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

Simon Grant

Banking & Finance Lawyer, Fintech Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner 

Jessica B. Horwitz

International Trade Lawyer, Customs Lawyer, Regulatory Lawyer, Anti-Corruption and Economic Sanctions Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Andrew Bozzato

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

FINTRAC imposed a record $176.9 million penalty on cryptocurrency exchange Cryptomus for thousands of AML/KYC violations. The case underscores regulators&rsquo; increasing focus on compliance, with additional sanctions from the BCSC for operating without registration. Exchanges serving Canadian clients must ensure strict adherence to AML, KYC and securities laws to avoid similar consequences.

176 9 million fine against cryptocurrency exchange from FINTRAC demonstrates costs of non compliance

C$176.9 Million Fine Against Cryptocurrency Exchange From FINTRAC Demonstrates Costs of Non-Compliance

David J. Wahl, FCIArb

Construction Arbitration & Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Christopher Petrucci

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Alex Payne

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The Ontario Superior Court in Feldt Electric Ltd v Gorbern Mechanical Contractors held that non-compliance with an adjudicator&rsquo;s determination does not automatically invalidate a lien. The decision underscores the importance of jurisdiction and procedural fairness in construction disputes under Ontario&rsquo;s prompt payment and adjudication regime.

Liening on Fairness

Lorelei Graham

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

Michelle Galati

Corporate Commercial and Securities Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Investment in agribusiness experienced a boom in the early 2020s, when investor enthusiasm for food security, supply chain resilience and agricultural innovation surged in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Venture capital deployed unprecedented levels of funding into agrifood technology, while private equity groups targeted food processing, logistics and packaging platforms. At its peak, Canadian venture funding across the economy reached record highs in 2021 and 2022, and agribusiness was a direct beneficiary of that exuberance.

AI and Tech Are Powering Agribusiness Deal Flow

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

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

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