Can I Patent That?
What Exactly Is A Patentable Creation?
What is Intellectual Property?Before discussing patents specifically, it is helpful to first have a general understanding of what exactly is intellectual property (“IP”). IP, stated broadly, is a “creation of the mind”[i] and includes things like logos, inventions, literary works, and designs.[ii] IP is a type of intellectual asset which, though intangible, plays a crucial role in providing businesses with a competitive advantage so that they can succeed in today’s increasingly knowledge-based economy.[iii] As a result, it is important for entrepreneurs to be able to identify their business’s value-creating IP and understand how to protect it.
There are various forms of IP protection in Canada, with each form focused on protecting a specific range of subject matter. Patents fit into this Canadian IP protection framework as being the form of protection that can be used to protect inventions… provided that those inventions meet certain criteria.
Defining Patents: The Criteria for PatentabilityAs mentioned above, patents are the form of IP protection concerned with protecting inventions.[iv] Inventions are defined in the Patent Act[v] as “any new and useful art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement in any art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter”[vi].
For an invention to be “new” it must distinctly demonstrate its novelty or ingenuity over a previous patent.[vii] This novel or ingenious use can includes a new use of an existing substance, such as discovering a new application for an existing drug.[viii] For a patent to be “useful” it must have a demonstratable utility or a sound prediction that it works at the time the patent application was filed. This can be a single or recurring use.[ix]
In addition to being new and useful, the subject matter of an invention must have not been obvious to a person skilled in the art or science to which the subject matter of the invention pertains at the time the patent application was filed.[x]
An Art is a broad category of subject matter which includes new and inventive methods of practically applying skills or knowledge to create commercially useful results.[xi] A Process is a mode or method of operation where the end product is produced from the application of physical or chemical action, element or power of nature, or of one substance to another.[xii] A Machine is a physical or mechanical embodiment of a process which, when used, can deliver a desired effect.[xiii] A Manufacture is the action or process of making articles or material through the application of physical labour or mechanical power.[xiv] And a Composition of Matter is a substance formed by a combination or mixture of various ingredients.[xv]
With these criteria of what constitutes a patentable invention in mind, lets now turn to some examples of subject matter that can fall within these parameters.
What Is and Is Not Patentable Subject Matter?If the subject matter of an invention meets the above the criteria, it is typically patentable. Consequently, patentable subject matter can range from door locks[xvi] to genetically modified cells[xvii]. However, there are some notable exclusions and areas of contention with respect to what can and cannot be patented. Some key examples of these are discussed below.
Unpatentable Subject Matter
Scientific principles and abstract theorems cannot be patented.[xviii] Moreover, creations of nature, like cross-bred plant species, cannot be patented since they are not deemed to have been invented by the discoverer.[xix] Presently, forms of energy such as electromagnetic and acoustic signals are not considered patentable either.[xx]
Broadly speaking computer programs are not patentable subject matter.[xxi] However, if the software is imbedded in a computer – such as in the form of algorithm tied to a physical, read-only computer chip – then it may be patentable.[xxii] It is also important to note that if a computer program is used to make an otherwise unpatentable discovery, the fact that a computer program was used to make the discovery does not change that unpatentable discovery into a patentable one.[xxiii] For example, the fact that a computer was used to discovery a new scientific principle does not make that scientific principle patentable.
Professional skills such as novel ways to describe and lay out land in a subdivision are also not patentable,[xxiv] nor are high life forms such as mice[xxv]. Medical and surgical methods are not patentable in Canada,[xxvi] however the medical products used in those processes can be patented.[xxvii]
Possibly Patentable Subject Matter
A business model can be patentable subject matter, however for a business model to be patentable it must meet all the criteria described in the above “Defining Patents” section and have physicality.[xxviii] This physicality requirement demands that the business model somehow physically exist beyond manifesting its usefulness through the application of a physical tool.[xxix] How this can be done exactly is not clear, however there is some United States case law which suggests that if a business model were imbedded in a software of some kind that it may be patentable.[xxx]
Alternatives to PatentingPatents are just one example of the intellectual property protections available in Canada. Copyrights, Trademarks, and Industrial Designs are other examples of other IP protection available in Canada. Protecting IP through keeping it as a trade secret is also an option for business, and is an IP protection strategy commonly used by start-ups and growth companies.[xxxi] As a result, if you cannot patent your invention, you may want to review the Clinic’s other blogs about IP or book an appointment with the Clinic to learn more about these other forms of IP protection!
Duncan Pardoe is a caseworker at the BLG Business Venture Clinic and a second-year law student at the Faculty of Law, University of Calgary.
[i] World Intellectual Property Organization, “What is intellectual property” (February 21, 2021) online: World Intellectual Property Organization < https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/> [WIPO: Defining IP].
[ii] WIPO: Defining IP.
[iii] Government of Canada, “Intellectual assets” (February 21, 2021) online: Canadian Intellectual Property Office < https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/wr03585.html?Open&wt_src=cipo-ip-main>.
[iv] Government of Canada, “What is a patent” (February 21, 2021) online: Canadian Intellectual Property Office < https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/wr03716.html?Open&wt_src=cipo-patent-main> [CIPO: What is a patent].
[v] Patent Act, RSC 1985, c P-4 [Patent Act].
[vi] Patent Act, at s 2.
[vii] Whirlpool Corp v Camco Inc, 2000 SCC 67, at paras 64-67.
[viii] Apotex Inc v Wellcome Foundation Ltd, 2002 4 SCR 153.
[ix] AtraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2017 SCR 943 at paras 46; 53; 55-56.
[x] Patent Act, at s 28.3.
[xi] Progressive Games v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 177 FTR 241, at para 16.
[xii] Canada, Government of Canada, Manual of Patent Office Practices (2020) online: Canadian Intellectual Property Office < https://s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/manuels-manuals-opic-cipo/MOPOP_English.html#_Toc57035319>, at s 17.01.02 [MOPOP].
[xiii] MOPOP¸ at s 17.01.03.
[xiv] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 2002 SCC 76 [Harvard College v Canada].
[xv] Harvard College v Canada.
[xvi] CIPO: What is a patent, at “What you can patent”.
[xvii] Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, 2004 SCC 34, at para 22.
[xviii] Patent Act, at s 27(8).
[xix] Pioneer Hi-Bred Ltd v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 1989 1 SCR 1623.
[xx] MOPOP, at s 17.03.04.
[xxi] Schlumbereger Canada Ltd v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 1982 1 FC 845 (CA) [Schlumbereger Canada Ltd v Canada].
[xxii] Re Motorola Inc’s Patent Application No 2,085,228, 1998 86 CPR (3d) 71 (Pat App Bd & Commissioner of Patents).
[xxiii] Schlumbereger Canada Ltd v Canada.
[xxiv] Lawson v Commissioner of Patents, 1970 62 CPR 101 (Ex Ct).
[xxv] Harvard College v Canada.
[xxvi] Tennessee Eastman v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 1974 SCR 11.
[xxvii] Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Company v Bayer Inc, 2015 FCA 116.
[xxviii] Canada (AG) v Amazon.com Inc, 2011 FCA 328 [Canada (AG) v Amazon.com Inc].
[xxix] Canada (AG) v Amazon.com Inc.
[xxx] Alice v CLS Bank International, 573 US 208 (2014).
[xxxi] Bryce C Tingle, Start-up and Growth Companies in Canada: A Guide to Legal and Business Practice, 3rd ed (Canada: LexisNexis Canada, 2018) at 140.
Should Your Start-up Consider an Innovative Equity Model?
Choosing the right structure and equity allocation for a new venture can create stress for a lot of entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, the equity issue usually comes at a time when there are many other things that the founders are dealing with. Disparity in finances, hours being put in, connections, and any other possible resources can create problems when people are trying to decide how to divide their start-up and allocate equity. Slicing pie, a concept by Mike Moyer, aims to solve this initial hurdle entrepreneurs often face in his book, The Slicing Pie Handbook: Perfectly Fair Equity Splits for Bootstrapped Start-ups.
Moyer teaches Entrepreneurship at Northwestern University and the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. He is a staunch advocate of slicing pie, enthusiastically pointing out all of the problems it can solve and the opportunities it may create. However, solutions to the problems within slicing pie itself are much less plentiful and without an exuberant spokesperson.
The slicing pie concept itself is fairly simple. Implementing it in Canada however, as opposed to the United States where slicing pie originated, is a lot more uncertain and complicated.
The idea is that everyone is compensated for their specific contributions to the company. This means that when someone invests with time, money, ideas, relationships, supplies, equipment, facilities or anything else someone provides without full payment that they are then allocated ‘slices’ of the pie. The pie represents the company, and the slices are a proxy for the individual shares of each person who the pie is split among. The model is dynamic because it adjusts every day as the contributions are made by those working on business. The idea is that if you contributed on a given day, your piece of the pie should reflect that immediately.
The formula is an individual’s % share = individual's Slices ÷ all Slices. This applies until the company starts to break even or they raise enough capital to pay the equity holders for their contributions. When one of these events happens, the pie would ‘bake’ or the split would be frozen and the allocation at that time would determine the distribution of dividends or proceeds of a sale.
The reason for slices and not shares in the traditional sense is the defence mechanisms the concept has built in. With equity, if someone were to leave the company, they maintain that equity. With slices of pie, the idea is that anyone who leaves would be forfeiting their contributions. This is billed as an advantage of slicing pie because it is supposed to keep people committed and bought in to the business’ success for a longer period of time.
However, Canadian courts may not uphold this type of arrangement. In Canada, the principle of equitable relief, such as that referenced in section 16 of the Alberta Judicature Act, means that courts may find anyone who left a company with slices, and not shares, is entitled to the value of those slices anyways. Since the solution slicing pie is offering is to essentially force someone to give up all contributions they have made to a company if they do what is within their rights to do and leave, it is quite logical to think courts will deem that to be unfair. If the courts felt it was unconscionable for the person leaving to receive nothing from their work, it could fundamentally eliminate one of the reasons to use slicing pie.
At this point there is not case law in Canada dealing with the issues slicing pie presents for Canadian law so we cannot be certain as to how the common law and equity would handle a slicing pie dispute. The important thing is that it is a potential issue, and one which is not mentioned or addressed by the very limited slicing pie literature. As time passes and the model is not so new, hopefully there will be answers from the courts and from the relevant tax authorities on how the slicing pie model will be treated.
Another issue with the legally absent equity allocation slicing pie temporarily creates is that the division of the pie may not be honoured. When it comes time to bake the pie, there isn’t a guarantee that everyone will get the share they had with the slices. Everyone involved must trust each other that they will get what they were supposed to. This leads to the second potential issue. Slicing pie claims that because there is no formalized equity until an event that bakes the pie, and therefore terminates the model, there are no potential tax consequences. If one were to try to get around the risk of someone not honoring the slicing pie arrangement by legal agreement, they would be defeating the whole purpose of the model by effectively setting an equity arrangement. This could possibly catch the attention of the Canadian Revenue Agency which may determine equity was held much earlier on, before the pie was officially baked, than claimed.
Slicing pie also theorizes that it will incentivize people into staying committed to the business longer. However, since the slices convert to equity once the company sees success, someone could simply wait until that event and then leave. Alternatively, if the company never returns value then the equity they gave up by leaving had no value anyways, rendering the threat slicing pie implies empty. In the meantime, if they are truly disinterested in the company, they have no reason to contribute more to the pie. They may not officially break off the relationship but could for all intents and purposes stopped adding value of any kind. To think someone that would otherwise leave a venture will stay and work hard for that business’ success because of slicing pie seems to be an untested and flawed theory.
While the slicing pie model advertises that it solves the issue of conflict during equity allocation, and it very well might, it may also just shift the problem. Similar to competing interests wanting different equity decision, there still needs to be negotiation and agreement about what contributions result in slices. For example, one party may have more financial resources while the other has much more time to put into the business. How to properly weight cash contributions compared to an hour of someone’s time must still be agreed upon. In a sense, slicing pie may just be shifting around where the difficult negotiations points exist.
Unfortunately, as with most things slicing pie in Canada, there is a lack of information or certainty. Since the theory was formed by Mike Moyer, and the information on it is contained on his slicing pie website (https://slicingpie.com/) and in his books, there is a deficit of objective and critical information dealing with the challenges the model may face. This is especially true for jurisdictions that are not the United States.
While slicing pie is an exciting and innovative model for helping start-ups deal with equity distribution, there are still many unknowns. Anyone considering the model should take careful consideration of the potential tax and legal uncertainty while also thinking about whether the model will add value to the business or if it will cause as many issues as it solves.
Common Negotiation Terminology
Negotiations are common and important for entrepreneurs, as any start-up business will require negotiating financing rounds, board decisions and salary for employees, among many other things. In our last negotiation centered blog post, we discussed interest-based negotiations and how they are effective (link in footnotes). In this negotiation-based post, I will outline many common negotiation tactics and present some useful tips on how to use them.
Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (“BATNA”)
Zone of Possible Agreement (“ZOPA”)
 “Interest-Based Negotiation” (23 December 2020), online blog): Business Venture Clinic <http://www.businessventureclinic.ca/blog/december-23rd-2020>.
Katie Shonk, “6 Bargaining Tips and BATNA Essentials” (19 January 2021), online (blog): Program on Negotiation Harvard Law School < https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/batna/bargaining-tips-batna-essentials/>.
 Katie Shonk, “How to Find the ZOPA in Business Negotiations” (10 August 2020), online (blog): Program on Negotiation Harvard Law School < https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/business-negotiations/how-to-find-the-zopa-in-business-negotiations/>.
 Katie Shonk, “What is Anchoring in Negotiation?” (19 May 2020), online (blog): Program on Negotiation Harvard Law School https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/what-is-anchoring-in-negotiation/.
 David Wright, Law 508 – Negotiation (Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, 2020).
Should Your Canadian Start-Up Become a Benefit Company?
Effective June 30, 2020, British Columbia became the first Canadian province in the country to enact legislation regarding a new corporate form known as a 'benefit company'. The concept originated in Maryland in the United States and has since been adopted by 35 other states.
The amendment to the British Columbia Business Corporations Act [BCBCA] was introduced as a private member’s bill with the aim to support companies who choose to pursue social and environmental goals at the heart of their mission. However, the question remains if entrepreneurs and start-ups should adopt this new for-profit structure and if more provinces will adopt the legislation considering the success the United States has seen.
What Is a Benefit Company?To become a benefit company in British Columbia, your start-up must include a 'benefit statement' and 'benefit provision' in its notice of articles. The benefit statement must make clear its commitment to conducting business in a sustainable and responsible manner while also advocating one or more public benefits. The benefit provision needs to detail the 'public benefits' it intends on promoting. The BCBCA broadly defines a 'public benefit' as having a positive effect on communities, organizations, the environment, or a class of persons other than shareholders of the company. This positive effect can be artistic, charitable, cultural, economic, educational, environmental, literary, medial, religious, scientific, or technological in nature. In the benefit company’s articles it also needs to explain the company’s commitments to conducting business sustainably and responsibly as well as highlight its specified public benefits.
What are the Benefits?
In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada expanded a director’s fiduciary duties to include social morals by not enforcing a shareholder primacy rule.  This means fiduciaries may choose to pursue broader matters beyond increasing profits for its shareholders. Despite these rules, there are still some advantages of transitioning to a benefit company. For example, it can provide clarity and certainty regarding a company’s purpose, even if the founders decide to move on at a later date. This type of entity can also help attract capital from ethically motivated investors who wish to make a positive impact.
The amendment even restricts who can sue the company in relation to its duties and allows shareholders to bring an action against a benefit company’s directors if a member of the board chooses to disregard the start-up's primary purpose and is in violation of their duty relating to its purported public benefits.
What are the Disadvantages?
Despite the success in the United States, critics of the amendment have many questions about the benefits to a start-up from both a business and legal perspective. From a business perspective, it is unknown how attractive becoming a benefit company is to investors, consumers, and potential new employees. It is also yet to be established which industries should consider exploring this type of entity. Legal experts are wondering how directors will balance their duties of the new amendment with their existing fiduciary responsibilities. There is also a question of how a benefit company will measure the well-being of people impacted by its efforts. It is also unclear what happens if benefit expectations are not met.
How to Find Out if You Should Become a Benefit Company?While some questions remain to be answered about benefit companies, it is worth discussing with a legal professional if this avenue is worth exploring or if the existing legislation is sufficient in supporting your social purpose.
The BLG Business Venture Clinic can assist in answering your legal questions as well as provide advice on how to start your new venture. Get in contact with us today and find out how we can help.
 Business Corporations Act, SBC 2002, c57 [BCA].
 Mondaq (2020, 7 2) Canada: Benefit Companies Arrive in B.C. Retrieved from mondaq.com: https://www.mondaq.com/canada/shareholders/960856/benefit-companies-arrive-in-bc.
 BCA, supra note 1, s. 1.
 Ibid at s. 51.992 (1).
 Ibid at s. 51.991 (1).
 BCA, supra note 1, s. 51.992(2).
 Peoples Department Stores Inc. v Wise 2004 SCC 68.
 Lexology (2020, 6 5) In a First for Canada, Benefit Companies Are Coming to British Columbia. Retrieved from lexology.com: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d18e8fb6-c356-4a16-96ea-cc80c267cabe.
Moving Online: Virtual Considerations for Start-ups
For many small businesses, COVID-19 has likely brought about a shift toward virtual operations. This post outlines some considerations for start-ups in Alberta as they navigate the trend toward virtual and electronic operations.
The COVID-19 pandemic created a need for many Canadian corporations to host virtual meetings in order to avoid risks presented by in-person meetings and obey public health orders. Although some challenges remain, virtual meetings can present various benefits for companies, especially in current circumstances, and they may be here to stay.
Alberta corporations are required to hold annual shareholder meetings within specified time ranges. Recently-incorporated Alberta corporations must also hold an organizational meeting of directors. Due to COVID-19, the provincial government suspended these statutory requirements to hold in-person meetings for a limited time in 2020. However, this suspension is no longer in effect and companies may need to consider virtual platforms and other options for holding required meetings as well as other company business.
Companies that would like to host corporate meetings virtually may need to check their corporate documents to ensure they are able to do so. Shareholders of Alberta corporations can participate in shareholders’ meetings electronically, as long as all participants are able to communicate with each other, but only if allowed under the corporation’s bylaws or by the consent of all of the shareholders entitled to vote at the meeting (subject to the bylaws). Similarly, an entire shareholders’ meeting may be held electronically if provided for in the bylaws. Shareholders can also vote electronically if the corporation makes electronic means of voting available, and as long as the bylaws do not prohibit electronic voting. Corporations legislation also allows directors to participate in board meetings electronically, but only if this is allowed under the corporate bylaws or where all of the directors provide consent. Additionally, certain communications related to corporate meetings, such as notices to shareholders or directors, may be sent by electronic means.
As an alternative to holding meetings, matters can generally be passed by a resolution signed in writing by all directors or shareholders entitled to vote on the resolution, as applicable, and this will be as effective as passing the matter by a vote at a board meeting or shareholder meeting.
Alberta law provides for the use of electronic documents in business settings, which may help facilitate companies’ transitions to virtual operations.
“Functional equivalency” rules provide that legal requirements for information to be in writing can generally be fulfilled by using or providing information electronically, as long as it is in an accessible form and can be further referenced and/or retained by the people receiving it. Requirements for records to be signed can be satisfied with electronic signatures, although additional considerations may apply to ensure reliability of the signature.
Agreements and contracts can also be formed online by providing information in electronic form, or by taking actions “intended to result in electronic communication” (for example, clicking an icon can show a person’s intent to electronically communicate acceptance of a contract offer).
Companies that execute signed contracts virtually may consider whether contracts include a “counterparts” clause. These are standard clauses that may be used where parties to a contract do not sign the document while together. A counterparts clause generally provides that the agreement may be executed in separate parts that are electronically circulated, and those parts together will be considered to form the same agreement.
Companies shifting toward virtual operations may begin to share more documents electronically and use electronic document storage and sharing platforms to manage files. This can raise considerations for companies related to privacy law and data breach concerns.
Under Canadian privacy laws, organizations remain responsible for personal information (any information that can be used to identify an individual) that they transfer to third parties. This may apply for organizations using online platforms or “cloud computing services” to share, store, or back up files containing personal information. Privacy commissioners suggest that organizations review the terms of service for cloud computing providers to ensure personal information is handled by the provider in a way that is meets the organization’s privacy obligations. Federal privacy law, where applicable, specifically requires organizations to use “contractual or other means to provide a comparable level of protection” for information being processed by a third party. Companies considering transitioning files and sharing information using online service providers may consider conducting a review of these and other privacy law obligations to ensure they are prepared for virtual business operations.
Additionally, businesses transitioning files, meetings, and communications online may consider the risk of data breach when using virtual platforms. Movement of business operations online often involves use of virtual private networks and cloud computing and raises concerns of increased cybersecurity risk. As noted by the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, “the more Internet-connected assets an organization has, the greater the cyber threat it faces”. Businesses may consider their information security policies and how to manage risk of data breach and meet any obligations in the event of a breach. Under privacy laws, organizations must protect personal information by using “security safeguards” or “reasonable security arrangements” to prevent unauthorized access and other risks. If there is a breach of an organization’s security safeguards and it is reasonable in the circumstances to think there is a “real risk of significant harm to an individual”, then the organization must report the breach to the relevant privacy commissioner, and it may be required to notify the affected individuals. A previous blog post from the Business Venture Clinic discusses data breach preparedness in more detail.
 See, e.g., federal government recognition of the risks of corporate meetings in Corporations Canada, “Annual meetings of federal businesses, not-for-profits and cooperatives during COVID-19 in 2021” (last modified 30 December 2020), online: Government of Canada <http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cd-dgc.nsf/eng/cs08888.html>.
 See Dan Healing, “More corporate meetings to go virtual after success during pandemic” (3 August 2020), online: <www.ctvnews.ca>.
 Business Corporations Act, RSA 2000, c B-9, s 132(1) [ABCA].
 Ibid, s 104(1).
 Service Alberta, Ministerial Order no. 009/2020 (9 April 2020), s 5(1), available online: <https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/ministerial-order-no-sa-009-2020-service-alberta>.
 ABCA, supra note 3, s 131(3).
 Ibid, s 131(3.1).
 Ibid, s 140(4), (5).
 Ibid, s 114(9).
 Ibid, s 255(5), see also s 258(2).
 Ibid, ss 117, 141.
 Electronic Transactions Act, SA 2001, c E-5.5, ss 10-13.
 Ibid, s 16.
 Ibid, s 27.
 Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, SC 2000, c 5, Part 1, Schedule 1, ss 4.1, 4.1.3 [PIPEDA]; Personal Information Protection Act, SA 2003, c P-6.5, s 5(1) and (2) [PIPA]. For the definition of personal information, see PIPEDA, s 2(1); PIPA, s 1(1); Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, “Summary of privacy laws in Canada” (last revised January 2018), online: <https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-canada/02_05_d_15/>.
 Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, and Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, “Cloud computing for small and medium-sized enterprises” (June 2012), online: <https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/technology/online-privacy-tracking-cookies/online-privacy/cloud-computing/gd_cc_201206/>.
 PIPEDA, supra note 15, Schedule 1, s 4.1.3.
 See, e.g., Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, Cyber Threat Bulletin: Impact of COVID-19 on Cyber Threat Activity (last modified 10 June 2020), online: Government of Canada <https://cyber.gc.ca/en/guidance/cyber-threat-bulletin-impact-covid-19-cyber-threat-activity>; Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, CYBER THREAT BULLETIN: Impact of COVID-19 on Cyber Threat Activity (2020) at 4, online (pdf): Government of Canada <https://cyber.gc.ca/sites/default/files/publications/COVID_19_Continued_Impact_Threat_Bulletin_TLPWHITE-1.eng_.pdf>.
 Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, National Cyber Threat Assessment 2020 (2020) at 21, online (pdf): Government of Canada <https://cyber.gc.ca/en/guidance/cyber-threats-canadian-organizations>.
 PIPEDA, supra note 15, Schedule 1, s 4.7; see also PIPA, supra note 15, s 34.
 PIPEDA, ibid, s 10.1(1); PIPA, ibid, s 34.1; Federal privacy law also requires notification to the individual (PIPEDA, s 10.1(3)) and Alberta privacy law may require notification at the discretion of the privacy commissioner (PIPA, s 37.1).
 “Preparing for the (Inevitable) Data Breach” (23 February 2020), available online: BLG Business Venture Clinic <http://www.businessventureclinic.ca/blog>.
Blog posts are by students at the Business Venture Clinic. Student bios appear under each post.