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

Christine A. Viney

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner

Kristos J. Iatridis

Corporate & Private Equity Lawyer | Oil Sands Projects

Captive insurance is gaining traction as organizations look for smarter, more resilient ways to finance risk. This overview explores how Alberta captives work, their benefits, and whether they may be a fit for your business.

Curious about Captives Youre Not Alone

Curious about Captives? You're Not Alone!

Margaret (Meg) Bennett

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Kaamil Khalfan

Associate

The Supreme Court of Canada&rsquo;s decision in Emond v Trillium Mutual Insurance Co clarifies how insurance policies are interpreted when endorsements enhancing coverage conflict with policy exclusions. The Court confirmed that a guaranteed rebuilding cost endorsement does not extend coverage to costs expressly excluded, highlighting potential gaps for homeowners and the importance of reviewing policies holistically.

Emond Rebuilding Dreams or Interpreting Realities The Supreme Court Weighs In

Emond: Rebuilding Dreams or Interpreting Realities? The Supreme Court Weighs In

Ethan Z. Schiff

Class Actions & Commercial Litigation Lawyer

A plaintiff’s obligation to establish “some basis in fact” for a common issue is acknowledged as a low bar. Several Canadian appellate courts have, however, confirmed a “two-step test” as the standard analytical framework. Under the two-step test, plaintiffs must not only show that the proposed common issues can be answered across the class, but must also establish, as a matter of fact, that the proposed issues exist. The two-step test stands in contrast to a one-step test that considers only if the proposed common issue can be answered across the class.
The added requirement of proving the existence of proposed common issues means plaintiffs need sufficient factual evidence at the certification stage. Looking forward, representative plaintiffs may pursue innovative strategies to gather the evidence needed to meet their evidentiary burden. One such avenue, considered below, involves requesting pre-certification discovery.

Raising the Low Bar Plaintiffs Seek New Strategies to Prove Common Issues for Certification

Raising the “Low Bar”: Plaintiffs Seek New Strategies to Prove Common Issues for Certification 

Emrys Davis

Competition & Antitrust Litigation Lawyer

Michael A. Eizenga L.S.M.

Leading Canadian Class Action Litigator

Partner 

Gannon Beaulne

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

In our 2025 edition of Looking Forward, we review notable class action developments from the past year and consider what recent trends in the law might tell us about what to expect in the years ahead.

Class Actions Looking Forward 2025

Class Actions: Looking Forward 2025

Meg Tweedlie

Director, Student Talent

Samuel Judson

Commercial Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Change of control provisions in commercial leases can create uncertainty for both landlords and tenants, particularly where terms such as &ldquo;control&rdquo; and &ldquo;effective control&rdquo; are undefined. This article examines the Canadian legal landscape, key case law and Section 23 of Ontario&rsquo;s Commercial Tenancies Act, and offers practical considerations for drafting and negotiating change of control provisions. It also highlights potential carve-outs and strategies to reduce ambiguity and the risk of future disputes.

change of Control of Commercial Tenants

Change of Control of Commercial Tenants: Drafting, Interpretation and Practical Considerations

Akhila Sandhu

Summer Student

Morgan Sutherland

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate 

Michael C. Smith

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

Martin Ignasiak KC

Energy & Industrial Projects Lawyer

Head of Energy Regulatory

Michael P. Theroux KC

Commercial Litigation, Arbitration & Energy Litigation Lawyer

Brynne Harding

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

The Supreme Court of Canada has resolved one of the most consequential questions left open by Vavilov, and which has divided jurisprudence in lower courts since then&mdash;whether judicial review is constitutionally guaranteed or can be barred by privative clauses.

Big Implications for Appeals from Administrative Tribunals

The Supreme Court Settles the Constitutional Floor for Judicial Review in Democracy Watch v Canada

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

Title Alphabetical

Title

normal

Christine Viney on CBC's Calgary Eyeopener

From the Same Authors