Law Times

PAGE 14 CaseLawLaw FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Courts PUBLICITY Sealing order sought by appellant was overreaching Application by appellant for sealing order. Appellant was ap- pealing Federal Court's decision dismissing her application for judicial review of Review Tribu- nal's decision denying her en- titlement to full pension under Old Age Security Act (Can.). Appellant raised concerns before Federal Court that respondent had reproduced her SIN in re- cords made public so a sealing order was granted. Respondent had fi led materials on appeal that contained personal SIN in- formation about appellant and her husband. Application al- lowed in part. SIN information was not relevant to issues on ap- peal, so sealing order was over- reaching. Impugned informa- tion was returned to respondent so that SIN information could be redacted. Singer v. Canada (Attorney General) (Jan. 6, 2011, F.C.A., Mainville J.A., File No. A-310- 10) 196 A.C.W.S. (3d) 717 (6 pp.). Intellectual Property Industrial And COPYRIGHT Electronic copies of works stored in United States main server were outside board's jurisdiction Board certifi ed royalties tariff s payable by Sirius and XM Cana- da. Tariff s were payable for use of repertoires of SOCAN, NRCC, and CSI. Sirius application chal- lenged board's conclusion that satellite radio service provider by supplying subscriber with receiver having extended buff er or block recording feature nec- essarily authorized subscriber to copy works that were subject to copyright. Sirius application was dismissed. It was appropriate for satellite radio service providers to be given benefi t of presumption against authorization of use of receivers to infringe copyright. Presumption was rebutted by degree of control exercised by satellite radio service providers over broadcast content and fea- tures included in radio receivers supplied to subscribers. Board did not err in law in concluding satellite radio service providers authorized subscriber to copy all broadcast content. CSI applica- tion for judicial review was dis- missed. Challenges in CSI appli- cation for judicial review related to determination of location of copying of work and whether infringing authorization could occur in relation to copy made outside of Canada. Making of copy was not complete until it existed in material form. Elec- tronic copies of works stored in United States main server were outside board's jurisdiction even if copying was initiated in Can- ada. Board concluded correctly that board had no jurisdiction to impose tariff for work located in United States. Board had to con- clude it had no jurisdiction to impose royalty tariff in relation to authorization of copying even if authorization took place in Canada. Board's conclusion that buff ered content was not copy of entire work or copy of substan- tial part of work was reasonably open to board. Sirius Canada Inc. v. CMRRA/ SODRAC Inc. (Dec. 16, 2010, F.C.A., Sharlow, Dawson and Stratas JJ.A., File No. A-209-09; march 14, 2011 • Law Times Follow on www.twitter.com/lawtimes COURT DECISIONS Untitled-3 1 CaseLaw is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. CaseLaw is a weekly summary of notable unreported civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. Single or multiple copies of the full text of any case digested in this issue can be obtained by: 5/5/10 3:55:30 PM These cases may be found online in BestCase and other electronic resources from Canada Law Book. To subscribe, please call 1-800-565-6967. A-210-09) 196 A.C.W.S. (3d) 842 (37 pp.). ONTARIO CRIMINAL CASES Charter Of Rights ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS Application to quash telewarrant for first residence dismissed but granted for second residence Accused charged with several of- fences under Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Can.). Ac- cused brought application to quash telewarrants under which considerable quantity of drugs were seized from two residences. He sought order declaring items seized were inadmissible. Infor- mation on which ITO was based on fi rst residence was obtained from confi dential informant. It was impracticable for police to personally appear before Justice of the Peace to obtain warrants. Information provided by confi - dential informant compelling. Even with redacted information informant was able to provide personal information about ac- cused and location of grow op- eration. Th at information led to other information which allowed police to corroborate. Transcrip- tion errors not of signifi cance. Information for ITO on sec- ond premises insuffi cient. It contained generalizations about marijuana traffi cking and did not constitute reliable tip from confi dential informant. Applica- tion to quash telewarrant for fi rst residence dismissed but granted for second residence. Evidence obtained on basis of second war- rant excluded. Charter breaches serious, signifi cantly impacted i) completing and mailing in the order form in this issue; or ii) calling CaseLaw's photocopy department at (905) 841-6472 in Toronto, (800) 263-3269 in Ontario and Quebec, or (800) 263-2037 in other provinces; or iii) faxing a copy of the completed order form to (905) 841-5085. accused and admission would aff ect administration of justice. R. v. Lemiski (Jan. 11, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., Gray J., File No. 101/10) 92 W.C.B. (2d) 121 (16 pp.). RIGHT TO INTERPRETER Interpreter was competent and qualified Application to determine wheth- er interpreter was competent to interpret in these proceedings. Accused was charged with as- sault threatening to use weapon, uttering death threat and com- mon assault. He was Tamil who spoke with Jaff ma dialect. Ac- cused's counsel opposed use of interpreter because he was not Ministry accredited interpreter. Interpreter lived in Sri Lanka be- fore he came to Canada in 1988. He was employed by agency for interpreters for four years. Prior to that employment he acted as interpreter for law offi ces, for immigration and for criminal matters interpreting Tamil and English. He had formal training interpreting Tamil to English and English to Tamil in 16-week program with his employer. In- terpreter provided services to various governmental bodies and tribunals and he was accred- ited by Immigration and Refu- gee Board. Application allowed. Based on interpreter's education, training and experience he was competent and qualifi ed to in- terpret these proceedings. R. v. Sanmugarasa (Nov. 26, 2010, Ont. C.J., Bradley J., File No. 10-01752) 92 W.C.B. (2d) 126 (9 pp.). Provincial Offences OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY Utility became employer under Occupational Health and Safety Act (Ont.) when it contracted for services THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL SERVICE DIRECTORY 2011 A Comprehensive Guide for reAl estAte professionAls, 2011 All the municipal services information you need for real estate searches under one cover. With introduction and historical linkages by michael l. Young, ll.B. this handy resource helps you process your real estate transactions more efficiently, saving you time and energy. published annually, the ontario municipal service directory: A Comprehensive Guide for real estate professionals, 2011 gives you up-to-date and easily accessible municipal contact information. more thAn A direCtorY Perfectbound • March 2011 • One time purchase $89 • P/C 0517010999 • On subscription $84 • P/C 0517140999 • ISSN 1206-694X • Multiple copy discounts available Visit canadalawbook.ca or call 1.800.565.6967 for a 30-day no-risk evaluation prices subject to change without notice, to applicable taxes and shipping & handling. CANADA LAW BOOK® www.lawtimesnews.com OMSD 1-4 pg 5X.indd 1 3/7/11 4:16:59 PM Application for leave to ap- peal from decision of justice allowing appeal against origi- nal judgment. Contractor us- ing backhoe displaced natural gas pipeline in renovation of city street. Resulting explosion damaged and destroyed several buildings and hurt and killed several people. Prosecutions were brought under provin- cial safety regulations against contractor whose employee who displaced pipeline, util- ity that owned pipeline and company utility contracted to provide accurate information to contractor about location of pipelines. Trial judge dismissed charges. Prosecutors appealed trial judge's decision and judge of that court allowed appeal, set aside dismissals and ordered new trial on all charges. Util- ity and contractor sought leave to appeal. Th ey alleged provin- cial regulations Occupational Health and Safety Act (Ont.) ("OSHA") imposed no duty on them to provide accurate in- formation about pipeline loca- tions. Appeal refused. Basis of liability advanced by prosecu- tor not new theory of liability. Even of ground of appeal raised question of law it was not one likely to have impact of fi rm- ly established jurisprudence. Utility became employer under OSHA when it contracted for services. Granting appeal not essential in public interest of for the due administration of justice. New provisions of law did not apply to this case. In- terpretation of appeal judge not obviously wrong or incor- rect. Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v. Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. (Jan. 7, 2011, Ont. C.A., Watt J.A. in Chambers, File No. M38813) 92 W.C.B. (2d) 172 (20 pp.).

• Cover
• Settlement Ruling
• Shared Assets
• Focus On Litigation