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

Ashley L. Paterson

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

Nicholas Heinrich

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate

This blog reviews Zanin v. Ooma, Inc., where the Federal Court upheld arbitration clauses and class action waivers in a proposed federal class proceeding. It confirms that provincial consumer protection laws generally do not apply to federal statutory claims unless mirrored in federal legislation. The decision highlights ongoing uncertainty following the Federal Court of Appeal&rsquo;s narrower approach and leaves room for future challenges.

Federal Court Rejects Application of Provincial Consumer

Decision Limits Application to Federal Law Claims

Federal Court Rejects Provincial Consumer Protection Claims

Neely Jarvis

National class actions in Canada frequently give rise to overlapping proceedings across multiple jurisdictions, particularly in life sciences and product liability litigation. This update examines Strathdee v. Johnson &amp; Johnson Inc. and the Ontario Superior Court&rsquo;s approach to abuse of process, preferability and national coordination in parallel class actions. The authors explore the growing importance of coordinated defence strategies, inter-jurisdictional cooperation and active case management in navigating multi-jurisdictional litigation risks.

National Coordination of ClassActions

Lessons from Strathdee v. Johnson & Johnson

National Coordination of Class Actions

Michael A. Eizenga L.S.M.

Leading Canadian Class Action Litigator

Partner 

Pascale Dionne-Bourassa

Commercial Litigation & Trial Lawyer

Montréal Managing Partner

Katherine Booth

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Bennett Jones partners <a href="/People/E/Eizenga-Michael">Michael Eizenga</a>, <a href="/People/D/Dionne-Bourassa-Pascale">Pascale Dionne-Bourassa</a>&nbsp;and <a href="/People/B/Booth-Katherine">Katherine Booth</a>&nbsp;have co-authored The Canadian Class Actions Handbook, published by LexisNexis. Building on The Class Actions Handbook released in 2022, this new edition brings together the core principles of class proceedings law and provides essential coverage of recent developments across Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and the Federal Court.

The Canadian Class Actions Handbook

Morgan Sutherland

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

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

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

The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Chanderpaul v. Caesars Convention Centre Ltd. clarifies when courts may pierce the corporate veil and hold shareholders personally liable for a corporation's wrongful conduct. While reaffirming the high threshold for veil-piercing claims, the decision provides important guidance on the types of conduct that may justify this exceptional remedy.

Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Test for Piercing the Corporate Veil

Amanda C. McLachlan

Corporate & Regulatory Lawyer | Disputes, Investigations & Compliance

In Friel v. HUB International Limited, 2026 ONCA 313, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the enforceability of a forum selection clause designating the State of Delaware as the exclusive forum for resolving a dispute between a former employee in Ontario and his employer's Delaware-based parent entities over the exercise of vested share options. The decision provides important guidance for employers that structure equity incentive arrangements through related entities and reinforces the significance of clear contractual language delineating employment relationships from equity participation rights.

When Agreements Collide The Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Forum Selection Provision in Friel v HUB

When Agreements Collide — The Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Forum Selection Provision in Friel v. HUB

Title Alphabetical

Title

normal

Recent Trends in Canadian Class Actions

From the Same Authors