People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Payments

Legal

Calgary

Toronto

Edmonton

Ottawa

Vancouver

New York

Montréal

Simon P. Crawford

Leading Commercial Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

Samantha Weng

Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate

Once again, cottage season is upon us—and like the return of the season, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Court) has returned to the well-settled law of adverse possession, which continues to surface in modern property disputes where long-term use of a property by an adjoining owner can sometimes erode the ownership rights of the legal owner.

Lines in the Sand A Case of Adverse Possession from Cottage Country

Lines in the Sand: A Case of Adverse Possession from Cottage Country

Adam Kalbfleisch

Competition, Foreign Investment Review and Regulatory Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Alixe A.L. Cameron

Corporate Commercial and Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Jane C. Helmstadter

The Competition Bureau (Bureau) has released its <a href="https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/en/how-we-foster-competition/education-and-outreach/publications/competitor-property-controls-and-competition-act">finalized property control guidelines</a> (Guidelines) outlining the Bureau's ongoing approach to enforcing competition property controls under the Competition Act (Act). These replace the preliminary guidelines published on August 7, 2024, which were subject to a public consultation process last summer/fall

Breaking Ground The Competition Bureau Weighs in with Final Property Control Guidelines

The Competition Bureau Weighs in with Final Property Control Guidelines

Meg Tweedlie

Commercial Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

In light of recent caselaw, and despite popular belief, it may be time to reframe specific performance as a perfectly ordinary remedy rather than an extraordinary one. The decision of Justice Rees in The Decorators Choice Paint Store Ltd. v Innes Crossing Inc., reaffirms what we recently saw in Bellwoods Brewery Inc. v 1896841 Ontario Limited, which is that the remedy of specific performance should not be a surprising outcome in the context of leasing disputes.

Specific Performance Not Extraordinary in Commercial Leasing

Specific Performance: Not Extraordinary in Commercial Leasing

What a great evening. The indomitable Jon Love, Executive Chair and Founder of KingSett Capital, joined me for a one-on-one discussion about his extraordinary career, his reflections on leadership and current public policy issues in a rapidly changing world landscape.

Lessons in Leadership From Canadian Business Icon Jon Love

Christine A. Viney

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Margaret (Meg) Bennett

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Kaamil Khalfan

The Supreme Court of Canada&rsquo;s decision in Emond v Trillium Mutual Insurance Co clarifies how insurance policies are interpreted when endorsements enhancing coverage conflict with policy exclusions. The Court confirmed that a guaranteed rebuilding cost endorsement does not extend coverage to costs expressly excluded, highlighting potential gaps for homeowners and the importance of reviewing policies holistically.

Emond Rebuilding Dreams or Interpreting Realities The Supreme Court Weighs In

Emond: Rebuilding Dreams or Interpreting Realities? The Supreme Court Weighs In

William S. Osler KC

Capital Markets, Securities, M&A and Corporate Governance Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Mia Bacic

Corporate and Securities Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Tinashe Muzah

Articling Student at Bennett Jones in Calgary 

Articling Student

The CSA has finalized amendments and ongoing initiatives to modernize continuous disclosure for investment funds, aimed at streamlining requirements, reducing regulatory burden, and improving investor clarity.

CSA Continues Work to Modernize Continuous Disclosure for Investment Funds

Sarah E. Gilbert

Regulatory, Environmental and Health and Safety Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Julia E. Schatz

Commercial Litigation, Agribusiness, Arbitration, Real Estate, Construction and Environmental Litigation at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner 

Gatlin Smeijers

Environmental Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

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

Drew C. Broughton

Corporate Commercial and M&A Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Audrix Arce

Articling Student 

Recent changes to the Commissioner of Lobbying&rsquo;s interpretation of the federal Lobbying Act significantly lower the threshold for mandatory lobbyist registration. As of January 2026, organizations may be required to register if employees collectively spend as little as eight hours lobbying within a four-week period, including preparation and written communications. This update has important compliance implications for corporations and other organizations engaging with federal public office holders.

Expanded Federal Lobbyist Registration Requirements

Melanie L. Aitken

Global Antitrust and Competition Law and Litigation Advisor at Bennett Jones Washington

Managing Principal, Bennett Jones (US) LLP

Cheryl M. Woodin

Commercial Litigation, Product Liability & Class Actions Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Emrys Davis

Commercial Litigation, Competition and Class Action Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

In Martin v. Alphabet, the Competition Tribunal issued its first decision interpreting the new public-interest pathway for private access under section 103.1(7) of the Competition Act. While affirming an intention to broaden access, the Tribunal articulated a flexible but rigorous three-part framework that places real weight on evidence, genuine interest and the applicant&rsquo;s capacity to prosecute complex competition cases. The decision underscores that public interest alone is insufficient without a coherent, Canada-focused evidentiary record and a credible litigation plan.

Martin v Alphabet Tribunal

Martin v. Alphabet: Tribunal Sets the Public Interest Leave Framework—Evidence and Capacity Now the Gatekeepers

Crawford on Deferred Indefeasibility and Mortgage Priorities

From the Same Authors