Other
Hate Speech on the Internet
In the summer of 2005, CIPPIC assisted an individual with a series of hate speech complaints under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Section 13 of the CHRA states:
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.
(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.
The complaints cite numerous messages posted on an Internet message board, and allege that those messages expose homosexuals to hatred and contempt. The complainant has asked the Canadian Human Rights Commission: http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/default-en.asp. to exercise its investigatory powers to discover the names of the individuals posting this hate speech, and to prosecute accordingly.
Spam
In late 2004, CIPPIC researched and analysed the potential for a private right of action against spammers in Canada, for Industry Canada's Task Force on Spam. See CIPPIC's report, "A Statutory Private Right of Action against Spammers in Canada: Canadian context, Lessons Learned, and Implications of Different Approaches", posted on Industry Canada's website:
Website Advertising
CIPPIC provided legal advice to a small business on the issue of whether advertising on its website constituted an offer capable of binding acceptance by consumers, or merely an invitation to treat. In this case, the business could have been liable for a significant amount of money if its site advertising was found to constitute an offer.
Domain Name Disputes
TV One v. Omura: CIPPIC is represented an individual who has been threatened by a US-based corporation for his continued use of a domain name (tv-one.com) that he registered in good faith for his own purposes, without knowledge of the corporation.
Election Internet Issues
CIPPIC addresses technology issues that arise - or do not - in federal elections.
This page last updated: December 15, 2008