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

Katherine Booth

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Partner

Emma Arnold-Fyfe

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Associate

Securities-related regulatory action regarding “AI washing” has been increasing in the United States, serving as a warning of potential future developments in Canada. AI washing, as defined by the Canadian Securities Administrators (the CSA), refers to an issuer making false, misleading or exaggerated claims about its use of AI systems in its products or services to capitalize on the growing use of and investor interest in AI systems. The CSA reported that it identified disclosure and promotional campaigns that included AI washing during its most recent continuous disclosure review program. We are also seeing securities class actions alleging AI washing being filed in the United States.

It All Comes Out in the Wash Regulatory Action on AI Washing Ramps Up

It All Comes Out in the Wash: Regulatory Action on AI Washing Ramps Up

Edward W. Hulshof

While applications for certification of class proceedings are commonplace, trials to decide certified common issues on their merits are comparatively rare. The decision in one such common issues trial was recently released in <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://canlii.ca/t/k6hdk" target="_blank">Escobar v Ocean Pacific Hotels Ltd.</a>, 2024 BCSC 1575, in a class action brought on behalf of hourly employees of a Vancouver hotel who stopped receiving regular shifts after the outbreak of COVID-19. Success was split between class members and the defendant.

Mixed Success at The BC Supreme Court in Rare Common Issues Trial in Employment Class Action

Mixed Success at the B.C. Supreme Court in Rare Common Issues Trial in Employment Class Action 

Jackson Spencer

British Columbia is often referred to as a "no costs" jurisdiction for class proceedings because section <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96050_01#section37" target="_blank">37</a> of the B.C. <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96050_01" target="_blank">Class Proceedings Act</a> creates a presumptive no-costs regime in British Columbia for certification applications and after actions have been certified as class proceedings. This is in contrast to some other provinces, such as Ontario, where there is no such rule. However, two recent decisions from the British Columbia Supreme Court confirm that the normal cost rules still apply in British Columbia prior to certification, including to pre-certification applications that are heard concurrently with certification.

BC Supreme Court confirms that British Columbias no costs rule does not apply to precertification

B.C. Supreme Court Confirms that British Columbia's No-Costs Rule Does Not Apply to Pre-Certification Applications 

In a pair of decisions released on July 5, 2024, the B.C. Court of Appeal (BCCA) found that an alleged reckless failure to safeguard personal information may be sufficient to make out Privacy Act claims of "wilful violation" of privacy against database defendants who are victims of data hacks. In doing so, the BCCA interpreted statutory Privacy Act claims to be potentially broader than the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion, which the Ontario Court of Appeal in its 2022 "trilogy" of decisions in <a rel="noopener noreferrer" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca813/2022onca813.html?resultIndex=1&resultId=99e0df2af84b4d21bb93482719a57ff5&searchId=2024-07-08T08:47:26:021/76baa0f2132f4f9987effb1055293968" target="_blank">Owsianik</a>, <a rel="noopener noreferrer" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca814/2022onca814.html?resultIndex=1&resultId=676e6de1fe604662ba861cff3d3eb127&searchId=2024-07-08T08:47:53:140/eda8238351014b5fb0c4fec618b616b0" target="_blank">Obodo</a> and <a rel="noopener noreferrer" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca815/2022onca815.html?resultIndex=1&resultId=a311de2b17654b539b29608f356dc7d8&searchId=2024-07-08T08:48:11:829/65c2575b608141ca9f5364b58b085bb7" target="_blank">Winder</a> limited to claims against the hacker who committed the "intrusion", not the database defendant who allegedly failed to prevent it.

BC Court of Appeal Finds that Allegedly Reckless Database Custodians may be Liable

B.C. Court of Appeal Finds that Allegedly Reckless Database Custodians may be Liable for "Wilful Violations" of Privacy Under the Privacy Act

Andrew Bozzato

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

Bishoy Attia

Articling Student at Bennett Jones in Toronto

Articling Student

Private investment in the defence sector is accelerating as governments realign policy priorities and expand support for dual-use and DefTech innovation. Canada&rsquo;s 2025 Budget and long-term spending commitments are reshaping the industry, driving new opportunities across AI, cyber, space, advanced manufacturing and critical infrastructure. With global capital flowing into defence technology and structural reforms underway to modernize procurement, the sector is rapidly transitioning from fragmented to fully investable.

Policy Dual Use and DefTech Drive a New Era for Private Capital in Defence

Policy, Dual-Use and DefTech Drive a New Era for Private Capital in Defence

Daron K. Naffin

Energy, Environmental/Regulatory and Expropriation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Tim Myers

Regulatory, Environmental, Aboriginal and Expropriation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Thomas Machell

Regulatory Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

On November 4, 2025, the Alberta Energy Regulator released AERH2S, an updated version of its computer model for calculating Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) for sour gas applications. AERH2S replaces the longstanding ERCBH2S model and is available for immediate use by industry. According to AER Bulletin 2025-34, the use of AERH2S will become mandatory for all applications filed under Directive 056: Energy Development Applications and Schedules, including amendment applications, starting January 1, 2026. The continued use of ERCBH2S is permitted for updates to existing EPZs (and any EPZs established before January 1, 2026) under Directive 071: Emergency Preparedness and Response until further notice.

Alberta Energy Regulator Releases New AERH2S Model for Sour Gas Operations

David Cassin

Employment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Doug Fenton

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Robert W. Staley

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

Vice Chair and Partner

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

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

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

Title Alphabetical

Title

BennettJones

Bartlett Lamont

Booth Katherine

Commercial Litigation

Product Liability

Privacy Data Protection

Cybersecurity

Class Action Litigation

Arbitration

Fraud Law

Energy Litigation

Life Sciences

Food and Agribusiness

Lamont Bartlett and Katherine Booth Named to Benchmark 40 and Under Hot List 2025

Lamont Bartlett and Katherine Booth Ranked in 2025 Benchmark Litigation 40 & Under Hot List

From the Same Authors