Nearly two years ago, I wrote that the Federal Court had issued a major decision on the relationship between fair dealing and digital locks, concluding that copyright’s anti-circumvention rules do not trump user rights (podcast on the case here). That decision, Blacklock’s Reporter v. Attorney General of Canada, was a big win for user rights because, for the first time, a court ruled that Canada’s anti-circumvention rules (aka digital lock rules) were subject to fair dealing. Last month, the Federal Court of Appeal set aside that judgment, ruling that the declarations in the lower court decision should never have been issued in the first place because they lacked “practical utility.” In basic terms, the case was “moot” since Blacklock’s had tried to withdraw the lawsuit and did not require a ruling. But while rights holders seem ready to celebrate, the reality is that the new ruling does not say the Federal Court was wrong on any of the substantive copyright questions.
News
Win, Lose or Draw?: The Federal Court of Appeal Overrules a Key Copyright Case on Procedural Grounds
The Lawful Access Debate Begins: Canadians Should Pay Attention to What the Government Isn’t Saying
When the government introduced Bill C-2 last year, it buried the lawful access provisions at the end of an omnibus border security bill and said as little about it as possible. The strategy failed, the provisions were abandoned after widespread criticism, and the government spent months consulting stakeholders before trying again. Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, is the follow-up attempt. If the first day of House debate on the bill is any indication, the approach hasn’t changed, as the government is once again hoping no one notices what is actually in the bill.
The Global Battle for Data Control: How the 2026 U.S. Report on Trade Barriers Targets Data Sovereignty Worldwide
My Globe and Mail op-ed last week argued that the U.S. is pursuing a two-pronged strategy on cross-border data: the CLOUD Act to assert legal access wherever data sits, and trade policy to pressure countries that try to move their data beyond that reach. This post provides the underlying data that the op-ed could not fit with a fuller picture of what the 2026 U.S. National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (NTE) actually says about cloud computing and data sovereignty across the globe.
Still Not a Privacy Law: Bill C-25’s Political Party Privacy Provisions Fall Short Again
The government’s treatment of political party privacy has been one of the most dispiriting digital policy stories in recent memory. Last year, it buried political party privacy provisions in Bill C-4, an “affordability measures” bill, that required far less of political parties than of virtually any other type of organization in Canada. The rules were designed primarily to shut down litigation in British Columbia that opened the door to applying the provincial privacy law to federal political parties. Bill C-4 ensured that provincial law would not apply and, for good measure, added a clause making the new rule retroactive to the year 2000. The Senate found the bill so outrageous that it sent it back to the House with a sunset clause that would give the government three years to develop something better. But the government rejected that too and rushed the bill to royal assent in a matter of hours with virtually no debate.
Two weeks later, the government introduced Bill C-25, an Elections Act reform bill that includes updated privacy provisions for political parties and which dropped just before Parliament took a holiday break.
Could Bill C-22 Make Canadians Less Safe? The Systemic Vulnerability Gap in Canada’s New Surveillance Law
The lawful access debate in Canada has to date focused on privacy concerns such as access to subscriber information, mandatory metadata retention, and international production orders. But there is another dimension to Bill C-22 that has received less attention and may matter even more to the daily security of Canadians: the risk that the bill’s surveillance-capability requirements and lack of clarity about systemic vulnerabilities will make Canadians less secure. The international experience with similar laws is not reassuring, as it points to risks of hacking, removal of security features that protect users, and reduced investment and innovation. Bill C-22 heads in much the same direction.
Recent Posts
Bill C-22’s Groundhog Day: Why the Government’s Dismissal of Signal, Apple and the U.S. Congress Concerns Runs Back the Disastrous Online News Act Playbook 
Slick Videos Won’t Save Lawful Access: Why The Government’s Bill C-22 Defence Avoids the Charter, Privacy and Security Concerns Raised By Critics 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 268: Sara Grimes on the Moral Panic Behind Banning Kids from Social Media and AI Chatbots 
U.S. Congressional Leaders Warn Canadian Lawful Access Plans Harm U.S. National Security and Economic Interests 
Make It Make Sense: My Appearance Before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-22’s Lawful Access Plan
