People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Payments

Legal

Calgary

Toronto

Edmonton

Ottawa

Vancouver

New York

Montréal

Laura Inglis

Employment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Partner

Christine Plante

Employment Lawyer | HR Legal Counsel

David M. Price

Employment Services Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Effective January 1, 2026, Alberta will increase job-protected long-term illness and injury leave from 16 to 27 weeks. This update aligns Alberta with other leading Canadian jurisdictions that recently implemented similar extended leaves. Employers will need to revisit their workplace policies to ensure compliance with the new requirements. The blog explains the legislative amendments and their implications for employers.

Alberta Aligns with Other Provinces in Extending Long Term Illness and Injury Leave

James J. Heelan KC

Commercial Litigator | Medical Negligence

Sarah J. Huot

Employment & Health Law Lawyer | Estate Litigation

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

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

Emrys Davis

Competition & Antitrust Litigation Lawyer

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

J. Sébastien A. Gittens

Technology Lawyer & Trademark Agent

Partner, Trademark Agent

Caroline Poirier

IT, Privacy & Data Protection Lawyer

Stephen D. Burns

Energy & Infrastructure Technology Lawyer | IT/OT & Markets

Earlier this month, the federal government introduced the proposed federal Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act (PPCDA) &ndash; a signal that Canada&rsquo;s private-sector privacy landscape may undergo significant transformation imminently. To assist organizations that conduct business in Canada with their potential compliance efforts with respect thereto, the following is intended to provide a non-exhaustive, high-level comparison between: (i) the PPCDA; (ii) Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA); (iii) Qu&eacute;bec&rsquo;s Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector (the Qu&eacute;bec Privacy Act, as amended by Law 25); and (iv) the Personal Information Protection Acts of Alberta and British Columbia (collectively, the PIPAs).

A Comparison of the PPCDA PIPEDA Quebecs Privacy Act and PIPA

A Comparison of the PPCDA, PIPEDA, Quebec's Privacy Act and PIPA

Adam W. Taylor

Corporate Commercial Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Matthew Flynn

Technology Transaction Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Simon Grant

Financial Services & Regulatory Lawyer

Partner 

Canada's proposed Consumer-Driven Banking Regulations provide the first detailed framework for implementing the country's open banking regime, setting out requirements for accreditation, security, consent, data sharing and ongoing compliance. The proposed regulations also highlight the growing connection between consumer-driven banking and privacy reform, particularly as Canada advances broader data mobility rights. Organizations should assess the potential impact of the framework and consider participating in the current consultation process. 
<div>&nbsp;</div>

Canada Advances Consumer Driven Banking Framework with Proposed Regulations

Canada Advances Consumer-Driven Banking Framework with Proposed Regulations

Ruth E. Promislow

Privacy, Cybersecurity & AI Lawyer

On June 4th, 2026, the federal government released Canada&rsquo;s National Artificial Intelligence Strategy: AI for All (the Strategy). The Strategy aims to ensure that artificial intelligence serves Canadians, strengthens businesses and communities and enhances Canada&rsquo;s control over its technological future through six key pillars.

Canadas AI for All Strategy Building Trust Innovation and Sovereignty in the Era of AI

Canada’s AI for All Strategy: Building Trust, Innovation and Sovereignty in the Era of AI

Robert W. Staley

Securities & Commercial Litigation Lawyer | Shareholder Disputes

Vice Chair and Partner

Doug Fenton

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

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

Title Alphabetical

Title

normal

Bennett Jones Employment Services Group Symposium 2013

From the Same Authors