Stay informed with the latest insights and updates

The year 2025 will likely be remembered as a defining moment for international law. Across regions and legal regimes, we witnessed a convergence of forces that placed extraordinary strain on the rule-based international order. What made 2025 particularly challenging was not only the scale of these developments but also the environment in which they unfolded: legal determinations were increasingly filtered through political narratives, binding obligations were treated as optional, and evidence-based findings by courts and UN bodies were often dismissed as partisan or inconvenient. In such a climate, international law demands disciplined attention to facts rather than emotion, law rather than politics, and accountability rather than image management. This article outlines several of the most significant international legal developments of 2025 and reflects on what they collectively reveal about the state and stakes of international law today.

What is a class action? Why do we have them? How much do lawyers and litigation funders benefit from them, and why? This article, originally published by Lexpert, gets into the nitty gritty of these questions, through the lens of how different Canadian jurisdictions approach the issues of litigation funding, adverse costs, and counsel remuneration.

In a trilogy of cases in 2022, the Ontario Court of Appeal sharply limited the availability of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion in privacy and data breach class actions involving third-party hackers. This article considers two recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decisions which demonstrate that while the Trilogy narrowed the scope of privacy class actions in Ontario, it did not necessarily close the door.

In Gifford v. Air Canada, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice denied certification of a proposed class proceeding which alleged a supply-suppression conspiracy among several airlines. This article highlights key takeaways concerning certification motions in proposed competition class actions, including the importance of taking into account the dynamics of the Canadian market and the economic complexities associated with an allegedly cartelized product.

The responsibilities assumed by a representative plaintiff are significant and can give rise to pressure, financial risk and public scrutiny. There has been much judicial debate over the question of whether a representative plaintiff should receive some monetary amount in recognition of taking on the role. This article summarizes the Canadian courts' treatment of the issue and considers some recent and notable trends coming out of the Ontario courts.

Exposure to PFAS in drinking water has been associated with health risks such as immune suppression, thyroid disruption, and an increased risk of certain cancers. As a result, there has been a significant rise in class actions alleging property value diminution due to the stigma of PFAS-contaminated drinking water. Real estate professionals should be aware of this emerging issue.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal's recent decision in Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner) ("Gitxaala") dramatically increases the ability of Indigenous rights and title holders to use the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People ("UNDRIP") to advance and protect their interests. This article summarizes the decision and highlights two ways we have begun using this decision in our advocacy in British Columbia and across the country: 1) UNDRIP may expand the Duty to Consult and Accommodate ("DTCA"); and 2) UNDRIP may be enforceable in the courts where the Crown is not delivering on its promise to recognize and implement UNDRIP rights.

This article discusses how AI’s ability to replicate voices, images, and other personal traits is prompting new legal questions about the protection of personality rights.

This article examines how artificial intelligence has transformed various sectors, particularly the fashion and creative industries. While AI offers significant efficiencies, it also poses a growing threat to originality, evolving into a crisis of trademark distinctiveness with direct implications for Canadian and global IP law.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario from January 19, 2026 to January 23, 2026.

In this article, Benjamin Miller addresses two common questions he gets (typically from sports organizations or festivals) about whether sponsorships or in-kind contributions make an organization a public benefit corporation (PBC) under Ontario's Not-for-Profit Corporations Act (ONCA).

DEML Investments Limited v. Canada is a GAAR decision where the FCA found that a bump transaction involving Canadian resource properties abused paragraph 88(1)(d). The FCA applied the GAAR to deny only the portion of the capital loss that is attributable to the ACB bump, thereby revising the TCC decision in part.

In this article, Shannon Sweeney examines the practical and cost consequences arising from Ontario’s October 1, 2025 increase of the Small Claims Court monetary limit to $50,000. She explains how litigants who commenced actions under the Superior Court’s Simplified Procedure may now face difficult strategic decisions, particularly where significant procedural steps have already been completed. While the Superior Court retains discretion to award costs in cases that fall within Small Claims jurisdiction, Sweeney notes that such discretion is exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. Ultimately, the article underscores that remaining in Simplified Procedure may be reasonable in limited contexts, but meaningful cost recovery is unlikely once damages fall within Small Claims limits.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario from January 12, 2026 to January 16, 2026.

Subsection 247(2.1) establishes that transfer pricing rules take precedence over other tax provisions when determining transactions for Canadian corporations with related non-residents. This subsection outlines three ordering rules, introduced in Budget 2019 and legislated under Bill C-30 – these rules can be pertinent to Canadian technology firms participating in Scientific Research and Experimental Development (“SR&ED”) initiatives, particularly when a related non-resident company is involved. This article addresses potential uncertainties associated with applying these ordering rules when calculating ITCs – and subsequent sale/disposition of a developed asset via SR&ED activities.

Tax disputes follow many stages and phases. Each phase of a tax dispute from CRA audit and appeals to appealing to the Tax Court of Canada includes different practical and qualitative considerations for taxpayers. Where a taxpayer disagrees with positions and processes while at the CRA audit and appeals steps, the Tax Court of Canada offers an important check on the application of tax law. In addition to more robust rules and procedures at the Tax Court of Canada, judicial oversight can help ensure a fairer process for taxpayers when compared to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Adding the perspective of Department of Justice lawyers when appealing to the Tax Court of Canada can also facilitate settlement by providing a new risk assessment for the Minister.

In its 2025 Federal Budget, the Department of Finance Canada proposed certain amendments to the Income Tax Act (Canada) that are intended to simplify the qualified investment regime for registered plans. This article provides a short overview and discussion of the proposed changes.

Astle v. The King, 2025 TCC 105 (Informal Procedure), is a recent decision from the Tax Court of Canada taking up a former company director’s liability for unremitted payroll source deductions. The Tax Court dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal, finding that the taxpayer had been validly assessed by the Canada Revenue Agency within two years after the taxpayer had last ceased to be a director of the corporation. The Tax Court also concluded that the taxpayer had not established due diligence to prevent the failure to remit. While the Tax Court’s decision in this case may be understandable on its facts, the Court has continued to adopt statements from prior authorities that, respectfully, extend the reach of tax legislation beyond an appropriate construction of its text, particularly in light of the need to resort to provincial corporate law to determine when a director has resigned. That provincial authority can, and should, determine when a director has validly resigned in accordance with the prevailing body of corporate law.

When it comes to protecting intellectual property in franchising, trademarks tend to dominate the conversation, largely because the franchise system’s name and logo are often the key drivers of brand recognition and success. However, one of the assets in franchised businesses that is often overlooked are copyrighted materials.

This article explores the key aspects of a common employer finding and outlines the potential pitfalls and mitigation strategies for franchisors seeking to evaluate their own internal practices and protect their business. Ultimately, there are ways to avoid a finding of common employer status, but doing so typically requires franchisors to forego at least some level of operational control. This is not an easy decision, as franchisors must balance the need to control certain employment practices to maintain brand consistency against the risk of being deemed a common employer.  This is a highly individualized balancing act and should be assessed within the context of each franchisor’s unique model.

Ontario has implemented significant amendments to the Construction Act and its regulations effective January 1, 2026, aimed at accelerating cash flow, clarifying rights, and refining adjudication and trust mechanisms across the construction pyramid. This article condenses the principal changes and their practical consequences for construction practitioners in Ontario.

The Canadian Construction Documents Committee (CCDC) recently issued updates to four of its standard form contracts. This article focuses on changes to the following three contracts:

• CCDC 5A – Construction Management Contract – For Services;
• CCDC 5B – Construction Management Contract for Services and Construction; and
• CCDC 17 – Stipulated Price Contract Between Owner and Trade Contractor for Construction Management Projects (collectively, the “2025 CM Contracts”).

On June 16, 2025, new Rule 49.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure came into force. The rule codifies a line of case law which imposed significant consequences on parties who failed to disclose partial settlements. This article reviews the requirements of the new rule and provides practical guidance for practitioners navigating the transition.

Picture this – you are subcontractor who has been contracted to build, weld, and otherwise complete the structural steel component of a commercial building. Your team finishes the welding – only to realize afterward that none of the workers were certified by the Canadian Welding Bureau (“CWB”), nor were they supervised by someone who was. You submit your invoice to the general contractor or the owner, but payment is refused due to "deficiencies." Can you still enforce your right to payment? According to the common law in Ontario, the short answer is unlikely.

On April 17, 2025, Earth Boring Co. Limited (EBCL) sought protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the CCAA). Among the provisions of the court’s initial order was a temporary stay preventing claims being made on certain performance bonds. This temporary stay led some in the construction industry to question the value of performance bonds during an insolvency. The outcome of the EBCL case, however, demonstrates the objectives of the CCAA process can be achieved without prejudicing the rights of project owners who want to ensure that their bonded contracts are completed.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario from December 31, 2025 to January 9, 2026

In this personal reflection, Dr. Ningjing (Natalie) Zhang shares a New Year’s resolution that reshaped how she practices law, leads her firm, and lives her life: learning to be her own best friend. Drawing from her experiences as a refugee-turned-lawyer, single mother, and first-time law firm owner, she reflects on how relentless self-criticism, though often mistaken for discipline, can quietly erode resilience. Through moments of parenting challenges, professional mistakes, and emotional reckoning, she argues that self-compassion is not indulgence but essential maintenance—especially for women lawyers navigating demanding careers.