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

Simon P. Crawford

Leading Commercial Real Estate Lawyer

Partner

Vanessa Kiraly

Commercial Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate

In Oliva v. Dickson (2025 ONSC 6666), the Ontario Superior Court confirmed that Building Code compliance can be an implied term of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale and a basis for vendor-builder liability in negligence. Even without structural failure or express contractual representations, failing to obtain required permits may breach both contractual and tort duties. The decision is a cautionary reminder that regulatory compliance defines both legal risk and commercial expectations in real estate transactions.

No Permit Big Problems

No Permit, Big Problems: Building Code Compliance,  Implied Terms and Vendor-Builder Liability in Ontario

Dana Talucci

Corporate Commercial Practice at Bennett Jones Toronto

Hennadiy Kutsenko

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Counsel

A court decision on the sale of mixed-use property highlights the risks of failing to allocate purchase price between residential and commercial portions for HST purposes. The ruling underscores the importance of precise drafting and obtaining representations to avoid uncertainty and tax disputes.

Mixed-Use Mixed Signals Why Purchase Price Allocations Matter

Mixed-Use, Mixed Signals: Why Purchase Price Allocations Matter

Samantha Weng

Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Once again, cottage season is upon us—and like the return of the season, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Court) has returned to the well-settled law of adverse possession, which continues to surface in modern property disputes where long-term use of a property by an adjoining owner can sometimes erode the ownership rights of the legal owner.

Lines in the Sand A Case of Adverse Possession from Cottage Country

Lines in the Sand: A Case of Adverse Possession from Cottage Country

Adam Kalbfleisch

Competition & Regulatory Lawyer | Foreign Investment

Alixe A.L. Cameron

Commercial Real Estate Lawyer

Jane C. Helmstadter

The Competition Bureau (Bureau) has released its <a href="https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/en/how-we-foster-competition/education-and-outreach/publications/competitor-property-controls-and-competition-act">finalized property control guidelines</a> (Guidelines) outlining the Bureau's ongoing approach to enforcing competition property controls under the Competition Act (Act). These replace the preliminary guidelines published on August 7, 2024, which were subject to a public consultation process last summer/fall

Breaking Ground The Competition Bureau Weighs in with Final Property Control Guidelines

The Competition Bureau Weighs in with Final Property Control Guidelines

Amanda C. McLachlan

Corporate & Regulatory Lawyer | Disputes, Investigations & Compliance

In Friel v. HUB International Limited, 2026 ONCA 313, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the enforceability of a forum selection clause designating the State of Delaware as the exclusive forum for resolving a dispute between a former employee in Ontario and his employer's Delaware-based parent entities over the exercise of vested share options. The decision provides important guidance for employers that structure equity incentive arrangements through related entities and reinforces the significance of clear contractual language delineating employment relationships from equity participation rights.

When Agreements Collide The Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Forum Selection Provision in Friel v HUB

When Agreements Collide — The Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Forum Selection Provision in Friel v. HUB

Edwin G. Kroft KC

Tax Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones

Andrew Young

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

The June 2026 issue of Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes provides insight into recent tax litigation developments, including the Tax Court's decision in 941624 Alberta Ltd. v. The King on the large corporation objection rules, updates from the Taxpayers' Ombudsperson, and summaries of recent tax decisions and appeal activity.

Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes Issue 42

Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes: June 2026

Keely Cameron

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Gracie Boser

Articling Student

The Alberta Court of Appeal has clarified the nature of co-lessee liability for unpaid Crown royalties under the Mines and Minerals Act. In two companion decisions, the Court confirmed that co-lessees are jointly (not jointly and severally) liable, meaning a claim extinguished against one may impact all. The decisions also address how vesting orders and insolvency stays affect the Crown&rsquo;s ability to pursue royalty arrears.

Vesting Order Bars Claims

 However Co-Lessee Liability for Unpaid Crown Royalties May Remain

Vesting Order Bars Claims for Unpaid Crown Royalties

Jean Tessier

Commercial Transactions Lawyer

Alison G. FitzGerald

International Arbitration Lawyer

Andrew Bozzato

Corporate, M&A, Securities Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

In mid-February, the federal government launched Canada's first <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/industrial-strategy/security-sovereignty-prosperity.html" target="_blank" id="Defence Insdustrial Strategy | Government of Canada">Defence Industrial Strategy</a>, aiming to transform the Canadian defence industry by prioritizing Canadian suppliers and materials, investing in Canadian innovation and commercialization, and streamlining procurement.

Impacts of the Federal Defence Industrial Strategy on the Canadian MA Landscape

Impacts of the Federal Defence Industrial Strategy on the Canadian M&A Landscape

Brian P. Reid

Construction & Energy Litigation Lawyer

Kaamil Khalfan

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Aaron Tell

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary 

Associate 

The Alberta Court of King's Bench has clarified that the two-year trial deadline under the Prompt Payment and Construction Lien Act does not apply once a construction lien and certificate of lis pendens have been discharged from title through the posting of security. In 1951789 Alberta Ltd v Britannia Block General Partnership Inc., the Court confirmed that section 46(2) applies only where a lien and CLP remain registered against the land. The decision provides important guidance for parties involved in construction lien disputes and highlights the distinction between statutory lien remedies and delay-based applications under the Alberta Rules of Court.

Security Measures The Alberta Court of Kings Bench Clarifies

Security Measures: The Alberta Court of King's Bench Clarifies the Law of Lien Security

Title Alphabetical

Title

normal

Commercial Mortgage Transactions 2012

From the Same Authors

No Permit, Big Problems: Building Code Compliance, Implied Terms and Vendor-Builder Liability in Ontario