Warning! Javascript is disabled. Please enable javascript for a completly functioning application.

Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator

about
methodology

About

The UNCTAD Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator contains information about known international arbitration cases initiated by investors against States pursuant to international investment agreements (IIAs). Such arbitrations are also referred to as treaty-based investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) cases.

General disclaimer

The Navigator includes information about publicly known IIA-based international investor-State arbitration proceedings. As some proceedings (or certain aspects of proceedings) remain confidential, the information contained in the Navigator cannot be deemed exhaustive.

While every effort is made to keep the information up to date and complete, the material is provided without any guarantees or warranties as to its accuracy or completeness. UNCTAD assumes no responsibility for eventual errors or omissions in these data.

We welcome any additional information or clarifications on specific cases as well as suggestions to improve the Navigator. Please contact us using the online contact form.

Cases included in the Navigator

A case is included in the Navigator if it is:

  • an international arbitration between an investor and a State;
  • fully or partially based on an IIA, such as a bilateral investment treaty or the investment chapter of a free trade agreement (not included are investor-State disputes that are solely based on contracts or on domestic investment legislation);
  • submitted to arbitration through a notice of arbitration or a request for arbitration, and upon registration of such request if applicable (not included are cases where a disputing party has only notified the other party of the existence of a dispute or signalled its intention to submit a claim, but has not yet commenced the arbitration).

Sources of information and frequency of updating

The information included in the Navigator is collected from publicly available sources. Primary sources (i.e. official documents relating to the case and information provided by the administering institutions) are the main and preferred source of information. Secondary sources, such as specialized reporting services and other sources deemed reliable, are used to supplement primary sources and/or obtain case information otherwise unavailable.

The Navigator is updated on a regular, typically biannual, basis. The date of the last update is displayed on the Navigator’s home page.

Methodological notes for the recording of data

Case name

Full case name is recorded as it appears in the official case documents and as it is registered at the administering institution if applicable. If there are more than five claimants in the case, the names of all claimants can be replaced by the name of the first claimant followed by the words “and others”.

Short case name is ascribed by UNCTAD. Typically it is the first word of a corporate claimant’s name, an abbreviation of the corporate claimant’s name, or the last name of a natural-person claimant “v.” the short version of the respondent State’s name.

If the Navigator includes more than one case with the exact same name, then “(I)” is added to the case name of the earlier case, and a “(II)”, “(III)”, etc. is added to the name of each subsequent case.

Year of initiation

This is the year in which the notice of arbitration / request for arbitration was submitted by the claimant. For arbitrations brought under the ICSID Convention Arbitration Rules or ICSID Additional Facilities (AF) Rules, the year in which the claim was registered by ICSID is used.

Applicable IIA

This is the IIA(s) pursuant to which the claimant initiated the arbitral proceedings.

Arbitral rules

These are the arbitral rules in accordance with which the proceedings are conducted. Proceedings that are not subject to any existing set of arbitral rules, i.e. where the arbitral tribunal determines procedural rules, are marked “None (ad hoc)”.

Administering institution

This is the institution that provides administrative support for the arbitral proceedings. When the proceedings are subject to arbitral rules of a certain arbitral institution (e.g. SCC or ICC), the relevant institution administers that case. In ad hoc arbitrations or those that are subject to non-institutional arbitral rules (e.g. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules), the parties may request any arbitral institution to administer their case (e.g. PCA). Proceedings may also be conducted without being administered by any institution.

Common abbreviations for administering institutions:

CRCICACairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration
ICCInternational Chamber of Commerce (International Court of Arbitration)
ICSIDInternational Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
LCIALondon Court of International Arbitration
MCCIMoscow Chamber of Commerce and Industry
PCAPermanent Court of Arbitration
SCCStockholm Chamber of Commerce (Arbitration Institute)

Details of investment and summary of the dispute

The details of investment are presented as argued by the claimant, unless otherwise expressly identified by an arbitral tribunal in its decisions or awards.

The summary of the dispute describes in very general terms the conduct allegedly in breach of IIA obligations as argued by the claimant.

Economic sector and subsector

This refers to the economic sector to which the investment at issue allegedly belongs. The structure of economic activities follows the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities, Rev.4 (UN ISIC Rev.4).

Status/Outcome of original proceedings

This refers to the current status of the original arbitration proceedings.

  • Decided in favour of State: the tribunal dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction or found that the respondent State has not committed any breach of the applicable IIA.
  • Decided in favour of investor: the tribunal found that the respondent State committed one or more breaches of the applicable IIA and awarded monetary compensation or non-pecuniary relief to the claimant investor.
  • Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded): the arbitral tribunal found that the respondent State committed one or more breaches of the applicable IIA but did not award monetary compensation or non-pecuniary relief to the claimant investor.
  • Settled: the disputing parties settled the case and the arbitral proceedings were discontinued for that reason.
  • Pending: the arbitration proceedings are pending. A case remains pending if any of the following elements remain to be decided: jurisdiction, liability (merits), compensation. The case remains pending, for instance, if a State is found to have breached one or more IIA obligations (liability) but no award on damages has been issued yet.
    Notes:
    • The Navigator only records treaty-based disputes or treaty-based aspects of "mixed" disputes. In treaty-based cases that are simultaneously contract-based or based on national investment law ("mixed" disputes), a case is deemed concluded (for purposes of the Navigator) if the tribunal dismissed the case on jurisdiction or finds no breach of the IIA, even if it proceeds to adjudicate the contract- or statutory-based claims.
    • Cases in which a final award has been rendered but which are later subject to follow-on (post-award) proceedings (e.g. ICSID annulment proceedings or domestic judicial review), are marked according to the outcome of the original arbitral proceeding (i.e. not as “Pending”).
  • Discontinued: the arbitration was discontinued for any reason other than due to a (known) settlement. This includes discontinuance as a result of non-payment of arbitration fees, in order to pursue litigation in another forum, or for any other reason (including for unknown reasons).

Arbitral decisions rendered

These are decisions rendered by an arbitral tribunal. Included are those decisions that concern the substance of the case and affect the final outcome. In particular, these include decisions (awards) on jurisdictional issues, liability (merits) and damages, including arbitrators’ individual opinions where these were issued. Discontinuance orders and settlement agreements are also recorded if such information is available.

Not included are any other (supplementary) arbitral decisions, e.g. concerning provisional measures or decisions regarding requests for disqualification of arbitrators. Similarly, procedural orders issued by arbitral tribunals are not included. To access a full list of documentation available with respect to a case, users are invited to use (i) the link to the case page on http://italaw.com, and/or (ii) links to the websites of governments and/or arbitral institutions provided in the “Additional information” section.

Amounts claimed and awarded

Amount claimed refers to the amount of monetary compensation claimed by the investor, not including interest, legal costs or costs of arbitration.

Amount awarded refers to the amount of monetary compensation awarded by the arbitral tribunal to the claimant, not including interest, legal costs or costs of arbitration.

For proceedings that end in a settlement, the amount of compensation that the State agreed to pay to the claimant under the terms of settlement (if known) is recorded in this section.

Amounts are recorded in the currency used by the claimant/tribunal. The list of currencies in the Navigator follows the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 4217 code list.

To enable comparisons between cases, all amounts are also converted to US dollars. For the purposes of such conversion, the OANDA Historical Currency Converter is being used; the date of conversion is the date of the document or other source from which the information was obtained (e.g. the date in which the request for arbitration containing this amount was submitted or the date of the final award).

Whenever possible, information about amounts claimed and awarded is obtained from primary sources such as the arbitration documents. Otherwise, it is derived from other publicly available sources that are deemed reliable. In some cases, the approximate amount may be recorded to give a broad indication of the dispute’s magnitude. As a general rule, a rounded figure (to the nearest hundred thousand) of the amount claimed or awarded is provided.

If the claimant provides more than one valuation of damages claimed, the highest of these amounts is recorded.

IIA breaches alleged and found

Information about breaches alleged is primarily derived from the claimant’s request of arbitration, claimant’s memorials and/or arbitral decisions. When the relevant case documentation is not publicly available, information about breaches alleged may be obtained from other public sources that are deemed reliable.

Information about breaches found is primarily derived from the arbitral decisions. When the relevant decision is not publicly available, information about breaches found may be obtained from other public sources that are deemed reliable.

Claims concerning expropriation are classified as “direct” or “indirect” according to the characterisation made by the claimant and/or the tribunal. Whenever a claimant or the tribunal refer to “expropriation”, without distinguishing between “direct” or “indirect”, such distinction is made on the basis of the factual background of the case and the context of the claimant’s claims and tribunal’s findings.

Composition of tribunal

These are individuals who serve as members of the arbitral tribunal adjudicating the dispute (arbitrators).

The disputing party (i.e. claimant or respondent) that appointed a particular arbitrator is also recorded insofar as information is available. Instances where the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator, and the latter was appointed by an “appointing authority”, are not recorded separately (i.e. both types of appointment are recorded under “Appointed by / designated to Respondent” without further distinction).

In case an arbitrator has been replaced by another individual (e.g. as a result of resignation, disqualification or passing away), the names of both the previous and subsequent arbitrator are recorded.

Follow-on (post-award) proceedings

Follow-on (post-award) proceedings include three types of legal proceedings:

  • ICSID annulment proceedings;
  • Judicial review by national courts (set-aside proceedings); and
  • ICSID resubmission proceedings.

Initiation of a follow-on proceeding by either disputing party does not affect the field “Case Status/Outcome” of the original proceeding, until the follow-on proceeding is completed. For example, in a case where a final award has been rendered but it is later subject to a follow-on proceeding (e.g. ICSID annulment proceeding), the status of the case is marked according to the outcome of the original arbitral proceeding (i.e. not as “Pending”).

Decisions, judgments and/or awards rendered in the course of follow-on (post-award) proceedings, as well as any individual opinions appended to them, are recorded.

The composition of the ICSID ad hoc committees that adjudicate requests for annulment under the ICSID Convention is recorded.

Link to Italaw’s case page

The Italaw.com portal offers a wide collection of case documentation for many investor-State disputes. It makes available not only the main arbitral decisions, but also procedural orders, parties’ submissions, expert opinions and other types of documents.

A link to the relevant case page at http://italaw.com is provided where such page is available, so that users could browse all documents relating to the case at hand.

Additional information

This section provides links to sources of information used for gathering data for the case at hand or otherwise relevant to that case. These may include links to websites of arbitral/administering institutions, governments, international organisations, specialised reporting services (including subscription-based), media and other resources.

Number of cases as respondent State
1 60
Updated as of 31 December 2017

Canada - as respondent State

Clear selection
Loaded 27 out of 27 Show all
No. Year of
initiation
Short case
name
Summary Outcome of
original proceedings
Respondent
State
Home State
of investor
1 2017 Tennant Energy v. Canada Tennant Energy, LLC. v. Canada NAFTA UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Ownership of Skyway 127 Wind Energy Inc., an enterprise that planned to develop a wind farm in Ontario.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged unfair treatment of the claimant’s wind farm project through certain regulatory measures, and Ontario’s allegedly non-transparent administration of the feed-in tariff programme for renewable energy sources.
Ownership of Skyway 127 Wind Energy Inc., an enterprise that planned to develop a wind farm in Ontario. Pending Canada United States of America Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Data not available 116.00 mln CAD (86.10 mln USD) Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Pending None None None None None None None
2 2016 Global Telecom Holding v. Canada Global Telecom Holding S.A.E. v. Canada (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/16) Canada - Egypt BIT (1996) ICSID ICSID Investment: Interests in a Canadian telecommunications enterprise, Globalive Wireless Management Corporation (“Wind Mobile”), from 2008 to 2014.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged failure to create a fair, competitive and favourable regulatory environment for new investors in the telecommunications sector.
Interests in a Canadian telecommunications enterprise, Globalive Wireless Management Corporation (“Wind Mobile”), from 2008 to 2014. Pending Canada Egypt Tertiary: J - Information and communication 61 - Telecommunications Affaki, G. - President

Born, G. B. - Claimant

Lowe, V. - Respondent
1320.00 mln CAD (1014.00 mln USD) Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

National treatment

Most-favoured nation treatment
Pending None None None None None None None
3 2015 Mobil Investments v. Canada (II) Mobil Investments Canada Inc. v. Canada (II) (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/6) NAFTA ICSID ICSID Investment: Indirect controlling shareholding in two companies, Hibernia Management and Development Co. and Terra Nova Oil Development Project, engaged in two petroleum development projects off the coast of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada.

Summary: Claims arising out of changes in the regulatory regime applicable to the exploitation of two oil fields located off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador in which the claimant had invested; particularly, the imposition of research and development expenditure requirements by the Canadian province of Newfoundland.
Indirect controlling shareholding in two companies, Hibernia Management and Development Co. and Terra Nova Oil Development Project, engaged in two petroleum development projects off the coast of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada. Pending Canada United States of America Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Greenwood, C. - President

Rowley, J. W. - Claimant

Griffith, G. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
4 2015 RFP v. Canada Resolute Forest Products Inc. v. Canada NAFTA UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Ownership of Laurentide paper mill.

Summary: Claims arising out of measures taken by the provincial Government in Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada, which allegedly discriminated in favour of the competitor’s Port Hawkesbury paper mill and resulted, among other damages, in the closing of claimant's Laurentide paper mill in October 2014.
Ownership of Laurentide paper mill. Pending Canada United States of America Secondary: C - Manufacturing 17 - Manufacture of paper and paper products Crawford, J. R. - President

Cass, R. A. - Claimant

Lévesque, C. - Respondent
70.00 mln USD Data not available National treatment

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Indirect expropriation
Pending None None None None None None None
5 2014 Longyear v. Canada J.M. Longyear, LLC v. Government of Canada NAFTA UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Shareholding in a Canadian company, J.M. Longyear Canada, that operated an Ontario forestry land of approximately 63,000 acres.

Summary: Claims arising out of claimant's alleged ineligibility for tax reductions under an Ontario law, the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program, on the basis that the majority of shares in Lonyear's local enterprise were not held by Canadian nationals.
Shareholding in a Canadian company, J.M. Longyear Canada, that operated an Ontario forestry land of approximately 63,000 acres. Settled Canada United States of America Primary: A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing 2 - Forestry and logging Data not available 12.00 mln USD Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment
Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
6 2013 Eli Lilly v. Canada Eli Lilly and Company v. Canada (ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2) NAFTA UNCITRAL ICSID Investment: Patents for two pharmaceutical products, Strattera and Zyprexa.

Summary: Claims arising out of the invalidation of the claimant's Strattera and Zyprexa pharmaceutical patents by Canada.
Patents for two pharmaceutical products, Strattera and Zyprexa. Decided in favour of State Canada United States of America Secondary: C - Manufacturing 21 - Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations van den Berg, A. J. - President

Born, G. B. - Claimant

Bethlehem, D. - Respondent
500.00 mln CAD (483.40 mln USD) Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Final Award dated 16 March 2017 None None None None None None
7 2013 Lone Pine v. Canada Lone Pine Resources Inc. v. Canada (ICSID Case No. UNCT/15/2) NAFTA UNCITRAL ICSID Investment: Rights under oil and gas exploration permits held by a wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary.

Summary: Claims arising out of the revocation by the Government of Quebec of claimant's permits for petroleum and natural gas exploration in the Utica shale gas basin, including beneath the St. Lawrence River.
Rights under oil and gas exploration permits held by a wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary. Pending Canada United States of America Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Veeder, V. V. - President

Haigh, D. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
109.80 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar
Pending None None None None None None None
8 2013 Windstream Energy v. Canada Windstream Energy LLC v. The Government of Canada NAFTA UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Ownership of WWIS (100 per cent shareholding), a Canadian corporation that had entered into a power purchase agreement under the Ontario Power Authority’s feed-in-tariff program to develop an offshore wind generation facility in Ontario.

Summary: Claims arising out of a moratorium imposed by the Government of Ontario on offshore wind farms that indefinitely suspended claimant's investment project in this sector.
Ownership of WWIS (100 per cent shareholding), a Canadian corporation that had entered into a power purchase agreement under the Ontario Power Authority’s feed-in-tariff program to develop an offshore wind generation facility in Ontario. Decided in favour of investor Canada United States of America Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Heiskanen, V. - President

Bishop, D. - Claimant

Cremades, B. M. - Respondent
568.50 mln CAD (522.10 mln USD) 25.20 mln CAD (19.10 mln USD) Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment

Most-favoured nation treatment
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Award dated 27 September 2016 None None None None None None
9 2012 Mercer v. Canada Mercer International, Inc. v. Canada (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/3) NAFTA ICSID AF ICSID Investment: Ownership and operation, through claimant's wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary Zellstoff Celgar Limited, of an industrial plant consisting of a pulp mill and a biomass-based electricity generation facility, located in British Columbia.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged failure by Canadian regulatory agencies (BC Hydro and Power Authority, the British Columbia Utilities Commission and the BC Ministry of Energy and Mines) to implement a uniform treatment for pulp mills and other customers with self-generated power capacity in the Province of British Columbia and allegedly denying claimant's subsidiary the benefits available to its competitors.
Ownership and operation, through claimant's wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary Zellstoff Celgar Limited, of an industrial plant consisting of a pulp mill and a biomass-based electricity generation facility, located in British Columbia. Pending Canada United States of America Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Veeder, V. V. - President

Orrego Vicuña, F. - Claimant

Douglas, Z. - Respondent
243.00 mln CAD (231.60 mln USD) Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment

Most-favoured nation treatment
Pending None None None None None None None
10 2011 Detroit International v. Canada Detroit International Bridge Company v. Government of Canada (PCA Case No. 2012-25) NAFTA UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Ownership and control of a Canadian company that constructed and operated an international toll bridge between Michigan and Ontario.

Summary: Claims arising out of legislation passed by the Government of Canada giving it authority over the construction, operation and ownership of international bridges, and its alleged effect upon to the Ambassador Bridge, which spans the Detroit River between Detroit and Windsor, Canada, in which the claimant had invested.
Ownership and control of a Canadian company that constructed and operated an international toll bridge between Michigan and Ontario. Decided in favour of State Canada United States of America Tertiary: F - Construction 42 - Civil engineering Derains, Y. - President

Chertoff, M. - Unknown

Lowe, V. - Unknown
3500.00 mln USD Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment

Most-favoured nation treatment
None - jurisdiction declined Award on Jurisdiction dated 2 April 2015

Award on Costs dated 17 August 2015
Separate Dissenting Jurisdictional Statement None None None None None
11 2011 Mesa Power v. Canada Mesa Power Group LLC v. Government of Canada (PCA Case No. 2012-17) NAFTA UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Indirect ownership and control of four wind farms in southwestern Ontario.

Summary: Claims arising out of various government measures related to the regulation and production of renewable energy in Ontario, Canada, that allegedly imposed sudden changes to the established scheme of a feed-in-tariff program.
Indirect ownership and control of four wind farms in southwestern Ontario. Decided in favour of State Canada United States of America Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President

Brower, C. N. - Claimant

Landau, T. - Respondent
775.00 mln CAD (738.60 mln USD) Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment

Most-favoured nation treatment

Performance requirements

Full protection and security, or similar
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 24 March 2016 Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Charles N. Brower Judicial review by national courts Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts) Decision of the US District Court for the District of Columbia dated 15 June 2017 (Judicial review by national courts) None None
12 2011 St. Marys v. Canada St. Marys VCNA, LLC v. The Government of Canada NAFTA UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Ownership and control of a Canadian company that had applied for permits to open a dolostone rock quarry on agricultural land near the city of Hamilton.

Summary: Claims arising out of various measures taken by the Government of Ontario, the City of Hamilton, the Town of Milton and the Halton Region allegedly affecting the investor’s proposal to convert agricultural lands in the Hamilton region into an aggregate quarry.
Ownership and control of a Canadian company that had applied for permits to open a dolostone rock quarry on agricultural land near the city of Hamilton. Settled Canada United States of America Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 8 - Other mining and quarrying Pryles, M. C. - President

Stewart, R. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
275.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment

Most-favoured nation treatment

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Consent Award dated 29 March 2013 None None None None None None
13 2010 AbitibiBowater v. Canada AbitibiBowater Inc. v. Government of Canada (ICSID Case No. UNCT/10/1) NAFTA UNCITRAL ICSID Investment: Ownership and/or operation of pulp and paper manufacturing enterprises in Canada; associated land rights, timber rights, real property rights (hydro assets), water use rights established through several deeds, leases, easements and other contractual agreements.

Summary: Claims arising out of a legislation passed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to expropriate AbitibiBowater Inc.’s water and timber rights and hydroelectric assets in the province.
Ownership and/or operation of pulp and paper manufacturing enterprises in Canada; associated land rights, timber rights, real property rights (hydro assets), water use rights established through several deeds, leases, easements and other contractual agreements. Settled Canada United States of America Secondary: C - Manufacturing

Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply
17 - Manufacture of paper and paper products

35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply
Bucher, A. - President

Bishop, D. - Claimant

Griffith, G. - Respondent
500.00 mln CAD (467.50 mln USD) 130.00 mln CAD (123.00 mln USD) Direct expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

National treatment

Most-favoured nation treatment
Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Consent Award dated 15 December 2010 None None None None None None
14 2010 Greiner v. Canada William Jay Greiner and Malbaie River Outfitters Inc. v. Government of Canada NAFTA UNCITRAL None Investment: Sole shareholding in a Quebec-based lodge and outfitting company; capital contributions of over CAD 1.5 million to construct lodging facilities, purchasing water rights and licenses, marketing and maintenance of the business.

Summary: Claims arising out of the decision by the Government of Quebec to modify its lottery system for fishing licenses and the revocation of the investor's authorizations of commerce which were necessary to conduct claimants' fishing tour operations in Quebec.
Sole shareholding in a Quebec-based lodge and outfitting company; capital contributions of over CAD 1.5 million to construct lodging facilities, purchasing water rights and licenses, marketing and maintenance of the business. Discontinued Canada United States of America Primary: A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing

Tertiary: N - Administrative and support service activities
3 - Fishing and aquaculture

79 - Travel agency, tour operator, reservation service and related activities
Rovine, A. W. - Claimant

Dupuy, P.-M. - Respondent

Name not available - President
8.00 mln CAD (7.80 mln USD) Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment

Most-favoured nation treatment
Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
15 2009 Centurion v. Canada Melvin J. Howard, Centurion Health Corp. & Howard Family Trust v. The Government of Canada (PCA Case No. 2009-21) NAFTA UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Ownership of a Canadian corporation that had contracted for the purchase of 9.5 acres in Vancouver to build a privately-owned health center in Canada; capital expenses related to the construction of such health centre.

Summary: Claims arising out of the planned construction by the claimants of a private healthcare facility intended to offer a wide range of surgical services in Vancouver, British Columbia, and the alleged impediment of the project's completion by a range of legislative and administrative measures adopted by the local, provincial and federal governments.
Ownership of a Canadian corporation that had contracted for the purchase of 9.5 acres in Vancouver to build a privately-owned health center in Canada; capital expenses related to the construction of such health centre. Discontinued Canada United States of America Tertiary: Q - Human health and social work activities 86 - Human health activities Tomka, P. - President

Florestal, M. - Claimant

Álvarez, H. C. - Respondent
160.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment

Most-favoured nation treatment

Other
Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Order for the Termination of the Proceedings and Award on Costs dated 2 August 2010 None None None None None None
16 2009 Dow AgroSciences v. Canada Dow AgroSciences LLC v. Government of Canada NAFTA UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Indirect ownership of a Canadian corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of specialty chemical products (i.e. claimant's indirect wholly-owned subsidiary).

Summary: Claims arising out of losses allegedly caused by a Quebec ban on the sale and certain uses of lawn pesticides containing the active ingredient 2,4-D which the claimant manufactured in the United States for sale to various companies in numerous countries, including Canada.
Indirect ownership of a Canadian corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of specialty chemical products (i.e. claimant's indirect wholly-owned subsidiary). Settled Canada United States of America Secondary: C - Manufacturing 20 - Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products Tribunal not constituted 2.00 mln USD Non-pecuniary relief Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
17 2008 Clayton/Bilcon v. Canada Clayton and Bilcon of Delaware Inc. v. Government of Canada NAFTA UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Ownership and control of the Canadian company Bilcon of Nova Scotia and a lease agreement entered by this company for the property on which a quarry and marine terminal were to be developed.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's rejection of the investors' project to operate a quarry and marine terminal in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, following a negative environmental assessment process.
Ownership and control of the Canadian company Bilcon of Nova Scotia and a lease agreement entered by this company for the property on which a quarry and marine terminal were to be developed. Pending Canada United States of America Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 8 - Other mining and quarrying Simma, B. - President

Schwartz, B. - Claimant

McRae, D. M. - Respondent
101.00 mln USD Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

National treatment

Most-favoured nation treatment
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

National treatment
Award on Jurisdiction and Liability dated 17 March 2015 Dissenting opinion by Professor Donald McRae Judicial review by national courts Pending (Judicial review by national courts) None None None
18 2007 Gallo v. Canada Vito G. Gallo v. The Government of Canada (PCA Case No. 55798) NAFTA UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Ownership of all shares of 1532382 Ontario Inc., an Ontario corporation that owned and controlled a former mine site in Northern Ontario.

Summary: Claims arising out of Mr. Gallo’s Canadian company ownership of a former open-pit iron ore mine (the Adams Mine Site) that was intended to serve as a landfill for non-hazardous household and commercial waste from the City of Toronto and the Ontario Legislature’s imposition of Bill 49, which prevented disposal of waste at the Adams Mine Site.
Ownership of all shares of 1532382 Ontario Inc., an Ontario corporation that owned and controlled a former mine site in Northern Ontario. Decided in favour of State Canada United States of America Tertiary: E - Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities 38 - Waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; materials recovery Fernández-Armesto, J. - President

Castel, J.-G. - Claimant

Thomas, J. C. - Respondent (replaced)

Lévy, L. - Respondent
105.00 mln CAD (106.00 mln USD) Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
None - jurisdiction declined Award dated 15 September 2011 None None None None None None
19 2007 Mobil Investments v. Canada (I) Mobil Investments Canada Inc. and Murphy Oil Corporation v. Government of Canada (I) (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/4) NAFTA ICSID AF ICSID Investment: Indirect controlling shareholding in two companies, Hibernia Management and Development Co. and Terra Nova Oil Development Project, engaged in two petroleum development projects off the coast of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada.

Summary: Claims arising out of changes in the regulatory regime applicable to the exploitation of two oil fields located off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador in which the claimants had invested; particularly, the imposition of research and development expenditure requirements by the Canadian province of Newfoundland.
Indirect controlling shareholding in two companies, Hibernia Management and Development Co. and Terra Nova Oil Development Project, engaged in two petroleum development projects off the coast of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada. Decided in favour of investor Canada United States of America Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas van Houtte, H. - President

Janow, M. - Claimant

Sands, P. - Respondent
60.00 mln CAD (59.10 mln USD) 17.30 mln CAD (13.90 mln USD) Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Performance requirements
Performance requirements Decision on Liability and Principles of Quantum dated 22 May 2012

Award dated 20 February 2015
Partial Dissenting Opinion, Professor Philippe Sands Q.C. (Decision on Liability and Principles of Quantum) Judicial review by national courts Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts) Decision of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario dated 16 February 2016 (Judicial review by national courts) None None
20 2006 GL Farms v. Canada GL Farms LLC and Carl Adams v. Government of Canada NAFTA UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Company engaged in the sale of milk and milk products for export to the United States.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged harm to claimants' dairy products business in the territory of Ontario due to milk transportation measures imposed by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) and measures taken by Canadian provincial and federal government in furtherance of the DFO measures, including restrictions on the export of milk, and requirement for milk producers in Ontario to obtain a quota authorized under Canada’s supply-management system for dairy products.
Company engaged in the sale of milk and milk products for export to the United States. Discontinued Canada United States of America Secondary: C - Manufacturing

Tertiary: G - Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles
10 - Manufacture of food products

46 - Wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles
Tribunal not constituted 78.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment

Other
Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
21 2006 Merrill & Ring v. Canada Merrill & Ring Forestry L.P. v. The Government of Canada NAFTA UNCITRAL ICSID Investment: Forestry and land management company.

Summary: Claims arising out of the implementation of Canada's log export regime to the investor's timber operations in British Columbia and the requirement that any of its exports be subject to a log surplus testing procedure, among other regulatory measures which allegedly caused loss and damage to it.
Forestry and land management company. Decided in favour of State Canada United States of America Primary: A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing 2 - Forestry and logging Orrego Vicuña, F. - President

Dam, K. W. - Claimant

Rowley, J. W. - Respondent
52.20 mln CAD (51.20 mln USD) Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment

Most-favoured nation treatment

Performance requirements
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 31 March 2010 None None None None None None
22 2004 COP v. Canada Contractual Obligation Productions, LLC, Charles Robert Underwood & Carl Paolino v. Government of Canada NAFTA UNCITRAL None Investment: Capital contributions to develop a television program; application for a television subsidy in Canada.

Summary: Claims arising out of Canada's alleged imposition of discriminatory film and television subsidies, as well as employment restrictions on US citizens involved in such productions.
Capital contributions to develop a television program; application for a television subsidy in Canada. Discontinued Canada United States of America Tertiary: J - Information and communication 59 - Motion picture, video and television programme production, sound recording and music publishing activities Tribunal not constituted 20.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment

Performance requirements
Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
23 2002 Chemtura v. Canada Crompton (Chemtura) Corp. v. Government of Canada NAFTA UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Agricultural pesticide manufacturing company.

Summary: Claims arising out of Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) banning of the agro-chemical lindane on the basis of the chemical’s health and environmental effects.
Agricultural pesticide manufacturing company. Decided in favour of State Canada United States of America Secondary: C - Manufacturing 20 - Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President

Crawford, J. R. - Unknown

Brower, C. N. - Unknown
100.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Most-favoured nation treatment
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 2 August 2010 None None None None None None
24 2000 UPS v. Canada United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (UPS) v. Government of Canada NAFTA UNCITRAL ICSID Investment: Parcel delivery service provider company.

Summary: Claims arising out of allegedly anti-competitive practices of Canada and Canada Post Corporation in the non-monopoly postal services market.
Parcel delivery service provider company. Decided in favour of State Canada United States of America Tertiary: H - Transportation and storage 53 - Postal and courier activities Keith, K. - President

Cass, R. A. - Unknown

Fortier, L. Y. - Unknown
160.00 mln USD Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award on the Merits dated 24 May 2007

Award on Jurisdiction dated 22 November 2002
Separate Statement of Dean Ronald A. Cass (Award on the Merits) None None None None None
25 1999 Pope & Talbot v. Canada Pope & Talbot v. Government of Canada NAFTA UNCITRAL None Investment: Ownership of local subsidiary for the operation of three sawmills in Canada and export of softwood lumber produced.

Summary: Claims arising out of Canada's implementation of the U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement, in which Canada agreed to charge a fee on exports of softwood lumber in excess of a certain number of board feet.
Ownership of local subsidiary for the operation of three sawmills in Canada and export of softwood lumber produced. Decided in favour of investor Canada United States of America Primary: A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing 2 - Forestry and logging Dervaird, L. - President

Greenberg, B. J. - Unknown

Belman, M. J. - Unknown
507.50 mln USD 0.46 mln USD Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment

Performance requirements
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Interim Award dated 26 June 2000

Award on the Merits of Phase 2 dated 10 April 2001

Award in Respect of Damages dated 31 May 2002

Award in Respect of Costs dated 26 November 2002
None None None None None None
26 1998 Myers v. Canada S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada NAFTA UNCITRAL None Investment: Corporation engaged in treatment of Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB); ownership of local subsidiary engaged in related activities.

Summary: Claims arising out of Canada's ban on the export of PCB wastes from Canada to the United States in late 1995 and alleged economic harm to the investor resulting from the imposition of such ban through interference with its operations, lost contracts and opportunities in Canada.
Corporation engaged in treatment of Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB); ownership of local subsidiary engaged in related activities. Decided in favour of investor Canada United States of America Tertiary: E - Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities 38 - Waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; materials recovery Hunter, M. J. - President

Schwartz, B. - Claimant

Chiasson, E. C. - Respondent

Rae, B. - Respondent (replaced)
70.90 mln USD 6.00 mln CAD (3.80 mln USD) Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment

Performance requirements
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment
Final Award (concerning the apportionment of costs between the Disputing Parties) dated 30 December 2002

Partial Award dated 13 November 2000 (Merits)

Second Partial Award dated 2 December 2002 (Damages)
Dissenting Opinion of Professor Bryan P. Schwartz concerning the apportionment of costs between the Disputing Parties (Final Award) Judicial review by national courts Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts) Attorney General of Canada v. S.D. Myers, Statutory Review in the Federal Court of Canada, Reasons for Order dated 13 January 2004 (Judicial review by national courts) None None
27 1997 Ethyl v. Canada Ethyl Corporation v. The Government of Canada NAFTA UNCITRAL None Investment: Sole shareholder of company acting as the only importer and distributer of MMT (fuel additive) across Canada.

Summary: Claims arising out of a Canadian statute banning imports of the gasoline additive MMT for use in unleaded gasoline.
Sole shareholder of company acting as the only importer and distributer of MMT (fuel additive) across Canada. Settled Canada United States of America Secondary: C - Manufacturing

Tertiary: G - Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles
20 - Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products

46 - Wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles
Böckstiegel, K.-H. - President

Brower, C. N. - Claimant

Lalonde, M. - Respondent
251.00 mln USD 13.00 mln USD Indirect expropriation

National treatment

Performance requirements
Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Award on Jurisdiction dated 24 June 1998 None None None None None None