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

Katherine J. Fisher

Health Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Counsel

Natasha O.Q. Laffin

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Associate

In an eight to one split decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has rendered its long-anticipated judgment regarding delay in administrative proceedings in <a href="https://canlii.ca/t/jqbs7">Law Society of Saskatchewan v Abrametz</a>. In its decision, the SCC concluded that, unlike in criminal proceedings, delay alone will not constitute an abuse of process warranting a stay in administrative proceedings.

The Supreme Court of Canada Renders its Decision in Abrametz

Delay, without More, will not Warrant a Stay in Administrative Proceedings

As we await the Supreme Court of Canada's (SCC) anticipated decision in the appeal of Abrametz v Law Society of Saskatchewan, 2020 SKCA 81, leave to appeal to SCC granted, No 39340, it is opportune to review the current state of the law regarding delay amounting to an abuse of process in administrative proceedings, and to highlight why the SCC may be inclined to update such law.

Abuse of Process in Administrative Proceedings May Cause a Shift in the Law

Lincoln Caylor

Commercial Litigation and Fraud Lawyer

Partner 

Jim Schmidt

Partner

Lincoln Caylor and Jim Schmidt provide comments on&nbsp;H.M.B. Holdings Limited v. Replay Resorts Inc. in the British Columbia edition of&nbsp;Take Five, a newsletter of OnPoint Legal Research.
Lincoln and Jim were counsel for the appellants.

BC Take Five July 2018

Lincoln Caylor and Jim Schmidt on H.M.B. Holdings Limited v. Replay Resorts Inc.

Is the Test for Mareva Injunctions Freezing Orders Too Stringent

Is the Test for Mareva Injunctions/Freezing Orders Too Stringent?

J. Sébastien A. Gittens

Technology Lawyer & Trademark Agent

Partner, Trademark Agent

Caroline Poirier

IT, Privacy & Data Protection Lawyer

Stephen D. Burns

Energy & Infrastructure Technology Lawyer | IT/OT & Markets

Earlier this month, the federal government introduced the proposed federal Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act (PPCDA) &ndash; a signal that Canada&rsquo;s private-sector privacy landscape may undergo significant transformation imminently. To assist organizations that conduct business in Canada with their potential compliance efforts with respect thereto, the following is intended to provide a non-exhaustive, high-level comparison between: (i) the PPCDA; (ii) Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA); (iii) Qu&eacute;bec&rsquo;s Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector (the Qu&eacute;bec Privacy Act, as amended by Law 25); and (iv) the Personal Information Protection Acts of Alberta and British Columbia (collectively, the PIPAs).

A Comparison of the PPCDA PIPEDA Quebecs Privacy Act and PIPA

A Comparison of the PPCDA, PIPEDA, Quebec's Privacy Act and PIPA

Adam W. Taylor

Corporate Commercial Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Matthew Flynn

Technology Transaction Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Simon Grant

Financial Services & Regulatory Lawyer

Canada's proposed Consumer-Driven Banking Regulations provide the first detailed framework for implementing the country's open banking regime, setting out requirements for accreditation, security, consent, data sharing and ongoing compliance. The proposed regulations also highlight the growing connection between consumer-driven banking and privacy reform, particularly as Canada advances broader data mobility rights. Organizations should assess the potential impact of the framework and consider participating in the current consultation process. 
<div>&nbsp;</div>

Canada Advances Consumer Driven Banking Framework with Proposed Regulations

Canada Advances Consumer-Driven Banking Framework with Proposed Regulations

Ruth E. Promislow

Privacy, Cybersecurity & AI Lawyer

On June 4th, 2026, the federal government released Canada&rsquo;s National Artificial Intelligence Strategy: AI for All (the Strategy). The Strategy aims to ensure that artificial intelligence serves Canadians, strengthens businesses and communities and enhances Canada&rsquo;s control over its technological future through six key pillars.

Canadas AI for All Strategy Building Trust Innovation and Sovereignty in the Era of AI

Canada’s AI for All Strategy: Building Trust, Innovation and Sovereignty in the Era of AI

Robert W. Staley

Securities & Commercial Litigation Lawyer | Shareholder Disputes

Vice Chair and Partner

Doug Fenton

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice&rsquo;s decision in Nivora Group LLC v. Ping et al. clarifies the strict limits on Norwich orders in the context of crypto asset disputes. The Court dismissed a motion seeking third-party disclosure from cryptocurrency exchanges, reaffirming that Norwich relief is an extraordinary remedy available only where it is truly necessary and cannot be used to replace ordinary discovery. Even in cases involving alleged asset tracing, applicants must demonstrate that the third party is the only practicable source of the information and that the interests of justice favour disclosure.

Court Reaffirms Limits on Norwich Orders in Crypto Asset Disputes

The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Chanderpaul v. Caesars Convention Centre Ltd. clarifies when courts may pierce the corporate veil and hold shareholders personally liable for a corporation's wrongful conduct. While reaffirming the high threshold for veil-piercing claims, the decision provides important guidance on the types of conduct that may justify this exceptional remedy.

Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Test for Piercing the Corporate Veil

Title Alphabetical

Title

normal

Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

From the Same Authors