The owners and operators of a Holiday Inn in Winnipeg used television receiving equipment located on the premises to transmit programming to televisions in the guests' suites. After quoting the statement in R. v. Communicomp Data Ltd. (1975), 53 DLR (3d) 673 at 680, 60 OR (2d) 680 that "the matter becomes an 'undertaking' when there is a commercial aspect about it," Urie J found (at p. 314) that this installation was not a broadcasting receiving "undertaking" for purposes of the Radio Act (Canada) as no separate charges were made to the room occupants, and the installation instead was "merely an incidental amenity provided as part of the whole hotel undertaking."
Topics and taglines
Tagline
signal receivers were incidental to whole hotel undertaking
Words and phrases
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
334161
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a name=\"Lount\"></a>Lount Corp. v. A.-G. of Canada</em></strong> (1985), 19 DLR (4th) 304 (FCA) <strong>[receivers were incidental to hotel undertakings]</strong>",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a name=\"Lount\"></a>Lount Corp. v. A.-G. of Canada</em></strong> (1985), 19 DLR (4th) 304 (FCA) <strong>[receivers were incidental to hotel undertakings]</strong>",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}