Slashdot Mirror

See Ghaffari v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., 1996 CanLII 8031 (ON SC), http://canlii.ca/t/1vtth, as retrieved on 2019-02-09

123. In sum, I am satisfied that TekSavvy has proven a total of $21,557.50 as its legal costs, administrative costs, and disbursements of abiding with the Order.

2. Those costs were not as much as demanded by TekSavvy.

129. ... Rather, no costs of the assessment will be awarded because neither party should be rewarded for its conduct: TekSavvy, without justification, has greatly exaggerated its claim, while Voltage has unreasonably sought to trivialize it based on unreliable and largely irrelevant evidence.

For details about the costs that were asked and awarded and the reasoning for such, have a look at para. 113 and following. e.g.

119. Under this heading, TekSavvy seeks to recover the sum of $81,524.12 for expenses incurred in communicating with affected and non-affected subscribers and the public; creating an online portal tool for the use of subscribers; and responding to a higher volume of inquiries and complaints ... These tasks, are ... TekSavvyâ(TM)s costs of marketing, promotion, and customer relations, which I consider to be TekSavvyâ(TM)s costs of doing business. Consequently, I disallow these costs.

Whether one thinks this is being "let off the hook" is up to the reader, and also irrelevant to the decision. This is a comprehensive, precedent-setting, non-trivial decision accounting for a multitude of legal and factual variables. I, for one, find it consistent with the tone and spirit of the prior decision, largely agreeable, in this case.

You probably mean the Broadcasting Act, which establishes its subject-matter jurisdiction as follows:

âoebroadcastingâ
 radiodiffusion Â
âoebroadcastingâ means any transmission of programs, whether or not encrypted, by radio waves or other means of telecommunication for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus, but does not include any such transmission of programs that is made solely for performance or display in a public place;

âoeprogramâ
 émission Â
âoeprogramâ means sounds or visual images, or a combination of sounds and visual images, that are intended to inform, enlighten or entertain, but does not include visual images, whether or not combined with sounds, that consist predominantly of alphanumeric text;

4. (1) This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province.
Application generally
(2) This Act applies in respect of broadcasting undertakings carried on in whole or in part within Canada or on board
(a) any ship, vessel or aircraft that is
(i) registered or licensed under an Act of Parliament, or
(ii) owned by, or under the direction or control of, Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province;
(b) any spacecraft that is under the direction or control of
(i) Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province,
(ii) a citizen or resident of Canada, or
(iii) a corporation incorporated or resident in Canada; or
(c) any platform, rig, structure or formation that is affixed or attached to land situated in the continental shelf of Canada.
For greater certainty
(3) For greater certainty, this Act applies in respect of broadcasting undertakings whether or not they are carried on for profit or as part of, or in connection with, any other undertaking or activity.
Idem
(4) For greater certainty, this Act does not apply to any telecommunications common carrier, as defined in the Telecommunications Act, when acting solely in that capacity.
1991, c. 11, s. 4; 1993, c. 38, s. 82; 1996, c. 31, s. 57.

One of the many cases that now clarify this topic include Easthaven, Ltd. v. Nutrisystem.com Inc., 2001 CanLII 27992 (ON SC), http://canlii.ca/t/1vz4l retrieved on 2014-09-19, which states at para. 29 (where the 'person' is referring a company whose presence was based on Internet activity in Canada):

The court held that general jurisdiction could be found in such a case [with an Internet company] only if the person was domiciled in the jurisdiction or his activities there were "substantial" or "continuous and systematic".

Jurisdiction can also arise for specific subject matter, as in the case here involving Netflix and the CRTC, by certain statute or treaty (viz. the NAFTA provisions for cultural accommodations for media). Of course a Court in Canada could just assume jurisdiction and give a paper judgment - the question then becomes whether an American court would recognize the judgment through the process called comity. With extremely rare exceptions between Canada and the USA, the Courts will recognize the judgments reciprocally.

There is also nothing stopping the CRTC from bringing an action in the USA based on violations that occurred in Canada. The applicable law may be different from the law of the jurisdiction that addresses the allegations of wrongdoing (i.e. it may be Canadian law that applies, but heard by an American Court, or vice versa). In any case an operation being abroad is not a defence from wrongdoing - notwithstanding e.g. extraterritorial immunity arising from a treaty.

Anybody competent to answer this question will value their time too highly to read this article.

I'm probably not competent to answer this, but I can point you in a general direction: the Inquisition. See e.g. this quote from the case Thomson newspapers ltd. v. Canada (Director of investigation and research, restrictive trade practices commission), which was rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1990:

The underlying rationale behind the Fifth Amendment reflects the draftsmen's awareness of the situation in England. Frankfurter J. made this point in Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956), at pp. 426 and 428:

[The Fifth Amendment] registers an important advance in the development of our liberty - "one of the great landmarks in man's struggle to make himself civilized." Time has not shown that protection from the evils against which this safeguard was directed is needless or unwarranted. This constitutional protection must not be interpreted in a hostile or niggardly spirit. Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers . . . .

      No doubt the constitutional privilege may, on occasion, save a guilty man from his just deserts. It was aimed at a more farreaching evil - a recurrence of the Inquisition and the Star Chamber, even if not in their stark brutality. Prevention of the greater evil was deemed of more importance than occurrence of the lesser evil. Having had much experience with a tendency in human nature to abuse power, the Founders sought to close the doors against like future abuses by lawenforcing agencies.

As required by s. 2 of the Act, an invention must be novel. In the instant case, the invention is not sildenafil, per se, because this compound was already known. In fact, Pfizer had been investigating sildenafil as a cardiovascular drug when it first suspected that the compound would be useful in treating ED (R.F., at para. 13). The invention is therefore not sildenafil, but the use of sildenafil to treat ED.(italics theirs)

The court ruled that the patent never concretely established this relationship:

Although Patent ’446 includes the statement that “one of the especially preferred compounds induces penile erection in impotent males” (A.R., vol. X, at p. 173), the specification does not indicate that sildenafil is the effective compound, that Claim 7 contains the compound that works, or that the remaining compounds in the patent had been found not to be effective in treating ED. The claims were structured as “cascading claims”, with Claim 1 involving over 260 quintillion compounds, Claims 2 to 5 concerning progressively smaller groups of compounds, and Claims 6 and 7 each relating to an individual compound.

The disclosure in the specification would not have enabled the public “to make the same successful use of the invention as the inventor could at the time of his application”, because even if a skilled reader could have narrowed the effective compound down to the ones in Claim 6 and Claim 7, further testing would have been required to determine which of those two compounds was actually effective in treating ED. As the trial judge stated, at para. 146, “[a] skilled reader would then conduct tests on those two compounds and determine which of those compounds worked.” And as he also stated, at para. 135, “the skilled reader must undertake a minor research project to determine which claim is the true invention”.

Pfizer had the information needed to disclose the useful compound and chose not to release it. Even though Pfizer knew that the effective compound was sildenafil at the time it filed the application, it limited its description to the following statement: In man, certain especially preferred compounds have been tested orally in both single dose and multiple dose volunteer studies. Moreover, patient studies conducted thus far have confirmed that one of the especially preferred compounds induces penile erection in impotent males. [Emphasis added; A.R., vol. X, at p. 173.] It chose a method of drafting that failed to clearly set out what the invention was. Even now, in its factum to this Court, Pfizer offers no explanation as to why — knowing that Claim 7 contained the tested and thus, the useful, compound — it elected to withhold that information.

However, the Canadian court found that Pfizer had failed to essentially zero in on sildenafil with their claims. When it came down to actually stating that this molecule is the one that lab studies have found treats ED, Pfizer only ever mentions the core skeleton (known as "formula I") and never uniquely identifies sildenafil. It mentions sildenafil (not even by name, only by its R groups) in one claim, but never connects it and only it to ED. The court judgement notes that "formula I" represents 260 quintillion possible compounds, and therefore rejected the patent for vagueness.

Does this protect http://www.example.com/john/is/a/compulsive/liar ?

This is implied by the separate but concurring judgment. The Chief Justice writes: "In sum, in our view, a hyperlink should constitute publication if, read contextually, the text that includes the hyperlink constitutes adoption or endorsement of the specific content it links to." Crookes v Newton (2011 SCC 47) at paragraph 50.

Sir –

How does a signature relate to an agreement? A signature is evidence of the requisite intention to form, and execution of, a legally enforceable mutual promise, commonly known as a contract.

Clicking a button signifies the requisite intention and execution, and is substitutable for a signature. What matters is the intention, and that there has been execution.

With intention on both sides, and some form of execution of the terms, contracts become legally binding - by click or otherwise. This isn't exactly novel, see the 12 year old case: Rudder v. Microsoft Corp., 1999 CanLII 14923 (ON SC) (this case, and in particular the principle of adapting legal certainty to adapt to technological advances was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2007).

Please stop spreading the nonsense that a contract is unenforceable because it was executed by way of the click of a button. Judges don't think that, and so you shouldn't.

Of course, there may be stray jurisdictions with different opinions – seek out and retain a lawyer for advice.

Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis have similar subscription case reporters in Canada, where they cooexist peacefully with this free site, where you can freely search and read most "recent" Canadian case law (e.g. from the mid 1990s to date), as well as some older important appellate cases. The paid services have more "editorial content" such as detailed headnotes and cross-referencing to commentary.

The single most important thing lawyers want, other than the case itself, is to know what other cases say about it: which subsequent authorities cite the case, and why? The ability to "note up" a case ("Quickcite" on Lexis-Nexis Canada, "Shepardizing" in Westlaw-speak) to see at a glance if it has been followed, overturned or otherwise commented on is a critical feature for any online repository of case law. Until Malamud's site does this it's not true competition to the subscription sites.