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

Anu Nijhawan KC

M&A, Corporate Financing and International Tax Lawyer

Lead Director and Head of Tax Department

Hennadiy Kutsenko

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Counsel

Talia K. Bregman

Management-side Employment Lawyer

Employment Services, National Practice Group Leader

Recent guidance from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development provides important clarity on when cross-border remote work arrangements may give rise to a permanent establishment under international tax treaties. The analysis focuses on key indicators such as the duration of remote work and whether there is a commercial reason for an employee&rsquo;s presence in a jurisdiction. The article also outlines practical steps employers can take to mitigate tax risk and manage a globally distributed workforce.

Remote Work Without Borders But Not Necessarily Without Tax Consequences

Remote Work Without Borders—But Not Necessarily Without Tax Consequences: OECD Guidance for a Post-Pandemic World

Jared A. Mackey

Corporate Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner

Wade Ritchie

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Associate

The principal purpose test in the OECD Multilateral Instrument has attracted significant academic attention but, until now, no judicial commentary.&nbsp; In this article, Jared Mackey and Wade Ritchie take a deep dive into what is understood to be the world&rsquo;s first decision on the principal purpose test: SC Lowy P.I. (Lux) S.A.R.L., Luxembourg v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, decided by the Delhi Bench of India's Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.&nbsp;

Jared Mackey and Wade Ritchie Analyze the SC Lowy Case

Jared Mackey and Wade Ritchie Analyze the SC Lowy Case—A Landmark Ruling on the MLI Principal Purpose Test

Article 4(1) of Canada’s income tax treaties defines a “resident” of a Contracting State to mean a person who is subject to comprehensive tax in that State “by reason of” various criteria, such as domicile, residence, place of management or any other criterion of a similar nature.

Deemed US Corporation not a US Treaty Resident

Deemed U.S. Corporation not a U.S. Treaty Resident: HRMC v. GE Financial Investments Ltd.

Marshall R. Haughey

Subparagraph 20(1)(c)(ii) provides for the deduction of interest on amounts payable for property acquired to produce income from that property or from a business. Although the provision is relied upon frequently, there is limited guidance on its application in many common commercial scenarios, including asset acquisitions, intercompany financings, refinancings, and corporate reorganizations.&nbsp;

Jared Mackey and Marshall Haughey Examine the Limits of Interest Deductibility

Jared Mackey and Marshall Haughey Examine the Limits of Interest Deductibility under Subparagraph 20(1)(c)(ii)

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

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

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;

Tax Considerations on the Repayment of Discounted Foreign Currency Obligations

From the Same Authors