People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Legal

Calgary

Toronto

Edmonton

Ottawa

Vancouver

New York

Montréal

Robert W. Staley

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

Vice Chair and Partner

Cheryl M. Woodin

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

Partner

Ciara J. Mackey

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

In Sinclair v. Venezia Turismo, 2025 SCC 27, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified that jurisdiction must be assessed for each defendant individually. A plaintiff cannot rely on one defendant&rsquo;s contract or weak connecting factors to extend jurisdiction to others. The decision strengthens the principles of corporate separateness in cross-border disputes.

The SCC Clarifies Approach to Jurisdiction Against Multiple Defendants in Cross Border Disputes

Sinclair v. Venezia Turismo: The SCC Clarifies Approach to Jurisdiction Against Multiple Defendants in Cross-Border Disputes

Ethan Z. Schiff

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Gina Azer

Associate

In Morrison v. Hatts Off Inc. et al., <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc4320/2025onsc4320.html?resultId=8760cfe00fe74ba295dbd14a85eefd84&searchId=2025-08-07T10:20:54:326/6e00332474ec4055bfefdf0fc1a88e76&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQBTImNsYXNzIHByb2NlZWRpbmdzIiBPUiAiY2xhc3MgYWN0aW9uIiBPUiAiYWN0aW9uIGNvbGxlY3RpdmUiIE9SICJyZWNvdXJzIGNvbGxlY3RpZiIAAAAAAQ">2025 ONSC 4320</a>, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declined to order pre-certification discovery of sensitive Children’s Aid Society records in a proposed class action alleging systemic negligence and fiduciary breaches in children’s group homes

Ontario Superior Court Rejects Pre Certification Discovery

Ontario Superior Court Rejects Pre-Certification Discovery in Children's Homes Class Action

Mehak Kawatra

In Voltage Pictures v Robert Salna, <a href="https://canlii.ca/t/kd8qd">2025 FCA 131</a>, the Federal Court of Appeal addressed the preferable procedure criterion in the context of a defendants’ class proceeding. The plaintiffs sought to certify an action against a class of defendants and, despite objection, impose the burden on Mr. Salna to represent the interests of the defendant group (the representative defendant).

Federal Court of Appeal Dismisses

Federal Court of Appeal Dismisses Class Action Certification Due To Unavoidable Individualized Inquiries

Maisah Syed

The Ontario Court of Appeal has concluded that a client's influence over a service provider's processes does not establish an employment relationship between the client and the service provider's employees. The plaintiffs in Davis v. Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, 2025 ONCA 421

No Common Employer Means No Class Action Ontario Court of Appeal

No Common Employer Means No Class Action—Ontario Court of Appeal

David Cassin

Employment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Doug Fenton

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

In McPherson v Global Growth Assets Inc., the Ontario Superior Court interpreted the no-reprisal provisions of the Securities Act for the first time, awarding more than $5.3 million to a CEO who was terminated after raising compliance concerns. The decision underscores the strength of the Act&rsquo;s protections for employees who engage in protected activities and highlights the significant risk to employers of taking disciplinary action without clear, documented justification.

Ontario Securities Act No Reprisal Provisions Results in 53 Million Award to CEO

Ontario Securities Act No-Reprisal Provisions Results in C$5.3 Million Award to CEO: A Warning to Regulated Employers

Edwin G. Kroft KC

Tax Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones

Antoine Messervier

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Anna Lekach

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

The November 2025 issue of Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes explores major developments in Canadian tax law, including new CRA guidance on the Voluntary Disclosures Program, court decisions on settlement confidentiality and costs, and proposed reforms to the Tax Court&rsquo;s informal procedure limits. The issue also features case summaries and insights from Bennett Jones&rsquo; tax litigators on emerging trends in tax dispute resolution.

Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes Issue 39

Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes: November 2025

Benjamin K. Reingold

Intellectual Property Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Makda Yohannes

Stephen D. Burns

Technology Lawyer, Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner, Trademark Agent

As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into creative workflows, the use of typefaces and fonts raises complex intellectual property challenges. This article examines the distinction between typefaces and fonts, the scope of copyright, trademark and industrial design protection in Canada, and how AI tools may heighten infringement risks. It also outlines practical steps for designers and businesses to ensure compliance through proper licensing and responsible AI use.

Understanding IP Infringement Risk in Typeface Use in AI Generated Content

Understanding IP Infringement Risk in Typeface Use in AI-Generated Content

Lisa Kakoske

Corporate and Securities Lawyer

Samantha Chenatte

Associate at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Globally, women represent nearly half of the agricultural workforce, yet they still face systemic barriers that prevent them from accessing, using and contributing to innovations in agricultural technology (Agritech), which is poised to transform agricultural systems across the world.

Gender Inclusivity Driving Growth in Agritech Industry

Sara G. Parchello

Brendan J. Weiler

Employment Services Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Two recent Ontario Superior Court decisions&mdash;Li v Wayfair Canada Inc. and Jones v Strides Toronto&mdash;clarify that the phrase &ldquo;at any time&rdquo; in a termination clause does not automatically invalidate an employment agreement under the ESA. While both cases distinguish earlier restrictive rulings, ongoing inconsistencies, including the Chan decision, highlight the need for appellate guidance. Employers should continue to review contracts carefully to ensure ESA compliance.

Termination At Any Time A Review of Recent Developments

Termination “At Any Time”? A Review of Recent Developments from Li v Wayfair Canada Inc. and Jones v Strides Toronto

Product Safety Regulation in Canada

From the Same Authors