Rogers Communications Inc., Rogers Wireless Partnership ... - Slaw

Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic.Written submissions only by Michael Koch, for the interveners, Apple Canada Inc. andApple Inc.Solicitors of Record:Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellants;Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.Cassels Brock & Blackwell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, CMRRA-SODRACInc.;Gilbert’s, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Cineplex Entertainment LP;Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic: University of Ottawa, Ottawa,Ontario, for the intervener, the Samuelson-Glushko;Goodmans, Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners, Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Inc.This appeal was heard on December 6, 2011, before McLachlin C.J.C., LeBel,Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ., of the SupremeCourt of Canada. The decision of the court was released on July 12, 2012, in both officiallanguages, including the following opinions:Rothstein, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Cromwell, Moldaverand Karakatsanis, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 57;Abella, J., concurring reasons - see paragraphs 58 to 88.Editor: Elizabeth M.A. TurgeonAppeal allowed in part.Administrative Law - Topic 9102Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Scope of review - The Copyright Board (theFederal Court of Appeal agreeing), opined that streams of musical works over theInternet came within the exclusive right of copyright holders to communicate "to thepublic" by telecommunication (Copyright Act (s. 3(1)(f)) - Accordingly Tariffs could beestablished - Music service providers appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada discussedthe standard of review given that the court and the Copyright Board had concurrentjurisdiction at first instance in interpreting the Copyright Act - That concurrentjurisdiction rebutted the presumption of reasonablness review of the Board's decisions onquestions of law under its home statute - Therefore, the standard of correctness was theappropriate standard of review on questions of law arising on judicial review from theCopyright Board, such as the interpretation issue in this case - However, the Board'sapplication of the correct legal principles to the facts of a particular matter should betreated with deference - See paragraphs 10 to 20.Administrative Law - Topic 9102Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Scope of review - The Supreme Court of Canada(majority) stated that it had to "... respectfully disagree with Abella J.’s