PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Claimant Detroit International Bridge Company (“Claimant” or “DIBC”) hereby responds to Respondent Canada’s brief statement of its arguments concerning jurisdiction and admissibility.

2. The parties’ brief statements are being submitted to help the Tribunal set the schedule for the jurisdictional phase of this arbitration. When the parties and the Tribunal discussed the organization of these proceedings, Canada proposed a year-long jurisdictional phase that included jurisdictional discovery. In contrast, DIBC did not believe that any jurisdictional discovery was necessary, and proposed a two-month schedule for jurisdictional arguments. The parties agreed to submit brief statements to the Tribunal concerning Canada’s jurisdictional arguments to inform the Tribunal’s scheduling decision.

3. In this submission, DIBC is only presenting a brief response to the arguments raised by Canada in order to allow the Tribunal to make a decision on what procedure is best for resolving the jurisdictional issues. Like Canada, DIBC also reserves its rights to supplement its arguments in its anticipated memorial on both jurisdiction and admissibility.

4. Each of the three jurisdictional arguments raised in Canada’s brief statement is without merit. Rather than face the substance of DIBC’s claim, Canada is attempting to delay these proceedings with unnecessary discovery and a protracted briefing schedule.

5. First, DIBC’s claim is timely. DIBC seeks to recover damages that are being caused right now, that DIBC suffered in the three years before it made its claim for arbitration, and that DIBC will continue to suffer in the future absent any change in Canada’s conduct. The damages DIBC seeks to recover are those that flow from Canada’s ongoing discriminatory and inequitable conduct, including in particular: (a) Canada’s failure to develop the highway connections to DIBC’s American-owned Ambassador Bridge, even while it has devoted substantial resources to improving the highway connections to Canadian-owned bridges, including a proposed Canadian bridge that is not even built yet (and may never be built); and (b) Canada’s efforts to prevent DIBC from building its proposed new span to the Ambassador Bridge (“New Span”), including through the promotion of a new, Canadian-owned bridge (the “NITC/DRIC”) that is proposed to be built right next to DIBC’s Ambassador Bridge. A party’s continuing course of conduct that violates a legal obligation constitutes a continuing breach of that obligation, and renews the applicable limitation period on an ongoing basis. Here, Canada is engaged in a continuing course of conduct that violates NAFTA. NAFTA limits DIBC’s claim to the damages it suffered within three years of making its claim for arbitration; because DIBC is not seeking damages prior to that time, DIBC’s claims are consistent with NAFTA and are not time-barred.

6. Second, DIBC is not bringing its claim under the Boundary Waters Treaty. As a result, Canada’s argument that this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide such claims is irrelevant.