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

Stephen D. Burns

Technology Lawyer, Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner, Trademark Agent

Curtis A. Cusinato

Cross-border Mergers and Acquisitions and Capital Markets Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Vice Chair and Partner

Vincent M. de Grandpré

Intellectual Property Litigation and Strategy Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

Eighteen Bennett Jones lawyers are ranked in the July 2025 <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.lexpert.ca/special-editions/health-sciences-law" target="_blank">Lexpert Special Edition: Health Sciences</a>. The annual feature profiles Lexpert-ranked lawyers in Health Sciences and related practices.

Eighteen Bennett Jones Lawyers Ranked in Lexperts Special Edition on Health Sciences

Eighteen Bennett Jones Lawyers Ranked in Lexpert's Special Edition on Health Sciences

Katherine Booth

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Lamont Bartlett

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Gannon Beaulne

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Thirty-seven Bennett Jones lawyers have been recognized in the <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://benchmarklitigation.com/Firm/Bennett-Jones/Profile/111070#lawyers" target="_blank">Benchmark Canada</a><a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://benchmarklitigation.com/Firm/Bennett-Jones/Profile/111070#lawyers" target="_blank"> 2025 rankings</a>, including 30 Litigation Stars and 10 Future Stars. Five of our lawyers were also named among the Top 50 Trial Lawyers in Canada.

Bennett Jones Lawyers Named Among Canadas Top Litigators By Benchmark Canada

Bennett Jones Lawyers Named Among Canada's Top Litigators By Benchmark Canada

James J. Heelan KC

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

James Heelan spoke at The Advocates’ Society program on Litigating Contract Disputes.

James Heelan at The Advocates Society

Litigating Contract Disputes

Laura Inglis

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

Lorelei Graham

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

The United States Patent and Trademark Office's decision to cancel its Climate Change Mitigation pilot program for patents has not gone unnoticed in Canada. For Canadian policymakers and agri-tech innovators, this move by the United States raises two big questions: (1) How might this affect Canada&rsquo;s own intellectual property&nbsp; strategy for green tech, and (2) could it create opportunities for Canada (and others) to take the lead in certain climate-tech domains?
A particular area of interest is carbon-capture agri-tech, technologies that help farming not just reduce emissions but actively capture carbon (for instance, special crops or soil treatments that lock away carbon dioxide or farm machinery that traps greenhouse gases). These innovations are crucial for meeting climate goals and could become a competitive arena internationally.

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part IV

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part IV: Shifting Gears: How the United States' Exit from Climate Protection Fuels Canada's IP Advantage

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

University of Alberta, Faculty of Law :
Seminar Series

Authors


Bennett Jones Speaking Engagement University of Alberta, Faculty of Law : Seminar Series February 23, 2009 Authors James J. Heelan KCPartner James Heelan, Q.C. will be a guest lecturer on the topic of Contemporary Issues in Health Law. 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 • 780.917.4275 • heelanj@bennettjones.com

University of Alberta, Faculty of Law : Seminar Series

Authors

University of Alberta, Faculty of Law :
Seminar Series