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

Ethan Z. Schiff

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

Gina Azer

Associate

In Morrison v. Hatts Off Inc. et al., <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc4320/2025onsc4320.html?resultId=8760cfe00fe74ba295dbd14a85eefd84&searchId=2025-08-07T10:20:54:326/6e00332474ec4055bfefdf0fc1a88e76&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQBTImNsYXNzIHByb2NlZWRpbmdzIiBPUiAiY2xhc3MgYWN0aW9uIiBPUiAiYWN0aW9uIGNvbGxlY3RpdmUiIE9SICJyZWNvdXJzIGNvbGxlY3RpZiIAAAAAAQ">2025 ONSC 4320</a>, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declined to order pre-certification discovery of sensitive Children’s Aid Society records in a proposed class action alleging systemic negligence and fiduciary breaches in children’s group homes

Ontario Superior Court Rejects Pre Certification Discovery

Ontario Superior Court Rejects Pre-Certification Discovery in Children's Homes Class Action

Mehak Kawatra

In Voltage Pictures v Robert Salna, <a href="https://canlii.ca/t/kd8qd">2025 FCA 131</a>, the Federal Court of Appeal addressed the preferable procedure criterion in the context of a defendants’ class proceeding. The plaintiffs sought to certify an action against a class of defendants and, despite objection, impose the burden on Mr. Salna to represent the interests of the defendant group (the representative defendant).

Federal Court of Appeal Dismisses

Federal Court of Appeal Dismisses Class Action Certification Due To Unavoidable Individualized Inquiries

Maisah Syed

The Ontario Court of Appeal has concluded that a client's influence over a service provider's processes does not establish an employment relationship between the client and the service provider's employees. The plaintiffs in Davis v. Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, 2025 ONCA 421

No Common Employer Means No Class Action Ontario Court of Appeal

No Common Employer Means No Class Action—Ontario Court of Appeal

In Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance v Honda Canada, <a rel="noopener noreferrer" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc2856/2025onsc2856.html" target="_blank">2025 ONSC 2856</a>, the Ontario Superior Court upheld an arbitral panel's conclusion that an umbrella insurance policy covered settled class counsel fees, but not settlement administration costs related to an enhanced recall. The underlying class action alleged airbag defects and the settlement provided certain benefits to reimburse class members. The decision reminds defendants that insurance may not cover a recall program within a settlement if the recall program does not respond to a risk that could actually result from litigation of a consumer claim.

What Class Action Settlement Costs Will A Defendants Insurer Cover

What Class Action Settlement Costs Will A Defendant's Insurer Cover? The Ontario Superior Court of Justice Provides Some Answers

Andrew Bozzato

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

Bishoy Attia

Articling Student at Bennett Jones in Toronto

Articling Student

Private investment in the defence sector is accelerating as governments realign policy priorities and expand support for dual-use and DefTech innovation. Canada&rsquo;s 2025 Budget and long-term spending commitments are reshaping the industry, driving new opportunities across AI, cyber, space, advanced manufacturing and critical infrastructure. With global capital flowing into defence technology and structural reforms underway to modernize procurement, the sector is rapidly transitioning from fragmented to fully investable.

Policy Dual Use and DefTech Drive a New Era for Private Capital in Defence

Policy, Dual-Use and DefTech Drive a New Era for Private Capital in Defence

Daron K. Naffin

Energy, Environmental/Regulatory and Expropriation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Tim Myers

Regulatory, Environmental, Aboriginal and Expropriation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Thomas Machell

Regulatory Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

On November 4, 2025, the Alberta Energy Regulator released AERH2S, an updated version of its computer model for calculating Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) for sour gas applications. AERH2S replaces the longstanding ERCBH2S model and is available for immediate use by industry. According to AER Bulletin 2025-34, the use of AERH2S will become mandatory for all applications filed under Directive 056: Energy Development Applications and Schedules, including amendment applications, starting January 1, 2026. The continued use of ERCBH2S is permitted for updates to existing EPZs (and any EPZs established before January 1, 2026) under Directive 071: Emergency Preparedness and Response until further notice.

Alberta Energy Regulator Releases New AERH2S Model for Sour Gas Operations

David Cassin

Employment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Doug Fenton

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Robert W. Staley

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

Vice Chair and Partner

In McPherson v Global Growth Assets Inc., the Ontario Superior Court interpreted the no-reprisal provisions of the Securities Act for the first time, awarding more than $5.3 million to a CEO who was terminated after raising compliance concerns. The decision underscores the strength of the Act&rsquo;s protections for employees who engage in protected activities and highlights the significant risk to employers of taking disciplinary action without clear, documented justification.

Ontario Securities Act No Reprisal Provisions Results in 53 Million Award to CEO

Ontario Securities Act No-Reprisal Provisions Results in C$5.3 Million Award to CEO: A Warning to Regulated Employers

Edwin G. Kroft KC

Tax Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones

Antoine Messervier

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Anna Lekach

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

The November 2025 issue of Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes explores major developments in Canadian tax law, including new CRA guidance on the Voluntary Disclosures Program, court decisions on settlement confidentiality and costs, and proposed reforms to the Tax Court&rsquo;s informal procedure limits. The issue also features case summaries and insights from Bennett Jones&rsquo; tax litigators on emerging trends in tax dispute resolution.

Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes Issue 39

Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes: November 2025

Benjamin K. Reingold

Intellectual Property Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Makda Yohannes

Stephen D. Burns

Technology Lawyer, Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner, Trademark Agent

As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into creative workflows, the use of typefaces and fonts raises complex intellectual property challenges. This article examines the distinction between typefaces and fonts, the scope of copyright, trademark and industrial design protection in Canada, and how AI tools may heighten infringement risks. It also outlines practical steps for designers and businesses to ensure compliance through proper licensing and responsible AI use.

Sakina Babwani	OBA Council, Toronto Regional Member
Jordan Fremont	Pensions and Benefits Law – Member at Large
Ethan Schiff	Class Actions Law – Member at Large
Kathleen Wang	International Law – Member at Large
Venetia Whiting	Environmental Law – Vice-Chair

Five Bennett Jones Lawyers Elected or Elevated to the Ontario Bar Association

From the Same Authors