On September 14, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) rendered its decision in Rogers Communications Inc. v Voltage Pictures, LLC. In sum, the SCC decided that copyright owners must compensate Internet service providers (“ISPs”) for some – but not all – costs incurred in identifying alleged online infringers.
Now that electronic devices that can record conversations are omnipresent, courts routinely have to deal with attempts to introduce audio recordings as evidence. In this regard, there are certain rules that must be followed in order for such evidence to be admissible.
On March 2, 2018 we discussed a judgment rendered by the Court of Québec which found construction contractor Sylvain Fournier guilty of manslaughter following the death of one of his employees[1]. On September 18, Mr. Fournier learned his sentence: 18 months in prison!
The Bureau has published papers relating, among others, to taxi permits, internet service providers and food trucks. On July 26, 2018, the Bureau issued its latest publication regarding competition in the online eyewear industry, entitled Bringing Competition into Focus. The burgeoning online eyewear industry and the litigation it has spawned in Québec and Ontario illustrates the potential conflicts between regulated industries and the new market players disrupting them.
While until quite recently the security of information technology infrastructures was dealt with by a corporate IT team, today every organization knows that cyber threats constitute a major risk that senior management must monitor closely.
This article is a modified version of a case comment initially published by Éditions Yvon Blais in September 2018 (EYB2018REP2538).
The expert plays a critical role in the adversarial judicial process. He or she must enlighten the court in order to assist it in making a decision, and this duty takes precedence over the interests of the parties. In its decision in Office municipal d’habitation Kativik v. WSP Canada Inc., the Quebec Superior Court concluded that nothing prevents a party from retaining, at its expense, the expert of the opposing party in order to obtain clarification of certain aspects of the expert’s report.