gunsmoke2
February 2nd, 2000, 04:11 PM
Its better than I thought! Docket:- A993004
In The Supreme Court of British Columbia.
I can't post the whole decision but will post the main highlights.
17 - "The issue before me is whether the plaintiff has made out a case for an injunction. In deciding this I must consider whether section 9.1(C) provides for the absolute prohibition as described by LeGrandeur J. The powers of a court in matters of this nature were succinctly summarized by Lord Reid in Westminister Bank v. Zane (1966), A.C. 182, as follows:
" No principle of interpretation of staues, however, is more firmly settled than the rule that the court must deduce the intention of Parliament from the words used in the act. If those words are in any way ambiguous, if they are reasonably capable of more than one meaning, or if the provision in question is contradicted by, or is incompatible with any other provision in the act, then the court may depart from the natural meaning of the words in question, but beyond that, we cannot go."
18 - Based on the evidence before me and counsel's submissions on this interlocutory application I conclude that the words in section 9 1 (C) are neither ambiguous nor can they be said to contradict other provisions in the act. The offence in that section that was created by the language Parliament chose to use was the offence os stealing encrypted signals from distributors in Canada. In my view, if Parliament had intended in that section to make it an offence in Canada to decode Foreign encrypted transmissions originating outside Canada as contended by the plaintif, it would have said so. In section 9 1 (C) Parliament could have used language prohibiting the unauthorized decoding of all or any subscription programming in Canada. This, it chose not to.
19 - The interpretation of section 9 1 (C) asserted by the plaintiff makes no distinction between those who who subscribe and pay for services fron non-resident distributors and those who steal the signals of lawful distributors in Canada. That interpretation would create a theft offence applicable to persons in Canada who are nonetheless paying for the services they receive. If Parliament had intended section 9 1 (C) to apply to such conduct, it would have said so in clear language. In my view the quasi criminal provisions in the Radio Communication Act should not be interpretated in this manner in the absence of such clear parliamentary language.
20 - In its submissions, the defendants also refer to extra legiislative sources, including an extract from : Hansard", where the Honourable Marce Masee at the time of the third reading of the house of commons, Bill C40, stated:
" The bill also recognizes that newer technologies allow programming services to encode their signals for distribution to paying customers only, For this reason, it provides a right of civil action against theft of encoded signals, a provision which has found support from the cable vision and satellite direct to home television industries ( Hansard, December 4, 1990, at page 16224 )"
This also supports the contention that section 9 1 (C) was intended to apply only to theft of signals from lawfull distributors in Canada and not paid subscription by Canadians to signals from distributors outside Canada.
21 - Acordingly, I am not prepared to grant to the plaintiff the injunctive relief sought. Rather, I would direct that the trial of this matter proceed on a expedited basis.
Thank you Mr Justice Brenner for stating the obvious! You have put things back into proper propective!
The RC ACT is FLAWED and is KAKA..
Industry Canada.. RCMP.. Bell ExpressVu.. Judges don't buy your CRAP... and YOUR actions are subject to MAJOR lawsuits for YOUR OBVIOUS CORRUPT INTENTIONS..
BTW, R.V. Love ( 1997 ) is Quoted ;)
TTRK, check your fax machine.. :)
Got to get Press coverage!! and experdict to Reform critic Mr Lowfer.
GS2.
In The Supreme Court of British Columbia.
I can't post the whole decision but will post the main highlights.
17 - "The issue before me is whether the plaintiff has made out a case for an injunction. In deciding this I must consider whether section 9.1(C) provides for the absolute prohibition as described by LeGrandeur J. The powers of a court in matters of this nature were succinctly summarized by Lord Reid in Westminister Bank v. Zane (1966), A.C. 182, as follows:
" No principle of interpretation of staues, however, is more firmly settled than the rule that the court must deduce the intention of Parliament from the words used in the act. If those words are in any way ambiguous, if they are reasonably capable of more than one meaning, or if the provision in question is contradicted by, or is incompatible with any other provision in the act, then the court may depart from the natural meaning of the words in question, but beyond that, we cannot go."
18 - Based on the evidence before me and counsel's submissions on this interlocutory application I conclude that the words in section 9 1 (C) are neither ambiguous nor can they be said to contradict other provisions in the act. The offence in that section that was created by the language Parliament chose to use was the offence os stealing encrypted signals from distributors in Canada. In my view, if Parliament had intended in that section to make it an offence in Canada to decode Foreign encrypted transmissions originating outside Canada as contended by the plaintif, it would have said so. In section 9 1 (C) Parliament could have used language prohibiting the unauthorized decoding of all or any subscription programming in Canada. This, it chose not to.
19 - The interpretation of section 9 1 (C) asserted by the plaintiff makes no distinction between those who who subscribe and pay for services fron non-resident distributors and those who steal the signals of lawful distributors in Canada. That interpretation would create a theft offence applicable to persons in Canada who are nonetheless paying for the services they receive. If Parliament had intended section 9 1 (C) to apply to such conduct, it would have said so in clear language. In my view the quasi criminal provisions in the Radio Communication Act should not be interpretated in this manner in the absence of such clear parliamentary language.
20 - In its submissions, the defendants also refer to extra legiislative sources, including an extract from : Hansard", where the Honourable Marce Masee at the time of the third reading of the house of commons, Bill C40, stated:
" The bill also recognizes that newer technologies allow programming services to encode their signals for distribution to paying customers only, For this reason, it provides a right of civil action against theft of encoded signals, a provision which has found support from the cable vision and satellite direct to home television industries ( Hansard, December 4, 1990, at page 16224 )"
This also supports the contention that section 9 1 (C) was intended to apply only to theft of signals from lawfull distributors in Canada and not paid subscription by Canadians to signals from distributors outside Canada.
21 - Acordingly, I am not prepared to grant to the plaintiff the injunctive relief sought. Rather, I would direct that the trial of this matter proceed on a expedited basis.
Thank you Mr Justice Brenner for stating the obvious! You have put things back into proper propective!
The RC ACT is FLAWED and is KAKA..
Industry Canada.. RCMP.. Bell ExpressVu.. Judges don't buy your CRAP... and YOUR actions are subject to MAJOR lawsuits for YOUR OBVIOUS CORRUPT INTENTIONS..
BTW, R.V. Love ( 1997 ) is Quoted ;)
TTRK, check your fax machine.. :)
Got to get Press coverage!! and experdict to Reform critic Mr Lowfer.
GS2.