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

Daniel (Dan) R. Chubb

Corporate Commercial Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Partner

Joan Bilsland

Knowledge Management Research Lawyer

Luke Stretch

Commercial Real Estate Lawyer

Associate

Canadian courts generally treat real estate deposits as forfeitable upon a purchaser&rsquo;s default, distinct from unenforceable penalty clauses. However, under the Redstone factors, courts may grant relief from forfeiture where a deposit is grossly disproportionate to the vendor&rsquo;s damages or where retaining it would be unconscionable in the circumstances.

When A Deposit Becomes A Penalty

When a Deposit Becomes a Penalty: Relief From Forfeiture in Real Estate Transactions

Stephen D. Burns

Energy & Infrastructure Technology Lawyer | IT/OT & Markets

Partner, Trademark Agent

J. Sébastien A. Gittens

Technology Lawyer & Trademark Agent

Scott H. D. Bower KC

Corporate, Commercial, Securities and Energy Lawyer

Partner 

Canadian courts and law societies, alike, are faced with an ever-evolving challenge: straddling the line between recognizing the potential benefits of emergent generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), while balancing the associated risks of using this technology. Principle to these associated risks is the ability of GenAI to "hallucinate" (i.e., generate incorrect information).

Unchartered Territories Canadian Courts and Law Societies Grapple with the Use of Generative

Unchartered Territories: Canadian Courts and Law Societies Grapple with the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools

Julia E. Schatz

Commercial & Regulatory Lawyer | Environmental & Agribusiness

The ability to extend a limitation period for an environmental claim is subject to considerable judicial discretion, the Court of Appeal of Alberta recently held in <a rel="noopener noreferrer" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2024/2024abca60/2024abca60.html" target="_blank">Paramount Resources Ltd v Grey Owl Engineering Ltd, 2024 ABCA 60</a>. Section 218 of Alberta's Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c E-12 gives a judge discretion to extend a limitation period "where the basis for the proceeding is an alleged adverse effect resulting from the alleged release of a substance into the environment".  However, no extension was granted in the case of a claim for remediation costs against other alleged contributors to a pipeline spill.

Extending Discretion Balancing the Limitations Act and Environmental Remediation Claims

Extending Discretion: Balancing the Limitations Act and Environmental Remediation Claims

Russell J. Kruger

Research Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Counsel

Separate corporate personality is not a loophole or technicality, but is an essential principle of corporate law, the Alberta Court of Appeal recently reiterated in <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://canlii.ca/t/jzbmj" target="_blank">Condominium Corporation No. 0828219 v Carrington Holdings Ltd., 2023 ABCA 222</a> [Carrington] and <a href="https://canlii.ca/t/jzf2t" target="_self">Swanby v Tru-Square Homes Ltd, 2023 ABCA 224</a> [Swanby]. Together, Carrington and Swanby highlight the powerful impact of separate corporate personality on shareholder liability for the actions of their corporations.

Separate Corporate Personality Remains Alive and Well in Alberta

Caroline Poirier

IT, Privacy & Data Protection Lawyer

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

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

Alberta's Limitation Laws

From the Same Authors