Gunsmoke2 - GS2
01-22-2007, 04:31 PM
From Ontario Court Of Appeal.
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2006/2006onca10302.html
Ontario >> Court of Appeal for Ontario >>
This document: 2006 CanLII 12962 (ON C.A.)
Citation: Directv, Inc. v. Boudreau, 2006 CanLII 12962 (ON C.A.)
Date: 2006-04-20
Docket: C43813
DATE: 20060426
DOCKET: C43813
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
DIRECTV, INC. (Plaintiff (Respondent))
- and -
WILLIAM BOUDREAU (a.k.a. Billy Boudreau), WILLIAM BOUDREAU c.o.b. as www.emulator1.com, WILLIAM BOUDREAU c.o.b. as WGT WEBHOSTING, TECHLORDS ONLINE INC., 1556186 ONTARIO INC., JOHN DOE, JANE DOE and other persons unknown who have conspired with the named defendants (Defendants (Appellant))
AND BETWEEN:
ECHOSTAR SATELLITE CORPORATION, ECHOSTAR
TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION and NAGRAST LLC
(Plaintiffs (Respondents))
- and -
WILLIAM BOUDREAU (a.k.a. Billy Boudreau), WILLIAM BOUDREAU c.o.b. as www.emulator1.com, WILLIAM BOUDREAU c.o.b. as WGT WEBHOSTING, TECHLORDS ONLINE INC., 1556186 ONTARIO INC., JOHN DOE, JANE DOE and other persons unknown who have conspired with the named defendants (Defendants (Appellant))
BEFORE:
GOUDGE, SHARPE AND GILLESE JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Charles Wagman and Stefano Tripodi
for the appellant
P. James Zibarras and Ira Nishisato
for the respondent
HEARD & ENDORSED:
April 20, 2006
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice James Spence of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 22, 2005.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] We can only read the reasons for sentence as imposing a 3 month sentence for contempt and a further 6 month sentence for the permanent loss of evidence caused by the appellant. In our view there is no basis in law for the second sentence. However in light of the findings of the trial judge that the contempt was egregious and intentional (which are sustainable on this record) there is no basis to find that the 3 month sentence for contempt is unfit. We would therefore allow the appeal and strike the 6 month sentence imposed below. The result is that the 3 month sentence for contempt is sustained. In view of the result there shall be no costs in this court or for the sentencing hearing below.
There was quite the press release issued by the Plaintiffs when William Boudreau was sentenced to three months for being in contempt of court. In fact the press release said: " Satellite TV Pirate Jailed In Canada" -
http://www.techweb.com/wire/security/187200158
But what I find interesting is that there was no mention that a six month sentenced imposed for permanent loss of evidence meaning I am assuming is destruction of it by Broudreau was struck down by the Ontario Court of Appeal with the reason being there was no basis in law for it. The three month sentence was upheld for being in Contempt of Court.
This all stems for an Anton Piller Order issued against Boudreau with Boudreau refusing to comply with it. The case can be read on this link: -
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2004/2004onsc10772.html
I am assuming its not in the interests of the Plaintiffs to have that part of there being no basis in law to have an additional sentence imposed for permanent loss of evidence to a sentence imposed already for Contempt of Court. The only Doc I could find on the sentence was the one I posted from the Court of Appeal for Ontario in April, 2006 as the original sentence in June 2005 from the Ontario Superior Court is not listed unfortunately.
GS2
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2006/2006onca10302.html
Ontario >> Court of Appeal for Ontario >>
This document: 2006 CanLII 12962 (ON C.A.)
Citation: Directv, Inc. v. Boudreau, 2006 CanLII 12962 (ON C.A.)
Date: 2006-04-20
Docket: C43813
DATE: 20060426
DOCKET: C43813
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
DIRECTV, INC. (Plaintiff (Respondent))
- and -
WILLIAM BOUDREAU (a.k.a. Billy Boudreau), WILLIAM BOUDREAU c.o.b. as www.emulator1.com, WILLIAM BOUDREAU c.o.b. as WGT WEBHOSTING, TECHLORDS ONLINE INC., 1556186 ONTARIO INC., JOHN DOE, JANE DOE and other persons unknown who have conspired with the named defendants (Defendants (Appellant))
AND BETWEEN:
ECHOSTAR SATELLITE CORPORATION, ECHOSTAR
TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION and NAGRAST LLC
(Plaintiffs (Respondents))
- and -
WILLIAM BOUDREAU (a.k.a. Billy Boudreau), WILLIAM BOUDREAU c.o.b. as www.emulator1.com, WILLIAM BOUDREAU c.o.b. as WGT WEBHOSTING, TECHLORDS ONLINE INC., 1556186 ONTARIO INC., JOHN DOE, JANE DOE and other persons unknown who have conspired with the named defendants (Defendants (Appellant))
BEFORE:
GOUDGE, SHARPE AND GILLESE JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Charles Wagman and Stefano Tripodi
for the appellant
P. James Zibarras and Ira Nishisato
for the respondent
HEARD & ENDORSED:
April 20, 2006
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice James Spence of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 22, 2005.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] We can only read the reasons for sentence as imposing a 3 month sentence for contempt and a further 6 month sentence for the permanent loss of evidence caused by the appellant. In our view there is no basis in law for the second sentence. However in light of the findings of the trial judge that the contempt was egregious and intentional (which are sustainable on this record) there is no basis to find that the 3 month sentence for contempt is unfit. We would therefore allow the appeal and strike the 6 month sentence imposed below. The result is that the 3 month sentence for contempt is sustained. In view of the result there shall be no costs in this court or for the sentencing hearing below.
There was quite the press release issued by the Plaintiffs when William Boudreau was sentenced to three months for being in contempt of court. In fact the press release said: " Satellite TV Pirate Jailed In Canada" -
http://www.techweb.com/wire/security/187200158
But what I find interesting is that there was no mention that a six month sentenced imposed for permanent loss of evidence meaning I am assuming is destruction of it by Broudreau was struck down by the Ontario Court of Appeal with the reason being there was no basis in law for it. The three month sentence was upheld for being in Contempt of Court.
This all stems for an Anton Piller Order issued against Boudreau with Boudreau refusing to comply with it. The case can be read on this link: -
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2004/2004onsc10772.html
I am assuming its not in the interests of the Plaintiffs to have that part of there being no basis in law to have an additional sentence imposed for permanent loss of evidence to a sentence imposed already for Contempt of Court. The only Doc I could find on the sentence was the one I posted from the Court of Appeal for Ontario in April, 2006 as the original sentence in June 2005 from the Ontario Superior Court is not listed unfortunately.
GS2