People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Legal

Calgary

Toronto

Edmonton

Ottawa

Vancouver

New York

Montréal

Ruth E. Promislow

 Data Security and Privacy, Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

Caroline Poirier

Information Technology, Privacy and Data Protection Lawyer at Bennett Jones Montreal

Suzie Suliman

Commercial Transactions Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate, Trademark Agent

Canadian privacy regulators found TikTok improperly collected children&rsquo;s data and lacked valid consent. TikTok will implement new privacy measures, emphasizing stronger protections for youth and transparency under Canadian law.

Joint Privacy Commissioner Investigation of TikTok Key Take Aways

Joint Privacy Commissioner Investigation of TikTok Key Take-Aways

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) issued its findings on August 27, 2025 in connection with an investigation regarding the issue of whether individuals have the right to have information about them de-listed from search engine results.  The OPC found that in limited circumstances, there is such a right where the search results are likely to cause significant harm to an individual, such as a risk of harm to a person's safety or dignity, that outweigh any public interest in that information remaining accessible when searching the individual's name.

Right to Have Your Information De Listed

Right to Have Your Information De-Listed? The Federal Privacy Commissioner Issues Decision

Stephen D. Burns

Technology Lawyer, Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner, Trademark Agent

J. Sébastien A. Gittens

Intellectual Property and Technology Commercialization Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

On June 17, 2025, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) released a summary of its investigation findings regarding a data breach at 23andMe, which affected nearly 7 million customers, including approximately 320,000 Canadians.

23andMes Data Breach

23andMe's Data Breach: Key Takeaways

Emma Arnold-Fyfe

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Associate

When we are retained by clients to guide them through a cyber-attack in which information has been stolen by a threat actor, we almost always find that the client has unnecessarily stored sensitive information far beyond the period for which it required that data. There are two key problems with this approach (or lack thereof) to data retention: (1) in the face of a cyber-attack where criminals steal your information, the organization is incurring unnecessary liability by retaining information it does not need, and (2) when it comes to personal information, retention beyond the required period can itself give rise to regulatory investigation and penalties, and to litigation claims.

Data Spring Cleaning Minimize Your Liability

Data Spring Cleaning: Minimize Your Liability

David Cassin

Employment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Doug Fenton

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Robert W. Staley

Commercial, Securities and Class Action Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Vice Chair and Partner

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

Edwin G. Kroft KC

Tax Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones

Antoine Messervier

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Anna Lekach

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

The November 2025 issue of Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes explores major developments in Canadian tax law, including new CRA guidance on the Voluntary Disclosures Program, court decisions on settlement confidentiality and costs, and proposed reforms to the Tax Court&rsquo;s informal procedure limits. The issue also features case summaries and insights from Bennett Jones&rsquo; tax litigators on emerging trends in tax dispute resolution.

Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes Issue 39

Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes: November 2025

Benjamin K. Reingold

Intellectual Property Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Makda Yohannes

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into creative workflows, the use of typefaces and fonts raises complex intellectual property challenges. This article examines the distinction between typefaces and fonts, the scope of copyright, trademark and industrial design protection in Canada, and how AI tools may heighten infringement risks. It also outlines practical steps for designers and businesses to ensure compliance through proper licensing and responsible AI use.

Understanding IP Infringement Risk in Typeface Use in AI Generated Content

Understanding IP Infringement Risk in Typeface Use in AI-Generated Content

Lisa Kakoske

Corporate and Securities Lawyer

Samantha Chenatte

Associate at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Globally, women represent nearly half of the agricultural workforce, yet they still face systemic barriers that prevent them from accessing, using and contributing to innovations in agricultural technology (Agritech), which is poised to transform agricultural systems across the world.

Gender Inclusivity Driving Growth in Agritech Industry

Sara G. Parchello

Brendan J. Weiler

Employment Services Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Two recent Ontario Superior Court decisions&mdash;Li v Wayfair Canada Inc. and Jones v Strides Toronto&mdash;clarify that the phrase &ldquo;at any time&rdquo; in a termination clause does not automatically invalidate an employment agreement under the ESA. While both cases distinguish earlier restrictive rulings, ongoing inconsistencies, including the Chan decision, highlight the need for appellate guidance. Employers should continue to review contracts carefully to ensure ESA compliance.

Termination At Any Time A Review of Recent Developments

Termination “At Any Time”? A Review of Recent Developments from Li v Wayfair Canada Inc. and Jones v Strides Toronto

The Sedona Conference Working Group

From the Same Authors