Law Bytes Michael Geist

The Online Harms Act – otherwise known as Bill C-63 – is really at least three bills in one. The Law Bytes podcast tackled the Internet platform portion of the bill last month in an episode with Vivek Krishnamurthy and then last week Professor Richard Moon joined to talk about the return of Section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act. Part three may the most controversial: the inclusion of Criminal Code changes that have left even supporters of the bill uncomfortable.   Boris Bytensky of the firm Bytensky Shikhman has been a leading Canadian criminal law lawyer for decades and currently serves as President of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association. He joins the podcast to discuss the bill’s Criminal Code reforms as he identifies some of the practical implications that have thus far been largely overlooked in the public debate.

The public debate surrounding Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, has focused primarily on Human Rights Act and Criminal Code reforms. The Human Rights Act changes include the return of Section 13 on hate speech, which was repealed by the Harper government after criticisms that it unduly chilled freedom of expression. To help understand the history of Section 13 and its latest iteration, this week Professor Richard Moon, Distinguished University Professor and Professor of Law at the University of Windsor joins the Law Bytes podcast. The Canadian Human Rights Commission asked Professor Moon to conduct a study on Section 13 in 2008 and his report is the leading source on its history and application. In this episode, we discuss that history and consider the benefits and risks of inserting it into Bill C-63.

New legislation making its way through the U.S. Congress has placed a TikTok ban back on the public agenda. The bill – which would lead to either a divestiture or ban – has passed the House of Representatives and is now headed to the Senate. On the Canadian front,  TikTok is already prohibited on government devices at the federal level alongside some provinces, the government has quietly conducted a national security review, and there are new calls to ban it altogether from the Canadian market.   Anupam Chander is a law professor at Georgetown University and leading expert on the global regulation of new technologies. He joined the Law Bytes podcast several years ago when a TikTok ban was raised by the Trump Administration and he returns this week to discuss the latest developments and their broader implications.

The federal government has struggled to update Canadian privacy laws over the past decade, leaving the Supreme Court as perhaps the leading source of privacy protection. In 2014, the court issued the Spencer decision, which affirmed a reasonable expectation of privacy in basic subscriber information and earlier this month it released the Bykovets decision, which extends the reasonable expectation of privacy to IP addresses.

Vibert Jack is the litigation director of the BC Civil Liberties Association, which successfully intervened in the case. He joins the Law Bytes podcast to examine the case, including the evolution of Canadian law, the court's analysis, and the implications of Bykovets for Internet privacy in Canada.

The Online Harms Act is the culmination of years of public debate over whether – or how – the government should establish a regulatory framework for Internet platforms in dealing with online harms. Bill C-63 is already attracting considerable controversy, particularly over proposed changes to the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Act. To help unpack the bill, Vivek Krishnamurthy, an Associate Professor at the University of Colorado Law School, joins this week’s Law Bytes podcast. Vivek is a former colleague and Director of the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic and he served as a Commissioner on the Canadian Commission on Democratic Expression and was a member of the government’s Expert Panel on Online Harms.

Twenty years ago today the Supreme Court of Canada released CCH Canadian v. Law Society of Upper Canada, a decision that stands as perhaps the most consequential in Canadian copyright law history as it would firmly establish fair dealing as a users right and serve as the foundation for copyright law in Canada for decades to come.   Leading off the hearing several months earlier for the Law Society was Scott Jolliffe, an IP litigator with the law firm Gowlings. Jolliffe was charged with arguing the fair dealing aspects of the case, but it was only at last moment that users right entered the picture. To mark its 20th anniversary, Jolliffe joins the Law Bytes podcast to talk about the CCH case, his strategy and insights from the hearing, and his thoughts on its impact many years later.