 |
| John L. Hill |
We seldom see much discussion as the slow pace of civil proceedings unfolds. A recent case provides us with more insight. Bell and Rogers filed suit against a father and his son, Antonio and Marshall Macciacchera, believing that the two men were involved in illegally pirating TV shows and movies and profiting from the sale of unauthorized access to a large number of motion pictures and television channels, in violation of copyright protections owned by various other rights holders.
Bell and Rogers were joined in a suit against the Macciaccheras by entertainment giants Disney, Paramount and Warner Brothers. However, to prove their case, these plaintiffs needed evidence.
While search warrants are available to collect evidence in criminal cases, civil litigants once faced an uphill battle. That is,
Fahmi Ruddin Hidayat: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
Let me say at once that no court in this land has any power to issue a search warrant to enter a man’s house so as to see if there are papers or documents there which are of an incriminating nature, whether libels or infringements of copyright or anything else of the kind. No constable or bailiff can knock at the door and demand entry so as to inspect papers or documents. The householder can shut the door in his face and say, “Get out.” That was established in the leading case of Entick v. Carrington [in (1765) 2 Wilson]. None of us would wish to whittle down that principle in the slightest. But the order sought in this case is not a search warrant. It does not authorise the plaintiffs’ solicitors or anyone else to enter the defendants’ premises against their will. It does not authorise the breaking down of any doors, nor the slipping in by a back door, nor getting in by an open door or window. It only authorises entry and inspection by the permission of the defendants. The plaintiffs must get the defendants’ permission. But it does do this: it brings pressure on the defendants to give permission. It does more. It actually orders them to give permission — with, I suppose, the result that if they do not give permission, they are guilty of contempt of court.
Civil search warrants, also known as Anton Piller orders, are a common ex parte procedure in intellectual property cases, not only in Canada but also in countries such as France and Italy.
According to court documents, Bell and Rogers initiated their investigation in 2018 and continued through the federal courts, resulting in the execution of civil search warrants in Barrie, Ont., and Woodbridge, Ont. By 2021, they estimated that approximately 2.5 million visits occurred on the Macciacchera platform called Smoothstreams.tv (SSTV), which was hosted by companies in Panama and Hong Kong.
Despite the Federal Court’s granting of Anton Piller orders, both men refused to allow access to a commercial premises and two residences, resulting in contempt rulings against them, which included a financial penalty of $375,000 for Marshall and $95,000 for Antonio.
Nonetheless, investigators uncovered evidence of a sophisticated operation based at Marshall’s residence and commercial premises, and seized television receivers, encoders and servers. The devices were believed to be used to capture and illegally redistribute television content on a large scale through the SSTV, according to court documents.
Bell and Rogers requested terms of imprisonment for contempt and proposed that they should persist until the Macciaccheras supply the requested information, documentation and passwords they’ve been ordered to provide.
The latest ruling in the case, Bell Media Inc. v. Macciacchera (c.o.b. Smoothstreams.tv), 2025 FC 1378, was issued on Aug.15, 2025.
In this decision, the court addressed penalties for contempt against both Macciaccheras, who had violated provisions of a previously issued Anton Piller order related to copyright infringement claims. The court found that the defendants demonstrated a clear disregard for the orders, which aimed to prevent the destruction of evidence and the transfer of funds outside the jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs sought penalties, including incarceration until compliance. The court ordered Marshall to serve an initial six-month sentence followed by a maximum of five years less one day for continued non-compliance, requiring asset and password disclosures. Antonio received a four-month initial term with the same maximum extension.
The court emphasized that these penalties are necessary to uphold the rule of law and deter future contemptuous conduct, especially given the absence of mitigating factors in this case.
The Federal Court has been dealing with interlocutory motions. The trial has yet to begin.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books) was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.