A recent Alberta privacy case, P2019-ND-006 (in PDF), deals with a breach of salary information about identifiable individuals under the Personal Information Privacy Act (PIPA). The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Alberta found that “A reasonable person would consider that the identity and salary information could be used to cause the significant harms of hurt, humiliation and embarrassment, particularly if shared with individuals who have a personal or professional relationship with the affected individuals.”

What happened?

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) have set the basic framework for the right to be forgotten. Recent case law from Germany offers an insight into its application on the ground.

The right to be forgotten as initially created in the Google Spain case (C-131/12) and now further developed in art. 17 GDPR provides data subjects with the right to have their personal data erased by a data processing controller (most prominently search engines) under specific circumstances. For search engines, though, balancing the diverging rights and interests of publishers and . . . [more]

Periodically on Thursdays, we present a significant excerpt, usually from a recently published book or journal article. In every case the proper permissions have been obtained. If you are a publisher who would like to participate in this feature, please let us know via the site’s contact form.

When Canadian Courts Cite the Major Philosophers: Who Cites Whom in Canadian Caselaw

Queen’s University Legal Research Paper No. 2017-090; CLLR 42:2

Nancy McCormack is an Associate Professor and Law Librarian at Queen’s University. She has authored and co-authored numerous books including the How to Understand Statutes and Regulations, Annotated Federal . . . [more]

Fitness software for phones, watches and other wearable devices is common. So when does software cross a line and need to comply with medical device legislation?  

Medical devices used for health purposes are regulated and must meet certain standards or approvals depending on a risk profile. In Canada medical devices are rated from class 1 through 4, class 4 requiring the most scrutiny. 

Health Canada recently published draft guidelines on when software has a medical purpose that requires it to follow the medical device standards.  

For example: 

Software intended for maintaining or encouraging a healthy lifestyle, such as general wellness . . . [more]

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed* on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

1. R. v. Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10

[5] In my view, circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy for the purposes of s. 162(1) of the Criminal Code are circumstances in which a person would reasonably expect not to be the subject of the type of observation or recording that in fact occurred. To determine whether a person had . . . [more]

How hard can it be to find that someone who takes surreptitious videos of the breasts of young women who have not given consent is guilty of voyeurism? As it turns out, more complex than one might think.

In R. v. Jarvis, the Supreme Court of Canada took a strong stand against “voyeurism”, particularly in the context of that case. It took what seems to be an inordinate effort of analysis to get there, though. . . . [more]

The Walter Owen Book Prize, awarded by the Canadian Foundation For Legal Research, recognizes exceptional legal research and writing that contribute significantly to Canadian legal literature.

The Prize, now $15,000.00, was created in celebration of the life of Walter Owen, Q.C., P.C., prominent member of the Law Society of British Columbia, former Lieutenant Governor of that province, past President of the Canadian Bar Association and founding President of what is now the Canadian Foundation For Legal Research.

ELIGIBILITY

• A book, substantial in nature, which is an entirely new work (or a previous title’s complete revision), judged by the Prize Jury

It doesn’t take too much reading to understand that technology is crucial to the success of any modern law firm. With the mergers and investments in LegalTech continuing to rise, law firms truly cannot invest too much in tech and innovation. I think we can expect to see the below example more often:

A law firm that does everything starts from scratch with founders having both deep business and legal expertise. They commit to being early adopters of technology. It takes spent three years and $5M in custom technology, but they are able to deliver on the vaunted promise of . . . [more]

Here are excerpts from the most recent tips on SlawTips, the site that each week offers up useful advice, short and to the point, on practice, research, writing and technology.

Research & Writing

So Basic
Neil Guthrie

Basis is, basically, bad. Why, you ask? It’s one of those words that lawyers love to use, but one that renders their prose flabby and verbose. Instead of on a temporary/permanent/daily/whatever basis, just write temporarily, permanently, daily etc. While adverbs are not a hallmark of vigorous prose, a single word is better than four. …

Practice

Plug Into Law Podcasts
Emma Durand-Wood . . . [more]

We are hearing more and more often from SRLs about “sharp practice” when they face a lawyer on the other side of their case.

There are many common elements to these reports, which I find to be largely credible. SRLs believe that their unfamiliarity with the legal system, combined with the tendency of some judges to assume the worst of them – that their cases are without merit, or that they are “vexatious” and abusing the process when they make honest mistakes and misjudgments – is being exploited by counsel on the other side as a matter of strategy.

The . . . [more]

The broad discretion of universities over resolving academic disputes has been clearly stated in Ontario in cases like Jaffer and Aba-Alkhail. The complex nature of such disputes means that the internal dispute resolution mechanisms within universities are usually the primary means to resolve such issues, though not necessarily the final one.

However, where a student’s claim goes beyond student evaluations, structure of the programs, competence of advisors, and other matters that are intrinsically academic, the situation is not necessarily so clear. The Ontario Court of Appeal recently weighed in on this further in Lam v. University of Western Ontario . . . [more]