Quebecor suffered a final defeat in its case against the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and Bell in connection with the broadcasting of the TVA Sports signal. The Supreme Court of Canada, Thursday, actually refused to hear the request for appeal by TVA Group and Quebecor Media inc.
As before, the highest court did not provide reasons for its decision.
Thus, it confirms the decision passed on July 21 by the Federal Court of Appeal.
Quebecor tried to overturn two CRTC decisions that forced it to signal TVA Sports to Bell subscribers in the 2019 playoffs.
Hockey fans will remember that Groupe TVA removed the TVA Sports signal from Bell subscribers on the night of April 10, 2019, in the first game of the hockey playoffs. This unprecedented act took place while TVA and Bell were in negotiations to renew their relationship agreement. Groupe TVA criticized Bell for providing exceptional service to its own specialty sports channel, Réseau des sports (RDS), and for paying it insufficient royalties.
Multiple legal approaches
Initially, TVA filed a complaint with the CRTC in February 2019, accusing Bell of providing preferential treatment to RDS, and also filed action for damages in the Superior Court of Quebec for the same reasons. The CRTC intervention was fruitless. On the same day that TVA would cut the signal, Bell requested arbitration from the CRTC so that the latter could decide on the appropriate rates for the TVA Sports signal.
Despite this request, the signal was cut off on the night of April 10. The next day, Bell filed an application for an interim injunction and two days later, April 12, 2019, the Quebec Superior Court ordered TVA to restore the signal. , a decision immediately followed by TVA.
Respect for the status quo
Two days before TVA took this step, the CRTC acknowledged the dispute between the parties and determined that the “status quo rule” provided in its regulations should apply. This rule states that in the event of a dispute, the status quo will be maintained until the dispute is resolved, i.e., TVA must continue to provide TVA Sports signals to Bell’s customers until the two agree. TVA ignored this warning by cutting off the signal.
Subsequently, ruling on the merits of the dispute on April 18, the CRTC ruled that TVA violated its regulations by withdrawing a signal to Bell subscribers and ordered, on the one hand, the maintenance of service until to reach an agreement and, on the other hand, the suspension of TVA’s broadcasting license if the latter withdraws its signal during the dispute.
CRTC power limits
TVA Group and Quebecor Media appealed the decision, saying the CRTC had exceeded its powers. They argued that the CRTC had no authority to make a decision that could have an economic impact between a programming company and a distribution company. According to their claims, the regulatory power of the CRTC should remain culturally important and not in the economic sphere. They accused the regulatory body of interfering with a contractual agreement.
In its decision signed by Judge Richard Boivin, the court recalled three justices that, on the contrary, the Broadcasting Act effectively gives broad powers to the CRTC. It was pointed out by Boivin J the law clearly indicates that the legislature has given the CRTC the power to make regulations to intervene in a dispute about the supply of programming between a programming undertaking and a distribution undertaking.
The judge also made a historic return to note that the federal government felt the need to establish frameworks by allowing vertical integration without restriction, and this, because of potential conflicts of interest when a the company owns the television channels and the distribution. network of competing channels.
Clear intention of the legislator
Clearly, according to Justice Boivin, that’s the legislature wants to empower the CRTC to arbitrate their disputes regarding programming provisions.
Therefore, the CRTC is fully justified in applying the status quo rule, so TVA and Bell are obliged to provide their respective services to the other company in accordance with the terms and conditions provided for the affiliation agreement to be implemented. data.
The judge added the purpose of the standstill rule is certainly to prevent a programming undertaking subject to an affiliation agreement from withdrawing its signal in the context of negotiations in which a dispute arose- or a programming undertaking that simply abandonment of service.
This decision is therefore upheld.
Source: Radio-Canada
