Issues of confidentiality and privacy feature prominently in Former Justice Cromwell’s Report on the search process for the Directorship of the International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law. They appear in four separate contexts: In the context of the improper disclosure, during the search and appointment process, of Dr Azarova’s identity to CIJA and in the direct and indirect communications between Justice Spiro and the Administration about Dr Azarova’s candidacy and hiring process; In criticizing members of the Search Committee and another unidentified person for disclosing information related to their concerns about the reasons for …

Confidentiality and Privacy in Justice Cromwell’s Report: Uses and Misuses Read more »

After a longstanding rejection of copyright term extension beyond the international law standard of life of the author plus 50 years, the Canadian government caved to pressure from the United States and agreed, in Article 20.62 of the Canada-US-Mexico Trade Agreement (CUSMA), to extend the term of copyright to life of the author plus 70 years. Canada negotiated a 30 month transition period to allow for consultation on how to implement that commitment.

It’s Fair Dealing and Fair Use Week. I didn’t initially plan to write anything but Meera Nair’s excellent post on fair dealing misrepresentations prompted me to add a few points. Meera’s post describes how sixteen years after CCH v LSUC and “[d]espite the continued development of fair dealing by our Courts …, and Parliament’s continuing support for use and expansion of exceptions, fair dealing is even further from a solid footing in Canada’s university sector.”

On Wednesday, February 12, 2020, the Copyright Board sent out a Notice by email (the Notice has not yet appeared on the Board’s website) correcting an error made in its decision from December 6, 2019 regarding the approval of Access Copyright’s higher education tariffs. This is the second Notice correcting errors in the Board’s decision in this case. The Board had previously issued an Erratum after realizing that an error in calculating interest on the licence fees would have resulted, unintentionally, in doubling these amounts.