Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, Supreme Court of Canada

• Pages: 1-2

i

(2018) 4 CJCCL

Foreword

Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella

Supreme Court of Canada

The Canadian Journal of Comparative and Contemporary Law has

produced yet another invaluable intellectual contribution to yet

another intellectually dynamic area of law. To tackle the privacy issues in

Data Protection is to scrutinize the past in order to make brave predictions

about an unknowable future about technology, an overgrown f‌ield with a

haphazard array of fences in need of repair.

is volume will be an outstanding source of insights for anyone who

cares about the relationship between privacy and progress, and its impact

on who we are as individuals, as a society, and as a global community.

is core mission — assessing the future of privacy in technology’s

revolutionary wake — gets careful and probing scrutiny in this volume.

Fiona Brimblecombe and Gavin Phillipson explore the implications

of the European Union’s new “right to be forgotten” found in Article

17 of the General Data Protection Regulation, and how the Strasbourg

Court’s privacy jurisprudence has adapted to the revised informational

contours. e impact of the right to be forgotten is also developed in

Jacquelyn Burkell and Jane Bailey’s article on how unredacted online

public access to court records may have a disproportionately harmful

impact on vulnerable groups, raising interesting questions about the role

of equality rights.

Ontario’s “Privacy by Design” attempts to regulate privacy through

the introduction of facial recognition technology in some existing cameras

in casinos and the expanded use of cameras in the public transit system,

of‌fer a case study by Avner Levin into what works and what works less

well. His call for a collaborative regulatory model is echoed throughout

the volume. N.A. Moreham compares how dif‌ferent jurisdictions

(England, Ontario, and New Zealand) assess privacy interests in the torts

context, arguing that New Zealand’s test — the “high of‌fensiveness”

privacy test — is ultimately inef‌fective and should be replaced by a test