On May 13, 2021, Canada announced that it had finalized its 2021 Model Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA), which will replace the 2014 version. According to Global Affairs Canada, the agreement is the result of “extensive public consultations initiated in 2018 with a broad range of stakeholders, including from civil society and labour unions, legal experts, representatives of all sizes of Canadian business, representatives of provinces and territories, and Indigenous partners.”
All claims dismissed in telecommunications case against Canada: Changes in the regulatory environment did not breach F.E.T.
Global Telecom Holding S.A.E. v. Canada, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/16
A Bit of Anti-Bribery: How a corruption prohibition in FIPAs can bring a minimum standard of conduct for Canadian investors abroad
Tackling corruption is a crucial step in meeting the objectives set out in SDG 16 on “Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions” and for achieving the SDGs overall. Canada’s investment treaties could play a valuable role in addressing corruption. The piece draws from examples such as Canada’s Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) program and examines some of the asymmetries inherent in the current IIA regime. The author analyzes some of the language used in Canada’s more recent treaties, such as CETA and the FIPAs with Moldova and Kosovo, and what lessons can be drawn from these and other agreements.
The Mexican Senate approved the implementing legislation for the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) on June 19, 2019, by an overwhelming majority of 114 votes in favour, with less than a dozen against or abstaining.
The CPTPP entered into force on December 30, 2018, when it took effect for Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and Singapore. Vietnam followed suit on January 14, 2019.
William Ralph Clayton, William Richard Clayton, Douglas Clayton, Daniel Clayton and Bilcon of Delaware Inc. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Case No. 2009-04 (Published in 2018 in International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from the 2010s and on this website on October 18, 2018. Read more here.) Award available at […]
Canadian government launches consultation on Canada’s foreign investment promotion and protection agreements (FIPA), open until October 28, 2018
Canadian Minister of International Trade Diversification Jim Carr announced on August 14, 2018 the launch of a public consultation on Canada’s BITs, known as foreign investment promotion and protection agreements (FIPAs).
Investor ordered by ICSID tribunal to pay Canadian government CAD 9 million following failed NAFTA claim
MERCER INTERNATIONAL INC. V. GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, ICSID CASE NO. ARB(AF)/12/3
On March 8, 2018, the CPTPP was signed in Santiago, Chile. The free trade agreement involves 11 countries in the Pacific region: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.
The three parties to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) held the third, fourth and fifth rounds of renegotiation (Ottawa, September 23–27; Arlington, October 11–17; and Mexico City, November 17–21). The next round of NAFTA renegotiations is scheduled for January 23–28, 2018 in Montreal.
TPP-11 ministers agree on core elements of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)
On November 11, 2017, in Da Nang, Vietnam, ministers of Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam “agreed on the core elements of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).”
Bear Creek Mining Corporation v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/21
Does the prospect of foreign investor claims against countries in investor–state arbitration lead to regulatory chill? The authors asked officials whether ISDS contributed to changes in the internal vetting of government decisions on environmental protection.
Following U.S. President Trump’s initiative to renegotiate the NAFTA, the first round of negotiation took place in Washington, D.C. from August 16–20, 2017 and the second in Mexico City from September 1–5, 2017.
After Canada’s ratification of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) on May 17, 2017, Canada and the European Commission agreed to start the provisional application of the agreement on September 21, 2017.
Eli Lilly and Company v. The Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2
CETA signed; Canada and European Union to “work expeditiously” on creating a Multilateral Investment Court
On October 30, during the 16th European Union–Canada Summit held in Brussels, the two negotiating partners signed the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), after seven years of negotiations.
Copper Mesa Mining Corporation v. Republic of Ecuador, PCA No. 2012-2 – Matthew Levine
On July 8, 2016, Sajid Javid, former Business Secretary for the United Kingdom, launched preliminary talks with India on a future trade relationship between the two countries as soon as Britain formally leaves the European Union.
On July 5, 2016, the European Commission proposed to the Council that the Canada–European Union CETA—agreed to in 2014 and re-concluded in February 2016—be signed as a “mixed agreement,” requiring signature and ratification by each of the EU member states.
EU officials are said to have requested the new Canadian federal government to revisit the ISDS clause in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), according to reports by CBC News on January 21, 2016.
TransCanada initiates NAFTA arbitration against the United States over rejection of Keystone XL pipeline
On January 6, 2016, TransCanada initiated arbitration against the United States for “unreasonably delaying approval” of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline and ultimately denying, in November 2015, the company’s application for the required Presidential Permit.
UNCITRAL tribunal finds Canada’s environmental assessment breached international minimum standard of treatment and national treatment standard
William Ralph Clayton, William Richard Clayton, Douglas Clayton, Daniel Clayton and Bilcon of Delaware Inc. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL