Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., (2002) 287 N.R. 248 (SCC)

JudgeL'Heureux-Dubé, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateApril 26, 2002
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2002), 287 N.R. 248 (SCC);2002 SCC 42;[2002] 2 SCR 559;212 DLR (4th) 1;[2002] 5 WWR 1;100 BCLR (3d) 1;[2002] BCWLD 366;166 BCAC 1;18 CPR (4th) 289;287 NR 248;[2002] CarswellBC 851;AZ-50123070;EYB 2002-30904;JE 2002-775;[2002] SCJ No 43 (QL);113 ACWS (3d) 52;[2002] ACS no 43;271 WAC 1;93 CRR (2d) 189

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.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1573 practice notes
  • Director of Child Welfare (Alta.) v. G.N., (2002) 332 A.R. 41 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • December 17, 2002
    ...385; 23 C.R.(5th) 197; [1999] 2 C.N.L.R. 252, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 19]. Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al. (2002), 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 212 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 76, footnote 20]. R. v. Jarvis (W.J.), [2001] 3 W.W.R. 271; 271 A.......
  • R. v. M.L.K., 2004 ABQB 734
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • October 12, 2004
    ...[2001] 6 W.W.R. 1; 2001 CarswellBC 82; 2001 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 40, footnote 5]. Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 212 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 100 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1; 18 C.P.R.(4th) 289; 2002 CarswellBC 851; 2002 SCC 42,......
  • Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), (2004) 315 N.R. 201 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • January 30, 2004
    ...Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27 ; 221 N.R. 241 ; 106 O.A.C. 1 , refd to. [para. 20]. Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248 ; 166 B.C.A.C. 1 ; 271 W.A.C. 1 , refd to. [paras. 20, R. v. Ogg-Moss, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 173 ; 54 N.R. 81 ; 5 O.A.C. 81 , re......
  • Fraser et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2011] N.R. TBEd. AP.052
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 17, 2009
    ...et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211; 126 N.R. 161; 48 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 221]. Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 253]. Royal Oak Mines Inc. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al.,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1476 cases
  • Director of Child Welfare (Alta.) v. G.N., (2002) 332 A.R. 41 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • December 17, 2002
    ...385; 23 C.R.(5th) 197; [1999] 2 C.N.L.R. 252, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 19]. Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al. (2002), 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 212 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 76, footnote 20]. R. v. Jarvis (W.J.), [2001] 3 W.W.R. 271; 271 A.......
  • R. v. M.L.K., 2004 ABQB 734
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • October 12, 2004
    ...[2001] 6 W.W.R. 1; 2001 CarswellBC 82; 2001 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 40, footnote 5]. Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 212 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 100 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1; 18 C.P.R.(4th) 289; 2002 CarswellBC 851; 2002 SCC 42,......
  • Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), (2004) 315 N.R. 201 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • January 30, 2004
    ...Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27 ; 221 N.R. 241 ; 106 O.A.C. 1 , refd to. [para. 20]. Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248 ; 166 B.C.A.C. 1 ; 271 W.A.C. 1 , refd to. [paras. 20, R. v. Ogg-Moss, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 173 ; 54 N.R. 81 ; 5 O.A.C. 81 , re......
  • Fraser et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2011] N.R. TBEd. AP.052
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 17, 2009
    ...et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211; 126 N.R. 161; 48 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 221]. Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 253]. Royal Oak Mines Inc. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al.,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
32 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 18, 2022 ' July 22, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • July 27, 2022
    ...v. MacMillan, 2016 ONCA 475, Canoe Ontario v. Reed (1989), 69 O.R. (2d) 494 (Ont. H.C.), Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, Wilk v. Arbour, 2017 ONCA 21, Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, ......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (December 16 – December 20, 2019)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • January 2, 2020
    ...Act, S.C. 2001, c. 41, (Re), 2004 SCC 42, Re Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, R. v. Khawaja, 2010 ONCA 862, United States of America v. Nadarajah, 2010 ONCA 859, R. v. Ansari, 2015 ONCA 575, R. v. Venneri, 2012 SCC 33,......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (February 14-18, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • February 22, 2022
    ...and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, R. v. Walsh, 2021 ONCA 43, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (St. Paul, MN: Thompson/West, 2012) 2651171 Ontario Inc. v. Brey, 20......
  • COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (JULY 2-9)
    • Canada
    • LexBlog Canada
    • July 10, 2021
    ...Pacific Ltd. [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031, Schnarr v. Blue Mountain Resorts Limited, 2018 ONCA 313, Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, Crystalline Investments Ltd. v. Domgroup Ltd., 2004 SCC 3, Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority v. Dell Holdings Ltd., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 32, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
65 books & journal articles
  • A JUDICIARY CLEAVED: SUPERIOR COURTS, STATUTORY COURTS AND THE ILLOGIC OF DIFFERENCE.
    • Canada
    • University of New Brunswick Law Journal Nbr. 68, January 2017
    • January 1, 2017
    ...Licensing Branch), 2001 SCC 52, [2001] 2 SCR 781. (34) Windsor, supra note 31 at para 33. (35) Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v Rex, 2002 SCC 42, [2002] 2 SCR 559; Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd (Re), [1998] 1 SCR 27, 154 DLR (4th) (36) RSC 1985, c 1-21 ats 12. (37) On the purposes of the ......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Quasi-constitutional Laws of Canada
    • June 25, 2018
    ...236 Bell Canada v Canadian Telephone Employees Association, 2003 SCC 36 ..........20 Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v Rex, 2002 SCC 42 ..................................105 Bell v Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission); Cooper v Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission), [1996] 3 SCR......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Criminal Law. Seventh Edition
    • August 4, 2018
    ...362 Bedard v Dawson, [1923] SCR 681, 40 CCC 404, [1923] SCJ No 30 ...................28 Bell Express Vu v Canada, [2002] 2 SCR 559, 212 DLR (4th) 1 ........................ 102 Bhatnager v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 2 SCR 217 ..........................................
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books International Human Rights Law Preliminary Sections
    • June 18, 2004
    ...315, 357, 380 Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association, 2003 SCC 36 ...... 277 Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42 ..........................155– 56 Bhadauria v. Seneca College (1979), 27 O.R. (2d) 142, 105 D.L.R. (3d) 707 (C.A.), rev’d. [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT