|
Written by Austin Minnings
JD Candidate 2026 Introduction The rapid adoption of AI systems has brought significant advancements across various industries, raising unique privacy and compliance concerns. This post explores key considerations for organizations operating AI systems in Canada including, among other things, anonymization and data thresholds, the proposed AIDA and recent updates to relevant privacy legislation. By understanding and adhering to the applicable Canadian privacy laws, organizations can ensure compliance in the new age of AI. Anonymization Thresholds & Data Storage Rules Anonymization of data has been a crucial consideration in protecting information. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act [1](“PIPEDA”) and Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act[2](“PIPA”) require organizations to ensure that personal information gathered is de-identified in a manner that protects re-identification. Organizations operating in Alberta must also adhere to PIPA’s standard of reasonableness in their data storage policies and practices.[3] PIPA does not specify a retention period that is considered reasonable but best practices suggest deleting or disposing of personal data once it is no longer required for its original purpose. The proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (“AIDA) On June 16, 2022, Bill C-27; the Digital Charter Implementation Act was tabled by the Federal Government. As it was proposed, the AIDA would regulate activity of persons involved in the design, development and use of “high-impact” AI systems, the determination of “high-impact” was deferred to future regulations.[4] Compliance obligations under the AIDA for persons responsible for high impact systems would have been related to risk management, transparency, record keeping and notification.[5] However, with the prorogation of Parliament in January 2026, Bill C-27, including the new proposed AIDA and privacy reforms it contained essentially “died”.[6] As such, the relevant compliance legislation remains PIPEDA and PIPA, among others. Demographic Protection Information and data may be used regarding demographics are often utilized in AI models. Passive demographic protection, such as identifying age, gender or mood may pose risks under the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) guidelines. In the event that such detection results in the collection of identifiable personal information or may contribute to systemic biases, there is a risk of non-compliance. Recent Updates The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act[7] (“FIPPA”) was recently reformed with the enactment of Bill 33.[8] Bill 33 included strengthened privacy protections and new rules with respect to data use and sharing and increased penalty of up to $750,000 for an organization.[9] Additionally, the PIPA is still currently under review. Conclusion The privacy and AI landscape continues to evolve, even without Bill C-27 and the accompanying proposed AIDA. Businesses should continue to monitor this landscape, especially given the pace of change. It is clear that AI will continue to intersect with privacy and compliance, necessitating further compliance requirements that organizations must stay up to date with. Note: The above information does not constitute legal advice. No guarantees are made as to accuracy, completeness, or applicability to individual situations. [1] SC 2000, c 5, [PIPEDA]. [2] SA 2003, c P-6.5, [PIPA]. [3] Section 2, PIPA. [4] Luca Lacarini, Part 2: Canada’s evolving artificial intelligence and privacy regime (April 12, 2023), online: https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/articles/2023/april/12/part-2-canadas-evolving-artificial-intelligence. [5] Ibid. [6] Nic Wall, Molly Reynolds & Rosalie Jetté et al, Looking ahead: the Canadian privacy and AI landscape without Bill C-27 (January 16, 2025), online: https://www.torys.com/our-latest-thinking/publications/2025/01/the-canadian-privacy-and-ai-landscape-without-bill-c-27. [7] RSA 2000, c F-25. [8] Supra note 4. [9] Ibid.
0 Comments
Written by Cassidy Peterson
JD Candidate 2026 For start-ups and new businesses, intellectual property is often one of your most valuable assets. Whether you are building software, designing a logo, producing marketing materials, or creating online content, copyright law plays a central role in protecting what you create. Understanding what rights you have and how they arise is critical to protecting and monetizing your work. How Copyright Arises: Automatic Protection In Canada, copyright is governed by the federal Copyright Act.[1] Unlike patents or trademarks, copyright protection arises automatically. This means you do not need to register your work or file an application to benefit from this protection. Copyright arises as soon as a created work is original, and the work is fixed in a material form.[2] The Supreme Court of Canada has deemed a work to be “original” if it involves an exercise of skill and judgment to create.[3] This means it cannot simply be copied from another source but it does not have to be novel or groundbreaking; all that is required is that the work must reflect some intellectual effort.[4] Since copyright protects expression, not the ideas themselves, an idea in your head is not protected. Rather, it is protected once it is fixed in a material form:
If this fixation requirement is met, copyright arises immediately. What Can Be Protected? Copyright reflects a balance between rewarding creators and promoting public dissemination.[5] Under the Copyright Act, copyright protects “works” and certain other subject matter. Works fall into four main categories: 1. Literary Works
The Act also protects specific forms of other subject matter:
For example, if your business produces a podcast, there may be copyright in the script (literary work), copyright in the performance, and copyright in the sound recording itself. What Rights Does Copyright Give You? Section 3 of the Copyright Act sets out the rights available to copyright holders.[8] If you own copyright in a work, you have the exclusive right to: 1. Produce or Reproduce the Work
What Copyright Does NOT Protect Copyright protects the original EXPRESSION of ideas, not the ideas themselves.[10] It also does not protect facts, concepts, general themes, or stock elements.[11] This means you cannot stop others from using your business idea, however, you can protect specific written business plans, branding materials, or software codes. Who Owns Copyright in a Start-Up? This is where many early-stage businesses make mistakes. Default Rule: the author is the first owner of copyright.[12] Employment Exception: If a work is created by an employee in the course of their employment, the employer is the first owner unless there is an agreement to the contrary.[13] Independent Contractors: If, for example you hire a freelance developer or a marketing consultant acting as an independent contractor, they own the copyright unless there is a written assignment. Such assignment would need to be in writing and signed by the contractor.[14] Without such assignment, you may not legally own your logo, website, or branding materials. This can become a serious issue during future financing rounds or acquisitions. Conclusion Copyright protection is automatic with no registration required if a work is both original and fixed. Copyright awards a bundle of exclusive rights, including reproduction, communication, adaptation, and authorization. However, ideas themselves are not protected under, only their expression. If your business depends on content, software, branding, or media, ensuring you are aware of your copyright entitlements is essential to protecting these assets in the future. Note: The above information does not constitute legal advice. No guarantees are made as to accuracy, completeness, or applicability to individual situations. [1] Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42 [Copyright Act]. [2] Ibid, s 3(1). [3] CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, 2004 SCC 13 at para 24. [4] Ibid, para 18. [5] Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain inc., 2002 SCC 34, [2002] 2 SCR 336 at para 30. [6] Copyright Act, supra note 1, s 5(1). [7] Ibid, s 2. [8] Ibid, s 3. [9] Rogers Communications Inc. v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, 2012 SCC 35 at para 56. [10] Anne of Green Gables Licensing Authority Inc v Avonlea Traditions Inc., 2000 CanLII 22663, 4 CPR (4th) 289 (ONSC) at para 100. [11] In Cinar Corporation v Robinson, the Supreme Court emphasized that [12] Copyright Act, supra note 1, s 13(1). [13] Ibid, s 13(3). [14] Ibid, s 13(4). Written by Kyla Rowsell
JD Candidate 2026 Like them or not, AI Data Centres are making their way into Canada at an increasing rate. There are currently 239 data centres in Canada[1] and the demand is increasing. As digital currencies expand and generative AI becomes embedded in both public and commercial activity, data centres have emerged as a foundational requirement of the modern economy, and a magnet for global capital. Canada has already invested heavily in AI by nurturing talent, funding research and development, and retaining intellectual property.[2] But talent and innovation alone do not attract large-scale infrastructure investment. Data centres are capital-intensive[3], long-horizon projects, and investors demand economic and regulatory certainty before committing billions of dollars to a fixed location. The recently signed Memorandum of Understanding between the Federal and Alberta governments, has sent a strong signal that regulatory impediments would be reduced providing more certainty for investors.[4] The Alberta Government has increasingly positioned itself as a viable home for AI data centres, with the potential to play a meaningful role in Canada’s broader strategy to attract foreign AI investment.[5] That potential is not merely theoretical, there are already 22 data centres in Alberta[6] with plans to expand. The Alberta Government has already announced Phase 1 of the Wonder Valley AI Data Centre Park, in Grande Prairie Alberta, which is a proposed 1.4 gigawatt off-grid power system to support the influx power demand for the alleged “world’s largest AI data centre industrial park”.[7] More recently, a European backed data centre valued at approximately $12.8 billion—an investment that signals serious market interest in the province, was announced for Olds, Alberta.[8] Several features make Alberta especially attractive from an investor perspective. Its colder climate materially reduces cooling costs, a critical operational concern for energy-intensive data centres.[9] The province also offers significant power generation capacity and a deregulated electricity market, allowing operators to secure, generate, or contract for power on their own terms[10], an important lever for cost certainty and long-term planning. Regulatory structure further strengthens Alberta’s appeal. Through initiatives such as the Red Tape Reduction Act, the province has emphasized faster approvals and streamlined regulatory processes, which directly address one of the primary risks facing infrastructure investors: delay. Since 2019, Alberta reports a reduction of approximately 35% in red tape, reflecting a broader policy commitment to investor certainty.[11] Alberta has also taken concrete steps to modernize its corporate law framework. Amendments to the Alberta Business Corporations Act removed the former requirement that 25% of directors be Canadian residents.[12] Today, corporations need only appoint an Alberta-resident agent for service, while boards may be composed entirely of foreign directors. Combined with Alberta’s position as having the lowest corporate tax rate in Canada, and among the lowest in North America, the province has deliberately positioned itself as investor-friendly.[13] The question is not whether Alberta can attract AI data centres. It is whether its legal, energy, and regulatory frameworks can continue to evolve quickly enough to compete for them. [1] Chrysten E. Perry et al., Data Centre Opportunities: Alberta and Canadian Initiatives Advance a World-Class Industry (1 December 2025), at para 9, online: https://stikeman.com/en-ca/kh/real-estate-municipal/data-centre-opportunities-alberta-and-canadian-initiatives-advance-a-world-class-industry [Chrysten]. [2] Daniel Schwanen, Canada’s AI strategy needs to avoid excessive precaution (9 December 2025), online: https://cdhowe.org/publication/canadas-ai-strategy-needs-to-avoid-excessive-precaution/ [3] Chrysten, supra note 1 at para 5. [4] Ibid at para 1. [5] Ibid at para 23. [6] Ibid at para 9. [7] Government of Alberta, Wonder Valley AI Data Centre Park (Phase 1) (last accessed, 31 January 2026), online: https://majorprojects.alberta.ca/details/Wonder-Valley-AI-Data-Centre-Park/11477. [8] Robert Tuttle, Swiss-backed data centre plan targets $12.8 billion in gas-rich Alberta (2 January 2026), at para 1, online: https://financialpost.com/technology/swiss-backed-data-center-plan-targets-alberta. [9] Government of Alberta, Alberta’s AI data centre strategy (4 December 2024), at 7, online: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/f6fe5816-12ac-4ba6-805c-d0a0dd5aebf9/resource/26d62103-ff38-4310-a98f-ab4595a4af74/download/ti-albertas-ai-data-centre-strategy.pdf [GOA AI Data Centre Strategy]. [10] Chrysten, supra note 1 at paras 6-8. [11] Government of Alberta, Cutting Red Tape (last accessed 31 January 2026), online: https://www.alberta.ca/cut-red-tape#:~:text=We%20are%20continuing%20to%20cut,reduced%20red%20tape%20by%2035%25. [12] Government of Alberta, Key changes: Bill 22 (last accessed January 31, 2026), online: https://www.alberta.ca/implementing-red-tape-reduction#:~:text=and%20Succession%20Act-,Key%20changes%3A%20Bill%2022,-The%20Red%20Tape. [13] GOA AI Data Centre Strategy, supra note 8.  Some of humanity’s finest efforts have been dedicated towards causing our fellow humans to experience surprise. Amongst our species’ greatest technological achievements is the classic “snake in a can” prank—where a hungry (but gullible) victim opens a can of purported mixed nuts, only to find a spring-loaded imitation snake. The results are reliably hilarious. Unfortunately, the genius of a well-timed surprise is generally under-appreciated, particularly by those who “benefit” from the surprise. It is with some hesitation then that I share the surprising fact that the default position under Canadian law is that an individual inventor (not their employer) owns an invention, even if it was created in while on the job. As an example, a labourer who develops an innovative widget used in the application of asphalt while working for a paving company will have a presumptive claim to ownership of that widget. Over the years, a few exceptions to this default position have been created by courts and legislators. Contract provisions have also been used by employers to assert ownership of inventions. In this post, I’ll lay out the details of theses exceptions and conclude with some take-aways for employers. Exceptions created by the courts Courts have historically recognized three situations in which an employer will be found to be the rightful owner of an invention:
Law makers have created three important exceptions to the default rule that an inventor-employee owns the rights to their work:
Contractual law exceptions It can be difficult and time consuming to prove that an employee’s invention falls within one of the common law or statutory exceptions listed above. Supposedly, this is one of the reasons why a new employee is asked to sign an intellectual property (IP) assignment agreement alongside their employment contract.[8] In these matters, a court would look to the precise wording of the contract to determine if an employee has assigned their rights to their employer. Choose your contractual terms carefully! But this is where a problem arises. IP assignment agreements commonly purport to assign IP developed in the “course of employment” or in the “discharge of duties”. Troublingly, these terms are usually left undefined. Whatever the language used, it’s important for plaintiff employers (and their lawyers) to realize that they may someday be called to prove that an invention was invented in the course of employment or discharge of duties. Is the paving company’s labourer acting in the “discharge of his duties” when he invents a widget that makes his job easier? Failing to show the court that a product was created in the “course of employment” can be fatal to a plaintiff’s cause. For instance, the employer in Secure Energy[9] argued that it was the owner of an invention because the inventor's employment agreement required him to assign inventions developed “in the discharge of his employment duties”. The Federal Court did not agree, ruling that Secure Energy did not prove that the invention was in fact made while discharging the employee’s “employment duties”. Although other factors were considered by the Federal Court when making its decision, the specific wording of the employment agreement was important to the Federal Court.[10] So it’s clear that IP assignment contracts should be drafted in a way that anticipates the legal burden that an employer may later be called upon to meet. Conclusion There are a number of ways for an employer to protect its IP. One strategy has been to include IP assignment agreements as a condition of employment. However, employers must carefully consider the terms used in the assignment clause. Will an employer be able to prove that an invention arose during the “course of employment” or “discharge of duties”? If not, an employer may be in line for an unwelcome surprise, ready to spring from a can of mixed nuts. [1] Eleni Kassaris, Executive Employment Law, (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada Inc, 1993) (loose-leaf revision 135) at s 10.132. [2] David Vaver, Intellectual Property Law, (Toronto: Irwin Books, 2011) at 369 but see also Spiroll Corp Ltd v Putti et al, [1975] BCJ No 992.[3] CED 4th, Patents, "Master and Servant" at s 109. [4] Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42. [5] Integrated Circuit Topography Act, SC 1990, c 37. [6] Industrial Design Act, RSC 1985, c I-9. [7] Bryce C Tingle, Start-up and Growth Companies in Canada, 3rd ed (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada, 2018) at 137. [8] Ibid; Richard Brait and Bruce Pollock, “Confidentiality, Intellectual Property and Competitive Risk in the Employment Relationship” (2004) 83 Can Bar Rev 585. [9] Mud Engineering Inc v Secure Energy (Drilling Services) Inc, 2022 FC 943. [10] Nina Lindop, et al, “Patent Litigation in the Energy Sector: Insights and Strategies from the Last Decade” (2025) 62:2 Alta L Rev 280 at para 38. Written by Deborah Oshidero
In the early stages of a business venture, founders often gravitate toward partnerships because they appear, simple, inexpensive, and flexible. The idea of “just starting” without paperwork or formalities can be appealing, especially when working with friends, family, or trusted collaborators. However, while partnerships may seem convenient at first, they carry significant legal and financial risks that frequently outweigh their perceived benefits when falling victim to legal issues. For most entrepreneurs, incorporation provides much more security and a sustainable foundation for long-term business success. Partnerships Under Alberta law, a partnership exists when two or more persons carry on a business together with a view to profit. [1] Crucially, no written agreement or formal registration is required for a partnership to arise. [2] Courts determine the existence of a partnership by examining the circumstances of the situation and the intention of the parties, [3] this may include shared-decision making, pooling or resources, and an intention to generate profit. [4] This means individuals can unintentionally become partners without ever expressly agreeing to do so, exposing themselves to legal obligations they may not anticipate or fully understand. Unlimited Personal Liability One of the most significant drawbacks of a partnership is unlimited personal liability. In an ordinary partnership, partners are jointly and severally liable for the debts and obligations of the business. This liability extends not only to a partner’s own actions but also the actions of other partners carried out in the course of the business. As a result, a single poor decision, contractual misstep, or act of negligence by one partner can place all partner’s personal assets at risk. Unlike a corporation, A partnership offers no legal separation between the business and the individuals behind it. Though it is important to acknowledge that not all partnerships expose partners to unlimited liability. Certain partnership structures, such as limited partnerships, provide individuals with protection. In a limited partnership, liability for limited partners is restricted to the amount for their investment, provided they do not participate in management of the business. However, the general managers in such arrangements continue to face unlimited personal liability, preserving much of the risk that incorporation is designed to eliminate. A limited liability partnership consists of partners in one or more eligible professions, such as accounting or law. [5] This is similar to an ordinary partnership; except they are provided liability protection. Though this is not a universally accessible solution for most commercial ventures. As a result, while these modified partnerships mitigate some liability concerns (for certain/specific groups), they are either narrowly available or only partially effective, making them an imperfect substitute for the comprehensive liability protection afforded by incorporation. Legal Identity The absence of a separate legal identity further increases the risk. As a partnership is not a distinct legal entity, creditors may pursue partners personally for business debts. This forms a lack of protection which is particularly problematic as the business grows, hires employees, or enters into more complex contractual relationship. What starts as a small, informal venture can quickly evolve into a source of substantial personal exposure (especially for a growth business). Partner Disputes Another issue that commonly arises is disputes between partners. While many partnerships begin with mutual trust and shared goals, disagreements often arise over authority, profit-sharing, workload or even the future direction of the business. If a written partnership agreement is absent then the Partnership Act governs by default, requiring equal sharing of profits and losses and equal decision making regardless of each partner’s individual contributions. [6] This statutory framework in practice rarely reflects the actual intentions of the parties and a can intensify conflict rather than resolve it. This is linked to the difficulty partnerships are to unwind. Ending a partnership, whether due to a disagreement or other reasons, can be legally and emotionally complex. Unless partners have a comprehensive written agreement, which as mentioned is not always the case as partnerships can be created via the action and the intentions of the individuals, dissolution can trigger disputes over asset valuation, outstanding liabilities, and ongoing obligations. In some cases, a partnership may be dissolved automatically by events such as the death, bankruptcy, or withdrawal of a partner, even if the remaining partners wish to continue the business [7]. This fragility creates uncertainty and can disrupt operations at critical moments. Corporations, by contrast, allow for the transfer of shares and the continuity of the business without jeopardizing its legal existence, providing greater stability and predictability. Incorporation By contrast, incorporation offers a far more predictable and protective structure. A corporation is a separate legal entity with its own rights and obligations, distinct from its shareholders [8]. One of the primary advantages of incorporation is its limited liability, meaning shareholders are not generally responsible for the corporation’s debts or liability (though they can flow to shareholders by losing dividends etc). This legal separation provides critical protection for personal assets and allows entrepreneurs to take more calculated business risks without exposing themselves to major personal loss. Incorporation also offers greater stability and continuity. A corporation exists independently of its owners and can continue operating despite changes in share ownership or management. It is even common for corporations to founder-proof themselves so the business may continue on even if founders decide to leave. This makes corporations more attractive to investors, lenders, and strategic partners, many of which can be reluctant to engage with an unincorporated business. Additionally, corporations have improved access to capital, as they can issue shares in return for cash and structure ownership in ways that are not as easily possible within a partnership. While incorporation does involve higher startup costs and ongoing administrative obligations, these requirements often function as safeguards rather than burdens. Record-keeping, annual filings, and governance rules help increase transparency and accountability, reducing uncertainty and internal disputes [9]. Conclusion Ultimately, while partnerships may appear more appealing for their simplicity, they often create more problems than they solve, the risk of unlimited liability lack of legal separation, potential disputes, and even unintentional formation make partnerships and precarious choice for most business ventures. Incorporation, though more formal, provides legal protection, operational clarity, and long-term viability. For entrepreneurs deciding between a partnership and a corporation, the safer and more strategic option is often incorporation. Seeking legal advice before making this decision is essential, but one conclusion is clear: when it comes to protecting both your business and yourself, a partnership is rarely a prudent choice. Note: The above information does not constitute legal advice. No guarantees are made as to accuracy, completeness, or applicability to individual situations. References [1] Partnership Act, RSA 2000, c P-3, s 1(g). [2] Partnership Act, RSA 2000, c P-3, s 1(c); Continental Bank Leasing Corp v Canada, [1998] 2 SCR 298. [3] Spire Freezers Ltd v Canada, 2001 SCC 11; Continental Bank Leasing Corp v Canada, [1998] 2 SCR 298. [4] Red Burrito Ltd v Hussain, 2007 BCSC 1277. [5] Alberta Government Services, “Register a business name” (Last reviewed 25 November 2025), online: Alberta.ca. [6] Partnership Act, RSA 2000, c P-3, s 28(a). [7] Khan v Miah, [2000] 1 WLR 2123 (HL). [8] Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd, [1896] UKHL 22; Business Corporations Act, RSA 2000, c B-9, s 16(1). [9] Business Corporations Act, RSA 2000, c B-9, s 268(1). |
BVC BlogsBlog posts are by students at the Business Venture Clinic. Student bios appear under each post. Categories
All
Archives
November 2025
|
RSS Feed