Online advertising is big business. It is estimated that $92 billion was spent worldwide last year, and forecasters expect that number to reach $143 billion by 2017. But to what extent are the distributers of online advertisements responsible for their content? That was the question considered by the Australian High Court in Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. In a decision that is sure to have implications in Canada, the High Court decided that Google is not relevantly different from traditional advertisement intermediaries such as newspaper publishers or broadcasters and is therefore not responsible for misleading or … Continue Reading
The Supreme Court of Canada released one decision this week of interest to Canadian businesses and professions.
In Reference re Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2010-167 and Broadcasting Order CRTC 2010-168, 2012 SCC 68, Rothstein J. for the majority of the Court held that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) lacked the jurisdiction to create a market-based “value for signal” regime. The proposed regime would have enabled private local television stations (“broadcasters”) to negotiate direct compensation for the retransmission of their signals by broadcast distribution undertakings (“BDUs”), such as cable and satellite companies, and to prohibit… Continue Reading
In the newly published World Class Actions: A Guide to Group and Representative Actions Around the Globe, McCarthy Tétrault litigators David Hamer and Shane D’Souza co-authored the “Multijurisdictional and Transnational Class Litigation: Lawsuits Heard ‘Round the World” chapter. The chapter offers guidance to international lawyers who represent clients involved in cross-border, multinational and international class actions.
World Class Actions is a practical guide for lawyers, clients, legal support professionals, academics, policymakers and judges on the procedures available for class, group and representative actions internationally. Each chapter is written by a local attorney familiar with the laws, best practices, legal … Continue Reading
Subsections 16(1) and 16(3) of the Telecommunications Act currently require most telecommunications common carriers operating in Canada to be Canadian-owned and controlled. While the interpretation of Canadian-owned is fairly uncontroversial, there has been much debate about the meaning of Canadian-controlled.
Globalive Wireless Management Corp. v. Public Mobile Inc. is a long-running case that has considered whether several factors, and particularly majority debt financing by a non-Canadian entity, contravene the Canadian-control requirement and thus the eligibility to operate as a Canadian telecommunications carrier.… Continue Reading
In mid-October, the influential United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral arguments in a $1-billion battle over the responsibility of Internet intermediaries for infringing content posted by third parties on their systems. The appeal in Viacom Intl. v. YouTube Inc. involves crucial questions that may have a ripple effect on litigation taking place across the world. Along with the Veoh case being heard by the Ninth Circuit and the iiNet appeal being heard by the High Court of Australia this year, the results in the YouTube appeals will set important ground rules for Internet litigation for … Continue Reading
In Dish Network L.L.C. v. Rex, the Supreme Court of British Columbia took the rare step of ordering advance costs in a constitutional challenge. More surprisingly, the court ordered three private litigants to pay 50% of those costs. This case is now headed to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia.
Mr. Rex sold satellite receivers to Canadian residents and, using false U.S. addresses, arranged subscriptions for them from American signal providers. Two American providers and one Canadian provider sued Mr. Rex under the Radiocommunication Act and at common law. In his defence, Mr. Rex alleged that aspects of… Continue Reading
When do parties qualify as federal transportation undertakings for purpose of s. 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867? The Supreme Court of Canada will answer this question in the Tessier case, for which it recently granted leave to appeal.
The appeal comes before the Supreme Court from the ruling of the Quebec Court of Appeal in Tessier ltée c. Québec (Commission des lésions professionnelles). The applicant carried on the business of renting cranes for various purposes within Quebec, including the loading and unloading of ships, along with road transportation and maintaining and repairing equipment. A small