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

James J. Heelan KC

Commercial Litigator | Medical Negligence

Partner

Laura Inglis

Employment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Sarah J. Huot

Employment & Health Law Lawyer | Estate Litigation

Employee restrictive covenants are often a contentious issue, especially when employees leave to form (or join) competing firms. A recent Alberta Court of King’s Bench decision, People Corporation v Quinn et al. (<a rel="noopener noreferrer" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2024/2024abkb711/2024abkb711.html" target="_blank">2024 ABKB 711</a>), offers valuable insights into how courts balance the enforceability of restrictive covenants, employee rights, and employer interests. This case revolves around allegations of breach of restrictive covenants and the legal intricacies involved in assessing their validity.

Legal Precedent on Restrictive Covenants in Employment Agreements A Case Study

Legal Precedent on Restrictive Covenants in Employment Agreements—A Case Study

Melanie L. Aitken

Antitrust & Competition Law Advisor

Managing Principal, Bennett Jones (US) LLP

Dominique T. Hussey

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

Chief Executive Officer

Patrick T. Maguire KC

Energy & Project Development Lawyer | Oil, Gas & Power

Vice Chair and Partner

To mark this year's International Women's Day, we are proud to present a candid leadership conversation on the challenges women face in the legal field. Our five office managing partners—<a href="/People/A/Aitken-Melanie" target="_self">Melanie Aitken</a>, Radha Curpen, <a href="/People/H/Hussey-Dominique" target="_self">Dominique Hussey</a>, <a href="/People/M/Maguire-Patrick" target="_self">Pat Maguire</a> and <a href="/People/S/Stratton-Barbara" target="_self">Barbara Stratton</a>—are joined by moderator and Bennett Jones partner, <a href="/People/Y/Yung-Michelle" target="_self">Michelle Yung</a> as they share perspectives from their lived experiences. This discussion highlights the importance of acting purposely to create an workplace where women can thrive.

IWD 2023 Workplaces Where Women Thrive

IWD 2023: Workplaces Where Women Thrive

Barbara J. Kimmitt KC

Wills, Estates & Trusts Lawyer | Estate Planning & Mediation

Barbara J. Stratton KC

Medical Malpractice & Estates Litigator | Mediator

Edmonton Managing Partner

The Alberta Law Reform Institute (ALRI) issued its final report in January 2022, entitled "Family Maintenance & Support from the Estate of a Person Who Stood in the Place of Parent." The Report recommends that Alberta legislation should be changed to give rights to step-children against a deceased step-parent's estate. If the Alberta government adopts ALRI's recommendations, this would mean a significant change to the province's succession law.
Currently, lawyers can safely advise clients that step-children do not have a claim against their step-parent's estate. The report's recommendations would change that. The Wills & Succession Act of Alberta (WSA) is a consolidation of most of Alberta's laws that relate to what happens when a person dies. It includes provisions around what is required for a valid Will, what happens if a person dies without a Will (i.e. the intestacy provisions) and importantly, who may make a claim for support if the deceased person's Will, or the intestacy provisions, do not make "adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support" of a family member. These claims are commonly referred to as "family maintenance and support claims," or "FMS."

Alberta Law Reform Commission on Obligations to Step Children

Alberta Law Reform Commission on Obligations to Step-Children

Recent changes to the "Medical Assistance in Dying" (MAID) provisions in the Criminal Code, allow medical or nurse practitioners in Canada to provide MAID to patients who request assistance in dying, who later lose the capacity to consent at the time MAID is administered. As well, it is no longer a prerequisite to MAID that death be "reasonably foreseeable". However, the law-makers remain undecided about how to treat mental illness in the context of MAID, and have essentially declined to make it available for Canadians diagnosed with dementia.

Doctor Assisted Suicide the Next Step of the Journey

Doctor Assisted Suicide: The Next Step of the Journey

Ruth E. Promislow

Privacy, Cybersecurity & AI Lawyer

Stephen D. Burns

Energy & Infrastructure Technology Lawyer | IT/OT & Markets

Partner, Trademark Agent

J. Sébastien A. Gittens

Technology Lawyer & Trademark Agent

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

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

Amanda C. McLachlan

Corporate & Regulatory Lawyer | Disputes, Investigations & Compliance

In Friel v. HUB International Limited, 2026 ONCA 313, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the enforceability of a forum selection clause designating the State of Delaware as the exclusive forum for resolving a dispute between a former employee in Ontario and his employer's Delaware-based parent entities over the exercise of vested share options. The decision provides important guidance for employers that structure equity incentive arrangements through related entities and reinforces the significance of clear contractual language delineating employment relationships from equity participation rights.

When Agreements Collide The Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Forum Selection Provision in Friel v HUB

When Agreements Collide — The Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Forum Selection Provision in Friel v. HUB

Edwin G. Kroft KC

Tax Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones

Andrew Young

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Associate

The June 2026 issue of Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes provides insight into recent tax litigation developments, including the Tax Court's decision in 941624 Alberta Ltd. v. The King on the large corporation objection rules, updates from the Taxpayers' Ombudsperson, and summaries of recent tax decisions and appeal activity.

Wills Drafting: When to Challenge

From the Same Authors