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

Anu Nijhawan

M&A, Corporate Financing and International Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Lead Director and Partner

Hennadiy Kutsenko

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Counsel

Talia K. Bregman

Management-side Employment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

Recent guidance from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development provides important clarity on when cross-border remote work arrangements may give rise to a permanent establishment under international tax treaties. The analysis focuses on key indicators such as the duration of remote work and whether there is a commercial reason for an employee&rsquo;s presence in a jurisdiction. The article also outlines practical steps employers can take to mitigate tax risk and manage a globally distributed workforce.

Remote Work Without Borders But Not Necessarily Without Tax Consequences

Remote Work Without Borders—But Not Necessarily Without Tax Consequences: OECD Guidance for a Post-Pandemic World

Jared A. Mackey

Corporate Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

When Canadian multinationals issue discounted bonds, notes and similar obligations in a foreign currency, the tax consequences of repaying the debt are governed by subsections 39(2) and paragraph 20(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act (Canada). <a href="/People/M/Mackey-Jared">Jared Mackey</a> and <a href="/People/N/Nijhawan-Anu">Anu Nijhawan</a> explore the application and interaction of these provisions, which can give rise to unexpected results.

Tax Considerations on the Repayment of Discounted Foreign Currency Obligations

Incentivizing employees is a critical component of most business strategies. Employers may implement arrangements for deferred cash bonuses, often subject to the satisfaction of certain criteria. From a tax perspective, the efficacy of any such arrangement requires that no tax be payable prior to the time an individual receives a cash payout. To ensure that result, it is critical to avoid the application of the "salary deferral arrangement" rules under the Income Tax Act (Canada).

Incentivizing Employees Avoiding a Salary Deferral Arrangement

Incentivizing Employees: Avoiding a Salary Deferral Arrangement

Retirement compensation arrangements (RCAs) are, in appropriate circumstances, a useful tool for employers to provide supplemental pension benefits to employees, but such arrangements come at a cost of refundable tax under the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the ITA). The <a rel="noopener noreferrer" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.budget.canada.ca/2023/home-accueil-en.html" target="_blank">2023 Federal Budget</a> (the Budget), released on March 29, 2023 (Budget Day), proposes to amend the ITA to exempt, from the refundable tax, fees or premiums to the extent paid for the purposes of securing or renewing a letter of credit or a surety bond for an RCA structured as supplement to a registered pension plan.

Supplemental Pension Plans Secured with Letter of Credit Budget Proposes Refundable Tax Relief

Supplemental Pension Plans Secured with a Letter of Credit—Federal Budget 2023 Proposes Refundable Tax Relief

Artem N. Barsukov FCIArb

International Arbitration Lawyer

Edward W. Hulshof

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Associate

Paige Lutz

Articling Student at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Articling Student

The Alberta Court of Appeal clarified that broadly worded arbitration clauses can extend to statutory claims, including those under the Tort-Feasors Act. Overturning the uncertainty created by Orica, the Court confirmed that parties will be held to their agreement to arbitrate, even where claims arise by operation of law. The decision reinforces commercial certainty and helps avoid parallel proceedings and inconsistent outcomes.

Alberta Court of Appeal Provides Antidote to Consternation on Scope of Arbitration Clauses

Ethan Z. Schiff

Class Actions & Commercial Litigation Lawyer

Pavan Pasha

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

In Cervantes v. Pizza Nova Take Out Ltd., the Ontario Divisional Court clarified that civil conspiracy claims must allege an agreement or common design among defendants. The Court held that compliance with a franchisor&rsquo;s requirements alone does not constitute conspiracy. This decision reinforces the need for precise pleadings and upholds the principle of corporate separateness in class action claims.

No Agreement No Conspiracy Ontario Court Affirms Civil Conspiracy Requires a Pleaded Agreement

No Agreement, No Conspiracy: Ontario Court Affirms Civil Conspiracy Requires a Pleaded Agreement

Cheryl M. Woodin

Commercial Litigation & Trial Lawyer

Emrys Davis

Competition & Antitrust Litigation Lawyer

Kolding Larson

Commercial Transactions Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The Federal Court dismissed a proposed C$5B class action alleging a nationwide conspiracy to fix generic drug prices, finding no basis in fact and denying certification. The decision underscores the Court&rsquo;s gatekeeping role and confirms that US enforcement actions and generalized market theories are insufficient to support competition claims in Canada without clear, particularized evidence.

Federal Court Dismisses 5 Billion Generic Drug Price Fixing Class Action

Federal Court Dismisses C$5 Billion Generic Drug Price-Fixing Class Action 

Edwin G. Kroft KC

Tax Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones

Andrew Young

Mackenzie Thomas

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Issue 41 of Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes examines recent developments in Canadian tax litigation, with a focus on jurisdictional limits, procedural compliance, and case management in the Tax Court of Canada. Featuring commentary from members of the Bennett Jones Tax group, this edition analyzes key decisions including MEGlobal, Culig, and Opheim, and provides practical guidance for taxpayers and advisors navigating tax disputes.

When Is "Loss Trading" Permissible? A Purposive Analysis of Subsection 111(5)

Authors


Bennett Jones Article When Is "Loss Trading" Permissible? A Purposive Analysis of Subsection 111(5) December 1, 2015 Authors Anu NijhawanLead Director and Partner Anu Nijhawan, "When Is "Loss Trading" Permissible? A Purposive Analysis of Subsection 111(5)," Report of the Proceedings of the Sixty-Seventh Tax Conference, 2015 Conference Report (Toronto: Canadian Tax Foundation, 2016), 9:1-26. Share by Email Social Media Download Download Subscribe Republishing Requests For permission to republish this or any other publication, contact Bryan Canning at canningb@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 Anu Nijhawan, Lead Director and Partner • Co-Head of Tax Department Calgary • 403.298.3389 • nijhawana@bennettjones.com