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

Daron K. Naffin

Energy, Environmental & Regulatory Lawyer | Municipal & Expropriation

Partner

Tim Myers

Regulatory, Environmental, Aboriginal and Expropriation Lawyer

Thomas Machell

Regulatory Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Associate

The Alberta Energy Regulator has released new editions of Directive 071 and Manual 026, significantly expanding emergency preparedness and response requirements. This post outlines the key changes, including mandatory Emergency Management Programs, expanded scope across resource sectors, enhanced hazard analysis standards, and what approval holders should do ahead of the February 2, 2026 effective date.

Alberta Energy Regulator Announces New Editions of Directive 071 and Manual 026

On November 4, 2025, the Alberta Energy Regulator released AERH2S, an updated version of its computer model for calculating Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) for sour gas applications. AERH2S replaces the longstanding ERCBH2S model and is available for immediate use by industry. According to AER Bulletin 2025-34, the use of AERH2S will become mandatory for all applications filed under Directive 056: Energy Development Applications and Schedules, including amendment applications, starting January 1, 2026. The continued use of ERCBH2S is permitted for updates to existing EPZs (and any EPZs established before January 1, 2026) under Directive 071: Emergency Preparedness and Response until further notice.

Alberta Energy Regulator Releases New AERH2S Model for Sour Gas Operations

In a recent decision made pursuant to section 33 of the Pipeline Act, the Alberta Energy Regulator rejected an application filed by Qualico Developments West Ltd. (Qualico) seeking orders requiring Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Plains Midstream Canada ULC to share in the cost of the work required for Qualico to construct an arterial road across two existing pipelines in connection with a residential development being pursued by Qualico in the Edmonton area.

AER Denies Developers Request to Share Pipeline Crossing Costs

AER Denies Developer's Request to Share Pipeline Crossing Costs

On December 14, 2023, Alberta's Minister of Environment and Protected Areas, Rebecca Schulz, announced the launch of two new pilot projects aimed at improving and expediting the well site reclamation process in the province.

Alberta Minister of Environment and Protected Areas Announces Launch of Partial Reclamation

Alberta Minister of Environment and Protected Areas Announces Launch of Partial Reclamation Pilot Project

Akhila Sandhu

Summer Student

Morgan Sutherland

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate 

Michael C. Smith

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

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 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

Evana Yukanna

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

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 Fort McMurray 468 First Nation v Alberta Energy Regulator, 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

2013 Appraisal Institute of Canada

From the Same Authors