Thomas G. Heintzman

The appeal concerned whether retail Internet service providers, when providing end-users with Internet access to requested programming, carry on broadcasting undertakings under the Broadcasting Act.

The court held that the statutory terms, read in light of the Act’s language and policy objectives, do not capture entities that merely provide a transmission mode without selecting, originating, or packaging content.

Prior authorities on transmission and conduit functions were treated as consistent with this interpretation, while precedent involving content control by cable licensees was distinguished.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming that access-providing Internet service providers are not broadcasting undertakings in this context.

The defendants brought a motion to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which alleged breach of a settlement agreement, civil conspiracy, and interference with economic relations arising from the defendants' implementation of new real estate rules that effectively prohibited the plaintiffs' flat-fee brokerage model.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded all necessary elements for breach of contract, predominant purpose conspiracy, unlawful means conspiracy, and interference with economic relations.

The court held that it was not plain and obvious that the claims would fail, and that the individual defendants could be held personally liable despite being officers or directors of the corporate defendants, as the pleadings alleged they acted maliciously, outside their authority, and for their own personal business interests.