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

Robert W. Staley

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

Vice Chair and Partner

Cheryl M. Woodin

Commercial Litigation, Product Liability & Class Actions Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

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

Abbas Ali Khan

Mining, Technology, Securities and Corporate Commercial Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Bosa Kosoric

Commercial and Securities Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

As a recent decision by the Australian Takeovers Panel (Panel) has confirmed, Canadian issuers looking to complete a merger or strategic transaction with an Australian counterparty in a Canadian plan of arrangement, subject to Canadian law, will need to give careful consideration to applicable requirements of Australian securities law.

Considering Australian Securities Law When Drafting Arrangement Agreements

Considering Australian Securities Law When Drafting Arrangement Agreements to Acquire Australia-Based Companies

Matthew Flynn

Technology Transaction Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Simon Grant

Banking & Finance Lawyer, Fintech Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner 

Kim Lawton

Corporate Commercial Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The Canadian Securities Administrators has once again extended the deadline for registered crypto-trading platforms to address trading in value referenced crypto assets (VRCAs). VRCAs, better known as "stablecoins", are crypto assets designed to maintain a stable or pegged value relative to a specified fiat currency or other asset. Stablecoins have become popular with crypto investors and are frequently used to facilitate the trading, borrowing and lending of other crypto assets.

Fintech in Canada Q3 2024

Doug Fenton

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Emma Danaher

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate 

In OneMove Capital Corporation v Dye & Durham Limited, <a rel="noopener noreferrer" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://canlii.ca/t/k6zvq" target="_blank">2024 ONSC 5114</a>, the Ontario Superior Court concluded that shareholders may not submit a proposal under s. 99 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) for the purpose of removing a director from office. Section 99 permits a voting shareholder to advance a “proposal” (which is not a defined term under the statute) for consideration by shareholders, and such a proposal may include advancing a candidate for election to the Board. The Court held that a shareholder seeking the removal (as opposed to election) of a director must instead follow the procedure of requisitioning requisition a special meeting of shareholders under s. 105 of the OBCA.

Ontario Superior Court Rules That Section 99 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act Does Not

Ontario Superior Court Rules That Section 99 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act Does Not Confer Powers to Bring a Proposal to Remove a Director

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

Associate

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.

Trend Watch Determining COMI in US Chapter 15 Proceedings

Trend Watch: Determining COMI in US Chapter 15 Proceedings

Dom Sorbara

Banking & Financial Services Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Elizabeth K. Dylke

Corporate and Private Funds Lawyer

James G. Morand

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

This edition of the PE Briefing examines private equity developments in the third quarter of 2025, including trends in Canadian and global deal activity, the continued growth and complexity of private credit, Ontario&rsquo;s advantages as a jurisdiction for non-US flow-through vehicles, and practical considerations in the drafting of earnouts.

The Q3 2025 PE Briefing

David J. Wahl, FCIArb

Construction Arbitration & Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Brian P. Reid

Litigation, Construction, Joint Venture Agreement and Builder's Lien Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Aly Parth

Articling Student at Bennett Jones in Calgary 

Articling Student 

The Alberta Court of Appeal&rsquo;s decision in Tempo v. Man-Shield confirms that equitable set-off is a true defence capable of precluding summary judgment in construction disputes. The ruling emphasizes that where claims and cross-claims are inseparably connected, courts must account for both to avoid unjust outcomes. This case provides important guidance for contractors, subcontractors and counsel navigating payment disputes and litigation strategy in the construction sector

Robert Staley, Derek Bell and Ranjan Agarwal in The Lawyers Weekly on LSUC Case

Authors


Bennett Jones In The News Robert Staley, Derek Bell and Ranjan Agarwal in The Lawyers Weekly on LSUC Case May 22, 2015 Authors Robert W. StaleyVice Chair and Partner In the Lawyers Weekly article by Cristin Schmitz, "Battle Lines Drawn as TWU Ontario Case Nears," a brief written by Robert Staley, Derek Bell and Ranjan Agarwal is noted for arguing a bencher from the Law Society of Upper Canada was unfairly allowed to speak to benchers about accrediting Trinity Western University's proposed law school without the right of the university to reply. 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 Robert W. Staley, Vice Chair and Partner Toronto • 416.777.4857 • staleyr@bennettjones.com