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

Ashley L. Paterson

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

Nicholas Heinrich

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate

This blog reviews Zanin v. Ooma, Inc., where the Federal Court upheld arbitration clauses and class action waivers in a proposed federal class proceeding. It confirms that provincial consumer protection laws generally do not apply to federal statutory claims unless mirrored in federal legislation. The decision highlights ongoing uncertainty following the Federal Court of Appeal&rsquo;s narrower approach and leaves room for future challenges.

Federal Court Rejects Application of Provincial Consumer

Decision Limits Application to Federal Law Claims

Federal Court Rejects Provincial Consumer Protection Claims

Neely Jarvis

National class actions in Canada frequently give rise to overlapping proceedings across multiple jurisdictions, particularly in life sciences and product liability litigation. This update examines Strathdee v. Johnson &amp; Johnson Inc. and the Ontario Superior Court&rsquo;s approach to abuse of process, preferability and national coordination in parallel class actions. The authors explore the growing importance of coordinated defence strategies, inter-jurisdictional cooperation and active case management in navigating multi-jurisdictional litigation risks.

National Coordination of ClassActions

Lessons from Strathdee v. Johnson & Johnson

National Coordination of Class Actions

Morgan Sutherland

Associate 

Health Canada has proposed amendments to the Medical Devices Regulations focused on modernizing the MDEL framework. The changes would affect importer&ndash;distributor relationships, mandatory supplier disclosures, and safety documentation requirements. This update summarizes the key proposals and their potential impacts on MDEL holders and applicants.

Health Canada Proposes Amendments to MDEL Holders and Applicants

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

Akhila Sandhu

Summer Student

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 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

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

American Bar Association Women in Litigation Joint Conference

From the Same Authors