People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Manage Cookies

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Payments

Legal

Calgary

Toronto

Edmonton

Ottawa

Vancouver

New York

Montréal

Amanda C. McLachlan

Corporate & Regulatory Lawyer | Disputes, Investigations & Compliance

Partner

In Friel v. HUB International Limited, 2026 ONCA 313, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the enforceability of a forum selection clause designating the State of Delaware as the exclusive forum for resolving a dispute between a former employee in Ontario and his employer's Delaware-based parent entities over the exercise of vested share options. The decision provides important guidance for employers that structure equity incentive arrangements through related entities and reinforces the significance of clear contractual language delineating employment relationships from equity participation rights.

When Agreements Collide The Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Forum Selection Provision in Friel v HUB

When Agreements Collide — The Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Forum Selection Provision in Friel v. HUB

Kristopher R. Hanc

M&A and Capital Markets Lawyer

John Lawless

Corporate & Securities Lawyer | Private Equity

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

Securities & Commercial Litigation Lawyer | Shareholder Disputes

Vice Chair and Partner

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 

Shaan P. Tolani

Corporate Litigation & Investigations Lawyer

Associate

In recent years, the OSC and other regulatory bodies began signaling to public markets that regulators intended to crack down on what they termed abusive short-sellers. Against this backdrop, the OSC brought enforcement proceedings before the Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal (CMT) naming Cormark Securities Inc., Saline Investments Ltd., and individuals as respondents. The proceedings focused on an alleged illegal and abusive short selling scheme. At the conclusion of a lengthy hearing on the merits, the CMT dismissed all of the OSC’s allegations.

Short Selling Structure not Abusive Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal Dismisses OSC Allegations

Short-Selling Structure Not Abusive—Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal Dismisses OSC Allegations in High-Profile Enforcement Proceeding

Dominique T. Hussey

Chief Executive Officer and Intellectual Property Litigator, Pharma/Biotech and Trademark Lawyer

Chief Executive Officer

Vincent M. de Grandpré

IP Lawyer | Life Sciences & Tech

Emily P. Kettel

Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner, Trademark Agent

In Pharmascience v. Janssen Inc., the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed that methods of medical treatment remain unpatentable subject matter under the Patent Act because they are directed to the professional skill and judgment of healthcare practitioners. At the same time, the Court upheld the patentability of the dosing regimen claims at issue, clarifying that not all therapeutic or treatment-related claims constitute unpatentable methods of medical treatment. The decision provides important guidance on assessing patent eligibility for pharmaceutical and life sciences innovations in Canada.

Supreme Court of Canada Reaffirms that  Methods of Medical Treatment are Unpatentable

Supreme Court of Canada Confirms That Medical Professional Skill and Judgment Are Excluded From the Patent Bargain

Ethan Z. Schiff

Class Actions & Commercial Litigation Lawyer

Evana Yukanna

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Ontario court denies a late class action opt-out request, reinforcing settlement finality and confirming prejudice can arise before court approval.

Ontario Court Reinforces Finality of Class Proceedings in Rejecting Late Opt Out Request

Ontario Court Reinforces Finality of Class Proceedings in Rejecting Late Opt-Out Request

Martin Ignasiak KC

Energy & Industrial Projects Lawyer

Head of Energy Regulatory

Tyler McDonough

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Logan Lazurko

Energy & Regulatory Lawyer | Environmental

On June 17, 2026, the Alberta Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed an appeal by Fort McMurray 468 First Nation challenging an Alberta Energy Regulator decision that the First Nation lacked standing to request regulatory appeals of approvals issued to AdhMor Ltd. for an oilfield waste management facility near Fort McMurray. The decision in Fort McMurray 468 First Nation v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2026 ABCA 197, offers important guidance on what it takes to get in the door at the AER.

Alberta Court of Appeal Confirms Cumulative Effects are no Substitute for Evidence

No Standing Without Specifics: Alberta Court of Appeal Confirms that Cumulative Effects are no Substitute for Evidence

Wesley R. Novotny

Corporate Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Wade Ritchie

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Zachary Thacker

In the April 28, 2026 Spring Economic Update, the federal government announced its intention to make permanent the C$10 million capital gains exemption available on certain sales of businesses to employee ownership trusts and worker cooperatives, which exemption was previously set to expire at the end of 2026. This amendment has now passed into law as part of Bill C-30, which received Royal Assent on June 18, 2026.

Capital Gains Exemption Made Permanent for Employee Ownership Trusts

A Major Boost for Canadian Business Succession

C$10 Million Capital Gains Exemption Made Permanent for Employee Ownership Trusts 

Curtis A. Cusinato

Vice Chair and Co-Head of M&A

Vice Chair and Co-Head of Mergers & Acquisitions

Tyler B. McAuley

Corporate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Kevin Myson

Energy & Corporate Lawyer | M&A, Natural Resources & Transport

Canada&rsquo;s M&amp;A market remained resilient through the first half of 2026, with deal activity increasingly concentrated in large, strategically important transactions despite ongoing economic and geopolitical uncertainty. This quarterly update explores the sectors driving Canadian M&amp;A, including energy, digital infrastructure and real estate, and examines how policy developments, AI-related demand and shifting investment priorities are shaping dealmaking trends. It also highlights key opportunities and considerations for investors as activity is expected to accelerate in the second half of the year.

Constitutional, Civil Liberties and Human Rights Law

From the Same Authors