Archive for the 'Publications' Category
CANADIAN CASL (ANTI-SPAM LAW) PRECEDENTS
Do you need a precedent or checklist
to comply with CASL (Canadian anti-spam law)?
We offer Canadian anti-spam law (CASL) precedents and checklists to help electronic marketers comply with CASL. These include checklists and precedents for express consent requests (including on behalf of third parties), sender identification information, unsubscribe mechanisms, business related exemptions and types of implied consent and documenting consent and scrubbing distribution lists. We also offer a CASL corporate compliance program. For more information or to order, see: Anti-Spam (CASL) Precedents/Forms. If you would like to discuss CASL legal advice or for other advertising or marketing in Canada, including contests/sweepstakes, contact us: contact.
************
March 7, 2013
Earlier today, the Federal Government posted comments that it has received to the proposed Industry Canada regulations under Canada’s pending federal anti-spam legislation (CASL). Revised Industry Canada regulations were posted in earlier January for public comments, based on significant industry push back to CASL and, in particular in relation to the proposed Industry Canada Regulations, narrow and arguably commercially unworkable exceptions to the legislation. More than 100 comments have been posted, from a variety of companies, associations, individuals and other organizations.
March 6, 2013
In addition to my contest law services, I offer Canadian contest forms and precedents for random draw and skill contests in Canada (excluding Quebec).
These Canadian contest forms are intended to bridge the gap between legal advice and forms on the web, which may not be current, accurate, reviewed by counsel or even intended for Canadian promotions (i.e., U.S. or international forms that do not include the key requirements to effectively operate a contest in Canada).
____________________
CANADIAN CONTEST RULES & FORMS
Need contest rules and forms for a Canadian Contest? I offer a selection of Canadian contest rules and forms for common types of Canadian contests. For more information see: Contest Forms.
February 28, 2013
The Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia (CLE BC) has published its annual Review of Law & Practice – 2013, including my joint Competition Law chapter (see: Annual Review of Law & Practice – 2013). Overview (from CLE BC):
“Discover the most efficient way to stay informed, with key developments in 33 practice areas. Each year, lawyers and other readers around the province turn to CLEBC’s Annual Review of Law & Practice to learn about the key developments and trends in British Columbia law. Thriving in its 22nd annual edition, Annual Review provides an easy, affordable, and reliable way to keep its readers on top of the pivotal issues and trends. This year’s edition is bigger and better than before, and introduces a new chapter on “Competition Law”. The book now contains 34 chapters packed with accessible commentary about the main legislative, case law, and practice changes in British Columbia. Chapters are written by BC lawyers who have recognized interests and knowledge in particular areas of law. All good reasons why, in British Columbia, Annual Review is the essential updating tool for the busy practitioner.”
My joint Competition Law chapter includes a summary of the 2012 developments in the major areas of Canadian competition law including: misleading advertising, mergers, the Investment Canada Act, abuse of dominance, criminal matters, private actions and new Competition Bureau guidelines.
February 27, 2013
This new global text on unfair competition caught my eye on my sweep of the web today: International Handbook on Unfair Competition, which includes chapters on major jurisdictions including Canada, the U.S., Australia, U.K., Brazil, China and a number of others. Abstract:
“Written by a worldwide team of experts, this new work surveys and comments on the unfair competition laws of the world’s leading economic powers. Following a standard pattern, each chapter introduces the reader to the latest developments in each jurisdiction, highlighting the ways in which the basic legislation and case law relates to enforcement issues, and how unfair competition laws fit with wider considerations of consumer protection and within prevailing intellectual property and competition law frameworks.
Each of the country reports follows the same standard structure: Background and General Approach to Unfair Competition Law; Legal Basis of Unfair Competition Law and Relations to Neighbouring Areas of Law; General Considerations; General Clause Against Unfair Competition; Marketing; Protection of Competitors Against Unfair Trade Practices; Specific Protection of Consumers Against Unfair Trade Practices; Enforcement.”
February 18, 2013
Do you need contest rules/precedents
for a Canadian contest?
We offer many types of Canadian contest/sweepstakes law precedents and forms (i.e., Canadian contest/sweepstakes law precedents to run common types of contests in Canada). These include precedents for random draw contests (i.e., where winners are chosen by random draw), skill contests (e.g., essay, photo or other types of contests where entrants submit content that is judged to enter the contest or for additional entries), trip contests and more. Also available are individual Canadian contest/sweepstakes precedents, including short rules (“mini-rules”), long rules, winner releases and a Canadian contest law checklist. For more information or to order, see: Canadian Contest Law Forms/Precedents. If you would like to discuss legal advice in relation to your contest or other promotion, contact us: Contact.
____________________
Canadian contest law can, to say the least, be perplexing to some. It’s a mix, at least usually, of competition law, the Criminal Code and contract law. As such, key Canadian contest legal requirements include mandatory Competition Act disclosure (“short rules”), avoiding the illegal lottery offences of the Criminal Code and taking common sense steps to make sure contest rules accurately reflect the promotion, are enforceable and give the maximum amount of latitude to promoters to deal with potential contingencies that may arise.
February 11, 2013
Earlier today, the Competition Bureau announced that the Federal Court of Appeal has dismissal the appeal from the Competition Tribunal’s decision in the CCS B.C. hazardous waste landfill merger case (see: here). In making the announcement, Canada’s Interim Commissioner of Competition John Pecman said:
“We are pleased that the Court has dismissed Tervita’s appeal with costs and upheld the Tribunal’s order. … If the acquisition had been allowed, Tervita would have been in a position to entrench its monopoly on secure hazardous waste disposal in Northeastern British Columbia.”
The Bureau initially filed an application with the Tribunal in 2011 to challenge this non-notifiable merger, arguing that the transaction, if it proceeded, would result in a substantial prevention of competition in the market for the disposal of hazardous waste in Northern British Columbia (the case was a “prevent” merger case).
The Competition Tribunal’s Decision
In May, 2012, the Tribunal ordered CCS to divest the Babkirk hazardous waste landfill assets acquired by CCS Corporation (now Tervita) from Complete Environmental. For a summary of the Tribunal’s decision last year see: Competition Tribunal Releases Decision in BC Landfill “Prevent” Merger Case.
In brief, on May 29, 2012, the Tribunal concluded that the acquisition by CCS of the shares of Complete substantially prevented competition and ordered CCS to divest Complete’s wholly-owned subsidiary Babkirk. The divestiture order was stayed pending appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, which was heard last December. Tervita is the owner of the only operating secure landfills in North-Eastern British Columbia permitted to accept solid hazardous waste. These landfills primarily service oil and gas industry operators seeking to dispose of materials generated through drilling activities. Babkirk had secured regulatory approvals for development of a further secure hazardous waste landfill.
February 10, 2013
On February 6, 2013, the Competition Bureau released its submission responding to the CRTC’s Wireless Code Working Document issued on January 28th. In its submission, the Bureau takes issue with two main aspects of the CRTC’s proposed approach to a new wireless code: potential switching costs for consumers (including plan lengths) and advocating for effective disclosure of key terms, particularly price and service limitations.
Consistent with recent enforcement, notably in the abuse of dominance area including in connection with its challenges against the Toronto Real Estate Board and Ontario hot water heater suppliers, the Bureau raises several potential switching cost concerns relating to long-term contracts, handset locking and excessive termination fees. Some of the potential adverse effects that, in the Bureau’s view, may flow from these wireless contract and handset features include reducing the incentive for incumbent carriers to innovate, raising rivals’ costs and acting as a barrier for new wireless entry.
Not surprisingly, and consistent with many Canadians, the Bureau takes particular issue with the fact that the contemplated code does not include any limit on the duration of wireless agreements. With respect to handset locking, the Bureau takes the position that device locking should be prohibited and that service providers should be required to unlock any previously locked devices free of charge. The Bureau also advocates for the uncoupling of current device subsidy contracts (i.e., for the financing of mobile devices over the life of a plan) from wireless service contracts generally, allowing consumers to continue with device financing agreements after switching to alternate providers.
February 8, 2013
It seems rather de rigueur at the moment for the Interim Commissioner of Competition to make the rounds of the big firms – in the latest stop on Mr. Pecman’s policy dance card, he stopped in Toronto yesterday to discuss in a bit more detail the Bureau’s current policies, enforcement focus and a few ongoing cases (see: Remarks by John Pecman). For other recent remarks by Mr. Pecman since he assumed the Interim Commissioner position last fall, see: here, here and here.
In this, the Interim Commissioner’s fourth speech since taking the post last fall, a few interesting points to note include a confirmation that the Bureau is interested in “incrementally increasing” its competition advocacy efforts (in addition to enforcement) in some key industries including the digital economy and retail and health sectors, re-stating the Bureau’s recent announcement that it would now use compulsory section 11 court orders in formal inquiries in all but exceptional cases (not voluntary information requests) and describing a loss in a Quebec court in one of its ongoing bid-rigging cases.
The Interim Commissioner also set out the following four factors the Bureau would consider in deciding whether to initiate regulatory interventions in particular sectors: (i) whether a forum exists and there is a high level of public interest, (ii) whether the Bureau would be contributing in a useful way (e.g., bringing forward unique arguments), (iii) being able to gauge the impact of advocacy efforts, and (iv) clear, tangible benefits for Canadians.
On the advertising and marketing law front, the Interim Commissioner also discussed the Ontario Court of Appeal decision upholding the lower court’s penalty finding in the recent Yellow Page Marketing case and the Bureau’s response filed in the CRTC’s wireless code consultations for mobile wireless providers.
All in all, while the Interim Commissioner reiterated previously announced policies, he also provided a bit more detail on the Bureau’s anticipated increase in advocacy / regulatory intervention efforts and further confirmed its continued focus on enforcement and key priorities, including the digital economy and mobile.
__________________
For more information about our regulatory services: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
