E-TIPS

On June 9, 2025, the Commissioner of Patents (the Commissioner) issued a decision refusing Canadian Patent Application No. 3,137,161 (the 161 Application) for a food container and enhanced signalling device, developed by the artificial intelligence (AI) system “DABUS”. The 161 Application referred to DABUS as the “inventor” of the application’s subject matter and DABUS’s creator and owner, Stephen L. Thaler (Thaler), as the applicant and DABUS’s legal representative.

On June 5, 2025, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) tabled its 2024-2025 Annual Report (the Annual Report) to Parliament on the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). The Annual Report highlights the OPC’s progress over the past year in prioritizing privacy and data protection for Canadians in a data-driven world.

On June 4, 2025, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (the CIPO) issued an updated practice notice titled “Use of AI in proceedings before the Trademarks Opposition Board” (the Notice), which provides guidance for submitting a document in proceedings where artificial intelligence (AI) is used to create or generate content in the document.

On May 15, 2025, in Cleaver v The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited, 2025 BCSC 910, the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the “Court”) refused to certify a proposed class action alleging that Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited (Cadillac) breached the privacy rights of proposed class members by collecting their biometric information, including facial images, without consent.

On May 12, 2025, the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (the Cyber Centre) published guidance addressing cyber security risks associated with voice-activated digital assistants (the Guidance).

On May 26, 2025, the Federal Court (the Court) released its decision in GRC Food Services Ltd. v Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG, 2025 FC 940, finding that the expungement of trademarks that were previously used to oppose an applicant’s trademark registration under Section 12(1)(d) of the Trademarks Act (the Act) may trigger a de novo review of the matter.

On May 20, 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the Court) issued its decision in Zacon Limited v Provincial Doors Inc., 2025 ONSC 2954, dismissing Zacon Limited’s (the Plaintiff’s) motion to strike the defences asserted by Provincial Doors Inc. and Pretium Resources Inc. (collectively, the Defendants) on the grounds that they were previously considered in a final decision of a Patent Re-examination Board and would be an abuse of process.

On April 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) issued its decision in Telus Communications Inc. v Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2025 SCC 15, dismissing Telus Communications Inc., Quebecor Media Inc., Videotron Ltd. and Rogers Communications Canada Inc.’s (collectively, the Appellants) appeal, and upholding the Federal Court of Appeal’s (FCA) findings which restricted the meaning of “transmission line” under ss. 43 and 44 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) to “wireline infrastructure,” excluding the antennas used in 5G mobile wireless networks.

On May 8, 2025, the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta (the Court) issued its decision in Clearview AI Inc v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2025 ABKB 287, finding that certain sections of Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) were unconstitutional when used to restrict the collection of publicly available personal information from the internet where an individual has not given consent. This decision may mark a significant milestone for organizations looking to collect publicly available personal information on the internet through data scraping.

On May 6, 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the Court) released its decision in Ko. v Li, 2025 ONSC 2766, commenting on the appropriate use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the court room. The case is a cautionary tale for the legal community with respect to reliance on AI technologies in preparation of court documents.

On May 12, 2025, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) announced the launch of an exploratory consultation to develop a children’s privacy code to strengthen the protection of young people in the digital world. The consultation invites child advocacy groups, businesses, parents and guardians, educators, and other interested parties to contribute thoughts and feedback to ensure the code will reflect the best interests of young people.

The recent imposition of tariffs by the United States may assist anti-counterfeiting efforts, both in the United States and Canada. The imposition of tariffs themselves will likely only have a minor effect on the flow of counterfeit goods, as counterfeiters have not been known to play by the rules and are not likely to accurately describe the origin and value of the goods that they sell. In many cases, since the goods are produced at low cost, the counterfeiters can either absorb any tariffs payable or even pay the tariffs and still sell their products below the cost of genuine articles.

On April 28, 2025, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (collectively, the Offices) issued a joint letter to the US trustee overseeing 23andMe Holding Co.’s (23andMe) bankruptcy proceedings, highlighting privacy protection requirements under Canadian and UK privacy laws (the Letter).

On April 28, 2025 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bipartisan, bicameral bill titled the “Take it Down Act” (the Bill). The Bill is aimed at combating deepfake pornography by requiring social media platforms to remove explicit images found on their sites.

On April 10, 2025, the Federal Court (the Court) issued its decision in Aria Vent Inc v 2213785 Ontario Inc, 2025 FC 672, dismissing 2213785 Ontario Inc. and TRM Holding Inc.’s (collectively, the Defendants’) motion to enforce a settlement agreement between the Defendants and Plaintiffs (Aria Vent Inc. and 2721111 Ontario Inc.) to settle claims of copyright infringement for the Defendants’ unauthorized use of a Plaintiff image in its catalogue and price list.

On April 1, 2025 a working group of lawyers and judges released its Phase 2 Consultation Paper ( the “Paper”) proposing a massive overhaul to the rules which govern litigation in Ontario, the Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed reforms would apply to all civil cases in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, excluding the Small Claims Court. Modifications would also apply to certain types of proceedings such as bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings. The Paper follows the working group’s Phase 1 Report, released in May 2024, which outlined potential areas of focus for reform.

On April 22, 2025, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) released an interpretation bulletin (the Bulletin) on the handling of correction requests received by public institutions. These requests may be submitted by an individual to correct the personal information that an institution holds on them in accordance with sections 47(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act or 36(2) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (collectively, the Acts).

On April 14, 2025, the Federal Court (the Court) issued its decision in ITP SA v CNOOC Petroleum North America ULC, 2025 FC 684, dismissing ITP SA’s (the Applicant) application alleging that CNOOC Petroleum North America ULC (the Respondent) infringed the Applicant’s copyright in an image of its concentric “pipe-in-pipe” system through its use in a presentation to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) for a pipeline project.

After decades of urging by Canadian trademark professionals to change the regime involving official marks in Canada, a significant change came into effect on April 1, 2025. Official marks are a somewhat unique creature of Canadian trademark law. Pursuant to section 9 of Canada’s Trademarks Act (the “Act”), the Registrar of Trademarks may give public notice of the adoption and use by public authorities of official marks. Once such notice is given, it is prohibited in Canada for anyone to adopt a trademark which is the same as or likely to be mistaken for the official mark.

On March 26, 2025, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) announced that a new online tool is now available to assist organizations in assessing the likelihood of whether a privacy breach creates a real risk of significant harm (RROSH) to individuals.