Satellite TV

Hi Everyone,

Here is an article in todays Globe and Mail that shows the two wins we had earlier this week for the DirecTV® satellite people.

I am APPALLED at the actions of the C-Band Alliance of Canada, who wanted to DISASSOCIATE with us, the DirecTV® people earlier on, and have now jumped in and claim this is a victory for THEM. What UNMITIGATED GAUL!!! They had NO PART in any battle of the MANY we have won across the country. The Legal-rights Satellite Organization has assisted in almost EVERY battle and was a BIG PART of the financing of the CanAm case in B.C., the PIVOTAL ruling in this issue.

This appears to be their way of having avoided supporting us financially and simply now jumping in after they have done ABSOLUTELY NOTING to support us and trying to CLAIM OUR VICTORIES as theirs. I hope that anyone who handles BOTH types of dishes lets them KNOW how disappointing this is and that we DO have a Supreme Court battle coming up and how we expect MAXIMUM SUPPORT from them seeing they view OUR victories as THEIRS after the fact.

Of course they are right and it always involved ALL satellite dishes in Canada but they denied that and NEVER supported us with ONE RED CENT.

Really deplorable FREELOADING of the WORST KIND by the C-Band Alliance of Canada and their leader Rick Hodgkinson !!! This is a tremendous disappointment as they have refused to assist and have stated they were “apart” somehow believed that they had some type of “special Grandfather rights“, totally unsupported in law. But now they want to jump in and claim OUR victories as theirs.

Well now lets see if they want to KEEP these many victories we have had, NO THANKS TO THEM by ASSISTING FINANCIALLY in the most IMPORTANT BATTLE OF ALL in the Supreme Court of Canada. They can certainly call ME for their more info on this. Rick can E-mail me at ttrk@legal-rights.org for my phone number and to discuss the C-band Alliance of Canada's donation to and SUPPORT OF the Supreme Court fight on behalf of the Legal-rights Satellite Organization and C-Band Alliance of Canada and people can write him at HIS E-mail which is Rick Hodgkinson rick@galaxysat.com to encourage a C-Band Alliance donation. While they have not spent ONE RED PENNY supporting our very costly battle so far, its NEVER too late to PITCH in and HELP. This battle concerns ALL Satellite people both the pizza size dish people who have done ALL the fighting and paying and C-Band people alike. It has ALWAYS been about BOTH and BOTH will benefiit by a win in the Supreme Court of Canada which will settle the issue conclusivly in Canada. No reason for the C-Band Alliance People to FREELOAD any longer in this IMPORTANT Supreme Court Battle. They have already done MORE than enough of that. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Satellite dish owners score court victories Ontario, Quebec judges rule in favour of independent large-dish users

KEITH DAMSELL

MEDIA REPORTER Thursday, October 19, 2000

Owners of large satellite dishes scored a pair of court victories in Ontario and Quebec earlier this week, fuelling hopes among grey-market dish owners that their long legal battle with the RCMP and corporate interests may be nearing an end.

"The jurisprudence is pretty strongly in favour of the grey-market satellite industry at this point," said Rick Hodgkinson, a Toronto electronics dealer and director of the C-Band Alliance of Canada. C-Band represents the interests of grey-market dish owners that receive broadcasting signals originating from other countries.

Since 1997, Bell ExpressVu and Star Choice, providers of small pizza-sized dishes that receive satellite signals, have been trying to end the use of large dishes. A handful of independent programmers provide large-dish service to about 400,000 households across Canada.

On Monday, Judge F.L. Forsyth of the Ontario Court in Burlington, Ont., dismissed charges under the Radiocommunication Act against Peter Beacock, a Kitchener electronics dealer. In January, 1998, the RCMP seized two satellite dishes from the home of Mr. Beacock, alleging the equipment would be used with the intent to illegally decode subscription signals.

If found guilty under the act, a corporation can be fined up to $25,000 while an individual can be hit with up to a $10,000 fine and sentenced up to six months in jail.

Judge Forsyth dismissed the case, ruling the police search was invalid and violated Mr. Beacock's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The police "had a mere suspicion that maybe the house contained something that might provide some information that might help with another investigation," said Ian Angus, a lawyer who represented Mr. Beacock. "And that's just not a good enough reason."

That same day, Judge Robert Sansfaçon of a Quebec court dismissed similar charges against Al Gregory, a communications equipment dealer. Two years ago, police seized satellite equipment from Mr. Gregory's Montreal office. Justice Sansfaçon said the federal act is ambiguous and needs further definition if it is to be enforced by the courts.

The Ontario and Quebec rulings follow two legal victories last month for independent programmers. In September, the Court of Appeal of British Columbia and the Queen's Bench of Alberta upheld earlier rulings defending the reception of television signals originating from outside Canada by owners of grey-market equipment.

EXTREME EFFRONTERY!! The document below is a letter faxed to Bell ExpressVu dealers dated September 21, 2000 and which misstates the truth or is in error for the following reasons, in my opinion.

By To The REAL King!!! Oct 13,2000.

Firstly, the notion that there is "a much larger number of judicial decisions in Canada which specifically state that it is an illegal activity" is purely a figment of some ones imagination and is FALSE. Apart from the Mr. Justice Brenner decision in the Supreme Court of B.C., upheld by the B.C. Court of Appeal there are several other rulings which state that this activity IS LEGAL. Mr. Justice Kennedy in R. v. Love in Manitoba, Mr. Justice Klebuc in Ereiser in Saskatchewan (who stated that BLACK MARKET cards were legal), Mr. Justice Haliburton in LeBlanc in Nova Scotia and also in Williams Electric in Nova Scotia are among those who have stated that it is NOT against the law to receive encrypted American programming in Canada so long as it DOES NOT emanate from a "lawful distributor" in Canada. Recently the Decision of Madam Justice Pettit Baig in R. v. Krazy Krazy and the decision of Mr. Justice Sheppard in the case of Tech Electronic in the Superior Court of Ontario have upheld this position. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Fulop also found that a link or “nexus“ to a “lawful charge” was required to breach the law. On September 18th 2000, Madam Justice Danielle Côté, in the case of Jacques D'Argy and Richard Thérriault upheld the legality of “Black Market“ cards or decoding foreign encrypted signals in Quebec as well.

NO CRIMINAL case in Canada has EVER stated that it was illegal to receive the signal of DirecTv© in Canada, either via grey market or black market. In fact the Radiocommunications Act DOES NOT distinguish between these two methods of receiving the encrypted signal emanating from DirecTV® in the United States. The Quebec ruling CLEARLY states that programmed cards are not illegal and the RCMP have stated that both “American Subscriptions and Programmed Access Cards“ are “BLACK“ and thus illegal, a notion that is rejected by the courts across Canada.

Bell ExpressVu claim in this letter that they will appeal the B.C. Appeals Court ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada. At this date no request for LEAVE to appeal has been filed.

But if this decision is appealed and if leave to appeal is granted, the Supreme Court of Canada is NOT a popularity contest and the widespread industry support that Bell mentions wont be much help. There is in fact ONLY one other competitor in the "lawful distributor" duopoly industry (StarChoice) while there are thousands of independent dealers who are opposed to any "absolute prohibition" against American Programming of DirecTV® and Echostar that Bell ExpressVu support. Canadians, in this democracy, DO NOT support a "total prohibition" against receiving International encrypted signals as Bell ExpressVu do. This is looked at by the vast majority of Canadians as ANTI-DEMOCRATIC and as infringing on their rights under section 2b of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the B.C. Court of Appeals opens the way for a section 7 Charter challenge as well. But Bell ExpressVu seems to put its COMMERCIAL interests ABOVE the rights and freedoms of the Canadian population.

The RIGHT to receive International encrypted signals that DO NOT emanate or belong to a "lawful distributor" in Canada has now been upheld by courts in B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. This includes Provinces that comprise some 85% of Canada's total population and this widespread support in Provincial and Superior courts and including the Appeals Court of B.C. means that the Canadian Judiciary, like the Canadian citizens DO NOT support the restrictive stance taken by Bell ExpressVu which seems designed to further their purely commercial interests.

Is Bell ExpressVu telling all these Courts and Judges that they are WRONG?

Is that not extreme EFFRONTERY for a commercial enterprise to set itself up as being ABOVE the Judiciary in Canada?

Just my humble opinion

To The REAL King!!!

The letter sent out by Bell ExpressVu on September 21, 2000 below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bell ExpressVu NEWS September 21, 2000 BC COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON GREY MARKET IN CANADA

Many Dealers, have asked about the impact of the recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision which discussed the DTH grey market in Canada. Bell ExpressVu wants to ensure that some of the public distortions about this decision are cleared up, and to put its own position on the record for its own dealer community.

First, the decision does not mean that the sale or use of grey market equipment in Canada is legal. Quite to the contrary, there are a much larger number of judicial decisions in Canada which specifically state that it is an illegal activity The very same week that the B.C. Court ruled in its case, an Alberta Court ruled that grey market equipment is illegal! Similar decisions in Ontario and at the Federal Court of Appeal mean that it is very dangerous to assume that selling grey market equipment is a legal activity.

Moreover the BC Court of Appeal decision is relevant only in British Columbia, and ultimately, may be overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, Bell ExpressVu will appeal that decision, and we expect widespread industry support in ensuring that the law is clarified once and for all.

Finally, it is already very clear that the decision did nothing at all to make the sale of black market equipment legal, even in British Columbia. In the same case, the BC Court gave Bell ExpressVu an injunction to force Can-Am to stop selling black market "pirate cards" capable of receiving US DTH signals.

Bell ExpressVu's position is that it remains illegal to sell black or grey market US DTH equipment anywhere in Canada. Bell ExpressVu will continue to rigorously oppose the proliferation of unregulated grey market receivers in Canada. Dealers who sell black or grey market do so at their own risk.

PAGE 1

COURT RULES AGAINST BELL ExpressVu & NORSAT RULING GREY IS OK! SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Here is the complete ruling of the Honourable Mr. Justice Donald Brenner of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Mr.Brenner made a favorable ruling to the benefit of Canam Satellite when he disallowed the injunctive releif sought by Bell ExpressVu and represented by Mr. William (Bill) McKenzie and D. Grunder of Toronto, Ontario. There is an agreement of no "test cards" which was consented to by CanAm Satellite currently until the trial but right now GREY IS OK.

CONGRATULATIONS RICHARD AND ALL THE FOLKS AT CAN-AM.

This is super news. It appears that Bell ExpressVu may want appeal the ruling but the 30 days allowed are PAST and this seems like the beginning of the end for their Anton Piller orders. I am told that their lawyer William McKenzie was almost apoplectic according to several witnesses.

Poor fellow!!

WILD WILLIE, that's the LADIES WASHROOM!! Please KEEP OUT of there.

They are BLOCKED in their attempt to STOP GREY MARKET SALES in Canada and probably will now be blocked from taking these ONE SIDED actions called Anton Piller orders, certainly in BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia. At least they will have to tell future courts in other provinces about this LOSS greatly reducing the chances of them being issued in the future.

Many may not know what an Anton Piller order is so here goes with my best "non legal" description. Its nothing more than my best understanding and I apologise if it doesn't pass the "acid test".

It is an order to search and seize for certain things against a defendent that Bell ExpressVu obtains WITHOUT TELLING the defendent beforehand. They secretly go before a court, in a one sided action the defendent DOES NOT KNOW ABOUT IT or get to say anything in his defence about, obviously, and the court may grant the order having only heard ONE SIDE of the issue. This seems to suit the style of some Companies, especially monopoly minded ones. The unsuspecting VICTIM (defendent) gets a surprize when Bell ExpressVu arrives on his doorstep, usually with the police in tow, to make the seizure. Usually of all the goods that Bell ExpressVu alone told the court that infringes, all the books and records of the company, all the computers and often much much more. Then within a few days and while still in SHOCK, the VICTIM (defendent) has to go before a court and answer to these allegations. Even though Bell ExpressVu may have had months to prepare for the Anton Piller, sending in detectives to buy and rummage through the VICTIMS (defendent's) garbage to see if they threw out any documents that could be incriminating. (YES they have actually done this and admitted it to the courts). But the Defendent (VICTIM of the seizure) has no knowledge and so is exceedingly poorly prepared to defend anything.

But the VICTIM of the Anton Piller must prepare a defence within a few days, may get a small extention granted by the courts. If the VICTIM (defendent) looses at this stage, he is probably out of business permenently; mission accomplished. That is the REAL object as was stated at the first hearing by my informant there who quoted Mr. McKenzie's words.

In this case (in my understanding) the judge quashed most of the Anton Piller (temporary injunction) prohibiting the sale of Grey Market and kept only the part disallowing "test cards" until the matter goes to court for a trial on the issues where Bell ExpressVu must PROVE that they have real losses and are harmed by the defendents, improperly. But if you buy an American Satellite System, who can say you would buy a Bell ExpressVu system if censored and prohibited from the US one.

Thanks Richard and Mike et al at Can-Am, you have broken the UGLY BELL USE of the courts as part of their marketing plan. New strategy needed Bell ExpressVu. Not reselling amnesty receivers in Canada, not putting people out of business behind their backs via Anton Piller. Ever heard of competition. Oh sorry, monopolies and duopolies dont have much knowlege of that, I forgot. Perhaps you need to acquire a NEW type of knowledge.

Now we may begin to see JUSTICE in Canada.

Here is the complete Oral Reasons for Judgement below the line. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Oral Reasons for Judgment Mr. Justice Brenner Pronounced in Chambers December 10, 1999

BETWEEN:

BELL EXPRESSVU LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

PLAINTIFF AND:

RICHARD REX c.o.b. as "CAN-AM SATELLITES", RICHARD REX c.o.b. as "CAN AM SATELLITES" and c.o.b. as "CANAM SATELLITES" and c.o.b. as "CAN AM SATELLITE" and c.o.b. as "CAN AM SAT" and c.o.b. as "CAN-AM SATELLITE DIGITAL MEDIA GROUP" and c.o.b. as "CAN-AM DIGITAL MEDIA GROUP" and c.o.b. as "DIGITAL MEDIA GROUP", ANNE MARIE HALLEY a.k.a ANNE MARIE REX, MICHAEL REX a.k.a. MIKE REX, RODNEY KIBLEE a.k.a. RODKIBLER, LEE-ANNE PATTERSON, MICHELLE LEE, JAY RAYMOND, JASON ANTHONY, JOHN DOE 1 to 20, JANE DOE 1 to 20 and ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS FOUND ON THE PREMISES OR IDENTIFIED AS WORKING AT THE PREMISES AT 22409 McINTOSH AVENUE, MAPLE RIDGE, BRITISH COLUMBIA, WHO OPERATE OR WORK FOR BUSINESSES CARRYING ON BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF "CAN-AM SATELLITES", "CANAM SATELLITES", "CAN AM SATELLITE", "CAN AM SAT", "CAN-AM SATELLITE DIGITAL MEDIA GROUP", "CAN-AM DIGITAL MEDIA GROUP", "DIGITAL MEDIA GROUP", OR ONE OR MORE OF THEM

DEFENDANTS

Counsel for the Plaintiff: K. McKenzie, D. Grunder

Counsel for the Defendant, R. Rex: R. Peck, Q.C.

Counsel for the Defendant, A. Halley: D. Martin

Counsel for the Defendant, M. Lee: R. Willinofsky

Counsel for all Defendants, except M. Rex: K. Filkow (

1) THE COURT: The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction or, in the alternative, an interim injunction in this matter. The plaintiff is licensed by the C.R.T.C. to broadcast direct to home (DTH) television programming via satellite to Canadian subsribers.

(2) Canadian residents who subscribe to ExpressVu and who own an ExpressVu DTH satellite television decoding system are authorized to decode the encrypted subscription programming signals transmitted by the plaintiff and view the programming for which they have subscribed. There is one other licensed satellite DTH broadcaster in Canada called Star Choice.

(3) Similar services operate in the United States under the names Direct T.V. and Echo Star. They are licensed by the F.C.C. and are authorized to have their encrypted subscription programming signals viewed in the United States. Counsel advise that their signals are not authorized under the F.C.C. rules to be broadcast for reception and decoding outside the U.S.

(4) The plaintiff alleges that the defendants' business activities breach ss. 9.1(c) and 10.1(b) of the Radio Communication Act and interfere with the plaintiff's business.

(5) The defendants are in the business of selling U.S. DTH decoder systems to Canadians and supplying them with a U.S. address and other services which allow them to subscribe for and pay for programming from U.S. DTH broadcasters. This is what, on this application, was termed "grey market activities". The plaintiff also says that the defendants have engaged in what is termed "black market activities", that is, the selling of modified DTH decoder cards that permit the decoding of U.S. DTH broadcasters' signals without any payment to the broadcasters.

(6) The defendants have consented to a cease and desist order in respect of these latter activities. In view of that, the issue before me is whether an injunction should issue with respect to the grey market activities carried on by the defendants, either on a permanent or interim basis.

(7) The issue in the underlying action is the interpretation of s. 9.1(c) of the Radio Communication Act; on this application the issue is whether the plaintiff has met the test for an injunction. S. 9.1(c) provides as follow:

No person shall (c) decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed, otherwise than under and in accordance with authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed.

(8) "Lawful distributor" is defined by the Radio Communication Act as a person who has the lawful right in Canada to transmit the signal and authorize its decoding. "Subscription programming signal" means radio communication that is intended for a reception, either directly or indirectly, by the public in Canada or elsewhere on payment of a subscription fee or other charge.

(9) It is an offence under s. 9.1(d) of the Radio Communication Act to operate a radio apparatus so as to receive an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed that has been decoded in contravention of 9.1(c).

(10) Section 18.1 creates a civil cause of action in favour of any person who holds an interest in the content of a subscription programming signal or network feed by virtue of copyright ownership or a license granted by a copyright owner. If loss or damages are suffered as a result of conduct that is contrary to s. 9.1(c) or (d) or s. 10.1(b), provable damages may be recovered. Such person also has the right to obtain other remedies, including an injunction, accounting, or other remedy that the court considers appropriate.

(11) The plaintiff contends that s. 9.1(c) makes it an offence to decode any encrypted signals or feeds without the authorization of a lawful distributor, which by definition means a person who has the lawful right in Canada to transmit the signal or fee and authorize its decoding. The defendants, on the other hand, contend that s. 9.1(c) simply makes it unlawful to decode the encrypted transmissions of a lawful distributor without paying for it.

(12) The courts in three Canadian provinces, in cases involving criminal prosecutions, have held that s. 9.1(c) does not encompass the decoding of foreign signals for which there is no lawful distributor in Canada (see R. v. Love (1997), M.J. (No. 109); R. v. Ereiser (1997), S.J. (No. 276); R. v. LeBlanc (1997), M.S.J. (No. 476)).

(13) However the plaintiff relies on other decisions holding to me contrary in civil actions with facts very similar to the facts in the case at bar. The latest of these decisions is a decision of Mr. Justice Nordheimer of the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice, issued October 5, 1999, unreported, Court File 99CV174995.

(14) Mr. Justice Nordheimer heard an application by the plaintiff to restrain a similar activity in Ontario. At paragraph 15, Nordheimer J. turned to the question as to whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted. After setting out the test and referring to s. 9.1(c) and (d) of the Radio Communication Act, at paragraph 18, he stated:

Further, the type of activities engaged in by the defendants here have already been found in other proceedings to offend the aforementioned provisions of the Radio Communication Act.

He then referred to a 1997 decision of Mr. Justice Gibson in the Federal Court, ExpressVu Inc. v. NII Norsat International Inc. (1997), F.C.J. (No. 10004), which was affirmed on appeal.

(15) In Norsat Mr. Justice Gibson had before him a similar civil case and, when one reviews his decision, it is apparent that he, in turn, adopted the earlier analysis of a Provincial Court judge in Alberta, Jude LeGrandeur, with respect to the proper interpretation of s. 9.1(c). At page 16 of his reasons, Mr. Justice Gibson sates:

In my analysis of the application of the above-quoted expansion of a portion of s-s. 9.1 on the facts before me, I adopt much of the analysis of His Honour Judge J. LeGrandeur in the Quality Electronics case cited earlier.

He then went on to quote extensively from the analysis of Judge LeGrandeur.

(16) In Quality Electronics LeGrandeur J. reviewed the legislation and concluded that, given the statute as a whole and he perceived to be the legislative purpose of the Radio Communication Act, that s. 9.1(c) was intended to provide an absolute prohibition against the decoding of encrypted subscription program signals unless they emanate from a lawful distributor in Canada and that distributor authorizes their decoding. This decision was upheld on appeal by the Court of Queen's Bench.

(17) The issue before me is whether the plaintiff has made out a case for an injunction. In deciding this I must consider whether s. 9.1(c) provides for the absolute prohibition as described by LeGrandeur J. The powers of a court in matters of this nature were succintly summarized by Lord Reid in Westminster Bank v. Zane (1966), A.C. 182, as follows:

No principle of interpretation of statutes, however, is more firmly settled than the rule that the court must deduce the intention of Parliament from the words used in the Act. If those words are in any way ambiguous, if they are reasonably capable of more than one meaning, or if the provision in question is contradicted by, or is incompatible with any other provision in the Act, then the court may depart from the natural meaning of the words in question, but beyond that, we cannot go.

(18) Based on the evidence before me and counsel's submissions on this interlocutory application I conclude that the words in s. 9.1(c) are neither ambiguous nor can they be said to contradict other provisions in the Act. The offence in that section that was created by the language Parliament chose to use was the offence of stealing encrypted signals from distributors in Canada. In my view, if Parliament had intended in that section to make it an offence in Canada to decode foreign encrypted transmissions originating outside Canada as contended by the plaintiff, it would have said so. In s. 9.1(c) Parliament could have used language prohibiting the unauthorized decoding of all or any subscription programming in Canada. This, it chose not to do.

(19) The interpretation of s. 9.1(c) asserted by the plaintiff makes no distinction between those who subscribe and pay for services from non-resident distributors and those who steal the signals of lawful distributors in Canada. That interpretation would create a theft offence applicable to persons in Canada who are nonetheless paying for the services they receive. If Parliament had intended s. 9.1(c) to apply to such conduct, it would have said so in clear language. In my view the quasi criminal provisions in the Radio Communication Act should not be interpreted in this manner in the absence of such clear parliamentary language.

(20) In its submissions, the defendants also refer to extra legislative sources, including an extract from Hansard, where the Honourable Marcel Masse at the time of the Third Reading of the House of Commons, Bill C40, stated:

The bill also recognizes that newer technologies allow programming services to encode their signals for distribution to paying customers only. For this reason, it provides a right of civil action against theft of encoded signals, a provision which has found support from the cable vision and satellite direct home television industries (Hansard, December 4, 1990, at page 16224).

This also supports the contention that s. 9.1(c) was intended to apply only to the theft of signals from lawful distributors in Canada and not the paid subscription by Canadians to signals from distributors outside Canada.

(21) Accordingly, I am not prepared to grant to the plaintiff the injunctive relief sought. Rather, I would direct that the trial of this matter proceed on an expedited basis.

(22) Are there any submissions on costs?

(SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL)

(23) THE COURT: Costs in the cause would be your submission. Thank you.

(24) COUNSEL: I'm sorry, I don't know that I can agree with that on behalf of Michelle Lee because certainly, although my friend spoke for his clients in regard to their business, he did not speak for Michelle Lee in regard to any order to that effect and, as I said, she was simply a bookkeeper and wants to go about her work.

(25) THE COURT: Yes.

(SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL)

(26) THE COURT: I am not quite sure where Ms. Lee is left in this. That is my dilemma.

(SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL)

(27) THE COURT: In the circumstances, costs will be in the cause. That still leaves open Ms. Lee's position.

(SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL)

(28) THE COURT: Yes, I am leaving the costs in the cause. Presumably you will continue with this action and seek an early trial. She will be one of the defendants and you may ultimately succeed.

(SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL)

(29) THE COURT: I think the best way to proceed is this way, Mr. McKenzie. It certainly has been represented to the court that she is no longer an employee, that she is out looking for other work, and I am prepared to accept counsel's representation to that effect. In the event that there is any evidence that she is either seeking to rejoin or become part of the defendants' organization, or is engaging in any other activity which falls under the rubric of black market activities, you will be at liberty to re-apply. I will remain seized and I expect I will not hesitate to issue the type of order that is being consented to by the defendants.

(30) So, in other words, if you learn that she is either engaging in a new business that is doing these black market activities or is going back to work for the defendants, then I am inviting you to apply for an injunction in the same terms.

(SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL)

(31) THE COURT: If she goes back to work for Can-Am?

(32) COUNSEL: Yes.

(33) THE COURT: I just said I would invite an application to have her enjoined on the same terms as Can-Am. In other words, if she goes back to work for Can-Am or &endash;

(34) COUNSEL: So, it would be favourably received.

(35) THE COURT: Yes, I expect that would be so. I shall remain seized since I am familiar with the case.

(SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL)

(36) THE COURT: Well, I think, that is why I tried to say what the court's reaction would be in the event that you were to come back.

(SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL)

(37) THE COURT: Yes, I am seized of this one issue. The reason I am not seizing myself more broadly is that my schedule is rather full right now. If I were to do that, you might be delayed in getting before me.

(SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL)

(38) THE COURT: No, I have seized myself only with the injunction matter which I see as arising from this motion.

SIGNED BY

The Honourable Mr. Justice Brenner

Web Hosting · Blog · Guestbooks · Message Forums · Mailing Lists
Allwebco Web Templates · Build your own toolbar · Site Building Articles · Audio, Fonts, Clipart
powered by bravenet.com