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

Jessica B. Horwitz

International Trade Lawyer, Customs Lawyer, Regulatory Lawyer, Anti-Corruption and Economic Sanctions Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

Sabrina A. Bandali

International Trade, Regulatory and Investment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

George W. H. Reid

International Trade, Investment and Public Procurement Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

On June 13, 2025, the Government of Canada registered three significant packages of amendments to the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations (the Regulations) under SOR/2025-141, SOR/2025-142, and SOR/2025-143. Officially announced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on June 17, 2025, following the G7 Leaders’ Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, these measures represent a major escalation in Canada's economic pressure campaign against the Russian Federation.

Canada Unveils Sweeping New Russia Sanctions Targeting Trade Sanctions Evasion and Key Industries

Canada Unveils Sweeping New Russia Sanctions Targeting Trade, Sanctions Evasion and Key Industries

<a href="/sitecore/service/notfound.aspx?item=core%3a%7b3D4F7C0F-58B7-4687-BECA-302769BEB9BB%7d%40en">Jessica Horwitz</a> speaks with <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-carney-canada-us-trade-strategy-shifting/" target="_blank">The Globe and Mail</a> about how Canada’s countertariffs continue to hurt many importers, with recent clarifications further narrowing the eligibility for exemptions. Whatever happens next, as Mr. Carney and his team weigh the pros and cons of fighting back against Mr. Trump or playing nice, she said the government needs to get better at communicating.

From retaliation to negotiation How Canadas US trade strategy is shifting under Carney

From Retaliation to Negotiation: How Canada's US Trade Strategy is Shifting Under Carney

Alison G. FitzGerald

International Arbitration Lawyer at Bennett Jones Ottawa

It has been a tumultuous spring for businesses involved in trade between Canada and the United States. This blog rounds up the latest frequently asked questions on Canada-US tariffs, including revised guidance issued on May 20, 2025 by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) that clarifies the agency's interpretation of the exemptions from surtaxes on importations of US goods.

How Do I Get Out of This

How Do I Get Out of This? New Guidance on Eligibility for Tariff Remissions and Support Programs for Canadian Businesses

Jessica Horwitz spoke at the 2025 ABA International Law Section Annual Conference in New York on the panel Understanding the America First Trade Policy and Its Implications for Global Supply Chains.

Jessica Horowitz on America First Trade Policy at ABA 2025

Jessica Horwitz Discusses Trade Policy at ABA International Conference

Lorelei Graham

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

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

The United States has long been a major player in both agri-tech innovation and the intellectual property (IP) landscape. In the past, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) offered its own version of a green patent fast-track to encourage climate-friendly inventions. Notably, in 2009 to 2011 the USPTO ran a Green Technology Pilot Program that prioritized examination for certain eco-friendly patents. The pilot ended in 2012, but more recently the USPTO brought back the idea in June 2022, with the Climate Change Mitigation Pilot Program, which was essentially an accelerated examination program for patent applications directed to fight climate change. Under this program, inventions designed to reduce or monitor greenhouse gas emissions, including many clean energy, sustainability or climate-smart agriculture innovations, could be examined out of turn. Importantly, like Canada’s program, the US pilot did not charge the usual petition fee for expediting. The goal was to spur green tech by making it faster and cheaper to secure IP rights.

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part II

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part II: Innovation Interrupted: What the End of the USPTO's Green Program Means for Agri-Tech

Climate change is driving a surge in agricultural technology (agri-tech) innovations aimed at making farming more resilient and sustainable. From drought-resistant crops to carbon-capturing soil techniques, these climate-focused agri-tech solutions are crucial for global food security. An often-overlooked piece of this puzzle is intellectual property (IP) strategy, namely how patents and other IP rights are used to protect and incentivize innovation.

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part I

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part I: Planting the Future: Why Canada's IP System May Be the Climate Innovation Sleeper Hit

Jessica Horwitz on How CUSMA Differs From NAFTA

Authors


Bennett Jones Speaking Engagement Jessica Horwitz on How CUSMA Differs From NAFTA July 21, 2020 Authors Jessica B. HorwitzPartner Jessica Horwitz will speak at the DC Bar's webinar, Understanding the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) and How It Differs from NAFTA. Significant differences between the two agreements include rules of origin for automobiles, market access provisions relating to agricultural products, and IP rights protection. The CUSMA also includes chapters relating to subjects that were not addressed in NAFTA, including ones pertaining to anti-corruption, digital trade, and good regulatory practices. Jessica and her fellow speakers will discuss the similarities and differences between the CUSMA and NAFTA, and offer their insights on the wide-ranging implications for Canada, the United States and Mexico. Share by Email Social Media Download Download Subscribe Republishing Requests For permission to republish this or any other publication, contact Amrita Kochhar at kochhara@bennettjones.com. For informational purposes only This publication provides an overview of legal trends and updates for informational purposes only. For personalized legal advice, please contact the authors. Authors Jessica B. Horwitz, Partner Toronto • 416.777.6517 • horwitzj@bennettjones.com