Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

italaw180983 - Windstream v. Canada (II), Correction of Award, June 11, 2026.pdf

11 Jun 2026
Windstream Energy LLC (USA) v. Government of Canada (II), PCA Case No. 2021-26
Correction of Award
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Correction of Award
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Correction of Award
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture and Scope

This document is a Correction of Award issued by an arbitral tribunal constituted under the CUSMA, NAFTA, and the 2013 UNCITRAL Rules. The decision addresses a request by the Respondent, the Government of Canada, to correct several alleged clerical and typographical errors in the Tribunal's Award of 20 April 2026, pursuant to Article 38 of the UNCITRAL Rules.

Analysis of Disputed Correction

While the parties agreed to most of the proposed corrections, a dispute arose over the Respondent's request to amend a date in paragraph 177(a)(i) of the Award from “4 May 2017” to “4 May 2015”. The Respondent contended the 2017 date was a factual error, as the correct Milestone Commercial Operation Date (MCOD) was in 2015. The Claimant opposed this specific correction, arguing that while the date was not the MCOD, the paragraph accurately reflected the Claimant's prior submission in the arbitration. The Claimant's position was that changing the date would substantively alter the meaning of the sentence, which correctly captured its argument regarding a different contractual deadline.

Tribunal's Decision and Operative Part

The Tribunal denied the Respondent's request to correct the date in paragraph 177(a)(i). It reasoned that the paragraph, as written, was an accurate representation of the submission made by the Claimant in its Reply. The Tribunal found that amending the date would mischaracterize the Claimant's recorded argument, and therefore, there was no error in the Award to be corrected in this respect. The Tribunal did, however, grant all other non-disputed requests for correction. The document enumerates thirteen specific corrections of a clerical nature that were implemented, confirming that the remainder of the 20 April 2026 Award remains unchanged.