By Ahmad Hathout
Groupe TVA is asking the country’s highest court to review a case in which it was forced to provide Bell customers its sports signal after it abruptly terminated service in April 2019.
The company applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in late September, two months after the Federal Court of Appeal ruled the CRTC has jurisdiction to force Groupe TVA to continue supplying the company’s sports signal during the 2019 NHL playoffs despite parent company Quebecor not agreeing to the financial terms of the distribution agreement.
The Montreal-based company is asking the high court to review the case because it believes the lower court erred when it said the CRTC has jurisdiction to enforce an economic dispute under section 10(1)(h) of the Broadcasting Act (Groupe TVA argued in court the regulator’s powers are restricted to the cultural sphere).
The company also submits before the court that the lower court erred because it did not resolve the dispute as it relates to what it says is a conflict between provisions in the Broadcasting Act and the Copyright Act, both of which are touched on in this case.
The lower court ruled Section 10 of the Broadcasting Act gives the CRTC broad authority to regulate commercial disputes and is therefore within the regulator’s jurisdiction. The court largely agreed with Cogeco’s submission, as an intervenor, that the regulator has “broad and liberal interpretation.” Counsel for the attorney general, representing the CRTC, also argued it would be difficult for the regulator to govern a dispute between two parties without touching on the economic aspects of the relationship.
That court also ruled TVA did not actually end the affiliation agreement with Bell because it did not provide a notice of termination with an effective end date capture in a future communication, nor did it provide 180 days notice of termination as stipulated in the agreement terms.
Quebecor says it is unfair that Bell pays an amount far less than what it thinks TVA Sports is worth, but has had to comply with the arrangement because the CRTC enforced the standstill rule, which provides that two parties in a commercial dispute must maintain the status quo until they resolve their issues.
The glue holding the 10-year-old distribution deal together is the CRTC, which not only set the rate through arbitration – it selected Bell’s offer for the channel over Quebecor’s – but it made a determination in the spring of 2019 that Quebecor violated the “standstill” rule when it cut the signal.
After TVA cut the sports signal from Bell subscribers, it was forced into an emergency hearing in front of the CRTC, which ruled the company violated the rules of the agreement and forced it to continue providing the signal under the standstill rules.
In a submission to the court, Bell surprisingly agreed with TVA that it should not be held against its will to a commercial agreement and suggested the court quash the standstill rule. In the meantime, it argued, TVA should still be held to the rule because it is still the law.
