Intellectual Property

While the world is focused on how the tariff war is affecting various products, it may be overlooking the risks the war is posing to information technology. Yet, many businesses rely on artificial intelligence to provide their services, and many of these technologies are powered by large language models, such as the widely-used ChatGPT. It is relevant to ask whether businesses should rely on purely US-based technology service providers. There is talk of using Chinese alternatives, such as DeepSeek, but their use raises questions about data security and the associated control over information. Back in 2023, Professor Teresa Scassa wrote that, when it comes to artificial intelligence, sovereignty can take on many forms, such as state sovereignty, community sovereignty over data and individual sovereignty.1 Others have even suggested that AI will force the recalibration of international interests.2 In our current context, how can businesses protect themselves from the volatility caused by the actions of foreign governments? We believe that it’s precisely by exercising a certain degree of sovereignty over their own affairs that businesses can guard against such volatility. A few tips: Understand Intellectual property issues: Large language models underlying the majority of artificial intelligence technologies are sometimes offered under open-source licenses, but certain technologies are distributed under restrictive commercial licenses. It is important to understand the limits imposed by the licenses under which these technologies are offered. Some language model owners reserve the right to alter or restrict the technology’s functionality without notice. Conversely, permissive open-source licenses allow a language model to be used without time restrictions. From a strategic standpoint, businesses should keep intellectual property rights over their data compilations that can be integrated into artificial intelligence solutions. Consider other options: Whenever technology is used to process personal information, a privacy impact assessment is required by law before such technology is acquired, developed or redesigned.[3] Even if a privacy impact assessment is not legally required, it is prudent to assess the risks associated with technological choices. If you are dealing with a technology that your service provider integrates, check whether there are alternatives. Would you be able to quickly migrate to one of these if you faced issues? If you are dealing with custom solution, check whether it is limited to a single large language model. Adopt a modular approach: When a business chooses an external service provider to provide a large language model, it is often because the provider offers a solution that is integrated to other applications that the business already uses, or because it provides an application programming interface developed specifically for the business. In making such a choice, you should determine whether the service provider can replace the language model or application if problems were to arise. If the technology in question is a fully integrated solution from a service provider, find out whether the provider offers sufficient guarantees that it could replace a language model if it were no longer available. If it is a custom solution, find out whether the service provider can, right from the design stage, provide for the possibility of replacing one language model with another. Make a proportionate choice: Not all applications require the most powerful language models. If your technological objective is middle-of-the-road, you can consider more possibilities, including solutions hosted on local servers that use open-source language models. As a bonus, if you choose a language model proportionate to your needs, you are helping to reduce the environmental footprint of these technologies in terms of energy consumption.  These tips each require different steps to be put into practice. Remember to take legal considerations, in addition to technological constraints, into account. Licenses, intellectual property, privacy impact assessments and limited liability clauses imposed by certain service providers are all aspects that need to be considered before making any changes. This isn’t just about being prudent—it’s about taking advantage of the opportunity our businesses have to show they are technologically innovative and exercise greater control over their futures. Scassa, T. 2023. “Sovereignty and the governance of artificial intelligence.” 71 UCLA L. Rev. Disc. 214. Xu, W., Wang, S., & Zuo, X. 2025. “Whose victory? A perspective on shifts in US-China cross-border data flow rules in the AI era.” The Pacific Review, 1–27. See in particular the Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector, CQLR c. P-39.1, s. 3.3.

Amendments to the Trademarks Act (“Act”) and the Trademarks Regulations (“Regulations”) will come into force on April 1, 2025. These amendments are aimed at preventing abusive practices, improving efficiency in trademark proceedings and clarifying certain practices. The main amendments are as follows: Cost awards The Registrar will have the power to award costs in trademark opposition proceedings, geographical indication opposition proceedings and summary expungement proceedings under section 45 of the Act.   Costs will not be awarded to compensate the successful party. This power is discretionary. That being said, costs will only be awarded at the request of a party; the amount of the prescribed fees is not discretionary; and costs will only be awarded in the following four (4) cases: Late cancellation of a hearing, that is, less than 14 days before the hearing date; Unreasonable behaviour resulting in undue delays or expenses. Various factors will be taken into account, including the general context, the duration and cause of the delay, the general behaviour of the other party and the extent of the expenses incurred by the other party. Certain behaviours may be deemed unreasonable, such as failing to attend a hearing or cross-examination without notifying the other party,  pursuing a ground of opposition that has no chance of success,  making disrespectful remarks or gestures, breaching a confidentiality order, as well as a series of acts that collectively amount to unreasonable behaviour; Decision upholding the refusal of an application for the registration of a trademark on the grounds of bad faith; Filing of a divisional application on or after the day that the original application is advertised (unless only one divisional application is submitted). The Registrar will issue the order as part of the decision rendered on the merits of the case, where applicable. Costs may be substantial, depending on the reason for which they are awarded. They could be as much as ten (10) times the fee set out for filing a statement of opposition. Confidentiality order While the principle of open courts proceedings is the rule that governs the Registrar, it is acknowledged that in some cases, specific interests must be protected. Consequently, a party that considers that there is a risk in disclosing certain facts or documents may request a confidentiality order and must, in such a case, demonstrate that redacting or describing certain information in more generalized manner would not be sufficient. Such orders are not intended to allow the adverse party to restrict access to certain information or documents, but rather to restrict the public’s access to them. A confidentiality order remains an exceptional measure and must therefore be requested sparingly and before the party requesting the order submits evidence.  If the evidence has already been submitted, the Registrar will not issue the order. This also means that the evidence should not be submitted at the same time as the request for an order is made. The Registrar will be guided, among other things, by the principles set out in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, to determine the merits of the request for a confidentiality order. Public access must pose a serious risk to a significant public interest that would otherwise be threatened. An order will only be issued if it is necessary to prevent such risk and if no other reasonable alternative exists. In addition, the benefits of granting the order must outweigh its negative effects. This Supreme Court decision also teaches us that direct evidence is not necessarily required to demonstrate a serious threat to a significant public interest, as the existence of harm can be established on the basis of logical inferences.   This process does not affect the timeline of the case, but it is possible to request an extension of time either before or at the same time as the request for confidentiality. In the absence of the other party’s consent, the Registrar will issue a letter requesting such other party’s representations. Should they fail to respond, the Registrar will render a decision. All of these exchanges will be made public, so evidence should not be included in them. Th confidentiality order may be cancelled or amended. In the event of non-compliance with the order, the injured party will have to appeal to the Federal Court. Where the Registrar’s decision containing such an order is appealed, it is imperative that the person for whom the order was issued apply to the Federal Court for a confidentiality order. Case management While the Registrar already issues case management decisions for efficiency and cost-effectiveness purposes, the amendments to the Regulations codify the Registrar’s authority to deal with matters as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit, in order to assist in moving forward complex cases relating to trademark and geographical indication opposition proceedings and summary expungement proceedings under section 45 of the Act. These “case-managed procedures,” allow the Registrar to set or change the time frame or manner in which a step must be completed, to schedule the steps, to deal with confidential aspects of files, to consolidate related cases and hold conference calls, and more. The Registrar must consider the circumstances of the case, including: the level of intervention likely required by the procedure to ensure that the matters are addressed efficiently and effectively; the nature and extent of evidence; the complexity of the proceeding; whether the parties are represented; the number of related cases; and whether substantial delay has occurred or is anticipated to occur in the conduct of the proceeding. Official marks Official marks are a type of mark with a very broad scope of protection in Canada. Once such a mark has been published, no person may, without the consent of the official mark owner, use or register an identical mark or a mark so nearly resembling as to be likely mistaken for that official mark for any goods or services. Moreover, official marks are not subject to renewal, so they can exist indefinitely.  To avoid unduly blocking new applications, a new mechanism is provided whereby the Registrar, on their own initiative or upon request, can deactivate official marks where the mark owner is no longer a public authority or has ceased to exist.  Such requests are subject to fees. Withdrawal of an opposition The Registrar is given greater latitude where, in their opinion, an opponent fails to pursue the trademark opposition. The Registrar may, after giving notice of the default to the opponent consider the opposition as withdrawn, unless the default is remedied within the time specified in the notice. Court proceedings A prerequisite is now required to institute proceedings before the Federal Court,under certain circumstances. The trademark owner must show that it has used the mark before asserting its rights before the courts where proceedings are filed within the first three years of its trademark registration, in cases where such proceedings allege infringement of a registered trademark or depreciation of goodwill. Thus, the owner of a registered trademark will only be able to obtain relief if the trademark was used in Canada within the first three years of registration, or if the absence of use in Canada was due to special circumstances that excuse such absence of use. Appealing the Registrar’s decision The new provision recognizes that the court may exercise any discretion vested in the Registrar when allowing the submission of evidence that was not provided before the Registrar. This provision requires leave of the court for the submission of evidence on appeal, to prevent minimal evidence from being presented at first instance and then supplemented on appeal. The administration of justice is best served when the court can settle a case as a whole at the earliest opportunity. Transitional measures The Registrar is expected to publish transitional measures on April 15 or after April 1, 2025. Conclusion In conclusion, the upcoming changes to the Act and the Regulations, effective April 1, 2025, represent a significant step towards enhancing the legal framework surrounding trademarks in Canada, thereby addressing the growing need for transparency and efficiency in this field. It is crucial for businesses and professionals in the sector to familiarize themselves with these changes to ensure compliance and optimize the management of their trademarks.

As we reported previously, changes were introduced into Canadian patent practice in October 2022 to further streamline Canadian patent examination, to pave the way for a patent term adjustment (PTA) system in Canada as per the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). The PTA system is set forth in the recent amendments to the Patent Rules published on December 18, 2024, which came into force on January 1, 2025. The purpose of the PTA system is to compensate patentees for unreasonable delays in the processing and grant of applications by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO). PTA requirements To qualify for a PTA, a patent must meet the following criteria: Have a filing date (which is the PCT filing date for a Canadian national phase case) on or after December 1, 2020; Have an issue date on or after December 2, 2025; Issue after the later of 5 years from filing or 3 years from requesting examination (passing the “5/3 threshold” - see below). Furthermore, to obtain a PTA for a patent meeting the above-noted criteria, a request must be filed together with a fee (currently C$2,500) within three months of patent issuance Any PTA will be added on to the base “20-year from filing” calculation of patent term, and will also require the payment of annual maintenance fees during any additional patent term as a result of the PTA. PTA calculation - the “5/3 threshold” The starting point for the calculation of PTA is any additional days to patent issuance beyond the later of: 5 years from the Canadian national phase entry date for a PCT-based case, the Canadian filing date for a non-PCT case, or the presentation date (i.e., the date that the actual divisional filing documents are submitted) for a divisional application; or 3 years from date of requesting examination. The next step of the calculation will be to subtract from the above additional days any days in which the processing of the application was in the Applicant’s hands (any overlapping days in this regard are only counted once), such as delays in paying fees or attending to filing formalities, time to respond to CIPO notices, extensions, periods of abandonment, the period after the filing of a first request for continued examination (RCE), etc. As such, the PTA is only focused on any delays attributable to CIPO. Practical considerations One strategy to maximize the potential of obtaining a PTA is to request examination closer to the deadline, which is 4 years from the PCT filing date for a Canadian national phase case, or 4 years from the Canadian filing date for a non-PCT case. The basis of this strategy is to try to shift the balance towards period (2) noted above being applied to the PTA calculation. In doing so, any delays attributable to the Applicant before requesting examination are no longer relevant to the calculation. This strategy is less relevant for divisional applications, as the deadline for requesting examination is often only 3 months after the presentation date (when the divisional filing documents are submitted). A further strategic consideration relates to cases in which a third Examiner's report is issued or an RCE is filed. The filing of an RCE applies in the following scenarios: Following the issuance of a third Examiner’s report in cases in which examination was requested on or after October 3, 2022; Re-opening examination after allowance, for all cases. Since the issuance of a third Examiner's report (even in cases where examination was requested prior to October 3, 2022) or the filing of an RCE will have a significant negative impact on the PTA calculation, Applicants should try to streamline prosecution, to file amendments and address any issues early on during examination, to avoid the issuance of a third Examiner's report and/or the filing of an RCE. Similarly, Applicants should avoid re-opening examination after allowance, which requires the filing of an RCE (even in cases where examination was requested prior to October 3, 2022). While it is predicted1 that few patents will qualify for a PTA in view of the issues noted above and CIPO’s efforts to reduce pendency, the calculation will in most cases be relatively straightforward, allowing Applicants to assess whether requesting PTA is worthwhile before proceeding. The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement published with the final version of the new Patent Rules predicts about 113 PTA applications per year over the next 10 years.

On November 7, 2024, Bill C-244, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair)1 received royal assent, adding a new exception to the provisions governing technological protection measures (TPM) in the Copyright Act (CA). This legislative amendment adds section 41.121 to the CA, making it legal to circumvent TPMs for product maintenance, repair and diagnosis. What it means The new section 41.121 is expected to have a limited impact on the Canadian repair market. Although repairers can now circumvent TPMs to diagnose, maintain or repair a customer’s device, it is still forbidden for repairers to use the services of a TPM circumvention specialist, and specialized circumvention equipment is still prohibited. Furthermore, the absence of a fair dealing exception in this amendment poses ongoing risks of copyright infringement for these purposes. A number of questions remain unanswered, including the scope the courts will assign to the terms “maintenance” and “repair.” Does upgrading a device with improved technology fall within the definition of maintenance, or are repairers restricted to servicing devices according to original specifications? For example, if a connected device becomes obsolete after a new security standard is adopted, would replacing its software constitute maintenance? In short, the adoption of Bill C-244 represents but a small step toward the right to repair goods, and it serves as a prime example of how reconciling property rights with intellectual property rights can be challenging. Amendments made by C-244 Section 41.121, as introduced by C-244, has three paragraphs: Diagnosis, maintenance and repair 41.121 (1) Paragraph 41.1(1)(a) does not apply to a person who circumvents a technological protection measure for the sole purpose of maintaining or repairing a product, including any related diagnosing, if the work, performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or sound recording to which the technological protection measure controls access forms a part of the product. For greater certainty (2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies to a person who circumvents a technological protection measure in the circumstances referred to in that subsection for another person. Non-application (3) A person acting in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1) is not entitled to benefit from the exception under that subsection if the person does an act that constitutes an infringement of copyright. Under the new section, the protection afforded to TPMs is set aside for maintenance and repair purposes, including the related diagnosing. Subsection 41.121(2) adds that the exception also applies to a person, such as a professional repairer, who repairs a product for another person. Subsection 41.121(3) further adds that the exception applies only to situations where there is no copyright infringement; for example, copyright infringement would be a person circumventing TPMs to repair a product, but taking advantage of the situation to make an illicit copy of a computer program. Bill C-244 reintroduced certain provisions of Bill C-272,2 which had been tabled in September 2020 but abandoned after the 2021 federal election. However, unlike the original text, the amendment passed on November 7, 2024, does not allow a person to manufacture, import or distribute TPM-circumvention devices to be used to perform repairs. It is rather limited to making the act of circumvention itself legal. Origin of the problem Bill C-272 was partly introduced in response to the decision in Nintendo of America Inc. v. King,3 which had considerably dampened the TPM-containing-device repair industry. In that case, the Federal Court awarded Nintendo of America Inc. $11.7 million in statutory damages following the circumvention of its TPMs, with $20,000 awarded for each of the 585 affected games, and an additional $1 million in punitive damages. Technological Protection Measures (TPMs), also known as digital locks or digital rights management (DRM) technologies, are mechanisms used to safeguard copyrights and sensitive information in the digital domain. They regulate access to or the copying, alteration and redistribution of digital content, such as audio and video files, software and e-books. TPMs can take various forms, including access codes, passwords, encryption keys, watermarks, digital signatures, encryption methods, and integrated hardware-based protections. These measures may be embedded in the files themselves, or in the devices that read, store or distribute them. DVD encryption and video game cartridge protections are well-known examples. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) first proposed a framework for protecting TPMs in 1996, anticipating that increased internet usage might escalate copyright infringement.4 In 1999, the United States ratified the framework by passing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), followed by Canada’s enactment of the Copyright Modernization Act5 in 2014. This legislative amendment introduced section 41.1 and related provisions to the Copyright Act (CA), prohibiting the circumvention of TPMs. Today, TPMs are ubiquitous, appearing in cars, tractors, medical implants, printer cartridges, game consoles, and various electronic devices. The $11.7 million award to Nintendo of America Inc. pursuant to this provision had a chilling effect on the repair industry.6 In response to the Nintendo decision, Bill C-272 proposed exceptions to the prohibition on circumventing TPMs for diagnosis, maintenance, and repair activities, as specified in paragraph 41.1(1)(a) of the CA. It also included an exception for the manufacture, importation, or distribution of products designed to circumvent TPMs for these purposes, addressing the restrictions noted in paragraph 41.1(1)(c) of the CA. Harmonization with the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement The scope of the new section 41.121 introduced by Bill C-244 was significantly narrowed to prevent conflicts with the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). Article 20.66 of CUSMA requires member countries to enforce three categories of prohibitions related to TPMs: a prohibition on offering TPM circumvention services, a prohibition on the manufacture, import, or distribution of devices intended for TPMs circumvention, and a prohibition on the act itself of circumventing TPMs. Paragraph 5 of Article 20.66 specifies certain exceptions to these prohibitions, particularly for purposes such as interoperability, encryption research (security), and government activities (most of which are addressed under sections 41.11 and following of the CA), but it does not include an exception for the repair of goods. The exception provided in section 41.121 was thus limited to the third CUSMA category which involves the prohibition on circumventing TPMs themselves, as outlined in paragraph 41.1(1)(a) of the CA. As such, the prohibitions on offering TPM circumvention services, and manufacturing, importing or distributing TPM circumvention devices, set out in paragraphs 41.1(1)(b) and 41.1(1)(c), respectively, remain unchanged, even if the purpose of circumvention is to repair a device. Introduction of ambiguous wording Legal professionals may recognize that the changes made to the definitions in section 41 present new challenges. In an attempt to clarify how the new provision’s application, the legislator has added two conflicting expressions to the definitions of “circumvent” and “technological protection measure,” which may not have been necessary. Before After Technical protection measures and information on the rights mechanism Definitions 41 The following definitions apply in this section and in sections 41.1 to 41.21. circumvent means, a)        (a) in respect of a technological protection measure within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition technological protection measure, to descramble a scrambled work or decrypt an encrypted work or to otherwise avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate or impair the technological protection measure, unless it is done with the authority of the copyright owner; and Technical protection measures and information on the rights mechanism Definitions 41 The following definitions apply in this section and in sections 41.1 to 41.21. circumvent means, a)        (a) in respect of a technological protection measure within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition technological protection measure, to descramble a scrambled work or computer program, or decrypt an encrypted work or computer program or to otherwise avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate or impair the technological protection measure, unless it is done with the authority of the copyright owner; and b)        … b)        … technological protection measure means any effective technology, device or component that, in the ordinary course of its operation, a)        controls access to a work, to a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or to a sound recording and whose use is authorized by the copyright owner; or technological protection measure means any effective technology, device or component that, in the ordinary course of its operation, a)        controls access to a work, including a computer program, to a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or to a sound recording and whose use is authorized by the copyright owner; b)        … b)        … In the first instance, the legislator specifies that definition applies to “a work or computer program,” which suggests that a computer program is not considered a work. However, the second definition uses the phrase “a work, including a computer program,” implying the opposite. These clarifications were unnecessary, since the definition of “work” already includes literary works, and section 2 of the CA expressly states that literary works include computer programs. It is unfortunate that the text was adopted in its current form despite the numerous comments on this issue during parliamentary reviews.7 Striking a balance between property rights and intellectual property rights The debates surrounding these legislative changes illustrate the inherent challenges in striking a balance between the reduction of property rights, including the right to repair goods, and the promotion of intellectual property rights. For example, the Entertainment Software Association of Canada has advocated for excluding game consoles from the new exception.8 Paul Fogolin, the association’s Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs, argued that broadly opening the right to repair goods could jeopardize the video game industry by making it almost impossible for rights holders to pursue legal action against those tampering with their protection measures.9 Charles Bernard, Lead Economist for the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association,expressed concerns about increased auto theft risks.10 Catherine Lovrics, Chair of the Copyright Policy Committee, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada, anticipated cybersecurity risks.11 Several industry stakeholders believe that making documents, software, parts, and tools available for repair could elevate the risk of cyberattacks. Industry representatives in the United States have highlighted similar risks. For instance, the Association of Equipment Manufacturerssuggests that enabling the circumvention of TPMs could compromise emission controls on equipment, potentially leading to violations of environmental laws and risks to human life.12 Others have raised concerns about product liability issues.13 According to Apple and Panasonic, today’s electronics are too complex for non-specialists to repair and, thus, broadening the right to repair could compromise consumer safety.14 Concerns about safety, security, and liability are certainly legitimate; however, it is also valid to question whether intellectual property law is the appropriate vehicle to address these issues. During review of C-244, Shannon Sereda, Director of Government Relations, Policy, and Markets for Alberta Wheat and Barley Commissions, highlighted the potential difficulties farmers face when they cannot swiftly repair their equipment. She argued that “[t]he current legislative environment in Canada supports equipment repair monopolies by allowing OEMs to prohibit the bypassing of TPMs.”15 Anthony D. Rosborough, a researcher in the Law Department of the European University Institute, corroborated this viewpoint, stating that TPMs “function principally to protect technologies, rather than works or the rights of authors.” In his view, the industry sometimes relies on copyrights for what should be more appropriately protected with patents or trade secrets.16 The relaxation of TPM rules in Canada aligns with similar measures already implemented in the United States. On October 28, the Librarian of Congress renewed a series of exceptions to section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), including provisions that allow the circumvention of certain protection measures for repairs.17 These exceptions are subject to renewal every three years and have so far been renewed twice since 2018.18 Over the past few years, the United States has taken several steps to promote the right to repair goods. In May 2021, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a detailed report19 on anti-competitive practices related to the right to repair. On July 9, 2021, shortly after the report was released, the U.S. President issued an Executive Order to combat such practices and encourage the development of a third-party or owner repair market.20 Since then, multiple states have enacted laws supporting the right to repair.21 On January 8, 2023, John Deere pledged to enable independent repairers to service its equipment.22 Apple Inc., historically opposed to expanding the right to repair, shifted its stance in 2022 by launching a self-service repair program and publicly supporting California’s new right-to-repair law.23 Last year, WIPO reported that 40 states had introduced legislation in favour of the right to repair.24 Here in Canada, the adoption of Bill C-244 represents another step in establishing the right to repair goods. This measure builds on another federal bill, C-59,25 which also received assent last June and amended the Competition Act to empower courts to compel suppliers to sell diagnosis or repair tools. At the provincial level, Quebec became the first province to enact right-to-repair legislation last year. 26 In the coming months, it remains to be seen whether the new section 41.121 of the Copyright Act (CA) will unlock the repair market. For the moment, the measure strikes us as somewhat timid.27 Parliament of Canada, LEGISinfo: C-244: An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair), Parliament of Canada, online: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-244. Parliament of Canada, LEGISinfo: C-272, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair), Parliament of Canada, online: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-2/c-272. Nintendo of America Inc. v. King, 2017 FC 246, [2018] 1 FCR 509. WIPO Copyright Treaty, December 20, 1996, article 11, online: https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/textdetails/12740. Copyright Modernization Act, S.C. 2012, c. 20, assented to on 2012-06-29, online: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/AnnualStatutes/2012_20/FullText.html; Canada Gazette, Vol. 146,No. 23 – November 7, 2012, SI/2012-85 Order Fixing Various Dates as the Dates on which Certain Provisions of the Act Come into Force, P.C. 2012-1392, October 25, 2012, online: https: //canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2012/2012-11-07/html/si-tr85-fra.html. Graham J. Reynolds, “Of Lock-Breaking and Stock Taking - IP, Climate Change, and the Right to Repair in Canada,” in 2023 101-1 Canadian Bar Review 32, 2023 CanLIIDocs 1144, p. 54, online: https://canlii.ca/t/7n4cj. Committee on Industry and Technology, 5 December 2022, Catherine Lovrics, Open Parliament, online: https://openparliament.ca/committees/industry/44-1/49/catherine-lovrics-2/; Committee on Industry and Technology, 15 February 2023, Viviane Lapointe, Open Parliament, online: https://openparliament.ca/committees/industry/44-1/59/viviane-lapointe-5/; Committee on Industry and Technology, 15 February 2023, Andy  Fillmore, Open Parliament, online: https://openparliament.ca/committees/industry/44-1/59/andy-fillmore-6/; Committee on Industry and Technology, 15 february 2023, Patrick Blanar, online: https://openparliament.ca/committees/industry/44-1/59/patrick-blanar-1/. Entertainment Software Association of Canada, Bill C-244 – An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair), online: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/INDU/Brief/BR12209146/br-external/EntertainmentSoftwareAssociationOfCanada-e.pdf. Committee on Industry and Technology, February 8, 2023, Paul Fogolin, online: https://openparliament.ca/committees/industry/44-1/57/paul-fogolin-1/. Committee on Industry and Technology, February 8, 2023, Charles Bernard, online: https://openparliament.ca/committees/industry/44-1/57/charles-bernard-1/. Industry and Technology Committee, December 5, 2022, Catherine Lovrics, online: https://openparliament.ca/committees/industry/44-1/49/catherine-lovrics-2/. Emma Fillman, “Comprehensive Right to Repair:The Fight Against Planned Obsolescence in Canada,” (2023) 32 Dalhousie J Legal Stud 123, p. 145. online https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/djls/vol32/iss1/5/. Irene Calboli, “The right to repair: Recent Developments in the USA,” World Intellectual Property Organization Magazine, August 2023, online: https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine_digital/en/2023/article_0023.html. Emma Fillman, “Comprehensive Right to Repair:The Fight Against Planned Obsolescence in Canada,” (2023) 32 Dalhousie J Legal Stud 123, pp. 142 and following, online https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/djls/vol32/iss1/5/. Committee on Industry and Technology, February 8, 2023, Shannon Sereda, online: https://openparliament.ca/committees/industry/44-1/57/shannon-sereda-1/. Committee on Industry and Technology, February 8, 2023, Anthony D. Rosborough, online: https://openparliament.ca/committees/industry/44-1/57/anthony-d-rosborough-1/. Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, Federal Register, October 28, 2024, online: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/10/28/2024-24563/exemption-to-prohibition-on-circumvention-of-copyright-protection-systems-for-access-control. Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, Federal Register, October 26, 2018, online: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/10/26/2018-23241/exemption-to-prohibition-on-circumvention-of-copyright-protection-systems-for-access-control. Federal Trade Commission, Nixing the Fix: An FTC Report to Congress on Repair Restrictions, May 2021, online: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/nixing-fix-ftc-report-congress-repair-restrictions/nixing_the_fix_report_final_5521_630pm-508_002.pdf. The White House, Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy, July 9, 2021, online: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/07/09/executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/. X, Jon Campbell, December 29, 2022, online: https://twitter.com/JonCampbellNY/status/1608327624526548993; Colorado General Assembly, Consumer Right to Repair Agricultural Equipment, April 25, 2023, online: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb23-1011; Minnesota Legislature, Minnesota Session Laws, 93rd Legislature, Chapter 57 – S.F. No. 2744, online: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2023/0/Session+Law/Chapter/57/; Sidley, “California Becomes Third U.S.State to Join the Right-to-Repair Movement,” October 24, 2023, online: https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2023/10/california-becomes-third-us-state-to-join-the-right-to-repair-movement. John Deere, Memorandum of Undestanding, January 8, 2023, online: https://www.fb.org/files/AFBF_John_Deere_MOU.pdf. The Verge, “Surprise:Apple now supports California’s right to repair,” August 23, 2023, online: https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/23/23843506/apple-california-right-to-repair-sb-244. Irene Calboli, “The right to repair: Recent Developments in the USA,” World Intellectual Property Organization Magazine, online: https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine_digital/en/2023/article_0023.html. Parliament of Canada, LEGISinfo: C-59: An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023; Parliament of Canada, online:https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-59. Québec National Assembly, Bill 29, An Act to protect consumers from planned obsolescence and to promote the durability, repairability and maintenance of goods, online: https://www.assnat.qc.ca/en/travaux-parlementaires/projets-loi/projet-loi-29-43-1.html. The author would like to thank Laura Trépanier-Champagne for her work in supporting the writing of this publication.