Neither should you underestimate the technological sophistication of the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC"). This is the same court that recently, in R. v. Morelli
, overturned a warrant for child pornography
on the basis that the contents of an internet browser cache does not constitute possession.
This court also, 4 months ago, decided in Grant v. Torstar Corp.
to create a new defence against defamation of "responsible communication on matters of public interest". This new defence allows citizens (including bloggers as well as traditional journalists) to publish critical statements that may not necessarily be true, but are made in good faith towards the public interest. If this defence existed in the UK, then the British Chiropractic Association would not have been able to sue Dr. Simon Singh
for scientifically doubting chiropractic claims of success.
A few years ago, the SCC issued a decision in CCH v. Upper Law Society of Canada
, that clarified the "fair dealing" defence in Canadian copyright law. That case dismissed an allegation that merely placing a photocopier in a library was an inducement to copyright infringement.
Finally, the SCC itself has incorporated technology into its proceedings. The work flow is paperless; documents must be filed digitally
. The court is outfitted with terminals at every station, and the documents are viewed on screens. Selected hearings are broadcast over the internet
Yes, IAAL, and a GNU/Linux user to boot. It bugs me when people automatically assume that lawyers are technologically inept.