People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Payments

Legal

Calgary

Toronto

Edmonton

Ottawa

Vancouver

New York

Montréal

Emrys Davis

Competition & Antitrust Litigation Lawyer

Partner

Ana Nizharadze

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate

This article examines the growing wave of drip pricing class actions following recent amendments to the Competition Act. It analyzes key Federal Court decisions that clarify how courts assess &ldquo;unattainable prices,&rdquo; fixed and obligatory fees, and damages at the certification stage. With several appeals and new cases underway, these rulings offer early guidance on how disclosure obligations may evolve in 2026 and beyond.

From First Price to Final Cost Drip Pricing Cases on the Rise

"Drip Pricing" Cases on the Rise

From First Price to Final Cost

Lukas VanDusen

Competition & Antitrust Lawyer | Foreign Investment

This article reviews the Competition Tribunal&rsquo;s first decision interpreting the new public interest standing provisions under the Competition Act. It establishes a three-part test for leave and emphasizes the need for a strong evidentiary record, including a viable litigation plan and demonstrated capacity to pursue complex claims. The decision underscores the Tribunal&rsquo;s gatekeeping role while providing guidance for future applicants and respondents.

Quasi Class Actions at the Competition Tribunal

Tribunal Provides First Guidance on Requirements for Public Interest Standing  

Quasi-Class Actions at the Competition Tribunal

Cheryl M. Woodin

Commercial Litigation & Trial Lawyer

Kolding Larson

Commercial Transactions Lawyer

The Federal Court dismissed a proposed C$5B class action alleging a nationwide conspiracy to fix generic drug prices, finding no basis in fact and denying certification. The decision underscores the Court&rsquo;s gatekeeping role and confirms that US enforcement actions and generalized market theories are insufficient to support competition claims in Canada without clear, particularized evidence.

Federal Court Dismisses 5 Billion Generic Drug Price Fixing Class Action

Federal Court Dismisses C$5 Billion Generic Drug Price-Fixing Class Action 

Melanie L. Aitken

Antitrust & Competition Law Advisor

Managing Principal, Bennett Jones (US) LLP

In Martin v. Alphabet, the Competition Tribunal issued its first decision interpreting the new public-interest pathway for private access under section 103.1(7) of the Competition Act. While affirming an intention to broaden access, the Tribunal articulated a flexible but rigorous three-part framework that places real weight on evidence, genuine interest and the applicant&rsquo;s capacity to prosecute complex competition cases. The decision underscores that public interest alone is insufficient without a coherent, Canada-focused evidentiary record and a credible litigation plan.

Martin v Alphabet Tribunal

Martin v. Alphabet: Tribunal Sets the Public Interest Leave Framework—Evidence and Capacity Now the Gatekeepers

J. Sébastien A. Gittens

Technology Lawyer & Trademark Agent

Partner, Trademark Agent

Caroline Poirier

IT, Privacy & Data Protection Lawyer

Stephen D. Burns

Energy & Infrastructure Technology Lawyer | IT/OT & Markets

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

Robert W. Staley

Securities & Commercial Litigation Lawyer | Shareholder Disputes

Vice Chair and Partner

Doug Fenton

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice&rsquo;s decision in Nivora Group LLC v. Ping et al. clarifies the strict limits on Norwich orders in the context of crypto asset disputes. The Court dismissed a motion seeking third-party disclosure from cryptocurrency exchanges, reaffirming that Norwich relief is an extraordinary remedy available only where it is truly necessary and cannot be used to replace ordinary discovery. Even in cases involving alleged asset tracing, applicants must demonstrate that the third party is the only practicable source of the information and that the interests of justice favour disclosure.

Court Reaffirms Limits on Norwich Orders in Crypto Asset Disputes

The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Chanderpaul v. Caesars Convention Centre Ltd. clarifies when courts may pierce the corporate veil and hold shareholders personally liable for a corporation's wrongful conduct. While reaffirming the high threshold for veil-piercing claims, the decision provides important guidance on the types of conduct that may justify this exceptional remedy.

Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Test for Piercing the Corporate Veil

Amanda C. McLachlan

Corporate & Regulatory Lawyer | Disputes, Investigations & Compliance

In Friel v. HUB International Limited, 2026 ONCA 313, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the enforceability of a forum selection clause designating the State of Delaware as the exclusive forum for resolving a dispute between a former employee in Ontario and his employer's Delaware-based parent entities over the exercise of vested share options. The decision provides important guidance for employers that structure equity incentive arrangements through related entities and reinforces the significance of clear contractual language delineating employment relationships from equity participation rights.

When Agreements Collide The Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Forum Selection Provision in Friel v HUB

When Agreements Collide — The Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Forum Selection Provision in Friel v. HUB

Title Alphabetical

Title

normal

ABA Section of International Law Meeting

From the Same Authors