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

Jared A. Mackey

Corporate Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner

Wade Ritchie

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Associate

The principal purpose test in the OECD Multilateral Instrument has attracted significant academic attention but, until now, no judicial commentary.&nbsp; In this article, Jared Mackey and Wade Ritchie take a deep dive into what is understood to be the world&rsquo;s first decision on the principal purpose test: SC Lowy P.I. (Lux) S.A.R.L., Luxembourg v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, decided by the Delhi Bench of India's Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.&nbsp;

Jared Mackey and Wade Ritchie Analyze the SC Lowy Case

Jared Mackey and Wade Ritchie Analyze the SC Lowy Case—A Landmark Ruling on the MLI Principal Purpose Test

Article 4(1) of Canada’s income tax treaties defines a “resident” of a Contracting State to mean a person who is subject to comprehensive tax in that State “by reason of” various criteria, such as domicile, residence, place of management or any other criterion of a similar nature.

Deemed US Corporation not a US Treaty Resident

Deemed U.S. Corporation not a U.S. Treaty Resident: HRMC v. GE Financial Investments Ltd.

Marshall R. Haughey

Subparagraph 20(1)(c)(ii) provides for the deduction of interest on amounts payable for property acquired to produce income from that property or from a business. Although the provision is relied upon frequently, there is limited guidance on its application in many common commercial scenarios, including asset acquisitions, intercompany financings, refinancings, and corporate reorganizations.&nbsp;

Jared Mackey and Marshall Haughey Examine the Limits of Interest Deductibility

Jared Mackey and Marshall Haughey Examine the Limits of Interest Deductibility under Subparagraph 20(1)(c)(ii)

Spencer Brown

On October 29, 2024, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/news/newsroom/tax-tips/tax-tips-2024/trust-reporting-for-the-2024-tax-year.html" target="_blank">issued a release</a> stating that it will not require bare trusts to file trust returns for the 2024 tax year, continuing the administrative exemption that was <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/news/newsroom/tax-tips/tax-tips-2024/bare-trusts-exempt-from-trust-reporting-requirements-2023.html" target="_blank">granted for the 2023 tax year</a>. The CRA's recent announcement follows on the heels of <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://fin.canada.ca/drleg-apl/2024/ita-lir-0824-l-3-eng.html" target="_blank">proposed amendments</a> to the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the Proposed Amendments) released in August that, among things, would provide targeted reporting relief for bare trusts meeting certain criteria.

CRA Relief and Proposed Amendments Mitigate Bare Trust Reporting Burden on Energy Companies

Kristopher R. Hanc

M&A and Capital Markets Lawyer

Christopher J. Doucet

Corporate & Mining Lawyer | M&A & Corporate Finance

Aidyn Bhatia

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) has launched a broad consultation on modernizing the regulation of public companies, examining venture issuer status, financial reporting, resale restrictions, material change reporting and alignment with U.S. developments. The Consultation Paper includes a proposed qualified institutional purchaser exemption that could provide eligible reporting issuers with greater flexibility to raise capital without traditional resale hold periods. Stakeholders have until November 13, 2026, to submit comments.

CSA Publishes Sweeping Consultation on Modernizing the Regulation of Public Companies

Meg Tweedlie

Director, Student Talent

Samuel Judson

Commercial Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Change of control provisions in commercial leases can create uncertainty for both landlords and tenants, particularly where terms such as &ldquo;control&rdquo; and &ldquo;effective control&rdquo; are undefined. This article examines the Canadian legal landscape, key case law and Section 23 of Ontario&rsquo;s Commercial Tenancies Act, and offers practical considerations for drafting and negotiating change of control provisions. It also highlights potential carve-outs and strategies to reduce ambiguity and the risk of future disputes.

change of Control of Commercial Tenants Drafting

Change of Control of Commercial Tenants: Drafting, Interpretation and Practical Considerations

Akhila Sandhu

Summer Student

Morgan Sutherland

Associate 

Michael C. Smith

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The United Nations has adopted the first global regulatory framework for Automated Driving Systems, establishing safety, cybersecurity, testing and monitoring requirements for Level 3, 4 and 5 automated vehicles. This article examines the framework&rsquo;s implications for Canada, including how Transport Canada may incorporate the requirements into domestic vehicle safety standards and what manufacturers and suppliers should consider as regulation evolves.

First Global Regulatory Framework For Autonomous Vehicles

First Global Regulatory Framework For Autonomous Vehicles: Key Takeaways For Canada And The Auto Industry

Martin Ignasiak KC

Energy & Industrial Projects Lawyer

Head of Energy Regulatory

Michael P. Theroux KC

Commercial Litigation, Arbitration & Energy Litigation Lawyer

Partner 

Brynne Harding

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

The Supreme Court of Canada has resolved one of the most consequential questions left open by Vavilov, and which has divided jurisprudence in lower courts since then&mdash;whether judicial review is constitutionally guaranteed or can be barred by privative clauses.

Big Implications for Appeals from Administrative Tribunals

The Supreme Court Settles the Constitutional Floor for Judicial Review in Democracy Watch v Canada

Ethan Z. Schiff

Class Actions & Commercial Litigation Lawyer

Jenna Vivian

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

The Supreme Court of Canada&rsquo;s decision in SS&amp;C Technologies Canada Corporation v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, 2026 SCC 29, revisits the doctrine of spoliation and confirms that courts must draw an adverse inference when intentional destruction of relevant evidence is established. The decision provides guidance on the test for spoliation, the scope of mandatory adverse inferences and the importance of preserving evidence during litigation.

The Supreme Court of Canada Affirms Mandatory Adverse Inference in Cases of Spoliation

The Supreme Court of Canada Affirms Mandatory Adverse Inference for Spoliation

Title Alphabetical

Title

normal

Canada Revenue Agency Views on Taxable Canadian Property Determinations Involving Subsidiaries

From the Same Authors