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

David J. Wahl, FCIArb

Construction Arbitration & Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner

Christopher Petrucci

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Alex Payne

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The Ontario Superior Court in Feldt Electric Ltd v Gorbern Mechanical Contractors held that non-compliance with an adjudicator&rsquo;s determination does not automatically invalidate a lien. The decision underscores the importance of jurisdiction and procedural fairness in construction disputes under Ontario&rsquo;s prompt payment and adjudication regime.

Liening on Fairness

Vasilis F. L. Pappas, FCIArb

International Arbitration Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver and Calgary

Partner 

The Alberta Court of Appeal in Husky Oil Operations Limited v Technip Stone & Webster Process Technology Inc, 2024 ABCA 369 recently held that parties attempting to impose an arbitration requirement on third-party beneficiaries of a contract that contains an arbitration clause must make the obligation to arbitrate clear and explicit in the contract.

Clear and Explicit Contractual Language Required to Impose Arbitration on Third Party Beneficiaries

Clear and Explicit Contractual Language Required to Impose Arbitration on Third-Party Beneficiaries

Brian P. Reid

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

In 2022, amendments to the Prompt Payment and Construction Lien Act (PPCLA) introduced a prompt payment and related fast-track adjudication process. Recently, in Welcome Homes Construction Inc v Atlas Granite Inc, the Alberta's Court of King's Bench interpreted these provisions, considering how they relate to the lien process under the PPCLA. Prior to this case, Alberta courts had not considered the intersection of the adjudication process and the lien process under the PPCLA.

AB Court of Kings Bench Concludes Adjudicator Decisions Under the PPCLA Independent of Lien Validity

Prompt Payment Update—Alberta's Court of King's Bench Concludes Adjudicator Decisions under the PPCLA are Independent of Lien Validity

Brian Reid, Vasilis Pappas, Chris Petrucci and Chris Abtosway write in ReNew Canada about how the wave of prompt payment legislation sweeping across the country offers construction stakeholders adjudication, a new dispute resolution that comes with its own advantages and disadvantages. They take an in-depth look at why strategic decisions made before, during and after the adjudication process can have far-reaching implications. Pitfalls may await those navigating the intersection of adjudication, court and arbitral processes.

Understanding Prompt Payment Adjudication in Construction

David Cassin

Employment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Doug Fenton

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Robert W. Staley

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

Vice Chair and Partner

In McPherson v Global Growth Assets Inc., the Ontario Superior Court interpreted the no-reprisal provisions of the Securities Act for the first time, awarding more than $5.3 million to a CEO who was terminated after raising compliance concerns. The decision underscores the strength of the Act&rsquo;s protections for employees who engage in protected activities and highlights the significant risk to employers of taking disciplinary action without clear, documented justification.

Ontario Securities Act No Reprisal Provisions Results in 53 Million Award to CEO

Ontario Securities Act No-Reprisal Provisions Results in C$5.3 Million Award to CEO: A Warning to Regulated Employers

Edwin G. Kroft KC

Tax Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones

Antoine Messervier

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Associate

Anna Lekach

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

The November 2025 issue of Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes explores major developments in Canadian tax law, including new CRA guidance on the Voluntary Disclosures Program, court decisions on settlement confidentiality and costs, and proposed reforms to the Tax Court&rsquo;s informal procedure limits. The issue also features case summaries and insights from Bennett Jones&rsquo; tax litigators on emerging trends in tax dispute resolution.

Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes Issue 39

Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes: November 2025

Benjamin K. Reingold

Intellectual Property Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Makda Yohannes

Stephen D. Burns

Technology Lawyer, Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner, Trademark Agent

As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into creative workflows, the use of typefaces and fonts raises complex intellectual property challenges. This article examines the distinction between typefaces and fonts, the scope of copyright, trademark and industrial design protection in Canada, and how AI tools may heighten infringement risks. It also outlines practical steps for designers and businesses to ensure compliance through proper licensing and responsible AI use.

Understanding IP Infringement Risk in Typeface Use in AI Generated Content

Understanding IP Infringement Risk in Typeface Use in AI-Generated Content

Lisa Kakoske

Corporate and Securities Lawyer

Samantha Chenatte

Associate at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Globally, women represent nearly half of the agricultural workforce, yet they still face systemic barriers that prevent them from accessing, using and contributing to innovations in agricultural technology (Agritech), which is poised to transform agricultural systems across the world.

Gender Inclusivity Driving Growth in Agritech Industry

Sara G. Parchello

Brendan J. Weiler

Employment Services Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Two recent Ontario Superior Court decisions&mdash;Li v Wayfair Canada Inc. and Jones v Strides Toronto&mdash;clarify that the phrase &ldquo;at any time&rdquo; in a termination clause does not automatically invalidate an employment agreement under the ESA. While both cases distinguish earlier restrictive rulings, ongoing inconsistencies, including the Chan decision, highlight the need for appellate guidance. Employers should continue to review contracts carefully to ensure ESA compliance.

Termination At Any Time A Review of Recent Developments

Termination “At Any Time”? A Review of Recent Developments from Li v Wayfair Canada Inc. and Jones v Strides Toronto

Risks of Cost Estimates: From Development to Dispute

From the Same Authors