You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

January 21, 2026

Growing Canadian Investment in Southeast Asia: An Interview with Andrew Stoutley, COO of Tilleke & Gibbins

Thai-Canadian Chamber of Commerce

Spurred by global geopolitics and Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to forge deeper ties with ASEAN, Canadian companies have been showing growing interest in Thailand and Southeast Asia in recent years. To understand the opportunities offered by the region, we sat down with Andrew Stoutley, a Toronto native and the chief operating officer of Tilleke & Gibbins, a leading Southeast Asian regional law firm with over 130 years of history in Thailand.

Q: Why are Canadian companies looking at Thailand and Southeast Asia right now?

A: Two reasons stand out. First, diversification has moved up the agenda. Many Canadian companies want options outside North America due to tariff volatility and policy uncertainty in the United States, as well as questions around the next Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement mandatory joint review. At the same time, the shift of global production from China to Southeast Asia is accelerating, driven by rising costs, geopolitics, and the need to avoid overreliance on a single market. As a result, Canadian companies are looking for a second production base or a regional hub, and Thailand and its neighbors are natural choices given their manufacturing depth, location, and established supply chains.

Second, Canada’s own efforts in the region are gaining traction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy has led to more on-the-ground support, including larger trade missions, upgraded diplomatic posts, and new financing options. Export Development Canada (EDC) now has a presence in Bangkok, giving Canadian companies a direct line to financing and insurance in Thailand. There’s also steady progress on trade frameworks like the recently signed Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (which will come into effect pending domestic procedures), ongoing negotiations of a Canada–ASEAN FTA, and the exciting announcement about the launch of negotiations of a Canada–Thailand FTA. Together, these developments have the potential to make it much easier for Canadian businesses to enter and operate in the region.

Q: What makes Thailand a good base for a regional strategy?

A: Thailand combines a strong industrial base with reliable infrastructure and a skilled workforce, with lower costs than Singapore or Hong Kong, making Bangkok a practical and affordable hub for managing operations across Southeast Asia. The Thai Board of Investment offers incentives for targeted sectors, which can make a real difference in the early years of a project. And Thailand’s comparatively stable business and legal environment—marked by predictable regulation, established licensing routes, and reliable dispute resolution—underpins regional planning and execution.

To take advantage of all that Thailand has to offer, however, planning is key. Early on, companies should check whether available incentives fit their plans, make sure they fully understand foreign ownership limits and the local regulatory environment, and build relationships on the ground. When eyeing a regional strategy, it’s also important to remember that Southeast Asia isn’t one market. A plan that fits Thailand may need to be reworked in Vietnam or Cambodia, as each country has different approvals, data rules, local director requirements, and employment norms. The right mindset is to build a regional model that can be localized, not a single template you try to force everywhere.

Q: What sectors are you seeing the most interest in from Canadian companies?

A: Advanced manufacturing and the EV ecosystem are attracting significant interest. Clean energy and energy efficiency are busy as more climate finance becomes available. Digital services and fintech are very active. We’re also seeing a lot of interest in agribusiness, healthcare and life sciences, logistics and supply chain, education, and tourism and hospitality. The common thread is that Canada’s priorities and Thailand’s policy goals are lining up, which makes it easier to build projects both sides want to see succeed.

Q: For companies entering Thailand or Southeast Asia, what should they look for in a legal partner?

A: Look for two things: an international service mindset and real local depth. If you’re a multinational, you need a firm that has worked with foreign companies and understands how your in-house team operates, what your timelines look like, and how you measure risk. At the same time, you need advisors who know how the law is applied day to day—what works with regulators, what commercial terms are consistent with market norms, and what issues are likely to arise. When those two elements come together, you gain the confidence of clear, reliable guidance that helps you navigate complex markets with minimal disruption.

Track record matters too. Tilleke & Gibbins has acted for inbound investors in Thailand for more than a century and, in recent years, across the rest of Southeast Asia. Most of our clients are multinational companies, so our approach to service is built around their expectations, backed by local judgment and relationships.

Q: As COO of Tilleke & Gibbins, how do you make sure your operations actually translate into better outcomes for clients?

A: I think about the COO role as creating the conditions for great client work. For us, that starts with making a regional firm feel seamless to a client running a project across Thailand, Vietnam, and beyond. Our team members have spent years working closely together across offices and practice areas so the quality is consistent, while still reflecting the realities on the ground in each jurisdiction. By working as one team across borders and disciplines, we’re able to support clients with the full range of services they need to succeed in Southeast Asia’s dynamic markets.

I’ve been with Tilleke & Gibbins for nearly 20 years, and what keeps me here is the culture. It’s collaborative. When a client brings us a complex mandate—say, a cross-border investment that cuts across regulatory matters, employment, data, and tax—we can quickly assemble a team that’s technically strong and commercially minded.

Innovation helps too. We use secure generative AI tools to accelerate routine work—first drafts, clause comparisons, issue spotting—so our lawyers can focus on strategy and judgment. Everything goes through human review by our lawyers, with strict confidentiality and approval guardrails. The result is faster turnaround, clearer documents, and better consistency in the work we’re delivering to clients.

Q: Any final advice for Canadian executives who are thinking about setting up in Thailand?

A: Start with a plan that can scale across the region, but don’t skip the country-by-country details. Lean on the Canadian institutions here to help, like the EDC, the Trade Commissioner Service, and CanCham’s great network. Track progress on the Canada–ASEAN and Canada–Thailand FTAs, and use these tools to design supply chains that reduce exposure to U.S. policy swings. Combine that support with good local advice, and Thailand provides a strong base for long-term growth.

 

This interview was originally published in issue 1/2026 of Voyageur, the magazine of CanCham Thailand (Thai-Canadian Chamber of Commerce).

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of
September 4, 2026
Foreign business restrictions on telecommunications, treasury center businesses, and intragroup support services were eased when Thailand published the Ministerial Regulation Prescribing Service Businesses Not Requiring Permission for Foreign Business Operations (No. 5) B.E. 2569 (2026) in the Government Gazette on August 28, 2026. The ministerial regulation expands the categories of service businesses that foreign investors may operate without a foreign business license (FBL) under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA). Of particular relevance to the telecommunications, fintech, and technology sectors, the ministerial regulation exempts: Type 1 telecommunications licensees, which do not have their own networks; Treasury center businesses operated in accordance with Thailand’s exchange control regulations; and Certain intragroup administrative, human resources, and information technology management services. Telecommunications Services Foreign-owned businesses providing telecommunications services under a type 1 telecommunications license may now operate without obtaining an FBL. This may streamline market entry for qualifying telecommunications and digital infrastructure businesses. The exemption applies only to the FBA licensing requirement. Operators must continue to comply with applicable requirements under the Telecommunications Business Act and the regulations of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, and the change does not affect foreign ownership restrictions applicable to type 2 or type 3 telecommunications businesses. Treasury Center Businesses The ministerial regulation also exempts qualifying treasury center businesses from the FBL requirement. This may facilitate centralized treasury functions in Thailand, including liquidity management, foreign exchange management, and intragroup funding arrangements. Treasury center operations remain subject to applicable requirements of the Bank of Thailand and other competent authorities. Intragroup Administrative, HR, and IT Services Certain administrative, human resources, and information technology management services provided between affiliated entities are also exempt, provided the relevant entities satisfy prescribed ownership or management criteria. The exemption is available where the service provider and recipient are related through specified ownership
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on