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

Robert W. Staley

Securities & Commercial Litigation Lawyer | Shareholder Disputes

Vice Chair and Partner

Doug Fenton

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

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

Sophia DiNicolo

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate 

The Ontario Superior Court in <em>Dziedziejko v Canopy Growth</em> held that materiality may be inferred from a significant share price drop following corrective disclosure, granting leave to pursue secondary market misrepresentation claims. The decision signals a potential shift from contextual materiality analysis and raises challenges for issuers with volatile share prices.<br />
<div>&nbsp;</div>

Inferring Materiality from Share Price Movement Dziedziejko v Canopy Growth

Inferring Materiality from Share Price Movement: Dziedziejko v Canopy Growth

Kristopher R. Hanc

M&A and Capital Markets Lawyer

John Lawless

Corporate & Securities Lawyer | Private Equity

James D. Beeby

Corporate Finance, M&A, Private Equity and Venture Capital Lawyer

<p>The Supreme Court of Canada has released its much-anticipated decision in Lundin Mining Corp. v. Markowich, 2025 SCC 39, clarifying the definition of a "material change" under securities law and providing guidance on when a public company must disclose information to the market. The decision will have broad implications for public companies, their directors, officers, shareholders and other market participants.</p>

Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies Scope of Securities Disclosure Obligations for Material Changes

Shifting Grounds: Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies Scope of Securities Disclosure Obligations for "Material Changes"

Akhila Sandhu

Summer Student

Morgan Sutherland

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

Ethan Z. Schiff

Class Actions & Commercial Litigation Lawyer

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 <em>Pharmascience v. Janssen Inc.</em>, 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

Evana Yukanna

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate

Ontario court denies a late class action opt-out request, reinforcing settlement finality and confirming prejudice can arise before court approval.

Ontario Court Reinforces Finality of Class Proceedings in Rejecting Late Opt Out Request

Ontario Court Reinforces Finality of Class Proceedings in Rejecting Late Opt-Out Request

Martin Ignasiak KC

Energy & Industrial Projects Lawyer

Head of Energy Regulatory

Tyler McDonough

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Logan Lazurko

Energy & Regulatory Lawyer | Environmental

On June 17, 2026, the Alberta Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed an appeal by Fort McMurray 468 First Nation challenging an Alberta Energy Regulator decision that the First Nation lacked standing to request regulatory appeals of approvals issued to AdhMor Ltd. for an oilfield waste management facility near Fort McMurray. The decision in <em>Fort McMurray 468 First Nation v Alberta Energy Regulator</em>, 2026 ABCA 197, offers important guidance on what it takes to get in the door at the AER.

Alberta Court of Appeal Confirms Cumulative Effects are no Substitute for Evidence

No Standing Without Specifics: Alberta Court of Appeal Confirms that Cumulative Effects are no Substitute for Evidence

Title Alphabetical

Title

normal

Robert Staley in the Globe and Mail

From the Same Authors