Nobody actually did call it that. The guy who runs TrekMovie interviewed Roberto Orci and browbeat him into saying it was canon until he finally gave in and agreed just to shut the guy up, and then Orci walked it back in the comments hours later. But that was all it took for a stupid rumor to take off and thrive in blithe contempt for the facts
I remember that article. I was a poster on Trekmovie at the time and it was a bit shocking to me to read the article. Even back then I had known canon was only what was on screen. And I remember Bob Orci posting there later that he misspoke.
Anthony Pascale usually did ok with his articles. In his defense I think he just got a bit overexcited and got carried away. He shouldn't have, but it happens. And Orci cleared things up later on.
But for Star Trek I don't think it's ever been ambiguous. Canon is on screen. End of story. Maybe Star Wars had a bit more grey area at one time (I don't follow them as closely but have heard about things like different levels of canon and so forth), but they've learned that even in their case it's what's on screen.
And canon is not the same as continuity (a trap I'll admit I fall into myself). If the current shows want to include tie ins in their continuity they are certainly free to do so, but they are not bound to do so. They seem to want more internal consistency with the tie ins but that won't stop them from writing something inconsistent with a tie in if they feel it's necessary, as they did with "Desperate Hours"
And again, for fans, we don't even need to worry about canon. We've been told that. Only tie in writers have to worry about it, and only because they have to follow the canon in their own works. For fans, it's a non issue. For years I followed the litverse continuity and considered it part of the continuing story of TNG, DS9, etc. I never let it not being canon stop me. The only difference is because of Picard I have to treat it as an alternate reality/timeline.
As far as the contract goes. The original poster seems to at least think they have insider information that they are teasing out. But as Greg Cox has noted, until I see something actually change I'm not sweating it. Viacom is selling S&S, we know that. Star Trek is a small piece of that very large pie. I'm sure a profitable one, one that S&S I imagine they would like to keep since they have a build in fan base. I'm finding it hard to believe Viacom is going to sell S&S and rip the Star Trek contract away from them. What benefit would there be. Viacom is getting out of publishing--I would think they'd want to leave things as is with S&S, at least until the contract is up. A potential buyer may like that Star Trek tie ins are part of the package going in and it could be a selling point for them.
And if Captain Xavi is sharing insider info that he's not supposed to, well, hope you don't lose your job over it if you're discovered. But call me a skeptic.
