Several amendments are proposed to PIPEDA, (Bill C-12) the federal private sector privacy legislation. It is sitting now at first reading stage, and we are not yet sure how long it will be before it is passed.

This post summarizes an IT.Can teleconference on the subject presented today by David Fraser of McInnes Cooper and Lisa Lifshitz of Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP.

The definition of personal information has been changed slightly. It is now simply defined as: “information about an identifiable individual”. Along with that comes a new definition of “business contact information”, which expands the “business card” exception that . . . [more]

As IPPractice.ca says, this is “Copyright Week at the Supreme Court of Canada“:

The Supreme Court of Canada provides copies of the factums for the parties and interveners on its website. They also will be live broadcasting the oral arguments. The following table contains links to the factums and live webcast links for each proceeding.

 

Case Likely Schedule Webcast Factums 33921 – online games Tuesday AM webcast factums 33922 – communication to the public Tuesday AM webcast factums 33800 – previewing music Tuesday PM webcast factums 33888 – Access Copyright Wednesday AM webcast factums; additional factums

. . . [more]

The Attorney General for England and Wales, Dominic Grieve gave a very interesting speech on December 1 entitled ‘Contempt – A Balancing Act: balancing the freedom of the press with the fair administration of justice’ to journalism students where he commented on his approach to contempt of court.

‘Citizen journalists’ should not think they are immune to the law of contempt, that there is a certain belief that so long as something is published in cyberspace there is no need to respect the laws of contempt or libel. While he accepts the danger posed to the administration of

. . . [more]

For Ontario lawyers a significant decision this morning of importance to civil litigators on the new rules concerning summary judgments.

Five cases decided together raise a number of issues concerning the interpretation of the new Rule 20, including the nature of the test for determining whether or not summary judgment should be granted, the scope and purpose of the new powers that have been given to judges hearing motions for summary judgment, and the types of cases that are amenable to summary judgment.

The grouped appeals are from decisions of the Superior Court of Justice under Rule 20 of . . . [more]

Erik Magraken

There are two types of expert medical witnesses in personal injury cases; treating physicians and ‘professional‘ witnesses. I don’t note this with any criticism of the latter category but simply point out that often doctors are brought to Court (by both plaintiffs and defendants) to act as independent medical experts to provide opinion evidence. These professional witnesses often have no role in treating an injured plaintiff.

The BC Supreme Court Rules have strict requirements for expert opinion evidence. These Rules are applied with equal rigour to both categories of experts. ‘Professional‘ witnesses often have . . . [more]

What do you do when a website claims that you are an international criminal kingpin, and it’s affecting your business?

Altaf Nazerali, the plaintiff in Supreme Court of British Columbia decision Nazerali v. Mitchell, discovered a number of articles about him on a website, Deep Capture, including allegations of arms trading, ties to the Iranian regime, and that he was part of a criminal enterprise with ties to the Italian and Russian mafias and Colombian drug cartels. The website even claimed he attempted to sell enriched uranium to Al-Qaeda.

The plaintiff was actually in the business of founding, . . . [more]

An English (and Welsh) court has held that Google, as owner of Blogger.com, is not liable for defamation posted to a blog, even after the subject of the defamation gave notice that the post was defamatory. Google passed on the allegation to the blogger, who told Google the original post was true. The court said that Google was not in a position to adjudicate between the two claims (lies vs truth). The plaintiff still had her remedy against the blogger(s).

The case is Davison v Habeeb et al (including Google), [2011] EWHC 3031 (QB). A story about the case . . . [more]

I quite agree that with the Montreal Gazette comment that the blame game is not going to help Attawapiskat. What I want to do in this short note is to give some background on the legal issues. Needless to say perhaps, the legal issues raised in this context are invariably also political issues.

I’ve been following the former Indian Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, succeeded by the Aboriginal Affairs Committee and the Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, give or take a few breaks, since about 1960. I’ve been reading the major legal decisions since about 1973. And I . . . [more]

This is another follow up to a previous Slaw post regarding IQT’s closure. In partnership with the Ontario Ministry of Labour (MOL), the Commission des normes du travail (CNT) and Revenu Québec (MRQ) filed a petition at the courthouse in Trois-Rivières to have IQT Ltée declared bankrupt under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. This measure is designed to enable 163 former employees of the call centre in Trois-Rivières, and 400 former employees of the call centre in Oshawa, to avail themselves of the federal Wage Earner Protection Program (WEPP). The petition will be heard on December 20, 2011. . . . [more]

This is a follow-up to my previous Slaw post on the obligation to register for direct deposit to receive the Solidarity Tax Credit. On November 30, 2011, the Quebec government indicated that it is refusing to end the obligation to register for direct deposit to receive the credit.

The European Court of Justice issued its breathlessly awaited (at least by some) decision in SABAM v. Scarlet today, striking a serious blow to those imposing intense international pressure with the objective of securing exceptional enforcement for intellectual property rights online. These efforts aim to leverage Internet intermediaries such as ISPs, hosting sites, domain name registrars and even individual blogging sites in order to stomp out any infringing activity occurring on the platforms they operate.

As these intermediaries process and host vast amounts of online conduct, they are uniquely placed to impose unprecedented levels of monitoring and control onto users . . . [more]

Differential treatment of individuals who are actually or presumed to belong to a particular group of people receiving a certain source of income is contrary to human rights standards. A measure that appears neutral can have a discriminatory effect upon a person or group of people, for example, where the measure imposes penalties or restrictive conditions not imposed on others because of their social status. This is exactly the case with...