SCC case scheduled in the week of Oct. 14–18 involves Telecommunications Act's access regime
In the week of Oct. 14–18, hearings scheduled before the Supreme Court of Canada and the Federal Court will include matters relating to mobile wireless services, conviction and sentence appeals arising from murder cases, and alleged copyright infringement.
The Supreme Court set I.M. v. His Majesty the King, 40868 on Oct. 15, Tuesday. In this case, the appellant and others participated in a planned robbery with intent to steal a firearm from a 17-year-old boy. The appellant received a first degree murder charge. As he was also 17 years old at the time of the offence, he was subject to a jury trial before the Youth Justice Court.
At trial, the appellant conceded that he was guilty of manslaughter for willingly participating in the planned robbery. The jury convicted him of first degree murder. The Crown applied for him to be sentenced as an adult.
The sentencing judge allowed the Crown’s application and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 10 years. He appealed the sentencing decision. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed this appeal.
The Supreme Court scheduled S.B. v. His Majesty the King, 40873 on Oct. 15, Tuesday. This case involved four co-accused individuals who were all 16 years old. The appellant and two others participated in the planned shooting of a boy who was also 16 years old. The fourth co-accused was present at the time but was involved in neither the planning nor the shooting.
The four co-accused individuals were subject to a joint judge-alone trial before the Youth Court. The judge convicted three of them, including the appellant, of first degree murder but acquitted the fourth co-accused.
The Crown applied for all three convicted individuals to be sentenced as adults. The sentencing judge granted the application and sentenced all three to life sentences without parole eligibility for 10 years under s. 745.1(b) of the Criminal Code, 1985. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s sentencing appeal.
The Supreme Court set Telus Communications Inc., et al. v. Federation of Canadian Municipalities, et al., 40776 on Oct. 16, Wednesday. In February 2019, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission initiated a review of mobile wireless services. This review, which focused on reducing barriers to infrastructure deployment, invited comments.
An issue arose regarding whether the Commission’s jurisdiction over access to municipal infrastructure extended to the installation of 5G small cells. This issue required the Commission to interpret the term “transmission line” in s. 43 within the access regime of the Telecommunications Act, 1993.
As interpreted by the Commission, a “transmission line” could not include small cells or any technologies wirelessly transmitting telecommunications such that it would lack jurisdiction to resolve disputes in this area via the access regime. The appellant challenged this interpretation. However, the Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the interpretation and dismissed the appeal.
The Supreme Court scheduled His Majesty the King v. Jennifer Pan, et al., 40839 on Oct. 17, Thursday. In this case, the jury convicted four co-accused individuals, including Jennifer Pan, of first degree murder and attempted murder. These convictions arose from the shootings of Pan’s parents. Her father survived with serious injuries, while her mother did not.
These four co-accused individuals filed conviction appeals. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals for the attempted murder of Pan’s father. However, it allowed the appeals for the first degree murder of Pan’s mother and ordered a new trial in connection with her death.
The court set Rosebrook v. Hill Times Publishing Inc./ Publications Hill Times Inc., T-1702-23 on Oct. 15, Tuesday. Here, the underlying simplified action involved alleged infringement of copyright and moral rights.
An issue arose when the plaintiff and one of the defendants disagreed on the timing of the service of the documents in the plaintiff’s list of documents. The defendant wanted to access the documents immediately so that it could prepare its discovery questions, while the plaintiff insisted that it would only produce these documents as part of its answers to the discovery questions.
Last Mar. 26, in Rosebrook v. Hill Times Publishing Inc., 2024 FC 474, the Federal Court ordered the plaintiff to produce all the documents in its list within two days. The court agreed with the defendant’s position that delaying service of these documents until after the service of the discovery questions would be inefficient.
