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

Sarah E. Gilbert

Regulatory, Environmental and Health and Safety Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

Julia E. Schatz

Commercial & Regulatory Lawyer | Environmental & Agribusiness

Partner 

Gatlin Smeijers

Environmental Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

On December 31, 2025, the Federal Government published the Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2025 under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. When they come into effect on June 30, 2026, the 2025 Regulations will repeal and replace the Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2012. The Federal Government published a proposed version of the 2025 Regulations in 2022 for public consultation.

Federal Government Publishes Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations

Federal Government Publishes Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2025

On June 5, 2025, the Competition Bureau (the Bureau) published its <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/en/how-we-foster-competition/education-and-outreach/publications/environmental-claims-and-competition-act#sec02-2" target="_blank">final Guidelines for environmental claims</a> under the Competition Act (the Act). The Guidelines were created to help businesses and the public understand the Bureau's approach to deceptive marketing provisions under the Act as they relate to environmental claims, including with respect to the new environment-specific provisions that were enacted in 2024. While not binding on the Commissioner of Competition nor the Competition Tribunal, the Guidelines provide visibility into the Bureau's interpretation and approach to environmental claims.

Final Guidelines From the Competition Bureau on Environmental Claims in Canada

Final Guidelines from the Competition Bureau on Environmental Claims in Canada

Samantha Chenatte

Associate at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Associate

On March 7, 2025, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) published two consultation documents as part of its ongoing work to clarify which categories of pest control products are subject to the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA) and the Pest Control Products Regulations (PCPR) passed under it, which products are exempt and which may be authorized (without registration being required). The PMRA is seeking further stakeholder input on the amendments being proposed. The comment period is open until May 6, 2025.

Pest Management Regulatory Agency Opens Pre Consultation Period on Proposed Changes

Pest Management Regulatory Agency Opens Pre-Consultation Period on Proposed Changes to the Pest Control Products Regulations

The Government of Canada published the final "State of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) report" (<a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/evaluating-existing-substances/state-per-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-report.html" target="_blank">State of PFAS Report</a>), the "Risk management approach for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), excluding fluoropolymers" (<a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/evaluating-existing-substances/risk-management-approach-per-polyfluoroalkyl-substances.html" target="_blank">Risk Management Approach</a>) and a proposed Order adding a toxic substance to Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) (<a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2025/2025-03-08/html/reg2-eng.html" target="_blank">Proposed Order</a>) in the Canada Gazette on March 8, 2025.  These documents are open for public consultation until May 7, 2025.

Federal Government publishes State of PFAS Report and Risk Management Approach

Federal Government Publishes State of PFAS Report and Risk Management Approach

John D. van Gent

Commercial Real Estate Finance Lawyer | Lending & Credit

Quinn Rozwadowski

Articling Student at Bennett Jones in Toronto

Articling Student

This article examines a common misconception in mortgage lending: the perceived need for guarantees from beneficial owners and general partners. It explains why such guarantees are typically unenforceable due to fundamental principles of agency and guarantee law. The piece also outlines clearer, more effective approaches to structuring mortgage loan relationships.

Would The Real Guarantor Please Stand Up

Andrew N. Disipio

Mining & Corporate Finance Lawyer | M&A, Equity & Debt Deals

Geoffrey P. Stenger

Energy, Infrastructure & Construction Lawyer | Bennett Jones Calgary

Alexis Fol

Project Development, Energy and Infrastructure Lawyer at Bennett Jones Montreal

Canada&rsquo;s M&amp;A market entered 2026 with moderated activity but sustained underlying strength, as dealmakers adopted a more selective and strategic approach. Large transactions drove a significant share of total value, with energy, mining and infrastructure leading activity. As regulatory clarity improves and investor confidence builds, the market is well positioned for increased dealmaking through the remainder of the year.

Canadas Q1 2026 MA Landscape

Large Transactions and Sector Concentration Shape Early-2026 Dealmaking

Canada's Q1 2026 M&A Landscape

Artem N. Barsukov FCIArb

International Arbitration Lawyer

Edward W. Hulshof

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Paige Lutz

Articling Student at Bennett Jones Vancouver

The Alberta Court of Appeal clarified that broadly worded arbitration clauses can extend to statutory claims, including those under the Tort-Feasors Act. Overturning the uncertainty created by Orica, the Court confirmed that parties will be held to their agreement to arbitrate, even where claims arise by operation of law. The decision reinforces commercial certainty and helps avoid parallel proceedings and inconsistent outcomes.

Alberta Court of Appeal Provides Antidote to Consternation on Scope of Arbitration Clauses

Anu Nijhawan

M&A, Corporate Financing and International Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Lead Director and Partner

Hennadiy Kutsenko

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Counsel

Talia K. Bregman

Management-side Employment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

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

Ethan Z. Schiff

Class Actions & Commercial Litigation Lawyer

Pavan Pasha

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

In Cervantes v. Pizza Nova Take Out Ltd., the Ontario Divisional Court clarified that civil conspiracy claims must allege an agreement or common design among defendants. The Court held that compliance with a franchisor&rsquo;s requirements alone does not constitute conspiracy. This decision reinforces the need for precise pleadings and upholds the principle of corporate separateness in class action claims.

No Agreement No Conspiracy Ontario Court Affirms Civil Conspiracy Requires a Pleaded Agreement

No Agreement, No Conspiracy: Ontario Court Affirms Civil Conspiracy Requires a Pleaded Agreement

Update: R. v. Syncrude Canada Ltd.

From the Same Authors