• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Court File No. 34231 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY WAY OF A REFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 18.3(1) AND 28(2) OF THE FEDERAL COURTS ACT, R.S.C. 1985, C.F-7 B E T W E E N: COGECO CABLE INC. Appellant - and - BELL MEDIA INC. (FORMERLY CTV GLOBEMEDIA INC.), CANWEST TELEVISION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, NEWFOUNDLAND BROADCASTING CO. LTD., V INTERACTIONS INC. AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents A N D B E T W E E N: ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS INC. and TELUS COMMUNICATIONS Appellants - and - BELL MEDIA INC. (FORMERLY CTV GLOBEMEDIA INC.), CANWEST TELEVISION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, NEWFOUNDLAND BROADCASTING CO. LTD., V INTERACTIONS INC. AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents A N D B E T W E E N: SHAW COMMUNICATIONS INC. Appellant - and - BELL MEDIA INC. (FORMERLY CTV GLOBEMEDIA INC.), CANWEST TELEVISION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, NEWFOUNDLAND BROADCASTING CO. LTD., V INTERACTIONS INC. AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents - and - THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (CRTC) Intervener FACTUM OF THE APPELLANT COGECO CABLE INC. (Pursuant to Rules 35 and 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) McCarthy Tétrault LLP Cavanagh Williams Conway Baxter LLP Suite 5300, Toronto-Dominion Bank Tower Suite 401 Toronto, ON M5K 1E6 1111 Prince of Wales Drive Ottawa, ON K2C 3T2 Neil Finkelstein Steven G. Mason Colin S. Baxter Daniel G.C. Glover Tel: (613) 780-2011 Tel: (416) 601-8200 Fax: (613) 569-8668 Fax: (416) 868-0673 Ottawa Agent for the Appellant Solicitors for the Appellant Cogeco Cable Inc. ORIGINAL TO: THE REGISTRAR Supreme Court of Canada 301 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0J1 COPIES TO: Parties Counsel Agent Attorney General of Canada Department of Justice Canada Civil Litigation Section, Bank of Canada Building East Tower – Room 1104 234 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8 Per: Alexander M. Gay Tel: (613) 941-2353 Fax: (613) 954-1920 Bell Canada Inc. and Bell Aliant Regional Communications, L.P. 160 Elgin Street 19th Floor Ottawa, ON K2P 2C4 Denis E. Henry Tel: (613) 785-6361 Fax: (613) 560-0472 Mr. Mirko Bibic Tel: (613) 785-0615 Fax: (613) 594-4628 Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Central Building 1 Promenade du Portage Gatineau, QC J8X 4B1 John Keogh Tel: (819) 953-3990 Valerie Dionne Tel: (819) 953-4889 Crystal Hulley Tel: (819) 956-2095 Fax: (819) 953-0589 Parties Counsel Agent Canwest Television Paliare Roland Rosenberg Limited Partnership Rothstein LLP 250 University Avenue Suite 501 Toronto, ON M5H 3E5 Chris Paliare Tel: (416) 646-4318 Andrew Lokan Tel: (416) 646-4324 Fax: (416) 646-4301 Bell Media Inc. (formerly Goodmans LLP Nelligan O’Brien Payne CTVglobemedia Inc.), Bay Adelaide Centre LLP Newfoundland 333 Bay Street 55 O’Connor Street Broadcasting Company Suite 3400 Suite 1500 Ltd. and V Interactions Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 Ottawa, ON K1P 6L2 Inc. Benjamin Zarnett Dougald Brown Tel: (416) 597-4204 Tel: (613) 231-8210 Robert Malcolmson Fax: (613) 788-3661 Tel: (416) 597-6286 Peter Ruby Tel: (416) 597-4184 Fax: (416) 979-1234 Rogers Communications Fasken Martineau Dumoulin LLP Inc. and TELUS 55 Metcalfe Street Communications Suite 1300 Company Ottawa, ON K1P 6L5 Gerald (Jay) Kerr-Wilson Julia Kennedy Tel: (613) 236-3882 Fax: (613) 230-6423 Parties Counsel Agent Shaw Communications Davies Ward Philips & Vineberg Gowlings LLP Inc. LLP 160 Elgin Street 1 First Canadian Place Suite 2600 44th Floor Ottawa, ON K1P 1C3 Toronto, ON M5X 1B1 Kent E. Thomson Ed Van Bemmel James Doris Tel: (613) 786-0212 Sarah Weingarten Fax: (613) 788-3500 Tel: (416) 863-0900 Fax: (416) 863-0871 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I — STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................... 1 A. OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................... 1 B. THE NATURE OF THE VALUE-FOR-SIGNAL REGIME........................................................ 3 C. LEGISLATIVE FACTS...................................................................................................... 4 i. The Domestic Context................................................................................................. 5 ii. The International Context.......................................................................................... 11 D. THE CRTC’S PREVIOUS POSITIONS ............................................................................. 15 PART II — QUESTION IN ISSUE ...................................................................................... 16 PART III — STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT.................................................................... 16 A. STANDARD OF REVIEW................................................................................................ 16 B. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 17 C. PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION DEMAND A COHERENT INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES IN THE AREA OF RETRANSMISSION AND SIGNAL RIGHTS.......................................... 18 i. Subordinate Legislative Bodies Are Limited to their Statutory Jurisdiction ............... 18 ii. Statutory Provisions Must Be Read Contextually and Purposively............................. 20 iii. Interrelated Acts Must Be Read Harmoniously, Coherently and Consistently ............ 21 iv. Ancillary Statutes Are Presumed Not to Authorize Concurrent Regulation of Intellectual Property.......................................................................................................... 23 D. THE PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT.............................................. 24 E. THE COPYRIGHT ACT RETRANSMISSIONS REGIME ....................................................... 27 F. THE CRTC LACKS JURISDICTION UNDER THE BROADCASTING ACT, LACKS EXPERTISE IN THE SUBJECT MATTER AT ISSUE, AND IS NOT OWED DUE DEFERENCE..................................... 32 i. The CRTC Lacks Jurisdiction under the Broadcasting Act ........................................ 33 ii. The CRTC Is Not Expert in Valuing Private Rights in Retransmissions..................... 37 G. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 39 PART IV — SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS............................................................................ 40 PART V — ORDER REQUESTED ..................................................................................... 40 PART VI — LIST OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................... 41 PART VII — STATUTES AND REGULATIONS RELIED UPON................................... 44 PART I — STATEMENT OF FACTS A. OVERVIEW 1. The issue in this appeal is whether the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) can use its general powers under the Broadcasting Act to override a specific rights regime established and carefully balanced by Parliament under the Copyright Act. This question was the subject of a reference by the CRTC to the Federal Court of Appeal on the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to “invoke … market forces” and impose a “value-for-signal” regime in respect of subject-matter already governed by ss. 21 and 31 of the Copyright Act. 2. The CRTC’s proposed value-for-signal regime would allow a private local television station to impose blackouts of its programming unless cable television service providers (“BDUs”) pay a royalty for the right to retransmit the station’s signals. By contrast, the Copyright Act exempts retransmissions of local signals from royalties, and mandates that neither local nor distant signals can be blocked. 3. The majority of the Federal Court of Appeal, over a strong dissent by Justice Nadon, held that the CRTC had jurisdiction to establish the value-for-signal regime, finding that “Parliament has ranked the objectives of Canada’s broadcasting policy ahead of those statutory retransmission rights.” Reference: Decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, para. 40 Appellants’ Joint Record (“AR”), Vol. 1, Tab 3, p. 46 4. It is submitted that the majority made significant errors of law that led it to permit the CRTC to override the comprehensive legislative scheme established by Parliament in the Copyright Act for retransmissions by BDUs of free, over-the-air television signals. 5. By contrast, in dissent, Justice Nadon held that the CRTC’s proposed value-for-signal regime would be ultra vires because: a) Parliament’s delegation of power to the CRTC under the Broadcasting Act was limited by the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act; - 2 - b) The case law in the Supreme Court of Canada is clear that the Copyright Act is an exhaustive statutory regime; c) Parliament clearly expressed its intention in s. 31 of the Copyright Act that royalties be paid for the retransmission of distant signals, but not for the retransmission of local signals. This exception could not be negated by the general requirement that a retransmission be “lawful under the Broadcasting Act” in s. 31(2)(b); and d) The proposed CRTC regime was functionally equivalent to the retransmissions regime in the Copyright Act but would specifically override it. Reference: FCA Decision, paras. 63-81, 84-85 (AR 3, Vol. 1, pp. 54-60) 6. Cogeco Cable Inc. (“Cogeco”) respectfully submits that Justice Nadon was correct in concluding that the CRTC lacks the jurisdiction to create its proposed regime.

Load more

  51

Copy Link