Filtered-Insights

A new structure enters the ring: CIRO’s Incorporated Approved Person compensation proposal

Fri, 23 Oct 2026 00:00:00 Z

The Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization’s (CIRO) proposed Incorporated Approved Person model could materially change how client-facing advisors structure their businesses and receive compensation with significant impacts to sponsoring firms. The proposed rule amendments, published on July 9, 2026, would introduce a harmonized incorporated compensation option for client-facing Approved Persons across CIRO regulated dealers. Comments are due November 6, 2026.

CIRO would preserve the existing employee and agent models, and repeal the directed commission option currently available to certain mutual fund dealing representatives.

At a high level, the corporation would need to obtain the appropriate registration, or an exemption from registration, as well as CIRO approval. Under the current proposal, the individual registrant would have to be the sole holder of voting shares; ownership of non-voting shares would be limited to the advisor and certain family members; and activities outside the sponsoring dealer relationship would require advance dealer approval, and would be confined to permitted ancillary or regulated financial services activities.

A written tri-party agreement among the dealer firm, corporation and individual advisor would be required. It would have to address specified matters, including the dealer’s supervisory responsibility; require that all securities and derivatives business for the dealer be conducted through the corporation; and address client disclosure and other compliance obligations.

Amendments to securities legislation and/or to National Instrument 31-103 – Registration Requirements, Exemptions and Ongoing Registrant Obligations would likely be required before advisor corporations could conduct securities-related activities. It remains unclear whether comparable policy work will be undertaken for non-CIRO registrants.

BLG held a webinar on September 22, 2026, to discuss the proposal’s rules on eligibility and ownership, tax considerations, disclosure and implementation issues. For more information, see BLG’s Insight, One step closer to harmonization: CIRO’s proposed Incorporated Approved Person Compensation model (July 23, 2026), or contact your usual BLG lawyer for information from the webinar.

AUM Law Regulatory Update newsletter: Brief news (October 2026)

Fri, 23 Oct 2026 00:00:00 Z

At the CIRO booth: Dealer regulation and compliance developments

Client Focused Reforms guidance

The Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) is developing a series of three targeted compliance bulletins to help Dealer Members and Approved Persons apply the Client Focused Reforms (CFRs) in practice. The bulletins build on Joint CSA/CIRO Staff Notice 31-368 Client Focused Reforms: Review of Registrants’ Know Your Client, Know Your Product and Suitability Determination Practices and Additional Guidance, and respond to recurring deficiencies and areas of uncertainty identified through compliance examinations. The first published guidance focuses on Know-Your-Client obligations and includes practical examples of how to determine risk profile based on a client’s risk capacity and risk tolerance. Future guidance will cover Know-Your-Product and suitability determination obligations.

The guidance is intended to be proportionate to a dealer’s business model, product shelf and client profile. The bulletins can be used to help dealer firms test the sufficiency of their existing processes.

Account transfers and bulk account movements

On July 23, 2026, CIRO published Bulletin 26-0161, Modernization of requirements for account transfers and bulk account movements (IDPC Rule 4800, MFD Rule 2.12 and CIRO Rule 4800), proposing modernized requirements for account transfers and bulk account movements by investment dealers and mutual fund dealers. While CIRO notes that dealer access to additional and more highly automated account transfer facilities protocols is also required to modernize the transfer process, some rule improvements could be made as well.

The proposed revisions to previously published draft amendments clarify that an account subject to a temporary hold cannot be transferred until the delivering dealer removes the hold. They also require delivering and receiving dealers to use best efforts to complete each transfer step as soon as practicable. CIRO has separated the timelines for notifying and acknowledging a transfer request, providing the asset list, and resolving impediments from the subsequent settlement timeline. Once the parties determine that no transfer impediments exist, or that all impediments have been resolved, the transfer must settle within five clearing days. The proposed amendments would also clarify that electronic communications between the dealers must be used where possible.

Extended hours trading

On October 8, 2026, CIRO published Guidance Note GN-3100-26-001, Guidance on Extended Hours Trading (Guidance). The Guidance reminds Dealer Members that extended sessions may involve considerations such as lower liquidity, wider bid-ask spreads and reduced-price discovery from those available during core market hours.

Dealer Members that offer extended-hours trading should ensure that their disclosure, supervision, policies and controls reflect those additional risks. CIRO expects public website disclosure explaining when extended sessions are available, how orders may be handled and executed, and how after-hours trading differs from trading during core market hours. The Guidance also identifies minimum elements for risk disclosure and considerations for best execution policy disclosure such as fragmented liquidity, venue availability and price differences outside core hours.

Enforcement and annual reports

CIRO released its 2025/2026 Enforcement Report on July 22, 2026, and its 2026 Annual Report on September 21, 2026. Together, the reports provide a useful view of the organization’s post-amalgamation direction: integrated systems and processes, consistent oversight across dealer categories, modernization of regulation, and continued emphasis on investor protection and market integrity.

For more information, see BLG’s Insight, What CIRO is doing: Enforcement report for 2025–2026 (July 28, 2026), and BLG’s dynamic CIRO resource, Everything you need to know about the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization.

More room at the fundraising booth: Expanding the listed issuer financing exemption

On July 23, 2026, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) published proposed amendments to National Instrument 45-106 Prospectus Exemptions relating to the Listed Issuer Financing Exemption (LIFE). The LIFE prospectus exemption is generally available to reporting issuers that have securities listed on recognized exchanges and have filed all required disclosure documents, subject to certain conditions. The proposal would make permanent the higher capital raising limits introduced by a 2025 blanket order: eligible listed issuers can raise up to $25 million (or up to $50 million for larger issuers) in a 12-month period. The CSA also proposes to revise the dilution calculation, replace the current sufficiency-of-funds condition with a short-term liquidity requirement, permit certain successor issuers to use the exemption, and streamline related conditions and disclosure.

The proposal is focused on public companies, but it also matters to registrants that participate in financings or invest in issuers using the LIFE. Registrant firms should consider reviewing their financing and due diligence procedures, selling documents and representations, and processes for confirming issuer eligibility and offering limits. For more information, see BLG’s Insight, Canadian Securities Administrators propose new amendments to the listed issuer financing exemption (LIFE).

Rebuilding the public company pavilion: Modernizing public company regulation

On July 16, 2026, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) published Consultation Paper 51-406, Modernizing the Regulation of Public Companies (Paper). The Paper seeks comment on possible changes to public company regulation, including whether: (i) the distinction between venture and non-venture issuers should be redesigned; (ii) some venture issuers should be permitted to use modified financial reporting requirements; (iii) private placement hold periods for reporting issuers should be changed; (iv) material change reporting could be clarified or streamlined; and (v) U.S. reforms to periodic reporting, capital raising and disclosure should inform the Canadian approach.

Although directed principally to reporting issuers, the consultation is relevant to registrants that underwrite, advise on or invest in public company securities. For example, one consultation question asks investors which aspects of a venture issuer’s financial statements are most important to their decision-making and which are less relevant. Another asks whether the semi-annual reporting framework should be available voluntarily to all issuers. Firms should consider the potential effects on diligence standards, resale and liquidity analysis, issuer comparability, financial statement review, material change monitoring, trading restrictions, and investment mandates that distinguish between venture and non-venture issuers. The comment period closes November 13, 2026.

At the entry gate: Alberta updates KYC and trusted contact materials

On August 20, 2026, the Alberta Securities Commission (ASC) revised ASC Notice 31-701, Account Opening Assistance, and published updated sample Know-Your-Client (KYC) and Trusted Contact Person (TCP) forms.

The notice reiterates that registrants must take reasonable steps to establish a client’s identity and obtain sufficient information to satisfy KYC and suitability obligations. The sample KYC form addresses personal and financial circumstances, investment needs and objectives, investment knowledge, risk profile, and investment time horizon. It also defines concepts such as risk profile and investment objectives, and requests concentration information, including the total amount of exempt securities held as a percentage of estimated net financial assets. Notably, the form includes a page devoted to criteria for suitability notes, as well as an indicative checklist of other information that a registrant may need to obtain or provide, such as relationship disclosure information. The ASC describes the sample as a guide that firms should tailor to their needs and use in conjunction with a client discussion.

The accompanying TCP material is also a useful prompt for reviewing how firms request, document and refresh TCP information. Although the notice is directed particularly to account opening assistance for exempt market dealers in Alberta, firms elsewhere may find the forms useful as benchmarking tools.

When the outcome is the product: Prediction markets and event contracts

Event contracts do not fit neatly within existing regulatory categories, particularly when the underlying outcome involves sports or entertainment. Joint Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) and Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) Staff Notice 91-307 – Guidance Related to Event Contracts: Compliance with Regulatory Requirements, published on August 27, 2026, explains the regulators’ current approach to these products, which are also described as prediction contracts or prediction market contracts. For more information, see BLG’s Insight, Prediction markets and iGaming update: Forecasting more developments ahead.

The notice focuses on event contracts based on sports or entertainment events or outcomes. CSA staff state that these products should not be regulated within securities and derivatives legislation. CIRO staff state that they do not consider it appropriate to approve applications by dealers to trade these types of contracts.

The notice does not resolve the treatment of every prediction market product. The assessment of event contracts based on other categories of events remains ongoing, and further guidance is expected.

A digital ticket to entry: Data portability and electronic KYC

On September 8, 2026, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) Collaboratory published a report on its research and consultations concerning data portability, including the portability of electronic Know-Your-Client (e-KYC) data. The project explored whether investors could transfer their information between financial service providers more efficiently and securely. Participants generally supported that objective and recognized its potential to reduce duplication and improve the investor experience. They also identified possible regulatory barriers, privacy and consent concerns, and the need for standardized data.

Registrants were particularly concerned about meeting their KYC obligations when data collection is delegated through a portability service provider, and the requirement to have meaningful interactions with clients. In light of feedback received, the CSA is not proceeding at this time with the proposed live testing phase, although staff will continue to monitor developments in this area.

Securing the fairgrounds: Cybersecurity inspection results

A Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) review of 73 registered firms found considerable variation in the maturity of cybersecurity practices. Published in July, Staff Notice 33-322, Review of Registered Firms’ Cybersecurity Practices and Additional Guidance, draws on those examinations to address how firms assign responsibility for cyber risk, translate that responsibility into policies and training, assess vulnerabilities, oversee technology vendors, and prepare to respond when an incident occurs.

Practices varied considerably. Larger organizations were more likely to have mature programs, but the central lesson applies across the market: a cybersecurity framework should be proportionate to the firm’s operations and demonstrable through records, testing and follow-up. Firms should be able to show who makes decisions, how risks and service providers are assessed, whether personnel are trained, how incidents are escalated, and how lessons from testing or actual events are incorporated into the control environment. If your firm requires assistance with reviewing policies and procedures, or designing training suggested by the guidance, please contact us.

For more information, see BLG’s Insight, Click carefully: Canadian Securities Administrators Staff Notice on cybersecurity practices (July 31, 2026).

Across the border: Foreign-listed ETFs

Foreign-listed exchange traded funds (ETFs) are available to Canadian investors, but their distribution raises distinct product review, disclosure and suitability considerations. Joint Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) and Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) Staff Notice 81-339, Industry Practices Relating to Foreign-Listed Exchange-Traded Funds (Joint Notice), published on July 29, 2026, concerns the marketing and sale in Canada of ETFs listed on a foreign exchange but not on a Canadian exchange. The Joint Notice clarifies the regulatory boundaries around promotion, product due diligence and client recommendations of these products.

Registered dealers are reminded that, when advising on or recommending such products, they remain responsible for applying Know-Your-Product (KYP), Know-Your-Client (KYC) and suitability requirements, including understanding material differences between Canadian and foreign products, such as currency exposure, tax treatment, trading hours, disclosure standards, investor remedies, costs and liquidity. Order-execution-only dealers are encouraged to provide enhanced disclosure of relevant factors before a client purchases a foreign ETF.

For more information, see BLG’s Insight, The ETF next door? CIRO and CSA set expectations for foreign ETFs (August 25, 2026).

Keeping the midway running: Proposed IT system integrity rule

Earlier in October, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) published proposed National Instrument 26-101 – Information Technology System Integrity. The proposal would consolidate and harmonize IT system requirements for marketplaces, recognized clearing agencies, trade repositories, information processors, and matching service utilities. Although the proposed instrument is not intended to make material changes to existing requirements, it would establish a foundation for future modernization aligned more closely with international standards. The proposal is directed to market infrastructure entities rather than registrants generally. Dealers, advisers and investment fund managers should nevertheless follow it closely – one consultation question about the second phase of the updates asks whether the obligations outlined in the National Instrument should apply to other market participants, including registrants and investment fund issuers. Comments are due January 29, 2027.

CSA’s blue-ribbon year in review

Fri, 23 Oct 2026 00:00:00 Z

On August 18, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) released its 2025–2026 Year in Review, covering the first year of work under the CSA’s 2025–2028 Business Plan. The review period runs broadly from July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026. During that period, the CSA released 54 publications spanning rule amendments, consultations, blanket orders, guidance, policy initiatives and market updates, and participated in more than 95 stakeholder engagements.

The report groups the CSA’s work under the four priorities named in its Business Plan:

Focus on the capital markets;
Focus on investors;
Focus on innovation and technology; and
Focus on systemic risk.

A significant theme is reducing unnecessary friction in Canadian capital markets while maintaining appropriate safeguards. The initiatives highlighted include a proposed harmonized prospectus exemption for self-certified investors, an optional semi-annual financial reporting regime for certain smaller venture issuers, and higher financing limits under the listed issuer financing exemption. The CSA is also seeking broader input on further modernization of the public company framework.

The enforcement statistics show the continuing prominence of fraud and crypto-related misconduct. CSA members issued 763 investor alerts, cautions and warnings, with crypto assets accounting for more than 85 per cent of them, and brought 13 crypto-related enforcement matters. Enforcement proceedings resulted in permanent market bans for 47 companies and individuals. CSA members also recorded 262 instances of formal assistance or referral involving other regulators and agencies, including 150 referrals to authorities outside Canada. Alongside enforcement, the CSA examined behavioural techniques that could help investors recognize and avoid online scams, and continued work on an independent dispute resolution framework with binding decision-making authority.

Technology work combined external engagement with improvements to the regulators’ own analytical capabilities. Through initiatives such as the CSA Collaboratory, the CSA sought feedback on how new tools are changing market practices and where regulation may need to adapt. The report also flags quantum computing as an emerging issue, presumably with possible implications for cybersecurity, market infrastructure, oversight and investor protection. For registrants, a related message is that information supplied through regulatory filings and questionnaires can be assessed across sources and over time; unexplained patterns or inconsistencies may therefore prompt regulatory follow-up.

On systemic risk, the CSA continued its annual survey work, updated derivatives trade reporting guidance, and advanced projects concerning fund liquidity and the ETF regulatory framework. These initiatives indicate that regulators remain focused on vulnerabilities that can develop across products, firms and market infrastructure, not only on isolated compliance failures.

Registrants should expect technology, emerging products, fraud prevention, operational resilience and client-focused compliance to remain important areas of regulatory attention in the year ahead.

Just and equitable liquidation and dissolution: a remedy for shareholder disputes

Fri, 23 Oct 2026 00:00:00 Z

Shareholder disputes can destabilize a company. They often paralyze the decision-making process and impair governance. When shareholder disputes arise, the courts are often asked to intervene. While many parties turn to the oppression remedy under s. 227 of the Business Corporations Act (BCA), which was discussed in our December 2024 article on the oppression remedy, British Columbia courts have another powerful tool at their disposal: the “just and equitable” liquidation and dissolution remedy under section 324 of the BCA. This remedy plays a central role in resolving shareholder deadlock, loss of substratum, and breakdowns in closely held companies.

The just and equitable test: a lower threshold

The “just and equitable” test under s. 324 represents a lower threshold compared to the oppression remedy under s. 227.¹ Under s. 324 there is no requirement of a finding of oppression, unfairly prejudicial conduct or even wrongdoing. Thus, in many cases, this makes it relatively easier for a complainant to obtain a remedy.

Flexibility of the just and equitable test and the court’s discretion

The just and equitable test itself is a flexible standard, designed to adapt to a wide range of circumstances.² This flexibility allows the court to make decisions that reflect the unique nature of each case, while still respecting necessary safeguards against overly liberal applications of the remedy. For example, what is considered “just and equitable” in the context of a family business may differ from a conventional commercial business. In the family business context, the court may interpret the “just and equitable” standard more liberally to reflect the personal relationships involved.³

When determining whether a declaration of liquidation and dissolution is “just and equitable”, the court focuses primarily on the reasonable expectations of the parties involved. It does not require that the company’s affairs be impeded or that the parties involved have acted improperly. Instead, the court considers whether the continuation of the company is consistent with the original intentions of the parties and what is fair in the context of the dispute.⁴

The court has broad discretion to determine whether the liquidation and dissolution is just and equitable.⁵ However, this discretion is not boundless. The remedy cannot be applied so liberally as to render the corporate structure meaningless.⁶ For example, courts may refuse to order liquidation and dissolution if the proceeding appears to be aimed at merely monetizing an individual’s interest in the company, without a legitimate business or fairness concern at its core.⁷ In addition, actual liquidation and dissolution is considered a “drastic remedy”⁸ or one of “last resort.”⁹

Recognized grounds for relief under section 324

There are four recognized grounds that courts have relied on to justify the use of section 324: (a) loss of substratum; (b) justifiable lack of confidence; (c) deadlock; and (d) the partnership analogy.¹⁰ However, the courts have made clear that their discretion under s. 324 is not limited to these categories. The words “just and equitable” have been described as words of the widest significance that confer a broad discretion on the court to make a liquidation order in any circumstances it considers appropriate. Nevertheless, most successful cases fit in one or more of the four categories.

a) Loss of substratum

Loss of substratum happens when the company’s original purpose or core business no longer exists or there is a failure of the fundamental objectives of a corporation.¹¹ For example, if a company was set up to develop a product, but that product is no longer possible to create or sell such that it is impossible for the company to carry on the business, the company may no longer serve a useful purpose and accordingly a winding up order may be just and equitable.¹²

b) Justifiable lack of confidence

Justifiable lack of confidence is a situation where the members of a company lose trust in one another, making it difficult for the company to run effectively. For example, the following situation may lead to finding justifiable lack of confidence amongst the members of a company whose liquidation and dissolution is sought:

Each member believes that the other
- is acting against the best interests of the company to appropriate corporate opportunities for themselves or their relatives.
- is conspiring with family members and outsiders; or
- is involved in some secret deals.¹³

c) Deadlock

Deadlock occurs where the parties are unable to make decisions due to irreconcilable disagreements, effectively paralyzing the company.¹⁴ For example, the court may find deadlock where, notwithstanding their extended efforts to reach an agreement and resolve their dispute through means other than liquidation and dissolution, the members of the company cannot agree on matters such as the value of the underlying properties that were owned by the company, the mechanism they should use to separate their interests, or how to address the tax consequences of certain options.¹⁵

Some of the circumstances that would normally lead to a finding that it is just and equitable to wind up a company because of deadlock are as follows:

there are no other effective and appropriate remedies to resolve the issue between the parties;
there is an equal split or nearly equal split of shares and control;
there is a serious and persistent disagreement as to some important questions respecting the management or functioning of the corporation;
there is a resulting deadlock; and
the deadlock paralyzes and seriously interferes with the normal operations of the corporation.¹⁶

In the same vein, the court may find that it is just an equitable to grant relief under s. 324 because of a deadlock where the directors simply could not agree on anything.¹⁷

d) Partnership analogy

Where the relationship between the parties resembles a partnership more than arm’s length shareholders, courts have been prepared to liquidate and dissolve a company on the same grounds on which the court would wind up a partnership. The equitable intervention of the court on this ground requires the satisfaction of two conditions: (i) the existence of an undertaking that is in substance a partnership in the guise of a private company, and (ii) a breakdown of the mutual trust and confidence upon which the original undertaking was founded.¹⁸

For example, if family members involved in an “incorporated partnership” can no longer get along such that working together in the business is impossible, the court may find it appropriate to order that the company be liquidated and dissolved.¹⁹

A back door to s. 227 remedies

One of the most important features of s. 324 is the ability of the court to make an order under s. 227 instead of ordering that the company be liquidated and dissolved. As discussed in our December 2024 article on the oppression remedy, s. 227 remedies include the following:

directing an issue or exchange of shares;
ordering the company or any other person to purchase part or all the shares of a complainant;
ordering compensation for an aggrieved person;

For example, on an application under s. 324, the court could order that the company or another shareholder purchase the complainant shareholder’s shares, instead of making a winding up order. For that reason, s. 324 may be described as a “back door” to the oppression remedy.

Key takeaways

The just and equitable liquidation and dissolution remedy under section 324 of the British Columbia Business Corporations Act is an important tool for resolving shareholder disputes. Courts are guided by fairness principles and the reasonable expectations of the parties, with the court exercising broad discretion to ensure that the remedy is only applied when truly necessary, often when there is a loss of substratum, justifiable lack of confidence and deadlock.

Supreme Court of Canada clarifies law of causation in long-awaited Hemmings v. Padmore decision

Fri, 23 Oct 2026 00:00:00 Z

How should litigants and trial judges approach the causation analysis in negligence cases?

In Hemmings v. Padmore, 2026 SCC 34, released on October 23, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified and restated the law of causation in negligence cases, including complex medical negligence cases. The decision underscores the distinct roles of factual causation and remoteness and the need to address each separately in the causation analysis.

BLG is proud to have represented HIROC and the hospital in successfully responding to this appeal. The BLG team included Cindy D. Clarke, Kirsten Crain, Daniel Girlando, Alysha Flipse, and others.

Key takeaways

Causation entails two distinct inquiries: factual causation and remoteness are separate inquiries.
The language of “legal causation” (and related terms such as “proximate cause”, “proximity” or “cause-in-law”) is consigned to the “dustbin of history” – the correct term is remoteness.
Factual causation asks whether the defendant’s breach caused the injury as a matter of fact. Under the usual “but for” test, the plaintiff must establish on a balance of probabilities that the injury would not have occurred had the defendant met the standard of care. This counterfactual analysis asks whether appropriate care would have avoided the injury, not merely changed the sequence of events.
Remoteness asks whether there is a sufficient connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the plaintiff’s injuries such that the defendant should be liable. This inquiry can limit legal responsibility, even where there is factual causation.
The remoteness inquiry is context-specific and rooted in corrective justice. It asks whether there was a “real risk” of harm, which requires the court to consider whether the risk is one that a reasonable person ought to have foreseen and taken reasonable precautions to prevent.

Background

Sophia Hemmings suffered a cardiac arrest following anesthetic complications during an emergency caesarean section and sustained severe, permanent brain damage. She and her family sued the hospital and several healthcare providers involved in her care, including Dr. Padmore, the obstetrician who treated her during much of her pregnancy; Drs. Peng and O’Brien, the obstetricians involved in her care around the delivery; and Dr. Jamensky, the anesthesiologist who administered general anesthesia during the operation. The claim against the hospital included vicarious liability for the alleged negligence of a nurse, who provided telephone advice to Ms. Hemmings 12 days before the cardiac arrest.

The trial judge found the hospital, Dr. Padmore, who provided prenatal care, and Dr. Jamensky, the anesthesiologist, liable. The Court of Appeal set aside the findings of liability against the hospital and Dr. Padmore but upheld the judgment against Dr. Jamensky.

Supreme Court dismisses the appeal and clarifies causation

The Supreme Court, in a divided decision involving three sets of reasons, dismissed both the family’s appeal and Dr. Jamensky’s appeal, confirming that the hospital and Dr. Padmore were not liable, while upholding the finding of liability against the anesthesiologist, Dr. Jamensky.

The majority reasons were penned by Justices Rowe and O’Bonsawin (with Justice Jamal concurring). Justice Martin (with Justices Karakatsanis and Moreau concurring) agreed with the majority’s disposition of Dr. Jamensky’s appeal, but dissented in part on the family’s appeal, and would have restored liability against Dr. Padmore. Chief Justice Wagner agreed with the majority’s disposition of the family’s appeal and specifically endorsed the majority’s statement of the law relating to factual causation and remoteness, but would have allowed Dr. Jamensky’s appeal.

Clarifying causation

The decision reinforces that a successful plaintiff must prove both that the defendant’s breach of the standard of care was the factual cause of the damages (“factual causation”), and that the injuries are not too remote from the defendant’s conduct to assign liability (“remoteness of damage”).

Factual causation ordinarily asks whether, on a balance of probabilities, the injury would have occurred but for the defendant’s negligent conduct. This is a “strictly causal” question. The defendant’s conduct must be a necessary, but not necessarily the sole cause, of the plaintiff’s injury. In complex cases, the court may need to engage in an explicit counterfactual analysis to determine if the injury would have occurred even if the defendant’s conduct had not fallen below the standard of care. However, in other, simpler cases, it may be inferred from a finding of factual causation that the trial judge rejected the counterfactual. The majority acknowledged that medical negligence cases often raise complex medico-legal causation issues, which would require the trial judge to offer more explicit analysis.

Remoteness, previously referred to as legal causation, asks whether the injury suffered was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach. This is a normative inquiry, which asks if there is a sufficient connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the plaintiff’s injuries for the defendant to be liable.

All members of the Court agreed that these are two distinct inquiries, and that going forward, the latter inquiry should be referred to as “remoteness”. The Court discarded previously used terms, such as “legal causation”, “proximate cause”, “proximity”, or “cause-in-law”.

Guiding principles for the remoteness analysis

The majority set out three guiding principles for the remoteness analysis. First, a negligent defendant can only be liable for those consequences that they could have reasonably foreseen at the time of their breach. Second, there must have been a real risk or probability that the type of injury could occur such that a reasonable person would have taken reasonable precautions to prevent it. Third, although the defendant need not have foreseen the precise sequence of events leading to injury, the type of accident or incident must have been foreseeable. The focus must remain on the actual injury suffered by the plaintiff.

The Court emphasized the corrective justice orientation of all tort law, including negligence. The remoteness inquiry ensures that a defendant is only liable for the plaintiff’s injuries “if the probability that those injuries would occur was something the defendant ought to have considered and taken precautions to prevent”. This is a context-specific inquiry, which will be driven by both the degree of harm that is foreseeable and the costs associated with preventing the risk of that harm. Remoteness is not applied to address public policy concerns.

While the remoteness inquiry has been described as demanding value judgments, the majority confirmed that it is not merely a matter of fairness and public policy, and rejected the Hemmings family’s arguments that liability can be determined on the basis of general policy considerations. This would introduce unacceptable uncertainty into the analysis.

The role of reasonable foreseeability in the negligence analysis

While reasonable foreseeability plays a significant role in the remoteness inquiry, this concept also plays a role in establishing whether the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care.

The majority clarified that while the concept of reasonable foreseeability is applied at both the duty of care and remoteness stages, it plays a different role in each inquiry. At the duty of care stage, the focus is on the type of harm and class of plaintiff. In contrast, at the causation stage, the focus is on whether there is a sufficient connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the particular injury suffered by the plaintiff.

Scope of the reasonably foreseeable harm

The Court also grappled with how to define the injury that must be reasonably foreseeable for the purposes of the remoteness inquiry.

The majority observed that describing the injury too broadly (such as risk of “physical injury”) or too narrowly is improper. The former would risk creating unlimited liability, while the latter would risk immunizing defendants from liability.

In the context of this case, the majority characterized Ms. Hemmings’ injuries as those resulting from anesthetic complications, namely, cardiac arrest and the resulting brain injury. The majority rejected the family’s argument that all that needed to be reasonably foreseen was “physical injury”. This would cast the net too wide, and result in defendants being held liable for virtually all consequences, regardless of whether there was a real risk of that consequence occurring.

Application: All judges agreed the hospital should not be held liable, but disagreed with respect to the liability of the physicians

Applying the legal principles, the Court unanimously dismissed the appeal involving the hospital, with all seven judges agreeing that the hospital should not be held liable.

The majority held that the trial judge erred in assessing whether the hospital was a factual cause of Ms. Hemmings’ injuries, and that given the indirect relationship between the nurse’s negligent conduct and Ms. Hemmings’ injury, suffered 12 days later, the trial judge was required to address the counterfactual directly. The majority also found that the trial judge erred in the remoteness inquiry by failing to reconcile his findings that Ms. Hemmings’ injuries were reasonably foreseeable to the nurse and to Dr. Padmore, but not to Dr. O’Brien, an obstetrician who conducted Ms. Hemmings’ caesarian section, and who had more information regarding Ms. Hemmings’ risk factors than either Dr. Padmore or the nurse. In the majority’s view, these findings were logically inconsistent.

Justice Martin agreed that the injuries suffered by Ms. Hemmings did not fall within the scope of the risk created by the nurse’s negligence, and so it was not possible to find the hospital liable in negligence.

The Court was more divided in its assessment of the claims against the physicians. With respect to Dr. Padmore, the majority held that the expert evidence did not support that the risk of anesthetic complications arising from obesity (one of Ms. Hemmings’ risk factors) were reasonably foreseeable, with two experts testifying that they would not inform a pregnant patient of the risks of anesthetic complication. In contrast, Justice Martin found that Ms. Hemmings’ injuries were a “pregnancy-related risk” that were not too remote, such that Dr. Padmore ought to have been liable. She held that Dr. Padmore’s negligence, in failing to discuss Ms. Hemmings’ high risk factors and the possibility of terminating the pregnancy, created a broad scope of risk that Ms. Hemmings’ elevated pregnancy-related risk factors (including the risk of anesthetic complications) would materialize.

With respect to Dr. Jamensky, the majority held that the trial judge’s reasons were sufficient, when reviewed functionally and contextually, and found no error in the judge’s analysis of factual causation. Dr. Jamensky’s negligent act (converting to general anesthetic) was in close temporal proximity and clearly connected to Ms. Hemmings’ injury, and as such an explicit counterfactual analysis was not required. In contrast, Chief Justice Wagner found that the trial judge erred by conflating the factual causation and remoteness analyses, by assessing whether Dr. Jamensky was a “direct cause”, rather than a necessary cause, of Ms. Hemmings’ injuries, and by failing to conduct the required counterfactual analysis.

The split decisions with respect to the liability of the defendant physicians underscore the complexity of conducting a causation analysis, even where the governing legal principles are settled.

Hemmings is a welcome restatement of the law of causation, and will have a far-reaching impact well beyond the medical context.

Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) Investment Management Division Annual Summary Report: Insights from Staff Notice 81-741

Wed, 21 Oct 2026 00:00:00 Z

On Sept. 15, 2026, the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) published OSC Staff Notice 81-741 Investment Management Division Annual Summary Report (the Staff Notice), summarizing the activities and regulatory focus of the OSC’s Investment Management Division for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2026.

The past fiscal year was defined by accelerating product innovation, a continued shift in investor preferences toward Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs), and significant movement on long-anticipated policy files, including the modernization of continuous disclosure, liquidity risk management and ETF regulation. The Staff Notice provides a timely overview of the Division’s recent activities and ongoing policy work, while also offering insight into areas that may attract continued regulatory attention.

Below, we highlight the Staff Notice’s main insights and five key action items for Canadian fund managers (IFMs) and advisers.

Emerging product trends

This year’s prospectus activity highlights how innovation continues to reshape Canada’s fund landscape.

Collateralized Loan Obligation (CLO) ETFs: CLO ETFs moved into the mainstream, with the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) receipting several AAA-rated CLO ETFs in April 2025. Notably, the CSA determined that investment-grade CLOs are not “illiquid assets” as defined in section 1.1 of NI 81-102, citing the size of the global CLO market (over $1 trillion), growing trading volumes and established secondary markets;
Solana and XRP ETFs: These became the first North American ETFs to provide direct spot exposure to those crypto assets, with Solana ETFs also permitted to stake a portion of their holdings;
Triple leveraged (3x) ETFs: These ETFs received their first Canadian prospectus receipts in 2025, subject to leverage limits, enhanced risk disclosure and investor protection measures; and
Single issuer ETFs: These expanded to include Canadian and certain international issuers through exemptive relief from concentration restrictions, prompting the CSA to propose insider reporting amendments to address potential reporting gaps.

Evolving exemptive relief applications

Custodial relief for crypto asset funds: Relief was granted to permit a U.S. bank to act as sub-custodian for crypto asset funds despite not meeting the NI 81-102 equity threshold, subject to a C$100 million parental guarantee;
International inter-fund trading: Relief was granted to permit Canadian-domiciled reporting issuer funds to purchase debt securities from, or sell debt securities to, related funds in the U.K., Ireland, Luxembourg and Hong Kong. Related relief was also granted permitting Canadian reporting issuer funds, pooled funds and managed accounts to purchase or sell securities to or from those related international funds, expanding cross-border inter-fund trading opportunities within global fund families; and
Coordinated blanket order for the Bank of Canada’s Contingent Term Repo Facility (CTRF): The CSA issued coordinated local blanket orders providing relief from certain repurchase transaction requirements in NI 81-102 to allow eligible investment funds to access the Bank of Canada’s CTRF during periods of severe market-wide liquidity stress. The CSA subsequently published proposed amendments to NI 81-102 that would codify the temporary relief provided under Coordinated Blanket Order 81-930 and extend similar relief to future Bank of Canada repurchase facilities.

Regulatory continuous disclosure reviews

Throughout fiscal 2026, OSC staff undertook a series of focused compliance reviews and surveillance initiatives aimed at identifying disclosure deficiencies, monitoring regulatory compliance and addressing operational risks within the investment fund industry.

Mid-size issuer review: Building on its prior small issuer review, OSC staff expanded its review to IFMs with less than $1 billion in Assets under management (AUM) and identified Management Report of Fund Performance (MRFP) disclosure that was inconsistent with regulatory requirements or insufficiently fulsome, as well as minor issues involving compliance reports and custodian letters, with a follow-up review expected after implementation of the modernized investment fund disclosure regime;
Outlier analysis of Investment Fund Survey data: OSC staff reviewed data collected during its 2024 Investment Fund Survey relating to liquidity, borrowing, short selling and leverage. The OSC found that most outliers were attributable to exemptive relief, classification errors, clerical mistakes or temporary fluctuations and indicated that monitoring will continue;
Change of auditor notification: OSC staff reviewed change of auditor notifications filed under NI 81-106 to assess whether any reportable events or unusual financial statement items may have contributed to the auditor change;
Risk rating corrections: OSC staff identified one manager whose Fund Facts risk ratings for three funds were below the levels prescribed by the CSA methodology, resulting in corrective disclosure filings and placement of the funds on the Refilings and Errors List for three years;
Sales communications: OSC staff reported recurring deficiencies in fund marketing materials, including non-compliant use of ratings, rankings and performance data, and reiterated that such deficiencies may result in corrective disclosure, placement on the Refilings and Errors List or further enforcement action; and
Compliance reports: OSC staff identified recurring deficiencies in compliance and custodian reports relating to the handling of investor cash, including overdrafts, cash commingling and lapping, and emphasized the importance of compliance with the cash handling requirements in Parts 9, 10 and 11 of NI 81-102.

Ownership changes and asset acquisitions involving registered firms (section 11.9 and 11.10 Notices)

OSC staff remind registered firms proposing ownership changes or certain asset acquisitions to ensure that notices under sections 11.9 and 11.10 of NI 31-103 include sufficient information for staff to assess the transaction. Notices must explain how any material conflicts of interest arising from the proposed changes have been or will be addressed in the best interests of clients. Incomplete notices may delay the OSC’s review. Staff also caution that missed notices must be filed with the applicable fees and may result in a warning letter or, in limited cases, further regulatory action. Where a Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) member is involved, directly or through a deemed acquisition, the applicable filing fee may be payable to CIRO rather than the OSC.

Regulatory policy: Modernization moves from proposal to implementation

Completed initiatives

Continuous disclosure modernization (conflicts and financial statements): Final amendments to NI 81-101, NI 81-102, NI 81-106 and NI 81-107 were published Jan. 22, 2026, and took effect April 22, 2026. IFMs must now file the new standardized Form 81-107A Conflict Reporting Form for Related Issuer Purchases, which replaces prior conflict of interest reporting obligations for in-scope related party purchases, and must prepare an annual Manager’s Report on Related Party Transactions under new section 2.5 of NI 81-107, appended to the Independent Review Committee’s (IRC’s) annual report to securityholders;
Crypto asset funds, phase two: Final amendments to NI 81-102 governing public funds investing in crypto assets came into force July 16, 2025, establishing restrictions on permitted crypto investments and enhanced custodial obligations. Phase three, which will consult on further areas of regulatory attention, is ongoing; and
Principal distributor model: Final amendments were published June 11, 2026, clarifying that a principal distributor may act only for mutual funds in the same fund family and introducing enhanced disclosure of principal distributor arrangements and compensation in the prospectus, Fund Facts and annual report on charges and other compensation.

Ongoing initiatives

Access-based model: On Sept. 27, 2022, the CSA published for comment, CSA Notice and Request for Comment - Proposed Amendments and Proposed Changes to Implement an Access-Based Model for Investment Fund Reporting Issuers, intended to modernize delivery of investment fund continuous disclosure documents by making them more readily available online, reflecting growing investor preference for electronic access. Comments on the Sept. 2022 proposal continue to inform a revised proposal, which is expected to be republished in 2026;
Fund Report (MRFP replacement): Following the Sept. 2024 proposals and behavioural insights testing, the CSA is refining a revised, streamlined annual and interim Fund Report to replace the MRFP, to be tested and republished for further comment;
Chargeback prohibition: Proposed amendments published June 26, 2025, would prohibit chargeback arrangements in the distribution of reporting issuer investment funds. The CSA is working toward finalization;
ETF regulation and foreign-listed ETFs: Following the June 2025 ETF Consultation Paper and the concurrent OSC ETF Study, investor access to foreign-listed ETFs emerged as the key area of focus. On July 29, 2026, the CSA and CIRO published Staff Notice 81-339, cautioning that active marketing or promotion of a foreign ETF in Canada could trigger the prospectus requirement and, in some jurisdictions, IFM registration, clarifying applicable dealer conduct obligations, and encouraging order-execution-only dealers to provide point-of-purchase alerts. Managers with foreign affiliates should review Canadian-facing marketing practices carefully; and
Liquidity risk management: On Nov. 27, 2025, the CSA published proposed amendments to NI 81-102 that would formalize liquidity risk management (LRM) frameworks, enhance operational practices including stress testing, and strengthen oversight and governance, alongside a consultation paper on LRM tools, liquidity classification and data reporting. The 120-day comment period closed March 27, 2026, and feedback is under review.

Emerging issues: Long-term assets, cross-border access and expanded data collection

Long-Term Asset Fund Project: Building on Consultation Paper 81-737 and Staff Notices 81-738 and 81-740, the OSC continues to engage with stakeholders on potential retail access to private market investments through new fund structures, with recent discussions focusing on valuation, transparency, liquidity and redemption risks;
Hong Kong Memorandum of Understanding (MoU): Effective May 13, 2025, the OSC and the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong executed an MoU to strengthen cross-border supervision and facilitate market access for Ontario-registered portfolio managers;
IFRS 18: IFRS 18 applies to annual reporting periods beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2027. OSC staff noted that some accounting firms consider IFRS 18 not to permit separate presentation of realized and unrealized gains and losses from financial instruments, while section 3.2 of NI 81-106 requires those amounts to be presented as separate line items. IFMs should engage their auditors in advance regarding an approach that complies with both IFRS and applicable securities law requirements;
Foreign issuer reports of exempt distribution: The temporary exemption from SEDAR+ filing requirements for certain foreign issuer exempt distributions to permitted clients has been extended under OSC Rule 13-513 to Jan. 21, 2028, pending a permanent solution;
Investment Fund Survey expansion: The 2026 Investment Fund Survey has been expanded to include funds managed by IFMs not registered in Ontario, with further enhancements under consideration for 2027; and
Fee rule changes: Proposed amendments to OSC Rule 13-502 and Rule 13-503, would provide fee relief for many market participants and affect prospectus filing and exemptive relief application fees, with the changes expected to come into force on April 5, 2027.

Five key action items for Canadian fund managers

Implement the modernized continuous disclosure requirements: Ensure processes are in place to file Form 81-107A for in-scope related party purchases and to prepare the annual Manager’s Report on Related Party Transactions for inclusion with the IRC report. Update financial statement templates to reflect the streamlined requirements and monitor the forthcoming revised Fund Report proposal, which could replace MRFP.
Audit risk ratings and sales communications: Verify that Fund Facts risk ratings are no lower than prescribed by the CSA methodology and that written policies govern any upward discretion. Review websites and social media channels, including YouTube and LinkedIn, for ratings, rankings and performance claims that do not comply with Part 15 of NI 81-102. Depending on the circumstances, OSC staff may require corrective disclosure or a news release, place affected funds on the Refilings and Errors List for three years or refer continued non-compliance for further regulatory action.
Strengthen cash handling and compliance reporting: Review controls over trust accounts, settlement timing, commingling and lapping risks under Parts 9 to 11 of NI 81-102, and ensure compliance and custodian reports are complete and filed on time in SEDAR+.
Prepare for the liquidity risk management framework: Assess current LRM policies, stress testing and governance against the proposed amendments to NI 81-102.
Assess product and relief opportunities, and cross-border exposure: Consider whether recent precedents, including CLO ETFs, spot crypto ETFs, leveraged and single issuer ETFs, crypto custody relief and international inter-fund trading relief, create opportunities for your product shelf, and use the confidential pre-filing process for novel products. Managers with foreign-listed ETF affiliates should review Canadian marketing practices against Staff Notice 81-339.

Canada’s investment management landscape continues to evolve alongside product innovation and shifting regulatory priorities. BLG’s Investment Management team advises fund managers through every stage of fund formation, structuring and continuous disclosure compliance across alternative products, digital assets and crypto-based products.

For more information, please contact any of the authors below or your usual member of BLG’s Investment Management Group.

The compliance judges’ scorecard: OSC RIE Division 2026 Annual Report

Tue, 20 Oct 2026 00:00:00 Z

Cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, fee practices and the quality of regulatory filings feature prominently in the Ontario Securities Commission’s (OSC) latest account of its registration and examination work. OSC Staff Notice 33-762, released on October 7, 2026, reports on the Registration, Inspections and Examinations Division’s (RIE) activities for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2026 (Staff Notice). For Ontario dealers, advisers and investment fund managers, the publication offers both a retrospective of the year’s examinations and a forward-looking indication of the issues most likely to attract regulatory attention. Firms registered with the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) and other market participants may also find the observations in the Staff Notice useful when testing their own controls.

RIE’s recent work included focused reviews relating to the Client Focused Reforms (CFRs), digital engagement and cybersecurity, together with examinations of selected regulated entities and coordinated risk-based reviews of certain CIRO dealer firms. Rather than treating the Staff Notice as a catalogue of isolated deficiencies, firms can use it as a benchmark for assessing whether their governance, supervision and recordkeeping operate effectively in practice.

Artificial intelligence is one area to watch. Following its earlier survey, RIE began examining selected registrants’ use of AI. Early observations included firms operating without dedicated AI governance, weak controls over externally supplied AI tools, and marketing claims that were not adequately supported. RIE expects to publish further findings soon, which may inform later guidance.

The risk assessment questionnaire (RAQ) remains an important input into examination planning. A newly registered firm assessed as presenting elevated risk may be reviewed earlier after registration than a lower-risk peer. This makes consistency across the RAQ, financial information, internal reporting and the firm’s other data especially important.

RIE also revisited examinations of exempt market dealers that distributed securities of non-reporting corporate issuers under the offering memorandum exemption where required annual financial statements had not been delivered to the OSC. The work considered how dealers had applied their Know-Your-Client (KYC), Know-Your-Product (KYP) and suitability obligations to those offerings. Separate findings on this topic are expected to be released during the OSC’s 2026–2027 fiscal year.

Two recurring control issues have immediate practical implications:

First, related to employment agreements, such agreements (or severance and related agreements) should not discourage employees from communicating possible misconduct to the OSC or another regulatory authority; provisions that impede whistleblowing may lead to enforcement action.
Second, related to the insurance requirements for registrants, insurance limits must be reassessed as the business changes. Firms whose assets under management have grown should confirm that coverage has kept pace with the applicable requirements.

Other findings included incomplete KYC information relating to leverage used for managed account clients; insufficient product analysis for alternative investments in managed accounts; excessive exposure to a single issuer or sector; management fees that were charged but did not match the client agreement or disclosed schedule; and disclosure that did not clearly explain how and when fees were charged. Discretionary managers should also have controls for identifying and resolving departures from investment policy statements. Firms should separately consider whether operational changes (such as introducing a fully paid securities lending program) require an update on Form 33-109F5 to firm information previously provided on Form 33-109F6.

What is on display for fund managers: OSC Investment Management Division Annual Summary Report

Tue, 20 Oct 2026 00:00:00 Z

The Ontario Securities Commission’s (OSC) Investment Management Division released OSC Staff Notice 81-741 on September 15, 2026 (IM Staff Notice), summarizing its fiscal 2025–2026 work. The publication draws together trends from prospectus and exemptive relief files, continuous disclosure reviews, ownership change notices under sections 11.9 and 11.10 of National Instrument 31-103 Registration Requirements, Exemptions and Ongoing Registrant Obligations (NI 31-103), and the Division’s current policy agenda.

Product development remains brisk. The IM Staff Notice describes continued ETF expansion and newer strategies involving collateralized loan obligations, crypto assets, three times daily leverage and exposure to a single issuer. These products raise familiar disclosure, risk rating and suitability questions in less familiar forms.

In its continuous disclosure work, staff used investment fund survey data to identify funds warranting closer review. Areas of interest included leverage and changes in liquidity from one year to the next. Staff also examined cases where a third-party measure (such as standard deviation or a risk assessment) did not align with the risk rating shown in the Fund Facts. Managers should be prepared to explain both the methodology selected and any apparent inconsistency among the data, the rating and the disclosure delivered to investors.

The Division is also reconsidering how it handles notices of proposed acquisitions and ownership changes under sections 11.9 and 11.10 of NI 31-103. The IM Staff Notice indicates that technology may support a more differentiated, risk-based review process. Further information on any change of process for these reviews will be provided in advance. In furtherance of this objective, we note as well that in OSC Staff Notice 33-762, the Registration, Inspections and Examinations Division stated that in connection with certain acquisitions of firms, such as where new owners have a new business plan, staff will request a Form 33-109F6 reflecting the firm post-acquisition, together with completed Forms 33-109F4 for each proposed registered and permitted individual, and ask new key personnel to attend an in-person meeting to discuss proposed activities of the firm post-acquisition.

Other current projects for the Investment Management Division include continued work on replacing the annual and interim Management Reports of Fund Performance with a Fund Report; developing an access-based continuous disclosure model for investment fund issuers; revisiting the ETF framework; addressing crypto-asset funds; reviewing liquidity risk; and considering pathways for retail exposure to longer-term assets. With respect to the latter, Staff has signalled its current priority is to work with funds actively seeking exemptive relief for long-term asset strategies. Finally, managers of collective investment vehicles that fall outside the statutory definition of an investment fund should note that a future investment fund survey may include in scope certain “fund-like” entities to improve regulatory visibility into private credit.

For more detail on these initiatives, see BLG’s Insight, Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) Investment Management Division Annual Summary Report: Insights from Staff Notice 81-741.

Measurements matter: City avoids liability for sidewalk fall

Mon, 19 Oct 2026 00:00:00 Z

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently dismissed a plaintiff’s trip-and-fall lawsuit against the City of London in Weiler v. City of London, 2026 ONSC 2011. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the sidewalk discontinuity exceeded the two-centimetre threshold under the Minimum Maintenance Standards (MMS). The court also ruled that the city's pandemic-related decision to pause annual inspections was protected by core policy immunity.

Background

On March 11, 2021, the plaintiff tripped and fell on a city-owned residential sidewalk near her home in London, Ontario. At trial, the key issue was the size of the sidewalk discontinuity. Under section 16.1(3) of the MMS, a sidewalk surface discontinuity of two centimetres or less is in a state of repair.

Evidence at trial

The parties each relied on their own photographs and expert evidence concerning the height of the sidewalk discontinuity. The plaintiff’s expert opined that the discontinuity was “approximately” two centimetres and might have been higher. The plaintiffs also argued that the City’s subsequent marking and repair of the sidewalk supported the conclusion that the discontinuity exceeded the repair threshold.

Conversely, the City measured the discontinuity at several points, which ranged from 1.3 to 1.8 centimetres. Although the city marked the discontinuity with orange paint and requested a repair, the city testified that it did so out of prudence because of the reported fall, not because the MMS required repair.

The City’s engineering expert reviewed the photographs and CCTV video evidence from a neighbouring home and concluded that the discontinuity in the area where the plaintiff fell was approximately 1.6 centimetres.

The Court accepted the City’s evidence, finding that the discontinuity ranged between 1.2 and 1.7 centimetres and in the area where the plaintiff’s foot struck the sidewalk, the discontinuity measured approximately 1.6 centimetres. The sidewalk was therefore deemed to be in a state of repair under the MMS, and the action was dismissed on that basis.

Core policy immunity

Although it was unnecessary to the final result, the court also reviewed the city’s alternative defences.

The City admitted it did not complete its annual sidewalk inspection in 2020, as required under section 16.1(1) of the MMS. At trial, the City led evidence that, following the declaration of states of emergency by the Province of Ontario and the City of London due to COVID-19, it transitioned to minimal operations focused on essential services. Specifically, sidewalk maintenance was shifted to a minimal or emergency-only basis, and no annual inspections occurred in 2020.

The Court applied the Supreme Court of Canada’s core policy immunity framework from Nelson (City) v. Marchi. It found that the City’s decision not to complete the sidewalk inspection was not merely operational. Rather, it formed part of a broader emergency decision-making process involving public-health concerns, staffing restrictions, financial pressures, service reductions and budgetary mitigation measures approved by senior City officials and City Council. The City’s decision-making bore the hallmarks of core policy, and there was no evidence that the decision was irrational or made in bad faith.

Accordingly, if the sidewalk had been in a state of non-repair, the Court would have found the City immune from liability for its failure to inspect. Further, given the City’s failure to inspect the sidewalk, the Court held the City did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, about the state of repair of the sidewalk, giving rise to a statutory defence under s. 44(3)(a) of the Municipal Act.

Key takeaways

Measurements must be exact: This decision is helpful for municipalities defending against trip-and-fall claims near the two-centimetre threshold. Evidence that a discontinuity is "approximately" two centimetres is insufficient; plaintiffs must prove it exceeds the limit.
Immunity has its limits: The core policy immunity analysis here is important but narrow. The court specifically grounded its conclusion in the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 emergency. Municipalities should not interpret this ruling as broad permission to skip routine inspection obligations under normal conditions.

How BLG can help

Managing municipal liability claims requires a clear understanding of the Minimum Maintenance Standards and statutory defences. BLG’s municipal law and litigation teams regularly defend local governments against trip-and-fall lawsuits and other complex tort claims. We can help your municipality assess risk, build strong litigation strategies and apply protections like core policy immunity effectively.

If you have questions about how this decision might impact your risk management practices, please reach out to our team or the author of this article to discuss your specific needs.

AI transparency: The Competition Bureau weighs in

Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 Z

The Competition Bureau (Bureau) has made a submission to Ottawa’s consultation on AI transparency. It recommends three principles: transparency should support well-functioning, competitive markets, obligations should be proportionate and preserve competition, and regulation should focus on harms rather than technologies. For businesses, the submission is a reminder that existing competition law obligations apply to AI-related claims and conduct, even as new transparency measures are considered.

The consultation, led by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED), ran from July 23 to Sept. 23, 2026. Its discussion paper, Enhancing trust in artificial intelligence through increased transparency, asks whether new transparency measures are needed in five areas: AI-generated content, AI interaction, information about AI systems, AI incidents and AI agents. The paper seeks input on possible measures rather than proposing a settled regulatory framework.

The Bureau’s submission, Advancing artificial intelligence transparency, is dated Sept. 23, 2026. Read alongside the Bureau’s broader statements on AI, it offers insight into its approach to transparency and competition. The submission does not create new legal obligations. Businesses should nevertheless assess how the Competition Act applies to their AI-related marketing, disclosures and use of AI systems.

Practical takeaways for businesses

The Bureau’s submission to Ottawa is policy advice, not a new AI enforcement regime. Its practical significance lies in its emphasis on existing law and on transparency measures that address harms without undermining competition.

Businesses developing, procuring or deploying AI should consider four priorities:

substantiate public claims before making them;
assess how AI systems affect pricing, marketing and customer interactions;
retain supporting records and secure appropriate access to vendor information; and
review whether transparency initiatives could disclose competitively sensitive information or facilitate coordination.

Technology-neutral rules remain the starting point

The Bureau’s submission favours a technology-neutral approach that focuses on the conduct and harms at issue, rather than the use of AI itself. In the Bureau’s words, there is “no ‘AI exception’ to the law.”

That position is consistent with the Bureau’s contribution to the Canadian Digital Regulators Forum’s joint May 2026 article. It described the Competition Act as a federal law of general application that applies across technologies and sectors, and stated that firms remain accountable for their conduct regardless of whether AI is involved.

Businesses should not treat the absence of an AI-specific Competition Act regime as a compliance gap. Existing rules on deceptive marketing, competitor collaboration, abuse of dominance and other conduct continue to apply. Whether a particular use of AI contravenes the Act depends on the conduct and the requirements of the applicable provision.

Transparency can help competition, but it has limits

The Bureau supports transparency where it helps consumers make informed choices and promotes accountability. Its May 2026 article points to information about when and how AI is being used, and about the types and sources of data used to train AI models, as examples of information that can support informed decision-making.

The Bureau’s submission to ISED is more nuanced than a general call for disclosure. Transparency obligations should be proportionate, and their design should account for costs and competitive effects. The Bureau warns that disclosure can expose confidential business information or “facilitate coordination among competitors.” It also cautions that prescriptive, costly or technically complex requirements may disproportionately burden smaller firms and new entrants while favouring incumbents with greater compliance resources.

That qualification matters, because a requirement to tell a customer that they are interacting with AI raises different competition concerns from a requirement to disclose detailed information about a pricing algorithm, training data or system logic. The relevant questions include what information is needed, who needs it, and whether public disclosure is necessary to achieve the objective. Businesses should also consider whether voluntary transparency initiatives involve the exchange of competitively sensitive information, including information about pricing tools or system logic.

Businesses should assess both the usefulness of a disclosure and its potential competitive effects.

Existing deceptive marketing rules already reach AI claims

Although the submission does not expressly discuss section 74.01 of the Competition Act, its observations about misleading AI outputs are relevant to businesses’ obligations under the existing deceptive marketing provisions.

AI raises deceptive marketing risks in a number of related contexts, including how AI products and services are marketed, and how AI is used to create or deliver representations to consumers. The submission notes that AI systems “can also be used to manipulate, mislead, or distort decision-making.” Existing deceptive marketing rules therefore apply both to claims about AI products and to representations made through AI-enabled tools, including chatbots, virtual assistants, recommendation systems, and personalized marketing.

Under the Competition Act, representations made to the public must not be false or misleading in a material respect, assessed by both their literal meaning and the general impression they convey. Public claims about a product’s performance, efficacy or length of life must also be based on adequate and proper testing conducted before the claim is made. The person making the claim bears the burden of proving that testing is adequate and proper.

Businesses should review AI-related claims against these requirements. Does a description such as “AI-powered,” “intelligent” or “autonomous” convey more than the system actually does? Is an accuracy or reliability claim supported by testing that reflects the product as deployed? Does a model or system card used in marketing create a broader impression than the underlying evidence supports?

Also, where a chatbot or other AI interface communicates with customers, businesses should assess whether its responses accurately describe products, prices, terms, availability and policies, and whether qualifications or limitations are presented clearly enough to avoid a misleading general impression. A business should not assume that a representation falls outside the deceptive marketing provisions merely because it was generated dynamically by an AI system, rather than drafted or reviewed by a person.

AI may also shape price representations. Algorithmic pricing tools can determine or adjust the prices, discounts or offers presented to consumers, including by using information about an individual consumer or segment - a practice sometimes described as surveillance pricing. These practices are not necessarily deceptive, but representations made in connection with them remain subject to the ordinary requirements applicable to price claims.

Businesses should assess the general impression created by personalized prices, reference prices, discounts and time-limited offers; whether mandatory fees are disclosed upfront; and whether consumers are misled about the basis, availability or relative advantage of an offer. Particular care may be required where a consumer is led to believe that a price is generally available, objectively determined, or uniquely discounted, when it is instead personalized or generated using behavioural or other consumer data.

The same issue arises with AI-generated content. The Bureau has identified fake reviews, endorsements and impersonations as examples of traditional deceptive marketing practices that AI can amplify. Its submission treats labelling as one tool, not a complete answer: labels alone “may not be sufficient,” and labelling measures should be “carefully designed, empirically tested, and potentially combined with other tools.” Whether disclosure is required will depend on the context, including whether the absence of disclosure creates a materially false or misleading general impression.

Labelling content as AI-generated does not, by itself, resolve whether a promotional representation is materially false or misleading. The label does not cure an inaccurate claim, an unsupported performance representation, a misleading omission, or a deceptive general impression. Businesses must still assess the substance, context and presentation of the representation, including the prominence and clarity of any qualifying disclosure, and retain support for claims that require substantiation.

Accountability across the AI value chain

The Bureau has also been direct about responsibility. In May, it stated that companies cannot rely on automation or technical complexity to shield themselves from liability, and that developers and deployers are accountable for outputs they control in the value chain.

AI systems often involve several parties: a model developer, a platform provider, an integrator and the business that deploys the system to customers. The Bureau’s statement emphasizes accountability for outputs within a firm’s control; it does not establish a standalone legal test for liability. Responsibility in a particular case will depend on the facts and the applicable Competition Act provision.

For businesses that buy rather than build AI, vendor arrangements can help manage these risks. A business may need information from its vendor to understand a system’s output, substantiate a public claim, or respond to a regulator. Businesses should consider contractual rights to documentation, testing information, logs, incident notification and technical support, with the scope calibrated to the system and the risks involved.

These rights warrant particular attention where AI is used in pricing, advertising, rankings, recommendations or direct customer interactions.

Substantiation and records will matter

Businesses should retain the evidence supporting their AI-related claims and understand what additional information they can obtain from vendors.

Relevant, non-privileged records may be compelled through court orders under section 11 of the Competition Act, where the statutory requirements are met. Businesses should identify who holds relevant records, and assess whether vendor arrangements provide access to the information needed to substantiate their claims and respond to an inquiry.

Ontario EPR updates: Tire rules accelerate and $1 million penalty cap ends

Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 Z

What clients need to know:

The $1 million penalty limit is being removed. For contraventions occurring after Sept. 21, 2026, administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) will no longer be subject to the previous aggregate $1 million cap. Exposure may materially increase where non-compliance generates economic benefits through cost avoidance;
RPRA to receive more financial information. PROs in all five programs must report information, including collection and management costs, that may help RPRA estimate the economic benefit of non-compliance when setting an AMP. A one-time interim report is due in Dec. 2026 for 2023–2025 data, followed by annual reporting beginning in 2027;
Tire obligations are increasing now. The tire management target rises from 65 per cent to 80 per cent for 2026 and each following year;
The tire collection network must expand in 2027. Required collection sites will increase from approximately 4,300 to approximately 6,500, including 220 additional sites in northern Ontario; and
Agreements, records and network stability matter more. New rules govern shared sites, management arrangements and changes to collection networks.

On Sept. 21, 2026, the Ontario government finalized amendments affecting the province’s tires, batteries, electrical and electronic equipment, hazardous and special products, and Blue Box materials EPR programs.¹ The changes strengthen the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority’s (RPRA) enforcement tools and introduce new requirements for tire producers and producer responsibility organizations (PROs).

Tire rules shift into a higher gear

An 80 per cent management target

Beginning in the 2026 compliance year, the tire management target increases from 65 per cent to 80 per cent.² This intends to reduce disruptions in tire collection. Producers and their PROs should confirm their collection, processing and contracting arrangements can handle the extra volume.

The amendments also clarify which tires may count toward a producer’s management requirement. To qualify, a registered tire hauler must collect the tires from an Ontario location in the same calendar year they are counted.³ In addition, one of the prescribed management activities must be completed by March 31 of the year following the year in which the managed tires are used to satisfy the management requirement.⁴

The province did not adopt a proposed expansion of the “call-in” collection requirement. That proposal would have extended the program to any site generating tires and required a guaranteed response time. Instead, the program continues to apply only to specified sites, including municipalities, band councils, and Crown-owned and Crown-operated sites.

Approximately 2,200 additional collection sites

Beginning in 2027, the required collection network will grow from approximately 4,300 to approximately 6,500 sites. PROs must preserve the geographic distribution requirements of the existing network while establishing 2,200 additional sites across Ontario.⁵ At least 220 must be in northern Ontario.⁶

Earlier reporting and fewer mid-year changes

Starting in 2027, producers, or their PROs must report the number, location and contact information of each collection site they operate by Jan. 1 of each year. A reported site may be replaced during the year, but it cannot be closed unless a suitable replacement site is provided.⁷ These limits on mid-year changes are intended to make the tire collection network more stable.

More structure for shared sites and tire credits

The amendments clarify the rules that apply when PROs share collection sites or acquire managed tires for their producer clients. PROs that share a tire collection site must have a written agreement in place by Jan. 1, 2027, and by Jan. 1 of each following year.⁸ The agreement must explain each PRO’s responsibility for arranging collection from the site and how the collected tires will be managed during that calendar year.⁹

A PRO that acquires managed tires to help its producer clients meet their management requirements must also do so pursuant to a written agreement. The agreement must explain how the cost of the managed tires will be calculated, how the tires will be tracked and how the arrangement will help satisfy the applicable management requirements.¹⁰ PROs and producers should review their existing agreements to confirm that they provide the documentation and audit trail required by the regulation.

Enforcement exposure: No longer capped at $1 million

The amendments remove the previous $1 million cap on AMP orders for contraventions occurring after Sept. 21, 2026. The cap continues to apply to violations that occurred before that date.

The amendments also expand the conduct for which an AMP may be issued. A failure to enter into a required agreement for the acquisition of managed tires carries a base penalty of $75,000 for a corporation and $15,000 for an individual.¹¹

The amendments also require PROs to provide financial information that may help RPRA calculate the economic benefit of non-compliance and determine the related portion of an AMP. PROs must now report information about the costs incurred to help producers meet their obligations, including its collection and management costs, the volume of materials associated with those costs and how it calculates the fees charged to producer clients.¹² This includes any fee schedules, product groupings, cost-allocation methods and per-unit charges used by the PRO.

RPRA has previously imposed AMPs, including penalties at the former maximum, for failures to meet minimum management requirements. Although appeals of those penalties were resolved through mediation, RPRA’s enforcement history shows that it is prepared to use AMPs and pursue both financial and operational outcomes.13

How we can help

BLG helps businesses navigate producer responsibility requirements across Canada. We assist companies supplying regulated products for the first time by determining where obligations arise, identifying registration and reporting, collection and management requirements, and coordinating a multi-jurisdictional compliance approach.

For participants in the tire sector, we can assess how the amended Ontario rules affect your specific role, whether as a producer, PRO, collector, hauler, processor, retailer, distributor or service provider and review the contracts and compliance systems connecting those roles. We also help clients prepare for or respond to RPRA inspections, information requests, notices of non-compliance and administrative enforcement, including AMP proceedings and appeals.

Who bears the loss among innocent parties after payment fraud? Saskatchewan Court of Appeal provides some clarity

Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 Z

We are living through — or perhaps suffering through — the golden age of fraud. One burden of daily life in the digital age is the constant need to identify and avoid scams: vishing calls, phishing emails, malicious links in legitimate-looking messages, investment scams on social media, AI-generated deepfakes and more.

Modern payment rails are designed to move money quickly and frequently with as little friction as possible. While these systems have increased economic productivity and convenience, threat actors also exploit them to move money from a victim’s bank account into an account they control and beyond the victim’s reach.

Because threat actors are typically anonymous and do not wait around to be sued, Canadian courts are increasingly asked to allocate liability between innocent parties: the victim and their financial institution, investment dealer or cryptocurrency exchange. We have written about key fraud loss allocation decisions from the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the United Kingdom Supreme Court and lower courts across Canada, as well as the investigation, tracing and recovery of fraud proceeds.

The latest and most comprehensive consideration of this issue is Honeybadger Enterprises Ltd. v. Bue, 2026 SKCA 40. The decision is an important development in Canadian fraud law and provides much-needed clarity on the common law principles governing the allocation of liability among innocent parties after a fraud loss.

Key takeaways for fraud loss allocation

Innocent parties are not created or treated equally. Where one party’s conduct involves affirmative acts or omissions that unwittingly facilitate the fraud — for example, granting computer access to the threat actor, staying silent about red flags or directing payment to unknown third-party accounts — that party will bear the loss.
The decision in Alfagomma Inc. v. HSBC Bank Canada, 2022 QCCS 3655 imposed on financial institutions a duty to “exercise a certain degree of care to protect their clients from fraud, especially in the face of suspicious activity” (para. 85). That decision is confined to cases under the Civil Code of Québec. It does not apply in Saskatchewan and, by extension, should not apply in other common law provinces.
A financial institution or similarly situated party does not owe a duty to police transactions facilitated by their accountholder or customer.
Where parties allocate liability for payment instructions by contract, the agreement will be enforced under ordinary contract law principles, including a proper consideration of the factual matrix that existed when the parties entered into it.

Background to the Honeybadger fraud dispute

Honeybadger Enterprises Ltd. operates an over-the-counter cryptocurrency business and processes client purchases through pre-authorized debit (PAD) agreements. These agreements allow Honeybadger to withdraw funds directly from a customer’s bank account after receiving payment instructions.

One of Honeybadger’s clients, Mr. Bue, entered into a PAD agreement that authorized Honeybadger to draw funds from his account on his instructions and deposit cryptocurrency into his digital wallet.

A threat actor impersonating an FBI agent socially engineered Mr. Bue. The threat actor led him to believe he had been recruited to help dismantle an illegal operation and needed to deposit Bitcoin into a digital wallet as part of that operation. The threat actor provided the wallet address.

In connection with the social engineering scam, Mr. Bue provided remote access to his computer to the threat actor. Thereafter, Mr. Bue did not realize that the threat actor gained access to, and had control of, his email account.

Mr. Bue provided legitimate instructions to Honeybadger by email to purchase $40,000 of Bitcoin, to be deposited to the wallet address provided by the threat actor. Honeybadger processed those payments pursuant to the PAD agreement and deposited the cryptocurrency into the wallet identified by Mr. Bue, as instructed.

Unbeknownst to Honeybadger and Mr. Bue, the threat actor then sent additional emails to Honeybadger from Mr. Bue’s account providing instructions to purchase $200,000 of Bitcoin. Honeybadger processed those payments pursuant to the PAD agreement and deposited the cryptocurrency into the same digital wallet.

Mr. Bue later discovered the fraud, including the payment instructions provided by the threat actor from his email address. Mr. Bue then asked his credit union to cancel the payments totalling $240,000, which it did. Honeybadger sued Mr. Bue for the amount of the Bitcoin deposited to the wallet.

The lower court’s decision

The lower court held that both parties should bear liability: Mr. Bue for carelessly allowing the threat actor to access his computer and email systems, and Honeybadger for failing to perform what the lower court characterized as a payment verification covenant in the PAD agreement. As a result, Mr. Bue was liable for the $40,000 in payments he initiated, while he and Honeybadger shared liability equally for the $200,000 in payments initiated by the threat actor. Our summary of the lower court’s decision is available here.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal’s decision

The Court of Appeal held that the lower court erred in two ways: it failed to apply the correct common law principles for allocating liability among “innocent” parties and made a palpable error in interpreting the PAD agreement.

The allocation of liability as between innocent parties depends on their respective involvement in causing the loss. There are two complementary, but distinct, loss allocation rules engaged by the facts of the case:

If the fraud victim is not negligent, careless or otherwise at fault, and another innocent party’s careless conduct made the loss possible, the careless party will bear the loss (Marvco Colour Research Ltd. v. Harris, 1982 CanLII 63). In other words, as articulated in Bank of Montreal v. Asia Pacific International Inc., 2018 ONSC 4215, “justice requires that the party who was in a position to prevent the loss should bear it.”
However, if the fraud victim’s conduct goes beyond basic carelessness and includes affirmative acts or omissions that unwittingly facilitate the fraud, the victim will bear the entire loss even if their financial institution or another innocent counterparty later fails to detect the fraud (Isaacs v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2011 ONCA 88).

The lower court found that Mr. Bue’s active, but uninformed participation was “at the heart of this fraud,” including his failure to mention his dealings with the “FBI” to Honeybadger, which would have brought the fraud to an immediate end. Rather than apply the rule from Isaacs, the lower court erred by applying the principle from Alfagomma, which requires banks to “exercise a certain degree of care to protect their clients from fraud, especially in the face of suspicious activity.” The Court of Appeal observed that this principle is grounded in a general civil law duty of care under the Civil Code of Québec, which Alfagomma characterized as “out of step with authorities elsewhere in the country” (para. 67) — that is, with the common law of negligence in Canada.

Applying Isaacs, the Court of Appeal held that Honeybadger owed no duty to Mr. Bue to warn, inquire, prevent the loss or otherwise intervene, and bore no liability for the fraud loss.

The Court of Appeal then considered whether the contractual terms between the parties — in this case, the PAD agreement — altered the common law allocation of liability. It found that the PAD agreement appeared to be a standard-form agreement from Mr. Bue’s credit union, not Honeybadger, addressing the credit union’s obligations and liabilities and those of third-party payees such as Honeybadger. The lower court therefore palpably misunderstood the agreement’s commercial purpose. Interpreting the agreement in light of the proper factual matrix, the Court of Appeal held that Honeybadger had not agreed to payment verification obligations that altered the common law allocation of liability.

Get advice on fraud loss allocation and payment disputes

If your organization is responding to a fraud loss, payment dispute or unauthorized cryptocurrency transaction, BLG can help assess contractual obligations, potential liability and recovery options. Contact the author or a member of BLG’s disputes team to discuss how this decision may affect your organization.

British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) 2025 annual compliance report card

Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:00:00 Z

The British Columbia Securities Commission (the Commission or the BCSC) recently published its annual compliance report, noting top deficiencies, outlining the Commission’s approach to non-compliance, and ending with a review of the regulatory landscape for 2025 in 2025 Annual Compliance Report Card (the Report).

For 2025, the BCSC served as the principal regulator for 86 adviser firms (including investment fund managers, or IFMs) and 71 dealer firms (including exempt market dealers, or EMDs), along with two restricted dealers operating crypto trading platforms and six crowdfunding portals relying on registration exemptions.

The overall deficiency rankings hold few surprises. Deficiencies identified across 21 compliance reviews conducted over the year ranked as follows:

Policies and procedures manuals: first place (representing 19 per cent of identified deficiencies);
Know your client (KYC) and suitability: second place;
Client reporting: third place;
Disclosure: fourth place; and
Disaster recovery and business continuity: tied for fifth place with know your product (KYP).

However, the BCSC's specific commentary on some of these deficiencies warrants close attention.

Policies and Procedures Manual (PPM)

In the Report, the BCSC comments that, as in previous years, it continued to find incomplete, poorly implemented or inadequate PPMs, including deficiencies in KYP and KYC processes, suitability assessments, and conflict of interest identification (read the article, Under the bright lights: CSA & CIRO illuminate enhanced expectations in phase 2 client-focused reform sweep.)

Of particular interest is the comment that certain PPMs lack detailed operational procedures such as clear definitions of registrable activities. In our experience, such a delineation is not typically found in a PPM, and we expect this is due, in part, to the fact that the regulators themselves have not provided a detailed breakdown of registrable versus non-registrable activities to the industry. While there is a commonly understood appreciation of the general parameters of registrable activities, several important unarticulated nuances remain. If the regulators expect firms to include this information in their PPMs, it would be helpful to have the benefit of the regulators’ own guidance on activities that are registrable.

The Report mentions that deficient PPMs result in insufficient guidance for staff to follow, weakening the internal controls that registered firms are expected to have in place.

With the Client Focused Reforms (CFRs) in effect since Dec. 2021, the Report highlights several recurring compliance pressure points:

KYC: The Report states that firms should not simply add a “risk profile” field to KYC forms without also considering the corresponding impact to the firm’s client risk assessment process. The Report also states that the assessment of a client’s risk tolerance and risk capacity to form the overall risk profile will likely involve some degree of judgment and it is important to document the rationale for this conclusion;
KYP: The Report notes that some firms have not established policies and procedures to explain how all the various KYP tasks work together as a process, though it is not entirely clear what the BCSC means by this. KYP policies should be supported by documentation to evidence what KYP steps took place. The Report reminds firms to demonstrate that they evaluated all relevant CFR aspects when making a suitability determination, including consideration of alternative products, the impact of costs and a concentration assessment. Discrepancies between a client’s financial information in suitability assessments and the client’s financial information collected in the client’s KYC form may lead the BCSC to question the reliability and accuracy of the information that was used to render the suitability determination;
Conflicts of interest and corporate titles: Previous Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) publications address compliance with conflicts of interest and the use of corporate titles. Firms with any questions or concerns around charging different fees, the use of corporate titles and referrals that meet the new, broader definition of referral arrangement under the CFRs, thus triggering the referral arrangement requirements and related disclosure obligations should revisit the guidance. The Report states that characterizing an agreement as a service arrangement, shared service arrangement or partners agreement will not absolve a firm of the referral arrangement-related requirements if the agreement confers a monetary or non-monetary benefit;
Accountability for compliance leaders: Chief compliance officers (CCOs) and ultimate designated persons (UDPs) should note that the BCSC views a failure by a firm to have adopted policies and processes reflective of the CFRs as raising competency questions regarding the CCO and UDP of such firms;
Operationalizing compliance: The Report continues the recent regulatory guidance highlighting the importance of PPMs articulating roles and responsibilities, maintaining consistency between documented processes and actual practice and documenting compliance. PPMs that contain out-of-date or inaccurate regulatory or jurisdictional references can indicate broader deficiencies in governance, oversight and the design and execution of an effective compliance system, including PPMs that quote verbatim from National Instrument 31-103 (NI 31-103) without having considered how to operationalize those requirements in the context of the registered firm’s specific business model. The Report reiterates the importance of staff training on the firm’s PPM; and
Business continuity planning: The Report notes deficiencies in the existence and content of business continuity plans (BCP) and the roles and responsibilities assigned to BCP executors by the firm. The Report reminds firms that a BCP executor must be able to advise the firm’s clients when business continuity is required and should ideally be familiar with the firm’s systems, business and third-party service providers. This means that any BCP executor must be duly registered in the appropriate registration category and that the onus is on the firm to implement an appropriate BCP and is not a responsibility that can be delegated to the BCP executor and/or the regulators. Small firms or registered firms with key person risk may wish to revisit the OSC’s 2024 publication on BCPs for additional background and guidance.

Use of AI by registrants

Other CSA members have signalled their intent to review firms for their AI use and the Report provides reminders about the considerations that may arise when firms use AI. The use cases cited in the Report are using AI to do KYP research, using chatbots to provide DIY investors with information and using AI to enhance internal productivity.

The consultation and guidance issued by the CSA in 2024 regarding the Applicability of Canadian Securities Laws and the Use of AI in Capital Markets resulted in stakeholder feedback that the principles-based nature of securities law requirements means that new rules related to the use of AI are not needed, but that guidance in respect of the use of AI could be helpful.

The Report lists additional considerations for firms using AI, including:

Registration updates: The adoption of AI might trigger the need to update a firm’s registration information by filing a Form 33-109F5;
Misleading communications: Firms are reminded of the prohibition on misleading communications with the concern here being the risk of “AI-washing” or overemphasizing the use of AI;
Requirement for human advice: Dealers relying on the dealer without discretionary authority exemption in section 8.23 of NI 31-103 are cautioned that one of the conditions of relying on that exemption is that advice given by dealers “must be provided by the representative” and representatives are human beings. Quoting the Report: “In other words, this condition puts a natural limit on how much dealers can use AI when providing advice to clients;” and
KYP documentation: The Report notes that the BCSC expects firms to document the use of AI for any part of the KYP process.

Read BLG’s analysis of the CSA guidance on the applicability of Canadian securities laws and the use of AI in capital markets here.

Avis 2026 du Plan de gestion des produits chimiques du Canada : ce que doivent savoir les fabricants, les importateurs et les utilisateurs

Tue, 06 Oct 2026 00:00:00 Z

Le 29 août 2026, le gouvernement fédéral a publié deux avis de demande de renseignements obligatoires conformément à l’alinéa 71(1)b) de la Loi canadienne sur la protection de l’environnement (1999) (LCPE) :

À retenir

Les avis du PGPC sont obligatoires et visent 200 substances réparties sur deux phases de déclaration.
La période d’activité visée correspond à l’année civile 2025.
Pour la phase 1, la date limite de déclaration est le 3 mars 2027.
Pour la phase 2, la date limite de déclaration est le 8 septembre 2027.
Les avis du PGPC ratissent large : il faut parfois déclarer les substances contenues dans des biens importés ou utilisées dans la fabrication, en plus des substances fabriquées ou importées en gros.
La collecte de données, notamment auprès des différents acteurs de la chaîne d’approvisionnement, doit commencer bien avant la date limite applicable.

Aperçu des avis du PGPC

Les avis du PGPC facilitent la priorisation ainsi que l’évaluation et la gestion des risques par le gouvernement fédéral dans le cadre du Plan de gestion des produits chimiques. Comme le répondant est tenu de fournir les renseignements dont il dispose ou qui lui sont normalement accessibles, il doit parfois interroger les différents acteurs de la chaîne d’approvisionnement.

Phase 1 : 184 substances. La période de déclaration a débuté le 29 août 2026 et se termine le 3 mars 2027.
Phase 2 : 16 substances. La période de déclaration débute le 4 mars 2027 et se termine le 8 septembre 2027.

Ensemble, les avis du PGPC visent 200 substances et obligent les entreprises touchées à déclarer leurs activités de l’année civile 2025.

Les entreprises ont tout intérêt à analyser leurs activités canadiennes et leurs chaînes d’approvisionnement dès maintenant, car les avis ne se limitent pas aux fabricants traditionnels de produits chimiques.

Qui doit répondre aux avis?

Les personnes potentiellement touchées sont celles qui, pendant l’année civile 2025, ont fabriqué, importé ou utilisé une substance inscrite en quantité supérieure au seuil applicable. Selon la substance et l’activité, l’obligation de déclaration peut s’appliquer lorsque la substance : était présente seule, dans un mélange ou un produit ou dans certains articles manufacturés; ou était utilisée dans la fabrication d’un produit, même sans être présente dans le produit fini.

Les principaux seuils de quantité varient, mais les avis du PGPC prévoient généralement un seuil de 100 kg pour les substances des parties 1 et 4 et un seuil de 1 000 kg pour celles de la partie 2 (voir l’annexe 1 des avis du PGPC, qui énumère les substances visées). Pour les importations de certains mélanges, produits ou articles manufacturés, le seuil correspond normalement à une concentration de 0,1 % par poids. Les substances de la partie 3 font l’objet d’applications et de critères distincts. Comme les règles varient selon la substance, l’activité, la concentration, la quantité et, dans certains cas, l’application ou la catégorie de produits, les entreprises doivent vérifier les seuils applicables à chacune des substances inscrites dans la partie pertinente de l’avis applicable; il n’y a aucun seuil universel.

Les avis du PGPC ratissent très large. Par conséquent, des fabricants, des formulateurs, des distributeurs, des détaillants et des importateurs d’une foule de secteurs peuvent être touchés : automobile et transports, construction, électronique, produits industriels, biens de consommation, cosmétiques, produits alimentaires et emballages, entre autres secteurs où des entrants chimiques sont utilisés. Certains biens et activités peuvent être exclus ou traités différemment. Lisez attentivement les passages pertinents avant de conclure que vous n’avez pas à répondre.

Les organisations qui n’ont rien à déclarer conformément aux avis du PGPC (par exemple, parce qu’elles n’atteignent pas les seuils applicables), mais qui ont un intérêt à l’égard de l’une des substances inscrites peuvent produire volontairement une Déclaration des parties intéressées et y inscrire tout renseignement jugé pertinent. Les organisations qui n’utilisent pas les substances inscrites et qui n’ont aucun intérêt à l’égard de celles-ci peuvent transmettre une Déclaration de non-implication.

Que faut-il déclarer?

Les renseignements à fournir varient d’une substance et d’une activité à l’autre, mais peuvent comprendre :

le nom de la substance et son numéro d’identification du Chemical Abstracts Service Registry;
les quantités fabriquées, importées ou utilisées;
les concentrations et les fonctions de la substance;
les biens, les applications et les usages finaux associés à la substance;
des renseignements sur les installations, y compris les demandes de rejet;
des renseignements sur le statut commercial et la chaîne d’approvisionnement;
les réponses aux questions propres à certaines substances indiquées dans l’annexe applicable.

Que doivent faire les entreprises dès maintenant?

Scruter les listes de substances. Vérifier si certaines des 200 substances inscrites figurent dans les registres d’achat, d’importation, de production, de formulation et de composition des produits pour 2025.
Cartographier les activités pertinentes. Déterminer si chaque substance a été fabriquée, importée ou utilisée, notamment dans des mélanges, des produits, des articles manufacturés ou des intrants manufacturiers.
Communiquer avec les fournisseurs sans tarder. Demander aux fournisseurs canadiens et étrangers des renseignements sur la composition, la concentration et la quantité, et garder une trace des démarches de suivi si la réponse est incomplète.
Évaluer les seuils et les exclusions. Appliquer à chaque substance les critères de la partie pertinente de l’annexe 1.
Recueillir les renseignements normalement accessibles. Demander aux équipes chargées des affaires juridiques, de l’environnement, de l’approvisionnement, des opérations, de la responsabilité commerciale du cycle de vie et des TI de trouver les documents pertinents.
Préparer et valider la réponse. Utiliser le bon fichier de déclaration Excel afin de transmettre une réponse distincte pour chaque phase via le Guichet unique d’Environnement et Changement climatique Canada.
Demander plus de temps ou de confidentialité. Au besoin, demander une prorogation avant la date limite et identifier les renseignements devant faire l’objet d’une demande de confidentialité motivée.

Prorogations, confidentialité et sanctions

La ministre peut proroger le délai, sur demande écrite présentée avant la date limite. Le répondant peut aussi présenter une demande de confidentialité conformément à l’article 313 de la LCPE, mais celle-ci doit être motivée. Les entreprises gagnent à réfléchir à la confidentialité dès le départ pour bien identifier et protéger les renseignements commerciaux sensibles (formulations, secrets commerciaux, renseignements sur les fournisseurs).

Le non-respect d’un avis de l’article 71 constitue une infraction à la LCPE et peut entraîner une amende de 500 000 $ pour une première infraction. D’où l’importance de fournir des réponses complètes, exactes et étayées par un dossier montrant le sérieux des processus d’examen, des hypothèses, des démarches auprès des fournisseurs et de la validation des données. Si des renseignements sont manquants, les organisations doivent consigner leurs démarches visant à déterminer si ceux-ci étaient à sa disposition ou lui étaient normalement accessibles.

BLG peut vous aider

Se conformer à l’article 71 et comprendre ses exigences peut s’avérer pénible et ardu. Heureusement, les équipes Environnement et Réglementation de BLG aident les entreprises à déterminer si les avis s’appliquent à elles, à étudier les substances et les chaînes d’approvisionnement, à interpréter les critères relatifs aux seuils et aux données, à préparer des réponses ou des demandes de prorogation et à protéger leurs renseignements commerciaux confidentiels.

Les règles entourant la gestion des produits chimiques imposent de plus en plus aux entreprises d’obtenir des renseignements fiables sur les substances et les produits utilisés à tous les maillons de leurs chaînes d’approvisionnement. C’est pourquoi BLG aide ses clients actifs ou nouvellement arrivés sur le marché canadien à déterminer proactivement leurs obligations de déclaration potentielles, à établir des processus de vérification diligente des chaînes d’approvisionnement et à rédiger des clauses contractuelles obligeant les fournisseurs à communiquer et à tenir à jour les renseignements exigés par la réglementation.

Pour en savoir plus sur l’incidence possible des avis du PGPC sur votre organisation, n’hésitez pas à communiquer avec l’un des auteurs ou l’une des personnes-ressources ci-dessous.

Marchés prédictifs et jeu en ligne : parions que d’autres changements sont à venir

Tue, 06 Oct 2026 00:00:00 Z

Ce qu’il faut savoir

Au Canada, les marchés de prédiction ne relèvent pas d’un cadre réglementaire unique. Dans leur avis conjoint n° 91-307 (l’« avis conjoint »), les Autorités canadiennes en valeurs mobilières (ACVM) et l’Organisme canadien de réglementation des investissements (OCRI) ont clairement déclaré que, contrairement à ce qui s’observe aux États-Unis, les contrats événementiels liés au sport ou au divertissement ne devraient pas être visés par la législation en valeurs mobilières ou en dérivés. L’avis fixe une limite que les autorités en valeurs mobilières ne franchiront pas. Il reviendra donc aux organismes provinciaux de réglementation des jeux de hasard d’encadrer ces contrats.
Le Québec emboîtera-t-il le pas à l’Alberta et à l’Ontario? Des déclarations récentes des chefs du Parti Québécois et du Parti libéral du Québec donnent à penser que le Québec pourrait bientôt ouvrir le marché des jeux de hasard à des exploitants privés réglementés, comme l’ont fait l’Ontario et l’Alberta.
La Cour suprême du Canada entendra des plaidoiries sur le regroupement de liquidités transfrontalières dans le secteur des jeux de hasard en ligne. Le 7 octobre 2026, la Cour suprême du Canada (CSC) entendra les plaidoiries concernant une décision de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario qui a donné raison au gouvernement de l’Ontario en confirmant que les jeux en ligne légaux resteraient licites en vertu du Code criminel si les résidents de l’Ontario étaient autorisés à participer à des jeux et à des paris avec des personnes situées à l’extérieur du Canada. BLG est fier d’avoir représenté NSUS Group Inc. et NSUS Limited en leur qualité d’intervenants qui appuyaient la position défendue par l’Ontario devant la Cour d’appel, et il continuera de les représenter devant la Cour suprême du Canada. La décision de la CSC pourrait marquer le début d’une nouvelle ère pour les jeux de hasard en ligne faisant intervenir plus d’un État au Canada.

Contexte réglementaire : l’encadrement actuel des marchés de prédiction au Canada et la suite des choses

Les marchés de prédiction sont des plateformes numériques sur lesquelles s’échangent des contrats appelés « contrats événementiels » ou « contrats liés à des événements ». Au Canada, ces contrats sont généralement considérés comme des « options binaires » au sens de la réglementation des valeurs mobilières applicable, ce qui entraîne, entre autres, l’application des restrictions prévues dans le Règlement 91-102 sur l’interdiction visant les options binaires et dans l’Instruction générale relative au règlement 91-102, qui interdisent toute publicité, offre, vente ou autre opération relative à des options binaires dont l’échéance est de moins de 30 jours (la « restriction relative aux options binaires »). Cette restriction s’applique dans tous les territoires du Canada, conformément au Règlement 91-102 ou à un autre titre.

Par conséquent, quiconque facilite la négociation de contrats événementiels au Canada est tenu aux obligations applicables en vertu de la législation en valeurs mobilières ou en dérivés, telles que les obligations d’inscription ou de reconnaissance. En avril 2025, BLG a fièrement conseillé Interactive Courtage Canada inc. alors qu’elle devenait le premier courtier membre de l’OCRI autorisé à offrir certains contrats liés à des événements à des clients admissibles au Canada. Les contrats sont négociés sur ForecastEx LLC (ForecastEx), qui est un marché de contrats désigné enregistré auprès de la Commodity Futures Trading Commission des États-Unis et un organisme de compensation de produits dérivés. En date du présent article, Wealthsimple Inc. est le seul autre courtier inscrit à avoir été autorisé par les autorités en valeurs mobilières à offrir certains contrats liés à des événements au Canada.

Indications de mars 2026 : confirmation de l’application des exigences de l’OCRI

En plus de devoir respecter la restriction relative aux options binaires, Interactive Courtage Canada inc. était (et reste) assujettie à certaines conditions, notamment en ce qui concerne les types d’événements auxquels sont liés les contrats négociés.

En mars 2026, l’OCRI a publié un bulletin pour confirmer que les contrats événementiels offerts par les courtiers en placement autorisés se limitent aux contrats fondés sur des prévisions économiques, des prévisions environnementales et des indicateurs financiers, et qu’ils doivent avoir une durée jusqu’à l’échéance d’au moins 30 jours, conformément à la restriction relative aux options binaires (le « champ d’application autorisé »).

Dans ce bulletin, l’OCRI souligne aussi que les contrats fondés sur l’issue d’événements politiques et sur le résultat d’activités interdites par la loi restent interdits. Ce bulletin a établi un cadre réglementaire limité pour certains types de contrats événementiels, tels que ceux qu’offre déjà Interactive Courtage Canada inc., mais laissait place à la possibilité que d’autres types de contrats soient approuvés dans l’avenir. L’OCRI et les ACVM y indiquaient qu’ils continueraient de suivre l’évolution des marchés de prédiction et des contrats liés à des événements, et qu’ils publieraient de nouvelles orientations au besoin.

Indications d’août 2026 : les ACVM et l’OCRI tracent une ligne plus claire

Dans leur avis conjoint publié en août 2026, les ACVM et l’OCRI ont apporté un éclaircissement important sur les types de contrats événementiels qu’ils considèrent comme se situant hors du champ d’application de la réglementation des valeurs mobilières, à savoir les contrats événementiels liés au sport ou au divertissement. Fait important, les ACVM et l’OCRI continueront d’évaluer si d’autres types de contrats événementiels pourraient être inclus dans le champ d’application de la réglementation; il n’est donc pas impossible que soit un jour élargie la gamme des contrats événementiels approuvés que pourrait offrir un courtier en placement autorisé au Canada.

Les organismes provinciaux de réglementation des jeux de hasard et l’encadrement des contrats événementiels liés au sport ou au divertissement

Compte tenu de ce que dit l’avis conjoint, c’est donc aux organismes provinciaux de réglementation des jeux de hasard qu’il revient de réglementer les contrats événementiels liés au sport ou au divertissement au Canada. Plusieurs de ces organismes, dont l’Independent Gambling Control Office de la Colombie-Britannique, ont déjà clairement indiqué que ces contrats constituent des jeux de hasard au sens du Code criminel, et que tout exploitant non réglementé d’un marché de prédiction offrant de tels produits sur leur territoire de compétence le fait illégalement. Cette position concorde avec celle adoptée par des organismes de réglementation des valeurs mobilières et des jeux de hasard d’Europe (de la France, notamment), qui, à l’instar de l’Ontario, ont interdit l’accès aux sites de marchés de prédiction non autorisés.

La question qui se pose est donc la suivante : quels organismes de réglementation provinciaux établiront un cadre réglementaire pour de tels contrats événementiels, et comment celui-ci s’intégrera-t-il à leur cadre actuel de réglementation des jeux? En attendant que viennent des réponses dans les semaines et les mois à venir, les spécialistes du droit des valeurs mobilières et du droit du jeu de BLG suivent de près l’actualité réglementaire. Ce sont aussi d’excellentes ressources à consulter pour voir clair dans ce contexte en évolution.

Les autorités en valeurs mobilières et les émetteurs sont placés devant des questions inédites

Si les autorités en valeurs mobilières canadiennes élaborent leur propre approche à l’égard des marchés de prédiction, elles et les émetteurs canadiens doivent tout de même déterminer comment traiter les questions nouvelles de droit des valeurs mobilières que ces marchés soulèvent. La plus évidente est celle de la compétence réglementaire, dont nous venons de parler. Un certain nombre de questions secondaires sont aussi soulevées :

Surveillance du marché : Comme le soulignent dans un article récent Robert DeNault (chef de la l’application de la loi chez Kalshi) et Daniel Taylor (titulaire de la chaire Arthur Andersen en comptabilité à la Wharton School et directeur du Wharton Forensic Analytics Lab de l’Université de Pennsylvanie), l’expansion des marchés de prédiction et l’augmentation des volumes de négociation sur ces marchés mettent à l’épreuve les capacités des systèmes de surveillance des marchés boursiers à plusieurs égards :
- monétisation d’information importante inconnue du public – un initié qui connaît l’issue pertinente d’un contrat événementiel dispose d’un moyen direct de monétiser cette information importante inconnue du public, contrairement à un initié qui chercherait à monétiser une telle information sur les marchés boursiers, lequel ne pourrait le faire qu’indirectement et devrait assumer le risque de baisse de cours boursiers non liés à l’information importante inconnue du public. Cet incitatif à monétiser de l’information importante inconnue du public directement et dès sa réception pourrait remettre en question les méthodes de surveillance traditionnelles conçues pour détecter les « opérations en avance sur le marché » (le frontrunning) immédiatement avant des variations de cours importantes;
- seuils d’importance relative – alors que les autorités en valeurs mobilières peuvent repérer des fluctuations de prix importantes sur les marchés boursiers en surveillant les variations du cours des actions, la structure binaire des contrats événementiels entraîne une fourchette de négociation étroite comprise entre 0 $ et 1 $. En conséquence, les autorités ne pourront pas se fonder uniquement sur des variations de cours (exprimées en pourcentage ou en cents) pour repérer les opérations « financièrement importantes ». Comme le soulignent DeNault et Taylor, elles devront sans doute mettre au point un nouvel outil de surveillance visant à quantifier l’avantage que des opérations précises auront procuré au négociateur.
Information confidentielle et conformité : Les émetteurs canadiens savent que leurs politiques et pratiques de négociation doivent exiger le dépôt en temps opportun des déclarations d’initiés et empêcher les délits d’initiés. Ils devront toutefois soigneusement adapter ces politiques et pratiques afin qu’elles tiennent pleinement compte de la négociation sur les marchés de prédiction. Par exemple, ces politiques devraient exiger la déclaration dans le Système électronique de déclaration des initiés (SEDI) de toute opération d’initié, à l’égard de l’action d’un émetteur, qui est fondée sur de l’information confidentielle, mais non importante. Il se pourrait toutefois qu’elles ne prévoient pas d’obligation de déclaration pour une opération analogue effectuée sur un marché de prédiction. Cette question ne se rapporte pas qu’aux initiés, elle s’étend aussi à l’utilisation abusive d’information confidentielle par des employés. Les grandes institutions financières canadiennes ont déjà actualisé leurs politiques et procédures à l’intention de leur personnel, et nous encourageons tous les émetteurs à consulter leurs conseillers juridiques pour procéder à leurs propres mises à jour.
Perception du public : Les autorités en valeurs mobilières doivent veiller à ce que les participants au marché comprennent bien que certains contrats événementiels (tels que ceux visés par le « champ d’application autorisé ») sont assujettis à la réglementation sur les valeurs mobilières et les produits dérivés, tandis que d’autres, comme les contrats liés au sport et au divertissement, ne relèvent pas de cette réglementation. Une étude récente réalisée par CPA Canada montre que les Canadiens qui considèrent les marchés de prédiction comme une forme d’investissement sont trois fois plus susceptibles d’y participer que ceux qui les voient comme des jeux d’argent. Les autorités en valeurs mobilières doivent donc impérativement veiller à ce que les Canadiens comprennent bien lesquels des contrats liés à l’issue d’événements relèvent de leur compétence.

Des déclarations faites pendant la campagne électorale au Québec augmentent les probabilités d’ouverture du marché

Des déclarations récentes de leaders politiques laissent penser que le Québec pourrait être la prochaine province canadienne à envisager un marché concurrentiel pour le jeu en ligne, selon un modèle comparable à ceux qu’ont adoptés l’Ontario et l’Alberta.

Le 9 septembre 2026, en campagne électorale, le Parti libéral du Québec a en effet proposé d’élargir le mandat de la Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux afin qu’elle accrédite et surveille l’ensemble des plateformes de jeu en ligne actives au Québec. Le Parti note qu’il sera important d’assujettir les plateformes accréditées à des règles strictes en matière de publicité, de prévention de la dépendance et de protection des mineurs. Le libellé de la proposition dénote une volonté d’autoriser des plateformes privées accréditées à offrir leurs produits au Québec, ce qui mettrait fin au monopole de la Société des loteries du Québec (Loto-Québec), actuellement l’unique exploitant public de jeux en ligne autorisé dans la province.

La proposition a vite reçu l’appui du chef du Parti Québécois, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon. Le 5 octobre 2026, le Québec a élu un gouvernement minoritaire formé par le Parti Québécois; le Parti libéral du Québec forme l’opposition officielle.

La perspective de la création d’un marché réglementé du jeu en ligne au Québec sourit sans aucun doute à de nombreux exploitants. C’est un dossier qu’il faudra suivre dans les semaines et les mois à venir.

La Cour suprême du Canada entendra un appel concernant le regroupement de liquidités transfrontalières

Le 7 octobre 2026, la Cour suprême du Canada entendra les plaidoiries dans l’une des affaires les plus importantes de l’histoire récente du Canada en matière de droit des jeux de hasard. L’appel vise à déterminer si des exploitants de jeux de hasard en ligne assujettis à la réglementation provinciale pourraient légalement offrir des jeux permettant à des participants situés en Ontario de jouer ou de parier contre des particuliers situés à l’extérieur du Canada.

Cette affaire découle d’une décision de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario dans laquelle celle-ci a donné raison au gouvernement de l’Ontario en concluant que de tels arrangements de regroupement de liquidités restaient conformes au cadre établi par le Code criminel. Cette décision a été saluée par de nombreux acteurs du secteur, qui soutenaient que le regroupement de liquidités transfrontalières est essentiel à la compétitivité du poker en ligne et de certains autres produits de jeu, notamment parce que l’accès à de grands bassins de joueurs peut augmenter les cagnottes, améliorer la disponibilité des jeux et améliorer l’expérience globale des utilisateurs.

Les organismes de réglementation des jeux, les exploitants et les gouvernements de l’ensemble du Canada attendront avec intérêt la décision de la CSC. Une décision confirmant la position de l’Ontario pourrait lever une grande part de l’incertitude juridique qui entoure actuellement les produits de jeu à dimension internationale et accroître l’attrait des marchés réglementés canadiens.

BLG est fier d’avoir représenté NSUS Group Inc. et NSUS Limited en leur qualité d’intervenants qui appuyaient la position de l’Ontario dans le cadre de l’appel, et il continuera de les représenter devant la Cour suprême du Canada.

Points à retenir

Les ACVM et l’OCRI ont déclaré que les contrats événementiels liés au sport ou au divertissement ne devraient pas relever des lois canadiennes sur les valeurs mobilières. Ce serait donc aux organismes provinciaux de réglementation des jeux de hasard d’encadrer ces produits au Canada.
Le récent changement de gouvernement au Québec pourrait favoriser l’ouverture à la concurrence d’un troisième marché provincial réglementé des jeux en ligne au Canada.
La décision à venir de la CSC sur le regroupement de liquidités transfrontalières pourrait avoir des conséquences importantes pour l’évolution du jeu en ligne au Canada.

Les groupes Valeurs mobilières et marchés financiers et Droit du sport et du jeu de BLG regroupent les spécialistes tout désignés pour aider les participants au marché à suivre l’évolution des marchés de prédiction au Canada.

Pour en savoir plus sur les marchés de prédiction, les contrats événementiels, le jeu réglementé et les occasions qui se profilent sur le marché canadien, n’hésitez pas à communiquer avec l’une des personnes-ressources ci-dessous.

L’équipe de rédaction tient à remercier Shivani Kaup, stagiaire, pour sa contribution à la préparation de cet article.

“Time is of the essence” in contracts: What the SCC may decide in Cold Ocean Salmon

Tue, 06 Oct 2026 00:00:00 Z

On Oct.14, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) will hear Cold Ocean Salmon Inc. v. Nova Fish Farms Inc., a commercial contract appeal about when delayed performance permits termination. The SCC will consider whether a standard “time is of the essence” clause can make an open-ended obligation, such as acting “as promptly as practicable,” essential to a commercial bargain. The appeal has practical implications for contract termination, specific performance, conditions precedent, and the drafting of commercial agreements across Canada.

The central issue is whether that standard contractual language can make an open-ended timing obligation, such as an obligation to act “as promptly as practicable,” essential to the commercial bargain. If it can, delayed performance may permit the innocent party to terminate the agreement. If it cannot, parties seeking a clear termination right may need to connect the “time is of the essence” clause to a fixed performance deadline or state the termination consequence expressly.

The appeal therefore places two competing commercial values in tension: flexibility in the performance of open-ended contractual obligations and certainty about when delayed performance permits termination.

Key takeaways for commercial parties and contract drafters

A “time is of the essence” clause does not usually create a performance deadline. Instead, it addresses the consequences of missing a timing obligation. Where it applies, delayed performance may entitle the innocent party to terminate the agreement.
The courts below agreed that Nova Fish failed to meet its contractual obligation to act “as promptly as practicable.” They disagreed about the consequence. The chambers judge held that the “time is of the essence” clause allowed Cold Ocean to terminate the agreement. The appellate court held that the “time is of the essence” clause did not apply to performance of an obligation expressed without a fixed deadline and, therefore, termination was not allowed.
The main issue on appeal to the SCC boils down to whether the “time is of the essence” clause needs to be attached to fixed-time obligations. Cold Ocean says that the entire agreement and its commercial context show that the open-ended timing obligations were essential. Nova Fish says that a standard “time is of the essence” clause applies only to fixed deadlines unless the agreement clearly provides otherwise.
The SCC’s decision may reshape both the drafting of commercial agreements and the interpretation and remedies available for breaches of “time is of the essence” clauses.
A decision either way will affect contractual drafting practices nationally. The outcome will likely influence how parties draft deadlines, conditions precedent, approval obligations, notice and cure provisions, and termination rights.

Cold Ocean Salmon v. Nova Fish Farms: Facts and procedural history

The underlying dispute arose from an agreement whereby Cold Ocean agreed to sell Nova Fish its interests in trout-farming sites in Newfoundland and Labrador. Because the sites were located on provincially leased property, the transaction required regulatory approval before the assets could be transferred.

The agreement did not set a specific deadline for obtaining regulatory approval. Instead, it required Nova Fish to submit the necessary applications “as promptly as practicable” after signing and to use “commercially reasonable efforts” to obtain the required approvals. Closing was to occur seven days after the required approvals were obtained. The agreement also contained the boilerplate clause: “Time shall be of the essence of this Agreement.”

Nova Fish did not submit the approval applications until approximately 16 months after the agreement was signed. When Nova Fish obtained approval months later, it advised Cold Ocean that it wished to proceed with closing the transaction. However, Cold Ocean refused to complete, arguing that Nova Fish’s delay breached an essential timing obligation, thereby entitling Cold Ocean to terminate the agreement.

Nova Fish commenced an action seeking specific performance of the agreement (a Court-ordered remedy requiring Cold Ocean to complete) or, in the alternative, damages. On an application for summary trial of the action, the chambers judge found that Nova Fish was in breach of its obligation to proceed “as promptly as practicable” which was “of the essence”. Based on that finding, the Court held that Cold Ocean was entitled to terminate the agreement and dismissed the application for specific performance.

The Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador upheld the chambers judge’s finding that Nova Fish breached its timing obligations under the agreement. It nevertheless held that the “time is of the essence” clause did not apply to a contractual obligation expressed without a fixed deadline (i.e., “as promptly as practicable” instead of by a specific date). That being the case, Cold Ocean was not entitled to terminate the agreement, and Nova Fish was granted an order for specific performance. Cold Ocean appealed to the SCC.

What the parties say about “time is of the essence” clauses

Cold Ocean: Context and freedom of contract control the analysis

In the materials filed in the SCC, Cold Ocean’s core argument is that the Court of Appeal erred by interpreting the “time is of the essence” clause in isolation from the rest of the agreement. In its submission, even standard contractual language must be read with the agreement as a whole and the commercial circumstances to determine the parties’ objective intention.

Cold Ocean’s argument emphasizes the specific transaction’s performance structure. Nova Fish controlled the regulatory applications needed to trigger the closing date. The agreement required Nova Fish to proceed “as promptly as practicable”, closing was to follow seven days after approvals were obtained, and time was expressly made of the essence.

Cold Ocean contends that there is no legal reason why sophisticated parties cannot agree that breach of an open-ended timing obligation will carry termination consequences. If the agreement as a whole demonstrates that the parties considered prompt performance essential, as they did by expressly qualifying an obligation to be performed promptly, the absence of a fixed deadline for performance should not prevent the Court from giving effect to that intention.

Nova Fish Farms: Settled boilerplate language promotes contractual certainty

Nova Fish argues that a “time is of the essence” clause has an established legal function and should be interpreted consistently. It says the clause addresses the consequences of missing a stipulated deadline but does not make an open-ended standard, such as “as promptly as practicable”, subject to automatic termination consequences.

Nova Fish’s argument emphasizes that a clause intended to provide certainty should not expose a party to termination based on a deadline that cannot be identified in advance. For example, if missing an open-ended performance obligation can trigger termination, a party may not know when it has breached its performance obligation and be subject to termination. The other party may likewise be uncertain about when it acquires a right to terminate.

In Nova Fish’s submission, parties who want a “time is of the essence” clause to apply to an open-ended obligation can say so directly by connecting the clause expressly to that obligation or by stating the termination right in clear terms.

Two possible outcomes at the SCC

The appeal presents the SCC with two competing approaches to interpreting the agreement:

“Time is of the essence” clauses apply to open-ended timing obligations: The SCC allows the appeal and affirms that a “time is of the essence” clause may apply to an open-ended timing obligation where the agreement as a whole demonstrates that it was the parties’ intention.
“Time is of the essence” clauses only apply to fixed-time obligations: The SCC upholds the Court of Appeal’s order and clarifies that a standard “time is of the essence” clause applies only to fixed performance deadlines unless the parties clearly extend it to an open-ended obligation.

Practical implications for commercial contracts, termination rights, and specific performance

Whatever the outcome, this dispute offers an immediate drafting lesson: parties should not rely on general boilerplate to carry a commercially critical termination right if they can state the intended result directly.

1. “Time is of the essence” clauses apply to open-ended timing obligations

If the SCC accepts Cold Ocean’s position, the decision would confirm that the effect of a “time is of the essence” clause depends on the agreement as a whole and is not necessarily limited to obligations containing a fixed calendar deadline:

Parties could rely on a “time is of the essence” clause as applying to open-ended timing obligations. There would be continued use of language such as “as promptly as practicable” or “commercially reasonable efforts”.
Breach of contract claims would be centred on: (i) how open-ended timing obligations should be interpreted in the circumstances; and (ii) whether one party’s contractual performance was completed by the non-specified time.
Disputes would likely focus on what the standard of performance required in the particular commercial circumstances, whether the performing party met that standard, and whether the delay justified termination rather than another contractual remedy.
The decision would reinforce freedom of contract by allowing the parties to define the consequences of delayed performance through the overall structure and context of their agreement.

2. “Time is of the essence” clauses only apply to fixed-time obligations

If the SCC sides with Nova Fish and holds that a “time is of the essence” clause will only apply to fixed-time obligations:

“Time is of the essence” clauses would not give rise to a termination right unless the clause was connected to a specific timeline for performance of an obligation or a stated termination right.
Greater certainty would exist regarding when delayed contractual performance constitutes a breach and triggers the right to terminate.
Parties would need to devote more attention to negotiating and drafting express deadlines and conditions precedent to ensure the intended consequences are captured.

Practical Contract Drafting Checklist

Identify which timing obligations are essential, rather than relying only on a general boilerplate clause.
Use a fixed outside date where commercial certainty is more important than flexibility.
State whether a missed deadline permits termination, triggers a cure period, or gives rise only to damages.
Connect conditions precedent, third-party approvals and “commercially reasonable efforts” or “best efforts” obligations to clear notice and escalation mechanisms.
Address waiver, extensions, and the steps required to restore time as an essential term after a deadline is extended or tolerated.
Align the termination clause, specific-performance provisions, and dispute-resolution process with the agreement’s timing structure.

Why this commercial contract appeal matters

Parties to commercial agreements frequently use boilerplate contractual terms to leave obligations open-ended. Those terms can be useful where regulatory approval, third-party consent, or another uncertain event makes a calendar deadline impractical. The trade-off is that flexibility can make it harder to determine when delay becomes a breach of contract and when a breach permits termination. The SCC’s decision will help determine whether standard “time is of the essence” clauses can convert those flexible obligations into grounds for termination.

We are monitoring the appeal and will publish a further update after the SCC releases its decision. In the meantime, businesses entering, performing, or seeking to exit a commercial agreement should review whether their timing provisions clearly identify the obligation, the deadline or performance standard, and the consequence of delay. If a live transaction or dispute turns on those questions, early advice can help preserve termination rights, avoid an unintended waiver, and shape the evidentiary record before positions harden.

BLG à la CSC : calendrier des audiences de l’automne 2026

Mon, 05 Oct 2026 00:00:00 Z

Une cérémonie marquant l’ouverture de l’année judiciaire

Aujourd’hui, le 5 octobre 2026, la Cour suprême du Canada a souligné la rentrée judiciaire lors d’une cérémonie présidée par le juge en chef du Canada. Plusieurs figures importantes du système de justice de partout au pays y ont assisté. La Cour avait renoué avec cette tradition l’an dernier, à l’occasion de son 150^e anniversaire.

La cérémonie de ce matin s’est déroulée dans les nouveaux locaux temporaires de la Cour, dans l’Édifice commémoratif de l’Ouest, situé au 344, rue Wellington, à Ottawa. Le bâtiment se trouve juste à côté de l’emblématique Édifice de la Cour suprême du Canada (situé au 301 de la même rue), lequel entre dans une phase de restauration qui durera dix ans. Bon nombre des juges actuellement en exercice atteindront l’âge obligatoire de la retraite avant que la Cour réintègre son domicile permanent.

Au cours de la cérémonie, le juge en chef a mis en avant les caractéristiques architecturales du nouveau siège de la Cour, comme les neuf arches en chêne symbolisant les neuf juges de la Cour suprême, ainsi que la verrière et le lustre du hall principal de l’édifice, qui représentent l’ouverture de la Cour et l’identité nordique du pays. Le juge en chef a également évoqué la charge de travail de la Cour, avant de souligner que, à la fin de la session d’automne, la Cour aura entendu 60 pourvois en 2026 – un record depuis le début de la pandémie en 2020.¹ Le juge Glenn D. Joyal, récemment nommé, assistait aussi à la cérémonie. Il a prêté serment en tant que juge de la Cour suprême le 15 juillet 2026, et sera officiellement accueilli plus tard ce mois-ci lors d’une cérémonie.

Affaires à venir à l’automne 2026

La Cour a publié son calendrier d’audiences pour l’automne 2026. Des avocats et avocates de BLG agiront dans trois des pourvois de cet automne :

Société des loteries de l’Atlantique, et al. c. Procureur général de l'Ontario (42141) : un renvoi du gouvernement de l’Ontario visant à déterminer si sa plateforme « Jeux en ligne » demeurerait légale au titre du Code criminel si la province mettait en œuvre une proposition permettant aux joueurs ontariens de participer à des jeux et de mettre en commun leurs liquidités avec des joueurs situés à l’étranger. Graeme A. Hamilton et Teagan Markin représenteront les intervenantes, NSUS Group Inc. et NSUS Limited, lors de l’audience prévue le 7 octobre 2026.
Coalition canadienne pour le droit aux armes à feu, et al. c. Procureur général du Canada (41859) : une contestation (par des propriétaires d’armes à feu, des entreprises, des associations de tir et des groupes de défense des droits) d’un règlement fédéral interdisant certaines catégories d’armes à feu en vertu du Code criminel. Guy J. Pratte, Nadia Effendi et Matthew Schneider représenteront le procureur général de l’Alberta, à titre d’intervenant, lors de l’audience prévue les 9 et 10 novembre 2026.
La Compagnie des chemins de fer nationaux du Canada c. Alberta Pacific Forest Industries Inc. (42092) : une demande de contrôle judiciaire d’une décision de l’Office des transports du Canada, sur le droit constitutionnel de demander un contrôle judiciaire alors qu’il existe une autre voie de recours adéquate, dans le contexte des régimes de réglementation fédéraux régis par la Loi sur les Cours fédérales. Guy J. Pratte, Nadia Effendi et Matthew Schneider représenteront l’appelante, la Compagnie des chemins de fer nationaux du Canada, lors de l’audience prévue le 12 novembre 2026.

Voici d’autres affaires importantes à surveiller, sur lesquelles la Cour suprême se penchera cet automne :

NHK Spring Co., Ltd., et al. c. Tony Cheung, et al. (41451) : une affaire portant sur la compétence des tribunaux canadiens à accorder des dommages-intérêts en vertu de la Loi sur la concurrence du Canada à la suite d’une allégation de complot international de fixation des prix, en lien avec des pertes subies par des clients et des entreprises canadiennes. (L’audience est prévue le 8 octobre 2026.)
Ontario Place Protectors c. Sa Majesté le Roi du chef de l’Ontario et procureur général de l’Ontario (41805) : la contestation constitutionnelle d’une loi de l’Ontario qui éteint les réclamations et les recours civils contre la Couronne dans le cadre du réaménagement par la province de la Place de l’Ontario à Toronto. (L’audience est prévue le 15 octobre 2026.)
H.N. c. Board of Education of School District No. 61 (Greater Victoria), et al. (41910) : un nouvel examen du cadre de la responsabilité du fait d’autrui afin de déterminer si un conseil scolaire peut être tenu responsable des abus sexuels commis par un tuteur bénévole, survenus des années plus tard lors de visites privées au domicile du tuteur. (L’audience est prévue le 13 novembre 2026.)
GGCT Canada Limited Partnership c. International Longshore and Warehouse Union Ship and Dock Foremen, Local 514 (41951) : le contrôle judiciaire d’une instruction donnée à la suite d’une plainte sur l’inspection par l’employeur de navires qui ne lui appartiennent pas; des questions sont soulevées quant à l’application du principe de stare decisis vertical aux tribunaux administratifs. (L’audience est prévue le 3 décembre 2026.)
Procureur général du Québec c. Vasil Petrishki, et al. (42018) : la question de savoir si les greffiers spéciaux et les registraires nommés en vertu de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité exercent des fonctions judiciaires qui bénéficient des protections d’indépendance judiciaire prévues dans la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne du Québec et la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867. (L’audience est prévue le 9 décembre 2026.)

N’hésitez pas à communiquer avec notre équipe pour en apprendre davantage

BLG abrite le plus grand groupe de pratique en matière de plaidoirie en appel au Canada, comptant des bureaux à Toronto, à Ottawa, à Vancouver, à Calgary et à Montréal. Pour toute question au sujet de la Cour suprême du Canada ou relative aux autres instances d’appel, veuillez communiquer avec l’une des personnes de l’équipe mentionnées ci-dessous.

Investir dans le secteur canadien de l’énergie : guide juridique et réglementaire

Mon, 05 Oct 2026 00:00:00 Z

La transition énergétique du Canada ouvre de vastes perspectives

Les investissements se multiplient dans divers pans du secteur canadien de l’énergie : infrastructures pétrolières et gazières classiques, production et transport d’électricité, installations de gaz naturel liquéfié, minéraux critiques, projets d’énergie propre. Dans un contexte géopolitique imprévisible, le Canada se révèle un partenaire énergétique fiable offrant des conditions concurrentielles. La croissance de la demande, la décarbonation et la diversité du panier énergétique et des ressources du pays ouvrent de nouvelles perspectives aux investisseurs, tant canadiens qu’étrangers.

Les investisseurs qui réussissent au Canada sont souvent ceux qui en maîtrisent le mieux les cadres réglementaire, environnemental et commercial.

Quelles particularités faut-il connaître à propos du Canada?

La surveillance réglementaire s’exerce aux échelons fédéral et provincial

Le secteur de l’énergie du Canada est encadré par une combinaison de réglementations fédérales et provinciales. Des initiatives sont en cours pour simplifier les exigences d’approbation réglementaire et de production de rapports aux deux échelons.

Les peuples autochtones sont parties prenantes des projets

Les communautés autochtones du Canada jouissent de droits protégés par la Constitution, ce qui donne lieu à des exercices de consultation, à des partenariats et, dans certains cas, à la participation économique des peuples autochtones. De nombreux projets intègrent désormais une prise de participation autochtone, comme dans le cas du récent investissement de 700 millions de dollars des Premières Nations visées par les Traités Williams, dans le cadre d’un projet de petits réacteurs modulaires de 300 MW en Ontario.

Les exigences environnementales et liées aux autorisations évoluent

La priorité accordée à la construction de nouvelles infrastructures, partout au pays, incite les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux à simplifier les exigences relatives à l’environnement et aux autorisations. Le Bureau des grands projets du gouvernement fédéral, créé en 2025, a pour mandat d’accélérer la réalisation de grands projets énergétiques et d’infrastructures d’intérêt national. Une bonne compréhension de ces exigences et processus, acquise dès le départ, peut éviter des contretemps et favoriser une exécution sous le signe de la prévisibilité.

Les débouchés commerciaux varient d’une région à l’autre

On ne trouve pas qu’un seul marché de l’énergie au Canada. Chaque province a son cadre réglementaire, ses programmes d’approvisionnement, ses structures de services publics et ses priorités d’investissement. Qu’il soit question d’infrastructures pétrolières et gazières, d’actifs de production ou de transport d’électricité, de minéraux critiques ou d’énergie propre, il est indispensable de connaître les particularités régionales.

Une planification multidisciplinaire s’impose

Les projets énergétiques peuvent nécessiter de se pencher sur diverses questions juridiques et liées à l’exploitation d’entreprise, telles que le financement, la fiscalité, les codes de construction, le travail et l’emploi, la conformité environnementale ou le règlement des différends. Il importe de ne négliger aucun de ces aspects.

Vous vous lancez sur le marché énergétique canadien ou souhaitez y étendre vos activités?

Le guide de BLG Faire affaire au Canada regorge de conseils sur les aspects juridiques et commerciaux que doit connaître toute organisation faisant son entrée sur le marché canadien. Parmi les sujets traités : la création d’entreprise, l’examen des investissements étrangers, la fiscalité, l’emploi, la réglementation environnementale, les considérations relatives aux peuples autochtones, la protection de la vie privée, le droit de la concurrence et le règlement des différends.

Le groupe Énergie et électricité de BLG peut vous aider à tenir compte de l’ensemble des considérations propres au secteur, qu’il s’agisse des approbations réglementaires, de la participation des peuples autochtones, de l’élaboration de projets, des structures de financement ou des exigences de conformité.

Communiquez avec nous pour discuter des possibilités, des aspects réglementaires et des risques commerciaux qui touchent de près votre entreprise, votre projet ou votre stratégie d’investissement.

Pour en savoir plus, n’hésitez pas à joindre les personnes suivantes :

Au-delà de l’AECG : que signifie l’évocation de « membre associé » de l’UE pour les entreprises canadiennes?

Fri, 02 Oct 2026 00:00:00 Z

La semaine dernière, un nouveau terme a fait son entrée dans le vocabulaire commercial, économique et politique canadien : « membre associé de l’Union européenne ».

Qu’importe qu’il n’existe pas de tel statut dans l’architecture complexe des relations extérieures de l’Union européenne ou que la notion repose sur trois lignes d’un long discours sur l’état de l’Union de la présidente de la Commission européenne, le terme a depuis été associé à toutes sortes de scénarios.

Mettons un peu d’ordre dans tout ça.

Puisque nous avons déjà l’AECG, que nous a-t-on proposé exactement?

Commençons par le commencement : le Canada ne deviendra pas membre de l’Union européenne. Ni bientôt ni jamais. Pour être admissible à l’adhésion en vertu de l’article 49 du Traité sur l’Union européenne, un pays candidat doit « être un pays européen ». Il n’est donc pas question d’adhérer à l’UE et d’adopter sa fiscalité, ses réglementations et ses règles en matière d’immigration.

Ensuite, n’avons-nous pas déjà un accord commercial avec l’UE? Tout à fait. L’Accord économique et commercial global entre le Canada et l’Union européenne (AECG), ambitieux accord de libre-échange, a été négocié par le gouvernement Harper et est entré en vigueur (à titre provisoire) sous le gouvernement Trudeau. Et il fonctionne bien. Plus de 98 % du commerce entre les deux économies est exempt de droits de douane, et les échanges ont augmenté de 75 % au cours des dix dernières années.

L’AECG pose certains problèmes : il n’a pas encore été ratifié par dix membres de l’UE, si bien que certaines de ses dispositions institutionnelles ne sont pas encore en vigueur. Mais est-ce un « gâchis »? Loin de là.

Alors, si nous avons déjà un accord de libre-échange fructueux avec l’UE et que l’adhésion n’est pas l’objectif de l’idée évoquée récemment, de quoi est-il question au juste?

Un accord de libre-échange instaure le plus faible degré possible d’intégration économique entre États souverains; le cadre de l’UE correspond au degré le plus élevé, au-delà duquel vient la fédération. (On pourrait même soutenir qu’à certains égards, les provinces canadiennes ont davantage d’autonomie que les États membres de l’UE, mais réservons ce sujet pour un autre article.)

On trouve entre ces deux extrêmes différents degrés d’alignement et de libéralisation qui n’ont pas d’incidence, ou si peu, sur la « souveraineté ». L’auteur du présent article a déjà écrit sur les divers degrés de libéralisation de la réglementation dans le secteur des services financiers; la même analyse vaut pour d’autres secteurs.

Ce que l’AECG laisse de côté

Prenons l’exemple des réglementations de l’UE : il est vrai qu’elles sont complexes et que, dans certains secteurs, elles pourraient dissuader des entreprises canadiennes de rechercher des occasions d’affaires dans des pays européens. Un accord de libre-échange ne s’attaque pas toujours à ces « barrières non tarifaires ». C’est pourquoi nous concluons des accords de reconnaissance mutuelle, tantôt pour les biens – comme dans le cas de l’Accord de reconnaissance mutuelle (ARM) entre le Canada et l’Union européenne (UE) –, tantôt pour les services et les professions, comme dans le cas de l’Accord de reconnaissance mutuelle UE-Canada pour les architectes.

Nous pourrions élargir la reconnaissance mutuelle ou conclure d’autres accords qui viseraient, de manière à peu près similaire, à réduire ou éliminer des obstacles réglementaires. Bref, un accord commercial n’est que le strict minimum, et nous pourrions encore renforcer et libéraliser les échanges entre le Canada et l’UE d’une multitude de façons avant d’atteindre le plafond.

Et ce n’est pas tout. L’analyse des discours prononcés au Parlement européen montre que la stratégie du « membre associé » est à la fois plus et moins ambitieuse qu’une simple harmonisation ou reconnaissance des réglementations. Citons la présidente von der Leyen :

Nous créerons une alliance technologique. Nous intégrerons des bases industrielles de défense. Nous ferons de l’Arctique un projet phare commun. Nous travaillerons sur l’énergie, les minéraux critiques et les batteries. Ainsi que l’IA, le quantique, la cybersécurité et la sécurité économique.

Là où réside véritablement l’occasion : énergie, minéraux critiques et investissements stratégiques

Prenons l’énergie. Nous connaissons depuis plus de dix ans la vulnérabilité stratégique de l’UE en matière d’énergie. Pendant l’essentiel de cette période, la diversification de nos exportations d’énergie ne figurait pas parmi nos priorités. Nous savions également, pendant l’essentiel de cette période, que le projet de construction d’un terminal d’exportation de GNL dans l’Est du pays ne recueillait pas tous les appuis voulus sur le plan commercial. Sans vouloir accorder trop d’importance au discours de la présidente, il ouvre à tout le moins la voie à un meilleur alignement entre nos possibilités d’exportation et les besoins d’importation de l’UE.

Et si l’UE et le Canada convenaient de réaliser conjointement des investissements publics stratégiques dans des infrastructures d’exportation d’énergie orientées vers l’UE? Et de même pour les minéraux critiques? Les batteries? Et la sécurité des données?

Rien de tout cela n’est certain; il faut encore se pencher sur beaucoup de choses. Et même l’intégration la plus poussée – qui s’arrêterait juste avant l’impossible adhésion à part entière – ne changerait rien à notre réalité géographique fondamentale : les États-Unis sont et resteront toujours notre plus grand marché. Le but n’est pas de remplacer ce marché, mais d’en ouvrir de nouveaux.

En ce sens, l’évocation d’un statut de « membre associé » offre bien une occasion, non seulement aux gouvernements, aux décideurs et aux diplomates d’aller en négocier les tenants et aboutissants, mais également au milieu des affaires canadien de faire diverses choses :

recenser les obstacles réglementaires au commerce avec l’UE, pour chercher des moyens de les réduire;
trouver des possibilités d’investissement privé et public dans des secteurs névralgiques, pour les présenter à des acteurs européens;
se fixer des objectifs d’accès aux marchés à la fois ambitieux et réalisables, dans les biens comme dans les services, pour disposer de solutions de change face aux droits de douane américains ou à d’autres obstacles.

Suivez l’évolution du dossier

Restez au courant des faits nouveaux grâce à notre Centre de ressources sur le commerce et les tarifs douaniers et au balado The Tariff Home Companion (en anglais). Le groupe Commerce international et investissements de BLG a conseillé des clients à chaque étape du différend commercial canado-américain, notamment sur la détermination de l’origine, les demandes de remise, le classement et la détermination du champ d’application, la répartition des risques contractuels et la préservation du droit au remboursement.

Alberta Court of Appeal clarifies the scope of pure economic loss in construction negligence claims

Thu, 01 Oct 2026 00:00:00 Z

The Alberta Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the treatment of pure economic loss claims arising from construction defects. In Murray v Windsor Brunello Ltd, 2026 ABCA 275, the ABCA confirmed that courts must distinguish between claims involving negligent supply of defective structures and claims involving negligent performance of professional services, as each attracts a separate duty of care analysis.

What you need to know: Pure economic loss claims arising from construction defects

This decision reinforced three important principles:

Pure economic loss is not a single doctrine. Courts must identify the category of pure economic loss at issue and apply the corresponding analytical framework.
The “real and substantial danger” requirement remains central to defective structure claims, but it does not govern claims for negligent performance of professional services.
Contract and tort duties may coexist. In the absence of contractual language limiting tort liability, professionals may face concurrent liability in both contract and negligence, for the same underlying conduct.

Background

This dispute arose from the construction of a custom residence in Wheatland County, Alberta. The homeowners alleged that deficiencies in the design and installation of large window and sliding door systems caused structural deflection, resulting in doors that became increasingly difficult to operate, and ultimately failed to function as intended. They brought their claim in contract and negligence.

Following trial, the homeowners obtained judgment of over $958,000, including pre-judgment interest, against the project and construction manager for breach of contract. However, the trial judge dismissed the negligence claim against the engineering consultant, finding that the losses constituted pure economic loss and the defects did not create the type of “real and substantial danger” required for recovery under the “defective structures” branch of negligence law.

Alberta Court of Appeal decision

The ABCA agreed that the homeowners’ defects claim involving the house itself constituted a claim for pure economic loss rather than ordinary property damage. Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Winnipeg Condominium Corp No 36 v Bird Construction Co, the ABCA held that where one component of a complex structure adversely affects another component of the same structure, the resulting repair costs are a pure economic loss recoverable in negligence only if the defect creates a “real and substantial danger”.¹ The ABCA further held that the trial judge correctly concluded that the deflection of the residence’s doors and windows did not create a “real and substantial danger”. Therefore, no duty of care arose under the category of negligent supply of a defective structure.

However, the ABCA determined that the analysis should not have ended there. The homeowners had also advanced a claim against the engineering consultant for negligent performance of professional services – a distinct category of pure economic loss. The ABCA emphasized that claims for negligent performance of a service turn on undertaking, reliance, proximity, and foreseeability rather than the “real and substantial danger” test applicable to defective structures.

The ABCA found that the trial judge expressly determined that the engineering consultant undertook to provide engineering services to the homeowners, which the homeowners reasonably relied on. The trial judge also found that injury to the homeowners was reasonably foreseeable. These findings established the necessary proximity and foreseeability for a duty of care.

Importantly, the ABCA rejected the proposition that the existence of a contractual relationship precluded a negligence claim. Relying on BG Checo International Ltd v British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and subsequent case law, the ABCA confirmed that there is no general prohibition against concurrent liability in contract and tort.² Tort claims may be limited or excluded by contractual terms, but, absent such limitations, both causes of action may coexist.

The ABCA concluded that the trial judge erred by importing the defective structures analysis into the negligent performance of services claim. The two categories are not mutually exclusive and must be analyzed independently. Because proximity and foreseeability were established on the facts found at trial, the engineering consultant was liable for negligent performance of professional services.

How BLG can help with construction disputes

BLG’s Construction Disputes team reviews the latest court decisions to keep organizations informed about changes that may affect their business. We provide practical advice on what these developments mean for construction projects, contracts, disputes and potential liability. We can also help organizations assess risk, respond to claims and resolve disputes at every stage of a project. Contact us to discuss how this decision may affect your organization.