The first three posts in the case against the Bell coalition website plan focused on why it has failed to provide convincing evidence that the drastic step of site blocking is needed (existing law, weak evidence on Canadian piracy, limited negative impact on the market). The series continues by examining some of the problems with the proposal itself. One of the most obvious problems – indeed one that is fatal – is the absence of court orders for website blocking. The attempt to avoid direct court involvement in blocking decisions means the proposal suffers from an absence of full due process, raising a myriad of legal concerns. If adopted, the coalition website plan would put Canada at odds with almost every other country that has permitted blocking since the data is unequivocal: the overwhelming majority require a court order for site blocking.
Archive for February 15th, 2018

Law Bytes
Episode 242: Sukesh Kamra on Law Firm Adoption of Artificial Intelligence and Innovative Technologies
byMichael Geist

July 28, 2025
Michael Geist
July 21, 2025
Michael Geist
June 30, 2025
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
Privacy Lost: How the Government Deleted Bill C-11’s Key Privacy Principle Just Two Months After Passing it Into Law
Out of Nowhere: TIFF Undermines Artistic Freedom of Expression With Forced Name Change of October 7th Documentary
TIFF Removes October 7th Documentary Film From Schedule Citing Implausible Copyright Clearance Concerns From Hamas Terror Footage
Carney’s Digital Recalibration: How the Government is Trending Away from Justin Trudeau’s Digital Policy
Let Competition Be the Guide: Why the Government and CRTC Got It Right on Wholesale Fibre Broadband Access