Canadian Cable Television Assoc. v. American College Sports Collective of Canada Inc., (1991) 129 N.R. 296 (FCA)

• Judge: Mahoney, MacGuigan and Linden, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: June 03, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 129 N.R. 296 (FCA)

Cdn. Cable TV v. Am. College Sports (1991), 129 N.R. 296 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Canadian Cable Television Association-Association Canadienne De Television Par Cable (applicant) v. American College Sports Collective of Canada Inc., Border Broadcasters' Collective, Canadian Broadcasters Retransmission Rights Agency Inc., Canadian Retransmission Collective, Canadian Retransmission Right Association, Composers, Authors and Publishers Association of Canada Limited, Copyright Collective of Canada, FWS Joint Sports Claimants, Major League Baseball Collective of Canada Inc., and Performing Rights Organization of Canada Limited (respondents)

(A-832-90)

Indexed As: Canadian Cable Television Assoc. v. American College Sports Collective of Canada Inc.

Federal Court of Appeal

Mahoney, MacGuigan and Linden, JJ.A.

June 3, 1991.

Summary:

Pursuant to s. 70.63 of the Copyright Act the Copyright Board established royalties to be paid by Canadian Cable Television Sys­tems for the retransmission of distant radio and television signals. The decision was attacked on various grounds by one of the parties.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application for review.

The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal on an application for review by another party is reported immediately pre­ceding this case.

Administrative Law - Topic 225

Hearing and decision - Right to be heard - What constitutes not being heard - A member of the Copyright Board on a frolic of his own received information outside the hearing - Some of the information was public knowledge; some was unimportant; some influenced his decision to dissent - There was no evidence that the informa­tion he received influenced the majority - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the audi alteram partem principle was not violated, where there was no prejudice resulting from the dissenting member's separate actions - See paragraphs 14 to 42 - Further, there was no reasonable appre­hension of bias - See paragraphs 43 to 49.

Administrative Law - Topic 608

Hearing and decision - Disclosure by tribunal of material used or relied upon by the tribunal in making its decision - [See Administrative Law - Topic 225 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2088

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal - Bias - Reasonable apprehension of bias - [See Administrative Law - Topic 225 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2660

Natural justice - Evidence - Tribunal taking evidence in absence of parties - [See Administrative Law - Topic 225 ].

Copyright - Topic 3429

Fees, charges or royalties - Determination of - Retransmission of distant radio and television signals - Interest - Under the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, s. 70.63(1)(a)(ii), the Copyright Board had jurisdiction to set royalties, including "such terms related to those royalties as the Board considers appropriate" - The Feder­al Court of Appeal held that the Board had the power to award interest on royalties for retransmission of distant radio and televi­sion signals for the transition period before the royalty tariff was published - See paragraphs 50 to 59.

Interest - Topic 3402

Statutory - General - By implication - [See Copyright - Topic 3429 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Schiff, [1970] 3 O.R. 476, appld. [para. 29].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. British Columbia Forest Products Ltd. (1980), 34 N.R. 209, appld. [para. 31].

Pfizer Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 456; 6 N.R. 440, appld. [para. 32].

Kane v. Board v. Governors of the Uni­versity of British Columbia, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1105; 31 N.R. 214, appld. [para. 32].

Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 282; 105 N.R. 161; 38 O.A.C. 321, appld. [para. 35].

Re Cardinal Insurance Co. and Minister of State (Finance) (1982), 44 N.R. 428; 138 D.L.R.(3d) 693, appld. [para. 35].

Civic Employees' Union, Local No. 21 of Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Regina (City) (1989), 81 Sask.R. 16 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 36].

Hecla Mining Company of Canada v. Cominco Ltd. (1988), 116 N.R. 44, consd. [para. 36].

Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution, Director of, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N.R. 353, refd to. [para. 36].

Schaaf v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1984] 2 F.C. 334; 52 N.R. 54, appld. [para. 41].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Discipli­nary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 106 D.L.R.(3d) 385; 13 C.R.(3d) 1, appld. [para. 42].

Spence v. Spencer (1987), 53 Sask.R. 35; 25 Admin. L.R. 90 (C.A.), dist. [para. 43].

Bateman v. McKay, [1976] 4 W.W.R. 129 (Sask. Q.B.), appld. [para. 46].

Gooliah (Goolia) v. R. (1967), 63 D.L.R.(2d) 224, appld. [para. 46].

Energy Probe v. Atomic Energy Control Board and Ontario Hydro, [1985] 1 F.C. 563; 56 N.R. 135; 15 D.L.R.(4th) 48, appld. [para. 46].

Frome United Breweries Company, Limited v. Keepers of the Peace and Justices for County Borough of Bath, [1926] A.C. 586, consd. [para. 48].

R. v. British Columbia Labour Relations Board (1964), 45 D.L.R.(2d) 27 (B.C. C.A.), consd. [para. 48].

In re Anti-dumping Tribunal and re trans­parent sheet glass, [1972] F.C. 1078 (F.T.C.), consd. [para. 48].

Yukon Conservation Society v. Yukon Territory Water Board (1982), 45 N.R. 591 (F.C.T.D.), consd. [para. 49].

Committee for Justice and Liberty v. Na­tional Energy Board, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 716, consd. [para. 49].

Liverpool Corporation v. Arthur Maiden Ltd., [1938] 4 All E.R. 200, dist. [para. 52].

WMI Waste Management of Canada Inc. v. Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (1981), 34 O.R.(2d) 708 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 53].

Re Northern and Central Gas Corp. Ltd. and Kidd Creek Mines Ltd. (1988), 30 O.A.C. 146; 66 O.R. 12 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 53].

Bell Canada v. Canadian Radio-Television & Telecommunications Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1722; 97 N.R. 15; 60 D.L.R.(4th) 682, appld. [para. 55].

Performing Rights Organization of Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corpor­ation (1986), 64 N.R. 330; 7 C.P.R.(3d) 433, appld. [para. 55].

Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Canada Limited v. Lee-Shanok (1988), 87 N.R. 178, appld. [para. 55].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada-United States Free Trade Agree­ment Implementation Act, S.C. 1988, c. 65, sect. 65 [para. 3]; sect. 149 [para. 57].

Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, sect. 70.61 [para. 3]; sect. 70.63 [para. 4]; sect. 70.63(1)(a)(ii) [para. 50].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 28(1)(b) [para. 41].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 12 [para. 54].

Counsel:

Michael K. Eisen and Stephen G. Rawson, for Canadian Cable Television Associ­ation;

Gilles M. Daigle, for Border Broadcasters' Collective;

David W. Kent, for Canadian Broadcasters Retransmission Rights Agency;

Hank G. Intven, for Canadian Retransmis­sion Collective;

Jacques R. Alleyn and Peter E. Robinson, for Canadian Retransmission Right As­sociation;

Y.A. George Hynna, for Composers, Authors and Publishers Association of Canada Limited - Performing Rights Organiza­tion of Canada Limited;

Glenn A. Hainey and Michael S. Koch, for Copyright Collective of Canada;

Daniel R. Bereskin and Grey A. Piasetski, for FWS Joint Sports Claimants;

Richard Storrey, for Major League Base­ball Collective of Canada Inc.;

J. Aidan O'Neill, for Canadian Satellite Communications Inc. - C1 Cablesys­tems Inc.;

Mario Bouchard, for Copyright Board.

Solicitors of Record:

Morris/Rose/Ledgett, Toronto, Ontario, for Canadian Cable Television Association;

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for Border Broadcasters' Collec­tive;

McMillan Binch, Toronto, Ontario, for Canadian Broadcasters Retransmission Rights Agency;

McCarthy, Tétrault, Toronto, Ontario, for Canadian Retransmission Collective;

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Ottawa, Ontario, for Canadian Retrans­mission Right Association;

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for Composers, Authors and Publishers Association of Canada Limited - Performing Rights Organiza­tion of Canada Limited;

Smith, Lyons, Torrance Stevenson & Mayer, Toronto, Ontario, for Copyright Collective of Canada;

Rogers, Bereskin & Parr, Toronto, Ontario, for FWS Joint Sports Claimants;

Goodman & Goodman, Toronto, Ontario, for Major League Baseball Collective of Canada Inc.;

Johnston & Buchan, Ottawa, Ontario, for Canadian Satellite Communications Inc. - C1 Cablesystems Inc.;

Legal Services, Copyright Board, for Copyright Board.

This case was heard on May 13-17, 1991, at Montreal, Quebec, before Mahoney, Mac­Guigan and Linden, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On June 3, 1991, MacGuigan, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Federal Court of Appeal: