Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Association of Internet Providers et al., (2004) 322 N.R. 306 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 30, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 322 N.R. 306 (SCC);2004 SCC 45;132 ACWS (3d) 142;JE 2004-1386;[2004] 2 SCR 427;322 NR 306;240 DLR (4th) 193;32 CPR (4th) 1;[2004] SCJ No 44 (QL)

SOCAN v. CAIP (2004), 322 N.R. 306 (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: [2004] N.R. TBEd. JN.037

Canadian Association of Internet Providers, Canadian Cable Television Association, Bell ExpressVu, Telus Communications Inc., Bell Canada, Aliant Inc. and MTS Communications Inc. (appellants) v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (respondent) and Internet Commerce Coalition, European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association, European Internet Service Providers' Association, Australian Internet Industry Association, Telecom Services Association, U.S. Internet Industry Association, Canadian Recording Industry Association and International Federation of Phonogram Industry (intervenors)

(29286; 2004 SCC 45; 2004 CSC 45)

Indexed As: Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Association of Internet Providers et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.

June 30, 2004.

Summary:

The Copyright Board was called upon to decide who could be liable to pay royalties to the owners of the copyright in music transmitted on the Internet. The matter was to be dealt with in two phases. Follow­ing Phase 1, the Board ruled that a royalty could be imposed on those who posted music on a server located in Canada to which Internet users have access. However a roy­alty could not be imposed on those whose only role in Internet transmissions was to operate a server on which music was stored, or to provide a recipient with Internet access. The normal activities of Internet intermedi­aries, the Board found, did not constitute a communi­cation for the purpose of the Copy­right Act, and thus did not infringe the exclusive com­munication rights of copyright owners. The Board relied, inter alia, on s. 2.4(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, which excluded certain activ­ities from the definition of "communication" in the Act. The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Appeal, Sharlow, J.A., dissenting in part, in a judgment report­ed (2003), 290 N.R. 131, dismissed the application, except with respect to those parts of the Board's decision which held that transmission from a cache was protected by s. 2.4(1)(b) of the Copyright Act and that a communication by telecommunication occurred in Canada if, but only if, the com­munication originated from a host server in Canada. The court set aside those two parts of the Board's decision and directed the Board to act in accordance with the court's reasons when setting royalties in Phase II. The court otherwise refused to disturb the Board's ruling. The Internet Service Pro­viders appealed, submitting that to "cache" for the purpose of enhancing Internet econ­omy and efficiency did not infringe copy­right (i.e. not liable to pay royalties). SOCAN cross-appealed, submitting that Internet intermediaries should be liable for copyright royalties even where they served only as a conduit.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part and dismissed the cross-appeal.

Copyright - Topic 3444

Fees, charges or royalties - Internet (world wide web) - Music - The Supreme Court of Canada determined the liability of Cana­dian Internet Service Providers for roy­alties respecting copyrighted music down­loaded from the Internet.

Copyright - Topic 4487

Infringement of copyright - Acts constitut­ing an infringement - Music - [See Copy­right - Topic 3444 ].

Copyright - Topic 4490

Infringement of copyright - Acts constitut­ing an infringement - Authorization to exercise rights reserved solely for author - [See sixth Copyright - Topic 4565 ].

Copyright - Topic 4565

Infringement of copyright - Internet, On-line services, CD Rom and other electronic media - Internet inter­mediaries (incl. host server operators and internet service pro­viders) - Section 3(1)(f) of the Copyright Act gave the copyright holder in musical works the sole right to communicate the work to the public by telecommunication - Section 2.4(1)(b) provided that a person did not communi­cate to the public by telecom­munication if the only act per­formed in respect of the communication was the provision of the means of telecom­munica­tion necessary for one person to so com­municate the work in question to another - The Supreme Court of Canada agreed that a telecommunication occurred, in the con­text of downloading music off the Internet, when the music was trans­mitted from the host server to the end user - The Copyright Board erred in ruling that a communication that did not originate in Canada did not occur in Canada - See paragraphs 42, 44.

Copyright - Topic 4565

Infringement of copyright - Internet, On-line services, CD Rom and other electronic media - Internet inter­mediaries (incl. host server operators and internet service pro­viders) - Section 3(1)(f) of the Copyright Act gave the copyright holder in musical works the sole right to communicate the work to the public by telecommunication - Section 2.4(1)(b) provided that a person did not communi­cate to the public by telecommunication if the only act per­formed in respect of the communication was the provision of the means of telecom­munication necessary for one person to so communicate the work in question to another - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the word 'necessary' in s. 2.4(1)(b) is satisfied if the means are rea­sonably useful and proper to achieve the benefits of enhanced economy and effi­ciency. Section 2.4(1)(b) shields from liability the activities associated with pro­viding the means for another to communi­cate by telecommunication. 'The means', as the Board found, 'are not limited to routers and other hardware. They include all software connection equipment, connec­tiv­ity services, hosting and other facilities and services without which such communi­cations would not occur'. I agree. So long as the Internet intermediary does not en­gage itself in acts that relate to the con­tent of the communication, i.e. whose participa­tion is content neutral, but con­fines itself to providing 'a conduit' for information communicated by others, then it will fall within s. 2.4(1)(b)" - See para­graphs 91, 92.

Copyright - Topic 4565

Infringement of copyright - Internet, On-line services, CD Rom and other electronic media - Internet inter­mediaries (incl. host server operators and internet service pro­viders) - Section 3(1)(f) of the Copyright Act gave the copyright holder in musical works the sole right to communicate the work to the public by telecommunication - Section 2.4(1)(b) provided that a person did not communi­cate to the public by tele­communication if the only act per­formed in respect of the communication was the provision of the means of telecom­munica­tion necessary for one person to so com­municate the work in question to another - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the Copyright Act, as a matter of legislat­ive policy established by Parlia­ment, does not impose liability for in­fringement on intermediaries who supply software and hardware to facilitate use of the Internet. The attributes of such a 'con­duit', as found by the Board, include a lack of actual knowledge of the infringing contents, and the impracticality (both technical and eco­nomic) of monitoring the vast amount of material moving through the Internet, which is prodigious. ... Of course an Inter­net Service Provider in Canada can play a number of roles. In addition to its function as an intermediary, it may as well act as a content provider, or create embedded links which automatically precipitate a telecom­munication of copy­righted music from another source. In such cases, copyright liability may attach to the added func­tions." - See paragraphs 101, 102.

Copyright - Topic 4565

Infringement of copyright - Internet, On-line services, CD Rom and other electronic media - Internet inter­mediaries (incl. host server operators and internet service pro­viders) - Section 3(1)(f) of the Copyright Act gave the copyright holder in musical works the sole right to communicate the work to the public by telecommunication - Section 2.4(1)(b) provided that a person did not communi­cate to the public by tele­communication if the only act per­formed in respect of the communication was the provision of the means of telecom­munica­tion necessary for one person to so com­municate the work in question to another - The Supreme Court of Canada held that "the creation of a 'cache' copy ... is a serendipitous conse­quence of improve­ments in Internet tech­nology, is content neutral, and in light of s. 2.4(1)(b) of the Act ought not to have any legal bearing on the communication between the content pro­vider and the end user. ... 'Caching' is dictated by the need to deliver faster and more economic service, and should not, when undertaken only for such technical reasons, attract copyright liability." - See paragraphs 115, 116.

Copyright - Topic 4565

Infringement of copyright - Internet, On-line services, CD Rom and other electronic media - Internet inter­mediaries (incl. host server operators and internet service pro­viders) - Section 3(1)(f) of the Copyright Act gave the copyright holder in literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work the sole right to communicate the work to the pub­lic by telecommunica­tion - Section 2.4(1)(b) provided that a person did not communicate to the public by telecom­munication if the only act per­formed in respect of the communication was the pro­vision of the means of telecom­munica­tion necessary for one person to so com­muni­cate the work in question to another - The Copyright Board held that an Internet in­ter­mediary's activities were still only the means of telecommunication when they were ancillary to its provision of the neces­sary means of telecommunication by others, provided that those additional activ­ities did not themselves amount to com­muni­cation - Thus, operators of host servers did not lose the protection of s. 2.4(1)(b) by providing their normal facil­ities and services, such as, housing and maintaining the servers, and monitoring "hits" on particular Web pages, because these were merely ancillary to the provi­sion of disk space and did not involve any act of communication, regardless of the limits on the definition of communication contained in that paragraph - The Supreme Court of Canada agreed.

Copyright - Topic 4565

Infringement of copyright - Internet, On-line services, CD Rom and other electronic media - Internet inter­mediaries (incl. host server operators and internet service pro­viders) - Section 3(1)(f) of the Copyright Act gave the copyright holder in musical works the sole right to communicate the work to the public by telecommunication - Section 2.4(1)(b) provided that a person did not communi­cate to the public by tele­communication if the only act per­formed in respect of the communication was the provision of the means of telecom­munica­tion necessary for one person to so com­municate the work in question to another - The Copyright Board held that the normal activities of host server oper­ators and Internet access pro­viders fell within s. 2.4(1)(b) - SOCAN argued that Internet intermediaries "knew" materials placed on their facilities include copy­righted material and thereby "author­ized" the communica­tion of material requested by end users from host servers, infringing copyright - The Supreme Court of Canada, in rejecting the authorization argument, stated that "when massive amounts of non-copy­right­ed material are accessible to the end user, it is not possible to impute to the Internet Service Provider, based solely on the pro­vision of Internet facilities, an authority to download copy­righted material as opposed to non-copy­righted material. ... The knowl­edge that someone might be using neutral technology to violate copy­right ... is not necessarily sufficient to constitute authoriz­ation, which requires a demonstration that the defendant did 'give approval to; sanc­tion, permit; favour, encourage' ... the in­fringing con­duct. I agree that notice of infringing content, and a failure to respond by 'taking it down' may in some circum­stances lead to a find­ing of 'authoriza­tion'". - See paragraphs 120 to 127.

Copyright - Topic 4565

Infringement of copyright - Internet, On-line services, CD Rom and other electronic media - Internet inter­mediaries (incl. host server operators and internet service pro­viders) - The Copyright Board rendered a decision excluding most Internet intermedi­aries from liability to pay royalties for copyright music transmitted on the Internet - The Board held that a communication by telecommunication occurs in Canada if, but only if, the com­munication originated from a host server in Canada - The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed - Copyright in­fringement occurred in Canada when there was a real and substantial connection be­tween this country and the communica­tion in issue - The Board erred in finding that the only relevant connection between Can­ada and the telecommunication was the lo­ca­tion of the host server - See paragraph 51 to 52.

Copyright - Topic 5667

Copyright Board - Jurisdiction - Judicial review - The Copyright Board was called upon to decide who could be made liable to pay royalties to the owners of the copy­right in music transmitted on the internet - The matter was to be dealt with in two phases - Following Phase 1, the Board rendered a decision excluding most Inter­net intermediaries from liability to pay royalties for copyright music transmitted on the Internet - The Society of Compos­ers, Authors and Music Publishers of Can­ada (SOCAN) applied for judicial review -The Supreme Court of Canada, applying the "pragmatic and functional" test to determine the appropriate standard of re­view, held that the Board's decisions on the legal questions at issue were review­able on the standard of correctness - See paragraphs 48 to 50.

Copyright - Topic 6021

Practice - Jurisdiction - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the applicability of our Copyright Act to com­munications that have international partici­pants will depend on whether there is a suf­ficient connection between this country and the communication in question for Can­ada to apply its law consistent with the 'principles of order and fairness ... to ensure security of [cross-border] transac­tions with justice.' ... A real and substan­tial connection to Canada is sufficient to support the application of our Copyright Act to international Internet transmissions in a way that will accord with international comity and be consistent with the objec­tives of order and fairness. ... the con­clusion that Canada could exercise copy­right jurisdiction in respect both of trans­missions originating here and transmissions originating abroad but received here is not only consistent with our general law ... but with both national and international copy­right practice." - See paragraphs 57, 60, 76.

Cases Noticed:

Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Cham­plain inc. et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 336; 285 N.R. 267; 2002 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 40].

CCH Canadian Ltd. et al. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339; 317 N.R. 107; 2004 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 40].

Citron v. Zundel (2002), 41 C.H.R.R. D/274 (Can. Hum. Rts. Trib.), refd to. [para. 41].

Earth Future Lottery, Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 123; 301 N.R. 198; 223 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 358; 666 A.P.R. 358; 2003 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 41].

Braintech Inc. v. Kostiuk (1999), 120 B.C.A.C. 1; 196 W.A.C. 1; 171 D.L.R.(4th) 46 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick (2002), 194 A.L.R. 433; 2002 HCA 56, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Goldman, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 976; 30 N.R. 453, refd to. [para. 46].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 2003 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 48].

Dr. Q. v. College of Physicians and Sur­geons (B.C.) - see Dr. Q., Re.

Tolofson v. Jensen and Tolofson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022; 175 N.R. 161; 77 O.A.C. 81; 51 B.C.A.C. 241; 84 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 54].

Morguard Investments Ltd. et al. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077; 122 N.R. 81, refd to. [paras. 55, 144].

Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63; 306 N.R. 201; 176 O.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Libman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178; 62 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 33, refd to. [para. 58].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; 224 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 59].

Kitakufe v. Oloya (1998), 67 O.T.C. 315 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 59].

Hunt v. Lac d'Amiante du Québec Ltée et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 289; 161 N.R. 81; 37 B.C.A.C. 161; 60 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 60, 147].

Hunt v. T & N plc - see Hunt v. Lac d'Amiante du Québec Ltée et al.

Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. ABC Containerline N.V. (Bankrupt) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 907; 280 N.R. 1; 2001 SCC 90, refd to. [para. 60].

Spar Aerospace Ltd. v. American Mobile Satellite Corp. et al., [2002] 4 S.C.R. 205; 297 N.R. 83; 2002 SCC 78, refd to. [para. 60].

Beals v. Saldanha et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416; 314 N.R. 209; 182 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 72, refd to. [paras. 60, 147].

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. 62].

WIC Premium Television Ltd. v. General Instrument Corp. et al. (2000), 266 A.R. 142; 228 W.A.C. 142; 8 C.P.R.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

World Stock Exchange, Re (2000), 9 A.S.C.S. 658, refd to. [para. 62].

Commission Decision of 8 October 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, Case No. COMP/C2/ 38.014 - IFPI "Simulcasting" (E.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

National Football League v. PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture (2000), 211 F.3d 10 (2nd Cir.), refd to. [para. 70].

Los Angeles News Service v. Conus Com­munications Co. (1997), 969 F.Supp. 579 (C.D. Cal.), refd to. [para. 71].

National Football League v. TVRadioNow Corp. (2000), 53 U.S.P.Q.2d 1831 (W.D. Pa.), refd to. [para. 72].

Yahoo! Inc. v. Ligue contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme (2001), 145 F.Supp.2d 1168 (N.D. Cal.), refd to. [para. 75].

Bishop v. Télé-Métropole Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 467; 111 N.R. 376, refd to. [para. 82].

Bishop v. Stevens - see Bishop v. Télé-Métropole Inc.

Blue Crest Music Inc. et al. v. Compo Co., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 357; 29 N.R. 296, refd to. [para. 82].

Menear v. Miguna et al. (1996), 15 O.T.C. 64; 30 O.R.(3d) 602 (Gen. Div.), revd. (1997), 100 O.A.C. 238; 33 O.R.(3d) 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

Newton v. Vancouver (City) (1932), 46 B.C.R. 67 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 89].

Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Smith (W.H.) & Son Ltd., [1933] All E.R. Rep. 432 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

Electric Despatch Co. of Toronto v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada (1891), 20 S.C.R. 83, refd to. [para. 96].

Canadian Association of Broadcasters v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (1994), 175 N.R. 341; 58 C.P.R.(3d) 190 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 105].

Religious Technology Centre v. Netcom On-line Communication Services Inc. (1995), 907 F.Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal.), refd to. [para. 117].

Vigneux v. Canadian Performing Right Society Ltd., [1945] A.C. 108 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 122].

Muzak Corp. v. Composers, Authors and Publishers Association of Canada Ltd., [1953] 2 S.C.R. 182, refd to. [para. 122].

Apple Computer Inc. et al. v. Mackintosh Com­puters Ltd., [1987] 1 F.C. 173; 3 F.T.R. 118 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 126].

Apple Computer Inc. et al. v. Mackintosh Com­puters Ltd., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 209; 110 N.R. 66, refd to. [para. 126].

C.B.S. Inc. v. Ames Records & Tapes Ltd., [1982] 1 Ch. 91, refd to. [para. 126].

Godfrey v. Demon Internet Ltd., [1999] 4 All E.R. 342 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 126].

A & M Records Inc. v. Napster Inc. (2000), 114 F.Supp.2d 896 (N.D. Cal.), affd. in part (2001), 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 129].

Croft v. Dunphy, [1933] A.C. 156 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 141].

Reference Re Offshore Mineral Rights of British Columbia, [1967] S.C.R. 792, refd to. [para. 143].

Newfoundland Reference Re Continental Shelf (1984), [1984] 1 S.C.R. 86; 51 N.R. 362, refd to. [para. 143].

Bolduc v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 573; 43 N.R. 185, refd to. [para. 144].

Arcadi v. R., [1932] S.C.R. 158, refd to. [para. 144].

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; 2001 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 150].

Daniels v. White, [1968] S.C.R. 517, refd to. [para. 150].

Statutes Noticed:

Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, sect. 2, sect. 2.4(1)(b), sect. 3(1)(f) [para. 27].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Anonymous, The music industry: In a Spin (March 2003), The Economist 58, gen­erally [para. 130].

Brown, Raymond E., The Law of Defama­tion in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999) (Looseleaf), vol. 1, §7.12(6) [para. 89].

Canada, House of Commons, Sub-Commit­tee on the Revision of Copyright of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, A Charter of Rights for Creators (1985), p. 80 [para. 90].

Gervais, Daniel J., Transmissions of Music on the Internet: An Analysis of the Copy­right Laws of Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States (2001), 34 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 1363, p. 1376 [para. 75].

Gratton, Eloïse, Internet and Wireless Privacy: A Legal Guide to Global Busi­ness Prac­tices (2003), p. 6 [para. 154].

McKeown, John S., Fox on Canadian Law of Copyright and Industrial Designs (4th Ed. 2003) (Looseleaf), pp. 21-4, 21-5 [para. 99].

Nimmer, Melville B., Nimmer on Copy­right (2002 Looseleaf Update - Release 59), vol. 3, p. 12B-13 [para. 117].

Pietsch, Matthew V., International Copy­right Infringement and the Internet: An Analy­sis of the Existing Means of Enforcement (2001-2002), 24 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 273, generally [para. 68]; p. 278 [para. 129].

Reindl, Andreas P., Choosing Law in Cyberspace: Copyright Conflicts on Global Networks (1997-1998), 19 Mich. J. Int'l L. 799, generally [para. 145]; p. 820 [para. 106].

Smith, Graham J.H., Internet Law and Regula­tion (3rd Ed. 2002), p. 269 [para. 66].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 601, 602 [para. 57].

Takach, George S., Computer Law (2nd Ed. 2003), pp. 21 [para. 114]; 30 [para. 2].

Vaver, David, Copyright Law (2000), p. 14 [para. 56].

Counsel:

Thomas G. Heintzman, Q.C., and Barry B. Sookman, for the appellants/respondents on cross-appeal;

Y.A. George Hynna, Brian A. Crane, Q.C., Gilles M. Daigle and C. Paul Spurgeon, for the respondent/appellant on cross-appeal;

Andrea Rush and Stephen Zolf, for the intervenors, Internet Commerce Coali­tion, European Telecommunications Net­work Operators' Association, Euro­pean Internet Service Providers' Associ­ation, Australian Internet Industry Asso­ciation, Telecom Services Association and U.S. Internet Industry Association;

Glen A. Bloom, for the intervenors, Cana­dian Recording Industry Association and International Federation of Phonogram Industry.

Solicitors of Record:

McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants/respondents on cross-ap­peal;

Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Ottawa, On­tario, for the respondent/appellant on cross-appeal;

Heenan Blaikie, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenors, Internet Commerce Coali­tion, European Telecommunications Net­work Operators' Association, Euro­pean Internet Service Providers' Associ­ation, Australian Internet Industry Asso­ciation, Telecom Services Association and U.S. Internet Industry Association;

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, Ottawa, On­tario, for the intervenors, Canadian Re­cording Industry Association and Interna­tional Federation of Phonogram Industry.

This appeal and cross-appeal were heard on December 3, 2003, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On June 30, 2004, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Binnie, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Arbour, Deschamps and Fish, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 133;

LeBel, J. - see paragraphs 134 to 156.