Bell ExpressVu v. Rex (2002), 287 N.R. 248 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [2002] N.R. TBEd. AP.026
Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership (appellant) v. Richard Rex, Richard Rex, c.o.b. as ‘Can-Am Satellites’, Richard Rex, c.o.b. as ‘Can Am Satellites’ and c.o.b. as ‘CANAM Satellites’ and c.o.b. as ‘Can Am Satellite’ and c.o.b. as ‘Can Am Sat’ and c.o.b. as ‘Can-Am Satellites Digital Media Group’ and c.o.b. as ‘Can-Am Digital Media Group’ and c.o.b. as ‘Digital Media Group’, Anne Marie Halley a.k.a. Anne Marie Rex, Michael Rex a.k.a. Mike Rex, Rodney Kibler a.k.a. Rod Kibler, Lee-Anne Patterson, Michelle Lee, Jay Raymond, Jason Anthony, John Doe 1 to 20, Jane Doe 1 to 20 and any other person or persons found on the premises or identified as working at the premises at 22409 McIntosh Avenue, Maple Ridge, British Columbia, who operate or work for businesses carrying on business under the name and style of ‘Can-Am Satellites’, ‘Can Am Satellites’, ‘CanAm Satellite’, ‘Can Am Satellite’, ‘Can Am Sat’, ‘Can-Am Satellites Digital Media Group’, ‘Can-Am Digital Media Group’, ‘Digital Media Group’, or one or more of them (respondents) and The Attorney General of Canada, the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association, DIRECTV Inc., the Canadian Alliance for Freedom of Information and Ideas, and the Congres Iberoamericain du Canada (B.C.) (intervenors)
(28227; 2002 SCC 42; 2002 CSC 42)
Indexed As: Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
L’Heureux-Dubé, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
April 26, 2002.
Summary:
Bell ExpressVu was licensed in Canada to broadcast “direct to home” (DTH) television programming via satellite to Canadian subscribers. Canadian residents who subscribed to ExpressVu and who owned an ExpressVu DTH satellite television decoding system were authorized to decode the encrypted subscription programming signals transmitted by ExpressVu and view the programming for which they subscribed. The defendants sold U.S. DTH decoder systems to Canadians and supplied them with a U.S. address and other services which allowed them to subscribe for and pay for programming originating from the U.S. DTH broadcasters. ExpressVu alleged that the defendants’ activities were prohibited by s. 9(1)(c) of the Radiocommunication Act. ExpressVu sought injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from selling decoders and providing other services to Canadian customers enabling them to receive satellite television signals broadcast from the U.S.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported [1999] B.C.T.C. 25, dismissed the application. Section 9(1)(c) did not absolutely prohibit the reception in Canada of satellite television signals that originated in another jurisdiction. The section only prohibited the unauthorized reception of such signals broadcast by “lawful distributors” in Canada. As there were no “lawful distributors” in Canada, the defendants’ activities were not prohibited by s. 9(1)(c). ExpressVu appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Huddart, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 142 B.C.A.C. 230; 233 W.A.C. 230, dismissed the appeal. The court agreed that s. 9(1)(c) was not contravened where a person decoded unregulated signals such as those broadcast by the U.S. DTH companies. ExpressVu appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. Section 9(1)(c) unambiguously prohibited Canadian residents from decoding encrypted programming signals, regardless of their origin. The only exception was where authorization was obtained from a distributor holding the necessary legal rights in Canada to transmit the signal and provide the required authorization. The fact that there were no “lawful distributors” from which to obtain authorization simply meant that the exception did not apply and the absolute prohibition prevailed. The constitutionality of s. 9(1)(c) had to await the remittal for trial and a proper factual foundation.
Civil Rights – Topic 8318
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – General – Application – Statutory interpretation – Preference to Charter values – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “it has long been accepted that, where it will not upset the appropriate balance between judicial and legislative action, courts should apply and develop the rules of the common law in accordance with the values and principles enshrined in the Charter … The courts do not, however, occupy the same role vis-à-vis statute law. Statutory enactments embody legislative will. They supplement, modify or supersede the common law. … although it is sometimes suggested that ‘it is appropriate for courts to prefer interpretations that tend to promote those [Charter] principles and values over interpretations that do not’ …, it must be stressed that, to the extent this court has recognized a ‘Charter values’ interpretive principle, such principle can
only
receive application in circumstances of genuine ambiguity, i.e., where a statutory provision is subject to differing, but equally plausible interpretations.” – See paragraphs 62 to 63.
Civil Rights – Topic 8586
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Practice – Method of raising Charter issues – [See
Constitutional Law – Topic 21
].
Constitutional Law – Topic 21
General – Raising constitutional issues – General – At issue at trial and on appeal was the interpretation of s. 9(1)(c) of the Radiocommunication Act – The issue of whether s. 9(1)(c) infringed freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter was not addressed at either court level – On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the respondents had two constitutional questions stated (whether s. 2(b) was infringed and, if so, whether the infringement was justified under s. 1) – The Supreme Court of Canada declined to answer the stated constitutional questions – The factual record on appeal provided an insufficient basis for resolving the constitutionality of s. 9(1)(c) – The court noted that the procedural requirements of Supreme Court Rule 32 (re stating constitutional questions) “are not designed to introduce new issues but to define with precision the constitutional points in issue which emerge from the record” – The respondents conceded that there was no Charter record permitting the court to address the constitutional questions – Since the matter was remitted for trial, the constitutionality of s. 9(1)(c) could properly be raised at that time – See paragraphs 56 to 60.
Statutes – Topic 516
Interpretation – General principles – Ordinary meaning of words – [See
Statutes – Topic 1414
].
Statutes – Topic 1414
Interpretation – Construction where meaning is not plain – General principles – Ambiguity – General – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that absent ambiguity, the words of a statute were to be interpreted in their ordinary and grammatical sense – Other principles of statutory interpretation, such as strict construction of penal statutes and the “Charter values” presumption, applied only where there was ambiguity – Ambiguity occurred only where the words of a provision were “reasonably capable of more than one meaning” – By necessity, the “entire context” of a provision must be considered to determine whether the provision was reasonably capable of multiple interpretations – The court restated that “it is only when genuine ambiguity arises between two or more plausible readings, each equally in accordance with the intentions of the statute, that the courts need to resort to external interpretative aids”, including “other principles of interpretation” – The court stated that “ambiguity cannot reside in the mere fact that several courts — or, for that matter, several doctrinal writers — have come to differing conclusions on the interpretation of a given provision” – See paragraphs 28 to 30.
Telecommunications – Topic 2088
Television – Subscription programming signals – Decoding encrypted signals – Authorization – The defendants sold U.S. “direct to home” decoder systems to Canadians and supplied them with a U.S. address and other services which allowed them to subscribe for and pay for programming originating from U.S. broadcasters – Section 9(1)(c) of the Radiocommunication Act prohibited any person from decoding an encrypted subscription programming signal other than with authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal – The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 9(1)(c) unambiguously prohibited Canadian residents from decoding encrypted programming signals, regardless of their origin – The only exception to the absolute prohibition was where authorization was obtained from a distributor holding the necessary legal rights in Canada to transmit the signal and provide the required authorization – If there was no “lawful distributor” from which to obtain authorization, the exception to the prohibition did not apply and the absolute prohibition governed – The court held that the defendants’ activities were prohibited under s. 9(1)(c) – See paragraphs 31 to 55.
Cases Noticed:
Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 20].
R. v. Open Sky Inc. – see R. v. O’Connor (M.A.) et al.
R. v. O’Connor (M.A.) et al., [1994] M.J. No. 734 (Prov. Ct.), affd. [1997] 8 W.W.R. 115; 106 Man.R.(2d) 37 (Q.B.), leave to appeal denied (1996), 110 Man.R.(2d) 153; 118 W.A.C. 153 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].
King et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1996] N.B.J. No. 449 (Q.B.), revd. (1997), 187 N.B.R.(2d) 185; 478 A.P.R. 185 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].
R. v. Quality Electronics (Taber) Ltd. – see R. v. Knibb (E.) et al.
R. v. Knibb (E.) et al. (1997), 198 A.R. 161 (Prov. Ct.), affd. [1998] A.J. No. 628 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].
ExpressVu Inc. et al. v. NII Norsat International Inc. et al., [1998] 1 F.C. 245; 134 F.T.R. 264 (T.D.), affd. (1997), 222 N.R. 213 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].
WIC Premium Television Ltd. v. General Instrument Corp. et al. (2000), 272 A.R. 201 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].
Canada (Procureur général) v. Pearlman, [2001] R.J.Q. 2026 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 22].
R. v. Love and Nation Wide Satellite Services Ltd. (1997), 117 Man.R.(2d) 123 (Q.B.), not folld. [para. 23].
R. v. Ereiser (R.) et al. (1997), 156 Sask.R. 71 (Q.B.), not folld. [para. 23].
R. v. LeBlanc, [1997] N.S.J. No. 476 (S.C.), not folld. [para. 23].
Ryan v. 361779 Alberta Ltd. (1997), 208 A.R. 396 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 23].
R. v. Thériault, [2000] R.J.Q. No. 2736 (C.Q.), not folld. [para. 23].
R. v. Gregory Electronique Inc., [2000] Q.J. No. 4923 (C.Q.), affd. [2001] Q.J. No. 4925 (Sup. Ct.), not folld. [para. 23].
R. v. Scullion, [2001] R.J.Q. 2018 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 23].
R. v. Branton (D.) et al. (2001), 144 O.A.C. 187; 53 O.R.(3d) 737 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].
Stubart Investments Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 536; 53 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 26].
Quebéc (Communauté urbaine) v. Corporation Notre-Dame de Bon-Secours, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 3; 171 N.R. 161; 63 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 26].
Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Araujo (A.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992; 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257, refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 26].
Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), 280 N.R. 268 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 867; 275 N.R. 201; 206 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 304; 618 A.P.R. 304, refd to. [para. 27].
Stoddard v. Watson – see Murphy v. Welsh.
Murphy v. Welsh, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1069; 156 N.R. 263; 65 O.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 27].
Pointe-Claire (Ville) v. Syndicat des employées et l’employés professionnels -les et de bureau, section locale 57 (S.E.P.B. – U.I.E.P.B. – C.T.C. – F.T.Q.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1015; 211 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 27].
Marcotte v. Canada (Deputy Attorney General), [1976] 1 S.C.R. 108; 3 N.R. 613, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Goulis (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398; 152 N.R. 247; 62 O.A.C. 285, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Russell (D.), [2001] S.C.R. 804; 274 N.R. 247; 150 O.A.C. 247, refd to. [para. 28].
Westminister Bank Ltd. v. Zang, [1966] A.C. 182 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 29].
CanadianOxy Chemicals Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 743; 237 N.R. 373; 122 B.C.A.C. 1; 200 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 29].
Québec v. Carrières Ste-Thérèse Ltée, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 831; 59 N.R. 391, refd to. [para. 37].
Corbière et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203; 239 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 57].
Bisaillon v. Keable et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 60; 51 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 58].
R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; 55 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 58].
Idziak v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 631; 144 N.R. 327; 59 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 58].
R. v. Gayle (C.) (2001), 145 O.A.C. 115; 54 O.R.(3d) 36 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].
Moysa v. Labour Relations Board (Alta.), Alberta Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 and Hudson Bay Co., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1572; 96 N.R. 70; 97 A.R. 368, refd to. [para. 59].
Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086; 112 N.R. 362; 41 O.A.C. 250, refd to. [para. 59].
Baron et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 416; 146 N.R. 270, refd to. [para. 59].
R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 59].
Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, refd to. [para. 59].
Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83, refd to. [para. 61].
Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 61].
R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125, refd to. [para. 61].
R. v. Golden (I.V.) (2001), 279 N.R. 1; 153 O.A.C. 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 61].
Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union Local 558 et al. (2002), 280 N.R. 333; 217 Sask.R. 22; 265 W.A.C. 22 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 61].
Hills v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 513; 84 N.R. 86, refd to. [para. 63].
Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. Zundel (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731; 140 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. Lucas (J.D.) et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439; 224 N.R. 161; 163 Sask.R. 161; 165 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 63].
Symes v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; 161 N.R. 243, refd to. [para. 64].
Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 64].
Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 65].
Statutes Noticed:
Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, sect. 2, sect. 3(1)(a), sect. 3(1)(b), sect. 3(1)(d), sect. 3(1)(t), sect. 3(2) [para. 11]; sect. 3(3) [para. 35].
Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, sect. 21(1), sect. 31(2) [para. 11].
Radiocommunication Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-2, sect. 2, sect. 9(1)(c), sect. 10(1)(b), sect. 10(2.1), sect. 10(2.5), sect. 18(1)(a), sect. 18(1)(c), sect. 18(6) [para. 11].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Crane, Brian A., and Brown, Henry S., Supreme Court of Canada Practice 2000 (1999), p. 253 [para. 57].
Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 26].
Eliadis, F. Pearl, and McCormack, Stuart C., Vanquishing Wizards, Pirates and Musketeers: The Regulation of Encrypted Satellite TV Signals (1993), 3 M.C.L.R. 211, pp. 213 to 218 [para. 52].
Handa, Sunny et al., Communications Law in Canada (2000) (loose-leaf Ed.), p. 3.17 [para. 44].
Willis, John, Statute Interpretation in a Nutshell (1938), 16 Can. Bar Rev. 1, pp. 4, 5 [para. 30]; 6 [para. 27].
Counsel:
Eugene Meehan, Jessica Duncan and K. William McKenzie, for the appellant;
Alan D. Gold, for the respondents, Richard Rex et al.;
Maureen McGuire, for the respondent, Michelle Lee;
Christopher Rupar and Graham R. Garton, Q.C., for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;
Roger T. Hughes, Q.C., for the intervenor, the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association;
Christopher D. Bredt, Davit D. Akman and Jeffrey D. Vallis, for the intervenor, DIRECTV Inc.;
Ian W.M. Angus, for the intervenor, the Canadian Alliance for Freedom of Information and Ideas;
Alan Riddell, for the intervenor, the Congres Iberoamericain du Canada.
Solicitors of Record:
Crawford, McKenzie, McLean & Wilford, Orillia, B.C., and Lang Michener, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;
Gold & Fuerst, Toronto, Ontario, for all of the respondents, except Michelle Lee;
Department of Justice, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;
Sim, Hughes, Ashton & MacKay, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association;
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, DIRECTV Inc.;
Ian W.M. Angus, Port Hope, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Alliance for Freedom of Information and Ideas;
Soloway, Wright LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Congres Iberoamericain du Canada.
This appeal was heard on December 4, 2001, before L’Heureux-Dubé, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On April 26, 2002, Iacobucci, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Supreme Court of Canada.
