77 Bloor Street West
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1M2
Tel • (416) 966-8800
Fax • (416) 966-8801
800 Connecticut Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20006
Tel • (202) 293-0900
Fax • (202) 293-0988
We have been involved in numerous international investment and commercial matters. Many of our cases are confidential in nature. Given the public nature of the matters below, however, we are able to disclose our involvement in the following claims:
- Mesa Power LLP v. Canada: We represent a US Investor who, following public rules to obtain renewable energy contracts in Ontario, failed to obtain contracts. Ontario failed to follow the program rules, instead making secret deals with politically-favoured companies at the expense of those following the rules.
- Bilcon of Delaware et al. v. Canada: We represented US investors subjected to unfair treatment in the Investors' attempts to expand an existing a quarry in Nova Scotia. The claim alleges preferential and unfair treatment in violation of Chapter Eleven of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a breach of legitimate expectations and that Canada failed to meet international law fairness rules by ignoring environmental standards in this review process.
- Merrill & Ring Forestry L.P. v. Canada: We represented a US investor that has owned timberlands in British Columbia for more than 100 years. The investor alleged that Canada unfairly administers a log export control regime which hurts logs grown on privately-owned forest lands in the province of British Columbia while favouring competing logs grown on public lands.
- Continental Casualty v. Argentina: We represent a US investor in ICSID proceedings alleging breaches of the international law standards of treatment, contractual and treaty obligations owed to the investor’s local subsidiary in Argentina.
- UPS of America v. Canada: We represented a US investor in a NAFTA claim against Canada, alleging that Canada failed to treat UPS as well as it treats competing Canadian companies operating in the courier and parcel delivery market.
- Ethyl Corporation v. Canada: We represented a US investor in its claim against Canada. The claim was settled in 1998 after the Tribunal had rendered three decisions. As part of the settlement, the Government of Canada removed the measure which unfairly banned the Investor's product, issued a statement (signed by two government ministers) clarifying that it had no evidence of harm caused by the product, and paid the company approximately CAD$20 million. The tribunal decisions in this claim were the first NAFTA investor-state decisions.
- MCI Power et al. v. Ecuador: We represented a US investor in ICSID proceedings alleging breaches of contractual and international law obligations in the power sector in Ecuador.
- Noble Ventures v. Romania:We represented a US Claimant in its ICSID claim alleging failure by Romania to meet contractual and international law obligations to foreign investors in the steel sector.
- Pope & Talbot v. Canada: We represented a US investor in NAFTA proceedings, challenging irregularities in the process by which an export quota was allocated to its Canadian subsidiary through Canada’s implementation of the Canada-US Softwood Lumber Agreement. The Tribunal found that the Government of Canada had breached applicable law by threats made to the Company’s softwood lumber export quota by Canada. The NAFTA Tribunal also concluded that officials breached international law standards in how they treated this US-based company and ordered damages.
- S.D. Myers v. Canada: We represented a US investor in NAFTA proceedings, which led to the issue of 16 preliminary awards and a final award in favour of the investor. The Federal Court of Canada subsequently upheld this award and dismissed Canada's application to have the award set aside.
- Signa S.A. de C.V. v. Canada: We represented a Mexican investor in a CAD$50 million NAFTA claim against the Canadian Government related to the production of generic drugs.