| 1. Authority
|
| 1.1 |
Departmental statutes |
| 1.2 |
Financial Administration
Act |
|
|
| 2. Adjusting federal laws to permit the use of
IT
|
| 2.1 |
Departmental statutes |
| 2.2 |
Financial Administration
Act |
| 2.3 |
Personal Information
Protection and Electronic Documents Act ("PIPEDA") |
| 2.4 |
Interpretaion
Act |
| 2.5 |
Canada
Evidence Act |
| 2.6 |
For adjustments to provincial laws, see
#3 and 9 below |
|
|
| 3. Contracting On-Line |
| |
3.1.1 |
Financial Administration
Act |
| |
3.1.2 |
Electronic
Payments Regulations |
| |
3.1.3 |
PIPEDA |
| |
3.1.4 |
Uniform
Electronic Commerce Act, Uniform Law Conference of Canada |
| |
3.1.5 |
Canadian Code of Practice for Consumer Protection in
Electronic Commerce |
| |
3.1.6 |
Principles for
consumer protection in electronic commerce, federal/provincial/territorial
Consumer Measures Committee |
| 3.2 |
Provincial/Territorial |
| |
3.2.1 |
Electronic
Transactions Act, S.B.C. 2001, c. 10, British Columbia |
| |
3.2.2 |
Electronic
Transactions Act, S.A. 2001, c. E-6.5, Alberta |
| |
3.2.3 |
The
Electronic Information and Documents Act, 2000, S.S. 2000, c. E-7.22,
Saskatchewan |
| |
3.2.4 |
The
Electronic Commerce and Information Act, S.M. 2000, c. E55, Manitoba |
| |
3.2.5 |
Electronic
Commerce Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 17, Ontario |
| |
3.2.6 |
Consumer Protection Statute Law Amendment Act , 2002, Bill 180, Royal Assent December 13, 2002, Ontario. |
| |
3.2.7 |
An
Act to establish a legal framework for information technology, S.Q.
2001, c. 32, Québec |
| |
3.2.8 |
Electronic
Transactions Act, S.N.B. 2001, c. E-5.5, New Brunswick |
| |
3.2.9 |
, 2000, S.N.S. 2000, c. 26, Nova Scotia |
| |
3.2.10 |
Electronic
Commerce Act, S.N.L. 2001, c. E-5.2, Newfoundland and Labrador |
| |
3.2.11 |
Electronic
Commerce Act, S.P.E.I. 2001, c. 31, Prince Edward Island |
| |
3.2.12 |
Electronic Commerce Act, S.Y. 2000, c. 10, Yukon, |
| 3.3 |
International |
| |
3.3.1 |
United
Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Model Law on Electronic Signatures
|
| |
| 3.4 |
Cases |
| |
|
Canadian |
| |
3.4.1 |
Rudder v. Microsoft Corp., [1999] O.J. No.
3778; (1999) 2 C.P.R. (4th) 474. (Click wrap agreement found to be enforceable. The entire agreement could be viewed by scrolling down the screen in a manner similar to turning pages of a paper document. The plaintiffs could not argue they had no notice of the forum selection clause.) |
| |
3.4.2 |
Kanitz v. Rogers Cable Inc., [2002] O.J.
No. 665. (The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that an amendment
of an online user agreement was valid and binding. It was not unreasonable
for persons, who are seeking electronic access, to have their relationship
with the entity that is providing such electronic access, defined and communicated
to them through that electronic format). |
| |
3.4.3 |
The Canadian Real Estate Association/L'Association Canadienne d'immeuble c. Sutton (Québec) Real Estate Sevices Inc.,(2003-04-10) QCCS 500-05-074815-026 (Que. S.C.). (The plaintiff sought an injunction against the defendant for reposting real estate listings from its website. It argues breach of contract based upon the Terms of Use on its website. It argued breach of contract based upon the Terms of Use on its website. The Québec Supreme Court awarded the injuction indicating that the defendants should have been aware of the Terms of Use.) |
| |
3.4.4 |
Zhu v. Merrill Lynch HSB, C 2002 BCPC 535 (B.C.S.C.). (The Court relied on Robet v. Versus Brokerage Services Inc, [2001] O.J. No. 1341 (Sup. C.J.). The legal disclaimers provided by the operator of an on-line trading system were unenforceable. They virtually eliminated liability for inaccuracy in the performance of the services contracted for by the customer, and could be construed as exonerating the broker from acts of gross negligence. The nature of the Defendant's services demanded a higher duty of care and performance than ordinarily expected, because of the high risk of loss of a customer's investment monies.) |
| |
3.4.5 |
Big Sky Marketing Co. Ltd. v. Glengor International Pty Ltd., 2003 BCSC 1463. (The Defendants denied having signed a final copy of a contract and claimed never to have received the emailed copy which the Plaintiff had executed. The Court found that a valid contract had been formed based upon the parties' previous conduct and that there was no legal requirement that the contract be in writing.) |
| |
|
|
| |
|
U.S. |
| |
3.4.6 |
Mudd-Lyman Sales and Service Corporation v. UPS, U.S.
District Ct. for Northern District of Illinois, Nov. 26, 2002. The Court held that a
limitation of liability contained in a shrinkwrap license agreement, and in a click-wrap
agreement, was binding and enforceable. It found that Mudd-Lyman has been provided with
reasonable notice of the limitation on liability and was given a fair opportunity to purchase
higher liability. |
| |
3.4.7 |
Hansen v. Transworld Wireless TV-Spokane, Inc., 2002 Wash.
app. LEXIS 727 (QL). (The Washington court of Appeals held that an exchange of internal e-mails
were simply an offeree's internal discussions, and did not satisfy the statute of frauds' writing
requirements. The Court did not decide whether they would satisfy the statute's requirement for a
signature.) |
| |
3.4.8 |
Richard A. Rosenblatt & Company, Inc., v. Davidge Systems Corporation,
et al., [2002] NY-QL 5077. (The New York Supreme Court of Appeal, (N.Y.App.Div. 06/13/2002) held
that a contract for the installation of a computerized securities trading system was predominantly a
contract for the sale of goods, together with an incidental service agreement.) |
| |
3.4.9 |
Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4553 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2000). ( Hyperlinking does not itself contravene copyright law and is not illegal as long as it is clear to whom the linked page belongs. Furthermore, the fact of simply including terms and conditions on the site does not bind a user unless there is a positive action on his part.) |
| |
3.4.10 |
ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F. 3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (US). (The U.S. Court of Appeal held that shrink-wrap licences are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general.) |
| |
3.4.11 |
Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp. and America Online,[2002] CA2-QL 429 (U.S. CA 2d Cir. 10/01/2002). (The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and held that an arbitration clause in an on-line license agreement was not enforceable, since the plaintiffs had not received reasonable notice of the existence of the terms, and had not manifested unambiguous assent to those terms before downloading the plug-in program.) |
| |
3.4.12 |
I.Lan Systems, Inc. v. Netscout Service Level Corp., D.Mass., No. 00-//489-WGY, 1/2/02l. (The Federal District Court of Massachusetts found a click-wrap agreement to be enforceable.) |
| |
3.4.13 |
Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc.No. 01-1108, -1109 (Fed. Cir., Jan 29, 2003). (The Court upheld a shrink-wrap agreement which prohibited reverse engineering despite an exemption in the Copyright Act for this activity. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal.) |
