Canada: The UPS Decision - Victory Or Temporary Relief For NAFTA Governments?

Last Updated: September 4 2007

Article by Cliff Sosnow and Prakash Narayanan, © 2007, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

Originally published in Blakes Bulletin on International Trade, August 2007

On June 11, 2007, an ICSID arbitration tribunal issued a decision rejecting UPS’s claim under Chapter 11 of NAFTA alleging that the Government of Canada gives its state-owned postal service, Canada Post, favourable treatment over UPS. The majority opinion appears to have taken a questionable interpretation of some aspects of NAFTA that, in the light of the detailed dissenting opinion, could be the springboard for future claims against NAFTA governments.


In 2000, United Parcel Service of America (UPS) launched a claim against the Canadian government under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), alleging that Canada gives its state-owned postal monopoly, Canada Post, favourable treatment over other postal service companies. The final decision in this arbitration was issued on June 11, 2007, with the arbitration Tribunal ruling against UPS in its attempt to win damages. The decision ends a seven-year legal battle in which UPS sought USD 160 million in damages and has implications for a number of industries. It is likely that the decision has, at least temporarily, granted relief to NAFTA governments from claims of discrimination against a variety of government-operated services, from public highways to garbage collection. However, the dissenting opinion of one of the arbitrators points to a number of issues with the reasoning provided for the Tribunal’s decision. As a result, it is unclear as to how long the relief for NAFTA governments will last.

The Decision

On April 19, 2000, UPS filed its notice of arbitration and statement of claim before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). UPS alleged that its Canadian operations were being commercially harmed by unfair preferences and advantages given by the Canadian government to Canada Post, in violation of Canada’s "national treatment" obligations under NAFTA. The "national treatment" obligation arises from Article 1102 of NAFTA and requires Canada to accord to U.S. investors or investments in "like circumstances" treatment "no less favourable" than that accorded by Canada to its own investors and investments.

On June 11, 2007, the arbitration Tribunal ruled against UPS in its claim for damages. The decision of the three-person Tribunal included one dissenting opinion from UPS’s appointed arbitrator Dean Ronald A. Cass, a U.S. national. Cass disagreed with the other members of the Tribunal’s conclusion that Canada has not violated its national treatment obligation under NAFTA Article 1102. Rather, Cass concluded that Canada had violated its NAFTA obligations in respect of the customs treatment of UPS, the discriminatory treatment in pricing policies and infrastructure between Purolator and UPS Canada and in the operation of the Canadian government’s Publications Assistance Program (PAP). The merits of the conclusions of the Tribunal with respect to each of these issues, as well as Cass’s dissenting opinions are addressed below. This will be proceeded by a brief discussion of the application of the Tribunal of the legal test for determining whether investors are in "like circumstances" under NAFTA.

Test For Like Circumstances

In order to reach its decision as to whether Canada had violated its national treatment obligations under NAFTA Chapter 11, the Tribunal was first required to apply a legal test to determine if the parties were in "like circumstances." This step is an essential prerequisite to establishing a specific violation of Article 1102. It is possible to take issue with both the definition of "like circumstances" applied by the Tribunal and the method by which the test for "like circumstances" was applied in this case.

The appropriate meaning of the term "like circumstances," a term that is not defined in the NAFTA, formed the first critical point of dispute between Canada and UPS in the proceedings. Canada argued for a more strict definition, suggesting "like circumstances" implies circumstances that are identical or virtually identical. UPS argued for a wider scope to the term, suggesting that being in the same economic sector or being in competition makes investors or investments in "like circumstances." The parties also disagreed as to the role of public policy considerations in making the "like circumstances" determination, with Canada advocating for a greater role and UPS arguing for a diminished role. The Tribunal did not expressly adopt a definition. Instead it committed itself to considering "all the relevant circumstances." However, given its rejection of the claims made by UPS regarding customs treatment (discussed below), it is fair to say that the Tribunal adopted a rather strict definition that fell between those advocated by Canada and UPS.

In relation to the burden of proof, according to the Tribunal, the legal burden is solely on the investor (UPS) to establish that the parties are in "like circumstances." However, in his dissent, Cass argues that Article 1102 only requires the complainant to show that there is a competitive relationship and that two investors or investments are similar in that respect. This would establish a prima facie case of "like circumstances." Thus, once the complainant has established the competitive relationship between the investors or investments, the burden shifts to the respondent to explain why two competing enterprises are not in "like circumstances." Using this method, Cass found that in relation to each of the three allegations, UPS had established prima facie that UPS is in a competitive relationship with Canada Post, and that Canada had failed to rebut this.

Customs Treatment

UPS alleged that Canada’s customs agency discriminated in its treatment of UPS Canada in comparison to Canada Post in violation of Article 1102 of NAFTA. UPS alleged that, first, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) pays handling fees to Canada Post for services that UPS Canada is required to perform without compensation; and, second, the CBSA does not levy the same fines and penalties against Canada Post for failures to comply with customs regulations as it levies against UPS Canada. In addressing this issue, the Tribunal emphasized the distinction between the treatment of products imported and distributed by UPS Canada, and those imported and distributed by Canada Post. The Tribunal concluded that there is a distinction between postal traffic and courier traffic. In light of this conclusion, the Tribunal deemed UPS and Canada Post not to be in "like circumstances," and as a result found that no violation of the "national treatment" obligation had occurred.

In considering the customs treatment allegation in his dissent, Cass concluded that any differences between postal traffic and courier traffic do not distinguish the UPS products at issue from the competing Canada Post products, and the two enterprises are in fact in "like circumstances." Cass found that it is not sufficient to claim that Purolator is part of the overall postal traffic of Canada Post to demonstrate that Purolator and UPS Canada are not in "like circumstances." He focused on UPS’s allegations surrounding the product category that is comprised of items that receive special handling, are subject to special tracking, and have characteristics that make them especially valuable in distinction to ordinary mail delivery, arguing that these products are clearly in "like circumstances" when compared.

The issue of what services should be compared to determine whether Canada Post and UPS are in "like circumstances" goes to the root of the issue, and given the differing opinions between the Tribunal’s majority decision and Cass’s dissent, suggests an opening for future challenge.

Pricing Policies And Infrastructure

UPS alleged that Canada Post’s pricing policies afford an unfair advantage to Canada Post’s products over those of UPS Canada, and are therefore contrary to the principle of national treatment. The claims by UPS on this issue included the allegation that Canada failed to prevent Canada Post from abusing its monopoly position through various acts that effectively used its monopoly services to lower the prices of its non-monopoly services. Further, UPS alleged that Canada failed to prevent Canada Post from discriminating against UPS by granting Purolator Canada, Canada Post’s own parcel delivery service that competes with UPS Canada, preferential access to its monopoly infrastructure. In respect of these allegations, the Tribunal concluded that the conduct of Canada Post was commercial rather than governmental in nature and not directed by the government. Therefore, Canada Post was not subject to a national treatment or minimum standard of treatment obligation.

The conclusion of the Tribunal on this issue is one of the least convincing elements of the decision. The Tribunal’s strict interpretation of NAFTA Chapter 11 places the commercial decisions of Canada Post outside the scope of the exercise of delegated governmental authority that must comply with NAFTA requirements. As Cass noted in his dissent, the decision of Canada Post to grant preferences to Purolator was not in the nature of a decision to purchase or sell a product, but rather a decision to approve a relatively complex commercial transaction that falls within the scope of the exercise of delegated governmental authority that must comply with NAFTA requirements.

Publications Assistance Program (PAP)

UPS also challenged the PAP of the Department of Canadian Heritage. The PAP provides a subsidy to publishers of certain books and magazines for postal costs. To qualify for the subsidy, the publishers must deliver their publications through Canada Post. UPS argued that this requirement is contrary to Canada’s national treatment obligation. In defence of the PAP, Canada Post argued that the PAP supports the Canadian publishing industry by providing distribution assistance to eligible publishers and therefore falls within the scope of cultural industry exemptions under Article 2106 of NAFTA. The Tribunal concluded that UPS was not actually asking for national treatment, but rather that the PAP be redesigned for its benefit; specifically, that the choice of delivery mechanisms be left to each publisher to decide for itself. The Tribunal viewed the delivery aspect of the PAP, whereby delivery to every address in Canada is necessary, as both integral to the attainment of the program’s objective and necessary to fulfill the statutory objective of the program. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the PAP as a measure designed to assist cultural industries falling within the scope of NAFTA’s cultural exemption clause. This finding is a broad interpretation of the NAFTA cultural exemption clause, and could have a significant bearing on future cases dealing with cultural industries.

In contrast, in considering the PAP in his dissent, Cass concluded that Canada Post’s delivery service is not itself part of a cultural industry and therefore is not within the scope of the cultural industries exception recognized by NAFTA. After reviewing the provisions under Article 2106, Cass concluded that the cultural industries exception excluded activities that are "more mechanical activities that are less centrally related to the creative acts associated with cultural industries." In this respect, Cass concluded, Canada Post is not part of a cultural industry, and more akin to a local firm running delivery trucks that might at times deliver cultural products.

While the determination of whether a particular aspect of a program that would fall under the cultural exemptions of NAFTA is fact-based, in this era of minimizing protectionist measures, it appears incongruous that the delivery aspect of a subsidy to publishers should also be considered to be an "integral" part of the cultural exemptions. Perhaps the recently announced review of foreign investment rules by the Canadian government will weigh in on this issue by suggesting the modification of the PAP to bring it in alignment with Cass’s dissent.


The decision in United Parcel Service v. Government of Canada was awaited with bated breath among businesses and governments involved in providing overlapping goods and services. Some aspects of the Tribunal’s decision rejecting UPS’s claims against the Government of Canada, such as the drawing of a distinction between postal services and courier services, deal exclusively with postal industry. However, other aspects of the decision have wider implications. For instance, the Tribunal’s finding that the conduct of Canada Post was commercial and not governmental in nature suggests that governmental services that are operated on a commercial basis may not run afoul of NAFTA requirements. The Tribunal’s finding that the delivery aspect of the PAP was integral to the program and therefore protected under the cultural exemptions of NAFTA suggests that where certain commercial aspects of a service that fall under a NAFTA exemption are considered integral to delivery of the service, these too may be protected by the exemption.

While these findings of the Tribunal may lead to NAFTA governments heaving a collective sigh of relief, the respite could be short-lived. The Tribunal appears to have taken a questionable interpretation of some aspects of the NAFTA, such as the definition of "like circumstances" and the protection of delivery mechanisms under the cultural exemption, and a challenge to other governmental services may not take long in developing. Indeed, the detailed dissenting opinion of Cass provides some insight into the weakness of the Tribunal’s decision, and could be the springboard for future claims.

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.

Events from this Firm
1 Nov 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

What is the emotional culture of your organization?

Every organization and workplace has an emotional culture that can have an impact on everything from employee performance to customer or client satisfaction.

3 Nov 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Join leading lawyers from the Blakes Pensions, Benefits & Executive Compensation group as they discuss recent updates and legal developments in pension and employee benefits law as well as strategies to identify and minimize common risks.

3 Nov 2016, Other, Vancouver, Canada

“Risk” is the new black. It’s on the lips of every CEO, CFO, GC and board member — as it should be. Can you spot it? How do you analyze it? Are you equipped to manage it?

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.