When the Act was last amended in 1997, a new section 92 ensured
that, within five years after its coming into force, the Minister
(Canadian Heritage) would report to both Houses of Parliament on
the operation of the Act and on recommendations for further
amendments. The Section 92 Report was therefore tabled on October
3, 2002 ("Supporting Culture and Innovation: Report on the
Provisions and Operation of the Copyright Act"). It identified
many areas where the Act needed to be amended further. Since then,
there have been four attempts at revising the Act: bill C-60 in
2005, bill C-61 in 2008, bill C-32 in 2010 and bill C-11 in 2011.
The first three bills died on the Order Paper as federal elections
were being called.
On March 15, 2012, a Special Legislative Committee reported bill
C-11 with amendments back to the House of Commons where it received
its Third Reading on June 18, 2012. It was immediately sent to the
Senate where it received its Second Reading on June 20 and was sent
to the Senate Banking, Trade and Commerce committee. The
Senate's committee closed its deliberations on June 26 and the
bill was reported back to the Senate on June 27. In spite of last
ditch efforts by Canada's cultural industries to bring the
committee to amend its most grievous provisions, the bill that was
reported back to the Senate was identical to the bill passed by the
House of Commons.
The controversial bill received its Third Reading and received
Royal Assent on June 29.
Section 63 of the Act as amended provides that the Act will come
into force on a date fixed by order of the Governor in Council. It
is expected to become law in September. Corresponding regulations
are expected to come into force at the same time.
Norton Rose Group is a leading international legal practice.
We offer a full business law service to many of the world's
pre-eminent financial institutions and corporations from offices in
Europe, Asia, Australia, Canada, Africa, the Middle East, Latin
America and Central Asia.
Knowing how our clients' businesses work and
understanding what drives their industries is fundamental to us.
Our lawyers share industry knowledge and sector expertise across
borders, enabling us to support our clients anywhere in the world.
We are strong in financial institutions; energy; infrastructure,
mining and commodities; transport; technology and innovation; and
pharmaceuticals and life sciences.
We have more than 2900 lawyers operating from 43 offices in
Abu Dhabi, Almaty, Amsterdam, Athens, Bahrain, Bangkok, Beijing,
Bogotá, Brisbane, Brussels, Calgary, Canberra, Cape Town,
Caracas, Casablanca, Dubai, Durban, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hong Kong,
Johannesburg, London, Melbourne, Milan, Montréal, Moscow,
Munich, Ottawa, Paris, Perth, Piraeus, Prague, Québec, Rome,
Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto and Warsaw; and from
associate offices in Dar es Salaam, Ho Chi Minh City and
Norton Rose Group comprises Norton Rose LLP, Norton Rose
Australia, Norton Rose Canada LLP, Norton Rose South Africa
(incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc), and their respective
On January 1, 2012, Macleod Dixon joined Norton Rose
Group adding strength and depth in Canada, Latin America and around
the world. For more information please visit
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Given that many Canadian Internet web sites do receive U.S. visitors and many also utilize a DMCA safe-harbour provision, understanding the scope of protection that the safe harbour provides can be important to Canadians.
ICANN (the entity that essentially controls the worldwide domain name system) is in the final stages of processing approximately 1,900 applications for new gTLDs (generic Top Level Domains – like ".com") many of which are expected to come online in 2013.
In this case, Apotex claimed damages pursuant to s. 8 of the NOC Regulations, and Pfizer alleged that Apotex should not be entitled to damages, due to the principles of ex turpi causa relating to its alleged infringement of the relevant patent.