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

Robert W. Staley

Securities & Commercial Litigation Lawyer | Shareholder Disputes

Vice Chair and Partner

Doug Fenton

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

Sophia DiNicolo

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate 

The Ontario Superior Court in Dziedziejko v Canopy Growth held that materiality may be inferred from a significant share price drop following corrective disclosure, granting leave to pursue secondary market misrepresentation claims. The decision signals a potential shift from contextual materiality analysis and raises challenges for issuers with volatile share prices. 
<div>&nbsp;</div>

Inferring Materiality from Share Price Movement Dziedziejko v Canopy Growth

Inferring Materiality from Share Price Movement: Dziedziejko v Canopy Growth

Kristopher R. Hanc

M&A and Capital Markets Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

John Lawless

Private Equity, M&A, Corporate and Securities Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

James D. Beeby

Corporate Finance, M&A, Private Equity and Venture Capital Lawyer

The Supreme Court of Canada has released its much-anticipated decision in Lundin Mining Corp. v. Markowich, 2025 SCC 39, clarifying the definition of a "material change" under securities law and providing guidance on when a public company must disclose information to the market. The decision will have broad implications for public companies, their directors, officers, shareholders and other market participants.

Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies Scope of Securities Disclosure Obligations for Material Changes

Shifting Grounds: Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies Scope of Securities Disclosure Obligations for "Material Changes"

Amanda C. McLachlan

Corporate & Regulatory Lawyer | Disputes, Investigations & Compliance

The Ontario Court of Appeal&rsquo;s decision in Binance v. OSC clarifies the limits of the OSC&rsquo;s investigative powers and the Charter protections available in securities investigations. While the Court rejected a constitutional right to challenge a summons before compliance, it found the summons issued to Binance overbroad and unconstitutional. The ruling offers important guidance for market participants on regulatory scrutiny, the scope of document production, and the viability of judicial review.

Court of Appeal Addresses Scope of Charter Review in Securities Investigations

Binance v. OSC: Court of Appeal Addresses Scope of Charter Review in Securities Investigations 

David Cassin

Employment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

In McPherson v Global Growth Assets Inc., the Ontario Superior Court interpreted the no-reprisal provisions of the Securities Act for the first time, awarding more than $5.3 million to a CEO who was terminated after raising compliance concerns. The decision underscores the strength of the Act&rsquo;s protections for employees who engage in protected activities and highlights the significant risk to employers of taking disciplinary action without clear, documented justification.

Ontario Securities Act No Reprisal Provisions Results in 53 Million Award to CEO

Ontario Securities Act No-Reprisal Provisions Results in C$5.3 Million Award to CEO: A Warning to Regulated Employers

Simon P. Crawford

Leading Commercial Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

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

Daniel (Dan) R. Chubb

Corporate Commercial Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Joan Bilsland

Knowledge Management Research Lawyer at Bennett Jones

Knowledge Management Research Lawyer

Luke Stretch

Commercial Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Canadian courts generally treat real estate deposits as forfeitable upon a purchaser&rsquo;s default, distinct from unenforceable penalty clauses. However, under the Redstone factors, courts may grant relief from forfeiture where a deposit is grossly disproportionate to the vendor&rsquo;s damages or where retaining it would be unconscionable in the circumstances.

When A Deposit Becomes A Penalty

When a Deposit Becomes a Penalty: Relief From Forfeiture in Real Estate Transactions

Andrew N. Disipio

Mining & Corporate Finance Lawyer | M&A, Equity & Debt Deals

Hon. John R. Baird P.C.

Senior Advisor | International Trade, Investment & Security

Senior Business Advisor

Sander A.J.R. Grieve KC

Global Mining Finance & M&A Lawyer | Bennett Jones Toronto

Members of Bennett Jones' mining team shared their insights across three panels held at the firm's Toronto office during this year's PDAC convention. The discussions addressed the opportunities and complexities of this evolving landscape&mdash;and what Canada must do to capitalize on the moment.

Optimism Abounds at PDAC 2026 and Bennett Jones Panels

Dana Talucci

Corporate Commercial Practice at Bennett Jones Toronto

Hennadiy Kutsenko

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

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

Leanne C. Krawchuk KC

Corporate, Mining & Construction Lawyer | Capital Markets

Partner, Corporate

James T. McClary

Private Equity and M&A Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Private equity investment in mining has grown over the past decade, driven largely by opportunities in mining sub-industries such as materials, software and industrial machinery despite persistent risk and scalability concerns. The article analyzes global and Canadian deal trends, structures and strategies, offering insights on where PE capital is being deployed and the outlook for investors and mining companies.

Shareholder Rights, Disputes and Remedies

From the Same Authors

Inferring Materiality from Share Price Movement: Dziedziejko v Canopy Growth

Shifting Grounds: Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies Scope of Securities Disclosure Obligations for "Material Changes"

Binance v. OSC: Court of Appeal Addresses Scope of Charter Review in Securities Investigations

Latest Insights

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

When a Deposit Becomes a Penalty: Relief From Forfeiture in Real Estate Transactions

Optimism Abounds at PDAC 2026 and Bennett Jones Panels

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

Stay Informed. Stay Ahead.