Application to Modify Interim Television Retransmission Tariff (2024-2028)

Reasons for Decision

I. Overview

[1] On December 12, 2025, the collective societies (the “Collectives”)[1] that filed the proposed Tariff for the Retransmission of Distant Television Signals (2024-2028) applied to the Copyright Board (the “Board”) to amend the Interim Television Retransmission Tariff (2024-2028)[2] (the “Interim Tariff”). They request that the Interim Tariff be amended to align the royalty rates for 2026-2028 with the most current royalty rates determined by the Board, these being the royalty rates fixed for 2018 in the Television Retransmission Tariff (2014-2018), dated June 21, 2025[3], and subsequently corrected in an erratum issued September 6, 2025[4] (the “2025 Decision”).

[2] The application is denied for the reasons that follow.

II. Background

[3] The Interim Tariff is currently based on the Tariff for the Retransmission of Distant Television Signals (2014-2018), as redetermined by the Board on January 12, 2024, following judicial review[5] (the “2024 Decision”).

[4] The 2024 Decision corrected errors related to the calculation of the proxy used in the 2019 decision to set the Tariff for the Retransmission of Distant Television Signals, 2014-2018[6] (the “2019 Decision”). Namely, in the course of the redetermination, the Board concluded that the payments for specialty services were double-counted. Since the payments for specialty services served as a proxy for the tariff rates, ignoring the duplicative entries led to redetermined rates that were lower compared to those in the 2019 Decision.

[5] The 2024 Decision was itself subject to judicial review. In its judgement, the Federal Court of Appeal directed the Board to issue a new tariff with the rates contemplated in paragraphs 47 and 48 of its Reasons for Judgment.[7] This resulted in a decision[8] (the “2025 Decision”), which led to redetermined rates that are 23% higher than the rates in 2024 Decision.

III. Parties’ Position

[6] The Collectives state that amending the interim royalty rates as requested will promote fairness and ensure the Collectives are compensated based on the most current approved fair and equitable royalty rates and not based on outdated royalty rates contained in the existing Interim Tariff. They argue that such an outcome would be consistent with the arguments submitted by the BDUs[9] in their February 23, 2024, request to decrease the interim royalty rates following the 2024 Decision, which were then adopted by the Board in its May 3, 2024, decision on the Interim Tariff.

[7] The BDUs response is that once set, interim tariffs are very rarely updated—and mostly on consent of the parties, which is not the case here. Furthermore, the BDUs state that the Collectives’ request would give the BDUs less than a month to react to 23% increases in royalty rates after many BDUs have concluded their budgeting processes for 2026. The BDUs argue that the balance of convenience therefore favours not increasing the rates. Finally, the BDUs submit that it would be patently unfair for the Board to increase the interim rates to levels significantly above what the Board has found to be fair and equitable.

IV. Analysis

[8] For the following reasons, I do not grant the application.

[9] First, in my view, the Board’s decisions on interim tariffs imply that interim tariffs should provide certainty;[10] this allows parties to plan their finances accordingly. For example, in the interim licencing decision in CBC v SODRAC,[11] the Board stated that “[a]n interim decision serves chiefly to avoid the negative consequences caused by the length of the proceedings.”[12]

[10] The Board further stated that “the best way to achieve the objectives of an interim decision is to maintain the status quo.”[13] This approach was not disturbed on judicial review,[14] or subsequent appeal[15]. While not addressed in that case, I am of the view that where there is already an interim tariff for a given period, that interim tariff is the status quo.

[11] An application to depart from this status quo must show that it is appropriate to do so on a balance of convenience.[16] However, a change in the last-approved tariff is not sufficient. As the Board noted in the decision on the Interim Tariff: the Board does not automatically update previously set interim tariffs.[17] I agree with this approach.

[12] Second, the Board has discretion when determining what is the appropriate basis for an interim tariff.[18] I am not convinced that the 2025 Decision has the better rate.

[13] While on judicial review of the 2024 Decision the Board was found to not have the power to correct those errors, and therefore could not amend the approved rates for the 2014-2018 period, the Board retains the ability to use this information to set interim rates for 2024-2028—a proceeding entirely distinct from the proceeding for 2014-2018.

[14] For the purpose of an interim tariff, I prefer the 2024 Decision over the 2025 Decision as it incorporated the best available information available to the Board at that time. As opposed to the 2025 Decision, the 2024 Decision corrected the data errors identified by the Board.

[15] Finally, I accept the BDUs submissions that a change at this time would cause difficulties with budgeting.

V. Conclusion

[16] For the reasons above, I am not convinced that, on a balance of convenience, it is appropriate to depart from the status quo in this case.

[17] As such, the application to amend the Interim Television Retransmission Tariff (2024-2028) is denied.