People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Legal

Calgary

Toronto

Edmonton

Ottawa

Vancouver

New York

Montréal

James J. Heelan KC

Commercial/Securities Litigation, Employment and Professional Negligence Lawyer and Mediator at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Partner

Laura Inglis

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Sarah J. Huot

Litigation, Professional Negligence, Health, Employment and Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Employee restrictive covenants are often a contentious issue, especially when employees leave to form (or join) competing firms. A recent Alberta Court of King’s Bench decision, People Corporation v Quinn et al. (<a rel="noopener noreferrer" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2024/2024abkb711/2024abkb711.html" target="_blank">2024 ABKB 711</a>), offers valuable insights into how courts balance the enforceability of restrictive covenants, employee rights, and employer interests. This case revolves around allegations of breach of restrictive covenants and the legal intricacies involved in assessing their validity.

Legal Precedent on Restrictive Covenants in Employment Agreements A Case Study

Legal Precedent on Restrictive Covenants in Employment Agreements—A Case Study

Matt Riskin

Commercial Litigation, Health and Employment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Varun Kapoor

Corporate Commercial Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Associate

When only some of the defendants to a lawsuit want to settle, Pierringer agreements can be an attractive solution. However, in a recent decision that adopted principles from Ontario jurisprudence, the Court of King's Bench of Alberta confirmed that failure to promptly disclose a Pierringer agreement can have dire consequences for the action.

Alberta Court of Kings Bench Confirms Requirement for Immediate Disclosure of Pierringer Agreements

Alberta Court of King's Bench Confirms Requirement for Immediate Disclosure of Pierringer Agreements

Denise Brunsdon

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner, Trademark Agent

On September 29, 2022, the members of the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada and of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada announced that they have approved the amalgamation of their respective self-regulatory organizations, subject to certain conditions outlined in their combination agreement.

Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada Announces Amalgamation with Investment Industry

Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada Announces Amalgamation with Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada

Amy Verhoeff

Corporate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

James Heelan and Amy Deprato write in Alberta Heavy on Bill 37 and Alberta's new payment and lien requirements in the construction industry.

Bill 37 New Year New Payment and Lien Requirements

Bill 37: New Year, New Payment and Lien Requirements in the Alberta Construction Industry

Kwang Lim

Corporate and Securities Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Vancouver Managing Partner

Angela Blake

M&A, Securities and Corporate Finance Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Laura James

Corporate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

M&amp;A activity in Canada rebounded in Q3 2025, with total deal value rising sharply year-over-year. Our update explores shifting deal structures, the rise of earnouts, cross-border dynamics, and the sectors driving growth.

Canadas Q3 2025 MA Landscape

Canada's Q3 2025 M&A Landscape

Lorelei Graham

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

Dominique Carli

Commercial Transactions Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Wittington Investments has launched a C$100 million fund to support Canadian food producers with equity or debt financing. Success depends on legal readiness, from IP protection to governance, ensuring businesses are prepared to attract and secure investment.

Legal Readiness for Food Producers Navigating Wittington Investments C100M Fund

Legal Readiness for Food Producers: Navigating Wittington Investments’ C$100M Fund

Kees de Ridder

Intellectual Property Lawyer, Patent Agent and Trademark Agent at Bennett Jones Calgary

Associate, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent

Benjamin K. Reingold

Intellectual Property Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Stephen D. Burns

Technology Lawyer, Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear Pharmascience Inc v Janssen Inc on October 9, 2025, a case that could reshape the scope of patentable subject matter in Canada. At issue is whether a dosing regimen for a pharmaceutical product constitutes an unpatentable method of medical treatment or a valid invention under the Patent Act. The Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal upheld the patent&rsquo;s validity, but Pharmascience has challenged this position. With several industry groups granted intervenor status, the case is expected to have significant implications not only for the pharmaceutical industry but also for broader questions of what qualifies as an &ldquo;invention,&rdquo; including computer-implemented and AI-related technologies.

Supreme Court to Assess Subject Matter Eligibility in Canadian

Supreme Court to Assess Subject Matter Eligibility in Canadian Patent Law: Implications Beyond the Pharmaceutical Context

AI is transforming performance marketing through hyper-personalization, automated content creation, and data-driven insights&mdash;enhancing efficiency while raising new legal and ethical considerations for brands.

The Implications of AI on Performance Marketing

Sean Zweig

Restructuring, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Andrew Froh

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

James Atkinson

Articling Student at Bennett Jones 

Articling Student          

A recent decision of the US Bankruptcy Court in Re: Iovate Health Sciences International Inc. provides important insights for Canadian companies involved in cross-border restructurings. The case addresses how debtor companies can rebut the presumption that their &ldquo;center of main interests&rdquo; (COMI) is located at their registered office when seeking Chapter 15 recognition in the United States. Chief Judge Glenn reaffirmed that COMI is determined by a non-exhaustive set of factors, including management, assets, creditors and creditor expectations, and may also be influenced by pre-filing restructuring activities.

Understanding and Complying with Your Duty to Accommodate

Authors


Bennett Jones Speaking Engagement Understanding and Complying with Your Duty to Accommodate April 29, 2009 Authors James J. Heelan KCPartner At the conference Understanding and Complying with Your Duty to Accommodate, James Heelan, Q.C. will present a seminar on Understanding the Facts of Undue Hardship. Topics included in the seminar include: understanding legislative requirements for accommodation strategies for when you can no longer accommodate someone when is termination a legal and legitimate option? employee rights vs. employer rights: establishing the threshold for undue hardship For more information on this conference, please visit the Infonex website. 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 James J. Heelan KC, Partner • Co-Head of Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver • 780.917.4275 • heelanj@bennettjones.com