People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Manage Cookies

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

Meg Tweedlie

Director, Student Talent

Samuel Judson

Commercial Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Change of control provisions in commercial leases can create uncertainty for both landlords and tenants, particularly where terms such as &ldquo;control&rdquo; and &ldquo;effective control&rdquo; are undefined. This article examines the Canadian legal landscape, key case law and Section 23 of Ontario&rsquo;s Commercial Tenancies Act, and offers practical considerations for drafting and negotiating change of control provisions. It also highlights potential carve-outs and strategies to reduce ambiguity and the risk of future disputes.

change of Control of Commercial Tenants Drafting

Change of Control of Commercial Tenants: Drafting, Interpretation and Practical Considerations

Akhila Sandhu

Summer Student

Morgan Sutherland

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate 

Michael C. Smith

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The United Nations has adopted the first global regulatory framework for Automated Driving Systems, establishing safety, cybersecurity, testing and monitoring requirements for Level 3, 4 and 5 automated vehicles. This article examines the framework&rsquo;s implications for Canada, including how Transport Canada may incorporate the requirements into domestic vehicle safety standards and what manufacturers and suppliers should consider as regulation evolves.

First Global Regulatory Framework For Autonomous Vehicles

First Global Regulatory Framework For Autonomous Vehicles: Key Takeaways For Canada And The Auto Industry

Martin Ignasiak KC

Energy & Industrial Projects Lawyer

Head of Energy Regulatory

Michael P. Theroux KC

Commercial Litigation, Arbitration & Energy Litigation Lawyer

Partner 

Brynne Harding

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

The Supreme Court of Canada has resolved one of the most consequential questions left open by Vavilov, and which has divided jurisprudence in lower courts since then&mdash;whether judicial review is constitutionally guaranteed or can be barred by privative clauses.

Big Implications for Appeals from Administrative Tribunals

The Supreme Court Settles the Constitutional Floor for Judicial Review in Democracy Watch v Canada

Ethan Z. Schiff

Class Actions & Commercial Litigation Lawyer

The Supreme Court of Canada&rsquo;s decision in SS&amp;C Technologies Canada Corporation v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, 2026 SCC 29, revisits the doctrine of spoliation and confirms that courts must draw an adverse inference when intentional destruction of relevant evidence is established. The decision provides guidance on the test for spoliation, the scope of mandatory adverse inferences and the importance of preserving evidence during litigation.

The Supreme Court of Canada Affirms Mandatory Adverse Inference in Cases of Spoliation

The Supreme Court of Canada Affirms Mandatory Adverse Inference for Spoliation

Dominique T. Hussey

Chief Executive Officer and Intellectual Property Litigator, Pharma/Biotech and Trademark Lawyer

Chief Executive Officer

Vincent M. de Grandpré

IP Lawyer | Life Sciences & Tech

Emily P. Kettel

Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner, Trademark Agent

In Pharmascience v. Janssen Inc., the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed that methods of medical treatment remain unpatentable subject matter under the Patent Act because they are directed to the professional skill and judgment of healthcare practitioners. At the same time, the Court upheld the patentability of the dosing regimen claims at issue, clarifying that not all therapeutic or treatment-related claims constitute unpatentable methods of medical treatment. The decision provides important guidance on assessing patent eligibility for pharmaceutical and life sciences innovations in Canada.

Supreme Court of Canada Reaffirms that  Methods of Medical Treatment are Unpatentable

Supreme Court of Canada Confirms That Medical Professional Skill and Judgment Are Excluded From the Patent Bargain

Title Alphabetical

Title

normal

Edmonton Women in Finance Panel, Champions for Change: Why Diversity Matters

From the Same Authors