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

Stephen D. Burns

Energy & Infrastructure Technology Lawyer | IT/OT & Markets

Partner, Trademark Agent

J. Sébastien A. Gittens

Technology Lawyer & Trademark Agent

Tech & Data, National Practice Group Leader 

Scott H. D. Bower KC

Corporate, Commercial, Securities and Energy Lawyer

Partner 

Canadian courts and law societies, alike, are faced with an ever-evolving challenge: straddling the line between recognizing the potential benefits of emergent generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), while balancing the associated risks of using this technology. Principle to these associated risks is the ability of GenAI to "hallucinate" (i.e., generate incorrect information).

Unchartered Territories Canadian Courts and Law Societies Grapple with the Use of Generative

Unchartered Territories: Canadian Courts and Law Societies Grapple with the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools

Julia E. Schatz

Commercial & Regulatory Lawyer | Environmental & Agribusiness

The ability to extend a limitation period for an environmental claim is subject to considerable judicial discretion, the Court of Appeal of Alberta recently held in <a rel="noopener noreferrer" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2024/2024abca60/2024abca60.html" target="_blank">Paramount Resources Ltd v Grey Owl Engineering Ltd, 2024 ABCA 60</a>. Section 218 of Alberta's Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c E-12 gives a judge discretion to extend a limitation period "where the basis for the proceeding is an alleged adverse effect resulting from the alleged release of a substance into the environment".  However, no extension was granted in the case of a claim for remediation costs against other alleged contributors to a pipeline spill.

Extending Discretion Balancing the Limitations Act and Environmental Remediation Claims

Extending Discretion: Balancing the Limitations Act and Environmental Remediation Claims

Russell J. Kruger

Research Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Counsel

Separate corporate personality is not a loophole or technicality, but is an essential principle of corporate law, the Alberta Court of Appeal recently reiterated in <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://canlii.ca/t/jzbmj" target="_blank">Condominium Corporation No. 0828219 v Carrington Holdings Ltd., 2023 ABCA 222</a> [Carrington] and <a href="https://canlii.ca/t/jzf2t" target="_self">Swanby v Tru-Square Homes Ltd, 2023 ABCA 224</a> [Swanby]. Together, Carrington and Swanby highlight the powerful impact of separate corporate personality on shareholder liability for the actions of their corporations.

Separate Corporate Personality Remains Alive and Well in Alberta

Preet K. Gill

Insolvency & Restructuring Lawyer | Litigation & Transactions

Toronto Managing Partner

Legislation must show a clear, explicit and unequivocal intention to abrogate privilege before a party is required to disclose privileged information, the Ontario Court of Appeal reiterated in its recent decision of <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://canlii.ca/t/jwz8q" target="_blank">Ontario (Auditor General) v. Laurentian University, 2023 ONCA 299</a>.

Privilege is Sacrosanct Ontario Court of Appeal Affirms High Threshold for Abrogation of Privilege

Privilege is Sacrosanct: Ontario Court of Appeal Affirms High Threshold for Abrogation of Privilege

Akhila Sandhu

Summer Student

Morgan Sutherland

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate 

Michael C. Smith

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

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

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

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

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

Major Business Agreements - Crafting, Drafting and Managing Commercial Transactions

From the Same Authors