A detailed legal analysis of the Canadian FiT case by Shailja Singh of the Centre of WTO Studies is found here. I have blogged about it in three parts here, here and here.
On the dissenting opinion the analysis noted:
"The present dispute is one of those rare disputes in the working of the WTO disputes settlement mechanism, where a dissenting opinion has been given one member of the Panel. The dissenting opinion differed with the majority panel with respect to whether the challenged measures conferred a benefit within the meaning of Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement."
Are we going to see more dissenting opinions in the Panel/AB reports of the WTO? Is it a sign of evolving jurisprudence or multiple interpretative discourses that can exist within the international trade regime?
Looking forward to more legal analysis of the decision in the ASIL Insights or IELP blogs, until it is appealed against by Canada. I am almost sure that the case will go to the Appellate Body of the WTO.