gunsmoke2
September 12th, 2000, 11:17 AM
It just gets BETTER!!
[1] Since releasing my decision on Friday morning, September 8, 2000, I received in the late afternoon the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal confirming the decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the matter of Bell E x p r e s s V u Limited Partership v. Richard Rex et al.
[2] In the case, E x p re s s V u sought an order prohibiting the defendants from selling decoders and providing other services to Canadian customers enabling them to receive satellite T.V. signals broadcast from the U.S.A..These are the facts in the Branton case. The interpretation of s. 9(1)(c) of the Radoicommunication Act was directly in issue since the section had to bear the meaning submitted by E x p r e s s V u in order for it to succeed: that is the section provided for an absolute prohibition against the reception in Canada of satellite television signals that originate in another jurisdiction. The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the decision below in a 2:1 decision, the majority holding that if Parliment wanted to prohibit Canadians as submitted by E x p r e s s V u, it could have said so clearly. The court of Appeal in affect confirmed the interpretation given by the courts in R v. Love, R v. Ereiser, and R.v. Leblanc, cited in my earlier decision.
[3] In my view, the British Columbia Court of Appeal carries more weight than the decision of the E x p r e s s V u v. Norsat becuse the matter before the court in E x p e s s V u v. Norsat was a motion for summary judgement and the court's comments on s. 9(1)(c) were incidental or orbiter to the decision as to whether summary judgement should issue.
[4] I understand that there are a number of outstanding charges under the RCA before the courts in Ontario, and clearly it would be helpful and desirable to have a decision of the Superior Court of Ontario on the point. This is not bound by the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal but the decision is in entitled to curial deference. I agree completely with the interpretation given in s.(9)(1)(c) is obscure, the ready thrust of the language is to prohibit the decoding of encrypted signals T.V signals from lawfull distributers without paying for a service. I would also subscribe to the decision and reasons therefor already expressed in R. v. Love, R. v. Ereiser, and R. v. Leblanc..
[5] Given this decision, an additional ground is presented for Quashing the 3 search warrants: that is, Branton's buisness activity was not being carried on contrary to law, specifically s. 9(1)(c) and s. 10(1)(b) of the Radiocommunication Act, as charged.
[6] This decision is supplementary to and is to be considered part of my earlier decision, as stated.
Justice J.E. Speppard September 11, 2000
*** Any comments Mr McPuke.. :)
This Judge just again confirmed what we have been saying all this time and goes back to the earlier decisions in 1996, 1997. and says that the BC decision carries more weight that the ExpessPuke decision against Norsat.. the one that started the UNLAWFULL Rampage by the ROYAL FARCETS and the PUKES.
There will be a full report on the legal-rights site..I just couldn't wait to announce this..
GS2 http://www.legal-rights.org/images/smilesmok.gif
[Edited by gunsmoke2 on September 14th, 2000 at 11:20 PM]
[1] Since releasing my decision on Friday morning, September 8, 2000, I received in the late afternoon the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal confirming the decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the matter of Bell E x p r e s s V u Limited Partership v. Richard Rex et al.
[2] In the case, E x p re s s V u sought an order prohibiting the defendants from selling decoders and providing other services to Canadian customers enabling them to receive satellite T.V. signals broadcast from the U.S.A..These are the facts in the Branton case. The interpretation of s. 9(1)(c) of the Radoicommunication Act was directly in issue since the section had to bear the meaning submitted by E x p r e s s V u in order for it to succeed: that is the section provided for an absolute prohibition against the reception in Canada of satellite television signals that originate in another jurisdiction. The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the decision below in a 2:1 decision, the majority holding that if Parliment wanted to prohibit Canadians as submitted by E x p r e s s V u, it could have said so clearly. The court of Appeal in affect confirmed the interpretation given by the courts in R v. Love, R v. Ereiser, and R.v. Leblanc, cited in my earlier decision.
[3] In my view, the British Columbia Court of Appeal carries more weight than the decision of the E x p r e s s V u v. Norsat becuse the matter before the court in E x p e s s V u v. Norsat was a motion for summary judgement and the court's comments on s. 9(1)(c) were incidental or orbiter to the decision as to whether summary judgement should issue.
[4] I understand that there are a number of outstanding charges under the RCA before the courts in Ontario, and clearly it would be helpful and desirable to have a decision of the Superior Court of Ontario on the point. This is not bound by the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal but the decision is in entitled to curial deference. I agree completely with the interpretation given in s.(9)(1)(c) is obscure, the ready thrust of the language is to prohibit the decoding of encrypted signals T.V signals from lawfull distributers without paying for a service. I would also subscribe to the decision and reasons therefor already expressed in R. v. Love, R. v. Ereiser, and R. v. Leblanc..
[5] Given this decision, an additional ground is presented for Quashing the 3 search warrants: that is, Branton's buisness activity was not being carried on contrary to law, specifically s. 9(1)(c) and s. 10(1)(b) of the Radiocommunication Act, as charged.
[6] This decision is supplementary to and is to be considered part of my earlier decision, as stated.
Justice J.E. Speppard September 11, 2000
*** Any comments Mr McPuke.. :)
This Judge just again confirmed what we have been saying all this time and goes back to the earlier decisions in 1996, 1997. and says that the BC decision carries more weight that the ExpessPuke decision against Norsat.. the one that started the UNLAWFULL Rampage by the ROYAL FARCETS and the PUKES.
There will be a full report on the legal-rights site..I just couldn't wait to announce this..
GS2 http://www.legal-rights.org/images/smilesmok.gif
[Edited by gunsmoke2 on September 14th, 2000 at 11:20 PM]