I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This submission provides a brief statement of Canada’s jurisdictional and admissibility arguments prior to the upcoming procedural meeting for further organization of the proceedings. Pursuant to the Tribunal’s Procedural Order No. 1, legal argument and evidence in support of these objections will be presented at a later stage in Canada’s Memorial on Jurisdiction and Admissibility.

2. As Canada sets out below, the claimant Detroit International Bridge Company (“DIBC” or “Claimant”) and its enterprise, the Canadian Transit Company (“CTC”), have failed to meet certain requirements set out in NAFTA Chapter Eleven which are preconditions to Canada’s consent to arbitration. As a result, this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear any of DIBC’s claims.

3. DIBC has filed two Notices of Arbitration against Canada in this dispute under NAFTA Chapter Eleven. In its first Notice of Arbitration filed on April 29, 2011 (“First NAFTA NOA”), DIBC alleged that Canada reneged on a commitment to build a direct highway link between Ontario Highway 401 (“Highway 401”) and the Ambassador Bridge, which is owned by DIBC. DIBC also alleged that Canada designed a new highway – the Right Honourable Herb Gray Parkway (formerly known as the Windsor-Essex Parkway) (the “Parkway”) – to bypass the Ambassador Bridge and instead connect to a new bridge, the Detroit River International Crossing (“DRIC Bridge”).1 Finally, the Claimant alleged that Canada implemented certain traffic measures on Huron Church Road, the existing road connection between Highway 401 and the Ambassador Bridge, to divert traffic away from the Ambassador Bridge and towards the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel and the DRIC Bridge.

4. In its amended Notice of Arbitration filed January 15, 2013 (“Amended NAFTA NOA”), the Claimant argues that, in addition to the above Highway 401 road access claims, Canada has violated DIBC’s “exclusive franchise rights” that purportedly exist under a “special agreement” pursuant to the Boundary Waters Treaty by adopting the International Bridges and Tunnels Act (“IBTA”). DIBC also alleges that Canada has intentionally delayed approval of DIBC’s application to build its own new bridge adjacent to the existing Ambassador Bridge (“AB New Span”) while accelerating approval of the DRIC Bridge. DIBC alleges that these measures breach Articles 1102 (National Treatment), 1103 (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment) and 1105 (Minimum Standard of Treatment) of the NAFTA.2

5. The above allegations were maintained and expanded upon in DIBC’s Statement of Claim filed January 31, 2013 (“NAFTA Statement of Claim”).