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

Osie Ukwuoma

Corporate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

Jeffrey Kerbel

M&A, Financings, Governance and Regulatory Business and Securities Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner 

Kristopher R. Hanc

M&A and Capital Markets Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

On November 19, 2024, the Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal (Tribunal) released its reasons for its July 2024 decision granting an application by Riot Platforms, Inc. (Riot) to cease trade a shareholder rights plan (Plan) adopted by Bitfarms Ltd. (Bitfarms). This decision is significant as it refined the test for the granting of an order “in the public interest” under section 127 of the Securities Act (Ontario) (the Act), at least as it applied to shareholder rights plans. The decision also demonstrated the unwillingness of the Tribunal to allow a shareholder rights plan to have a trigger below 20 percent.

Ontario Tribunal Refines Public Interest Test in Cease Trade Decision on Shareholder Rights Plans

Robert W. Staley

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

Vice Chair and Partner

COVID and Annual Shareholder Meetings

COVID-19 and Annual Shareholder Meetings

Nicholas P. Fader

Oil & Gas, Industrial and Technology Public Markets Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner and General Counsel

Brent W. Kraus

Mergers and Acquisitions, Capital Markets and Corporate/Commercial Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

For close to three months, M&A lawyers and other capital markets participants had been anxiously awaiting the release of written reasons from the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”) and the Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan (“FCAAS” and, together with the OSC, the “Commissions”) for their December 22, 2017 orders (collectively, “CanniMed Order”) in the matter of Aurora Cannabis Inc. (“Aurora”) and CanniMed Therapeutics Inc. (“CanniMed”). The Commissions' written decision (released on March 15, 2018) is of considerable interest, as the Aurora/CanniMed proceeding engaged a number of key provisions of the new takeover bid rules introduced in May 2016 (the "New Rules") and represented the first time securities regulators have had to address elements of the New Rules in the context of contested applications.

Securities Commissions Provide Guidance on New Takeover Rules in Hostile Cannabis Bid

Jon C. Truswell

M&A, Equity and Debt Financing, Restructuring and Governance Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Transactions between related parties may create material conflicts of interest between an issuer and its directors, officers and related parties. In particular, material conflicts of interest may arise in the context of insider bids, issuer bids, business combinations and related party transactions. Multilateral Instrument 61-101 Protection of Minority Security Holders in Special Transactions (MI 61-101) was adopted in Alberta, Manitoba and New Brunswick on July 31, 2017, and prescribes procedural safeguards intended to mitigate the risks to minority security holders in material conflict of interest transactions. MI 61-101 has been in effect in Ontario and Québec since February 1, 2008, when it superseded Rule 61-501 in Ontario and Regulation Q-27 in Quebec.

CSA Provide Guidance on the Review of Material Conflict of Interest Transactions

Canadian Securities Administrators Provide Guidance on the Review of Material Conflict of Interest Transactions

David Cassin

Employment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Doug Fenton

Litigation 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

Edwin G. Kroft KC

Tax Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones

Antoine Messervier

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Associate

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.

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

Jeff Kerbel in Law Times Focus on Changed Takeover Laws in Canada

From the Same Authors