Filtered Insights

The Supreme Court clarifies Canada’s methods of medical treatment doctrine

Fri, 17 Jul 2026 00:00:00 Z

On July 17, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada released its long-awaited decision in Pharmascience Inc. v. Janssen Inc., 2026 SCC 26, providing the most significant guidance in decades on the patentability of methods of medical treatment in Canada. While the Court ultimately upheld Janssen's patent, which the Court characterized as being for dosing regimens for formulations used to treat schizophrenia, the broader significance of the decision lies in its clarification of how subject matter should be assessed to determine if it defines non-patentable methods of medical treatment.

Background

The evolution of the method of medical treatment doctrine

Unlike many exclusions from patentability, the prohibition of patenting methods of medical treatment (MMT) does not appear anywhere in the Patent Act. Instead, it emerged through the common law, most notably from the Supreme Court's decision in Tennessee Eastman.

In Tennessee Eastman, the Court held that a surgical method did not constitute patentable subject matter because it related to the exercise of professional skill rather than an “art” within the meaning of the Patent Act.

Over the decades that followed, that reasoning expanded beyond surgical procedures, and Courts were increasingly asked whether therapeutic methods involving pharmaceuticals likewise crossed the line into unpatentable subject matter. While a new drug could constitute patentable subject matter, greater difficulty arose where patents claimed how a drug should be administered, particularly where treatment depended on dosage adjustments, treatment schedules, or patient-specific considerations.

In attempting to distinguish patentable pharmaceutical inventions from unpatentable methods of medical treatment, the Canadian Courts considered a variety of recurring factors when attempting to assess if a claim required the exercise of professional skill and judgement, including:

whether the claim recited a fixed dosage regimen or a range requiring adjustment;
whether treatment required ongoing individualized clinical decision-making; and
whether the claimed invention more closely resembled a vendible product than the exercise of a professional medical skill.

The difficulty was that professional skill and judgement is not referred to in the Patent Act itself and no single factor led to a comprehensive legal framework.

The dispute before the Supreme Court

The present dispute arose with respect to Janssen’s Canadian Patent No. 2,655,335, whose claims recite specific dosage regimens for paliperidone used in the treatment of schizophrenia. The patent teaches a dosing schedule involving the administration of particular loading and maintenance doses.

The Federal Court in Janssen Inc. v. Pharmascience Inc., 2022 FC 1218 recognized that the existing jurisprudence related to methods of medical treatment had largely developed around a distinction between fixed and variable dosing regimens. Under that line of inquiry, claims directed to specific dosage amounts and fixed administration schedules were generally considered patentable subject matter, whereas claims requiring a physician to select a dose or treatment schedule from within a range were more likely to be characterized as unpatentable methods of medical treatment. Although the Federal Court questioned the theoretical foundation of this dichotomy, it acknowledged that this remained the prevailing state of the law.¹

The Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) in Pharmascience Inc. v Janssen Inc., 2024 FCA 23 held, and what ultimately became the guiding rule until now, was that the fixed versus variable dosage distinction was not the correct test. Rather, the proper inquiry was whether use of the invention (not whether to use it) required the exercise of skill and judgement. Importantly, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that this assessment inherently turned on the particular claims and evidence in each case.²

At the heart of Pharmascience's appeals was the contention that Janssen's patented dosing regimen crossed the line from a patentable pharmaceutical innovation into an unpatentable method of medical treatment that attempted to monopolize a physician’s judgement on “how” and “when” to administer the drugs.

The Supreme Court’s analysis

Before turning to Janssen's patent itself, the Supreme Court addressed the broader question: Are methods of medical treatment non-patentable subject matter under Canadian law?

The Court's answer was unequivocal.

From the opening paragraphs of the decision, the Court repeatedly characterized the doctrine as settled Canadian law. For more than fifty years, Canadian courts have consistently treated methods of medical treatment as unpatentable subject matter, and the Court emphasized that no Canadian court has held otherwise. In language rarely seen on a question of patent doctrine, the Court noted that it was being asked to "disrupt this settled law" and declined to do so.³

Importantly, the Court rejected Janssen's submission that the MMT doctrine disappeared with the repeal of former section 41(1) of the Patent Act. The Court concluded that the doctrine has been reaffirmed repeatedly by subsequent jurisprudence, is rooted in the broader principle that professional skills are not patentable and has become an established part of Canadian patent law independent of the former statutory provision.

In doing so, the Court effectively closed the door on arguments that the prohibition on methods of medical treatment ceased to exist as a distinct exclusion following the repeal of former section 41(1) of the Patent Act.

Adopting the Federal Court of Appeal's framework for methods of medical treatment

Neither Pharmascience nor Janssen succeeded with their competing positions. Instead, the Court expressly endorsed the framework previously articulated by the Federal Court of Appeal, describing it as a "balanced approach" grounded in the purpose of the doctrine itself.

Under that approach, the ultimate question remains whether the claimed subject matter amounts to professional medical skill and judgment. Put differently, the inquiry is whether the claim seeks to "fence in" an area of medical practice.⁴

The Court emphasized that this assessment begins with purposive claim construction and focuses on the “real subject matter of the claim.”⁵ Citing the Federal Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court emphasized that what matters in this part of the analysis is substance, not form.⁶

Professional skill and judgement

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the decision appears in the Court's discussion of professional skill and judgment.⁷

The Court drew a distinction between whether a claimed invention amounts to professional medical skill and judgement, or whether professional medical skill and judgement would be used in selecting the invention for a particular use.

By way of example, the Court stated that a medical professional prescribing a drug to a patient exercised clinical judgement in deciding whether it was appropriate, but that does not itself make the drug unpatentable. Rather, it is the prescribing decision that is the unpatentable subject matter. Further, once selected, a medical professional may still need to monitor a patient and decide whether to continue, stop or alter treatment. The Court affirmed that the mere existence of those decisions does not render the treatment unpatentable subject matter.⁸

The test for methods of medical treatment⁹

The most significant contribution of the decision may be the Supreme Court's clarification of how the methods of medical treatment doctrine is to be applied. Although the Court declined to draw a bright line between patentable medical innovations and unpatentable methods of medical treatment, it endorsed the Federal Court of Appeal's approach and identified three key considerations to guide the analysis.

First, the need for professional skill and judgement in determining whether a treatment is appropriate for a patient will generally not affect its patentability. The decision to prescribe a treatment is distinct from the invention itself.

Second, the more a claimed invention requires tailoring to the circumstances of individual patients, the more likely it is to amount to a method of medical treatment. Conversely, inventions capable of broad application without individualized adjustment are less likely to constitute methods of medical treatment.¹⁰

Third, the analysis must remain connected to the rationale underlying the doctrine. The more a medical professional would naturally develop, refine, or improve the subject matter through ordinary professional practice, the more likely it is that the subject matter is a non-patentable method of medical treatment.¹¹

Importantly, the Court emphasized that these are not bright-line rules. Rather, they are guideposts in what the Court repeatedly described as a "factually suffused" inquiry.

Moving beyond the fixed-versus-variable dosage debate

Endorsing the Federal Court of Appeal's approach, the Court held that the fixed-versus-variable dosage distinction "skirts the ultimate issue" and is, at best, an evidentiary proxy for the real inquiry of whether the claimed invention amounts to professional medical skill and judgment.¹² A variable dosage regime is therefore not inherently unpatentable, nor is a fixed dosage regimen automatically patentable, subject matter.

Application to Janssen’s Patent

Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the subject matter of Janssen's claimed invention did not amount to professional medical skill and judgment. The claimed subject matter did not require the kind of individualized clinical decision-making that characterizes an unpatentable method of medical treatment. The claims therefore remained patentable subject matter, and the appeal was dismissed.

Implications

The Supreme Court’s decision confirms that methods of medical treatment remain excluded from patentable subject matter in Canada. At the same time, the Court held that a claim is not unpatentable merely because it concerns variable dosages or timing. The analysis remains fact-specific and turns on the substance of the claim, including whether implementing the claimed subject matter requires a physician or other health professional to exercise individualized skill and judgment. Claim form may be relevant to that assessment, but the decision does not suggest that form alone is determinative.

Bill C-31 proposes major Defence Production Act changes affecting Canadian defence procurement

Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 Z

On June 3, 2026, the House of Commons completed second reading of Bill C-31, Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 (Bill C-31) which will now proceed to study in the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Alongside numerous policy changes to Canada’s defence procurement strategy, Bill C-31 includes amendments to the Defence Production Act, RSC 1985, c D-1 (the DPA).¹

The tabled amendments to the DPA reflect Canada’s prioritization of defence and security, including changes to the strategy for defence procurement.

I. Definition & Scope Changes – Associated Governments and Defence Services

Notably, Bill C-31 proposes the following amendments to the DPA, altering key definitions that affect the scope of application of the DPA. Generally, these amendments serve to recognize defence and security functions where Canada participates in cooperative defence initiatives with “associated” allied governments, now expressly including the European Union and its Member States. These amendments also significantly expand the meaning of “defence services” to include anything required or used for national defence or security and anything that is used for the production or supply of these services.

For example, Bill C-31 proposes to amend the following key definitions:

Modifying the definition of “associated government” to include governments or international organizations in good standing with NATO, and to include the European Union and its Member States;²
Expanding the definition of “defence projects” to include works in relation to residential communities on federal real property, and works “required for the purposes of national security” more broadly;³
Expanding the definition of “defence contract” to include contracts with the government of Canada, or Associated Governments, that relate to defence services “in any way”;⁴ and
Adding a definition of “defence services”, which includes “anything” that is required or used for the purposes of national defence or national security, or for cooperative defence/security efforts carried on between Canada and an Associated Government, vessels, and “anything” used for the production of the same.⁵

II. Ministerial Powers

The DPA defined the “Minister” who is authorized to act in respect of the DPA as the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.⁶ Conversely, Bill C-31 alters the definition so that the Minister of Public Works remains the “Minister” for the purposes of Part 2 of the Act (addressing the regulation of access to controlled goods), but the definition of “Minister” in Part 1 of the Act (addressing procurement of defence supplies) means the Minister designated under section 3 of the Defence Investment Agency Act, another enactment currently proposed under Bill C-31.⁷ The referenced Minister is not identified, but would be designated by an order of Cabinet.⁸

Bill C-31 also clarifies that the powers, duties and functions pursuant to this legislation prevail over the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act.⁹

In addition to clarifications of Ministerial duties in section 312 of the bill, the Minister is empowered, if authorized by Cabinet, to do anything the Minister is authorized to do under this legislation, on behalf of an Associated Government.¹⁰ This provision likely envisages future defence partnerships, such as the Agreement between the European Union and Canada Concerning Participation under the SAFE Instrument.

Notably, the Minister is also authorized to pay out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund up to $1 billion in aggregate, broadly for the purposes of (1) stockpiling, (2) financial assistance, and (3) defence services, defence supplies, and defence project procurement.¹¹

III. Information Requests & Stockpiling

The Minister is entitled to request information about defence supplies and defence services that a person provides or contemplates providing, including about the source of supply for these supplies or services, and the facilities that a person has available for the provision of defence supplies, defence services, or the construction of defence products.¹² Notably, this type of information request can be made of anyone who provides defence services or who carries on a business that is suitable for providing defence services.¹³ Previously, this type of request was limited to persons providing defence supplies or defence projects¹⁴ – now the scope has been expanded to include persons providing defence services as well, which has been very broadly defined.

The Minister is also empowered to engage in stockpiling of designated materials in a broader range of circumstances. Previously, stockpiling was limited to materials designated by Cabinet as essential to the needs of the community to safeguard against possible shortages. Bill C-31 expands this stockpiling power to include anything “essential to the needs of Canada” as well as for a “community in or outside of Canada” and for “an associated government” for the purposes of national defence, national security, and economic security.¹⁵

IV. Defence Procurement

There are several added provisions and amendments that are likely to impact prospective suppliers in a defence procurement process.

a. Financial Assistance

Bill C-31 contemplates expanded ministerial powers to offer financial assistance for a purpose related to national defence production, procurement, and investment, as well as relating to defence supplies, defence services, and defence projects, and for stockpiling. Financial assistance can include providing loans or advanced payments, grants and contributions, and to enter into other financial arrangements, with the authorization of Cabinet.¹⁶

b. Business Information

Notably, Bill C-31 confirms that no information about an individual business that was obtained pursuant to this legislation will be disclosed without consent, except to a government department for the purposes of discharging its functions, for the prosecution of an offence under this legislation, or for the purposes of another legal proceeding (with the consent of the Minister).¹⁷

c. National Security Exemption

Bill C-31 confirms that the national security exemption may be invoked in relation to any domestic or international trade agreement that Canada is a party to.¹⁸ Relevant trade agreements include the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, for domestic trade, the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, and the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement.

Generally, the national security exemption operates to allow Canada to derogate from standard procedures within a given procurement process to safeguard national security interests. Invocation of a national security exemption can allow for non-competitive procurement structures, limit the procedural protections afforded to prospective suppliers and limit legal routes of recourse.

d. Competitive Defence Procurement

Despite confirming that the national security exemption may be invoked, Bill C-31 also contains a general requirement that the Minister must conduct a competitive procurement process for a contract before entering into it, subject to some exceptions.¹⁹

The exceptions where a competitive procurement is not required include:

Contracts for addressing urgent operational requirements;
Where necessary for conducting military operations, critical defence projects, or safeguarding national security;
To support a sector of the Canadian economy that is important to national defence, national security, or economic security;
Contracts for defence supplies or services that are interoperable or interchangeable with defence supplies, services, or projects of Canada or an Associated Government;
Contracts in relation to sensitive technology;
Contracts where only one person is capable of performance;
Contracts to fulfil an interim requirement, for operational reasons;
Contracts to fulfil interim requirements;
Contracts for research, development, or innovation in relation to defence supplies or services;
Contracts for defence supplies or services that were the subject of funding from Canada for research, development, or innovation;
Contracts that are to be entered into with a government entity, under an agreement/arrangement with a government entity, or under a procedure of an international organization, of which Canada is a member;
Where exceptions arising from regulations to the Financial Administration Act apply; or
Where prescribed by regulation.

Even where an exception does not apply, the Minister is still entitled to exclude any person from participating in a competitive procurement process, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that this person or anything proposed to be used poses a risk to national defence, national security, or public safety. The Minister is not obliged to provide reasons to a person who is excluded from participation on this basis.

V. Future Regulations & Reviews

Cabinet is entitled to make regulations, including to address the Minister’s stockpiling powers, as well as to fix terms that are deemed to be expressly set out in contracts for defence procurement, the provision of information relating to the costing of procurement contracts, and the procedure for competitive procurement processes. Regulations may also set out additional details and definitions for certain exceptions to competitive procurement processes, including what is an “urgent operational requirement”, “sensitive technology”, and a contract with a “government entity.”²⁰

The Minister would be required to undertake a review of this legislation within three years after coming into force and prepare a report to Parliament.²¹

VI. Implications of Bill C-31’s Proposed Amendments to the DPA

The proposed amendments in Bill C-31 have not been enacted yet. As of the date of writing, the bill has completed second reading in the House of Commons and is currently before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.

However, the proposals in Bill C-31 signal some key takeaways for established defence sector and dual-use industries, if enacted in the same or substantially similar form.

a. Broader Market Access & Associated Government Procurements

Expanding the definition of “associated governments” to include states and international organizations in good standing with NATO, the European Union (“EU”), and EU member states signals a clear intent to deepen cross-Atlantic industrial and defence cooperation among allies. This proposed legislative change builds on Canada’s recent agreement with the EU, granting Canadian companies preferential access to defence procurement funded through the EU’s Security Action for Europe (SAFE) instrument.

As a result, defence sector participants may see new opportunities emerge for Canadian companies, particularly in accessing and contributing to multinational procurement programs and integrated supply chains under models similar to SAFE.

However, participation in allied or EU-led procurements will engage a complex overlay of regulatory considerations. In addition to Canadian national security, investment review, and procurement requirements, companies should expect heightened expectations around compliance, interoperability, and security clearances. Depending on the structure of the procurement process, compliance with the Associated Governments’ own procurement requirements and security regimes may be required in some cases. Successfully navigating these frameworks will be critical to realizing the benefits of expanded market access.

b. Expanded Scope: Defence Services

By broadening the DPA to cover “defence services” in addition to “defence supplies” and “defence projects” and by encompassing a wider range of defence-related projects, more entities, including service providers, technology companies, and dual-use businesses, may be engaged in procurement processes and contract arrangements that now fall within the scope of the DPA. Due to an increased emphasis on community protection and economic security, businesses that engage in key infrastructure building and operate within critical economic sectors may also see contracting opportunities and requests for information arising out of the DPA regime.

If and when these changes come into force, a wider range of government contracts may now be termed as defence contracts to which the DPA applies. As a result, traditionally non-defence or dual-use companies may be subject to information requests about their possible supply chains and ability to provide supplies.

Companies that provide services into the defence ecosystem, as well as those looking to enter the sector or compete in defence procurements, should proactively assess whether their activities are now captured. Early evaluation and preparation will be critical to managing heightened regulatory scrutiny and adapting to a more complex compliance environment.

c. Centralization of Procurement Authority

Granting greater authority over defence and national security procurement to a single procurement entity is a welcome and long anticipated reform. Arguably, the most impactful change stemming from Bill C-31 the amendment indicating that the DPA prevails over the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act – this change could represent a shift away from the role for defence procurement in the Minister of Public Works and PSPC. Centralizing decision-making has the potential to accelerate timelines, particularly for urgent or strategically sensitive projects, while improving coordination and consistency across major procurements.

At the same time, this shift will likely introduce new approval pathways and require stakeholders to navigate a more centralized procurement framework that may be less predictable in the near term as new processes and institutional practices evolve.

d. Clarifying Competitive Procurements vs. Non-Competitive Procurements

Although the proposed amendments do clarify that the default rule is for competitive defence procurement processes, the long list of exceptions, some of which are broadly worded, likely means that many defence procurement processes will not be wholly competitive.

However, the proposed new structure of the DPA may offer some greater clarity on when a competitive procurement process is required or not. Currently, the national security exemption is typically invoked in a defence procurement, which allows for derogation from the typical procedural requirements to enable competition between prospective suppliers. By setting a standard rule in favour of competitive requirements, a non-competitive procurement process must fall within one of the outlined exceptions. By assessing the likelihood of an exception applying to a given procurement, this allows suppliers to better anticipate how the process will be run.

Certain exceptions may also afford greater opportunities. One exception is directly linked to supporting a sector of the Canadian economy linked to defence, which would likely allow for a procurement process that favours Canadian suppliers, or excludes non-Canadian suppliers. Another exception is linked to procurement of defence supplies/services relating to research and development, which may incentivize participation in Canadian R&D programs and grants. Lastly, the exception relating to contracts entered into with a government entity or under a procedure of an international organization may allow for tailored procurement processes that fall within the scope of international agreements and envisage participation by suppliers with content from Canada and other countries to participate, such as under the Agreement between the European Union and Canada Concerning Participation under the SAFE Instrument.

Lastly, Bill C-31 appears to contemplate that further clarity on the scope of some exceptions will be provided by regulation, and also envisages the possibility of regulations to set out fixed terms that are deemed to be included in defence contracts, which may offer more clarity for prospective suppliers, in understanding the contractual allocation of risk for particular classes of defence contract early in the procurement process.

e. Increased use of Industrial Policy Tools

The broadening of financial assistance powers (e.g. loans, grants, advance payments) reflects a shift toward more active government participation in defence industrial development, particularly at the direct investment level. Companies should monitor funding opportunities, but also anticipate conditions tied to national security priorities.

While loans, grants, and advance payments will go a long way toward democratizing market participation in defence-sector projects, there are a number of risk-allocation reforms that need to occur in order to generate meaningful industry buy-in. From a contracting perspective, Canada’s traditional reluctance to accept limitation of liability or contractor-friendly indemnification provisions has long been a defining feature of its procurement posture. When combined with the high dollar value and complexity of major defence projects, this approach can create a level of contractual risk that discourages participation, particularly among small and mid-sized enterprises.

Although the federal government has signalled an intention to modernize its approach to risk allocation in defence procurement, it is unlikely that core positions on contractual flow-down obligations, limitation of liability, or indemnities will be addressed through legislative amendments. Instead, any meaningful evolution in these areas is more likely to emerge through policy guidance and procurement practices developed by the Defence Investment Agency.

f. Greater Flexibility in Stockpiling

Removing limits on what may be stockpiled is a clear signal that Canada intends to take a more proactive and strategic approach to supply chain resilience, including economic security considerations. This change is likely to drive increased demand for domestic production capacity and support longer-term, more predictable supply arrangements across the defence industrial base.

More fundamentally, the proposal reflects a shift in Canada’s traditional procurement philosophy. Rather than treating industry primarily as a means of delivering discrete projects, the government appears to be repositioning industry as a strategic partner in building and sustaining sovereign defence capabilities.

This evolution aligns Canada more closely with key allies and reflects a growing recognition that maintaining readiness and technological edge requires deeper industrial integration. In doing so, Canada is also signalling an intention to better position itself in an environment defined by growing competition with peer and near-peer adversaries, where industrial capacity and supply chain security are increasingly central to national defence.

VII. Conclusion

Taken together, the proposed amendments represent a material evolution in Canada’s defence procurement and industrial policy framework. While not yet in force, they signal a clear shift toward a more centralized, multi-faceted, and security-driven approach that aligns more closely with key allies. For industry participants, this creates meaningful opportunities, particularly in allied markets and domestic capability development, but it also introduces increased regulatory complexity and compliance expectations.

Organizations should begin assessing how these changes may affect their operations, contracts, and growth strategies. Early engagement, regulatory preparedness, and alignment with government priorities will be critical to successfully navigating this transition and capitalizing on the opportunities it presents.

Canada’s foreign buyer ban: What the 2027 expiry signals for investors

Fri, 10 Jul 2026 00:00:00 Z

Nearly four years after enacting the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act (the Act), banning foreign buyers in Canada’s housing market, the federal government is now weighing options to relax restrictions as the Act’s expiry looms. While the Carney government has maintained the previous administration’s decision to extend the prohibition through 2026, it has also signalled a desire to re-open the market to foreign investment in certain circumstances.

Key takeaways

Canada's foreign buyer ban expires in 2027, and the Carney government is actively considering a new approach rather than a straight extension of the current prohibition.
The ban had limited measurable impact: foreign buyers represented just 1.1 per cent of home sales in British Columbia in 2021, and average Canadian housing prices still rose more than 20 per cent during the ban period.
Australia's tiered exemption model, permitting foreign investment in new builds, large-scale redevelopment projects, and vacant land, is one of the frameworks being considered for Canada's post-2027 approach.
Canada already has standing exemptions under the Act for vacant land, certain redevelopment purchases, and publicly traded non-Canadian-controlled entities incorporated in Canada.
Investors and developers should monitor legislative developments closely as the 2027 expiry approaches, particularly around supply-side exemptions that could reopen targeted segments of the residential market to foreign capital.

Canada’s housing crisis: Did the foreign buyer ban address it?

The federal ban, which generally prohibits foreign nationals and commercial enterprises from purchasing residential property in Canada, was enacted as part of an effort to address the country’s significant housing shortfall.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation projects that new housing construction must roughly double – to approximately 380,000 to 430,000 units annually until 2035 – to meet projected demand. The government sought to limit foreign buyers on the view that their participation was pricing domestic purchasers out of the market. However, experts have long questioned whether a foreign buyer ban would meaningfully increase housing supply or improve affordability.

In 2021, the year before the ban was announced, foreign buyers were involved in only 1.1 per cent of home sales in British Columbia, down from 3 per cent in 2017. Over the nearly four years the ban has been in effect, average Canadian housing prices have nevertheless continued to rise, increasing by more than 20 per cent between 2021 and 2026.

Soon after its enactment, Canada eased restrictions to permit foreign purchases of vacant land and residential properties intended for redevelopment, acknowledging the role foreign-controlled corporations play in expanding housing supply and improving affordability.

The federal government’s new pragmatic approach

Since coming into office, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s administration has taken a pragmatic approach to foreign investment. Minister of Housing Gregor Robertson has indicated that the government sees offshore capital as playing a role in addressing gaps in Canada’s housing market,¹ while the federal government has also indicated that it is weighing tax code reform to attract large foreign investors.²

The disparity between the ban’s stated objective and its real-world effects helps explain the government’s shift. The legislation is largely aimed at speculative single-family housing rather than large multi-family or commercial corporate developments. Because foreign purchasers represented only a small proportion of such transactions, removing them has done little to correct the market’s more significant issues. Price trajectories during the ban instead tracked broader macroeconomic conditions rather than changes in foreign buying. As a result, targeted supply-side exemptions designed to channel offshore capital into new builds, large-sale redevelopment and vacant-land projects are increasingly viewed as an alternative to blanket prohibition.

How Australia's foreign buyer restrictions compare to Canada's framework

Australia faces a similar housing shortage to Canada, targeting 1.2 million new homes between 2025 and 2029. Purchases of established dwellings in Australia by foreign persons comprised 32.9 per cent of total sales in 2023.

Australia enacted its own ban on April 1, 2025, restricting foreign purchases of established dwellings. The Australian framework allows certain exceptions, including:

investments that increase housing stock by more than 20 units;
purchases for redevelopment that support the availability of housing on a commercial scale (such as retirement villages, assisted living facilities and student accommodation);
purchases of new builds; and
purchases of vacant land.

Most exceptions available to foreign persons in Australia are subject to review board approval and strict eligibility conditions.

While originally set to expire on March 31, 2027, the Australian government recently extended the ban to June 30, 2029, a signal that the Australian government views the restrictions as a durable response to housing concerns even as it continues to carve out new-build and redevelopment-stage investment.

Minister Robertson has indicated that Australia’s framework is a model of interest for Canada following the Act’s expiry in 2027, specifically pointing to exemptions for higher-end new homes or rental housing as a possible avenue for foreign investment. Regardless of the final structure, Canada appears to be shifting toward a nuanced approach to foreign investment rather than continuing with a large-scale prohibition.

Existing exemptions in Canada

In contrast to the Australian exemption regime, which generally requires review board approval before completion, the exemptions under the Act in Canada allow certain purchases to proceed by category without case-by-case approval.

The Act applies only to immovable real property located within census metropolitan areas or census agglomerations, excluding certain rural properties and movable property on leased land. Its definition of residential property also generally excludes large non-stratified apartment buildings and development projects.

In response to industry feedback, the federal government introduced amendments to the Act in 2023 to fully exempt vacant land and create a standing exemption for certain redevelopment purchases. The amendments also created an exception for non-Canadian-controlled entities that are incorporated under Canadian federal or provincial law and publicly traded in Canada. Together, these changes were intended to facilitate non-Canadian capital investment in redevelopment that advances the government’s housing-supply objectives.

The key remaining distinction between the current Canadian and Australian frameworks is that Australia expressly permits certain purchases of new dwellings, while Canada’s exemptions remain focused on vacant land, redevelopment, and specified purchaser categories.

What we’re watching as Canada's foreign buyer ban approaches its 2027 expiry

The government has yet to announce a decision on the Act’s future. Given the exceptions already carved into the current regime and the direction of the government’s comments, investors should expect potential changes to the framework post-2027, with an eye to property type and development intent, not blanket eligibility. We will continue to monitor these developments and update this article as they arise.

This publication is of a general nature only and does not constitute legal advice.

BLG can assist

BLG’s Commercial Real Estate Group provides expert advice to builders, buyers, contractors, consultants, governments and others to ensure they can navigate complex legal issues related to housing development. If you have any questions regarding this article or an upcoming project you are involved in, please contact the authors or key contacts below.

FSRA’s new Operational Risk and Resilience Guidance for Ontario insurers

Thu, 09 Jul 2026 00:00:00 Z

On June 8, 2026, the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) issued its Operational Risk and Resilience Guidance (PC0050APP) for Ontario-incorporated insurance companies and reciprocal insurance exchanges (collectively, Ontario insurers).

The guidance, which sits under FSRA’s Risk-Based Supervisory Framework (RBSF-I), marks an escalation in supervisory focus on cyber threats, data vulnerabilities, third-party dependencies, and climate exposure.

While adoption of the guidance’s principles is not mandatory, FSRA has indicated that an insurer’s adoption of those principles when determining its supervisory approach may be weighed. Ontario insurers should thus treat this guidance as a strong signal of regulatory expectations and an early prompt to assess gaps.

What Ontario insurers should do now

Ontario insurers should consider a structured gap assessment against PC0050APP’s four principles, prioritizing:

Reviewing Board and Senior Management governance structures, including risk appetite documentation and ORMF approval records;
Auditing IT and cybersecurity controls against GR0016INT and confirming incident notification procedures align with FSRA’s materiality thresholds;
Reviewing third-party vendor contracts for notification obligations, audit rights, and BCP/DRP integration;
Testing BCP and DRP adequacy, including scenario-specific stress testing; and
Beginning to incorporate ESG and climate risk considerations into corporate strategy ahead of anticipated further FSRA guidance.

Background

FSRA supervises both Ontario-incorporated insurers and reciprocal exchanges licensed under the Insurance Act (Ontario); PC0050APP supplements the existing Corporate Governance Guidance (PC0051INT) and FSRA’s IT Risk Management Guidance (GR0016INT). However, while GR0016INT applies to all FSRA-regulated entities, including federally incorporated insurers licensed in Ontario, PC0050APP applies to Ontario-incorporated insurers only.

Insurers subject to federal oversight should also note that FSRA’s guidance broadly aligns, but remains separate as provincial guidance, with expectations in force for federally regulated financial institutions under OSFI’s Guideline B-13 – Technology and Cyber Risk Management, reinforcing that operational and cyber resilience is now a pan-Canadian regulatory priority. Ultimately, both FSRA and OSFI have increased their supervisory focus on operational and cyber resilience, resulting in enhanced oversight expectations for insurers operating in Ontario.

PC0050APP’s four principles

PC0050APP is organized around four principles that outline FSRA's intended supervisory outcomes:

(1) Governance

Ultimate accountability for operational risk oversight rests with the Board and Senior Management. FSRA expects Ontario insurers to maintain an Operational Risk Management Framework (ORMF), adopt a three-lines-of-defence structure, and clearly define risk appetite, tolerance, and limits. The Board must periodically review and approve Business Continuity Plans (BCPs) and Disaster Recovery Plans (DRPs).

(2) Risk identification and assessment

Ontario insurers must regularly scan their operating environment, including products, people, processes, systems, and the external environment, to identify and assess inherent operational risks. Information technology is specifically flagged as a significant activity subject to this scan.

(3) Risk management

An effective ORMF should reduce both the frequency and impact of operational risk events. Frameworks and supporting policies must be commensurate with the Ontario insurer’s size, complexity, and risk profile, and integrated with enterprise-wide risk management.

(4) Resilience

Ontario insurers must plan for adverse scenarios and demonstrate crisis readiness. BCPs and DRPs must be tested against severe but plausible scenarios, kept current, and produced for FSRA on request during supervision. The guidance also emphasizes learning from past failures as a driver of continuous improvement.

Four sub-risk categories under the lens

FSRA identifies four sub-risks within its definition of operational risk, each with specific supervisory implications:

(1) Third-party risk

As insurers increasingly rely on cloud service providers and other outsourced vendors, FSRA emphasizes that accountability and ownership of all risks remain with the insurer, regardless of the outsourcing arrangements. Ontario insurers should establish a third-party risk management framework, conduct ongoing due diligence, and ensure contracts contain appropriate notification, audits, and performance provisions. Concentration risk (that is, over-reliance on a single dominant provider) warrants specific attention.

(2) Cyber risk

FSRA will assess IT controls across access management, network security, asset classification and disposal, incident monitoring, and cybersecurity awareness training. Insurers must provide FSRA with timely notification of material IT incidents as required under GR0016INT, which sets a 72-hour notification window for Ontario-incorporated insurers and reciprocals. BCPs and DRPs should specifically address technology service disruptions.

(3) Data risk

Inadequate data governance is a distinct operational risk, spanning integrity, availability, and the safeguarding of confidential consumer information. FSRA will evaluate whether clear accountability and governance frameworks are in place, and whether data capabilities hold up under stress.

(4) Climate risk (physical and transition)

Physical climate events can disrupt critical operations and amplify underwriting losses through increased property damage claims. FSRA currently assesses ESG and climate initiatives as part of the Resilience Rating under RBSF-I, and has signalled that further climate-specific guidance may follow.

The broader regulatory and legal landscape

FSRA’s PC0050APP emerges amid a broader wave of cybersecurity and operational resilience regulation at both federal and provincial levels.

At the federal level, Bill C-8 received Royal Assent on June 15, 2026, thereby completing the legislative process for the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act (CCSPA) and establishing Canada's first mandatory cybersecurity regime for designated operators in sectors, including telecommunications, banking, and clearing systems. Its provisions will come into force gradually, on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor-in-Council; read BLG’s in-depth Insight on the topic, Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act: Bill C-8 is adopted.

While in its current form the CCSPA does not capture federally regulated insurers, insurers that rely on vendors that are designated operators, such as large bank-affiliated cloud providers, may face downstream contractual cybersecurity requirements as those vendors implement their own CCSPA obligations.

Provincially, Ontario's Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024 (EDSTA) and its accompanying regulations, O. Reg. 51/26 (Cyber Security) and O. Reg. 52/26 (Digital Technology Affecting Individuals Under Age 18), both in force as of July 1, 2026, impose mandatory cybersecurity programs, biennial cyber maturity assessments, and 72-hour critical incident reporting on prescribed broader public sector entities.

Ontario's Plan to Protect Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2026 (Bill 97) further modernizes the province's access-to-information and privacy framework by extending privacy impact assessment, breach reporting, and cybersecurity safeguard requirements to municipalities.

Although private insurers are not captured by EDSTA, its regulations, or Bill 97, insurers serving public-sector clients may encounter more rigorous cybersecurity expectations as those organizations strengthen vendor oversight obligations.

Takeaways for Ontario insurers

Together with OSFI Guideline B-13 (Technology and Cyber Risk Management), OSFI Guideline B-10 (Third-Party Risk Management), and FSRA's GR0016INT (IT Risk Management Guidance), PC0050APP reinforces a consistent regulatory expectation: boards are accountable for operational risk, risk management frameworks must be documented and proportionate, third-party accountability cannot be outsourced, and resilience must be demonstrated through tested plans rather than asserted. For Ontario-incorporated insurers, PC0050APP provides the framework through which FSRA will assess operational risk and resilience during supervisory reviews.

Key takeaways include:

(1) Governance accountability cannot be delegated.

The Board bears ultimate responsibility.
Risk appetite statements, ORMF approval, and BCP/DRP oversight must be demonstrably Board-level activities.
Ontario insurers should assess their governance structures against Principle 1 and document any gaps.

(2) Cyber and IT controls will face direct scrutiny from FSRA.

FSRA will assess the full lifecycle of IT risk management from access controls and network security through to incident reporting and staff training.
Insurers should benchmark their programs against GR0016INT. The 72-hour material incident notification window for Ontario insurers under GR0016INT is a compliance tripwire worth confirming in internal procedures.

(3) Outsourcing does not outsource the risk.

Accountability for third-party risks stays with the insurer.
Vendor contracts, particularly with cloud service providers, should be reviewed for incident notification obligations, audit rights, concentration risk provisions, and BCP/DRP integration.

(4) BCPs and DRPs must be tested and producible on demand.

FSRA may require insurers to present BCPs, DRPS, and scenario testing results during supervisory monitoring.
Plans must be current, scenario-tested, and capable of being produced promptly.

(5) Climate is a growing supervisory priority, and should be acted upon before the next guidance is anticipated to come out (2031).

FSRA has signalled that additional climate and ESG guidance is coming, and already factors ESG initiatives into the Resilience Rating.
Ontario insurers that have not yet begun embedding climate risk into corporate strategy should start now.

Just over the horizon: 2025 annual report of the OSC’s Investor Advisory Panel

Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 Z

The Ontario Securities Commission’s Investor Advisory Panel released its 2025 Annual Report (IAP Report) in May, suggesting that investor protection should continue to shape the regulatory agenda, including through regulatory initiatives aimed at innovation, capital formation and competitiveness. The IAP Report emphasizes that retail investors are operating in an increasingly complex environment marked by more product choice, technological change, social media influence and increased fraud risk, and it repeatedly frames investor protection as essential to each branch of the OSC’s mandate.

For registrants, one important theme is the focus on retail facing digital practices. The IAP highlights concerns about do-it-yourself (DIY) investing, the growing use of AI and social media in investment decision making and digital engagement practices such as push notifications, contests, rewards programs and trending asset lists. It supports additional safeguards, cautions against harmful digital engagement practices and encourages regulators to consider whether further measures are needed in relation to finfluencers.

The IAP Report also notes the expansion of Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs), with 2025 marking the first time ETF launches outpaced mutual fund launches, including more complex and digital asset related products, and stresses that disclosure regarding such products must be clear, accessible and useful to investors. The IAP Report also raises concerns more generally about inconsistent compliance with the Client Focused Reforms (CFRs), including deficiencies in risk profiling, “Know Your Product (KYP)” processes, suitability assessments and training.

Finally, the IAP Report underscores two broader developments relevant to firms’ risk management frameworks: modernized enforcement actions and renewed attention to investor redress. The IAP calls for expanded enforcement tools and strategies in response to increasingly sophisticated fraud, including AI-enabled scams, and reiterates its long-standing support for binding decision-making authority for the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI), along with clearer and more effective redress mechanisms for harmed investors.

The authors would like to thank Ray Zhao, student-at-law, for her contributions to this insight.

Access model for continuous disclosure documents finalized by Canadian Securities Administrators

Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 Z

A new access model for certain continuous disclosure documents of non-investment fund reporting issuers (the Access Model) has been finalized by the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) through amendments to National Instrument 51 102 Continuous Disclosure Obligations and National Instrument 54 101 Communication with Beneficial Owners of Securities of a Reporting Issuer.

Provided all necessary approvals are obtained, the amendments are expected to come into force on Sept. 22, 2026, reflecting a continued shift toward digital disclosure in Canadian capital markets.

Takeaways

An electronic access model that enables non-investment fund reporting issuers to deliver annual financial statements, interim financial reports, and related management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A) (collectively, CD Documents) will come into force on Sept. 22, 2026.
The Access Model is voluntary and may be used to deliver certain CD Documents while existing delivery requirements continue to apply to others, providing issuers with flexibility in how the framework is adopted.
Issuers who adopt the Access Model must follow a structured notification framework, including advance notice before adopting the model, news release and website disclosure requirements, and ongoing investor disclosure requirements to ensure continued awareness of how to access CD Documents electronically.
Investors will continue to be able to request and obtain copies of CD Documents without charge. Existing standing instructions to receive documents in electronic or paper form will continue to be honoured.
The Access Model operates alongside, rather than replaces, the existing notice-and-access framework.

Background: How the Access Model came to be

Under the existing framework in Canadian securities legislation, reporting issuers are required to annually provide investors with an opportunity to request certain continuous disclosure documents in either electronic or paper form.

In 2022, the CSA proposed an access based model for both prospectuses and CD Documents. While the prospectus access model came into force in 2024, the CSA deferred implementation of the continuous disclosure model following feedback that additional investor protection measures were required.

Subsequent amendments were republished for comment in 2024, incorporating changes to address investor awareness and accessibility concerns. During the second comment period, all commenters expressed general support for the proposed amendments, noting that the Access Model balances reduced regulatory burden with continued investor access to information.

How the Access Model works: Filing, notification and disclosure requirements

Under the Access Model, electronic access is deemed to have been provided where the issuer complies with prescribed requirements:

Filing the CD Document on SEDAR+;
Issuing a news release no later than one calendar day after filing, announcing that the CD Document is accessible electronically. The news release must include specific disclosure regarding how the CD Document can be accessed on SEDAR+, how investors can request a copy of the CD Document, and confirmation that any standing instructions for delivery in electronic or paper form will continue to be honoured. It must also notify investors of the availability of the SEDAR+ notification functionality, which allows investors to subscribe to receive email notifications when the issuer files relevant CD Documents on SEDAR+. The required disclosure may be included with other information in a news release; and
Posting the CD Document on the issuer’s website or providing a direct hyperlink to the CD Document on SEDAR+ no later than two calendar days after filing. The issuer must also include a prescribed statement about electronic access on its website. Companion policy guidance indicates that posted documents should remain available at least until the documents for the next financial period are posted, and that the required website statement should appear on the same webpage and near the documents or SEDAR+ link.

If a reporting issuer is using the Access Model for the first time, it must issue a news release at least 25 calendar days before issuing and filing a news release announcing reliance on the Access Model.

In addition to these filing specific steps, issuers relying on the Access Model must provide ongoing disclosure to investors describing the model and how it operates. This includes providing an “annual reminder” statement in proxy related materials, a notice and access package, or a separate accompanying document explaining that CD Documents will be made available electronically, how to subscribe to SEDAR+ notifications, and how to request copies.

If an issuer ceases to use the Access Model, there is no requirement to provide notice. While the annual reminder may be included in notice-and-access materials, the amendments do not otherwise change the existing notice-and-access regime.

Practical considerations for issuers

The Access Model represents a significant step toward digital first disclosure, but its voluntary nature means issuers will need to carefully assess whether adoption is appropriate in their circumstances.

For many issuers, the Access Model may reduce the costs and administrative burden associated with traditional delivery requirements, including printing and mailing CD Documents. While these efficiencies may reduce certain delivery-related expenses, issuers may incur additional compliance costs associated with implementing and maintaining the Access Model. At the same time, adopting the model introduces new operational requirements, including managing timely SEDAR+ filings and related news releases, ensuring required website disclosures are posted within prescribed timeframes, and overall compliance with ongoing disclosure obligations.

While the Access Model reflects increasing investor reliance on electronic disclosure, issuers should consider how changes in delivery practices may be received by investors. Retail investors who rely on traditional delivery methods or who are less engaged with SEDAR+ may require additional communication or education to ensure continued access to information. Issuers may also consider whether to supplement mandatory disclosures with enhanced investor communications (such as website navigation, direct links, or investor email reminders) to mitigate any potential reduction in visibility of disclosure.

The Access Model may be adopted for annual financial statements and related MD&A, interim financial reports and related MD&A, or both. Issuers may also choose to use the model for certain interim reporting periods while continuing to rely on existing delivery requirements for others. At this time, the model has not been extended to proxy-related materials, take-over bid circulars, or issuer bid circulars, and it is not available to SEC foreign issuers and designated foreign issuers.

Finally, issuers should be mindful that the Access Model does not override all delivery obligations. Standing instructions under NI 54-101 continue and are not overridden by use of the model. Investors retain the right to request and obtain copies of documents without charge, and any standing instructions to receive documents in electronic or paper form must continue to be honoured. In addition, issuers may remain subject to separate delivery requirements under corporate law and other applicable requirements, notwithstanding their use of the Access Model.

Next steps

These amendments represent a further step in the CSA’s efforts to modernize disclosure delivery in Canadian capital markets while maintaining investor access to information.

Issuers considering the Access Model should review the new timing, news release, website posting and investor disclosure requirements, assess whether their existing website and disclosure controls support the prescribed deadlines, and confirm whether any corporate law or other delivery obligations continue to apply.

For additional details, see: CSA Notice of Amendments and Changes to Implement an Access Model for Certain Continuous Disclosure Documents of Non-Investment Fund Reporting Issuers.

The authors would like to thank Sarah Spector, summer student, for her contribution in writing this article.

A view from the scenic route: The 2025 OTC derivatives report

Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 Z

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) released the Canadian OTC Derivatives 2025 Annual Report in May (the Report). The OSC obtains its data from public sources and directly from trade repositories. The Report offers findings of interest regarding Canada’s OTC markets for investment managers and advisers. Interest rate derivatives remained the dominant asset class in Canada’s OTC market, accounting for 88.2 per cent of total gross notional outstanding (GNO) in Q4 2025, with growth driven by swaps and continued adoption of the Canadian Overnight Repo Rate Average (CORRA-CAD) and Secured Overnight interest Rate (SOFR-USD) based products. Canada had 9.2 per cent of the global OTC derivatives market (measured by GNO) in June 2025.

The report also underscores the OSC’s increasing focus on data quality. Amendments to the trade reporting rule that took effect on July 25, 2025, together with compliance related remediation, materially affected reported statistics by improving product classification and removing stale or expired trades.

Looking ahead, the most notable regulatory development is the expansion of mandatory central clearing under NI 94-101 – Mandatory Central Counterparty Clearing of Derivatives and Related Companion Policy, effective March 25, 2026, to cover certain index credit default swap products in addition to updated interest rate derivatives tied to benchmark transition. More broadly, the report suggests the OSC is taking a more granular, risk-sensitive approach to monitoring derivatives markets, including through the use of risk metrics like DV01, which measures the dollar change in a position’s value resulting from a one-basis-point movement in interest rates.

The authors would like to thank Ray Zhao, student-at-law, for her contributions to this insight.

Data centre regulation in Alberta

Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 Z

Alberta has emerged as one of Canada’s most proactive jurisdictions for the development of large‑scale data centres, particularly those supporting artificial intelligence (AI). Through a combination of targeted legislation, intergovernmental coordination, and policy direction to energy regulators, the province has adopted a regulatory approach that departs in important respects from the traditional treatment of large industrial electricity loads.

Key takeaways for proponents

Alberta is modernizing its regulatory framework to accelerate approval timelines and incentivize data centre projects that supply their own power.
Alberta offers regulatory flexibility not available in many other Canadian jurisdictions, particularly for self-supplied or hybrid power models.
Data centres may be subject to non‑standard utility connection requirements under regulations permitted under Bill 8, rather than the uniform treatment traditionally applied to large loads.
Early integration of generation, load, and regulatory strategy is critical to managing approval risk.
Federal-provincial alignment improves certainty for large scale AI infrastructure investments.

Alberta’s unique regulatory and policy approach to Data Centres

A foundational feature of Alberta’s approach is the treatment of data centres as strategically significant infrastructure rather than ordinary commercial electricity consumers. Alberta’s Artificial Intelligence Data Centres Strategy positions data centres as critical to economic diversification, innovation, and Canada’s emerging “sovereign compute” objectives. This framing has informed subsequent legislative and regulatory actions aimed at accelerating development while positioning Albertans to benefit from long‑term economic returns. For proponents, this means data centre projects are increasingly assessed through a broader public‑interest lens that extends beyond conventional utility considerations such as load size or connection timing.

Emphasis on “Bring Your Own Power”

Perhaps the most distinctive element of Alberta’s framework is its explicit preference for data centres that supply their own electricity or otherwise add net new generation. Although the Alberta Electric System Operator’s (AESO) interim Phase 1 approach has allocated 1,200 MW for data centre connection requests, provincial policy statements acknowledge that the scale of proposed data centre demand far exceeds the capacity Alberta’s grid can accommodate without affecting reliability or affordability.

As a result, Alberta has signalled that projects which rely primarily on self‑supply—or structured arrangements that avoid drawing on grid capacity—will be prioritized. This approach materially alters the traditional utility connection model. Instead of competing solely through the AESO’s standard system access queue, proponents are encouraged to integrate generation, load, and connection planning from the outset.

There are multiple data centre projects currently under review by the AESO, and a map of data centre connection applications is available on the AESO website. For more information about Alberta’s AI Data Centre Mandate see BLG’s October 2025 article.

Alignment with Federal Policy through the Canada–Alberta MoU

Alberta’s approach is further distinguished by its coordination with federal policy through the recent Canada–Alberta Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The MoU commits both governments to expanding electricity capacity to support AI and data centre infrastructure and aligns Alberta’s initiatives with Canada’s Sovereign AI Compute Strategy.

Notably, the MoU contemplates federal flexibility in the application of the Clean Electricity Regulations in Alberta, reducing the risk that federal emissions constraints could impede timely access to power for data centre projects.

Expanded (yet uncertain) regulatory flexibility

Recent changes to Alberta law enacted by the Utilities Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (formerly Bill 8) confer on the Minister of Affordability and Utilities and the AESO broad authority to make rules and regulations in respect of data centres. These tools will presumably be used to enact a framework for accommodating and potentially facilitating data centre connection, although no such framework has yet been announced. Among other things, the Minister may now:

define different classes of data centres
regulate electricity system access,
impose load management or load shedding requirements, and
exempt data centres from requirements under the Electric Utilities Act.

The AESO is also now specifically empowered to make rules regarding data centres. Uniquely among AESO rules, these rules will not be subject to challenge on the grounds that they do not support the “fair, efficient and openly competitive operation of the electricity market”.

The powers conferred by these amendments indicate a clear intention to entrust to the executive branch the connection and accommodation of data centres on the Alberta system, and potentially to chart a new course unconstrained by the rules and principles that have traditionally governed that system. This extraordinary approach empowers the Government to react quickly and decisively to the pace and disruptive potential of intensive data centre development, but the Government has not yet clearly indicated what that reaction will be. The Government’s own announcements to date suggest that a straighter path for data centres through the regulatory approval process would be coupled with requirements that they fund the transmission upgrades that they require, but no detailed approach has yet been announced.

From a proponent’s perspective, Bill 8 introduces both opportunity and uncertainty. While it may create flexibility for innovative connection and power supply structures, it also means that data centre projects may be subject to tailored regulatory conditions that differ from those applied to other large industrial loads. For more about the Canada-Alberta MOU and Bill 8 see BLG’s December 2025 article.

AI Data Centre Computer Hardware Levy

The Financial Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (No. 2) introduced a 2 per cent levy on computer hardware that applies to grid-connected data centres drawing 75 MW or more. The levy comes into effect Dec. 31, 2026, and the levy will be fully creditable against Alberta corporate income tax. Once a data centre becomes profitable and pays corporate tax, the levy will have no net effect on their tax burden. Alberta has signalled that it may develop other programs for payment-in-lieu-of tax and deferral mechanisms to ease early-stage capital pressures, aiming to strike a balance between capturing public revenue while maintaining Alberta’s appeal as a data centre destination.

The levy contains further incentives for data centre proponents to “bring their own power”: it is reduced to 1 per cent for data centres that are connected to the grid but generate their own power, and off-grid data centres pay no levy at all. For more information about Alberta’s AI data centre levy see BLG’s September 2025 article.

How these features fit into the typical utility connection process

To reduce regulatory friction, Alberta has established a dedicated data centre “concierge” function intended to coordinate approvals across provincial ministries, regulators, municipalities, and Indigenous communities. While this does not replace formal utility or land‑use approvals, it is designed to reduce sequencing risks and avoid delays where electricity connection, generation approvals, and development permits are interdependent.

Unique AESO connection process requirements for Data Centres

The AESO has released data centre–specific connection process requirements that ask applicants to disclose proposed technical and operational characteristics, including load composition, backup generation, and expected operating behaviour. While this disclosure is not currently mandatory, it reflects an emerging framework that the AESO has indicated will be further developed over time.

AESO’s Large Load Integration program - Phases I and II

Phase I of the AESO’s Large Load Integration program concluded in late 2025, successfully allocating the full 1,200 MW interim connection capacity to two connection projects. During Phase I, the AESO incorporated a degree of flexibility in response to proponent feedback, including the establishment of a trading window that permitted the exchange of MW allocations prior to final assignment.

All remaining large load requests will be considered in Phase II of the Large Load Integration program. Phase II is also intended to inform the development of a long‑term framework applicable to all large loads, including data centres, with a particular focus on the “bring your own generation” model and the regulatory connection process. Integration considerations will span the AESO’s full mandate, including connection processes, system planning, operations, markets, tariff design, and reliability.

Protecting grid reliability and ratepayers

A consistent theme across Alberta’s and the AESO’s policy statements is the protection of grid reliability and electricity affordability for existing consumers. Alberta has been clear that data centre projects must bear the costs associated with their system impacts and should not shift those costs onto ratepayers. This principle underlies Alberta’s willingness to impose differentiated connection requirements or financial mechanisms for grid‑connected data centres, reinforcing political and regulatory support for accelerated development while striving to maintain public confidence in the electricity system.

Impact of Alberta’s Restructured Energy Market

The Restructured Energy Market (REM) – a comprehensive overhaul of Alberta’s power market intended to stabilize prices and enhance reliability – is slated to launch in 2027. The policy and design work are complete, but steps remain to operationalize the new structure and finalize tariffs and rate classes. These changes will directly impact project economics for grid-connected data centres and could reshape how data centres and other large industrial customers buy, generate, or sell electricity.

Data centre regulation in British Columbia – Competing for a limited supply

Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 Z

British Columbia recently introduced legislative amendments that will restrict the electrical capacity available for new data centre projects within the Province. As of Feb. 1, 2026, the allocation of new electrical capacity for data centre purposes in British Columbia is subject to system-wide aggregate limits that are allocated under a competitive process administered by the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro).

As outlined below, these limits are both quantitative and structural in nature. For the two-year period starting Feb. 1, 2026, BC Hydro is restricted to making available a total of 100 MW of new electricity capacity for conventional data centre purposes and 300 MW of new electricity capacity (plus any unused capacity from the conventional data centre limit) for AI data centre purposes. Further, no single project can be allocated more than 145 MW of capacity.

Taken together, these modest limits, coupled with the need to compete with other projects for a finite supply, will have major implications for proponents looking to develop or expand data centre facilities in British Columbia.

Regulatory framework

These changes are rooted in recent amendments to British Columbia’s electricity regulatory regime. The Utilities Commission Act, administered by the British Columbia Utilities Commission, is the principal legislation governing the supply of electricity to data centres in British Columbia.

On November 27, 2025, Bill 31, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 received Royal Assent and came into force. In broad terms, the Act made key amendments to the Utilities Commission Act to empower the provincial government to depart from the existing “first-come, first-served” electricity service model to prioritize certain industries over others for the stated purpose of ensuring electricity access brings the greatest benefit to British Columbia. More specifically, the amendments permitted the creation of limits on the electrical capacity available to cryptocurrency, data centre, and hydrogen-for-export facilities, which the Province identified as being energy intensive while generally providing fewer jobs and less revenue than natural resource projects.

Limits on available electricity capacity

These legislative changes were operationalized through regulation in early 2026. On Feb. 1, 2026, the Data Centre and Hydrogen Production Facility Power Supply Regulation (the Supply Regulation) came into force. The Supply Regulation introduces limits on the allocation of new electrical capacity for data centres and hydrogen-for-export facilities.

For data centres, the Supply Regulation distinguishes between two categories of facilities. Specifically, it applies to:

conventional data centres (data centres, other than an AI data centres, the primary purposes of which is storage or processing of electronic data); and
AI data centres (defined to mean data centres, other than a cryptocurrency mining project, in which 10 percent or more of the electricity supplied to the facility is or will be used for: (i) computational tasks related to artificial intelligence; (ii) processing and storing data related to the computational tasks in (i); or (iii) powering equipment and infrastructure used for the purposes referred to in (i) or (ii)).

Within these categories, the Supply Regulation establishes aggregate limits on the total amount of new electrical capacity that BC Hydro may make available for data centre purposes. Specifically, for the two-year period commencing on February 1, 2026, BC Hydro cannot make available more than:

a total of 100 MW of new electricity capacity for conventional data centre purposes; and
the aggregated total of: (i) 300 MW of new electricity capacity; and (ii) any electricity capacity not made available under the limit for conventional data centre purposes, for AI data centre purposes.

These limits are further tightened over time. For the one-year period between Feb. 1, 2028 and Feb. 1, 2029, these limits will be cut in half: 50 MW (for conventional data centre purposes) and 150 MW plus any capacity not used for conventional data centre purposes (for AI data centre purposes). The Supply Regulations also provide that a single request for service cannot exceed 145 MW of capacity.

Competitive allocation process

Capacity limits are only one part of the new regime. The Supply Regulation further requires BC Hydro to establish and conduct a competitive process for the allocation of new electricity capacity for data centre purposes.

In response to this requirement, on Jan. 30, 2026, BC Hydro and the Government of British Columbia formally announced a 2026 Call for Demand for Emerging Industries (the Call for Demand) to fulfill the competitive process requirement for data centres for the two-year period starting Feb. 1, 2026. The Call for Demand establishes the following eligibility requirements:

Size of request: The request must be for electrical service of 10 MW or greater, but not more than 145 MW of capacity.
Location: The project must be located within BC Hydro’s service area.
Type of Request: The project must be a new facility not yet interconnected to the BC Hydro grid or must be for (i) incremental capacity; or (ii) a change in end use of electricity supply at an existing facility.
Facility Type: Conventional data centre or AI data centre.
Interconnection: The project is or will be directly or indirectly interconnected to the BC Hydro grid, either via the distribution system or transmission system.
Interconnection Queue: As of Feb. 1, 2026, the project is: (a) in BC Hydro’s transmission or distribution interconnection queue but has not yet signed a facilities study agreement (transmission) or paid a design deposit (distribution); or (b) not yet in BC Hydro’s interconnection queue.

Applicants must also meet certain minimum criteria, including financial capacity and readiness to support the proposed project, as well as a willingness and ability to curtail electricity demand on 24 hours’ notice.

From a timing perspective, the deadline for initial applications and bid security ($25,000 per MW requested) was March 9, 2026. Eligible applications will be assessed based on criteria established by BC Hydro, including the cost-effectiveness for BC Hydro, economic development and community benefits, data sovereignty, First Nations benefits, and environmental benefits.

Looking ahead, it is expected that a further competitive process will be established for the period commencing Feb. 1, 2028 to Feb. 1, 2029.

Other data-centre-specific regulation has been limited to date

Beyond electricity supply, data centre‑specific legislation in British Columbia has been slow to develop. Apart from recent amendments to the Utilities Commission Act, there has been limited targeted regulation directed specifically at data centre development.

Conclusion

In practical terms, the modest 300 MW and 100 MW total allocation for AI and conventional data centres (and 145 MW single-project limit) will likely constrain the growth of the industry in British Columbia. This is particularly notable when compared with other jurisdictions, where individual projects often require significantly higher loads.

By way of comparison, in June 2025, the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) introduced an interim connection limit of 1,200 MW for large load projects until 2028. The AESO recently announced it has allocated all 1,200 MW to two projects, one requiring 970 MW and the other 230 MW, with other proposed projects contemplating load requirements of up to 1,800 MW.

As a result, proponents in British Columbia need to be aware of potential barriers to obtaining the electricity service required to power their projects. Where grid‑supplied electricity is unavailable, power may need to be generated “behind the fence,” through renewable or conventional means (such as natural gas), which can give rise to secondary risks, including potential impacts under the Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) introduced in 2025, see our prior bulletin for more on the CER: Canada's new Clean Electricity Regulations | BLG.

Finally, the limits do not only apply solely to new projects. Requests for incremental capacity or changes in end use are also subject to the limits and competitive allocation process. Accordingly, proponents considering expansion or acquisition of existing facilities will need to carefully assess the risk of being unable to secure additional grid‑supplied electricity.

Data centre regulation in Ontario

Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 Z

In Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, the development and connection process for data centres is driven by Ontario-specific electricity rules and institutions. Grid access and connection obligations are governed primarily by the Electricity Act, 1998,¹ the Ontario Energy Board’s (OEB) Transmission System Code² (TSC) and Distribution System Code³ (DSC), and the Independent Electricity System Operator’s (IESO) connection approval and market participation requirements.

Recent policy initiatives, such as Bill 40, signal increasing scrutiny of large “specified load facilities” and the potential for proponents to fulfill additional provincial requirements before seeking to connect.

For proponents considering a data centre project in Ontario, a practical first step is to pose a threshold question:⁴ will the facility be transmission-connected (typically >50 kV) or distribution-connected (<50 kV)?

The answer largely determines the process that will follow. The checklist below highlights the key considerations relevant to data centre proponents in Ontario:

Checklist for a transmission-connected data centre (IESO-controlled grid)

Select a candidate connection area and engage early with the transmitter and the IESO to confirm which connection assessment and approval (CAA) processes apply, expected study scope, and realistic in-service dates.
Initiate and complete the key connection studies typically on the critical path for large loads: an IESO System Impact Assessment (SIA) and a transmitter-led Connection/Customer Impact Assessment (CIA). These studies identify any potential network upgrades and technical requirements.
Plan for cost responsibility and security/financial arrangements for network upgrades and connection assets, including timing risks and potential OEB leave-to-construct applications if upstream reinforcements are required.
Negotiate and execute the core connection documentation, including connection agreements and related construction/operating arrangements, in accordance with the TSC and IESO requirements.
Complete IESO market/program registration and authorization steps that can apply to entities connecting to the IESO-controlled grid, including organization registration, authorization and required roles, even where the facility is primarily a load.
Confirm whether evolving provincial policy could impose additional prerequisites for “specified load facilities”, such as data centres meeting criteria set out in regulation under Bill 40-type authorities, as will be addressed later in this insight.

Checklist for a distribution-connected data centre (LDC connection under the DSC)

Identify the relevant local distribution company (LDC) licenced to distribute electricity for the proposed site⁵ and confirm available capacity, preferred connection voltage, and any local expansion constraints.
Submit the LDC’s connection application and progress through the DSC-governed connection process, including the LDC’s technical review, any required expansion design, and the connection agreement.
Address cost responsibility for distribution expansions and connection assets under the DSC, including allocating costs between the customer and the distributor. Reflect these in project economics and schedules.
Where the distribution connection has bulk-system implications, confirm whether IESO/transmitter studies (e.g., SIA/CIA) are also required.
Plan for metering, settlement and rate class considerations, including whether a new or modified rate class could be proposed for large data centre loads and any applicable distributor conditions of service.
As with transmission connections, monitor emerging provincial requirements applicable to large data centres, e.g., “specified load facility” prerequisites, that could affect connection timing and approvals.

Strict confidentiality over new investments, early connection queue searches prior to committing to site acquisition and development and ongoing diligence and monitoring is strongly encouraged to mitigate the risk of third parties submitting connection study applications (even without the site owner’s authorization or consent) to secure a spot in the queue ahead of a proponent in an effort to extract negotiated concessions in return for dropping their application.

Bill 40

On Dec. 11, 2025, legislative amendments to the Electricity Act, 1998⁶ came into force that contemplate changes to prioritize and approve connection requests from data centre projects deemed to serve the province's economic interests.

Much of the substantive detail is expected to be addressed in forthcoming regulations, including the criteria for defining a “data centre” for these purposes. Materials posted to the Environmental Registry suggest that the factors to be considered in prioritizing data centre connection requests may include: electrical connection size, assessments of community economic benefits, data sovereignty considerations, approval timelines, impacts on the grid, costs to utilities and ratepayers, and whether the establishment of a new rate class would be appropriate.

At this stage, it remains unclear how this contemplated prioritization will operate in in practice: whether timelines will be shortened, whether data centres will receive differentiated treatment in system planning, how preferred sites will be signalled, and whether priority will extend to system upgrade construction.

IESO system planning

The IESO is responsible for planning and preparing the electricity system to meet future needs, including electricity demand forecasting in Ontario.⁷ In its July 2025 paper, “IESO Demand & Conservation Planning Technical Paper: Large Step Loads”,⁸ the IESO characterizes data centers as “large step loads”, defined as loads exceeding 20 MW that connect in large blocks over short timeframes.

The IESO further categorizes data centers into three types:

Enterprise data centres - data centres dedicated to large cloud providers, which include Amazon, Google, and Microsoft.
Colocation data centres - data centres where the owner leases server space to multiple businesses, known as offtakers.
Hyperscale data centres - data centres which contain at least 5,000 server racks and 10,000 square feet of floor space.

As construction timelines are typically measured in months rather than years, and server capacity can be increased rapidly as demand materializes, electricity system impacts can emerge quickly. Ontario's planning frameworks are adapting to accommodate both the scale and pace of these developments.

The OEB appears to be anticipating these impacts with the creation of the Centralized Capacity Information Map,⁹ which provides data about the province’s electrical grid capacity for both load and DER connections. This can guide data centre proponents in evaluating and selecting potential sites.

Impact assessments

For new or modified generation and load facilities with a capacity greater than 10 MW connecting to the IESO controlled grid, proponents are required to complete both an IESO System Impact Assessment¹⁰ (SIA) and a transmitter led Connection Impact Assessment (CIA).¹¹

The SIA and CIA processes can take more than 12 months to complete and require payment of associated assessment fees. Whether SIA/CIA timelines for data centres can be accelerated remains unclear. And prioritizing these projects will likely extend wait times for others.

Market renewal

On May 1, 2025, Locational Marginal Prices (LMPs) replaced the Hourly Ontario Energy Price (HOEP).¹² LMPs represent the value of electricity at specific locations in Ontario's power system, whereas HOEP was a uniform rate. Market Renewal was designed to encourage efficient resource dispatch and investment in areas where electricity is needed most.

The use of location based electricity pricing in Ontario means that the introduction of a large data centre load in a particular area may have adverse pricing implications for other customers served from the same part of the system. Moreover, market renewal could pose challenges for data center proponents to accurately forecast electricity prices, typically one of their largest input costs, when evaluating project economics.

IESO technical requirements

On May 14, 2026 the IESO posted its draft technical requirements for large computational loads connecting to the Ontario system, commonly associated with data centres (the Technical Requirements).¹³ This draft consolidates existing technical requirements for general load facilities and introduces new requirements to address potential adverse impacts on system reliability caused by the associated behaviours of large computational loads.¹⁴

The IESO indicates that connection applicants for large computational load projects should follow the established “IESO Connection Assessments and Approval Process”¹⁵.¹⁶ Projects must comply with all applicable requirements set out in the IESO Market Rules, the TSC, the DSC, and other reliability standards referenced in the Technical Requirements.¹⁷

In addition, connection applicants must also provide additional project data, such as a project development plan, primary equipment data, load composition, and voltage and frequency operating ranges.¹⁸ The draft standards also introduce interconnection technical requirements tailored to address specific load behaviours of large computational loads, to maintain the reliability of the integrated power system.¹⁹

Collectively, the addition of these new technical requirements increases the compliance and disclosure burden on proponents captured within the ‘large computational load’ category. The IESO notes that these requirements may evolve as its understanding of these loads develops.

The IESO will host a public engagement webinar on July 23, 2026, to present the new technical requirements and provide an overview of stakeholder feedback collected throughout the drafting process.

IESO Project Committee

In response to forecasted energy demand growth across Ontario, and as part of Ontario’s Integrated Energy Plan (IEP),²⁰ the IESO has established the Major Projects Identification Committee (MPIC) process to support the early identification of major projects and strengthen forecasting and system planning.

Data centres are expected to account for 13 per cent of new electricity demand in Ontario by 2035²¹, and MPICs are designed to serve as an early warning system to identify large projects that may drive significant new demand.

How the process works:

Major Project Originators submit project information to the IESO.
The IESO reviews submissions.
Major Project Originators and the IESO work together to verify project details.
Entities that have relevant information pertaining to projects, including but not limited to, provincial ministries or agencies, local distribution companies, municipalities (individually or collectively, Major Project Validators) review submissions, sharing relevant information and updates.
A major projects list is finalized annually and incorporated into electricity system plans and forecasts.²²

Conclusion

In Ontario, connecting a data centre to power extends beyond commercial procurement. Proponents must traverse a regulated connection pathway, involving different gatekeepers and timelines depending on whether the project is transmission- or distribution-connected. In both cases, early site screening should focus on:

realistic capacity and in-service timing,
the likely need for (and duration of) SIA/CIA-type impact studies and associated upgrade scope, and
cost responsibility and financial security for connection and reinforcement work.

Proponents are best positioned by building an Ontario-specific connection workplan early: identify the right counterparty (transmitter vs. LDC), confirm applicable studies and approvals, map upgrade and permitting lead times, and monitor whether "specified load facility" prerequisites will apply as regulations emerge.

Data centre regulation in Québec: From honeyed promise to iron control

Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 Z

Since 2016, Québec has actively positioned itself as a prime destination for data centres, leveraging its abundant renewable energy, competitive electricity rates, and ambition to strengthen digital sovereignty. Supported by a government-owned utility that controls electricity generation, transmission and distribution, the province offered a compelling value proposition: low-cost power and a naturally cold climate that reduces cooling costs.

This strategy has been successful. The number of data centres has grown significantly in recent years. However, this rapid expansion, along with energy transition and scarcity challenges, has begun to strain Québec’s energy resources, prompting a noticeable policy shift. What initially appeared to be a favourable and predictable environment is now evolving into a more restrictive and tightly controlled regulatory framework.

This shift is reflected in a series of legislative and regulatory measures. In 2023, Québec introduced a requirement for ministerial authorization for projects consuming 5 megawatts (MW) or more, as well as for blockchain-related cryptocurrency operations requiring a minimum of 50 kilowatts (kW)¹.

Building on these changes, Québec adopted, in June 2025, An Act to ensure the responsible governance of energy resources and to amend various legislative provisions², also known as Bill 69. This legislation reinforces and expands the government’s control over electricity allocation, consolidating the role of the Minister of Economy, Innovation and Energy (MEIE) in approving large-scale energy projects and shaping long-term resource management.

A decade after opening its doors to large electricity consumers, Québec is now recalibrating its approach. Data centre operators are increasingly challenging Hydro-Québec’s measures, including significant proposed tariff increases and new charges related to underused capacity.

Key institutional actors

Understanding Québec’s energy framework requires familiarity with its principal actors.

At the policy level, the MEIE plays a central role. Its mandate is to ensure the responsible and integrated management of energy resources in support of economic development and energy transition³.

Hydro‑Québec, as the province’s vertically integrated utility, is responsible for the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. Its activities are regulated by the Régie de l’énergie du Québec, which has exclusive jurisdiction over electricity rates and service conditions. The Régie ensures that rates remain fair and that energy resources are managed responsibly.

Key provisions of Bill 69: Strengthening control over energy allocation

Bill 69 was introduced to modernize Québec’s energy sector. Key provisions include:

Enhanced Oversight: Strengthens the role of the Régie de l’énergie in overseeing major projects and rate setting.
Greater Transparency: Mandates clearer public reporting and stakeholder engagement for energy-related decisions.
Resource Allocation: Updates criteria for allocating power to large consumers, emphasizing responsible use and strategic priorities, and ensures a rounded integration of varied sources of energy to limit dependence on hydroelectricity
Environmental Integration: Embeds environmental and social criteria in energy resource development and allocation.

For energy-intensive facilities, such as data centres, Bill 69 introduces several important changes:

Access to Power: New or expanded facilities face a more rigorous evaluation of their alignment with provincial priorities, including economic, social, and environmental considerations.
Allocation Policies: Facilities must demonstrate responsible energy use and contribute to strategic objectives, such as decarbonization or regional development.
Compliance Requirements: Enhanced reporting and monitoring obligations ensure that large users adhere to agreed-upon conditions and support provincial energy goals.
Potential Delays: Additional regulatory reviews may extend project timelines, especially for projects with significant environmental or social impacts (see below).

Projects requiring ministerial approval

Since 2025, Hydro-Québec or any other electricity supplier must apply for the MEIE’s authorization to provide electricity to a data centre, for instance, requesting 5 MW or more for its operations, as well as an electricity consumer requesting 50 kW or more for cryptographic use applied to blockchains for cryptocurrency mining purposes⁴. According to governing bodies, this grid connection process ensures that the limited electricity resources available are allocated to projects that generate the greatest overall benefits for the province. Hence, the process is no longer purely technical, it is strategic and competitive.

1. Submission of the Application

The grid connection process for a data centre (or a cryptocurrency mining project involving blockchains operations) begins with the submission of a formal application to both the MEIE and to the relevant electricity provider, which is typically Hydro‑Québec. This application serves as the official presentation of the project, outlining its energy requirements, technical characteristics, and anticipated economic, social, and environmental benefits.

2. Government and Hydro-Québec review

Once submitted, the application undergoes a rigorous and comparative evaluation with other submitted projects. Because electricity capacity is limited, projects are not assessed on a first‑come, first‑served basis. Instead, the government and Hydro‑Québec jointly review all applications to identify those that make the most efficient and beneficial use of electricity.

In this context, particular attention is given to several key factors. These include the project’s economic contribution, such as job creation and investment, as well as its environmental and social impacts. Authorities also review the project’s application in light of overall energy assessment to ensure optimal energy management, planned energy efficiency measures and the use of high performance equipment, optimization of the energy mix (e.g., use of alternative energy sources such as biomass, bioenergy, natural gas, or self-generation), and recovery and valorization of heat rejection, among other things.

Importantly, the assessment focuses on maximizing benefits per megawatt consumed, rather than simply favouring larger projects. This means that projects demonstrating strong overall performance and efficient energy use are more likely to be prioritized.

3. Decision and possible outcomes:

Following the review, the MEIE issues a decision, which is communicated to the applicant through Hydro‑Québec. There are three possible outcomes.

First, the application may be refused. In such cases, the applicant may consider submitting a new application.
Second, the application may be deferred. This means that the project remains under consideration, but no immediate decision is made. The applicant may engage with the authorities to identify areas for improvement and strengthen the proposal.
Third, the project may receive preliminary approval. This is a conditional acceptance, subject to further requirements before final authorization is granted (see Step 4).

4. From preliminary approval to final authorization

Where preliminary approval is granted, the project must complete additional steps. Initially, the government issues a pre‑authorization letter outlining specific conditions to be met within a defined timeframe. These conditions may include improvements to energy efficiency, clarification of the connection scenario, or the provision of financial guarantees.

The applicant is then required to work closely with Hydro‑Québec and the government to prepare the necessary documentation and demonstrate compliance with these conditions. Once these requirements have been satisfied, the government issues a final decision.

This final authorization may include binding commitments, such as deadlines for concluding a connection agreement, performance requirements in terms of economic or environmental benefits, and key project milestones.

In other words, when applying for the grid connection process, data centres and cryptocurrency mining applicants must now demonstrate not only the technical feasibility of the project, but they also must show how the project answers to economic, environmental and social concerns with respect to its energy consumption.

Ramp-up underperformance charge

In parallel with tighter access control, Hydro-Québec has introduced new pricing mechanisms targeting large energy users.

In 2025, Hydro-Québec introduced a new charge for customers with Rate LG contracts, which targets customers whose demand is 5 MW or more, such as data centers, and have unused available power. Under the applicable rate, customers are required to reserve a certain level of electrical capacity to meet their operational needs. If this reserved capacity is significantly higher than actual usage, a charge is applicable.

Hydro-Québec calculates the charge by reviewing the customer’s usage over the previous 12 billing periods and, if the customer’s maximum power demand during that period is less than 60 per cent of the reserved capacity, a charge is applied. This charge is calculated on the portion of the reserved capacity that remains unused (i.e., the gap between actual peak usage and the 60 per cent threshold).

Although the purpose of this mechanism is to ensure that reserved electrical capacity is used efficiently, this measure is widely perceived by stakeholders as a penalty rather than a traditional tariff . Several data centre operators have challenged the validity of this charge before the Québec Superior Court, and the outcome remains pending.

New tariff proposals for data centres and blockchain operations

In February 2026, Hydro-Québec announced its intent to propose to the Régie de l’énergie new rates for large consumers, such as data centres, and an adjustment of the rate for the cryptographic use applied to blockchains⁵. The stated objective pursued by Hydro-Québec is to make data centres bear more of the costs for their high electricity demand, manage asset growth responsibly, and capture full value for Québec. According to Hydro-Québec, the proposed tariffs will reflect the cost of new supply while remaining competitive in the North American market and leveraging fully renewable electricity.

The Québec government supports Hydro-Québec’s approach as it has laid out economic, social, and environmental concerns to the Régie de l’énergie in decrees 89-2026 and 88-2026, issued in January 2026.

Data centres (CD tariff)

The CD tariff is a new tariff proposed by Hydro-Québec for data centres requiring 5 MW or more, at an average cost of about 13 ¢/kWh, roughly double the current large-power rate.

This tariff will automatically apply to new projects, subject to approval by the Régie de l’énergie, with transitional arrangements for existing facilities to provide predictability in energy consumption. It will also apply to any data centre currently supplied by Hydro-Québec with authorized maximum power of 5 MW or more, including current M and LG tariff clients meeting that threshold.

Hydro-Québec requests approval for the CD tariff to become effective on November 1, 2026. However, many data centers operators and users have already expressed their intent to challenge the CD tariff before the Régie de l’énergie. The hearing is set for the Fall of 2026; a potential decision could be rendered by the end of the year or early 2027.

Blockchain and cryptocurrency (tariff CB)

Hydro-Québec proposes a revised tariff for cryptographic blockchain usage of 19.5 ¢/kWh, reflecting the energy-intensive nature of these operations and their limited economic footprint. Transitional pricing over three years is proposed for current customers to ease adaptation. The tariff is also being challenged before the Régie de l’énergie alongside the CD tariff for data centers.

A comparative perspective

Québec’s tightening approach aligns with trends in British-Columbia and New-Brunswick, who similarly emphasize careful allocation of electricity based on economic and environmental criteria.

By contrast, jurisdictions like Alberta and certain U.S. states rely more heavily on fossil fuels or decentralized generation to accommodate data centre demand, offering greater flexibility but raising different environmental concerns.

Conclusion: A strategic pivot with uncertain implications

Québec’s approach to data centre regulation has undergone a clear transformation—from active promotion to selective and controlled growth.

The province now seeks to ensure that its finite electricity resources, even if largely renewable, are allocated to projects that deliver the greatest overall benefit. This shift is driven by increasing demand, the need to manage infrastructure constraints, and broader policy objectives related to energy transition and economic value creation.

At the same time, this evolving framework introduces greater uncertainty for data centre operators. Stricter authorization processes, higher tariffs, and new charges for unused capacity collectively alter the economic assumptions that initially attracted these investments.

The outcome of the ongoing regulatory proceedings before the Régie de l’énergie, and the pending court challenges, will be decisive. They will determine whether Québec can maintain its attractiveness while asserting stronger control over its energy resources.

In practical terms, Québec is no longer simply competing with respect to low-cost renewable electricity. It is redefining the rules of access to that electricity. The key question is whether this model will strike a sustainable balance between public interest and private investment, or whether it will prompt some operators to redirect projects toward more flexible jurisdictions.

Data centres in Canada: Current state

Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 Z

Data centres have rapidly emerged as a dominant force in global infrastructure investment, accounting for more than 25 per cent of global greenfield investment in 2025. While they generate fewer jobs and contribute less to GDP than other sectors, such as natural resources, jurisdictions across the world are actively seeking to attract these projects to secure data sovereignty, boost national security and bridge tech leadership gaps. Yet as AI reshapes the global economy, a central constraint is emerging: the capacity to site, build, and power data centres at sufficient scale.

Canada is an attractive setting for data centre development, owing to its cold climate, abundance of hydroelectric power and proximity to the United States market. Yet, Canada remains a comparatively small player. As of early 2026, the U.S. boasted 40.6 GW of live data centre capacity, compared to Canada’s modest 1.4 GW of live capacity in September 2025.

What does this mean for data centre proponents seeking to connect in Canada? It depends on the jurisdiction. In Canada, electricity generation, transmission, and distribution are administered by government-owned provincial authorities. Opportunities and requirements vary widely depending on which province you are considering for a new project. This publication examines four provinces and thus four distinct regulatory approaches to data centre development.

From British Columbia, BLG Partner and National Leader of the Environmental Group, Rick Williams, delves into B.C.'s electricity regulatory regime and how recent changes impact data centre proponents.

Gas prices are not alone – Regulatory fee increases

Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 Z

Several securities regulatory authorities have proposed, or are in the process of implementing, fee increases.

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) has proposed amendments to OSC Rule 13-502 Fees and OSC Rule 13-503 (Commodity Futures Act) Fees which, if adopted, will become effective on April 5, 2027. The proposed increases are intended to address a funding gap needed for the OSC to fulfill its mandate, and the notice indicates that a combination of factors such as the evolution of products, market participants and technology require more comprehensive regulatory oversight. Many smaller market participants will benefit from the reduced participation fees, but the largest issuers and registrant firms (i.e. those with Ontario specified revenues greater than C$4 billion) will see an increase. As examples, the amendments will consolidate the bottom two participation fee tiers for registrant firms, resulting in the payment of the lowest annual participation fee of C$700, while introducing new tiers at the top level resulting in a fee of up to C$3,055,500 (from C$2,037,000). Certain activity and maximum late fees will also be increased, and the OSC is proposing to introduce a new annual Consumer Price Index adjustment to both the participation fee tier thresholds and the fees themselves. As an example, the OSC proposes to increase the fee for exempt distribution filings from the current C$350 to C$500. Comments on the OSC proposal are due by July 29, 2026.

The British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) has also released a consultation on proposed fee changes to increase some existing fees and change fees for registrants, in order for the BCSC to have a balanced budget for fiscal 2028. Examples of fees that would be increased include fees for firms and individuals to maintain a registration, filing a report of exempt distribution and filing a late insider report. The BCSC expects the changes will increase its fee revenue by approximately C$8 million. Any change would be effective as of April 1, 2027, other than the revised rates for maintaining registration, which would be effective beginning April 1, 2028. Comments on these proposals are due August 25, 2026.

As a reminder, the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) has already increased their fees, effective as of June 22, 2026. For more information, please see BLG’s Insight.

Navigating the next turn: The RIE Division of the OSC sets out its 2026-2027 examination priorities

Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 Z

The Registration, Inspections and Examinations Division (RIE) of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) has published its examination priorities for fiscal 2026-2027 in OSC Staff Notice 33-761 – 2026 Examination Priorities for the Registration, Inspections and Examinations Division, enforcing its focus on a risk-based supervisory framework that is responsive to evolving market conditions and emerging risks. These priorities are informed by findings from ongoing regulatory oversight, in collaboration with other OSC divisions and regulatory partners, developments in capital markets and engagement with registrants and other stakeholders. RIE has emphasized that it will focus on areas presenting increased risk of investor harm or market disruption. Speaking of which, RIE is itself exploring the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance its examination processes while maintaining effective regulatory oversight.

For registered advisers, dealers and investment fund managers, RIE’s continued emphasis on proportionate and agile oversight has important implications. RIE will maintain a risk-based examination approach, placing emphasis on firms identified as high-risk or high-impact through the Risk Assessment Questionnaire (RAQ) (which was due for completion by June 17). High-impact firms are those with considerable assets under management or where a material operational issue could create systemic risk to the Canadian capital markets. High-risk firms identified through the data collected from the RAQ are risk ranked based on multiple factors.

RIE will also continue to assess compliance with both new and existing regulatory requirements. In particular, derivatives dealers will be examined for compliance with National Instrument 93-101 Derivatives: Business Conduct, which came into force in September 2024. Examinations will focus on how firms have organized and overseen their derivatives business, including supervision structures, over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives trading, communications monitoring and interactions with counterparties to support fair dealing outcomes. RIE will also examine registrants’ capital market participation fees and excess working capital filings to ensure that firms are meeting applicable capital obligations and paying required fees.

RIE is expanding its examination activities to address emerging areas of risk and evolving market practices, including working with the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) to review separately managed accounts of dealer member firms to identify risks, emerging trends and areas for improvement. Of note, RIE will conduct a national sweep of marketing practices, assessing both traditional and digital marketing activities for compliance with Ontario securities law. The findings of the sweep will help determine whether any updated regulatory guidance is warranted. Registrants will want to ensure that their policies and procedures, oversight, performance advertising and disclosure practices are up to date. For some practical tips see our reminder elsewhere in this newsletter “Buckle up for marketing scrutiny”.

RIE has initiated a compliance initiative focused on registrants’ use and implementation of AI systems (the AI Initiative). The first part of the initiative included a survey of registrants, with certain firms undergoing a further review to assess whether they are complying with securities legislation. Consider including time in your next road trip to catalogue the ways in which your firm and employees use AI and ensure you have an AI use policy, including if your firm does not yet permit the use of AI.

RIE will also publish the results of a focused examination of registrants’ cybersecurity practices conducted in collaboration with the CSA in the second quarter of this fiscal year, summarizing key observations, identified findings, and examples of effective practices.

RIE continues to monitor “ramp-and-dump” stock manipulation schemes and account intrusions and will assess the adequacy of registrants’ controls in addressing these risks.

Finally, RIE has underscored its intention to take swift and decisive regulatory action in response to compliance concerns. RIE has emphasized that the use of “for cause” examinations are critical to deterring misconduct and that it will use all available regulatory tools to address non-compliance, including referrals to its Registrant Conduct team.

The authors would like to thank Ray Zhao, student-at-law, for his contributions to this insight.

New CIRO guidance on “fit and proper”: Checkpoints ahead

Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 Z

On June 24, the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) published new Guidance on the Fit and Proper Test for Approved Persons (GN-9200-26-001) (the Guidance), replacing the Oct. 14, 2021, IIROC Guidance Note on this issue.

The Guidance reiterates that CIRO will evaluate individual Approved Persons applications to determine whether an individual is suitable, or “fit and proper,” on the basis of three fundamental criteria: integrity, financial solvency and competence, while also considering whether registration is in the public interest or is otherwise objectionable.

Factors registration staff (Staff) will consider when evaluating an individual’s integrity include whether the individual was convicted of any offence, with particular weight given to offences of dishonesty, fraud, financial crime or other offences under legislation relating to securities, financial services, insolvency, insurance, consumer protection, money laundering, market manipulation or insider trading, and whether the individual was the subject of any complaints relating to regulated activities. Factors Staff will consider when evaluating financial solvency include whether the individual has been the subject of any judgment debt or award that remains outstanding, if the applicant has filed for bankruptcy, or if the applicant failed to meet a material financial obligation as it came due. When considering competence, Staff will assess whether the individual satisfies the applicable minimum CIRO proficiency requirements and whether they have demonstrated by education, experience and training that they would be able to perform the regulated activity. The full list of factors on how Staff evaluates the three fundamental criteria, and whether approval is contrary to the public interest or objectionable, is set out in the Guidance.

The Guidance also notes that, where Staff has concerns about an individual, they may recommend refusal, revocation, suspension or imposing terms and conditions on their approval/registration, along with indicating that imposition of terms and conditions may be recommended where enhanced supervision or other protective/corrective measures are appropriate. A more extensive review may occur if an approval or registration application contains disclosure on Form 33-109F4 Registration of Individuals and Review of Permitted Individuals under item 12 (Resignations and Terminations); item 13 (Regulatory Disclosures); item 14 (Criminal Disclosures); item 15 (Civil Disclosure) or item 16 (Financial Disclosure). CIRO expects that certain supporting documents will accompany the application for registration, with the specific document required depending on which of the items listed above are disclosed – for example, an unsatisfied debt obligation may require the applicant to produce evidence of the debt amount and repayment plan.

Finally, the Guidance provides best practices to assist Dealers in conducting due diligence on prospective Approved Persons, which includes obtaining explanations from the applicant regarding any client complaints and ensuring applicants understand the questions in Form 33-109F4. Dealers are cautioned that failure to take reasonable steps to conduct due diligence may put into question the Dealer’s own ongoing fitness for registration.

At the crossroads: Proposed amendments regarding insider reporting requirements

Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 Z

Earlier this spring, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) proposed amendments to certain exemptions from insider reporting found in National Instrument 55-104 Insider Reporting Requirements and Exemptions (NI 55-104). The amendments are intended to clarify that the insider reporting regime applies to certain transactions involving investment funds and structured products, like structured notes and Canadian Depositary Receipts, that are based on securities of a reporting issuer. The amendments are meant to clarify that an existing exemption in NI 55-104 from having to file reports would not be available to reporting insiders for transactions in these products, on the basis that securities of the relevant reporting issuer form a material component of the fund’s market value and should be subject to the insider reporting regime. For example, single-issuer exchange traded funds and certain structured products provide economic exposure that is equivalent to investing in the securities of a reporting issuer directly. The comment period closed on June 8, 2026.

Québec’s 2026–2050 integrated energy resource plan: Capital build-out, timelines, and market opportunities

Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 Z

Québec’s 2026–2050 Integrated Energy Resource Management Plan (PGIRE) is the province’s first fully integrated long-term energy planning framework. It was adopted following a multi‑year legislative, regulatory, and consultation process initiated in 2024–2025 and seeks to operationalize the provincial government’s new statutory mandate to coordinate energy policy, system planning, and decarbonization objectives under a single governance instrument.

Key highlights

Total additional investments by 2050: approximately 87 billion dollars (real, 2024) to deliver the targeted transition, including generation, transmission, distribution, bioenergy, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage-enabling infrastructure, and customer-side efficiency and flexibility
New renewable energy: near 150 TWh by 2050 (electricity ~100 TWh; bioenergy ~50 TWh), plus about 50 TWh of electric efficiency gains to reduce system costs and peak pressures
Electric supply trajectory: ~15 TWh by 2030; ~60 TWh by 2040; ~100 TWh by 2050 (Hydro-Québec), with diversified portfolios and increased storage and demand-side flexibility
Capacity build: wind 12–16 GW by 2040 and 21–25 GW by 2050; solar 1–3 GW by 2040 and up to 5 GW by 2050; hydro uprates/modernizations and new complexes (about 15-year development cycle)
Peak and flexibility: potential need for up to 22 GW of additional peak coverage by 2050, drawing on bi-energy, demand response, storage (including pumped storage and grid-scale batteries), behind-the-meter storage, and vehicle-to-grid as it matures
Bioenergy: cumulative addition of 11 TWh by 2030, approximately 30 TWh by 2040, and approximately 50 TWh by 2050; forest bioenergy alone targeted at approximately between 18 and 20 TWh by 2050
Hydrogen and renewable gases: measured growth to 2050; hydrogen need could reach about 9 TWh; progressive greening of the gas network with renewable natural gas (RNG) and other renewable gas
Network development: long-term transmission plan aligned to the distributor’s supply plan; Hydro-Québec signals eventual addition of about 1,000 km of new lines and five substations
Governance and timing: Hydro-Québec and gas distributors must file 10- to 15-year supply plans consistent with the PGIRE; the Régie de l’énergie’s mandate now expressly includes enabling an orderly, least-cost transition and maximizing economic, social, and environmental benefits

Québec’s PGIRE: An overview

The PGIRE originates directly from An Act to ensure the responsible governance of energy resources and to amend various legislative provisions (Bill 69), adopted on June 7, 2025, which formally required the government to establish and implement a long-term integrated energy plan to guide supply, demand, and investment decisions across all energy vectors.

This act repositioned both the Ministry of Economy, Innovation and Energy and the Régie de l’énergie, expanding their mandates to align tariff-setting, infrastructure planning, and procurement decisions with long-term energy transition objectives.

The PGIRE sets a long-term roadmap centered on energy security, affordability, and an orderly transition, anchored by approximately 87 billion dollars (in 2024 dollars) in additional investments to 2050.

The plan targets roughly 150 TWh of new renewable energy by 2050 (about two-thirds electricity and one-third bioenergy), complemented by about 50 TWh of electricity efficiency gains. Hydro-Québec is tasked with adding about 100 TWh of new electricity supply by 2050 (near 295 TWh total after efficiency), sequenced through intermediate milestones in 2030 and 2040, alongside significant grid reinforcements, storage and peak management tools.

The plan also contemplates expanded wind (up to 21–25 GW by 2050), solar (up to 5 GW by 2050), new hydro (with 15-year lead times), thermal options as system insurance, growth of bioenergy (about 50 TWh by 2050, including 18–20 TWh forest bioenergy), and measured development of hydrogen and gas of renewable origin.

Transmission and distribution planning is to be integrated into 15-year cycles, with Hydro-Québec indicating the transport plan may add about 1,000 km of transmission lines and five new substations over time.

What this means for energy producers (developers, IPPs, OEMs, utilities, storage providers)

Pipeline visibility and scale:
- Sequenced targets to 2030, 2040 and 2050 for new electricity, bioenergy create line-of-sight for large-scale wind, solar, hydro refurbishments or new builds, and storage (batteries and pumped storage) projects.
- Ramping up of wind and solar implies sustained procurement, local manufacturing opportunities, and partnerships under community-participation models adopted by Hydro-Québec in recent wind procurement.
Grid and interconnection:
- Hydro-Québec’s 15-year transmission plan aligned with supply expansion, including planned additions of lines and substations, pointing to ongoing interconnection and network upgrade opportunities.
- Interties with neighbouring systems (Ontario, Maritimes, U.S. Northeast) remain strategic for seasonal exchanges.
Gas and low‑carbon fuels: Growth of renewable gas (notably RNG) leverages existing gas networks; hydrogen growth and potential dedicated distribution where justified present project pathways and offtake structures for industrial heat, mobility, and synthetic fuels.
Bioenergy scale‑up: Targets for forest and other bioenergies signal demand for feedstock aggregation, conversion facilities, logistics, and combined heat and power projects; intermediate milestones in 2030 and 2040 support staged development.
Storage and flexibility: System need for substantial peak coverage and flexibility underpins requirements for storage, aggregated demand response, behind‑the‑meter assets, networks, and vehicle-to-grid pilots scaling over time.

Practical takeaways for energy producers

Prepare for multi-track procurements with community participation features.
Build Québec content and supply-chain strategies tied to PASQÉ‑type platforms (plateformes d’approvisionnement stratégique québécoise en électricité) and local manufacturing.
Anticipate permitting and social acceptability requirements; early municipal and Indigenous partnership structuring is critical. Recent wind procurement models formalized municipal and Indigenous partnerships to enhance acceptance and benefit-sharing.
For hydro and transmission, plan on long lead times and staged approvals; align project critical paths to the 15-year plan cycles.

What this means for industry and large energy users (mining, metals, battery value chain, data centres, manufacturers, services)

Capacity access and sequencing:
- Confirmation that Québec aims to maintain and deepen its strategic advantage linked to the reliable generation of clean and affordable electricity for businesses operating in Québec. This reinforces the confidence that the electricity-based hypotheses behind any long-term investment by private parties in Québec are reliable, which is especially important in the context of growing regulatory tools aimed at promoting low-carbon production and penalizing high-carbon production entering a territory (for instance, in Europe).
- Energy availability and peak management are central; electrification will be prioritized where it yields the highest system value, while transitional roles for gas and renewable gases persist to manage winter peaks and hard‑to‑electrify loads.
- Tariff evolution under the Régie de l’énergie may differentiate by use and sector to reflect marginal costs and policy priorities (that is, examples already filed for data centres and blockchain uses).
Efficiency first:
- Electric efficiency of about 50 TWh by 2050 and targeted gas efficiency reduce connection sizes, mitigate peak charges, and can accelerate connection timelines.
- Actions: ISO 50001 adoption, advanced controls, waste‑heat recovery, participation in demand response and bi‑energy options; evaluate thermic networks in campuses and industrial parks. The plan highlights thermic networks as strategic assets to reduce electric peak and valorize local heat.
Fuel-switching and low‑carbon fuels: Growth in bioenergy and hydrogen creates alternatives for high‑temperature heat, off‑grid or remote operations, and heavy transport, with progressive greening of the gas mix through RNG.
Reliability planning: Peak constraints are material (additional coverage up to 22 GW by 2050), pointing to on‑site storage, behind‑the‑meter generation, and flexible operations as competitive necessities.
Long-term needs: the announced investment cycle visibility and scale allow manufacturers to rely on energy-related long-term needs in Québec to plan investments in Québec (such as plant opening, or upscaling production).

Practical takeaways for large energy users

Map expansion plans against Hydro‑Québec’s supply and transport plan milestones; secure capacity reservations early.
Explore long‑term offtake with independent power producers for renewable electricity (Power Purchase Agreement, or PPA) and RNG.
Integrate social acceptance and community benefits into site development to streamline permitting.

What this means for construction contractors

Coherence with precedent announcements: Québec’s PGIRE confirms a clear signal that major long-term infrastructure investments, and therefore construction needs, are upcoming. This justifies investments in developing relevant construction skills in various energy-related fields (notably, wind, solar, hydro, transmission and distribution, industrial plants).
Red tape and streamlining: legislative and regulatory changes will be considered to tackle the long delays observed in projects realization.
Reinforcement of made-in-Québec supply chains: the desire to develop industrial capacities in Québec to respond to diversified needs as anticipated with the project pipelines creates an opportunity to grow local procurement, and therefore, a more reliable, resilient and reactive supply chain.

Setting the GPS for CIRO’s annual priorities

Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 Z

The Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) has published its 2027 Annual Priorities, emphasizing completion of integration initiatives and continued advancement of its broader strategic objectives.

Key priorities include:

finalizing a harmonized rulebook for investment dealers and mutual fund dealers;
completing CE harmonization;
advancing adviser compensation reforms by consulting on and finalizing rule amendments relating to an incorporated adviser compensation option to submit to the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) for review and approval; and
addressing the future of dual registration.

CIRO will review complaint-handling timelines, engage with the CSA in enhanced anti-fraud initiatives, conduct investor research (including behavioural “speed bump” interventions), consider improvements to account transfers, and provide additional structured and practical guidance on the Client-Focused Reforms.

Other CIRO priorities focus on regulatory evolution, such as operational efficiency and innovation testing through InnovateSafe, cyber resilience, access to on-line advice, registration and proficiency and greater transparency of CIRO’s market regulation function through an annual report. Finally, CIRO intends to review the Universal Market Integrity Rules with a view to potential modifications in order to better support smaller dealers and junior issuers.

Not just a learner’s permit: CIRO’s proposed changes to continuing education requirements

The Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) has issued a Request for comments– Proposal to harmonize CIRO Continuing Education Programs – Phase 2 where CIRO proposes to fully align CE requirements across Investment Dealers and Mutual Fund Dealers, including mutual fund dealers in Québec, under a single, principles‑based framework.

Key proposed changes include:

standardized CE hours;
harmonized compliance and professional development requirements;
elimination of carry‑forward and legacy exemptions;
expanded CE coverage to apply to certain executives;
consistent proration and leave‑of‑absence relief; and
the introduction of automatic suspension for CE non‑compliance.

One particular proposed amendment will have a significant impact on mutual fund dealers: CIRO proposes to align all dealers to a calendar‑year CE cycle and extend post‑cycle reporting to 30 days (from the current 10 business days). As part of the transition, CIRO proposes to add an extra month in the first cycle to provide mutual fund dealing representatives more time to complete the CE requirements in that cycle.

Comments are due July 15, 2026, with final rules expected in 2027 and a proposed effective date of January 1, 2028.

Pre-trip inspection: Updated CIRO staff notice on use of business, style or trade names

Earlier in June, the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) amended its Mutual Fund Staff Notice MSN-0032 MFDA 1.1.7 – Use of Business, Style or Trade Names by Members or Approved Persons to delete the requirement for mutual fund dealers to notify CIRO separately of changes to trade, business or style names. CIRO staff now have direct access to trade name information for dealers and their Approved Persons on the National Registration Database, so separate notifications are no longer required.

Looking down the road: The CSA proposes amendments to the issuer bid, take-over bid and early warning reporting regimes

Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 Z

On May 14, 2026, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) proposed changes to a number of rules to provide issuers with greater flexibility to repurchase their own securities, enhance transparency of ownership of derivative interests in specified circumstances and enhance the integrity of the issuer bid, take-over bid and early warning reporting regimes. These changes are intended to reduce regulatory burden by introducing clarifying amendments and supplemental policy guidance. Below is what advisers need to know from an investment management perspective.

For eligible institutional investors (EIIs) currently using the alternative monthly reporting (AMR) system, the proposal clarifies that reporting is triggered when the investor crosses fixed thresholds of 10 per cent, 12.5 per cent, 15 per cent, 17.5 per cent, and so on. The CSA note that certain market participants had a practice of calculating the 2.5 per cent threshold against the EII’s previously reported position, as opposed to against these specified fixed thresholds. Advisers relying on the AMR should ensure that their monitoring systems are calibrated to those fixed thresholds. For EIIs that are not currently reporting under the AMR, including ones previously disqualified because of a formal bid, business combination or proxy solicitation, they can enter or re-enter the AMR system by issuing a news release and then filing the required report in the circumstances set out in the proposals.

Significant changes are also proposed to the early warning report (EWR) system. For example, the amendments would treat securities already held when an issuer becomes a reporting issuer as having been “acquired” at that time for early warning purposes. This means that if an adviser, fund or managed account already owns or controls 10% or more of a class of shares when that issuer becomes a reporting issuer, an EWR would generally be required to be filed. The CSA also clarifies in this specific deemed-acquisition scenario, the news release and moratorium provisions do not apply. Additional disclosures are proposed in the context of take-over bids and certain proxy solicitations with respect to bidders’ and soliciting securityholders’ aggregate economic positions (i.e., to include economic interests in related financial instruments and other agreements that have the effect of altering economic exposure to an issuer).

The CSA has also proposed new guidance in National Policy 62-203 Take-Over Bids and Issuer Bids to clarify that it expects EWR disclosure as soon as there is a “change in plans or future intentions or if the acquiror or any joint actor has taken irrevocable steps to effect a potential transaction”. The CSA is concerned about the use of boilerplate language to avoid filing updated EWR disclosure where there have been particular changes to the acquiror’s intentions. The notice indicates that significant steps by an acquiror (or joint actor) with respect to a particular transaction may, taken together, constitute a change in plans or future intentions, as described in the most recent EWR.

If the amendments move forward, some registrants may need to amend their policies and procedures to reflect the changes.

Comments on the proposal are due on August 12, 2026.

The authors would like to thank Ray Zhao, student-at-law, for his contributions to this insight.

Navigating a complaint from the College of Veterinarians of Ontario (CVO): A practical guide for veterinarians

Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 Z

From time to time, a veterinarian may receive notification of a complaint from the College of Veterinarians of Ontario (CVO) on behalf of a client. Under the Veterinarians Act (Act), the CVO is responsible for receiving, investigating, and acting on complaints made against veterinarians, whether they practise in a veterinary clinic, mobile practice, or provide care for farm animals.

For a veterinarian, receiving a complaint can be stressful, but a high-level overview of the process can help make the complaint easier to navigate.

Overview of the complaint process: Five stages

When a complaint is filed, it will move through five stages:

The filing of the complaint, initial review, and issuance of a confirmation letter;
The Mediated Resolutions Program (MRP) window, if applicable;
The veterinarian’s written response;
The Complaints Committee (Committee) review and decision; and
Possible next steps, including a discipline hearing and a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board review.

The process may take anywhere from two to three years.

1. Complaints must be filed with the CVO; if verified, both parties will receive a letter of confirmation

The process usually starts with the complainant submitting a letter to the CVO. The College’s Registrar then conducts an initial review to determine if there is any merit to the complaint or whether it should be disregarded immediately.

If the complaint is not vexatious or inappropriate, the veterinarian and the complainant will receive a letter of confirmation.

2. A complaint may be selected for the Mediated Resolutions Program, but both parties must consent

Certain complaints may be flagged by the Registrar as suitable for MRP, which allows the parties to reach a resolution with an independent facilitator. While it is not appropriate for all complaints, MRP offers a consensual and low-cost process.

Both parties must agree to participate, and the CVO assumes all costs associated with the mediation. All complaints resolved through MRP must also be approved by the Committee.

Complaints involving the misuse of drugs, fraud, animal abuse, misrepresentation, sexual impropriety, or falsification of records do not qualify for MRP.

The possible outcomes of the MRP process are:

A letter of acknowledgement;
Policy changes in a facility;
An agreement to undertake further education; or
An apology to the affected party.

3. The veterinarian must provide a written response

If MRP is not undertaken, the veterinarian is required to submit a written response to the complaint.

Under the Act, a veterinarian has at least two weeks from the time they are notified to submit a written explanation to the Committee. As part of the investigation, a veterinarian is generally required to provide additional documents, such as medical records or witness statements.

After the veterinarian has responded, the complainant may comment on the response if they choose to do so. That comment will also form part of the investigation record.

4. Once the investigation is finalized, a panel will examine the written record of the complaint and make a decision

A panel of ten members of the Committee (nine veterinarians and one member of the public) will review the complaint and make a decision. The panel must make reasonable efforts to examine all written records and documents relating to the complaint.

The veterinarian and the complainant receive a copy of the decision. The possible outcomes are:

No further action: If the Committee has no or low concerns about the veterinarian’s conduct, the case is closed, subject to an appeal.
Recommendation or remediation: If the Committee identifies a low-to-moderate risk, it may provide recommendations to the veterinarian, or require that they undertake additional education or training. If the veterinarian cannot fulfil the undertaking, the case will be referred to the Executive Committee of the CVO. Appeals may also be possible.
Discipline hearing: If the Committee identifies a serious concern, it may refer the veterinarian to the Discipline Committee for an oral hearing.

Note that the Committee cannot order that the veterinarian pay damages or compensation to the complainant.

5. Possible next steps

a. A discipline hearing

If the complaint is referred to the Discipline Committee for a hearing, a panel made up of three to five members, including one member of the public, will review the veterinarian’s conduct and determine whether they are guilty of professional misconduct.

The hearing process involves the review and admission of written and documentary evidence, oral evidence, and expert reports.

If the veterinarian is found guilty, the Discipline Committee may order :

The revocation of their licence;
The withdrawal of their specialist recognition;
The suspension of their licence;
The imposition of a condition, limitation, or fine.

b. A review by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board

If a party is dissatisfied with certain written decisions of the Committee, they may appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (the Board). The appeal must be made within 30 days of the Committee’s written decision. The Board may consider whether the Committee’s decision was reasonable, and whether the investigation was adequate in the circumstances.

Importantly, this review is not a completely new hearing and does not involve retrying the complaint from the beginning. Instead, the Board reviews the record before it to assess the adequacy of the Committee’s process and the reasonableness of its outcome. Depending on the circumstances, the Board may confirm the Committee’s decision, send the matter back to the Committee for further consideration, or direct that further investigation be undertaken.

For a veterinarian, this review process can be an important safeguard where there are concerns about the fairness, thoroughness, or outcome of the complaints process.

Filtered Insights

The Supreme Court clarifies Canada’s methods of medical treatment doctrine

Background

The evolution of the method of medical treatment doctrine

The dispute before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court’s analysis

Adopting the Federal Court of Appeal's framework for methods of medical treatment

Professional skill and judgement

The test for methods of medical treatment9

Moving beyond the fixed-versus-variable dosage debate

Application to Janssen’s Patent

Implications

Bill C-31 proposes major Defence Production Act changes affecting Canadian defence procurement

I. Definition & Scope Changes – Associated Governments and Defence Services

II. Ministerial Powers

III. Information Requests & Stockpiling

IV. Defence Procurement

a. Financial Assistance

b. Business Information

c. National Security Exemption

d. Competitive Defence Procurement

V. Future Regulations & Reviews

VI. Implications of Bill C-31’s Proposed Amendments to the DPA

a. Broader Market Access & Associated Government Procurements

b. Expanded Scope: Defence Services

c. Centralization of Procurement Authority

d. Clarifying Competitive Procurements vs. Non-Competitive Procurements

e. Increased use of Industrial Policy Tools

f. Greater Flexibility in Stockpiling

VII. Conclusion

Canada’s foreign buyer ban: What the 2027 expiry signals for investors

Key takeaways

Canada’s housing crisis: Did the foreign buyer ban address it?

The federal government’s new pragmatic approach

How Australia's foreign buyer restrictions compare to Canada's framework

Existing exemptions in Canada

What we’re watching as Canada's foreign buyer ban approaches its 2027 expiry

BLG can assist

FSRA’s new Operational Risk and Resilience Guidance for Ontario insurers

What Ontario insurers should do now

Background

PC0050APP’s four principles

(1) Governance

(2) Risk identification and assessment

(3) Risk management

(4) Resilience

Four sub-risk categories under the lens

(1) Third-party risk

(2) Cyber risk

(3) Data risk

(4) Climate risk (physical and transition)

The broader regulatory and legal landscape

Takeaways for Ontario insurers

Just over the horizon: 2025 annual report of the OSC’s Investor Advisory Panel

Access model for continuous disclosure documents finalized by Canadian Securities Administrators

Takeaways

Background: How the Access Model came to be

How the Access Model works: Filing, notification and disclosure requirements

Practical considerations for issuers

Next steps

A view from the scenic route: The 2025 OTC derivatives report

Data centre regulation in Alberta

Key takeaways for proponents

Alberta’s unique regulatory and policy approach to Data Centres

Emphasis on “Bring Your Own Power”

Alignment with Federal Policy through the Canada–Alberta MoU

Expanded (yet uncertain) regulatory flexibility

AI Data Centre Computer Hardware Levy

How these features fit into the typical utility connection process

Unique AESO connection process requirements for Data Centres

AESO’s Large Load Integration program - Phases I and II

Protecting grid reliability and ratepayers

Impact of Alberta’s Restructured Energy Market

Data centre regulation in British Columbia – Competing for a limited supply

Regulatory framework

Limits on available electricity capacity

Competitive allocation process

Other data-centre-specific regulation has been limited to date

Conclusion

Data centre regulation in Ontario

The test for methods of medical treatment⁹