By Ahmad Hathout
OTTAWA – The Federal Court of Appeal has approved a number of intervenors who can appear on appeal of the country’s first court-approved website-blocking order.
The 16 approved parties will be divided into three groups, with each submitting one document laying out the arguments on behalf of their respective group.
TekSavvy filed an appeal in November of a first-of-its-kind decision by the Federal Court to force the large cable companies and Bell to block the websites of GoldTV, a seller of IPTV products that delivered unlicensed content. The novel decision has far-reaching implications that touches on several areas of policy and law, including network neutrality, free expression on the internet, and the protection of copyright online, while attracting global attention.
As such, the court has taken the intervenors and grouped them by the closeness of their arguments.
It has grouped the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) and the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) in the first group; the Fédération Internationale des Associations de Producteurs de Films (FIAPF), the Canadian Music Publishers Association (CMPA), International Confederation of Music Publishers (ICMP), Music Canada, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), the International Publishers Association (IPA), International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM), American Association of Publishers (AAP), the Publishers Association Ltd. (PA), Canadian Publishers’ Council (CPC), Association of Canadian Publishers (ACP), the Premier League, and Dazn in the second group; and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) in the final group.
The first group will argue that the site-blocking order is incompatible with the right to free expression, the principles of common carriage, and the country’s copyright laws, while also impairing the functions of the internet.
The second group will argue that site-blocking is an effective remedy to protect content rights online and may actually be required of Canada under international treaty obligations, among other issues.
The third group, the BCCLA, will argue about the order’s effect on freedom of expression.
“Allowing all six to intervene separately with separate counsel would result in lack of economy and duplication,” the Wednesday decision of the court said.
“The collaboration of the related parties in each group is likely to create useful synergies and a more compact submission, which invariably happens to be a more persuasive submission,” the decision added.
The court also disagreed with a submission by Bell which hoped to minimize some interventions on the grounds that they did not offer a useful perspective on the issues or duplicated arguments.
