I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. In earlier correspondence with the Tribunal, the Parties advised the Tribunal as to their preferences for the seat of the arbitration. At the procedural hearing conducted on 12 October 2012 (“the Procedural Hearing”), the Claimant informed the Tribunal that it may be necessary to subpoena witnesses and/or to seek the assistance of local courts to secure documents in the hands of third parties in the US, and therefore the Tribunal should select a US seat. By contrast, the Respondent argued in favor of a seat in Canada. As a result, the Tribunal invited the Parties to make further submissions on the seat of the arbitration. In particular, the Parties were requested to address the power to subpoena witnesses under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).

2. In its letter of 16 October 2012, the Tribunal directed the Parties to make their submissions by 26 October 2012, with the option of filing responses by 2 November 2012. Accordingly, the Parties filed submissions on the legal seat of the arbitration on 26 October 2012 and 2 November 2012. On 27 November 2012, the Claimant provided the Tribunal with a decision of the US Supreme Court in Nitro-Lift Technologies, LLC v. Eddie Lee Howard et. al., which, according to the Claimant, addressed “the interplay between the FAA and state legislation, as well as the general supportive attitude of the US Supreme Court towards arbitration.”

3. In its letters of 5 October 2012, 9 November 2012 and at the Procedural Hearing, the Respondent challenged the admissibility of documents that the Claimant had obtained using 28 USC § 1782 ("Section 1782"). Subsequently, on 9 November 2012 and 27 November 2012, the Respondent presented three requests seeking (i) confirmation that the Tribunal had not ruled on the Respondent’s objection; (ii) if the Section 1782 documents were admissible, confirmation that the determination would not apply to any transcripts of witness testimony; and (iii) confirmation that further efforts by the Claimant to obtain evidence using section 1782 should be pursued only under the supervision of the Tribunal. On 26 February 2013, the Respondent reiterated some of these requests, and additionally requested the Tribunal to (i) direct the Claimant to identify any Section 1782 documents which were already in the record; and (ii) strike those documents from the record. The Claimant commented on these requests on 19 November 2012 and 27 February 2013. In its letter of 27 February 2013, the Tribunal informed the Parties that it would deal with the Respondent’s requests (collectively "the Section 1782 Requests") together.