The electronic documents part of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) generally operates on an opt-in basis. Thus, for example, s. 41:

A requirement under a provision of a federal law for a document to be in writing is satisfied by an electronic document if

(a) the federal law or the provision is listed in Schedule 2 or 3; and

(b) the regulations respecting the application of this section to the provision have been complied with.

To date, only the Federal Real Property and Federal Immovables Act and a small part of . . . [more]

On December 4, 2013, the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Industry announced that Canada’s new anti-spam law (CASL) will come into force on July 1, 2014.

Concurrent with this announcement, Industry Canada published its finalized Electronic Commerce Protection Regulations (ECPR) with respect to CASL. These regulations were released in response to concerns that its initial set of regulations imposed unnecessary and overly burdensome requirements with respect to the dissemination of commercial electronic messages (CEMs).

After further consultation, Industry Canada introduced a degree of increased flexibility in the ECPR by including, among other things, changes related to familial relationships, excluded CEMs, . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld in Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Ontario the decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal in finding that the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act Regulations, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 93, s. 9 and Ontario Drug Benefit Act Regulation, O. Reg. 201/96, s. 12.0. were not ultra vires. The regulations in question had the effect of banning private label pharmaceuticals in Ontario.

The facts were set out by Justice Abella as follows:

[3] The sale and pricing of generic drugs is provincially regulated. In Ontario, two complementary and intersecting statutes were introduced

. . . [more]

The federal government’s Bill C-13 has come in for a good deal of well-deserved criticism — principally for being in fact an omnibus bill and for increasing the power of authorities to invade our privacy. A recent critique of the bill by Peter Nowak in Canadian Business caught my attention because it reminded me that it’s still illegal to publish a crime comic. The prohibition occurs in s.613 of the Criminal Code:

163. (1) Every one commits an offence who . . .

(b) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, sells or has in his possession for the purpose

. . . [more]

On November 27, 2013, Quebec’s National Employment Insurance Review Commission released its report regarding the impact of the federal government's 2012 changes to the Employment Insurance (EI) program. The report makes 30 recommendations, with three key recommendations calling for the provincial and federal governments to negotiate an agreement giving Quebec the power to manage its own EI system to meet the needs of the province’s labour market.

The latest word is that Canada’s anti-spam legislation will be in force on July 1, 2014, with the software provisions coming into force in January 2015. The final regulations will be published in the Canada Gazette on December 18.

More information about the law can be found in previous articles here.

Proponents of the law feel that it is going to have a substantial effect on the fight against spam. But as I have said before, my personal view is that the legislation as drafted is ill-conceived and will be a compliance nightmare for businesses and charities.

Stay . . . [more]

Lawyers who practice family law in Winnipeg are familiar with the Tuesday morning motions court, known as the “zoo” for reasons that will soon be obvious. For those unfamiliar with this docket court, the recent decision of Associate Chief Justice Rivoalen in Skinner v. Skinner is instructive:

[10] There is a lot going on as the Family Motions Coordinator, parties and their lawyers navigate their way through the typical Family Uncontested Motions melée, and not only because there are so many matters on the List. Moreover, the Court’s registry staff, clerks, sheriffs, stand-by master and judges are fully engaged….

[11]

. . . [more]

It has been suggested to me, at a couple of levels of hearsay, that that “the US government had to implement a provision to require the financial institutions to accept electronic signatures on agreements of purchase and sale [of land] for the purposes of financing.”

Can anyone tell me what is behind this statement? I have several questions, besides this general one:

• ‘had to implement’ – meaning ‘as a condition of validity’? or ‘to make some particular policy effective’?
• ‘to require the financial institutions to accept e-signatures’ – really? Mandatory acceptance of e-signatures? *Any* e-signatures or only those with

. . . [more]

For those of you who do not know, Quebec will likely enact Bill 28 An Act to Establish the New Code of Civil Procedure early next year. Despite the fact that the last major overhaul to civil procedure in the province is less than 10 years old, the new Code will bring major changes to the way proceedings are conducted in Quebec. The mere fact that the articles contained in the Code will be whittled down from 1221 to 777 should give you an idea of how significant the amendments are.

Most interestingly, many of the amendments are clearly aimed . . . [more]

The Law Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. has published a new comparative report on the handling and adjudication of sexual offenses in the military.

The report examines how the military justice systems of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Israel and the United Kingdom deal with alleged sexual offending by service members.

The Library occasionally publishes reports that compare the laws on a given theme in a number of countries.

Earlier comparative law reports from the Law Library of Congress have covered topics such as:

• Bioethics
• Campaign Finance
• Children’s Rights
• Constitutional Provisions on Women’s Equality
• Education of Non-Native Language Speaking

. . . [more]

Quebec’s Charbonneau commission into corruption in the construction industry has revealed numerous failings in the province’s regulatory regime, which the government is attempting to address with new laws. For instance, professional regulatory bodies have found they have little or no power to discipline members (e.g., engineers, lawyers) who have been charged with or have confessed to corruption in relation to construction projects in Quebec. These regulatory bodies have to wait until a disciplinary board (syndic) investigates and the disciplinary committee decides the individuals should be punished

Administrative tribunals, in making decisions, are sometimes required by legislation to provide reasons for their decisions. Even where there is no legislative requirement to give reasons, principles of procedural fairness may require that a written explanation be provided for the decision reached (see Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC).)

While one might presume the question of when reasons are required would have been well-settled since addressed by the Supreme Court in Baker, Manitoba’s Court of Appeal has twice this year addressed that question, in both cases, in appeals from decisions of The . . . [more]