Canada: Trade Regulation & Practices

President Trump has signed three Presidential Proclamations imposing additional 50% tariffs on Canadian products across motor vehicles, dairy, and alcoholic beverages sectors, effective August 19, 2026. Unlike previous measures, these tariffs will apply even to goods qualifying for preferential treatment under CUSMA, marking a significant escalation in U.S.-Canada trade tensions. The proclamations cite Canadian policies as discriminatory, though the tariffs extend far beyond the targeted sectors to include

President Trump has invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to impose 50% tariffs on approximately $20 billion of Canadian exports, targeting motor vehicles, alcoholic beverages, and dairy products. With implementation scheduled for August 19, 2026, Canadian businesses face a critical 30-day window to reassess supply chains, renegotiate contracts, and explore tariff minimization strategies. How will this century-old trade weapon reshape North America's most integrated supply chain?

President Trump has invoked a rarely used 1930 tariff statute to impose sweeping 50% duties on over 550 categories of Canadian goods, targeting sectors from motor vehicles and dairy to alcoholic beverages, cement, and consumer products. The tariffs take effect August 19, 2026, and apply regardless of CUSMA/USMCA preferential origin status, marking an unprecedented escalation in U.S.-Canada trade relations. Will this aggressive use of Section 338 authority withstand legal challenges, and how should Canadian

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Pioneer Corporation v Godfrey, 2019 SCC 42, was a victory for the plaintiff, but it may prove advantageous for class action defendants in other cases.

The intersection of intellectual property law and competition law is an area that gains greater significance with each passing year.

On April 19, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. Comeau ("Comeau"), confirmed the constitutional validity of a New Brunswick law restricting the importation of liquor from other provinces.

Online retailer Amazon.com.ca Inc. recently agreed to pay a $1 million administrative monetary penalty as well as $100,000 towards the Competition Bureau's legal costs as part of a settlement . . .

The outcome of this case clearly indicates that operators of e-commerce omni-channels cannot simply rely on pricing information provided from suppliers.

The Bureau generally considers clauses of this nature to be vertical restraints that may impair competition.