People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Payments

Legal

Calgary

Toronto

Edmonton

Ottawa

Vancouver

New York

Montréal

James J. Heelan KC

Commercial Litigator | Medical Negligence

Partner

Laura Inglis

Employment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Sarah J. Huot

Employment & Health Law Lawyer | Estate Litigation

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

Varun Kapoor

Corporate Commercial Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Associate

When only some of the defendants to a lawsuit want to settle, Pierringer agreements can be an attractive solution. However, in a recent decision that adopted principles from Ontario jurisprudence, the Court of King's Bench of Alberta confirmed that failure to promptly disclose a Pierringer agreement can have dire consequences for the action.

Alberta Court of Kings Bench Confirms Requirement for Immediate Disclosure of Pierringer Agreements

Alberta Court of King's Bench Confirms Requirement for Immediate Disclosure of Pierringer Agreements

On September 29, 2022, the members of the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada and of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada announced that they have approved the amalgamation of their respective self-regulatory organizations, subject to certain conditions outlined in their combination agreement.

Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada Announces Amalgamation with Investment Industry

Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada Announces Amalgamation with Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada

Amy Verhoeff

Corporate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

James Heelan and Amy Deprato write in Alberta Heavy on Bill 37 and Alberta's new payment and lien requirements in the construction industry.

Bill 37 New Year New Payment and Lien Requirements

Bill 37: New Year, New Payment and Lien Requirements in the Alberta Construction Industry

Jessica Kennedy

Regulatory Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Martin Ignasiak KC

Energy & Industrial Projects Lawyer

Head of Energy Regulatory Services

Larissa D. Lees

On June 9, 2026, the Government of Alberta enacted the Data Centre Regulation, AR 117/2026 under the Electric Utilities Act, codifying the province&rsquo;s &ldquo;bring your own generation&rdquo; policy and providing the legal foundation for the Alberta Electric System Operator&rsquo;s grid connection process for large data centres.&nbsp;

Albertas BYOG Framework

Alberta's BYOG Framework: What Data Centre and Generation Proponents Need to Know

J. Sébastien A. Gittens

Technology Lawyer & Trademark Agent

Partner, Trademark Agent

Caroline Poirier

IT, Privacy & Data Protection Lawyer

Stephen D. Burns

Energy & Infrastructure Technology Lawyer | IT/OT & Markets

Earlier this month, the federal government introduced the proposed federal Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act (PPCDA) &ndash; a signal that Canada&rsquo;s private-sector privacy landscape may undergo significant transformation imminently. To assist organizations that conduct business in Canada with their potential compliance efforts with respect thereto, the following is intended to provide a non-exhaustive, high-level comparison between: (i) the PPCDA; (ii) Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA); (iii) Qu&eacute;bec&rsquo;s Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector (the Qu&eacute;bec Privacy Act, as amended by Law 25); and (iv) the Personal Information Protection Acts of Alberta and British Columbia (collectively, the PIPAs).

A Comparison of the PPCDA PIPEDA Quebecs Privacy Act and PIPA

A Comparison of the PPCDA, PIPEDA, Quebec's Privacy Act and PIPA

Adam W. Taylor

Corporate Commercial Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Matthew Flynn

Technology Transaction Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Simon Grant

Financial Services & Regulatory Lawyer

Partner 

Canada's proposed Consumer-Driven Banking Regulations provide the first detailed framework for implementing the country's open banking regime, setting out requirements for accreditation, security, consent, data sharing and ongoing compliance. The proposed regulations also highlight the growing connection between consumer-driven banking and privacy reform, particularly as Canada advances broader data mobility rights. Organizations should assess the potential impact of the framework and consider participating in the current consultation process. 
<div>&nbsp;</div>

Canada Advances Consumer Driven Banking Framework with Proposed Regulations

Canada Advances Consumer-Driven Banking Framework with Proposed Regulations

Ruth E. Promislow

Privacy, Cybersecurity & AI Lawyer

On June 4th, 2026, the federal government released Canada&rsquo;s National Artificial Intelligence Strategy: AI for All (the Strategy). The Strategy aims to ensure that artificial intelligence serves Canadians, strengthens businesses and communities and enhances Canada&rsquo;s control over its technological future through six key pillars.

Canadas AI for All Strategy Building Trust Innovation and Sovereignty in the Era of AI

Canada’s AI for All Strategy: Building Trust, Innovation and Sovereignty in the Era of AI

Robert W. Staley

Securities & Commercial Litigation Lawyer | Shareholder Disputes

Vice Chair and Partner

Doug Fenton

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice&rsquo;s decision in Nivora Group LLC v. Ping et al. clarifies the strict limits on Norwich orders in the context of crypto asset disputes. The Court dismissed a motion seeking third-party disclosure from cryptocurrency exchanges, reaffirming that Norwich relief is an extraordinary remedy available only where it is truly necessary and cannot be used to replace ordinary discovery. Even in cases involving alleged asset tracing, applicants must demonstrate that the third party is the only practicable source of the information and that the interests of justice favour disclosure.

Court Reaffirms Limits on Norwich Orders in Crypto Asset Disputes

Title Alphabetical

Title

normal

Don't Let the Legal System Get You Down

From the Same Authors