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

Michelle F. Yung

Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Partner

Luke Stretch

Commercial Real Estate Lawyer

Associate

Nathalie Hunter Heighington

Associate at Bennett Jones Vancouver

In Convocation Flowers Incorporated v. Anisa Holdings Ltd., 2026 ONCA 145, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a landlord&rsquo;s interference with essential common area access&mdash;specifically loading dock facilities&mdash;can constitute a repudiatory breach of a commercial lease. The Court emphasized that even broadly drafted landlord discretion clauses cannot be exercised in a way that defeats a tenant&rsquo;s core operational use of the premises. The decision reinforces that courts will assess lease performance in practical, commercial terms when determining whether a fundamental breach has occurred.

Repudiation by Denied Access

Convocation Flowers Incorporated v. Anisa Holdings Ltd., 2026 ONCA 145

Repudiation by Denied Access: ONCA Confirms Loss of Essential Common Area Access May Be Repudiatory Breach of Lease

Samantha Lush

Corporate Commercial Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Alixe A.L. Cameron

Kateryna Korneliuk

Articling Student at Bennett Jones in Calgary

Articling Student  

Mortgage agreements in Alberta commonly include waivers of Sections 49 and 52 of the Expropriation Act, which can significantly alter how compensation is allocated when land is expropriated. These clauses may shift financial risk from lenders to borrowers and affect entitlement to market value-based compensation and disturbance payments. This blog examines the legal enforceability of such waivers and highlights the importance of clear drafting and independent legal advice.

Drafting Cautiously Waiving Statutory Protections

Sections 49 and 52 of Alberta's Expropriation Act in Mortgage Agreements

Drafting Cautiously: Waiving Statutory Protections 

Daniel (Dan) R. Chubb

Corporate Commercial Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Joan Bilsland

Knowledge Management Research Lawyer

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

Natalia E. Iamundo

Commercial Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Troy Mack

Rights of first refusal and rights of first offer are often used interchangeably, but they carry very different legal consequences in Alberta land transactions. This post explains how Alberta legislation and case law treat each right, why only a ROFR can support a caveat, and what parties should consider when structuring agreements to protect their interests.

Right of First Refusal vs Right of First Offer in Alberta Land Transactions

Right of First Refusal vs. Right of First Offer in Alberta Land Transactions 

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

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

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

G2S2 Capital Acquires Landmark First Canadian Centre in Downtown Calgary

From the Same Authors