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

Vasilis F. L. Pappas, FCIArb

International Arbitration Lawyer

Partner 

Melanie Teetaert

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Partner

Geoffrey P. Stenger

Energy, Infrastructure & Construction Lawyer

The Province of British Columbia has launched a six-week consultation on the implementation of the new Construction Prompt Payment Act. Industry stakeholders are invited to provide feedback on the Act's scope, potential exemptions and timing of implementation before the consultation closes on July 7, 2026. This update outlines the government's proposed approach and key issues under consideration.

BC Government Announces it is Soliciting Feedback on Prompt Payment Legislation

Leanne C. Krawchuk KC

Mining & Construction Lawyer

Alex Payne

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Prompt payment and dispute resolution reforms are changing how construction project participants are to be paid, their disputes determined and when liens are to be filed and holdbacks released.

Updates to Prompt Payment Legislation

An At-a-Glance Comparison: Have You Been Keeping Up with All the Changes?

Updates to Prompt Payment Legislation in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta

On October 7, 2025, British Columbia introduced Bill 20, the Construction Prompt Payment Act. If enacted, it will overhaul payment timelines and create a fast-track adjudication process for construction disputes. The legislation is expected to significantly impact owners, contractors and subcontractors across the province.

BC Introduces Prompt Payment Legislation

David J. Wahl, FCIArb

Construction Arbitration & Litigation Lawyer

Christopher Petrucci

Commercial Litigation Lawyer | Energy

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

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

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

Evana Yukanna

Associate

Ontario court denies a late class action opt-out request, reinforcing settlement finality and confirming prejudice can arise before court approval.

Ontario Court Reinforces Finality of Class Proceedings in Rejecting Late Opt Out Request

Ontario Court Reinforces Finality of Class Proceedings in Rejecting Late Opt-Out Request

Martin Ignasiak KC

Energy & Industrial Projects Lawyer

Head of Energy Regulatory

Tyler McDonough

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Logan Lazurko

Energy & Regulatory Lawyer | Environmental

On June 17, 2026, the Alberta Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed an appeal by Fort McMurray 468 First Nation challenging an Alberta Energy Regulator decision that the First Nation lacked standing to request regulatory appeals of approvals issued to AdhMor Ltd. for an oilfield waste management facility near Fort McMurray. The decision in Fort McMurray 468 First Nation v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2026 ABCA 197, offers important guidance on what it takes to get in the door at the AER.

Alberta Court of Appeal Confirms Cumulative Effects are no Substitute for Evidence

No Standing Without Specifics: Alberta Court of Appeal Confirms that Cumulative Effects are no Substitute for Evidence

Title Alphabetical

Title

normal

ICC Canada International Arbitration Conference 2017

From the Same Authors