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/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

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

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Michael C. Smith

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

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

Title Alphabetical

Title

normal

Commercial Insolvency Reporter

From the Same Authors