration.

An application was made to the arbitral tribunal for an order to allow pre-hearing examinations (discovery, depositions) of present and former employees of Jardine Lloyd Thompson Canada. The parties had agreed that examinations for discovery would be available along the lines of the Alberta Rules of Court. The arbitral tribunal granted pre-hearing discovery of non-parties. It noted that it was not bound to apply the Rules of Court but considered them a useful guide for production and discovery and that under those rules, examinations of the type requested would be permitted.

SJO Catlin asked the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench to grant assistance to enforce the arbitration tribunal’s order; Jardine asked the court not to do so.

The court held that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order non-parties to submit to pre-hearing discovery examinations, much less allow a party leave to seek the assistance of the court to enforce such an order. It concluded that article 27 was not applicable to lend assistance to require witnesses to attend for pre-hearing examinations for discovery. In doing so it relied on and quoted from Paribas and Vibroflotation.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from that lower court decision, upheld the arbitral tribunal’s order and granted court assistance to obtain the evidence. It focused on the fact that the parties had not agreed to place any limitations on either the scope of examinations for discovery or the persons to be examined; rather, they had agreed to examinations along the lines of the Alberta Rules of Court. The court held that the tribunal was required, under article 19 of the Model Law5, to conduct the arbitration according to the agreement of the parties.

It held that Alberta courts could and would assist to enforce an arbitral tribunal’s order for the pre-hearing examination of current and former employees of a non-party in an international commercial arbitration sited in Alberta and taking place under the Alberta International Commercial Arbitration Act. The Alberta Act incorporates the Model Law. The court interpreted article 27 of the Model Law to permit an Alberta court to assist an arbitral tribunal sited in Alberta by enforcing its order for the taking of pre-hearing discovery evidence of non-parties.

The Court of Appeal held, first, that the appeal turned on the interpretation of article 27 and, second, that as the Model Law is part of the law of Alberta, it must be interpreted according to the meaning of its words in Alberta – in particular, the words "assistance in taking evidence" in article 27.

It held that article 27 is not limited to "evidence at the hearing." It noted that in a letters rogatory context, the Supreme Court of Canada had ruled that "testimony" was obtainable for pre-trial as well as for trial proceedings; and that the relevant statute makes no distinction between pre-trial and trial proceedings. "Neither does Article 27" said the Alberta Court of Appeal: "Evidence is evidence whether taken at discovery or trial."

It reasoned as follows:

  • 40 The ordinary and plain meaning of evidence includes evidence gathered by way of discovery.... If the drafters of Article 27 had intended that assistance would only be given for taking evidence at the hearing, they could have expressly said so. This distinction was not made and in the context of an arbitration proceeding conducted in Alberta, the word "evidence" must be given its ordinary meaning which includes all evidence whether pre-hearing or at the hearing itself.
  • 41 Article 27 should be interpreted in the light of its objects and purposes. The obvious purpose of Article 27 is to facilitate the tribunal in its search for the truth. I do not conceive that a tribunal has any less desire for, or need for, the truth to reach a fair and proper result than does a court of law.
  • 42 With respect, limiting the scope of examinations for discovery in arbitration proceedings cannot be justified on the basis that arbitration is not a parallel to the court system. It is the forum that the parties have determined and arbitration litigation is not some lesser form of litigation than that being conducted in the courts. There are, of course, many distinguishable features but the ability to procure relevant evidence should not necessarily be one of them. This is especially so when Alberta law permits the tribunal to adopt its own rules of evidence without distinguishing between pre-hearing and hearing evidence. The need for relevant evidence is the same whether the dispute is being conducted by a tribunal or in the courts.
  • 43 It is correct, of course, that the parties themselves cannot by their own agreement intrude into the affairs of a third person so as to entitle them to take evidence of any nature from such person. But the Model Law empowers a tribunal to seek the assistance of the court to take evidence in a manner consistent with the laws of the place of the arbitration. The policy of the law is to provide assistance to tribunals in appropriate circumstances where the tribunal has satisfied itself that the evidence is relevant to the issues before it.
  • 47 With respect to the judgments from other jurisdictions cited by the chambers judge, discovery practices in other jurisdictions are different and it is not evident from the judgments that the discovery sought for the arbitration proceedings would be available in accordance with the rules governing litigation in those jurisdictions. In any event, for reasons already stated, I cannot, in the context of Alberta practice, read into Article 27 an unstated limitation that the evidence be taken solely at, and only for, the hearing.

It is important to note that the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision did not turn on the fact that the parties had agreed on the application of the Alberta Rules of Court and a wide scope of examinations for discovery analogous to what would occur under those rules. Had the arbitral tribunal not had the benefit of the parties’ agreement on the subject and made the same order relying on its discretion,6 it appears from the court’s reasoning that the result would have been the same.

Conclusion: Importance of the Place of Arbitration

The trio of court decisions discussed in this article highlights that the Model Law, as incorporated into the laws of many different jurisdictions, will be interpreted and applied in the place of the arbitration according to the relevant law and practices in that jurisdiction. This will mean that in different jurisdictions there will be different interpretations and applications of provisions of the Model Law, and certainly of the provision regarding court assistance in taking evidence.

This conclusion in turn highlights yet another important consideration for contracting parties’ choice of a place of arbitration for an international arbitration, and the significance of a party’s negotiating the place of arbitration in an informed and strategic manner.


1. Jardine Lloyd Thompson Canada Inc. v. SJO Catlin, [2006] A.J. No. 32 (Alta C.A.), leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada denied, [2006] S.C.C.A. No. 87 [Jardine].

2. [2003] EWHC 2874 (Comm) [BNP Paribas].

3. [1994] 3 HKC 263 [Vibroflotation].

4. "(1) A party to arbitral proceedings may use the same court procedures as are available in relation to legal proceedings to secure the attendance before the tribunal of a witness in order to give oral testimony or to produce documents or other material evidence.

(2) This may only be done with the permission of the tribunal or the agreement of the other parties.

(3) The court procedures may only be used if

(a) the witness is in the United Kingdom, and

(b) the arbitral proceedings are being conducted in England and Wales or, as the case may be Northern Ireland.

(4) A person shall not be compelled by virtue of this section to produce any document or other material evidence which he could not be compelled to produce in legal proceedings."

5. Determination of rules of procedure:

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Law, the parties are free to agree on the procedure to be followed by the arbitral tribunal in conducting the proceedings.

(2) Failing such agreement, the arbitral tribunal may, subject to the provisions of this law, conduct the arbitration in such manner as it considers appropriate. The power conferred upon the arbitral tribunal includes the power to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of any evidence.

6. As found, for example, in Article 19 (2) to "conduct the arbitration in such manner as it considers appropriate."

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.