• Search

Investment Treaty Arbitration

Last verified on Thursday 29th November 2018

Canada

    Overview of investment treaty programme

  1. 1.

    What are the key features of the investment treaties to which this country is a party?

    1. BIT Contracting Party or MIT1 Substantive protections Procedural rights
      Fair and equitable treatment (FET) Expropriation Protection
      and security
      Most-favoured-nation (MFN) Umbrella clause Cooling-off period2 Local courts3 Arbitration
      Argentina (29 April 1993) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 18-month domestic litigation requirement4 Yes Yes
      Armenia (29 March 1999) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited Yes
      Barbados (17 January 1997) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited Yes
      Benin (12 May 2014) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 90 days Limited Yes
      Burkina Faso (11 October 2017) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 180 days Limited except declaratory relief 1 Yes
      Cameroon (16 December 2016) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 90 days Limited except declaratory relief Yes
      CETA (EU) (took provisional effect 21 September 2017) Idiosyncratic Yes Yes Yes No 180 days Limited Yes
      Chile FTA (05 July 1997) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 90 days See Article G-22(1)(b) of the treaty
      China (01 October 2014) Yes Yes Yes Yes No Idiosyncratic5 Limited6 Yes
      Colombia FTA (15 August 2011) Yes Yes Yes Yes No7 6 months Yes Yes
      Costa Rica (29 September 1999)8 Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited Yes
      Côte D’Ivoire (14 December 2015) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 90 days Limited except declaratory relief Yes
      Croatia (30 January 2001) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited Yes
      Czech Republic (22 January 2012) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited except declaratory relief Yes
      Ecuador (06 June 1997)9 Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited Yes
      Egypt (03 November 1997) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited Yes
      Guinea (27 March 2017) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 90 days Limited except declaratory relief Yes
      Honduras FTA (1 October 2014) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited except declaratory relief Yes
      Hong Kong (6 September 2016) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 90 days Limited except declaratory relief Yes
      Hungary (21 November 1993) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Unrestricted Yes10
      Jordan (14 December 2009)11 Yes Yes Yes Yes No 90 days Limited except declaratory relief Yes
      Korea FTA (1 January 2015) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 90 days Limited except declaratory relief Yes
      Kuwait (19 February 2014) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 90 days Limited Yes
      Latvia (24 November 2011) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited Yes
      Lebanon (19 June 1999) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited Yes
      Mali (8 June 2016) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 90 days Limited except declaratory relief Yes
      Mongolia (24 February 2017) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited except declaratory relief Yes
      NAFTA FTA (United States and Mexico) (01 January 1994) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 90 days Yes Yes
      Nigeria (signed, not in force) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 90 days Limited except declaratory relief Yes
      Panama FTA (1 April 20122013) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 90 days Yes Yes
      Panama (13 February 1998) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited Yes
      Peru (20 June 2007)12 Yes Yes Yes Yes No 90 days Limited except declaratory relief Yes
      Peru FTA (1 August 2009) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Yes Yes
      Philippines (13 November 1996) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited Yes
      Poland (22 November 1990) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Unrestricted Yes
      Romania (23 November 2011) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited Yes
      Russia (27 June 1991)13 Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Unrestricted Yes
      Senegal (5 August 2016) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 90 days Limited except declaratory relief Yes
      Republic of Serbia (27 April 2015) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 90 days Limited except declaratory relief Yes
      Slovak Republic (14 March 2012) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited except declaratory relief Yes
      South Africa (not in force)14 Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited Yes
      Tanzania (9 December 2013) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 180 days Limited Yes
      Thailand (24 September 1998) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited Yes
      Trinidad & Tobago (08 July 1996) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited Yes
      Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) (not in force) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited except declaratory relief Yes
      Ukraine (24 July 1995)15 Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited Yes
      Uruguay (2 June 1999) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited Yes
      Venezuela (28 January 1998) Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 months Limited Yes

    Qualifying criteria - any unique or distinguishing features?

  2. 2.

    Definition of "investor"

    What are the distinguishing features of the definition of “investor” in this country’s investment treaties?

    1. Issue Distinguishing features in relation to the definition of ‘investor’
      Dual citizenship

      No mention of dual citizenship: Argentina, the Czech Republic, Hungary (consultation in case of investor nationality dispute), Kuwait, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovak Republic, Czech Republic, Tanzania, CPTPP, Panama, Chile, NAFTA, Ukraine and Cameroon.

      Investors of the following states cannot hold the citizenship of Canada (no mutual restriction for Canadian investors holding the citizenship): Armenia, Ecuador, Egypt (an Egyptian “natural person” cannot possess the citizenship of Canada, but it does not apply to an Egyptian “judicial person”), Latvia, Panama, the Philippines, Thailand, Ukraine.

      Mutual restriction (an investor cannot possess the citizenship of the other state): Barbados, China, Costa Rica, South Africa, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela.

      Effective and dominant citizenship:

      • Lebanon (dual citizens are considered Canadian citizens in Canada and Lebanese citizens in Lebanon);
      • Burkina Faso, CETA, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, Peru and Serbia (a dual citizen shall be deemed to be exclusively a citizen of the state of his or her dominant and effective citizenship);
      • Korea, Honduras, Benin, Colombia, Burkina Faso, CETA, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Hong Kong, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal and Serbia (dominant and effective citizenship assumed; a citizen of one country who also happens to be a permanent resident of the other country shall be deemed to be exclusively a national of the country of citizenship)
  3. 3.

    Definition of "investment"

    What are the distinguishing features of the definition of "investment" in this country’s investment treaties?

    1. Issue Distinguishing features in relation to the concept of ‘investment’
      Direct or indirect investment All of Canada’s investment treaties define an “investment” with some variations, such as describing what constitutes a qualifying indirect investment (eg, “…any kind of asset owned or controlled either directly, or indirectly…”)
      Exclusion of certain assets

      Certain Canadian investment treaties exclude certain types of assets from the definition of “investment”, including:

      • certain claims to money in the treaties with Benin, CETA, China, Jordan, Kuwait, Tanzania, Chile, Colombia, NAFTA, Panama, Peru, Cameroon, Serbia, Honduras, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Hong Kong, Mali, Nigeria and Senegal;
      • goodwill in the treaties with Argentina, Chile, Columbia, Czech Republic, Hungary, NAFTA, Peru and Slovak Republic;
      • property not acquired in the expectation or used for the purpose of economic benefit or other business purposes in the treaties with Croatia, Ecuador, Egypt, Latvia, Lebanon, Panama, Romania, South Africa, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Uruguay and Venezuela;
      • order or judgment entered in a judicial or administrative action in CPTPP;
      • certain enterprises in the treaties with China, Peru, Chile, NAFTA, Jordan, Colombia, Panama; and
      • a state enterprise debt security or loan in the Chile, NAFTA, Peru and Honduras treaties
      Indirect control

      Certain Canadian treaties specifically address the issue of whether an enterprise that the investor indirectly controls is covered by the treaty:

      • investment is covered if an investor controls the enterprise that owns the investment in the treaties with Benin, CETA, Ivory Coast, Croatia, Guinea, Honduras, Hong Kong, El Salvador, Korea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Nigeria, Mali, Senegal, Serbia, Uruguay and Cameroon; and
      • investments made through an investor of a third State are covered in the treaties with China, Peru, Slovak Republic, Poland and Hungary (only if the investor does not invoke a dispute resolution mechanism of another treaty) and in the case of the Costa Rica treaty only if the investment is controlled through an enterprise or natural person of a third State
      Specified inclusions and peculiarities

      Some Canadian treaties contain more unique provisions relating to qualifying investments, including:

      • investments related to financial institutions in the treaties with Chile and Peru;
      • investments relating to a loan to an enterprise in the treaties with Benin, CETA, China, Kuwait, Peru, Tanzania, Chile, Mongolia, NAFTA, Jordan, Colombia, Serbia, Panama, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Hong Kong, Mali, Nigeria and Senegal;
      • loan or debt security issued by a financial institution that is treated as regulatory capital by the Party in whose territory the financial institution is located, such as treaties with Burkina Faso, China, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Hong Kong, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, Serbia and CPTPP;
      • investments as loans directly related to a specific investment in the treaty with Argentina;
      • investments that have changed in form must be approved locally in the treaty with Thailand;
      • and investments relating to intellectual property rights are specifically listed in the treaties with Argentina, Benin, CETA, Chile, China, Columbia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Kuwait, Mongolia, NAFTA, Peru, Poland, Russia, Tanzania, Slovak Republic, Serbia, Cameroon, Korea, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Hong Kong, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal and CPTPP;

    Substantive protections - any unique or distinguishing features?

  4. 4.

    Fair and equitable treatment

    What are the distinguishing features of the fair and equitable treatment standard in this country’s investment treaties?

    1. Issue Distinguishing features of the fair and equitable treatment standard
      Principles of international law Several of Canada’s treaties differ with respect to the application of the principles of international law in determining the scope of the FET standard, including:
      • No reference to principles of international law at all in the treaty with Hungary
      • No stated requirement that FET treatment be &ldquo
      • in accordance with principles of international law” in the treaties with the Czech Republic, CETA, Peru, Romania, Slovak Republic, Colombia, Chile and Panama; and
      • FET standard treatment limited to that required by the customary international law minimum standard of treatment of aliens in the treaties with the Benin, Czech Republic, Jordan, Kuwait, Latvia, Peru, Romania, Slovak Republic, Tanzania, Chile, Colombia, Mongolia, NAFTA, Cameroon, Korea, Serbia, Honduras, Burkina Faso, China, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Hong Kong, Mali, Nigeria, Serbia, Senegal and CPTPP, although what that minimum standard may be, is subject to debate
      Due process FET includes the obligation not to deny justice in criminal, civil, or administrative adjudicatory proceedings in accordance with the principle of due process in the treaty with Colombia, CETA, Korea, and CPTPP.
      Constrained Standard Contrary to the common wording of many FIPAs, the final text of CETA contains a list of six grounds that would constitute a breach of the obligation of fair and equitable treatment: “(a) denial of justice in criminal, civil or administrative proceedings; (b) fundamental breach of due process, including a fundamental breach of transparency, in judicial and administrative proceedings; (c) manifest arbitrariness; (d) targeted discrimination on manifestly wrongful grounds, such as gender, race or religious belief; (e) abusive treatment of investors, such as coercion, duress and harassment; or (f) a breach of any further elements of the fair and equitable treatment obligation adopted by the Parties in accordance with paragraph 3 of [Article 8.10].”
  5. 5.

    Expropriation

    What are the distinguishing features of the protection against expropriation standard in this country’s investment treaties?

    1. Issue

      Distinguishing features of the ‘expropriation’ standard

      Calculation of compensation

      Canada’s treaties use different language with respect to the calculation of compensation, including:

      Fair market value

      • China, Philippines, Thailand, Korea and CPTPP;
      • In the treaties with Barbados, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, CETA, Costa Rica, Croatia, Guinea, Honduras, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, Mali, Mongolia, NAFTA, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Senegal, Serbia, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay, to determine fair market value, the valuation of an expropriated investment includes going concern value, asset value including declared tax value of tangible property, and other criteria, as appropriate.

      Market value: Hungary
      Genuine value: Argentina, Armenia, Ecuador, Egypt, Latvia, Panama, Romania, South Africa, Ukraine, Venezuela.
      Real Value: Czech, Poland, Russia, Slovak Republic and Hong Kong.

      Compensation payable (interest and applicable period)

      Canada’s treaties have varied approaches regarding interest as it applies to compensation owed for the expropriation of an investment, including:

      • Costa Rica: in Canada, from the date of expropriation at a normal commercial rate; in Costa Rica, from the date of dispossession in accordance with article 11 of its Expropriation Act, with interest at the average deposit rate prevailing in the national banking system;
      • Lebanon: interest rate equivalent to the rate paid by the government of the territory where expropriation took place in its general borrowing;
      • Philippines: no mention of the applicable interest rate until payment;
      • Poland: payment shall be made within two months of the date of expropriation, after which an agreed interest rate (no lesser than LIBOR) applies;
      • Russia: compensation shall be made within two months of the date of expropriation;
      • Thailand: in Canada, from the date of expropriation at a normal commercial rate; in Thailand, the date determined by the committee established under article 23 of its Immovable Property Expropriation Act for immovable property at the highest rate of interest for the fixed deposit of the Government Savings Bank for immovable property; for movable property, in accordance with its Civil and Commercial Code;
      • Chile and NAFTA: commercially reasonable rate for the currency if paid in a G7 currency, if made in a non-G7 currency, the amount converted on the date of payment should be equivalent to the amount converted to a G7 currency on the date of expropriation at a commercially reasonable rate for that G7 currency;
      • Benin, Jordan, Kuwait, Peru, Tanzania, Chile, Colombia, Panama, Cameroon, Honduras, Korea, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Hong Kong, Mali, Nigeria and Senegal: commercially reasonable rate for the currency;
      • Serbia: appropriate commercial rate for that currency accrued;
      • China and CETA: a normal commercial rate until the date of payment; and
      • CPTPP: a commercially reasonable rate for that currency, accrued from the date of expropriation until the date of payment.

      Conditions for expropriation

      While most Canadian treaties provide that expropriation must be under “due process of law”, etc., certain treaties have unique provisions, including expropriation under “domestic due procedures of law” instead of under due process of law in the treaty with China.

      Exceptions to expropriation

      Certain Canadian treaties also including exceptions to expropriation, including:

      • intellectual property rights related measures that are consistent with an international agreement to which both Contracting Parties are signatories are excluded in the treaty with China;
      • intellectual property rights related measures that are consistent with WTO are excluded in the treaties with Benin, Jordan, Kuwait, Peru, Tanzania, Chile, Colombia, Panama, NAFTA, Honduras, and Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Hong Kong, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal and Serbia; and
      • Issuance of compulsory licenses granted in relation to intellectual property rights in accordance with the TRIPS Agreement in the CPTPP.

      Indirect expropriation

      Most of Canada’s treaties cover “indirect expropriation” by prohibiting measures tantamount to expropriation, but certain treaties include an explicit reference to “indirect expropriation”, eg: in the treaties with the Benin, CETA, CPTPP, Czech Republic, Jordan, Kuwait, Latvia, Peru, Romania, Tanzania, Chile, Colombia, NAFTA, Panama, Honduras, Cameroon, Korea, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Hong Kong, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal and Serbia.

      Judicial authority

      In Canada, a judicial authority that reviews an investor’s claim shall include any other competent administrative or quasi-judicial authority in the treaty with Panama, Honduras, Cameroon, and Korea. The treaties with Burkina Faso, China, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Hong Kong, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal and Serbia are examples of treaties that grant an affected investor the right to a prompt review by a judicial or other independent authority of the party making the expropriation.

      Taxation

      No mention of taxation and no separate taxation provisions are contained in the Argentina, CETA, CPTPP, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Slovak Republic treaties and specific conditions for bringing expropriation claims for taxation measures are set out in certain treaties, such as those with Burkina Faso, China, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Hong Kong, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal and Serbia.

  6. 6.

    National treatment/most-favoured-nation treatment

    What are the distinguishing features of the national treatment/most-favoured-nation treatment standard in this country’s investment treaties?

    1. Issue

      Distinguishing features of the ‘national treatment’ and/or ‘most favoured nation’ standard

      Scope of MFN treatment

      Generally, Canadian treaties limit the scope of MFN or national treatment to claims regarding the management, use, enjoyment or disposal of investments and returns.

      Common exceptions to MFN and national treatment

      Several Canadian treaties contain common exceptions to MFN treatment (including regarding sectors, such as aviation and/or telecommunications sectors, and in respect of treaties signed after a certain date), such as those with Armenia, Barbados, China, CETA, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Latvia, Panama, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Hong Kong, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal and Serbia.

      Given the breadth of application, these common exceptions are set out in detail with reference to the Armenia treaty, as follows:

      • Excludes MFN treatment to any existing or future bilateral or multilateral agreement: (a) establishing, strengthening or expanding a free trade area or customs union; (b) negotiated within the framework of the GATT or its successor organisation and liberalizing trade in services; or (c) relating to: (i) aviation; (ii) telecommunications transport networks and telecommunications transport services; (iii) fisheries; (iv) maritime matters, including salvage; or (v) financial services; and
      • Excludes national treatment to (a)(i) any existing non-conforming measures maintained within the territory of a Contracting Party; and (ii) any measure maintained or adopted after the date of entry into force of this Agreement that, at the time of sale or other disposition of a government’s equity interests in, or the assets of, an existing state enterprise or an existing governmental entity, prohibits or imposes limitations on the ownership of equity interests or assets or imposes nationality requirements relating to senior management or members of the board of directors; (b) the continuation or prompt renewal of any non-conforming measure referred to in subparagraph (a); (c) an amendment to any non-conforming measure referred to in subparagraph (a), to the extent that the amendment does not decrease the conformity of the measure, as it existed immediately before the amendment, with those obligations; (d) the right of each Contracting Party to make or maintain exceptions within the sectors or matters listed in the Annex to this Agreement.

      Other specified MFN and national treatment exceptions

      Certain Canadian treaties contain other specific exceptions to MFN and national treatment, including:

      • any agreements that (a) establishing a free trade area or customs union; (b) liberalising trade in services; (c) for mutual economic assistance, integration or cooperation; (d) relating to taxation in the treaties with Armenia, Argentina, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russia and Cameroon;
      • with respect to NAFTA, any measure that is an exception to, or derogation from, the obligations under NAFTA article 1703; any measure that a Party adopts or maintains with respect to sectors, subsectors or activities, as set out in its Schedule to Annex II of NAFTA;
      • with respect to CETA, (a) procurement by a party of a good or service purchased for governmental purposes and not with a view to commercial resale or with a view to use in the supply of a good or service for commercial sale, whether or not that procurement is “covered procurement” within the meaning of article 19.2 (Scope and coverage); or (b) subsidies, or government support relating to trade in services, provided by a party;
      • with respect to CPTPP, any treatment referred to does not encompass international dispute resolution procedures or mechanisms, such as those included Investor-State Dispute Settlement;
      • bilateral economic cooperation agreements with Italy (10 December 1987) and Spain (3 June 1988) in the treaty with Argentina;
      • certain measures do not give rise to national treatment in the treaties with Lebanon, Romania and South Africa through reservations recorded by those parties;
      • civil aviation, real property, customs brokers, customs clerks, gambling, betting and lotteries in the treaty with Trinidad and Tobago;
      • existing non-conforming measures in the treaties with Benin, Jordan, Kuwait, Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Hong Kong, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal and Serbia;
      • NAFTA and the G-3 Agreement are not to be imported for the purposes of the treaty with Venezuela;
      • in the treaty with China, any measures that either party reserved the right to adopt or maintain in its schedule in respect of investors or investments of investors of Peru.
      • procurements, grants and subsidies in the treaties with Benin, China, Jordan, Kuwait, Tanzania, Chile, Colombia, NAFTA, Panama (FTA, not in force), Peru, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Hong Kong, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal and Serbia;
      • review decision under the Investment Canada Act excluded from dispute settlement in the treaties with Benin, Chile, Kuwait, Tanzania, Cameroon, Honduras and Korea;
      • concessions in the maritime land zone and export promotion programme in the treaty with Costa Rica;
      • carriage of passengers by vessel in relation to exploration, exploitation or transportation of non-living natural resources in the treaty with Nigeria;
      • measures relating to (i) public law enforcement, ambulance services, correctional services, and fire-fighting, rescue services, and (ii) health, education, housing, training, transport, social security and social welfare, to the extent they are social services established for public purpose in the treaty with Hong Kong.
      • the rights or preferences provided to aboriginal peoples in the treaties with Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Hong Kong, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, and Serbia; and
      • adopting or maintaining non-conforming measures with respect to: maritime cabotage; licensing fishing or fishing-related activities including entry of foreign fishing vessels to Canada’s exclusive economic zone, territorial sea, internal waters or ports, and use any services therein, in treaties with Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Hong Kong, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal and Serbia.

      Specified exceptions related only to MFN treatment

      In addition to the example set out in item 2 above, certain Canadian treaties contain other specific exceptions relating only to MFN treatment, including:

      • MFN does not permit the importation of dispute resolution mechanisms in another treaty for the purposes of the treaties with Cameroon, China and Peru;
      • aviation, fisheries and maritime matters including salvage and any bilateral/multilateral agreement in force prior to 1 January 1994 in the treaties with Benin, Kuwait, Tanzania, Peru (FTA) and China;
      • financial services in the treaty with Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Nigeria, Mali, Senegal and Serbia;
      • ownership of real estate by nationals of Arab States and to any measure where there has been the exercise of discretion by competent authorities of the contracting parties in respect of establishing financial services in the treaty with Lebanon;
      • taxation in the treaty with Thailand;
      • MFN does not apply to a current and future technical assistance and development aid programmes under any bilateral and multilateral agreements in the treaty with Mongolia;
      • with respect to CPTPP, MFN does not apply to any measure that falls within article 5 of the TRIPS Agreement, or an exception to, or derogation from, the obligations which are imposed by: (i) article 18.8 (National Treatment); or (ii) article 4 of the TRIPS Agreement;
      • MFN does not apply to an existing or future bilateral or multilateral agreement relating to road, rail and inland waterway transportation in the treaty with Mali; and
      • MFN does not apply to bilateral or multilateral international agreements in force or signed, for Canada, prior to 1 January 1994, and prior to 1 January 1960 for Nigeria in the treaty with Nigeria. A similar exception relating to treatment under previously agreed treaties appears in treaties with Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Hong Kong, Mali, Senegal and Serbia.

      See also the Schedule(s) of Canada (or the Parties), which include further detailed reservations and exceptions in respect of certain protections.

      Specified exceptions related only to national treatment

      Certain Canadian treaties contain other specific exceptions relating only to national treatment, including:

      • acquisition of real estate situated within ten kilometres of the borders; retail trade; provision of postal and telegraphic services; fishing for domestic sale; and broadcasting in the treaty with Panama;
      • atomic agency; air transportation; overseas and coastal shipping; telephone/telegraph services; submarine cable services in the treaty with Croatia.
      • business in agriculture, commerce and service as well as building construction and business in industry and handicrafts in the treaty with Thailand;
      • with respect to coastal fishing, small-scale commerce, exercise of notarial activities, acquisition of rural real estate for non-industrial use, and minimum capital amount in the treaty with El Salvador;
      • with respect to enterprises in industries including nuclear, maritime, air transport, state budget financed sectors, salt extraction, rare earths extraction, television/radio and land in the treaty with the Ukraine (with certain time-limited restrictions);
      • with respect to mass media, practice of licensed profession, small-scale retail trade, cooperative enterprises, private security agencies, small-scale mining, marine resources utilisation and trading in rice and corn in the treaty with the Philippines;
      • adopting or maintaining non-conforming measures with respect to: the rights or preferences provided to socially or economically disadvantaged minorities, residency requirements for ownership of oceanfront land, government securities (ie, acquisition, sale or other disposition by nationals of the other party of bonds, treasury bills or other kinds of debt securities issued by the government of Canada, a province or local government), telecommunications services and the establishment or acquisition in Canada of an investment in the services sector in treaties with Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Hong Kong, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal and Serbia; and
      • With respect to CPTPP, national treatment does not apply to any measure that falls within an exception to, or derogation from, the obligations which are imposed by: (i) article 18.8 (National Treatment); or (ii) article 3 of the TRIPS Agreement, if the exception or derogation relates to matters not addressed by Chapter 18 (Intellectual Property).

      Specified inclusions related to MFN and national treatment

      Certain Canadian treaties contain specific inclusions for national and MFN treatment, including:

      • the better of the treatment required under the Decree Law 600 of 1974 or the Chile treaty in the treaty with Chile; and
      • an expansion of national treatment only with respect to the expansion, management, conduct, operation and sale or other disposition of investment, not acquisition and new investment and only to sectors that do not require prior approval and subject to prescribed formalities and other information requirements, and intellectual property is included as long as it is consistent with international agreements that both contracting states are parties in the treaty with China.
  7. 7.

    Protection and security

    What are the distinguishing features of the obligation to provide protection and security to qualifying investments in this country’s investment treaties?

    1. Issue

      Distinguishing features of the ‘protection and security’ standard

      Full protection and security

      All of Canada’s investment treaties feature “full protection and security”.

  8. 8.

    Umbrella clause.

    What are the distinguishing features of the umbrella clauses contained within this country’s investment treaties?

    1. Issue

      Distinguishing features of any ‘umbrella clause’

      Umbrella clause

      Canada’s investment treaties do not contain standard umbrella clauses.

  9. 9.

    Other substantive protections.

    What are the other most important substantive rights provided to qualifying investors in this country?

    1. Issue

      Other substantive protections

      Armed conflict/civil unrest

      All of Canada’s treaties provide protection against armed conflict/civil unrest. Examples of aspects of this protection, as specifically addressed in certain treaties, include:

      • Argentina: revolution and civil strife included;
      • Benin: national emergency omitted;
      • Burkina Faso: armed conflict, civil strife;
      • Cameroon: armed conflict, civil strife, or a natural disaster included;
      • CETA: armed conflict, civil strife, state of emergency or natural disaster;
      • China: natural disaster omitted; insurrection and riot included;
      • Chile: civil strife added but national emergency and natural disaster;
      • Colombia: civil strife added but national emergency and natural disaster omitted;
      • Cote d’Ivoire: armed conflict, civil strife or natural disaster;
      • Czech Republic: civil disturbance added; natural disaster omitted;
      • Guinea: armed conflict, civil strife or natural disaster;
      • Honduras: armed conflict and civil strife included;
      • Hong Kong: armed conflict, revolution, revolt, insurrection, riot, civil strife, a state of national emergency, or a natural disaster;
      • Hungary: natural disaster omitted;
      • Jordan: civil strife added but national emergency omitted;
      • Korea: armed conflict and civil strife included.
      • Kuwait: national emergency omitted;
      • Mali: armed conflict, civil strife or natural disaster;
      • Mongolia: armed conflict, civil strife, or natural disaster;
      • Nigeria: armed conflict, civil strife or natural disaster;
      • Panama: civil strife added but national emergency and natural disaster omitted;
      • Peru: civil strife added but national emergency omitted;
      • Philippines: natural disaster omitted;
      • Poland: natural disaster omitted;
      • Russia: natural disaster omitted;
      • Slovak Republic: civil disturbance added but natural disaster omitted;
      • Senegal: armed conflict, civil strife or natural disaster;
      • Serbia: armed conflict, civil strife or state of emergency, including as a result of a natural disaster;
      • Tanzania: war, state of national emergency, revolt, insurrection or riot included; and
      • CPTPP: armed conflict or civil strife.

    Procedural rights in this country’s investment treaties

  10. 10.

    Are there any relevant issues related to procedural rights in this country’s investment treaties?

    1. Issue

      Procedural Rights

      Fork in the road

      Canada’s treaties do not contain pure fork-in-the-road provisions. As noted in relation to the designations used in the Table at Section I above, Canada’s earliest treaties contain no restrictions on access to the local courts of the host State and are thus shown as “Unrestricted”. Canada’s second generation of treaties typically provide that “[a]n investor may submit a dispute as referred to in paragraph (1) to arbitration in accordance with paragraph (4) only if: (b) the investor has waived its right to initiate or continue any other proceedings in relation to the measure that is alleged to be in breach of this Agreement before the courts or tribunals of the Contracting Party concerned or in a dispute settlement procedure of any kind”. An analogous requirement usually exists for cases where the claim is brought on behalf of an enterprise owned or controlled by the claimant investor that is incorporated under the law of the respondent State. These treaties are shown as “Limited”. Most of Canada’s recent treaties contain a similar provision but permit the claimant investor to initiate or continue proceedings for “injunctive, declaratory or other extraordinary relief, not involving the payment of damages”. These are shown as “Limited except for declaratory relief”.

      Arbitrator appointment

      Certain Canadian treaties explicitly specify the procedure for arbitrator appointment: Benin, Burkina Faso, Jordan, Kuwait, Peru, Tanzania, Chile, China, Colombia, Ivory Coast, NAFTA, Panama, Peru, Mali, Korea, Guinea, Hong Kong, Nigeria, Senegal, Cameroon, Serbia, TPP and Honduras.

      Choice of forum

      Most of Canada’s investment treaties provide for ICSID (including Additional Facility) or UNCITRAL ad hoc arbitration, at the election of the disputing investor with the following exceptions:

      • Hungary: ICSID Additional Facility option not provided;
      • Jordan and Peru: any other body of rules approved by the Commission (defined in article 51) as available for arbitrations under Section C;
      • Kuwait, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast: in addition to ICSID (including Additional Facility) and UNCITRAL ad hoc arbitration, the treaty permits any other instrument that allows the arbitration procedure to be conducted in accordance with the treaty and that is adopted by the national or regional arbitration centre proposed by the investor, provided the disputing parties agree; and
      • Russia, Hong Kong: only UNCITRAL arbitration provided.

      Domestic requirement

      The Costa Rica treaty provides that where Costa Rica is a respondent there should be no prior judgment on the subject matter of the dispute rendered by a Costa Rican court.

      The China–Canada FIPA provides two conditions precedent for submitting a claim to arbitration, where the claim concerns a measure in China.

      1. Upon receipt of the Notice of Intent or at any time prior, China shall require that an investor make use of the domestic administrative reconsideration procedure. If the investor considers that the dispute still exists for four months after the investor has applied for the administrative reconsideration, or where no such remedies are available, the investor may submit a claim to arbitration.
      2. An investor who has initiated proceedings before any court of China with respect to a measure alleged to be a breach of an obligation under Part B (which Part relates to substantive obligations) may only submit a claim to arbitration if the investor has withdrawn the case from the national court before judgment has been made in the dispute. This requirement does not apply to the domestic administrative reconsideration procedure referred to in paragraph 1.

      Conditions precedent based on timing, notice and filing requirements exist in various other treaties, such as the treaties with Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Hong Kong, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal and Serbia.

      Notice periods

      The majority of Canada’s treaties require advance notice or consultations prior to the submission of a claim to arbitration. There are several variations of this requirement, the details of which are reflected in the Table in question 1.

      Mandatory commencement

      The Argentina treaty is the only treaty that has a mandatory commencement provision that triggers three months after written notification is issued using the UNCITRAL Rules.

      Restriction on arbitrable matters

      Certain Canadian treaties contain restrictions on arbitrable matters including:

      • Canada’s treaties typically exclude claims in cultural industries. Four of Canada’s treaties do not explicitly purport to exclude such claims: Argentina, Hungary, Poland, Russia and Cameroon;
      • claims brought by financial institutions are restricted in various ways in the treaties with Benin, Burkina Faso, China, Ivory Coast, Czech Republic, Guinea, Jordan, Kuwait, Hong Kong, Latvia, Mali, Mongolia, Nigeria, Peru, Romania, Serbia, Senegal, Slovak Republic and Tanzania;
      • claims based on new business enterprise permit decisions or on acquisition (or share of) of an existing enterprise in the treaties with Costa Rica and Croatia; and
      • certain claims relating to whether to permit an acquisition that is subject to review, eg, see Canada’s treaties with Chile, China, Colombia, Panama, Peru, NAFTA and Cameroon.

      Restriction on the type and timing of award

      Canada’s treaties generally address the type and timing of awards, including as follows:

      • awards are generally restricted to covering issues of liability, the quantum of monetary damages and restitution of property, and the time limit for rendering an award is generally three years;
      • punitive damages, although generally not considered recoverable, are expressly prohibited in the treaties with Benin, Burkina Faso, CETA, China, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Hong Kong, Jordan, Kuwait, Mali, Mongolia, Nigeria, Peru, Senegal, Serbia, Tanzania, Chile, Colombia, NAFTA, Panama, Honduras, Korea, CPTPP and Cameroon;
      • two of Canada’s treaties do not state any restriction on the type of award: Czech Republic, Slovak Republic;
      • the following of Canada’s treaties do not mention timing for issuing an award: Argentina, Benin, Hungary, Kuwait, Poland, Russia, Tanzania and CPTPP;
      • CETA requires final award be issued within 24 months of the date the claim is submitted to the Tribunal; and
      • two of Canada’s treaties provide for 39 months for issuing an award: Colombia and Peru.

      Waiver clause

      Canadian treaties generally contain a waiver clause excluding the right to initiate or continue parallel proceedings before the court or tribunal of a contracting party except in the treaties with the Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Czech Republic, Guinea, Honduras, Hong Kong, Jordan, Korea, Mali, Mongolia, Peru, Senegal, Republic of Serbia, and Slovak Republic with respect to injunctive, declaratory or other extraordinary relief. There is no mention of waiver in the treaties with Argentina, Hungary, Poland and Russia.

  11. 11.

    What is the status of this country’s investment treaties?

    1. Canada continues to build its investment treaty network. Since August 2016, the following FIPAs have been entered into force: Canada-Burkina Faso, Canada-Cameroon, Canada-Guinea, Canada-Hong Kong, Canada-Mongolia, and Canada-Senegal. The following FIPAs have been signed but not yet in force: Canada-Kosovo and Canada-Nigeria. Canada has also signed an expanded FTA with Ukraine, which entered into force on 1 August 2017.

      In October 2016, Canada and EU signed CETA during the EU-Canada Summit. In February 2017, the European Parliament approved CETA. In May 2017, the Canadian bill to implement CETA received royal assent. CETA took provisional effect as of 21 September 2017. The investment arbitration provisions of the CETA did not take provisional effect.

      On March 8, 2018, together with other signatory States, Canada signed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) in Santiago, Chile. The CPTPP incorporates most of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by reference, and includes all previous TPP States with the exception of the United States. As of 31 July 2018, the issue of ratification remains before parliament.

      US President Donald Trump threatened to terminate NAFTA if the parties (Canada, the United States of America and Mexico) do not agree to a massive overhaul to its terms. The parties are commenced formal negotiations starting the summer of 2017, with talks expected to proceed beyond 31 August 2018.

    Practicalities of commencing an investment treaty claim against this country

  12. 12.

    To which governmental entity should notice of a dispute against this country under an investment treaty be sent? Is there a particular person or office to whom a dispute notice against this country should be addressed?

    1. Government entity to which claim notices are sent

      Office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada

      Justice Building

      284 Wellington Street

      Ottawa, Ontario

      K1A 0H8

      Canada

  13. 13.

    Which government department or departments manage investment treaty arbitrations on behalf of this country?

    1. Government department which manages investment treaty arbitrations

      Global Affairs Canada, Office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada

  14. 14.

    Are internal or external counsel used, or expected to be used, by the state in investment treaty arbitrations? If external counsel are used, does the state normally go through a formal public procurement process when hiring them?

    1. Internal/External counsel

      Internal counsel: Trade Law Bureau (JLT), Global Affairs Canada; external counsel are not generally used.

    Practicalities of enforcing an investment treaty claim against this country

  15. 15.

    Has the country signed and ratified the Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (1965)? Please identify any legislation implementing the Washington Convention.

    1. Washington Convention implementing legislation

      Canada signed the ICSID Convention on 15 December 2006. The Canadian federal government passed the Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, S.C. 2008, c.8 to ratify the ICSID Convention in March 2008. On 1 November 2013, Canada ratified the Convention and it enter into force on 1 December 2013. To date, Quebec the only province that has not adopted specific implementing legislation.

  16. 16.

    Has the country signed and ratified the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) (the New York Convention)? Please identify any legislation implementing the New York Convention.

    1. New York Convention implementing legislation

      The New York Convention came into force in Canada on 10 August 1986 (ratified 12 May, 1986) via the United Nations Foreign Arbitral Awards Convention Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 16 (2nd Supp.). Canada declared, however, that the Convention applies only to differences arising out of commercial legal relationships, whether contractual or not. Each province and territory has separately enacted legislation adopting the Convention except Quebec (Ontario expressly became a New York Convention jurisdiction when it adopted the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, SO 2017,c 2, Sch 5).

  17. 17.

    Does the country have legislation governing non-ICSID investment arbitrations seated within its territory?

    1. Legislation governing non ICSID arbitrations

      Federally, article 5(4) of the Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 17 (2nd Supp.) provides that Canada interprets the expression “commercial arbitration” in Article 1(1) of the attached Commercial Arbitration Code (based on the UNCITRAL Model Law) to include investment dispute claims under certain of its Free Trade Agreements (Colombia, Chile, NAFTA and Peru). Each provincial/territorial jurisdiction, with the exception of Quebec, has enacted legislation adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law (eg, British Columbia’s International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 55). In March 2014, the Uniform Law Conference of Canada (ULCC) finalized a new Uniform International Commercial Arbitration Act, which the Provinces have been asked to consider adopting. On 1 December 2016, a Uniform Arbitration Act (2016).

  18. 18.

    Does the state have a history of voluntary compliance with adverse investment treaty awards; or have additional proceedings been necessary to enforce these against the state?

    1. Compliance with adverse awards

      Generally, Canada is compliant. Canada unsuccessfully sought to set aside an adverse award made in favour of SD Myers Inc, pursuant to NAFTA Chapter 11 (Decision of the Federal Court rendered on 13 January 2004). On 2 May 2018, the Federal Court of Canada denied Canada’s application for the set aside of the Tribunal’s award in Bilcon of Delaware et al v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2009-04, issued on 17 March 2015.

  19. 19.

    Describe the national government’s attitude towards investment treaty arbitration

    1. Attitude of government towards investment treaty arbitration

      The government of Canada is actively seeking to conclude more investment treaties which provide for investment treaty arbitration. All of Canada’s treaties in force contain a right to investor-state arbitration. Canada promotes transparency in investment treaty arbitration as evident in its recent treaties with China and Cameroon. The Settlement of International Investment Dis-putes Act, S.C. 2008, c.8, which implements the ICSID Convention, was ratified on November 1, 2013 and brought into force on 1 December 2013. More recently, Canada has signed large multilateral trade agreements, such as CETA and the CPTTP, and have ratified or are in the process of ratifying these agreements. CETA has been in force since 21 September 2017. A new government led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was elected into office in 2015, which has maintained Canada’s positive attitude towards expanding its trade agreements, including regarding investment protection and investment treaty arbitration. The current conduct investment treaty negotiations and expand Canada’s investment treaty network, although it is important to note that CETA provides for a standing international tribunal for the resolution of investment disputes, rather than using the arbitration model commonly found in bilateral investment treaties.

  20. 20.

    To what extent have local courts been supportive and respectful of investment treaty arbitration, including the enforcement of awards?

    1. Attitude of local courts towards investment treaty arbitration

      Canadian courts generally recognize and enforce investment arbitration awards. The observation still holds even when the reviewing application is made by the Government of Canada (S.D. Myers Inc. and Bilcon). Canadian provincial courts have reviewed applications to set aside investment arbitration awards and ruled according to the criteria set out in provincial legislation that implemented the New York Convention and/or the UNCITRAL Model Law. In Quebec, where there is no provincial Commercial Arbitration Act, the Code of Civil Procedure applies (by way of a motion for homologation to the court). The Courts of British Columbia partially set aside an award in Metalclad v. Mexico, affecting the date for calculation of pre-award interest. The Ontario Courts have dismissed applications to set aside the award in Bayview v. Mexico and the respondent’s application to set aside in Cargill v. Mexico and Feldman v. Mexico; the same Courts have ordered enforcement of the award in Sistem v. Kyrgyzstan. In Popack v. Lipszyc, the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that the Court may refuse to set aside an award even if one or more of the grounds set out in the UNCITRAL Model Law are established. Similarly, in Consolidated Contractors Group S.A.L. (Offshore) v. Ambatovy Minerals, the Ontario Superior Court confirmed that there is only a narrow discretion for the Court to set aside an award even if a ground for doing so is established. More recently, large awards issued against States have been enforced in Ontario, including a $1.2 billion award in favour of Crystallex International Corporation against the Government of Venezuela, although the application at the Superior Court level was unopposed by Venezuela. In Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Private Limited v. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Private) Ltd., the Court of Appeal in British Columbia addressed the rights of creditors to obtain interim relief in aid of arbitration, and confirmed that under the New York Convention a claimant is not obligated to seek enforcement of an award in the debtor’s home country before seeking enforcement in a foreign jurisdiction. The British Columbia Supreme Court also granted a worldwide Mareva injunction in CE International Resources Holdings LLC v. Yeap, S.A. Minerals Ltd. Partnership and Tantalum Technology Inc. as an interim measure to allow the claimant time to seek substantially the same relief from the arbitrator presiding over the dispute in New York. CEIR was thereby able to secure exigible assets owned by the rogue defendant in British Columbia. In China Citic Bank Corporation Limited v. Yan, the British Columbia Supreme Court found that China Citic Bank did not make full and frank disclosure when the Mareva injunction was first granted to ensure meaningful enforcement of an arbitration award obtained in China. Yet, the Court held tha the injunction should nevertheless not be set aside. In Stans Energy Corp. et al v The Kyrgyz Republic et al, the applicants sought a declaration that the Kyrgyz Republic had an ownership interest in shares of Centerra Gold Inc., a Canadian company, that are registered in the name of the Republic’s wholly owned subsidiary Kyrgyzaltyn JSC. The BC Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal both found that Kyrgyzaltyn and the Kyrgyz Republic are separate legal entities, which frustrated the attempt to seize the Republic’s interest in Centerra Gold. Most recently, in May 2018, the Federal Court of Canada considered a set aside application in Bilcon v. Government of Canada, and upheld the award. As part of the judgment, beginning at paragraph 64, the court carried out a summary of the relevant case law regarding the local court’s review of investment treaty awards, specifically when considering the jurisdiction of the tribunal, and applied the deferential standard of review of “correctness”.

    National legislation protecting inward investments

  21. 21.

    Is there any national legislation that protects inward foreign investment enacted in this country? Describe the content.

    1. National legislation

      Substantive protections

      Procedural rights

      FET

      Expropriation

      Other

      Local courts

      Arbitration

      N/A

    National legislation protecting outgoing foreign investment

  22. 22.

    Does the country have an investment guarantee scheme or offer political risk insurance that protects local investors when investing abroad? If so, what are the qualifying criteria, substantive protections provided and the means by which an investor can invoke the protections?

    1. Relevant guarantee scheme

      Qualifying criteria, substantive protections provided and practical considerations

      Export Development Canada (EDC)

      EDC is Canada’s export credit agency supporting and developing export trade by providing insurance, among other services, to Canadian companies. Political risk insurance (PRI) can cover up to 90 per cent of losses to investments caused by a broad range of risks resulting from unpredictable events (eg, breach of contract, creeping/outright expropriation, political violence, currency conversion/transfer. Repossession, non-payment by a government).

      Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA)

      Canada is one of the 29 original members of MIGA. The MIGA Convention was ratified through the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, R.S.C., 1985, B-7 (Schedule V) in Canada. With this multilateral political risk insurance for medium or long-term investments, Canadian citizens and entities may benefit from MIGA’s protection against the risks of transfer restriction (including inconvertibility), expropriation, war and civil disturbance, breach of contract and non-honouring of sovereign financial obligations. MIGA can also insure Canadian-funded investment through an investor of the host country.

    Awards

  23. 23.

    Please provide a list of any available arbitration awards or cases initiated involving this country’s investment treaties.

    1. Awards

      Peter A. Allard (Canada) v. The Government of Barbados (UNCITRAL) – Award, 27 June 2016
      Rusoro Mining Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID) – Award, 22 August 2016
      Windstream Energy LLC v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA) – Award, 27 September 2016
      Eli Lilly and Company v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA) – Final Award, 16 March 2017
      TransCanada Corporation and TransCanada PipeLines Limited v. The United States of America (NAFTA) – Discontinued, 24 March 2017
      Abitibi Bowater Inc., v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA, UNCITRAL) – Consent Award, 15 December 2010
      ADF Group Inc. v. United States of America (NAFTA, ICSID Additional Facility) – Award, 9 January 2003
      Alasdair Ross Anderson and others v. Republic of Costa Rica (Canada-Costa Rica BIT, ICSID Additional Facility) – Award, 19 May 2010
      Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America (NAFTA, ICSID Additional Facility) – Award, 25 August 2014
      Apotex Inc. v. United States of America (NAFTA, ICSID Additional Facility) – Award, 25 August 2014
      Apotex Inc. v. United States of America (NAFTA,UNCITRAL) – dismissed by NAFTA tribunal, ICSID award on jurisdiction and admissibility, 14 June 2013
      Bear Creek Mining Corporation v. Republic of Peru (Canada-Peru FTA, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/21)
      Canfor Corporation v. United States of America, Tembec et al. v. United States of America and Terminal Forest Products Ltd. v. United States of America (NAFTA, UNCITRAL) – Joint Order of the Costs of Arbitration and for the Termination of Certain Arbitral Proceedings, 19 July 2007
      The Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade v. United States of America (NAFTA, UN-CITRAL) – Award on Jurisdiction, 28 January 2009
      Chemtura Corporation v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA, UNCITRAL) – Award, 2 August 2010
      Copper Mesa Mining Corporation v. Republic of Ecuador (UNCITRAL, Canada-Ecuador BIT) – Redacted Award 15 March 2016
      Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Canada-Venezuela BIT, ICSID Additional Facility) – Award, 4 April 2016
      Detroit International Bridge Company v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA) – Award 2 April 2015
      Dow Agro Sciences LLC. v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA, UNCITRAL) – Settled on 25 May 2011
      Eli Lilly and Company v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA) – Final Award, 16 March 2017
      EnCana Corporation v. Republic of Ecuador (Canada – Ecuador BIT, UNCITRAL Administered by LCIA) – Award, 3 February 2006
      Ethyl Corporation v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA, UNCTIRAL) – Settled in 1998
      Frontier Petroleum Services Ltd. v. Czech Republic (Canada–Czech and Slovak Federal Republic BIT 1990, UNCITRAL) – Award 12 November 2010
      Glamis Gold Ltd. v. United States of America (NAFTA, UNCITRAL) – Award, 8 June 2009
      Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Canada – Venezuela BIT, ICSID Additional Facility) – Award, 25 December 2014
      Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd., et al. v. United States of America (NAFTA, UNCITRAL) – Award, 12 January 2011
      Hussein Nuaman Soufraki v. United Arab Emirates (Italy – United Arab Emirates BIT, ICSID) – Annulment of Award, 5 June 2007
      Vito G. Gallo v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA, UNCITRAL) – Redacted Award, 15 September 2011
      The Loewen Group Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen v. United States of America (NAFTA, ICSID Additional Facility) – Award 26 June 2003
      Melvin J. Howard, Centurion Health Corp. & Howard Family Trust v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA, UNCITRAL administered by the PCA) – Order For the Termination of the Proceedings and Award on Costs, 2 August 2010
      Mercer International, Inc. v. Canada (ICSID) – Award, 6 March 2018
      Merrill & Ring Forestry L.P. v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA, UNCITRAL administered by ICSID) – Award, 31 May 2010
      Mesa Power Group LLC v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA, UNCITRAL) – Award, 24 March 2016
      Methanex Corporation v. United States of America (NAFTA, UNCITRAL) – Award, 3 August 2005
      Mobil Investments Inc. and Murphy Oil Corporation v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA, ICSID Additional Facility) – Partial Award, 22 May 2012; Final Award, 20 February 2015
      Mondev International Ltd. v. United States of America (NAFTA, ICSID Additional Facility) – Award, 11 October 2002
      Nova Scotia Power Incorporated v. Bolivian Republic of Venezuela (Canada–Venezuela BIT, UNCITRAL) – Partial Award on Jurisdiction – 22 April 2010; Final Award, 30 April 2014.
      Pope & Talbot Inc. v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA, UNCITRAL) – Award, May 31 May, 2002 (on damages), 26 November 2002 (on costs)
      Quadrant Pacific Growth Fund L.P. and Canasco Holdings Inc. v. Republic of Costa Rica (Canada–Costa Rica BIT, ICSID Additional Facility) – Order of the Tribunal Taking Note of the Discontinuance of the Proceedings and Allocation of Costs, 27 October 2010
      Rusoro Mining Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID) – Award, 22 August 2016
      S.D. Myers, Inc. v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA, UNCITRAL) – Partial Award (13 November 13, 2000) – Final Award, 30 December 2002
      Saint Marys VCNA, LLC v. Minister of International Trade and the Attorney General of Canada (NAFTA), Consent Award, 29 March 2013
      TransCanada Corporation and TransCanada PipeLines Limited v. The United States of America (NAFTA) – Discontinued, 24 March 2017
      United Parcel Service of America Inc. v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA, UN-CITRAL) – Award, 24 May 2007
      Vannessa Ventures Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Canada v. Venezuela BIT, ICSID Additional Facility) – Award, 16 January 2013
      Windstream Energy LLC v. .The Government of Canada (NAFTA) – Award, 27 September 2016
      Pending proceedings
      Air Canada v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Canada-Venezuela FIPA, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/17/1)
      Bilcon of Delaware et al v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA) – Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 17 March 17, 2015; Damages and Appeal Pending. Award set-aside application denied by the Federal Court on 2 May 2018.
      Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. Republic of Colombia (Canada-Colombia FTA, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/41)
      Lone Pine Resources Inc. v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA)
      Mercer International Inc. v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA)
      WalAm Energy Inc. v. Republic of Kenya (ICSID)
      Bear Creek Mining Corporation v. Republic of Peru (ICSID)
      EuroGas Inc. and Belmont Resources Inc. v. Slovak Republic (ICSID)
      Infinito Gold Ltd. v. Gabriel Resources Ltd. and Gabriel Resources (Jersey) v. Romania (Canada-Romania FIPA, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/31)
      Galway Gold. v. Republic of Costa Rica (Colombia (Canada-Colombia FTA, IC-SID)
      Global Telecom Holding S.A.E. v. Canada (ICSID)
      Gran Colombia Gold Corp. v. Republic of Colombia (Canada-Colombia FTA, IC-SID)
      Infinito Gold Ltd. v. Republic of Costa Rica (Canada-Costa Rica FIPA, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/5)
      Lion Mexico Consolidated L.P. v. United Mexican States (NAFTA, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/15/2
      Lone Pine Resources Inc. v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA)
      Mobil Investments Inc. and Murphy Oil Corporation v. The Government of Canada (NAFTA), ICSID Additional Facility) – Partial Award, 22 May 2012; Final Award, 20 February 2015
      CEN Biotech IncMercer International Inc. v. The Government of Canada. (NAFTA)
      Rand Investments Ltd. and others v. GovernmentRepublic of Serbia (Canada (NAFTA)-Serbia FIPA, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/8)
      Red Eagle Exploration Limited v. Republic of Colombia (Canada-Colombia FTA, IC-SID)
      Resolute Forest Products Inc. v. Government of Canada (UNCITRAL).)
      WalAm Energy Inc. v. Republic of Kenya (ICSID)

    Reading List

  24. 24.

    Please provide a list of any articles or books that discuss this country’s investment treaties.

    1. General

      • Hugh M. Kindred & Phillip M. Saunders et al., International Law: Chiefly as interpreted and applied in Canada, 7th Ed. (Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications, 2006) – provides the Canadian perspective of international law including its treaty-making practice
      • Frédéric Bachand, “Overcoming Immunity-Based Objections to the Recognition and Enforcement in Canada of Investor-State Awards” (2009) 26:1 Journal of International Arbitration 56 – focuses on recognition and enforcement in Canada
      • Gus Van Harten, “Reform of Investor-State Arbitration: A Perspective from Canada”, online: (2011) SSRN (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1960729) – Canada-specific content on reform
      • Meg Kinnear, Andrea Bjorklund, John F. Hannaford, “Investment Disputes under NAFTA”, (2006) http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/book-toc.aspx?book=TOC_Kinnear_2006_V02 – provides a comprehensive review of the history of NAFTA disputes at the time
      • Meg Kinnear & Robin Hansen, “The Influence of NAFTA Chapter 11 in the BIT Landscape” (2005) 12 U.C. Davis J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 101 – NAFTA investment arbitration practice description
      • Tim Kennish, “NAFTA and Investment – A Canadian Perspective” in Seymour J. Rubin & Dean C. Alexander (Eds.), NAFTA and Investment (Unknown: Kluwer Law International, 1995) at 1 – provides the Canadian understanding of the NAFTA
      • Ian Laird, Borzu Sabahi, Frederic Sourgens and Todd Weiler, eds, Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law, Vol 7 (New York, USA: JurisNet, LLC, 2014) – focuses on international investment treaty arbitration in the energy sector
      • Barry Leon, Andrew McDougall & John Siwiec, “Canada and investment treaty arbitration: three prominent issues - ICSID ratification, constituent subdivisions, and health and environmental regulation” (2011) 8 S.C. J. Int’l L. & Bus. 63
      • James A.R. Nafziger & Angela M. Wanak, “United Parcel Service, Inc., v. Government of Canada: An Example of a Trend in the Arbitration of NAFTA-Related Investment Disputes” (2009) 17 Willamette J. Int’l L. & Disp. Resol. 49 – a description of prevailing practice at the time
      • Sergio Puig & Meg N. Kinnear, “NAFTA Chapter Eleven at Fifteen: Contributions to a Systemic Approach in Investment Arbitration” (2010) 25 ICSID Review – F.I.L.J. 225 – one of the most recent surveys of the NAFTA investment arbitration in practice
      • Huan Qi, “The Definition of Investment and Its Development: For the Reference of the Future BIT between China and Canada” (2011) 45 Revue Juridique Themis 541 – discusses one of the most highly-anticipated treaties Canada has concluded in recent times
      • J Anthony VanDuzer, “NAFTA Chapter 11: ‘Canada’ in the Legal Protection of Foreign Investment: A Comparative Study”, online: (2012) SSRN (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2298693) – discussion of Canada’s domestic law and international commitments related to inward foreign investment
      • Todd Weiler, NAFTA Investment Law and Arbitration: Past Issues, Current Practice, Future Prospects (Unknown: Transnational Publication, 2004) – provides an insight into the NAFTA investment arbitration practice 10 years after it came into force.
      • Paul Meyer, John A Terry, and Elliot J Feldman, “North American dispute resolution”, Canada-United States Law Journal Spring 2010: 399
      • Anthony J. VanDuzer, “Enhancing the procedural legitimacy of investor-state arbitration through transparency and amicus curiae participation”, McGill Law Journal Winter 2007: 681
      • Gus Van Harten, and Dayna Nadine Scott, “Investment Treaties and the Internal Vetting of Regulatory Proposals: A Case Study from Canada”, (December 7, 2015). Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper No. 26/2016. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2700238 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2700238
      • Anthony J. VanDuzer, “Canadian Investment Treaties with African Countries: What Do They Tell Us About Investment Treaty Making in Africa?”, (July 5, 2016). Society of International Economic Law (SIEL), Fifth Biennial Global Conference Working Paper No. 2016/23. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2804907
      • Dan Ciuriak and Dmitry Lysenko and Jingliang Xiao, “Province-Level Impacts of Canada’s Trade Agreements: Ontario and the Canada-Korea FTA”, (December 24, 2014). International Trade Journal, published online 11 September 2015, DOI: 10.1080/08853908.2015.1064333. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2542568 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2542568
      • Dan Ciuriak, “Advantages and Disadvantages for Canada of Multilateral, Regional and Bilateral Trade Agreements”, Regional and Bilateral Trade Agreements (February 18, 2016) (2016).
      • Matthew Levine, “Canada-China FIPA & Canada-Korea FTA: Recent Canadian Pieces in the Pacific-Rim Investment Treaty Jig-Saw”, Transnational Dispute Management (TDM) 12.1 (2015).

      CETA

      • Kurt Hubner, Anne-Sophie Deman and Tugce Balik, “EU and trade policy-making: the contentious case of CETA”, Journal of European Integration, Volume 39, 2017 – analyses the CETA agreement critically and assesses how CETA was pushed by a coalition of sectoral actors amongst an anti-free trade background.
      • Nathalie Bernasconi-Osterwalder and Howard Mann, “A response to the European Commission’s December 2013 Document ‘Investment Provisions in the EU-Canada Free Trade Agreement (CETA)’”, 2014 IISD Report – examination of the text of the draft CETA investment chapter
      • Gus Van Harten, “Comments on the European Commission’s Approach to Investor-State Arbitration in TIPP and CETA”, online: (2014) SSRN (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2466688) – response to the European Commission’s proposed approach to investor-state arbitration
      • Kevin Ackhurst, Stephen Nattrass and Erin Brown, “CETA, the Investment Canada Act and SOEs: A Brave New World for Free Trade” ICSID Review 31.1 (2016): 58-76.

      China-Canada FIPPA

      • Eric C Girard, “A Closer Look at the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement”, online: (2013) SSRN (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2230940) – analysis of the Canada-China FIPPA through a look at the historical development of both countries’ bilateral investment treaties
      • Gus Van Harten, “The Canada-China FIPPA: Its uniqueness and non-reciprocity”, online: (2014) SSRN (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2410532) – critical look at the signed Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement

      The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

      • Jeff Kucharski, “Energy, Trade And Geopolitics In Asia: The Implications For Canada”, (July 2018) The University of Calgary School of Public Policy
      • Office of the Chief Economist, “Economic Impact of Canada’s Participation in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership”, (February 16, 2018) Global Affairs Canada
      • Brook K. Baker, and Katrina Geddes, “Corporate Power Unbound: Investor-State Arbitration of IP Monopolies on Medicines - Eli Lilly v. Canada and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement”, (September 29, 2015). Northeastern University School of Law Research Paper No. 242-2015; Dean Rusk International Center Research Paper No. 2016-13. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2667062 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2667062
      • Caroline Henckels, “Protecting Regulatory Autonomy Through Greater Precision in Investment Treaties: The TPP, CETA and TTIP”, (January 25, 2016). 19(1) Journal of International Economic Law, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2721523
      • Laura Ritchie Dawson and Bartucci Stefania, “Canada and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Entering a New Era of Strategic Trade Policy”, (September 5, 2013). Fraser Institute, September 2013. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2321920
      • Dan Ciuriak, “Canada and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Considerations for the Ratification Debate”, (June 25, 2016). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2798438
      • Laura Ritchie Dawson, “Can Canada Join the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Why Just Wanting it is Not Enough”, (February 9, 2012). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2023963 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2023963
      • Dan Ciuriak, Ali Dadkhah and Jingliang Xiao “Better in than Out? Canada and the Trans-Pacific Partnership”, Canada and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (April 21, 2016). CD Howe Institute ebrief 236 (2016).
      • Clifford Sosnow and Leslie Milton, “Trans-Pacific Partnership: Key Takeaways on Canada” Global Trade and Customs Journal 11.4 (2016): 203-209.
      • James Rude and Henry An, “Trans-Pacific Partnership: Implications for the Canadian industrial dairy sector” Canadian Public Policy 39.3 (2013): 393-410.
      • Chin L.Lim, Deborah Kay Elms, and Patrick Low, “The trans-pacific partnership: a quest for a twenty-first century trade agreement”, Cambridge University Press, 2012.
      • Daniel Kiselbach et al. “Demystifying the Trans-Pacific Partnership: An American and Canadian Perspective”, Global Trade and Customs Journal 8.11 (2013): 413-429.
      • Kennedy Michael, “Canada and the Trans-Pacific Partnership”, Munich, GRIN Verlag, (2012) Availaible at: http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/201516/canada-and-the-trans-pacific-partnership
      • N.Gal-Or, “Canada’s Anti-Corruption Framework and the Relevance to the Pacific Rim and TPP Negotiations” Transnational Dispute Management (TDM) 12.1 (2015).

      *With thanks to Scott Lin (in 2018); Jake Zhong (in 2017); Chiedza Museredza and Bianca Ponziani (in 2016); Roger Tangry and Jennifer Choi (in 2015); Paul Moon and Inaki Gomez (in 2014); and Alejandro Barragan and Paul Moon (in 2013) for their valuable assistance.

      Notes

      1 The majority of Canada’s bilateral investment treaties (BITs) are known as Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (FIPAs). Canada’s sole multi-lateral investment treaty (MIT) is Chapter Eleven of NAFTA. Canada also has a limited number of bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) containing an investment chapter (FIPAs, NAFTA and relevant FTAs are collectively referred to herein as treaties). As of 10 August 2018, Global Affairs Canada reports that, in 2014, Canada and Kosovo agreed to begin negotiations towards a FIPA, which was signed by Ministers on March 6, 2018, in Toronto. Moreover, in addition to the treaties listed on its website as being in force or signed (but not yet in force), Canada has concluded negotiations of FIPAs with Albania, Bahrain, Madagascar, Moldova, the United Arab Emirates and Zambia. It is also engaged in ongoing FIPA negotiations with Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, India, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Macedonia, Mauritania, Mozambique, Pakistan, Qatar, Rwanda, and Tunisia. Negotiations over future FTAs with the Caribbean Community, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, India, Japan, Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay), Morocco, and Singapore remain ongoing.

      A current list of Canada’s treaties in force, signed, and under concluded or ongoing negotiation is available at http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/index.aspx?lang=eng&view=d.

      Certain treaties, such as the Canada – Israel Free Trade Agreement (CIFTA) and the Canada-European Free Trade Association (EFTA) FTA, do not contain investment protection provisions and are not included in the table.

      CETA: In October 2016, Canada and the European Union (EU) signed the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) during the EU-Canada Summit. In February 2017, the European Parliament approved CETA. In May 2017, the Canadian bill to implement CETA received royal assent and the agreement took provisional effect on 21 September 2017, but not the investment arbitration provisions.

      CPTPP: On 8 March 2018, together with other signatory States, Canada signed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) in Santiago, Chile. The CPTPP incorporates most of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by reference, and includes all previous TPP States with the exception of the United States. Canada has yet to ratify the CPTPP. As of 31 July 2018, the issue of ratification remains before parliament.

      NAFTA: On 16 August 2017, the United States, Canada and Mexico began renegotiations of NAFTA with the goal of modernizing the trade deal. After months of talks, NAFTA parties have failed to reach a deal thus far.

      2 Canada’s second generation treaties typically provide for a waiting period of six months from the date the dispute was first initiated. NAFTA, the FTAs and more recent FIPAs typically provide a notice period of 90 days (four months in the case of China) plus a requirement for the passage of six months from the occurrence of the events giving rise to the claim before it can be submitted to arbitration. The “cooling-off period” shown here is the prescribed waiting period following the initiation of a dispute or giving notice of intent to submit a claim to arbitration, as the case may be, but practitioners should be mindful of other conditions precedent to submission of a claim.

      3 Canada’s earliest treaties contain no restrictions on access to the local courts of the host state and are thus shown as “Unrestricted”. Canada’s second generation of treaties typically provide that “An investor may submit a dispute as referred to in paragraph (1) to arbitration in accordance with para-graph (4) only if: […] (b) the investor has waived its right to initiate or continue any other proceed-ings in relation to the measure that is alleged to be in breach of this Agreement before the courts or tribunals of the Contracting Party concerned or in a dispute settlement procedure of any kind”. An analogous requirement usually exists for cases where the claim is brought on behalf of an enter-prise owned or controlled by the claimant investor that is incorporated under the law of the re-spondent state. These treaties are shown as “Limited”. Most of Canada’s recent treaties contain a similar provision but permit the claimant investor to initiate or continue proceedings for “injunctive, declaratory or other extraordinary relief, not involving the payment of damages”. These are shown as “Limited except for declaratory relief”.

      4 Article X(3) of the treaty provides that: “The aforementioned disputes may be submitted to inter-national arbitration by one of the parties to the dispute in one of the following circumstances: (i) where the Contracting Party and the investor have so agreed; (ii) where, after a period of eighteen months has elapsed from the moment when the dispute was submitted to the competent tribunal of the Contracting Party in whose territory the investment was made, the said tribunal has not given its final decision; (iii) where the final decision of the aforementioned tribunal has been made but the Parties are still in dispute.”

      5 The Canada-China FIPA contains a detailed set of requirements for initiating arbitration. Amongst these requirements is a 30-day cooling off period for consultation after the delivery of a notice of intent to commence arbitration. However, this is only one of several procedural pre-requisites to filing an arbitration claim, with others set out in Article 21 of the FIPA.

      6 Article 21(2)(e) of the treaty requires the claimant investor to waive its right to initiate or continue dispute settlement proceedings under any agreement between a third state and the respondent host state in relation to the measure(s) at issue. Annex C. 21(2) provides that “An investor who has ini-tiated proceedings before any court of China with respect to the measure of China alleged to be a breach of an obligation under Part B may only submit a claim to arbitration under Article 20 if the investor has withdrawn the case from the national court before judgment has been made on the dis-pute. This requirement does not apply to the domestic administrative reconsideration procedure re-ferred to in paragraph 1”.

      7 Section D of the treaty includes special provisions regarding arbitration for disputes arising from juridical stability contracts.

      8 Canada and Costa Rica are also parties to an FTA of 1 November 2002, which refers to the earlier FIPA with respect to investment protection. There were discussions in an effort to broaden and modernize the FTA with Costa Rica. However, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada’s website no longer includes Costa Rica as a party to any ongoing or exploratory negotiations. Therefore, it is unclear if the modernization of the FTA will come to fruition.

      9 On 19 May 2017, Canada received a notice by the Government of Ecuador terminating the Canada-Ecuador FIPA.

      10 Article IX(2) of the treaty provides: “Any dispute that may arise under this Agreement between one Contracting Party and an investor of the other contracting Party, other than a dispute mentioned in paragraph (1) of this Article [i.e., expropriation], shall, to the extent possible, be settled amicably. If the dispute has not been settled amicably within a period of six months from the date on which the dispute was initiated, it shall be submitted to arbitration in accordance with paragraph (3) of this Article, upon agreement between that Contracting Party and the investor.”

      11 The Canada–Jordan FTA was brought into force on 1 October 2012, but contains no investment chapter. The 2009 FIPA still applies.

      12 The 2007 FIPA was superseded by the investment chapter in the Canada-Peru FTA (1 August 2009), but remains in force with respect to measures occurring prior to the entry in force of the FTA (See Canada-Peru FTA Article 801(2)).

      13 Further to the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the treaty now binds Russia as the continuing State.

      14 Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada’s website no longer includes this treaty in its list of FIPAs for which negotiations have been concluded. There is therefore no expectation that it will enter into force in the foreseeable future.

      15 On 14 July 2015, the Governments of Canada and Ukraine announced the conclusion of negotiations to expand and modernize the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA). The CUFTA was signed on July 11, 2016, and entered into force on August 1, 2017.

Interested in contributing to this Know-how?

E-mail our Insight Manager


GAR know-how provides reliable cross-jurisdictional insight to help cement the building blocks of international practice. In this section, select experienced practitioners answer commonly asked questions for key jurisdictions so allowing readers to be better-placed to solve the challenges of their working days.

All Jurisdiction