Sep 30

The new Spectrum Management System and the RSP-100

On January 20, 2016 Innovation, Science and Economics Canada (formerly Industry Canada) gave notice that they are  releasing the following documents:

Issue 11 of RSP‑100 has been significantly changed from the previous issue due primarily to the implementation of the Department’s new online Spectrum Applications Modernization – Commercial Software Implementation (SAM‑CSI) tool and Issue 6 of DC-01 has also been changed significantly from the previous issue from the implementation of the SAM-CSI tool.

Those wishing to certify radio equipment will now need to do so through the Spectrum website which can be found here.
The services offered through the new Spectrum Management System include certification, registration of terminal equipment, registration of wireless test sites and various search tools. The new Spectrum Management System offers a more streamlined and effective approach for registering and certifying radio apparatuses with Innovation, Science and Economics Canada.
The requirement for out of country applicants to have a Canadian Representative remains.
As before clients  are required to apply for certification or registration of specific equipment types, the certifications and registrations which are available through the new Spectrum Management System are listed below:

  • New Single Product Certification/Registration
  • New Family Product Certification/Registration
  • Add New Product to Existing Certification/Registration (C1PC, C2PC)
  • Product Modification (C3PC, C4PC)
  • Multiple Listing of Certification/Registration
  • Full Transfer of Certification/Registration
  • Partial Transfer of Certification/Registration
  • New Test Site Registration
  • Renew Test Site Registration
  • Telecommunications Apparatus Register (TAR)

For our current clients, if you currently hold an equipment certification or registration, your existing account structure and account number will remain the same.

New clients and new companies will be given an account number generated by the Spectrum Management System. For accounts with multiples services, new Spectrum Management System account numbers will be generated sequentially. These changes will not effect certification or registration numbers, these numbers will remain the same and can be used as an identifier when obtaining services from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.
The new changes to the system allow for us to provide more efficient applications to our Canadian Representative clients concerning RSP-100 certifications. The modernization of the application system by virtue of the Spectrum Management System is a welcome change the we are certain our Canadian Representative clients will be able to take advantage of.
If you have any questions or would like more information regarding radio equipment certification in Canada (RSP-100 and others) or require a Canadian Representative for your application to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (formerly Industry Canada), call or email Koby Smutylo at 613 869 5440 or koby@lawyercorporation.ca.

 

Post in: blog, Canadian Representative
Jul 15

New – Reporting Requirements for Prospectus Exemptions

Further amendments were made to the Prospectus Exemptions on July 7th 2016. The Ontario Securities Commission has introduced a new harmonized report of exempt distribution. The amendment aims to reduce reporting requirements for foreign issuers conducting offerings into Canada and creates a new reporting form (Form 45 -106F1). Previously, all issuers and underwriters were required to identify whether a purchaser is a registrant or an insider of the issuer. The amendment now excludes certain issuers from this reporting requirement. Those issuers who are (a) a foreign public issuer, (b) a wholly owned subsidiary of a foreign public issuer or (c) distributing eligible foreign securities only to permitted clients will not need to disclose whether a purchaser is a registrant or an insider of the issuer.

 

The amendment follows concerns expressed by foreign issuers and dealers conducting offerings into Canada about the reporting requirements. Following the amendment and relaxed reporting requirements offerings into Canada should appeal to foreign issuers and dealers.

 

If you have any questions or would like more information regarding the Exempt Market or Private Placement Exemptions, call or email Koby Smutylo at 613 869 5440 or koby@lawyercorporation.ca.

 

The Prospectus and Registration Exemptions can be found online here and links to amendments and announcements from the commission can be found here.

 

Post in: blog
Jun 28

New – General Requirements for Compliance of Radio Apparatus

On November 13, 2014, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (formerly Industry Canada) released a new issue of RSS0Gen – General Requirements for Compliance of Radio Apparatus, which describes the various technical requirements and processes required when establishing compliance of radio apparatus that is used for radio communication technology other than broadcasting.  These amended requirements and processes come into force

 

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08449.html

Post in: blog
Jun 28

Notice re RSP – 100 – Certification of Radio Apparatus

Companies applying to certify radio apparatus and broadcasting equipment should ensure that they follow the updated RSP – 100 – Certification of Radio Apparatus released by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (formerly Industry Canada) in November, 2014.

On

November 13, 2014, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada released “The Radio Standards Procedure for Certification of Radio Apparatus (RSP-100 Issue 10)“, which sets out the requirements for certification of radio apparatus and broadcasting equipment in Canada.  Also on November 13, 2014, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (formerly Industry Canada) released “RSS-Gen- General Requirements for Compliance of Radio Apparatus” .

What’s New? 

(1)  Issue 10 of RSP-100 has been entirely modified. There are numerous changes to the content including the numbering of sections. Consequently, all changes may not be captured in this list.

 

(2)  Sections 2.3, 2.4, 3, 4, and 7 have been added to RSP-100, Issue 10; they were previously in RSS-Gen, Issue 3.

 

(2.7) Licence-Exempt Radio Apparatus

Certain types of radio apparatus are permitted to operate without licensing from Industry Canada. These are typically low-output power devices that are intended primarily for consumer or commercial applications.

Licence-exempt (unlicensed) radio apparatus share spectrum with licensed radio services and must operate on a no‑interference, no-protection basis in relation to all other radio systems. Licence-exempt radio apparatus may not cause radio interference to, and cannot claim protection from interference caused by, licensed radio services.

(4.5) Transfer of a Certification

Certification ownership may be transferred from the current owner to a new entity that wishes to assume all of the previous owner’s responsibilities associated with the certificate. To transfer the ownership, the new entity shall send a letter to the Bureau providing a copy of a signed letter from the current certificate holder, authorizing the Department to transfer the ownership from the current owner to the new entity and change the certificate file information to reflect the new owner’s information. The letter must also attest that the equipment covered by the certificate is identical in design and construction to the originally-approved model.

A completed and signed copy of Annex A is also required.

(5) Modification of Certified Radio Equipment

5.1  General

Modifications to certified radio equipment may require re-certification of the radio equipment. The certificate holder shall inform the certification body or the Department of any changes that may affect compliance with the technical requirements of the standards under which the device was originally certified. These changes may require either complete or partial re-testing. Full details shall be submitted to the certification body or to the Department, including any test results where applicable.

5.2  Class I Permissive Change

A Class I permissive change includes those modifications in the radio equipment that:

  • do not change the electrical characteristics beyond the rated limits established by the manufacturer;
  • do not change external or internal mechanical characteristics significantly enough to require new photographs to identify the modified radio equipment; and
  • do not change the model number.

A Class I permissive change does not require notification to Industry Canada. However, when Class I permissible changes are made, the certificate holder must ensure that the attestation of compliance with RSS-102, last submitted, continues to be valid.

5.3 Class II Permissive Change

A Class II permissive change includes those modifications in the radio equipment which do change the electrical characteristics beyond the rated limits established by the manufacturer, without violating the minimum requirements of the applicable standard. A Class II permissive change requires notification to Industry Canada. However, when Class II permissible changes are made, the certificate holder must ensure that the attestation of compliance with RSS-102, last submitted, continues to be valid.

(6.2) Post-certification Audits, Investigations and Quality Control

Post-certification audits will be conducted by the Bureau and the CB in order to ensure continuing compliance. The Department may request from a certificate holder random radio equipment samples at the certificate holder’s expense for post-certification audit testing, or as a result of radio interference complaints. In the event of an investigation of non-compliance, the certificate holder will be asked to provide to the Department records of the quality control process, as well as any relevant information that would help to identify issues related to compliance. It is expected that all certificate holders will be able to demonstrate a quality control process used for production inspection and testing in accordance with good engineering practices.

Our Canadian Representative Service includes a free non-obligation consultation that offers reasonable guidance of how to efficiently get a license for certified equipment for your business.

 

If you have any questions or would like more information regarding radio equipment certification in Canada or require a Canadian Representative for your application to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (formerly Industry Canada), call or email Koby Smutylo at 613 869 5440 or koby@lawyercorporation.ca.

Call-to-action

 

 

 

 

 

 

Post in: blog
Apr 21

Industry Canada Now Part of Newly Created “Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada”

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada was recently formed by Canada’s Trudeau government by the amalgamation of Industry Canada and the Ministry for Science and Technology. The motive here is clear, to closer associate science and technology with economic growth and development. As technology becomes a key driver of economic growth it has become clear that governments must engage and foster the science and technology sectors. While economies have always been directly linked to technology and innovation, they have rarely been governed or regulated as one industry. The recent reorganization of Industry Canada is the first sign of the new government recognizing the intrinsic link between the two sectors and the pivotal role they will play in Canada’s future. Foreign technology companies operating in Canada might be wondering how exactly this restructuring will affect them, particularly might their obligations change under the new ministry. Additionally, will the pairing of Industry Canada and the Ministry of Science and Technology possibly open new avenues for investment or streamline business processes.

Simply, for companies applying to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada for certification or registration of wireless products under RSP-100 there will be no material change of substance or procedure. Similarly, compliance and liaison obligations will remain the same for the time being. For our clients this means business as usual and in case of change our clients will be duly notified and the proper arrangements and corrections will be made.

In the long run, this coupling of ministries could signify new opportunities for our wireless technologies clients. As developments occur and the nature of this fledgling organization becomes clear we will actively bring to our clients opportunities for growth. We do forecast that reporting across our clients organization will be come streamlined, as prior compliance to the Ministry of Science and Technology mandates and those of Industry Canada will now be owed to one organization. This will result in improved communication and report with the Ministry and sprout long lasting relationships. Clients wishing to explore consolidation of reporting or legislation compliance should contact Smutylo Law+ to explore their options.

If you have any questions or would like more information regarding Industry Canada; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; Canadian Representatives or RSP-100 (Certification of Radio Apparatus) procedures call or email Koby Smutylo at 613 869 5440 or koby@lawyercorporation.ca.

Post in: blog
Feb 24

Allard et al v. Canada Federal Court Decision Favours Patient’s Rights and LPs

Today, Judge Michael Phelan delivered his long awaited decision. Judge Phelan ruled that prohibiting medical marijuana patients from growing their medical marijuana violates their Section 7 rights under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He declared the MMPR unconstitutional and therefor invalid; however, he suspended his declaration of invalidity for six months to allow the government to come up with new regulations. For Licensed Producers and MMAR producers and users nothing has changed for now, but big changes within six months are now certain.

The government has six months before the Court’s declaration of invalidity becomes effective. The government has three choices: 1) amend the MMPR to make it constitutional, 2) enact a new or parallel medical marijuana regime that renders the regulatory regime constitutional or 3) do nothing and let the MMPR die in which case marijuana possession and production of any kind (including under the MMPR) would become criminal, except that specific enforcement activity would be constrained by the Charter i.e. persons with a medical prescription or authorization would be entitled to possess, use, grow and/or distribute marijuana.

Our view is that the government is likely to amend the MMPR and enact a parallel medical marijuana regime for individuals and personal caregivers and that both patients and LPs have good reason to celebrate the Court’s decision in Allard.

Here’s why the future regulatory regime is likely to be good for patients and LPs:

– the regime is likely to include the right for individuals to grow their own medicine and, potentially, for other individuals under their personal care;
– the regime is likely to permit patients to access marijuana in the quantity (i.e. grams/day) and format (i.e. oils, edibles and concentrations) prescribed by doctors;
– there will be additional legal sources for LPs and individuals to legally obtain starting materials;
– it may become easier for patients to source marijuana from more than one LP;
– more licenses will be granted under the MMPR to increase the quantity and variety of the available supply and to promote affordability for patients;
– there is no constitutional basis for regulating the pricing practices of LPs; and
– LPs may be permitted to open retail locations so that the legal supply available to patients is made more accessible.

In our view, the future regulatory regime will not include MMAR-like dispensaries and other “grey area” license pools because that structure was allowed to exist as a result of the constitutional flaws in the MMAR and the MMPR. If the government gets it right or, at least more right, the constitutional basis for permitting large-scale illegal growing and selling will disappear.

The future regulatory regime is likely to put more pressure on doctors as not just the gatekeepers but also the quantitative and qualitative regulators. Any government imposed limits, i.e. 5 grams per day, are arbitrary and unconstitutional. In addition, municipal governments could soon be faced with passing by-laws applicable to home marijuana production activities.

On the other hand, the government could avoid having to design, implement and administer a constitutionally valid regulatory regime for medical marijuana by legalizing uncontrolled marijuana access for all Canadians. While this solution would be appealing for its simplicity, it is highly unlikely for public safety and lost tax-revenue reasons. Also, Canada would be in violation of United Nations treaties to which it is a signatory.

If you have any questions or would like more information regarding the Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations or applying to be a licensed producer under the MMPR, call or email Koby Smutylo at 613 869 5440 or koby@lawyercorporation.ca.

Post in: blog
Jan 14

The Exempt Market provides four new ways to raise capital in Ontario

The Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”) is adopting four new private placement exemptions:

• a crowdfunding exemption;
• an offering memorandum exemption;
• a family, friends and business associates exemption; and
• an exemption that allows a reporting issuer to issue securities to its existing security holders.

Crowd Funding Exemption

The emergence of crowdfunding as not only a viable but popular method to raise capital has induced to Commission to include a crowdfunding regime as a Prospectus Exemption. The crowdfunding regime will allow businesses to raise capital through a registered online portal. The portal will be registered with the securities regulatory authorities and allow businesses to raise up to $1.5 million during a 12 month period. The intention of the Commission is to develop crowdfunding as capital growth option for start-up and SMEs.

Investments must be made through a single registered crowdfunding portal and must be accompanied by a risk acknowledgement form. The limits imposed on investors taking advantage of the crowdfunding regime are as follows:

Investors who do not qualify as an accredited investor:
○ $2,500 per investment
○ In Ontario only, an annual limit of $10,000

Investors who qualify as an accredited investor:
○ $25,000 per investment
○ In Ontario only an annual limit of $50,000

A special limit applies to those who qualify as a permitted client, those who have net financial assets exceeding $5 million are not subject to any investment limits in Ontario only. The crowdfunding exemption will come into effect in Ontario on January 25, 2016.

Offering Memorandum Exemption

The offering memorandum exemption will allow businesses to raise capital on the basis that an offering memorandum is made available to investors. Operating under this exemption will exempt investors from the Prospectus Requirements. The offering memorandum exemption requires that a comprehensive disclosure document is delivered to investors at the point of sale and various reports are provided to investors, such as audited annual financial statements.

Investors who utilize this exemption are subject to investment limits. Non-eligible investors as defined by the Commission are limited to $10,000 in a 12 month period while eligible investors are limited to $30,000 in a 12 month period. Those eligible investors that receive advice from a portfolio manager, investment dealer or exempt market dealer that an investment above $30,000 is suitable may invest up to $100,000 in a 12 month period. Investors who wish to utilize this exemption must sign a risk acknowledgement form. The offering memorandum exemption came into force in Ontario on January 13th, 2016.

Family, Friends and Business Associates Exemption

The family, friends and close business associates exemption (“FFBA”) allows issuers to raise capital from a range of persons in close proximity to them. Those that fall under this exemption range from immediate family such as parents, spouses and siblings to close personal friends and affiliates. In Ontario, the issuer must obtain a risk acknowledgement form from those employing this exemption. It is worth noting that investment funds are unable to rely on the FFBA Exemption in Ontario. The FFBA exemption into force in Ontario on May 5, 2015.

Existing Security Holder Exemption

The existing security holder exemption allows for publicly listed companies on four Canadian exchanges to raise capital from existing investors on reliance of that company’s public disclosure record. Investors are limited to $15,000 per 12 months, however on advice from a portfolio manager, exempt market dealer or investment dealer can the limit can be removed. The existing security holder exemption came into force in Ontario on February 11th, 2015.

If you have any questions or would like more information regarding the Exempt Market or Private Placement Exemptions, call or email Koby Smutylo at 613 869 5440 or koby@lawyercorporation.ca.

The Prospectus and Registration Exemptions can be found online here and links to amendments and announcements from the commission can be found here.

Call-to-action

Post in: blog
Oct 27

Radio Equipment User Manual Notice Requirement for Certification

Radio equipment of any kind, including bluetooth and Wifi devices, must meet specific Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (formerly Industry Canada) regulatory requirements and technical standards before it can be imported, sold or used in Canada. The process of demonstrating compliance to Industry Canada is called “certification”. Over the last few years, we have served as the Canadian Representative of many foreign manufacturers of radio devices applying to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (formerly Industry Canada) for certification under Canada’s technical standards outlined in RSS-210 and RSS-310 as well as other regulatory requirements. While the certification process is fairly straightforward, sometimes we are asked to clarify certain of the requirements. For example, recently, we were asked by a client whether the user manual of a particular radio product is required to include any specific notice. We answered in the affirmative: pursuant to section 8.4 of RSS-Gen, notice must be displayed in a conspicuous location, either in the user manual or on the device, or both, that the device complies with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s license-exempt RSSs and that operation of the device is subject to the following two conditions: the device may not cause interference and the device must accept any interference, including interference that may cause undesired operation of the device. In addition, we thought it prudent to draw the client’s attention to the requirement in RSP1-100 that the notice must be in both English and French and that variable formats are acceptable for providing the notice (i.e., in paper form, CD, DVD, or insert with download link on the company’s website).

We are always pleased to be called upon to assist our foreign clients navigate the sometimes confusing Canadian regulatory environment and, best of all, for those companies that have appointed us as their Canadian Representative, there is no extra charge for this guidance.

If you have any questions or would like more information regarding the Radio Equipment Certification Procedure or Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, call or email Koby Smutylo at 613 869 5440 or koby@lawyercorporation.ca.

Call-to-action

 

 

Post in: blog
Jun 12

Here is why the R. v. Smith SCC decision is good for MMPR Licensed Producers?

The Supreme Court of Canada’s release of the R. v. Smith decision yesterday morning was greeted with much excitement by patients, activists and Licensed Producers (“LPs”) under Canada’s Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulation (“MMPR”).  For patients and activists the significance and impact of the decision are fairly obvious.  For LPs, the significance is a little less obvious.

Since LPs are governed by, and licensed under, the MMPR, until the MMPR is amended LPs may only legally sell dried marijuana.  R. v. Smith doesn’t change this reality.  Nonetheless, the R. v. Smith ruling is good for LPs.

In order for the MMPR to be a viable alternative to the illegal market, Health Canada will eventually change the law to permit LPs to produce and sell extracts.  Because patients want extracts and edibles, this will help LPs gain market share at the expense of the illegal cannabis market and the MMAR grandfathered market.  Furthermore, by allowing LPs to produce extracts and edibles, LPs will be able (i) to differentiate their product offering from other LPs, (ii) use more of the cannabis plan (i.e. plant product that is now garbage can be used to create extracts) (iii) create higher margin product and (iv) expand the patient market to include persons that would not use cannabis treatment if smoking is the only available method of ingestion.

If you have any questions or would like more information regarding applying to be a licensed producer under the MMPR, Canada’s Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, call or email Koby Smutylo at 613 869 5440 or koby@lawyercorporation.ca.

Call-to-action

Post in: blog
Jun 11

What does the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v. Smith mean for patients, MMAR producers and MMPR licensed producers?

Earlier this morning, we published a concise summary of the SCC’s decision in R. v. Smith released today. See here. While the Court’s decision is clear, what is less clear is what it means for those patients authorized to possess and use marijuana for medical purposes under Canada’s MMAR and MMPR, for “Designated-Person” producers under Canada’s MMAR and for “Licensed Producers” under Canada’s MMPR.

For patients authorized to possess and use medical marijuana under the MMAR or the MMPR, the significance of the R. v. Smith ruling is clear: persons legally authorized to possess marijuana may legally create, possess and consume non-dried forms of medical marijuana.

For “Designated-Person” producers under Canada’s MMAR and “Licensed Producers” under Canada’s MMPR, the decision should not be interpreted as authorizing them to process and sell marijuana in forms other than dried. The Supreme Court did not rule on this issue. In fact, in R. v. Smith the constitutionality of the criminal charges against Mr. Smith was not challenged. Rather, at the trial level the Crown chose not to adduce any evidence and, as a result, Mr. Smith was acquitted.

If you have any questions or would like more information regarding applying to be a licensed producer under the MMPR, Canada’s Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, call or email Koby Smutylo at 613 869 5440 or koby@lawyercorporation.ca.

Call-to-action

Post in: blog
Next Page »

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.