These are notes are from a panel discussion session at the American Bar Association 2011 conference in Toronto on Saturday, August 6, 2011. Panelists included Dr. Paolo Balboni, Director, European Privacy Association, Milan, Italy; the Honorable Julie Brill, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC; Stuart Ingis, Venable LLP, Washington, DC, and Jennifer Stoddart, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Ottawa, Canada. The session was moderated by Saira Nayak, Nayak Strategies, Redmond, WA. Note: these are my selected notes from this session; any inaccuracies or omissions are my own. I welcome your comments and follow-up thoughts!

Introduction

. . . [more]

Public.Resource.Org, a US non-profit started by Carl Malamud, among others, has launched a complaint against the Smithsonian Institution in a rather unusual way. The complaint is in behalf of Mindy Summers, “an artist who lives in a purple house in Vermont with her husband and two cats” and who copied and offers for sale photographs of vintage seed catalogs originally published on the Smithsonian website. The Institution sent her a take-down notice, claiming she had violated its terms of use, particularly because she was making commercial use of the images. PRO’s complaint is published on a special-purpose website named . . . [more]

The Section of State and Local Government Law of the American Bar Association (ABA) hosted a panel on cyberbullying at the 2011 Annual Meeting.

The panelists included James Hanks of Ahlers & Cooney, Grant Bowers, Legal Counsel for the Toronto District School Board, Dr. Jeff Gardere, a psychologist from New York with expertise in mental health, and Kathy Macdonald, from the Calgary police.

The panel discussed how changes in technology have created new ways for students to bully each other, creating new legal challenges for schools and communities. Regulating cyberbullying raises significant constitutional questions, especially in the U.S., . . . [more]

Well only as an intervenor.

According to a Press Release out this week, CanLII and the Federation to Defend Free Access to Law at the Supreme Court

CanLII and the Federation of Law Societies of Canada have been granted leave to intervene at the Supreme Court of Canada in SOCAN v. Bell et al., a copyright case to be heard later this year in which the Court will be asked to provide guidance on the meaning of “research” as a fair dealing user right under the Copyright Act.

While the facts of the SOCAN case relate to online . . . [more]

The British newspaper The Guardian has compiled data on who is being arrested for the recent riots in the United Kingdom.

It makes for a fascinating story:

In an indication of the tough justice being meted out to people accused of offences related to this week’s riots, a Guardian analysis of more than 120 cases before magistrates courts so far has found the majority of defendants being remanded in custody – even when they have pleaded guilty to relatively minor offences.

As hundreds of cases fly through specially-convened night sittings of magistrates courts, the Guardian is embarking on a project

. . . [more]

Those of us Canadians who live in Toronto or Vancouver know not to be smug about England’s riots; we’ve been there recently, albeit on a smaller scale, thankfully. We might, however, be in a good position to reflect on the question of why people riot, or, to put it impersonally, because a mob does seem to deprive its members of effective personhood, what makes a riot. On a personal note, I can attest to this mob mentality, having been in a riot in my youth — one, I might add, that had absolutely no good pretext and was formed entirely . . . [more]

The Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner recently confirmed that Alberta Health Services (AHS) breached the rights of one of its employees by intentionally using information from his addiction counselling against him during a human resources investigation. The breach of the employee’s personal health information clearly contravened the Health Information Act (HIA).

Those of us who need to know such things know that the SCC granted leave to appeal in Clements v Clements 2011 CanLII 36004 (from 2010 BCCA 581) where the issue will be the meaning of the Canadian material-contribution doctrine (and maybe some other things about proof of causation in Canadian tort law should the Court deign to go there.)

In the meantime, a judge of the New South Wales, Australia, Court of Appeal has, conveniently, written a primer on the subject: Evans v Queanbeyan City Council [2011] NSWCA 230. . . . [more]

In early July, the Quebec Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of Bill 30, An Act respecting bargaining units in the social affairs sector and amending the Act respecting the process of negotiation of the collective agreements in the public and parapublic sectors. The bill was originally declared unconstitional by the Superior Court of Quebec in 2007.

In coming to its decision, the Court of Appeal relied primarily on two Supreme Court decisions: 2007’s Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia and Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser, decided in April of this . . . [more]

The ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security hosted a panel on Comparative Approaches to National Security moderated by Professor Harvey Rishikof, with Brigadier-General Blaise Cathcart from JAG, and Eneken Tikk of NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence in Tallinn, Estonia. The panel looked at how different states have tried to resolve the tension of security and liberty in a variety of national security contexts, a topic recently covered by The Star.

Cathcart spoke on the virtue of the whole government approach of obtaining information, and Tikk recounted the challenge of the 2007 cyber attacks in . . . [more]

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/elephant-in-the-room.html

Reece v. Edmonton (City), 2011 ABCA 238

Substitute child for animal in the Alberta legislation involved (the Animal Protection Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-41) , call it the Child Protection Act, and assume everything else is effectively the same.

Would the majority have made the same decision and on the same grounds? If not, their analysis is wrong.

If they didn’t see that, they should have.

If they would have made the same decision, imagine the public screaming.

Given that, do you think the decision would still have been the same or would the majority have found . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom recently had to decide if a private commercial arbitration agreement could specify the religion of the arbitrator. The lower courts had gone in different directions. The trial court said that was not a problem. The Court of Appeal held that such a provision violated equality laws in the UK by requiring discrimination on the basis of religion.

In Jivraj v Hashwani [2011] UKSC 40, the Supreme Court said that arbitrators were not employees and the parties could properly (and enforceably) agree to prescribe their religion, nationality or other characteristics that would normally be . . . [more]