Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 147, Number 1: Electronic Commerce Protection Regulations

January 5, 2013

Statutory authority

An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act

Sponsoring department

Department of Industry

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

1. Background

Canada’s Anti-spam Legislation (see footnote 1) was tabled as Bill C-28 on May 25, 2010, and was granted Royal Assent on December 15, 2010. The Electronic Commerce Protection Regulations (“Regulations”) define key terms and concepts necessary to bring the legislation into force. The proposed Regulations, providing clarity and legal certainty to key terms and concepts contained in the legislation, were published for consultation in Part Ⅰ of the Canada Gazette on July 9, 2011, with a consultation period ending September 7, 2011. Industry Canada received 55 submissions responding to the proposed Regulations.

2. Issue

These Regulations address the need to provide clarity and legal certainty to some key terms used in Canada’s Anti-spam Legislation in order to effectively combat spam and other related electronic threats in Canada, and to provide relief to businesses through targeted exemptions where the broad application of the Act would otherwise impede business activities that are not within the intended scope of the legislation. These Regulations also address the concerns raised during the last prepublication of proposed Regulations under CASL.

3. Objectives

The general purpose of Canada’s Anti-spam Legislation is to encourage the growth of electronic commerce by ensuring confidence and trust in the on-line marketplace. To do so, the Act prohibits damaging and deceptive spam, spyware, malicious code, botnets, and other related network threats.

Subsection 64(1) of CASL identifies matters to be addressed by the Governor in Council through regulations. The objective of these proposed Regulations is to avoid legal uncertainty when interpreting key terms in the anti-spam provisions of the Act and to provide exemptions for certain business activities outside the intended scope of the Act.

4. Description

The proposed Electronic Commerce Protection Regulations include regulations under six regulatory powers in the Act.

Family relationships and personal relationships

The Act requires that the meaning of “personal relationship” and “family relationship” be set out in regulations to provide legal certainty as to which relationships will be excepted from the anti-spam provisions of the Act. The terms are clearly defined in order to establish limits and avoid legal uncertainty and to prevent potential spammers from exploiting these concepts in order to send electronic messages without consent.

The proposed Regulations define “family relationship” for the purposes of CASL in a manner that is in keeping with definitions in the Income Tax Act. They also specify that it is intended to refer to persons descending from a common grandparent, including aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, and nephews.

The proposed Regulations also define “personal relationship” for the purposes of CASL. The proposed definition is a relationship between two people who have had voluntary communications where it would be reasonable to conclude that the relationship is personal, unless the recipient has asked to no longer receive commercial electronic messages. Determining whether the relationship is personal would be based on a non-exhaustive list of factors.

Limited exemptions for certain types of messages

Since it applies broadly to commercial electronic messages, the Act captures regular business to business communications that are not the types of threats that were intended to be captured within the scope of the Act. To ensure these business communications are not regulated under the Act, the proposed Regulations include exemptions for commercial electronic messages that are

• sent within a business; or
• sent between businesses that are already in a business relationship, where the messages are sent by an employee, representative, contractor or franchisee and are relevant to the business, role, function or duties of the recipients.

Exemptions are also proposed for messages that are solicited or sent in response to complaints and requests. Additional exemptions are proposed for messages sent due to a legal obligation or to enforce a legal right.

Finally, an exemption is proposed for messages relating to an organization located or provided outside of Canada and accessed while the recipient was visiting Canada. The proposed exemption would limit the application of CASL so it does not apply when the sender could not reasonably have been expected to know their messages would be accessed in Canada.

Unknown third parties

The proposed Regulations provide that consent to receive messages from a third party is only valid if the individual providing consent will have the ability to unsubscribe to the message and, by the same means and without any further action required, will be able to alert the original requester that their consent is withdrawn. The proposed Regulations further provide that when consent to receive messages from a third party has been withdrawn by the individual, the original requester must notify each third party to whom the consent was provided that it was withdrawn. The purpose of these provisions is to ensure that the person who obtains consent on behalf of an unidentified third party when the consent was provided remains responsible for ensuring that the person who gave consent has an effective and simple means of withdrawing consent. Specifying the conditions under which consent to receive unsolicited commercial electronic messages can be forwarded to third parties provides individuals with further control over the use of their electronic addresses. These proposed Regulations regarding the conditions for use of consent place requirements on both the party obtaining and the party using consent to send unsolicited commercial messages. They also place requirements on these parties with reference to the unsubscribe mechanism.

Limited exemptions for protecting, upgrading and updating computer networks

The proposed Regulations include an exemption for telecommunications service providers (TSPs) from the requirement to have consent to install a computer program for the limited purposes of preventing illegal activities that present an imminent risk to the security of its network.

The proposed Regulations also include an exemption for TSPs from the requirement to have consent to install software on devices across an entire network for update and upgrade purposes.

Third-party referrals

The proposed Regulations include an exemption for “third-party referrals.” This refers to situations where there is an existing relationship (family, personal, business or non-business) between one individual, such as an agent, and another individual, such as an existing client, and the existing client refers a prospective client, provided he or she has an existing relationship (family, personal, business or non-business) with the prospective client, to the agent by giving their electronic address information to the agent. The proposed Regulations would permit the agent to send a single message seeking consent, as long as the agent has both provided the prospective client with the full name of the individual who made the referral, and has included the identification and unsubscribe requirements as set out in the Act.

There are a variety of other ways referral marketing can continue to occur under CASL without the use of the proposed exemption. For example, the individual making the referral may provide the agent’s contact information to the prospective client, so they can contact the agent themselves; or the person making the referral may ask the prospective client for their consent to have the agent contact them directly.

Membership in a club, association or voluntary organization

The Act indicates that an “existing non-business relationship” includes membership, as defined in the Regulations, in a club, association or voluntary organization, as defined in the Regulations. The proposed Regulations define “membership” as having applied for, met the formal requirements to belong to an organization and having been accepted as a member in accordance with the membership requirements of the organization. The proposed Regulations also define “club,” “association” or “voluntary organization” as non-profit organizations that are organized and operated exclusively for social welfare, civic improvement, pleasure or recreation or for any other purpose than profit, if no part of the income of which was payable to, or otherwise available for the personal benefit of any proprietor, member or shareholder of those organizations unless the proprietor, member or shareholder is an organization the primary purpose of which is the promotion of amateur athletics in Canada.

5. Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered

Regulations are required in order to bring the Act into force. The proposed Regulations are necessary to provide legal certainty in interpreting key terms in the provisions of the Act and to provide exemptions for certain business activities that would otherwise be prohibited by the Act. No non-regulatory options have been considered for defining these terms for the purposes of implementing the Act. Industry Canada and the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) are exploring the use of interpretational guidelines and other guidance material to provide clarity where appropriate.

6. Consultation

The proposed Regulations are necessary to enact Canada’s Anti-spam Legislation which was the subject of extensive consultation and debate. Hearings were held with interested stakeholders by the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and by the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications during their review of the legislation from when it was tabled in 2009 to when it was passed as Bill C-28 in December 2010. Overall, consultations that have taken place over the past six years surrounding the legislation and the policy on which it is built have shown strong support for anti-spam regulation from consumers, Internet service providers, marketers, businesses, educators, the financial sector, legal and consumer groups, and enforcement agencies.

Proposed Regulations providing clarity and legal certainty to key terms and concepts contained in the legislation were published for consultation in Part Ⅰ of the Canada Gazette (see footnote 2) on July 9, 2011, with a consultation period ending on September 7, 2011. Industry Canada received 55 submissions responding to the proposed Regulations. In addition to providing submissions during the regulatory consultation, several stakeholders requested bilateral and multilateral meetings to further discuss their concerns. Industry Canada officials met with all organizations that requested a meeting. Some of these stakeholders also provided further written submissions detailing their concerns. Stakeholders who participated in these consultations included representatives of the retail, financial services, legal services, real estate, telecommunications, information technology, and general business sectors as well as public interest groups and private citizens. These meetings and written submissions provided input to the process of developing and refining the proposed Regulations.

Definition of “personal relationship”

The proposed Regulations address stakeholder concerns about the definition of “personal relationship” in the previous version of the proposed Regulations. That previous definition required certain characteristics of the relationship, including that the people have communicated within the past two years and have met in person at some point in time. In the consultation, some stakeholders argued that the two-year time period was arbitrary, and the definition should extend to virtual relationships where the individuals have never met in person. The challenge in addressing both of these concerns is to ensure the definition remains limited to close personal relationships, as intended under the Act. These proposed Regulations eliminate the arbitrary time period and include virtual relationships by replacing some of the previously mandatory characteristics of “personal relationships” with factors to be considered in determining if a relationship is a “personal relationship” for the purposes of the Act. To maintain the balance and limit the risk that the personal relationship exemption will be abused, the Regulations allow individuals to express the wish not to receive commercial electronic messages from the sender, even if the people otherwise choose to remain friends.

Proposed exemptions to address stakeholder concerns

The key issues and concerns that were raised by stakeholders are addressed in the exemptions and revised definitions in these proposed Regulations. The requests for new exemptions to consent provisions of the legislation had to be carefully weighed against the objectives of the Act. The requirement for consent (either express or implied) is fundamental to the Act. Any exemptions must be clearly targeted towards specific activity not intended to be captured in order to maintain the integrity of the legislative regime. As a result, not all requests for exemptions could be accommodated.

Since it applies broadly to commercial electronic messages, the Act captures some regular business communications that are not the types of threats that were intended to be captured within the scope of the Act. To ensure these business communications are not regulated under the Act, the Regulations include business to business exemptions for commercial electronic messages that are sent within a business, or sent between businesses that are already in a business relationship, where the messages are sent by an employee, representative, contractor or franchisee and are relevant to the business, role, function or duties of the recipients. These proposed exemptions address many of the most serious concerns raised in the consultations about the unintended application of CASL to ordinary, transactional business communications.

Stakeholders were concerned that they could not directly act upon referrals from friends, family and clients without first garnering consent. The proposed “third party referral” exemption strikes a balance by allowing third party referrals without undermining the requirements that are laid out in the Act. The condition permitting the sending of only one message means the agent could only send more messages if the recipient indicated that they wished to receive them. To the recipient, the fact that the sender has to identify the individual who has provided the referral by full name allows the recipient to distinguish these messages from typical spam messages. It also permits the recipient to contact the person providing the referral directly to notify them that they do not wish to be referred by that individual in the future. In addition to proposing this exemption, Industry Canada and the CRTC are exploring the use of interpretational guidelines and other guidance material to provide clarity regarding how referral marketing can occur under CASL.

Industry stakeholders raised concerns that the Act captures non-transactional business communications that are required by law or that are sent to enforce a legal right. For instance, in some circumstances, businesses are required to send messages that may be seen as commercial electronic messages, such as warranty or recall information, or electronic bank statements. In other cases, businesses may choose to use electronic communications to enforce legal rights, such as sending notification of violations of copyright. To ensure that CASL does not interfere with these business practices, the proposed Regulations include exemptions for messages sent due to a legal obligation or to enforce a pending or existing legal right.

Another example concerns responses to inquiries. While the legislation includes an exemption for individuals to contact businesses to inquire about their business, no exemption is provided for businesses to respond to such inquiries. Furthermore, since consent is defined in the Act, there is no existing mechanism to infer consent for these communications. Requiring unsubscribe mechanisms or consent in these circumstances would impede legitimate business, would not be consistent with consumer expectations, and would not advance the goals of the legislation. To address these concerns, the proposed Regulations include an exemption for messages sent in response to requests.

Another issue raised by stakeholders concerned the application of the Act to messages sent by foreign businesses and accessed while the recipient was visiting Canada. CASL applies to messages sent from or received in Canada. Therefore, the Act would apply to a message sent from a foreign country to a resident of that country even if the message was sent in compliance with their local laws, but accessed while the recipient was visiting Canada. An exemption is proposed to limit the application of CASL so it does not apply when the sender could not reasonably have been expected to know their messages would be accessed in Canada.

Telecommunication service providers and other network service providers had argued for exemptions from the requirement for consent to install software to prevent unauthorized or fraudulent use of a service or system, or to update or upgrade systems on their networks. The exemptions proposed are more limited, allowing installation of computer programs without prior consent where illegal activities pose a threat to the TSP’s networks, or where required for network-wide updates or upgrades. TSPs will continue to need consent to install software to prevent legal activities that are merely unauthorized or suspicious, or where an installation is not required for a system-wide upgrade or update.

Issues to be addressed in compliance guidelines

A number of stakeholders have interpreted the scope of the legislation more broadly than intended. These interpretations led to concerns that the legislation is overly broad in application. In these instances, to clarify the intended scope of the Act, guidelines are more appropriate than regulations. Industry Canada and the CRTC are exploring the use of interpretational guidelines and other guidance material to provide clarity where appropriate.

In particular, some readers have interpreted the term “commercial electronic message” to include any messages sent in the course of a commercial activity, leading to concerns that it includes messages such as confirmations of successful unsubscribes or courtesy SMS messages sent to roaming customers. The definition of a “commercial electronic message” is limited in the Act to a message that encourages participation in a commercial activity. To the extent that a message is sent in a commercial context but does not fall within the definition of a commercial electronic message provided in CASL, it is not a commercial electronic message for the purposes of the Act.

Another example is the concern that it would be difficult to satisfy identification and unsubscribe requirements on popular social networking services or instant messaging services. Currently, where they are not sent to electronic addresses, the publication of blog posts or other publications on microblogging and social media sites is not within the intended scope of the Act.

Issues that are not addressed in the proposed Regulations

Some issues that were raised by stakeholders are not addressed in the proposed Regulations. While a full review of these issues was undertaken and regulatory options were explored, these were issues that were within the intended scope of CASL.

For instance, some stakeholders argued that consents obtained under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) should be valid as consent under CASL. In some cases, where there is neither an exemption nor any form of consent under CASL, some businesses that may have been compliant with PIPEDA when seeking consent to collect or to use electronic addresses to send commercial electronic messages may no longer be able to contact those addresses under CASL. In order to increase the level of transparency in electronic marketing and advance the purpose of the Act, CASL is intended to create a higher threshold for the collection and use of consent for the particular activities being regulated. Furthermore, to ease the transition for businesses, a transitional period is provided for the first three years after the Act comes into force. During this time, consent will be implied for three years for those contacts with whom businesses already have an existing business relationship when the Act comes into force.

Another issue concerns the ability for businesses in Canada to send commercial electronic messages to recipients outside of the country on behalf of foreign organizations. Some stakeholders argued in their submissions that CASL would put Canadian businesses at a competitive disadvantage sending commercial electronic messages outside of Canada on behalf of foreign businesses. Analysis indicated that an exemption allowing Canadian businesses to send commercial electronic messages to non-business recipients outside of Canada would create the potential for abuse since these commercial communications would be subject only to the other country’s legislation, if any. Given concerns that such an exemption would create a loophole that could be abused by spammers, and the difficulties inherent in determining the lawfulness of activities in foreign jurisdictions, the suggested exemption is not included in these proposed Regulations in order to maintain the intended balance in the Act.

Other stakeholders noted that manufacturers may not have direct relationships with end users of their products, in which case they would not have express or implied consent to send them commercial electronic messages. For instance, manufacturers of motor vehicles may not have any relationship with the customer that is recognized under the Act to create implied consent and, as a result, the manufacturer would not be able to send them commercial electronic messages. A regulatory solution is not currently proposed for this issue. An exemption for any manufacturer would be far too broad as it would include manufacturers of all products including where the customer would have no knowledge or expectation that they may send them commercial electronic messages. In addition, other proposed regulatory exemptions, such as for messages sent pursuant to a legal obligation, would ensure that CASL would not interfere with manufacturers’ ability to fulfil their legal responsibilities, such as sending warranty or recall information where required by law.

Finally, some stakeholders argued that the previously pre-published proposed regulation on commercial electronic messages sent by “unknown third parties” was too complex and would result in increased costs for businesses to comply with CASL. It has been decided not to alter the original proposed regulation. The principle behind the original regulation was that it must be as clear as possible who will be using a person’s consent, and a person must be able to use the unsubscribe mechanism in a commercial electronic message to withdraw the consent they originally provided. While the proposed regulation may require businesses to track consents as they are shared among third parties, the burden is not unduly onerous, and no alternative regulatory approach was identified. In addition, sharing consents among unknown third parties is not consistent with the existing industry best practices, which encourage businesses to centralize the management of consents with the sending organization.

7. Rationale

These Regulations provide clarity and legal certainty regarding key terms in Canada’s Anti-spam Legislation in order to effectively combat spam and related threats in Canada, and provide relief to businesses through targeted exemptions where the broad application of the Act would otherwise impede business activities that are not within the intended scope of the legislation. While the incremental impacts of these Regulations in terms of benefits and costs are expected to be very modest, it is anticipated that the benefits of the exemptions from the legislative regime will outweigh the costs.

8. Implementation, enforcement and service standards

There are no specific plans for implementation, enforcement or service standards related to these particular Regulations beyond the overall plans of the Government for effective implementation of Canada’s Anti-spam Legislation. Some of these broader efforts related to implementing the Act include the “Fight Spam” Web site at http://fightspam.gc.ca, the Spam Reporting Centre, education and awareness campaigns, as well as training of compliance and enforcement personnel.

9. Contact

Bruce Wallace
Director
Security and Privacy Policy
Digital Policy Branch/Spectrum, Information Technologies and Telecommunications
Industry Canada
Telephone: 613-949-4759
Email: Bruce.Wallace@ic.gc.ca

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to subsection 64(1) of An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act (see footnote a), proposes to make the annexed Electronic Commerce Protection Regulations.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Bruce Wallace, Director, Security and Privacy Policy, Digital Policy Branch, Department of Industry, Jean Edmonds Tower North, 18th Floor, Room 1891D, 300 Slater St., Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C8 (tel.: 613-949-4759; fax: 613-941-1164; email: Bruce.Wallace@ic.gc.ca).

Ottawa, December 13, 2012

JURICA ČAPKUN
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

ELECTRONIC COMMERCE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

DEFINITION

1. In these Regulations, “Act” means An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act.

FAMILY RELATIONSHIP AND PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP

2. For the purposes of paragraph 6(5)(a) of the Act

• (a) “family relationship” means the relationship between individuals who are connected by
  • (i) a blood relationship, if one individual is the child or other descendant of the other individual, the parent or grandparent of the other individual, the brother or sister of the other individual or is of collateral descent from the other individual’s grandparent,
    
  • (ii) marriage, if one individual is married to the other individual or to an individual connected by a blood relationship to that other individual,
    
  • (iii) a common-law partnership, if one individual is in a common-law partnership with the other individual or with an individual who is connected by a blood relationship to that other individual, or
    
  • (iv) adoption, if one individual has been adopted, either legally or in fact, as the child of the other individual or as the child of an individual who is connected by a blood relationship to that other individual; and
• (b) “personal relationship” means the relationship between an individual who sends the message and the individual to whom the message is sent, if
  • (i) those individuals have had direct, voluntary, two-way communications and it would be reasonable to conclude that the relationship is personal taking into consideration all relevant factors such as the sharing of interests, experiences, opinions and information evidenced in the communications, the frequency of communication, the length of time since the parties communicated and if the parties have met in person, and
    
  • (ii) the person to whom the message is sent has not indicated that they no longer wish to receive any commercial electronic messages, or any specified class of such messages, from the person who sent the message.

EXCLUDED COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MESSAGES

3. Section 6 of the Act does not apply to a commercial electronic message

• (a) that is sent by an employee, representative, contractor or franchisee of an organization
  • (i) to another employee, representative, contractor or franchisee of the organization and that concerns the affairs of the organisation, or
    
  • (ii) to an employee, representative, contractor or franchisee of another organization if the organizations have a business relationship at the time the message was sent and the message concerns the affairs of the organization or that person’s role, functions or duties within or on behalf of the organization;
• (b) that is sent in response to a request, inquiry, complaint or is otherwise solicited by the person to whom the message is sent;
  
• (c) that is sent or caused or permitted to be sent by a person located outside Canada or that is sent from a computer system located outside Canada and that relates to a product, good, service or organization located or provided outside Canada that is accessed using a computer system located in Canada if the person sending the message did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that the message would be accessed using a computer system located in Canada; or
  
• (d) that is sent to
  • (i) satisfy a legal or juridical obligation,
    
  • (ii) provide notice of an existing or pending right, legal or juridical obligation, court order, judgment or tariff,
    
  • (iii) enforce a right, legal or juridical obligation, court order, judgment or tariff, or
    
  • (iv) enforce a right arising under a law of Canada, of a province or municipality of Canada or of a foreign state.

4. (1) Paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Act does not apply to the first commercial electronic message that is sent by an individual for the purpose of contacting the individual to whom the message is sent following any referral by one or more individuals who have an existing business relationship, an existing non-business relationship, a personal relationship or a family relationship with the individual who sends the message as well as any of those relationships with the individual to whom the message is sent and that discloses the full name of the individual or individuals who made the referral and states that the message is sent as a result of the referral.

(2) Individuals referred to in subsection (1) have an existing business relationship or an existing non-business relationship, as defined in subsection 10(10) or (13) of the Act, respectively.

CONDITIONS FOR USE OF CONSENT

5. (1) For the purposes of paragraph 10(2)(b) of the Act, a person who obtained express consent on behalf of a person whose identity was unknown may authorize any person to use the consent on the condition that the person who obtained consent ensures that, in any commercial electronic message sent to the person from whom consent was obtained,

• (a) the person who obtained consent is identified; and
  
• (b) the authorized person provides an unsubscribe mechanism that, in addition to meeting the requirements set out in section 11 of the Act, allows the person from whom consent was obtained to withdraw their consent from the person who obtained consent or any other person who is authorized to use the consent.

(2) The person who obtained consent must ensure that, on receipt of an indication of withdrawal of consent by the authorized person who sent the commercial electronic message, that authorized person notifies the person who obtained consent that consent has been withdrawn from, as the case may be,

• (a) the person who obtained consent;
  
• (b) the authorized person who sent the commercial electronic message; or
  
• (c) any other person who is authorized to use the consent.

(3) The person who obtained consent must without delay inform a person referred to in paragraph (2)(c) of the withdrawal of consent on receipt of a notification of withdrawal of consent from that person.

(4) The person who obtained consent must give effect to a withdrawal of consent in accordance with subsection 11(3) of the Act, and, if applicable, ensure that a person referred to in paragraph (2)(c) does the same.

SPECIFIED COMPUTER PROGRAMS

6. The following computer programs are specified for the purposes of subparagraph 10(8)(a)(vi) of the Act:

• (a) a program that is installed by or on behalf of a telecommunications service provider solely to prevent activities that the telecommunications service provider reasonably believes are in contravention of an Act of Parliament and which present an imminent risk to the security of its network; or
  
• (b) a program that is installed, for the purpose of updating or upgrading the network, by or on behalf of the telecommunications service provider who owns or operates the network on the computer systems that constitute all or part of the network.

MEMBERSHIP, CLUB, ASSOCIATION AND VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION

7. (1) For the purposes of paragraph 10(13)(c) of the Act, membership is the status of having been accepted as a member of a club, association or voluntary organization in accordance with its membership requirements.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph 10(13)(c) of the Act, a club, association or voluntary organization is a non-profit organization that is organized and operated exclusively for social welfare, civic improvement, pleasure or recreation or for any purpose other than profit, if no part of its income is payable to, or otherwise available for the personal benefit of any proprietor, member or shareholder of that organization unless the proprietor, member or shareholder is an organization whose primary purpose is the promotion of amateur athletics in Canada.

COMING INTO FORCE

8. These Regulations come into force on the day on which sections 6 to 11 and subsection 64(1) of An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act, chapter 23 of the Statutes of Canada, 2010, come into force, but if they are registered after that day, they come into force on the day on which they are registered.

[1-1-o]