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

Jared A. Mackey

Corporate Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner

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)

Wesley R. Novotny

Wade Ritchie

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Associate

The Canadian Department of Finance introduced draft legislation in the <a rel="noopener noreferrer" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.budget.canada.ca/2023/home-accueil-en.html" target="_blank">2023 Canadian Federal Budget</a> (Budget 2023) to create employee ownership trusts (EOTs) to facilitate the transfer of a business to the employees of the business. We provided an overview of the rules initially proposed in Budget 2023 in <a href="https://www.bennettjones.com/Blogs-Section/Employee-Ownership-Trusts-A-Useful-Tool-for-Employee-Business-Ownership">Employee Ownership Trusts—A Useful Tool for Employee Business Ownership?</a>, and recommended various revisions to the proposed rules to improve the tax incentives and ease some of the conditions required to qualify for EOT treatment. The Department of Finance released <a rel="noopener noreferrer" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2023/08/government-consults-canadians-on-budget-2023-measures-to-grow-the-clean-economy-close-tax-loopholes-and-deliver-tax-relief-for-canadians.html" target="_blank">revised EOT legislation on August 4, 2023</a>, addressing some of our concerns but not the big one—the revised EOT legislation still contained minimal tax incentives.

Employee Ownership Trusts Improved Tax Incentives Announced

Employee Ownership Trusts—Improved Tax Incentives Announced

Ted M. Shoub

Corporate & Commercial Lawyer | M&A, Governance & Ventures

There is a growing international movement to increase employee ownership of businesses. Some jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and the United States have developed tax rules and incentives to facilitate business ownership by trusts created for the benefit of a business's employees.

Employee Ownership Trusts A Useful Tool for Employee Business Ownership

Employee Ownership Trusts—A Useful Tool for Employee Business Ownership?

Marshall Haughey and Wade Ritchie write in Canadian Tax Focus on "Correcting Tax Mistakes: Rescission Reborn".

Marshall Haughey and Wade Ritchie in Canadian Tax Focus

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

The Camera and the Colony: A Comment on Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony

From the Same Authors