Todd J. Weiler, MCIArb
150 Plane Tree Drive
Todd Weiler has been a practitioner of international arbitration since being called to the Bar of Ontario is 1999. Having served as counsel in some of the earliest NAFTA cases, Dr. Weiler was able to play a pioneering role in the development of international investment law and dispute settlement. In addition to having taught and published widely, Dr. Weiler also helped found websites, organizations, and annual events which will continue to contribute to its development for years to come.
As of January 2021, Dr. Weiler ceased accepting new appointments as counsel to focus on serving as an arbitrator and consultant, in addition to continuing his research on the history of international investment law and practice.
For a full list of Dr. Weiler's recognition and awards, conference appearances, guest lecturing experience, articles, and book contributions, see his CV (available above, at right, in PDF format).
Barrister & Solicitor, Law Society of Upper Canada (Ontario) -- 1999-Present
Government of Canada, Canadian Heritage Department, Trade Policy Unit -- Policy Analyst, 1998-1999
Federal Court of Canada -- Clerk to Mr. Justice Howard Wetston, 1997-1998
Ogilvy Renault LLP -- Articled Law Clerk, 1996-1997
Government of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat -- Policy Analyst and Consultant, 1994-1996
Government of Canada, Seniors’ Secretariat, Department of Health -- Policy Analyst (Co-op Student), 1991
Government of Canada, Customs and Revenue Agency -- Tariff Administrator (Co-op Student), 1990 & 1991
University of Western Ontario -- Graduate Faculty Advisor, 2011-2013
University of Western Ontario Faculty of Law -- Adjunct Professor, 2008-2010
University of Western Ontario Faculty of Law -- Stephen Dattels Fellow in Mining & Finance Law, 2007
University of Calgary Faculty of Law -- Adjunct Professor, 2007-2009
Washington College of Law, American University -- Adjunct Professor, 2004-2007
Centre for Energy, Petroleum & Mineral Law & Policy, University of Dundee -- Lecturer and Research Fellow, 2000-2005
Chicago Kent School of Law -- Visiting Professor, 2004
Arizona State College of Law -- Visiting Professor, 2004
Detroit Mercy College of Law -- Adjunct Professor, 2003-2004
University of Windsor Faculty of Law -- Assistant Professor, 2002-2003
University of Ottawa Faculty of Law -- Visiting Assistant Professor, 2002
University of San Diego School of Law -- Visiting Professor, 2001
University of Windsor Faculty of Law -- Adjunct Professor, 2001
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University -- Adjunct Assistant Professor, 2000
Do you believe that there is a role in arbitration for dispositive motions?
It all depends upon the type of proceeding to which the parties originally (or have subsequently) agreed. In theory, everybody benefits from the efficient dismissal of manifestly meritless claims. In practice, however, frivolous claims are less common in arbitration than in domestic litigation, precisely because, in arbitration, the parties are paying for the case to be heard.
What is the importance in arbitration of cross-examination?
When done well, cross-examination can provide invaluable assistance to an arbitrator in evaluating the strengths or weaknesses of evidence attributed to the witness in previously submitted witness statements/declarations. While there certainly will be cases where the documentary evidence is of much greater value – and nothing inherently wrong with holding a hearing based exclusively on a written record (if the parties have so agreed) – the bottom line is that cross-examination can be an essential factor in determining the ultimate outcome of an arbitration.
Do you believe that arbitrators have the right or an obligation to conduct their own legal research?
Absent prior agreement of the parties, arbitrators neither possess the right nor are under an obligation to conduct their own legal research. It is the responsibility of the parties to choose arbitrators with sufficient knowledge of the applicable law so as to be capable of identifying one those rare occasions when it appears that a legal issue may not have been sufficiently briefed. Otherwise, it is for the parties to determine how to present their own claims. This is no doubt one of the reasons why there is no generally applicable rule of binding precedent in international arbitration.
Law Society of Upper Canada -- Member, 1999 to Present
Canadian Bar Association -- Member, 1995 to Present; Ontario General Council Representative, 1997 to 1998; Executive Committee Member, International Law Section, 1998 to 2006; National Executive Committee Member, International Law Section, 2006 to 2007
American Bar Association -- International Law Section Member, 1999 to Present; Vice-Chair, Committee on International Trade Law, 2004 to 2006
American Society of International Law -- Member, 2000 to Present; Executive Committee Member, International Economic Law Section, 2003 to 2005
2013 Annual Meeting Program Committee member, 2012 to 2013
International Law Association -- Member, 2003 to Present; Member, Special Working Group on Foreign Investment, 2004 to 2006
International Chamber of Commerce -- Member, 2003 to 2011; Named to Canadian Roster of Arbitrators in 2005; Member, Taskforce on Investor-State Arbitration, 2010-2011
Young Canadian Arbitration Practitioners Organization -- Founding Member, 2004 to 2008; Member, Board of Directors, 2004 to 2007
International Bar Association -- Member, 2005 to Present
British Institute of International and Comparative Law; Sponsoring Member of the Investment Treaty Forum, 2005 to 2011
Society of International Economic Law -- Founding Member, 2007 to Present; Member, Board of Directors, 2007 to 2012
Institute for Transnational Arbitration -- Member, 2009 to Present; Academic Council Member, 2012 to 2016
Chartered Institute of Arbitrators -- Member, 2020 to Present
S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Canada, NAFTA/UNCITRAL Arbitration
Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Canada, NAFTA/UNCITRAL Arbitration
Canfor Corp. and Terminal Corp. v. USA, NAFTA/UNCITRAL Arbitration
International Thunderbird Gaming v. Mexico, NAFTA/UNCITRAL Arbitration
Tramel Crow v. Canada, a NAFTA dispute resolved without arbitration
Champion and Ameritrade v. Egypt, ICSID Arbitration under US-Egypt BIT
Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. v. USA, NAFTA/UNCITRAL Arbitration
Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade v. USA, NAFTA/UNCITRAL Consolidated Arbitration
Gallo v. Canada, NAFTA/UNCITRAL Arbitration
Frontier Petroleum v. Czech Republic, BIT/UNCITRAL Arbitration
J.M. Longyear v. Canada, a NAFTA dispute resolved without arbitration
Spence et al v. Costa Rica, CAFTA/UNCITRAL Arbitration
Sanum Investments Ltd. v. Laos, UNCITRAL Arbitration under PRC-Laos BIT
Lao Holdings N.V. v. Laos, ICSID(AF) Arbitration under Netherlands-Laos BIT
Aven & et al v. Costa Rica, CAFTA/UNCITRAL Arbitration
Stanford Victims v. USA, UNCITRAL Arbitration under the NAFTA, CAFTA, Peru-US FTA, Chile-US FTA
Champion Holding et al v. Egypt, ICSID Arbitration under US-Egypt BIT
Sanum Investments Ltd. & Lao Holdings N.V. v. Laos, Consolidated ICSID(AF) Arbitration under PRC-Laos
BIT and Netherlands-Laos BIT
Vento Motorcycles Inc. v. Mexico, NAFTA/ICSID(AF) Arbitration
Link Trading v. Moldova, Arbitration under the USA-Moldova BIT
United Parcel Services of America, Inc. v. Canada, NAFTA/UNCITRAL Arbitration
ADF Group v. USA, NAFTA/ICSID(AF) Arbitration
Detroit International Bridge Corp. v. Canada, NAFTA/UNCITRAL Arbitration
Siag & Vecchi v. Egypt, ICSID Arbitration under the USA-Egypt BIT
Duke Energy v. Peru, ICSID Arbitration under investment statute & contract
CANACAR v. USA, a NAFTA dispute resolved without arbitration
Telefónica v. Mexico, a NAFTA dispute resolved without arbitration
Acting for Third Parties:
Glamis Gold Corp. v. United States, NAFTA/ICSID(AF) Arbitration, Counsel to Amicus
Philip Morris Brands Sàrl et al v. Uruguay, ICSID Arbitration under the Switzerland-Uruguay BIT, Expert
for Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada
Berschadder and Berschadder v. Russia, SCC Arbitration under Belgium-Russia BIT
- The Interpretation of International Investment Law: Equality, Discrimination and Minimum Standards of Treatment in Historical Context (Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague, 2013) (monograph).
- New Directions in International Economic Law: in Memoriam Thomas Wälde, with Freya Baetens (Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague, 2011).
- International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (London: Cameron May, 2005).
- Investment Law and Arbitration: Past Issues, Current Practice, Future Prospects (New York: Transnational, 2004).