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

Ahmed Elmallah

Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Counsel, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent

Edward (Ted) Yoo

Patent & Trademark Agent | Biotech, Pharma & Tech Innovations

Partner, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent

Lorelei Graham

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

How an AI system is commercialized and deployed also affects whether patent protection is appropriate. In many cases, the degree of control retained by the provider over the deployed system acts as a counterweight to other considerations that might otherwise favor trade secret protection.

AI Patents A Corporate Decision Tool IV

The Business Delivery Model

AI: Is Patenting Really the Right Move? - Factor IV

This article forms one part of a broader decision framework for evaluating whether patent or trade secret protection is appropriate for AI innovation.&nbsp;The framework is designed to help decision-makers (e.g., innovaters, in house, CTOs) align patent and IP strategy with underlying business realities and moving beyond purely "legal" considerations.&nbsp;
Within that framework, this article addresses a second decision factor: what is the realistic patent scope for the AI innovation?&nbsp;An AI patent with meaningful scope can block competitors from implementing commercially viable alternatives. Assessing enforceable scope therefore requires focusing on some of the following factors: (a) competitor blocking potential; (b) detectability of infringement; and (c) divided infringement.

AI Patents A Corporate Decision Tool II

The Enforceable Patent Scope

AI: Is Patenting Really the Right Move? - Factor II

Defensive blocking considers whether a patent can prevent others from patenting or controlling adjacent technical or commercial space. It matters for two main reasons: (i) to stop competitors from obtaining patents that could later restrict your ability to operate, and (ii) to provide leverage for counter-assertion if a competitor brings a patent claim against you.

AI Patents A Corporate Decision Tool VI

Competitor Defensive Positioning

AI: Is Patenting Really the Right Move? - Factor VI

John D. van Gent

Commercial Real Estate Finance Lawyer | Lending & Credit

Quinn Rozwadowski

Articling Student at Bennett Jones in Toronto

Articling Student

This article examines a common misconception in mortgage lending: the perceived need for guarantees from beneficial owners and general partners. It explains why such guarantees are typically unenforceable due to fundamental principles of agency and guarantee law. The piece also outlines clearer, more effective approaches to structuring mortgage loan relationships.

Would The Real Guarantor Please Stand Up

Andrew N. Disipio

Mining & Corporate Finance Lawyer | M&A, Equity & Debt Deals

Geoffrey P. Stenger

Energy, Infrastructure & Construction Lawyer | Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner 

Alexis Fol

Project Development, Energy and Infrastructure Lawyer at Bennett Jones Montreal

Canada&rsquo;s M&amp;A market entered 2026 with moderated activity but sustained underlying strength, as dealmakers adopted a more selective and strategic approach. Large transactions drove a significant share of total value, with energy, mining and infrastructure leading activity. As regulatory clarity improves and investor confidence builds, the market is well positioned for increased dealmaking through the remainder of the year.

Canadas Q1 2026 MA Landscape

Large Transactions and Sector Concentration Shape Early-2026 Dealmaking

Canada's Q1 2026 M&A Landscape

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

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

Crane Harbor Completes Business Combination with Xanadu Quantum Technologies

Authors


Bennett Jones Client Work Crane Harbor Completes Business Combination with Xanadu Quantum Technologies April 2, 2026 Authors Harinder S. BasraCalgary Managing Partner Annie B. TonkenAssociate Anu NijhawanLead Director and Partner Marshall R. HaugheyPartner Kees de RidderPartner, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent Joseph N. BlinickPartner William A. BortolinAssociate Crane Harbor Acquisition Corp. has completed its previously announced business combination with Xanadu Quantum Technologies Inc., resulting in the first publicly traded photonic quantum computing company. The combined company now operates as Xanadu Quantum Technologies Limited, with its shares trading on the Nasdaq and the TSX under the ticker symbol XNDU as of March 27, 2026. The transaction provides for gross proceeds of approximately US$302 million to Xanadu Quantum Technologies Limited and reflects an estimated market valuation of approximately US$3.1 billion for the combined company. Bennett Jones acted as Canadian counsel to Crane Harbour, a publicly traded special purpose acquisition company. The team was led by Harinder Basra (Capital Markets and M&A), Annie Tonken and Raghav Sodhi (Capital Markets and M&A), Anu Nijhawan and Marshall Haughey (Tax), Kees de Ridder (IP) and Joseph Blinick and William Bortolin (Litigation). Read the transaction press release. 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 Harinder S. Basra, Calgary Managing Partner Calgary • 403.298.4494 • basrah@bennettjones.com Annie B. Tonken, Associate Calgary • 403.298.3456 • tonkena@bennettjones.com Anu Nijhawan, Lead Director and Partner • Co-Head of Tax Department Calgary • 403.298.3389 • nijhawana@bennettjones.com Marshall R. Haughey, Partner Calgary, Edmonton • 403.298.3461 • haugheym@bennettjones.com Kees de Ridder, Partner, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent Calgary • 403.298.3122 • deridderk@bennettjones.com Joseph N. Blinick, Partner Toronto • 416.777.4828 • blinickj@bennettjones.com William A. Bortolin, Associate Toronto • 416.777.6126 • bortolinw@bennettjones.com