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

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

Partner

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

Vasilis F. L. Pappas, FCIArb

International Arbitration Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver and Calgary

Partner 

Melanie Teetaert

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Geoffrey P. Stenger

Project Development, Energy, Infrastructure and Construction Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

On October 7, 2025, British Columbia introduced Bill 20, the Construction Prompt Payment Act. If enacted, it will overhaul payment timelines and create a fast-track adjudication process for construction disputes. The legislation is expected to significantly impact owners, contractors and subcontractors across the province.

BC Introduces Prompt Payment Legislation

Robert W. Staley

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

Vice Chair and 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

Jennifer (Jenn) K. Choi

Associate

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

Christine A. Viney

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

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

Title Alphabetical

Title

BennettJones

Hussey Dominique

Teetaert Melanie

Woodin Cheryl

Commercial Litigation

Intellectual Property Litigation

Intellectual Property Law

Class Action Litigation

Energy Litigation