People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Manage Cookies

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Payments

Legal

Calgary

Toronto

Edmonton

Ottawa

Vancouver

New York

Montréal

Sean Zweig

Restructuring & Insolvency Lawyer | Cross-Border Expertise

Partner

Andrew Froh

Commercial Litigation Lawyer

Associate

James Atkinson

Associate 

A recent decision of the US Bankruptcy Court in Re: Iovate Health Sciences International Inc. provides important insights for Canadian companies involved in cross-border restructurings. The case addresses how debtor companies can rebut the presumption that their &ldquo;center of main interests&rdquo; (COMI) is located at their registered office when seeking Chapter 15 recognition in the United States. Chief Judge Glenn reaffirmed that COMI is determined by a non-exhaustive set of factors, including management, assets, creditors and creditor expectations, and may also be influenced by pre-filing restructuring activities.

Trend Watch Determining COMI in US Chapter 15 Proceedings

Trend Watch: Determining COMI in US Chapter 15 Proceedings

Preet K. Gill

Insolvency & Restructuring Lawyer | Litigation & Transactions

Toronto Managing Partner

As detailed in our prior blog, <a href="/Insights/Blogs/2024/07/Canadian-Government-Finally-Provides-Certainty-on-Criminal-Interest-Rates">Canadian Government (Finally) Provides Certainty on Criminal Interest Rates</a>, the Government of Canada proposed amendments to lower the criminal interest rate to an annual percentage rate (APR) of 35 percent (the prior criminal interest rate, being an effective rate of 60 percent, was equivalent to an APR of about 48 percent).

Lower Criminal Interest Rate Now in Effect

Kelsey J. Meyer KC

Restructuring & Insolvency Lawyer | Commercial Litigation

Jesse Mighton

Insolvency and Restructuring Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

In the unrelated companion cases of Aquino v Bondfield Construction Co, <a href="https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20694/index.do">2024 SCC 31</a> and Scott v Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc, <a href="https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20695/index.do">2024 SCC 32</a>, the Supreme Court of Canada applied the common law doctrine of corporate attribution to bankruptcy and insolvency law through a purposive, contextual and pragmatic approach.

The SCC Clarifies the Corporate Attribution Doctrine and Creditor Protection Tools in Insolvency Law

Robert W. Staley

Securities & Commercial Litigation Lawyer | Shareholder Disputes

Vice Chair and Partner

Doug Fenton

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

In ruling that a securities regulatory authority's disgorgement orders (a sanction stemming from misconduct) survive a bankruptcy discharge while its administrative penalties do not, the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed the principle that "every claim is swept into the bankruptcy and that the bankrupt is released from all of them upon being discharged unless the law sets out a clear exclusion or exemption." The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the differing treatment of administrative penalties and disgorgement orders in the context of exceptions outlined in s. 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Supreme Court Holds That Securities Disgorgement Orders Survive Bankruptcy

Katherine Booth

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

The BC Court of Appeal in Cleaver v. The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited upheld the refusal to certify a privacy class action, finding no basis in fact for the claim&rsquo;s central allegation. The decision reinforces the courts&rsquo; gatekeeping role at certification and the importance of evidentiary support for the core allegations underlying a proposed class proceeding.

BC Court of Appeal No basis in fact no class action

BC Court of Appeal: No Basis in Fact = No Class Action 

Michael C. Smith

George W. H. Reid

International Trade, Investment and Public Procurement Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The Government of Canada has published a new Notice concerning the rules and procedures governing the administration of the quota for imports of electric vehicles from the People's Republic of China for the second period of Quota Year 1 (September 1, 2026 to February 28, 2027). The Notice, issued by Global Affairs Canada under the Export and Import Permits Act, confirms that the second allocation period will continue to operate similar to the first allocation period.&nbsp;

Notice Concerning the Quota for Imports of Chinese Electric Vehicles

Second Allocation Period Opens September 1, 2026

Edwin G. Kroft KC

Tax Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones

Kate Kim

Andrew Young

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Issue 43 of Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes highlights recent developments in Canadian tax litigation and dispute resolution. This edition examines the limits of the Minister's ability to advance alternative assessment arguments, clarifies who may deduct legal costs incurred in tax disputes, and explores the role of price adjustment clauses in estate freeze transactions

Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes Issue 43

Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes: August 2026

Carl Cunningham

Management-side Employment Lawyer

David Cassin

Employment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Julia Horowitz

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

In Wigdor v. Facebook Canada Ltd., 2026 ONCA 572, the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified that equity-based compensation, including RSUs, may constitute a term or condition of employment that must be preserved during the statutory notice period under the Employment Standards Act, 2000. The decision highlights the need for employers to carefully review RSU forfeiture provisions and saving language to ensure compliance with employment standards legislation, while confirming that the threshold for punitive damages remains high.

RSU Forfeiture Revisited Ontario Court of Appeal Provides Important Guidance for Employers

RSU Forfeiture Revisited: Ontario Court of Appeal Provides Important Guidance for Employers

Alison G. FitzGerald

International Arbitration Lawyer

Sabrina A. Bandali

International Trade, Regulatory and Investment Lawyer

Canada has introduced a new round of retaliatory tariffs on $27.6 billion worth of US goods in response to the Trump administration's 50% tariffs on Canadian exports. The measures, effective September 8, 2026, include surtaxes ranging from 15% to 50% on a wide range of products, alongside remission programs and duty relief mechanisms for affected businesses.

Concordia Decision Expands Potential Scope of CBCA Plans of Arrangement

From the Same Authors