Slashdot Mirror

It's not the law, it's whether the parties are prepared to obey the law, or find a way around it by force or fraud. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/l...

The province broke federal law, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act by putting personal information on a public server. See https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/l...

Arguably the federal Privacy Commissioner should apply to the Federal Court for punitive sanctions against the province of Nova Scotia.

You can't prove anything of the sort... .

As to the specific assertion above, signatures are used by the court in deciding if the credit-cared holder must pay, or if it is fraudulent. See CanlII, Western Currency Exchange Ltd. v. National Bank of Canada, 2002 ABPC 147 at https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/a...

I would be interested in a reference if you have one.

It's right there in the decision itself...

[46] If Google has evidence that complying with such an injunction would require it to violate the laws of another jurisdiction, including interfering with freedom of expression, it is always free to apply to the British Columbia courts to vary the interlocutory order accordingly. To date, Google has made no such application.

[47] In the absence of an evidentiary foundation, and given Googleâ(TM)s right to seek a rectifying order, it hardly seems equitable to deny Equustek the extraterritorial scope it needs to make the remedy effective, or even to put the onus on it to demonstrate, country by country, where such an order is legally permissible. We are dealing with the Internet after all, and the balance of convenience test has to take full account of its inevitable extraterritorial reach when injunctive relief is being sought against an entity like Google.

Granted, IANAL, but I can't really see any other interpretation than "get a decision from another country saying this is a problem and get back to us".

Thanks, that is informative. Does the US decision indicate that following the ban would "require it [Google] to violate the laws of another jurisdiction"? The US law that is cited in the article (the First Amendment as well as "Section 230") do not "require" Google to publish things, so it could be argued that following the ban doesn't violate those laws in the US, even if imposing the ban does.

That is probably a silly reading of the Canadian decision - even [47] references the idea of the order being "legally permissible" and that is what the US decision seems to have spoken to.

I would be interested in a reference if you have one.

It's right there in the decision itself...

[46] If Google has evidence that complying with such an injunction would require it to violate the laws of another jurisdiction, including interfering with freedom of expression, it is always free to apply to the British Columbia courts to vary the interlocutory order accordingly. To date, Google has made no such application.

[47] In the absence of an evidentiary foundation, and given Googleâ(TM)s right to seek a rectifying order, it hardly seems equitable to deny Equustek the extraterritorial scope it needs to make the remedy effective, or even to put the onus on it to demonstrate, country by country, where such an order is legally permissible. We are dealing with the Internet after all, and the balance of convenience test has to take full account of its inevitable extraterritorial reach when injunctive relief is being sought against an entity like Google.

Granted, IANAL, but I can't really see any other interpretation than "get a decision from another country saying this is a problem and get back to us".

In cases where the company is breaking Canadian law, contract language to force arbitration in California is null and void. A class action about “Sponsored Stories”, which uses the name and picture of a customer "without consent for the purposes of advertising" will go forward.

The legalese is summarized at http://www.slaw.ca/2017/06/28/... and the full case is https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/s...

It's primarily an arguement about choice of forum (country) in a contract.

It's a temporary restraining order against a company that fled BC to, perhaps, France, and is selling stolen networking technology. It's not an attempt to censor someone's opinions, but to hunt down a thief.

There is tons of non-puff-pirce commentary, though:

• Michael Geist, http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201...
• Howard Knopf, http://excesscopyright.blogspo...
• Barry Sookman, http://www.barrysookman.com/20...

and also two dissenting opinions from the judges in the case, available to everyone at https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/s... where they question how long it should apply.

I'm also pleased to note that one of the first steps cited by the court, in 2017 scc 34, was an injunction "issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia ordering D to cease operating or carrying on business through any website."

This is a great improvement, IMHO, over cases in the EU where Google was ordered to cease indexing sites which were not similarly ordered to cease their actions.

--dave

Article is garbage and completely misses S.1 of the Charter, something you're also missing. S.1 states "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." To boil it down, government or courts can make laws that override these rights, or put in place case law judgements if there is a "greater good" for the rest of society. It's one of the big things that makes a lot of charter lawyers here in Canada believe that the Charter probably won't make it to 2030.

So with that, you can not refuse to talk at a RIDE checkpoint because S.1 supersedes other rights guaranteed under the charter and the SCC has already ruled that the "RIDE Program" that although being an unlawful search, there is a reasonable exception under S.1 "for the safety of all Canadians, to reduce the number of drivers under the influence" as long as it's premise holds true. That means you have no reasonable right to refuse to answer, even though it's technically an illegal search. On top of that since it is a search, and you are driving a motor vehicle you must also show license and vehicle registration if demanded. What you can do however is answer to the bare minimum that's requested of you, nothing more. There's a whole pile more to this but I'm too damned tired to write it out.

Also, the wikipedia article on R. v. Hebert misses several key things, I recommend reading the actual case law on http://canlii.org/

It's an extraordinary remedy called a"Norwich Order", and to oversimplify, the requester has to swear they're suing someone, and the suit has to have a "prima facie case of" an offence and the claim has to appear to be reasonable and made in good faith. See also http://www.canlii.org/en/on/on...

Ordinary suits are filed against John Doe, and the courts asked to issue a order to third parties to help identify the defendants.

Article is wrong, so very wrong. Then again it's the Toronto Star, also known in Canada as the Red Star and is known to take a very authoritarian view on things. You enjoy that citation now which will give you a brief overview on criminal and non-criminal privacy rights and you can enjoy this one too. Which reinforced S.8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You can also find more cases using "the citizen's right to a reasonable expectation of privacy" on this site.

Article is wrong, so very wrong. Then again it's the Toronto Star, also known in Canada as the Red Star and is known to take a very authoritarian view on things. You enjoy that citation now which will give you a brief overview on criminal and non-criminal privacy rights and you can enjoy this one too. Which reinforced S.8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You can also find more cases using "the citizen's right to a reasonable expectation of privacy" on this site.

All laws should be in a central repository, unique and complete for each jurisdiction.

They are, pretty much everywhere else in the World. It's ironic that the Legal Information Institute, the first attempt to collect legal materials online, is based at Cornell, but it's severely limited in what it can publish, because most jurisdictions can't or won't agree with the idea that cases, legislation and regulation should be freely available to anyone, any time. Free access to law is considered by some to be a basic right. But not in the USA.

Elsewhere, we have thriving online legal resources, including CanLII, AustLII, SAFLII, WorldLII, CommonLII, AsianLII. And my own favourite, because I worked on it for a few years, the Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute. Ironic, isn't it, that Fiji and Solomon Islands should have easier access to their own laws and judgments than that shining city atop the hill?

That would be the same case, when it was in Ontario court;

[75] If the cellphone had been password protected or otherwise "locked" to users other than the appellant, it would not have been appropriate to take steps to open the cellphone and examine its contents without first obtaining a search warrant.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/on...

The SCC in this ruling has now said you have no less right to privacy just because you don't password protect your phone, but totally sidestepped dealing with the real world implications of that. I expect this will be back before the court sooner rather than later.

Here in Canada, we use common law as the basis of our legal code. So the wording really interesting, what you're actually missing is the case law behind how the law has developed and why mischief is actually a fairly serious crime on the books here. If you're actually interested, you can go over here and start looking through the vast library of it.

Anyway, for your analogy, that comes under several different laws. Mischief(interrupting the cable service on your end), theft of service(from the provider and to you), B&E(altering the state of your house), probably possessing tools to commit the BE(another law), peeking through the windows(invasion of privacy). But it does actually align with the definition in relation to data just fine, since the case law data has defined this clearly. It's also just as important in common law that the law itself clearly defines what is, and isn't. And in this case, with the previous cases of mischief of people "capturing data" in an unauthorized way, section 1.1(c) is what will most likely be applied.

Here in Canada, we use common law as the basis of our legal code. So the wording really interesting, what you're actually missing is the case law behind how the law has developed and why mischief is actually a fairly serious crime on the books here. If you're actually interested, you can go over here and start looking through the vast library of it.

Anyway, for your analogy, that comes under several different laws. Mischief(interrupting the cable service on your end), theft of service(from the provider and to you), B&E(altering the state of your house), probably possessing tools to commit the BE(another law), peeking through the windows(invasion of privacy). But it does actually align with the definition in relation to data just fine, since the case law data has defined this clearly. It's also just as important in common law that the law itself clearly defines what is, and isn't. And in this case, with the previous cases of mischief of people "capturing data" in an unauthorized way, section 1.1(c) is what will most likely be applied.

Though legal costs are awarded to the victor in Canadian litigation suits, these are normally on a partial indemnity basis which usually works out to between 50-66% of the actual costs. Even with full indemnity costs, recovery is still usually only 75% of actual. Different factors play into what the court determines to be reasonable (e.g. in Ontario). But even with full indemnity, odds are good that pursuing the actions here would be at a net loss. That said, the company might be willing to spend a few million on a scare campaign.

In the US, this issue was settled in Feist vs. Rural Telephone, which was about copyright in telephone directories. The US Supreme Court ruled that such collections of facts are not copyrightable on constitutional grounds. In Canada, there's Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc. v. American Business Information, Inc, which covers much the same ground. "Labour alone not determinative of originality ... Compilation so obvious, commonplace not meriting copyright protection."

I'm surprised CanadaPost even raised the issue.

It's been the basis of a lot of previous decisions. They can't pass this law without re-writing our Constitution and Charter, and for that a lot of people are going to die.

And by die, I mean a long and slow death by natural causes while you try to balance neo-cons, Liberals, NDP, Québec, First Nations, urban and rural citizens, environmentalists, etc. Good Luck With That (TM).

Here's a link to show how the SCC has already been deciding on these issues:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/charter_digest/s-8.html

I would suggest that if you're online in the privacy of your own home, they couldn't get a case together. If you were in a coffee shop or library they MIGHT be able to get something put together but I doubt it.

What I'm going to do is come up with a cheaper technical solution that follows the letter but not the spirit of the law, then give that solution to Shaw, Rogers, and Telus for free. :D

I won't VPN to my Alma-mater to Lexis-Nexis for you but if you have a lawful access to that database search for judgment referencing [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, 2004 SCC 13, you will see the broadness of that judgment. Also remember that in a common law regime, judges are supposed to take under great consideration previous interpretation made by upper courts.

Lexis-Nexis?!? Use CanLII!! CanLII (the Canadian Legal Information Institute) is a vastly more valuable service, because it's free, comprehensive and accurate. And given that half the comments in this thread are to do with US corporate interests drowning out Canadian freedom, it's only right that we use the (free - did I mention free?) product of our own ingenuity, rather than relying on some proprietary and prohibitively expensive US commercial venture.

[Full disclosure: I work for the Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute, a sibling organisation.]

The courts have already decided http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2007/2007fc930/2007fc930.html [canlii.org] that EBay Canada is a distinct legal entity.

Yes, but the judge there made it clear that the organization of the corporations is such that eBay Canada only handles Canada-targeted marketing, and that's it. They don't even own the website itself, though they might own the domain just to satisfy CIRA requirements.

That was really tertiary to the judgement anyways, and it doesn't read like it was even contested. The judgement was about whether the Minister of Finance could force eBay Canada to release information on Power Sellers (which they do have access to); eBay Canada argued that the information was foreign-based (it's on a server in San Jose which is owned by eBay Inc. or eBay AG), and thus not covered by the Act which would permit the Minister to do this. The judge said that, due to the nature of modern technology, it was irrelevant where the physical server was located.

eBay AG are the ones who run the website and who buyers and sellers are working with, they'd have to be targeted.

I think it would be a good idea to sue Ebay Canada/PayPal Canada in small claims court.

The courts have already decided http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2007/2007fc930/2007fc930.html that EBay Canada is a distinct legal entity. It would be interesting to have them show up in court to explain themselves. They would likely lose, and would definitely be out of pocket more that $2.5K just to put in an appearance.

Just because their dispute resolution policy says that they "MAY ask for destruction" does not defend them that they have applied this policy reasonably. The seller could reasonably obtain a judgment that the application of that policy was improper, in this instance, and that EBay has to cough up the $2.5K.

If you're Canadian, then you already know that we're not managing two languages at all. Quebec has "one language for us," just shy of outright banning english, with their own anti-english police force. Some provinces in Canada are english only, except federal government services. And a couple of provinces are English and french. Though most have bilingual services. It was far from politics in the 80's, in fact the original point of the 80's referendum was to deliberately twist and lie when making the question in order to force a sovereignty issue. Which is why it went all the way to the SCC, that ruled that the original question was null and void, and any future questions must follow the 3 point rule aka the patriation rule.

That you think it's politics, means you have less of an understanding of national sovereignty issues than you think.

Here's the Judgment on Canlii: Tucows.Com Co. v. Lojas Renner S.A., 2011 ONCA 548 (CanLII) .

This dispute is about the service of a Statement of Claim (the document that initiates a claim). Once a claim has been served, there is an obligation to respond - otherwise the defendant may be noted in default and lose the right to defend themselves. Service of a Statement of Claim may only be completed on a foreign company in certain circumstances, namely where (in principle) the allegations in the claim are related to something in Canada. In this case, the issue was whether the claim related to personal property in Canada - i.e. whether the domain name renner.com was personal property of a Canadian company.

The Statement of Claim in this case was issued by Tucows (a Canadian company), who allege that Lojas Renner S.A (a Brazilian company) does not have any right to renners.com (which has been registered by Tucows). Lojas Renner allege that they've trademarked "Renner" and Tucows is violating that trademark by using the domain name renner.com (and therefore Lojas has a right to take the domain name away from Tucows).

A lower Court ruled that the Statement of Claim was not served on Lojas because the allegations did not relate to personal property of someone in Ontario. The Court of Appeal overruled that decision.

The Court of Appeal commented on the lower Court's ruling as follows:

[20] The motions judge set aside the service of the statement of claim and stayed this action on the grounds that there was no real and substantial connection between the defendant and Ontario and as such rule 17.02 was not engaged. In particular, the motions judge held that a domain name was not âoepersonal propertyâ within the meaning of rule 17.02(a), and that, being intangible, it was not âoelocated in Ontarioâ. Thus, she held that there was no presumption of a âoereal and substantial connectionâ, and that Tucows had failed to establish that such a connection existed in the circumstances of the case.

(emphasis added)

The Court of Appeal determined as follows:

[68] Rule 17.02(a) gives the court jurisdiction to settle controversies with regard to rights or claims against personal property. Personal property consists of both tangible and intangible property: see Brian A. Garner, ed., Blackâ(TM)s Law Dictionary, 8th ed (St. Paul: West, 2004), at p. 1254. See also Metlakatla Ferry Service Ltd. v. British Columbia 1987 CanLII 2748 (BC CA), (1987), 37 D.L.R. (4th) 322 (B.C.C.A.), in which the court held at p. 325 that the term âoepersonal propertyâ in s. 87 of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, included intangible property, in this case a lease and the debt owing under it. Intangible property refers to personal property that cannot actually be moved, touched or felt, but instead represents something of value such as good will. In Manitoba Fisheries Ltd. v. R., 1978 CanLII 22 (SCC), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 101, the Supreme Court held that although good will is intangible in character, it is part of the property of a business just as much as the premises, machinery and equipment employed in the production of the product whose quality engendered it. As such, there is a presumption of compensation for the regulatory taking of this property.

[69] It seems to me, as well, that for purposes of jurisdiction, a domain name is part of the intangible property of Tucowsâ(TM)s business. In Williams v. Canada, 1992 CanLII 98 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 877, at pp. 891-93, the Supreme Court developed what is now referred to as the âoeconnecting factorsâ test,[10] in which the situs of intangible property is determined by where it has the strongest contacts: see Canada v. Folster, 1997 CanLII 6344 (FCA), [1997] 3 F.C. 269 (C.A.), at paras. 15-18. In this case, the domain n

In Canada, in a panel of judges or justices, they all give their views. This looks to be just the brief, which means it'll take upto a month before the full record is posted since it's not a breaking or earth shattering case. "Property" cases in Canada rank low, personal cases rank high, and are published quickly.

Anyway, I recommend reading CanLII's page, since it automatically links decisions to make this decision, and has the reflex record built in.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2011/2011onca548/2011onca548.html

These old papers weren't published directly on internet in 1923. Someone had to transfer all of them from physical form to digital form, page by page. That's is a huge amount of work. Should we all be entitled to enjoy them free of charge? So who's paying the workers?

Emphatically yes, we should.

I manage technical operations for the Pacific Legal Information Institute, and that's exactly the model we follow. The arguments for free access to critical learning materials is compelling. In our case (legal documents) it can be stated as simply as this: If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then access to the law must be completely free. If it's not, then we live in a society that is fundamentally unjust.

I'll leave it as a (very simple) exercise for the reader to work out how this argument extends to higher learning.

As to the question of who pays - We're donor-funded, because most of our constituent nations (20 in all) are very poor. In Australia, our sibling organisation (the Australasian Legal Information Institute) is largely funded by legal practices and other stakeholders. The same is true of the Canadian Legal Information Institute.

Our collective manifesto is here.

Several provinces also have legislation protecting the right to pursue remedy by Courts (effectively allowing class proceedings).

This sort of legislation arose in response to arbitration clauses such as the one in AT&T, and in particular one in an agreement with Dell Computer (see Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801), that prevented class proceedings. See e.g. paragraph 64 of Griffin v. Dell Canada Inc., 2010 ONCA 29 (CanLII) .

An example of the legislation in question is in section 7 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 in Ontario.

Several provinces also have legislation protecting the right to pursue remedy by Courts (effectively allowing class proceedings).

This sort of legislation arose in response to arbitration clauses such as the one in AT&T, and in particular one in an agreement with Dell Computer (see Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801), that prevented class proceedings. See e.g. paragraph 64 of Griffin v. Dell Canada Inc., 2010 ONCA 29 (CanLII) .

An example of the legislation in question is in section 7 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 in Ontario.

Sorry, IAAL in Canada, and I can't let your comment go without a reply. The libel laws between the US and Canada are very different. In Canada, there are several defences against libel: justification (ie "truth", the most difficult defence to prove), absolute or qualified privilege (ie communications in a confidential setting), fair comment (ie honestly held opinion in good faith), and the new defence of "responsible communication on matters of public interest" (ie. "responsible journalism").

The last defence of "responsible communication on matters of public interest" was created in 2009 by the Supreme Court of Canada in Grant v Torstar 2009 SCC 61. That case was actually covered in Slashdot: Landmark Canadian Hyperlink Case Goes to Supreme Court.

Read of that case if you are interested in defamation law (but seek legal advice if you have a problem). It explains the legal tests for all of the defences. Since the defence of "responsible communications in matters of public interest" does not exist in US law, it means that American journalists and bloggers have a higher risk of liability for defamation than their Canadian counterparts. So which country has stronger freedom of expression?

This is the case he cites:
York University v. Bell Canada Enterprises, 2009 CanLII 46447 (ON S.C.)

Neither should you underestimate the technological sophistication of the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC"). This is the same court that recently, in R. v. Morelli, overturned a warrant for child pornography on the basis that the contents of an internet browser cache does not constitute possession.

This court also, 4 months ago, decided in Grant v. Torstar Corp. to create a new defence against defamation of "responsible communication on matters of public interest". This new defence allows citizens (including bloggers as well as traditional journalists) to publish critical statements that may not necessarily be true, but are made in good faith towards the public interest. If this defence existed in the UK, then the British Chiropractic Association would not have been able to sue Dr. Simon Singh for scientifically doubting chiropractic claims of success.

A few years ago, the SCC issued a decision in CCH v. Upper Law Society of Canada, that clarified the "fair dealing" defence in Canadian copyright law. That case dismissed an allegation that merely placing a photocopier in a library was an inducement to copyright infringement.

Finally, the SCC itself has incorporated technology into its proceedings. The work flow is paperless; documents must be filed digitally. The court is outfitted with terminals at every station, and the documents are viewed on screens. Selected hearings are broadcast over the internet.

Yes, IAAL, and a GNU/Linux user to boot. It bugs me when people automatically assume that lawyers are technologically inept.

Neither should you underestimate the technological sophistication of the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC"). This is the same court that recently, in R. v. Morelli, overturned a warrant for child pornography on the basis that the contents of an internet browser cache does not constitute possession.

This court also, 4 months ago, decided in Grant v. Torstar Corp. to create a new defence against defamation of "responsible communication on matters of public interest". This new defence allows citizens (including bloggers as well as traditional journalists) to publish critical statements that may not necessarily be true, but are made in good faith towards the public interest. If this defence existed in the UK, then the British Chiropractic Association would not have been able to sue Dr. Simon Singh for scientifically doubting chiropractic claims of success.

A few years ago, the SCC issued a decision in CCH v. Upper Law Society of Canada, that clarified the "fair dealing" defence in Canadian copyright law. That case dismissed an allegation that merely placing a photocopier in a library was an inducement to copyright infringement.

Finally, the SCC itself has incorporated technology into its proceedings. The work flow is paperless; documents must be filed digitally. The court is outfitted with terminals at every station, and the documents are viewed on screens. Selected hearings are broadcast over the internet.

Yes, IAAL, and a GNU/Linux user to boot. It bugs me when people automatically assume that lawyers are technologically inept.

Neither should you underestimate the technological sophistication of the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC"). This is the same court that recently, in R. v. Morelli, overturned a warrant for child pornography on the basis that the contents of an internet browser cache does not constitute possession.

This court also, 4 months ago, decided in Grant v. Torstar Corp. to create a new defence against defamation of "responsible communication on matters of public interest". This new defence allows citizens (including bloggers as well as traditional journalists) to publish critical statements that may not necessarily be true, but are made in good faith towards the public interest. If this defence existed in the UK, then the British Chiropractic Association would not have been able to sue Dr. Simon Singh for scientifically doubting chiropractic claims of success.

A few years ago, the SCC issued a decision in CCH v. Upper Law Society of Canada, that clarified the "fair dealing" defence in Canadian copyright law. That case dismissed an allegation that merely placing a photocopier in a library was an inducement to copyright infringement.

Finally, the SCC itself has incorporated technology into its proceedings. The work flow is paperless; documents must be filed digitally. The court is outfitted with terminals at every station, and the documents are viewed on screens. Selected hearings are broadcast over the internet.

Yes, IAAL, and a GNU/Linux user to boot. It bugs me when people automatically assume that lawyers are technologically inept.

If you ever get a chance to visit the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa, Ontario, you will see just how tech-savvy it really is. All documents must be filed electronically. Every station in the court (judges, clerks, lawyers and reporting media) has an embedded computer to manage the digital case materials. There are large-screen monitors for the public gallery to follow along.

The SCC broadcasts select hearings over the web. The court's decisions are all published and searchable on the internet.

Slashdot readers would also be interested in the 2004 case CCH v Law Society of Upper Canada, which considered the concept of "fair dealing" under Canada's Copyright Act.

If you ever get a chance to visit the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa, Ontario, you will see just how tech-savvy it really is. All documents must be filed electronically. Every station in the court (judges, clerks, lawyers and reporting media) has an embedded computer to manage the digital case materials. There are large-screen monitors for the public gallery to follow along.

The SCC broadcasts select hearings over the web. The court's decisions are all published and searchable on the internet.

Slashdot readers would also be interested in the 2004 case CCH v Law Society of Upper Canada, which considered the concept of "fair dealing" under Canada's Copyright Act.

Again, you misunderstand what "costs" are. These are court costs and associated fees, not the other sides' lawyers time.

Thanks for correcting me. I'll be sure to pass on that information to my professor in Civil Procedure II, at law school. He'll be sad to know that he's been teaching the law of costs wrong for 25 years now. And of course the Bay Street firm he works for as well will have to be told too.

You'll often see in motions this phrase "the whole without costs against [other side], except in event of contestation."

I've never seen this phrase, despite reading dozens, maybe hundreds of costs awards, and having assisted in putting together motions for costs myself. I have seen costs awarded on a partial indemnity basis (some smallish fraction of total legitimate costs), a substantial indemnity basis (a rather large fraction of total costs) and even once in a while on a "solicitor and client" basis (lawyers hate that one, makes them look bad, insurers have to be notified, hell of a mess).

It is referring to the awarding of the filing fees, court stamp tax, cost of service, and fees for witness tax at the current legal rate.

It is very rare to get anything over that, except in the most abusive of cases. I've seen people spend $20k on legal fees, win, be awarded costs in the decision, and get less than $200.

This may be true wherever you are, it is not true in Ontario. See The Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly rules 57 and 58 I believe.

I participated in the effort to defeat this same proposal in 2002-2004. However these guys never quit. The good news is that they aren't particularly inspired – or inspiring.

It's noteworthy that I found out about the last go-around of this effort by the Canadian Private Copying Collective on Slashdot.

Unfortunately, that isn't the case in Canada: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc67/2004scc67.html

Look - YAF -(yet another fuckwit) who shoots their mouth off without even bothering to follow the links.

" ... BTW, the maximum sentence for sexual assault [rapereliefshelter.bc.ca] when tried as a misdemeanor in Canada is $2,000 + 6 months. ..."

There is no misdemeanor sexual assault charge in Canada. You are referring to a Criminal Code (in the US, Felony) procedure by Summary Conviction. I could go on, but I'm done. You don't know what you're talking about, and you aren't on topic.

Did you even follow the link? It's to a CANADIAN RAPE CENTER. Their source: "after sexual assault...; Your guide to the criminal justice system, Department of Justice Canda, Ottawa, Ontario 1991:61-62"

So, are you going to say that the Canadian Department of Justice doesn't know what they're talking about? You're so full of shit.

Here's the actual text of the law: Section 271 of the Canadian Criminal Code - and it states that sexual assault can be either an indictible offense OR a misdemeanor.

Sexual assault

271. (1) Every one who commits a sexual assault is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

Indictments == felonies. Summary convictions == misdemeanors.

Sexual assault is a dual-mode or hybrid offense. It can be a felony or a misdemeanor. It's up to the prosecutor to decide how to proceed - I've posted links to the federal prosecutors' handbook elsewhere in this thread for those who want the gritty details.

What an idiot.

See e.g.: Canlii, Austlii, Bailii, ...

Kudos to the people who came up with this idea. Now if we only had a free way to search case law.

For Canadians, you can use CanLii (Canadian Legal Information Institute) to research case law for free. The courts and tribunals in most provinces post their decisions online, as well. In British Columbia, the courts have been uploading their decisions to their website since 1996.

the courts will very likely find the Minister to be incorrect in his interpretation of the constitution, and that everything he is proposing violates Section 8 of the Charter, "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

I would point out the Supreme Court has ruled that that whether information is subject to protection by Section 8 is not at the whim of the government, but whether a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" of information which could "reveal intimate, personal information", in that particular situation.

It is not particularly difficult to envision a situation where linking an IP address to a name would potentially reveal personal information to the state. Imagine a woman posting on a support forum for victims of sexual assault which tracks posters by IP...

Since IP addresses and so on are identifying information, and this being information people would reasonably expect their ISPs to keep private, I suspect that this entire thing is just begging for a Charter challenge and to have the courts clearly specify that a warrant is required.

CanLII has a very interesting brief on section 8 of the Charter here.

The Rules of Civil Procedure govern this case. There's nothing new about this case, per se. Anything published on Facebook is a relevant document, and the laws of Ontario oblige disclosure (even if that document was private, notwithstanding rare exceptions for such as solicitor-client privilege) by the person with control over it.

The relevant section governing documentary discovery is Rule 30. Rule 30.01 defines "document", and 30.02 places an obligation on a party to make appropriate disclosure of all relevant documents. The curious can read more about a report on electronic discovery in the Ontario Bar Association's guidelines (pdf) (see also OBA "e-discovery"), and a e-Discovery web-site.

I've reproduced cited excerpts of Rule 30, here:

RULE 30 - DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS

INTERPRETATION
30.01 (1) In rules 30.02 to 30.11,
(a) "document" includes a sound recording, videotape, film, photograph, chart, graph, map, plan, survey, book of account, and data and information in electronic form; and
(b) a document shall be deemed to be in a party's power if that party is entitled to obtain the original document or a copy of it and the party seeking it is not so entitled.

SCOPE OF DOCUMENTARY DISCOVERY
Disclosure
30.02 (1) Every document relating to any matter in issue in an action that is or has been in the possession, control or power of a party to the action shall be disclosed as provided in rules 30.03 to 30.10, whether or not privilege is claimed in respect of the document.

There are some interesting scenarios related to Sedona obligations, namely the obligation to not destroy or delete electronic documents once a party has been advised of the potential relevance of certain electronic documents.

I was hoping you had found a counter example because the Act feels very open to interpretation. What do you think of the following ideas?

1. Interpret the phrase "onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy" from s.80 by reading "for" as the person's intent at the time the copy is made. Thus, changing your mind after the fact wouldn't take you out of the s.80 exception to infringement. (How long after making the copy would be considered "after the fact?")
2. Trade "original" CDs or visit a public library to obtain music from which to make your private copy.
3. Download to obtain your private copy of that music.
4. Carry out your friends' requests (as an agent, or as in CCH v. LSUC 2004 SCC 13) by
   1. preparing a computer to burn a music CD when they press a key
      (i.e. they physically trigger the making of their own private copy)
   2. burning them what they request
      (i.e. they trigger the making of a copy by way of instruction to you: a private copy they have a right to make on their own but the labour of which they choose to delegate to you)

I was hoping you had found a counter example because the Act feels very open to interpretation. What do you think of the following ideas?

1. Interpret the phrase "onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy" from s.80 by reading "for" as the person's intent at the time the copy is made. Thus, changing your mind after the fact wouldn't take you out of the s.80 exception to infringement. (How long after making the copy would be considered "after the fact?")
2. Trade "original" CDs or visit a public library to obtain music from which to make your private copy.
3. Download to obtain your private copy of that music.
4. Carry out your friends' requests (as an agent, or as in CCH v. LSUC 2004 SCC 13) by
   1. preparing a computer to burn a music CD when they press a key
      (i.e. they physically trigger the making of their own private copy)
   2. burning them what they request
      (i.e. they trigger the making of a copy by way of instruction to you: a private copy they have a right to make on their own but the labour of which they choose to delegate to you)

Copyright Act s.80

Nah. It means Nova Scotia Wildlife Federation.

This isn't really a forum non conveniens issue, it's just a plain personal jurisdiction question.

You're absolutely right; the test I took from Rudder was jurisdictional. I noticed that after I had hit "submit". They are neatly intertwined, so I beg your indulgence (and indeed, it is worth noting that equivalent principles to prevent "long-arm" jurisdiction seen by using forum non conveniens in Canada is in many of the US states created by the in personam jurisdictional test arising out of the 14th Amendment).

Assuming a Canadian court and a foreign court both have jurisdiction over the matter, the test for forum non conveniens motion to stay a proceeding in Canada comes from the Supreme Court of Canada in Amchem Products Incorporated v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board), 1993 CanLII 124 (S.C.C.): "Under this test the court must determine whether there is another forum that is clearly more appropriate".

[20] The factors to consider may be paraphrased as follows:
(1) in which jurisdiction is the evidence on issues of fact situated, and the effect of that on the convenience and expense of trial in either jurisdiction;
(2) whether the law of the foreign country applies and its differences from the domestic law in any respect;
(3) the strength of the jurisdictional connections of the parties;
(4) whether the defendants desire to enforce the forum selection clause is genuine or merely an attempt to obtain a procedural advantage;
(5) whether the plaintiffs will suffer prejudice by bringing their claim in a foreign court because they will be
    (a) deprived of security for the claim; or
    (b) be unable to enforce any judgment obtained; or
    (c) be faced with a time-bar not applicable in the domestic court; or
    (d) unlikely to receive a fair trial.

Bullshit detector goes into overdrive!

To quote from a recent decision:

Accordingly, I find that the complaint has not been substantiated and the complaint is hereby dismissed under s. 53(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
beachesboy@aol.com and CHRC and Fleming

Did any of the naifs who moderated this 'insightful' bother to check out the poster's obviously ludicrous claim? What am I saying ...

I had to look at the 3 most recent cases till I found this, so using statistical analysis sufficiently rigorous to convince the average slahshdot mod, I can confidently state that at least 33% of all cases brought before the tribunal fail.

As an interesting anecdote regarding the Church of Scientology, there is an interesting Supreme Court of Canada case (Hill v. Scientology) which was the largest punitive damages award ever given out in Canada, and which case now literally defines "punitive damages" in the Canadian legal context.