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

Sean Zweig

Restructuring & Insolvency Lawyer | Cross-Border Expertise

Partner

Andrew Froh

Commercial Litigation Lawyer

Associate

James Atkinson

Associate 

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.

Trend Watch Determining COMI in US Chapter 15 Proceedings

Trend Watch: Determining COMI in US Chapter 15 Proceedings

Preet K. Gill

Insolvency & Restructuring Lawyer | Litigation & Transactions

Toronto Managing Partner

As detailed in our prior blog, <a href="/Insights/Blogs/2024/07/Canadian-Government-Finally-Provides-Certainty-on-Criminal-Interest-Rates">Canadian Government (Finally) Provides Certainty on Criminal Interest Rates</a>, the Government of Canada proposed amendments to lower the criminal interest rate to an annual percentage rate (APR) of 35 percent (the prior criminal interest rate, being an effective rate of 60 percent, was equivalent to an APR of about 48 percent).

Lower Criminal Interest Rate Now in Effect

Kelsey J. Meyer KC

Restructuring & Insolvency Lawyer | Commercial Litigation

Jesse Mighton

Insolvency and Restructuring Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

In the unrelated companion cases of Aquino v Bondfield Construction Co, <a href="https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20694/index.do">2024 SCC 31</a> and Scott v Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc, <a href="https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20695/index.do">2024 SCC 32</a>, the Supreme Court of Canada applied the common law doctrine of corporate attribution to bankruptcy and insolvency law through a purposive, contextual and pragmatic approach.

The SCC Clarifies the Corporate Attribution Doctrine and Creditor Protection Tools in Insolvency Law

Robert W. Staley

Securities & Commercial Litigation Lawyer | Shareholder Disputes

Vice Chair and Partner

Doug Fenton

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

In ruling that a securities regulatory authority's disgorgement orders (a sanction stemming from misconduct) survive a bankruptcy discharge while its administrative penalties do not, the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed the principle that "every claim is swept into the bankruptcy and that the bankrupt is released from all of them upon being discharged unless the law sets out a clear exclusion or exemption." The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the differing treatment of administrative penalties and disgorgement orders in the context of exceptions outlined in s. 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Supreme Court Holds That Securities Disgorgement Orders Survive Bankruptcy

J. Sébastien A. Gittens

Technology Lawyer & Trademark Agent

Tech & Data, National Practice Group Leader 

Suzie Suliman

Commercial Transactions Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate, Trademark Agent

Kees de Ridder

Technology, IP & Privacy Lawyer | Patents, Licensing & Cyber

Partner, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has released draft guidance outlining best practices for organizations to assess the privacy practices of third-party service providers under PIPEDA. The guidance emphasizes that privacy due diligence is an ongoing accountability obligation, with particular attention to data flows, AI and training data, security, subcontractors, international transfers and data retention.

OPC Issues New PIPEDA Guidance on Assessing Third-Party Service Providers

Ashley M. White

Corporate & Commercial Transactions Lawyer | Power & Energy

Martin Ignasiak KC

Energy & Industrial Projects Lawyer

Head of Energy Regulatory

Nathan Murray

Energy Regulatory, Environmental & Administrative Lawyer

Canada has amended the Physical Activities Regulations to remove certain intraprovincial energy projects and Canada Energy Regulator-regulated facilities from the federal Impact Assessment Act Project List. The changes are intended to reduce regulatory duplication, timelines and costs while providing greater certainty for proponents, while other federal environmental and emissions requirements remain applicable.

Government of Canada Reduces the Scope of the Project List under the Impact Assessment

Government of Canada Reduces the Scope of the Project List under the Impact Assessment Act

Jessica Kennedy

Regulatory Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Jennifer (Jenn) K. Choi

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

On July 15, 2026, British Columbia and Simpcw First Nation entered into a consent-based decision-making agreement under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) for the environmental assessment of the Yellowhead Copper Project. The Agreement requires Simpcw consent for the project to proceed and establishes a framework for parallel provincial and Indigenous environmental assessments. Its potential application to future mining projects in Simpcw&rsquo;s traditional territory highlights the evolving role of Indigenous consent in major resource development projects in British Columbia.

BC Signs DRIPA Consent Agreement Requiring Simpcw Consent for Yellowhead Copper Project

BC Signs DRIPA Agreement Requiring Simpcw Consent for Yellowhead Copper Project

Katherine Booth

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

The BC Court of Appeal in Cleaver v. The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited upheld the refusal to certify a privacy class action, finding no basis in fact for the claim&rsquo;s central allegation. The decision reinforces the courts&rsquo; gatekeeping role at certification and the importance of evidentiary support for the core allegations underlying a proposed class proceeding.

BC Court of Appeal No basis in fact no class action

BC Court of Appeal: No Basis in Fact = No Class Action 

Michael C. Smith

George W. H. Reid

International Trade, Investment and Public Procurement Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The Government of Canada has published a new Notice concerning the rules and procedures governing the administration of the quota for imports of electric vehicles from the People's Republic of China for the second period of Quota Year 1 (September 1, 2026 to February 28, 2027). The Notice, issued by Global Affairs Canada under the Export and Import Permits Act, confirms that the second allocation period will continue to operate similar to the first allocation period.&nbsp;

Concordia: Novel Features in a CBCA Restructuring

From the Same Authors