The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Decima Reports. One positive outcome of Quebec court judge Danielle Côté’s ruling this month that declared two sections of the Radiocommunication Act illegal because they violate Canadians’ freedom of speech is that it should finally put front and center Charter of Rights issues in the ongoing TV piracy debate. When the Supreme Court ruled in April 2002 that black and grey market satellite TV were illegal based on the wording of the statute, it made clear that in making its decision, it had not ruled on the constitutional questions raised by the respondents in the case against Vancouver-based satellite dish dealer Richard Rex and his Cam-Am Satellites business. Before the Supreme Court, Cam-Am attempted to fight its battle on the constitutional front in addition to how the Radiocommunication Act should be interpreted.  The Supreme Court ruled that if the respondents wanted to argue the Charter issue, they would have to do so in a lower court. “The Constitutional questions stated in this appeal are not answered because there is no Charter record permitting this Court to address the stated questions,” the court ruled.  The Quebec court case thus sets the stage for the next act in the legal wrangling over satellite TV piracy, a process that might eventually put the entire issue to bed for good. Lawyer Bill McKenzie argues in this issue of CCR that the freedom of choice argument should not be debated in the courts, but before the CRTC (see article on pages 1-2). This argument has yet to be confirmed by the courts. But with lawyers such as McKenzie and organizations such as the Coalition Against Satellite Signal Theft (CASST) pressuring for the Crown to appeal, they may soon get a chance to argue their side of the story on the Charter issue.  It may take years for the issue to reach the Supreme Court, but at the very least the Quebec court decision is a step toward resolving the question of whether or not there’s a Charter argument to be made in the case of the grey market.