In a decision released on April 1, 2026, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recognized and enforced a unanimous arbitral award issued by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”), reaffirming Canada’s firmly pro-enforcement stance under the New York Convention.
Justice Mills’ decision offers a timely and practical reminder of how Ontario courts approach cross-border enforcement, particularly in the China–Canada context.
The Framework
Foreign arbitral awards are recognized and enforced in Ontario pursuant to the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, which incorporates both the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law. Both Canada and China are signatories.
Once a certified and translated copy of the award is filed, the threshold to resist enforcement is deliberately narrow. A respondent is confined to the limited grounds set out in Article V of the Convention and Article 36 of the Model Law. Ontario courts do not revisit the merits.
The Dispute
The respondent, a director and 50% shareholder of Canadian Dehua International Mines Group Inc., executed a 2018 repayment agreement assuming joint and several liability for the company’s debts to the applicant.
Following a 2019 CIETAC award against him, the respondent resisted enforcement in Ontario on two grounds:
- Incapacity when entering into the agreement, alleging duress linked to a withdrawn criminal proceeding in the PRC; and
- Canadian public policy.
Why the Resistance Failed
(1) Improper Collateral Attack on the Award
The respondent’s duress and coercion arguments had already been raised before, and rejected by, the CIETAC tribunal.
Under the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China[2] and the CIETAC Rules (2015)[3], arbitral awards are final. Any challenge to the validity of the arbitration agreement or the award itself must be brought before the courts at the seat, including through a cancellation application under Article 58 of the PRC Arbitration Law (2017)[4].
The respondent did not pursue such relief. As a result, the Ontario court refused to permit what was, in substance, a collateral attack on the award through enforcement proceedings.
(2) High Threshold for Public Policy
On public policy, the Court reaffirmed the well-established principle from Beals v. Saldanha[5]: the defence is reserved for situations where enforcement would “fundamentally offend the most basic and explicit principles of justice and fairness in Ontario.”
Importantly, the Court drew a clear distinction:
- Repugnant laws may engage public policy;
- Disagreement with factual findings does not.
Here, the respondent’s arguments amounted to disagreement with the tribunal’s conclusions on duress, far short of the high threshold required. There was no allegation of procedural unfairness, jurisdictional defect, or tribunal misconduct.
Takeaways for Cross-Border Practitioners
This decision reinforces several practical points:
- Ontario courts remain firmly pro-enforcement and will apply a disciplined, narrow review to foreign arbitral awards, including those issued by CIETAC.
- Challenges must be brought at the seat. Arguments relating to capacity, duress, or validity cannot be held in reserve for enforcement proceedings abroad.
- Public policy is not a backdoor appeal. It is a narrow exception, not a mechanism to relitigate the merits.
The Court also noted that the applicant intends to rely on the Ontario judgment to pursue assets in British Columbia, underscoring the practical national reach of a single enforcement order within Canada.
Conclusion
Feicheng Mining is a straightforward but important reaffirmation of Canada’s alignment with international arbitration norms. For award creditors, it confirms that Ontario remains a reliable enforcement jurisdiction. For award debtors, it is a cautionary reminder: the seat is the place to fight. Once you reach enforcement, the window is largely closed.
[1] Feicheng Mining Group v. Liu, 2026 ONSC 1969
[2] Article 9 of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revision 2017)
[3] Article 49(9) of the CIETAC Rules (2015)
[4] This version has since been superseded. The Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revision 2025) was adopted on 12 September 2025 and came into force on 1 March 2026.
[5] Beals v. Saldanha and Corporacion Transnacional de Inversiones v. STET Internationa, 2003 SCC 72, at para. 71