Filtered-Insights

ICC Arbitration Rules 2026: Towards enhanced flexibility and procedural efficiency

Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

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

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

Key takeaways

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

A. The end of mandatory terms of reference

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

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

B. Early determination and highly expedited arbitration

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

a. Early determination

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

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

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

b. Highly expedited arbitration

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

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

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

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

c. Expedited arbitration threshold

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

C. Expanded tools in emergency arbitration and interim relief

The 2026 Rules introduce meaningful refinements to emergency arbitration.

a. Ex Parte preliminary orders

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

b. Broader scope of application of emergency arbitration

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

D. Revisiting time limit for the award

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

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

E. Disclosure, confidentiality and institutional governance

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

a. Enhanced disclosure obligations

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

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

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

b. Confidentiality and tribunal secretaries

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

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

c. Institutional governance

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

F. Digitalisation and procedural modernisation

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

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

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

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

Contexte

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

Historique judiciaire

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

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

La Cour suprême du Canada a accueilli l’appel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion dissidente

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

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

Key takeaways from the week

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

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

A selective capital cycle, with early‑stage momentum

Selectivity now defines the venture environment.

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

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

Pre‑seed and seed: readiness is the differentiator

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

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

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

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

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

What is being built, and why it matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross‑border dynamics surface earlier

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

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

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

IP retention moves upstream

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

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

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

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

M&A as strategy, not just outcome

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

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

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

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

Closing thought

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

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

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

Périodique du droit des assurances : l’infolettre de BLG en assurance commerciale (printemps 2026)

Thu, 11 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

Des avocates et avocats en droit des assurances de BLG présentent et analysent les décisions clés en matière de réclamation, de litige touchant les couvertures et d’interprétation de polices pour orienter les clients vers les meilleurs plans d’action. Que vous jongliez avec des polices complexes ou des risques émergents, notre infolettre vous aidera à comprendre comment les décisions judiciaires et les changements réglementaires pourraient influencer votre stratégie d’assurance commerciale.

Téléchargez notre dernier numéro saisonnier ci-dessous ou communiquez avec notre équipe de droit des assurances pour discuter de l’incidence des dernières nouveautés sur votre organisation.

Dans ce numéro (printemps 2026)

Emond c. Trillium Mutual Insurance Co. (Cour suprême du Canada)

Dans cette affaire, la Cour suprême a jugé qu’un avenant coût de reconstruction garanti ne l’emportait pas sur une clause d’exclusion du coût de conformité à la loi dans un contrat d’assurance. Cette décision confirme qu’un simple avenant ne saurait invalider une clause d’exclusion clairement formulée, ce qui rend indispensable, d’un point de vue stratégique, de procéder à un examen approfondi des polices d’assurance avant qu’un sinistre ne survienne.

Assurer l’IA : gouvernance, souscription, transfert de risques et occasions à saisir (Canada)

Les assureurs s’appuient désormais sur la souscription pour influencer le développement du marché de l’IA, allant ainsi au-delà de la simple couverture des sinistres. Une bonne gouvernance mènera à une capacité de déploiement accrue, tandis que les risques mal définis entraîneront une augmentation des exceptions. À mesure que les attentes du marché quant à la responsabilité se renforcent, les organisations disposant de systèmes d’IA vérifiables et éprouvés obtiendront de meilleures couvertures et bénéficieront d’un avantage concurrentiel.

Mises à jour récentes de la réglementation liée à l’assurance des entreprises (Colombie-Britannique, Québec et Canada entier)

Une vague de mesures réglementaires annonce un renforcement de la surveillance des assureurs à l’échelle nationale en 2026. Le BSIF, le CCRRA, la Colombie-Britannique et l’AMF du Québec mettent tous en place de nouveaux cadres portant sur le risque de crédit, les réseaux de distribution, la vente d’assurance accessoire et la gestion des risques liés aux tiers. Les cabinets devraient revoir leurs pratiques de gouvernance et se préparer à des délais de mise en conformité plus courts.

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

Tue, 09 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adoption as a primary policy objective

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

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

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

Sector-driven deployment

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

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

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

Sovereign infrastructure as policy

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

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

Trust through distributed governance

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

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

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

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

Global context: A fragmented regulatory landscape on artificial intelligence

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

AI in the EU

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

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

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

AI in the U.S.

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

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

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

Canada’s AI for All in the global context

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

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

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

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

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

Governance expectations are increasing, even without an AI statute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What you can do

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

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

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

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

What you can do

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

Infrastructure and data decisions are becoming regulated design choices

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

What you can do

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

Sector-specific legal conditions will emerge rapidly and vary significantly

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

What you can do

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

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

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

Cross-border compliance requires a jurisdiction-aware governance framework

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

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

What you can do

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

Implementation risk is material and should be reflected in planning horizons

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

What you can do

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

BLG can assist

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

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

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

Tue, 09 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

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

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

What we saw: A trademark scam in action

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

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

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

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

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

What would happen if we did not catch it

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

Red flags: Look for the signs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact us

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

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

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

Mon, 08 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

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

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

Scope of guidance

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

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

Core expectations

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

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

Focus on online reviews

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

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

Risk and accountability

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

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

Contact us

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

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

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

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

Fri, 05 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

Key takeaways

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

Background and policy context

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

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

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

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

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

What is changing?

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

1. One-year extension of core measures

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

2. Continued TRQ structure

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

3. Planned reform: Allocation-based quotas

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

4. Ongoing remission and engagement

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

Implications for Canadian stakeholders

1. Importers: Continued compliance burden and planning imperative

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

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

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

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

2. Domestic producers: Continued protection with greater certainty

For Canadian steel and aluminum producers, the extension provides:

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

3. Exporters and integrated supply chains: Ongoing tension

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

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

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

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

Looking ahead

Stakeholders should monitor:

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

BLG is there to help

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

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

Fri, 05 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

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

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

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

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

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

La Cour supérieure du Québec annule une sentence arbitrale et balise l’utilisation de l’IA

Thu, 04 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

La décision Association des ressources intermédiaires d'hébergement du Québec (ARIHQ) c. Santé Québec - Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal, 2026 QCCS 1360,rendue par la Cour supérieure le 22 avril 2026, balise l’utilisation de l’intelligence artificielle (IA) pour la rédaction de sentences arbitrales et, par ricochet, de décisions judiciaires.

La Cour supérieure, sous la plume de l’honorable Martin F. Sheehan, J.C.S., a annulé une sentence arbitrale au motif que l’arbitre s’était appuyé sur des références doctrinales et jurisprudentielles inexistantes dans le cœur de son raisonnement, ce qui laissait conclure à l’utilisation incontrôlée d’un outil d’IA et à une délégation irrégulière du pouvoir décisionnel.

La décision articule un standard clair : l’IA peut assister mais jamais se substituer au décideur et lorsque l’utilisation incontrôlée de l’IA compromet l’intégrité procédurale ou la confiance du public, la sanction peut aller jusqu’à l’annulation d’une sentence arbitrale.

La décision de la Cour supérieure

Le litige naît d’une mésentente contractuelle entre une ressource intermédiaire (Osman), son association représentative (ARIHQ) et un établissement de santé (devenu Santé Québec), régie par un processus de règlement des différends prévoyant l’arbitrage. La sentence arbitrale fait ensuite l’objet d’un recours en annulation par une des parties.

La Cour conclut que l’arbitre a cité des sources doctrinales et jurisprudentielles inexistantes. Plusieurs références centrales de la sentence arbitrale ont été « hallucinées » par l’IA. C’est notamment le cas pour des décisions de la Cour d’appel du Québec citées dans la sentence et qui n’existent pas en réalité.

La Cour analyse ces manquements sous le prisme des articles 646 et 648 C.p.c., qui prévoient les motifs limités d’annulation de sentences arbitrales au Québec, et spécifiquement de l’article 646(3) portant sur le non-respect du mode de nomination d’un arbitre ou de la procédure arbitrale applicable.

La Cour précise que, bien que l’IA ne soit pas expressément visée à l’article 646 C.p.c., toute atteinte significative à la procédure convenue, lorsqu’elle compromet l’intégrité du processus, peut justifier l’annulation d’une sentence arbitrale. En l’espèce, la Cour estime que les décisions inexistantes ont exercé un impact substantiel sur le raisonnement de l’arbitre et annule la sentence arbitrale en considérant qu’elles sont « au cœur du raisonnement de l’arbitre » et que l’arbitre a délégué son pouvoir décisionnel à un outil d’IA.

En annulant la sentence arbitrale dans cette affaire, la Cour prend toutefois soin de ne pas créer une prohibition générale de l’utilisation de l’intelligence artificielle.

Le principe guidant l’utilisation de l’IA pour les décideurs: assistance permise, délégation prohibée

Dans sa décision, la Cour encadre et balise l’utilisation de l’IA par les arbitres (et autres décideurs). Spécifiquement en matière d’arbitrage, les commentaires de la Cour sur (i) l’importance de l’autonomie de la volonté des parties dans le choix de l’arbitre, (ii) l’importance de la rédaction des motifs pour assurer une décision éclairée et (iii) l’impératif de conserver la confiance du public dans le processus d’arbitrage, la mènent à la conclusion que les décisions arbitrales doivent être rédigées par l’arbitre choisi par les parties sans délégation à des tiers.

Loin de de proscrire ou de décourager les juristes ou décideurs d’utiliser l’IA, la décision vient cependant encadrer son utilisation en rappelant des principes premiers :

La délégation de l’autorité décisionnelle : le pouvoir de décider appartient au décideur choisi par les parties et, à ce titre, il ne peut être délégué à des tiers, y compris à l’IA. La Cour fait de la motivation personnelle du raisonnement un élément clé de l’intégrité procédurale. L’usage de l’IA sans vérification suffisante est incompatible avec l’exigence que le décideur soit l’auteur des raisons qui fondent la décision.
L’importance du manquement: la Cour précise que l’utilisation de l’IA en soi à titre d’outil de rédaction et même la citation de références erronées n’emportera pas automatiquement l’annulation d’une sentence arbitrale. En l’espèce, c’est le caractère central des décisions inexistantes dans le raisonnement de l’arbitre et le fait que le manquement soit susceptible « d’affecter la confiance des parties dans le résultat rendu et dans le régime d’arbitrage en général » qui mènent à l’annulation de la sentence.

À noter : la Cour se prononce par analogie sur l’utilisation de secrétaires de tribunaux par des arbitres ou de clercs par des décideurs, et applique le même principe, soit que la participation de tels tiers au processus décisionnel, tout comme l’IA, ne doit pas « porter atteinte à l’intégrité du processus et doit maintenir la responsabilité de la rédaction auprès du décideur ».

Enfin, la Cour souligne d’autres défis et risques liés à l’utilisation de l’IA dont il faut être conscient dans un contexte judicaire ou d’arbitrage, dont :

la création de fausses références ou d’hallucinations;
l’absence de discrétion et de valeurs humaines;
les biais reflétés dans les systèmes d’intelligence artificielle;
l’absence de confidentialité reliée à certains outils.

Conclusion

Cette décision est l’une des premières décisions à l’échelle mondiale à baliser l’utilisation de l’IA par un décideur tel qu’un arbitre. Elle a d’ailleurs déjà fait l’objet d’un grand retentissement à l’international.

La décision représente un certain élargissement ou modernisation du motif d’annulation basé sur le respect de la procédure à l’article 646(3) C.p.c. en l’appliquant à l’utilisation de l’IA. Les balises mises en place par la Cour renforcent le droit de l’arbitrage au Québec en ce qu’elles assurent la qualité des sentences arbitrales rendues et contribuent au développement des meilleures pratiques pour encadrer l’utilisation de l’IA par des décideurs.

Recours collectif pour surveillance : un docteur condamné à 22 M$ en Ontario

Tue, 02 Jun 2026 00:00:00 Z

Dans la décision J.C. et al. v. Jugenburg et al., 2026 ONSC 3061, la Cour a conclu qu’un chirurgien plastique a manqué à ses devoirs envers ses patients et porté atteinte à leur vie privée en installant des caméras de surveillance un peu partout dans sa clinique. C’est la première fois qu’un tribunal reconnaît que la captation d’images elle-même, même sans visionnement ni diffusion, peut engager la responsabilité au titre du délit d’intrusion dans l’intimité. La Cour a octroyé 21,5 millions $ en dommages-intérêts globaux pour un groupe d’environ 7 000 patients pour ce délit et 1 million $ en dommages-intérêts punitifs.

Points à retenir : risques d’atteinte à la vie privée et de responsabilité liés à la surveillance d’espaces de soins

Pour les établissements de santé, la norme de diligence demande de ne pas placer de caméras dans les endroits où les patients reçoivent des soins, se dévêtent ou se font examiner, sauf à des fins médicales nécessaires, comme pour observer le patient, soutenir le traitement ou assurer la qualité des soins. Dans l’affaire Jugenburg, la Cour a donné des exemples d’exceptions potentielles, sans toutefois entrer dans les détails. Les établissements doivent faire attention à l’emplacement de leurs caméras.
La captation d’interactions intimes ou privées peut constituer une intrusion dans l’intimité, même si les images ne sont pas visionnées, utilisées ou révélées.
Des dommages-intérêts globaux peuvent être octroyés pour le délit d’intrusion dans l’intimité, même si certains membres du groupe n’ont pas été perturbés ou choqués.

Contexte

Le docteur Jugenburg a installé 24 caméras de surveillance dans sa clinique privée, notamment dans les salles de consultation où des patients se dévêtent, dans la salle d’opération et dans les espaces pré et postopératoires.

Les caméras n’étaient pas cachées, mais elles ne sautaient pas aux yeux non plus, et la Cour a conclu que les deux affiches posées dans la clinique n’alertaient pas adéquatement les patients de leur présence. La Cour a rejeté l’argument du docteur Jugenburg selon lequel les caméras avaient été installées pour des raisons de sécurité. Elle a conclu qu’elles lui servaient plutôt à visionner des images pour répondre à des plaintes et protéger ses propres intérêts. Elle a accepté qu’il n’y avait pas de preuve de voyeurisme ou de transmission des images à autrui.

De nombreuses instances et enquêtes ont eu lieu avant l’instruction des questions communes. Une enquête de l’émission Marketplace à CBC a révélé cette affaire en 2018. Le Commissaire à l’information et à la protection de la vie privée de l’Ontario a mené son enquête sur l’utilisation de caméras dans la clinique et conclu qu’elle contrevenait à la Loi de 2004 sur la protection des renseignements personnels sur la santé. Après avoir étudié le dossier, l’Ordre des médecins et chirurgiens de l’Ontario a suspendu le permis du docteur Jugenburg pour une période de six mois.

Le docteur Jugenburg a failli à la norme de diligence et à son obligation fiduciaire

Selon la Cour, la norme de diligence interdit la présence de caméras dans les espaces d’une clinique où les patients reçoivent des soins ou consultent leurs fournisseurs de soins de santé, sauf à des fins médicales nécessaires, comme pour observer le patient, soutenir le traitement ou assurer la qualité des soins. Cette norme n’est pas nécessairement satisfaite par un avis aux patients les informant de la présence de caméras ou par l’obtention de leur consentement, car la vulnérabilité de leur position met en doute la validité de ce consentement.

La Cour a aussi conclu que le docteur Jugenburg avait manqué à son obligation fiduciaire, car elle estimait que la surveillance servait uniquement ses intérêts, et pas ceux de la clinique ou des patients.

La Cour n’a pas déterminé si les manquements entraînaient une responsabilité, car il était impossible d’établir la causalité et le préjudice pour tout le groupe.

Le docteur Jugenburg s’est introduit dans l’intimité de ses patients

La Cour a déterminé que les trois volets du critère pour le délit d’intrusion dans l’intimité étaient satisfaits. Il faut d’abord déterminer qu’il y a eu une intrusion dans les affaires privées de la partie demanderesse, sans motif légitime. La Cour a estimé que les patients avaient une expectative raisonnable de vie privée dans les salles de consultation et de traitement, et que la captation de leurs images dans ces endroits constituait une intrusion dans leurs affaires privées.

Selon la Cour, le deuxième élément du délit, soit le caractère intentionnel ou insouciant de l’intrusion, était aussi satisfait. Elle n’a pas souscrit à l’argument du docteur Jugenburg, qui a affirmé que sa surveillance n’avait rien d’illégal tant qu’il gardait les images secrètes et ne le montrait à personne. Elle a plutôt conclu qu’il [TRADUCTION] « savait exactement ce qu’il faisait et que c’était mal ». La Cour a d’ailleurs conclu que la connaissance de l’illégalité du geste par la partie défenderesse n’était pas une condition pour la satisfaction du deuxième volet du critère.

Selon la Cour, le troisième volet du critère, soit le fait qu’une personne raisonnable trouverait l’intrusion très choquante, était lui aussi satisfait. En l’espèce, une personne raisonnable trouverait la conduite très choquante et source de détresse, d’humiliation ou d’angoisse. Même si la majorité des images n’ont jamais été visionnées et qu’elles étaient automatiquement supprimées après quelques mois, la Cour a conclu que la captation d’interactions intimes des patients dans une clinique médicale à leur insu, sans leur consentement et sans motif médical, constituait une intrusion grave et hautement choquante.

La Cour a octroyé plus de 22 millions $ en dommages-intérêts

La Cour a octroyé 21,5 millions $ en dommages-intérêts globaux pour intrusion dans l’intimité.

Même si certains patients ont indiqué que les caméras ne les avaient pas perturbés ou choqués, la Cour n’a pas jugé que cette preuve était pertinente ni qu’elle était incompatible avec des dommages-intérêts globaux. Selon elle, le délit d’intrusion dans l’intimité repose sur un critère objectif, et les dommages-intérêts globaux reposent [TRADUCTION] « non pas sur l’exactitude, mais sur le caractère raisonnable ».

La Cour a calculé les dommages-intérêts en accordant 5 000 $ par personne ayant eu un rendez-vous chirurgical et qui ont vraisemblablement dû se dévêtir, et 500 $ par personne ayant eu un rendez-vous non chirurgical ou une injection.

Enfin, comme elle estime que le docteur Jugenburg a abusé de sa position de confiance et trahi ses patients, elle a octroyé 1 million $ en dommages-intérêts punitifs.

On ne sait pas encore si le docteur Jugenburg va interjeter appel de la décision.

Pour en savoir plus sur les répercussions potentielles de la décision, ou sur les recours collectifs dans le domaine de la santé, communiquez avec l’une des personnes-ressources ci-dessous.

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

Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 Z

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

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

Background: surety claim and CCAA release defence

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

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

Court decision: motion to strike dismissed

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

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

CCAA release scope: limits on director and indemnity claims

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

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

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

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

Res judicata and abuse of process: not applicable

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

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

Key takeaways for sureties and creditors

This decision provides important guidance for sureties and other creditors:

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

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

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

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

CRA delays GST/HST changes on trailing commissions to 2028

Thu, 28 May 2026 00:00:00 Z

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

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

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

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

What the deferral means for industry

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

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

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

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

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

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

Projet pilote des ACVM sur la communication semestrielle d’information : tendances et perspectives

Fri, 22 May 2026 00:00:00 Z

Les Autorités canadiennes en valeurs mobilières (« ACVM ») autorisent les émetteurs émergents admissibles à opter pour la communication semestrielle d’information financière en vertu de la Décision générale coordonnée 51-933 relative aux dispenses permettant les rapports semestriels pour certains émetteurs émergents (la « décision générale »).

Après un examen des documents déposés dans SEDAR+, nous analysons la cadence d’adoption et le profil des émetteurs participants – bourse, secteur d’activité, capitalisation boursière – ainsi que les pratiques émergentes relativement à la communication semestrielle d’information et aux obligations d’information connexe. Nous formulons également des observations pertinentes pour les émetteurs qui pensent opter pour la communication semestrielle d’information et indiquons la voie à privilégier pour informer efficacement les marchés.

Points à retenir

L’adoption de la communication semestrielle d’information s’accélère. Un nombre grandissant d’émetteurs admissibles optent pour la communication semestrielle d’information, et le mouvement s’accélère depuis quelques semaines.
Les pratiques d’information pour faire connaître cette décision varient grandement et doivent être examinées avec soin. Même si la décision générale ne l’exige pas, beaucoup d’émetteurs expliquent leur décision d’opter pour la communication semestrielle. Par contre, la profondeur et la visibilité de ces explications varient considérablement d’un émetteur à l’autre.
La communication semestrielle d’information suscite aussi un intérêt à l’étranger, ce qui pourrait faire émerger des divergences réglementaires. Aux États-Unis, des chantiers visant à établir la communication semestrielle d’information pour les émetteurs du pays pourraient entraîner une réévaluation des régimes d’information trimestrielle.

Contexte : le projet pilote

Dans l’article Perspectives de BLG du mois d’avril 2026, nous indiquions qu’une décision générale permettait aux émetteurs émergents admissibles de déposer des états financiers intermédiaires et le rapport de gestion connexe sur une base semestrielle (le « projet pilote »). La décision générale prévoit des dispenses à l’obligation de déposer des rapports financiers intermédiaires et des rapports de gestion connexes pour les premier et troisième trimestres d’un exercice.

Pour bénéficier de ces dispenses, un émetteur doit satisfaire à certaines conditions, notamment :

être un émetteur émergent avec des titres inscrits à la cote de la Bourse de croissance TSX (« TSXV ») ou de la Bourse des valeurs canadiennes (« CSE »);
être un émetteur assujetti depuis au moins 12 mois au Canada;
avoir des produits des activités ordinaires n’excédant pas 10 millions de dollars, selon ses plus récents états financiers annuels audités;
être à jour dans toutes les obligations d’information périodique et occasionnelle;
publier et déposer sur SEDAR+ un communiqué annonçant son choix de se prévaloir de la communication semestrielle d’information.

La communication semestrielle d’information en chiffres

Depuis l’entrée en vigueur de la décision générale le 19 mars 2026, selon notre examen des documents déposés dans SEDAR+, 111 émetteurs ont annoncé qu’ils passaient à la communication semestrielle d’information (les « participants ») (au 8 mai 2026). Selon nos estimations, plus de 1 750 émetteurs¹ sont admissibles au projet pilote, ce qui voudrait dire qu’environ 6,5 % des émetteurs ont déjà décidé d’y participer.

De plus, le mouvement s’accélère : 63 % des participants ont annoncé leur décision dans les trois dernières semaines. Cette tendance témoigne de la confiance des émetteurs à l’égard du projet pilote et, plus largement, de la communication semestrielle d’information.

D’ailleurs, les annonces des participants ne semblent avoir eu aucun effet notable sur le cours de leurs titres, ce qui laisse supposer un niveau d’adhésion comparable chez les investisseurs à l’égard de ce nouveau mode de fonctionnement, ou à tout le moins leur indifférence.

Selon nos propres données, 68 % des participants sont inscrits à la cote de la TSXV, et les 32 % restants à celle de la CSE. Environ 73 % des émetteurs admissibles sont inscrits à la cote de la TSXV, ce qui voudrait dire que ceux inscrits à la cote de la CSE sont, en proportion, plus nombreux à opter pour la communication semestrielle d’information.

Une part importante des participants exercent leurs activités dans le secteur minier (60 %); l’adoption de la communication semestrielle d’information est aussi notable dans les secteurs des technologies (10 %) et des sociétés de capital de démarrage (11 %).

Ces données sont relativement proportionnelles par rapport au nombre d’émetteurs admissibles dans ces secteurs; en effet, la répartition des participants est tributaire de la pertinence du projet pilote pour les émetteurs œuvrant dans des secteurs où les investissements sont importants, où la mise en valeur ou en production prend du temps et où les revenus à court terme sont limités.
La sous-représentation des services financiers (12 % des émetteurs admissibles, mais seulement 3 % des participants) parmi les participants vient confirmer cet état de fait.

La capitalisation boursière moyenne des participants s’établit à environ 13,6 millions de dollars², avec la médiane à 4,4 millions de dollars. De plus, 93 % des participants ont une capitalisation boursière de moins de 50 millions de dollars.

Cette répartition s’aligne sur le cadre établi dans la décision générale : il limite la participation aux petits émetteurs et aux émetteurs en démarrage, qui profiteront le plus de l’allègement du fardeau administratif et financier qu’offre la communication semestrielle d’information. Il n’en reste pas moins que sept participants ont une capitalisation boursière de plus de 50 millions de dollars, la plus élevée avoisinant les 235 millions de dollars.

Faire connaître sa décision : pratiques d’information émergentes et facteurs à considérer

Même si la décision générale ne l’exige pas, environ 42 % des participants motivent leur décision d’opter pour la communication semestrielle d’information dans leur annonce. Par contre, le niveau de détail des explications varie considérablement d’un émetteur à l’autre.

La plupart se contentaient d’une seule phrase, tandis que d’autres y allaient plus généreusement, ce qui témoignait de l’écart dans l’évaluation des attentes des actionnaires et des marchés. Dans bien des cas, les explications approfondies comprenaient une analyse des économies attendues et des capacités de gestion supplémentaires qui seraient affectées.

Nous croyons que tout émetteur qui entend opter pour la communication semestrielle d’information devra considérer ce facteur, car le niveau de détail approprié sera probablement tributaire de facteurs propres à chaque émetteur, par exemple : nature de l’émetteur; activités; caractère cyclique des activités et de la production de recettes; composition de l’actionnariat; conjoncture du marché.

Plusieurs participants ont annoncé qu’ils optaient pour la communication semestrielle d’information dans un communiqué de presse traitant de plusieurs sujets. Il y a même des cas où on ne faisait aucune mention de cette décision dans le titre du communiqué, et où les investisseurs pouvaient facilement manquer le passage à la communication semestrielle de l’information. Même si cette pratique ne semble pas contrevenir aux exigences de la décision générale, elle pourrait ne pas cadrer avec la position des ACVM concernant le communiqué de presse, c’est-à-dire « indique[r] au marché de façon transparente la fréquence des prochains dépôts de l’émetteur ».

Dans un cas, un émetteur a annoncé qu’il optait pour la communication semestrielle d’information, mais s’est rétracté par la suite, après avoir déterminé qu’il ne pouvait se prévaloir de la décision générale. Même si la décision générale n’impose pas ce type de rectification, il est néanmoins conforme aux lignes directrices des ACVM, qui incitent les émetteurs à publier un communiqué de presse quand ils cessent de se prévaloir de la décision générale et reviennent à la communication trimestrielle de l’information.

États-Unis : projet de règlement de la SEC

Les ACVM ne sont pas les seules autorités à aller de l’avant avec la communication semestrielle d’information. Le 5 mai 2026, la Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a proposé de nouvelles règles pour permettre à tous les émetteurs des États-Unis de produire l’information semestriellement et non plus trimestriellement (la « proposition de la SEC »).

Selon cette proposition, les émetteurs participants n’auraient qu’à produire un rapport annuel (formulaire 10-K) et un semestriel (formulaire 10-S) par exercice financier.

Soulignons que la proposition de la SEC ne s’applique pas aux obligations d’information des émetteurs étrangers privés, notamment les émetteurs canadiens sous le régime d’information multinational qui ne sont pas assujettis aux obligations d’information trimestrielle (formulaire 10-Q). Par contre, si elle est adoptée dans sa forme actuelle, la proposition de la SEC pourrait entraîner une divergence sensible entre les pratiques d’information des émetteurs assujettis canadiens, surtout ceux qui ne sont pas admissibles au projet pilote, et celles de leurs homologues aux États-Unis.

Prochaines étapes

Nous nous attendons à ce que la participation au projet pilote augmente encore et que les pratiques d’information continuent d’évoluer. Les émetteurs qui entendent opter pour la communication semestrielle d’information doivent évaluer leur admissibilité rigoureusement et bien choisir comment informer efficacement les marchés de leur décision.

L’autrice du présent article tient à remercier Joshua Lewis, stagiaire chez BLG, pour sa contribution.

Nouvelle stratégie canadienne d’électrification : horizon 2050

Fri, 22 May 2026 00:00:00 Z

Le gouvernement fédéral a récemment publié Propulser un Canada fort : une stratégie nationale pour une économie canadienne électrifiée, qui vise à doubler la capacité du pays en énergie électrique d’ici 2050 tout en améliorant la fiabilité, l’abordabilité, la compétitivité et la décarbonation. Le plan nécessitera de consulter les territoires, les communautés autochtones, les services publics, les organismes de réglementation, les clients industriels, les organisations syndicales et les parties prenantes du secteur privé – un processus qui éclairera le cadre de mise en œuvre et les futures mesures législatives et réglementaires liées au développement des infrastructures électriques et aux politiques d’électricité.

Puisqu’il existe différentes réalités pratiques et régionales, la phase de consultation constituera un jalon important dans la mise en pratique du plan fédéral : les provinces se trouvent à des stades différents en ce qui concerne la décarbonation, les marges de réserve, la croissance de la demande et la capacité de transport. On peut donc s’attendre à ce que l’industrie s’intéresse non seulement aux avenues de financement, mais aussi aux normes de fiabilité, à la répartition des coûts entre les provinces, aux délais d’autorisation, à la participation des Autochtones et à la souplesse de la politique fédérale au vu des diverses structures de marché et combinaisons de ressources provinciales. Les services publics et les grands consommateurs industriels pourraient également utiliser la consultation pour aborder le financement de l’accélération de l’électrification et le déploiement du capital à grande échelle.

Points à retenir pour les industries et les investisseurs : mise en œuvre, risques et possibilités

Le Canada vise à doubler la capacité électrique d’ici 2050, en poursuivant ses objectifs d’électrification et de décarbonation.
Les consultations des parties prenantes éclaireront la mise en œuvre, dans un contexte où les systèmes énergétiques diffèrent d’une province à l’autre.
L’élargissement des capacités de transport et la modernisation du réseau sont au cœur de la stratégie nationale d’électrification.
Le plan prévoit des investissements, des crédits d’impôt et des instruments de financement fédéraux pour accélérer le développement des infrastructures.
La compétence provinciale reste déterminante et exige un alignement fédéral-provincial.
Le coût de l’électrification pourrait dépasser les 1 000 milliards de dollars canadiens, ce qui se répercuterait sur les contribuables.
La stratégie consiste en un cadre politique plutôt qu’un plan final; l’exécution reste à préciser.
L’accélération de l’électrification devrait ouvrir d’importantes perspectives dans le développement de projets, les infrastructures de transport, les technologies de réseau, les partenariats avec les Autochtones et la chaîne d’approvisionnement.

Feuille de route pour l’électrification : les grands axes pour élargir le réseau canadien

La feuille de route s’articule autour de quatre axes :

Construire de nouvelles infrastructures de production et de réseau;
Renforcer les axes de transport est-ouest-nord;
Former la main-d’œuvre possédant les qualifications requises par la construction;
Augmenter la fabrication au pays des équipements nécessaires au réseau.

Le gouvernement fédéral songe à modifier le Règlement sur l’électricité propre pour accroître la flexibilité entourant les actifs existants, les compensations et les centrales au gaz naturel dans une optique de fiabilité.

Pour les participants au marché, les implications les plus importantes à moyen terme concernent le développement de projets, la planification du transport, le financement et l’octroi de permis. La stratégie prévoit un recours accru aux crédits d’impôt à l’investissement, au financement par la Banque canadienne d’infrastructure et à d’autres instruments fédéraux, ainsi qu’une nouvelle Stratégie d’investissement dans les interconnexions InterConnect et une réaffirmation du rôle du Bureau des grands projets dans les projets d’électricité d’importance nationale.

Compétences provinciales et considérations réglementaires dans le secteur énergétique canadien

Le contexte constitutionnel et la réglementation des tarifs demeurent déterminants pour le réseau électrique canadien. Au Canada, les projets d’électricité relèvent principalement des provinces, particulièrement en ce qui concerne l’aménagement, la conservation et la gestion des emplacements et des installations de production d’énergie électrique. Si les politiques fédérales peuvent participer à la coordination, au financement et aux incitatifs, les nouvelles infrastructures de production, de transport et de distribution devront être approuvées, intégrées et financées dans le cadre des régimes provinciaux et territoriaux.

Coût de l’électrification au Canada : investissements dans les infrastructures et effets sur les contribuables

Le projet fédéral nécessite une mise en œuvre par les gouvernements provinciaux et certaines municipalités. Bien que la stratégie fédérale prévoit d’éventuelles économies à long terme à l’échelle du système, à court et à moyen terme, les nouvelles infrastructures électriques devraient coûter plus de 1 000 milliards de dollars d’ici 2050 : des coûts considérables qui seront assumés, dans des proportions variables, par les contribuables, les promoteurs de projets et, plus directement pour les réseaux réglementés, par les abonnés des différentes régions.

Crédit d’impôt à l’investissement pour l’électricité propre et soutien fédéral aux projets de transport

La bonification de 15 % proposée pour le crédit d’impôt à l’investissement pour l’électricité propre (qui fait partie d’une série de crédits adoptés par le gouvernement fédéral, décrits ici) représente une nouvelle avancée dans le soutien financier fédéral au réseau de transport. À l’heure actuelle, le crédit se limite aux équipements de transport interprovincial admissibles : la stratégie fédérale propose d’élargir l’admissibilité à certains grands projets de transport interprovincial à haute tension, en complément de l’aide existante pour les interconnexions interprovinciales. Si elle est adoptée, cette mesure représenterait une importante aide fédérale dans un domaine généralement dévolu aux gouvernements provinciaux.

Prochaines étapes

La stratégie doit être considérée non pas comme un plan de mise en œuvre complet, mais comme une intention du fédéral. Son succès dépendra de l’adhésion des provinces, de la répartition des coûts pratiques, de l’obtention rapide des approbations réglementaires, de la participation des Autochtones, de la capacité de la chaîne d’approvisionnement, et de la capacité des gouvernements à concilier les impératifs d’abordabilité et d’investissement. Pour les promoteurs, les investisseurs et les services publics, la période de consultation sera importante : les détails du financement, la planification des interconnexions, la flexibilité réglementaire et la conception de l’approvisionnement détermineront sans doute avec quelle rapidité les projets pourront passer d’ambition politique à réalité.

Faites appel aux spécialistes de BLG en droit de l’énergie et en droit fiscal pour obtenir des conseils sur la stratégie canadienne d’électrification

BLG suit de près l’avancement de la feuille de route et continuera de publier des mises à jour. Si vous avez des questions sur la stratégie ou sur ses implications pour votre entreprise, communiquez avec nos groupes Énergie – Électricité et Fiscalité.

Commercial leasing: New liability regime for landlords comes into force July 1, 2026

Fri, 22 May 2026 00:00:00 Z

Updated: Ontario Regulation 144/26 was published on June 2, 2026, which prescribes an offence under s. 7.1(1)(a) under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada) as a prescribed offence under the Act. O. Reg. 144/26 will also come into force on July 1, 2026.

On May 14, 2026, the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario signed Order in Council 758/2026, which will bring most provisions of the Measures Respecting Premises with Illegal Drug Activity Act, 2025 (the Act) into force on July 1, 2026. Unless exempted by a future regulation, the Act creates a provincial offences regime under which commercial landlords may be prosecuted for knowingly permitting leased premises within their building to be used for producing or trafficking controlled substances, precursors, or cannabis.

While the Act may apply to residential landlords in the future, it remains unclear whether certain classes of landlords (such as not-for-profit, and community and supportive housing landlords) may be exempt.

Legislative background and offence framework

On June 5, 2025, Ontario enacted Bill 10, Protect Ontario Through Safer Streets and Stronger Communities Act, 2025 (Bill 10). This omnibus legislation amended multiple Ontario laws with the stated aim of enhancing public safety.

Among other things, Bill 10 created new obligations for sureties; expanded access to restraining orders; enhanced monitoring of persons who have been convicted of a sexual offence against a child; and provided the police expanded authority to seize tools used in auto theft.

Though not proclaimed into force at the time, Schedule 8 of Bill 10 contained the Act, which creates new provincial offences that:

prohibit landlords from knowingly permitting premises within their buildings to be used in connection with prescribed offences; and
prohibit any person from knowingly possessing the proceeds of an offence under the Act.

The Act imposes harsh penalties for committing these offences, shifting primary responsibility for preventing drug‑related activity onto property owners and operators.

On conviction for knowingly permitting a prescribed offence to occur in their building, an individual landlord may face fines ranging from $10,000 to $250,000 and/or imprisonment for up to 2 years less a day, with fines on a subsequent conviction of $5,000 to $100,000 per day from the date upon which the offence occurred.

A corporate landlord may be fined up to $1,000,000 for a first conviction, and on a subsequent conviction, be fined $10,000 to $500,000 per day from the date upon which the offence occurred.

The Act also grants broad enforcement powers, including authorizing police to close a non‑residential premises, barring entry until final disposition of a charge unless a court orders otherwise. Even with a court order, the landlord must post a cash bond of at least $10,000, which may be forfeited if another charge is laid under the Act in respect of the same premises.

The Act provides that it is a defence to the charge of knowingly permitting a prescribed offence to occur on premises within the landlord’s building where the landlord demonstrates it took “reasonable measures” to prevent the activity giving rise to the offence. While the Act does not offer any guidance as to what might constitute “reasonable measures,” it is anticipated that courts would make a context-specific determination on the particular facts of each case as to whether a landlord took reasonable and proportionate measures in the circumstances.

Coming-into-force scope and practical implications for commercial landlords

A person is a landlord of a premise under the Act if:

the person has leased the premises to a tenant for residential use;
the person has leased the premises to a tenant for commercial use; or
the person is a tenant to whom the premises is leased, whether for residential or commercial use, and has sublet the premises to another person.

Order in Council 758/2026 brings the Act into force on July 1, 2026, but only in respect of commercial landlords under subparagraph (b).

Prosecution under the Act is dependent on regulations prescribing the underlying offences. On Feb. 11, 2026, the Ontario government opened a consultation regarding its proposal to include section 7.1(1)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (being that “No person shall possess, produce, sell, import or transport anything intending that it will be used to produce a controlled substance, unless the production of the controlled substance is lawfully authorized”) as a prescribed offence under the Act. There has been no public update on the result of this consultation, but further information on the regulations under the Act is expected to be released shortly.

Commercial landlords that suspect that drug-related activities may be taking place on premises within their building should consider adopting measures now to assist in establishing a “reasonable measures” defence under the Act. Such measures may include including robust prohibitions in lease agreements, scheduling and documenting regular inspections, promptly reporting suspicious activity, and other measures to demonstrate that the landlord is not a willing or passive participant in their tenant’s drug-related conduct.

Outstanding issues and regulatory uncertainty

For now, there has been no public indication as to when the remainder of the Act will come into force and include landlords who either (a) lease premises to tenants for residential use, or (b) sublet leased premises for either residential or commercial use.

Should residential landlords be brought within the purview of the Act, such landlords will need to be mindful of tenant protections under the Residential Tenancies Act (such as prohibiting landlords from interfering with reasonable enjoyment of the property and from entering residential premises without written notice), as well as the Ontario Human Rights Code when conducting any surveillance or other preventative measures.

It is also not clear at this time whether the government will exempt any classes of landlords from the application of the Act. In the February 2026 consultation, the government sought input on exempting the following classes of persons from the definition of “landlord”:

landlords of retirement homes defined under the Retirement Homes Act, long-term care homes defined under the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, 2021, or educational accommodations (such as student residences or institutional housing);
landlords of premises offering rehabilitative services, therapeutic services, services intended to support employment, services intended to support life skills development, or short-term respite care;
landlords of premises that are subject to the Homes for Special Care Act, or a premises that is a supported group living residence or an intensive support residence under the Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act, 2008;
landlords of living accommodations subject to the Public Hospitals Act, the Private Hospitals Act, the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, or the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017;
landlords of community, supportive, and transitional housing, including non-profit housing providers, housing cooperatives, municipalities, district social services administration boards, local housing corporations, and other non-profit organizations; and
private market landlords of community or supportive housing units (such as private market landlords who own or operate units that receive a government-funded rent supplement).

The results of this public consultation have not been released, and the government has not yet given direction on which (if any) of these aforementioned landlord categories may be exempt.

Several organizations have raised concerns regarding the financial burden and risk the Act places on not-for-profit landlords, whose limited resources may be further depleted by the Act’s implicit expectation that landlords take proactive and preventative measures. The Act also sits in tension with harm-reduction models of care. Some providers have expressed concern that increased surveillance of their tenants may undermine trust-based approaches and deter vulnerable individuals from accessing supportive housing. In this respect, the Act aligns with the province’s broader policy shift away from harm-reduction measures and towards addiction treatment.

We continue to monitor these developments and will update this article as they arise. Should you desire assistance with understanding whether your organization may be subject to the Act beginning July 1, 2026, or developing measures to establish a defence under the Act, BLG lawyers would be happy to assist; reach out to the authors or key contacts below.

No more automatic stay: Five judge panel overrules Handley Estate

Fri, 22 May 2026 00:00:00 Z

On Monday May 19, a five-judge panel of the Court of Appeal for Ontario overruled Handley Estate v. DTE Industries Limited, 2018 ONCA 324, the decision that, for the last eight years, had imposed an automatic stay of the proceeding of any party who failed to immediately disclose a partial settlement agreement that "entirely changed the litigation landscape." In its place, the Court has restored a discretionary abuse-of-process framework and confirmed that the new Rule 49.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, now governing partial settlement agreements, operates consistently with that common law approach.

The problem with the rule in Handley Estate

Under Handley Estate and the cases that followed it, a partial settlement that was found to have altered the litigation landscape had to be disclosed immediately. Failure to do so was automatically treated as an abuse of process, and the only available remedy to judges was a stay of proceedings. The Court of Appeal noted that although the rule was intended to deter strategic non-disclosure, it generated significant criticism within the legal community, including academic articles and judicial attempts to create exceptions to avoid its harshness through flexible interpretations of what constituted a change that “entirely” altered the landscape and what qualified as “immediate” disclosure. The Court also noted that new Rule 49.14, which came into force in 2025, was enacted specifically to address the uncertainty and harsh consequences that had developed under the Handley Estate line of cases.

The Court of Appeal therefore convened a five-judge panel to hear four appeals¹ from decisions that engaged in the Handley Estate analysis and consider whether to overrule the Court’s earlier precedent. The unanimous five-judge panel concluded that Handley Estate—which was decided less than a decade ago—was wrongly decided and should be overruled.

The Court held that its previous decision in Handley Estate was inconsistent with the foundational principles of abuse of process, as these principles require a contextual, discretionary inquiry into unfairness, prejudice, oppression, or harm to the administration of justice, and a proportionate remedy. The decision in Handley Estate and the considerable jurisprudence that followed was contrary to these principles as it mandated a finding of abuse of process without any inquiry into prejudice, and the most severe remedy regardless of the gravity of the conduct. The Court held that overruling Handley Estate would prevent disproportionate outcomes, resolve uncertainty around its interaction with the new Rule 49.14, and assist other provinces that had begun importing the rule in recent years.

The new order—judicial discretion is restored

With Handley Estate overruled, the Court confirmed that the common law and Rule 49.14 now operate harmoniously. Overall, Rule 49.14 establishes a clear procedural regime for partial settlements in multi-party proceedings, including when disclosure must be made and what information must be provided to the court and to non-settling parties. In doing so, it expands the disclosure obligation to all partial settlement agreements, rather than only those that “entirely” change the litigation landscape and replaces the automatic stay with a range of discretionary remedies.

The Court of Appeal emphasized that a breach of r. 49.14 is a “strong indicator” of abuse of process, but is not determinative, and whether an abuse has occurred, and what remedy is appropriate, remains a contextual and discretionary exercise under both the Rule and the common law. In this way, the Court held that Rule 49.14 reflects, rather than displaces, the approach that the common law would have reached had it continued to develop free from the rigid framework imposed by Handley Estate.

Key takeaways

The decision has immediate practical implications for litigants. Firstly, a stay of proceedings is no longer the default remedy for a failure to disclose a partial settlement agreement, and will likely be reserved for the clearest cases. Parties seeking a stay will need to establish meaningful prejudice to their litigation position or to the integrity of the judicial process.

At the same time, because of Rule 49.14, the disclosure obligation is broader than it was under Handley Estate, as Rule 49.14 applies to all partial settlement agreements, not only those that significantly alter the litigation landscape.

Finally, the Court clarified appellate jurisdiction in this context. Orders granting a stay remain final and are appealable to the Court of Appeal as of right. Orders denying a stay, or imposing lesser remedies, are generally interlocutory and appealable to the Divisional Court with leave.

Federal Financial Institutions Legislative and Regulatory Reporter – March 2026

Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 Z

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

March 2026

Published	Title and Brief Summary	Status (if applicable)
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI)
March 30, 2026	Notice of Changes to Minimum Base Assessments OSFI has issued a letter to all federally-regulated financial institutions that lays out adjusted minimum base assessments applicable to federally regulated financial institutions for the 2026/27 fiscal year (April 1, 2026 – March 31, 2027), pursuant to section 3(2) of the Assessment of Financial Institutions Regulations, 2017.	Covers the 2026/27 fiscal year (starting April 1, 2026).
March 23, 2026	FIFAI II: AI Risks and Opportunities: Adopting an AGILE Framework in Canadian Financial Services Between May and November 2025, four workshops sponsored by Global Risk Institute (GRI) with a combination of OSFI, Finance Canada, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC), and the Bank of Canada across them, examined AI risks, mitigants, and opportunities. Interim reports covered: Security & Cybersecurity (May 29) Financial Crime (October 1) Financial Stability (October 29) Financial Well-being & Consumer Protection (November 13) This FIFAI II final report outlines the AI risks and opportunities raised at forum workshops and introduces the AGILE framework for financial-industry stakeholders to navigate the evolving impacts of AI. It reflects views and insights from individual FIFAI speakers and participants.
March 20, 2026	2026 Memorandum - Earthquake Exposure Data OSFI has issued a letter to Property and Casualty Companies reminding them that they must file the Earthquake Data Form for the reporting year 2026 by May 31, 2026. OSFI has also requested that insurers submit, on a voluntary basis, additional data as a supplemental filing to support their exploratory analysis of catastrophe risk.	Form is due May 31, 2026.
March 19, 2026	2026 Mortgage Insurer Capital Adequacy Test - Filing Instructions All federally regulated mortgage insurance companies are required to complete a uniform Mortgage Insurer Capital Adequacy Test (MICAT) return each quarter. The MICAT return is designed to enable regulators to monitor the financial condition and operating results of mortgage insurers, as well as certain compliance requirements. OSFI has issued filing instructions for the Mortgage Insurer Capital Adequacy Test and is also soliciting feedback on the MICAT return and instructions.	No deadline provided for feedback.
Bank of Canada
March 27, 2026	Expanded Responsibilities for the Bank In an email bulletin to stakeholders, the Bank of Canada notes that, with Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1 (Bill C-15) having received Royal Assent, its responsibilities are being expanded to include digital finance and payments, and that it will assume two new mandates: supervision of stablecoin issuers and oversight of the framework for consumer-driven banking. It states that it will work closely with the Department of Finance Canada as it develops and implements these regimes. Its work in the coming months will include: contributing to the development of regulations; developing supervisory policies and guidelines; engaging with industry and other stakeholders; preparing operational frameworks for oversight.
March 3, 2026	Retail Payments Supervision: Annual Reporting Deadline – March 31 In an email bulletin to stakeholders, the Bank of Canada issued a reminder to registered Payment Service Providers (PSPs) to submit their annual report. The bulletin also notes that the Bank has updated its wording in registration notices to reinforce expectations about how PSPs may communicate their registration status to the public.	Deadline for submitting annual reports was March 31, 2026.
Finance Canada
March 30, 2026	Consultation – National Anti-Fraud Strategy This consultation seeks feedback on proposed measures for a National Anti-Fraud Strategy designed to enhance anti-fraud efforts across Canada's financial and telecommunications sectors, as well as digital platforms.	Comments were due by April 28, 2026.
Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC)
March 2, 2026	Guideline on Disclosure in Sales and Business Practices: Code of Conduct for the Payment Card Industry in Canada The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada has issued a Guideline on Disclosure in Sales and Business Practices: Code of Conduct for the Payment Card Industry in Canada. This states its expectations with respect to the obligations of Payment Card Network Operators (PCNOs) and their Acquirers and Downstream Participants to disclose information in accordance with Policy Element 1 of the Code of Conduct for the Payment Card Industry in Canada (the Code). The Code was introduced in 2010 and revised in 2024; it requires PCNOs adopting the Code to abide by its requirements and require compliance by their participants; and incorporate the Code, in its entirety, into the contracts they use with their participants or into their governing rules and regulation. They are expected to read this Guideline together with the Code and all applicable legislation, regulations, and FCAC guidance.	Effective March 2, 2026.
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)
March 2, 2026	March 2, 2026 – FINTRAC Advisory: Financial Transactions Related to Countries Identified by the Financial Action Task Force This document, issued following the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) plenary meeting in February 2026, advises reporting entities of concerns about deficiencies in the anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist activity financing systems of certain countries.
Bank for International Settlements (BIS)
March 24, 2026	Basel Committee on Banking Supervision: Basel III Monitoring Report To assess the impact of the Basel III framework on banks, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision monitors the effects and dynamics of the reforms. As such, a semiannual monitoring framework has been set up for the risk-based capital ratio, the leverage ratio and liquidity metrics, using data collected by national supervisors on a representative sample of institutions in each country. The Committee has issued its latest Basel III Monitoring Report, a quantitative impact study setting out the impact of the Basel III framework, as of June 2025. Highlights of the monitoring exercise include: Basel III liquidity ratios increased in the first half of 2025 while risk-based capital and leverage ratios remained stable. The average impact of the Basel III framework on the Tier 1 minimum required capital (MRC) of Group 1 banks decreased, driven by implementation progress.
March 23, 2026	Basel Committee on Banking Supervision: Finalization of Technical Amendment and Frequently Asked Questions The Basel Committee has issued a final technical amendment to the Basel Framework. The amendment had been published for consultation in June 2025; it has been finalized with some adjustments. The technical amendment is related to the standardized approach to operational risk, and it is meant to clarify the treatment of “rental income from investment properties” under the business indicator (BI), which is used as a key input in calculating operational risk capital requirements. This document also adds an FAQ to the Basel Framework, and amends related FAQs, which are shown in marked-up versions.	Basel Committee has committed to implement final revised standard by April 1, 2029.
Financial Action Task Force (FATF)
March 3, 2026	Targeted Report on Stablecoins and Unhosted Wallets - Peer-to-Peer Transactions FATF has issued Targeted Report on Stablecoins and Unhosted Wallets, which highlights that stablecoins have expanded rapidly, with over 250 in circulation by mid-2025 and a market capitalization exceeding US$300 billion. The report highlights illicit finance risks linked to criminals' misuse of stablecoins, particularly through peer-to-peer (P2P) transactions via unhosted wallets, and sets out recommended actions for countries and the private sector to strengthen controls to protect the integrity of the financial system.
Financial Stability Board (FSB)
March 12, 2026	FSB Kicks off New Implementation Phase to Enhance Cross-Border Payments through Public-Private Partnership At its FSB Cross-border Payments Summit, FSB announced a new phase of its work to implement the G20 Roadmap to enhance cross-border payments. This next phase will focus on two aspects of the Roadmap: Encouraging the development of jurisdictional and regional action plans by public authorities to drive domestic and regional implementation; and Promoting private-sector action and closer private-public collaboration, with industry playing a decisive role in delivering real benefits for end users.
International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS)
March 31, 2026	IAIS Concludes Multi-Year Cycle of Holistic Framework Implementation Assessments IAIS reports that it has completed a cycle of assessing implementation of the supervisory material of the Holistic Framework for systemic risk in the insurance sector. In connection with this milestone, it has issued two publications: 2025 Targeted Jurisdictional Assessment (TJA), which evaluates six new jurisdictions supervising 10 Internationally Active Insurance Groups (IAIGs), following an original assessment of 10 major markets in 2022; An update on progress made by the 10 original major insurance market jurisdictions in addressing implementation gaps identified in the 2022 TJA. These two reports are intended to provide a full picture of the global insurance sector’s progress in systemic risk mitigation, particularly in macroprudential supervision and international crisis management, while identifying areas for improvement, including resolution and liquidity risk disclosure.
Legislation
March 26, 2026	Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1, SC 2026, c. 3 (Bill C-15) Bill C-15 received Royal Assent on March 26, 2026. Among its provisions to implement the 2025 Federal Budget, the following measures of Bill C-15 affect federally regulated financial institutions. Division 9 of Part 5 repeals the Consumer-Driven Banking Act and enacts a new Consumer-Driven Banking Act to ensure that individuals and businesses can safely and securely share their data with the participating entities of their choice. That Act addresses, among other things, accreditation, national security, data sharing, security safeguards, consent, authentication, liability, complaints, administration and enforcement and screen scraping. The Division also makes related amendments to the Access to Information Act, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1. Division 10 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to extend the period during which federal financial institutions governed by those Acts may carry on business. Division 11 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things, modernize prudential limits by repealing certain provisions that impose limits on federally regulated financial institutions with respect to debt obligations and borrowing, consumer and commercial loans and investments in real property and equity. Division 12 of Part 5 amends the Bank Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act and the Insurance Companies Act to allow for the electronic delivery of certain documents to shareholders, members and policyholders without their consent, while ensuring that they receive paper copies if they request them. Division 13 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to increase the equity threshold related to the public holding requirement from $2 billion to $4 billion and to make changes to other provisions that include that threshold. Division 14 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to, among other things, (a) clarify the powers of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in respect of the adherence by federally regulated financial institutions to their policies and procedures to protect themselves against threats to their integrity or security; (b) provide the Superintendent of Financial Institutions with powers to issue directions of compliance in respect of unsafe or unsound practices in the conduct of the affairs of those financial institutions; and (c) provide that the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is not prevented from disclosing information to any federal government agency or body for purposes related to the Superintendent’s regulation or supervision of financial institutions. Division 15 of Part 5 amends the Bank Act to raise the amount of funds that can be withdrawn immediately from a retail deposit account after the deposit of a cheque or other instrument and to remove the delay for the withdrawal of funds deposited by a cheque or other instrument that is not deposited in person. Division 16 of Part 5 amends the Bank Act to, among other things, (a) prohibit the activation of certain capabilities for a personal deposit account in Canada without the express consent of the natural person in whose name the account is kept; (b) permit a natural person in whose name such an account is kept to deactivate certain account capabilities; (c) permit a natural person in whose name such an account is kept to adjust certain transaction limits on the account; (d) require institutions to establish policies and procedures for detecting and preventing consumer-targeted fraud and mitigating its impacts; and (e) require institutions and the Commissioner of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to prepare annual reports on consumer-targeted fraud. Division 17 of Part 5 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, the Bank Act and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to support the growth of federal credit unions, including by way of amalgamation or asset acquisition and by permitting them to engage in motor vehicle leasing in certain circumstances. Division 18 of Part 5 makes amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act consequential to amendments to the Special Economic Measures Act. Division 37 of Part 5 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to (a) clarify that all regulations made under that Act are to be made on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance; (b) clarify that paragraph 36(3.‍01)‍(b) of that Act applies to donations that are not charitable donations; and (c) prohibit the disclosure of reports, or the information contained in them, related to discrepancies in information discovered in the course of verifying the identity of persons having beneficial ownership or control of an entity. It also amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Regulations to (a) clarify that paragraph 138(5)‍(b) of those Regulations applies to donations that are not charitable donations; and (b) clarify the application of those Regulations to mortgage administrators, mortgage brokers and mortgage lenders. Division 45 of Part 5 enacts the Stablecoin Act, which imposes duties on persons that create stablecoins and make them available for purchase, directly or indirectly, by persons in Canada. That Act sets out the objects of the Bank of Canada in respect of stablecoin and requires the Bank to maintain a public registry of stablecoin issuers. That Act also addresses, among other things, the redemption of stablecoins by issuers, the reserve of assets that issuers must maintain to fulfill their redemption obligations and the policies that they must establish. The Division also makes consequential and related amendments to the Access to Information Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Retail Payment Activities Act.	Royal Assent March 26, 2026 Part 5, Division 9 in force March 26, 2026. Part 5, Division 10 in force March 26, 2026. Part 5, Division 11 in force on proclamation. Part 5, Division 12 in force March 26, 2026. Part 5, Division 13 in force March 26, 2026. Part 5, Division 14 in force March 26, 2026. Part 5, Division 15 in force on proclamation. Part 5, Division 16 in force on proclamation. Part 5, Division 17 in force on proclamation, except ss. 337, 339(1), 340, 343, 344, 348, 349, 351 in force March 26, 2026. Part 5, Division 18 in force March 26, 2026. Part 5, Division 37 in force on Royal Assent, except s. 584 deemed to have come into force on October 1, 2025 immediately after the coming into force of section 8 of the Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made Under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, SOR/2024-267. Part 5, Division 45, s. 600 (enacting the Stablecoin Act) in force on proclamation; ss. 601 to 605 in force on proclamation.
March 26, 2026	Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act, SC 2026, c. 4 (Bill C-12) Bill C-12 received Royal Assent on March 26, 2026. Bill C-12 enacts provisions put forward by Bill C-2, Strong Borders Act that are aimed at combating transnational organized crime, money laundering and the immigration system. Bill C-12 would amend several Acts and regulations impacting financial institutions. Part 9 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things, (a) Increase the maximum administrative monetary penalties that may be imposed for certain violations and the maximum punishments that may be imposed for certain criminal offences under that Act; (b) Replace the existing optional compliance agreement regime with a new mandatory compliance agreement regime that, among other things, (i) Requires every person or entity that receives an administrative monetary penalty for a prescribed violation to enter into a compliance agreement with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (the Centre), (ii) Requires the Director of the Centre to make a compliance order if the person or entity refuses to enter into a compliance agreement or fails to comply with such an agreement, and (iii) Designates the contravention of a compliance order as a new violation under that Act; (c) Require persons or entities referred to in section 5 of that Act, other than those already required to register, to enroll with the Centre; and (d) Authorize the Centre to disclose certain information to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, subject to certain conditions. Part 9 also makes consequential and related amendments to the Retail Payment Activities Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations and includes transitional provisions. Part 10 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to make the Director of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada a member of the committee established under subsection 18(1) of that Act. It also amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to enable the Director to exchange information with the other members of that committee.	Royal Assent March 26, 2026 Part 9 largely in force March 26, 2026, with sections 76(3), 77, 80, 82, 87(2), (4), 88, 89(1), 91 to 93, 105(2) and 113 to come into force on proclamation. Part 10 in force March 26, 2026.
March 26, 2026	Bill C-8, Act Respecting Cyber Security, Amending the Telecommunications Act and Making Consequential Amendments to other Acts Bill C-8 establishes a regulatory framework to protect systems and services essential to public safety or national security. Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act to add the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system as an objective of the Canadian telecommunications policy and to authorize the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system. Part 2 enacts the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act (CCSPA) to provide a framework for the protection of the critical cyber systems of services and systems that are vital to national security or public safety and that are delivered or operated as part of a work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of Parliament. The CCSPA imposes onerous cyber security obligations on “designated operators” of federally regulated critical cyber systems. These operators carry out vital services or systems (that is, infrastructure essential to preserving national security and public safety). These obligations include, among others: Developing, maintaining, and regularly reviewing cyber security programs (CSPs); Reporting material changes in ownership, control, or use of third-party products and services to the appropriate regulator, as to mitigate supply-chain and third-party risks; and preserving detailed records of cyber security programs and incidents. The CCSPA delegates broad, sector-specific powers to the appropriate regulators, including banking systems overseen by OSFI and the clearing and settlement systems overseen by the Bank of Canada. The CCPSA will allow the regulators to, inter alia, enter any place (subject to limitations) to examine records and data, order internal audits, and issue compliance orders. The CCPSA also introduces significant administrative monetary penalties for violations. While the proposed regime is designed to promote compliance, fines could amount to $15 million per violation, per day, for organizations, and $1 million per violation, per day, for individuals. Moreover, directors and officers of designated operators could be held personally liable if they were complicit in committing a violation.	Passed by the House of Commons March 26, 2026; Senate First Reading March 26, 2026 Act in force on proclamation.
March 26, 2026	Bill C-13, Act to implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Bill C-13 implements the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, done July 16, 2023. It includes consequential amendments to the definition of “regulated foreign entity” in sections 2 of the Bank Act, Insurance Companies Act and Trust and Loan Companies Act respectively.	Senate Second Reading March 26, 2026. Act comes into force on proclamation.

Disclaimer

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

U.S. expands Tariff Offset Regime to medium and heavy-duty vehicle sector

Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 Z

On May 15, 2026, the United States has expanded its Section 232 tariff mitigation framework to include medium- and heavy-duty vehicle (MHDV) manufacturers.

Key takeaways

These measures broaden the access to import adjustment offsets and aligning treatment across the automotive sector considering the overlap in automotive and MHDV supply chains. The offsets are a form of tariff relief that allow eligible U.S. manufacturers to reduce duties payable on imported vehicle parts based on the value of vehicles they assemble domestically and may be carried forward until fully utilized. Manufacturers in both sectors may now use these offsets to reduce tariffs across both automobile and MHDV parts, reflecting the overlap in their supply chains.

What’s new?

The Department of Commerce has amended its offset procedures to implement Proclamation 10984. U.S. domestic MHDV manufacturers can now apply for import adjustment offsets—previously available only to automobile manufacturers—for tariffs imposed on MHDV and automobile parts.

How the Regime works

Eligible U.S. manufacturers may offset tariff liability by an amount equal to 3.75 per cent of the value of vehicles assembled domestically during specified annual periods through 2030. Offsets may be applied against tariffs on both MHDV parts and automobile parts and can be carried forward indefinitely until fully used.

Important limitation

Certain heavy-duty vehicle assembly operations determined to be “limited production operations” are excluded from being eligible for the offset. This means that heavy-duty vehicle production that includes incorporating an imported chassis, chassis glider, chassis with engine, or engine in the vehicle, is not eligible for offsets under the Offset Process. No equivalent restriction currently applies to automobiles or medium-duty vehicles.

Compliance burden and documentation

Applicants must submit detailed annual filings, including production forecasts, valuation methodologies, tariff exposure estimates, and certifications. The U.S. Department of Commerce retains oversight authority and may adjust offsets based on actual production outcomes.

What this means for industry

Expanded offset access for MHDV manufacturers reduces effective tariff exposure.
Increased compliance obligations and scrutiny of production structures.
Continued policy evolution monitoring, particularly regarding the definition of “limited production operations” for other vehicle classes.

Plead carefully: SCC clarifies cause of action estoppel and limits on relitigation

Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 Z

In Patrick Street Holdings Ltd. v. 11368 NL Inc., 2026 SCC 15, the Supreme Court of Canada held that cause of action estoppel barred the appellant from advancing a new theory in a second proceeding to support its entitlement to mortgage proceeds. The Court’s decision is an important reminder that litigants must bring forward all reasonably available arguments in the first proceeding, and subsequent attempts to relitigate the same underlying cause of action will likely be barred. Respondents must raise res judicata at first instance to rely on its protections, including by properly pleading the underlying material facts.

Background

The dispute arose from a commercial property owned by 11368 NL Inc. and encumbered by multiple mortgages. Patrick Street Holdings Ltd. was one of the secured creditors.

Following a default, Patrick Street exercised its power of sale and prepared an accounting of the sale proceeds. The accounting included a $4 million collateral mortgage in Patrick Street’s favour. In earlier proceedings in 2016, competing encumbrancers challenged the accounting. The court ultimately excluded Patrick Street’s $4 million mortgage from the distribution of the proceeds, which was upheld on appeal.

In 2019, 11368 NL Inc. brought a separate application seeking payment of the remaining proceeds. In response, Patrick Street asserted new arguments supporting its entitlement to the excluded $4 million mortgage. Both the application judge and the Court of Appeal rejected Patrick Street’s position on the basis that the issue had already been determined. The Court of Appeal further found that Patrick Street’s claim was barred by the cause of action estoppel.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision

The test for cause of action estoppel

The Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed the long-standing test for cause of action estoppel, which has four parts:

there must be a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction;
the parties must be the same or in privity;
the cause of action must not be separate and distinct; and
the arguments advanced in the later proceeding were, or could reasonably have been, advanced earlier through reasonable diligence.

The Court provided new direction on the third and fourth stage of the test, emphasizing that (i) the analysis turns on substance rather than the manner in which claims are framed, and that (ii) courts must focus on the underlying set of material facts giving rise to the claim and assess whether additional legal theories could have been pursued earlier with reasonable diligence.

Applying this framework, the Court held that the 2016 and 2019 proceedings involved the same cause of action and barred Patrick Street from re-litigating its entitlement to the mortgage proceeds, as each proceeding required a determination of the validity, value and priority of encumbrances arising from the sale proceeds. Patrick Street’s attempt in the later proceeding to rely on new contractual interpretations and evidentiary arguments was simply a new legal theory grounded in the same material facts.

Limited residual discretion

The Court acknowledged that courts retain a narrow residual discretion to decline to apply cause of action estoppel where doing so would result in an injustice. That discretion is exceptional and typically arises only in cases of procedural unfairness.

No such circumstances were present. The earlier proceeding had fully and fairly adjudicated the accounting, and finality weighed decisively in favour of estoppel.

A functional approach to pleading res judicata

The Court confirmed that parties seeking to rely on res judicata as a defence must plead or raise it at the earliest opportunity, emphasizing a functional approach to pleading. In particular, the Supreme Court held that:

the obligation to plead res judicata is satisfied where a party pleads the material facts giving rise to the estoppel;
it is not necessary to expressly use the term “res judicata”; and
the central inquiry is whether the opposing party had fair notice of the case it was required to meet.

On the record before it, the Supreme Court concluded that the respondent had adequately raised the doctrine of res judicata through its pleadings and submissions.

Dissenting opinions

Three justices dissented in two separate sets of reasons, each raising distinct concerns about the application of cause of action estoppel in the circumstances.

Justice Côté would have declined to use res judicata to bar Patrick Street’s claim and would have allowed the appeal. She found that res judicata must be raised in the first instance—in this case, before the application judge—and that 11368 NL Inc. had failed to do so. Further, she took a narrower view of the doctrine itself, finding that the later claim was not sufficiently identical in substance to justify foreclosing it through estoppel, as the 2016 proceeding pertained only to the determination of encumbrances of other creditors.

Justice Martin, joined by Justice Karakatsanis, similarly would have found that 11368 NL Inc. failed to raise res judicata at first instance, but did not agree that a party should be barred from raising it for the first time on appeal. In their view, the earlier accounting decision did not finally determine Patrick Street’s contractual entitlement under the $4 million collateral mortgage and they would have exercised the Court’s residual discretion to permit the claim to proceed on its merits.

Key takeaways

The decision underscores the need for parties to carefully assess, plead, and advance all reasonably available arguments at the earliest opportunity in proceedings involving overlapping factual foundations. In particular, parties should be mindful of the following considerations when structuring and litigating claims arising from the same factual matrix:

Cause of action estoppel requires parties to advance all reasonably available legal theories arising from the same material facts in the initial proceeding.
Reframing a claim or advancing a new legal argument based on the same factual foundation will not avoid estoppel.
The residual discretion to decline estoppel is narrow and exceptional and will not be exercised absent genuine procedural unfairness.
The decision reinforces finality as a central organizing principle of civil procedure – litigants are generally entitled to one opportunity to advance their case.
Pleading res judicata is assessed functionally: material facts must be pleaded to provide fair notice, but formal terminology is not required.