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

J. Sébastien A. Gittens

Technology Lawyer & Trademark Agent

Tech & Data, National Practice Group Leader 

Caroline Poirier

IT, Privacy & Data Protection Lawyer

Partner

Stephen D. Burns

Energy & Infrastructure Technology Lawyer | IT/OT & Markets

Partner, Trademark Agent

Earlier this month, the federal government introduced the proposed federal Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act (PPCDA) &ndash; a signal that Canada&rsquo;s private-sector privacy landscape may undergo significant transformation imminently. To assist organizations that conduct business in Canada with their potential compliance efforts with respect thereto, the following is intended to provide a non-exhaustive, high-level comparison between: (i) the PPCDA; (ii) Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA); (iii) Qu&eacute;bec&rsquo;s Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector (the Qu&eacute;bec Privacy Act, as amended by Law 25); and (iv) the Personal Information Protection Acts of Alberta and British Columbia (collectively, the PIPAs).

A Comparison of the PPCDA PIPEDA Quebecs Privacy Act and PIPA

A Comparison of the PPCDA, PIPEDA, Quebec's Privacy Act and PIPA

Ruth E. Promislow

Privacy, Cybersecurity & AI Lawyer

On June 4th, 2026, the federal government released Canada&rsquo;s National Artificial Intelligence Strategy: AI for All (the Strategy). The Strategy aims to ensure that artificial intelligence serves Canadians, strengthens businesses and communities and enhances Canada&rsquo;s control over its technological future through six key pillars.

Canadas AI for All Strategy Building Trust Innovation and Sovereignty in the Era of AI

Canada’s AI for All Strategy: Building Trust, Innovation and Sovereignty in the Era of AI

On June 15, 2026, the federal government introduced Bill C-36 to modernize Canada&rsquo;s federal private sector privacy laws and continue the implementation of Canada's National Artificial Intelligence Strategy: AI for All.

Bill C 36 and Canadian Privacy Reform

Five Things Businesses Should Know Now

Bill C-36 and Canadian Privacy Reform

Ahmed Elmallah

Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Counsel, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent

Roseann Caldwell

Canadian and United States Patent Agent at Bennett Jones Calgary

Patent Agent

This update analyzes recent Patent Appeal Board decisions to identify trends in the allowance of fintech and financial services patents in Canada. It shows that patentable claims typically frame innovations as technical solutions&mdash;such as improving computing efficiency or integrating specialized hardware&mdash;rather than purely business methods. These trends align with post-Dusome guidance and provide practical insight into how fintech inventions can meet patent eligibility requirements.

Fintech Patents Allowance Trends At The Canadian Patent Appeal Board

Part 2 Fintech Patents: Allowance Trends At The Canadian Patent Appeal Board

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

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

Associate

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

Sébastien Gittens Profiled in The Calgary Law Review

From the Same Authors