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

Sarah E. Gilbert

Regulatory, Environmental and Health and Safety Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

Gatlin Smeijers

Environmental Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Julia E. Schatz

Commercial Litigation, Agribusiness, Arbitration, Real Estate, Construction and Environmental Litigation at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner 

On June 5, 2025, the Competition Bureau (the Bureau) published its <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/en/how-we-foster-competition/education-and-outreach/publications/environmental-claims-and-competition-act#sec02-2" target="_blank">final Guidelines for environmental claims</a> under the Competition Act (the Act). The Guidelines were created to help businesses and the public understand the Bureau's approach to deceptive marketing provisions under the Act as they relate to environmental claims, including with respect to the new environment-specific provisions that were enacted in 2024. While not binding on the Commissioner of Competition nor the Competition Tribunal, the Guidelines provide visibility into the Bureau's interpretation and approach to environmental claims.

Final Guidelines From the Competition Bureau on Environmental Claims in Canada

Final Guidelines from the Competition Bureau on Environmental Claims in Canada

Samantha Chenatte

Associate at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Associate

On March 7, 2025, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) published two consultation documents as part of its ongoing work to clarify which categories of pest control products are subject to the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA) and the Pest Control Products Regulations (PCPR) passed under it, which products are exempt and which may be authorized (without registration being required). The PMRA is seeking further stakeholder input on the amendments being proposed. The comment period is open until May 6, 2025.

Pest Management Regulatory Agency Opens Pre Consultation Period on Proposed Changes

Pest Management Regulatory Agency Opens Pre-Consultation Period on Proposed Changes to the Pest Control Products Regulations

The Government of Canada published the final "State of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) report" (<a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/evaluating-existing-substances/state-per-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-report.html" target="_blank">State of PFAS Report</a>), the "Risk management approach for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), excluding fluoropolymers" (<a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/evaluating-existing-substances/risk-management-approach-per-polyfluoroalkyl-substances.html" target="_blank">Risk Management Approach</a>) and a proposed Order adding a toxic substance to Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) (<a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2025/2025-03-08/html/reg2-eng.html" target="_blank">Proposed Order</a>) in the Canada Gazette on March 8, 2025.  These documents are open for public consultation until May 7, 2025.

Federal Government publishes State of PFAS Report and Risk Management Approach

Federal Government Publishes State of PFAS Report and Risk Management Approach

The Federal Court has ordered the review of another Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) decision, spotlighting how the regulatory agency handles new scientific evidence in the renewal process for pesticides in Canada. This decision builds on jurisprudence from the Federal Court of Appeal that challenged the PMRA’s refusal to establish a review panel in the face of a notice of objection regarding the PMRA’s re-evaluation of the pesticide glyphosate (see our blog from February 2022, <a href="/Insights/Blogs/The-Federal-Court-of-Appeal-Has-Weighed-in-on-ReEvaluation-Decisions">The Federal Court of Appeal Has Weighed in on Re-Evaluation Decisions Made by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency</a>, which reviews that decision in more detail).

Federal Court Orders Review of PMRA Decision Renewing Glyphosate Pesticide

Andrew Bozzato

Corporate, M&A, Securities Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Bishoy Attia

Articling Student at Bennett Jones in Toronto

Articling Student

Private investment in the defence sector is accelerating as governments realign policy priorities and expand support for dual-use and DefTech innovation. Canada&rsquo;s 2025 Budget and long-term spending commitments are reshaping the industry, driving new opportunities across AI, cyber, space, advanced manufacturing and critical infrastructure. With global capital flowing into defence technology and structural reforms underway to modernize procurement, the sector is rapidly transitioning from fragmented to fully investable.

Policy Dual Use and DefTech Drive a New Era for Private Capital in Defence

Policy, Dual-Use and DefTech Drive a New Era for Private Capital in Defence

Daron K. Naffin

Energy, Environmental/Regulatory and Expropriation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Tim Myers

Regulatory, Environmental, Aboriginal and Expropriation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Thomas Machell

Regulatory Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

On November 4, 2025, the Alberta Energy Regulator released AERH2S, an updated version of its computer model for calculating Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) for sour gas applications. AERH2S replaces the longstanding ERCBH2S model and is available for immediate use by industry. According to AER Bulletin 2025-34, the use of AERH2S will become mandatory for all applications filed under Directive 056: Energy Development Applications and Schedules, including amendment applications, starting January 1, 2026. The continued use of ERCBH2S is permitted for updates to existing EPZs (and any EPZs established before January 1, 2026) under Directive 071: Emergency Preparedness and Response until further notice.

Alberta Energy Regulator Releases New AERH2S Model for Sour Gas Operations

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

Stephen D. Burns

Technology Lawyer, Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner, Trademark Agent

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.

Case Comment: Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals Ltd.

From the Same Authors