Canada’s infrastructure moment has truly arrived. Across the country, governments are leaning on major projects to tackle housing pressures, energy security, supply-chain resilience, and national defence – and they want those projects delivered faster, with clearer accountability. For businesses, that creates both a deeper pipeline of opportunities and a more demanding environment in which legal strategy is central from day one.
From mandate to execution
Infrastructure has anchored Canadian economic policy for decades, but today’s context is different. Dentons partner Ilan Dunsky, national co-chair of the firm’s infrastructure and PPP group, notes that “where we are today is already in a very good place.” At the same time, he sees a shift in risk appetite as contractors move away from “fixed-price, time-certain projects” after years of inflation and supply-chain volatility.
Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP’s Greg Southam says federal and provincial governments are now working harder to define and coordinate a national infrastructure mandate. For investors and project sponsors, that clarity around priorities – energy corridors, export infrastructure, critical minerals, defence, and housing-enabling projects – is beginning to translate into renewed confidence and capital flows.
McCarthy Tétrault partner Brad Nicpon characterizes the current cycle as a “golden era” defined by projects that “not only bolster our national security capabilities, but also better connect the country internally from an economic perspective.” But that ambition raises the stakes on procurement models, regulatory strategy, and dispute resolution.
Ironing out the progressive model
One of the most closely watched shifts is the move toward collaborative or “progressive” delivery. Under this model, owners bring contractors in early to refine design, pricing, and risk allocation before a final go/no-go decision. Fasken partner Ella Plotkin, who leads the firm’s global infrastructure and projects group, is candid about the mixed record to date. “There’s been some good stories. There have been some not-as-good stories.”
In contrast with traditional fixed-price structures, progressive arrangements have sometimes led to material cost escalation and limited off-ramps for owners. Yet Plotkin stresses that “the impetus for pursuing these [collaborative] models is still there,” particularly for megaprojects where the market cannot realistically “price and commit on day one without this development stage.”
For sophisticated owners, the focus is shifting from treating progressive delivery as the default to asking “what kind of project this model should be used for,” and where a tighter fixed-price or hybrid approach may still make sense. That analytical, project-by-project lens is an area where legal counsel is being pulled deeper into the boardroom.
Indigenous partnerships, regulatory pressure and risk
On the west coast, Farris LLP partner Ryan McCracken sees early, meaningful Indigenous participation becoming a defining feature of successful projects, with equity ownership and long-term partnerships increasingly common. He points to a growing expectation that counsel “find a solution that balances everyone’s interests,” not simply identify risk.
Blakes partners Marianne Smith and Claudie Imbleau-Chagnon likewise emphasize that infrastructure has become a lever for productivity and decarbonization as much as asset replacement. Imbleau-Chagnon notes that “infrastructure and investment [are] not only about asset replacement, but also a lever of productivity, economic competitiveness, decarbonization, social inclusion.” That breadth of objectives is driving more domestic-content policies, more complex stakeholder maps, and greater demand for coherent, bankable legal structures.
Arbitration capacity under strain
As the project pipeline grows and delivery models evolve, pressure on dispute-resolution capacity is mounting. Singleton Urquhart Reynolds Vogel LLP partner Bruce Reynolds stresses the importance of deep technical knowledge in construction arbitration, pointing to “that very deep and particular understanding” of how major projects are actually built, which “is not readily available” and “is derived from an experience of decades.”
Dentons construction litigator Morgan Burris sees “the same group of names” appearing repeatedly on arbitrator lists and feels “a lot of pressure when advising a client… on a candidate for arbitration.” With major nation-building projects moving ahead and more international contractors accustomed to arbitration over court litigation, this capacity crunch is likely to intensify.
For business leaders, the message running through these developments is consistent. Canada’s infrastructure agenda is accelerating and diversifying, but success will depend on choosing the right delivery model, engaging Indigenous and community partners early, and planning for dispute resolution from the outset. In this environment, infrastructure counsel are no longer peripheral technicians; they are strategic partners in shaping mandates, aligning stakeholders, and getting complex projects over the line.
The Lexpert Special Edition on Infrastructure brings these themes together, profiling the top-ranked infrastructure lawyers helping to bring urgency to projects while addressing the complexities from day one.
Lexpert is pleased to partner with The Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships, whose advocacy, research, and education on behalf of its members continue to drive this sector.