Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In June 2022, Bill C-27, or "An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act (the Act) and, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts" (Bill C-27) was introduced by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and underwent First Reading, as a replacement to the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). (This is in fact the second effort by the federal government to enact this replacement to PIPEDA. In 2021, Bill C-11 (An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts) — the mooted replacement for PIPEDA — passed Third Reading of the legislative process, but Canada then had a federal election, and as a result Bill C-11 died prior to being enacted.) Prior to the introduction of the Act, there were concerns that it would effectively be a "'Made in Canada' GDPR". However, while the Act has taken the lead from the EU General Data Protection Regulation in introducing financially enormous penalties, as well as the right of data portability and the right to be forgotten, enough of the original PIPEDA remains such that the Act is now effectively a PIPEDA/GDPR hybrid.
This article, which reviews the Act (other than the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, which — as it is completely new to the Canadian legislative landscape — will require its own future article) first seeks to identify the delta between the Act and PIPEDA in order to allow privacy officers of organizations that are already PIPEDA compliant to identify the net new compliance requirements under the Act and second, to highlight the provisions of the Act which, if breached, could lead to the imposition of significant fines, and use those as a guide as to which "hot button" features of an organization's privacy compliance program will likely be the focus of enforcement, and as such should therefore be revisited by privacy officers.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.