Archive | June, 2010

Case Report – NSCA makes privacy-protective orders in youth’s Facebook case

30 Jun

On June 25th, Oland J. of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal made two privacy-protective orders in an appeal of a decision to deny use of the same measures in an application. The application has been brought by a 15-year-old girl who is has taken issue with an unknown individual who created a fake and allegedly defamatory Facebook profile in her name.

In late May, the applicant succeeded in arguing for production of the identity of the individual associated with the fake profile before LeBlanc J. of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. At the same time, LeBlanc J. denied the applicant an order permitting the use of a pseudonym (initials) and denied her a publication ban.

The Court of Appeal granted orders allowing the use of the two privacy protective measures in the appeal of LeBlanc J.’s decision, with the publication ban limited to restricting publication of the words of the Facebook profile. In making these orders, Oland J. held that the order was necessary to protect the applicant’s mental and emotional health, that the orders would be effective in protecting the applicant, that the orders would have a relatively limited impact and that a failure to make the orders would render the appeal moot.

The appeal is currently set down for hearing on December 7th, 2010. Beyond Borders, a children’s rights organization, intends to intervene. The Halifax Herald Limited and Global Television are respondents on the appeal.

A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc., 2010 NSCA 57 (CanLII).

Supreme Court of the United States favours openness over privacy in gay rights referendum matter

29 Jun

This is a short note on last Thursday’s Supreme Court of the United States decision in Doe v. Reed.

An 8-1 majority held that, as a general matter, the First Amendment does not grant signatories to state referendum petitions a right to remain anonymous that prevails over state open records laws. In the five separate concurring opinions the justices expressed a range of views on how the First Amendment ought to apply to a specific claim to anonymity, from the privacy-protective opinion of Justice Alito to the very pro-openness opinion of Justice Scalia. Justice Thomas dissented on his own, arguing that compelled disclosure of signed referendum and initiative petitions would impose a significant chilling effect on participation and that procedural integrity can generally be assured through less restrictive means than exposing petitioners’ identities.

For full commentary, see the ScotusWiki entry here.

[Qualification. I practice law in Ontario, Canada. This is a comment and not a legal opinion and I am not holding myself out as qualified to practice in matters related to American law.]

Information Roundup – 23 January 2010

23 Jun

Here are some recent tweets within the domain.

If you are an HR practitioner, please follow Hicks Morley’s new legislative updates blog. It’s quite a smart niche for a blog in my (non-objective) view – focusing on statutory changes related to human resources law.

Cheers!

Dan

danmichaluk

That’s you!
  1. RT @slaw_dot_ca Hot News, Hot Legal Topic http://bit.ly/bPogUJ

  2. RT @slaw_dot_ca Social media risks — Slaw http://bit.ly/d4A8vz Agree with these sentiments.

  3. Law enforcement benefits from inadvertently hearing lawyer’s telephone call http://bit.ly/bAzZ7s

  4. RT @marciahofmann: New paper on the myths and fallacies of “personally identifiable information” in consumer privacy. http://bit.ly/aHZQew

  5. RT @slaw_dot_ca Tips & Myths of Web Usability — Slaw http://bit.ly/asAOWO

  6. Narrow ruling in American employer text message audit case http://wp.me/p6aAc-15u

  7. Happy international surfing day!

  8. Receipt of unsolicited e-mail not a “collection” under privacy statute http://wp.me/p6aAc-15g

  9. One day into 3 day weekend solo. Learning 1: if my wife leaves me I will quickly OD on frozen pizza.

  10. RT @slaw_dot_ca What’s intrusive? — Slaw http://bit.ly/drR5zP by@privacylawyer

  11. Started the work day with a nice surf. I could get used to this.

  12. RT @slaw_dot_ca Today’s CLA judgement big, but just how big to be determined — Slaw http://bit.ly/cR9fLk

  13. RT @slaw_dot_ca U.S. Supreme Court Overturns 9th Circuit in Privacy Case http://bit.ly/dmEpCe

  14. Media has come up short in the last three SCC cases. Hmmm.

  15. SCC allows appeal of decision recognizing constitutional right to public interest (FOI) override http://bit.ly/caxbIo

  16. NYTimes: The Boring Speech Policy http://nyti.ms/b7HwXU [On Obama leadership. So witty!]

  17. Big, big FOI case due out of the SCC tomorrow http://bit.ly/cMctLr

  18. Exxon Valdez changed game on drug, alcohol testing http://tgam.ca/PuY (via @globeandmail)

  19. RT @slaw_dot_ca CanLII Keyword Gems http://bit.ly/bWz3Z3

  20. Desert island privacy cases for employment lawyers http://wp.me/p6aAc-14I

  21. RT @slaw_dot_ca Notarizing Electronic Documents http://bit.ly/aXvrFW

  22. Article on cloud based services adoption in Cdn higher ed http://tinyurl.com/26x2voj via @complexed [Strange comment on PQ, but helpful.]

  23. NYTimes: Styles of Judging: The Rhetoric and the Reality http://nyti.ms/9ggnzt

  24. RT @kevinokeefe: There’s no overnight business development success in blogging ~ from RLHB http://bit.ly/aDLvIz

  25. Google News experiments with human control, promotes a new serendipity with Editors’ Picks http://shar.es/mkJRl

  26. @pulat Congrats on the JD Pulat!

  27. NYTimes: Mind Over Mass Media http://nyti.ms/dgu3Qg

  28. RT @RossRunkel: Mesothelioma: Employer had duty to protect employee’s family http://tinyurl.com/29hg8e2

  29. @hicksmorley has launched a legislative update blog for human resources issues at http://www.humanresourceslegislativeupdate.com/

  30. RT @slaw_dot_ca SCC upholds publication ban without commenting on publication and the internet http://bit.ly/9LyLcr

  31. Sky http://twitpic.com/1vn3x8

  32. Thanks for the RTs @yosie23 and @granastein. Appreciated!

  33. Please check out the Ryerson Law Research Centre’s “Digital Rights Rountable” – June 18th – http://bit.ly/cs3QYc

  34. …and published this C-29 – PIPEDA update http://bit.ly/aCMLN5 Need to get back to work!

  35. Today’s presentation on developing social media policies http://bit.ly/db9GvL

  36. RT @slaw_dot_ca @DavidCanton on LSUC new file retention and destruction guide — Slaw http://bit.ly/a8wgkX

  37. Inside the security fence at Deerhurst for municipal sector conference. Sleepy here, for now I guess.

  38. RT @slaw_dot_ca Appeal court writes a chapter on proportionality — Slaw http://bit.ly/aSrtKZ

  39. Climbed a tree today for the first time in a long while.

  40. RT @managementlaw: Procedural Protection in Comtempt Proceedings http://bit.ly/ccddnF

  41. RT @stevewerby: Should selection process for public university presidents be private? I think so. http://bit.ly/ap4kWQ (via @sectorprivate)

  42. Took 5 hours to produce a bulletin in C-29 (PIPEDA amendment) and C-28 (FISA). PIPEDA amendments more fundamental than I had thought.

  43. The rise and fall of Carly Fiorina: an ethical case study. – Entrepreneur.com http://shar.es/mwXIf [thx @hirecentrix]

  44. RT @AntoninPribetic: The Trial Warrior Blog: Selected Internet Law Bibliography http://bit.ly/cdMS9f [Bro in law on the list.]

  45. Spoliation remedy granted in favour of bereaved dog owner http://wp.me/p6aAc-13W

  46. RT @slaw_dot_ca Privacy Breach Notification — Federal Amendments http://bit.ly/9AFaOc

  47. RT @BIHigherEdNews: How anxious parents affect colleges, students’ experience – USA Today http://bit.ly/a8mExP

  48. RT @bccla: CBC on Access to Information Act s. 69 – Where information goes to die: http://bit.ly/bwUlCb

  49. With I-Pad, and without new suit.

  50. RT @slaw_dot_ca Beware the common law duty to retain a record — Slaw http://bit.ly/dgSaqy

  51. Witness quotes M. Twain in prep today: “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.” Good witness.

  52. RT @@jordan_law21: 43% of in-house counsel turn to blogs as a primary source of news: http://bit.ly/aaowSU [Helpful Jordan thx!]

  53. Reforming search & seizure http://bit.ly/bxQe4t

  54. On my way to the airport just in time for the t-storms. Deja vu from last Thursday. North Bay, keep a light on for me please!

  55. RT @slaw_dot_ca Should accountants have ‘privilege’? — Slaw http://bit.ly/cjf1yB

  56. Ontario government to consider Anti-SLAPP legislation http://bit.ly/agRsZr

  57. OCA – negligent infliction of mental suffering damages not available in employment context – last Friday’s Ayotte: http://bit.ly/9ENW9y

  58. My beer buddies http://twitpic.com/1sklmi

  59. RT @wiselaw Legal battle erupts over black box http://bit.ly/c7j5Fr [Cool case. My blog post here http://wp.me/p6aAc-XY]

  60. The dangers of hearing matters in chambers http://bit.ly/cGdXVu

Case Report – Law enforcement benefits from inadvertently hearing lawyer’s telephone call

22 Jun

On June 10th, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal declined to exclude a recorded telephone conversation in which a lawyer charged with obstruction of justice allegedly counseled a client’s wife to destroy evidence.

The RCMP civilian agent who listened to the call pursuant to an authorization to intercept missed the first part of the call in which the accused identified himself as a lawyer. She listened, heard the caller make statements she considered to be obstructive in nature and conveyed what she had heard to her supervisor. When she played the recording back to the supervisor, they both heard the first part of the call and realized the caller was a lawyer. In breach of the terms of the authorization, they nonetheless continued to listen and only then sealed the communication.

The Court of Appeal held that the RCMP breached section 8 of the Charter by failing to stop and seal the recording as soon as it was clear the call was from a lawyer. It declined, however, to exclude the recording from evidence. In doing so, the Court was influenced by the fact that the communication was heard in in full through inadvertence and that it was not, in fact, subject to solicitor-client privilege.


R. v. Martin, 2010 NBCA 41 (CanLII).</a

Narrow ruling in American employer text message audit case

21 Jun

Last Friday, June 17th, the Supreme Court of the United States allowed an appeal of a much discussed workplace privacy case – Quon v. Arch Wireless.

The Court’s decision is of limited authority because it assumed that the employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages sent and received from his employer-issued device. Having made this assumption, the Court held that the employer’s search was lawful because it was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose and was not excessive in scope.

I’ll leave the commentary on this American case to the American commentators and have included some links below. For Canadian employers, my view is much like that of Philip Gordon of Littler Mendelson, who uses Quon to warn employers about heavy reliance on the “no expectation of privacy” view. See this article for my rationale.

Case Report – Receipt of unsolicited e-mail not a “collection” under privacy statute

20 Jun

On May 14th, the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario dismissed a privacy complaint by a university professor who alleged his university had improperly collected and used his personal e-mails for disciplinary purposes.

The complainant sent e-mails about a weekly event series from his personal account to a list of over 1000 individuals. The emails apparently contained statements that encouraged recipients to “send to friends.” The e-mails were received by one or more University administrators, who forwarded them to other administrators for “operational purposes.” The University ultimately imposed discipline on the complainant based on the content of the e-mails.

The investigator held that the University did not collect the unsolicited e-mails. He reasoned that the use of the terms “obtained and compiled” elsewhere in the Act indicate that the legislature contemplated means of coming into custody or control of personal information other than collection. He also reasoned that the requirement to give notice of collection suggests that collection requires something more active than demonstrated by the University.

Regarding the allegation of improper use, the Investigator held that the e-mails were used by the University for a purpose consistent with the purpose for which they were obtained or compiled:

In this case, the e-mails were obtained by the University on an unsolicited basis. In order to administer its operations effectively, a University is required to review and address correspondence, including e-mails that are received on an unsolicited basis. Based on the information before me, the University compiled the e-mails for the purpose of addressing issues related to the operation of the University. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the University obtained or compiled the e-mails for the purpose of the effective administration of the University.

The finding about unsolicited receipt of personal information is based on an interpretation of FIPPA, but is of relatively broad significance given the parts of FIPPA relied upon by the investigator are neither technical nor unique. The decision also raises a notable jurisdictional issue about records that are obtained for a non-employment related purpose and subsequently used for an employment-related purpose and FIPPA’s employment-related records exclusion.

University of Ottawa (Re), 2010 CanLII 30187 (ON I.P.C.)

Today’s CLA Judgement Big, But Just How Big to be Determined

18 Jun

I posted on today’s Supreme Court of Canada FOI case (Criminal Lawyers’ Association) over at Slaw today. See here.

Desert island privacy cases for employment lawyers

15 Jun

I presented at the Law Society of Upper Canada’s “Six Minute Employment Lawyer” conference today. It was a very good honour to be invited to this successful and long-running program. Thanks to the LSUC and also to Co-Chairs Christine Thomlinson (see her firm’s blog here) and Malcom McKillop.

I managed to catch a few presentations from other more senior members of our bar. Other blawgers were also well-represented. It was nice to see Michael Fitzgibbon, Stuart Rudner and Omar HaRedeye, albeit briefly. Omar, if you have a Twitter stream of the event, please link it in a comment below.

I did a presentation called “Desert island cases for employment lawyers.” If you like case lists, check out the slides below. Slides with notes are over at SlideShare.

Developing Your Social Media Policies

10 Jun

I presented “Developing Your Social Media Policies” today at a conference of the Association of Municipal Managers Clerks and Treasurers. It was nice to present together with two officials from the City of Barrie, who highlighted the City’s very progressive (and slick-looking) Facebook Fan page initiative, which you can check out here.

I’ve spoken lots on the subject of workplace law and social media lately, but today was more about policy, and specifically, how to use it to both empower employees and take control of how they speak about matters of corporate interest. Slides are below. Enjoy!

Federal Government Introduces Legislation to Create PIPEDA 2.0

10 Jun

This is the title of a client update that we published today, co-authored by me and my colleague Paul Broad. Here’s our conclusion section on the significance of Bill c-29 to our clients:

Many of the proposed substantive amendments to PIPEDA are changes that would be welcome to organizations regulated by the Act as they clarify ambiguities and address practical issues not contemplated by the original legislation.

Some may argue that PIPEDA has been a “paper tiger” since it came into force. Very few organizations subject to the Act have been compelled to answer a PIPEDA complaint, and far fewer have had to respond to a PIPEDA application in the Federal Court. Some have compared PIPEDA’s status to that of provincial and federal human rights legislation, but it has not given rise to nearly the same impact nor has it been the source of the same degree of operational risk.

Bills C-29 and C-28 could change this. Though the administrative procedure for handling PIPEDA complaints would largely remain the same – indeed, the Commissioner would actually be granted a greater discretion to decline to deal with complaints – the new data breach reporting and notification duties could cause organizations to engage with individuals about matters regulated by PIPEDA in a manner that many have not yet done. This engagement would come with the significant costs of notification. Even more significantly, it would come post-breach, when organizations are vulnerable and large groups of individuals are upset.

Organizations should think about engaging with individuals proactively, before a breach occurs. This includes implementing systems and processes that would allow them to confidently answer the questions that might be asked by individuals who are notified of a data breach. Organizations who can answer those questions may be able to disarm aggravated individuals and avoid, or at least reduce, the chance of irreconcilable conflict.

For the full update, click here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.