|
International Trade - World Trade Organization (WTO). Thales DIS Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Transportation)
In Thales DIS Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Transportation) (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), here in the course of a successful Crown appeal of a JR finding that the bidding requirements were in violation of CETA.
In this quote the court noted the absence of a 'precedent' (stare decisis) doctrine in World Trade Organization (WTO) law:[115] The first point to make on this issue is that WTO decisions are not binding on either Canadian courts or subsequent WTO panels: Uniboard Surfaces Inc. v. Kronotex Fussboden GmbH & Co. KG, 2006 FCA 398, at para. 74; US – Stainless Steel (Mexico) (2008), WTO Doc. WT/DS344/AB/R (Appellate Body), at para. 158. In this case, as discussed more fully below, the parties to the CETA agreed that each government, including sub-governments, could set up their own dispute resolution processes. Article 19.17 does not address what law or rules will govern the resolution of these disputes. From this perspective, it is unclear that the two-part material necessity test is a legal constraint on the decision. Rather, the obvious legal constraint is the wording of the relevant CETA provision: Article 19.4, which precludes discrimination, and Article 19.3, which allows for exceptions that are necessary for public safety reasons.
|
