People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Legal

Calgary

Edmonton

Montréal

Ottawa

Toronto

Vancouver

New York

Emrys Davis

Commercial Litigation, Competition and Class Action Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

Michael A. Eizenga L.S.M.

Leading Canadian Class Action Litigator at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner 

Gannon Beaulne

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

In our 2025 edition of Looking Forward, we review notable class action developments from the past year and consider what recent trends in the law might tell us about what to expect in the years ahead.

Class Actions Looking Forward 2025

Class Actions: Looking Forward 2025

Ashley L. Paterson

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The evidentiary burden on plaintiffs to have a case certified­—i.e., the “some basis in fact” standard—has been described as a “low bar” in countless cases. Plaintiffs cite the “low bar” in trying to certify their cases, and defendants respond with their own favourable quotes from the case law, noting that this evidentiary burden is not “merely a speed bump” and that the evidence required to support certification must be subject to something more than “superficial scrutiny”.

British Columbia Grapples With Evidentiary Issues and the Requirement for a Workable Methodology

Health Canada is proposing to amend the Food and Drug Regulations, <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._870/index.html" target="_blank">C.R.C., c.870</a> (the FDRs) and the Medical Device Regulations, <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-282/" target="_blank">SOR/98-282</a> (the MDRs) in an effort to avoid pharmaceutical and medical device shortages and discontinuances. Through a consultation process, Health Canada is seeking input on the proposed amendments and draft guides from manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers and other industry stakeholders.

Health Canada Consultation on Proposed Amendments to Address Drug and Medical Device

Health Canada Consultation on Proposed Amendments to Address Drug and Medical Device Shortages in Canada

In Bosco v Mentor Worldwide LLC, 2024 BCSC 1931, the plaintiffs alleged that Mentor's silicone gel-filled breast implants, MemoryGel, caused adverse health effects, including connective tissue disorders and autoimmune symptoms. They argued that Mentor did not adequately warn patients and surgeons about these risks and that Mentor breached consumer protection and competition legislation. Mentor consented to certain proposed common issues. The court agreed with Mentor that the remaining common issues should not be certified.

BC Supreme Court Denies Certification of Contested Common Issues in Mentor Breast Implant Litigation

B.C. Supreme Court Denies Certification of Contested Common Issues in Mentor Breast Implant Litigation

Lorelei Graham

Food and Agribusiness Lawyer, IP Lawyer, Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Across the Atlantic, the European Union (EU) and its member states have also been encouraging climate-resilient agri-tech innovation, but their approach to intellectual property incentives has been a bit different. The European Union has set ambitious climate goals (like achieving climate neutrality by 2050) and launched the European Green Deal, a broad policy agenda to support sustainable technologies. While funding and regulations (such as support for sustainable farming practices) are big parts of the EU strategy, there is also recognition that IP rights play an important role in fostering innovation. However, unlike Canada or the recent US pilot program, Europe has not implemented a unified “green channel” for patent examination at the European Patent Office.

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part III

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part III: Green Without the Label: Europe's Pragmatic IP Approach to Agri-Tech Innovation

Steven L. Major KC

Commercial Dispute, Construction, Fraud, Police and Personal Injury Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Drew C. Broughton

Corporate Commercial and M&A Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Kevin Myson

Corporate, Commercial Transaction, Energy, Natural Resource and M&A Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Canada is navigating a "wild frontier" in the energy industry, with a unique opportunity to forge successful and sustainable partnerships both domestically and internationally. This was the rallying call at the Energy Business Forum during the 74th Canadian Energy Executive Association (CEEA) conference in Banff, Alberta, where industry leaders gathered to share visions for the future of Canada's energy landscape.

Key Takeaways From the Wild Frontier Energy Business Forum CEEA 74

Key Takeaways From the "Wild Frontier" Energy Business Forum at CEEA '74

Melanie Teetaert

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Jennifer (Jenn) K. Choi

Associate

Maruska Giacchetto

This article examines the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in J.P. Thomson Architects Ltd. v Greater Essex County District School Board, 2025 ONCA 378, which provides critical clarification on the interpretation of multi-step dispute resolution (MSDR) clauses. MSDR clauses, commonly used in commercial contracts, outline escalating steps such as negotiation, mediation, and arbitration to resolve disputes. The Court addressed ambiguities in the drafting of MSDR timelines, emphasizing that specified timeframes should be interpreted as minimum waiting periods rather than strict deadlines. The decision overturned a lower court ruling that barred a party from arbitration due to a perceived failure to meet a 30-day mediation request deadline. This article highlights the importance of precise drafting in MSDR clauses, discusses the implications of the Court's decision, and provides practical guidance for parties drafting or negotiating dispute resolution provisions in commercial agreements.

Do you need to rush to mediate - Ontario Court of Appeal

Do You Need to Rush to Mediate? Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies Interpretation of Multi-Step Dispute Resolution Clause

The United States has long been a major player in both agri-tech innovation and the intellectual property (IP) landscape. In the past, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) offered its own version of a green patent fast-track to encourage climate-friendly inventions. Notably, in 2009 to 2011 the USPTO ran a Green Technology Pilot Program that prioritized examination for certain eco-friendly patents. The pilot ended in 2012, but more recently the USPTO brought back the idea in June 2022, with the Climate Change Mitigation Pilot Program, which was essentially an accelerated examination program for patent applications directed to fight climate change. Under this program, inventions designed to reduce or monitor greenhouse gas emissions, including many clean energy, sustainability or climate-smart agriculture innovations, could be examined out of turn. Importantly, like Canada’s program, the US pilot did not charge the usual petition fee for expediting. The goal was to spur green tech by making it faster and cheaper to secure IP rights.

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part II

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part II: Innovation Interrupted: What the End of the USPTO's Green Program Means for Agri-Tech

Climate change is driving a surge in agricultural technology (agri-tech) innovations aimed at making farming more resilient and sustainable. From drought-resistant crops to carbon-capturing soil techniques, these climate-focused agri-tech solutions are crucial for global food security. An often-overlooked piece of this puzzle is intellectual property (IP) strategy, namely how patents and other IP rights are used to protect and incentivize innovation.

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part I

Fast Tracks and Green Gaps Part I: Planting the Future: Why Canada's IP System May Be the Climate Innovation Sleeper Hit

American Bar Association Women in Litigation Joint Conference

Authors


Bennett Jones Speaking Engagement American Bar Association Women in Litigation Joint Conference November 15, 2017 Authors Ashley L. PatersonPartner Ashley Paterson speaks at the American Bar Association Women in Litigation Joint Conference on Strategies for Managing Cross-Border Product Liability Litigation. Share by Email Social Media Download Download Subscribe Republishing Requests For permission to republish this or any other publication, contact Amrita Kochhar at kochhara@bennettjones.com. For informational purposes only This publication provides an overview of legal trends and updates for informational purposes only. For personalized legal advice, please contact the authors. Authors Ashley L. Paterson, Partner Toronto • 416.777.7456 • patersona@bennettjones.com