Canadian Technology & IP Law : Canadian Technology Lawyers & Attorneys : Stikeman Elliott Law Firm : IP Law in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Ottawa & Vancouver

David Elder and Lindsay Gwyer -

The long road for local broadcasters wanting to charge fees to cable and satellite companies for rebroadcasting their signals just got a little longer, as the Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to hear an appeal a Federal Court of Appeal decision that upheld the ability of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to establish such a regime.

The “Value for Signal” (VFS) regime was authorized by the CRTC in its 2010 group licensing framework decision, and was intended “to remove unnecessary barriers to the continued viability of private broadcasters and to ensure that broadcasters are able to obtain, through market-based negotiations, fair value of the programming they broadcast.”

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print

Amy Hu and Michael D. Smith -

In Century 21 Canada Limited Partnership v Rogers Communications Inc., the BC Supreme Court upheld the validity of the so-called “browse wrap” agreements and awarded damages against Zoocasa and its parent Rogers for Zoocasa’s breach of the Century 21 website terms of use when it pulled listings from the Century 21 website for use on its own real estate listing search engine. The BC court confirmed that industry standard browse wrap agreements (i.e. a website’s posted terms of service) can form valid contracts without being brought to the attention of users or requiring any review/acknowledgement by the user before accessing the website.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print

David Elder -

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.  Similarly, when doing business in Canada, do as Canadian privacy law requires.

That is the lesson learned by a foreign-based airline following a finding by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) of Canada that the carrier had violated Canadian privacy law, even though the company operates in compliance with European privacy requirements.  The decision further confirms the fact that foreign businesses that operate or provide services in Canada will be subject to all requirements of Canadian privacy law, regardless of the scope of the privacy regimes in their home countries.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print

Paul Karvanis and Joel Freudman -

A recent decision by the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta to strike down provisions in Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) could have ramifications nationwide as the offending provisions are mirrored in the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). In United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) the Court declared several narrow exemptions in the Alberta legislation to be unconstitutional.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print

David Elder & Robert Mysicka

In an unprecedented cluster of cases focusing on copyright, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently granted leave to appeal in five separate cases involving tariffs approved by the Copyright Board. 

The cases, at least four of which will be heard on December 6 and 7, 2011, will consider tariffs dealing with online music, photocopying by teachers for instructional purposes and music in movie soundtracks.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print

The Canadian Privacy Commissioner released guidelines for lawyers seeking to understand  the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) at the Canadian Bar Association convention on August 16, 2011. Entitled “PIPEDA and Your Practice: A Privacy Handbook for Lawyers”, it provides an overview of PIPEDA requirements as they apply to lawyers and law firms in private practice as well as corporate counsel.

Whereas lawyers already must keep client information confidential, PIPEDA introduced additional requirements that are highlighted in the handbook. For example, conducting a credit check on a potential client requires prior informed consent, and the Commissioner recommends similarly obtaining informed consent for all information collected for litigation purposes (despite this latter point still not clear in the case law). Also, at a client’s request, information about the client must be provided within 30 days at no charge, and irrespective of whether or not a solicitor’s lien exists.

The Commissioner can make non-binding recommendations either following a complaint or on its own initiative, and the complainant or Commissioner may subsequently proceed to Federal Court for enforcement. The Commissioner’s website offers lawyers a Self-Assessment Tool to promote compliance with PIPEDA.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print