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

Simon P. Crawford

Leading Commercial Real Estate Lawyer

Partner

Vanessa Kiraly

Commercial Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate

In Oliva v. Dickson (2025 ONSC 6666), the Ontario Superior Court confirmed that Building Code compliance can be an implied term of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale and a basis for vendor-builder liability in negligence. Even without structural failure or express contractual representations, failing to obtain required permits may breach both contractual and tort duties. The decision is a cautionary reminder that regulatory compliance defines both legal risk and commercial expectations in real estate transactions.

No Permit Big Problems

No Permit, Big Problems: Building Code Compliance,  Implied Terms and Vendor-Builder Liability in Ontario

Dana Talucci

Corporate Commercial Practice at Bennett Jones Toronto

Hennadiy Kutsenko

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Counsel

A court decision on the sale of mixed-use property highlights the risks of failing to allocate purchase price between residential and commercial portions for HST purposes. The ruling underscores the importance of precise drafting and obtaining representations to avoid uncertainty and tax disputes.

Mixed-Use Mixed Signals Why Purchase Price Allocations Matter

Mixed-Use, Mixed Signals: Why Purchase Price Allocations Matter

Samantha Weng

Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Once again, cottage season is upon us—and like the return of the season, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Court) has returned to the well-settled law of adverse possession, which continues to surface in modern property disputes where long-term use of a property by an adjoining owner can sometimes erode the ownership rights of the legal owner.

Lines in the Sand A Case of Adverse Possession from Cottage Country

Lines in the Sand: A Case of Adverse Possession from Cottage Country

Adam Kalbfleisch

Competition & Regulatory Lawyer | Foreign Investment

Alixe A.L. Cameron

Commercial Real Estate Lawyer

Jane C. Helmstadter

The Competition Bureau (Bureau) has released its <a href="https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/en/how-we-foster-competition/education-and-outreach/publications/competitor-property-controls-and-competition-act">finalized property control guidelines</a> (Guidelines) outlining the Bureau's ongoing approach to enforcing competition property controls under the Competition Act (Act). These replace the preliminary guidelines published on August 7, 2024, which were subject to a public consultation process last summer/fall

Breaking Ground The Competition Bureau Weighs in with Final Property Control Guidelines

The Competition Bureau Weighs in with Final Property Control Guidelines

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

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

Title Alphabetical

Title

normal

The Lease for Atlantis and the Doctrine of Frustration

From the Same Authors

No Permit, Big Problems: Building Code Compliance, Implied Terms and Vendor-Builder Liability in Ontario