## Facts

- Yugraneft Corporation, a Russian oilfield operator, contracted with Rexx Management Corporation, an Alberta supplier, under an agreement containing an arbitration clause.
- A dispute arose and was arbitrated before the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation.
- On September 6, 2002, the arbitral tribunal issued a final award ordering Rexx to pay Yugraneft US$952,614.43.
- Rexx did not seek to set aside the award in Russia.
- On January 27, 2006—more than three years after the award—Yugraneft applied in Alberta to recognize and enforce the award under provincial international arbitration legislation and the New York Convention.
- Rexx opposed enforcement, arguing the application was barred by Alberta’s Limitations Act.

## Issues

1. Under Alberta’s Limitations Act, what limitation period governs an application to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award: the general two-year period for civil claims or the ten-year period for enforcing a “judgment or order for the payment of money”?
2. Does applying a domestic limitation period to recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award conflict with obligations under the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously dismissed Yugraneft’s appeal.
- The Court held the application was subject to the general two-year limitation period and was therefore time-barred.
- The Court held that applying domestic limitation periods to enforcement proceedings does not violate the New York Convention or the Model Law.

## Legal Principles

- A foreign arbitral award is not itself a “judgment or order for the payment of money” for purposes of a longer judgment-enforcement limitation period; it requires a court recognition/enforcement step to gain judgment status in the forum.
- An application to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award is a civil claim governed by the forum’s general limitation regime, running from when the award is made and enforceable (subject to applicable discoverability rules).
- The New York Convention permits enforcement to proceed “in accordance with the rules of procedure” of the enforcing jurisdiction; limitation periods are treated as procedural and may be applied by the enforcing court.
- The Convention does not require a state to provide the most generous limitation period available elsewhere, so long as the forum applies its procedural rules in a non-discriminatory manner.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Alberta’s general two-year limitation period applied to proceedings to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award, that Yugraneft’s application filed more than two years after the award was out of time, and that imposing such a procedural time limit is consistent with the New York Convention framework.


Yugraneft Corp. v. Rexx Mgmt. Corp., 2010 SCC 19 (Can. 2010)