Archive for ‘Substantive Law: Legislation’
We have mentioned before that the Anti-Spam act (bill c-28) will not come into force until the fall. (It may potentially be delayed because the election has delayed the creation of the regulations that must be in place before it is in force.) Several sections of the act that amend PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act) were however proclaimed in force effective April 1
The PIPEDA amendments from the Anti-Spam act are in force to the extent that they are administrative in nature. Those that interact with the anti-spam provisions are not yet in force, and presumably will . . . [more]
Thank you to Simon Fodden for inviting me to contribute to Slaw. I am delighted to be here!
One of yesterday’s headlines caught my eye: passing legislation to make voting mandatory in Canada. This debate is certainly not new, as each election and the somewhat disappointing turn out seems to bring similar questions to the forefront; however, any law addressing this matter has yet to be passed, as opposed to a number of countries that have already adopted such legislation.
As with any law, not voting would have consequences, i.e. penalties (a fine of some sort). Such a law could . . . [more]
An information bulletin by Michael Watts, Roger Gillott and Sarah Harrison of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP from October 22, 2010, Proposed legislation aims to create greater public accountability, has garnished quite a bit of controversy this week.
The article discusses the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010 (BPSAA), which received Royal Assent on December 8, 2010. The Act creates new rules for transparency and accountability for publicly funded broader public sector organizations, including hospitals and LHINs.
The Supreme Court has wrapped up its two-day hearing into the federal government’s request that the Court rule on the constitutionality of proposed legislation to create a national securities regulator.
Appeal courts in Alberta and Quebec have ruled that the proposal would violate the Constitution because it would intrude on provincial powers.
The facta of all the parties and intervenors of the case are available on the Court’s website.
As well, the hearings were broadcast via webcast and the webcasts are archived.
This is not about the election – it is about the need to consider this issue carefully before passing any new laws.
Michael Geist and David Fraser (here and here) have written detailed articles on this issue that I concur with and recommend. I want to weigh in as well as this is an important issue. I have a problem with legislation that erodes privacy and requires ISP’s or others to retain information for the sole purpose of government access to it. And when that access is not tempered by the need for a warrant.
Issues include erosion . . . [more]
The employment standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) is found under part III in the Proposed Integrated Accessibility Regulation (PIAR), which is slated to become law around July 2011 (not confirmed). This standard requires an organization that is an employer to engage in the proactive identification, removal and prevention of barriers hindering the full participation in employment of persons with disabilities. It also requires that organization to have policies and procedures for establishing individual accommodation plans where barriers cannot be removed proactively, shifting the onus from the individual who needs the accommodation to the person who . . . [more]
Whatever you may think of the current election, the law regulating it is a significant piece of legislation, comprising some 22 parts, three schedules, and 577 sections. The Canada Elections Act sets out the ground rules — who may vote, how they must do it, how one becomes a candidate, and who counts the ballots, etc. Much of this is almost routine for us, particularly given the fact that we’ve had four federal elections in six years. But some of what’s in the act is not the stuff of news chat, and so I thought it might be amusing to . . . [more]
This is a follow up on a previous blog post on Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to regulate immigration consultants. While Bill C-35 is not yet law (passed third reading in the House of Commons and on March 10, 2011 was at report presentation and debate stage in the Senate), the Governor in Council launched a public selection process which began in August 2010, to establish a new regulatory body for immigration consultants in Canada. On March 18, 2011, the Governor in Council announced that the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council . . . [more]