Actiance whitepaper-social-media-legal-issues-canada

Legal Issues of Social Media
Canada

Executive Summary 4
Growth Of Social Media 6
Key Legal Issues 8
Privacy 8
Content Ownership 11
Intellectual Property Infringement 12
Employment Law 12
Criminal Activity 18
Regulatory Compliance 19
Key Legal Statutes For Operators Of Social Media Sites 20
Key Legal Statutes For Users Of Social Media Sites 22
Industry-Specific Legislation And Regulatory Bodies 22
Financial Services 22
Energy And Utilities 23
Healthcare 24
Best Practice Recommendations 25
About Actiance 26
Table of Contents

| Social Media Success5
E
| Legal Issues of Social Media4 Legal Issues of Social Media | 5
The rapid rise of social media has assumed a more prominent position
for many individuals, both personally and professionally. Most of us are
familiar with Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, but there are literally
thousands of other similar sites that aim to make us more “social,” all the
while expanding our pool of connections, opportunities, and information.
These social media sites have moved beyond the novelty stage and into the
mainstream. They have become so pervasive that they have emerged as
effective tools within the corporate setting as well. The line separating the
recreational use of these tools from legitimate business purposes has
become increasingly blurred. Marketing teams now use social media to
promote their products; Human Resources use them to research potential
hires; Sales use them to prospect for new business; and Customer Services
use social media to openly and proactively deal with issues. This broad
adoption of social within the workplace has inspired increased legislation
and regulatory activity as governments throughout the world attempt to
establish guidelines on how to properly safeguard both consumer and
corporate interests.
The potential legal issues that can arise from social media activities run
the gamut. Privacy, unauthorized activities, and intellectual property issues
stand top-of-mind for many individuals and enterprises. Other areas,
such as content ownership, regulatory compliance, and even criminal
activity, are impacted by social, too.
Executive Summary
Such legal ramifications inevitably engender discussions on what makes
for good policy. Unfortunately, no blanket policy makes sense for everyone
and everything. Each situation must be looked at individually, keeping in
mind social mores and corporate cultures, in developing effective policies.
Regardless of the policy chosen, there are technology solutions available
that enable individuals and companies to safely conduct business in this
new “social” environment.
This white paper examines some of the legal issues that Canadian
organizations must consider when assessing how best to leverage social.

| Social Media Success7| Legal Issues of Social Media6 Legal Issues of Social Media | 7
The statistics are mind-boggling. Facebook nearly a billion users, Twitter
500 million, LinkedIn 175 million. Each one could be a country unto
itself (and a large one at that).
Use of these social media sites has proliferated within the corporate setting
as well. What started out as a fad now has evolved to the point that social
media is being used as a legitimate, effective business productivity and
collaboration tool. Individuals and companies use social to market their
products and services, advertise sales and promotional offers, and extend
their brand reach. Similarly, they use it to enhance customer relations,
conduct market research, or solicit feedback on current and future products.
Both consumers and enterprises use social to build connections and find
like-minded individuals who share common interests and goals. For instance,
there are thousands of special-interest groups on LinkedIn, such as the
Canadian Securities and the Web Security Experts group. There are groups
for just about every profession imaginable. Group members use LinkedIn
as a forum to share ideas, findings, and anecdotes. The net result is the
formation of a tight-knit community, freely exchanging information.
Growth of Social Media
Recruiting is another popular activity facilitated by social media. Due to
the extensive networks each individual has developed through his or her
Facebook, LinkedIn, and/or Twitter accounts, recruiters can tap into a vast
network of potential job candidates. It is plausible to assume that if you
are an attorney, for instance, you’re likely to know several attorneys as
colleagues, friends, or acquaintances. Many attorneys keep in touch with
their classmates from law school or colleagues at firms or companies in
which they previously worked. Thus, if a recruiter were to look at the
LinkedIn profile of Larry Lawyer and subsequently contact him, the recruiter
will likely find Larry’s connections as a valuable pool from which to identify
possible candidates for that open requisition in the legal department.
Similarly, human resource departments might use social media to do
research on potential hires. It is amazing the types of information (be it
words, pictures, or video) that individuals put on their Facebook, LinkedIn,
and Twitter pages. Individuals need to be wary of what they are putting
“out there” because you never know who might be looking at your personal
information on the Internet.
The openness of social media, the engagement it facilitates, and the
opportunities it presents inevitably raise questions on several legal fronts,
many of which have yet to be fully resolved.
Number of Social Media Users
IM 2M 3M 4M 5M 6M 7M 8M 9M 1B
> 1 BILLION
500 MILLION
175 MILLION

Key Legal Issues
As the social media phenomenon has chugged along, the case law
surrounding this area is still unsettled. However, some seminal cases have
made its way through the courts in Canada and have laid the foundation for
future refinements or expansions of existing laws and regulations.
Privacy
Perhaps no issue sparks more debate with respect to the legal ramifications
of social media than privacy. What with so much content out there and
so many ways to access these social media sites, privacy has become
somewhat elusive for many. From a legal standpoint, whether an individual
has a reasonable expectation of privacy or not is the critical factor in
determining whether one’s actions are protected by privacy laws. Canadian
courts have extended the concept of “reasonable expectation of privacy”
to electronic communications and, implicitly, social media.
Canadian law is quite clear on the privacy standard for email in a corporate
setting. Canadian employees cannot expect any “reasonable expectation
of privacy” when using company equipment (e.g., a work computer) or
company email systems. The issue in Canadian law boils down to a “balance
of interests,” where the interests of the employer or hiring organization and
management rights need to be considered as well as the employee’s right to
privacy. As stated by Arbitrator Munroe in Re Pope & Talbot Ltd. and Pulp,
Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, Local 85:
“…just as an employee’s privacy interests require protection against the
overzealous exercise of management rights, so also must an arbitrator
acknowledge the employer’s legitimate business and property interests.
What is required, then, is a contextual and reasonable balancing of
interests. There is no absolute rule affording precedence to one
legitimate interest over the other…”
1
In other words, there’s a bit of subjectivity involved in determining whether
an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy, but regardless,
the employer has a duty to act fairly and reasonably.
For example, in Camosun College v. CUPE, the court ruled against an
employee who used the college’s email system to send a message to Union
members that included critical statements about some faculty members.
This email was forwarded to management, resulting in a disciplining of the
employee. The courts upheld the legality of the disciplinary action, stating
that no reasonable expectation of privacy was held to exist.
2
Regarding privacy on workplace issues, Canadian legal experts recommend
advising job candidates and obtaining consent before using social media
for background checks as part of the hiring process. The consensus opinion
is that using publicly available Web content to gather information as part
of the hiring process is acceptable, unless the online information is
password-protected.
Once on board, the employer is responsible for obtaining the employee’s
consent to be bound by the policies and procedures of the hiring company.
In the case of Briar et al v. Treasury Board (2003),
3
for example, 54 employees
were disciplined for sharing sexually degrading images among themselves
over the company email system. The company’s email system included a
disclaimer that the system was being monitored to ensure compliance
with company policy. This warning was considered reasonable and overrode
any protections outlined in Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. Canadian law includes a number of cases where concerns
about employer monitoring of the workplace, aside from email, follow
similar guidelines.

The same is true for social media. In the case of Lougheed Imports Ltd.
in British Columbia, two employees of West Coast Mazda were terminated
for anti-management postings on Facebook that were deemed “offensive,
insulting and disrespectful.” Both employees were strong supporters of a
unionization movement, and both were Facebook friends with a manager of
the company, who took offense at negative posts targeting management, the
business, and the company’s products. When the employer conducted an
investigation and confronted the two employees with copies of the postings,
the employees denied posting the comments on Facebook. Following that
meeting, both employees were terminated. In response, the union filed an
unfair practices labor complaint with the British Columbia Labour Relations
Board alleging the employer did not have just cause to fire the two workers.
The Board dismissed the complaint, ruling:
“…the work offence was serious insubordination and conduct damaging
to the employer’s reputation.” In making the finding, the Vice-Chair
relied on a prior Ontario decision in Leduc v. Roman that determined
that the employees could not have an expectation of privacy and that
Facebook postings are “akin to comments made on the shop floor.”
4
The key takeaway here is that employees’ privacy rights are not assured in
a corporate setting. A violation must be viewed in light of a balancing of
interests, so if the employee’s online conduct is potentially harmful to the
employer and in violation of stated corporate policies, that employee’s
privacy rights may not be valid. It’s up to the individual to be mindful of
privacy settings and the corporate policy on online conduct.
Content Ownership
As with many sites that are rich in content, the issue about who really
owns that content inevitably arises. For instance, when using Twitter to
communicate information about a company, does the employee or the
company own the content or own the followers? Typically, each site has
its own Terms of Use page, detailing the extent of its rights over end
users’ content.
There is legal precedent relating to the ownership of social media content.
Customer databases and contact lists are considered proprietary and are
trade secrets protected by law. However, that protection is lost if those
contacts can be easily replicated using online information, including social
media. Typically, the court first looks at any pre-existing agreements
detailing ownership. If there is no such agreement, then the court will
assess whether the employee’s social media participation was sponsored
or encouraged by the employer, or whether the employee used the
employer’s resources to create and manage the social media account.
In most cases, the employer will be found to own the content and contacts
of a social media account, but the employer cannot claim ownership for
contacts and content cultivated prior to employment.

Intellectual Property Infringement
Social media has generated an explosion in online content and various
means to access it, which raises several concerns such as:
• Copyright infringement
• Trademark infringement
• Violating personality rights
• Defamation and trade libel
• Misuse of confidential information
Even a seemingly innocent mistake can lead to a violation, such as tweeting
a song to a friend or posting a copyrighted photo or graphic on Facebook.
‘Using any third-party content without permission can result in civil and
criminal liability.
And there are deliberately malicious potential intellectual property violations
as well. The most common is a disgruntled ex-employee who decides to exact
revenge on a former employer by releasing confidential information through
Facebook, Twitter, or some other social network. In such cases, the employee
would clearly be held liable, but the company can also take the following
steps to protect its intellectual property.
Monitor infringements
Before a business can enforce its IP rights, it has to have a plan in place to
monitor and detect abuses. The plan should include procedures to educate
employees about IP abuse and include a strategy to search social media
content for infringements on a regular basis. Given the sheer volume
of social media content, it is impossible to keep track of all violations,
and every violation is not of equal concern. Many blog posts, for example,
have a short shelf life, but postings that are read by a number of people
or shared by thousands of users are of greater concern. Many companies
are using online monitoring services to track copyright infringements and IP violations,
not only because these services can track a broad spectrum of online sites, but they
also can monitor trends and user traffic.
Collect evidence
Due to the fleeting nature of social media content, violations can be difficult to track
and even more difficult to prosecute. IP holders need to be prepared to take immediate
steps to record and preserve evidence of a violation, keeping in mind that the evidence
may be needed later to establish that a violation actually occurred.
Identify perpetrators
Once an organization determines its rights have been violated, the next step is to
identify the parties responsible and take appropriate action. The anonymous nature of
the Web can make this challenging, and Canada has interpreted its laws on Internet
privacy in different ways.
In the case of Mosher v. Coast Publishing and Google, the chief of the Halifax fire depart-
ment sought a court order requiring a newspaper publisher to disclose information about
two correspondents who authored allegedly defamatory statements in the newspaper.
Both the publisher and Google advised the court that they would not appear in opposition
to the application and that they would obey any order issued by the court. The judge of
the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia granted a disclosure order, noting that “the court does
not condone the conduct of anonymous internet users who make defamatory comments
and they, like other people, have to be accountable for their actions.”
5
However, in the case of Warman v. Wilkins-Fournier, a three-judge panel on the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice ruled on a complaint filed against eight defendants and the
moderator of a message board to identify the defendants who posted content under
pseudonyms. The panel granted the application for a disclosure order to identify the
users. On appeal, the court considered a petition by the message board operator and

both the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian
Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic. The court ruled that an individual’s privacy is
protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but disclosure cannot
be unreasonably withheld if it is required to prevent the “abuse of the Internet.”
Clearly, social media opens up new possibilities for IP loss and copyright violation.
It is up to the organization to protect its intellectual property both through pre-emptive
action, such as educating employees, and through monitoring and pursuing violations
where appropriate.
Employment Law
The use of social media in the workplace is raising new legal concerns for human
resources departments. In general, employment agreements should be written with
as much detail as possible, including provisions for social media background checks,
ownership of social media accounts, appropriate use of social media (both on and off
the job), monitoring use of company technology and computer assets, confidentiality,
use of corporate property, and ramifications of breach.
Harassment
The proliferation of social media sites has opened up a flood of potential avenues for
harassment. Harassment via electronic communications is treated in the same fashion
as other types of harassment, including inappropriate jokes, contact, and other
inappropriate conduct. Employers have a legal obligation to protect employees in the
workplace, and that protection extends to cyberbullying. Facebook posts, tweets,
and other forms of online communication are evaluated in the same manner as
in-person or other forms of communication.
Discrimination
Social media policies need to be nondiscriminatory, giving no weight to race, gender,
age, national origin, or sexual orientation. The employer’s online actions (and those of
their representatives) are governed by the same anti-discrimination standards and laws
that affect all other employment actions. Online recruiting is an obvious area where
social media discrimination could be an issue. More companies are using sites
like LinkedIn to screen job candidates. Companies should protect themselves by
maintaining a written policy, including a list of specific websites used for reference
checking. It’s also essential that the same policies and procedures be applied
evenly for all employees and job applicants.
Unfair competition
Social media can play a role in litigation involving unfair competition. For example,
wooing customers from an ex-employer using social media channels may be an
employment law violation, such as a termination agreement or confidentiality
agreement with a previous employer. Poaching job candidates or customers using
social media can be considered unfair competition. As part of policies and procedures,
it is best to outline the rules of engagement and inappropriate use of social media
sites to attract customers and co-workers to a new company.
Then there is the issue of restrictive covenants on non-solicitation. For instance,
if an employee maintains customer connections through Facebook and LinkedIn,
then leaves the company to work for a competitor, does updating the employment
status in his or her profile constitute solicitation? What about a general announcement
to hundreds of connections about a new job? These are examples of grey areas
where the law is still unsettled.

Defamation
Defamation is an area where social media can have an impact. Lawsuits can result
from unchecked comments made by employees posted from work or using office
equipment. Both current and former employees can defame a company or individuals
in any number of ways through social media sites, chat rooms, blogs, wikis, and other
online forums.
Note, too, that defamation is not a one-way street. Employers can defame employees
via social media and vice versa. When hiring, for example, it can be a fine line
between providing information to an employer about a candidate versus damaging
that candidate’s reputation with defamatory statements. To be deemed actionable,
a statement must actually damage the reputation of the person or company bringing
the suit, so stating an opinion is not enough to prove defamation.
Illegal Activity
Surprisingly, an employer who discovers that an employee is conducting illegal
activities online is not obliged to report that employee’s activities, with some
exceptions. Also, if an employee is accused of misconduct that could involve illegal
activities, the employee may be concerned about assisting in a criminal investigation
since voluntary statements could be used against that employee. One legal authority
suggests that the employee could be considered to be compelled to disclose incrimi-
nating information, and Canadian law protects individuals from self-incrimination.
Ownership of Social Media Accounts
Already alluded to earlier, whether the company or the employee owns a social media
account has yet to be resolved. For instance, if an employee maintains a Twitter
account for a company, develops a following, and then leaves the company for a
competitor, it’s unclear who owns the rights to the account and the goodwill that account
may hold. Having a policy in place, delineating who owns what, is a prudent first step.
Disclosure of Confidential Information
Of course, disclosure of confidential information via social media, either
inadvertently or maliciously, can lead to trouble for the employer. Inaccurate
information also can lead to problems, especially if the company is in a
regulated industry, such as financial services, which is subject to IIROC
regulations. If, for example, an employee makes an inaccurate statement
or leaks proprietary information on a social media site, the company could
be held liable.
The most relevant Canadian regulation is National Policy 51-201,
which provides guidelines for information disclosure for public companies.
Section 6.13 discourages participation in electronic chat rooms and forums
and recommends that the company’s disclosure policy prohibit such
participation. Section 6.13 also warns against “selective disclosure” when
responding to email or comments, so as not to disclose information that is
not public, and recommends companies adopt a “no comment” policy.
6
To protect themselves and remain compliant with regulations, companies
need to be diligent in monitoring the activities of their employees, lest the
latter make statements that could be attributed to the company as a whole.
Many employers are even starting to take more proactive measures, such as
deploying technology solutions that enable employers to monitor, manage,
and archive the social media activities of employees.

Criminal Activity
The reach of social media sites has made them attractive targets for crimi-
nal activity, and they are increasingly being used by both criminals and law
enforcement for illegal and investigative purposes, respectively. Occasionally,
perpetrators of crimes boast about their misdeeds on sites such as Facebook.
More often, organized criminal groups, such as the Hells Angels, use social
media sites to promote themselves and their lifestyle for recruitment, and
social media sites are being used by terrorists and other criminal organizations
as a communications tool to coordinate illegal activities.
The most common cybercrimes are fraud, where the victim is enticed to
surrender personal information or private financial data to claim an
inheritance or award. The scam usually requests processing fees and other
monies to facilitate a claim. Often, local Canadian co-offenders are
included in the scam to give victims a local contact for a greater sense
of security. Another popular cybercrime is the online dating scam or
“sweetheart swindle,” where a criminal will cultivate an online romance
with a victim to solicit money and gifts over time. Burglars also are
starting to monitor Facebook to identify potential victims who
are traveling.
Consequently, law enforcement officers scour the social networks for leads or
clues on criminal activity within their jurisdiction. Insurance companies and
others also are using Facebook photos and searches of social media sites as
evidence of fraud and other criminal activity.
Regulatory Compliance
Another key area where social media is under the microscope is regulatory
compliance. Fueled by the high-profile financial scandals of the last ten
years, regulatory bodies are implementing tighter regulations for industries
such as financial services, health care, and energy. The rapid growth of
social media has driven regulatory agencies such as the Investment Industry
Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) to develop or refine guidelines
for social media sites.
For example, IIROC recently amended Member Regulation Notice MR0281,
Guidelines for the Review of Advertisements, Sales Literature and
Correspondence, for its dealer members to encompass social media:
All methods used to communicate including, but not limited to,
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blogs, and chat rooms, are subject to
the IIROC Dealer Member Rules. The content of Notice MR0281 has
been updated to clarify that regardless of the method by which
communication takes place, and however social media websites
evolve, Dealer Members must ensure compliance with applicable
regulatory requirements and securities legislation.
7
Many of these new and revised regulations classify social media as a form
of electronic communication to be treated no differently than email. As a
result, companies that are subject to regulation must keep tabs on what’s
being communicated, to and from whom, so as not to violate any applicable
regulation or guideline. Furthermore, all these communications must be
logged and archived.

| Social Media Success21
In
| Legal Issues of Social Media20 Legal Issues of Social Media | 21
Although a relatively new area of law, some key legislation has already been
enacted that impacts social media sites.
Copyright Modernization Act, Bill C-11
The Canadian Parliament has been working to update the Copyright Act,
which has not been reformed since 1997. Canadian legislators are looking to
reform the law to protect digital content, and they are looking to the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act enacted in the United States as a template.
The result is the Copyright Modernization Act, Bill C-11, which received
royal assent on June 29, 2012.
Under Section 512(c) of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Internet
Service Providers (ISPs) or websites are absolved from liability for copyright
infringement as long as they promptly block access to the allegedly
infringing material or remove it from their systems if they receive a request
from the copyright owner to take the infringing content down. Many of the
same regulations have been included in the Copyright Modernization Act,
Bill C-11, such as the following:
• Requirement for Internet service providers to notify their customers when
they violate the copyright law if a copyright holder informs the ISP of
possible piracy. The ISP is required to retain “relevant information” about
the offending user, such as their identity, and that information could
potentially be released to the copyright holder with a court order.
• Exempting ISPs and search engines from liability for the copyright
violations of their users if they are acting strictly as intermediaries in the
hosting, caching or communication of copyrighted content.
Key Legal Statues for Operators of Social Media Sites
• Prohibiting a person to provide a service over the Internet or another
digital network that the person “knows or should have known is designed
primarily to enable acts of copyright infringement.” This clause is targeted
at websites created for the purpose of distributing copyrighted content,
such as the many popular peer-to-peer file-sharing sites used to swap
video and audio, and is meant to “make liability for enabling of
infringement clear.”
8
Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA)
Privacy is a primary concern for many Canadians and is regulated by the
Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).
In response to privacy concerns raised by the Canadian Radio and
Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which has jurisdiction over ISPs,
the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) applied a higher standard
for ISPs than normally imposed by PIPEDA.
The OPC ruled that “all primary ISPs, as a condition of providing retail
Internet services, not to use for other purposes personal information
collected for the purposes of traffic management and not to disclose such
information.” Since “the bedrock of PIPEDA is individual consent,
which can be express or implied, depending on the circumstances,”
the OPC “also ruled that ISPs include “in their service contracts or other
arrangements with secondary ISPs, the requirement that the latter not
use for other purposes personal information collected for the purposes
of traffic management and not disclose such information.”
9

Key Legal Statues for Operators of Social Media Sites
Industry-Specific Legislation And Regulatory Bodies
The protections of users of social media sites differ from those of the sites
themselves. Essentially, social networking users cannot avail themselves of
the same immunities allowed the sites or ISPs. Since no statutory immunities
exist to shield users, the standard laws pertaining to defamation and infringe-
ment apply. If a user is found to have posted defamatory content, the user will
be held liable, even if the site can escape liability under PIPEDA. Similarly,
if a user posts material that infringes upon another’s copyright, the user will
face liability for the infringement, despite the site’s potential safe harbor
under the Copyright Modernization Act.

There are numerous regulatory bodies and legislation that are industry-specific.
In Canada, as in the U.S., the financial services, energy, and healthcare indus-
tries are three of the most heavily regulated sectors. There are several Canadian
regulatory bodies that oversee social media use and provide guidance to their
members, and many of the regulations themselves mirror those of the U.S.
Financial Services
Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC)
IIROC has regulatory responsibility for the investment industry and sets and
enforces the rules regarding the business and conduct of dealer firms and their
registered employees. In December 2011, IIROC issued an amended version
of Member Regulation Notice MR0281, Guidelines for the Review of Advertise-
ments, Sales Literature and Correspondence, stating, “All methods used to
communicate including, but not limited to, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blogs,
and chat rooms, are subject to the IIROC Dealer Member Rules.”
10
Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA)
The CSA encompasses securities regulators from the ten provinces and
three territories in Canada to protect investors from unfair, improper,
or fraudulent practices, and to promote fair and efficient capital markets.
The CSA has followed IIROC’s lead, classifying social media communications
as advertising and sales literature, with the same guidelines to prevent
misrepresentation. Both IIROC and CSA encompass all social media
platforms in their guidelines.
Energy and Utilities
National Energy Board (NEB)
The NEB is an independent federal agency established in 1959 by the
Parliament of Canada to regulate international and interprovincial aspects
of the oil, gas and electric utility industries. The purpose of the NEB is to
regulate pipelines, energy development, and trade in the Canadian public
interest. These principles guide NEB staff to carry out and interpret the
organization’s regulatory responsibilities.
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)
NERC is a non-profit whose charter is to develop standards for power system
operation, monitor and enforce compliance with those standards, assess
resource adequacy, and provide educational and training resources as part of
an accreditation program to ensure power system operators remain qualified
and proficient.

Healthcare
Health Canada
Health Canada develops, implements, and enforces regulations, legislation,
policies, programs, services, and initiatives in collaboration with other federal
partners, provinces, and territories. Health Canada is the administrator of
the Canada Health Act and ensures that the principles of Canada’s universal
healthcare are respected, allowing Canadians to be confident in the services
they receive from the public health care system, including privacy protection.
Health Canada has established an Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP)
Division to process formal requests made under the Access to Information
Act and the Privacy Act.
The Privacy Act
The Privacy Act protects an individual’s privacy by setting out provisions
related to the collection, retention, use, and disclosure of personal informa-
tion. The Act also gives individuals the right of access to information about
themselves held by the federal government with certain specific and limited
exceptions.
Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA)
PIPEDA is federal legislation that protects personal information, including
health information. It outlines ten principles that organizations, individuals,
associations, partnerships, trade unions, and healthcare organizations must
follow when collecting, using, and disclosing personal information in the
course of a commercial activity.

Best Practice Recommendations
Developing a social media policy that is appropriate for your company is
the most critical step in managing the use of these sites within the enterprise.
A policy should be clearly drafted, including the acceptable uses of social
media and its associated technologies. Violations of these policies should be
unequivocally spelled out as well, so that employees are aware of the
ramifications of policy breaches.
Of course, disseminating the policy within your company is arguably as
crucial as the creation of the policy itself. What good is the policy if no
one knows about it? Hence, it’s imperative that your employees are kept
sufficiently informed of the latest version. Perhaps periodic all-hands emails
or meetings would be an effective approach to keep everyone current.
Finally, enforcing the policy gives it credibility, essentially putting some
“bite” behind the “bark.” If an employee breaches the policy, knowing that
termination is the punishment, then the company should follow through
and let the offending party go, lest the policy be rendered toothless.
As long as the policy is fair and clearly communicated from the outset,
then the company can confidently enforce the policy while operating within
the confines of the law.

1
Re Pope Talbot Ltd. and Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, Local 8 (2003) 123 LAC 4th
115 (D.R. Munroe)
2
Camosun College v. C.U.P.E., (1999) B.C.C.A.A.A. No. 490
3
Briar v. Treasury Board (2003) PSSRB 3
4
Lougheed Imports Ltd. v. United Food and Commercial Workers International (2010) BCLRB
No. B190/2010
5
Mosher v. Coast Publishing Ltd. (2010) NSSC 153
6
Chris Bennett and Con Collie, “The Risks of Using Social Networking Sites, The Lawyers Weekly,
June 4, 2010
7
IIROC Notice, Member Regulation Notice MR0281, Guidelines for the Review of Advertisements,
Sales Literature and Correspondence, December 7, 2011
8
Copyright Modernization Act, Bill C-11
9
Re: Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2009-71 - Review of the regulatory measures associated with
confidential customer information and privacy; CRTC Reference: 8663-C12-200903387
10
IIROC Notice, Guidelines for the review, supervision and retention of advertisements,
sales literature and correspondence, December 7, 2011, 11-0349
ReferencesAbout Actiance
Actiance enables the safe and productive use of unified communications,
collaboration, and Web 2.0, including blogs and social networking sites.
Actiance’s award-winning platforms are used by 5 of the top 5 Canadian
banks, 9 of the top 10 US banks, and more than 1,600 organizations
globally for the security, management, and compliance of unified commu-
nications, collaboration, and social media channels. Actiance supports all
leading social networks, unified communications providers, and IM platforms,
including Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, AOL, Google, Yahoo!, Skype,
Microsoft, IBM, and Cisco.
Socialite
The Socialite platform helps organizations protect their brand and ensure
compliance while allowing employees to share relevant content, measure
impact, and increase engagement. Socialite controls access to more than
200 features across social networks but can also moderate, manage,
and archive any social media traffic routed through the solution.

| Legal Issues of Social Media28
Worldwide Headquarters
1301 Shoreway, Suite 275
Belmont, CA 94002 USA
(650) 631-6300 phone
info@actiance.com
This document is for informational purposes only. Actiance makes no warranties, express or implied,
in this document.
Complying with all applicable copyright laws is the responsibility of the user. Without limiting the rights
under copyright, no part of this document may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise),
or for any purpose, without the express written permission of Actiance, Inc.
© 2001 - 2012 Actiance, Inc. All rights reserved. Actiance and the Actiance logo are registered trademarks
of Actiance, Inc. Actiance Vantage, Unified Security Gateway, Socialite, and Insight are trademarks of
Actiance, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
EMEA Headquarters
400 Thames Valley Park
Reading, Berkshire, RG6 1PT UK
+44 (0) 118 963 7469 phone
emea@actiance.com

Actiance whitepaper-social-media-legal-issues-canada

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a Actiance whitepaper-social-media-legal-issues-canada

Semelhante a Actiance whitepaper-social-media-legal-issues-canada (20)

Mais de shibrah76

Mais de shibrah76 (14)

Último

Último (20)

Actiance whitepaper-social-media-legal-issues-canada