Alberta introduced Bill 3, the Personal Information Protection Amendment Act, 2014, on Tuesday and passed first reading. A copy of the Bill is below, but critics are already concerned that the proposed changes don’t go far enough to address the structural issues that gave rise to the SCC’s concerns in the first place:
Axess Law, that orange kiosk in several Toronto-area Wal-Mart stores that offer low cost real estate, wills, and other legal services, has plans to expand to more stores in Ontario and possibly elsewhere in Canada:
A worker injured in an accident Tuesday in Calgary has died from his injuries:
This morning the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal in the case of Canada (Indian Affairs) v. Daniels. From the Supreme Advocacy Letter summary of the decision:
In 1999, the Applicants instituted proceedings in Federal Court in order to resolve a long-standing issue as to which of Canada or the provinces has jurisdiction over the Métis and non-status Indian peoples. Specifically, they sought to obtain a determination the federal government has constitutional jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 over Métis and nonstatus Indians. In Federal Court, they sought the following declarations: (a) that Métis and non-status Indians are “Indians” within the meaning of the expression “Indians and lands reserved for Indians” in s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 ; (b) the Queen (in right of Canada) owes a fiduciary duty to Métis and non-status Indians as Aboriginal people; and (c) the Métis and non-status Indian peoples of Canada have the right to be consulted and negotiated with, in good faith, by the federal government on a collective basis through representatives of their choice, respecting all their rights, interests and needs as Aboriginal peoples. Federal Court: declaration issued that “those persons who are Métis and those who are non-status Indians […] are ‘Indians’ within the meaning of the expression ‘Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians’ contained in s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 ”; further declaratory relief, denied. C.A.: appeal allowed, in part; cross-appeal dismissed; declaration set aside and restated by deleting reference to “non-status Indians”. “The motion of the intervener Métis National Council for an extension of time to serve and file a response to the application for leave to appeal and for leave to file a response to the application for leave to cross-appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal… is granted with costs in any event of the cause. The application for leave to cross-appeal is granted. A party having intervened in the Federal Court of Appeal and wishing to intervene before this Court shall seek leave to intervene.”
- Federal Court of Appeal decision: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2014/2014fca101/2014fca101.html
Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien raised concerns in the Senate with the government’s new cyber-bullying bill, particularly with the new police powers in the bill:
- Text of the bill: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6731159
Does a casino capturing text messages on an individual’s cell phone using high-powered security cameras constitute a breach of an individual’s privacy rights? In the case of one applicant seeking to excise those messages from an information to obtain… yes:
Considering the totality of the circumstances in this case, I have concluded that the applicant’s rights under s. 8 of the Charter were violated by the use by the police of surveillance cameras in the casino to photograph messages on his Blackberry. If I am wrong in that conclusion, then in my view an authorization under Part VI of the Code was required because the actions of the police amounted to an interception of the applicant’s text messages.
Interesting case out of the Ontario Supreme Court. A 57 year old manager, recruited to the position, with 3 years’ service receives a notice period of 14 months.
 To summarize, the plaintiff’s age, his position as the Canadian manager of the defendant’s operations responsible for over 500 employees and sales in excess of $140 million annually, the limited number of similar positions in Canada and the requirement that the plaintiff make a significant investment with a company associated with the defendant as a condition of employment all point to a lengthy notice period. The recruitment of the plaintiff by the defendant when he was employed in a senior position of significant length of service is also a factor tending to increase the period of notice. Against those factors is the short period of time that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant. However, I have concluded that both parties to the employment contract contemplated, at the commencement of the employment relationship, that it would be a long one. Specifically, I do not believe that either party thought of the plaintiff’s employment could be terminated after approximately three years of service upon payment of two weeks’ salary in lieu of notice plus severance pay in the approximate amount of $5000.
 In my view, an appropriate period of notice is 14 months.