1. Background:
   • Vento initiated an arbitral claim against Mexico under NAFTA Chapter 11 due to Mexico’s denial of preferential tariffs, which allegedly caused Vento significant business losses.
   • The tribunal dismissed Vento’s claim, and the Application Judge upheld this dismissal. Vento appealed.
2. Procedural Fairness Issue:
   • Vento argues that the tribunal denied procedural fairness by not allowing a witness to respond to a credibility challenge, affecting its ability to present its case (Article 34(2)(a)(ii) of the Model Law).
3. Model Law and Test for Procedural Unfairness:
   • The Application Judge applied a stringent test for judicial intervention, focusing on "serious" conduct offending "basic notions of morality and justice."
   • Vento advocates for a standard emphasizing uniformity and good faith in international arbitration.
4. CIPPIC’s Motion to Intervene:
   • The Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) sought to propose a "material" procedural fairness violation test.
   • The Court denied CIPPIC’s motion, citing insufficient relevance and potential to complicate the appeal.

Conclusion:

• CIPPIC's intervention was denied due to lack of direct relevance and the risk of expanding the appeal's scope.
• No costs were awarded for this motion.