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

Simon P. Crawford

Leading Commercial Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

Vanessa Kiraly

Commercial Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate

In Oliva v. Dickson (2025 ONSC 6666), the Ontario Superior Court confirmed that Building Code compliance can be an implied term of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale and a basis for vendor-builder liability in negligence. Even without structural failure or express contractual representations, failing to obtain required permits may breach both contractual and tort duties. The decision is a cautionary reminder that regulatory compliance defines both legal risk and commercial expectations in real estate transactions.

No Permit Big Problems

No Permit, Big Problems: Building Code Compliance,  Implied Terms and Vendor-Builder Liability in Ontario

Dana Talucci

Corporate Commercial Practice at Bennett Jones Toronto

Hennadiy Kutsenko

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Counsel

A court decision on the sale of mixed-use property highlights the risks of failing to allocate purchase price between residential and commercial portions for HST purposes. The ruling underscores the importance of precise drafting and obtaining representations to avoid uncertainty and tax disputes.

Mixed-Use Mixed Signals Why Purchase Price Allocations Matter

Mixed-Use, Mixed Signals: Why Purchase Price Allocations Matter

Samantha Weng

Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Once again, cottage season is upon us—and like the return of the season, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Court) has returned to the well-settled law of adverse possession, which continues to surface in modern property disputes where long-term use of a property by an adjoining owner can sometimes erode the ownership rights of the legal owner.

Lines in the Sand A Case of Adverse Possession from Cottage Country

Lines in the Sand: A Case of Adverse Possession from Cottage Country

Adam Kalbfleisch

Competition & Regulatory Lawyer | Foreign Investment

Alixe A.L. Cameron

Commercial Real Estate Lawyer

Jane C. Helmstadter

The Competition Bureau (Bureau) has released its <a href="https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/en/how-we-foster-competition/education-and-outreach/publications/competitor-property-controls-and-competition-act">finalized property control guidelines</a> (Guidelines) outlining the Bureau's ongoing approach to enforcing competition property controls under the Competition Act (Act). These replace the preliminary guidelines published on August 7, 2024, which were subject to a public consultation process last summer/fall

Breaking Ground The Competition Bureau Weighs in with Final Property Control Guidelines

The Competition Bureau Weighs in with Final Property Control Guidelines

Mark V. Lewis

Commercial Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Jacob Mandrusiak

Corporate Commercial Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

This blog examines the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal&rsquo;s decision in Nova Fish Farms Inc. v. Cold Ocean Salmon Inc., holding that &ldquo;time is of the essence&rdquo; clauses do not apply to contractual obligations framed in indefinite terms such as &ldquo;commercially reasonable efforts.&rdquo; The case highlights the legal limits of TOE clauses absent fixed deadlines and underscores the importance of express outside or longstop dates in allocating timing and termination risk in commercial contracts. The forthcoming Supreme Court of Canada appeal may significantly shape future drafting practices for conditional transactions.

Time Of The Essence Clauses And Indefinite Obligations In Commercial Contracts

Nova Fish Farms Inc. v. Cold Ocean Salmon Inc (2025 NCLA 28)

Time Of The Essence Clauses and Indefinite Obligations In Commercial Contracts

Ahmed Elmallah

Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Counsel, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent

Roseann Caldwell

Canadian and United States Patent Agent at Bennett Jones Calgary

Patent Agent

Stephen D. Burns

Energy & Infrastructure Technology Lawyer | IT/OT & Markets

Partner, Trademark Agent

This update analyzes recent Patent Appeal Board decisions to identify trends in the allowance of fintech and financial services patents in Canada. It shows that patentable claims typically frame innovations as technical solutions&mdash;such as improving computing efficiency or integrating specialized hardware&mdash;rather than purely business methods. These trends align with post-Dusome guidance and provide practical insight into how fintech inventions can meet patent eligibility requirements.

Fintech Patents Allowance Trends At The Canadian Patent Appeal Board

Part 2 Fintech Patents: Allowance Trends At The Canadian Patent Appeal Board

Brendan Sigalet

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Greg M. Johnson

Energy Tax & Corporate Lawyer | M&A, Reorganizations & PE

Luke Morrison

Energy Project Development, M&A, and Commercial Transaction Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

The federal government released the Spring Economic Update (SEU) on April 28, 2026, with the stated purpose of advancing its goal of building a stronger, more independent and resilient Canadian economy. Of particular interest to energy and clean-technology businesses, the SEU introduces several measures aimed at accelerating investment in low-carbon infrastructure.

Spring Economic Update Expands Canadas Carbon Capture Tax Credit Regime

Spring Economic Update Expands Canada's Carbon Capture Tax Credit Regime to Include Enhanced Oil Recovery

This update reviews the Federal Court&rsquo;s *Dusome* decision and CIPO&rsquo;s new guidance on patent eligibility for computer-implemented inventions in Canada. It highlights a shift toward purposive claim construction and clarifies that fintech innovations may be patentable where they demonstrate a practical application or improve computer functionality. The guidance offers greater predictability for applicants, particularly in financial technology contexts. 
<div>&nbsp;</div>

Fintech Patents New Eligibility Guidance In Canada

Part 1 Fintech Patents: New Eligibility Guidance In Canada

Ethan Z. Schiff

Class Actions & Commercial Litigation Lawyer

In Pedersen v. Advanced Bionics LLC, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a medical device class action but restricted damages to direct medical consequences to satisfy Ontario&rsquo;s predominance requirement. The decision reflects the court&rsquo;s willingness to narrow claims and class definitions to align with the province&rsquo;s stricter certification framework. It also signals potential limits on broader damages&mdash;such as socio-economic losses&mdash;where individualized issues would otherwise outweigh common ones.

Ontario Superior Court Limits Damages Claims

Ontario Superior Court Limits Damages Claims in Certifying Personal Injury Medical Device Class Action

Title Alphabetical

Title

normal

Commercial Mortgage Transactions 2015

From the Same Authors

No Permit, Big Problems: Building Code Compliance, Implied Terms and Vendor-Builder Liability in Ontario

Mixed-Use, Mixed Signals: Why Purchase Price Allocations Matter

Lines in the Sand: A Case of Adverse Possession from Cottage Country

Latest Insights

Time Of The Essence Clauses and Indefinite Obligations In Commercial Contracts

Fintech Patents: Allowance Trends At The Canadian Patent Appeal Board

Spring Economic Update Expands Canada's Carbon Capture Tax Credit Regime to Include Enhanced Oil Recovery

Fintech Patents: New Eligibility Guidance In Canada

Stay Informed. Stay Ahead.