The first article1 of this series provided an overview of infrastructure financing in Quebec and Canada, explaining why it must adapt to address maintenance backlogs, the imperatives of the energy transition and increasing fiscal constraints. This second article turns to emerging financing models and their concrete applications. Updated, Alternative and Emerging Financial Models Public-Private Partnerships2 Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are a well-established financing and management model for infrastructure projects, under which the private sector may be involved in the design, construction, financing and, in some cases, the operation and maintenance of a public asset.3 In return, the private partner receives payments that are contingent on performance, including the achievement of predetermined milestones during construction and the availability or quality of the service during operation. Contemporary PPPs are distinguished by their contractual mechanisms for performance monitoring and change management, permitting adjustments to financial or operational conditions over time based on the actual performance of the private partner. This approach facilitates an improved distribution of risks among parties, with the private sector typically assuming risks associated with costs, timelines, and performance, while the public sector retains responsibility for defining service levels and ensuring that essential services remain accessible to the population. Modern PPP agreements increasingly incorporate detailed performance clauses and financial review mechanisms based on quantifiable project outcomes, which helps ensure rigorous contract management. These measures enhance transparency and accountability, allow for a more equitable allocation of benefits and increase resilience in the face of unforeseen events. From a public finance perspective, PPPs also offer an important budgetary advantage. Because the private partner provides the initial financing and is repaid over time through service payments, the upfront investment does not always appear in the same way as traditional public debt, depending on the applicable accounting framework. Instead, it is reflected in long-term contractual commitments, which can help governments move forward with priority projects despite tight borrowing limits or annual budget constraints. This should not, however, be confused with the economic rationale for PPPs, which is based primarily on risk allocation, implementation discipline and performance over the project lifecycle.  When maintenance and lifecycle renewal are included in the contractual framework, assets developed under PPPs also tend to be better maintained over time, since these obligations fall on the private partner and are not dependent on future political decisions to allocate maintenance budgets. For example, the Highway 25 PPP agreement expressly provides for the design, construction, financing, operation, maintenance and refurbishment of the infrastructure, and entrusts the private partner with responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the relevant section. That said, private financing often carries a higher nominal cost and is generally more expensive than sovereign borrowing. At the outset, the decision to opt for a PPP should therefore be supported by value-for-money analyses to assess, on a project-by-project basis, whether the premium associated with private financing is offset by the value created. The value of PPPs therefore lies in the transfer of risk, the discipline in project delivery and the more predictable management of the lifecycle – all factors that must be carefully assessed on a case-by-case basis. Performance-Based Contracts4 Performance-based contracts (PBCs) are increasingly used tools in the financing and management of public infrastructure, particularly in the energy, transportation and water management sectors. In such agreements, the private operator is compensated based on the quality of the service provided or the efficiency achieved, rather than through purely fixed or input-based remuneration. This model encourages a results-oriented culture, where payments are conditional on meeting measurable indicators such as asset availability, energy consumption, response times or user satisfaction. By directly linking compensation to performance, PBCs motivate private partners to innovate, optimize processes and maintain a high level of service throughout the project lifecycle. They can also help reduce long-term operating costs and better manage risks related to maintenance and obsolescence by promoting a proactive rather than corrective approach. PBCs and PPPs are not mutually exclusive. In practice,  PBCs can be embedded within PPP agreements (for example, where payments for availability or energy performance are central to the business model) or used on a stand-alone basis in more traditional procurement arrangements, particularly for the operation and maintenance of existing assets. In both cases, the common thread is that of aligning financial flows with objectively measured performance. Blockchain and Automation5 The integration of blockchain technology into infrastructure projects is emerging as a useful innovation, particularly where multiple stakeholders, large payment flows and complex supply chains are involved. Blockchain’s decentralized and tamper-resistant structure allows for the implementation of “smart contracts” — agreements whose key conditions (for example, completion of a construction milestone or delivery of materials) are encoded and can trigger automatic actions once verified. Applied to construction and infrastructure, this can streamline procurement and payment processes. For example, once an independent engineer validates that a bridge pier has been completed in accordance with the plans, a smart contract could automatically release the corresponding payment from an escrow account to the contractor, while updating the project ledger shared by the owner, contractors and lenders. Similarly, deliveries of critical materials can be recorded on a shared blockchain register, ensuring that only approved products are used and reducing the risk of fraud or substitution. By automating these steps, blockchain can reduce administrative delays, limit disputes over invoices and strengthen audit trails. From a financing perspective, this increased transparency and the reliability of project data are of particular interest to lenders and investors. More robust, real-time information about progress, costs and compliance can make it easier to monitor covenants, reduce perceived counterparty risks and ultimately support a more efficient disbursement of funds and potentially lower financing margins for well-structured projects. Crowdfunding6 Crowdfunding has increasingly emerged as a complementary mechanism for financing infrastructure and construction projects—especially smaller-scale, community-oriented ones—by tapping many smaller contributions rather than relying solely on large institutional investors or government grants. For example, the Luchtsingel pedestrian bridge in Rotterdam was partly financed through a campaign in which residents could “buy” individual wooden planks, each engraved with their names. Thousands of small donations collectively triggered a larger municipal grant, proving that citizen-led investment can catalyze broader public-private partnerships.7 While crowdfunding as an alternative source of financing offers greater community engagement and more transparency, it also requires strong campaign design, clear revenue models or public benefit justifications and credible governance to succeed. For the moment, it remains a niche instrument, but one that illustrates how citizens can be directly involved in financing and shaping the infrastructure of their communities. International Case Studies Europe: Green Bonds and PPPs In French public procurement, the prevalent model is the marché de partenariat, an integrated contract by which a private operator, under private project management, undertakes to provide private source financing, design, construction, maintenance, and possibly operation of an asset, in exchange for deferred public payments tied to performance. Created in 2015 by a reform aligning domestic law with EU rules, it unified prior heterogeneous PPP-like schemes into a specific category of public contract, distinct from concessions. The marché de partenariat targets whole -life cost optimization and transfer of relevant risks (design, construction, availability, energy performance) in return for a private financing premium, enforced through performance-based payments, financial adjustment clauses, and reinforced oversight. It suits complex, long-term projects integrating design–build–maintain and smoothing budget outlays.8 These advantages come with governance challenges: the contracts are complex, long-term and often costly to prepare and monitor, which raises issues of transparency, capacity of public authorities to negotiate on an equal footing, and democratic control over commitments that can span several decades. This partnership model is increasingly fuelled by green bonds and other sustainable finance instruments at the European level, which have emerged as central tools for sustainable infrastructure finance and provide a pipeline of targeted capital that can be structured within marché de partenariat frameworks to deliver measurable environmental performance. According to data from the European Environment Agency, green bonds accounted for 6.9% of all corporate and government bonds issued in EU27 countries in 2024, up from 5.3% in 2023-,9 while the European Investment Bank approved over €15 billion in new financing in mid-2025 directed at water, transport, energy, and housing infrastructure projects that support the green transition-.10 This reflects the region’s strategic shift toward the channelling of capital into low-carbon- infrastructure such as public transport, renewable energy, and thermal building renovation. Asia: Digital Modelling and Blockchain The Land Authority of Singapore built the first nation-scale digital twin: a high-resolution 3D model of the entire country created from airborne and vehicle-based laser scanning, covering above- and belowground assets. The platform integrates real-time data (buildings, infrastructure, mobility, environment) to simulate scenarios for urban planning, infrastructure management, sustainability, and emergency response. It enables cross-agency and public–private collaboration, supports data-driven policy, and provides a testbed for Smart Nation services and applications. With the ongoing integration of AI, Virtual Singapore functions as an evolving operational tool for resilient, efficient city management and research, with anticipated partial public access to enhance transparency and civic engagement.11 Complementing this digital modelling infrastructure, the OCBC bank and Land Transport Authority of Singapore have launched a pilot of a blockchain-based conditional payment solution for construction projects. Under this arrangement, the Authority can disburse “mobilization advance payments” to contractors once predefined conditions, encoded in smart contracts, are verified. This innovation streamlines the disbursement process, ensures greater transparency over the use of funds, and reduces administrative friction associated with large upfront payments typical of major infrastructure works. As of the initial deployment, over 22 million Singaporean dollars had already been disbursed under this mechanism.12 By combining digital modelling with blockchain, Singapore has adopted a technologically integrated approach to infrastructure development and financing. The digital twin allows for more precise planning, cost estimation and risk assessment, which helps structure bankable projects and gives greater comfort to investors and lenders. The blockchain-based payment system, for its part, secures and accelerates the flow of funds once milestones are reached. Together, these tools strengthen project transparency, coordination among stakeholders, risk management and lifecycle governance. Latin America: Mobilizing Regional Markets for Infrastructure Financing The Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean (“CAF”) has significantly stepped up its role as a structural financier of infrastructure across Latin America and the Caribbean. In December 2024, its board approved US$2.478 billion for sustainable development and infrastructure projects spanning water and sanitation, urban mobility, energy transition, and social infrastructure across 10 countries.13 In 2025, CAF further committed US$1.086 billion to support climate-resilient and strategic infrastructure operations in Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay, and Chile, including urban development, railway reactivation and water security for metropolitan areas.14 Beyond project-by-project financing, CAF has announced a broad long-term commitment. Over the next five years, it aims to mobilize up to US$40 billion to support a “triple transition”: green, digital and social, targeting energy transition, climate resilience, water and sanitation, sustainable mobility, ecosystem preservation and inclusive infrastructure.15 Through these combined efforts, CAF seeks to close the region’s infrastructure deficit and orient development toward sustainability, resilience and social inclusion, while deepening regional capital markets for infrastructure financing. Conclusion The evolution of infrastructure financing is being shaped by a convergence of innovation and technology, on the one hand, and by growing investment needs on the other. From modern PPPs and performance-based contracts to blockchain-enabled automation and community-driven crowdfunding, emerging instruments broaden the spectrum of available capital while improving efficiency, transparency, and accountability. International case studies demonstrate that these innovations are already being applied in practice. Europe is scaling sustainable finance with green bonds embedded into long-term partnership contracts; Asia is pioneering the integration of digital modelling and blockchain to streamline project delivery and provide financiers with more reliable, real-time information on risks and performance; and Latin America is mobilizing regional development banks to close infrastructure gaps through climate-resilient, socially inclusive investment. Taken together, these approaches reveal a global shift toward infrastructure systems that are more data-driven, performance-oriented, participatory, and financially diversified. As governments face rising fiscal constraints and increasing demands for sustainability, the adoption of these new financing models offers a path to delivering projects that are not only bankable, but also resilient, transparent, and aligned with long-term societal goals. Why rethink Infrastructure Financing: https://www.lavery.ca/en/publications/our-publications/6438-why-rethink-infrastructure-financing-.html The World Bank . (2017). Public-Private Partnership Reference Guide (3th ed.). https://ppp.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/PPP%20Reference%20Guide%20Version%203.pdf Achats Canada. (2025). Partenariat public-privé. Gouvernement du Canada. https://achatscanada.canada.ca/fr/portail-de-l-acheteur/approvisionnement-specialise/strategique/partenariat-public-prive The World Bank. (2023). Performance-based contracts: Promoting quality road maintenance and economic efficiency. World Bank. https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/transport/performance-based-contracts-promoting-quality-road-maintenance-and-economic-efficiency Waqar, A., Khan, A. M., & Othman, I. (2024). Blockchain empowerment in construction supply chains: enhancing efficiency and sustainability for an infrastructure development. Journal of Infrastructure Intelligence and Resilience, 3(1), 100065. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772991523000403 Construction Placements. (2025). Crowd-funded infrastructure: Can retail investors finance bridges?. https://www.constructionplacements.com/crowdfunded-infrastructure-retail-investors-bridges Petty, J. (2017). Crowdfunding architecture. Architect & Developer. https://architectanddeveloper.com/crowdfunding-architecture/ MEFSIEN. Les marches de partenariat. https://www.economie.gouv.fr/files/files/directions_services/daj/media-document/FT16_Le_marche_de_partenariat.pdf European Environment Agency. (2025). Green bonds in Europe. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/green-bonds-8th-eap EuropaWire. (2025). European Investment Bank Group Unveils €15.5 Billion Boost for Water, Transport, Housing, Energy and Innovation. https://news.europawire.eu/european-investment-bank-group-unveils-e15-5-billion-boost-for-water-transport-housing-energy-and-innovation/eu-press-release/2025/07/18/12/28/51/159075/ OPSI. (2015). Virtual Singapore – Singapore’s virtual twin. https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/virtual-twin-singapore/ OCBC. (2024). OCBC partners LTA to pilot blockchain-based conditional payment solution for construction projects. https://www.ocbc.com/group/media/release/2024/ocbc-partners-lta-to-pilot-blockchain-based-conditional-payment-solution-for-construction-projects CAF. (2024). CAF approves USD 2.478 billion for sustainable development in Latin America and the Caribbean. https://www.caf.com/en/currently/news/caf-approves-usd-2478-billion-for-sustainable-development-in-latin-america-and-the-caribbean/ CAF. (2025). CAF Board of Directors approves USD 1.086 billion to boost sustainable infrastructure and climate resilience in Latin America. https://www.caf.com/en/currently/news/caf-board-of-directors-approves-usd-1086-billion-to-boost-sustainable-infrastructure-and-climate-resilience-in-latin-america/ CAF. (2025). CAF to allocate USD 40 billion over the next five years to boost green growth. https://www.caf.com/traducciones/traducciones_en/caf-to-allocate-usd-40-billion-over-the-next-five-years-to-boost-green-growth/

Following a series of urgent proceedings in late December and early January, the Quebec Superior Court issued an interesting decision1 on January 8, 2026, providing important clarifications on the scope of policies relating to intellectual property, confidential information and conflicts of interest, as well as on the duties of loyalty and confidentiality set out in employees’ employment contracts. The facts Concordia University (“Concordia”) sought a provisional injunction from the Court against a former employee and student, Mr. Oleg Khalimonov, as well as against Polaris Aerospace Inc. (“Polaris”), a company of which he was a director and shareholder. Mr. Khalimonov was employed by Concordia from September 2023 to December 2025. He had also been a student at the University since 2016 and, since 2023, he had served as Program Leader for Space Concordia, one of the University’s student associations. The group received significant public visibility with the launch of Starsailor in August 2025, described as the first rocket launch from Canadian soil in twenty-five years. These research and development activities are said to have generated significant intellectual property and attracted interest from commercial partners looking to invest in Concordia’s projects. In December 2025, Concordia was informed that Polaris was claiming in the market it had acquired Space Concordia’s intellectual property and as the entity behind the Starsailor project. On December 16, 2025, Concordia formally notified Mr. Khalimonov that his dual role with Polaris and Space Concordia raised serious concerns about potential breaches of his employment contract, the University’s Intellectual Property Policy, and its Conflict of Interest Policy. This process led to Mr. Khalimonov’s resignation as Program Leader for Space Concordia on December 18, 2025. On December 29, 2025, Polaris submitted a bid under the Launch the North initiative, a program of the Government of Canada’s Department of National Defense providing for a total of 105 million dollars in investments and grants over three years. Concordia asked the Court to order Polaris and Mr. Khalimonov to: Cease any use of proprietary or confidential information belonging to the University. Withdraw Polaris’s bid; and Remit any documentation in their possession relating to Space Concordia and/or the Starsailor project. Analysis of the criteria applicable to the provisional injunction The Court concluded that issuing the requested provisional injunction was appropriate and that Concordia had met its burden of proof. The evidence clearly showed that Mr. Khalimonov had played a central role in the University’s rocketry initiatives and that he had never formally disclosed to Concordia his simultaneous involvement with Polaris. He had undertaken to comply with strict obligations to Concordia regarding intellectual property and proprietary information, including keeping such information strictly confidential during and after his employment and acknowledging that any intellectual property developed in the course of his employment would remain Concordia’s exclusive property, with no vested rights accruing to him. Mr. Khalimonov also had to comply with university policies, including the Conflict of Interest Policy and the Intellectual Property Policy. The latter provided that the “Inventors” of “Qualifying Inventions” were deemed to have automatically assigned to Concordia the related intellectual property. The Court found that Starsailor constituted a “Qualifying Invention”, and that Mr. Khalimonov met the definition of an “Inventor” within the meaning of that policy. It also found that Polaris’s proposal used intellectual property and confidential information belonging to Concordia. In that context, the Court considers, on a prima facie basis, that Mr. Khalimonov had breached his obligations arising from his employment contract, the Intellectual Property Policy, and the Conflict of Interest Policy. The Court also concluded that refusing to grant the provisional injunction would result in the submission of competing proposals under the Launch the North initiative, creating significant uncertainty as to the ownership of the intellectual property upon which those proposals were based, and thereby causing irreparable harm to Concordia. It found that the balance of inconvenience favored Concordia and supported granting the requested provisional injunction, since the absence of a provisional injunction would likely lead to the disqualification of both Polaris’s and Concordia’s proposals due to unresolved competing claims regarding the intellectual property. Conclusions The Court granted Concordia University’s application for a provisional injunction and ordered, among other things, that Mr. Khalimonov and Polaris cease disseminating false statements suggesting that Polaris held any rights whatsoever in Concordia’s intellectual property, including in relation to Space Concordia’s rocketry projects. It also ordered Mr. Khalimonov and Polaris to cease using Concordia’s intellectual property (including for Space Concordia’s rocketry projects), as well as any confidential or proprietary information belonging to Concordia. Finally, it ordered the immediate withdrawal of Polaris’s submission filed under the Launch the North project. General Principles — Ownership of Inventions In Canada, except for inventions developed by federal public servants, ownership of inventions is derived from inventorship. Thus, the starting point for ownership of an invention lies with the inventor(s), who may subsequently transfer their rights. For Canadian federal public servants, inventions produced by a federal employee in the course of their employment are “vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada” and therefore belong to the federal government, pursuant to the provisions of the Public Servants Inventions Act. However, the Patent Act contains no comparable express provisions regarding ownership of an invention developed by an employee in the course of employment. The case law has established the general principle mentioned above: in the absence of a valid agreement relating to such rights in the context of employment ownership of an invention  vests in the employee who created it, unless the employee was “hired to invent.” The leading case in this respect is the Federal Court’s decision in Comstock2. In that case, the Court noted that the nature and context of the employer–employee relationship could be analyzed using various factors in order to determine whether an employee had indeed been “hired to invent.” Such a determination can be complex and remains uncertain, since each case depends on its particular facts. It is therefore always prudent to put in place an agreement governing ownership of inventions developed in the course of employment. Key Takeaway   Concordia University’s success in its application for a provisional injunction underscores the importance for employers of including robust intellectual property and confidentiality clauses in employment contracts. This decision is a reminder that it is not enough to rely on general principles: employers are well advised to draft comprehensive, clear, and operational provisions governing (i) the ownership and assignment of intellectual property rights, (ii) the definition and handling of confidential information, and (iii) the rules applicable during employment and after its termination. It is just as crucial that these policies and undertakings (intellectual property, confidentiality, conflicts of interest) be brought to the employee’s attention at the time of hiring, properly incorporated into or referenced in the employment contract, and easily accessible at all times. These contractual mechanisms complement the duties of loyalty and confidentiality set out in article 2088 of the Civil Code of Québec, which continue to apply after the end of the employment contract—but whose scope often remains insufficient in specialized sectors where intellectual property issues are decisive. In short, this case shows that, without well-structured contractual clauses, Concordia would have had much greater difficulty asserting its rights and obtaining the withdrawal of Polaris’s competing submission under Launch the North. Concordia University v. Polaris Aerospace Inc., 2026 QCCS 30. Comstock Canada et al. v. Electec Ltd. and Hyde, (1991) 45 F.T.R. 241 (TD).

Are you well-equipped to navigate the world of e-commerce, optimize your positioning, and avoid infringement problems?In this constantly changing context, Lavery invites you to its annual intellectual property symposium: a strategic morning event designed to provide practical answers that apply directly to today’s business realities. WHEN : April 22, 2026, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Register to this webinar Speakers The panels will be moderated by Alain Y. Dussault Panel 1 – Online Protection Mechanisms and Taking Action Myriam Brixi, James Duffy and Isabelle Jomphe Panel 2 – Software and Online Commerce: Patents, Interfaces, Protection Strategies and Related Contracts Eric Lavallée and Benoit Yelle Program The proliferation of online sales platforms, the rise of “marketplaces,” and the acceleration of cross-border trade are creating market opportunities that warrant a thorough review of intellectual property rights protection strategies. How can you effectively structure your IP protection to support online growth? How can you quickly remove a counterfeit product from online sales channels or social media? What leverage is available in terms of copyright, trademarks and customs interventions? How can you protect the software innovation at the heart of digital platforms such as applications, software as a service, e-commerce channels, and optimization and automation tools? How can you protect the user interface and customer experience of your online sales platforms? What are the risks associated with the Consumer Protection Act in a digital environment? What types of contracts should you consider for your online sales model? 9:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. Panel 1 – Online Protection Mechanisms and Taking Action The first discussion will outline the different online business models and typical examples of infringement, and then identify the legal tools to effectively defend intellectual property rights in a digital environment. Participants will see how to plan an effective strategy for taking action against infringement and communicate with major online commerce platforms to obtain the rapid removal of counterfeit products or content, relying in particular on the international registration of trademarks and copyrights. The speakers will discuss the measures available through customs authorities to reduce the risks of importing counterfeit products. The panel will also analyze consumer protection issues in e-commerce. With digital transactions taking centre stage, companies must reconcile online growth with regulatory compliance. The specific legal risks associated with online sales and best practices for managing them will be addressed in a pragmatic way.Presented by Isabelle Jomphe, James Duffy and Myriam BrixiPanel moderated by Alain Dussault  10:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. Panel 2 – Software and Online Commerce: Patents, Interfaces, Protection Strategies and Related Contracts This discussion will focus on practical ways to protect the software innovation at the core of digital platforms such as applications, software as a service, e-commerce channels, and optimization and automation tools. Participants will learn about the cases where a software, a key feature, a technical process or a computer-implemented method can be patented (and under what conditions), as well as filing strategies to maximize the value of a portfolio, while taking the pace of technological development into account.The panel will also address the protection of the user interface and user experience, as well as visual elements that support the customer journey. How should you combine copyright, industrial designs and trademarks in different circumstances? How does one assess the risks when using or drawing inspiration from templates, component libraries, style guides, or AI-based tools?Lastly, the speakers will discuss the different types of contracts and policies underlying e-commerce, depending on the business model envisaged, as well as the blind spots to avoid.Presented by Benoit Yelle and Eric LavalléePanel moderated by Alain Dussault