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

David J. Wahl, FCIArb

Construction Arbitration & Litigation Lawyer

Partner

Christopher Petrucci

Commercial Litigation Lawyer | Energy

Brian P. Reid

Construction & Energy Litigation Lawyer

The Alberta Court of King&rsquo;s Bench in Phoenix Treatment Systems Ltd v 1924613 Alberta Ltd confirmed that not all activities qualify as lienable work capable of extending lien deadlines under the Prompt Payment and Construction Lien Act. The decision reinforces that only work sufficiently connected to the construction process will extend the registration period. Parties should take care to accurately identify the last day of lienable work, as errors may invalidate an otherwise enforceable lien.

Not All Work Will Extend the Lien Period

Kaamil Khalfan

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Associate

This article examines a recent Alberta Court decision confirming that during the PPCLA transition period, the former BLA&rsquo;s shorter 45-day lien deadline remains decisive. The ruling underscores that once a lien deadline expires, the lien ceases to exist and cannot be revived by the Court or through Land Titles corrections.

Better Early Than Sorry Strict Compliance Required for Lien Deadlines

Better Early Than Sorry: Strict Compliance Required for Lien Deadlines 

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

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

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

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

Chris Petrucci on Society of Construction Law Panel on Surety Bonds

From the Same Authors