Answer ... (a) Procedure, including evidence?
Parties are free to determine the applicable procedural rules. In the absence of the parties’ agreement, the tribunal can generally conduct an arbitration in the manner it considers appropriate (UNCITRAL Model Law, Article 19).
The UNCITRAL Model Law provides general procedural rules concerning:
- the exchange of statements;
- the holding of oral hearings; and
- the production of documents.
Domestic arbitrations follow similar guidelines. Most provincial statutes regulating arbitration set some default rules, but generally allow parties to select their own procedure.
As further guidance, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the procedure to be followed in an arbitration is established by the tribunal, exercising its discretion, provided that the parties are given an equal opportunity to make their case and meet the case made against them (Moreau-Bérubé v New Brunswick (Judicial Council),  SCJ No 9,  1 SCR 249 (SCC)).
The CCP provides that the arbitrator may require each party to send the arbitrator, within a specified time, a statement of its contentions and any exhibits mentioned, and to send such statement to the other party, if not already done. Any expert reports and other documents on which the arbitrator may base the arbitration award must also be sent to the parties. The arbitrator, or a party with leave of the arbitrator, may request the assistance of the court to obtain evidence, including to compel a witness who refuses, without valid reason, to attend, answer or produce real evidence in their possession.
(b) Interim relief?
Both international and domestic tribunals may exercise their discretion to grant interim measures when justified. However, under the UNCITRAL Model Law, parties can agree that arbitrators are barred from awarding interim relief. Where interim measures are granted, the arbitral tribunal may require any party to provide appropriate security in connection with such measures (Quintette Coal Ltd v Nippon Steel Corp,  BCJ No 1354, 29 BCLR (2d) 233 (BCSC)).
Various provincial arbitration acts provide that the arbitral tribunal may grant interim measures at the request of a party. Interim awards may be enforced in the same manner as final awards. Further, the acts provide that interim awards may be challenged in the same manner as final awards (for example, Avenue Canadian Ventures, Corp v No 151 Cathedral Ventures Ltd,  BCJ No 246, 2009 BCSC 171 (BCSC)). In provinces where arbitrators have not been given express legislative authority to grant interim measures, courts have still granted them such powers based on overall legislative intention (Farah v Sauvageau Holdings Inc,  OJ No 1242, 11 CPC (7th) 363 (Ont SCJ)).
However, these powers do not extend a Canadian tribunal’s jurisdiction to parties which are not bound by the arbitration agreement. To the extent that an interim order purports to bind any non-party, the order will be set aside by a court. Accordingly, there has been conflicting law in Canada as to whether interim relief can include injunctive relief, as these orders often enjoin or direct the conduct of strangers to the arbitration agreement which are not bound by the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal (Farah v Sauvageau Holdings Inc,  OJ No 1242, 11 CPC (7th) 363 (Ont SCJ)).
In Quebec, the CCP provides that the arbitrator may, on a party’s request, take any provisional measure or any measure to safeguard the parties’ rights, subject to the conditions that the arbitrator determines and, if necessary, the requirement that a suretyship be provided to cover costs and the reparation of any prejudice that may result from such a measure. Such a decision is binding on the parties; but one of the parties may, if necessary, ask the court to homologate the decision to give it the same force and effect as a judgment of the court.
(c) Parties which do not comply with its orders?
Arbitral tribunals are not granted any express powers in relation to parties that do not comply with their orders. If a party chooses not to comply with a given award, the party seeking to enforce the award must seek recourse through the courts.
Canadian courts enforce arbitral awards just as they do their own judgments. In British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Yukon, the arbitration acts provide that judgment is simply entered in the terms of the award. However, each of the other provinces requires either leave of the court (Newfoundland and Labrador) or an application process (Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario and Saskatchewan) to enforce the award.
(d) Issuing partial final awards?
Arbitral tribunals may render partial awards on key issues when doing so could result in a more efficient arbitration process.
In domestic arbitrations, various provincial acts provide that partial awards may be enforced in the same manner as final awards. Further, partial awards may be challenged in the same manner as final awards (For example, Avenue Canadian Ventures, Corp v No 151 Cathedral Ventures Ltd,  BCJ No 246, 2009 BCSC 171 (BCSC)).
In Quebec, neither the CCP nor the CCQ contains provisions regarding the possibility of issuing partial final awards. However, the question is considered at length, and the authors are of the opinion that if the circumstances justify it such as where there is a serious question as to the jurisdiction of the court the court may decide to hold a separate hearing on this issue and then order a partial award.
(e) The remedies it can grant in a final award?
A remedy granted by an arbitral tribunal will vary depending on the arbitration agreement and the circumstances of each arbitration. Generally speaking, international arbitral tribunals seated in Canada can order any relief that is available under the applicable law. The arbitration acts of Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario and Saskatchewan expressly entitle arbitral tribunals to decide a dispute in accordance with law, including equity, and to order specific performance, injunctions and other equitable remedies.
However, it is unclear whether arbitrators conducting domestic proceedings in some provinces have jurisdiction to order equitable relief, such as injunctions and specific performance. For example, several trial court decisions in British Columbia have found that arbitral tribunals only have jurisdiction to order equitable relief where the parties had expressly provided for that remedy after the start of the arbitration, as part of an agreement waiving appeal rights. However, the British Columbia Court of Appeal ultimately ruled that arbitrators can grant equitable relief.
Finally, because arbitral tribunals lack inherent jurisdiction, it has also been held that an arbitrator has no power to award punitive damages unless such a power is expressly provided for in the arbitration agreement or in legislation. However, punitive damages have been found to fall within an arbitrator’s jurisdiction in other cases. The parties’ agreement about what is being submitted to arbitration must be considered.
The Supreme Court of Canada has held that provincial arbitration acts generally empower arbitrators to award interest (British Columbia (Forests) v Teal Cedar Products Ltd,  SCJ No 51, 2013 SCC 51 (SCC)). However, this power is limited to simple interest, unless legislation specifically provides the power to award compound interest (Tepei v Insurance Corp of British Columbia,  BCJ No 1018, 2009 BCSC 684 (BCSC).
There are no provisions in the UNCITRAL Model Law that speak to an arbitrator’s ability to award interest.