Latest news with #ColinFeasby
Globe and Mail
2 days ago
- Politics
- Globe and Mail
Judge reserves decision on whether he'll strike review of Alberta separation question
A judge has reserved his decision on whether to review a proposed Alberta separation referendum question. Court of King's Bench Justice Colin Feasby is expected to give his ruling Aug. 14. The matter stems from Alberta chief electoral officer Gordon McClure referring the proposed question to the Edmonton court last week. He has asked the judge to determine whether the question violates the Constitution, including treaty rights. The question asks Albertans: 'Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?' At the start of a hearing Thursday, Mitch Sylvestre, an executive with the group that proposed the question – the Alberta Prosperity Project –applied to the court to strike the referral. Sylvestre's lawyer, Jeffrey Rath, argued judicial scrutiny is premature, as there's no guarantee enough signatures would be gathered to put the question on a ballot or that a referendum would even pass. Rath also said the act of simply asking a question doesn't violate the Constitution, because it would only come into play if the referendum passed and negotiations began on Alberta separating from Canada. Feasby asked whether Rath agreed Albertans should have more information about the consequences of what they're being asked to vote on. Rath told the judge that many outstanding questions of separation are political and not ones the court needs to answer. 'The court has no supervisory role over the political aspects of the constitutional negotiations,' Rath said. 'All of the issues around ... First Nations' rights, whether it's minority rights, all of those things are part of the referendum campaign for people to argue and educate one another on without interference in the court.' The judge questioned that argument, saying it can be implied through the referendum process that Albertans have a right to know what they're voting on and having answers that might determine their vote. 'Sometimes the only way to educate the public on that is to have a discussion, and perhaps to have a court decision,' Feasby said. Rath was also critical of McClure, saying the chief electoral officer was abusing the process by sending the question to court for a review without taking a position or defending the referral in court. Premier Danielle Smith and Amery have also criticized McClure, saying the question should be approved and only face a judicial review if it receives a majority vote. McClure said in a statement last week that he was merely following procedure and the gravity of a possible referendum invites judicial oversight. He called the question 'serious and significant,' with 'the potential to have profound impact on all Albertans.' If the review proceeds, the judge said he would like to make a decision on the question by the end of the year. Multiple groups, including the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation in northern Alberta, have said they're hoping to make submissions as interveners. A letter sent this week to the judge by government lawyer Nicholas Trofimuk says Amery intends to make submissions as well. It repeats that the minister believes the question is constitutional and should be approved. 'It is settled law that the government of any province of Canada is entitled to consult its population by referendum on any issue, and that the result on a referendum on the secession of a province, if sufficiently clear, is to be taken as an expression of democratic will,' the letter reads. If the review is struck and the question approved, Sylvestre and the Alberta Prosperity Project would need to collect 177,000 signatures in four months to get it put on a ballot. McClure recently approved a competing question, which seeks to have Alberta declare an official policy that it will remain in Canada forever. It was put forward by former Progressive Conservative deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk, who is also looking to make submissions in the court review. Outside court Thursday, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Chief Allan Adam signed Lukaszuk's petition. Adam told reporters he's hoping the judge dismisses the application to squash the review so his community can weigh in. 'It's ludicrous,' Adam said. 'I think there are better ways of dealing with economic prosperity, instead of separation, because that's what it's all about. 'It has nothing to do with you, me or the general public. It's just certain individuals that are going to prosper and the rest of us are going to pay the price.' Lukaszuk's proposal needs 300,000 signatures in 90 days in order to get on a ballot, as it was approved before new provincial rules with lower signature thresholds took effect. Lukaszuk, who started collecting signatures last week, said it's too soon to say how many there are, but teams of volunteers across the province are working on it. 'I want a million signatures to send a strong signal to this premier, to this justice minister, and to the rest of Canada (that) yes, there is a segment of Albertans that are sort of fantasizing about separating. But the fact is that the vast majority of us want nothing to do with it.'
CBC
15-05-2025
- Business
- CBC
Parts of Alberta's personal information protection law ruled unconstitutional
Social Sharing Parts of Alberta's personal information protection legislation have been ruled unconstitutional. But the ruling from Court of King's Bench Justice Colin Feasby also upheld an order to stop an American facial recognition company from collecting images of Albertans. Clearview AI scrapes the internet and social media for images of people and adds them to a database, which it markets to law enforcement agencies as a facial recognition tool. Canada's privacy commissioner, along with commissioners from Alberta, B.C. and Quebec, issued an order in 2021 for Clearview AI to stop operating in the country and delete images of Canadians collected without their consent. Police used the company's services on a trial basis before commissioners launched an investigation. Clearview AI, which has not operated in Alberta since 2020, applied for a judicial review of the order as well as a ruling on the constitutionality of Alberta's personal information protection legislation. Feasby, in a decision released last week, says the order stands, but parts of Alberta's legislation are unconstitutional. Clearview AI did not respond to a request for comment. Clearview AI violated Canadian privacy law with facial recognition: report 4 years ago Duration 1:55 The judge's decision says regulations under Alberta's Personal Information Protection Act don't properly address privacy considerations posed by the internet and its restrictions for requiring consent are too broad. It says the company argued that Alberta's privacy commissioner misinterpreted what "publicly available" means under that act, as the legislation permits entities to collect personal information without consent from publicly available sources. "The public availability exception to the consent requirement is really a source-based exception," Feasby writes, adding that the internet, let alone social media, isn't specifically listed as a publicly available source of information. Instead, Alberta's rules say publicly available personal information includes that which is "contained in a publication, including, but not limited to, a magazine, book or newspaper, whether in printed or electronic form." Since social media isn't listed, Clearview argued that Alberta's commissioner didn't take the phrase "but not limited to" far enough by not including social media, the decision says. The company cited case law "where it is established that an individual 'can have no reasonable expectation of privacy in what he or she knowingly exposes to the public'." However, the act has an exception on the collection of publicly available information without consent, based on "reasonable use." The commissioners previously decided Clearview's web scraping for a facial recognition database wasn't a reasonable use of publicly available information. Feasby agreed, saying Alberta has a "substantial interest in protecting personal information from being used in a facial recognition database," since people likely don't expect their social media posts to wind up in a "potentially harmful" database. But the judge also ruled in the company's favour. He says the publicly available exception was too broad, as it allows the privacy commissioner to choose who it enforces the rules against, noting Alberta hasn't penalized other web scraping companies like Google. "The commissioner's decision to take enforcement action against Clearview and not others who collect, use and disclose personal information publicly available on the internet suggests that some collection, use and disclosure of personal information publicly available on the internet is not problematic," the judge writes. To remedy the issue, the judge says the "including, but not limited to, a magazine, book or newspaper" clause of the exception should be struck and simply replaced with "publication." Act out of date, minister says "This leaves the word 'publication' to take its ordinary meaning, which I characterize as 'something that has been intentionally made public,"' he says. Technology Minister Nate Glubish, the minister responsible for the legislation, said Wednesday he wasn't surprised by the ruling, adding the act is "badly out of date." He said a committee was struck last year to review the legislation and submitted recommendations for updates. "We're reviewing those recommendations, and we're looking forward to working over the coming summer to ensure that we're ready to bring forward some modernizations to PIPA in the very near future," said Glubish. "Our goal is to make sure that Alberta has the strongest privacy protections in the country, and we're confident we're going to be able to deliver on that." Since the order is upheld, Clearview is still required to cease collecting images of Albertans and delete those already collected. The company argued its software prevented it from deleting images, because it's not clear which images were collected from and taken in Alberta. But the judge found that wasn't a valid reason. Feasby ordered the company to report within 50 days on steps it has taken to comply.
Global News
14-05-2025
- Business
- Global News
Alberta's personal information protection law ruled partly unconstitutional
Parts of Alberta's personal information protection legislation have been ruled unconstitutional. But the ruling from Court of King's Bench Justice Colin Feasby also upheld an order to stop an American facial recognition company from collecting images of Albertans. Clearview AI scrapes the internet and social media for images of people and adds them to a database, which it markets to law enforcement agencies as a facial recognition tool. Canada's privacy commissioner, along with commissioners from Alberta, B.C. and Quebec, issued an order in 2021 for Clearview AI to stop operating in the country and delete images of Canadians collected without their consent. Police used the company's services on a trial basis before commissioners launched an investigation. Clearview AI, which has not operated in Alberta since 2020, applied for a judicial review of the order as well as a ruling on the constitutionality of Alberta's personal information protection legislation. Story continues below advertisement Feasby, in a decision released last week, says the order stands, but parts of Alberta's legislation are unconstitutional. Clearview AI did not respond to a request for comment. 2:06 Privacy investigation finds U.S. tech firm violated Canadian rules with facial-recognition tool The judge's decision says regulations under Alberta's Personal Information Protection Act don't properly address privacy considerations posed by the internet and its restrictions for requiring consent are too broad. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy It says the company argued that Alberta's privacy commissioner misinterpreted what 'publicly available' means under that act, as the legislation permits entities to collect personal information without consent from publicly available sources. 'The public availability exception to the consent requirement is really a source-based exception,' Feasby writes, adding that the internet, let alone social media, isn't specifically listed as a publicly available source of information. Story continues below advertisement Instead, Alberta's rules say publicly available personal information includes that which is 'contained in a publication, including, but not limited to, a magazine, book or newspaper, whether in printed or electronic form.' Since social media isn't listed, Clearview argued that Alberta's commissioner didn't take the phrase 'but not limited to' far enough by not including social media, the decision says. The company cited case law 'where it is established that an individual 'can have no reasonable expectation of privacy in what he or she knowingly exposes to the public.'' But the act has an exception on the collection of publicly available information without consent, based on 'reasonable use.' The commissioners previously decided Clearview's web scraping for a facial recognition database wasn't a reasonable use of publicly available information. Feasby agreed, saying Alberta has a 'substantial interest in protecting personal information from being used in a facial recognition database,' since people likely don't expect their social media posts to wind up in a 'potentially harmful' database. But the judge also ruled in the company's favour. He says the publicly available exception was too broad, as it allows the privacy commissioner to choose who it enforces the rules against, noting Alberta hasn't penalized other web scraping companies like Google. 'The commissioner's decision to take enforcement action against Clearview and not others who collect, use and disclose personal information publicly available on the internet suggests that some collection, use and disclosure of personal information publicly available on the internet is not problematic,' the judge writes. Story continues below advertisement To remedy the issue, the judge says the 'including, but not limited to, a magazine, book or newspaper' clause of the exception should be struck and simply replaced with 'publication.' 'This leaves the word 'publication' to take its ordinary meaning, which I characterize as 'something that has been intentionally made public,'' he says. Technology Minister Nate Glubish, the minister responsible for the legislation, said Wednesday he wasn't surprised by the ruling, adding the act is 'badly out of date.' He said a committee was struck last year to review the legislation and submitted recommendations for updates. 'We're reviewing those recommendations, and we're looking forward to working over the coming summer to ensure that we're ready to bring forward some modernizations to PIPA in the very near future,' said Glubish. 'Our goal is to make sure that Alberta has the strongest privacy protections in the country, and we're confident we're going to be able to deliver on that.' Since the order is upheld, Clearview is still required to cease collecting images of Albertans and delete those already collected. The company argued its software prevented it from deleting images, because it's not clear which images were collected from and taken in Alberta. But the judge found that wasn't a valid reason. Feasby ordered the company to report within 50 days on steps it has taken to comply. Story continues below advertisement Last year, a B.C. judge also upheld the order delivered by that province's privacy commissioner.
