CIPPIC has submitted feedback to the Department of Canadian Heritage concerning the proposed legislation to address “harmful content” online. The public consultation was launched right before the federal election was called with a deadline to submit right after the end of the election, causing civil society and academic experts to request a delay  to the submission deadline. No deferral was ultimately granted.

In its submission, CIPPIC calls on the Department of Canadian Heritage to reconsider its approach to addressing activity that occurs online, given that the current approach jeopardizes claims that Canada is a global leader of human rights. The submission focuses on problems relating to the law’s scope of application, its demand that platforms block unlawful content within 24 hours of being flagged, as well as alarming requirements for online service providers to proactively monitor and filter content as well as report information on users to law enforcement.

The Supreme Court of Canada today released its decision in York University v. Access Copyright, 2021 SCC 32.  The case addressed two issues: whether Access Copyright’s Copyright Board tariff is mandatory, and whether copying by York pursuant to its Guidelines constitutes fair dealing.  Both courts below had ruled the tariff not mandatory and the Guidelines unfair.

In a unanimous decision penned by Justice Abella (in her last case on the bench), the Court found that the tariff was not mandatory and so was unenforceable against York, and in light of the absence of any real legal issue between York and Access Copyright, that it would be inappropriate to decide the fair dealing issue. 

However, the Court cautioned that this result should not “should not be construed as endorsing the reasoning of” the courts below, citing “some significant jurisprudential problems with those aspects of their judgments that warrant comment.”  The Court went on to “correct” those “errors” [para. 87-88]

Highlights of that analysis include: