People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Manage Cookies

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Payments

Legal

Calgary

Toronto

Edmonton

Ottawa

Vancouver

New York

Montréal

Jeffrey Kerbel

Securities & Business Lawyer | M&A, Finance & Governance

Senior Counsel

Kristopher R. Hanc

M&A and Capital Markets Lawyer

Partner

Asif Zalfackruddin

Corporate Finance and M&A Lawyer

Associate

On November 19, 2024, the Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal (Tribunal) released its reasons for its July 2024 decision granting an application by Riot Platforms, Inc. (Riot) to cease trade a shareholder rights plan (Plan) adopted by Bitfarms Ltd. (Bitfarms). This decision is significant as it refined the test for the granting of an order “in the public interest” under section 127 of the Securities Act (Ontario) (the Act), at least as it applied to shareholder rights plans. The decision also demonstrated the unwillingness of the Tribunal to allow a shareholder rights plan to have a trigger below 20 percent.

Ontario Tribunal Refines Public Interest Test in Cease Trade Decision on Shareholder Rights Plans

Robert W. Staley

Securities & Commercial Litigation Lawyer | Shareholder Disputes

Vice Chair and Partner

COVID and Annual Shareholder Meetings

COVID-19 and Annual Shareholder Meetings

Nicholas P. Fader

Corporate & Public Markets Lawyer | M&A, Debt & Equity

Partner and General Counsel

Brent W. Kraus

Corporate Governance Lawyer | Securities & Capital Markets

Co-Head of Mergers & Acquisitions

For close to three months, M&A lawyers and other capital markets participants had been anxiously awaiting the release of written reasons from the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”) and the Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan (“FCAAS” and, together with the OSC, the “Commissions”) for their December 22, 2017 orders (collectively, “CanniMed Order”) in the matter of Aurora Cannabis Inc. (“Aurora”) and CanniMed Therapeutics Inc. (“CanniMed”). The Commissions' written decision (released on March 15, 2018) is of considerable interest, as the Aurora/CanniMed proceeding engaged a number of key provisions of the new takeover bid rules introduced in May 2016 (the "New Rules") and represented the first time securities regulators have had to address elements of the New Rules in the context of contested applications.

Securities Commissions Provide Guidance on New Takeover Rules in Hostile Cannabis Bid

Jon C. Truswell

Corporate & M&A Lawyer | Equity, Debt & Governance

Transactions between related parties may create material conflicts of interest between an issuer and its directors, officers and related parties. In particular, material conflicts of interest may arise in the context of insider bids, issuer bids, business combinations and related party transactions. Multilateral Instrument 61-101 Protection of Minority Security Holders in Special Transactions (MI 61-101) was adopted in Alberta, Manitoba and New Brunswick on July 31, 2017, and prescribes procedural safeguards intended to mitigate the risks to minority security holders in material conflict of interest transactions. MI 61-101 has been in effect in Ontario and Québec since February 1, 2008, when it superseded Rule 61-501 in Ontario and Regulation Q-27 in Quebec.

CSA Provide Guidance on the Review of Material Conflict of Interest Transactions

Canadian Securities Administrators Provide Guidance on the Review of Material Conflict of Interest Transactions

Akhila Sandhu

Summer Student

Morgan Sutherland

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate 

Michael C. Smith

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The United Nations has adopted the first global regulatory framework for Automated Driving Systems, establishing safety, cybersecurity, testing and monitoring requirements for Level 3, 4 and 5 automated vehicles. This article examines the framework&rsquo;s implications for Canada, including how Transport Canada may incorporate the requirements into domestic vehicle safety standards and what manufacturers and suppliers should consider as regulation evolves.

First Global Regulatory Framework For Autonomous Vehicles

First Global Regulatory Framework For Autonomous Vehicles: Key Takeaways For Canada And The Auto Industry

Ethan Z. Schiff

Class Actions & Commercial Litigation Lawyer

The Supreme Court of Canada&rsquo;s decision in SS&amp;C Technologies Canada Corporation v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, 2026 SCC 29, revisits the doctrine of spoliation and confirms that courts must draw an adverse inference when intentional destruction of relevant evidence is established. The decision provides guidance on the test for spoliation, the scope of mandatory adverse inferences and the importance of preserving evidence during litigation.

The Supreme Court of Canada Affirms Mandatory Adverse Inference in Cases of Spoliation

The Supreme Court of Canada Affirms Mandatory Adverse Inference for Spoliation

Dominique T. Hussey

Chief Executive Officer and Intellectual Property Litigator, Pharma/Biotech and Trademark Lawyer

Chief Executive Officer

Vincent M. de Grandpré

IP Lawyer | Life Sciences & Tech

Emily P. Kettel

Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner, Trademark Agent

In Pharmascience v. Janssen Inc., the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed that methods of medical treatment remain unpatentable subject matter under the Patent Act because they are directed to the professional skill and judgment of healthcare practitioners. At the same time, the Court upheld the patentability of the dosing regimen claims at issue, clarifying that not all therapeutic or treatment-related claims constitute unpatentable methods of medical treatment. The decision provides important guidance on assessing patent eligibility for pharmaceutical and life sciences innovations in Canada.

Supreme Court of Canada Reaffirms that  Methods of Medical Treatment are Unpatentable

Supreme Court of Canada Confirms That Medical Professional Skill and Judgment Are Excluded From the Patent Bargain

Evana Yukanna

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Ontario court denies a late class action opt-out request, reinforcing settlement finality and confirming prejudice can arise before court approval.

Ontario Court Reinforces Finality of Class Proceedings in Rejecting Late Opt Out Request

Ontario Court Reinforces Finality of Class Proceedings in Rejecting Late Opt-Out Request

Martin Ignasiak KC

Energy & Industrial Projects Lawyer

Head of Energy Regulatory

Tyler McDonough

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Logan Lazurko

Energy & Regulatory Lawyer | Environmental

On June 17, 2026, the Alberta Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed an appeal by Fort McMurray 468 First Nation challenging an Alberta Energy Regulator decision that the First Nation lacked standing to request regulatory appeals of approvals issued to AdhMor Ltd. for an oilfield waste management facility near Fort McMurray. The decision in Fort McMurray 468 First Nation v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2026 ABCA 197, offers important guidance on what it takes to get in the door at the AER.

Alberta Court of Appeal Confirms Cumulative Effects are no Substitute for Evidence

No Standing Without Specifics: Alberta Court of Appeal Confirms that Cumulative Effects are no Substitute for Evidence

Title Alphabetical

Title

normal

Canada: Mergers and Acquisitions 2015

From the Same Authors