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)

Akhila Sandhu

Summer Student

Morgan Sutherland

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate 

Michael C. Smith

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The United Nations has adopted the first global regulatory framework for Automated Driving Systems, establishing safety, cybersecurity, testing and monitoring requirements for Level 3, 4 and 5 automated vehicles. This article examines the framework&rsquo;s implications for Canada, including how Transport Canada may incorporate the requirements into domestic vehicle safety standards and what manufacturers and suppliers should consider as regulation evolves.

First Global Regulatory Framework For Autonomous Vehicles

First Global Regulatory Framework For Autonomous Vehicles: Key Takeaways For Canada And The Auto Industry

Ethan Z. Schiff

Class Actions & Commercial Litigation Lawyer

The Supreme Court of Canada&rsquo;s decision in SS&amp;C Technologies Canada Corporation v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, 2026 SCC 29, revisits the doctrine of spoliation and confirms that courts must draw an adverse inference when intentional destruction of relevant evidence is established. The decision provides guidance on the test for spoliation, the scope of mandatory adverse inferences and the importance of preserving evidence during litigation.

The Supreme Court of Canada Affirms Mandatory Adverse Inference in Cases of Spoliation

The Supreme Court of Canada Affirms Mandatory Adverse Inference for Spoliation

Dominique T. Hussey

Chief Executive Officer and Intellectual Property Litigator, Pharma/Biotech and Trademark Lawyer

Chief Executive Officer

Vincent M. de Grandpré

IP Lawyer | Life Sciences & Tech

Emily P. Kettel

Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner, Trademark Agent

In Pharmascience v. Janssen Inc., the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed that methods of medical treatment remain unpatentable subject matter under the Patent Act because they are directed to the professional skill and judgment of healthcare practitioners. At the same time, the Court upheld the patentability of the dosing regimen claims at issue, clarifying that not all therapeutic or treatment-related claims constitute unpatentable methods of medical treatment. The decision provides important guidance on assessing patent eligibility for pharmaceutical and life sciences innovations in Canada.

Supreme Court of Canada Reaffirms that  Methods of Medical Treatment are Unpatentable

Supreme Court of Canada Confirms That Medical Professional Skill and Judgment Are Excluded From the Patent Bargain

Evana Yukanna

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Ontario court denies a late class action opt-out request, reinforcing settlement finality and confirming prejudice can arise before court approval.

Ontario Court Reinforces Finality of Class Proceedings in Rejecting Late Opt Out Request

Ontario Court Reinforces Finality of Class Proceedings in Rejecting Late Opt-Out Request

Martin Ignasiak KC

Energy & Industrial Projects Lawyer

Head of Energy Regulatory

Tyler McDonough

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Logan Lazurko

Energy & Regulatory Lawyer | Environmental

On June 17, 2026, the Alberta Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed an appeal by Fort McMurray 468 First Nation challenging an Alberta Energy Regulator decision that the First Nation lacked standing to request regulatory appeals of approvals issued to AdhMor Ltd. for an oilfield waste management facility near Fort McMurray. The decision in Fort McMurray 468 First Nation v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2026 ABCA 197, offers important guidance on what it takes to get in the door at the AER.

Alberta Court of Appeal Confirms Cumulative Effects are no Substitute for Evidence

No Standing Without Specifics: Alberta Court of Appeal Confirms that Cumulative Effects are no Substitute for Evidence

Title Alphabetical

Title

normal

Tax Considerations on the Repayment of Discounted Foreign Currency Obligations

From the Same Authors