Canadian Association of Broadcasters v. Canada, 2005 FC 1200

Date: 20050902

Docket: T-2277-03

Citation: 2005 FC 1200

BETWEEN:

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS (The Plaintiff Association), GROUPE TVA INC., CTV TELEVISION INC., THE SPORTS NETWORK INC., 2953285 CANADA INC. (o.b.a. Discovery Channel Canada), LE RÉSEAU DES SPORTS (RDS) INC., THE COMEDY NETWORK INC., 1163031 ONTARIO INC. (o.b.a. Outdoor Life Network), GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, GLOBAL TELEVISION NETWORK QUEBEC LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PRIME TV, GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, CHUM LIMITED, CHUM OTTAWA INC., CHUM TELEVISION VANCOUVER INC. and PULSE24 GENERAL PARTNERSHIP (The Corporate Plaintiffs)

Plaintiffs

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Defendant

Docket: T-276-04

BETWEEN:

VIDÉOTRON LTÉE, VIDÉOTRON (RÉGIONAL) LTÉE, and CF CABLE TV INC.

Plaintiffs

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Defendant

REASONS FOR ORDER

(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario
on September 1, 2005)

HUGESSEN J.

[1]                I am going to dismiss this appeal from the Order of the case management Prothonotary directing a decision on two questions of law pursuant to Rule 220.

[2]                There is no dispute between the parties that the matter before the Prothonotary was a discretionary matter and one in which she had a wide discretion to exercise.

[3]                There is no question in my mind that the Prothonotary carefully considered and carefully applied the relevant jurisprudence in particular the leading decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in the Perera[1] case. That being so, in my view, and following the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Aqua-Gem[2] there is no basis upon which I could or should interfere with her Order.[3]

[4]                It was a matter of discretion. She made no apparent error in the application of the relevant case law and the matter was not one which was vital to the final determination of the case. All she did was make a procedural Order as to how a question which admittedly might be vital to the final determination of the case should be dealt with but the Order which she rendered was not itself vital in that sense.

[5]                The appeal will accordingly be dismissed with costs to be assessed.

"James K. Hugessen"

Ottawa, Ontario

September 2, 2005

FEDERAL COURT

NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                           T-2277-03    

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS et al v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                            - AND -

                                                            T-276-04

VIDÉOTRON LTÉE et al v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

PLACE OF HEARING:                     OTTAWA, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                       SEPTEMBER 1, 2005

REASONS FOR ORDER:                HUGESSEN J.

DATED:                                              SEPTEMBER 2, 2005

APPEARANCES:

BARBARA A. McISAAC, Q.C.

HOWARD FOHR                                                                    FOR PLAINTIFFS
(Canadian Association of Broadcasters et al, in T-2277-03)

DANIEL URBAS
CARL J. SOUQUET                                                                FOR PLAINTIFFS
                                                                                                (Vidéotron Ltée et al, in
                                                                                                T-276-04)

F.B. (RICK) WOYIWADA

R. JEFF ANDERSON                                                              FOR DEFENDANT
           (in T-2277-03)

FRANCISCO COUTO                                                            FOR DEFENDANT
(in T-276-04)

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

McCARTHY TÉTRAULT

OTTAWA, ONTARIO                                                             FOR PLAINTIFFS
(Canadian Association of Broadcasters et al, in T-2277-03)

BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS srl/LLP

MONTREAL, QUEBEC                                                          FOR PLAINTIFFS

(Vidéotron Ltée et al, in
T-276-04)

JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C.

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

OTTAWA, ONTARIO                                                             FOR DEFENDANT
                                                                                                (in T-2277-03)

JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C.

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

MONTREAL, QUEBEC                                                        FOR DEFENDANT
                                                                                                (in T-276-04)