2025 was a year of numerous AI developments, with the explosion of new products, tools, apps, and offerings using generative AI and LLM technologies. With these developments also came a flurry of lawsuits. Here in Canada, a number of cases were launched last year dealing with ownership, copyright, patents, and other implications of new AI technologies and we may just be getting started.

We’ve been tracking some notable AI related cases that could be precedential in the near future, including these three which are expected to advance over the course of 2026.

1. Canadian Media Companies v OpenAI

In this lawsuit filed in Ontario,¹Ontario Superior Court File No. CV-24-00732231-00CL a coalition of most of Canada’s major news outlets sued OpenAI for using their news articles as training data for their large language models ultimately incorporated into ChatGPT.

In mid-2025, OpenAI had brought a preliminary motion seeking to strike or move the claim, arguing that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice did not have jurisdiction over the acts alleged against OpenAI. The Court dismissed OpenAI’s motion in November 2025,²2025 ONSC 6217 in short finding that the pleaded acts of infringement had sufficient connection to Ontario (including that at least some of the allegedly copied works occurred in Ontario, that the publishers’ terms of use included Ontario-based contracts, and that OpenAI carried on business in Ontario).

While OpenAI may seek to appeal the jurisdiction order, they could be required by the Court to file a substantive defence to the claim, which could be expected early this year if the proceeding is not stayed. Discovery may take place soon after a defence is filed.

In the U.S., a similar proceeding between the New York Times and OpenAI has been widely reported and has resulted in a number of discovery-related disputes. Notably, The New York Times sought production of millions of chat logs from ChatGPT users despite privacy concerns. OpenAI was ordered to preserve and, recently, ordered to produce these chat logs in an “anonymized” form.  This has raised public concern regarding the degree to which users’ chats with ChatGPT are private.

2. Can AI systems be an “inventor” of a patent?

 In a long-running dispute that has been heard around the world, computer scientist Stephen Thaler has continued to press a claim that his AI system, “DABUS”, is a valid inventor of a patent. In Canada, this dispute came to a head in June 2025 when the Patent Appeal Board (CIPO) issued a decision holding that under Canadian patent law, only humans can be inventors.³2025 CACP 8

In brief, the Patent Appeal Board conducted a statutory interpretation and found that the legislation was intended to only include human inventors and rejected Thaler’s various arguments for a broader interpretation, and on various non-AI machine analogies.

Thaler filed an appeal of the PAB decision on December 5, 2025 at the Federal Court.⁴Federal Court File No. T-4928-25 In his Notice of Appeal, Thaler alleges that PAB made errors of statutory interpretation in finding that the word “inventor” in the Patent Act did not encompass machines.

Thaler appears set on continuing to try his various test cases, and it is likely that this appeal will be hotly contested. It is expected that the parties will file evidence and arguments later this year.

3. Is AI-generated art copyrightable?

The Federal Court may soon have an opportunity to weigh in on the question of whether AI can be an “author” of a copyrighted work. In CIPPIC v Sahni,⁵Federal Court File No. T-1717-24 the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic filed an application to expunge a copyright registration for the painting Suryast, which was permitted to be registered with an AI co-author together with a human co-author. (It should be noted that the Canadian Intellectual Property Office does not typically make substantive examinations of copyright registrations.)

CIPPIC argues that the generative AI tool (RAGHAV AI) used to create Suryast followed only a mechanical, algorithmic process that did not entitle it to copyright protection.

In mid 2025, the Court requested that the parties file expert evidence regarding the technical underpinnings of generative AI. While a hearing has not yet been scheduled, if this matter proceeds, it could squarely address the issue of whether generative AI is capable of exercising the requisite “originality” for copyright protection and whether an AI can be an “author” under the Copyright Act.

Like the Thaler/DABUS saga, the Suryast case appears to be intended as a test case by the registrant, who has filed similar copyright registrations around the world, though mostly unsuccessfully to date.

4. Policy Developments

While the Canadian government has conducted a review of copyright law and policy in light of the new age of generative AI, this review was concluded in 2024 without any specific recommendation. It appears that for now, the government does not intend to amend the Copyright Act to address any AI-specific issues. On the other hand, the government has been active in trying to table legislation directed at transparency, security, and privacy issues raised by the use of AI, such as in the proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), which died in 2025 when the Canadian Parliament was prorogued.  Notably, in December 2025 (despite earlier stating that they intended to review copyright legislation), the Minister of AI, Evan Solomon, indicated that the government would continue to work on AI legislation but noted that the newly-created AI Ministry would not be responsible for making any changes to the Copyright Act. It appears for the moment that copyright legislation will remain a low priority item for the government.