CIRA, CIPPIC, BCCLA intervene in site-blocking case

In a much-watched appeal of Canada's first-ever site-blocking court order, three separate opponents of the order have filed two interventions asking the Federal Court of Appeal to strike down the order. In the first of the two interventions, the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa (CIPPIC) and the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) jointly argue that the orders disrupt a balance between rights-holders and the free dissemination of information grounded in the Copyright Act, and that the order supersedes legislative and regulatory authority to determine policy under the Telecommunications Act. Quoting Federal Court of Appeal precedent on the Copyright Act, CIPPIC and CIRA argue that the purpose of the act is "to provide a 'balance between promoting the public interest in...dissemination of works...and obtaining a just reward for the creator” or, specifically, a balance between the rights of users and copyright holders." The site-blocking order, they argue, "unbalances the copyright intermediary enforcement regime." The case, which sees internet service provider (ISP) TekSavvy Solutions Inc. appeal a Federal Court order issued back in November ordering TekSavvy, Distributel Communications Ltd., and Cogeco Inc. to block a so-called “pirate IPTV” service known as GoldTV, is the first of its kind in Canada. BCE Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., and Quebecor Inc. had asked the court for the precedent-setting blocking order at a two-day hearing back in September. Beyond the balance of the Copyright Act, CIRA and CIPPIC argue that the Telecommunications Act maintains that ISPs cannot block sites without CRTC approval. The CIPPIC and CIRA joint intervention goes on to argue that international jurisprudence, previously cited by the plaintiffs -- is constrained by explicit statutory regimes -- regimes which do not exist in Canada. In a separate intervention, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association argues that in issuing the order, the Federal Court failed to consider the order's implications on freedom of expression. The order, the group argues in its intervention, "restricts the constitutionally-protected freedom of the public at large to receive that material." "The question," the BCCLA argues, "is whether that limitation is justified," before arguing that the court of appeal "should be guided by Canadian precedents seeking to reconcile injunctive relief with the historic and constitutional protection of expressive freedom in our law." In June the Federal Court of Appeal whittled down a group of 16 potential intervenors, who had grouped themselves into six different applications, into three separate approved interventions. A group of 13 others -- mostly rights-holders -- will file its own intervention. — With reporting by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@thewirereport.ca and editing by Adam Langenberg at alangenberg@thewirereport.ca

CIRA, CIPPIC, BCCLA intervene in site-blocking case

News | August 4, 2020

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

CIRA, CIPPIC, BCCLA intervene in site-blocking case

News | August 4, 2020

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Privacy commissioner says TikTok wind up has no impact on investigation as company takes government to court

As online harms bill splits in two, advocates continue seeking amendments

Ethics committee calls for privacy law improvements, more oversight of social media platforms

Facebook looks to take privacy fight to Supreme Court of Canada

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us