People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Legal

Calgary

Edmonton

Montréal

Ottawa

Toronto

Vancouver

New York

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

Simon Crawford was a featured speaker at the <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://store.lso.ca/22nd-real-estate-law-summit" target="_blank">22nd Real Estate Law Summit</a>, sharing key insights during his session, Buyer (Counsel) Beware of an Apportionment of Damages. Head of Bennett Jones’ Real Estate Industry team, Simon is a sought-after thought leader in the sector, known for his practical guidance, deep industry knowledge and ability to unpack complex legal issues into actionable strategies for clients and counsel alike.

Buyer Counsel Beware of an Apportionment of Damages

Buyer (Counsel) Beware of an Apportionment of Damages

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

Lorelei Graham

Food and Agribusiness Lawyer, IP Lawyer, Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Across the Atlantic, the European Union (EU) and its member states have also been encouraging climate-resilient agri-tech innovation, but their approach to intellectual property incentives has been a bit different. The European Union has set ambitious climate goals (like achieving climate neutrality by 2050) and launched the European Green Deal, a broad policy agenda to support sustainable technologies. While funding and regulations (such as support for sustainable farming practices) are big parts of the EU strategy, there is also recognition that IP rights play an important role in fostering innovation. However, unlike Canada or the recent US pilot program, Europe has not implemented a unified “green channel” for patent examination at the European Patent Office.

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part III

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part III: Green Without the Label: Europe's Pragmatic IP Approach to Agri-Tech Innovation

Steven L. Major KC

Commercial Dispute, Construction, Fraud, Police and Personal Injury Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Drew C. Broughton

Corporate Commercial and M&A Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Kevin Myson

Corporate, Commercial Transaction, Energy, Natural Resource and M&A Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Canada is navigating a "wild frontier" in the energy industry, with a unique opportunity to forge successful and sustainable partnerships both domestically and internationally. This was the rallying call at the Energy Business Forum during the 74th Canadian Energy Executive Association (CEEA) conference in Banff, Alberta, where industry leaders gathered to share visions for the future of Canada's energy landscape.

Key Takeaways From the Wild Frontier Energy Business Forum CEEA 74

Key Takeaways From the "Wild Frontier" Energy Business Forum at CEEA '74

Melanie Teetaert

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Jennifer (Jenn) K. Choi

Maruska Giacchetto

This article examines the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in J.P. Thomson Architects Ltd. v Greater Essex County District School Board, 2025 ONCA 378, which provides critical clarification on the interpretation of multi-step dispute resolution (MSDR) clauses. MSDR clauses, commonly used in commercial contracts, outline escalating steps such as negotiation, mediation, and arbitration to resolve disputes. The Court addressed ambiguities in the drafting of MSDR timelines, emphasizing that specified timeframes should be interpreted as minimum waiting periods rather than strict deadlines. The decision overturned a lower court ruling that barred a party from arbitration due to a perceived failure to meet a 30-day mediation request deadline. This article highlights the importance of precise drafting in MSDR clauses, discusses the implications of the Court's decision, and provides practical guidance for parties drafting or negotiating dispute resolution provisions in commercial agreements.

Do you need to rush to mediate - Ontario Court of Appeal

Do You Need to Rush to Mediate? Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies Interpretation of Multi-Step Dispute Resolution Clause

The United States has long been a major player in both agri-tech innovation and the intellectual property (IP) landscape. In the past, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) offered its own version of a green patent fast-track to encourage climate-friendly inventions. Notably, in 2009 to 2011 the USPTO ran a Green Technology Pilot Program that prioritized examination for certain eco-friendly patents. The pilot ended in 2012, but more recently the USPTO brought back the idea in June 2022, with the Climate Change Mitigation Pilot Program, which was essentially an accelerated examination program for patent applications directed to fight climate change. Under this program, inventions designed to reduce or monitor greenhouse gas emissions, including many clean energy, sustainability or climate-smart agriculture innovations, could be examined out of turn. Importantly, like Canada’s program, the US pilot did not charge the usual petition fee for expediting. The goal was to spur green tech by making it faster and cheaper to secure IP rights.

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part II

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part II: Innovation Interrupted: What the End of the USPTO's Green Program Means for Agri-Tech

Climate change is driving a surge in agricultural technology (agri-tech) innovations aimed at making farming more resilient and sustainable. From drought-resistant crops to carbon-capturing soil techniques, these climate-focused agri-tech solutions are crucial for global food security. An often-overlooked piece of this puzzle is intellectual property (IP) strategy, namely how patents and other IP rights are used to protect and incentivize innovation.

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part I

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part I: Planting the Future: Why Canada's IP System May Be the Climate Innovation Sleeper Hit

Please Satisfy Yourself

Authors


Bennett Jones Article Please Satisfy Yourself (and other passive aggressive answers to invalid requisitions) April 3, 2017 Authors Simon P. CrawfordPartner Title requisitions, and responses to title requisitions, are often evidenced by two simple letters back and forth between solicitors; and yet, in the content of those two letters is the meat of the real estate transaction. Those letters evidence that two solicitors have put their mind to the fundamental issue of whether the seller of the real estate can convey what it bargained to convey in the purchase agreement. Simon Crawford and Carolin Jumaa authored "Please Satisfy Yourself" and presented same at the LSUC's 14th Annual Real Estate Law Summit. Share by Email Social Media Download Download Subscribe Republishing Requests For permission to republish this or any other publication, contact Amrita Kochhar at kochhara@bennettjones.com. For informational purposes only This publication provides an overview of legal trends and updates for informational purposes only. For personalized legal advice, please contact the authors. Authors Simon P. Crawford, Partner • Head of Real Estate Industry Team Toronto • 416.777.4815 • crawfords@bennettjones.com