Filtered Insights

Recent developments in Aboriginal Title litigation

Thu, 25 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

“Ultimately, it is through negotiated settlements, with good faith and give and take on all sides, reinforced by the judgments of this Court, that we will achieve … a basic purpose of s. 35(1) -- “the reconciliation of the pre-existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown". Let us face it, we are all here to stay."¹

Aboriginal title claims over privately held land have generated divergent results in Canadian courts. In August 2025, in Cowichan Tribes v Canada (Attorney General),² the Supreme Court of British Columbia declared, for the first time in Canadian legal history, Aboriginal title over privately owned fee simple lands. Three months later, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal reached the opposite conclusion in JD Irving, Limited et al. v. Wolastoqey Nation,³ holding that a declaration of Aboriginal title over privately held land is not available. On May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada declined leave to appeal the New Brunswick Court of Appeal’s decision, without reasons, as is customary for leave applications.

Update on Cowichan Tribes

As discussed in a previous insight article, in Cowichan Tribes, Justice Young of the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that the Cowichan succeeded in establishing Aboriginal title to a portion of Tl’uqtinus (the Cowichan Title Lands). Justice Young held that Crown grants of fee simple interests over the Cowichan Title Lands (including those made to Canada and the City of Richmond) “unjustifiably infringe the Cowichan’s Aboriginal title” and that, except for Canada’s interests in the Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project Lands, “Canada and Richmond’s fee simple titles and interests in the Cowichan Title Lands are defective and invalid.”

Justice Young concluded that because Aboriginal title and Crown title can coexist, fee simple, itself a derivative of Crown title, can also coexist with Aboriginal title.

All parties, including Cowichan Tribes and the defendants, appealed the decision in Cowichan Tribes. The defendants seek to set aside Justice Young’s decision and have Cowichan Tribes’ claim dismissed. Cowichan Tribes disagrees with Justice Young’s decision to only grant Aboriginal title over a portion of the Cowichan Title Lands.

However, the appeal of Cowichan Tribes remains at a standstill pending an application by Montrose Industries Ltd., Montrose Property Holdings Ltd., and Ecowaste Industries Ltd. (Montrose) to re-open the trial and add themselves as defendants to the action. Montrose owns certain properties within lands subject to the Court’s findings of Aboriginal title in Cowichan Tribes. Montrose alleges that, due to the decision in Cowichan Tribes, it faces a number of adverse impacts, including an inability to confirm clear title to its land.

Montrose asserts that it did not receive prior notice that the decision in Cowichan Tribes could impact its interests. The court did consider this issue in 2017, when Canada applied to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for an order that Cowichan Tribes provide formal notice to private registered owners of fee simple lands within the Cowichan Title Lands.⁴ The Court declined this request, noting that Cowichan Tribes did not seek to invalidate fee simple interests held by private landowners. However, the Court commented that nothing prevented the defendants from providing informal notice to private landowners. Montrose claims that no party provided it notice.

Cowichan Tribes opposes Montrose’s application. Among other things, Cowichan Tribes argues that Montrose’s delay in bringing its application until after the decision in Cowichan Tribes was inordinate.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia will likely issue a decision in the summer of 2026 on Montrose’s application to re-open the trial in Cowichan Tribes and add Montrose as a defendant. If the court rejects Montrose’s application, the British Columbia Court of Appeal could hear the appeal of the August 2025 decision in 2027, likely with the participation of many intervenors.

Update on Wolastoqey

Across the country, in Wolastoqey, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that Aboriginal title, which includes a right to exclusive use and occupation, is incompatible with fee simple ownership of the same land. Justice Drapeau stated that a declaration of Aboriginal title over privately owned lands would “sound the death knell of reconciliation with the interests of non‑Aboriginal Canadians.”⁵ Although not expressly stated, Justice Drapeau’s view on the nature of Aboriginal title contradicts the holding in Cowichan Tribes that Aboriginal title and fee simple ownership can coexist.

What remains available to the Wolastoqey Nation is a finding, rather than a declaration, of Aboriginal title over privately held land. Such a finding may support a compensation claim against the Crown for the historical grant of the land, but it does not confer on the Indigenous group rights of exclusive use and occupation.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant leave to appeal does not signal agreement with the New Brunswick Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Wolastoqey. It is possible that the Court is waiting for a case with a full trial record before addressing whether Aboriginal title can be declared over lands held in fee simple. The pending appeal in Cowichan before the British Columbia Court of Appeal, and any subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, could provide that opportunity. For now, Wolastoqey remains binding in New Brunswick, and Aboriginal title claims in the province are subject to that decision. While not binding elsewhere, its reasoning may influence courts in other jurisdictions.

Implications of Cowichan Tribes and Wolastoqey

The short answer for governments, Crown entities, businesses, landowners and project proponents is that the law on Aboriginal title remains unsettled:

In British Columbia, Cowichan Tribes supports the possibility that Aboriginal title and fee simple interests may coexist.
In New Brunswick, Wolastoqey holds that a declaration of Aboriginal title is not available over privately held fee simple land, although a finding of Aboriginal title may still support a compensation claim against the Crown.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent refusal to grant leave to appeal in Wolastoqey does not resolve the issue nationally. The result is a legal landscape marked by ongoing uncertainty rather than final resolution.

Even if an Indigenous group cannot obtain a declaration of Aboriginal title over fee simple lands, governments may still face claims for compensation for historic land grants and heightened consultation obligations when making future decisions regarding fee simple lands over which a court rules that the Indigenous group otherwise has met the test for Aboriginal title. Governments – including Crown corporations – should expect intense scrutiny of land disposition practices, project approvals, and consultation frameworks in areas where title claims remain active.

For private parties, the key takeaway is not that fee simple ownership has ceased to matter, but that it may no longer be treated as automatically insulating land from Aboriginal title-related risk, especially in British Columbia. We are seeing a marked increase in due diligence for Indigenous issues on major real estate transactions, but it is frankly difficult for private parties to properly scope the actual risk because of the limited public information on the state of aboriginal title claims but also the uncertainty in the caselaw.

The Nuchatlaht v British Columbia

Also, on April 2, 2026, The Nuchatlaht v. British Columbia,⁶ the Court of Appeal for British Columbia granted the Nuchatlaht’s claim for Aboriginal title to 201 square kilometers of Crown land on Nootka Island in British Columbia. Nuchatlaht illustrates the types of evidence that an Indigenous group will need to establish Aboriginal title.

The Nuchatlaht strategically framed its claim by seeking a declaration of Aboriginal title only over Crown land (not lands held in fee simple) and only over lands that were not subject to competing Indigenous claims (i.e. they excluded any land subject to overlapping or even “shared” territorial claims from other First Nations. At trial, they relied exclusively on archaeological, ethnographic, and anthropological evidence, without adducing oral history evidence. As a result of this focused approach, the trial was completed in 54 days, compared to 513-day trial in Cowichan Tribes.

At trial, the trial judge initially held that the Nuchatlaht had not proved its claim to the overall claim area.⁷ However, the trial judge granted the Nuchatlaht leave to advance a modified claim of Aboriginal title to a portion of the area. After considering further submissions, the trial judge found that the Nuchatlaht had established Aboriginal title over coastal areas of Nootka Island.⁸

The Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge’s decision and declared Aboriginal title over the Nuchatlaht’s entire claim area. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had erred in three respects.

Misapprehending Evidence: The trial judge erred by concluding there was “almost no evidence” of the use of the interior of Nootka Island. The Court of Appeal held that the weight of evidence at trial was that the Nuchatlaht used the inland forests of Nootka Island regularly.
Adopting a Site-Specific Test: The trial judge misapplied the test for occupation by requiring evidence of “specific use” of areas within the recognized boundaries of the area occupied by the Nuchatlaht. Among other things, the Court of Appeal held that the Nuchatlaht’s longstanding practice of harvesting trees and bark in locations away from the coast was evidence of occupation that could support a claim for Aboriginal rights.
Imposing an Arbitrary Boundary: The trial judge had imposed an arbitrary boundary to limit the Nuchatlaht’s Aboriginal title. The Court of Appeal held that this boundary produced a result that did not accord with the evidence at trial and did not reflect the regular use or geography of Nootka Island.

Rather than remit the case back to the trial court, the Court of Appeal declared that the Nuchatlaht had established Aboriginal title to its entire claim area. Further, the Court of Appeal held that the provincial Forest Act and Park Act do not apply to the lands where Aboriginal title had been recognized.

As of June 1, 2026, British Columbia filed a leave to appeal Nuchatlaht to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Unanswered questions

These recent Aboriginal title decisions have opened up many questions that courts, governments and First Nations must address at some point, including:

What power would municipal or provincial governments have to continue to regulate fee simple parcels that are subject to a finding or declaration of Aboriginal title, specifically in regard to zoning, development, utilities, taxation, and other permitting that fee simple owners may need?
If a declaration of Aboriginal title is available, must affected private landowners be parties before certain types of relief can be granted?
To what extent may an Indigenous nation holding Aboriginal title assert governance authority over fee simple lands within the declared title area?
How does the duty to consult apply once title has been found (but not declared) over land that is also held in fee simple?

What’s next?

The next significant guidance is likely to come from British Columbia. With the Supreme Court having declined to hear Wolastoqey, the central unresolved questions are likely to be worked through in the Cowichan Tribes appeal and any related procedural motions. However, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia cannot rule on the substantive issues until private land-owners’ application to re-open the trial is resolved.

Given that litigation will take years to bring certainty – and likely only on specific issues and situations – it is incumbent on provincial and federal governments, and First Nation governments, to bring clarity and actually advance reconciliation through negotiated agreements. Recent developments in the BC Treaty Process⁹ are encouraging examples of how we might achieve reconciliation without litigation, but the pace of modern treaty making is not keeping pace with the expectations of the Indigenous and non-Indigenous public.

BLG’s national Indigenous law group

BLG’s national Indigenous law group provides experienced guidance to governments, Indigenous nations, and businesses navigating Aboriginal title, consultation and project development. We help you assess risk, strengthen relationships, and move projects forward with clarity. Contact our team to discuss how these developments may affect your operations and what steps to take next.

Manitoba Jurist Glenn Joyal nominated to the Supreme Court of Canada

Wed, 24 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

On June 22, 2026, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced the nomination of the Honourable Glenn D. Joyal, Chief Justice of the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench, to the Supreme Court of Canada.
His appointment is intended to fill the Western Canada seat vacated by Justice Sheilah Martin and reflects the continued importance of both regional representation and functional bilingualism in the composition of the highest court in Canada.

Key takeaways

Manitoba representation: Chief Justice Joyal’s nomination marks the first Manitoba appointee in 20 years and the first time in more than 10 years that Manitoba has been represented on the top court. The last judge from Manitoba to serve on the Supreme Court was The Honourable Marshall Rothstein, who served from March 2006 to August 2015.
Western Canada seat preserved: Chief Justice Joyal replaces Justice Martin as one of the two justices traditionally drawn from Western Canada, maintaining the longstanding convention of regional representation on the Court. This convention is not a constitutional requirement, but rather a well-established practice. The only formal requirement for regional representation is that at least three Supreme Court justices be from Quebec.
Functional bilingualism maintained: Chief Justice Joyal has Franco-Manitoban roots and his nomination aligns with the Government of Canada’s commitment to appointing functionally bilingual judges.

Background and career

Chief Justice Joyal was called to the Manitoba Bar in 1987 after completing law school at the University of Manitoba and McGill University. He has studied at numerous institutions including Simon Fraser University, Paris-Sorbonne University, and Oxford University, as well as institutions in Italy which enabled him to become trilingual. He began his career as a Crown prosecutor in Manitoba, later working as a federal prosecutor and litigation counsel with the Federal Department of Justice, and spent a year doing criminal law in private practice.

Chief Justice Joyal was appointed to the bench in 1998 and has accumulated more than 25 years of judicial experience over the course of his career, serving at all three levels of court in Manitoba: the Manitoba Provincial Court, the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench and the Manitoba Court of Appeal. He has been Chief Justice of the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench since 2011.

Chief Justice Joyal has particular expertise in criminal and constitutional law, though he also regularly presided over civil and administrative law cases. He presided over a number of high-profile cases in Manitoba, including matters involving physician-assisted death, Charter challenges, and serious criminal proceedings including:

Patient v. Attorney General of Canada et al, 2016 MBQB 63 granting an application for physician-assisted death based on the Carter criteria while anticipated federal legislation had yet to be put in place.
Gateway Bible Baptist Church et al. v. Manitoba et al., 2021 MBQB 219 and 2021 MBQB 219 upholding the constitutionality and administrative validity of Manitoba’s COVID‑19 public health orders. These decisions were affirmed by the Manitoba Court of Appeal (2023 MBCA 56).
R. v. Skibicki, 2024 MBKB 113 presiding over the trial of an accused serial killer who had confessed to the killings of four vulnerable Indigenous women. The accused was found guilty on all four counts of first-degree murder.
Al-Bakkal v. de Vries et al, 2016 MBQB 45 granting summary judgment in an action where the dispute was essentially academic in nature. This decision has been relied on in several cases involving private actions against universities, including in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

Nomination process

As part of the nomination process, Chief Justice Joyal will participate in a public question-and-answer session, reported to be taking place on June 29, 2026. Members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and a member of the Green Party of Canada will be invited to attend.

While Chief Justice Joyal’s upcoming public question-and-answer session reflects Canada’s gradual move toward greater transparency in judicial appointments, it differs significantly from the nomination process for the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States.

In the U.S., the president makes a nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate, in a process which now involves hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Senate confirmation process is a genuine hurdle as nominees must secure senate approval to be appointed.

In Canada, the judicial appointment power is formally vested in the Governor General, who acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. Parliament has no power to defeat a nomination and Canadian hearings serve no constitutional function.

For a more detailed comparison of the two systems, see Appointment processes for judges of the SCC and SCOTUS.

Federal Financial Institutions Legislative and Regulatory Reporter – April 2026

Fri, 19 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

The Reporter provides a monthly summary of Canadian federal legislative and regulatory developments of relevance to federally regulated financial institutions. It does not address Canadian provincial financial services legislative and regulatory developments. In addition, purely technical and administrative changes (such as changes to reporting forms) are not covered.

April 2026

Published	Title and Brief Summary	Status (if applicable)
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI)
April 21, 2026	Streamlined Approvals Framework for Targeted New Entrants OSFI is launching a streamlined framework to speed the federal licensing process for specific types of entities. This eligibility-based pathway will be offered to: Provincial credit unions that are seeking continuance as a federal credit union; and Entities with technologically innovative or emerging banking models seeking to incorporate as a bank or federally regulated trust and loan company. Such entities could include fintechs or crypto-asset custodians. The framework will consist of the three phases of a typical process, but it is intended to have greater predictability, and established timelines between phases: Initial Readiness Assessment (Pre Application); Formal Application Review (Letters Patent); Operational Readiness (Post Ministerial Approval). OSFI is committing to provide the following materials to assist in the process by the time the framework is launched: Updated guidance, templates, forms, and checklists; A public-facing dashboard showing application status; Clearer expectations for each stage of the process. While the details of the framework are still in development as of the time of this announcement, prospective applicants fitting the initial scope will be able to contact OSFI to begin the process once the framework launches in June 2026.	Streamlined approvals framework will launch in June 2026 for eligible applicants.
April 20, 2026	IFRS 18: Presentation and Disclosure Standard impact on Federally Regulated Insurer Reporting to OSFI This notice tells Insurance Companies about IFRS 18 Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements, which will take effect in 2027. IFRS 18 introduces new presentation and disclosure requirements for financial statements. Federally regulated financial institutions report under IFRS and will be applying the new standard. OSFI is updating its regulatory returns for insurers to align with these changes and support consistent reporting. IFRS 18 includes three categories for the statement of profit or loss: Operating; Investing; Financing. Included with the notice are updated regulatory returns templates that reflect these categories; they are intended to provide a preview of the final templates. Final regulatory returns templates are expected to be published as part of OSFI's Third Quarterly Release, September 21, 2026.	IFRS 18 applies to annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2027. Filings using the revised OSFI regulatory returns will be expected starting January 1, 2027 (for December fiscal year end filers) and November 1, 2027 (for October fiscal year end filers).
April 14, 2026	OSFI Reintroduces Non-Bank Financial Institution Risk in its Latest Annual Risk Outlook OSFI’s 2026-2027 Annual Risk Outlook (ARO) identifies the top risks that Canada’s financial institutions face, as well as OSFI’s response to these risks. Key Risks identified in the ARO are: Real estate secured lending (RESL) risk; Non-bank financial institution (NBFI) risk; Liquidity and funding risk. It notes that while two of the key risks also appear in last year’s ARO, environmental factors affecting them have changed. Each risk is described, along with OSFI’s response. The ARO also includes an Annex which describes OSFI’s supervisory industry strategies and priorities for fiscal 2026-2027
Bank of Canada
April 27, 2026	Retail Payments Supervision – Annual Reporting, Expanded Responsibilities In an email to stakeholders, the Bank of Canada reminds Payment Service Providers (PSPs) subject to the Retail Payment Activities Act (RPAA) that they were required to submit their annual report to the Bank of Canada by March 31, 2026. PSPs registered after March 30, 2026, are not required to submit an annual report for 2025. It notes that PSPs that do not submit their annual report may be subject to enforcement action. It links stakeholders to resources it has published that are intended to support PSPs in completing their annual reports, including: How to complete an annual report: A step-by-step guide Information session for PSPs on the annual reporting requirements Supervisory policy on annual reporting Supervisory policy on annual reporting of retail payment activity metrics	PSPs subject to the Retail Payment Activities Act were required to submit their annual report by March 31, 2026.
Finance Canada
April 28, 2026	2026 Spring Economic Update The Government of Canada has issued its 2026 Spring Economic Update, which announces or highlights measures impacting financial institutions: Financial Crimes Agency: this would be a specialized federal law enforcement agency whose mandate is to investigate financial crimes and to contribute to the recovery of proceeds of crime. Bill C-29, An Act to establish the Financial Crimes Agency and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts and regulations would implement this; it was introduced on April 27, 2026, and is described below. Stablecoins: Following the passage of the Stablecoin Act (as part of Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1, SC 2026, c. 3 (Bill C-15), which received Royal Assent on March 26, 2026), the government intends to engage with federally regulated financial institutions to better understand considerations related to their development and potential use of stablecoins, and other tokenised assets; and whether additional regulatory clarity is needed. Industry, regulators and the provinces and territories would also be engaged. The focus would be on balancing the support of innovation with maintaining financial stability and protecting consumers. Real-Time Rail (RTR): the government reiterates its commitment to RTR, and it states its intention to continue to engage with all relevant stakeholders to ensure the accelerated development of the RTR's future capabilities. The government is also advancing payments modernisation by strengthening the supervision of payment service providers and expanding their access to national payment systems. Money Services Businesses (MSBs): the government states its intention to combat criminal abuse of MSBs by various measures, including: Introducing new Ministerial Directive powers to safeguard national security and the integrity of the financial system; Expanding FINTRAC’s ability to refuse or revoke registration of MSBs; Preventing the re-registration of non-compliant MSBs; Increasing the number of criminal record checks for MSBs; and Enhancing FINTRAC’s understanding of MSB risks by ensuring it has accurate and up-to-date information regarding the commencement of business and services provided by MSBs. Crypto ATMs: the government plans to ban crypto Automated Teller Machines, which it identifies as a primary method for scammers to defraud victims and for criminals to place their cash proceeds of crime. Fighting Extortion: the government highlights steps taken by FINTRAC to counter extortion. National Anti-Fraud Strategy: an update is provided on this strategy, which was announced in Budget 2025. A consultation was launched March 30 to gather feedback on three initial measures: establishing a Multi‑Sector Anti-Fraud Framework that strengthens market‑conduct requirements for banks and other actors; to prevent, detect, and respond to fraud losses when they occur; to strengthen public awareness about fraud; and to support law enforcement’s ability to combat fraud.
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)
April 13, 2026	Modernization and Upcoming Changes Impacting Reporting Entities This page informs reporting entities of new initiatives being implemented by FINTRAC as a result of recent legislative changes. It has been updated to include information about the following changes: Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act, SC 2026, c. 4, received Royal Assent on March 26, 2026, with various coming-into-force dates applying. It amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations. Changes include: New administrative monetary penalties framework, in force March 26, 2026; Compliance program and knowing your client requirements, in force March 26, 2026; Universal enrolment of businesses subject to the Act (other than those already required to register) with FINTRAC, in force March 26, 2026; FINTRAC is enabled to provide financial intelligence disclosures to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, in force March 26, 2026; Director and CEO of FINTRAC becomes a member of the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee, and FINTRAC enabled to exchange supervisory information on federally regulated financial institutions with other members of the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee, in force March 26, 2026. Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1, SC 2026, c. 3, received Royal Assent on March 26, 2026, with various coming-into-force dates applying. It amends Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations. The Stablecoin Act is also enacted, which establishes regulatory requirements for stablecoin issuers that create stablecoins and make them available for purchase, directly or indirectly, by persons in Canada. Initiatives include: Stablecoin issuers will be required to register with FINTRAC as money services businesses dealing in virtual currency. In addition, the Bank of Canada will maintain a public registry of stablecoin issuers. These requirements will come into force as part of Regulations that will be published in the Canada Gazette Part II. FINTRAC will update its existing guidance to integrate information that relates to the above changes.	Changes relating to Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act in force March 26, 2026. Changes relating to Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1 not yet in force.
Payments Canada
April 29, 2026	Spring Economic Update Includes Measures to Advance Payment Modernization Payments Canada has issued a statement highlighting initiatives in the Government of Canada’s Spring Economic Update (SEU) which impact payment systems. It points to the following initiatives and themes: Support for Real-Time Rail (RTR); Creation of a Financial Crimes Agency, as part of Bill C-29, An Act to establish the Financial Crimes Agency and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts and regulations; Proposed enforcement measures relating to Money Services Businesses; Intent to engage with federally regulated financial institutions to better understand considerations related to their development and potential use of stablecoins, other tokenized assets and whether additional regulatory clarity is needed; Intent to launch a Whole-of-Government Competition Plan to ensure that competition is prioritized throughout the federal government’s policies.
Financial Stability Board (FSB)
April 29, 2026	Scope of Insurers Subject to the Recovery and Resolution Planning Requirements in the FSB Key Attributes: Final Report FSB announced, in 2022, that it would no longer identify global systemically important insurers (G-SIIs). Instead, among other things, it would provide guidance about approaches to determining the scope of application to insurers of the FSB Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions. Scope of Insurers Subject to the Recovery and Resolution Planning Requirements in the FSB Key Attributes: Final Report provides a structured approach for authorities to assess which insurers should be subject to recovery and resolution planning (RRP) requirements, consistent with the FSB’s Key Attributes. It provides criteria that authorities should use to assess whether an insurer should be subject to RRP requirements and the circumstances under which RRP requirements should always apply. This report completes a consultation that began on November 25, 2025, with the release of Draft Guidance.
April 29, 2026	Identification of Critical Functions of Insurers: Practices Paper – Revised Version This Practices Paper sets out the approaches taken by Australia, China, France and the Netherlands for the identification of critical functions of insurers. It outlines commonalities and differences in the approaches and describes the main critical functions which were identified and the main considerations which supported the identification of critical functions. The Practices Paper was originally published in November 2023; with the publication of Guidance on the Scope of Insurers Subject to the Recovery and Resolution Planning Requirements in the FSB Key Attributes, it has been updated to reflect the revised definition of a critical function provided in this Guidance.
April 29, 2026	Key Attributes Assessment Methodology for the Insurance Sector: Revised Version This methodology sets out essential criteria to guide the assessment of the compliance of a jurisdiction’s insurance resolution framework with the FSB’s Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions. It was developed in collaboration with experts from FSB jurisdictions, relevant standard-setting bodies, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The methodology was originally published in August 2020; with the publication of Guidance on the Scope of Insurers Subject to the Recovery and Resolution Planning Requirements in the FSB Key Attributes, it has been updated to reflect the revised definition of a critical function provided in this Guidance.
April 29, 2026	Developing Effective Resolution Strategies and Plans for Systemically Important Insurers: Revised Version This guidance was developed to help authorities in meeting the resolution planning requirement under the Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions (Key Attributes) and support Crisis Management Groups of global systemically important insurers in their resolution planning work. The guidance was originally published in June 2016; with the publication of Guidance on the Scope of Insurers Subject to the Recovery and Resolution Planning Requirements in the FSB Key Attributes, it has been updated to reflect the revised definition of a critical function provided in this Guidance.
International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS)
April 28, 2026	Issues Paper on Customers Receiving Value from Insurance Products: Public Consultation IAIS has issued a draft Issues Paper describing challenges encountered by consumers when evaluating the value of insurance products when making insurance purchasing decisions. It is meant to build understanding of the importance of insurance products delivering meaningful value to customers and of ways to achieve this. The Issues Paper describes characteristics of insurance, or practices, which may either diminish or enhance the value of insurance products. It also provides examples of initiatives from member jurisdictions to show possible supervisory approaches, including: Establishing expectations that insurance products deliver “fair value”; Supporting consumers in making informed insurance decisions; Monitoring and assessing that the insurance industry is offering value; and Intervening when low-value products are identified.
April 21, 2026	IAIS Publishes Aggregate report on the Peer Review Process on ICP 13 (Reinsurance and Other Forms of Risk Transfer) This report provides the aggregate assessment results and observations from the IAIS Peer Review Process (PRP) on the topic of reinsurance and other forms of risk transfer, covering the standards set out in Insurance Core Principle (ICP) 13. A total of 80 authorities participated in the PRP. Among other findings, the assessment showed a high level of observance for ICP 13 and its standards. Eighty-five per cent of members received ratings of either Observed (34%) or Largely Observed (51%), demonstrating that supervisors have, and are exercising, the necessary legal authority and supervisory practices. The overall effectiveness was deemed sufficiently robust, with no material risks left unaddressed in requiring insurers to effectively manage their use of reinsurance and other forms of risk transfer.
Legislation
April 29, 2026	Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026 Among its provisions to implement the 2026 Spring Economic Update, the following measures of Bill C-30 affect federally regulated financial institutions: Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Bank Act to provide that the Investment Canada Act does not apply in respect of certain transactions made by foreign banks or entities associated with a foreign bank if the transactions are subject to an approval under the Bank Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act or the Insurance Companies Act. Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Bank of Canada Act to combine into a single Act the Bank of Canada’s powers, duties and functions related to the recovery of costs incurred by it for or in connection with the administration of certain Acts. It also makes related amendments to other Acts. Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Payments Act to provide immunity for the Canadian Payment Association and certain individuals from any civil liability, other than in contract, for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the administration or discharge of any powers or duties conferred under that Act.	House of Commons First Reading on April 29, 2026. Division 1 of Part 3 comes into force on the 120th day after the day on which Bill C-30 receives Royal Assent. Division 2 of Part 3 comes into force on proclamation but see coming into force provisions for section 20. Division 3 of Part 3 is in force on Royal Assent.
April 28, 2026	Bill C-13, Act to implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Bill C-13 implements the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, done July 16, 2023. It includes consequential amendments to the definition of “regulated foreign entity” in sections 2 of the Bank Act, Insurance Companies Act and Trust and Loan Companies Act respectively.	Senate Third Reading April 28, 2026. Act comes into force on proclamation.
April 27, 2026	Bill C-29, An Act to establish the Financial Crimes Agency and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts and regulations Bill C-29 establishes the Financial Crimes Agency as a specialized federal law enforcement agency with the mandate to: Investigate serious and complex financial crimes; Contribute to the recovery of proceeds of crime; and Participate in international efforts to counter crimes of a financial nature.	House of Commons First Reading April 27, 2026. Act in force on Royal Assent, except section 27 (in force on first anniversary of date of Royal Assent), and section 29 (in force on Royal Assent or date section 33 of the Public Complaints and Review Commission Act comes into force (whichever is later).
April 23, 2026	Bill C-8, Act Respecting Cyber Security, Amending the Telecommunications Act and Making Consequential Amendments to other Acts Bill C-8 establishes a regulatory framework to protect systems and services essential to public safety or national security. Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act to add the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system as an objective of the Canadian telecommunications policy and to authorize the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system. Part 2 enacts the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act (CCSPA) to provide a framework for the protection of the critical cyber systems of services and systems that are vital to national security or public safety and that are delivered or operated as part of a work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of Parliament. The CCSPA imposes onerous cyber security obligations on “designated operators” of federally regulated critical cyber systems. These operators carry out vital services or systems (that is, infrastructure essential to preserving national security and public safety). These obligations include, among others: Developing, maintaining, and regularly reviewing cyber security programs (CSPs); Reporting material changes in ownership, control, or use of third-party products and services to the appropriate regulator, as to mitigate supply-chain and third-party risks; and preserving detailed records of cyber security programs and incidents. The CCSPA delegates broad, sector-specific powers to the appropriate regulators, including banking systems overseen by OSFI and the clearing and settlement systems overseen by the Bank of Canada. The CCPSA will allow the regulators to, inter alia, enter any place (subject to limitations) to examine records and data, order internal audits, and issue compliance orders. The CCPSA also introduces significant administrative monetary penalties for violations. While the proposed regime is designed to promote compliance, fines could amount to $15 million per violation, per day, for organizations, and $1 million per violation, per day, for individuals. Moreover, directors and officers of designated operators could be held personally liable if they were complicit in committing a violation.
April 16, 2026	Bill S-6, Federal Law–Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 4 Bill S-6 is the fourth in a series of enactments drafted in the course of the harmonization of federal statutes by the Department of Justice of Canada resulting from the coming into force of the Civil Code of Québec in 1994. Among the Acts amended by Bill S-6 are Acts governing financial institutions: the Bank Act, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Trust and Loan Companies Act. The amendments are made in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law.	House of Commons Second Reading April 16, 2026.
April 8, 2026	By-law Amending the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Eligible Financial Contracts By-law, SOR/2026-53 This By-law amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Eligible Financial Contracts By-law, modifying the prescribed class of Eligible Financial Contracts (EFCs) to exclude central counterparties (CCPs), the departments and agencies of a government of a foreign country, and multilateral development banks (MDBs).	In force April 8, 2026

Disclaimer

This Reporter is prepared as a service for our clients. It is not intended to be a complete statement of the law or an opinion on any subject. Although we endeavour to ensure its accuracy, no one should act upon it without a thorough examination of the law after the facts of a specific situation are considered.

New CCDC Progressive Design-Build Contract (the CCDC32)

Fri, 19 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

The Canadian Construction Documents Committee (CCDC) recently released a new collection of contracts, including the CCDC 32 – Progressive Design-Build Contract. This eagerly awaited template contract presents the CCDC’s view of a progressive design-build model (PDB) and makes using a PDB delivery model more widely accessible to the industry. In this article we discuss PBD and the CCDC 32, including its benefits and challenges.

Overall, the new CCDC 32 provides a starting point PDB delivery model but includes some challenging provisions and notable gaps for both owners and design-builders alike. A successful PDB project requires that the parties set the table by addressing some tough commercial compromises, and the new CCDC contract may not (on its own) naturally bring the parties to those critical discussions. As described further below, industry stakeholders seeking to utilize these templates should review carefully and consider revising the template contracts with supplementary conditions or consider whether a standard form template is the best starting point for a more complicated delivery model like PDB.

What is progressive design-build?

PDB is an evolution of traditional design-build that emphasizes early collaboration, flexibility, and improved risk management. Unlike conventional stipulated price design-build contracts, where pricing is established upfront with limited owner involvement, PDB brings the owner, design-builder, and key subcontractors together early to jointly develop the project, with a procurement focus on qualifications and collaborative capability rather than price.

PDB typically operates in two phases: Phase 1 involves pre-construction services (design development, cost estimating, scheduling, and risk analysis) on an open-book, cost-plus basis to establish scope and price certainty; Phase 2 proceeds only once terms are agreed, covering final design and construction on a fixed price or GMP basis.

Although PDB has been used for years, the CCDC’s introduction of the CCDC 32 represents the first standardized industry form tailored to this delivery model in the Canadian market. Its release reflects a broader shift toward earlier contractor involvement, collaborative risk-sharing, and flexible pricing structures in response to increasingly complex projects and volatile construction conditions.

The CCDC 32 approach to progressive design-build

Core structure: Single contract with defined phases

The CCDC 32 adopts a two-phase framework:

Phase 1: “Project Development Phase” (pre-construction, design advancement, costing), and
Phase 2: “Design/Construction Phase” (execution following agreement on price and scope).

Both phases are within a single contract from the outset, with the transition governed internally through acceptance of a “Final Project Proposal.” This differs from some other market practice for PDB, where: (a) parties may enter into a Project Development Phase only agreement, and (b) only later negotiate and execute a separate fixed-price design-build contract for the Design/Construction Phase (if the project proceeds). That bifurcated approach preserves flexibility but can result in negotiation risk prior to commencing the Design/Construction Phase. The CCDC 32 instead prioritizes continuity and procedural clarity by embedding the entire contractual framework in one document.

Structured “gating” and final project proposal

A distinguishing feature of the CCDC 32 is the formalization of “Project Gates”, which are defined interim decision points during the Project Development Phase where the design-builder must submit progressively refined proposals addressing scope, cost, and schedule. This culminates in the “Final Project Proposal,” which, once accepted by the owner, triggers the transition to Design/Construction Phase and conversion to a stipulated price design-build arrangement.

While staged design development and iterative pricing are hallmarks of PDB, the level of formalization (gates and defined deliverables) in the CCDC 32 may be too simplistic for a complex delivery model like PDB.

Open-book development with cost classification

The CCDC 32 embeds open-book pricing and progressive cost certainty through the use of standardized CCDC Class D to Class A construction estimates tied to the level of design development.

This aligns closely with traditional PDB models, which likewise require:

iterative cost estimates,
visibility into contingencies, allowances, and escalation, and
increasing precision as design advances.

The goal of a successful PDF model is to permit adaptability in design and to allow an owner to be nimble in assuming, or allocating and paying for, risks as they are identified.

Early work authorization regime

The CCDC 32 introduces a standardized “Early Work Authorization” mechanism, allowing discrete construction packages to proceed during the Project Development Phase before full price agreement.

This reflects a common bespoke practice (often implemented via early works agreements or change orders), but CCDC consolidates the regime into a formalized and repeatable process within the contract, including prescribed content (scope, pricing, schedule, etc.).

Termination / “off-ramp” rights

Consistent with PDB fundamentals, the CCDC 32 provides the owner with an off-ramp during the Project Development Phase, including the right to terminate prior to acceptance of the Final Project Proposal and no obligation to proceed to the Design/Construction Phase.

Unlike some other publicly available PDB contracts, the CCDC 32 likewise grants to the design-builder an equivalent right to terminate and exit the arrangement.

CCDC 33

As is the case with the old and newly introduced CCDC 14 and the companion document CCDC 15 – Design Services Contract between Design-Builder and Consultant, CCDC has introduced a companion document to CCDC 32, CCDC 33 – Progressive Design-Build Service Contract between Design-Builder and Consultant for use by the design-builder and it’s prime consultant when a CCDC 32 has been entered.

Potential challenges for both owners and design-builders

While the CCDC 32 provides a structured and now potentially standardized framework for PDB, it also raises a number of commercial and legal tensions that parties will need to carefully consider when negotiating supplementary conditions.

Absence of a defined compensation if design/construction phase is not authorized

Although the CCDC 32 includes a clear off-ramp for owners during the Project Development Phase, it does not prescribe a detailed amount or certainty for the compensation owed to the design-builder if the project does not proceed to the Design/Construction Phase. Instead, the design-builder is generally entitled to payment for services performed to date, together with “such other costs and damages sustained”.

This creates uncertainty for both parties. For design-builders, particularly where significant early-stage effort is required with no promise of continuing the Design/Construction Phase, the total compensation becomes murky. For owners, the amount a design-builder may claim upon being terminated for convenience is equally opaque. By contrast, other PDB agreements often include express compensation entitlements, negotiated at the outset, to compensate for this risk.

Intellectual property and use of design

The CCDC 32’s allocation of intellectual property follows the CCDC 14 – where the consultant retains ownership of the instruments of service and the owner receives only a limited licence. This may prove challenging for owners to accept; particularly in light of the other uncertainties introduced around the early phase work performed (discussed elsewhere).

In many projects, owners expect that if they have paid for the Project Development Phase deliverables they can use and transfer the design if they elect to proceed with another contractor or ultimately transfer ownership over the asset being constructed. Where that flexibility is limited, owners may face practical constraints in exercising the off-ramp. This may encourage negotiating expanded intellectual property rights before signing the contract.

Assignment and continuity risk

The absence of detailed step-in or assignment mechanisms tied to a Project Development Phase exit may create continuity risks if the owner elects not to proceed with the design-builder. Without clear provisions addressing: (i) assignment of consultant agreements; and (ii) continued use of the design deliverables, owners risk loss of continuity and duplication of effort, which can erode some of the efficiencies that PDB is intended to achieve and apply undue commercial pressure on owners.

Agreement to agree

The CCDC 32 structure permits the Design‑Builder to terminate for convenience at any time before acceptance of the Final Project Proposal. Without modification this may push Owner’s to accept the Final Project Proposal, or risk losing the design team and a large part of the benefit of the Project Development Phase. At the same time, the form does not meaningfully define how the Design‑Builder sets the price. There is no binding formula, objective pricing mechanism, or enforceable methodology. There is also no obligation on either party to reach agreement.

More typically, a PDB would not permit the design-builder to exit prior to submitting the proposal for the time and cost to complete the second phase of the project and the manner in which that cost and time are formulated is guided by a pre-negotiated formula. Without these guard rails, the risk of losing the value of the Project Development Phase is significantly higher.

Transparency and the “open book” challenge

A central feature of PDB is the open-book development of pricing, including detailed visibility into contingencies, allowances, and assumptions. While this transparency is intended to improve cost certainty and alignment, in practice it can create friction.

Owners may find it difficult to assess evolving estimates, particularly where pricing includes layered contingencies and assumptions. At the same time, design-builders may be concerned that increased transparency leads to heightened scrutiny and negotiation at a granular level, potentially undermining the collaborative intent of the model.

This can result in the Owner being required to engage its own consultants, to shadow estimate the design-builder’s estimates and to advise on complex technical issues. This can erode the benefit of the intended early collaboration.

Liability regime

As with all of the recently introduced or re-issued CCDC documents, the CCDC has introduced a variety of exclusions to the cap on liability contained in the base document. These include, for example, an exclusion for breach of applicable laws and substantial defects or deficiencies in the work.

The CCDC 32 has also limited the liability for Design-Services to claims from errors, omissions or negligence of the Consultant or Other Consultants where covered by insurance to such liability insurance limits, but it does not set out what happens if a claim is not covered by insurance. This is challenging for design-builders as the CCDC 33 introduces a cap on the Consultant’s liability tied to the amount paid for professional services or, if no amount is set, $250,000.

Additionally, where the Design‑Builder elects to terminate the contract prior to acceptance of the Final Project Proposal, the CCDC 32 framework does not, on its face, relieve the design-builder of liability for the design and preconstruction services performed during the Project Definition Stage. Meaning that any deficiencies in those materials may continue to expose the Design‑Builder to claims.

Conclusion

The CCDC 32 brings a standardized form to the Canadian market for PDB. However, consideration and care should be taken prior to using the CCDC 32 as there are challenges that PDB contracts face which are not expressly addressed within the CCDC 32. BLG’s Infrastructure Group works with owners, design-builders, contractors, consultants, governments and others and to help provide guidance when procuring, preparing, and negotiating construction contracts.

If you have any questions regarding this article or an upcoming construction project you are involved in, please contact the authors below.

SCC leaves the door open to tort claims against election officials

Fri, 19 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

In Resler v. Anglin, 2026 SCC 23, the Supreme Court of Canada held that an unsuccessful provincial election candidate may continue his civil action in misfeasance in public office against Alberta’s Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) for alleged bad faith conduct during an election campaign. The Court confirmed that such claims were not barred by the doctrine of collateral attack, abuse of process, parliamentary privilege, or a statutory immunity clause, given that he did not seek to invalidate the election result itself and was alleging bad faith misconduct on the CEO’s part.

The decision highlights the boundary between public law and private law remedies, which generally permits torts claims against public officials where they are alleged to have acted in bad faith. While these claims will be permitted to proceed to the merits where they are properly pleaded, establishing misfeasance in public office is a high bar, not a “free-for-all”, and successful claims on the merits are rare.

Key Takeaways

Judicial review is not the exclusive remedy for official acts: misfeasance in public office is a long-standing tort available where a public official’s intentional wrongful conduct causes harm. It is distinct from the public law remedies available on judicial review.
Tort claims are not necessarily precluded by a statutory scheme: courts must carefully interpret a statutory scheme to determine whether the legislature intended to oust private law remedies, either expressly or by implication.
Good-faith immunity clauses leave room for bad-faith liability: a statutory immunity clause that is expressly limited to acts done in good faith does not shield intentional or bad faith conduct.
The availability of loss of chance damages remains unresolved: The majority declined to address the unsettled question of damages for loss of chance, leaving the issue for another day.

Background

Joseph Anglin unsuccessfully ran for re-election as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta (MLA) in 2015. During the election campaign, Alberta’s CEO removed at least 25 of Mr. Anglin’s election signs for non-compliance with the Election Act. Following the election, the CEO fined Mr. Anglin under the Election Act after an investigation found that he had failed to protect the list of electors provided to him.

Although Mr. Anglin accepted the result of the election, he sought judicial review of the CEO’s decisions. The court upheld the sign-removal decision as reasonable and returned the matter of the electors list to the CEO on procedural fairness grounds, and the penalty was ultimately rescinded.

Mr. Anglin then commenced a civil action against the CEO. He alleged that the CEO had specifically targeted him in relation to the election signs and that he had exercised his powers for an improper or ulterior motive which had a negative impact on Mr. Anglin’s re-election chances. He sought damages for loss of chance of being elected, loss of future employment as an MLA, harm to his reputation, emotional well-being and future employment opportunities, and punitive damages.

The CEO brought a motion to strike the claim. The motion judge granted the motion, finding that the claim was effectively an attempt to bypass the controverted election process under the Election Act. The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and reinstated the claim (other than the malicious prosecution allegations), finding that Mr. Anglin was not trying to undo the election result.

Supreme Court of Canada decision

The Court dismissed the CEO’s appeal. All the justices agreed that the claim for misfeasance in public office could proceed and was not displaced by the controverted election provisions of the Election Act, which provide a statutory mechanism to challenge the validity of an election. However, the decision generated a concurrence and partial dissent on whether the claim for loss of chance damages should be allowed to proceed, with the majority of justices finding that it should not be struck at this stage.

The claim was not barred

Justice Moreau, writing for the majority, found that there were no barriers preventing the claim in tort from proceeding because it sought a private law remedy that was separate from the remedies available in public law and was not precluded by the statutory scheme. She rejected each of the four barriers raised by the CEO:

Collateral attack – this doctrine was not engaged because the claim did not seek to indirectly invalidate the election result or circumvent the controverted elections procedure. Rather, it sought damages for alleged misconduct.
Abuse of process – the claim was similarly not an abuse of process because it did not seek to challenge the election or relitigate issues already decided on judicial review.
Parliamentary privilege – the claim was not barred by the doctrine of parliamentary privilege because it did not relate to the integrity of the election or the legislature’s authority to determine its own membership.
Statutory immunity under the Election Act – while the Election Act shields the CEO from civil actions for duties performed under that Act, it was limited to actions “in good faith” and left the door open to civil liability for bad faith conduct.

Justice Moreau further found that the pleaded claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action for misfeasance in public office. This tort sits at the intersection of private and public law: administrative action becomes tortious when public power is used for a purpose outside its lawful scope, such as the intentional or bad-faith misuse of public power that causes harm. In those circumstances, the public official creates a relationship that lacks a basis in public law and instead makes those powers private as between the official and the person against whom they are used, leading to civil liability. However, Justice Moreau was cautious to note that the tort of misfeasance in public office is “not a free-for-all” for civil claims against public officials—a plaintiff must establish both bad faith and material damage to succeed. However, at the motion to strike stage, the claim had properly been pleaded and was permitted to proceed.

Loss of chance damages

The Court divided on the question of whether to strike the claim for damages based on the loss of chance to be re-elected and earn income as an MLA.

Justice Moreau, writing for the majority, declined to strike the head of damages at this stage. She noted that the availability of loss of chance damages in tort law is unsettled, that the issue had not been fully explored in the decisions below, and that there was a pending summary judgment application and the possibility that the pleadings would be amended.

Justice Karakatsanis, writing on behalf of herself, Chief Justice Wagner, and Justice Martin, dissented in part on this point and would have struck the lost-chance damages claim as unavailable for the loss of an election. She held that it was impossible to prove causation in an election context because voter behaviour is unpredictable and shaped by many factors. Further, such damages should be unavailable as a matter of public policy because they would require the court to decide whether election results were compromised by misconduct. This was the question addressed by the controverted election regime and could undermine public confidence in election results and key democratic institutions.

Justice Rowe, writing for himself and Justice Côté, wrote a concurring opinion on this point to caution against deciding novel or complex issues that were neither litigated on appeal nor addressed by the courts below, and to express disagreement with the use of “free-standing public policy grounds” to strike a claim. He also noted that the public policy grounds raised by Justice Karakatsanis on the issue of damages replicated the same concerns that the Court found did not bar the claim from proceeding in the first place.

Canada moves to regulate online safety: Understanding the Safe Social Media Act (Bill C-34)

Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

What Canadian companies need to know (if enacted):

Bill C-34 is broader than previously proposed online safety legislation and targets regulated social media services, certain online services, and AI chatbot services, with a focus on protecting children and supporting victims of online harms.
Regulated services, as applicable, have a duty to act responsibly, a duty to protect children, a duty to be transparent, and a duty to make certain content inaccessible.
Regulated services will have to implement and publish a digital safety plan.
A new regulator is created, the Digital Safety Commission,¹ which will administer and enforce the new act.
Non-compliance may result in administrative monetary penalties of up to the greater of $10 million or 3 per cent of global revenue, and penal sanctions of up to the greater of $20 million or 5 per cent of global revenue.
The majority of the operational requirements remain to be determined and will depend on future regulations and guidance.
Early governance and risk-readiness planning is important.

The introduction on June 10, 2026, of Bill C‑34, An Act to enact the Digital Safety Act and the Digital Safety Commission of Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Bill C-34 or the Safe Social Media Act), marks a significant and long-awaited development in Canada’s evolving regulatory framework for online safety.

Bill C-34 is broader than previously proposed legislation (Bill C-63), which focused on regulating social media service providers. By contrast, Bill C-34 proposes a regime aimed at addressing online harms, particularly those affecting children, while introducing new (and ongoing) disclosure obligations for social media platforms, online services, and artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot services. It also reflects a broader effort toward increased accountability for service operators, although many key elements remain to be defined through future regulations, resulting in a degree of uncertainty as to the final contours of this new legal framework.

Overview

The federal government's backgrounder emphasized the rapid development of AI and new challenges in online environments, particularly where children are at risk. The Tumbler Ridge tragedy is one of too many examples of the underestimated risks of AI and online services, as we know that voluntary actions by digital services cannot always keep pace with the scale, speed and severity of online harms.

Bill C‑34 establishes a dual legislative framework by enacting the Digital Safety Act and the Digital Safety Commission of Canada Act. Together, these instruments create both the substantive obligations applicable to regulated services and a new institutional body in charge of enforcement, the Digital Safety Commission (DSC), with a mission to promote safety in online environments for children under 18, reduce exposure to harmful content, and ensure that operators of regulated services are accountable and transparent in the design and operation of their platforms.

General obligations under Bill C-34

The proposed regime organizes operators of regulated services (such as social media services, chatbot services or online services) obligations around a series of core duties, which are applicable to all operators or specific to the service provided, as described below.

Operators have a general duty to protect children, notably by implementing adequate minimum‑age verification or estimation measures to mitigate children’s exposure to pornographic material, and implementing prescribed design features respecting the protection of children.

The operators will also have a general duty to be transparent. The transparency obligation in Bill C-34 is operationalized by the publication and submission of a digital safety plan to the DSC, and the requirement to keep records of their compliance with the Act. The digital safety plan must be adapted to the regulated service, and must be made publicly available in an accessible and easy-to-read format. Uncertainty remains with respect to the updating requirements of the plan.

Regulated social media services

A regulated social media service is a social media service with a specific number of users to be determined by regulation, or designated as a social media service by regulation.

Duty to protect children

Beyond the general duty to protect children for each of the social media services it operates, operators of a regulated social media service must implement adequate age-verification or age-estimation measures designed to prevent children under 16 years old from having an account with a regulated social media service. This is subject to potential exemptions that may be granted if the operator establishes and maintains sufficient safeguards for children.

Duty to act responsibly

Operators of regulated social media services will be required to integrate design and safety measures prescribed by regulation to mitigate the risk of exposure to harmful content. The proposed law defines “harmful content” to include content that:

is intimate and shared without consent;
sexually victimizes a child or a survivor of childhood sexual victimization;
induces child self-harm;
is used to bully a child;
foments hatred;
incites violence; and
includes terrorism or violent extremist.

Safety measures include providing tools that enable users to block other users, flag harmful content, and an obligation to label AI‑generated content and harmful content through adequate mechanisms. The operator will have to make user guidelines accessible, publicly available on the service, and easy to use. They shall include a standard of conduct applicable to users with respect to harmful content, as well as the description of the measures implemented with respect to harmful content on the service.

Operators will also have to designate a resource person, whose contact information must be easily accessible, to assist users with respect to harmful content on the service, and preserve certain harmful content for a period of one year after content is made inaccessible. The operators of social media services will eventually also have to comply with additional measures provided by regulations, which have yet to be determined.

Duty to be transparent

For regulated social media services, the digital safety plan must describe:

the operator’s risk assessment;
mitigation measures against harmful content and, on the service, the operator’s public user guidelines with respect to harmful content;
measures to protect children against exposure to pornographic content;
child-protection design features;
age-related measures implemented;
law-enforcement notification processes;
allocated human or automated resources;
content moderation data;
tools and processes in place to flag harmful content;
a summary of the findings and conclusions with respect to harmful content on the service, or risk of significant psychological or physical harm;
mandatory reporting compliance;
supporting electronic data; and
any other information prescribed by regulation.

Duty to make certain content inaccessible

The new legislation requires social media platforms to make certain categories of content inaccessible in Canada, including content that sexually victimizes a child, revictimizes survivors, or consists of intimate content shared without consent. Notably, this includes a 24-hour take-down requirement triggered by operators identifying or receiving reports about nonconsensual distribution of intimate images, or child sexual abuse material.

Regulated chatbot services

A regulated chatbot service is defined as a chatbot service with a specific number of users to be determined by regulation, or being designated as a chatbot service by regulation, but which does not include an artificial intelligence system that exclusively serves a purpose specified in the future regulations.

Duty to act responsibly

A particularly notable feature of Bill C-34 is its explicit regulation of AI chatbot services. Operators must implement adequate safeguards to reduce the risk that chatbots will communicate harmful content or engage in harmful behaviours. The legislation identifies specific prohibited behaviours, including posing as a human in a deceptive manner, impersonating licensed professionals such as lawyers or physicians, and using manipulative engagement techniques that encourage users to form emotional dependencies.

Operators will have to make user guidelines accessible, publicly available on the service, and easy to use. These must include a description of the measures implemented by the operator to mitigate the risk that the service will communicate harmful content; address situations regarding suicidal ideation and an intention to encourage self-harm, or cause death or serious bodily harm to an individual; and, mitigate the risk that the chatbot service will engage in any type of previously indicated prohibited behaviours. Other obligations include ensuring intervention in crisis situations, such as where a user expresses suicidal ideation or intent to harm others.

Additionally, operators of regulated chatbot services will have to provide easy-to-use reporting tools and a dedicated resource person for users. The tools will help users flag harmful chatbot content, failures to respond to self-harm, suicide or serious-harm risks, and other harmful chatbot behaviours covered by Bill C-34. They will also have functionalities of acknowledgement of receipt to the user. The designated resource person, whose contact must be easily accessible, will assist users with respect to harmful content arising through chatbot interactions.

Some aspects of the regulatory framework applicable to AI chatbot services also remain to be defined through future regulations, with which operators will ultimately be required to comply.

Duty to be transparent

For regulated chatbot services, the digital safety plan must especially address:

the operator’s safeguards against harmful chatbot communications and harmful behaviours;
crisis intervention and emergency measures;
child-protection design features;
age-verification measures;
measures to reduce children’s exposure to pornographic content;
law-enforcement notification processes;
tools and processes in place to flag harmful content;
related notifications;
allocated human or automated resources;
compliance with mandatory reporting obligations and the electronic data used to support this information; and
any other prescribed information.

Regulated online services

A regulated online service is defined as an online service having a specific number of users to be determined by regulation, or being in a category of online services that could pose a significant risk of harm to children in Canada, also to be determined by regulation. However, it does not include a website or application designed to facilitate the sale, listing or advertisement of goods or services, or to provide directories, search results, maps or navigation tools. Duties under the proposed legislation do not apply to private messaging features on online services.

Duty to be transparent

Operators of regulated online services would have a duty of transparency to be complied with by preparing, publishing and submitting a digital safety plan to the DSC. For regulated online services, the digital safety plan must particularly address:

the operator’s child-protection design features;
age-verification measures;
safeguards against children’s exposure to pornographic content;
law-enforcement notification processes;
allocated human or automated resources to address risk prevention;
compliance with mandatory reporting obligations and supporting electronic data; and
any other prescribed information.

Bill C-34 enforcement and sanctions

Enforcement of Bill C-34 obligations is entrusted to the newly created Digital Safety Commission of Canada (or the “Digital Safety and Data Protection Commission of Canada” under Bill C-36), which would be granted broad oversight and enforcement powers, not only in the online area, but also in the privacy and data protection area.

The DSC may receive complaints from individuals regarding harmful content, conduct hearings and inspections, and issue orders requiring platforms to make certain content inaccessible. It can also request access to relevant data and records in order to verify compliance. In addition to complaints, the regime provides for a “commentary” mechanism allowing individuals to make submissions regarding a platform’s compliance measures.

Bill C-34 is supported by a sanctions framework. Administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) may reach the greater of $10 million or 3 per cent of global revenue, with the amount taking into account factors such as the nature and scope of the violation, the operator’s history of compliance, and any benefit derived from the violation. Penal sanctions may reach the greater of $20 million or 5 per cent of global revenue. These provisions are clearly intended to ensure that the regime has a meaningful deterrent effect, particularly for large multinational technology companies.

Uncertainties and open questions

Bill C-34 raises important questions regarding its practical implementation. A defining feature is the extent to which key obligations are left to be specified in future regulations: numerous provisions explicitly require operators to implement “any measures that are provided for by regulations.” As well, several central elements, such as the scope of regulated services, the nature of age‑verification mechanisms, and the specific standards applicable to chatbot behaviour, remain to be determined. This structure is reminiscent of the previously proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), which similarly relied on an extensive regulatory framework to operationalize broad legislative principles.

While reliance on future regulations introduces a degree of uncertainty for businesses, Bill C-34 is not final. There will be a second and third reading in the House of Commons, and consultation opportunities once regulations are proposed; we will continue to monitor and report on these developments.

Bill C‑34 must also be understood within the broader context of the federal government’s evolving digital policy, including its recently released national AI for All strategy. As discussed in BLG’s recent Insight, Canada’s new AI for All strategy: A business outlook on AI governance, adoption, and data sovereignty (June 9, 2026), the government has signalled a move toward establishing expectations around the development and deployment of trusted and compliant AI systems, relying on a combination of legislation and future regulatory development.

AI for All’s first pillar (Pillar 1—Protecting Canadians and safeguarding our democracy) is now under construction with Bill C‑34, as well as the very fresh privacy reform, An Act to enact the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act, to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make amendments to other Acts (Bill C-36), which was just introduced on June 15, 2026 (publication in progress).

With respect to the timeline for implementation, the adoption of detailed regulations may take significant time, although a stable parliamentary majority could accelerate this process. In the meantime, companies must operate in an environment characterized by evolving expectations and limited regulatory clarity.

What businesses should pay attention to ahead of the Safe Social Media Act

Organizations should begin mapping whether their services could become “regulated services” once thresholds and exemptions are prescribed. They should also start reviewing what happens behind the scenes of their operations, either to plan for the drafting of a potential digital safety plan, if applicable, or to review the agreements in place between them and regulated services, from a liability and reputational risk perspective.

Organizations should also evaluate existing risk‑mitigation measures, including content moderation processes, transparency practices, and safety‑by‑design features. Particular attention should be given to AI systems, especially those capable of interacting directly with users, as these will be subject to heightened scrutiny.

Given that Bill C-34’s key compliance requirements will depend on forthcoming regulations, to accommodate for the significant uncertainty in determining the precise scope of their obligations, a proactive and flexible approach focused on governance and risk assessment will be essential. At this stage, the full operational impact of the regime will only become clear as Bill C-34 progresses through the legislative process.

The authors would like to thank Sirine Abdi, student-at-law, for her contributions to this article.

ICC Arbitration Rules 2026: Towards enhanced flexibility and procedural efficiency

Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has introduced a revised set of Arbitration Rules, effective for arbitrations commenced on or after June 1, 2026 (the 2026 Rules). These revisions build on the 2021 framework while introducing targeted reforms aimed at addressing concerns around cost, delay, and procedural rigidity.

While the overall structure of ICC arbitration remains familiar, the 2026 Rules reflect a clear recalibration: a move away from formalistic procedural milestones towards more flexible, case-driven management. The revisions aim to improve efficiency while maintaining fairness, transparency, and the reliability of arbitral outcomes.

Key takeaways

The removal of mandatory Terms of Reference at the onset of arbitrations marks a fundamental procedural shift.
The initial case management conference now anchors procedural planning and is the cutoff for new claims.
New tools, such as early determination and highly expedited arbitration, prioritize speed and cost efficiency.
The fixed six-month award deadline has been removed, allowing timelines to be tailored to the case.
Disclosure, confidentiality, and governance provisions have been strengthened.
Digitalisation is embedded as the default mode of conducting arbitration.

A. The end of mandatory terms of reference

One of the most significant changes is the elimination of mandatory Terms of Reference (ToR). Instead, procedural focus shifts to the initial case management conference (CMC), which must occur 30 days from receiving the ﬁle by the arbitrator and serves as the primary mechanism for structuring the arbitration (Art. 24(1)). In practice, the change removes a long-standing procedural step, while preserving flexibility for tribunals to adopt structured approaches where appropriate.

Additionally, the restrictions on introducing new claims are now tied to the timing of the CMC rather than the ToR. No new claims may be introduced after the initial CMC unless the arbitral tribunal grants permission (Art. 25).

B. Early determination and highly expedited arbitration

The 2026 Rules introduce several mechanisms aiming to accelerate the resolution of disputes.

a. Early determination

For the first time, the ICC Rules expressly permit parties to apply for the early determination of claims or defences that are clearly unmeritorious or outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction (Art. 30). Although tribunals may previously have exercised similar powers through implicit powers, codification provides clarity and may encourage more frequent use. This mechanism is likely to be particularly valuable in:

cases involving threshold jurisdictional challenges; and
disputes where certain claims can be disposed of without extensive evidence or submissions.

At the same time, parties should carefully consider the strategic risks, including cost implications and potential enforcement challenges if due process concerns are raised.

b. Highly expedited arbitration

A major innovation is the introduction of an opt-in Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure (HEAP) (Art. 33). Under HEAP:

disputes must be resolved within three months of the initial CMC;
a sole arbitrator is appointed;
procedures are streamlined, often proceeding on a documents-only basis;
parties may agree to an unreasoned award; and
timelines for submissions are significantly compressed.

Notably, unlike the standard expedited procedure, HEAP is not limited by monetary thresholds and is available solely by agreement of the parties.

This mechanism is likely to appeal in discrete, time-sensitive disputes; particularly where rapid commercial resolution outweighs a fully-developed procedural process.

c. Expedited arbitration threshold

The 2026 Rules also update the existing expedited procedure regime by increasing the default applicability threshold from US$3 million to US$4 million (Appendix V, Art. 1(3)). As a result, a larger proportion of ICC cases will fall within expedited frameworks by default.

C. Expanded tools in emergency arbitration and interim relief

The 2026 Rules introduce meaningful refinements to emergency arbitration.

a. Ex Parte preliminary orders

A new mechanism allows a party to seek urgent interim relief without prior notice to the opposing party (ex parte), in the form of a preliminary order. Importantly, procedural safeguards remain, and once an order is issued, other parties must be given an opportunity to respond (Appendix IV, Art. 7).

b. Broader scope of application of emergency arbitration

Emergency arbitrator powers now extend beyond strict signatories to include parties where the President of the ICC Court considers that an arbitration agreement may apply (Appendix IV, Art. 1.2(c)). This expansion reflects the realities of complex corporate structures and may increase the utility of emergency relief in multi-party disputes.

D. Revisiting time limit for the award

The 2026 Rules remove the previous default requirement that awards be rendered within six months of the Terms of Reference. Instead, the time limit is set by the ICC President based on the procedural timetable.

This change reflects a shift away from rigid timelines that in practice required multiple extensions, replacing them with a more flexible and case-specific approach.

E. Disclosure, confidentiality and institutional governance

The 2026 Rules introduce several measures aimed at enhancing transparency and confidence in the arbitral process.

a. Enhanced disclosure obligations

Arbitrator disclosure requirements are strengthened (Art. 12), including:

an express obligation to resolve doubts in favour of disclosure;
express confirmation that disclosure alone does not imply bias;
ongoing disclosure obligations throughout the arbitration; and
a new requirement for parties to provide relevant entities and individuals to assist conflict checks.

These changes place more responsibility on both arbitrators and parties to identify potential conflicts early and comprehensively.

b. Confidentiality and tribunal secretaries

The 2026 Rules now explicitly impose confidentiality obligations on arbitrators (Art. 12.8), reinforcing protections for sensitive information.

Additionally, the Rules provide a formal framework governing tribunal secretaries, including requirements of independence and oversight (Art. 44) and the relevant fees and expenses (Appendix III, Art. 7).

c. Institutional governance

Some ICC administrative tasks that used to be performed by the ICC Court are now handled by the President and Secretary General to improve efficiency. For example, under the 2026 Rules, the ICC President grants extensions of time to tribunals (Art. 34), and the Secretary General sets the advance on costs (Art. 40). Nevertheless, the Court retains roles including jurisdiction decisions, arbitrator challenges, award scrutiny, and fee determinations.

F. Digitalisation and procedural modernisation

The 2026 Rules embed digital practices as the norm rather than the exception. Key developments include:

electronic communication as the default form of correspondence (Art. 3);
express recognition of remote and hybrid hearings (Art. 27(1));
authorization of electronic signatures on awards, if permitted by applicable law (Art. 38(1)); and
flexibility for tribunals to deliberate remotely (Art. 19(3)).

These changes reflect lessons from pandemic-era practice and signal a permanent shift toward technologically enabled arbitration.

Conclusion

The 2026 Rules represent a measured but deliberate evolution of the ICC framework rather than a fundamental departure from it. The revisions reflect a clear effort to address longstanding concerns regarding cost, delay, and procedural complexity, while preserving the core attributes that have long underpinned ICC arbitration.

La Cour Suprême tranche: Sorry Your Honour N.B. Lieutenant Governor. Vous devez parler français!

Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

Le 12 juin 2026, la Cour suprême du Canada a rendu sa décision dans l’affaire Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick c. Canada (Premier ministre), 2026 CSC 22, confirmant que le lieutenant-gouverneur du Nouveau-Brunswick (N.-B.) doit être fonctionnellement bilingue.

Dans cette décision, la Cour a dû interpréter le paragraphe 16(2) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, qui prévoit que le français et l’anglais sont les langues officielles du N.-B. et ont un statut et des droits et privilèges égaux quant à leur usage dans les institutions de la Législature et du gouvernement du N.-B. La majorité de la Cour a conclu que le par. 16(2)exige une égalité réelle des langues officielles dans les institutions au Nouveau-Brunswick, et le lieutenant‑gouverneur est une institution unipersonnelle et hautement symbolique. La nomination d’une personne unilingue anglophone à ce poste relègue le français à un statut secondaire et porte atteinte, sur le plan symbolique, aux droits des francophones dans la province. Elle envoie le message que leur langue et leur identité ne sont pas pleinement reconnues et ravive un sentiment d’exclusion que la Constitution vise à corriger. La nomination d’un lieutenant-gouverneur au N.-B. unilingue anglophone enfreint donc le par. 16(2) de la Charte.

En outre, bien que l’affaire porte sur le cadre des droits linguistiques au N.-B., cette interprétation pourrait entraîner dans le futur une obligation constitutionnelle de bilinguisme à d’autres titulaires de charges publiques fédérales.

Contexte

En 2019, le gouverneur en conseil a nommé Brenda Murphy à titre de lieutenante‑gouverneure du N.-B. Mme Murphy n’était pas bilingue au moment de sa nomination et ne l’est pas devenue au cours de son mandat. La Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau‑Brunswick (SANB) a contesté cette nomination. La SANB soutenait que la nomination d’une lieutenante-gouverneure unilingue anglophone contrevenait aux obligations linguistiques prévues par la Charte.

Historique judiciaire

En première instance, la Cour du Banc de la Reine du N.-B. a conclu que la nomination contrevenait à la Charte. La juge de première instance a estimé que, compte tenu du rôle particulier du lieutenant‑gouverneur en tant que chef d’État provincial, l’égalité réelle entre les communautés linguistiques exigeait que le lieutenant-gouverneur soit capable d’exercer ses fonctions dans les deux langues officielles.

La Cour d’appel du N.-B. a infirmé cette décision. Elle a conclu que, bien que le bilinguisme soit souhaitable pour un lieutenant‑gouverneur, la Charte n’impose pas une telle exigence.

La Cour suprême du Canada a accueilli l’appel.

Décision de la majorité : la nomination d’un lieutenant-gouverneur au Nouveau-Brunswick unilingue enfreint la Charte

Rédigeant pour la majorité, le juge en chef Wagner rappelle que les droits linguistiques doivent faire l’objet d’une interprétation large et libérale, visant à assurer leur pleine réalisation. Les droits linguistiques doivent toujours être interprétés de manière compatible avec le maintien et l’épanouissement des collectivités de langues officielles, un principe désormais bien établi en jurisprudence et réaffirmé par la Cour suprême dans cette décision.

Le par. 16(2) de la Charte confère au français et à l’anglais un statut égal et des droits et privilèges égaux quant à leur usage dans les institutions de la Législature et du gouvernement du N.-B. Selon la Cour, il ne s’agit pas seulement d’un énoncé de principe, mais plutôt d’une garantie de nature impérative, ayant une portée propre et indépendante. Ce dernier exige ainsi une égalité réelle du français et de l’anglais dans les institutions du gouvernement du N.-B.

Cette égalité institutionnelle comporte, selon la majorité de la Cour, une double dimension :

une dimension fonctionnelle qui assure l’accès à des services publics de qualité égale dans les deux langues; et
une dimension symbolique qui vise à garantir l’absence de hiérarchisation entre les langues dans les institutions et dans la prestation des services.

La majorité met également l’accent sur l’article 16.1, qui protège le développement des communautés linguistiques, ainsi que sur le contexte historique particulier du N.-B.

La majorité conclut ainsi que la nomination d’un lieutenant‑gouverneur unilingue est incompatible avec les exigences de la Charte. Bien que le régime linguistique du N.-B. repose sur le bilinguisme des institutions plutôt que sur celui des individus, cette distinction ne s’applique pas lorsque l’institution est unipersonnelle et indissociable de son titulaire, comme c’est le cas du lieutenant‑gouverneur. Dans une telle situation, l’égalité de statut des langues officielles exige que le titulaire soit en mesure de comprendre et de s’exprimer dans les deux langues officielles.

La majorité souligne que la nomination d’une personne unilingue à la fonction de lieutenant-gouverneur a pour effet de reléguer l’une des langues officielles à un statut inférieur. Ceci porte atteinte, par son effet symbolique, aux droits des francophones.

Malgré cette conclusion, la majorité choisit de ne pas invalider la nomination. Elle émet plutôt un jugement déclaratoire, estimant que ce remède suffit à clarifier le droit tout en évitant de perturber le fonctionnement d’une institution constitutionnelle fondamentale.

Opinion dissidente

Selon les juges Karakatsanis, Rowe et Jamal, aucune disposition de la Charte n’exige que la lieutenante-gouverneure du N.-B. soit personnellement bilingue. Selon les juges dissidents, le par. 16(2) a essentiellement une fonction déclaratoire et interprétative, et ne peut servir à créer de nouvelles obligations constitutionnelles indépendantes.

Selon les juges dissidents, interpréter le par. 16(2) de la Charte comme ayant pour effet d’exiger que le lieutenant-gouverneur du N.-B. soit personnellement bilingue pourrait avoir de vastes conséquences qui pourraient s’étendre aux titulaires de charges publiques fédérales, y compris au gouverneur général du Canada, au premier ministre du Canada et aux ministres du Cabinet fédéral. Ils soulignent que ceci pourrait entrer en conflit avec les principes du gouvernement responsable et la structure de la démocratie parlementaire.

De plus, selon eux, l’interprétation proposée serait difficilement applicable en pratique, faute de critères clairs pour définir le niveau de bilinguisme requis pour atteindre les objectifs visés, tel que de personnifier l’égalité du français et de l’anglais, et de favoriser le sentiment d’appartenance de la minorité francophone à la société néo-brunswickoise. Cette interprétation risquerait aussi de soumettre à un contrôle judiciaire la compétence linguistique personnelle de titulaires de fonctions publiques. Or, une telle question dépasse les limites institutionnelles et le rôle des tribunaux.

Conclusion

Cette décision constitue un jalon important pour les droits linguistiques au N.-B. Elle met en lumière une conception des droits linguistiques qui est à la fois institutionnelle et symbolique, la Cour insistant sur le fait que l’égalité ne se limite pas à l’accès aux services, mais implique également une reconnaissance réelle des deux langues au sein des institutions. L’arrêt s’inscrit par ailleurs dans la tendance constante de la Cour suprême à interpréter les droits linguistiques de manière large et libérale.

La majorité note que la portée de cette décision se limite à la nomination du lieutenant-gouverneur du N.-B. Cette approche pourrait néanmoins avoir des répercussions au-delà de la province, comme le souligne les juges dissidents. En effet, il sera intéressant de voir comment cette décision sera interprétée et appliquée dans le contexte fédéral. Est-ce que cette décision pourrait entraîner dans le futur une obligation constitutionnelle de bilinguisme à d’autres titulaires de charges publiques fédérales? Une autre considération découlant de cette décision concerne la mesure dans laquelle les caractéristiques personnelles des individus au sein d’une institution influencent le statut des langues, et la question de savoir si cela aura une incidence sur les droits linguistiques dans d’autres contextes.

Pour ceux qui s'intéressent à la norme de contrôle, la Cour a adopté la norme de la décision correcte tel que les parties l’avaient soumise. Cela dit, la Cour semble suggérer qu'il aurait été possible de déposer une demande de contrôle judiciaire qui aurait possiblement mené à une révision en vertu de la norme de contrôle raisonnable et le test de Doré.

La Cour suprême aura la chance de se pencher de nouveau sur la question des droits linguistiques dans le dossier Forum des maires de la Péninsule acadienne Inc. c. Ministre de la Justice et de la Sécurité publique dont la demande de permission d’en appeler fut accordée le 28 mai 2026.

Pre-seed to exit: takeaways from Toronto Tech Week 2026

Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

Toronto Tech Week 2026 provided a clear view into how Canada’s technology ecosystem is evolving across the full company lifecycle, from early formation to scale and exit.

Key takeaways from the week

Documentation quality is now a differentiator at pre-seed and seed - clean cap tables and properly assigned IP materially affect a company's ability to close.
Defence-adjacent and applied AI opportunities arrive with complex IP, export control and contracting requirements earlier than most founders anticipate.
Cross-border structures cannot be deferred - governance and IP decisions made at formation are difficult to unwind later.
IP is a strategic asset, not a legal afterthought - defaults are hard to fix once capital or government-adjacent counterparties are in play.
Transaction readiness is a growth tool, not just an exit consideration.

Toronto Tech Week 2026 (TTW 2026) reflected a Canadian innovation economy that remains active and resilient – but increasingly selective. Across events, conversations mapped consistently to the full company lifecycle: from early capital access and formation through scale, cross-border growth and exit. BLG's lawyers were on the ground throughout the week, working with founders, investors and corporates at every stage. The following observations draw on those conversations.

A selective capital cycle, with early‑stage momentum

Selectivity now defines the venture environment.

Early‑stage financings are accounting for a growing share of deployed capital. That dynamic is reshaping behaviour across the ecosystem, influencing how founders plan for liquidity, how investors manage portfolios, and how corporates approach acquisition strategy.

The message throughout the week was pragmatic. In a market where later rounds are harder to secure, companies that can demonstrate early traction, focus, and efficiency can still raise. Understanding your capital strategy and weighing profitability versus growth are more important than ever.

Pre‑seed and seed: readiness is the differentiator

Pre‑seed and seed remain the healthiest part of the funnel, even as overall deal volumes decline. Investors continue to back companies with a defensible wedge and a credible path forward.

What has changed is the premium placed on preparation. TTW 2026 programming emphasized investor readiness, from application‑based meetings to curated one‑on‑one formats that reward founders who arrive with a tight narrative and clear asks.

Across early‑stage conversations, the same insight surfaced repeatedly. The most valuable rooms were not the loudest ones. They were the rooms where clarity, relevance, and alignment replaced broad exposure. The companies that stood out in these rooms had focused positioning, early commercial validation, and leadership teams that understand how to engage investors well before a formal fundraising process begins.

Practical takeaway for founders: Clean documentation, thoughtful investor targeting, and a disciplined narrative materially improve outcomes.

BLG Beyond CoFound, BLG's dedicated legal program for early-stage founders, works with companies at this exact stage - building the documentation infrastructure that serious investors expect before a deal conversation begins.

What is being built, and why it matters

The market is prioritizing applied technologies with real‑world deployment, defensibility, and strategic relevance.

AI remains central, but the conversation has matured as the emphasis shifts from novelty to integration. Investors and operators consistently framed AI as a business system, embedded in workflows, verticalized by industry, and evaluated by measurable return on investment.

Defence and national security‑adjacent technologies were more visible than in prior years. Discussions highlighted companies building dual‑use capabilities across areas such as AI, advanced sensing, cybersecurity, infrastructure resilience, and mission‑critical software. Defence‑adjacent technology sits at the intersection of applied AI, deep tech, and infrastructure, and it brings distinct considerations around governance, contracting, export controls, and IP strategy.

Infrastructure also featured prominently. Fintech discussions focused less on consumer experiences and more on rails, compliance, identity, payments, and treasury. In these businesses, regulatory strategy and partnerships often matter as much as product development.

Deep tech maintained a strong presence as well, particularly where the narrative centred on near‑term commercial applications. Quantum and advanced computation were framed less as scientific breakthroughs and more as enterprise‑relevant tools, a shift that shortens commercialization timelines and accelerates partnerships.

Practical takeaway for investors and corporates: Many of Canada’s most compelling opportunities sit at the intersection of applied AI, infrastructure, defence‑adjacent capabilities, and commercial deep tech, raising complex IP, data, governance, and contracting questions much earlier in the lifecycle.

BLG advises across all of these areas, from data rights and export control considerations in defence-adjacent work to AI governance frameworks and technology licensing.

Cross‑border dynamics surface earlier

As companies move from product to scale, cross‑border considerations arise quickly. TTW 2026’s emphasis on building “here, for the world” reflects a reality most founders already experience. Canadian technology companies are global by design, whether through customers, talent, or capital.

While participation by U.S. investors fluctuates, reliance on foreign capital increases materially at later stages. Large growth financings remain heavily dependent on non‑Canadian investors, introducing structural complexity around governance, IP ownership, and control.

Practical takeaway for founders: Cross‑border capital and acquisition optionality should be anticipated early. Governance, capitalization, and IP structures should be designed accordingly.

IP retention moves upstream

Cross‑border pressure brings IP strategy into sharper focus. Canada continues to generate world‑class innovation, but value capture remains uneven. IP migration often occurs quietly, through corporate structuring decisions, investor‑driven terms, or operational choices made to unlock capital or market access.

This dynamic is particularly acute in AI, deep tech, and defence‑adjacent technologies, where defensibility rests on data rights, trade secrets, proprietary know‑how, and, in some cases, sensitive or regulated IP tied to government or allied customers. These companies often face heightened scrutiny around ownership, control, and jurisdiction earlier than their peers.

IP strategy is increasingly viewed as an early‑stage concern rather than a transactional one. Investor readiness discussions now assume that IP ownership, assignment, and protection have been addressed well before a major financing or strategic partnership is underway.

Practical takeaway for founders and boards: IP ownership and data rights should be treated as strategic assets. Defaults are difficult to unwind once capital, customers, or government‑adjacent counterparties are in play.

M&A as strategy, not just outcome

In this environment, M&A plays an increasingly central role. Acquisitions remain the dominant liquidity pathway for founders and investors.

Both strategic and financial buyers are active, but disciplined. Strategics focus on synergies such as distribution, data, and product adjacency. Financial sponsors emphasize repeatable growth and structured outcomes, with careful attention to diligence.

A recurring theme at TTW 2026, particularly among later‑stage and highly ambitious companies, was that acquisition is no longer viewed solely as an endpoint. Many are using M&A to accelerate growth through tuck‑ins, talent acquisition, and capability expansion.

Practical takeaway for corporates and scale‑ups: Transaction readiness should begin early. Clean capitalization, strong IP hygiene, and clear integration planning reduce execution risk and improve outcomes. For the right players, an acquisition strategy can significantly bolster growth.

Closing thought

TTW 2026 was, above all, a confidence signal. Canada’s technology ecosystem is building in public, at scale, and with global ambition. At the same time, the week reinforced that long‑term value creation depends on how effectively companies navigate scaling, IP retention, and exit pathways.

For founders, investors, and corporates, the opportunity in 2026 is to treat the lifecycle as connected. Build early traction with rigor. Scale with governance and IP strategy in mind. Approach M&A and strategic capital as tools, not last resorts.

If you are navigating any part of this lifecycle -from early financing through scale, cross‑border growth or exit - BLG’s team supports founders, investors and corporates to build robust structures, enable growth, and capture value at every stage.

Insurance Legal Ledger: BLG’s business insurance newsletter (Spring 2026)

Thu, 11 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

BLG's insurance lawyers monitor key rulings on insurance claim, policy interpretation, and coverage disputes to provide clients with practical insights they can act on. Whether you're dealing with complex commercial policies or emerging risks, our newsletter helps you understand how significant court decisions and regulatory changes might affect your business insurance strategy.

Download our latest seasonal issue below or connect with our insurance law team to discuss how these developments impact your organization.

In this edition (Spring 2026)

Emond v. Trillium Mutual Insurance (Supreme Court of Canada)

The Supreme Court held in Emond v. Trillium Mutual Insurance that a guaranteed rebuilding cost endorsement does not override a policy's compliance cost exclusion. The ruling confirms that clear exclusionary language cannot be defeated by a single endorsement, making comprehensive front-to-back policy reviews strategically essential before a loss occurs.

Insuring AI: Governance, underwriting and the opportunity in risk transfer (Canada)

Insurers are now using underwriting to actively shape AI market development, moving beyond loss coverage. Deployable capacity rewards strong governance while exclusions tighten where risks are undefined. Organizations with auditable, tested AI systems will secure better coverage outcomes and gain a competitive advantage as market accountability expectations sharpen.

Recent business insurance regulatory updates (B.C., Québec, all Canada)

A wave of regulatory activity signals a Canada-wide push for tighter insurer oversight in 2026. OSFI, CCIR, British Columbia, and Québec's AMF are all advancing new frameworks targeting credit risk, distribution channels, incidental insurance sales and third-party risk management. Firms should review governance practices and prepare for tighter compliance timelines.

Canada’s new AI for All strategy: A business outlook on AI governance, adoption, and data sovereignty

Tue, 09 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

Canada’s release of its national artificial intelligence strategy, AI for All, marks a substantive shift in federal policy, signalling how the government intends to govern AI for the foreseeable future.

The strategy’s most significant feature is what it is not: as previously announced, it does not revive the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), the proposed omnibus AI statute that stalled in Parliament and was effectively abandoned following the change in government earlier this year.

Rather than returning to a centralised, risk-based legislative regime, the federal government has chosen a different path: a distributed governance model that combines targeted legal reform, public investment, sovereign infrastructure, and continued reliance on existing frameworks — privacy, consumer protection, human rights, and sectoral regulation — as the primary tools for managing AI risk.

For Canadian businesses, that choice has immediate practical consequences. AI governance is not on pause while Ottawa designs a new statute. Existing legal obligations apply today, across privacy law, human rights legislation, consumer protection, and sector-specific regulation. What the strategy adds is a clearer articulation of where those frameworks are heading, and a set of economic and industrial priorities that will shape how regulators, funders, and procurers engage with AI over the next several years.

What’s new: Four meaningful objectives from AI for All

AI for All is organised around six pillars, but for Canadian businesses, four operational elements carry the most immediate significance.

Adoption as a primary policy objective

The strategy sets explicit national targets: $200 billion in additional economic growth, 250,000 new AI-related jobs over five years, and an increase in AI adoption from roughly 12 per cent to 60 per cent by 2034.

These figures are aspirational rather than legally binding, and they should be read as such. What matters for businesses is not the numbers themselves, but what they signal: the federal government has made adoption at scale a central policy priority, and funding decisions, procurement criteria, and regulatory posture will increasingly reflect that priority.

The strategy also positions government as an active adopter of AI systems, not merely a regulator. Public-sector deployment and procurement are explicitly framed as mechanisms for setting expectations around trusted and compliant AI, meaning that companies seeking government contracts will likely face governance requirements that precede any formal legislative mandate.

Sector-driven deployment

The strategy identifies priority sectors for accelerated AI adoption: health and life sciences, energy and natural resources, transportation, agriculture, and manufacturing. For businesses operating in these areas, the practical implication is that AI deployment is increasingly likely to occur through structured federal initiatives, targeted funding programs, and public–private partnerships, not purely through internal innovation cycles.

The strategy also signals a more active role for government as an adopter and procurer of AI systems, using public-sector deployment to establish expectations for trusted and compliant AI. This matters legally because participation in government-supported programs typically carries conditions: around data governance, interoperability, procurement rules, and accountability.

Organizations in priority sectors should assess those conditions carefully before assuming that federal support for adoption is unconditional. The health sector provides an early example, with initiatives such as VITAL using federated data models that embed specific governance requirements directly into the architecture of AI deployment.

Sovereign infrastructure as policy

One of the strategy’s most consequential elements is its treatment of AI infrastructure as a matter of national policy. Building on the Canadian Sovereign AI Compute Strategy, the federal government is investing in domestic supercomputing capacity, data-centre infrastructure, and expanded access to compute resources, signalling that it expects Canadian organizations to take seriously where their AI systems are built, trained, and hosted.

For businesses, this means that decisions about cloud providers, data residency, and cross-border data flows are no longer purely technical or commercial choices. They are increasingly strategic and, in some contexts, regulatory ones. Organizations whose AI systems rely heavily on foreign-controlled infrastructure or data arrangements that are difficult to reconcile with Canadian governance expectations should treat this as a material risk management issue, particularly in regulated sectors or where government procurement is relevant.

Trust through distributed governance

The strategy’s approach to AI risk and accountability deserves close attention, precisely because it does not take the form of a single statute. Instead, the federal government is signalling increased intervention across multiple existing legal channels: privacy law modernisation, online safety regulation, measures targeting deepfakes and surveillance pricing, and an expanded mandate for the Canadian AI Safety Institute.

Of particular note is the proposed Canada Trusted AI Certification program, intended to identify trustworthy AI products in the marketplace. The legal significance of this mechanism will depend entirely on its design: whether certification is voluntary or effectively mandatory, whether it creates safe harbours from regulatory scrutiny, and whether it becomes a condition of public procurement or sector-specific licensing. Businesses should monitor this closely: certification regimes that begin as voluntary frequently become baseline expectations in regulated procurement and high-stakes deployment contexts.

The practical effect is a distributed compliance model in which privacy, consumer protection, cybersecurity, and sector oversight increasingly converge on AI systems. The absence of a single AI statute does not reduce compliance complexity; in many respects, it increases it, because organizations must track and reconcile obligations across multiple frameworks simultaneously.

Taken together, these four elements reflect a coherent, if demanding, policy direction: accelerate adoption, anchor infrastructure and data domestically, and embed accountability expectations across multiple legal and regulatory channels. For businesses, the result is an environment that is more interventionist than the absence of omnibus legislation might suggest. The compliance burden has not been deferred: it has been distributed.

Global context: A fragmented regulatory landscape on artificial intelligence

Canada’s AI for All strategy must be understood within a global environment that is not merely fragmented, but actively diverging, with major jurisdictions now pursuing fundamentally different philosophies on AI governance.

AI in the EU

The European Union remains the most consequential foreign regime for Canadian businesses. The EU AI Act is a comprehensive, risk-based framework with explicit extraterritorial reach: Canadian organizations that develop or deploy AI systems whose outputs affect individuals in the EU may be in scope regardless of where they are incorporated, or where their systems are hosted.

For many Canadian businesses, EU compliance is not a future consideration, it is a current legal obligation that requires attention now, including conformity assessments, transparency requirements, and in some cases prohibited-use restrictions that apply irrespective of Canadian law.

However, by adopting a sector-led model, relying on existing regulators rather than a single statute, the United Kingdom currently sits closest to Canada’s chosen approach.

AI in the U.S.

The United States presents a sharply contrasting picture, and one that shifted materially on June 2, 2026, as President Trump signed an executive order titled “Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security.”

The directive orders federal agencies to establish a framework for the secure deployment of frontier AI models, including a voluntary process by which developers would provide the government with early access to models for up to 30 days before broader release. The order attempts to shore up the country’s cyber defences without compelling AI companies to share information about their latest systems. An earlier draft required a 90-day government review window before model release; that timeline was cut to 30 days in the final order, following significant industry lobbying over concerns about competitive harm.

The practical implication for Canadian businesses is significant. The U.S. is now explicitly pursuing a deregulatory, innovation-first posture on AI, with voluntary rather than mandatory oversight mechanisms. Canadian organizations competing with or operating alongside U.S. firms will face a structural asymmetry: a more permissive environment south of the border, a more prescriptive one in the EU, and an evolving distributed framework at home. That asymmetry creates both competitive pressure, as U.S. firms may move faster with less governance overhead, and compliance complexity for organizations operating across all three jurisdictions.

Canada’s AI for All in the global context

For Canadian businesses, the immediate strategic consequence of this fragmentation is clear: compliance cannot be designed around domestic requirements alone.

Organizations with any EU market exposure should treat EU AI Act obligations as the compliance floor, not a future consideration.
Those operating in the U.S. market should monitor how the June 2 executive order develops in practice, particularly whether the voluntary pre-deployment review process becomes an informal condition of federal procurement or partnership.
All organizations should assume that the gap between jurisdictions will create ongoing pressure to maintain governance frameworks that are scalable and adaptable, rather than jurisdiction-specific.

Canada’s position in this landscape — more interventionist than the U.S., less prescriptive than the EU — may prove to be a competitive advantage if the distributed governance model is implemented coherently. The risk is that it creates a compliance gap: not regulated enough to provide the clarity that sophisticated governance frameworks require, but not deregulated enough to match the speed at which U.S. competitors can deploy.

How Canadian organizations can adjust to AI for All: Key lessons

The strategy’s practical impact will be defined by execution, but several legal and regulatory implications are already apparent, and warrant immediate attention.

Governance expectations are increasing, even without an AI statute

The absence of a comprehensive AI statute does not mean the legal risk landscape is undeveloped. Canadian businesses deploying AI systems are already operating within a framework of enforceable obligations, and the strategy signals that enforcement attention in these areas will increase. The most immediate exposure sits in three areas.

First, privacy law: the use of personal data to train, operate, or improve AI systems engages obligations under PIPEDA and provincial equivalents, including requirements around consent, purpose limitation, and the ability to explain automated decisions. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has already signalled that AI deployments are a priority enforcement area, and the strategy’s commitment to privacy modernisation suggests those obligations will become more demanding, not less. Against that backdrop, investments in data governance, documentation, transparency, and explainability are forward-compatible.

Efforts to map data flows, formalize purposes, strengthen consent frameworks, and implement explainability processes for AI systems will position organizations to meet the likely contours of a modernized regime, which is expected to feature:

stronger individual rights and control over personal information;
expanded transparency and explainability expectations;
materially increased enforcement powers and penalties;
closer alignment with international standards.

Organizations that act now are not getting ahead of the law; they are aligning with where it is already headed.

Second, human rights legislation: AI systems used in hiring, lending, insurance, or service delivery that produce discriminatory outcomes are already vulnerable to challenge under federal and provincial human rights frameworks, regardless of whether the discrimination was intended or understood by the deploying organization.

Third, consumer protection: AI-driven pricing, personalisation, and customer-facing automation are increasingly attracting scrutiny under existing consumer protection frameworks, a risk the strategy explicitly acknowledges through its reference to surveillance pricing measures.

What you can do

Organizations should audit their current AI deployments against these three frameworks now, rather than waiting for AI-specific legislation to define the compliance perimeter.

Government procurement and funding conditions are where adoption expectations acquire legal force

AI for All positions the federal government as an active AI adopter, and public procurement is explicitly framed as a mechanism for setting governance expectations.

For businesses that supply AI systems to government, or that participate in federally supported programs in priority sectors, this is not an abstract policy signal. Procurement criteria, funding program conditions, and partnership agreements will increasingly embed specific requirements around transparency, accountability, data governance, and auditability.

What you can do

Organizations pursuing federal contracts or sector-specific funding should treat governance readiness as a procurement requirement, not a post-award consideration. The proposed Canada Trusted AI Certification program, once operational, may function as a de facto threshold condition in this context.

Infrastructure and data decisions are becoming regulated design choices

The strategy’s emphasis on sovereign compute and domestic infrastructure has direct legal implications for how organizations structure their AI systems. Decisions about cloud providers, data residency, and cross-border data flows engage an expanding set of legal and regulatory considerations. These include privacy law requirements around cross-border transfers, potential procurement conditions around data sovereignty, and sector-specific obligations in regulated industries.

What you can do

In practical terms, organizations should be asking a specific set of questions: Where is training data sourced and stored? Where are models trained and hosted? What contractual and jurisdictional protections govern access to that data and those systems? For organizations in regulated sectors, or those seeking government procurement or partnership, these questions are likely to become conditions of eligibility, not merely good governance practice.

Sector-specific legal conditions will emerge rapidly and vary significantly

AI deployment in the strategy’s priority sectors — health and life sciences, energy, transportation, agriculture, and manufacturing — will increasingly occur through structured federal programs and public-private partnerships that carry their own legal conditions. These are not uniform.

What you can do

Organizations should expect sector-specific requirements to vary materially and be prepared to include some combination of the following:

In health and life sciences, federated data governance requirements, patient consent frameworks, and regulatory oversight from Health Canada for AI systems that meet the definition of a medical device under the Food and Drugs Act.
In energy and natural resources, data sharing obligations, interoperability standards, and environmental and Indigenous consultation requirements that attach to infrastructure-adjacent AI deployments.
In financial services (not a named priority sector, but one where AI deployment is already advanced), the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI)’s guidance on model risk management represents the most developed sector-specific risk environment in Canada today, involving the application of existing consumer protection and anti-discrimination frameworks to algorithmic decision-making.

Organizations in these sectors should map the specific legal conditions that will govern their participation in government-supported programs before committing to deployment architectures that may be difficult or costly to adjust.

Cross-border compliance requires a jurisdiction-aware governance framework

As set out in the above section on global context, Canadian organizations face a three-way compliance environment: EU AI Act obligations that may already apply; a deregulatory U.S. posture that creates competitive asymmetry; and an evolving domestic framework. The practical consequence is that governance frameworks designed solely around Canadian requirements will be insufficient for most organizations with international exposure.

The specific implication of the June 2 U.S. executive order is worth noting for Canadian businesses with U.S. market presence or U.S.-based AI supply chains. The voluntary pre-deployment review framework established by the order may evolve into an informal condition of U.S. federal procurement, or national security-sensitive partnerships.

What you can do

Canadian organizations in defence, critical infrastructure, or government-adjacent markets should monitor that development closely, as it could affect the terms on which Canadian AI systems or AI-enabled products are accepted in the U.S. market.

Implementation risk is material and should be reflected in planning horizons

The gap between policy intent and operational reality deserves serious attention. Compute buildout faces energy availability and permitting constraints. Privacy modernisation legislation has not yet been tabled. The Canada Trusted AI Certification program is proposed, not operational. Sectoral initiatives are at varying stages of development.

What you can do

For businesses, this means that the regulatory framework will continue to evolve in ways that are difficult to predict with precision. The appropriate response is not to wait for certainty before investing in governance, but to build governance frameworks that are adaptable: designed to meet current obligations while remaining scalable as requirements develop. Organizations that invest in foundational governance infrastructure now will be materially better positioned to absorb regulatory change than those that treat compliance as a future exercise.

BLG can assist

Canada is not waiting for a single statute to define the rules. Neither should Canadian businesses.

If you would like to discuss how the Canada’s new AI for All strategy may affect your organization, or to assess your current AI governance framework in light of these developments, BLG’s AI lawyers would be pleased to assist; please reach out to the authors or key contacts below.

Trademark scams: How to spot them, avoid them, and protect your brand

Tue, 09 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

Trademark scams are becoming increasingly common in Canada. Both the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) and the College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents (CPATA) have warned that business owners and trademark holders are being targeted by phishing emails, calls, and texts from people pretending to be intellectual property lawyers, agents, service providers, or even CIPO itself.

These messages often use details taken from public records, create urgency, and pressure recipients to act quickly. There was a wave of these in 2024 that was noted in a variety of publications, but after a client of ours was recently targeted with such a scam, we thought it would be prudent to provide an update on current developments and best practices for dealing with such matters.

What we saw: A trademark scam in action

The recent scam attempt our client encountered involved a sender falsely claiming to be an intellectual property lawyer.

The sender asserted that a third party, identified as the sender’s client, was preparing to file a trademark application for the recipient’s business name. The sender then urged the recipient to immediately file a trademark application through them, warning that, if the recipient failed to do so, the sender would proceed with filing a competing application on behalf of the alleged client.

The sender suggested that because the recipient had allegedly been using the business name for some time, they were being given an opportunity to file first (provided of course, that they paid the person impersonating a lawyer). The message relied heavily on urgency and time sensitivity to pressure the recipient into responding, paying money, or sharing information before verifying whether the message was real.

The message also used the name of a real lawyer with a valid licence to practice law to make the communication appear legitimate, but on further inspection, the phone number and email address provided did not match the public records for that lawyer. Upon contacting the lawyer’s office, they confirmed that the message was not legitimate and that they were aware of being impersonated, but were unable to do anything to stop the person impersonating them.

We knew that a legitimate lawyer acting for a client would not disclose a client’s filing strategy to a third party in a way that would prejudice the client’s interests. In Ontario, lawyers owe duties of confidentiality, loyalty, and conflict avoidance to their clients under our Rules of Professional Conduct. More plainly, no lawyer should ever “sell out” their existing client by offering the same services to a competitor at the expense of their original client.

What would happen if we did not catch it

If this type of scam is not identified early, the recipient may be pressured into paying unnecessary fees, sharing sensitive information, or retaining an unauthorized person to act on a trademark matter. CIPO explains that IP scams are often fraudulent attempts to obtain money or personal data by pretending to be a legitimate law firm, agent, or government body.

Red flags: Look for the signs

There are several warning signs that business owners should take seriously when assessing potential trademark scams.

Urgency. Scammers demand immediate action or payment, often saying things like “act now,” and putting pressure on the recipient by stating that their trademark is about to expire or is under threat. The message may ask you to reply immediately, click a link, wire funds, send a PayPal payment, or use a third-party payment portal. CIPO identifies these as classic scam indicators.
Use of real business information. Scammers often use real business information to appear credible. CPATA warns that fraudulent messages may include your name, business name, trademark details, or other information drawn from public records or CIPO databases.
Impersonation. Scammers may impersonate a real lawyer, trademark agent, or government authority, but these are usually shallow impersonation attempts that do not hold up under scrutiny. As an example of the shallowness of these impersonation attempts, domain names referenced in correspondence from scammers have often been registered mere days or weeks before the correspondence was sent. Law firms have a variety of tools at their disposal to verify legitimate correspondence, and typically even their most basic tools will tell them if something is not right.
Grammar. Scam emails often contain grammatical errors, unprofessional formatting, and factual inaccuracies regarding the recipient’s trademark registrations or lack thereof. One common red flag is a reference to the “Trade‑marks Act,” which is incorrect, as the hyphen was removed several years ago and the statute is now titled the “Trademarks Act.” Another warning sign can be found in the footer or email signature, where the sender identifies themselves as an “Intellectual Property Attorney,” a term typically used in the United States rather than in Canada.

What to look for if you are unsure whether something is a trademark scam

If you are unsure whether something is a scam, you should attempt to verify the legitimacy of the message, including its sender. BLG’s Trademarks Group has extensive experience in this space, should you require assistance in assessing whether correspondence received is a scam.

Legitimate emails from individuals at CIPO end with “@ised-isde.gc.ca.” If the sender claims to be a trademark agent, check whether the individual is listed on CPATA’s Public Register, and confirm that the email address exactly matches the official contact information listed there. CIPO recommends verifying whether the correspondence appears in the Canadian Trademarks Database or the Trademarks Document Retrieval Service, because official CIPO trademark correspondence should appear there. If the communication does not appear in official records, that is a serious warning sign.

CPATA also recommends checking whether the sender’s name, business, phone number or website appears on its public scam warning materials. CPATA has published guidance on IP scams, including lists of commonly used business names, phone numbers, registered agent names, and websites frequently associated with these schemes. If you are unsure about a sender’s identity, you can verify whether their name or contact information appears on CPATA’s list of flagged entities by consulting the CPATA website.

If you are uncertain whether someone claiming to be a lawyer is legitimate, you can independently verify their status by searching the public registry of the law society in the province where they claim to be licensed.

Most importantly, be cautious if the message uses fear, secrecy, or urgency. A demand for immediate action, a threat that someone else will “take” your business name unless you respond, or a message that appears to come from a real professional but asks you to deal through an unfamiliar email, phone number, or payment channel should be treated with caution.

If you are concerned that a trademark communication may be fraudulent, we encourage you to consult CIPO’s IP Scam Awareness Zone and to verify the sender through CPATA’s Public Register before responding. Suspicious messages can also be reported to CIPO at ic.contact-contact.ic@ised-isde.gc.ca with “IP scam” in the subject line.

Contact us

If, after reading this article, you are unsure about the status of your trademark portfolio, would like assistance reviewing it, or suspect you may the victim of a trademark scam attempt, please contact the professionals listed below, or any member of BLG’s Trademarks Group.

The authors would like to thank Alexander Filip, student-at-law, for his contributions to this article.

Online reviews, real risks: A closer look at RIBO’s guidance on online conduct

Mon, 08 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

On June 1, 2026, the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO) released Guidance 006 – Online Conduct (Social Media and Review Manipulation) (Guidance).

This article summarizes the key expectations and practical implications for brokerages.

Scope of guidance

The Guidance confirms that brokers’ online activities are subject to the same professional standards as their offline conduct. The Guidance applies to public-facing digital activity connected to insurance brokering, including social media posts, marketing content, and online engagement.

While the Guidance does not directly regulate purely personal use, personal content may still be considered in a disciplinary context where there is a sufficient connection to a broker’s professional role.

Core expectations

RIBO emphasizes that existing code of conduct obligations apply equally online. In particular, brokers must ensure:

Communications are accurate, respectful, and not misleading;
Online advertisements are truthful and properly identify the brokerage;
Social media is not used to provide quotes, advice, or process transactions, which should be moved to approved business channels; and
Client information on social media is not shared without informed consent or proper anonymization.

Focus on online reviews

A central feature of the Guidance is the treatment of online reviews. RIBO cautions against misleading practices such as fake or purchased reviews, review gating, or the use of AI-generated testimonials presented as genuine.

At the same time, brokers may ask consumers to leave reviews and may respond to negative reviews in a professional manner. Brokers may also report fake or malicious reviews to platform providers.

Risk and accountability

The Guidance recognizes that social media can be an important tool for conducting business, including for advertising, education, and networking, and can enhance trust in the profession when used appropriately. However, the Guidance also notes that social media carries professional conduct, regulatory, legal, and reputational risks that must be carefully managed to maintain public confidence. Brokers remain responsible for all content they create, share, or endorse, as well as content generated by third parties acting on their behalf.

In addition, principal brokers are expected to address professional social media use within their supervision frameworks, including implementing policies, training, approval processes for advertising, and ongoing monitoring of online activity.

Contact us

Brokerages should review their policies governing social media, marketing, and online review practices to ensure alignment with the Guidance.

Ultimately, RIBO’s message is clear: online conduct is professional conduct, and missteps in the digital space can result in real regulatory consequences.

For more information about the Guidance, please contact the authors or any of the key contacts listed below.

Canada extends steel and aluminum trade measures: What stakeholders need to know

Fri, 05 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

Key takeaways

Since 2025, Canada has had trade measures in place to protect its steel and aluminum industries. These measures were originally set to expire in June 2026 but have now been extended for an additional year.
The trade measures consist of two major components: tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) on non-CUSMA imports, and tariff relief for eligible U.S. steel and aluminum products, both of which have been extended to June 2027.
The extension maintains TRQs on non‑CUSMA steel imports and continues tariff relief for certain U.S. inputs.
Quota levels and enforcement remain unchanged (including 50 per cent tariffs above quota thresholds), reinforcing the current compliance framework.
The government has indicated that it may change how quotas are allocated. Instead of access being based on timing (like first-come, first-served permits), quotas could be assigned in advance to specific importers, potentially based on past import activity or applications, with further details expected following stakeholder consultations.

Background and policy context

Since 2018, the United States has systematically imposed, and expanded, sectoral tariffs on imports of Canadian steel and aluminum, principally in the guise of “national security” instruments under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. §1862).

In response, since last year, Canada has maintained a multi-layered toolkit combining:

1. retaliatory surtaxes on U.S. goods, including steel & aluminum and motor vehicles: They are imposed in response to U.S. trade measures (notably Section 232 tariffs). These surtaxes are primarily designed to counterbalance the impact on Canadian industries.

2. TRQs targeting steel import volumes from countries other than the United States and Mexico. Beginning in June 2025, Canada introduced steel TRQs to stabilize its domestic market, with quotas tied to historical import volumes and a 50 per cent surtax on over-quota imports. This was a design intended to deter trade diversion rather than eliminate imports altogether.

3. Remission and duty relief programs to mitigate domestic impacts. At the same time, Canada has maintained targeted tariff relief measures for certain U.S. inputs, recognizing the integration of North American supply chains and the risk of self-inflicted harm.

What is changing?

The June 3, 2026, announcement does not introduce a fundamentally new regime but instead extends and modestly evolves the existing framework:

1. One-year extension of core measures

Steel TRQs for non‑CUSMA countries will continue.
Tariff relief for eligible U.S. steel and aluminum products will also be extended.
These measures will now run to June 2027 (subject to approval by the Governor in Council).

2. Continued TRQ structure

Quotas remain based on percentage of 2024 import volumes: 20 per cent of 2024 volumes for partners without a free trade agreement with Canada, and 75 per cent for partners with a free trade agreement in force with Canada.
Imports exceeding quota limits remain subject to a 50 per cent tariff, preserving the current deterrence structure.
CUSMA partners (the United States and Mexico) continue to be exempt from TRQs.

3. Planned reform: Allocation-based quotas

The government has signalled a shift toward an allocation-based administration model for certain product classes. This would align the steel TRQs framework more closely with other Canadian quotas regimes, such as dairy (including cheese), where quotas are pre-allocated to importers based on historical activity or application criteria rather than administered in real time.
Stakeholder consultations are expected, suggesting potential changes to how quotas access is distributed (like historical usage vs. application-based allocation).

4. Ongoing remission and engagement

Canada will continue engaging domestic producers to ensure remission and duty relief programs support competitiveness.

Implications for Canadian stakeholders

1. Importers: Continued compliance burden and planning imperative

For importers, the extension reinforces that TRQ compliance remains a critical operational risk. TRQs are not simply tariff rules; they are capacity management systems requiring:

the monitoring of quota utilization (including total quota and country share limits);
the submission of timely permit applications (failure may trigger an automatic surtax); and
the careful timing of shipments within quota periods.

The shift toward allocation-based quotas could significantly change how importers access quotas. While no details have been released, such models are commonly used in other Canadian TRQ regimes, where access to quotas is pre‑allocated to importers (such as based on historical activity or application processes) rather than administered on a real‑time, permit-based basis. In those regimes, importers typically receive a defined annual quota allocation in advance, which can provide greater certainty. For example, under Canada’s CETA cheese TRQ regime, eligible importers apply in advance and receive an annual allocation. This allocation is typically calculated on a market-share basis and linked to their prior activity, which is then used to obtain import permits over the quota year.

At present, Canada’s steel TRQs are administered through shipment-specific permits and quotas monitoring, often effectively on a first‑come, first‑served basis, suggesting that any move to allocation would represent a material change in how quotas access is determined. It may give an advantage to established importers and require others to take a more strategic approach to securing quotas access.

2. Domestic producers: Continued protection with greater certainty

For Canadian steel and aluminum producers, the extension provides:

continued protection against import surges and trade diversion; and
predictability for capacity planning and investment decisions.

3. Exporters and integrated supply chains: Ongoing tension

Businesses operating across the Canada–U.S. border must continue navigating:

asymmetric tariff regimes (such as Section 232 measures); and
Canada’s balancing approach of retaliation and relief.

Modern sectoral tariffs increasingly operate as content-based and supply-chain-dependent measures. This means:

classification, origin, and valuation remain critical;
tariffs may “stack” depending on the legal basis; and
compliance requires integration of legal, procurement, and operational data.

Looking ahead

Stakeholders should monitor:

details of the proposed allocation-based TRQ system;
any adjustments following stakeholder consultations; and
broader alignment (or divergence) with U.S. trade measures.

BLG is there to help

BLG’s International Trade and Investment group continues to monitor the situation closely. If you have any questions about the tariff developments impacting your organization, please reach out to one of our lawyers below. Our multidisciplinary team can help you navigate the new regulatory landscape, maximize opportunities, and ensure compliance across all major industries.

Close to a sure(ty) thing: Alberta captives may now assume certain surety risks

Fri, 05 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

BREAKING: Our team has just become aware that Alberta captive insurance companies may now be permitted to assume surety insurance risks if the risks are underwritten by a licensed traditional insurer (who reinsures those risks to the Alberta captive).

The Alberta Superintendent of Insurance will review applications involving surety arrangements (that utilize a fronting insurer) on a case‑by‑case basis. In conducting this review, the Superintendent will generally consider section 28 of the Captive Insurance Companies Act and the related interpretation guideline on the reinsurance of third‑party risks. The assessment will focus on whether the proposed structure, risk transfer, and roles of all parties align with Alberta’s captive insurance framework.

Prospective applicants will be expected to provide an analysis clearly describing the nature of the fronting arrangement and the role of the captive within the overall structure, along with the information and documentation required under the Captive Insurance Company Application Guide.

This is a significant development in the Alberta captive insurance ecosystem and one that our team has championed for some time. We believe this development further propels Alberta as a domicile of choice for yet another category of would-be captive owners.

Do not hesitate to reach out with any questions or to discuss.

The Superior Court of Québec sets aside an arbitral award and establishes guidelines for the use of AI

Thu, 04 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

In a notable decision in Association des ressources intermédiaires d'hébergement du Québec (ARIHQ) c. Santé Québec - Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal, 2026 QCCS 1360, rendered on April 22, 2026, the Superior Court established guidelines for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the drafting of arbitral awards and, by extension, judicial decisions.

The Superior Court, in reasons authored by the Honourable Martin F. Sheehan, J.C.S., found that the arbitrator had relied on non-existent doctrinal and jurisprudential references central to his reasoning—pointing to the unsupervised use of an AI tool and an improper delegation of decision-making authority.

The decision establishes a clear standard: AI may assist, but must never replace, the decision-maker. When the unsupervised use of AI compromises procedural integrity or public trust, an arbitral award may be set aside.

The Superior Court’s decision

The case arose from a contractual disagreement between an intermediate residential care resource (Osman), its representative association (ARIHQ), and a healthcare facility (now Santé Québec). The dispute resolution process in place provided for arbitration. One of the parties then filed a motion to set aside the arbitral award.

The Court found that the arbitrator had cited sources of legal doctrine and case law that did not exist. The AI had “hallucinated” several key references in the arbitral award. This was particularly evident in the cited decisions of the Court of Appeal of Québec, which do not actually exist.

The Court analyzed these violations in light of articles 646 and 648 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which set out the limited grounds for setting aside an arbitral award in Québec. Specifically, article 646(3) addresses non-compliance with the procedure for appointing an arbitrator or with the applicable arbitration procedure.

The Court clarified that, while AI is not explicitly referenced by article 646 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a substantial breach of the agreed procedure that compromises the integrity of the process may justify the annulment of an arbitral award. In this case, the Court found that the non-existent decisions had a significant impact on the arbitrator’s reasoning, and that he had effectively delegated his decision-making authority to an AI tool. Based on this, the Court set aside the arbitral award, ruling that the non-existent decisions were [translation] “central to the arbitrator’s reasoning.”

However, in setting aside the award, the Court was careful not to establish a general prohibition on the use of artificial intelligence.

Guiding principle for decision-makers regarding the use of AI: Assistance is permitted, but delegation is prohibited

In its decision, the Court established guardrails for the use of AI by arbitrators and other decision-makers. With respect to arbitration specifically, the Court commented on (i) the importance of party autonomy in selecting an arbitrator, (ii) the importance of written reasoning to ensure an informed decision and (iii) the imperative of maintaining public confidence in the arbitration process. The Court concluded that arbitral awards must be authored by the arbitrator chosen by the parties and must not be delegated to third parties.

While the decision does not prohibit or discourage legal professionals or decision-makers from using AI, it establishes guidelines for its use by reiterating certain fundamental principles:

Delegation of decision-making authority: The power to decide belongs to the decision-maker chosen by the parties, and as such it cannot be delegated to third parties, including AI. The Court identified personal reasoning as a key element of procedural integrity. Using AI without sufficient verification is incompatible with the requirement for the decision-maker to be the author of the reasons underlying the decision.
The significance of the breach: The Court clarified that using AI as a drafting tool, or even citing erroneous references, will not automatically result in an arbitral award being annulled. In this case, the annulment of the award was due to the central role the non-existent decisions played in the arbitrator’s reasoning, and the fact that the breach was likely to [translation] “affect the parties’ confidence in the outcome and in the arbitration system in general.”

Note: By analogy, the Court ruled on the use of tribunal secretaries by arbitrators, and of law clerks by decision-makers. The same principle was applied: that the participation of such third parties in the decision-making process must not [translation] “undermine the integrity of the process, and the decision-maker must retain responsibility for the drafting.”

Finally, the Court emphasized that other challenges and risks associated with the use of AI must be considered in a judicial or arbitration context. These include:

the creation of false references or hallucinations;
the inability to exercise discretion and consider human values;
biases reflected in AI systems; and
the lack of privacy associated with certain tools.

Conclusion

This is one of the first decisions worldwide to set out guidelines for how a decision-maker, such as an arbitrator, can use AI. It has already attracted significant international attention.

It represents a broadening of the grounds for annulment based on procedural compliance under article 646(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, by extending them to cover the use of AI. The Court’s guardrails strengthen arbitration law in Québec by ensuring the quality of arbitral awards and contributing to the development of best practices to guide decision-makers’ use of AI.

Ontario court awards over $22 million in landmark clinic surveillance privacy class action

Tue, 02 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

In J.C. et al. v. Jugenburg et al., 2026 ONSC 3061, the court found that a plastic surgeon breached his duties to patients and intruded on their privacy by installing surveillance cameras throughout his clinic. This is the first time a court has found that recording footage alone, even if it was not viewed or shared, can result in liability for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. The court awarded $21.5 million in aggregate damages for the class of roughly 7,000 patients for intrusion upon seclusion, and $1 million in punitive damages.

Key takeaways: privacy risks and legal exposure from surveillance in patient care areas

For healthcare facilities, the standard of care is to not have cameras where patients are receiving care, disrobing or being examined, unless the cameras are required for a medical purpose, such as patient observation, or supporting treatment and quality of care. The court in the Jugenburg case provided examples of possible exceptions, without going into the details. Health care facilities should carefully consider where they place cameras in patient care areas.
Recording footage of intimate or private interactions can constitute an intrusion upon seclusion, even if the footage was not viewed, used, or disclosed.
Aggregate damages can be awarded for intrusion upon seclusion, even if some class members were not upset or offended by the intrusion.

Background

Dr. Jugenburg installed 24 security cameras throughout his private clinic, including in consultation rooms where his patients would disrobe, as well as in the operating room and the pre- and post-operative areas.

Although the cameras were not hidden, they were not readily noticeable, and the court found that the two signs in the clinic did not adequately alert patients to the surveillance. The court rejected Dr.Jugenburg’s claim that the cameras were installed for security purposes, finding instead that they were intended to allow him to review footage in response to patient complaints and to protect his own interest. The court accepted there was no evidence of voyeurism or disclosure of the footage to anyone.

There were many proceedings and investigations into this matter before the common issues trial. A CBC Marketplace investigation brought this issue to light in 2018. The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario investigated the Clinic’s use of cameras and found that it contravened the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, after considering the matter, suspended Dr. Jugenburg’s license for six months.

Dr. Jugenburg breached the standard of care and his fiduciary duties to patients

The court held that the standard of care prohibits having cameras in clinic spaces where patients receive care or consult with their healthcare providers, unless the cameras are required for a medical purpose, such as patient observation, or supporting treatment and quality of care. The court noted that the standard of care is not necessarily met by informing patients of the presence of cameras, or obtaining consent, because patients are often in a vulnerable position when seeking care, raising concerns about whether their consent would be truly valid.

The court also concluded that Dr.Jugenburg breached his fiduciary duty after finding that the surveillance was for his sole benefit, and not for security of the clinic or the benefit of patients.

The court did not decide if liability flowed from these breaches because causation and damages could not be established on a class-wide basis.

Dr. Jugenburg intruded upon the seclusion of his patients

The court found the 3-part test for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion was made out. The first element of the tort is that the invasion must be into the plaintiff’s private affairs and without lawful justification. The court held that patients had a reasonable expectation of privacy in consultation rooms and treatment areas and that recording patients in those spaces constituted an intrusion into their private affairs.

The court found that the second element of the tort, that the invasion was intentional or reckless, was satisfied. The court was unconvinced by Dr. Jugenburg’s evidence that he did not believe there was anything unlawful about his surveillance system so long as he maintained the confidentiality of the footage and did not disclose it to anyone else, finding instead that he “knew exactly what he was doing and that it was wrong”. Going further, the court held that it is not necessary for a defendant to know that the invasion was unlawful for the second element to be proven.

The court also found that the third element of the tort, that the invasion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person was met, since a reasonable person would regard the conduct as being highly offensive, causing distress, humiliation or anguish. Although most of the footage was never viewed, and it was automatically deleted after several months, the court concluded that recording intimate patient interactions in a medical clinic without a patient’s knowledge or consent, and for no medical purpose, was a serious and highly offensive intrusion.

The court awarded over $22 million in damages

The court awarded $21.5 million in aggregate damages for intrusion upon seclusion.

Although some patients testified that the cameras did not upset or offend them, the court did not find that evidence persuasive or inconsistent with an aggregate damages award. The court held that intrusion upon seclusion relies on an objective test and that aggregate damages are based “not on what’s accurate but what’s reasonable”.

The court fixed damages at $5,000 per person for those who attended surgical appointments and who likely had to disrobe, and at $500 per person for those who attended non-surgical or injectable appointments.

Finally, finding that Dr. Jugenburg abused a position of trust and betrayed his patients, the court awarded $1 million in punitive damages.

It is not known yet if Dr. Jugenburg will appeal this decision.

For more information on the potential impact of this decision, or on privacy class actions in the healthcare context more generally, please reach out to any of the key contacts listed below.

Independent obligations endure: CCAA releases don’t extinguish surety indemnity claims

Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 Z

In Intact Insurance Company v. Edward Collins Contracting Limited, 2026 NLSC 49, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador dismissed an application to strike a surety’s claim under an indemnity agreement, confirming that releases granted in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings do not automatically extinguish independent contractual obligations of indemnitors.

Case summary: Intact v. Collins Contracting (2026 NLSC 49)

Background: surety claim and CCAA release defence

The plaintiff (Intact) commenced an action seeking payment under an Indemnity Agreement executed in connection with losses it suffered as surety under various Performance Bonds and Labour and Material Payment Bonds. The defendant (an individual Indemnitor) applied to strike the claim, arguing that releases granted under an Approval and Vesting Order (AVO) in prior CCAA proceedings barred the claim.

The Indemnitor relied on the AVO, asserting that the release provisions had discharged him from personal liability to the surety as he was a director and officer of the insolvent Principal. He also advanced arguments grounded in res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process.

Court decision: motion to strike dismissed

Justice Browne dismissed the application to strike. The Court held that, on the face of the pleadings, it was not “plain and obvious” that the surety’s claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The Court emphasized that an indemnity agreement creates a primary and independent contractual obligation, distinct from liabilities arising solely by reason of a person’s status as a director or officer. As pleaded, the surety’s claim properly set out the existence of the Indemnity Agreement, the losses incurred, and the Indemnitor’s obligation to reimburse those losses.

CCAA release scope: limits on director and indemnity claims

A central issue was whether the AVO releases extended to the defendant’s personal indemnity obligations. The Court found that they did not.

When the AVO and the earlier oral reasons were read together, the releases were intended to protect parties in their representative capacities, not to extinguish personal contractual obligations caught by section 5.1(2) of the CCAA.

Section 5.1(2) of the CCAA expressly limits the compromise of director claims in plans of arrangement where they relate to contractual rights of creditors or involve allegations of wrongdoing. Courts have held that this limitation also applies to releases granted upon sale approvals in CCAA proceedings, outside of plans of arrangement. The Court noted that jurisprudence consistently treats personal guarantees and indemnities as independent contractual undertakings relating to the contractual rights of creditors and thus not releasable. While the AVO release language contained a general release of indemnities, it also concluded with the qualifier that no claim was released that was not permitted to be released by section 5.1(2) of the CCAA.

In the oral reasons accompanying the AVO, the Court confirmed that it was not releasing directors in their personal capacities and was not releasing any claim that section 5.1(2) barred it from releasing.

Res judicata and abuse of process: not applicable

The Court rejected the argument that the claim was barred by res judicata or issue estoppel. The earlier CCAA proceedings addressed the approval of a sale transaction and related releases – not the enforceability of the personal indemnity.

Because the merits of the indemnity claim were not adjudicated in the CCAA proceeding, the essential elements of res judicata were not met. Similarly, advancing the indemnity claim did not constitute an abuse of process, as it concerned rights that the CCAA process had not conclusively addressed.

Key takeaways for sureties and creditors

This decision provides important guidance for sureties and other creditors:

CCAA releases are not all-encompassing: They will not extend to independent contractual obligations such as personal indemnities or guarantees.
Personal indemnities remain enforceable: Courts will treat indemnity agreements as primary obligations that survive insolvency restructurings.
Procedural defences have limits: Res judicata and abuse of process arguments will not succeed where the underlying issue has not been previously adjudicated.

For sureties, the case reinforces the continued reliability of Indemnity Agreements and personal Indemnitors as a key risk mitigation tool, even in the context of complex insolvency restructurings.

Intact was represented in this motion by Borden Ladner Gervais LLP.

Note: The Indemnitor has filed a notice of appeal, which might be heard. BLG will provide supplemental updates on this matter.

CRA delays GST/HST changes on trailing commissions to 2028

Thu, 28 May 2026 00:00:00 Z

On May 13, 2026, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) advised industry groups that the application of its revised administrative position on the taxability of trailing commissions will not proceed on July 1, 2026, as previously indicated. Subsequently on May 26, 2026, the CRA released a revised version of GST/HST Notice 344 – Application of the GST/HST to Mutual Fund Trailing Commissions (Notice 344), formalizing the previously announced deferral of enforcement until Jan. 1, 2028.

CRA’s shift on GST/HST treatment of trailing commissions

On Feb. 10, 2026, the CRA announced a major change to the goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) treatment of mutual fund trailing commissions (trailing commissions). Notice 344 originally confirmed an earlier GST/HST Ruling provided to industry stakeholders in late 2025 and advised that, effective July 1, 2026, Trailing Commissions would be treated as taxable supplies. This represented a reversal of the CRA’s long-standing position that such payments were consideration for exempt financial services.

Following consultation with industry stakeholders, the CRA has now announced that it will delay enforcement of this change until Jan. 1, 2028, to allow affected taxpayers sufficient time to implement the necessary operational and compliance changes.

What the deferral means for industry

Industry will welcome the formal announcement of an extension on May 26, 2026. Given the significance of the operational changes required to comply with the CRA’s revised position on the application of GST/HST to trailing commissions, affected stakeholders should continue their efforts to implement the necessary changes to their tax compliance processes.

Industry had consistently indicated that the approximate six-month implementation period previously provided was insufficient. That position was articulated during consultations preceding the GST/HST Ruling released in December 2025, as well as in formal submissions made prior to the release of Notice 344 in February 2026. As a result, while the deferral is welcome, this announcement may nonetheless give rise to some frustration within the industry. More broadly, the pattern of announcing deferrals to significant tax changes after their initial release is unfortunate.

Stakeholders will also be watching for corresponding announcements from Revenu Québec, which only announced last month its intention to align the QST treatment of trailing commissions with GST/HST.

With respect to the prospect of legal challenges to the revised administrative position, most stakeholders are currently focused on complying with the CRA’s revised position. That said, from a technical perspective, the fact that this change has been introduced through a CRA ruling rather than a legislative amendment may provide a basis for challenge. In particular, existing jurisprudence has recognised trailing commissions as exempt financial services and has emphasised that the characterization of a supply should be determined from the perspective of the recipient, rather than solely by reference to the supplier’s activities—an approach that appears to have been adopted in the technical ruling underlying this change.

Questions on CRA GST/HST changes to trailing commissions and the delay to 2028?

Contact BLG’s Tax Group. Our team advises clients across the investment and financial services sector on GST/HST matters, including the treatment of trailing commissions, compliance requirements and audit risk. We can help you assess the impact of the CRA’s revised position and support your preparation for the 2028 implementation.

Canadian Securities Administrators’ semi-annual reporting pilot: Emerging trends and insights

Fri, 22 May 2026 00:00:00 Z

The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) has provided eligible venture issuers with the option to move away from quarterly reporting in favour of a semi-annual reporting (SAR) regime through the introduction of Coordinated Blanket Order 51-933 – Exemptions to Permit Semi-Annual Reporting for Certain Venture Issuers (the Blanket Order).

Drawing on our review of SEDAR+ filings, we examine the pace and profile of issuer participation, including adoption by exchange, industry, and market capitalization, as well as emerging practices around SAR and related disclosure. We also highlight select observations that may be relevant to issuers considering whether to adopt SAR and how best to communicate that decision to the market.

Key takeaways

The adoption of SAR is gaining momentum. A growing cohort of eligible issuers has elected to adopt SAR, with the pace of adoption accelerating in recent weeks.
Disclosure practices announcing adoption vary widely and may warrant careful consideration. While not required under the Blanket Order, many issuers provided some explanation for adopting SAR, though the depth and prominence of that disclosure varied significantly.
SAR is gaining traction beyond Canada, but regulatory divergence may emerge. Parallel developments in the United States to permit SAR for U.S. domestic issuers signal a broader re‑evaluation of quarterly reporting regimes.

Background: The SAR Pilot

As discussed in BLG’s April 2026 Insight, under the Blanket Order, eligible venture issuers can now file financial statements and related MD&A on a semi-annual basis (the SAR Pilot). The Blanket Order provides exemptions from the requirement to file interim financial reports and related MD&A for the first and third quarters of a financial year.

To rely on these exemptions, an issuer must, among certain other requirements:

be a venture issuer with securities listed on either the TSX Venture Exchange (TSXV) or the Canadian Securities Exchange (CSE);
have been a reporting issuer in Canada for at least 12 months;
have annual revenue of no more than $10 million, as reflected in its most recently filed audited annual financial statements;
be up to date with all required periodic and timely disclosure filings; and
issue and file a news release on SEDAR+ announcing its election to adopt SAR.

SAR adoption by the numbers

Since coming into effect on March 19, 2026, our review of SEDAR+ filings indicates that 111 issuers have announced their adoption of SAR (the SAR Participants) as of May 8, 2026. We estimate that over 1,750¹ issuers are eligible to participate in the SAR Pilot, suggesting that approximately 6.5 per cent of eligible issuers have already opted in.

The pace of adoption is also accelerating, with 63 per cent of SAR Participants announcing their participation within just the past three weeks. This trend underscores increasing issuer comfort with the SAR Pilot and with SAR more generally.

We have also not observed any discernible share price reaction among SAR Participants following announcements of their adoption of SAR, suggesting a comparable level of acceptance (or at a minimum, indifference) among investors.

Based on our internal data, 68 per cent of SAR Participants are listed on the TSXV, with the remaining 32 per cent listed on the CSE. Approximately 73 per cent of all eligible issuers are listed on the TSXV, suggesting that CSE-listed issuers are slightly disproportionately adopting SAR.

A significant proportion of SAR Participants operate in the mining sector (60 per cent), while technology (10 per cent) and capital pool companies (11 per cent) have also been large adopters of SAR.

These figures are relatively proportionate to the number of eligible issuers in those respective sectors, as this composition reflects the SAR Pilot’s particular relevance to issuers that operate in capital‑intensive industries with longer development timelines and limited near‑term revenue.

This is further supported by financial services (12 per cent of all eligible issuers, but just 3 per cent of SAR Participants) being under-represented amongst SAR Participants.

The average market capitalization of SAR Participants is approximately $13.6 million², and the median market capitalization is $4.4 million. In addition, 93 per cent of SAR Participants have a market capitalization below $50 million.

This distribution is consistent with the Blanket Order’s revenue threshold, which naturally limits participation to smaller and earlier-stage issuers for whom the reduced administrative and financial burden of SAR is particularly attractive. That said, seven SAR Participants have a market capitalization exceeding $50 million, with the largest being approximately $235 million.

Communicating SAR adoption: Emerging disclosure practices and issuer considerations

Although such disclosure is not required under the Blanket Order, approximately 42 per cent of SAR Participants included an explanation of why they are adopting SAR in their news release announcing the adoption. However, the level of detail provided in these explanations varied considerably.

While most were limited to a single sentence, some issuers provided significantly more fulsome explanations, which may reflect differing assessments of shareholder and market expectations. These more in-depth explanations often included specific discussion of how the anticipated cost savings and additional management capacity would be allocated.

We expect this to be an ongoing consideration for issuers contemplating adopting SAR, as the appropriate amount of explanation will likely depend on multiple issuer-specific factors. These can include the nature of the issuer; their business; the cyclicality of their operations and revenue generation; the composition of their shareholder base; and prevailing market conditions, amongst other considerations.

A number of SAR Participants disclosed their adoption of SAR within broader news releases addressing multiple matters. In several instances, the adoption was not even referenced in the headline of the news release, making it less readily apparent to investors that the issuer had elected to adopt SAR. While this practice does not appear to contravene the express requirements of the Blanket Order, it may be inconsistent with the CSA’s stated guidance that the purpose of the news release requirement is, in part, to “provide transparency to the market about the issuer’s future filings.”

In one instance, an issuer initially announced its adoption of SAR but subsequently retracted their announcement, after determining that it was ineligible to rely on the Blanket Order. Although such corrective disclosure is not required under the Blanket Order, it is consistent with CSA guidance encouraging issuers to consider issuing a news release when they cease to rely on the Blanket Order and revert to quarterly reporting.

U.S. developments: The SEC's proposed SAR rules

Notably, the CSA is not alone in moving forward with SAR. On May 5, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed new rules that would allow all U.S. domestic issuers to file semi‑annual reports in lieu of quarterly reports (the SEC Proposal).

Under the SEC Proposal, participating issuers would only be required to file one annual report on Form 10‑K and one semi‑annual report on new Form 10‑S each fiscal year.

It is important to note that the SEC Proposal would not affect the reporting obligations of foreign private issuers, including Canadian issuers reporting under the multijurisdictional disclosure system who are not subject to quarterly reporting requirements on Form 10-Q. However, if adopted as proposed, the SEC Proposal could result in a significant divergence in reporting practices between Canadian reporting issuers, particularly those ineligible for the SAR Pilot, and their U.S. counterparts.

Next steps

As the SAR Pilot continues to unfold, we expect issuer participation to expand further and disclosure practices to continue to evolve. Issuers considering adoption should assess eligibility carefully and give thoughtful consideration to how their decision to adopt SAR is communicated to the market.

The author would like to thank Joshua Lewis, articling student, for his contribution in writing this article.