close
  1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar


Legal Guide


In addition to entering into and negotiating free trade agreements, some of which, like the NAFTA, contain specific obligations pertaining to investor protection, Canada has also been very active in negotiating agreements that specifically promote and protect foreign investment through legally binding obligations. Canada has executed Foreign Investment Protection and Promotion Agreements (FIPAs) with 25 countries. In addition, Canada has concluded negotiations with an additional five countries. Although Canada’s original FIPAs are based on the OECD model, the bulk of Canada’s FIPAs were entered into after 2003 and are modeled on the more comprehensive NAFTA model. These later agreements include a more mature and comprehensive investor-state dispute mechanism.

Additional posts from the blog

Nov

12

Canada’s Anti-Spam Law – New Guidance on Offering Apps, Software

by Margot Patterson

CASL also prohibits installing a “computer program” – including an app, widget, software, or other executable data – on a computer system (e.g. computer, device) unless the program is installed with consent and complies with disclosure requirements. The provisions in CASL related to the installation of computer programs will come into force on January 15, 2015.

May

02

Environment Canada issues Hydrofluorocarbon reporting requirement

by Nalin Sahni

On April 7, 2014, the Minister of the Environment issued a Notice with respect to hydrofluorocarbons (the “Notice”), pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. The Notice imposes reporting requirements on those who imported, exported, or manufactured certain hydrofluorocarbons (“HFCs”) from 2008 and 2012. A non-exhaustive list of HFCs subject to these reporting requirements can be found in Schedule 1 of the Notice.

Apr

17

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”

by Andy Pushalik

In an interesting decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has ruled that an employer is not liable for discriminatory and harassing texts sent by a rogue employee to another of its workers.



Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
Dentons
FMC Law

© 2017 Dentons