IT.Can Newsletter/IT.Can Bulletin

October 20, 2005/20 octobre 2005
Newsletter/BULLETIN
www.it-can.ca
Part 1 of this newsletter is prepared by Professors Anne Uteck, Teresa
Scassa and Chidi Oguamanam of the Law and Technology Institute of
Dalhousie Law School. Part 2 of this newsletter is prepared by Professors
Pierre Trudel and France Abran of the L.R. Wilson Chair in Information
Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, Université de Montréal.
arbitration service jointly appointed by the parties”
(para 3).
Part 1
The motion judge refused to stay the proceedings
as sought by Money Mart’s motion. Smith brought
a motion to quash Money Mart’s appeal against the
motion judge’s ruling. Smith’s motion was allowed.
Endorsing, the BCCA decision in Mackinnon v.
National Money Mark Co., [2004] B.C.J. 1961 the
Ontario Court of Appeal held that “the motions judge
correctly held that the legality of the arbitration
provision should be determined at the certification
hearing and that it is premature to attempt to stay
the action before hand” (para 14).
Civil Procedure
Computer And Privacy Law
Smith v. National Money Mart Co.—Ontario Court
of Appeal, Toronto
Autosurvey Inc. v. Prevost and Others—Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, Brampton
The Plaintiff, Margaret Smith, is a pensioner. She
patronized Money Mart Fast Cash Advance. This
service allowed patrons to borrow up to 30% of
their net pay cheque until the following payday. It
also allowed a maximum term of thirty-one days.
Customers sign a Fast Cash Advance agreement and
provide Money Mart post-dated cheques of value
corresponding to the principal, plus interests and
Money Mart’s standard first party cheque cashing
fee. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the interest
rate charged exceeded by six percent the maximum
permitted by s. 347 of the Criminal Code. She
insisted on the jurisprudence which supports that
her right to obtain the desired declaration should
not be scuttled on grounds of public policy. She
commenced her proceeding which has yet to be
certified under the Class Proceedings Act. Money
Mart brought a motion in objection on the basis that
the substantive agreement Smith signed required her
to mediate and/or arbitrate her dispute. The relevant
portion of the Alternative dispute resolution clause
of the agreement which was added following a
revision in 2003 read in part that “parties may elect
to proceed with the arbitration in person, in writing
only, or electronically using an Internet or online
The Plaintiff, Autosurvey and the principal Defendant,
Joseph Prevost, were partners in the business of
selling computerized customer survey services to
automobile dealerships with potential to serve other
users. Prevost, a software developer, consultant and
website administrator designed and developed the
Plaintiff’s main software for delivering customer
service surveys via the Internet. He developed
this software from other software products or
source codes he already owned. He was the Vice
President Research and Development of Autosurvey.
A falling out between Mark Durst of the Plaintiff
Company and Prevost led the latter to terminate his
relationship with the Plaintiff Company.
Les auteurs de la première partie du présent bulletin sont les professeurs
Anne Uteck, Teresa Scassa et Chidi Oguamanam de l’Institut de droit
et de technologie de la Faculté de droit de l’Université de Dalhousie.
Les professeurs Pierre Trudel et France Abran de le Chaire en droit des
technologies de l’information et du commerce électronique L.R. Wilson de
la Faculté de droit de l’Université de Montréal ont rédigé la seconde partie
du présent bulletin.
Subsequently, the Plaintiff commenced an action
against the principal Defendant and others.
Autosurvey alleged breach of contractual and
fiduciary duties and appropriation of its intellectual
property rights in both the software and associated
business opportunities. It also sought an “Anton
Piller” injunction and other interim relief. Further,
it sought to restrain the Defendants from carrying
on the business of providing computerized online
customer survey and pooling in a number of fields.
Contrary to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendants
maintained that the source code for the software in
issue belonged to the principal Defendant and was
not modified or developed from any product he
previously assigned to Autosurvey. The Defendants
also denied soliciting Autosurvey’s employees as
alleged.
While the Plaintiff’s motion for “Anton Piller” order
pended, one of its customer’s employees complained
that he was not able to access Plaintiff’s website
in order to file customer surveys. The Plaintiff
suspected that its critical intellectual property
has been removed from its New Jersey based
computer server. It discovered that there was no
data relating to the complaining customer. Plaintiff’s
investigation traced the data removal to another
server located in the same building as its New
Jersey server. That server was under the control of
the principal Plaintiff, Joseph Prevost. By means of
“brute force entry”, the Plaintiff launched “a preemptive strike by obtaining access to Prevost’s
server on its own initiate” (para 17). This hacking
into Prevost’s computer was done following several
attempts, even though Autosurvey deleted the log
containing this information. The Plaintiff informed
its lawyers of the forced access into Prevost’s
computer and was advised to “secure its property,
preserve the evidence and note the contents” (para.
20). The Plaintiff subsequently obtained complete
copy of the contents of the server and transferred
them onto DVDs. Meanwhile, Plaintiff’s suspicion
of unauthorized transfer of its client data from its
New Jersey server was unfounded. The customer or
owner of the dealerships in question was Prevost’s
long time friend and had approved the transfer
to Prevost’s server at a time Prevost worked for
Autosurvey on the software.
Meanwhile, Prevost’s New Jersey server contained
other personal and privileged information between
him and his clients and third parties, including
perhaps most importantly, 29 e-mail communications
passed back and forth between the Defendants and
their solicitors. These were subject to solicitor-client
privilege. The Plaintiff had already taken advantage
of some of the information. A fourth affidavit by
the Plaintiff, deposed on its behalf by Mark Durst,
contained exhibits printed from Prevost’s server.
Autosurvey and its counsel had opportunities to
come clean with possession of privileged information
and “do the right thing” (para 101). But they failed to
so do.
Following an urgent case conference at the instance
of the Defendant’s counsel, the court ordered
Autosurvey to turn over to it two DVDs containing
materials copied by Autosurvey from Prevost’s server
and to delete all the remaining copies and to refrain
from reviewing or accessing any of the materials. The
Defendants’ motion prayed for stay of the Plaintiff’s
action for Anton Piller order and other relief and for
the removal of Davis Webb as solicitors on record for
Autosurvey.
In his ruling, the Court, M.J. Quigley, J. held that
the right to privacy guaranteed under section 8
of the Charter is “at the heart of liberty in our
modern state” (para 47) and it is not limited in its
application to “the context of public law matters”
but extends to “relationships between persons in
a private law context” (ibid). He observed that the
Defendants were entitled to reasonable expectation
of privacy and confidentiality in regard to solicitorclient privilege which preserves the integrity
of the administration of justice. The Plaintiff’s
conducts clearly breached this expectation. The
Court noted that even an Anton Piller order is
given under appropriate safeguards so as not to
trump or compromise the sanctity of solicitor-client
confidentiality. The case raises inter alia the issue of
balancing two competing values, namely the integrity
of the judicial system and litigants’ right not to be
deprived of counsel of choice without reasonable
cause. According to the judge, “[i]n the case before
me … the insult to the integrity of the judicial
system is even greater” than in relevant earlier cases
(para 72). In the Court’s words, “this is a stronger
case of improper and wanton conduct than any of
those reported in our jurisprudence in recent years”
(para 114).
After a painstaking review of authorities, the Court
held that “the Defendants are or would be entitled
to succeed on the motion for removal of the Davis
Webb firm as solicitors of record for Autosurvey”
(para 110). In the Court’s finding, they did not act
in a professional manner and they “breached their
obligation not only under the rules of professional
conduct but to the Court as well” (ibid). In all of
these, the Defendants’ reasonable belief that the
proceedings could be conducted in a manner
that would not be prejudicial to them has been
compromised. The Court also agreed that “the
Defendants are entitled to succeed on the motion
and that the remedy they seek by way of a stay
should be granted” (para 111). The Court observed
that in cases of this nature there is no perfect
solution, rather the Court should strive toward
“the best of the imperfect ‘alternatives’” (para 78).
Bringing the proceedings to an end is the only
remedy that can compensate the Defendants in any
meaningful way (para 115).
Privacy
The Canadian Privacy Commissioner has presented
the 2004-2005 Annual Report on the Privacy Act.
The Report highlights some of the most significant
issues the Office has faced this year, including
security, surveillance and the sharing of information
and outsourcing of data operations across borders.
The Report emphasizes the need to modernize the
Privacy Act because “it is an outdated and inadequate
public sector protection law.” Commissioner
Stoddard’s 2004 Annual Report on the Personal
Information Protection and Electronic Documents
Act (PIPEDA) was also tabled. This Report
highlights a number of key investigations, including
opportunities to work jointly with provincial
counterparts, workplace surveillance and a new
emphasis on settling complaints. As well, a number of
innovations were introduced to increase the Office’s
ability to ensure compliance with PIPEDA. A review
of PIPEDA is planned for 2006.
Several new Findings have been posted by the
federal Privacy Commissioner. In Finding #313, the
Office of the Canadian Privacy Commissioner has
denied a series of complaints launched after the
CIBC disclosed that American law enforcement could
access credit card user’s personal information. The
CIBC has sent a notification to its VISA customers
amending its credit cardholder agreement in which
reference was made to the use of a service provider
located in the United States and the possibility that
American law enforcement or regulatory agencies
might be able to obtain access to cardholder’s
personal information under American law. While
each complaint raised slightly different issues, all
the complaints primarily objected to the possible
scrutiny of their personal information by American
authorities within the context of foreign intelligence
gathering. While the Privacy Commissioner has stated
that the implications of anti-terrorism legislation
and outsourcing need to be the focus of public
debate, the central issue in this case was whether
the bank acted in accordance with its obligations
under PIPEDA. The Assistant Privacy Commissioner
held that although the Act does not prohibit
the use of foreign third-party service providers,
it does, under Principle 4.1.3, oblige Canadianbased organizations to ensure a comparable level
of service. In accordance with these obligations
and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions (OSFI) Guidelines, CIBC has a contract
with its third-party provider that provides guarantees
of confidentiality and security of its personal
information. However, while the customer personal
information is in the hands of a foreign third-party
service provider, it is subject to the laws of that
country and no contractual provision can override
those laws. In the Assistant Commissioner’s view,
an organization with a presence in Canada that
outsources the processing of personal information
to an American firm cannot prevent its customer’s
personal information from being lawfully accessed by
American authorities. Further, “even if one were to
consider the issue of “comparable protection” from
the perspective of U.S. versus Canadian anti-terrorism
legislation…there is a comparable legal risk that
the personal information of Canadians held by any
organization and its service provider – be it Canadian
or American – can be obtained by government
agencies, whether through the provisions of U.S.
law or Canadian law.” She concludes, therefore, that
CIBC was in compliance with Principle 4.1.3. Under
Principle 4.8, organizations must be transparent
about their personal information handling practices.
CIBC notified its customers of the risk that their
personal information might be accessed under
the provisions of the USA Patriot Act while in the
hands of an American third-party service provider.
Thus, the bank was informing its customers about
its policies and practices related to the management
of their personal information and therefore, in
compliance with Principle 4.8. While the Assistant
Commissioner concluded that the complaints were
not well-founded, she went on to consider the issue
of opting-out and consent. In her view, the language
used by the bank in the notice was problematic in
that it appeared to have left the impression that a
customer could opt-out of having their personal
information sent to the third-party service provider.
The Office has taken the position that companies are
not required to provide customers with the choice
of opting-out where the third-party service provider
is offering services directly related to the primary
purposes for which the personal information was
collected, as was the case here. A customer provides
consent to the primary uses when they sign the
application form or when they continue to use
the service after being advised of changes to the
service agreement. Moreover, Principle 4.3 requires
organizations to obtain meaningful consent of an
individual to its actual and “proposed” collection,
use and disclosure. In the Assistant Commissioner’s
view, CIBC was notifying customers of the “risk” that
their personal information could be lawfully accessed
by American authorities because of where it was
processed and therefore, did not offend the Act. She
did, however, go on to encourage CIBC to clarify the
language of the cardholder agreement to ensure its
customers understood that they did not have the
right to opt out.
Comment on the issues raised in this article
at the IT.CAN blog
➦
●
In Finding #314, a third-party filed a claim
alleging the complainant had damaged her car. The
insurance adjuster determined that the complainant
was at fault, but the complainant disputed the claim
and requested the name of the third-party’s insurance
company and a written account of the claim. Not
satisfied, she contacted the provincial superintendent
of insurance who wrote to the insurance company
on her behalf. The insurance company replied by
stating that they could not release the documents
because the claimant was not prepared to give her
consent to share her personal information contained
within the documents. The Assistant Commissioner
found that the statement of claim contained the
personal information of the complainant as well as
the personal information of the claimant, but that
this information could be severed in the manner
described under subsection 9(1) of the Act. As
this had not been done and the complainant was
denied access to the entire document, the insurance
company had denied the complainant access to
her personal information, contrary to Principle 4.9.
Therefore, the complaint was well-founded. The
Assistant Commissioner went on to recommend that
third party claimants be notified that statements of
claim will be shared with the insured person upon
request and only the personal information of the
third party claimant that is not directly related to the
statement of claim be severed from the statement of
claim.
In Finding #315, an e-mail account holder
complained that a web-centered company did not
adequately protect her personal information because
her e-mail account had allegedly been improperly
accessed by, she suspected, her estranged husband;
did not provide her with a satisfactory explanation
when she tried to resolve her concerns; and did
not give her access to the personal information she
requested. First, with respect to the access complaint,
the complainant requested a report showing any
information that could help her determine who,
when and from where her account was being
accessed and how many times the password had
been changed. The company replied by telling her
how to change her password. She wrote again
requesting an investigation into her account after
which the company informed her that if she wanted
the information regarding password changes, she
would need to provide a subpoena or court order.
The complainant also wanted to know the name
of the individual changing the password, but the
company did not have this information nor were they
able to provide what the passwords were because
they are encrypted when they are typed in by the
user. The Assistant Commissioner was of the view
that the IP address requested by the complainant
should be released to the account holder upon
request and then the account holder is free to pursue
identifying the individual through legal channels. In
any event, the company did not have information
regarding the identity of the IP address and therefore
there was no reason to withhold the information.
After the OPC intervened, the company released
the dates that the password was changed and the IP
addresses of the computers that were used. Therefore
the complainant was given access to her personal
information in accordance with Principle 4.9 and
the complaint was resolved. Second, the Assistant
Privacy Commissioner concluded that the safeguard
complaint was not well founded. Having reviewed
the company’s measures for changing the password,
she deemed them to be reasonable and not difficult
to understand. She noted that while the organization
is responsible for protecting personal information
in their possession, there is also some onus on the
individual to protect their own personal information.
Here, the complainant had not taken the company’s
advice to fully protect her personal information
because she chose a password and challenge
question that someone else could guess. Third, the
compliance complaint was well-founded because the
company did not act in accordance with Principle
4.10. As a web-centered company that provides
free e-mail accounts to its customers, it relies on
online reference material and e-mail responses from
customer care to address complaints and inquiries.
Although this approach “appeared acceptable
and in compliance” with the Act, in this case, the
complainant had specifically requested the name
and telephone number of a supervisor and it was at
this point that the matter should have been referred
to the company’s privacy officer. The Assistant
Commissioner went on to note that the customer
care representatives in this situation should have
recognized that the complainant’s concerns were
not being addressed to her satisfaction and should
have escalated the matter to the appropriate officials.
Thus, she recommended the company implement a
procedure where outstanding privacy concerns are
referred to the company’s privacy officer.
2ième partie
Vers une reconnaissance d’un
droit universel à la protection
des données
La 27ème Conférence internationale des Commissaires
à la protection des données et à la vie privée s’est
tenue à Montreux du 14 au 16 septembre 2005
et s’est conclue par l’adoption d’une déclaration
finale visant au renforcement du caractère universel
des principes de la protection des données. La
Conférence a également adopté une résolution
sur l’utilisation des données biométriques dans
les passeports, cartes d’identité et documents de
voyage et une résolution sur l’utilisation de données
personnelles pour la communication politique.
Commissariat à la vie privée du Canada, Déclaration :
Vers la reconnaissance d’un droit universel à la
protection des données et à la vie privée.
CNIL, La conférence internationale de Montreux,
à laquelle la CNIL a participé, demande la
reconnaissance d’un droit universel à la protection
des données.
Protection des renseignements
personnels dans le secteur
privé – Québec
Cette étude, publiée par le Commissariat à la
vie privée du Canada, passe en revue et résume
l’expérience du Québec en ce qui concerne la Loi
sur la protection des renseignements personnels
dans le secteur privé. Comme la loi québécoise
est réputée essentiellement similaire à la Loi sur la
protection des renseignements personnels et les
documents électroniques (LPRPDÉ), ce document
est utile étant donné que le Commissariat et les
autres provinces ayant aussi adopté des lois réputées
essentiellement similaires, doivent interpréter et
appliquer des dispositions semblables.
Karl DELWAIDE et Antoine AYLWIN, Leçons tirées de
dix ans d’expérience : la Loi sur la protection des
renseignements personnels dans le secteur privé du
Québec, Commissaire à la vie privée du Canada.
Proposition de directive sur la
conservation des données de
connexion – Europe
La Commission européenne a présenté le 21
septembre une proposition de directive sur la
conservation de données relatives au trafic des
communications électroniques. Cette proposition
prévoit l’harmonisation des obligations qui pèsent
sur les fournisseurs de services de communications
électroniques accessibles au public, ou d’un réseau
public de communications, en matière de traitement
et de conservation de données relatives au trafic
concernant la téléphonie mobile et la téléphonie fixe,
ainsi que des données relatives au trafic concernant
l’utilisation d’Internet, la durée de conservation étant
de un an pour les premières et de six mois pour
les secondes. Elle ne s’applique pas au contenu des
communications.
La proposition contient une disposition prévoyant
que les fournisseurs de services ou d’un réseau
obtiendront le remboursement des surcoûts qu’ils
justifient avoir supportés. Le traitement de données
se fera sous le contrôle exclusif des autorités
chargées de la protection des données, instituées
dans tous les États membres.
Communiqué, La Commission présente un arsenal
de mesures sur la lutte contre le terrorisme.
Liliana BOUBEKEUR, Une proposition de directive
pour la conservation des données de connexion,
Juriscom.net, 28 septembre 2005
Étienne WERY, Données de connexion : le grand b…,
Droit-technologie.org, 19 octobre 2005.
Au décès, à qui reviennent les
courriels ? – France
Murielle Cahen, dans un article publié dans Clic-Droit,
examine le statut des courriels. Les messages de
courriel sont des données personnelles, une adresse
électronique permet généralement d’identifier une
personne physique. Dans la plupart des situations,
la question ne comporte pas d’enjeux financiers.
Les héritiers s’attachent à la valeur affective des
courriels. En France, les hébergeurs de courriel
refusent généralement de communiquer les données
personnelles même aux héritiers. On qualifie
ces messages de correspondance privée. Toute
autre personne que le destinataire et l’expéditeur
n’est pas habilitée à en prendre connaissance.
L’auteure aborde aussi les dimensions de propriété
intellectuelle que comportent la dévolution des
courriels de la personne défunte.
Murielle CAHEN, Décès : les emails sont des données
personnelles, Clic-Droit, 21 septembre 2005.
Responsabilité de
l’intermédiaire de paiement
pour accès par des mineurs
à un site pornographique –
France
Dans une décision rendue en application de
l’article 227-24 du Code pénal français, un juge
correctionnel a acquitté le fournisseur d’une solution
de paiement en ligne. Ce dernier était poursuivi
pour avoir fourni ses services à un site sur lequel un
mineur avait téléchargé des documents à caractère
pornographique en payant via les services de la firme
accusée.
L’acquittement est en grande partie fondée sur
l’absence d’intention de la part de l’entreprise
accusée. Il n’a pas été établi que la prévenue
avait conscience de faire commerce de messages
pornographiques susceptibles d’être reçus par des
mineurs. Le prévenu, dans cette affaire, ne faisait que
procurer le moyen de paiement. Il ne prend aucune
part à l’élaboration ou à la diffusion du matériel
pornographique.
Étienne WERY, Quelle responsabilité pour
le fournisseur d’une solution de paiement
électronique ? Droit-technologie.org, 7 octobre 2005.
« Corporate governance »,
protection des données
personnelles et obligations
de dénoncer les pratiques
illicites – France
personnelles et le respect des lignes directrices
relatives à la dénonciation de comportements
susceptibles de mettre en péril la bonne gouvernance
de l’entreprise. En mai 2005, la Commission nationale
de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) a rendu des
avis tendant à écarter les lignes directrices mises en
place afin de favoriser la dénonciation de pratiques
condamnables au sein des entreprises, notamment
celles découlant de la législation américaine telle la
Loi Sarbanes-Oxley.
Ce type de conflit entre la protection de la vie
privée et la nécessité d’assurer la circulation de
l’information relative aux obligations de rendre
compte témoigne d’un besoin croissant de trouver
des formules proportionnées.
Aussi : Actualités, Une nouvelle censure judiciaire
d’un système d’alerte éthique, Legalis.net, 14 octobre.
Étienne WERY, Corporate governance : les codes
fleurissent tandis que les autorités s’inquiètent des
dérives des « lignes d’éthiques », Droit-technologie.
org, 30 septembre 2005.
CNIL, Lignes éthiques, whistleblowing : la CNIL
prépare des recommandations à l’usage des
entreprises.
Publication des règles relatives
au domaine « .eu »
Les règles régissant l’enregistrement de noms de
domaine en «.eu » ont été rendues publiques le 30
septembre dernier. Ces règles traitent des formalités
administratives d’enregistrement du nom de
domaine en «.eu » ainsi que des conditions, droits et
obligations auxquelles les registres et les titulaires
des enregistrements doivent se soumettre. On y
trouve également la politique encadrant la base de
données Whois et enfin les règles de règlements des
litiges prévues par le Règlement de la Commission
Européenne du 28 avril 2004.
Brèves Intellex, Les règles du «.eu» sont enfin
disponibles.
Depuis le début de la décennie, on a vu se
multiplier les initiatives afin d’améliorer la qualité
de la gouvernance des entreprises. Au nombre des
enjeux concernés, il y a la protection des données
Censure d’un annuaire sur
le dopage sportif au nom de
la protection des données
personnelles – France
La suprématie du droit à la protection des données
personnelles, même à l’encontre des mécanismes
destinés à assurer un comportement conforme aux
exigences de probité dans la pratique de sports
professionnels est bien illustrée par cette décision
de la CNIL interdisant la diffusion d’un annuaire
recensant plus de 1000 coureurs cyclistes ayant
reconnu s’être dopés ou avoir été contrôlés positifs.
Il reste à se demander ce qu’il adviendrait si on tenait
compte des dimensions relatives à l’intérêt public
plutôt que de pratiquer une approche à sens unique
au seul profit de la censure de données portant sur
les comportements publics des personnes.
Lionel THOUMYRE, Hyperdossier sur le droit
d’auteur et les droits voisins dans la société de
l’information, Juriscom.net, 11 octobre 2005.
Murielle CAHEN, Qui est responsable en matière de
contrefaçon de marque sur les liens commerciaux
des moteurs de recherche?, Clic-Droit, 21 septembre
2005.
CNIL, Communiqué : Suite à l’information donnée
sur son site par l’intéressé lui-même, la CNIL
confirme qu’elle a mis en demeure le responsable
de ce site de cesser la publication d’un annuaire du
dopage, 30 juin 2005.
Brèves Intellex, France-La CNIL censure un
annuaire du dopage cycliste diffusé sur Internet,
6 juillet 2005.
Commentez cet article au
Blogue de IT.CAN
➦
●
À signaler
Tenue du sixième Forum Mondial e-Démocratie–
Du 28 au 29 septembre, 1,800 congressistes
venus de 43 pays ont assisté aux débats des 105
intervenants du 6 ième Forum Mondial e-Démocratie.
Administration électronique, cartes d’identité
électroniques, vote par Internet, nouvelles formes
de journalisme, lutte contre la fracture numérique,
logiciels libres… les sujets de discussion n’ont
pas manqué au cours de ces deux journées de
débats. Les participants ont lancé un appel mondial
pour une démocratie électronique libre (http://
edemocratie-libre.org/) et constaté la progression du
vote par Internet dans le monde.
This newsletter is intended to keep members of IT.Can informed about
Canadian legal developments as well as about international developments
that may have an impact on Canada. It will also be a vehicle for the
Executive and Board of Directors of the Association to keep you informed
of Association news such as upcoming conferences.
If you have comments or suggestions about this newsletter, please
contact Professors Anne Uteck, Teresa Scassa and Chidi Oguamanam at
[email protected] if they relate to Part 1 or Pierre Trudel at pierre.trudel@
umontreal.ca if they relate to Part 2.
Disclaimer: The IT.Can Newsletter is intended to provide readers with
notice of certain new developments and issues of legal significance. It is
not intended to be a complete statement of the law, nor is it intended to
provide legal advice. No person should act or rely upon the information in
the IT.Can Newsletter without seeking specific legal advice.
Copyright 2005 by Anne Uteck, Teresa Scassa, Chidi Oguamanam, Pierre
Trudel and France Abran. Members of IT.Can may circulate this newsletter
within their organizations. All other copying, reposting or republishing of
this newsletter, in whole or in part, electronically or in print, is prohibited
without express written permission.
Le présent bulletin se veut un outil d’information à l’intention des
membres d’IT.Can qui souhaitent être renseignés sur les développements
du droit canadien et du droit international qui pourraient avoir une
incidence sur le Canada. Le comité exécutif et le conseil d’administration
de l’Association s’en serviront également pour vous tenir au courant des
nouvelles concernant l’Association, telles que les conférences à venir.
Pour tous commentaires ou toutes suggestions concernant la première
partie du présent bulletin, veuillez contacter les professeurs Anne Uteck,
Teresa Scassa et Chidi Oguamanam à l’adresse électronique [email protected]
ou en ce qui concerne la deuxième partie, veuillez contacter Pierre Trudel
à [email protected].
Avertissement : Le Bulletin IT.Can vise à informer les lecteurs au sujet de
récents développements et de certaines questions à portée juridique. Il
ne se veut pas un exposé complet de la loi et n’est pas destiné à donner
des conseils juridiques. Nul ne devrait donner suite ou se fier aux
renseignements figurant dans le Bulletin IT.Can sans avoir consulté au
préalable un conseiller juridique.
© Anne Uteck, Teresa Scassa, Chidi Oguamanam, Pierre Trudel et France
Abran 2005. Les membres d’IT.Can ont l’autorisation de distribuer
ce bulletin au sein de leur organisation. Il est autrement interdit de
le copier ou de l’afficher ou de le publier de nouveau, en tout ou en
partie, en format électronique ou papier, sans en avoir obtenu par écrit
l’autorisation expresse.