PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. The Detroit International Bridge Company (“DIBC”) and its subsidiary the Canadian Transit Company (“CTC”) (collectively, “DIBC” or “Claimant”) respectfully submit this Rejoinder Memorial in response to the December 6, 2013 Reply Memorial on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (“Canada Reply”) submitted by the Government of Canada (“Canada”).

2. As explained in DIBC’s Counter-Memorial on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (“DIBC Counter-Memorial”), Claimant is an American-owned business that owns and operates the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario, which is the single largest trade crossing between the United States and Canada. For many years, Claimant has been making plans and seeking approvals to build a twin span to the Ambassador Bridge (the “New Span”) in order to maintain its bridge crossing, to enhance and upgrade the infrastructure of the crossing, to increase its capacity to facilitate cross-border traffic, and to reduce costs and disruptions resulting from maintenance on the existing bridge.

3. This arbitration challenges specific acts taken by Canada that reflect its hostility to the American ownership of the Ambassador Bridge. While this hostility is longstanding (and previously gave rise to an attempted expropriation without just compensation in the 1980s, which had to be challenged through litigation), it subsided prior to the execution and implementation of the NAFTA. In the last few years, Canada’s hostility to the American ownership of the Ambassador Bridge has reemerged. Canada has recently taken a series of actions designed to harm the American-owned Ambassador Bridge, and to favor a proposed Canadian-owned bridge that would be located adjacent to the Ambassador Bridge––i.e., the New International Trade Crossing (“NITC,” and formerly known in the United States and currently known in Canada as the Detroit River International Crossing or “DRIC,” and hereinafter referred to as the “NITC/DRIC”).