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

Lincoln Caylor

Commercial Litigation and Fraud Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner 

Nathan J. Shaheen

Commercial Disputes and Financial Crimes Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

Dylan A. Gallant

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate

The federal government recently introduced <a href="https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-2/first-reading">Bill C-2</a>, which is known as the Strong Borders Act. It maintains certain proposed amendments to the <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2000-c-17/latest/sc-2000-c-17.html">Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act</a> (the "PCMLTFA") introduced in the prior government's 2024 Fall Economic Statement and proposes various additional amendments.

The Strong Borders Act Seeks to Strengthen the Canadian AML Regime

The Strong Borders Act Seeks to Strengthen the Canadian Anti-Money Laundering Regime

Lincoln Caylor and Nathan J. Shaheen explore the evolving evidentiary threshold for Mareva injunctions in Canada in the Q2 2025 issue of Chambers Digest.

Chancery Lanes Chambers Digest

Mareva Injunctions in Canada: Now Easier to Get?

The recent <a rel="noopener noreferrer" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://budget.canada.ca/update-miseajour/2024/report-rapport/FES-EEA-2024-en.pdf" target="_blank">Fall Economic Statement</a> announced the Liberal government’s intention to materially increase the financial (and other) penalties faced by designated individuals and entities doing business in Canada (known as “reporting entities”) that fail to meet the requirements of Canada’s anti-money laundering (AML) regime. While the duration of the Liberal government’s remaining time in power is uncertain, the approach to AML of any Conservative government is unlikely to be less demanding. This is particularly true given the upcoming Mutual Evaluation of Canada by the Financial Action Task Force, which will assess the effectiveness of Canada’s AML regime regardless of the political party in power.

Canada Announces Significantly Increased Penalties for Money Laundering Failures

Sophia DiNicolo

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate 

In its recent decision in <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://canlii.ca/t/k6rj7" target="_blank">Ingram v Kulynych Estate</a>, the Court of Appeal for Ontario clarified the timeline for bringing equitable trust claims against estates, concluding that such claims are subject to the two-year limitation period outlined in s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act, rather than the 10-year limitation period under s. 4 of the Real Property Limitations Act. The decision also affirmed the analytical framework for determining which statutory limitation provision applies.

Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies Limitation Period for Equitable Trust Claims Against Estates

Ontario's Court of Appeal Clarifies Limitation Period for Equitable Trust Claims Against Estates

Edwin G. Kroft KC

Tax Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones

Andrew Young

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Antoine Messervier

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

This January 2026 edition of Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes highlights recent Canadian tax litigation, including key decisions on directors&rsquo; liability limitation periods, arrears interest on reassessments, and compliance orders. The featured cases emphasize the courts&rsquo; focus on statutory interpretation, procedural fairness, and taxpayer diligence, while offering practical guidance for managing dispute risk and financial exposure.

Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes Issue 40 January 2026

Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes: January 2026

Ahmed Elmallah

Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Counsel, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent

Edward (Ted) Yoo

Intellectual Property Lawyer and Canada/US Patent and Trademark Agent at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Partner, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent

Lorelei Graham

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

How an AI system is commercialized and deployed also affects whether patent protection is appropriate. In many cases, the degree of control retained by the provider over the deployed system acts as a counterweight to other considerations that might otherwise favor trade secret protection.

AI Patents A Corporate Decision Tool IV

The Business Delivery Model

AI: Is Patenting Really the Right Move? - Factor IV

This article forms one part of a broader decision framework for evaluating whether patent or trade secret protection is appropriate for AI innovation.&nbsp;The framework is designed to help decision-makers (e.g., innovaters, in house, CTOs) align patent and IP strategy with underlying business realities and moving beyond purely "legal" considerations.&nbsp;
Within that framework, this article addresses a second decision factor: what is the realistic patent scope for the AI innovation?&nbsp;An AI patent with meaningful scope can block competitors from implementing commercially viable alternatives. Assessing enforceable scope therefore requires focusing on some of the following factors: (a) competitor blocking potential; (b) detectability of infringement; and (c) divided infringement.

AI Patents A Corporate Decision Tool II

The Enforceable Patent Scope

AI: Is Patenting Really the Right Move? - Factor II

Defensive blocking considers whether a patent can prevent others from patenting or controlling adjacent technical or commercial space. It matters for two main reasons: (i) to stop competitors from obtaining patents that could later restrict your ability to operate, and (ii) to provide leverage for counter-assertion if a competitor brings a patent claim against you.

AI Patents A Corporate Decision Tool VI

Competitor Defensive Positioning

AI: Is Patenting Really the Right Move? - Factor VI

Finally, and most importantly, patentable potential addresses whether the innovation is likely to satisfy the main requirements for patentability: novelty, non-obviousness and subject-matter requirements. This assessment is highly fact-specific and depends on the prior art landscape and how the invention is framed. Early analysis helps determine whether patent protection is realistic and worth pursuing.

Take Care Not to Surrender Legal Privilege

Authors


Bennett Jones Speaking Engagement Take Care Not to Surrender Legal Privilege May 5, 2015 Authors Nathan J. ShaheenPartner Maureen Ward and Nathan Shaheen present "Take Care Not to Surrender Legal Privilege" at The Association of Certified Forensic Investigators of Canada 17th Annual Fraud Conference. Share by Email Social Media Download Download Subscribe Republishing Requests For permission to republish this or any other publication, contact Peter Zvanitajs at ZvanitajsP@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 Nathan J. Shaheen, Partner Toronto • 416.777.7306 • shaheenn@bennettjones.com