Appeals court asks Copyright Board to take another look at TV re-transmission case

Less than a month after the Supreme Court opted not to hear a copyright case between producers and broadcasters — seemingly putting an end to a years-long saga — the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) has breathed new life into a disagreement over television re-transmission. First, let’s begin with some context. The whole issue originates from a routine Copyright Board decision in 2019 that set the per-subscriber royalty rate companies must pay in order to re-transmit broadcast signals more than 32 kilometres from the original source. After a series of calculation errors that altered the initial rates decision (and a legal dispute that encountered multiple levels of the Canadian judiciary), the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from BCE Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Telus Corp., and other broadcasters, effectively implementing royalties that were higher than initially determined by the Copyright Board. However, a separate proceeding has unfolded regarding the terms of the royalties, as the coalition of telcos has asked the courts to review payment deadlines and other “transitional measures” involved in the board’s policy. It should be noted the increased royalty rates are currently estimated to bring copyright holders an additional $60 million plus interest until 2028, as well as $153 million in interim payments for the period between 2019 and 2024. The Copyright Board initially decided that payments would be due Sept. 30, 2019, at which point broadcasters would be forced to pay interest, but the parties agreed the decision broke with the board’s longstanding practice of not implementing deadlines that had already passed and requested the judiciary investigate the issue. On Friday, the FCA ruled the 2019 deadline was “unreasonable.” But, writing on behalf of the court, Justice George Locke emphasized that the Copyright Board had the authority to select a deadline — whether or not it violated its usual policy — and suggested the board should only review the decision if it felt its jurisdiction was limited during the decisionmaking process. “As with the issue of the Settlement Date, the Board refused to reconsider the other transitional provisions because it felt it lacked the power to do so,” wrote Locke. “Regardless of the basis for the Board’s concern in this regard, it should not have felt so constrained.” As such, the FCA remitted the case back to the Copyright Board for reconsideration. There is no timeline for the board to make a final decision. dlegree@thewirereport.ca

Appeals court asks Copyright Board to take another look at TV re-transmission case

Court |
By Davis Legree
|June 1, 2026

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Appeals court asks Copyright Board to take another look at TV re-transmission case

Court | By Davis Legree |June 1, 2026

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Supreme Court dismisses appeal from Big Three in TV re-transmission case

Bell wants Federal Court to clarify copyright penalties for ISPs

Ontario appeals CRTC decision on prison long-distance rates

Related Stories

A court challenge has put the streaming act on hold — but some U.S. companies are still sending money to Canadian funds (and no one knows why)

Streamers challenge CRTC decision to publicly disclose financial information

Ericsson seeks to overturn certification of Steelworkers union to represent workers

Rogers appeals Competition Tribunal’s exclusion of details about commissioner’s alleged inaction in data plan dispute

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Court |
By Davis Legree
|June 1, 2026