People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Legal

Calgary

Toronto

Edmonton

Ottawa

Vancouver

New York

Montréal

James J. Heelan KC

Commercial/Securities Litigation, Employment and Professional Negligence Lawyer and Mediator at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Partner

Laura Inglis

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Sarah J. Huot

Litigation, Professional Negligence, Health, Employment and Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Employee restrictive covenants are often a contentious issue, especially when employees leave to form (or join) competing firms. A recent Alberta Court of King’s Bench decision, People Corporation v Quinn et al. (<a rel="noopener noreferrer" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2024/2024abkb711/2024abkb711.html" target="_blank">2024 ABKB 711</a>), offers valuable insights into how courts balance the enforceability of restrictive covenants, employee rights, and employer interests. This case revolves around allegations of breach of restrictive covenants and the legal intricacies involved in assessing their validity.

Legal Precedent on Restrictive Covenants in Employment Agreements A Case Study

Legal Precedent on Restrictive Covenants in Employment Agreements—A Case Study

Krishen Singh

Commercial Litigation and Health Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Associate

Varun Kapoor

Corporate Commercial Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

In the case of Van Hee v Glenmore Inn Holdings Ltd., 2023 ABCJ 244, Justice L.L. Burt of the Alberta Court of Justice (the Court) held that an employer was justified in unilaterally placing an employee on an unpaid leave of absence due to their failure to comply with the employer's COVID-19 vaccination policy. The Court concluded that the unpaid leave was not a constructive dismissal. The Court’s decision further affirms the use of mandatory vaccination policies in the employment and pandemic context.

Fundamental Breach or Reasonable Balance Alberta Court Affirms Employers Mandatory COVID19

Fundamental Breach or Reasonable Balance? Alberta Court Affirms Employer's Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy

Sabrina A. Bandali

International Trade, Regulatory and Investment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Emrys Davis

Commercial Litigation, Competition and Class Action Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Sabrina Bandali, Emrys Davis, Alan Gardner, Laura Inglis, Amanda McLachlan, Ruth Promislow and Nathan Shaheen co-author the <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/guide/the-practitioners-guide-global-investigations/2023/article/canada" target="_blank">Canada chapter</a> in Global Investigations Review's Practitioner’s Guide to Global Investigations, Volume II: Global Investigations around the World.
They look at the nuances of law and process in Canada that practitioners are likely to encounter in cross-border investigations. This includes Canada's legal framework for corporate liability, the steps in an investigation, co-operative agreements giving immunity or leniency and corporate compliance programs.

A Canadian Perspective on Global Investigations Around the World

When the United Conservative Party (UCP) took power in Alberta in 2019, the government introduced Bill 2, An Act to Make Alberta Open for Business, which reversed many of the changes to employment standards and labour relations implemented by the previous provincial government. On July 7, 2020, the UCP introduced Bill 32, Restoring Balance in Alberta's Workplaces Act.

The Provincial Government Introduces Sweeping Changes to Albertas Workplaces

The Provincial Government Introduces Sweeping Changes to Alberta's Workplaces

Kees de Ridder

Intellectual Property Lawyer, Patent Agent and Trademark Agent at Bennett Jones Calgary

Associate, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent

Benjamin K. Reingold

Intellectual Property Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Stephen D. Burns

Technology Lawyer, Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner, Trademark Agent

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear Pharmascience Inc v Janssen Inc on October 9, 2025, a case that could reshape the scope of patentable subject matter in Canada. At issue is whether a dosing regimen for a pharmaceutical product constitutes an unpatentable method of medical treatment or a valid invention under the Patent Act. The Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal upheld the patent&rsquo;s validity, but Pharmascience has challenged this position. With several industry groups granted intervenor status, the case is expected to have significant implications not only for the pharmaceutical industry but also for broader questions of what qualifies as an &ldquo;invention,&rdquo; including computer-implemented and AI-related technologies.

Supreme Court to Assess Subject Matter Eligibility in Canadian

Supreme Court to Assess Subject Matter Eligibility in Canadian Patent Law: Implications Beyond the Pharmaceutical Context

AI is transforming performance marketing through hyper-personalization, automated content creation, and data-driven insights&mdash;enhancing efficiency while raising new legal and ethical considerations for brands.

The Implications of AI on Performance Marketing

Sean Zweig

Restructuring, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Andrew Froh

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

James Atkinson

Articling Student at Bennett Jones 

Articling Student          

A recent decision of the US Bankruptcy Court in Re: Iovate Health Sciences International Inc. provides important insights for Canadian companies involved in cross-border restructurings. The case addresses how debtor companies can rebut the presumption that their &ldquo;center of main interests&rdquo; (COMI) is located at their registered office when seeking Chapter 15 recognition in the United States. Chief Judge Glenn reaffirmed that COMI is determined by a non-exhaustive set of factors, including management, assets, creditors and creditor expectations, and may also be influenced by pre-filing restructuring activities.

Trend Watch Determining COMI in US Chapter 15 Proceedings

Trend Watch: Determining COMI in US Chapter 15 Proceedings

Dom Sorbara

Banking & Financial Services Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Elizabeth K. Dylke

Corporate and Private Funds Lawyer

James G. Morand

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

This edition of the PE Briefing examines private equity developments in the third quarter of 2025, including trends in Canadian and global deal activity, the continued growth and complexity of private credit, Ontario&rsquo;s advantages as a jurisdiction for non-US flow-through vehicles, and practical considerations in the drafting of earnouts.

The Q3 2025 PE Briefing

David J. Wahl, FCIArb

Construction Arbitration & Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Brian P. Reid

Litigation, Construction, Joint Venture Agreement and Builder's Lien Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Aly Parth

Articling Student at Bennett Jones in Calgary 

Articling Student 

The Alberta Court of Appeal&rsquo;s decision in Tempo v. Man-Shield confirms that equitable set-off is a true defence capable of precluding summary judgment in construction disputes. The ruling emphasizes that where claims and cross-claims are inseparably connected, courts must account for both to avoid unjust outcomes. This case provides important guidance for contractors, subcontractors and counsel navigating payment disputes and litigation strategy in the construction sector

Bennett Jones Employment Services Group Symposium 2013

From the Same Authors