Trade lawyer, Jonathan O’Hara, left, at McMillan LLP, and William Pellerin, also from McMillan. Mr. O’Hara predicts that there will be between 10 and 12 trade remedy cases under way by the end of the year.James Park/The Globe and Mail
Canadian businesses are on track to file a record number of trade remedy complaints this year, as companies work to protect their home turf during a global trade war.
On Monday, the Canada Border Services Agency announced a new investigation into the alleged dumping of oil country tubular goods – a type of steel pipe used by the oil and gas industry – from Mexico and the Philippines, as well as some exporters based in South Korea, Turkey and the United States.
It is the seventh trade remedy case opened so far this year. The record was set in 2001, when nine such cases were launched, and lawyers who specialize in this area say that up to half a dozen more files are in the pipeline.
“I think we’re going to blow through the record,” said Christopher Kent, a founding partner of Cassidy Levy Kent (Canada) LLP.
“Our firm – in any given year – we usually take on one or two new trade cases. Right now, we have four new ones on the go and we literally have a dozen other potential new cases that are in various stages of assessment.”
Opinion: Where is the global resistance to Trump?
Mr. Kent said the volume of trade remedy complaints that his firm is seeing is unprecedented, but also predictable given the economic environment.
Trade lawyers say two factors are driving the surge.
U.S. President Donald Trump has thrown global trade into chaos with his ever-changing tariff policies. Earlier this month, Mr. Trump raised his tariff to 35 per cent on Canadian goods that are not compliant with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The steel and aluminum industries face even higher numbers, with tariffs of 50 per cent.
Jonathan O’Hara, a litigator with the international trade team at McMillan LLP, said Canadian companies that have been heavily reliant on the American market are having to look elsewhere for opportunities – especially domestically. But what some businesses are finding is that the Canadian market has been compromised by artificially cheap foreign goods.
The other driver of recent trade remedy cases comes from the wider fallout of the Trump tariffs. Producers in other countries that have been dependent on the U.S. are diverting product elsewhere – and Canada is a prime target.
Mr. O’Hara said trade remedy cases fall in two categories: anti-dumping and countervailing duties cases.
Generally speaking, anti-dumping laws prohibit a foreign company from selling product in Canada for less than they are selling in their home market or selling their goods for an insufficient profit in Canada. Countervailing duty cases deal with government subsidization, such as direct government grants, preferential loans or tax breaks.
Historically, trade remedy complaints have been the secret weapon of the steel industry, which has used the process to keep themselves in business, Mr. O’Hara said. Without these remedies, he added, the Canadian steel industry would not be able to compete with Chinese producers, which are heavily subsidized by the Chinese government.
“Now other industries are realizing they’re facing similar problems and need similar protection,” Mr. O’Hara said.
Eric Reguly: The USMCA agreement may be circling the drain. Time to fill the trade sink elsewhere
Of the seven cases filed so far this year, just over half relate to steel, but there are also cases involving paper, an energy product and a chemical product.
He predicts that there will be between 10 and 12 trade remedy cases under way by the year’s end.
Bringing a trade remedy case forward is a significant undertaking. Cases are filed with the CBSA, which then screens the complaints based on a series of strict legal tests. From there, CBSA can initiate a product investigation and, in a parallel process, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal will also evaluate the complaint.
A CBSA spokesperson noted that a single product complaint can spur multiple investigations, as goods originating in or exported from each country involved is subject to its own probe, and some product complaints encompass both dumping and subsidies allegations.
“As of August 11, the CBSA has launched a combined 29 dumping and subsidy investigations for 7 different products in 2025. In comparison, in 2024, the CBSA launched a combined 12 dumping and subsidy investigations for 5 different products,” CBSA spokesperson Rebecca Purdy said in an e-mail. She noted that in 2001, the record-breaking year, there were 41 investigations connected to nine products.
Carney says Ottawa is disappointed with raised 35% U.S. tariffs, remains committed to USMCA
Mr. O’Hara said that trade remedy cases are big litigation files.
“In some instances, these cases will lead to tariffs on hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars worth of imports,” he said.
William Pellerin, who is also with the international trade group at McMillan, noted that the cases are expensive to bring forward. A simple case can easily cost $1-million, while more complex files will easily exceed $2-million.
However, Mr. Pellerin added, they’re worth the cost.
From initiation, cases are generally completed within seven months and – if they’re successful – can lead to duty measures being in place for at least five years. From there, the cases can be considered for renewal. There is a trade remedy case on the books involving American potatoes that goes back 40 years.
“I’m not aware of anything that a business can do that will generate as good of a return as a trade remedy case. There’s no marketing campaign or piece of equipment,” said Mr. Pellerin.
“The benefit can be hundreds of times the investment. You spend $2-million to get hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue.”