Canada - Part II Country Report - Handbook on Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration
Originally from Handbook on Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration
1.1. TPF Regime in Canada
1.1.1. Is TPF commonly used in your Jurisdiction? If yes, since when (is it a new trend or a well-established practice)?
TPF has existed in Canada for at least the past decade, although it had gone unnoticed by most of the legal community for much of that time. One can group the Canadian TPF market into two segments: consumer litigation funding and commercial litigation/arbitration funding. Consumer funders, who deal primarily in the personal injury/tort sphere, are more established in Canada. In contrast, commercial funding is newer to the Canadian market, though funders have reported increasingly frequent expressions of interest from law firms in Canada, evidencing a growing awareness and acceptance.
1.1.2. Please shortly describe the TPF market in your Jurisdiction.
a) Is it dominated by local or international Funders, which type of Funders are active, which cases get typically funded?
b) Is there any source on Funders (like the overview published by the German Bar)?
The Canadian TPF market is still in a development phase with respect to both litigation and international arbitration. Almost all funding of Canadian claimants in international arbitration to-date originates outside Canada, mainly from TPF firms and hedge funds located in the United Kingdom and the United States. Notably, Bentham IMF opened an office in Toronto, Ontario in 2016. January 31, 2017 marked Bentham’s first year operating in Canada at which point it had already received over 100 funding requests. As of this writing, Bentham has received approximately 160 funding requests and has accepted to fund two litigation matters in Canada.
Many investor-state claims involving Canadian claimants are in the oil, gas, energy and mining sector. One prominent example involving TPF is Crystallex International Corporation v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which we discuss in greater detail in the response to Question 1.1.3.