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

Denise D. Bright

Public and Private Company Financial Transactions and Securities Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner 

Keely Cameron

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner

Chyna Brown

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary 

Associate

In Royal Bank of Canada v Patterson Dental Canada Inc, the Alberta Court of Appeal clarified how PPSA priority rules apply where assets used in a corporate business are personally owned by a director. The Court confirmed that ownership and registration against the correct debtor are decisive in priority disputes, and provided guidance on the treatment of leases and the proper distribution of holdbacks in insolvency sales.

Alberta Court of Appeal Clarifies PPSA Priorities in Insolvency Sales

Luke Morrison

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

Years after an insolvency proceeding is closed, can a solvent co-lessee/working interest participant (WIP) still be on the hook for their former partner’s share of unpaid Crown royalties? A recent Alberta Court of Appeal decision to allow an appeal in <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2025/2025abca181/2025abca181.html">Spartan Delta Corp v Alberta (Energy and Minerals), 2025 ABCA 181</a> [Spartan Delta], raises concerns around whether the answer to such question can be 'yes'. The oil and gas industry is closely tracking the outcome of this appeal (anticipated to be heard in Fall 2025) on the basis that if the appeal were to be granted it would create uncertainty for upstream oil & gas joint interest owners as to the impact of insolvency proceedings on existing liabilities (and would have implications for purchasers and WIPs alike in relation to oil & gas M&A out of insolvency proceedings).

Spartan Delta Corp

Spartan Delta Appeal Raises Uncertainty for Co-Lessees After Insolvency

Kelsey J. Meyer

Commercial Litigation, Bankruptcy, Insolvency and Restructuring Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

In late May, the Supreme Court of Canada (the SCC) denied an application for leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal of Alberta, which, in turn, had denied leave to appeal of the decision of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta in Re Mantle Materials Group, Ltd, 2023 ABKB 488 (Mantle KB). The decision in Mantle KB held that the interests of secured creditors are subordinate to environmental obligations pursuant to the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, thus confirming that the priority of environmental obligations determined by the SCC in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd, 2019 SCC 5 applies beyond the oil and gas industry.

Supreme Court of Canada Dismisses Leave on Leave in Mantle Materials Group The Priority

Supreme Court of Canada Dismisses Leave-on-Leave in Mantle Materials Group: The Priority of Environmental Obligations Extends Beyond the Oil & Gas Industry

Michael D. Mysak

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

A recent <a rel="noopener noreferrer" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2024/2024abca139/2024abca139.html" target="_blank">decision </a>out of the Alberta Court of Appeal found that as soon as a company handed over their investigative reports to regulators in connection with a pipeline incident, privilege over the reports was lost.

Submitting an Incident Response Report to a Regulator Consider Privilege Waived

Submitting an Incident Response Report to a Regulator? Consider Privilege Waived

Christine A. Viney

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Margaret (Meg) Bennett

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Kaamil Khalfan

The Supreme Court of Canada&rsquo;s decision in Emond v Trillium Mutual Insurance Co clarifies how insurance policies are interpreted when endorsements enhancing coverage conflict with policy exclusions. The Court confirmed that a guaranteed rebuilding cost endorsement does not extend coverage to costs expressly excluded, highlighting potential gaps for homeowners and the importance of reviewing policies holistically.

Emond Rebuilding Dreams or Interpreting Realities The Supreme Court Weighs In

Emond: Rebuilding Dreams or Interpreting Realities? The Supreme Court Weighs In

William S. Osler KC

Capital Markets, Securities, M&A and Corporate Governance Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Mia Bacic

Corporate and Securities Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Tinashe Muzah

Articling Student at Bennett Jones in Calgary 

Articling Student

The CSA has finalized amendments and ongoing initiatives to modernize continuous disclosure for investment funds, aimed at streamlining requirements, reducing regulatory burden, and improving investor clarity.

CSA Continues Work to Modernize Continuous Disclosure for Investment Funds

Sarah E. Gilbert

Regulatory, Environmental and Health and Safety Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Julia E. Schatz

Commercial Litigation, Agribusiness, Arbitration, Real Estate, Construction and Environmental Litigation at Bennett Jones Toronto

Gatlin Smeijers

Environmental Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

On December 31, 2025, the Federal Government published the Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2025 under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. When they come into effect on June 30, 2026, the 2025 Regulations will repeal and replace the Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2012. The Federal Government published a proposed version of the 2025 Regulations in 2022 for public consultation.

Federal Government Publishes Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations

Federal Government Publishes Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2025

Drew C. Broughton

Corporate Commercial and M&A Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Audrix Arce

Articling Student 

Recent changes to the Commissioner of Lobbying&rsquo;s interpretation of the federal Lobbying Act significantly lower the threshold for mandatory lobbyist registration. As of January 2026, organizations may be required to register if employees collectively spend as little as eight hours lobbying within a four-week period, including preparation and written communications. This update has important compliance implications for corporations and other organizations engaging with federal public office holders.

Expanded Federal Lobbyist Registration Requirements

Melanie L. Aitken

Global Antitrust and Competition Law and Litigation Advisor at Bennett Jones Washington

Managing Principal, Bennett Jones (US) LLP

Cheryl M. Woodin

Commercial Litigation, Product Liability & Class Actions Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Emrys Davis

Commercial Litigation, Competition and Class Action Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

In Martin v. Alphabet, the Competition Tribunal issued its first decision interpreting the new public-interest pathway for private access under section 103.1(7) of the Competition Act. While affirming an intention to broaden access, the Tribunal articulated a flexible but rigorous three-part framework that places real weight on evidence, genuine interest and the applicant&rsquo;s capacity to prosecute complex competition cases. The decision underscores that public interest alone is insufficient without a coherent, Canada-focused evidentiary record and a credible litigation plan.

Martin v Alphabet Tribunal

Martin v. Alphabet: Tribunal Sets the Public Interest Leave Framework—Evidence and Capacity Now the Gatekeepers

Keely Cameron at Energy Law Fundamental Seminar

From the Same Authors