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

Sarah E. Gilbert

Environmental Lawyer | Health & Safety

Partner

Julia E. Schatz

Commercial & Regulatory Lawyer | Environmental & Agribusiness

Partner 

Gatlin Smeijers

Environmental Lawyer | Mining & Industrial

On December 31, 2025, the Federal Government published the Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2025 under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. When they come into effect on June 30, 2026, the 2025 Regulations will repeal and replace the Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2012. The Federal Government published a proposed version of the 2025 Regulations in 2022 for public consultation.

Federal Government Publishes Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations

Federal Government Publishes Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2025

Morgan Sutherland

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate 

Environment and Climate Change Canada recently notified stakeholders of its intent to delay the reporting requirements with respect to Phases 2 and 3 of the Federal Plastics Registry. The deadlines for reporting with respect to Phases 2 and 3 of the FPR are set to come into force in September 2026 and September 2027, respectively.

ECCC Announces Delay to the Reporting Requirements under the Federal Plastics Registry

Sarah E. Gilbert, Gatlin Smeijers, Morgan Sutherland and Samantha Chenatte

ECCC Announces Delay to the Reporting Requirements Under Phases 2 and 3 of the Federal Plastics Registry

On June 5, 2025, the Competition Bureau (the Bureau) published its <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/en/how-we-foster-competition/education-and-outreach/publications/environmental-claims-and-competition-act#sec02-2" target="_blank">final Guidelines for environmental claims</a> under the Competition Act (the Act). The Guidelines were created to help businesses and the public understand the Bureau's approach to deceptive marketing provisions under the Act as they relate to environmental claims, including with respect to the new environment-specific provisions that were enacted in 2024. While not binding on the Commissioner of Competition nor the Competition Tribunal, the Guidelines provide visibility into the Bureau's interpretation and approach to environmental claims.

Final Guidelines From the Competition Bureau on Environmental Claims in Canada

Final Guidelines from the Competition Bureau on Environmental Claims in Canada

Martin Ignasiak KC

Energy & Industrial Projects Lawyer

Head of Energy Regulatory

Shawn M. Munro

Energy Lawyer | Oil & Gas and Environmental Lawyer

David J. Macaulay

Power & Renewable Energy Lawyer

Head of Power & Renewable Energy 

The growing data centre industry continues to be a focal point of the Alberta Government’s economic diversification strategy. Policy work aimed at attracting data centre investment to the province is ongoing and interest in data centre development is high, resulting in an unprecedented amount of connection requests being submitted to the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) to obtain power from the grid.

Large Load Integration on Alberta Electricity Grid

Large Load Integration on Alberta's Electricity Grid: The AESO's Proposed Approach for Data Centre Connections

Akhila Sandhu

Summer Student

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

Ethan Z. Schiff

Class Actions & Commercial Litigation Lawyer

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

Dominique T. Hussey

Chief Executive Officer and Intellectual Property Litigator, Pharma/Biotech and Trademark Lawyer

Chief Executive Officer

Vincent M. de Grandpré

IP Lawyer | Life Sciences & Tech

Emily P. Kettel

Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner, Trademark Agent

In Pharmascience v. Janssen Inc., the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed that methods of medical treatment remain unpatentable subject matter under the Patent Act because they are directed to the professional skill and judgment of healthcare practitioners. At the same time, the Court upheld the patentability of the dosing regimen claims at issue, clarifying that not all therapeutic or treatment-related claims constitute unpatentable methods of medical treatment. The decision provides important guidance on assessing patent eligibility for pharmaceutical and life sciences innovations in Canada.

Supreme Court of Canada Reaffirms that  Methods of Medical Treatment are Unpatentable

Supreme Court of Canada Confirms That Medical Professional Skill and Judgment Are Excluded From the Patent Bargain

Evana Yukanna

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate

Ontario court denies a late class action opt-out request, reinforcing settlement finality and confirming prejudice can arise before court approval.

Ontario Court Reinforces Finality of Class Proceedings in Rejecting Late Opt Out Request

Ontario Court Reinforces Finality of Class Proceedings in Rejecting Late Opt-Out Request

Tyler McDonough

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Logan Lazurko

Energy & Regulatory Lawyer | Environmental

On June 17, 2026, the Alberta Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed an appeal by Fort McMurray 468 First Nation challenging an Alberta Energy Regulator decision that the First Nation lacked standing to request regulatory appeals of approvals issued to AdhMor Ltd. for an oilfield waste management facility near Fort McMurray. The decision in Fort McMurray 468 First Nation v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2026 ABCA 197, offers important guidance on what it takes to get in the door at the AER.

Alberta Court of Appeal Confirms Cumulative Effects are no Substitute for Evidence

No Standing Without Specifics: Alberta Court of Appeal Confirms that Cumulative Effects are no Substitute for Evidence

Title Alphabetical

Title

normal

Canadian Energy and Environmental Regulation

From the Same Authors