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

Sarah E. Gilbert

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

Partner

Gatlin Smeijers

Environmental Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Julia E. Schatz

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

Partner 

On June 5, 2025, the Competition Bureau (the Bureau) published its <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/en/how-we-foster-competition/education-and-outreach/publications/environmental-claims-and-competition-act#sec02-2" target="_blank">final Guidelines for environmental claims</a> under the Competition Act (the Act). The Guidelines were created to help businesses and the public understand the Bureau's approach to deceptive marketing provisions under the Act as they relate to environmental claims, including with respect to the new environment-specific provisions that were enacted in 2024. While not binding on the Commissioner of Competition nor the Competition Tribunal, the Guidelines provide visibility into the Bureau's interpretation and approach to environmental claims.

Final Guidelines From the Competition Bureau on Environmental Claims in Canada

Final Guidelines from the Competition Bureau on Environmental Claims in Canada

Samantha Chenatte

Associate at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Associate

On March 7, 2025, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) published two consultation documents as part of its ongoing work to clarify which categories of pest control products are subject to the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA) and the Pest Control Products Regulations (PCPR) passed under it, which products are exempt and which may be authorized (without registration being required). The PMRA is seeking further stakeholder input on the amendments being proposed. The comment period is open until May 6, 2025.

Pest Management Regulatory Agency Opens Pre Consultation Period on Proposed Changes

Pest Management Regulatory Agency Opens Pre-Consultation Period on Proposed Changes to the Pest Control Products Regulations

The Government of Canada published the final "State of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) report" (<a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/evaluating-existing-substances/state-per-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-report.html" target="_blank">State of PFAS Report</a>), the "Risk management approach for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), excluding fluoropolymers" (<a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/evaluating-existing-substances/risk-management-approach-per-polyfluoroalkyl-substances.html" target="_blank">Risk Management Approach</a>) and a proposed Order adding a toxic substance to Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) (<a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2025/2025-03-08/html/reg2-eng.html" target="_blank">Proposed Order</a>) in the Canada Gazette on March 8, 2025.  These documents are open for public consultation until May 7, 2025.

Federal Government publishes State of PFAS Report and Risk Management Approach

Federal Government Publishes State of PFAS Report and Risk Management Approach

The Federal Court has ordered the review of another Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) decision, spotlighting how the regulatory agency handles new scientific evidence in the renewal process for pesticides in Canada. This decision builds on jurisprudence from the Federal Court of Appeal that challenged the PMRA’s refusal to establish a review panel in the face of a notice of objection regarding the PMRA’s re-evaluation of the pesticide glyphosate (see our blog from February 2022, <a href="/Insights/Blogs/The-Federal-Court-of-Appeal-Has-Weighed-in-on-ReEvaluation-Decisions">The Federal Court of Appeal Has Weighed in on Re-Evaluation Decisions Made by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency</a>, which reviews that decision in more detail).

Federal Court Orders Review of PMRA Decision Renewing Glyphosate Pesticide

Kwang Lim

Corporate and Securities Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Vancouver Managing Partner

Angela Blake

M&A, Securities and Corporate Finance Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Laura James

Corporate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

M&amp;A activity in Canada rebounded in Q3 2025, with total deal value rising sharply year-over-year. Our update explores shifting deal structures, the rise of earnouts, cross-border dynamics, and the sectors driving growth.

Canadas Q3 2025 MA Landscape

Canada's Q3 2025 M&A Landscape

Lorelei Graham

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

Dominique Carli

Commercial Transactions Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Wittington Investments has launched a C$100 million fund to support Canadian food producers with equity or debt financing. Success depends on legal readiness, from IP protection to governance, ensuring businesses are prepared to attract and secure investment.

Legal Readiness for Food Producers Navigating Wittington Investments C100M Fund

Legal Readiness for Food Producers: Navigating Wittington Investments’ C$100M Fund

Kees de Ridder

Intellectual Property Lawyer, Patent Agent and Trademark Agent at Bennett Jones Calgary

Associate, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent

Benjamin K. Reingold

Intellectual Property Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Stephen D. Burns

Technology Lawyer, Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner, Trademark Agent

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear Pharmascience Inc v Janssen Inc on October 9, 2025, a case that could reshape the scope of patentable subject matter in Canada. At issue is whether a dosing regimen for a pharmaceutical product constitutes an unpatentable method of medical treatment or a valid invention under the Patent Act. The Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal upheld the patent&rsquo;s validity, but Pharmascience has challenged this position. With several industry groups granted intervenor status, the case is expected to have significant implications not only for the pharmaceutical industry but also for broader questions of what qualifies as an &ldquo;invention,&rdquo; including computer-implemented and AI-related technologies.

Supreme Court to Assess Subject Matter Eligibility in Canadian

Supreme Court to Assess Subject Matter Eligibility in Canadian Patent Law: Implications Beyond the Pharmaceutical Context

AI is transforming performance marketing through hyper-personalization, automated content creation, and data-driven insights&mdash;enhancing efficiency while raising new legal and ethical considerations for brands.

The Implications of AI on Performance Marketing

Sean Zweig

Restructuring, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Andrew Froh

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

James Atkinson

Articling Student at Bennett Jones 

Articling Student          

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.

Case Comment :
Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals Ltd.

Authors


Bennett Jones Update Case Comment : Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. January 1, 2007 Authors Julia E. SchatzPartner "Case Comment: Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals Ltd.," appeared in the January 2007 edition of Briefly Speaking, the Ontario Bar Association's newsletter. 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 Julia E. Schatz, Partner Toronto • 416.777.4665 • schatzj@bennettjones.com

Case Comment : Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals Ltd.

Authors

Case Comment :
Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals Ltd.