… [T]he power to award damages for pipA violation derives from my authority under the code, as it is as if there had been a breach of the collective agreement as argued by the Parry Sound and Viterra courts. Mercer stated that, with the approval of the B.C. Utilities Commission, BC Hydro had entered into preferential energy purchase agreements with other mills to purchase some or all of the electricity they produced, while BC Hydro supplied them with on-board cost energy. It asserted that these agreements provided its competitors with benefits that had been denied to it, which prevented Canada from violating its OBLIGATIONs under NAFTA, and claimed CAD 232 million in damages. The agreement affects nearly 2,000 employees at 11 Pulp and Paper mills in Resolute, including the Amos, Baie-Comeau, Dolbeau, Gatineau, Kénogami, Laurentide and Saint-Félicien plants in Ontario, as well as fort Frances, Iroquois Falls, Thorold and Thunder Bay plants in Ontario. According to the [Supreme Court of Canada`s] argument in Parry Sound, I am empowered and responsible for enforcing material rights and obligations in sections 13 (3) and 16(3) of the PIPA, as if they were parties to the parties` collective agreement. On May 8, 2014, an agreement in principle was reached between Unifor and the company regarding the extension of collective agreements for four years. This agreement in principle was presented and adopted by a large majority of trade unionists during the ratification process in recent weeks in each mill covered by the agreement. Resolute Forest Products` unionized employees voted in favour of the company`s collective agreement with Unifor. The agreement will establish the model for 8,000 Unifor workers in the primary pulp and paper sector east of the Manitoba border. On March 6, 2018, the NAFTA Tribunal issued its arbitration award dismissing Mercer`s appeals against Canada. With respect to jurisdiction and admissibility, the Tribunal found that it was competent only to adjudicate: (i) Mercer`s allegations of discriminatory treatment of Celgar`s alternative-base under section 1105 (as Advocated by Mercer); and (ii) Mercer`s allegations concerning B.C.

Supply Commission Regulations G-48-09, pursuant to NAFTA Sections 1102, 1103 and 1105 (1). The court upheld Canada`s other objections – including the limitation of stagnant non-discriminatory claims regarding Celgar`s basic generator in its power purchase contract and that BC Hydro`s purchase of electricity in the same agreement was an acquisition within the meaning of SECTION 1108 (7) of NAFTA.

2020-12-22T16:14:36+00:00