|
Telecommunications - Broadcasting. Rogers Communications Inc. v. Corus Entertainment Inc. ['standstill rule']
In Rogers Communications Inc. v. Corus Entertainment Inc. (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed two broadcasting appeals, here brought against two CRTC decisions. In the first "CRTC found that Rogers could not repackage the channel Slice by removing it from various packages offered by Rogers and offering it as a standalone service", and in the second "confirmed that Rogers was required to continue to distribute "“Slice, Home Network and Flavour Network at the same rates and on the same terms and conditions as before the dispute, including packaging and channel placement”"".
Here the court sets out the broadcasting 'standstill rule', which appears to be similar to an automatic 'stay' (suspension) of disputed changes in the event of a dispute:[9] The standstill rule applicable to a broadcasting distribution undertaking (Rogers in these appeals) is set out in section 15.01 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations:"(1) During any dispute between a licensee and a person licensed to carry on a programming undertaking or the operator of an exempt programming undertaking concerning the carriage or terms of carriage of programming services or concerning any right or obligation under the Act, the licensee shall continue to distribute those programming services at the same rates and on the same terms and conditions as it did before the dispute."
"(1) En cas de différend entre le titulaire et une personne autorisée à exploiter une entreprise de programmation ou l’exploitant d’une entreprise de programmation exemptée au sujet de la fourniture ou des modalités de fourniture des services de programmation ou au sujet de tout droit ou de toute obligation prévus par la Loi, le titulaire est tenu de continuer la distribution de ces services de programmation aux mêmes tarifs et selon les modalités qui s’appliquaient aux parties avant le différend."
"(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a dispute exists from the moment that written notice of the dispute is provided to the Commission and served on the other undertaking that is party to the dispute and ends when an agreement settling the dispute is reached by the concerned undertakings or, if no such agreement is reached, when the Commission renders a decision concerning any unresolved matter."
"(2) Pour l’application du paragraphe (1), il existe un différend lorsqu’un avis écrit en faisant état est déposé auprès du Conseil et signifié à l’autre entreprise en cause. Le différend prend fin dès que les entreprises en cause parviennent à un accord ou, à défaut, dès que le Conseil rend une décision concernant toute question non résolue." [10] Section 15 of the Discretionary Services Regulations, SOR/2017-159, is a substantially similar standstill rule that is applicable to programming undertakings (Corus in these appeals):"15 (1) During a dispute between a licensee and a person that is licensed to carry on a distribution undertaking or the operator of an exempt distribution undertaking concerning the carriage or terms of carriage of programming that originates from the licensee or concerning any right or obligation under the Act, the licensee must continue to provide its programming services to the distribution undertaking at the same rates and on the same terms and conditions as it did before the dispute."
"15 (1) En cas de différend entre le titulaire et une personne autorisée à exploiter une entreprise de distribution ou l’exploitant d’une entreprise de distribution exemptée concernant la fourniture ou des modalités de fourniture de la programmation transmise par le titulaire ou concernant tout droit ou toute obligation prévus par la Loi, le titulaire continue à fournir ses services de programmation à l’entreprise de distribution aux mêmes tarifs et selon les modalités qui s’appliquaient aux parties avant le différend."
"(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a dispute begins when written notice of the dispute is provided to the Commission and is served on the other undertaking that is a party to the dispute and ends when an agreement settling the dispute is reached by the concerned undertakings or, if no such agreement is reached, when the Commission renders a decision concerning any unresolved matter."
"(2) Pour l’application du paragraphe (1), le différend débute lorsqu’un avis écrit en faisant état est déposé auprès du Conseil et signifié à l’autre entreprise en cause. Le différend prend fin dès que les entreprises en cause parviennent à un accord ou, à défaut, dès que le Conseil rend une décision concernant toute question non résolue." At paras 30-69 the court walks through it's analysis of, and a statutory interpretation of, the Broadcasting Act's 'standstill rule' regulations.
|
