Columns

Are Canada’s Digital Laws Unconstitutional?

One of the first Canadian digital-era laws was the Uniform Electronic Commerce Act, a model law created by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada in the late 1990s. The ULCC brings together officials from federal, provincial, and territorial governments to work on model laws that can be implemented in a similar manner across all Canadian jurisdictions.
While a federal e-commerce law may have been preferable, the constitutional division of powers meant that it fell to the provinces to enact those laws.

The provinces took the lead on e-commerce legislation in the late 1990s, but over the past decade it has been the federal government that has led on most other digital rules, including privacy legislation, the anti-spam statute, and proposed digital copyright reform. Those efforts are now in constitutional limbo following the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent ruling that plans to create a single securities regulator are unconstitutional.

The December securities regulator decision concluded that the national approach to securities regulation stretches the federal trade and commerce clause too far into provincial jurisdiction. The court ruled that most of the securities regulatory activities deal with day-to-day contractual regulation within the provinces and that “these matters remain essentially provincial concerns falling within property and civil rights in the provinces and are not related to trade as a whole.”

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the repercussions of that decision may be felt far beyond just securities regulation. For example, federal privacy law may now be particularly vulnerable to challenge since it relies on the same trade and commerce provision.

January 11, 2012 — 7 comments — Columns

Crystal Ball Gazing at the Year Ahead in Tech Law and Policy

Technology law and policy is notoriously unpredictable but 2012 promises to be a busy year. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) offers some guesses for the coming months:

January. The Supreme Court of Canada holds a hearing on whether Internet service providers can be treated as broadcasters under the Broadcasting Act. The case, which arises from a CRTC reference to the courts on the issue, represents the last possibility for an ISP levy similar to the one paid by broadcasters under the current rules.

February. Industry Minister Christian Paradis unveils proposed spectrum auction rules along with changes to Canadian restrictions on foreign ownership of telecom companies. After the earlier trial balloon of opening up the market to companies with less than 10 percent market share generated a tepid response, the government jumps in with both feet by announcing plans to remove foreign investment limits for telecom companies starting in 2013 in conjunction with the next spectrum auction.

January 3, 2012 — 3 comments — Columns

Letters Of The Law: The Year In Tech Law And Policy

The past 12 months in law and technology were exceptionally active, with legislative battles over privacy and copyright, near-continuous controversy at the CRTC, and an active Supreme Court of Canada docket. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) takes a look back at 2011 from A to Z:

A is for the Amazon one-click patent, which is at the centre of a long running fight over the validity of business method patents in Canada.

B is for Baglow v. Smith, an Ontario Superior Court decision which ruled that comments on a blog should not necessarily give rise to a claim in defamation, when the person alleging defamation has a right of reply in the same blog.

C is for Century 21, which won a major case over Rogers Communications and its real estate search site Zoocasa. The case included important findings on online contracts, trespass, and copyright.

December 21, 2011 — 6 comments — Columns

Why The Government’s Lawful Access Claims Stand on a Shaky Foundation

Early next year the government will introduce lawful access legislation featuring new information disclosure requirements for Internet providers, the installation of mandated surveillance technologies, and creation of new police powers. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, the chief proponent of the new law, has defended the plans, stating that opponents are putting “the rights of child pornographers and organized crime ahead of the rights of law-abiding citizens.”

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that Toews’ stance in the face of widespread criticism from the privacy community and opposition parties is likely to be accompanied by a series of shaky justifications for the legislation.

For example, the bill will mandate the disclosure of Internet provider customer information without court oversight – that is, without a warrant. Under current privacy laws, providers may voluntarily disclose customer information but are not required to do so. Toews has argued that the mandated information is akin to “phone book data” that is typically publicly available without restriction.

Yet the legislation extends far beyond phone book information by requiring the disclosure of eleven different items including customer name, address, phone number, email address, Internet protocol address, and a series of device identification numbers. Many Canadian courts have recognized the privacy interests associated with this data.

December 12, 2011 — 10 comments — Columns

Copyright in the Balance This Week at the Supreme Court of Canada

For most of the past hundred years, the Supreme Court of Canada heard the occasional copyright case with significant cases popping up once every ten or twenty years. That started to change in 2001 with a big case reaching Canada’s top court every year or two. While that seemed like a busy schedule, it is nothing compared to the coming week, where the court will hear an unprecedented five copyright cases over the course of two packed days.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the cases feature a who’s who of the Canadian copyright and communications world with the Entertainment Software Association of Canada (ESAC), Canadian Recording Industry Association, Apple, Bell Canada, Rogers Communications, and leading copyright collectives such as SOCAN and Access Copyright among the litigants.

The common theme among the cases is that they all originate with the Copyright Board of Canada. Whether the board is asked to establish tariffs for the communication of music or the copying of materials in schools, its decisions have become highly contested and invariably subject to judicial review.

It is possible that the Supreme Court is chiefly interested in the administrative law issues raised by the board rather than substantive copyright questions. Should it choose to wade into the copyright concerns, however, two issues jump out as the key ones.

December 5, 2011 — 3 comments — Columns