We're proud to announce that Sandra Petersson is joining Slaw as a regular blogger.

Sandra is research manager at the Alberta Law Reform Institute, a writer and a former Supreme Court of Canada clerk. She travelled to New Zealand as a Commonwealth Scholar to earn a Masters Degree in legislative drafting and gender equality, and stayed on in New Zealand as a senior lecturer in law at Victoria University of Wellington, teaching courses in legal theory, legislation and torts.

Please welcome Sandra to Slaw. . . . [more]

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) regulates the sale of alcohol products in Ontario. Fans of wine not available on the shelves of the LCBO’s outlets may form wine clubs that order particular wines through the LCBO. Until recently, the LCBO collected the names and addresses of all the members of the clubs placing these orders.

Acting on a complaint by a manager/member of such a club, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario recently ordered that the LCBO stop collecting this personal information. In response, the LCBO stopped filling orders from the wine clubs.

According to the CBC . . . [more]

Slaw is proud to announce that we are collaborating with OnPoint Legal Research Law Corporation so that this Sunday, and one Sunday a month hereafter, we can present their elaborate summary of an important case from the British Columbia, Alberta, or Ontario court of appeal.

OnPoint Legal Research is an online firm that has been offering legal research, analysis and drafting services to Canadian lawyers for more than thirteen years. You can learn more about the firm on their About Us page.

The summaries we will be presenting draw from OnPoint's newsletters and comprise a full description of the . . . [more]

We're proud to announce that four new lawyers have joined the roster of columnists, who write for Slaw in particular areas. . . . [more]

The EU last week published a draft directive on network security that requires communications operators (including utilities, banks etc) to report threats or attacks on their operations to national security agencies. In the US, President Obama is about to issue an Executive Order on critical infrastructure security that will provide for notices of imminent threats to operators of such operations. (Drafts of the Order have been circulating for months.)

Any word on official Canadian attention to such matters?

Do you know of any legal barriers that would prevent especially state-based operators of information systems (whether ‘critical’ or not) from defending . . . [more]

A private correspondent has suggested to me that call centres that record incoming calls 'for quality assurance purposes' often store the recordings offshore, including in the US. The correspondent wondered if there was any concern that the information in the calls might therefore be subject to investigation or copying by US law enforcement under the PATRIOT Act.

Both the Canadian and the Ontario Privacy Commissioners have commented on allegations of special risk of having personal information in the US because of that statute. Neither have supported the concerns. A recent summary of the discussion is found in the Ontario IPC's . . . [more]

Here’s a question raised on a US legal technology list that seems relevant to Canadian law too.

What's the duty of care of mobile devices as pertains to patches/updates provided by the vendor and/or provider?

Example:

I bought an Android phone in June 2012, which received an over-the-air OS upgrade in late July to Android 4.0.4. This release was provided to me well after the version was released to the public. Also, since that time, 2 other versions of Android (4.1 and 4.2) have been made available. There are known security vulnerabilities in the 4.0.4 release.

Yet I've certainly not

. . . [more]

A US appeals court has reversed an order banning a convicted sex offender from having a Facebook account. Would such an order be made and upheld in Canada? What limits might be possible, and how would they be enforced? For that matter, how could the order itself be enforced? It’s not hard to get a FB account in another name, though it may be contrary to the terms of service to do so.

Could a no-contact order be made for FB use, e.g. not to friend or comment on any FB page relating to or about a designated person?

Meanwhile, . . . [more]

I'm delighted to announce that Karen Dyck has joined Slaw as a regular blogger. Karen is a freelance lawyer based in Manitoba with a keen interest in enhancing access to justice and equality. For the first five years after her call, she carried on a litigation practice in small firms focusing on family law. She has since drawn upon her legal background to work with a number of governmental and non-governmental organizations in a wide range of roles, from investigations and research to program development and writing to management and administration.

Karen tweets as @karendyck and can be found on . . . [more]

The High Court of England and Wales (Technology and Construction Court) has held that an employer has no proprietary right in emails sent by the company’s CEO that would give the company the right to see the content of the emails. The case is Fairstar v Adkins [2012] EWHC 2952 (TCC). (For various reasons no claim arising from copyright or confidentiality could be made, and the employment contract did not deal with the question.)

The court reviews a great deal of English (and a bit of Canadian) law on the point. It also considers the practical implications of holding that . . . [more]

Back in August I posted a column on Slaw about a Quebec administrative tribunal decision that referred to Facebook and Wikipedia evidence.

The tribunal, the Commission sur les lésions professionnelles (CLP), has returned to the social media admissibility question Campeau et Services alimentaires Delta Dailyfood Canada inc., 2012 QCCLP 7666 (CanLII).

A worker was injured and had to take a lot of time off work. At one point her injuries caused her a case of depression that also kept her off work. To test whether this was serious, the employer created a fictitious account on Facebook, giving the alleged . . . [more]

Two privacy stories raise interesting issues.

1. Journalistic violation of privacy: PIPEDA s. 7(1)(c) gives an exemption from the rules about collection of personal information for journalistic purposes.

Section 32 of the Data Protection Act (UK), by contrast, provides a journalism exception only if, in addition,

(b) the data controller reasonably believes that, having regard in particular to the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression, publication would be in the public interest, and

(c) the data controller reasonably believes that, in all the circumstances, compliance with [the provision being violated] is incompatible with the special

. . . [more]