E-TIPS

On April 2, 2026, the Government of Canada announced its launch of the review of Canada’s Federal Privacy Act (the “Act”). Enacted in 1983, the Act governs how federal institutions handle personal information. However, despite over four decades of technological advancements and shifts in how personal data is collected and used, the Act has not been substantially updated since it came into force.

In an era where a selfie doubles as a biometric identifier, privacy law’s goals of technological neutrality are being challenged in its applicability to modern data collection practices. Precedent setting litigation across Canada surrounding Clearview AI’s data scraping practices have revealed the issues in governing rapidly evolving technologies that vastly change the data collection landscape under existing legal frameworks.

On April 14, 2026, the Federal Court of Appeal (the FCA) issued its decision in McCain Foods Limited v. J.R. Simplot Company, 2026 FCA 71, dismissing McCain Foods Limited’s (McCain’s) appeal alleging that the Federal Court erred in its construction of the term “high electric field” when concluding that McCain’s Canadian Patent No. 2,412,841 (the ‘841 Patent) was not infringed by its French fry industry competitors, J.R. Simplot Company and Simplot Canada (II) Limited (collectively, Simplot).

On April 14, 2026, the Federal Court of Canada (the Court) released its decision in Federation of Asian Canadians Toronto v. Asialicious Holdings Inc., 2026 FC 495, finding that the Federation of Asian Canadians Toronto (FACT) established passing off of its trademark ASIALICIOUS (the Mark) by the Federation of Chinese Canadians in Markham (FCCM), Asialicious Holdings Inc., and the Chinese Cuisine & Hospitality Association of Canada (CCHAC) (collectively, the Defendants).

“Maple Washing” of product labelling and advertising is attracting greater scrutiny from Canadian regulators and the media. As will be apparent to anyone who follows Canadian news, there has been a lot of public focus since September of 2025 on instances of incorrectly labelling foods as “made in” or “product of” Canada, when they are not of Canadian origin. The media coined the term “Maple Washing” for this phenomenon. The concern has mostly been about foods, but the sobriquet is used for other products as well.

In March 2026, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office published a practice notice titled “March 2026 Practice Notice on Patentable Subject-Matter under the Patent Act” (the Notice), providing updated guidance on the Patent Office’s interpretation of patentable subject matter.

On March 31, 2026, the Federal Court of Canada (the Court) issued its decision in Ecovacs Robotics Co., LTD. v American Air Filter Company Inc., 2026 FC 329, allowing the appeal in part of a decision of the Registrar of Trademarks to expunge the registration for AIVI Design trademark (the Mark) for failure to file evidence in response to a Section 45 notice.

On March 20, 2026, the Federal Court of Appeal (the FCA) issued its decision in ProSlide Technology Inc. v WhiteWater West Industries, Ltd., 2026 FCA 59, reversing the invalidation of ProSlide Technology Inc.’s (ProSlide) asserted water slide claims (the Claims) for overbreadth. The FCA also upheld the Federal Court’s (the FC) findings that WhiteWater West Industries Ltd. (WhiteWater) did not infringe the Claims, and the Claims were not invalid for lack of utility.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has updated the Safe Food for Canadians (SFC) licensing process, including the introduction of additional information requirements, more thorough pre-issuance review procedures, and longer processing times.

On March 19, 2026, the Ontario Court of Appeal issued its decision in Nexus Solutions Inc. v. Krougly, 2026 ONCA 199, dismissing Nexus Solutions Inc.’s (Nexus’) appeal from an Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision finding that Nexus’ employee (Krougly) retained copyright in software he secretly developed while employed at Nexus.

On March 23, 2026, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) published its final report from Phase II of the Financial Industry Forum on Artificial Intelligence (FIFAI), titled AI Risks and Opportunities: Adopting an AGILE Framework in Canadian Financial Services (the Report).

On March 13, 2026, the Ontario government announced that it will be updating its Cyber Security, Privacy and Access to Information framework to strengthen data protection for Ontarians, including stronger cyber security rules for public services and updated Freedom of Information (FOI) timelines and processes.

On March 9, 2026, the Federal Court (the Court) issued its decision in Hellboy Productions, Inc. v Doe #1, 2026 FC 317, granting Hellboy Productions, Inc.’s (the Plaintiff) motion to obtain a Norwich order compelling Cogeco Connexion Inc. (Cogeco) to disclose the names and addresses associated with certain IP addresses.

On March 12, 2026 the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) tabled a Special Report in Parliament concerning the ArriveCAN app (the Report). The Report follows an OPC investigation into the Canadian Border Services Agency’s (CBSA) contracting practices during the development of the app.

On February 18, 2026, the Court of Appeal for British Colombia (BCCA) issued its decision in Clearview AI Inc. v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2026 BCCA 67, dismissing Clearview AI Inc.’s (Clearview’s) appeal from a judicial review of the British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioner’s (the Commissioner’s) finding that it contravened British Columbia’s Protection of Information and Privacy Act (PIPA).

On February 25, 2026, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) issued its decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. v Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC, 2026 FCA 40, dismissing an appeal of a Federal Court (FC) decision, which upheld the Registrar of Trademarks’ refusal to register Promotion in Motion, Inc’s (PIM’s) SWISSKISS trademarks for the goods “Chocolate of Swiss origin”.

On February 10, 2026, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Court) in United States v. Heppner, granted the US government’s motion for a ruling that documents generated by the defendant, Bradley Heppner, through an artificial intelligence tool were not protected by either attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. The Court followed up with a written memorandum on February 17, 2026 to further explain its decision.

On February 11, 2026, the Quebec Court of Appeal (the Court) in A.B. c. Google, 2026 QCCA 157, considered, for the first time, the issue of the liability of an intermediary whose search engine indexes a link leading to undisputedly false and defamatory information, where the intermediary did not author the post or reproduce its contents. Among other findings, the Court ordered Google to pay $1,500,000 in punitive damages for doing so.

On February 11, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (the Court) released its decision in Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, [2026] UKSC 3. The judgement marks a significant shift in UK patent law, overturning the longstanding test for patentability established in Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd, [2007] RPC 7 (Aerotel), and considering the patentability of artificial neural networks (ANNs).

On January 28, 2026, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) released new guidance, titled AI Scribes: Key Considerations for the Health Sector (the Guidance) to support the responsible adoption of AI scribes in the health sector.