📖 Reading time: 5 minutes
Some mornings start with a slow drip of coffee; others with an e-mail alert that a Latin-American state has quietly lost a US $91 million arbitration and—just as quietly—let the judgment waltz across the equator into a Canadian courtroom. The latter tends to wake an investment lawyer faster than any espresso ever could.
A small story about silence
Picture the scene: May 15 2025, Toronto, drizzly and unremarkable. Inside the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Justice Jane Dietrich signs an endorsement slip the length of a postcard. On its face, the court isn’t doing anything dramatic—merely “recognising” an award. Yet that slip transforms a stack of arbitral paper into a Canadian judgment worth more than US $91 million plus running interest (Dietrich J., 2025).
The respondent, the Republic of Peru, isn’t in the room. It was properly served back in January, lawyers say, but no one filed a defence, no one even asked for more time. Silence can be eloquent—here, it is devastating.
Under Canada’s Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act (S.C. 2008, c. 8), Ontario judges must treat a certified ICSID award “as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State” (Government of Canada, 2008). In plainer words: the moment the certificate arrives, the gavel is almost an after-thought.
Was Peru hoping the matter would fade? Perhaps. Governments occasionally gamble that distance and diplomatic immunity make bad debts evaporate. But ICSID awards have long memories, and investors—especially those facing nine-digit write-downs—rarely go gently.
The airport that never quite took off
Rewind to Cusco—gateway to Machu Picchu, emblem of Andean tourism. Back in 2014, Peru inked a concession with Sociedad Aeroportuaria Kuntur Wasi (a Peruvian-Argentine consortium led by Corporación América) to build the Chinchero International Airport. Less than three years later, citing construction delays and political headwinds, the government tore up the deal (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/27).
Investors cried foul, invoked the Argentina–Peru BIT, and marched to Washington D.C. to file at ICSID in July 2018. After years of filings, hearings, and evidence, the tribunal ruled in May 2024: US $91 million plus interest awarded to claimants (BNAmericas, 2024).
No annulment request followed. No appeals. Just—nothing.
How Canada became the stage
One might ask, why Canada? Neither party is Canadian. But enforcement strategy is asset-driven. Canada’s legal predictability, commercial transparency, and ICSID implementation make it ideal.
Under Article 54 of the ICSID Convention, all contracting states must enforce an award “as if it were a final judgment of a court” (ICSID, 1965). Canada did just that. Once the certified award landed in Ontario, the process began. Service was effected, deadlines passed. Peru? Silent.
By May 2025, Justice Dietrich had no reason not to recognise the award. She did. Swiftly.
Enforcement: the art of the asset hunt
The court’s endorsement grants the claimants a local judgment—but collecting is another saga. Investors must now:
- Locate commercial assets in Canada held by Peru or its state entities.
- Avoid immune assets like embassy property.
- Leverage reputational pressure, possibly triggering settlement.
Canadian law allows seizure of commercial (not diplomatic) assets (State Immunity Act, 1985). Realistically, asset tracing firms are probably already scanning registries, banking relationships, or state-linked JV agreements.
Even a modest Canadian bank account could turn into leverage. And if not, the Canadian judgment can be used to persuade other courts to act in parallel.
Strategic ripples beyond Toronto
Three lessons for the arbitration world:
- Silence hurts. Peru’s non-participation fast-tracked recognition. The system rewards engagement—even defensive.
- Third-country enforcement matters. A judgment in Toronto can trigger negotiations in Lima.
- Investment risk is recalibrated. Infrastructure-heavy economies watching this (think Colombia, Kenya, Indonesia) will consider the implications.
At least one Peruvian lawyer has already dubbed it “the Chinchero premium”—an invisible cost now attached to infrastructure bids in the country.
A brief detour on legitimacy
Here’s where things get uncomfortable. ICSID awards, especially those enforced abroad, raise old questions:
- Are we giving too much power to tribunals over sovereign acts?
- Where is the line between investor protection and democratic governance?
This case doesn’t answer that. It doesn’t have to. But it adds to the pile of examples where quiet courts in distant places enforce obligations with zero political oversight. For some, that’s the strength of the system. For others, its flaw.
What might happen next?
- Asset-tracing in Canada and beyond.
- Diplomatic overtures—Lima may seek staggered payment terms.
- Copy-cat filings from other award holders seeing Canada as fertile ground.
- Long-term precedent, informing BIT negotiations and risk assessments globally.
Even now, Peruvian officials are likely weighing their options—hire Canadian counsel, settle, or gamble again.
A closing reflection
Enforcement rarely makes headlines. But what happened in Ontario—an unopposed $91 million award morphing into a domestic judgment—shows how investment protection really works.
Not in the treaty. Not in the tribunal. But in the quiet, procedural machinery of domestic courts.
And maybe, just maybe, next time a state considers ignoring an ICSID award… someone in the ministry will remember Chinchero.
References
-
BNAmericas (2024) ‘Peru ordered to pay over US$90 mn in Chinchero airport arbitration’. Available at (Accessed: 16 May 2025).
-
Daily Jus (2025) ‘Ontario Court Enforces USD 91 Million ICSID Award Against Peru’. Available at (Accessed: 23 May 2025).
-
Dietrich J. (2025) Endorsement Slip, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 15 May.Available at (Accessed: 16 May 2025).
-
Global Arbitration Review (2025) ‘Canadian court enforces airport investor’s award against Peru’. Available at (Accessed: 17 May 2025).
-
Government of Canada (2008) Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, S.C. 2008, c. 8. Available at (Accessed: 16 May 2025).
-
ICSID (1965) ICSID Convention. Available at (Accessed: 16 May 2025).
-
ICSID (2024) Sociedad Aeroportuaria Kuntur Wasi S.A. and Corporación América S.A. v. Republic of Peru, Award. Available at (Accessed: 16 May 2025).