People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Legal

Calgary

Edmonton

Montréal

Ottawa

Toronto

Vancouver

New York

Stephen P. Sibold KC

Corporate Governance and Securities Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner and General Counsel Emeritus

Stephen Sibold comments in the<a href="https://calgaryherald.com/business/energy/varcoe-tweets-and-trouble-in-the-world-of-business" target="_blank"> Calgary Herald</a> on social media and balancing the rights of freedom of speech in business while protecting investors. He says the challenge is the mode and speed of communication and the bigger platform social media provides. “Practically, the rules of the game have changed and I think it’s something securities regulators are trying to grapple with,” he says.

Stephen Sibold on Social Media and Securities Regulation

Justin R. Lambert

Energy Industry Dispute, Fraud, Securities and Corporate Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner

James T. McClary

Private Equity and M&A Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

On August 25, 2015, the participating jurisdictions of the proposed Cooperative Capital Markets System (the Cooperative System) published for comment a revised consultation draft of the uniform provincial/territorial Capital Markets Act (CMA) and draft initial regulations. The comment period is open until December 23, 2015. Additional draft initial regulations will be published for comment in the coming months, including a harmonized set of prospectus exemptions and a fee regulation.

Cooperative Capital Markets System Publishes Revised Draft Legislation and Draft Regulations

In "Law Firm General Counsel a Rarity," written by Elaine Wiltshire for the Lawyers Weekly, Stephen Sibold comments on the growing need for a general counsel position within larger Canadian law firms.

Stephen Sibold Quoted in Lawyers Weekly

This article discusses the unique characteristics of the Canadian capital market and argues that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was an inappropriate model for Canadian securities regulators to follow in designing Canada's corporate governance regime. "Assessing Canada's Regulatory Response to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002: Lessons for Canadian Policy Makers"; (2009) 46 Alta. L. Rev. 769.

Assessing Canadas Regulatory Response to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 - July 2009

Assessing Canada's Regulatory Response to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 - July 2009

Stephen D. Burns

Technology Lawyer, Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner, Trademark Agent

Matthew Flynn

Technology Transaction Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

J. Sébastien A. Gittens

Intellectual Property and Technology Commercialization Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

AI transcription tools offer efficiency and accuracy in the boardroom but create risks to confidentiality, privacy and legal privilege. Organizations should adopt clear policies, safeguards and training to ensure responsible use and compliance with governance standards.

AI Notetaking in the Boardroom

Lorelei Graham

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

The United States Patent and Trademark Office's decision to cancel its Climate Change Mitigation pilot program for patents has not gone unnoticed in Canada. For Canadian policymakers and agri-tech innovators, this move by the United States raises two big questions: (1) How might this affect Canada&rsquo;s own intellectual property&nbsp; strategy for green tech, and (2) could it create opportunities for Canada (and others) to take the lead in certain climate-tech domains?
A particular area of interest is carbon-capture agri-tech, technologies that help farming not just reduce emissions but actively capture carbon (for instance, special crops or soil treatments that lock away carbon dioxide or farm machinery that traps greenhouse gases). These innovations are crucial for meeting climate goals and could become a competitive arena internationally.

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part IV

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part IV: Shifting Gears: How the United States' Exit from Climate Protection Fuels Canada's IP Advantage

Across the Atlantic, the European Union (EU) and its member states have also been encouraging climate-resilient agri-tech innovation, but their approach to intellectual property incentives has been a bit different. The European Union has set ambitious climate goals (like achieving climate neutrality by 2050) and launched the European Green Deal, a broad policy agenda to support sustainable technologies. While funding and regulations (such as support for sustainable farming practices) are big parts of the EU strategy, there is also recognition that IP rights play an important role in fostering innovation. However, unlike Canada or the recent US pilot program, Europe has not implemented a unified “green channel” for patent examination at the European Patent Office.

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part III

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part III: Green Without the Label: Europe's Pragmatic IP Approach to Agri-Tech Innovation

Steven L. Major KC

Commercial Dispute, Construction, Fraud, Police and Personal Injury Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Drew C. Broughton

Corporate Commercial and M&A Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Kevin Myson

Corporate, Commercial Transaction, Energy, Natural Resource and M&A Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Canada is navigating a "wild frontier" in the energy industry, with a unique opportunity to forge successful and sustainable partnerships both domestically and internationally. This was the rallying call at the Energy Business Forum during the 74th Canadian Energy Executive Association (CEEA) conference in Banff, Alberta, where industry leaders gathered to share visions for the future of Canada's energy landscape.

Key Takeaways From the Wild Frontier Energy Business Forum CEEA 74

Key Takeaways From the "Wild Frontier" Energy Business Forum at CEEA '74

Melanie Teetaert

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Jennifer (Jenn) K. Choi

Associate

Maruska Giacchetto

This article examines the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in J.P. Thomson Architects Ltd. v Greater Essex County District School Board, 2025 ONCA 378, which provides critical clarification on the interpretation of multi-step dispute resolution (MSDR) clauses. MSDR clauses, commonly used in commercial contracts, outline escalating steps such as negotiation, mediation, and arbitration to resolve disputes. The Court addressed ambiguities in the drafting of MSDR timelines, emphasizing that specified timeframes should be interpreted as minimum waiting periods rather than strict deadlines. The decision overturned a lower court ruling that barred a party from arbitration due to a perceived failure to meet a 30-day mediation request deadline. This article highlights the importance of precise drafting in MSDR clauses, discusses the implications of the Court's decision, and provides practical guidance for parties drafting or negotiating dispute resolution provisions in commercial agreements.

Do you need to rush to mediate - Ontario Court of Appeal

Do You Need to Rush to Mediate? Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies Interpretation of Multi-Step Dispute Resolution Clause

Stephen Sibold Quoted in The Lawyers Weekly

From the Same Authors