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

Jared A. Mackey

Corporate Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner

Wade Ritchie

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Associate

The principal purpose test in the OECD Multilateral Instrument has attracted significant academic attention but, until now, no judicial commentary.&nbsp; In this article, Jared Mackey and Wade Ritchie take a deep dive into what is understood to be the world&rsquo;s first decision on the principal purpose test: SC Lowy P.I. (Lux) S.A.R.L., Luxembourg v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, decided by the Delhi Bench of India's Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.&nbsp;

Jared Mackey and Wade Ritchie Analyze the SC Lowy Case

Jared Mackey and Wade Ritchie Analyze the SC Lowy Case—A Landmark Ruling on the MLI Principal Purpose Test

Article 4(1) of Canada’s income tax treaties defines a “resident” of a Contracting State to mean a person who is subject to comprehensive tax in that State “by reason of” various criteria, such as domicile, residence, place of management or any other criterion of a similar nature.

Deemed US Corporation not a US Treaty Resident

Deemed U.S. Corporation not a U.S. Treaty Resident: HRMC v. GE Financial Investments Ltd.

Marshall R. Haughey

Subparagraph 20(1)(c)(ii) provides for the deduction of interest on amounts payable for property acquired to produce income from that property or from a business. Although the provision is relied upon frequently, there is limited guidance on its application in many common commercial scenarios, including asset acquisitions, intercompany financings, refinancings, and corporate reorganizations.&nbsp;

Jared Mackey and Marshall Haughey Examine the Limits of Interest Deductibility

Jared Mackey and Marshall Haughey Examine the Limits of Interest Deductibility under Subparagraph 20(1)(c)(ii)

Spencer Brown

On October 29, 2024, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/news/newsroom/tax-tips/tax-tips-2024/trust-reporting-for-the-2024-tax-year.html" target="_blank">issued a release</a> stating that it will not require bare trusts to file trust returns for the 2024 tax year, continuing the administrative exemption that was <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/news/newsroom/tax-tips/tax-tips-2024/bare-trusts-exempt-from-trust-reporting-requirements-2023.html" target="_blank">granted for the 2023 tax year</a>. The CRA's recent announcement follows on the heels of <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://fin.canada.ca/drleg-apl/2024/ita-lir-0824-l-3-eng.html" target="_blank">proposed amendments</a> to the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the Proposed Amendments) released in August that, among things, would provide targeted reporting relief for bare trusts meeting certain criteria.

CRA Relief and Proposed Amendments Mitigate Bare Trust Reporting Burden on Energy Companies

Christine Plante

Employment Lawyer | HR Legal Counsel

Sara G. Parchello

Employment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Tami Oguntona

Articling Student at Bennett Jones in Calgary 

Articling Student 

Bill C-31 proposes significant amendments to the Canada Labour Code that would prohibit most post-employment non-compete clauses and potentially other employment-related restrictions in federally regulated workplaces. While the legislation has not yet been enacted, employers should begin assessing the potential impact of the proposed changes, including the limited exemptions available for certain business transactions and senior executive roles.

Restricting Covenants in Federal Workplaces

Proposed Updates to Canada Labour Code Expected To Prohibit Post-Employment Restrictive Covenants

Ruth E. Promislow

Privacy, Cybersecurity & AI Lawyer

Caroline Poirier

IT, Privacy & Data Protection Lawyer

Suzie Suliman

Commercial Transactions Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate, Trademark Agent

The 2025 GPEN Sweep highlights growing global scrutiny of how digital platforms handle children&rsquo;s personal information, revealing increased data collection alongside limited safeguards. While improvements have been made in areas such as account deletion, significant gaps remain in effective age assurance, transparency, and protective design. The findings signal that regulators are likely to intensify guidance and enforcement efforts to better protect children&rsquo;s privacy online.

Global Privacy Sweep Highlights Growing Expectations for Childrens Privacy Online

Global Privacy Sweep Highlights Growing Expectations for Children's Privacy Online

Nina Butz

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Jackson Spencer

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

This article highlights recent decisions demonstrating courts&rsquo; strict approach to certifying privacy class actions in Canada. It shows how failures to establish an identifiable class, viable claims, or compensable harm can be fatal at certification. The rulings reaffirm courts&rsquo; gatekeeping role and signal continued challenges for plaintiffs advancing privacy-based claims.

Courts show Continued Commitment to Closely Scrutinizing Proposed Privacy Class Actions

Recent Decisions Reinforce Certification Challenges

Courts Continue Close Scrutiny of Privacy Class Actions

Emrys Davis

Competition & Antitrust Litigation Lawyer

Ana Nizharadze

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

This article examines the growing wave of drip pricing class actions following recent amendments to the Competition Act. It analyzes key Federal Court decisions that clarify how courts assess &ldquo;unattainable prices,&rdquo; fixed and obligatory fees, and damages at the certification stage. With several appeals and new cases underway, these rulings offer early guidance on how disclosure obligations may evolve in 2026 and beyond.

From First Price to Final Cost Drip Pricing Cases on the Rise

"Drip Pricing" Cases on the Rise

From First Price to Final Cost

Lukas VanDusen

Competition & Antitrust Lawyer | Foreign Investment

This article reviews the Competition Tribunal&rsquo;s first decision interpreting the new public interest standing provisions under the Competition Act. It establishes a three-part test for leave and emphasizes the need for a strong evidentiary record, including a viable litigation plan and demonstrated capacity to pursue complex claims. The decision underscores the Tribunal&rsquo;s gatekeeping role while providing guidance for future applicants and respondents.

Mandatory Disclosure Rules Recent Developments

From the Same Authors