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

Sarah E. Gilbert

Regulatory, Environmental and Health and Safety Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

Gatlin Smeijers

Environmental Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Julia E. Schatz

Commercial Litigation, Agribusiness, Arbitration, Real Estate, Construction and Environmental Litigation at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner 

On June 5, 2025, the Competition Bureau (the Bureau) published its <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/en/how-we-foster-competition/education-and-outreach/publications/environmental-claims-and-competition-act#sec02-2" target="_blank">final Guidelines for environmental claims</a> under the Competition Act (the Act). The Guidelines were created to help businesses and the public understand the Bureau's approach to deceptive marketing provisions under the Act as they relate to environmental claims, including with respect to the new environment-specific provisions that were enacted in 2024. While not binding on the Commissioner of Competition nor the Competition Tribunal, the Guidelines provide visibility into the Bureau's interpretation and approach to environmental claims.

Final Guidelines From the Competition Bureau on Environmental Claims in Canada

Final Guidelines from the Competition Bureau on Environmental Claims in Canada

Samantha Chenatte

Associate at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Associate

On March 7, 2025, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) published two consultation documents as part of its ongoing work to clarify which categories of pest control products are subject to the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA) and the Pest Control Products Regulations (PCPR) passed under it, which products are exempt and which may be authorized (without registration being required). The PMRA is seeking further stakeholder input on the amendments being proposed. The comment period is open until May 6, 2025.

Pest Management Regulatory Agency Opens Pre Consultation Period on Proposed Changes

Pest Management Regulatory Agency Opens Pre-Consultation Period on Proposed Changes to the Pest Control Products Regulations

The Government of Canada published the final "State of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) report" (<a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/evaluating-existing-substances/state-per-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-report.html" target="_blank">State of PFAS Report</a>), the "Risk management approach for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), excluding fluoropolymers" (<a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/evaluating-existing-substances/risk-management-approach-per-polyfluoroalkyl-substances.html" target="_blank">Risk Management Approach</a>) and a proposed Order adding a toxic substance to Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) (<a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2025/2025-03-08/html/reg2-eng.html" target="_blank">Proposed Order</a>) in the Canada Gazette on March 8, 2025.  These documents are open for public consultation until May 7, 2025.

Federal Government publishes State of PFAS Report and Risk Management Approach

Federal Government Publishes State of PFAS Report and Risk Management Approach

The Federal Court has ordered the review of another Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) decision, spotlighting how the regulatory agency handles new scientific evidence in the renewal process for pesticides in Canada. This decision builds on jurisprudence from the Federal Court of Appeal that challenged the PMRA’s refusal to establish a review panel in the face of a notice of objection regarding the PMRA’s re-evaluation of the pesticide glyphosate (see our blog from February 2022, <a href="/Insights/Blogs/The-Federal-Court-of-Appeal-Has-Weighed-in-on-ReEvaluation-Decisions">The Federal Court of Appeal Has Weighed in on Re-Evaluation Decisions Made by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency</a>, which reviews that decision in more detail).

Federal Court Orders Review of PMRA Decision Renewing Glyphosate Pesticide

Ashley L. Paterson

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Morgan Sutherland

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate 

Health Canada has proposed amendments to the Medical Devices Regulations focused on modernizing the MDEL framework. The changes would affect importer&ndash;distributor relationships, mandatory supplier disclosures, and safety documentation requirements. This update summarizes the key proposals and their potential impacts on MDEL holders and applicants.

Health Canada Proposes Amendments to MDEL Holders and Applicants

Benjamin K. Reingold

Intellectual Property Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Stephen D. Burns

Technology Lawyer, Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner, Trademark Agent

This article explores how Ad Standards Canada&rsquo;s Code applies to influencer marketing and AI-generated content, focusing on accuracy, disclosure and testimonial rules, along with best practices for compliance.

Canadian Code of Advertising Standards for Influencer Marketing

Canadian Code of Advertising Standards for Influencer Marketing: Key Clauses and Application to AI-Generated Content and Influencers 

Katherine Booth

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Jackson Spencer

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

The BC Court of Appeal&rsquo;s decision in Syngenta AG v. Van Wijngaarden reaffirms that the rules of evidence are not relaxed at certification. The Court held that plaintiffs must rely on properly admissible, authenticated evidence and cannot use broad hearsay or unsourced documents to meet the &ldquo;some basis in fact&rdquo; standard.

BC Court of Appeal The Rules of Evidence Are Not Relaxed at Certification

BC Court of Appeal: The Rules of Evidence Are Not Relaxed at Certification 

Geoffrey P. Stenger

Project Development, Energy, Infrastructure and Construction Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Patrick T. Maguire KC

Leading Canadian and International Energy and Commercial Transaction Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Vice Chair and Partner

Hon. John R. Baird P.C.

Senior Advisor at Bennett Jones, Former Canadian Foreign Minister

Senior Business Advisor

The 10th annual National Energy Roundtable brought industry leaders, policymakers and innovators together to discuss how Canada can strengthen its global energy competitiveness. Key themes included reducing regulatory uncertainty to accelerate major projects, leveraging LNG to enhance economic prosperity, and positioning Canada&rsquo;s energy resources as strategic assets in an uncertain geopolitical landscape. Bennett Jones partners moderated panels exploring these opportunities and shared insights on how Canada can execute a winning strategy for long-term energy leadership.

Making Canadas Energy Sector More Competitive

Making Canada's Energy Sector More Competitive: Key Takeaways From the National Energy Roundtable

Kristopher R. Hanc

M&A and Capital Markets Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

John Lawless

Private Equity, M&A, Corporate and Securities Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

James D. Beeby

Corporate Finance, M&A, Private Equity and Venture Capital Lawyer

The Supreme Court of Canada has released its much-anticipated decision in Lundin Mining Corp. v. Markowich, 2025 SCC 39, clarifying the definition of a "material change" under securities law and providing guidance on when a public company must disclose information to the market. The decision will have broad implications for public companies, their directors, officers, shareholders and other market participants.

Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies Scope of Securities Disclosure Obligations for Material Changes

Shifting Grounds: Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies Scope of Securities Disclosure Obligations for "Material Changes"

Case Comment: Kawartha Lakes v. Ontario (Ministry of the Environment)

From the Same Authors