In Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana de Salud S.A. v. Webuild S.p.A., 2026 ONCA 28, the Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s decision to stay the recognition and enforcement of a Chilean arbitral award against Webuild on the basis of forum non conveniens. The appellant, a Chilean company, sought to enforce the award in Ontario against Webuild, even though Webuild had not been a party to the arbitration. It argued that Webuild had assumed the liabilities of Astaldi S.p.A., the judgment debtor, through an Italian restructuring and partial spin-off transaction.
The Court held that a stay granted on forum non conveniens grounds is a final order for appeal purposes. It agreed with the motion judge that the issue of liability must be determined before the arbitral award can be recognized and enforced against it. The Court distinguished this case from Chevron Corp. v. Yaiguaje, 2015 SCC 42, noting that Chevron involved the enforcement of an already-adjudicated obligation, whereas Webuild and Astaldi are not related entities, and the issues of successor liability and corporate veil piercing are governed by Italian law. The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the motion judge had improperly severed the issues of liability and enforcement. Finally, the Court held that the motion judge’s forum non conveniens analysis was entitled to deference and confirmed that it was appropriate to consider the risk of inconsistent judgments arising from related proceedings commenced by the appellant in Quebec, Delaware, and Connecticut.