This post will focus on the specific requirements under the AODA Information and Communication Standard. The Information and Communications Standard (Part 11 of the PIAR) focuses on accessible information and communications relating to the provision of goods and services. The definition of “information and communication” is very broad and can include such things as websites, brochures, flyers, invoices, order forms, feedback forms, complaint forms, telephone calls, marketing materials, etc. The main goal of the standard is to promote inclusive design of information and communication platforms and to specify requirements to prevent and remove barriers to persons with disabilities when creating, conveying, distributing, procuring and receiving information and communication to and from your organization.

The long-awaited decision of Judge Denny Chin was released yesterday. The court rejected the settlement because it is not fair, adequate and reasonable. There will undoubtedly be much written on the decision and predictions on what happens next. For some preliminary thoughts, see posting by Professor Kenneth Crews and read Judge Chin’s decision. . . . [more]

The Ontario Court of Appeal issued a judgement today that will attract attention for its consideration of an employee’s expectation of privacy in information stored on a work computer. The Court recognized an expectation of privacy in the specific circumstances of the case, but also demonstrated a willingness to allow employers to govern system information through policy and procedure.

A school board investigated a teacher after noticing he had an abnormal pattern of network use. A member of the board’s IT staff accessed his laptop remotely and found nude photographs of a 16-year-old Grade 10 student. Soon after, the board . . . [more]

India, as an emerging knowledge worker superpower, is a country to look to for close ties to cross commonwealth legal issues, like intellectual property rights. I have been monitoring intellectual property news from around the web for some time, and I have enjoyed the well written posts from the Spicy IP blog.

I was very pleased, while checking out the LIIofIndia (announced here at Slaw), to see that a link to to the Spicy IP blog by navigating to Intellectual Property through the Subject pages at the Legal Information Institute of India. There is also a link to search Spicy . . . [more]

By the judge’s own admission, February 24, 2011 was an exciting day at the Superior Court of Justice in St. Catherine’s, Ontario. J.W. Quinn J. stated in the costs decision released March 2, 2011 in Pirbhai v. Singh,

[1] This is an exciting day (and excitement does not often make it to my end of the courtroom). It marks the final chapter (at least at the trial stage) of the now-tiresome 12-year tale of what will be, by paragraph [134] of these Reasons, the most expensive Lexus motor vehicle in the world.

The costs decision deals with legal issues . . . [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]

People have not been paying much attention to the application of standards under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA); however, they are coming soon, are complex and require understanding and preparation. In the first part of this post, we discussed the Accessibility Standards for Customer Service (Ontario Regulation 429/07). Now, will take a look at what’s coming next, the Proposed Integrated Accessibility Regulation.

The Canadian Privacy Commissioner’s most recent newsletter refers to a document entitled “Data at Your Fingertips: Biometrics and the Challenges to Privacy“. 

I believe that biometrics will ultimately be the right solution for authentication and identification, and will help reduce the use of passwords which, lets face it, are very difficult in practice to use to their best theoretical effectiveness.

There are however challenges in using biometrics relating to privacy and identity theft.

The document starts off by saying:

Canadians are witnessing a growing interest among government and private-sector organizations in adopting systems that use biometric characteristics to

. . . [more]

Over the last couple of decades as the rate of change in information technology has accelerated, it’s become fashionable for some to claim with pride and others to award with scorn the title of Luddite. As it happens, this March marks the bicentennial of the real Luddite uprising in the north of England. Richard Conniff has written a piece, “What the Luddites Really Fought Against,” that’s available on Smithsonian.com, correcting the misunderstandings that most of us have about who these followers of Ludd actually were and why they took to breaking machines.

Some facts surprised me: there was . . . [more]

David Canton and Simon Fodden have both described ways in which Bill C-28 (FISA – the “Anti-Spam Act”) could affect businesses in unanticipated ways.

Stéphane Caïdi of Fasken Martineau introduces in The Gazzette yet another – the use of social media,

Businesses should, therefore, take warning that this law will apply not only to electronic mail, but to any type of communication technology or means, including social networking media such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and promotional or advertising messages that are sent to users on their cellphones.

. . . [more]

or, in this case, British Columbia.

The BCCA decision in Clements (Litigation Guardian of) v Clements 2010 BCCA 581, reversing 2009 BSCS 112, implicitly points to a potential source of public unhappiness with the Canadian legal system, because of Tolofson v. Jensen [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022, the Constitution Act, 1867′‘s s. 92 provision that property and civil rights are a provincial jurisdiction, and inter-provincial mobility, combine to mean that it’s likely enough that accidents occurring in BC will injure Canadians (and others) who aren’t residents of BC.

Ms. Clements was very badly injured in a motor vehicle accident. . . . [more]

Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd [2011] UKSC 10

is necessary reading for all Canadian lawyers and jurists who have anything to do with anything that requires or may require a decision on whether X caused Y . . . [more]