A recent case has tested Bill C-45, the amendment to the Criminal Code that attached criminal responsibility to an organization or corporation for negligence related to health and safety in the workplace, and broadened the range of individuals who are subject to charges under the Code. Since the inception of Bill C-45 on March 31, 2004, charges have been laid in just four cases, and only one resulted in a conviction. As a result, many are wondering if the enforcement of such provisions is even possible.

Moreover, Bill C-45 added Section 217.1 to the Criminal Code to impose a duty . . . [more]

A recent Out-Law.com tweet caught my eye with the headline YouTube threatened by changes to Digital Economy Bill. The article has some good links and background information, including:

Courts will have the power to block access to entire websites from the UK because of allegations of copyright infringement under an amendment to Government legislation that has been adopted by the House of Lords.

The amendment currently being debated in the Lords deals with injunctive powers to block content rather than the current practice where YouTube removes copyright infringing content when given notice by the copyright owner.

We haven’t talked . . . [more]

The latest Radio Berkman podcast has Dave Weinberger interviewing Carl Malamud about his efforts to make US law more accessible and copyright free. . . . [more]

The annoyingly named Truth in Sentencing Act (S.C. 2009, c.29) came into force on Monday, February 22.

Given third reading in October of last year, the statute amends Criminal Code provisions concerning judicial freedom to take into consideration, when sentencing, time already spent in custody. (As always, the Library of Parliament summary and backgrounder is thorough.) The “common but not automatic” practice of the courts was to count pre-sentencing incarceration as double time. Now, the new rules require that courts may only count on a one-for-one basis, unless “the circumstances justify” granting the prisoner 1 1/2 days for . . . [more]

As today is the opening of Vancouver Olympic Games, I thought we could celebrate in the Slaw way, which is by looking at the legal aspects of the event. In looking at the Olympics there has been no small amount of legislative activity both Federally and in B.C. regarding the games. I’m not going to get into the court activity in this post.

Federal

The IOC is always extremely vigilant in protecting their trademarks and in Canada an act has been passed to guarantee that:
The Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act, S.C. 2007, c.25

There is the small . . . [more]

In the U.S. there’s a League of Technical Voters the aim of which is to motivate and assist “technical experts to improve lawmaking and governmental process.” Citability.org, a project supported by that league and other organizations, is tackling one small part of the lawmaking-improvement process by urging “advanced permalinks” on American legislatures. Their complaints about the situation outside commercial databases are familiar:

• links to statutes too often go to large PDF files;
• where there are HTML files of legislation online, it isn’t possible to link to particular clauses within the legislation
• when legislation changes, earlier online versions of provisions

One of the reasons I started the Cross-Border Biotech Blog a year ago was that the industry in Canada was in terrible shape. In the face of a global financial crisis, biotech as an industry was attracting some attention and some bailout funding, but by July last year, 70% of Canadian biotech companies reported having under 6 months of cash remaining.

This year has started with some new, and better, data. Equicom’s year-end review shows that although several Canadian biotechs did go under, the surviving companies overall outperformed market indices. BIOTECanada updated the July survey recently as well, . . . [more]

Are there any concerns from a risk management / liability perspective over the following warning/error message on the e-Laws website I noticed just now:

NOTICE OF ERROR
From December 18, 2009 to December 29, 2009, the e-Laws currency date should have been December 14, 2009.

See the screenshot here:

Do you review all of your legislative research from December 2009 within this time period?

Part of me says “no” since the Legislative Assembly adjourned on December 10, 2009, (to resume on February 16, 2010) and there appears to have been only 2 proclamations gazetted during the time period in question. . . . [more]

Among the most important pieces of legislation that came into force last January First is the Act respecting the Compilation of Québec Laws and Regulations, S.Q. 2009, c. 40 (version française : L.Q. 2009, c. 40).

Pursuant to this Act, all consolidated statutes published by the Québec Official Publisher have official status “whatever the medium used“, including of course those published online by the Publications du Québec. Consolidations of regulatory texts will have official status on January first 2012. In the mean time, certain regulations will have official status if so stated within the published document. . . . [more]

In a post last Fall called Finding and Updating Canadian Federal Private Acts, I provided a link to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice (Marleau and Montpetit).

With the prorogation of Parliament and the controversy over that, it may be that researchers will be investigating Parliamentary procedure. Since my post last Fall, I see there is a new 2009 second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice (edited by Audrey O’Brien and Marc Bosc) available here (at a different URL), tabled in the House on November 18, 2009. I assume we can no longer refer to the . . . [more]

On the day after tomorrow, at least 100 amendments to statutes and regulations will come into force in Canada, according to a simple search in CanLII. It’s a hodge-podge of rules, of course — a cross-section, if you will, of life under modern rule-making.

Thus, for instance, B.C. mushroom growers are likely to be happier on January 1, because the regulation obliging them to pay a levy to the Mushroom Industry Development Council is to be repealed on that day. Happier, too, will be Costa Ricans who export to Canada, as tariff rates for certain goods will be reduced by . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed (with costs) the appeal in Morrow v. Zhang (33311). The appellate decision concluded this about Alberta’s Minor Injury Regulation at para. 149:

The MIR, when considered with the entire scheme of insurance reforms, does not infringe section 7 or 15 of the Charter. While the legislation does make a distinction on the basis of disability, it is not discriminatory. The legislation, as a whole, responds to the needs and circumstances of those suffering minor soft issue injuries.

Background reading:

• Alberta Courts Uphold Minor Injury Cap in Morrow v. Zhang theCourt.ca August 24,