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

Melanie L. Aitken

Antitrust & Competition Law Advisor

Managing Principal, Bennett Jones (US) LLP

Cheryl M. Woodin

Commercial Litigation & Trial Lawyer

Partner

Emrys Davis

Competition & Antitrust Litigation Lawyer

In Martin v. Alphabet, the Competition Tribunal issued its first decision interpreting the new public-interest pathway for private access under section 103.1(7) of the Competition Act. While affirming an intention to broaden access, the Tribunal articulated a flexible but rigorous three-part framework that places real weight on evidence, genuine interest and the applicant&rsquo;s capacity to prosecute complex competition cases. The decision underscores that public interest alone is insufficient without a coherent, Canada-focused evidentiary record and a credible litigation plan.

Martin v Alphabet Tribunal

Martin v. Alphabet: Tribunal Sets the Public Interest Leave Framework—Evidence and Capacity Now the Gatekeepers

Brent W. Kraus

Corporate Governance Lawyer | Securities & Capital Markets

Co-Head of Mergers & Acquisitions

Flutra Kacuri

Corporate & Securities Lawyer | M&A

Associate

Sabrina A. Bandali

International Trade, Regulatory and Investment Lawyer

The total number of Canadian M&A deals declined in the second quarter of 2025 as tariff disruption and uncertainty hampered dealmaking activity. However, the overall value of announced Canadian deals was up considerably in the second quarter of 2025, resulting in higher average deal sizes. A similar scenario of fewer deals and higher values is playing out in the United States and globally.

Canada Q2 2025 MA Landscape

Canada's Q2 2025 M&A Landscape

Adam Kalbfleisch

Competition & Regulatory Lawyer | Foreign Investment

Alixe A.L. Cameron

Commercial Real Estate Lawyer

Jane C. Helmstadter

Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The Competition Bureau (Bureau) has released its <a href="https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/en/how-we-foster-competition/education-and-outreach/publications/competitor-property-controls-and-competition-act">finalized property control guidelines</a> (Guidelines) outlining the Bureau's ongoing approach to enforcing competition property controls under the Competition Act (Act). These replace the preliminary guidelines published on August 7, 2024, which were subject to a public consultation process last summer/fall

Breaking Ground The Competition Bureau Weighs in with Final Property Control Guidelines

The Competition Bureau Weighs in with Final Property Control Guidelines

Sarah E. Gilbert

Environmental Lawyer | Health & Safety

Gatlin Smeijers

Environmental Lawyer | Mining & Industrial

Julia E. Schatz

Commercial & Regulatory Lawyer | Environmental & Agribusiness

Partner 

On June 5, 2025, the Competition Bureau (the Bureau) published its <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/en/how-we-foster-competition/education-and-outreach/publications/environmental-claims-and-competition-act#sec02-2" target="_blank">final Guidelines for environmental claims</a> under the Competition Act (the Act). The Guidelines were created to help businesses and the public understand the Bureau's approach to deceptive marketing provisions under the Act as they relate to environmental claims, including with respect to the new environment-specific provisions that were enacted in 2024. While not binding on the Commissioner of Competition nor the Competition Tribunal, the Guidelines provide visibility into the Bureau's interpretation and approach to environmental claims.

Final Guidelines From the Competition Bureau on Environmental Claims in Canada

Final Guidelines from the Competition Bureau on Environmental Claims in Canada

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

2014 Annual Competition Law Fall Conference Program

From the Same Authors