Procedural Posture

This document is the Claimant’s Post-Hearing Brief submitted in the ICSID arbitration between Ruby River Capital LLC and the Government of Canada (ICSID Case No. ARB/23/5). The brief addresses the Tribunal’s post-hearing questions and synthesizes the Claimant’s arguments on jurisdiction, merits, and quantum following the evidentiary hearing.

Jurisdictional Objections

The Claimant reiterates that the Tribunal possesses jurisdiction ratione materiae and ratione temporis under Annex 14-C of the USMCA. The Claimant argues that its claims arise from a "legacy investment" and involve a wrongful composite act that commenced prior to the termination of NAFTA Chapter 11. The Claimant contends that Canada’s actions, which straddled the NAFTA termination date, must be viewed in aggregate under Article 15 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility, thereby backdating the breach to the initial wrongful acts in 2015. The Claimant further asserts that the USMCA Protocol and Annex 14-C were intended to preserve substantive NAFTA protections for legacy investments during the three-year transition period.

Merits and Treaty Breaches

On the merits, the Claimant argues that Canada breached NAFTA Articles 1105 (Minimum Standard of Treatment), 1102 (National Treatment), 1103 (Most-Favored-Nation Treatment), and 1110 (Expropriation). The dispute centers on the environmental assessment (EA) processes applied to the GNLQ (Énergie Saguenay) LNG export facility and the associated Gazoduq pipeline. The Claimant alleges that Canada and the Province of Québec unlawfully subjected the project to two parallel, uncoordinated EA processes, contrary to the Canada-Québec Agreement and established constitutional doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy.

The Claimant contends that the Québec Government’s ultimate rejection of the project in July 2021 was arbitrary, discriminatory, and politically motivated. Specifically, Québec allegedly imposed unprecedented, eleventh-hour conditions—such as global GHG emission reductions and social acceptability—that fell outside its constitutional competence and the scope of the EA directive. Furthermore, the Claimant asserts that the Federal Government unlawfully pre-judged the federal EA outcome, bowing to political pressure during an election campaign to mirror Québec’s rejection, thereby depriving the Claimant of due process and frustrating its legitimate expectations.

Causation and Quantum

The Claimant asserts that Canada’s treaty breaches completely destroyed the value of the Symbio Project, amounting to an unlawful expropriation. Relying on a Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) methodology and comparable precedent transactions, the Claimant’s quantum experts (Secretariat) value the lost opportunity at USD 588 million as of the July 21, 2021 valuation date. The Claimant rebuts the Respondent’s arguments regarding permitting and financing risks, demonstrating that the project was commercially viable, well-positioned to secure project financing, and operating in a highly favorable LNG market. The Claimant requests full reparation, including pre-award interest compounded annually at the U.S. Prime rate plus 1%.