Comments for David Canton

Comment on The Anti-Spam Act – Part 1 of 5 – Introduction by The Canadian Anti-Spam Act | CoreSolutions Software Inc.

The Canadian Anti-Spam Act | CoreSolutions Software Inc. — Wed, 01 May 2013 14:39:10 +0000

[...] article contains general comments only, not legal advice. To read the entire series please visit David’s blog David has given us permission to publish this [...]

Comment on Provincial often beats federal by David Canton

David Canton — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:45:10 +0000

Tax rates are not based on whether a corp is federally or provincially incorporated.

Comment on Provincial often beats federal by Jay

Jay — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 02:05:52 +0000

What is the difference in tax rate for Federally Inc. vs Ontario Inc.? I find that incorporation in Ontario cost $360 vs $200 for incorporation Federally.
Also there is a fee of $20 to file taxes for federal incorp. vs $0 for Ontario incorp.

Comment on The Anti-Spam Act – Part 2 of 5 – The definition and treatment of Spam by The Canadian Anti-Spam Act and What it Could Mean for You | Nerds On Site Blog | Business Technology Partners | IT Support

Mon, 04 Mar 2013 06:35:10 +0000

[...] the rest of this article over at David Canton’s blog, Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and [...]

Comment on The Anti-Spam Act – Part 5 of 5 – Challenges going forward by The Anti-Spam Act | Nerds On Site Blog | Business Technology Partners | IT Support

Mon, 04 Mar 2013 06:31:18 +0000

[...] Read the rest of this article over at David Canton’s blog, Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. [...]

Comment on The Anti-Spam Act – Part 1 of 5 – Introduction by The Anti-Spam Act | Nerds On Site Blog | Business Technology Partners | IT Support

Mon, 04 Mar 2013 06:31:01 +0000

[...] the rest of this article over at David Canton’s blog, Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and [...]

Comment on A domain name is property by Stem Client Roundup for September 2011 – Law Firm Web Strategy

Stem Client Roundup for September 2011 – Law Firm Web Strategy — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 22:35:21 +0000

[...] Pensa lawyer David Canton published a piece ion the London Free Press entitled “A Domain Name is Property“, which discuses a recent Ontario decision on ownership of internet [...]

Comment on The Anti-Spam Act – Part 3 of 5 – Other things in the Act by Brian Lambert

Brian Lambert — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:10:14 +0000

appreciate the information.

Comment on The Anti-Spam Act – Part 1 of 5 – Introduction by Billy Barnes

Billy Barnes — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:37:31 +0000

You suggest a minimum volume requirement. Wouldn’t that put a fairly tough burden on the plaintiff? Assuming the spammer doesn’t keep records of what he sends out, it could be difficult to prove that (for example) one hundred people received a particular message. And would it have to be the same piece of junk email?

Spam seems to be one of those I-know-it-when-I-see-it classes, resistant to definition. I hope you will be addressing the issue of definition at some point in this series. It strikes me as one of the biggest hurdles.

I wonder if we’re not being a little too expansive in trying to tackle spam. Surely, we’re mostly worried about those poorly written cheap Viagra emails (I wonder if that phrase will get me caught by your blog’s spam filter). A law that could target those, even if it didn’t cover all unsolicited commercial email, would be sufficient.

Comment on The Anti-Spam Act – Part 1 of 5 – Introduction by Don Wood

Don Wood — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:00:17 +0000

Will requests for political donations be caught as anti-spam? If so is that a pressure point that could be useful?