What do The Globe’s in-house lawyers do?

I applied to the intensive program with the goal of gaining insight into the challenges faced by media companies in managing their brands, intellectual property assets, and technology. The Globe and Mail was a perfect fit for me. More than just Canada’s newspaper of record, The Globe and Mail (The Globe) is a digitally savvy media company that owns award-winning media products such as the  magazine and . Working with in-house counsel at the organization, I was able to engage not only in my areas of interest, but also other areas of law that I hadn’t realized were central to the daily practice of law for corporate counsel.

At The Globe, in-house counsel advise on any matters that concern the company. In additional to corporate/commercial work, in-house counsel maintain The Globe’s trademarks, advise on copyright and defamation matters, and liaise with editorial teams on content licensing and freelancer agreements. Their central role is to limit the company’s liability as much as possible, assess the risk of every new endeavour, and provide direction and advice to various business teams to ensure compliance of regulatory matters.


The benefit of a placement with The Globe

The learning curve at the beginning of any intensive program is high. During my first week at The Globe, I vetted an advertisement’s compliance with , had a thirty-minute rundown of trademark law before filing my first renewal, amended contest rules to comply with the terms and conditions of various social media platforms, and reviewed a number of commercial contracts.

As I spent more time at The Globe, I gained insight into the broader organizational concerns that face not just media companies, but other organizations in Canada. Negotiating cross-jurisdictional agreements with vendors, determining when external counsel should be consulted, and gaining the ability to build strong relationships with various teams throughout the company are transferable skills that will be an asset in any future employment. As well, a large portion of my work was in the area of privacy law, which is hard to gain experience with in law school.

What I gained more than anything from my intensive placement is a sense of fulfillment above and beyond the end-of-semester ah-ha moment in a class. Working as part of The Globe’s in-house legal team instilled in me a sense of professionalism and a renewed my interest in legal practice. It also drew upon what I had learned in traditional IP and black letter law classes. Since one cannot be an expert in every area of law, my time at the company taught me how to face new legal challenges with confidence.

I am grateful to my supervisors at The Globe, and all of the employees that guided and supported my learning. I am happy to have been given a variety of responsibilities, the opportunity to gain a first hand understanding of the operations of a large organization, all with the right balance of independence and supervision. The IP intensive program has been the highlight of my law school experience to the extent that I, like many of my peers, am sad to see the semester end.

Faye Alipour is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School and was enrolled in Osgoode’s Intellectual Property Law and Technology Intensive Program. As part of the program requirements, students were asked to write a reflective blog on their internship experience.

The post IP Intensive Program: A Semester at The Globe & Mail appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The purpose of PIPA is to govern the means by which the private sector may handle personal information. as unconstitutional, the inaction of the Alberta provincial government following the decision made this juncture in privacy law particularly notable. Leading up to the November 15, 2014 deadline to amend the Act and account for its shortcomings, it was highly likely that Alberta’s private sector would revert to being governed by the Federal-level legislation, the Personal Information Protection and Electronics Documents Act (PIPEDA). Though PIPA and PIPEDA are substantially similar, there are two notable considerations that would have impacted Albertans had PIPA ceased to exist. First, the province would have had no mandatory breach notification laws, and second, the personal information of employees of provincially-regulated organizations in Alberta would have been statutorily unprotected.


PIPA violates s. 2(b) of the Charter

During a lawful strike that persisted for about ten months, members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 401, videotaped and photographed individuals who crossed the picket line. In the area surrounding the picket line, the Union had placed signs that informed the public that images of persons crossing the picket line may be recorded and reproduced on the Union’s website, and in leaflets.

Several individuals who crossed the picket line and whose images were captured filed complaints with the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner, who in turn appointed an adjudicator to determine whether the Union had contravened PIPA. The complainants expressed concern that their personal information had been collected and disseminated by the Union without their consent in violation of the Act. When the Adjudicator found the Union’s collection, use and disclosure of information was not authorized under PIPA, the Union applied for judicial review of the legislation. On judicial review, PIPA was found to violate the Union’s rights under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and . The Court of Appeal declared PIPA unconstitutional as an infringement of the Union’s s. 2(b) right to freedom of expression.

When the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, it was substantially dismissed by a unanimous Court. The Court held that personal information collected by the Union was done so in the climate of an open political demonstration where it was readily and publicly observable. Those who crossed the picket line had a reasonable expectation that their images could be captured and disseminated by others, such as journalists. The Court further found that the “personal information” collected, used, and disseminated by the Union was “limited to images of individuals crossing a picketline and did not include intimate biographical details”. Insofar as PIPA restricted the Union’s collection and disclosure of personal information for a legitimate labour relations issue, the Court held that the Act breached s. 2(b) of the Charter, and the infringement was not justified under s. 1.


The Government of Alberta’s inaction

Following the Supreme Court of Canada decision rendering PIPA invalid, the Government of Alberta had a 12-month deadline to bring the Act into compliance with the Charter. That quickly approaching deadline has been met with subsequent inaction by the government, though not due to delay on the part of the Privacy Commissioner of Alberta. On December 23, 2013, following the decision of the Supreme Court, the Alberta Commissioner . The proposed amendments bring the Act into compliance with the Charter, while preserving the balanced and principled basis of the Act. The letter was met with silence.

In mid-September, the until November 17, 2014, two days after amendments to PIPA must be passed.

On September 23, 2014, the Alberta Commissioner wrote . At that time, the Premier announced that he would be seeking an extension of the Declaration of Invalidity from the Supreme Court, and a motion requesting this was filed by the Attorney General of Alberta on October 1, 2014. Had the extension not been granted by the Supreme Court, Alberta would have reverted to being governed by the federal private sector privacy act, PIPEDA. In early November, the Supreme Court granted a six-month extension to bring PIPA in line with the Charter.


Bill 3: The Personal Information Protection Amendment Act, 2014

Following the extension, the Government of Alberta rapidly introduced a bill with proposed amendments to PIPA. The Bill prescribed a very narrow set of amendments that had been previously proposed by the province’s Information and Privacy Commissioner in December 2013. Under , a trade union (but no other organization) may collect, use, or disclose personal information about an individual without consent, for the purpose of informing or persuading the public about a matter of significant public interest or importance that relates to a labour dispute involving the union, provided that it is both reasonably necessary to collect, use or disclose personal information for that purpose, and reasonable to do so without consent for that purpose, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including the nature and sensitivity of the information.

The narrow amendments reflect the directive received by the Government of Alberta from the Supreme Court last year. Looking forward, it will be interesting to keep watch over how freedom of expression in matters of “significant public interest” in labour disputes are balanced against a consent in the use, collection and disclosure of personal information.


Faye Alipour is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School and is enrolled in Osgoode's Intellectual Property Law & Technology Intensive Program.  As part of the course requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.

The post Much Ado about Privacy? How the Alberta Government's Inaction on PIPA Threatened the Act appeared first on IPOsgoode.