Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/harrisonpensa/elegal.ca/index.php:19) in /home/harrisonpensa/elegal.ca/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Comments for David Canton http://canton.elegal.ca Technology law blog by a Canadian information technology and intellectual property law lawyer and trade-mark agent dealing with issues including software, copyright, privacy, the Internet, electronic commerce, computers Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:47:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.3.1 Comment on Is a self driving car in your future? by PattersonLaw http://canton.elegal.ca/2015/05/06/is-a-self-driving-car-in-your-future/comment-page-1/#comment-111272 Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:47:38 +0000 http://canton.elegal.ca/?p=3893#comment-111272 I think we we will have arrived at self driving when manufacturers install a kettle as standard.

Comment on elegal blog marks 10th anniversary by Garry Wise http://canton.elegal.ca/2014/11/13/elegal-blog-marks-10th-anniversary/comment-page-1/#comment-60272 Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:16:51 +0000 http://canton.elegal.ca/?p=3770#comment-60272 Congratulations on your 10th Blogversary, David. Well done. You have made a real contribution over all these years and it is appreciated. Looking forward to your next decade of posts….

Comment on 10 Reasons to Support the Music London Concert Hall Project by Paul Eck http://canton.elegal.ca/2013/09/09/10-reasons-to-support-the-music-london-concert-hall-project/comment-page-1/#comment-40667 Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:57:22 +0000 http://canton.elegal.ca/?p=3462#comment-40667 As the senior manager for a number of Ontario Orchestras and a consultant for the development of several Ontario performing arts facilities, it seems to me that the current planning for a new orchestral hall is right on the mark. Please do not compare with Brantford which was not built as a concert hall but rather as an all-purpose performing space. Look, rather at such spaces as Hamilton Place and the Thunder Bay Community Auditorium both of whom are a joy to work in.

Comment on CASL hits next week – are you ready? by Ross Armstrong http://canton.elegal.ca/2014/06/25/casl-hits-next-week-are-you-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-33931 Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:55:28 +0000 http://canton.elegal.ca/?p=3681#comment-33931 David, I couldn’t agree more. CASL also applies to all foreign nations too. And while I’ve been receiving emails from Canadian companies asking for my consent, I have yet to receive a single request from a US company. Given all the newsletters I subscribe to that are American, it seems as though US companies just simply aren’t aware of CASL (or they are aware but just don’t care).

Comment on CASL hits next week – are you ready? by David Canton http://canton.elegal.ca/2014/06/25/casl-hits-next-week-are-you-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-33921 Thu, 26 Jun 2014 12:22:34 +0000 http://canton.elegal.ca/?p=3681#comment-33921 It depends. The transition rule only works if they were a current or former customer AND they have been sent CEM before. The other problem is that if you get accused of spamming, you have to prove you have implied or express consent. And any prior consent must be “valid”. It doesn’t have to meet the CASL requirements, but it needs to be informed consent. Many businesses do not have the records to be able to prove they have consent, so the only safe approach is to ask for it now.

Comment on CASL hits next week – are you ready? by Todd http://canton.elegal.ca/2014/06/25/casl-hits-next-week-are-you-ready/comment-page-1/#comment-33818 Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:31:26 +0000 http://canton.elegal.ca/?p=3681#comment-33818 http://fightspam.gc.ca/eic/site/030.nsf/eng/h_00050.html#Commercial

On this page, under “Transition”, it reads,

“Under section 66, consent to send commercial electronic messages (CEMs) is implied for a period of 36 months beginning July 1, 2014, where there is an existing business or non-business relationship that includes the communication of CEMs.”


“If you obtain valid express consent before July 1, 2014, then that express consent remains valid after the legislation comes into force.”

So I don’t understand why there is anything for a business to do. If a person was a customer or subscribed to a mailing list before July 1, it seems to me that this “consent” remains valid after July 1?

Comment on About by David Canton http://canton.elegal.ca/about/comment-page-1/#comment-33369 Sun, 22 Jun 2014 15:00:17 +0000 http://wpblawg.home.jasonkohls.com/?page_id=2#comment-33369 CASL specifically addresses those questions. For the business card it says:

(c) the person to whom the message is sent has disclosed, to the person who sends the message, the person who causes it to be sent or the person who permits it to be sent, the electronic address to which the message is sent without indicating a wish not to receive unsolicited commercial electronic messages at the electronic address, and the message is relevant to the person’s business, role, functions or duties in a business or official capacity

For posting an email address it says:

(b) the person to whom the message is sent has conspicuously published, or has caused to be conspicuously published, the electronic address to which the message is sent, the publication is not accompanied by a statement that the person does not wish to receive unsolicited commercial electronic messages at the electronic address and the message is relevant to the person’s business, role, functions or duties in a business or official capacity

The context is that it deems implied consent in those circumstances. One unknown is how wide the “message is relevant” part will be interpreted.
And keep in mind that if accused of violating the act, you have to prove this is where you got the email address, and in the case of the business card, that they didn’t tell you not to spam them.

Comment on About by Gary Danner http://canton.elegal.ca/about/comment-page-1/#comment-32736 Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:33:16 +0000 http://wpblawg.home.jasonkohls.com/?page_id=2#comment-32736 Hi David

I have a couple of questions about the CASL:

• If a person gives you his/her business card with his/her email, is that considered consent to contact him/her via email?
• If a company posts employees emails on their company website for the public to see, is that considered consent to contact those employees by email?

Thank you

Comment on About by David Canton http://canton.elegal.ca/about/comment-page-1/#comment-32709 Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:47:52 +0000 http://wpblawg.home.jasonkohls.com/?page_id=2#comment-32709 It is not going to go away any time soon. At some point someone is going to take a run at it on the basis that it is unconstitutional, but that will take a long time to wind its way through. And typically if a court finds a law unconstitutional they give time for the legislature to fix it. The potential penalties are sever enough that if one ignores it, and someone complains, and the CRTC investigates, the consequences could be significant.

Comment on CASL observations by Jamie http://canton.elegal.ca/2014/05/07/casl-observations/comment-page-1/#comment-32331 Mon, 16 Jun 2014 22:16:52 +0000 http://canton.elegal.ca/?p=3652#comment-32331 Sounds like a job for Microsoft Excel!
My clients will definitely suffer as a result of these new laws. You’re absolutely right about the requests going unnoticed, which is too bad really.
Was it really necessary for Canada to tighten up the laws so much when other countries are still so relaxed about such things?
It will be interesting to see how this is enforced upon small businesses.