Date: 20040406
Docket: T-638-99
Citation: 2004 FC 532
Ottawa, Ontario, this 6th day of April, 2004
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN A. O'KEEFE
BETWEEN:
ODYSSEY TELEVISION NETWORK INC.
Plaintiff
- and -
TRIANTAFILLOS TT TRIANTAFILLOU aka TRIANTAFILLOS FILLIS
c.o.b. as 'FILLIS SERVICE & SATELLITE', DIGITAL ZONE INC.,
KELLY L. ANARGYROS, EFSTATHIOS ANARGYROS,
KELLY LEA ANARGYROS c.o.b. 'M.C.K. ELECTRONICS',
UNIVERCELL AIRWAVES INC., GEORGE PAUL VLAHAKIS,
EURO VISIONS INC., DIMITRA MANIATIS, JOHN PAGONIS,
CHRISTOS KYRITSIS c.o.b. WISEMAN T.V., JOHN DOE,
JANE DOE and PERSONS UNKNOWN
Defendants
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
O'KEEFE J.
[1] This is a hearing of the motion by Odyssey Television Network (the "plaintiff") for summary judgment against the defendants, Triantafillos TT Triantafillou aka Triantafillos Fillis c.o.b. 'Fillis Service & Satellite', Digital Zone Inc., Kelly L. Anargyros, Efstathios Anargyros, Kelly Lea Anargyros c.o.b. 'M.C.K. Electronics', Univercell Airwaves Inc., George Paul Vlahakis, Euro Visions Inc., Dimitra Maniatis, John Pagonis, Christos Kyritsis c.o.b. Wiseman T.V., Jane Doe, John Doe and persons unknown.
[2] The plaintiff, a broadcast licence holder of Greek television programming in Canada, alleges that the defendants advertise and sell satellite television systems whose sole function is to decode encrypted signals, including Greek programming, in violation of the Radiocommunication Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-2 (the "Act").
[3] The plaintiff seeks summary judgment against the defendants and:
1. an injunction against each of the defendants, their agents, servants, representatives, affiliated companies, owners, parent companies, subsidiaries, anyone on their behalf and anyone having knowledge of the injunction, prohibiting them from directly or indirectly manufacturing, importing, distributing, leasing, selling, offering for sale, installing, modifying, operating, or possessing equipment or devices of any kind whatsoever (or any component thereof) that is, or is designed to be, used to directly or indirectly decode encrypted subscription programming signals that are not transmitted or broadcast by a lawful distributor, including but not limited to, encrypted subscription programming signals broadcast or transmitted by any person in any country, other than in Canada;
2. an injunction against each of the defendants, their agents, servants, representatives, affiliated companies, owners, parent companies, subsidiaries, anyone on their behalf and anyone having knowledge of the injunction, prohibiting them from advising, or offering advice or information, to any person that would, could or will directly or indirectly encourage, assist, aid or abet any person in Canada to decode an encrypted subscription programming signal which, whole or in part, comprises programming for which the plaintiff has the exclusive distribution rights in Canada, without the written authorization of the plaintiff;
3. an injunction against each of the defendants, their agents, servants, representatives, affiliated companies, owners, parent companies, subsidiaries, anyone on their behalf and anyone having knowledge of the injunction, prohibiting them from directly or indirectly decoding an encrypted subscription programming signal, otherwise than under and in accordance with authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal;
4. an injunction against each of the defendants, their agents, servants, representatives, affiliated companies, owners, parent companies, subsidiaries, anyone on their behalf and anyone having knowledge of the injunction, prohibiting them from directly or indirectly providing information or a device to any person, describing one or more methods whereby any person could subscribe for, receive, or decode encrypted subscription programming signals that originate in any country other than Canada, unless they are transmitted by a lawful distributor, pursuant to the terms of a licence issued in Canada by the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission ("CRTC") permitting them to do so;
5. an injunction as set out above as against persons whom it is determined by the plaintiff as breaching paragraphs 9(1)(c) and 10(1)(d) of the Radiocommunication Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-2;
6. an injunction as set out above as against persons whom it is determined by the plaintiff are aiding and abetting in the breach of paragraphs 9(1)(c) and 10(1)(d) of the Act;
7. an order that the defendants provide the serial number/address for each unit sold by them;
8. such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court permit; and
9. costs of this motion on a solicitor and client basis.
[4] The defendants, Univercell Airwaves Inc. and George Paul Vlahakis seek an order dismissing the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
[5] The defendant, Christos Kyritsis c.o.b. 'Wiseman T.V.' seeks:
1. an order dismissing the summary judgment; and
2. an award of costs against the plaintiff.
Background
[6] The plaintiff is an Ontario corporation with its head office in Toronto. On September 4, 1996, it was granted a broadcasting licence by CRTC Decision 96-616 for a regional ethnic programming undertaking aimed at the Greek community. Its licence was amended by CRTC Decision 97-257 to have national coverage.
[7] In addition to holding a licence to carry on a broadcasting undertaking, the plaintiff holds licences from the various copyright owners of the programs included as part of its offerings. The plaintiff therefore has an interest in the content of its programming signal.
[8] The plaintiff's programming is licenced to be distributed to viewers for a fee through cable television companies and direct-to-home satellite undertakings. Bell ExpressVu and StarChoice, both of which distribute the plaintiff's signal, are the only two direct-to-home satellite distribution undertakings licenced by the CRTC to operate in Canada.
[9] The defendant, Euro Visions Inc. is an Ontario corporation that sells satellite television systems, including the Echostar Digital Satellite System. The defendants, Dimitra Maniatis and John Pagonis are the sole officers, directors and guiding minds of Euro Visions Inc. Maniatis, Pagonis and Euro Visions Inc. were all noted in default in this action by order of Blais J. on April 12, 2000.
[10] The defendant, Triantafillos TT Triantafillou aka Triantafillos Fillis ("Fillis") is an individual residing in the City of Toronto and carrying on business under the name and style of Fillis Service & Satellite. Fillis markets and sells television broadcasting reception equipment and provides advice and service to members of the public who wish to subscribe for satellite television programming services.
[11] The defendant, Digital Zone Inc. is an Ontario corporation with its head office in Scarborough, Ontario. The defendant, Kelly L. Anargyros is an officer, director and directing mind of Digital Zone Inc. The defendant, Efstathios Anargyros is alleged to be an officer, director and directing mind of Digital Zone Inc., but denies being so. Digital Zone Inc. sells satellite television reception equipment.
[12] The plaintiff has named Kelly Lea Anargyros carrying on business as M.C.K. Electronics as a defendant who allegedly sells satellite television systems. The individual defendant, Kelly Lea Anargyros states that M.C.K. Electronics ceased operation in 1998.
[13] The defendant, Univercell Airwaves Inc. is an Ontario corporation with its head office in Toronto. The individual defendant George Paul Vlahakis ("Vlahakis") is the sole director and president of Univercell, which advertises and sells satellite television reception equipment.
[14] The defendant Christos Kyritsis is an individual residing in Montreal, Quebec who carries on business under the name and style of "Wiseman T.V." Kyritsis, through his sole proprietorship Wiseman T.V., sells satellite television systems.
Plaintiff's Submissions
[15] The plaintiff alleges that the individual and corporate defendants have clearly contravened the Act and that a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision on the interpretation of paragraph 9(1)(c) of the Act renders this case appropriate for summary judgment. The plaintiff asks this Court to permanently enjoin the defendants from continuing their illegal conduct.
[16] The plaintiff alleges that the defendants are selling equipment to allow viewers in Canada to decode encrypted subscription programming signals transmitted by United States broadcasters. U.S. broadcasters are not authorized or licenced to exhibit programming in Canada and are not permitted to authorize decoding of satellite signals by Canadian customers.
[17] Specifically, the plaintiff alleges the conduct of the defendants is in breach of paragraphs 9(1)(c), 9(1)(d) and 10(1)(b) of the Act, which prohibit decoding encrypted signals without the authorization of a lawful distributor, operating a radio apparatus to receive illegally decoded signals, and providing equipment for the purpose of illegally decoding encrypted signals.
[18] The plaintiff states that it is the only legal distributor of Greek television programming in Canada and alleges that the defendants advertise, sell the equipment and provide the service which allows Canadian customers to view Greek language programming which is not licenced for distribution in Canada and which directly competes with its services.
[19] The plaintiff relies on affidavits of private investigators who attended at each defendant's place of business (or in the case of Fillis, spoke on the telephone on a number of occasions) and observed alleged breaches of the Act. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants sell equipment and assist customers in viewing Antenna Satellite, Greek language programming broadcasts from the United States. Antenna Satellite is not authorized to distribute programming in Canada.
[20] The plaintiff states that the actions of the defendants are causing it financial loss and interfere with the expansion of its business, its goodwill and its ability to do business in Canada.
[21] In support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff contends that the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559, 2002 SCC 42 is a complete answer to the matters at issue in this case and deprive the defendants of any viable defence.
[22] In Bell ExpressVu, supra, paragraph 9(1)(c) of the Act was ruled to be an absolute bar to decoding encrypted programming signals unless authorization was obtained from a lawful distributor. Even where the signals originate from the U.S. and were not licenced by a CRTC-licenced undertaking, decoding was seen to be illegal. In the plaintiff's estimation, the Bell ExpressVu, supra ruling deprives this matter of any triable issue and, therefore, asks that summary judgment be entered in its favour.
[23] To similar effect, the plaintiff relies on ExpressVu Inc. v. NII Norsat International Inc. (c.o.b. Aurora Distributing, [1997] F.C.J. No. 1004 (T.D.) (QL), aff'd [1997] F.C.J. No. 1563 (C.A.) (QL).
Defendants' Submissions
[24] The defendants, Christos Kyritsis c.o.b. Wiseman T.V., Univercell Airwaves Inc., and George Paul Vlahakis, contend there are a number of triable issues in this case such that summary judgment should not be entered.
[25] First, the defendants submit that the competing Greek language programming from Antenna Satellite is not encrypted, so the Act does not apply and cannot ground the plaintiff's civil action. Relying on affidavit evidence of defendant Kelly Lea Anargyros, the defendants state that Antenna Satellite programming is available to anyone with a receiver or with U.S. satellite television service. In the defendants' view, since the signal is not encrypted, the Act does not apply, so there is a triable issue as to whether the defendants have engaged in any wrong-doing and the plaintiff's motion must fail.
[26] Furthermore, the defendants, Univercell Airwaves Inc and George Paul Vlahakis contend that summary judgment is inappropriate in this case because significant evidentiary issues are outstanding. These defendants intend to bring a motion to re-examine the plaintiff's witness regarding past dealings with Antenna Satellite.
[27] The defendants submit that if sections 9 and 10 of the Act must be read to absolutely prohibit Canadians from receiving any subscription signals of foreign origin, the legislation would be invalid as contravening subsection 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11. The defendants point out that the Supreme Court of Canada in Bell ExpressVu, supra, explicitly left the Charter challenge to the Act outstanding.
[28] The defendants submit there is a triable issue, this is not the proper case for an injunction, and costs should be awarded against the plaintiff.
Issue
[29] Is there a genuine issue for trial in this case?
Relevant Statutory Provisions and Regulations
[30] The relevant sections of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, S.O.R./98-106, state as follows:
|
3. These Rules shall be interpreted and applied so as to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding on its merits.
213. (1) A plaintiff may, after the defendant has filed a defence, or earlier with leave of the Court, and at any time before the time and place for trial are fixed, bring a motion for summary judgment on all or part of the claim set out in the statement of claim.
214. (1) A party may bring a motion for summary judgment in an action by serving and filing a notice of motion and motion record at least 20 days before the day set out in the notice for the hearing of the motion.
(2) A party served with a motion for summary judgment shall serve and file a respondent's motion record not later than 10 days before the day set out in the notice of motion for the hearing of the motion.
|
3. Les présentes règles sont interprétées et appliquées de façon à permettre d'apporter une solution au litige qui soit juste et la plus expéditive et économique possible.
213. (1) Le demandeur peut, après le dépôt de la défense du défendeur - ou avant si la Cour l'autorise - et avant que l'heure, la date et le lieu de l'instruction soient fixés, présenter une requête pour obtenir un jugement sommaire sur tout ou partie de la réclamation contenue dans la déclaration.
214. (1) Toute partie peut présenter une requête pour obtenir un jugement sommaire dans une action en signifiant et en déposant un avis de requête et un dossier de requête au moins 20 jours avant la date de l'audition de la requête indiquée dans l'avis.
(2) La partie qui reçoit signification d'une requête en jugement sommaire signifie et dépose un dossier de réponse au moins 10 jours avant la date de l'audition de la requête indiquée dans l'avis de requête.
|
|
215. A response to a motion for summary judgment shall not rest merely on allegations or denials of the pleadings of the moving party, but must set out specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.
216. (1) Where on a motion for summary judgment the Court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue for trial with respect to a claim or defence, the Court shall grant summary judgment accordingly.
(2) Where on a motion for summary judgment the Court is satisfied that the only genuine issue is
(a) the amount to which the moving party is entitled, the Court may order a trial of that issue or grant summary judgment with a reference under rule 153 to determine the amount; or
(b) a question of law, the Court may determine the question and grant summary judgment accordingly.
(3) Where on a motion for summary judgment the Court decides that there is a genuine issue with respect to a claim or defence, the Court may nevertheless grant summary judgment in favour of any party, either on an issue or generally, if the Court is able on the whole of the evidence to find the facts necessary to decide the questions of fact and law.
|
215. La réponse à une requête en jugement sommaire ne peut être fondée uniquement sur les allégations ou les dénégations contenues dans les actes de procédure déposés par le requérant. Elle doit plutôt énoncer les faits précis démontrant l'existence d'une véritable question litigieuse.
216. (1) Lorsque, par suite d'une requête en jugement sommaire, la Cour est convaincue qu'il n'existe pas de véritable question litigieuse quant à une déclaration ou à une défense, elle rend un jugement sommaire en conséquence.
(2) Lorsque, par suite d'une requête en jugement sommaire, la Cour est convaincue que la seule véritable question litigieuse est:
a) le montant auquel le requérant a droit, elle peut ordonner l'instruction de la question ou rendre un jugement sommaire assorti d'un renvoi pour détermination du montant conformément à la règle 153;
b) un point de droit, elle peut statuer sur celui-ci et rendre un jugement sommaire en conséquence.
(3) Lorsque, par suite d'une requête en jugement sommaire, la Cour conclut qu'il existe une véritable question litigieuse à l'égard d'une déclaration ou d'une défense, elle peut néanmoins rendre un jugement sommaire en faveur d'une partie, soit sur une question particulière, soit de façon générale, si elle parvient à partir de l'ensemble de la preuve à dégager les faits nécessaires pour trancher les questions de fait et de droit.
|
|
(4) Where a motion for summary judgment is dismissed in whole or in part, the Court may order the action, or the issues in the action not disposed of by summary judgment, to proceed to trial in the usual way or order that the action be conducted as a specially managed proceeding.
217. A plaintiff who obtains summary judgment under these Rules may proceed against the same defendant for any other relief and against any other defendant for the same or any other relief.
218. Where summary judgment is refused or is granted only in part, the Court may make an order specifying which material facts are not in dispute and defining the issues to be tried, including an order
(a) for payment into court of all or part of the claim;
(b) for security for costs; or
(c) limiting the nature and scope of the examination for discovery to matters not covered by the affidavits filed on the motion for summary judgment or by any cross-examination on them and providing for their use at trial in the same manner as an examination for discovery.
219. In making an order for summary judgment, the Court may order that enforcement of the summary judgment be stayed pending the determination of any other issue in the action or in a counterclaim or third party claim. |
(4) Lorsque la requête en jugement sommaire est rejetée en tout ou en partie, la Cour peut ordonner que l'action ou les questions litigieuses qui ne sont pas tranchées par le jugement sommaire soient instruites de la manière habituelle ou elle peut ordonner la tenue d'une instance à gestion spéciale.
217. Le demandeur qui obtient un jugement sommaire aux termes des présentes règles peut poursuivre le même défendeur pour une autre réparation ou poursuivre tout autre défendeur pour la même ou une autre réparation.
218. Lorsqu'un jugement sommaire est refusé ou n'est accordé qu'en partie, la Cour peut, par ordonnance, préciser les faits substantiels qui ne sont pas en litige et déterminer les questions qui doivent être instruites, ainsi que:
a) ordonner la consignation à la Cour d'une somme d'argent représentant la totalité ou une partie de la réclamation;
b) ordonner la remise d'un cautionnement pour dépens;
c) limiter la nature et l'étendue de l'interrogatoire préalable aux questions non visées par les affidavits déposés à l'appui de la requête en jugement sommaire, ou limiter la nature et l'étendue de tout contre-interrogatoire s'y rapportant, et permettre l'utilisation de ces affidavits lors de l'interrogatoire à l'instruction de la même manière qu'à l'interrogatoire préalable.
219. Lorsqu'elle rend un jugement sommaire, la Cour peut surseoir à l'exécution forcée de ce jugement jusqu'à la détermination d'une autre question soulevée dans l'action ou dans une demande reconventionnelle ou une mise en cause. |
[31] The relevant sections of the Radiocommunication Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-2, state as follows:
|
2. In this Act,
"broadcasting" means any radiocommunication in which the transmissions are intended for direct reception by the general public;
. . .
"encrypted" means treated electronically or otherwise for the purpose of preventing intelligible reception;
. . .
"lawful distributor", in relation to an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed, means a person who has the lawful right in Canada to transmit it and authorize its decoding;
. . .
"radiocommunication" or "radio" means any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds or intelligence of any nature by means of electromagnetic waves of frequencies lower than 3 000 GHz propagated in space without artificial guide;
. . .
|
2. Les définitions qui suivent s'appliquent à la présente loi.
« radiodiffusion » Toute radiocommunication dont les émissions sont destinées à être reçues directement par le public en général.
. . .
« encodage » Traitement électronique ou autre visant à empêcher la réception en clair.
. . .
« distributeur légitime » La personne légitimement autorisée, au Canada, à transmettre un signal d'abonnement ou une alimentation réseau, en situation d'encodage, et à en permettre le décodage.
. . .
« radiocommunication » ou « radio » Toute transmission, émission ou réception de signes, de signaux, d'écrits, d'images, de sons ou de renseignements de toute nature, au moyen d'ondes électromagnétiques de fréquences inférieures à 3 000 GHz transmises dans l'espace sans guide artificiel.
. . .
|
|
"subscription programming signal" means radiocommunication that is intended for reception either directly or indirectly by the public in Canada or elsewhere on payment of a subscription fee or other charge;
. . .
9. (1) No person shall
. . .
(c) decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed;
. . .
10. (1) Every person who
. . .
(b) without lawful excuse, manufactures, imports, distributes, leases, offers for sale, sells, installs, modifies, operates or possesses any equipment or device, or any component thereof, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the equipment, device or component has been used, or is or was intended to be used, for the purpose of contravening section 9,
. . . |
« signal d'abonnement » Radiocommunication destinée à être reçue, directement ou non, par le public au Canada ou ailleurs moyennant paiement d'un prix d'abonnement ou de toute autre forme de redevance.
. . .
9. (1) Il est interdit:
. . .
c) de décoder, sans l'autorisation de leur distributeur légitime ou en contravention avec celle-ci, un signal d'abonnement ou une alimentation réseau;
. . .
10. (1) Commet une infraction et encourt, sur déclaration de culpabilité par procédure sommaire, dans le cas d'une personne physique, une amende maximale de cinq mille dollars et un emprisonnement maximal d'un an, ou l'une de ces peines, ou, dans le cas d'une personne morale, une amende maximale de vingt-cinq mille dollars quiconque, selon le cas:
b) sans excuse légitime, fabrique, importe, distribue, loue, met en vente, vend, installe, modifie, exploite ou possède tout matériel ou dispositif, ou composante de celui-ci, dans des circonstances donnant à penser que l'un ou l'autre est utilisé en vue d'enfreindre l'article 9, l'a été ou est destiné à l'être;
. . . |
|
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both, or, in the case of a corporation, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars.
. . .
(2.1) Every person who contravenes paragraph 9(1)(c) or (d) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both, or, in the case of a corporation, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars.
. . .
(2.5) No person shall be convicted of an offence under paragraph 9(1)(c), (d) or (e) if the person exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.
18. (1) Any person who
(a) holds an interest in the content of a subscription programming signal or network feed, by virtue of copyright ownership or a licence granted by a copyright owner,
. . .
(c) holds a licence to carry on a broadcasting undertaking issued by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission under the Broadcasting Act, or
. . .
|
(2.1) Quiconque contrevient aux alinéas 9(1)c) ou d) commet une infraction et encourt, sur déclaration de culpabilité par procédure sommaire, dans le cas d'une personne physique, une amende maximale de dix mille dollars et un emprisonnement maximal de six mois, ou l'une de ces peines, dans le cas d'une personne morale, une amende maximale de vingt-cinq mille dollars.
. . .
(2.5) Nul ne peut être déclaré coupable de l'infraction visée aux alinéas 9(1)c), d) ou e) s'il a pris les mesures nécessaires pour l'empêcher.
18. (1) Peut former, devant tout tribunal compétent, un recours civil à l'encontre du contrevenant quiconque a subi une perte ou des dommages par suite d'une contravention aux alinéas 9(1)c), d) ou e) ou 10(1)b) et:
a) soit détient, à titre de titulaire du droit d'auteur ou d'une licence accordée par ce dernier, un droit dans le contenu d'un signal d'abonnement ou d'une alimentation réseau;
. . .
c) soit est titulaire d'une licence attribuée, au titre de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, par le Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes et l'autorisant à exploiter une entreprise de radiodiffusion;
. . . |
|
. . .
may, where the person has suffered loss or damage as a result of conduct that is contrary to paragraph 9(1)(c), (d) or (e) or 10(1)(b), in any court of competent jurisdiction, sue for and recover damages from the person who engaged in the conduct, or obtain such other remedy, by way of injunction, accounting or otherwise, as the court considers appropriate. |
. . .
Cette personne est admise à exercer tous recours, notamment par voie de dommages-intérêts, d'injonction ou de reddition de compte, selon ce que le tribunal estime indiqué. |
Analysis and Decision
[32] Summary Judgment Test
This Court in Granville Shipping Co. v. Pegasus Lines Ltd., [1996] 2 F.C. 853 (T.D.) at paragraph 8, set out the following general principles with respect to summary judgment:
1. the purpose of the provisions is to allow the Court to summarily dispense with cases which ought not proceed to trial because there is no genuine issue to be tried (Old Fish Market Restaurants Ltd. v. 1000357 Ontario Inc. et al),
2. there is no determinative test (Feoso Oil Ltd. v. Sarla (The)) but Stone J.A. seems to have adopted the reasons of Henry J. in Pizza Pizza Ltd. v. Gillespie. It is not whether a party cannot possibly succeed at trial, it is whether the case is so doubtful that it does not deserve consideration by the trier of fact at a future trial;
3. each case should be interpreted in reference to its own contextual framework (Blyth and Feoso);
4. provincial practice rules (especially Rule 20 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, [R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194]) can aid in interpretation (Feoso and Collie);
5. this Court may determine questions of fact and law on the motion for summary judgment if this can be done on the material before the Court (this is broader than Rule 20 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure) (Patrick);
6. on the whole of the evidence, summary judgment cannot be granted if the necessary facts cannot be found or if it would be unjust to do so (Pallman and Sears);
7. in the case of a serious issue with respect to credibility, the case should go to trial because the parties should be cross-examined before the trial judge (Forde and Sears). The mere existence of apparent conflict in the evidence does not preclude summary judgment; the court should take a "hard look" at the merits and decide if there are issues of credibility to be resolved (Stokes).
[33] With respect to summary judgment, I stated in Inhesion Industrial Co. v. Anglo Canadian Mercantile Co., [2000] F.C.J. No. 491 (T.D.) (QL) at paragraph 19:
Upon a motion for summary judgment, both parties must file their best evidence. The moving party must of course lead evidence which it believes will convince the Court that it is appropriate to grant summary judgment in its favour. The responding party must however also put its best evidence forward. This issue was discussed by Justice Evans in F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd. v. S.F. Concrete Technology, Inc. (8 April 1999), Court File No. T-335-97 (F.C.T.D.) [reported 1 C.P.R. (4th) 88, at p. 92]:
Accordingly, the respondent has an evidential burden to discharge in showing that there is a genuine issue for trial: Feoso Oil Ltd. v. "Sarla" (The), [1995] 3 F.C. 68 (F.C.A.) 81-82. However, this does not detract from the principle that the moving party has the legal onus of establishing the facts necessary to obtain summary judgment: Ruhl Estate v. Mannesmann Kienzle GmbH (1997), 80 C.P.R. (3d) 190 (F.C.T.D.) 200; Kirkbi AG. v. Ritvik Holdings Inc. (F.C.T.D.; T-2799-96; June 23, 1998) [reported 81 C.P.R. (3d) 289]. Thus, both parties are required to "put their best foot forward" so that the motions judge can determine whether there is an issue that should go to trial: Pizza Pizza Ltd. v. Gillespie (1990), 33 C.P.R. (3d) 519 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)) 529-530.
[34] The burden of proving there is no genuine issue for trial rests with the moving party (see Milliken & Co. v. Interface Flooring Systems (Can.) Inc. (1997), 76 C.P.R. (3d) 499 (Fed. T.D.)). Once the moving party has met this burden, the respondent must then "establish his claim as being one with a real chance of success" (see Guarantee Co. of North America v. Gordon Capital Corp., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 423 at paragraph 27).
Has the Act been breached?
[35] The plaintiff must establish a breach of the Act in order to succeed in its motion. Gibson J. in NII Norsat International, supra, formulated a clear statement on proving a claim under subsection 18(1) of the Act. He stated at paragraph 26:
I reiterate, to establish a cause of action under subsection 18(1), the plaintiffs must establish; first, that they are persons described in one or more of paragraphs (a) to (d) of that subsection; second, that there has been conduct of the defendants contrary to any of paragraphs 9(1)(c), (d) or (e) or 10(1)(b) of the Act; and third, that they have suffered loss or damage as a result of that conduct.
[36] The defendants do not dispute that the plaintiff holds a CRTC broadcasting licence and holds an interest in the content of the programming it distributes. Thus, the plaintiff fits within the first part of paragraphs 18(1)(a) and (c) of the Act.
[37] There are however, in my view, triable issues relating to the second and third parts of the NII Norsat International, supra test. Firstly, the defendants maintain that the Antenna Satellite signal is not encrypted so the prohibitions of the Act are inapplicable. The Act defines encryption as "treated electronically or otherwise for the purpose of preventing intelligible reception" (section 2 of the Act). This would appear to be a serious issue that should be determined at trial on a full evidentiary record.
[38] The status of the Antenna Satellite signal is key to this case. In its written submissions, the plaintiff centres its case around the availability of the Antenna Satellite signal on the defendants' hardware. Even if other programming signals are being decoded by the defendants' machines in violation of the Bell ExpressVu, supra holding, there is arguably no causal link between the availability of those signals and any economic harm suffered by the plaintiff. The civil remedy in subsection 18(1) would, therefore, be unavailable. It is clear that the plaintiff has framed its case so as to succeed or fail based on its allegations surrounding the Antenna Satellite signal.
[39] In J.H.C. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2001 FCT 263, [2001] F.C.J. No. 566 (T.D.) (QL), aff'd 2002 FCA 110, it was held that the Federal Court Rules, 1998, supra, allow summary judgment based on contested facts. However, in Warner-Lambert v. Concord Confections Inc., 2001 FCT 139, [2001] F.C.J. No. 287 (T.D.) (QL), it was held that the Court should not grant summary judgment where serious factual or legal issues remain to be resolved.
[40] Even after examining the transcripts of cross-examination for a number of the defendants, there still appears to be a triable issue regarding whether the Act has been breached.
[41] The defendants submit that if paragraph 9(1)(c) of the Act is read broadly enough to apply to them, then it violates the Charter's guarantee of freedom of expression under subsection 2(b) and is not saved by section 1. This argument would appear to raise a serious Charter issue.
[42] The constitutionality of sections 9 and 10 of the Act were not dealt with by the Supreme Court of Canada in Bell ExpressVu, supra. The defendants have raised a serious and complex legal issue that should not be dealt with in the context of a summary judgment application.
[43] I would also note that it appears that no notice of a constitutional question, as is required by section 57 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 has been given.
[44] I would therefore deny the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, with costs to the defendants who took part in this motion.
ORDER
[45] IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion is dismissed with costs to the defendants who took part in this motion.
"John A. O'Keefe"
J.F.C.
Ottawa, Ontario
April 6, 2004
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-638-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: ODYSSEY TELEVISION NETWORK INC.
- and -
TRIANTAFILLOS TT TRIANT AFILLOU et al
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: October 6, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF O'KEEFE J.
APPEARANCES:
Mr. William McKenzie
FOR PLAINTIFF
Mr. Ian Angus
FOR DEFENDANTS
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Crawford, McKenzie, McLean, Wilford, Anderson
& Duncan LLP
Orillia, Ontario
FOR PLAINTIFF
Ian Angus
Port Hope, Ontario
FOR DEFENDANTS