Skip to Content

Client Update: One final reminder – Are You Ready for Anti-Spam?

Any individual, business or organization that uses email, text messages or social networks to promote their products and services should take note of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation and its accompanying regulations. Effective July 1, 2014, the new law will regulate electronic interaction and communication between businesses and their customers – existing or potential.

 

SPAM – COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MESSAGES

The law creates a broad prohibition on sending, causing or permitting to be sent any type of commercial electronic message (CEM) without the express or implied consent of the recipient. CEMs must also identify the sender and their contact information as well as include an unsubscribe function. Any electronic message sent for the purpose of encouraging participation in a commercial activity, regardless of whether there is an expectation of profit, may be subject to the law’s requirements.

The law’s consent requirements create a regime where potential recipients must “opt-in” before receiving a CEM. A request for express consent must:

  • State the purpose(s) for which consent is being sought.
  • Provide the name of the person seeking consent, the name of any person on whose behalf consent is sought, the name by which either carries on business and a statement indicating which person is seeking consent and which person on whose behalf consent is sought.
  • Include the mailing address and either the phone number or email/web address of the person seeking consent or the person on whose behalf consent is sought.
  • State that consent can be withdrawn.
  • Not be bundled with other terms and conditions.

A request for consent may be obtained orally or in paper form. After July 1st, consent cannot be obtained by email or other electronic form unless the request (itself a CEM) falls under an exception from the consent requirement.

 

THE EXCEPTIONS

Importantly, there are exceptions to the requirements of the law.

Exceptions Where the Law Does Not Apply
There are some CEMs to which the law does not apply, meaning there are no consent, contact information or unsubscribe function requirements. This includes:

  • Business to Business communications: provided the organizations have a relationship and the CEM concerns the activities of the organization receiving the message.
  • Charities: provided the CEM is sent by a registered charity for the primary purpose of raising funds.

In addition, the law does not apply to:

  • Family or Personal communications.
  • Commercial Inquiry communications.
  • Internal Business communications.
  • Prompted communications.
  • Electronic Messaging services/Social Network communications.
  • Secure Account communications.
  • Foreign Destination communications.
  • Political Solicitation communications.

See our Guide referenced at the end of this update for more detail on the particulars of these exceptions.

Consent Exceptions
Express consent from the recipient is not required to send a CEM:

  • In an existing business relationship: if within the last two years there has been a purchase of products or services or the acceptance of a business or investment opportunity, or within the last six months there has been an inquiry from the recipient to the sender.
  • In an existing non-business relationship: if within the last two years there has been a donation of time or money to a registered charity, political party, organization or candidate, or, membership in a club, association or volunteer organization.
  • If the recipient has conspicuously published their email address or disclosed their address to the sender, has not indicated they do not wish to receive unsolicited CEMs and the message is relevant to the recipient’s business or official capacity.

In these situations, consent is implied. However, implied consent does not relieve the sender of the contact information and unsubscribe function requirements. Further, a recipient may revoke their implied consent at any time.

Other Exceptions for Consent
There are other exceptions where neither express nor implied consent is required to send a CEM. These include messages to:

  • Provide a quote or estimate as requested by the recipient.
  • Facilitate, complete, or confirm a commercial transaction between the sender and recipient that the recipient previously agreed to enter into with the sender.
  • Provide warranty/safety/recall/security information about a product or services used or purchased by the recipient.
  • Provide notification of factual information about an ongoing subscription, membership, account, loan or similar relationship or goods or services offered thereunder.
  • Provide information directly related to a current employment relationship or benefit plan.
  • Deliver a product, good or service, including updates and upgrades further to an existing relationship.
  • Third Party Referrals: a CEM may be sent without consent based on a referral by a third party, provided that the third party has a relationship with both the sender and recipient.

 

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU AND YOUR BUSINESS

There is no phase-in period; all commercial electronic messages must comply with the new law beginning July 1, 2014. However, there is a three-year grace period where consent to receive a message will be implied if at any time in the past there has been an existing business or non-business relationship. Penalties for contravention of the law range from up to $1 million for individuals to $10 million for businesses, corporations and organizations.

To learn more about Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation and its requirements, see our Guide to CASL.

The foregoing is intended for general information only and is not intended as legal advice. If you have any questions, visit our IP/IT Entertainment Group. For more on our firm see www.stewartmckelvey.com.

Archive

Confirming the coverage analysis: Emond v Trillium Mutual Insurance Co.

By Tipper McEwan, Shelley Wood, K.C., and Jennifer Taylor In an important case for property insurers and their counsel, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) recently reviewed the principles of…

Read More

Changes and restrictions to New Brunswick’s Atlantic Immigration Program

BY Chiara Nannucci

By Chiara Nannucci New Brunswick has introduced several updates and restrictions to applications under the Atlantic Immigration Program (“AIP”), effective February 3, 2026. These changes affect employers’ participation, applicants’ eligibility,…

Read More

Canada’s new Defence Industrial Strategy

BY Erin Best (she/her) & Robert Bradley

By Erin Best & Robert Bradley On February 17, 2026, the Government of Canada released its Defence Industrial Strategy (the “Strategy”). This follows a series of announcements highlighting the Government’s…

Read More

Timing is not everything – Alberta Human Rights Tribunal finds that termination during medical leave did not amount to discrimination

BY Jacob Zelman

By Jacob Zelman An employer has succeeded before Alberta’s Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) in a case arising from the termination of an employee shortly after he requested medical leave,…

Read More

Outlook for 2026 proxy season

By Andrew V. Burke, Colleen P. Keyes, David F. Slipp and Logan G. Walters With proxy season on the horizon, many public companies are once again preparing their annual disclosure documents and shareholder materials for…

Read More

Key trends to watch in workplace investigations in 2026

BY Sheila Mecking & John Morse

By Sheila Mecking and John Morse Upcoming Webinar: Evolving Practices in Workplace Investigations: Key Insights for 2026Join us on February 19, 2026 at 10:00 AM AST for a forward-looking discussion…

Read More

Lawrence Estate (Part II): How does a mistake affect a contract between heirs?

BY Tipper McEwan

By Tipper McEwan Four children made an agreement shortly after their mother’s death to divide any jointly held asset equally.  What none of them knew at the time was that one…

Read More

Employment law insights from Gbongbor v Multicultural Association of Fredericton

By Clarence Bennett, K.C., ICD.D, Mark Heighton, and Emma-Jean Griffin The recent decision in Gbongbor v Multicultural Association of Fredericton (“Gbongbor”)[1] from the New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench offered…

Read More

Lawrence Estate (Part I): When is a gift a gift?

BY Tipper McEwan

By Tipper McEwan The Nova Scotia Supreme Court recently heard a case that involved a gift from a parent to an adult child in Lawrence Estate v. Lawrence, 2025 NSSC…

Read More

Making 2025 changes real in 2026: A practical guide for employers

BY John Morse & Emma Jean Griffin

By John Morse and Emma Jean Griffin 2025 brought significant changes to Canadian workplace law, with courts and legislators prioritizing fairness, safety, and accountability. Employers now face new obligations around…

Read More

Search Archive