More obit­u­ar­ies on page B11

The Guardian (Charlottetown) - - OBITUARIES / BUSINESS -

The amount house­holds owe, rel­a­tive to their in­come, crept higher in the sec­ond quar­ter, even as mort­gage bor­row­ing con­tin­ued to slow, Sta­tis­tics Canada said.

The agency said Fri­day credit mar­ket debt as a pro­por­tion of house­hold dis­pos­able in­come in­creased to 169.1 per cent as growth in debt out­paced in­come.

In other words, Cana­di­ans owed $1.69 in credit mar­ket debt for ev­ery dol­lar of house­hold dis­pos­able in­come.

The ra­tio was up from 168.3 per cent in the first quar­ter, how­ever it was down from 169.7 per cent in the sec­ond quar­ter last year.

BMO Cap­i­tal Mar­kets eco­nomic an­a­lyst Priscilla Thi­ag­amoor­thy noted the in­crease was “well be­low sea­sonal norms” and one of the small­est sec­ond-quar­ter in­creases since 2000.

“De­spite edg­ing slightly higher in Q2, the closely watched house­hold debt-to-in­come ra­tio ap­pears to have fi­nally turned the cor­ner from all-time highs,” Thi­ag­amoor­thy wrote in a brief re­port. “The key take­away here is that bor­row­ing cooled with the hous­ing mar­ket as house­holds ad­justed to a slew of pol­icy changes in­clud­ing tighter mort­gage rules and grad­ual rate hikes.”

House­hold debt has been iden­ti­fied as a key vul­ner­a­bil­ity for the fi­nan­cial sys­tem by the Bank of Canada, how­ever the cen­tral bank noted ear­lier this year that the risk has less­ened.

The Supreme Court of Canada says in­ter­net ser­vice providers can re­cover some of the costs of help­ing movie com­pa­nies and other copy­right hold­ers find il­le­gal down­load­ers.

In a de­ci­sion Fri­day, the high court sides with Rogers Com­mu­ni­ca­tions in rul­ing that the com­pa­nies pur­su­ing copy­right vi­o­la­tors should re­im­burse ser­vice providers a rea­son­able amount for the ef­fort of look­ing up sub­scribers sus­pected of break­ing the law.

The 9-0 de­ci­sion could end up sav­ing Rogers and other in­ter­net providers many thou­sands of dol­lars, but the Supreme Court says the ap­pro­pri­ate fees should be de­cided at a fu­ture Fed­eral Court hear­ing.

The case be­gan when Volt­age Pic­tures and sev­eral other movie pro­duc­tion firms asked Rogers for in­for­ma­tion about an al­leged vi­o­la­tor un­der pro­vi­sions of the Copy­right Act.

Rogers re­trieved the in­for­ma­tion but agreed to dis­close it only

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.