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

Kristopher R. Hanc

M&A and Capital Markets Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

John Lawless

Private Equity, M&A, Corporate and Securities Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

James D. Beeby

Corporate Finance, M&A, Private Equity and Venture Capital Lawyer

The Supreme Court of Canada has released its much-anticipated decision in Lundin Mining Corp. v. Markowich, 2025 SCC 39, clarifying the definition of a "material change" under securities law and providing guidance on when a public company must disclose information to the market. The decision will have broad implications for public companies, their directors, officers, shareholders and other market participants.

Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies Scope of Securities Disclosure Obligations for Material Changes

Shifting Grounds: Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies Scope of Securities Disclosure Obligations for "Material Changes"

Robert W. Staley

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

Vice Chair and Partner

Amanda C. McLachlan

Securities Litigation, Regulatory Investigations and Financial Crimes Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Doug Fenton

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The Ontario Court of Appeal&rsquo;s decision in Binance v. OSC clarifies the limits of the OSC&rsquo;s investigative powers and the Charter protections available in securities investigations. While the Court rejected a constitutional right to challenge a summons before compliance, it found the summons issued to Binance overbroad and unconstitutional. The ruling offers important guidance for market participants on regulatory scrutiny, the scope of document production, and the viability of judicial review.

Court of Appeal Addresses Scope of Charter Review in Securities Investigations

Binance v. OSC: Court of Appeal Addresses Scope of Charter Review in Securities Investigations 

David Cassin

Employment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

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

Cheryl M. Woodin

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

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

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

Partner 

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

Melanie L. Aitken

Global Antitrust and Competition Law and Litigation Advisor at Bennett Jones Washington

Managing Principal, Bennett Jones (US) LLP

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

Natalia E. Iamundo

Commercial Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Alixe A.L. Cameron

Corporate Commercial and Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Troy Mack

Corporate Commercial Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Associate

Rights of first refusal and rights of first offer are often used interchangeably, but they carry very different legal consequences in Alberta land transactions. This post explains how Alberta legislation and case law treat each right, why only a ROFR can support a caveat, and what parties should consider when structuring agreements to protect their interests.

Right of First Refusal vs Right of First Offer in Alberta Land Transactions

Right of First Refusal vs. Right of First Offer in Alberta Land Transactions 

Title Alphabetical

Title

BennettJones

Staley Robert