The premier weekly newspaper for the legal profession in Ontario
Issue link: https://digital.lawtimesnews.com/i/62617
Law Times • apriL 23, 2012 Bill to go to committee before second reading FOCUS Continued from page 10 Canadians of data breaches. It predicts there will be vast under- reporting of serious data breaches as a result. A third piece of legislation resurfacing from previous ses- sions of Parliament is the lawful access regime contained in bill C-30. It will give police and secu- rity agencies access to consumers' subscriber information, such as e-mails and Internet protocol ad- dresses, without a warrant. Federal Privacy Commis- sioner Jennifer Stoddart strongly criticized the previous version in an open letter to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews on Oct. 26, 2011. She describes the measures as legal principles that uphold Ca- nadians' fundamental freedoms" and states: "Should Parliament ultimately opt to allow law en- forcement and national secu- rity authorities to circumvent the courts to obtain personal infor- mation, we believe the oversight and reporting safeguards must be significantly strengthened. "weakening long-standing servatives tabled the bill once again in February in essentially the same form, a development that met with public uproar. "C- 30 is weak," says Lawford. "Section 7 gives the power to wave a badge at an ISP to get Despite the concerns, the Con- " voluntary release of documents, and there are provisions insulat- ing companies from getting sued aſter the event when someone says that the person didn't have authority. It' to access people's personal infor- s not a sensible way mation. There is weak oversight amounting to almost no over- sight. If someone uses it for a bad purpose, no one will know. Lawford notes that access to someone's subscriber data in- " cludes their IP address, which, in turn, gives a lot of tracking ability. "There should be prior approval by a judge on some sort of stan- dard, why the bill targets all offences and thereby permits indiscrimi- nate "fishing expeditions" into consumers' Internet use. He be- lieves it should only apply to seri- ous crimes and where there' " says Lawford, who also asks basis for suspicion. "It would be a stronger bill if it just targeted s some two offences," he says, referring to child protection matters. Lawyer Tamir Israel, also of CIPPIC, says that because of the negative public response, the scope and breadth of the legal is- sues in question have increased. He' government has agreed, with- out precedent, to refer the bill to committee before second read- ing where it can reconsider the underlying principles. "It signals a willingness to consider the larger elements involved, timistic. "C-30 is backed up but it' backwards before it will go full speed again." He envisages that once the public advocacy lawyers have finished playing their role, there will be plenty of work for litigation counsel to get their teeth into. "This bill will court a lot of lawsuits," he says. LT Lawford, however, isn't so op- s backed up like a car is pushed " he says. s encouraged to note that the PAGE 11 Court seemed fine with CCH approach Continued from page 9 assist in interpreting the revised provisions." Geist also feels the court seemed very comfortable with the CCH approach. "By the end of the aſternoon, Apple and the telcos had further " Associations of Canada. It dealt with the question of whether there should be remuneration for sound recordings that form part of the soundtrack of a motion picture or TV program on each perfor- mance or communication of the work. The Copyright Board had dismissed the tariff and the Federal Court affirmed that decision in a ruling that relied on the definition of a sound recording in the Copyright Act that specifically excludes the soundtrack of a cin- ematic work. Hayes reports that in the Supreme Court appeal, law- yers relied on the Rome Convention of the 1960s and didn't refer to the Copyright Act at all. Geist thought one of the most interesting exchanges occurred late demolished claims the approach is inconsistent with international law and a steady stream of interveners reminded the court of the dangers of restricting fair dealing further. The general consensus was that this was a complete slam-dunk win for fair dealing. The fiſth and final case was Re Sound v. Motion Picture Theatre in the day as McLachlin discussed the creative process and noted that works oſten involve bringing together several other pieces into a new whole. "When counsel responded that this was a compilation, the chief justice replied that it might actually be an entirely new work, bringing the issue of remix and transformative works to the Supreme Court of Canada." LT WEBCAST OPTION AVAILABLE FOR EACH COURSE! Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) Toronto - June 18, 2012 Canada's New Anti-Spam Legislation: a Very Wide Objective, a Very Wide Swath Toronto - May 28, 2012 Vancouver - May 30, 2012 Calgary - May 31, 2012 e-Discovery: Current Litigation and Records Management Strategies Toronto - May 9, 2012 Calgary - May 10, 2012 Vancouver - May 15, 2012 Franchising: Diving Deep Toronto - June 11, 2012 Calgary - June 12, 2012 Vancouver - June 13, 2012 LEXPERT LEGAL EDUCATION SEMINARS SPRING 2012 SCHEDULE Oil and Gas: Current Issues and Trends Calgary - May 31, 2012 Social Media Law Conference: Cutting Edge Practical Advice From Canada's Advertising Law Experts Toronto - May 28, 2012 Vancouver - May 30, 2012 Calgary - May 31, 2012 Tendering and Procurement: Mastering the Complexities Toronto - June 6, 2012 Vancouver - June 12, 2012 Calgary - June 13, 2012 The Evolution of Renewable Generation Projects Toronto - June 20, 2012 For more information or to register for these seminars, please visit www.lexpert.ca/events Untitled-3 1 www.lawtimesnews.com 12-04-10 8:16 AM