Robic's Newsletter

CLICK FOR LEGAL NOTICE

Publications Back to the newsletter

A Compilation Of The Canadian Copyright Cases Decided In 2011

2012-02-27

ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC
2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006

ACOMPILATIONOFTHECANADIANCOPYRIGHTCASESDECIDEDIN2011

L
AURENTCARRIÈRE*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

First,agenerallisting.

1429539OntarioLimitedv.CaféMirageInc.,2011CarswellNat4648,2011FC1290,97C.P.R.(4th)
95,http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc1290/2011f
c1290.html(F.C.;2011-11-09)

9077-6204Québecinc.v.Blanchard,2011CarswellQue369,JE2011-482,2011QCCQ205,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2011/2011qccq205/201
1qccq205.html(Que.Ct.;2011-01-18)
AccessCopyrightInterimPost-SecondaryEducationalInstitutionTariff,2011-2013,92CPR(4th)
434,[2011]CBD2,[2011]DCDA2,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2011/20110316.pdf
(Cop.Bd.;
2011-03-16)

AndréRodriguePeintredécorateurinc.v.RodriguePeintredécorateurltée,2011QCCS6797,2011
CarswellQue14499,http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2011/2011qccs6797/20
11qccs6797.html(Que.
Sup.Ct.;2011-12-20)

BBMCanadav.ResearchinMotionLimited*2011CarswellNat2621,2011FCA151,2011CAF151,
93CPR(4th)1,419NR166,http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2011/2011fca151/
2011fca151.html
(F.C.A.;2011-05-05)

Canada(HumanRightsCommission)v.Warman*2010CarswellNat4440,2010CarswellNat4818,
378FTR299,2010FC1198,2010CF1198,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2010/2010fc1198/
2010fc1198.html(F.C.;2010-11-29);revd2011
CarswellNat4389,2011FCA297,http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fca/doc/2011/2011fca297/2011f
ca297.html
(F.C.A.;2011-10-06)

CanadianCoastGuard,Sydney,N.S.,forthereproductionof”Chaudièresmarine,questionset
réponses”astranslatedbyW.D.Ewartfrom”MarineBoilersQuestionsandAnswers”byG.T.H.
Flanaganandpublishedin1984byStanfordMaritime,LondonUK[Applicationby],File2010-UO/TI-
13;2011CarswellNat805,alsoavailableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-
introuvables/licences/251-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2011-02-05)

CanadianRadio-televisionandTelecommunicationsCommission’sBroadcastingRegulatoryPolicy
CRTC2010-167andBroadcastingOrderCRTC2010-168(Re),2011CarswellNat398,2011FCA
64,91CPR(4th)389,413NR312,[2011]FCJ197,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2011/2011fca64/2
011fca64.html(F.C.A.;2011-02-28);leaveto
appealtotheSupremeCourtofCanada,http://scc.lexum.org/en/news_release/2011/11-09-29.3
a/11-
09-29.3a.hml(S.C.C.;2011-09-29)

©CIPS,2012.
*Lawyerandtrade-markagent,LaurentCarrièreisapartnerwithROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirm
oflawyers,patentandtrademarkagents.PublishedaspartofareleasetotheCanadianCopyrightAct
Annotated(Carswell).Publication419.

Can-AutoInspectionsInc.v.VascorLtd.
2010BCSC1895,
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2010/2010bcsc1895/2010bcsc1895.html(B.C.S.C.-Bifurcation;
2010-12-16)2011CarswellBC3197,2011BCSC1644,
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2011/2011bcsc1644/2011bcsc1644.html(B.C.S.C.;2011-12-01)

Centrecollégialdedéveloppementdematérieldidactique(CCDMD)forthereproductionofaposter
createdbytheartistsgroupKukryniksy[Applicationby],File2010-UO/TI-20;2011CarswellNat4022,
alsoavailableat
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/253-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;
2011-08-30)
Century21CanadaLimitedPartnershipv.RogersCommuniationsInc.2011CarswellBC2348,2011
BCSC119696CPR(4th)1,[2011]BCWLD8061,[2011]BCWLD8057,[2011]BCWLD7991,[2011]
BCWLD7990,[2011]BCWLD7989,[2011]BCWLD7988,[2011]BCWLD7960,[2011]BCWLD
7948,[2011]BCWLD7947,[2011]BCWLD7944,[2011]BCWLD7943,[2011]BCWLD7942,[2011]
BCWLD7941,[2011]BCWLD7939,[2011]BCWLD7985,[2011]BCWLD7984,[2011]BCWLD
7983,[2011]BCWLD7925,[2011]BCWLD8051,[2011]BCWLD8050,[2011]BCWLD8049,[2011]
BCWLD8048,[2011]BCWLD8047,[2011]BCWLD8042,[2011]BCWLD7998,[2011]BCWLD
7997,[2011]BCWLD7996,[2011]BCWLD7995,[2011]BCWLD7994,[2011]BCWLD7993,[2011]
BCWLD7992,[2011]BCJ1679,338DLR(4th)32,
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2011/2011bcsc1196/2011bcsc1196.html(B.C.S.C.;2011-09-02)

Dicksonv.TheQueen*,2011TCC153,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tcc/doc/2011/2011tcc153/2011tcc153.html(TaxCourt;2011-03-10)

DishNetworkL.L.C.v.Rex*2011CarswellBC2124.2011BCSC1105,[2011]BCWLD7345,[2011]
BCWLD7373,[2011]BCWLD.7372,8CPC(7th)264,
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2011/2011bcsc1105/2011bcsc1105.html(B.C.S.C.;2011-08-15)

EducationalRights2012-2016Re(Useofbroadcastprogramsbyeducationalinstitutions(2012-
2016)),2011CarswellNat5316,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2011/20111223.pdf(Cop.Bd.;
2011-12-23)
Esin(CollinsonConvenience)(Re)*,2011CanLII10877,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onagc/doc/2011/2011canlii10877/2011canlii10877.html(Ont.Alcohooland
GamingCommission;2011-02-03)
Fabrikantv.Swany2011CarswellQue2903,JE2011-651,2011QCCS1385,
http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccs/doc/2011/2011qccs1385/2011qccs1385.html(Que.Sup.Ct.;2011-
03-25);motiontodismisstheappealgranted2011CarswellQue13240,2011QCCA2205,
http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qcca/doc/2011/2011qcca2205/2011qcca2205.html(Que.C.A.;2011-11-
28)
FlowFilmsv.GlobalWealthTradeCorporation,2011CarswellOnt899,2011ONSC1185,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2011/2011onsc1185/2011onsc1185.html(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2011-02-15)

FormationetgestionPro-SantéM.R.Inc.v.Sampietro,2011CarswellQue8768,2011QCCS4256,
JE2011-1835,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2011/2011qccs4256/2011qccs4256.html(Que.
Sup.Ct.;2011-08-10)
Gagnév.R.*2011QCCA2157,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2011/2011qcca2157/2011qcca2157.html(Que.C.A.;2011-11-22)

HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2011CarswellNat1922,92CPR(4th)6,[2011]
FCJ451,2011CF340,2011FC340,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc340/2011fc340.html((F.C.;2011-03-18);2011FC540,

http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc540/2011f
c540.html(F.C.-Costs;2011-05-10)

InterimtariffofleviestobecollectedbyCPCCin2012and2013onthesaleofblankaudiorecording
mediainCanada,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2011/20112112.pdf
(Cop.Bd.;2011-12-19)

Khanv.Tajdin,[2011]ACF10,[2011]FCJ10,329DLR(4th)521,2011CarswellNat12,2011FC14,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc14/2011fc14.html(F.C.;2011-01-07);endorsement
2011CanLII69798,
http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011canlii69798/2011canlii69798.html(F.C.;
2011-03-04);2011CarswellNat1888,2011FCA172,93CPR(4th)411,2011FCA17,
http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fca/doc/2011/2011fca172/2011fca172.html(F.C.A.-RequestforStay;2011-05-
19)
Latourv.6921086Canadainc.(Édikom),2011QCCQ14817,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2011/2011qccq14817/2011qccq14817.html(QueCt-SmallClaims;
2011-11-09)
LaurierGlassLtd.v.SimplicityComputerSolutionsInc.2011CarswellOnt1580,2011ONSC1510,
80BLR(4th)305,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2011/2011onsc1510/2011onsc1510.html
(OntSupCt;2011-03-10
LayetteMinimômeinc.v.Jarrar,2011CarswellQue3904,JE2011-907,2011QCCS1743,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2011/2011qccs1743/2011qccs1743.html(Que.Sup.Ct.;2011-04-11)

LietteCoutureArtsgraphiquesinc.c.ServicesimmobiliersVersaillesDBinc.,2011QCCQ14165,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2011/2011qccq14165/2011qccq14165.html(Que.Ct.-Small
claims;2011-11-15)
LouisVuittonMalletierS.A.v.SinggaEnterprises(Canada)Inc.,2011CarswellNat470,92CPR(4th)
76,[2011]FCJ288,2011FC247,
http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc247/2011fc247.html(F.C.-
MotiontoStrike;2011-03-01);2011CarswellNat2317,[2011]FCJ908,2011FC776,95CPR(4th)
297,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc776/2011fc776.html(F.C.-SummaryTrial;2011-
06-27)
M&EHermanosInc(VillageMart)(Re)*2011CanLII31670,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onagc/doc/2011/2011canlii31670/2011canlii31670.html(Ont.Alcohooland
GamingCommission;2011-05-19)
Mitchinson(Wendy)forthereproductionandthecommunicationtothepublicbythe
telecommunicationofthreeimagespublishedinTheCanadianHomeJournalinaarticleentitled”The
Media,Gendered,FatandOtherProblematicBodies”[Applicationby]File:2011-UO/TI-1;also
availableat
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/257-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2011-09-
30)
NolinBBDO,forthesynchronization,reproductionandcommunicationtothepublicby
telecommunicationofanexcerptofamusicalworkentitled”Letempsestbon”writtenbyStéphane
VenneandpublishedbyJFMInvestmentsInc.in1972[Applicationby],File2011-UO/TI-24;also
availableat
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/255-f.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2011-09-
26)
PCFAngleMortFilmInc.forthereproduction,synchronizationandpublicperformanceofanextract
ofatelevisionseriesentitled”MariadelBarrio”Applicationby],File2010-UO/TI-17;2011CarswellNat
829,alsoavailableat
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/252-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;
2011-02-21)
Perfect10,Inc.v.Google,Inc.,UnreportedT-1591-09(F.C.-Prot.;2010-07-15);affd2011
CarswellNat89,91CPR(4th)444,[2011]FCJ458,2011FC348,
http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc348/2011fc348.html(F.C.;2011-03-21)

Pintov.BronfmanJewishEducationCenter*
,2011QCCS3458,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2011/2011qccs3458/2011qccs3458.html(Que.Sup.Ct.;2011-07-13)

Post-SecondaryEducationalInstitutions,Re2011CarswellNat3544
http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2011/20110908.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2011-09-08)

ProductionsPhi-Brassard(Jimmy)Inc.,Quebec,forthereproduction,synchronizationandpublic
performanceofanexcerptofamusicalrecordingentitled”SeeburgBackgroundMusicRecordBA-
109A”inashortfilm,[Applicationby],File2011-UO/TI-05;2011CarswellNat4023,alsoavailableat
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/254-e.pdf(Cop.Bd..;2011-08-30)

PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,Re2011CarswellNat2658,
http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2011/CBCRadioTariff1C-Motifsdedecision.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2011-07-08)

PublicPerformanceofSoundRecordings,Re2011CarswellNat2797,
http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2011/ReSound-6-A-Decision.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2011-07-15)

R.v.Fiset,2011CarswellQue1683,2011QCCQ1344,JE2011-436,2011CarswellQue11968,
(Englishtransaltion)
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2011/2011qccq1344/2011qccq1344.html(Que.Ct.
-Crim.;2011-02-21)
R.v.Gravel,2011QCCQ2517,EYB2011-188863,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2011/2011qccq2517/2011qccq2517.html(Que.Ct.–Crim;2011-03-24)

R.v.Phillips*,2011ONSC1881,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2011/2011onsc1881/2011onsc1881.html(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2011-03-25);
2011CarswellOnt2057,2011ONSC1892,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2011/2011onsc1892/2011onsc1892.html(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2011-03-25)

Re:Soundv.MotionPictureTheatreAssociationofCanada,2009CarswellNat2889,78CPR(4th)64
(Cop.Bd.;2009-00-16);affd2011CarswellNat429,2011FCA70,415NR10,[2011]FCJ292,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2011/2011fca70/2011fca70.html(F.C.A.;2011-02-25);leaveto
appealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadagranted2011CanLII56032,
http://canlii.ca/fr/ca/csc-
a/doc/2011/2011canlii56032/2011canlii56032.html(S.C.C.;2011-09-08)]

ReprographicReproduction2011-2013,Re2010CarswellNat5028,2010CarswellNat5029,92CPR
(4th)434,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2010/decision_of_the_board.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2010-12-13);
var.2011CarswellNat2254,93CPR(4th)429,
http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2011/20110407.pdf(Cop.Bd.-ApplicationtovaryanInterimTariff;2011-04-07);
additionalreasonsat2011CarswellNat2429,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2011/20110628.pdf
(Cop.Bd.:2011-06-28)and2011CarswellNat3708,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2011/20110923.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2011-09-23)

Rhodesv.CieAmwayCanada*2011CarswellNat4872,2011FC1341,
http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/en/2011/2011fc1341/2011fc1341.pdf(F.C.;2011-11-23)

Robertsonv.ProquestLearning&InformationLLC,
84CPR(4th)224,2010CarswellOnt3972,2010
CanLII31314,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010canlii31314/2010canlii31314.html(Ont.
Sup.Ct.;2010-06-11);2011CarswellOnt1088,2011ONSC1184(Ont.Sup.Ct.–Feesapproval;
2011-02-22);2011ONSC1647;
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2011/2011onsc1647/2011onsc1647.html(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2011-03-15),
2011CarswellOnt2923,2011ONSC2629,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2011/2011onsc2629/2011onsc2629.html(Ont.Sup.Ct.-Approvalof
Settlement;2011-05-02);2011CarswellOnt1770,2011ONSC1647(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2011-03-15)

Robinsonv.FilmsCinarInc.2011CarswellQue7652,2011QCCA1361,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2011/2011qcca1361/2011qcca1361.html(Que.C.A.;2011-07-
20);applicationsforleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadafiled2011CarswellQue11024,
2011CarswellQue11521,2011CarswellQue11982,2011CarswellQue10416(S.C.C.);2011QCCA
2305
,http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2011/2011qcca2305/2011qcca2305.html(Que.C.A.-Stay;
2011-12-09)
SeguraMosquerav.UniversityofToronto*2011HRTO464,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onhrt/doc/2011/2011hrto464/2011hrto464.html(Ont.HumanRightsTrib.;2011-
03-07)
Seidelv.TelusCommunicationsInc.*2008CarswellBC1490,2008BCSC933,295DLR(4th)511,
[2008]BCWLD7491,[2008]BCWLD7528,85BCLR(4th)372(B.S.S.C.;2008-07-16)revd2009
CarswellBC608,2009BCCA104,[2009]BCWLD1852,[2009]BCWLD2019,[2009]BCWLD2020,
[2009]BCWLD2021,[2009]BCWLD2028,[2009]BCWLD2056,88BCLR(4th)212,[2009]5WWR
466,68CPC(6th)57,267BCAC266,450WAC266,304DLR(4th)564(B.C.C.A.;2009-03-13)
revdinpart2011CarswellBC553,2011SCC15,JE2011-498,[2011]BCWLD2572,[2011]BCWLD
2568,[2011]BCWLD2565,[2011]BCWLD2563,[2011]BCWLD2558,[2011]BCWLD2557,[2011]
BCWLD2556,[2011]BCWLD2651,[2011]BCWLD2643,16BCLR(5th)1,329DLR(4th)577,
[2011]6WWR229,1CPC(7th)221,412NR195,82BLR(4th)1,301BCAC1,510WAC1,[2011]
1SCR.531,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/csc/doc/2011/2011csc15/2011csc15.html(S.C.C.;2011-03-
18)
SetantaSportsCanadaLimitedv.840341AlbertaLtd.(Brew’inTaphouse),2011FC709,[2011]FCJ
987,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc709/2011fc709.html(FC;2011-06-16)

SetantaSportsCanadaLimitedv.GentileEnterprisesInc.(AcetiPizzeria&Pasta),2011CarswellNat
136,2011FCJ84,2011FC64,
http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc64/2011fc64.html(FC;
2011-01-20);2011CarswellNat697,2011FC99,
http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc99/2011fc99.html(F.C.-Contempt;2011-01-27)

Simardv.Sorel-Tracy(Villede)*,2011QCCQ2622,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2011/2011qccq2622/2011qccq2622.html(Que.Ct.-Jurisdiction;
2011-03-25);2011QCCQ5936,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2011/2011qccq5936/2011qccq5936.html(Que.Ct.-SmallClaims;
2011-06-10)
Sociétédesauteursderadio,télévisionetcinéma(SARTEC)v.Marcheterre*,2011QCCS3562,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2011/2011qccs3562/2011qccs3562.html#_ftn37(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2011-07-07)
SocietyofComposer,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav.IICEnterprisesLtd.(Cheetah’s
Nightclub),2011CarswellNat3810,2011CarswellNat4613,2011FC1088,2011CF1088(F.C.-
Proth.;2011-09-21);affd.2011CarswellNat5087,2011FC1088,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc1399/2011fc1399.html,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/en/2011/2011fc1399/2011fc1399.html(F.C.;2011-12-01)

Suttiev.Canada(AttorneyGeneral),
2011CarswellNat1007,2011FC119,90CPR(4th)131,2011
FC119,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc119/2011fc119.html(F.C.;2011-02-02)

Taddo(Catherine)forthemechanicalreproductionandthecommunicationtothepublicby
telecommunicationofamusicalworkentitled”MenareLikeStreetCars”byLouisJordanorCharley
Jordan[Applicationby],File2011-UO-TI-13;alsoavailableat
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-
introuvables/licences/256-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2011-09-30)

TargetEventProductionLtdv.Cheung,2011CarswellNat148,2011FC83,
http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc83/2011fc83.html(FC-Costs;2011-01-25)

Thomasv.Brand-uMediainc.,2011QCCQ395,
http://canlii.ca/en/qc/qccq/doc/2011/2011qccq395/2011qccq395.html(Que.Ct.-SmallClaims;2011-
01-20)
TonyMartinv.ClaimsAdministrator,2011ONSC1184,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2011/2011onsc1184/2011onsc1184.html(Ont.Sup.C.2011-02-22)

Toronto(City)(Re),2011CanLII43646,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onipc/doc/2011/2011canlii43646/2011canlii43646.html(OntInformationand
PrivacyCommissioner.;2011-06-30)
Tucows.ComCo.v.LojasRennerS.A.*,2010CarswellOnt10841,2010ONSC5851,94CPR(4th)
116,334DLR(4th)564,87BLR(4th)282
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc5851/2010onsc5851.html(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2011-10-28);
revd,2011CarswellOnt8081,2011ONCA548,95CPR(4th)49,7CPC(7th)35,106OR(3d)561,
336DLR(4th)443,87BLR(4th)42
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onca/doc/2011/2011onca548/2011onca548.html(Ont.C.A.;2011-08-05)

Uniondesproducteursagricolesv.LaVieagricole*2011CanLII43694,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccpq/doc/2011/2011canlii43694/2011canlii43694.html(Que.ConseildePresse;
2011-04-29)
UnitedStatesofAmericav.Orphanou*2010ONSC2153,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc2153/2010onsc2153.html(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2010-04-28);
affd.2011ONCA612,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onca/doc/2011/2011onca612/2011onca612.html(OntCA;
2011-09-27)
ValenceTechnology,Inc.v.PhostechLithiumInc.*2011CarswellNat380,2011CarswellNat1269,
92CPR(4th)123,2011FC174,2011CF174,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc174/2011fc174.html(F.C.;2011-02-17)[2011FCA
107,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2011/2011fca107/2011fca107.html(FCA-Stay;2011-03-18);
affd2011CarswellNat3238,2011CarswellNat3239,96CPR(4th)207,2011CAF237,2011FCA
237,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2011/2011fca237/2011fca237.html(F.C.A.;2011-08-17)

VelsoftTrainingMaterialsInc.v.GlobalCoursewareInc.,2011NSSC274,
http://canlii.ca/en/ns/nssc/doc/2011/2011nssc274/2011nssc274.html(N.S.S.C.;2011-07-06)

VoltagePicturesLLCv.JaneDoe,2011CarswellNat4129,2011FC1024,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc1024/2011fc1024.html(F.C.;2011-08-29

Now,asectionbysectionanalysisofthose2011Ca
nadiancases.

Definitions·Section2–Interpretation

Statutoryinterpretationrequiresconsiderationoftheordinarymeaningofthewords
usedandtheirstatutorycontext.
BBMCanadav.ResearchinMotionLimited*2011FCA151(F.C.A.;2011-05-05)
DawsonJ
.
[22]Itiswell-establishedthatstatutoryinterpretationrequiresconsiderationofthe
ordinarymeaningofthewordsusedandtheirstatutorycontext.Thiswasexplained
bytheSupremeCourtinCanadaTrustcoMortgageCo.v.Canada,2005SCC54
(CanLII),[2005]2S.C.R.601atparagraph10andreiteratedinCelgeneCorp.v.
Canada(AttorneyGeneral),2011SCC1(CanLII),2011SCC1atparagraph21.In
thatcasetheSupremeCourtquotedfromandcommentedonCanadaTrustcoas
follows:21.[…]:
Ithasbeenlongestablishedasamatterofstatutoryinterpretationthat“the
wordsofanActaretobereadintheirentirecontextandintheirgrammatical
andordinarysenseharmoniouslywiththeschemeoftheAct,theobjectof
theAct,andtheintentionofParliament”:see65302BritishColumbiaLtd.v.
Canada,1999CanLII639(SCC),[1999]3S.C.R.804,atpara.50.The
interpretationofastatutoryprovisionmustbemadeaccordingtoatextual,
contextualandpurposiveanalysistofindameaningthatisharmoniouswith
theActasawhole.Whenthewordsofaprovisionarepreciseand
unequivocal,theordinarymeaningofthewordsplayadominantroleinthe
interpretiveprocess.Ontheotherhand,wherethewordscansupportmore
thanonereasonablemeaning,theordinarymeaningofthewordsplaysa
lesserrole.Therelativeeffectsofordinarymeaning,contextandpurposeon
theinterpretiveprocessmayvary,butinallcasesthecourtmustseekto
readtheprovisionsofanActasaharmoniouswhole.[para.10.]
Thewords,ifclear,willdominate;ifnot,theyyieldtoaninterpretationthatbest
meetstheoverridingpurposeofthestatute.[emphasisadded]

·Section2–DefinitionofArchitecturalwork

Foraworktobeheldoriginal,thereisnorequirementforspecialartisticquality.
However,toattracttheprotectionoftheCopyrightAct,theworkmustfallwithinone
ofthecategoriesandafenceisnotanarchitecturalworknoranartisticwork.

9077-6204Québecinc.v.Blanchard,2011QCCQ205(Que.Ct.;2011-01-18)
ArchambaultJ.
[70]Pourêtrejugéeoriginale,uneoeuvren’apasàavoirdequalitésartistiques
particulières.
[181]Appliquantcesprincipesdansleprésentdossier,leTribunalestd’opinion
quelaconceptiondelarésidencedu[…]etsaconstructionparledemandeur
Legaultetsacompagnie,constitueuneœuvreouuneœuvrearchitecturaleau

sensdela
Loisurledroitd’auteur.Ilenestdemêmepourlesplansdela
résidence;
[182]Mais,leTribunalestd’opinionqu’iln’enestpasdemêmepourlaconception
etlaconstructiondelaclôtureentourantlapropriétédu[…].Celles-cine
constituentpasuneœuvre,niuneœuvrearchitecturale,niuneœuvreartistiquean
sensdelaLoisurledroitd’auteuretce,pourlesraisonssuivantes:[…]

[185]Selonlesprincipesd’interprétationetl’utilisationdusenscourantetusueldes
mots,uneclôturepeutdifficilemententrerdansl’uneoul’autredesdéfinitions
précitées;
[186]Forceestdeconstaterque,suivantlesdéfinitionsprécitées[CopyrightAct
andLeNouveauPetitRobertdelalanguefrançaise],uneclôturenepeutêtre
assimiléeàunbâtimentouédifice;
[190]Dansleprésentdossier,lesdemandeurstententd’assimilerlaclôtureàla
bâtisseelle-même,d’enfaireuneœuvreindépendanteouformantuntoutausens
delaLoisurledroitd’auteur;

[191]Avecrespect,leTribunalnepeutsuivreceraisonnement.Eneffet,le
Tribunalestd’opinionquelesdemandeursn’ontpasdémontrél’originalitédela
clôtureparrapportàd’autrestypesdeclôturedetype«palissade»;

[213]Pourtoutescesraisons,leTribunalestd’opinionquelaconceptionetla
constructiondelaclôturedu[…]neconstituentpasuntoutouunamalgameavec
larésidence,commel’ontprétendumessieursLegaultetBeaulieu.Laclôturedu
[…]estunsimpleaccessoireàladiterésidenceetneconstituepasuneœuvre,ni
uneœuvrearchitecturaleouartistiqueausensdelaLoisurledroitd’auteur;
·Section2–DefinitionofArtisticwork

ApplyingthecautionarywarningofCCHCanadianLtd.vTheLawSocietyofUpper
Canada,2004SCC13,itwasheldthatcopyrightmaysubsistinarestaurantmenu
sincetheexerciseofskillandjudgmentwasnotsotrivialthatitcouldbe
characterizedasapurelymechanicalexercise.
1429539OntarioLimitedv.CaféMirageInc.,2011FC1290(F.C.;2011-11-09)
MandaminJ.
[113]However,CCH[CCHCanadianLtd.vTheLawSocietyofUpperCanada,
2004SCC13]cautionsthattheexerciseofskillandjudgmentmustnotbesotrivial
thatitcouldbecharacterizedasapurelymechanicalexercise.Withregardsto
restaurantmenus,itispossibletoenvisionamenuthatislittlemorethana
standardlistoffooditemswithubiquitousdescriptions,pricesandsomeidentifying
informationsuchastherestaurant’sname,locationandstorehours.Whilethe
creationofsuchamenuwouldinevitablybeanexerciseofsomeskilland
judgmentinsofarastheauthorisrequiredtodeterminewhichitemsaretobe
included,theprices,andpossiblytheorderorgroupingoftheitems,itislessclear
whetheranexerciseofskillandjudgmentsodescribedcouldbecategorizedasa
purelymechanicalexerciseandthusnotanoriginalworkforthepurposesof
copyrightprotection.However,whereanauthordemonstratesademinimislevelof
intellectualeffortsuggestingmorethanapurelymechanicalexerciseofskilland

judgment,theresultingmenuwouldbean“original”
workandprotectedunderthe
CopyrightAct.

[114]ThenewSymposiumCafémenuconsistsofthedepictionoftheSchoolof
Athensart,theinclusionofitstrade-markexpressions,photographsofmenu
selections,descriptionsextollingthemenuitemsandprices.Mr.Argiropoulos
describedtheprocessofselectingthefooditemsandgeneratingdescriptionsthat
achievedtheeffecttheywerestrivingforaspartoftheSymposiumCaféconcept.It
isclearthatthoughtwasgiventothemenufooditemstobeincluded,the
phraseologyusedindescriptionsandthelinkingwithimagestoassociatethe
menuwiththeSymposiumconcept.IamsatisfiedthatMr.Argiropouloshas
describedaprocessthatmeetsthestandardofanexerciseofskillandjudgmentin
themenuselection,arrangementanddesigntoestablishcopyright.

·Section2–DefinitionofArtisticwork

Acorporatelogocouldbeprotectedasatrade-markandasacopyrightwork.

Uniondesproducteursagricolesv.LaVieagricole*2011CanLII43694(Que.
ConseildePresse;2011-04-29)
[7]MeHotte[attorneyforthecomplainant]s’insurgecontrel’utilisationsansdroit
dulogodel’UPA.

[8]Concernantl’utilisationd’unlogo,leConseilestimequ’iln’estpasduressortde
ladéontologiejournalistique,maisquecelarelèveplutôtdudomainedudroit
d’auteur.CommeleConseildepressenerendpasdedécisionenlamatière,le
griefn’apasététraité.
·Section2–DefinitionofBoard

TheCopyrightBoardisafederallyregulatedentityans,asnotprovinciallyregulated,
cannotbemadearespondenttoanapplicationfordiscriminationbeforetheOntario
HumanRightsTribunal.
SeguraMosquerav.UniversityofToronto*2011HRTO464(Ont.HumanRights
Trib.;2011-03-07)N.Overend
[Onapplicationunders.34oftheHumanRightsCode,R.S.O.1990,c.H.19,alleging
discriminationingoods,servicesandfacilitiesonthebasisofrace,colour,ancestry,
placeoforigin,citizenship,ethnicorigin,creed,sex,sexualorientation,maritalstatus
andage]
[18]Priortoservinganapplicationonthenamedrespondents,theTribunalwillonly
dismissitasbeingunderfederaljurisdictionwhereitisplainandobviousthatthe
mattersdonotfallwithinprovincialjurisdiction.Inthiscase,boththeCopyright
BoardofCanadaandtheCanadaHealthActDivision,iftheyareproperentities,are
partofthefederalgovernment.Aspartofthefederalgovernment,itisplainand
obviousthatthesepotentialrespondentsarenotprovinciallyregulated.Accordingly,
theTribunalhasnojurisdictiontoproceedwiththeallegationsagainstthesetwo
entities.

·
Section2–DefinitionofBoard

ItistheCopyrightBoardthatcertifyandapprovedthetariffsestablishingtheroyalties
thatcouldbecollectedbyacollectivesocietyforthepublicperformanceoftherights
itadministers.
SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav.IICEnterprises
Ltd.(Cheetah’sNightclub),2011FC1399(F.C.;2011-12-01)LemieuxJ.
[11]Asiswellknown,SOCANisacollectivesocietyundersection67ofthe
CopyrightAct;itisauthorizedtograntlicencesforthepublicperformancein
Canadaofmusicalworksandtocollect,pursuanttosuchlicences,royaltiesorfees
sanctionedbytheCopyrightBoard.
·Section2–DefinitionofCompilation

“Wheretheformorexpressionofthecompilationisoriginalinpresentationitwillbe
givencopyrightprotection.Theimpossibilityofhavingcopyrightintheconstituent
partsdoesnotpreventthecompiledworkfrombeingprotectedbycopyright.”

HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2011FC340(F.C.;2011-03-
18)HeneghanJ.
[150]Copyrightmaysubsistinacompilationwhichincludesnon-copyrightable
material.Wheretheformorexpressionofthecompilationisoriginalinpresentation
itwillbegivencopyrightprotection.Theimpossibilityofhavingcopyrightinthe
constituentpartsdoesnotpreventthecompiledworkfrombeingprotectedby
copyright.Thisdoesnotgivetheauthorcopyrightintheindividualparts,butrather
acopyrightinthecompilationasawhole;seeCCH,atparas.33–36[CCH
CanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13(CanLII)].

·Section2–DefinitionofComputerprogram

Copyrightprotectioninacomputerprogramisontheexpression,notthedata
content.
HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2011FC340(F.C.;2011-03-
18)HeneghanJ.
[151]Inmyopinion,theownerofthecopyrightinacomputerprogramdoesnot,as
amatterofgeneralprinciple,havecopyrightintheuser’sdata,unlessthereisan
agreementtothecontrary.
·Section2–DefinitionofEveryoriginalliterary,dramatic,musicaland
artisticwork…

Ifthereisonlyoneoraverylimitednumberofwaystoachieveaparticularresultina
computerprogram,thentheprogramwillnotbeconsiderasanoriginalliterarywork.

HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.
,2011FC340(F.C.;2011-03-
18)HeneghanJ.
[149]Computerprogrammingthatisdictatedbytheoperatingsystemorreflects
commonprogrammingpracticesisnotoriginalexpressionandwillnotreceive
copyrightprotection;seeDelrinaCorp.v.TrioletSystemsInc.2002CanLII11389
(ONCA),(2002),58O.R.(3d)339(C.A.),atparas.52-55.
·Section2–DefinitionofEveryoriginalliterary,dramatic,musicaland
artisticwork…

Determiningwhetheraworkisoriginalisamixedquestionoffactandlaw.

Robinsonv.FilmsCinarInc.2011QCCA1361(QueC.A.;2011-07-20)
[32]Laqualificationdel’œuvreetladéterminationdesoncaractèreoriginal
constituentdesquestionsmixtesdedroitetdefait.[…]

[37]Bienentendu,lefaitqu’ils’agissed’unprojet,quin’apasétémenéàterme,
demeurepertinentetdoitêtreprisenconsidérationdanslaqualificationdel’œuvre.
Cefaitpeutrendrelatâcheplusardue,maisilneconstituepasunempêchementà
cequel’œuvresoitprotégée,danslamesureoùelleestsuffisammentdéveloppée
etdépasselesimplestadedesidées[…]

·Section2–DefinitionofEveryoriginalliterary,dramatic,musicaland
artisticwork…

Ademinimislevelofintellectualeffortwouldsufficeforaworktobeheldoriginal.

1429539OntarioLimitedv.CaféMirageInc.,2011FC1290(F.C.;2011-11-09)
MandaminJ.
[113]However,CCH[CCHCanadianLtd.vTheLawSocietyofUpperCanada,
2004SCC13]cautionsthattheexerciseofskillandjudgmentmustnotbesotrivial
thatitcouldbecharacterizedasapurelymechanicalexercise.Withregardsto
restaurantmenus,itispossibletoenvisionamenuthatislittlemorethana
standardlistoffooditemswithubiquitousdescriptions,pricesandsomeidentifying
informationsuchastherestaurant’sname,locationandstorehours.Whilethe
creationofsuchamenuwouldinevitablybeanexerciseofsomeskilland
judgmentinsofarastheauthorisrequiredtodeterminewhichitemsaretobe
included,theprices,andpossiblytheorderorgroupingoftheitems,itislessclear
whetheranexerciseofskillandjudgmentsodescribedcouldbecategorizedasa
purelymechanicalexerciseandthusnotanoriginalworkforthepurposesof
copyrightprotection.However,whereanauthordemonstratesademinimislevelof
intellectualeffortsuggestingmorethanapurelymechanicalexerciseofskilland
judgment,theresultingmenuwouldbean“original”workandprotectedunderthe
CopyrightAct.

·Section2–DefinitionofEveryoriginalliterary,dramatic,musicaland
artisticwork…

TheFederalCourtheldthatthereisnocopyrighti
napatentclaimbecause,
presumably,itistheonlywaytodescribeaccurately,intechnicalterms,theextentof
theprotectionconferredbyapatent.[Itrefuelsanolddebate:washeldthatthe
drawingspartofapatentareprotectedmatterundertheCopyrightActbutare
unenforceablewhenthepatentisissued(1985),7C.P.R.(3d)294(F.C.T.D.),atp.
312;contraR.v.BoutinJ.E.97-1939(Que.Ct.-Crim.Div.)BabinJ.,atp.16.]

ValenceTechnology,Inc.v.PhostechLithiumInc.*2011FC174(FC;2011-02-17)
GauthierJ.[affd.2011FCA237(F.C.A.;2011-08-17)],footnotesomitted
[207]Phostechwenttogreatlengthtoestablishsomethingthatwasnotreally
contestedby
Valence,thatis,thatitspatentagenthadrecommendedthatValenceadoptinits
divisional,whichhadalreadybeenfiled,wordingwhichfollowedverycloselythat
usedintheclaimsofthe‘129Application(ortherelated‘446Application)wherever
therewassufficientmaterialintheValencedisclosuretosupportsuchchanges.

[211]TheCourtagreeswithValencethatthereisnocopyrightonclaimlanguage.

·Section2–DefinitionofEveryoriginalliterary,dramatic,musicaland
artisticwork…

Apurelymechanicalinputdoesnotmeettheoriginalitylevelforawork[hereafence]
tobeprotectedundertheCopyrightAct.

9077-6204Québecinc.v.Blanchard,2011QCCQ205(Que.Ct.;2011-01-18)
ArchambaultJ.[
214]LeTribunalestimequel’exercicedelarencontredemessieursLegaultet
Beaulieuestnégligeable,aupointdelaqualifierd’entreprisepurementmécanique
commel’ad’ailleursfaitl’expertShepparddanslesconclusionsdesonrapport;

[215]LeTribunalnevoitaucunecaractéristiqueinconnuedesconstructeurset
installateursdeclôturesouquirelèveraitd’untravailcréateurparticulierdes
demandeursapparaissantsurlapièceP-18,nidanslafaçondeconstruirela
clôturedu[…];
[219]Danslescirconstances,reconnaîtreundroitd’auteursuruneclôture
risqueraitd’aboutiretd’engendrerdenombreuxlitigessemblablesauprésentlitige
entrevoisins,entrefabricantsetinstallateursdeclôturesdontlesmodèlesse
ressembleraient,occasionnantainsidesdéboursésimportantsauxprincipaux
intéressés;
·Section2–DefinitionofInfringing

Wheretheplagiarizedpartscannotbedividedfromtheotherparts,theinjunctionwill
issueforthewhole.

FormationetgestionPro-SantéM.R.Inc.v.Sampiet
ro2011QCCS4266(Que.Sup.
Ct.;2011-08-10)GrenierJ.
[77]Lapreuved’undroitclairetapparentaétéétablie.Commeilestimpossiblede
fractionnercequiestplagiédecequinel’estpas,l’injonctiondoitêtreémisepour
interdirelapublicationetdistributionintégralesdesdocumentsP-7,P-7a)etP-7b).
·Section2–DefinitionofInfringing

Foraworktobeinfringing,ithastoreproduceaprotectedworkorasubstantialpart
thereof.
Century21CanadaLimitedPartnershipv.RogersCommuniationsInc2011BCSC
1196(B.C.S.C.;2011-09-02)PunnettJ.
[203]Ifindthatthepracticeof[co-defendant]Zoocasa,fromitsinceptionuntil
November2008,ofindexingandcopyingtheentirepropertydescriptionwas,inthe
wordsofSlesser,L.J.inHawkes[HawkesSonLtd.v.ParamountFilmServiceLtd.,
[1934]Ch.593(Eng.C.A.)],“theindexingandcopyingofasubstantial,avital,and
anessentialpart”oftheplaintiffs’Works.
[204]ThecontinuedcopyingoftheentirepropertydescriptiontotheZoocasa
serverisaviolationofcopyright.Thetruncatedversionsofthepropertydescription
inmyviewdonotinfringecopyrightastheydonotmeetthecriteriaforsubstantial
copyingsufficientforcopyrightinfringement.
[205]Withrespecttothephotographs,Zoocasawasnotmerelycopyinga
thumbnailimageasinthecaseofKellyv.ArribaSoftCorporation,336F.3d811
(USCA,9thCircuit,2003),butrathertheentirephotograph.Thiswasaclear
violationofcopyright.
·Section2–DefinitionofInfringing

Inordertodetermineifasubstantialpartofaworkwascopied,thecourtdoesnot
havetoidentifythesubstanceoftheworkindeterminingwhetherinfringement
occurred.Itisnotthesubstanceoftheworkthatmustbecomparedtothecopy,but
theworkinitsentiretytodeterminewhetherasubstantialthereofisreproducedinthe
copy.

Robinsonv.FilmsCinarInc.2011QCCA1361(QueC.A.;2011-07-20)
[
43]Riennepermetdecroirequeletribunaldoive,dansuneétapepréalable,
dégagerlasubstancedel’œuvreauxfinsdedéterminers’ilyacontrefaçonparla
reproductiond’unepartieimportante,substantielle,del’œuvreoriginale.Agirainsi
réduiraitlecontenudel’œuvre,restreindraitindûmentlaportéedelaprotection
conféréeparlaLDAetpourraitlimiter,sansraison,l’exercicevisantàdégagerle
nombredesimilitudessusceptiblesd’êtreretenues.Cen’estdoncpaslasubstance
del’œuvrequidoitêtrecomparéeàlacopie,maisbienl’œuvredanssaglobalité
pourdéterminers’ilyareprisesubstantielledecelle-cidanslacopie.

[45]Letribunaldoitdoncs’interrogersurl’originalitédel’œuvre,sanslaquelleilne
peut,biensûr,yavoircontraventionàlaLDA.Ilprocèdeensuiteàuneanalyse

comparativeauxfinsdedéterminers’ilyadessim
ilitudesentrel’œuvreoriginaleet
lacopie,similitudesquidoiventportersurdesaspectsquioccupentuneplace
importantedansl’ensembledel’œuvreoriginale.[…]

·Section2–DefinitionofLiterarywork

Religiousmessagesoraddressescanattractcopyrightprotectionasliteraryworks.

Khanv.Tajdin,2011FC14(F.C.;2011-01-07)HarringtonJ.
[4]AsImamoftheShiaImaniIsmailiMuslims,theAgaKhangivesadviceand
guidancetohisflock(“Jamat”)onbothreligiousandtemporalmatters.Twomeans
ofaddressfrequentlyusedare“Farmans”and“Talikas”.AFarmanisanaddress
givenbeforeanaudience.Itisrecordedandpreservedinaudioandofteninvideo
form.ATalikaisabriefwrittenreligiousmessage.

[5]TheseFarmansandTalikas(hereinafter“Farmans”)areliteraryworkswithinthe
meaningoftheCopyrightAct.TheAgaKhanhastakenactiontoasserthisrightof
ownershipandforapermanentinjunctionandotherrelieftostopthedefendants
frominfringinghisrightsbyprintinganddisseminatingabookofFarmansentitled
Farmans1957-2009–GoldenEditionKalam-E-Iman-E-Zaman(whichmeans
“WordsoftheImamoftheTime”).ThisbookisaccompaniedbyanMP3audio
bookmark,preloadedwith14audioextractsofreadingsofFarmansbytheAga
Khanhimself.

·Section2–DefinitionofLiterarywork

Worksusedforcommercialpurposesarealsoentitledtocopyrightprotectionand
propertykistingsusedonawebsite,providedtheyareoriginal,couldattractcopyright
protectionasliteraryworks.
Century21CanadaLimitedPartnershipv.RogersCommunicationsInc2011BCSC
119,(B.C.S.C.;2011-09-02)PunnetJ.
[181]Theinitialissueiswhetherthepropertydescriptionsandphotographsused
bytheplaintiffsareentitledtocopyrightprotection.Theworkmusthavesome
“literarycharacter”.Theworkmustprovide“information,instructionor…literary
enjoyment”andthe“authormustbestowsomebrainworkuponaworkandthata
workmustnotbea‘merecollectionofcopiesofpublicdocuments’”:John
McKeown,FoxCanadianLawofCopyrightandIndustrialDesigns,4thed.
looseleaf(Toronto:Carswell,2003),ats.7:4[Fox].

[183]Worksusedforcommercialpurposesarealsoentitledtocopyrightprotection.
[…]
[185]Thepropertydescriptionsdescribeparticularrealproperties.Theyare
createdtomarketthepropertytopotentialbuyers.Itisapparenttheyarewrittenfor
eachpropertyinamannertohighlightthepositiveaspectsoftheproperties.There
isalsotheevidenceof[co-plaintiffs]BilashandWaltonthatthereissomelevelof
skillinvolvedinwritinganeffectivepropertydescription.Iamsatisfiedthatthe
propertydescriptionsaretheproductofskillandjudgment.Asaresulttheymeet
thethresholdforcopyrightprotection.

·
Section2–DefinitionofLiterarywork

Thedefinitionof”literarywork”shouldbeconstruedasillustrativeandnotexhaustive;
itshouldnotberestrictedtothedictionarymeaningoftheword”literary”sincethe
enumerationfollowingthewords”literaryworks”insection2isaddedtotheusual
sensethereof.
1429539OntarioLimitedv.CaféMirageInc.,2011FC1290(F.C.;2011-11-09)
MandaminJ.
[
99]Finally,almosteverythingexpressedinprintorwritinghasbeenheldtobe
literaryworks.TheCopyrightActliststables,computerprograms,books,
pamphlets,andwritings.Moreunusualworksincludebusinessrecords,forms,
minutesofmeetings,sudokupuzzlesandlawyers’letters:ibidat69[DavidVaver,
IntellectualPropertyLaw:Copyright,Patents,Trade-marks,2ded(Toronto:Irwin
LawInc.,2011)].
·Section2–DefinitionofLiterarywork

Plaintiffusedherknowledge,experience,expertise,teachingskills,judgmentand
abilitytodevelopadocumentuniqueinitsmodeofexpression.Shepresentedan
intelligibleandlogicalinformationandhertrainingprograminbusinessmanagement
andsecretarialdentistryqualifiesasaliterarywork

M.R.Inc.v.Sampietro2011QCCS4266(Que.Sup.Ct.;2011-08-10)GrenierJ.
[41]Toutepersonnepeutpuiseràdifférentessourcespourproduiredes
compilationsetdestableaux.C’estdansl’agencement,lamiseenpage,
l’ordonnanceetl’organisationques’exprimel’originalité,c’est-à-direl’expression
del’idée.Lamanièredes’exprimerestuneformedelangage.

[43]Lademanderessen’apasinventélaterminologieetlevocabulairequ’ellea
utilisés.Celavadesoi.Elleacrééquelquechoseàpartirduconnu.Cettecréation
estindéniable.Ilsuffitdeprendreconnaissancedel’œuvredelademanderesse
pourconstaterquecettedernièreautilisésesconnaissances,sonexpérience,son
expertise,sonsenspédagogique,sonjugementetsonhabilitépourélaborerun
documentuniquedanssonmoded’expression.Elleaprésentédefaçonintelligible
etlogiquel’informationnécessaireàlapréparationd’undiplômeensecrétariat
dentaire.Ils’agitdoncd’uneœuvrelittéraireoriginaledanslaquellesubsistaitle
droitd’auteurenregistré.
·Section2–DefinitionofLiterarywork

Achatisawrittenconversationusingwordsinfull,orabbreviated,inanelectronic
support,carriedonavirtualforum:itconstitutesawriting

Gagnév.R.*2011QCCA2157(Que.C.A.;2011-11-22)

[19]Eneffet,leproduitdu
clavardageestuneconversationécriteutilisantdesmots,
aulongouenabrégé,sursupportélectronique,portéesurunforumvirtuel,par
exemplesurunepageWeboudirectementàl’écrandel’ordinateurdel’utilisateur.
Cenesontpasdesimplesmotsquisontperdusdèsleurexpression.Leclavardage
permetaussiàl’internautedelirecequiaétéécritprécédemment,desauvegarder
laconversationenformatélectroniqueouencoredel’imprimer.

[20]Dèsqu’unepersonneécritunmotlorsd’uneséancedeclavardage,leproduit
decettecommunicationestinscritsurunserveurousurunordinateur.Cemotpeut
êtrelu,quelquesoitsonmodedeprésentation,suivantladéfinitiondelaLoi
d’interprétation[L.R.C.(1985),c.I-21,art.35]..

[21]L’appelantprétendqu’enutilisantleterme«écrit»àl’article163.1C.cr.,le
législateurvoulaityincluredes«écrits»telsquedeslivresoudesessais,etnon
paslesconversationssousformedeclavardageentredeuxpersonnes;selonlui,
cesconversationsnesontpasdes«écrits»nides«documents».

[22]Riendanslesdispositionsdesalinéasb)etc)del’article163.1C.cr.ouencore
dansladéfinitiond’un«écrit»àl’article2C.cr.nesupportecetteprétentionde
l’appelant.D’abord,selonlesdispositionsdel’article2C.cr.,nonseulementun
«documentdequelquenaturequ’ilsoit»,maisaussi«toutematièresurlaquelle
desmotsouchiffres,aulongouenabrégé,sontécrits,imprimésouautrement
énoncés»constituentunécritet,ensuite,la«pornographiejuvénile»s’entend,
entreautres,de«toutécrit»quicorrespondàladescriptionqu’onretrouveaux
articles163.1b)etc)C.cr.
·Section2–DefinitionofMaker

Itisnothetitlethatthestatusoftheownerofthecopyrightandthemakerofa
cinematographicfilm(here,ananimatedseries)isthepersonbywhomthe
arrangementsforthemakingoftheworkareundertaken.

RobinsonvFilmsCinarInc.2011QCCA1361(Que.C.A.;2011-07-20)
[140]Letitreaccoléàunepersonnen’estpasdéterminant.Ilfautplutôtse
rattacherauxfonctionsexercéesparcelle-cietàtouteslescirconstancespour
déterminerquiestleréeltitulaired’unpouvoiroud’unecharge.

[141]Dansleprésentdossier,lespersonnesquionteffectuélesopérations
nécessairesàlaconfectiondeRobinsonSucroë,ausensdeladéfinitionprécitée
dumot«producteur»,sontFranceAnimation,CinaretRavensburger.Cesont
ellesquiontengagélepersonnelnécessaireàlaréalisationdelasérieetcesont
ellesquiontassumélaresponsabilitédelagestiondelaproductiondeRobinson
Sucroëtantsurleplanartistiquequesurleplanfinancier,telqu’ilappertdes
contratsintervenusentrelespersonnesintéressées[Fn38Ils’agitdela
ConventionN
o794entreleCENTRENATIONALDELACINÉMATOGRAPHIE
(C.N.C.)etFRANCEANIMATION–S.A.,ducontratintitulé«RobinsonSucroé»
entreRavensburgerFilm+TVetFranceAnimationetdelaCONVENTION
INTERNATIONALEETBILATÉRALEDECOPRODUCTIONentreFRANCE
ANIMATION,S.A.etLESPRODUCTIONSCINARINC./CINARPRODUCTIONS
INC.Certes,cessociétéscommercialesontagiparletruchementdedirigeantsou
d’employés.Cesderniersnesontpas,ausensjuridiqueduterme,unproducteur
commetel,maisbienlesdirigeantsetlesemployésd’unproducteur.Ils’agit

notammentdeM.DavindanslecasdeFranceAnimati
on,deM.Weinberget
MmeCharestpourCinaretdeM.HillepourRavensburger.
·Section2–DefinitionofPhotograph

“Withrespecttothephotographsinquestion,therequirementfororiginalityislow
andcanarisefromthechoiceofsubjectmatter,thecreationofthescene,theangle
ofthephotographorotherfactors.”
Century21CanadaLimitedPartnershipv.RogersCommuniationsInc2011BCSC
1196(B.C.S.C.;2011-09-02)PunnetJ.
[187]Withrespecttothephotographsinquestion,therequirementfororiginalityis
lowandcanarisefromthechoiceofsubjectmatter,thecreationofthescene,the
angleofthephotographorotherfactors:FoxCanadianLawofCopyrightat
s.10:11(c)[JohnMcKeown,FoxCanadianLawofCopyright,3ded.(Carswell:
Scarborough,Ont.,2000)].Again,Iamsatisfiedthattheysatisfytheoriginality
requirementsoftheCopyrightActandtheyareentitledtocopyrightprotection.
·Section2–DefinitionofSoundrecording

A“soundrecording”isnota“phonogram”andreferencetoadefinitionfoundinan
InternationalConventiontoascertainthemeaningofatermdefinedintheCanadian
CopyrightActisnotwarrranted.

Re:Soundv.MotionPictureTheatreAssociationofCanada,2011CarswellNat429,
(FCA;2011-02-25)TrudelJ.[affirming2009CarswellNat2889(Cop.Bd.;2009-00-
16);leavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadagranted2011CanLII56032
(S.C.C.;2011-09-08)]
[13]TheapplicantalsoraisedanargumentbasedontheincompatibilitywithArticle10
oftheRomeConventionwhichprovidesthattheproducersofphonogramsenjoythe
righttoauthorizeorprohibitthedirectorindirectreproductionoftheirphonograms.
ThisargumentfailstoconsiderthattheRomeConventiondefines“phonograms”as
anyexclusivelyauralfixationofsounds(Article3,paragraph(b)),andthat
consequentlya“fixationofimages(e.g.,cinema)orofimagesandsounds(e.g.,
television)arethereforeexcluded”(WIPOGuidetotheRomeConventionsection3.7).
Therefore,IfindnoreasontointerferewiththeBoard’sconclusion.

·Section2–DefinitionofTelecommunication

“Telecommunication”meansanytransmissionofsigns,signals,writing,imagesor
soundorintelligenceofanynaturebywire,radio,visual,opticalorother
electromagneticsystem”:itconnotesasenderandareceiver.

UnitedStatesofAmericav.Orphanou*2011ONCA612(Ont.C.A.;2011-09-27)
CronkJ.

[11]Theword“telecommunication”isnotdefinedund
ertheAct.However,itis
usedinvariousprovisionsanddefinedins.326(2)ofthe[Criminal]Code.Section
326(2)oftheCodeconcernstheoffenceof“theftoftelecommunicationservice”.It
defines“telecommunication”as“anytransmission,emissionorreceptionofsigns,
signals,writing,imagesorsoundsorintelligenceofanynaturebywire,radio,
visual,orotherelectromagneticsystem”.Section35oftheInterpretationAct,R.S.C.
1985,c.I-21,s.2oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,ands.2(1)ofthe
TelecommunicationsAct,S.C.1993,c.38allcontainvirtuallyidenticaldefinitions
oftheterms“telecommunication”and“telecommunications”:DAKHOURY(Aliaa
Ibrahim)PresentattheCreation:TheTelecommissionStudiesandtheIntellectual
OriginsoftheRighttoCommunicateinCanada(1969-71)PhDThesis(Carleton,
ON:CarletonUniversity-SchoolofJournalismandCommunication,2008)

[12]InR.v.McLaughlin,1980CanLII212(SCC),[1980]2S.C.R.331,the
SupremeCourtofCanadaconsideredthemeaningof“telecommunication”forthe
purposeoftheoffenceoffraudulentuseofatelecommunicationfacility,
establishedunderapredecessorversionoftheCode.JusticeEstey,atp.341,ina
comparisonsimilartothecaseathand,statedthat:“[t]akentooliterally,the
language[oftheoffenceoffraudulentuseofatelecommunicationfacility]may,of
course,embracetheoperationofasimpleXeroxmachinesinceitresultsinthe
transferofopticalimagesfromonepoint(theitembeingprinted)toanotherpoint
(theblanksheetofpaperonwhichtheitemisprinted),butitwouldhardlyfallwithin
theordinaryusageofthelanguagetoclassifysuchadeviceorsystemasbeinga
telecommunicationfacility.”
[13]JusticeEsteythencontinuedatp.341:ThetermtelecommunicationasdefinedintheCriminalCode[R.S.C.1970,
c.C-34,s.287]connotesasenderandareceiver.Thecomputer,beinga
computingdevice,contemplatestheparticipationofoneentityonly,namely,
theoperator.Inasense,hecommunicateswithhimself,butitcouldhardly
besaidthattheoperatorbyoperatingtheterminalorconsoleofthe
computeristherebycommunicatinginformationinthesenseoftransmitting
informationandhenceitstretchesthelanguagebeyondrealitytoconclude
thatapersonusingacomputeristherebyusingatelecommunicationfacility
inthesenseoftheCriminalCode.[Fn1McLaughlininvolvedanindividual
whowaschargedwiththefraudulentuseofatelecommunicationfacility
withoutcolourofrightafterusingacomputertoobtainaccesstointernal
programscontainedwithinthesamecomputer.TheSupremeCourt
essentiallyheldthatastheuseofthecomputerforthispurposedidnot
involvethe“transmission”ofinformation,thatis,a“telecommunication”,the
offencewasnotmadeout.]
.
[14]Asimilarmeaningisattributedtotheword“telecommunication”ingeneraland
specializeddictionaries.Forexample,bothTheOxfordEnglishDictionary,2ded.
andTheConciseOxfordEnglishDictionarydefine“telecommunication”as
involvingcommunicationoveradistancebyvariouselectricalandothermeans
(e.g.cable,telegraph,telephone,broadcasting).Typically,theproductionofa
writtendocumentbymeansofaphotocopierdoesnotinvolvecommunicationover
adistancebyelectricalorothermeans.
·Section2–DefinitionofWork

Asafulldomainnamemaynotexceedatotallength
of253charactersinitsexternal
dotted-labelspecification,onemaywonderinwhatcircumstancesadomainname
willhavetherequiredoriginalitytobeprotectedundertheCanadianCopyrightAct.

Tucows.ComCo.v.LojasRennerS.A.*,2011ONCA548(Ont.C.A.;2011-08-05)
[45]Theregistrantofadomainnamehasaservicecontractwitharegistrar.A
domainname,however,caninfringeupontrademarksorcopyrightsinawaythat
otherservicecontractscannot:DanielHancock,“YouCanHaveIt,ButCanYou
HoldIt?TreatingDomainNamesasTangibleProperty”(2011)99Ky.L.J.185,at
pp.193-94.

ICopyrightandMoralRightsinWorks·Section3(1)–Copyrightinworks[Exclusiverights]

TheCopyrightActcouldbeadaptedtonewsituations.

Century21CanadaLimitedPartnershipv.RogersCommuniationsInc,2011BCSC
1196(B.C.S.C.;2011-09-02)PunnettJ.
[1]Theabilityofthelawtoadaptispartofitsstrength.Technologicalinnovation
teststhatresilience.Thiscaseconsidersthatabilityasclaimsforbreachof
contract,trespasstochattelsandcopyrightinfringementmeettheInternet.Atthe
rootofthislawsuitisthelegitimacyofindexingpublicallyaccessiblewebsites.
·Section3(1)–Copyrightinworks[Exclusiverights]

Actsofcopyrightinfringementsmayvaryaccordingtothejurisdictionofalleged
infringementanddefencesmaynotbethesamefromonejurisdictiontoanother.

Perfect10,Inc.v.Google,Inc.,2011FC348(F.C.;2011-03-21)PhelanJ.[affirming
UnreportedT-1591-09(F.C.-Prot.;2010-07-15)]
[11]IntheCanadianactioninthisCourt,Perfect10allegescopyrightinfringement
againstGoogleUSandGoogleCArelatedtotheiractionsandserviceinCanada.
TheallegationisthatGoogleUSofferssearchfunctionsthroughitssiteswhich
directlyand/orindirectlyreproduceinfringingcopiesoftheimagesinwhichPerfect
10claimscopyright.Perfect10allegesthatGoogleCAsellsadvertisinginCanada
ontheGoogleUSsiteandbothGooglecompaniesreproduce,distributeand
communicatecopiesofPerfect10’smaterialsinCanada.

[12]TheinfringingconductisallegedtooccurinCanadaandconstitutesbreaches
ofs.27(1),(2)(b)-(e),and3(1)(a),(b)oftheCanadianCopyrightAct.

itisnotforthisCourt,atthistime,todecidethepotentialforextra-territorial
enforcementorotherpracticaleffectsofadecision;
separatecopyrightinfringementactionsalonearenotabuseofprocess;
whiletheevidenceandimpugnedconductmaybethesamebeforetheU.S.
andCanadiancourts,thelegalmeaningandtherightsinvokedmaybe
different;
onthematterofforumnonconveniens,theLearnedProthonotarybasedher
conclusioninpartontheabsenceofgeographicaloverlapofthePlaintiff’s
twoactions,theavailabilityofdifferentdefencesandtheabsenceofa
requesttotheU.S.courtforreliefinrespectofactivitiesinCanada;
pursuanttos.50(1)(a)oftheFederalCourtsAct,neithertheclaimsnorthe
partiesarethesameandthereforeitwasunnecessarytoaddressthenext
step–ananalysisofprejudice–inconcludingthattheDefendantsfailedto
meettherequirementsofs.50(1)(a)oftheFederalCourtsAct.
·Section3(1)–Copyrightinworks[Substantialpart]

Indexingandcopyingasubstantialpartofawebsiteisinfringingupontheexclusive
reproductionrightsofacopyrightowner.
Century21CanadaLimitedPartnershipv.RogersCommuniationsInc2011BCSC
1196(B.C.S.C.;2011-09-02)PunnettJ.
[203]Ifindthatthepracticeof[co-defendant]Zoocasa,fromitsinceptionuntil
November2008,ofindexingandcopyingtheentirepropertydescriptionwas,inthe
wordsofSlesser,L.J.inHawkes[HawkesSonLtd.v.ParamountFilmServiceLtd.,
[1934]Ch.593(Eng.C.A.)],“theindexingandcopyingofasubstantial,avital,and
anessentialpart”oftheplaintiffs’Works.
[204]ThecontinuedcopyingoftheentirepropertydescriptiontotheZoocasa
serverisaviolationofcopyright.Thetruncatedversionsofthepropertydescription
inmyviewdonotinfringecopyrightastheydonotmeetthecriteriaforsubstantial
copyingsufficientforcopyrightinfringement.
[205]Withrespecttothephotographs,Zoocasawasnotmerelycopyinga
thumbnailimageasinthecaseofKellyv.ArribaSoftCorporation,336F.3d811
(USCA,9thCircuit,2003),butrathertheentirephotograph.Thiswasaclear
violationofcopyright.
·Section3(1)–Copyrightinworks[Substantialpart]

Whatissignificantorimportantinaworkisnotreallyaquestionofquantity.Itis
ratheraquestionofquality,althoughbothremainimportantaspects.Infringementis
assessedfirstbythesimilarities.Ascertainingwhetherthe“copy”isaanewand
originalwork,whichissimplyinspiredbythe“copiedwork”ismatterofnuance,of
degreeandcontext,sothatinthisrespectasinmanyothers,thesearequestionsof
fact.
RobinsonvFilmsCinarInc.2011QCCA1361(QueC.A.;2011-07-20)

[57]Lacontrefaçonn’estpaslimitéeàlacopiecon
formeouserviledel’œuvre,
puisqu’ellepeutenêtreuneimitationdéguiséepourautantqu’ellereprenne,sinon
latotalité,àtoutlemoinsunepartiesubstantielleouimportantedel’œuvre.

[58]Qu’est-cequiestsubstantielouimportantdansuneœuvre?

[59]D’abord,ilnes’agitpasvraimentd’unequestiondequantité.Ils’agitplutôt
d’unequestiondequalité,bienquelesdeuxaspectsdemeurentimportants[…]

[61]Ilvadesoi,parailleurs,quelacontrefaçons’apprécied’abordparles
ressemblances,puisque,parexemple,l’utilisationd’unpersonnageconnuet
importantd’unebandedessinéepeutsuffire,malgrélaprésenced’innombrables
différencesdanslerestedelacopie.Ensomme,lesressemblancespermettentde
déterminers’ilyaempruntd’unepartiesubstantielled’uneœuvre,alorsqueles
différencespourraientnotammentappuyeruneallégationdecréation
indépendante.
[66]Ensomme,lesdifférencespeuventn’avoiraucunimpactsil’empruntdemeure
substantiel.Àl’inverse,ilsepeutaussiqu’ilenrésulteuneœuvrenouvelleet
originale,quis’esttoutsimplementinspiréedelapremière.Toutestdoncquestion
denuance,dedegréetdecontexte,desorteque,danscettematièrecommedans
biend’autres,ils’agitdequestionsdefaitquirelèventd’abordetavanttoutdujuge
depremièreinstance[Voir:ConstructionDenisDesjardinsinc.c.Jeanson,2010
QCCA1287(CanLII),[2010]R.J.Q.1600,2010QCCA1287,paragr.33;British
ColumbiaJockeyClubc.Standen(c.o.b.WinbarPublications),1985CanLII591
(BCCA),[1985]6W.W.R.683,paragr.8(C.A.C.-B.);Hagerc.ECWPressLtd.,
1998CanLII9115(CF),[1999]2C.F.287,paragr.18;Duffc.Québec(Procureur
général),2005QCCA661(CanLII),2005QCCA661,paragr.19à23.].

[67]Ilfautaussiajouterque,s’ilyareprisesubstantielle,lacontrefaçondemeure,
malgréuneffortintellectuelimportantdelapartducontrefacteur:[…]

[68]Ainsi,mêmesilecontrefacteur,grâceàsontalent,aproduituneversion
«améliorée»del’œuvreoriginale,cequecertainspourraientprétendreici,celane
changerienàlaréalité:lacontrefaçondemeureetl’auteuradroitàlaprotection
delaLDA.

·Section3(1)–Copyrightinworks[Authorization]

Officersandemployeesofacompanyactingforthelatterandnotontheirownbehalf
cannotbeheldresponsibleforwrongfulactsallegedagainstthecompanyunless
theyhaveparticipatedinaconsciousway:liftingofthecorporateveilrefused.

RobinsonvFilmsCinarInc.2011QCCA1361(Que.C.A.;2011-07-20)
[142]Aurisquedenousrépéter,lesdirigeantsetemployésd’unesociétéagissent
pourcettedernièreetnonpasenleurnompersonnel.Enconséquence,ilsne
peuventêtretenusresponsablesdesactesfautifsimputésàlasociétéàmoinsd’y
avoirparticipédefaçonconsciente.

·Section3(1)–Copyrightinworks[Authorization]

Liftingthecorporateisafactdrivenissuebutfo
radefendanttosetasideadefault
judgment,thejurisprudenceestablishesthattobesuccessful,thedefendantmust
satisfytheCourtthat:i)hehada“satisfactoryexcuse,”a“reasonableexplanation,”
or“substantialreasons”forhisfailuretofileadefence[Notmetinthiscase];ii)hehad
aprimafaciedefencetotheclaim;andiii)hemovedpromptlytosetasidetheDefault
Judgment.
SetantaSportsCanadaLimitedv.GentileEnterprisesInc.(AcetiPizzeria&Pasta),
2011FC64(F.C.;2011-01-20)ZinnJ.[
20][…]TherearedecisionswherethisCourthasrecognizedthatitmaybe
appropriatetopiercethecorporateveilincasesinvolvingallegedcopyright
infringement:seeCanadianPrivateCopyingCollectivevFuzionTechnologyCorp.,
2006FC1284,aff’d2007FCA335;CanadianPrivateCopyingCollectivevJ&E
MediaInc.,2010FC102.However,whetherthefactsathandwarrantthepiercingof
thecorporateveilisanissuethatisfact-dependantandaccordinglyappearstometo
beworthyoffurtherexamination.Therefore,Icannotfindthatthedefendants’defence
iswithoutanymerit.

·Section3(1)–Copyrightinworks[Authorization]

Therearetwowaystoauthorizecopyrightinfringement.Theauthorizationmayresult
frompositiveacts:theencouragementortheexpresspermissionfallintothis
category.Itmayalsoresultinapassivesituation,forexample,forfailuretofulfilla
control.

RobinsonvFilmsCinarInc.2011QCCA1361(Que.C.A.;2011-07-20)
[145]Ilexistedeuxfaçonsd’autoriseruneviolationdudroitd’auteur.L’autorisation
peutdécoulerd’actespositifs:l’encouragementoul’autorisationexpressefont
partiedecettecatégorie.Ellepeutégalementdécoulerd’unesituationpassive,par
exemple,encasd’omissiond’exécuteruneobligationdecontrôle[Fn40Daniel
GervaisetÉlizabethF.Judge,Ledroitdelapropriétéintellectuelle,Cowansville,
LesÉditionsYvonBlais,2006,p.62.]
·Section3(1)–Copyrightinworks[Authorization]

Authorizingcopyrightinfringementmayresultfromwillfulblindnessandmayresult
fromthelevelofinvolvementofaparty.
Century21CanadaLimitedPartnershipv.RogersCommuniationsInc2011BCSC
1196(B.C.S.C.;2011-09-02)PunnettJ.[
327]Inmyview,Rogers,inprovidingthemeansbywhichtoestablishthe
Zoocasaidea,Websiteandsearchengine,didnomorethan“authoriz[e]themere
useofequipmentwhichcouldbeusedtoinfringecopyright.”AsinSOCAN[Society
ofComposers,Authors,andMusicPublishersofCanadav.BellCanada2010FCA
123],thetechnologyinquestionis“neutraltechnology”inthesensethatthereare
plausiblelegalusesfortoolswhichindex,listandlinkwebsites.Indeed,the
evidencesuggeststhatallowingforautomaticindexingisanindustrystandard

providedthatthesitebeingindexedcanreasonably
exercisearightto“opt-out”if
thisisdesired.

[360]Toestablishthat[co-defendant]Rogersauthorizedcopyrightinfringementor
inducedbreachofcontracttheplaintiffsmustestablishmorethanthelevelof
involvementofRogersthattheyhaveshown.ThefactthatRogersfunded,
supportedandassistedwiththedevelopmentofZoocasadoesnotestablishthat
Rogersauthorized[co-defendant]Zoocasatoinfringecopyrightortobreachthe
contract.
[361]Theplaintiffsassertthatliabilityforauthorizingcopyrightinfringementcan
arisefromfactsthatarelessthandirectandpositiveandthatsuchliabilitycanbe
establishedbya“sufficientdegreeofindifference”.

[362]WhileRogerslevelofinvolvementintheplanning,creation,fundingand
promotionofZoocasahasbeenestablishedtheevidencedoesnotestablishthat
RogersintendedthatZoocasabreachcopyrightorCentury21’sTermsofUse.Nor
doestheevidencesupportafindingthatRogersturned“ablindeye”.Iamnot
satisfiedthattheplaintiffhas,onthebalanceofprobabilities,succeededinproving
thatRogersisliableforZoocasa’scopyrightinfringementorbreachofcontract.
·Section5–Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright

Copyrightwillsubsistinanoriginalworkif,atthetimeofcreation,theauthorwasa
citizenorsubjectof”treatycountry”orordinarilyresidingina”treatycountry”(as
definedinsection2,namelyacountryhavingadheredtotheBerneConventionora
memberoftheWTO).
Khanv.Tajdin,2011FC14(F.C.;2011-01-07)HarringtonJ.
[
26]TheAgaKhan’scopyrightisnotinissue.Canada,theUnitedKingdomand
FranceareallpartiestotheBerneConvention.AsacitizenoftheUnitedKingdom
andaresidentofFrance,theAgaKhanisanauthorqualifiedtoseektheprotectionof
Canada’sCopyrightAct.ItisadmittedthattheGoldenEditionwaspublishedhere.
AlthoughcopyrightwasonlyregisteredinJune2010,thedateofregistrationisnot
relevantinthepresentcase.
·Section13(2)–Engraving,photographorportrait

Absentanyassignmentorincaseofworkofcommand,thecopyrightremainsonthe
headoftheauthor.Iftheservicesofaphotographareretained[andpaid]todo
particularphotographs,thepersonwhoorderedthephotographsistheownerofthe
copyrighttherein.
Century21CanadaLimitedPartnershipv.RogersCommuniationsInc2011BCS
1196(B.C.S.C.;2011-09-02)PunnetJ.
[188][Co-plaintiff]Bilashdeposedthatheretainedaprofessionalphotographerto
takephotographsofeachpropertythathewashiredtomarketasthelistingagent.
Ms.Grayarrangedforphotographerstotakephotographsoftheproperty.Bilash
orderedandpaidfortheoriginalelectronicfilesofthedigitalimagessothathe

couldcopyandusethemashesawfitinhismarket
ingcampaigns,asopposedto
orderingjustprintsofthephotographs.PriortoJanuary1,2009,themoneytopay
thephotographerscamefromBilash’spersonalaccount.FromJanuary1,2009,
onwards,themoneytopaythephotographerscamefromtheaccountofBilash
Corporation.
[189]IamsatisfiedthatBilashownscopyrightinthephotographspursuantto
s.13(2)givenheorderedthem,theyweremadeforvaluableconsideration,he
paidfortheoriginalsandtherewasnoagreementbetweenhimandthe
photographerstothecontrary.
·Section13(3)–Worksmadeinthecourseofemployment

Thetransferofthephysicalgoodsencompassingthecopyrightworkdoesnotavail
fortheassignmentofthecopyrightinsuchwork.
1429539OntarioLimitedv.CaféMirageInc.,2011FC1290(F.C.;2011-11-09)
MandaminJ.
[97]Thepurchaseofacopyrighteditemdoesnottransferthecopyright.For
example,ifonebuysabook,onedoesnotacquirethecopyrighttothebook.While
onecanresellthebookwithoutoffendingthecopyright,thatpersonmaynotcopy
thebookunlesspermissionisgrantedbytheownerofthecopyrightorthe
CopyrightActexceptions:seeDavidVaver,IntellectualPropertyLaw:Copyright,
Patents,Trade-marks,2ded(Toronto:IrwinLawInc.,2011)at58.

[120]TheDefendants’claimthatthePlaintiffswaivedallrightsbyagreeingto
transferallassetsdoesnotsucceed.Copyrightdoesnottransferwiththephysical
assetssuchasmenus.ThereisnoevidencethattheSymposiumCaféGroupever
transferredmorethanalicensetouseitstrade-marksorcopyrights.Atbest,the
licensetousethemenuscontinueduntiltheyoptednottojointheSymposium
Caféfranchise.[…].
·Section13(3)–Worksmadeinthecourseofemployment

Copyrightownershipisgenerallyvestedtotheemployer.

HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2011F.C.340(FC;2011-03-
18)HeneghanJ.
[229]Subsection13(3)oftheCopyrightActprovidesthatwheretheauthorofa
work,underacontractofservice,createstheworkinthecourseofemployment,it
istheemployerwhoisdeemedtobetheownerofthecopyrightunlessthereisan
agreementtothecontrary.
[230]Thisprincipleisalsogenerallyapplicabletoofficers,directors,andkey
employeeswhocreateaworkforthebenefitofthecorporation.Ownership
normallyvestsinthecorporationintheabsenceofanagreementtothecontrary;
seeDuboisv.SystèmesdeGestionetd’AanalysedeDonnéesMedia(1991),41
C.P.R.(3d)92(Que.S.C.),SetymInternationalinc.c.Belout,[2001]J.Q.no3819
(Que.S.C.)(Q.L.)andB&SPublicationsInc.v.Max-ContactsInc.,[2001]287A.R.
201(Q.B.).

·
Section13(3)–Worksmadeinthecourseofemployment

Toascertainwhetheranauthorwasanemployeeratherthanafreelancerequiresan
analysisthatwilltakeintoconsiderationtheparticularitiesoftheentertainment
industry.
Dicksonv.TheQueen*,2011TCC153(TaxCourt;2011-03-10)BoyleJ.
[25]IthasbeenrecognizedbythisCourtthat,inthecaseofcreativeartistssuchas
painters,authors,musiciansandsculptors,abroaderrangeofcriteriaandabroader
contextualviewreflectiveoftherealityoftheparticularindustrymaybeneededthan
mightbeinmoretraditionalcommercialpursuitswhentryingtoestablishwhethera
taxpayerhasyetcommencedtocarryonhisorherplannedcreativebusiness.See,
forexample,Harrisonv.TheQueen,2007TCC19,2007DTC377(bookpublishing),
Mallteziv.TheQueen,2009TCC149,[2009]T.C.J.No.104(QL)(product
development),Liv.TheQueen,2008TCC175,2008DTC3039(product
development),Janitschv.TheQueen,2004TCC378,[2004]G.S.T.C.70(artist),
Arseneaultv.TheQueen,2006TCC42,2008DTC2224(filmproduction),Cossettev.
R.,[2003]1C.T.C.2359(visualartist)andTramblev.R.,[2001]4C.T.C.2160
(painter).ThisisalsorecognizedbytheCRAinitsInterpretationBulletinIT-504on
“VisualArtistsandWriters”.
·Section13(4)–Assignmentsandlicences

CopyrightcanbeassignedandtheassignmentcanberecordedattheCopyright
Office.
HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2011FC340(F.C.;2011-03-
18)HeneghanJ.
[204]Inthefirstplace,InotethattheCopyrightActrecognizesthatcopyrightcan
beassigned.TheCopyrightActfurtherprovides,atsections57and58,thatan
assignmentcanberegistered.Subsection53(2.1)providesthatacertificateof
registrationofacopyrightis“evidencethattherightrecordedinthecertificatehas
beenassignedandthattheassigneeregisteredistheownerofthatright”.
·Section13(4)–Assignmentsandlicences

Theauthorofaworkcanassignhercopyrightinsaidwork,evenbeforetheworkis
created.
Thomasv.Brand-uMediainc.,2011QCCQ395(Que.Ct.-SmallClaims;2011-01-
20)RichardJ.
[9]Fromtheevidenceadduced,theCourtunderstandsthatMissThomasactedas
the”chefd’orchestre”forthepurposesofpublishingthemagazine.Asmallteamto
achievehertaskssupportedher.

[22]Furthermore,nocopyrightinfringementcanbe
putforwardby[Plaintiff]Miss
ThomasduetothecontentofthecontractP-1,aspreviouslystated.
[Defendant]NakedEyewillretainalloftherightsandownershipofallofyour
workincludingelectronicandpromotionalrights.
·Section13(4)–Assignmentsandlicences

Inthecaseofacontractforservices,copyrightareownedbytheauthorandthe
assignmentofcopyrightcouldonlybemadeinwriting;and,absentofanassignment,
itisnotsufficientforthehiringpersontoindicateonthematerialthatheistheowner
ofcopyrightinaworkcreatedbysomeonewhowasnothisemployee.

Pintoc.BronfmanJewishEducationCenter*2011QCCS3458(Que.Sup.Ct.;2011-
07-13)
[186]M.Pintosoutientquelesdéfendeursontprofitédesademanded’avance
pourlefairechanteretluisoutirerunerenonciationàsesdroitsd’auteur.Ilinvoque
qu’ils’agitlàdel’usagedéraisonnableetabusifdudroitd’unclientdemettrefinà
uncontratdeservice.

[187]Aucontraire,MmeShimonetM.Shimonaffirmentqu’ilatoujoursétéclair
quelesdroitsd’auteurappartiennentàTalAM.Seloneux,chaquefoisqueM.
Pintoestrevenusurcettequestion,illuiaétéindiquéclairementqu’aucune
discussionàcesujetn’étaitpossible.Devantl’insistancedeM.Pinto,et
notammentladécouvertedecertainesinscriptionssursesfactures,lesdéfendeurs
ontdécidéd’obtenirdecelui-ciunerenonciationécriteàsesdroitsd’auteur.Étant
donnésonrefus,ilsontmisfinàsoncontratdeservice.
·Section13(4)–Assignmentsandlicences

Itisincumbenttowhoisallegingcopyrightownershiptoprovesaidownership,either
bywayofawrittenassignmentorworkforhire.
AndréRodriguePeintredécorateurinc.v.RodriguePeintredécorateurltée,2011
QCCS6797(Que.Sup.Ct.;2011-12-20)Hallée,J.
[
60]AndréRodriguesoutientêtrelepropriétairedesdroitssurlesphotos.En
défense,onafaitentendremonsieurJacquesMénard,estimateurpourRodrigue
Peintredepuis1987,lequelaffirmequelaphotoP-3luiappartientayantensa
possessionunoriginal.Ilajoutequecettephotoluiaétédonnéeparsamère.

[61]Aucunepreuven’apermisd’établirclairementquiétaitlepropriétairedudroit
d’auteursurchacunedecesphotos.
[62]Eneffet,onignorel’identitéduphotographe,sonstatutd’employéauprèsde
DécorateurB.Rodriguepeintregénéral,àl’époque,s’ils’agitdephotographies
commandéescontrerémunération,etc.Deplus,lacessiondedroitd’auteurdevant
sefaireparécrit,aucundocumentneprouvelachaînedetitredeces
photographiesetquienestlepropriétaireaujourd’hui.

·
Section13(4)–Assignmentsandlicences

Anassignmentisatransferofrightsintheownershipoftheassignedcopyrightwhile
licenceisanauthorizationofthecopyrightownerdosomeactswhchicharevestedin
thecopyrightowner.
Century21CanadaLimitedPartnershipv.RogersCommuniationsInc2011BCSC
1196(B.C.S.C.;2011-09-02)PunnetJ.
[174]Anassignmentisatransferofarightsuchthattheassigneeistheownerof
thelegalinterestintherightandtheassignorisleftwithoutanycontroloverthe
righttransferred,exceptformoralrights.Underalicence,thelicenceeisgiven
permissiontodocertainactswhichmightotherwiseconstituteinfringementofthe
licencor’srightsanddoesnotinvolveanychangeofownershipinthecopyright:
Marquisv.DKLTechnologiesInc.(1989),24C.I.P.R.289(C.S.Que.);Fox
CanadianLawofCopyright,at380.

[177]Therighttoassignarightofactionarisesfroms.13oftheCopyrightAct
ss.6and7whichIwillrepeatforconvenience:[…]

[178]Therightisproceduralandgrantstothelicenceetheauthoritytoenforcethe
rightsofthecopyrightholdertotheextenttheyaregrantedunderthetermsofthe
assignmentorexclusivelicence.
[179]Thelicenceinthisinstanceisnotexclusiveasitfailstostatesuch.Itsimply
grantsarighttoCentury21tousetheWorks.Century21doesnotpossessa
proprietaryinterestorthegrantofaninterestintheinfringedworks.Asaresult,
Century21canonlyenforcelicencing,notcopyright,infringementtothelimited
extentgrantedtoitbythelicence.Inthiscase,thatistherighttousetheWorks.
However,asthelicencethatCentury21holdsisnotexclusive,theassignmentof
therightofactiontoenforcecopyrightinfringementismoot.
·Section13(4)–Assignmentsandlicences

Thewaypeopletoanagreementaredescribeddoesnotmeanthattheyareindeed
authoroftheworkdescribedinsaidagreement.
TonyMartinv.ClaimsAdministrator,2011ONSC1184(Ont.S.C.;2011-02-22)
HorkinsJ.
[17]ThefactthattheSettlementagreementdistinguishesbetweentheCreatorand
theAssigneedoesnotmeanthateachcanclaimcompensationforthesameWorks.
Thedistinctionisnecessarytoidentifythedifferentgroupsthatmaybeeligibleto
seekcompensation.
·Section13(4)–Assignmentsandlicences

Thecopyrightownermaygrantlicence,whichlicenc
esmayincludetherighttogrant
sub-licences.
LaurierGlassLtd.v.SimplicityComputerSolutionsInc.2011CarswellOnt1580(Ont.
Sup.Ct.;2011-03-10)PerellJ.
[7]AlthoughentitledtoroyaltiesunderhisagreementwithSimplicity,Mr.Hale
[softwaredesignerwhoownsthesourcecodeforSimplicity’sproducts,including
“Glassware,”whichisoneoftheproductssuppliedbySimplicity.]hasnever
receivedpaymentsfromSimplicityforhiscopyrightinthesoftware.Itiscommonin
thesoftwareindustrythatthelicensorisasub-licensorandnottheownerofthe
copyrightandthatthesub-licensormaynotkeepenhancementsdevelopedforthe
software.
·Section13(4)–Assignmentsandlicences

Beingtheownerofthephysicalgoodsinwhichthecopyrightisencompasseddoes
notmeanownershipofthecopyright.
Latourv.6921086Canadainc.(Édikom),2011QCCQ14817(Que.Ct.-Small
Claims;2011-11-09)DupuisJ.
[26]Parconséquent,leTribunalestd’avisqu’Édikom[whopurchasedcertains
assetsfromtheliquidator]aviolélesdroitsd’auteursdeLatour[theauthor]surles
articlespubliésen2009,puisqueleSyndicnepouvaitluicéderplusdedroitsque
n’enpossédaitLesÉditionsComestibles,aumomentdesafaillite
.

·Section13(4)–Assignmentsandlicences

Alicenceisnotexclusiveunlessitssayssoandanon-exclusivelicenseecannotsue
forcopyrightinfringement.
Century21CanadaLimitedPartnershipv.RogersCommuniationsInc2011BCSC
1196(B.C.S.C.;2011-09-02)PunnetJ.
[179]Thelicenceinthisinstanceisnotexclusiveasitfailstostatesuch.Itsimply
grantsarighttoCentury21tousetheWorks.Century21doesnotpossessa
proprietaryinterestorthegrantofaninterestintheinfringedworks.Asaresult,
Century21canonlyenforcelicencing,notcopyright,infringementtothelimited
extentgrantedtoitbythelicence.Inthiscase,thatistherighttousetheWorks.
However,asthelicencethatCentury21holdsisnotexclusive,theassignmentof
therightofactiontoenforcecopyrightinfringementismoot.
·Section13(4)–Assignmentsandlicences

Therequirementthatanassignmentbeinwritingisasubstantiallegalrequirement,
notmerelyaruleofevidenceandanassignmentperformedonlyinthemindofthe
partiescannotavailforavalidconfirmatoryassignment.

HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.
,2011FC340(F.C.;2011-03-
18)HeneghanJ.
[205]Inmyopinion,thereareproblemswiththeassignmentnowrelieduponbythe
Plaintiff.Pursuanttosubsection13(4)oftheCopyrightAct,anassignmentof
copyrightmustbeinwriting.Therequirementthatanassignmentbeinwritingisa
substantiallegalrequirement,notmerelyaruleofevidence;seeMotel6,Inc.v.
N.o6MotelLtd.,[1982]1F.C.638atpara.26.

[216]TheMarch2000assignmentwasperformedsolelyinhismind.Pursuantto
subsection13(4)oftheCopyrightAct,allassignmentsmustbemadeinwriting.An
assignmentinone’smindisnotavalidassignment.Theonlyassignmentinwriting
madebyMr.Chari,withrespecttoPetroDispatch,occurredonJune10,2009.

[218]AsintheStar-Kistcase[Star-KistFoodsInc.v.RegistrarofTradeMarkset
al.,3C.P.C.(3d)208,rev’dat20C.P.R.(3d)46],thereisinsufficientevidenceto
supportaninferencethattherewasanintention,onoraboutMarch16,2000to
assignthecopyrightinPetroDispatchtothePlaintiff.TheevidenceofMr.Chari
suggeststhattheassignmentdatedJune10,2009waspurelyaself-serving
attempttoavoidtheproblemsarisingfromthefactthatMr.Chariisnotapartyto
thisactionandIsofind.
·Section14.1(2)–Noassignmentofmoralrights

Moralrightscannotbeassigned,eveninwriting.
HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2011FC340(F.C.;2011-03-
18)HeneghanJ.
[219]Furthermore,Mr.Chari’sattempttoassignthemoralrightstoPetroDispatch
isinvalid.AstheauthorofPetroDispatch,Mr.Chariholdsthemoralrightstothat
software,butthoserightscannotbeassigned;seesubsection14.1(2)ofthe
CopyrightAct.Pursuanttosubsection14.1(2)andsubsection14.1(4),itispossible
towaivemoralrightsinfavourofanownerorassigneeofacopyright,allowingthe
ownerorassigneetoinvokethemoralrights.
·Section14.1(1)–Moralrights

Misattributionormodificationofsoftwarecouldconstituteinfringementoftheauthor’s
moralrightsbutinfringementofthemoralrightsofanauthorisnotinfringementofthe
copyrightinawork

HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2011FC340(F.C.;2011-03-
18)HeneghanJ.
[289]Itispossibletocharacterizemisattributionormodificationofsoftwareasan
infringementoftheauthor’smoralrightspursuanttosubsection28.1(1).

subsection28.2(1)ofthe
CopyrightAct,modifyingaworkcanonlyconstitutean
infringementoftheauthor’smoralrightsifthemodificationcausesprejudicetothe
honourorreputationoftheauthor.
[291]Moralrightsbelongtotheauthorandnottotheownerofthecopyright.In
accordancewithsubsection14.2(2)[sic,shouldbe14.1]oftheCopyrightAct,
moralrightscanbewaivedbutcannotbeassigned.Theundisputedauthorofthe
softwareinquestionwasMr.Chariandheisnotapartytothisaction.Further,the
Plaintiffdidnotpleadinfringementofmoralrights.

[292]Inanyevent,aninfringementofmoralrightsdoesnotrelatetoanything
whichonlytheauthorhastherighttodoundersection3oftheCopyrightAct.Asa
result,aninfringementofmoralrightsisnottantamounttoaninfringementof
copyright.
·Section14.1(1)–Moralrights

Anauthorisentitledtobeassociatedwithhisworkashisauthor.

Suttiev.Canada(AttorneyGeneral),2011FC119(F.C.;2011-02-02)O’ReillyJ.
[
5]Anauthorisentitledtobeassociatedwithhisorherwork(CopyrightAct,RSC
1985,cC-42,s14.1–enactmentscitedaresetoutinanAnnex).Worksofjoint
authorshiparespecificallyrecognizedintheAct(s2).AstheCourthasthe
jurisdictiontoordertheregistertobecorrectedbyaddinginformationthatwas
wronglyomitted(s57(4)(a)),IseenoreasonnottograntMs.Suttie’srequestto
addherson’snametotheregister.

IICopyrightinPerformer’sperformances,SoundRecordingsand
CommunicationSignals
·Section17(2)–Righttoremuneration[incaseofcinematographicworks]

Anunauthorizedembodimentofaperformanceinacinematographicworkcontravenes
thecopyrightinperformer’sperformance.Andforanargumenttobethepropersubject
matterofjudicialreview,thisargumentshouldhavebeenraisedinthelowertribunal.

Re:Soundv.MotionPictureTheatreAssociationofCanada,2011CarswellNat429
(F.C.A.;2011-02-25)TrudelJ.[affirming2009CarswellNat2889(Cop.Bd.;2009-00-
16);LeavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadagranted2011CanLII56032
(S.C.C.;2011-09-08)][
11]Indeed,undersubsection17(1)oftheAct,aperformermustauthorizethe
embodimentofhisorherperformanceinacinematographicwork.Consequently,an
unauthorizedembodimentofaperformanceinacinematographicworkcontravenes
theAct.Moreover,onceapriorsoundrecordingisextractedfromthesoundtrackthat
accompaniedthecinematographicwork,itagainattractstheprotectionsoffered
performersandmakersundertheActforstand-alonesoundrecordings.

[12]Theapplicantalsoraisedacomparativelawar
gument.ItreliedonAustralian
jurisprudence,whichIfindofnoassistance,asitisbasedonlegislationthatis
fundamentallydifferentinregardtosoundrecordingsandsoundtracks.Thesamecan
besaidoftheUKlawonwhichtheapplicantalsorelied.

[13]TheapplicantalsoraisedanargumentbasedontheincompatibilitywithArticle10
oftheRomeConventionwhichprovidesthattheproducersofphonogramsenjoythe
righttoauthorizeorprohibitthedirectorindirectreproductionoftheirphonograms.
ThisargumentfailstoconsiderthattheRomeConventiondefines“phonograms”as
anyexclusivelyauralfixationofsounds(Article3,paragraph(b)),andthat
consequentlya“fixationofimages(e.g.,cinema)orofimagesandsounds(e.g.,
television)arethereforeexcluded”(WIPOGuidetotheRomeConventionsection3.7).
Therefore,IfindnoreasontointerferewiththeBoard’sconclusion.

[14]Finally,theapplicantarguedthatregardlessoftheBoard’sconstructionofthe
definitions,itisentitledtoatariffforlive-to-airbroadcastsbecausethesetypesof
broadcastsarenot“communicationstothepublicofcinematographicwork”,as
definedinsection2oftheAct.Theapplicantstatesthatsuchbroadcastsarenot
expressedbyanyprocessanalogoustocinematography,hencenotsubjecttothe
section19exclusion(applicant’smemorandumatparagraph88).Theapplicantasks
thatitsapplicationforjudicialreviewbeallowedonthispointandthatthematterbe
sentbacktotheBoardsothatitmaypronounceitselfontheissue.

[15]Inmyview,thejudicialreviewapplicationcannotbeallowedonthislimited
ground.Thisargumentwasnotraisedintheapplicant’snoticeofapplicationandwas
notbroughttotheattentionoftheBoard.Assuch,theBoardcannotbefaultedinany
wayfornothavingdealtwiththisissue.Therearethereforenogroundsforreviewing
thedecisionoftheBoardonthisbasis.
·Section21–Copyrightincommunicationsignal

Section18(1)oftheRadiocommunicationActconfersacauseofactiononholdersof
aninterestinthecontentofthesubscriptionsignalornetworkfeed.

DishNetworkL.L.C.v.Rex*2011CarswellBC2124(B.C.S.C.;2011-08-15)Walker
J.
[24]Section18(1)oftheRadiocommunicationActalsoconfersacauseofaction
onholdersofaninterestinthecontentofthesubscriptionsignalornetworkfeed
andtoholdersofalicenseissuedbytheCanadianRadio-Televisionand
TelecommunicationsCommission(“CRTC”)tocarryonbroadcastingunderthe
BroadcastingAct,S.C.1991,c.11.Thosepersonsmay,asDIRECTV,Dish,and
Bellhavedoneinthislitigation,suetorecoverdamagessufferedasaresultof
conductcontrarytos.9(1)(c)frompersonswhoengagedinthatconduct,orto
obtainotherremedies(e.g.,injunctiverelieforanaccounting).

IIIInfringementofCopyrightandMoralRightsandExceptionsto
Infringement

·
Section27–Infringementgenerally[Copyright]

Aletterofdemandshouldbesufficienttoalertadefendantonthenatureofhisacts
andleadhimtoinquireastothelegitimacyofhisactions.

Century21CanadaLimitedPartnershipv.RogersCommuniationsInc2011BCSC
1196(B.C.S.C.;2011-09-02)PunnettJ
[416]However,thedefendants’argumentfocusesonthelegitimacyoftheletters
andignoresthefactofnotice.Surelythepointisthatnoticealertsthemtoa
potentialclaimwhichmayormaynotbeprovenvalidatafuturedate.Toignorea
claimhoweveristoruntheriskofpotentialliabilityifbreachofcontractor
ownershipofcopyrightanditsinfringementiseventuallyproven.
·Section27(1)–Infringementgenerally[Copyright]

Copyrightinfringementclaimsaregovernedbythelawofthejurisdictioninwhich
theseactsarecommitted.
Perfect10,Inc.v.Google,Inc.,2011FC348(F.C.;2011-03-21)PhelanJ.[affirming
UnreportedT-1591-09(F.C.-Prot.;2010-07-15)][
11]IntheCanadianactioninthisCourt,Perfect10allegescopyrightinfringement
againstGoogleUSandGoogleCArelatedtotheiractionsandserviceinCanada.
TheallegationisthatGoogleUSofferssearchfunctionsthroughitssiteswhich
directlyand/orindirectlyreproduceinfringingcopiesoftheimagesinwhichPerfect
10claimscopyright.Perfect10allegesthatGoogleCAsellsadvertisinginCanada
ontheGoogleUSsiteandbothGooglecompaniesreproduce,distributeand
communicatecopiesofPerfect10’smaterialsinCanada.

[12]TheinfringingconductisallegedtooccurinCanadaandconstitutesbreaches
ofs.27(1),(2)(b)-(e),and3(1)(a),(b)oftheCanadianCopyrightAct.

[13]OnJuly15,2010,theLearnedProthonotarydismissedtheDefendants’
motion,thecriticalfindingsbeing:thecopyrightinfringementclaimsineitherjurisdictionareinrespectofrights
underseparatenationallegislativeschemes;
itisnotforthisCourt,atthistime,todecidethepotentialforextra-territorial
enforcementorotherpracticaleffectsofadecision;
separatecopyrightinfringementactionsalonearenotabuseofprocess;
whiletheevidenceandimpugnedconductmaybethesamebeforetheU.S.
andCanadiancourts,thelegalmeaningandtherightsinvokedmaybe
different;
onthematterofforumnonconveniens,theLearnedProthonotarybasedher
conclusioninpartontheabsenceofgeographicaloverlapofthePlaintiff’s
twoactions,theavailabilityofdifferentdefencesandtheabsenceofa
requesttotheU.S.courtforreliefinrespectofactivitiesinCanada;
pursuanttos.50(1)(a)oftheFederalCourtsAct,neithertheclaimsnorthe
partiesarethesameandthereforeitwasunnecessarytoaddressthenext
step–ananalysisofprejudice–inconcludingthattheDefendantsfailedto
meettherequirementsofs.50(1)(a)oftheFederalCourtsAct.

·
Section27(1)–Infringementgenerally[Copyright]

Aconsentshouldemanatefromthecopyrightownerandshouldbeclearan
unequivocal,butnotnecessarilyinwriting.
Khanv.Tajdin,2011FC14(F.C.;2011-01-07)HarringtonJ.[
45]Asmentionedearlierweareintherealmofcivillaw,notreligion.Noexpert
evidencehasbeenfiledastothesignificanceofceremonialgestures.Giventhe
ordinarymeaningofthewordsusedintheexchangebetweenHisHighnesstheAga
KhanandMr.Alibhay,IsimplycannotfindthattheAgaKhangavehisconsenttoMr.
Tajdin’sendeavours.

[46]Furthermore,ifIamwrongonthatpointandifconsentweregivenatall,itcould
onlybeforthatparticularvolumeofFarmans,andnotforfutureFarmans.InSlumber-
MagicAdjustableBedCo.v.Sleep-KingAdjustableBedCo.1984CanLII54(B.C.
S.C.),(1984),3C.P.R.(3d)81,[1985]1W.W.R.112,whichalsostandsforthe
propositionthattheburdenisuponthedefendantstoestablishconsent,McLachlinJ.,
asshethenwas,dealtwiththedefendants’claimtheyhadtherighttousepromotional
material,baseduponconsentgivenduringadinnerconversation.Shesaidat
paragraph18that“[t]husifthedefendantsaretosucceedonthisdefence,theymust
establishnotonlythatMr.Barkergavehisconsenttotheuseofmaterialsthenin
existence,buttotheuseofallmaterialswhichtheplaintiffmightinthefuturedevelop.”
Shefoundtheyhadnot.Inthiscase,Iamunabletoacceptthedefendants’tortuous,
convolutedreasoning.
·Section28.1–Infringementgenerally[Moralrights]

Misattributionormodificationofsoftwareasaninfringementoftheauthor’smoral
rights.

[290]Misattributionofaworkcanbeaninfringementoftheauthor’smoralrights;
seeGuillmettev.CentreCooperatifdeLoisirsetdeSportsduMontOrignal,(1986),
15C.P.R.(3d)409(F.C.T.D.).Itmayalsobeaninfringementoftheauthor’smoral
rightstoviolatetheintegrityoftheworkthroughmodification.However,pursuantto
subsection28.2(1)oftheCopyrightAct,modifyingaworkcanonlyconstitutean
infringementoftheauthor’smoralrightsifthemodificationcausesprejudicetothe
honourorreputationoftheauthor.
[291]Moralrightsbelongtotheauthorandnottotheownerofthecopyright.In
accordancewithsubsection14.2(2)oftheCopyrightAct,moralrightscanbe
waivedbutcannotbeassigned.Theundisputedauthorofthesoftwareinquestion
wasMr.Chariandheisnotapartytothisaction.Further,thePlaintiffdidnotplead
infringementofmoralrights.

[292]Inanyevent,aninfringementofmoralrights
doesnotrelatetoanything
whichonlytheauthorhastherighttodoundersection3oftheCopyrightAct.Asa
result,aninfringementofmoralrightsisnottantamounttoaninfringementof
copyright.

·Section29–Researchorprivatestudy[Fairdealing]

UndertheCanadianCopyrightAct,theexceptionsordefencestocopyrightaremore
narrowlydefinedandextensivelylisted,andtheCanadianFairDealingshouldnotbe
confoundedwiththeAmericanFairUse.
Century21CanadaLimitedPartnershipv.RogersCommuniationsInc2011BCSC
1196(B.C.S.C.;2011-09-02)PunnettJ.
[234]Inmyopinion,thedifficultythatarisesfromthedefendants’emphasison
“transformativeuse”isthatwhatmaybetransformative,andasaresultfairusein
theUS,maystillbecopyrightinfringementinCanada.Forexample,TheUS
CopyrightActof1976,17U.S.C.s.107[USCopyrightAct]refersto“fairuseofa
copyrightwork,forpurposessuchascriticism,comment,newsreporting,teaching,
scholarshiporresearch”.ThenatureofthisdefenceintheUSisverybroadandis
essentiallyacodificationofajudge-maderule.Incomparison,Canadiancopyright
lawisrootedintheCopyrightActwhichspecificallygrantstothecreatorrightsto
thereproductionoftheentireworkorasubstantialportionofthework:Copyright
Act,s.3.UndertheCanadianCopyrightAct,theexceptionsordefencesto
copyrightaremorenarrowlydefinedandextensivelylisted(althoughthelistisnot
exhaustive)suchasthepurposeofthedealingisforresearch,privatestudy,
criticism,reviewornewsreporting:seess.29,29.1and29.2oftheCopyrightAct.
Canadiancourtshavenotrecognized“transformativeuse”asacharacteristicoffair
dealing.

[252]Theissueoffairdealingonlyariseswherethereisnoconsenttotheactivity
complainedof.Thefactthatconsenthasnotbeengiven,orhasbeenrefused,
whetherorallyorinwritingorinarobots.txtfile,isonlythestartingpointforafair
dealinganalysis.Itisnottheendpointforananalysisoffairdealing.Thetestisthe
characterofdealingnotthedealingwithoutconsent.
·Section30.6–Permittedacts[Computerprograms]

Makingasinglebackupcopyforthepurposeofmodifyingthesoftwareisnot
equivalenttotheconceptofmultiplicationandwillnotconstitutecopyright
infringement.
HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2011FC340(F.C.;2011-03-
18)HeneghanJ.
[269]Inhertestimony,Ms.Warthexplainedtheprocessbywhichsheperformed
modifications.Shetestifiedthatbeforebeginningamodification,orindeedthe
conversiontoanewerversionofMicrosoftAccess,shewouldmakeabackup
copy.Suchabackupcopywasnecessaryincasetherewereanerrororafailurein
theprocess.Thebackupisnecessarytorestorethesystemtoitspriorstate.

[270]Infact,Ms.Warthtestifiedthateveryonema
kesabackup.Iinferfromthis
evidencethatitisthestandardpracticetobackupaprogramfilebeforemakinga
modificationandIsofind.

[271]Whilemakingacopycouldconstituteaninfringementofcopyright,inthese
circumstancesitdoesnot.Makingasinglebackupcopyforthepurposeof
modifyingthesoftwareisnotequivalenttotheconceptofmultiplicationas
discussedinThéberge[Thébergev.Galeried’ArtduPetitChamplainInc.,2002
SCC34].

·Section31–Retransmission

Becausesubsection31(2)contemplatesaroyaltyonlyfortheretransmissionof
distantsignals(whichbydefinitionwouldnotincludethesignalofaprivatelocal
televisionstation),aprivatelocaltelevisionstationhasnorightundertheCopyright
ActtodemandaroyaltyfromaBDU[BroadcastDistributionUndertakings]for
retransmittingitssignals.
CanadianRadio-televisionandTelecommunicationsCommission’sBroadcasting
RegulatoryPolicyCRTC2010-167andBroadcastingOrderCRTC2010-168(Re),
2011FCA64(F.C.A.;2011-02-28)SharlowJ.,spec.atparas29,37-39[Leaveto
appealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadagrantedon2011-09-29]
Thecopyrightobjection
[29]BoththeCopyrightActandtheBroadcastingActarecomponentsofCanadian
culturalpolicy.Theymaybeviewedassharingsometerritory,inthesensethat
bothdealtosomeextentwiththeinterestoftheoriginatorsoftelevisionsignalsin
benefitingeconomicallyfromtheirwork,andtheinterestofthepublicinhaving
televisionsignalsmadeavailabletothem.Bothstatutesareintendedtoensure
thesecompetinginterestsareproperlybalanced.Thetwostatutesnowoperate
togetherharmoniously,butIampreparedtoassumewithoutdecidingthatthere
maybeatheoreticalpossibilityofaconflictintheiroperation.

[30]Thequestionraisedinthisreferenceiswhether,astheBDUs[Broadcast
DistributionUndertakings]argue,theproposedvalueforsignalregimenecessarily
conflictswiththeCopyrightActinsuchawaythatthisCourtshouldconcludethat
eveniftheBroadcastingActonitsfaceauthorizestheCommissiontoadoptthe
proposedvalueforsignalregime,itshouldbeinterpretedinawaythatprecludes
thatpossibility.

[31]PartoftheBDUs’legalargumentisnotcontroversial.Iagreewiththemthat
theprinciplesofstatutoryinterpretationrequireaharmonious,coherentand
consistentinterpretationofallstatutesdealingwiththelegalrightsandobligations
relatingtotheretransmissionoftelevisionsignals.

[32]Thequestion,however,iswhetherthereismerittotheargumentoftheBDUs
thattheimplementationoftheproposedvalueforsignalregimenecessarily
conflictswiththerightsoftheBDUsundertheCopyrightAct,insofarasitwould
giveeachprivatelocaltelevisionstationtherighttoblockaBDUfrom
retransmittingthatstation’ssignalsintheabsenceofaconcludedcontractfor
compensationflowingfromtheBDUtothestation.

[33]TheBDUsrelyprincipallyonsubsection21(1)
[oftheBroadcastingAct]and
section31oftheCopyrightAct.Itiscommongroundthatsubsection21(1),andin
particularparagraph21(1)(c),givesaprivatelocaltelevisionstationacopyrightin
thesignalsitbroadcasts,andthatthiscopyrightincludesthesolerighttoauthorize
aBDUtoretransmitthosesignalstothepublicsimultaneouslywithitsbroadcast.
[…]
[34]Thesection21rightsofbroadcastersaresignificantlyaffectedbysection31of
theCopyrightAct[…]

[35]Regulationshavebeenmadeunderparagraph31(3)(a)oftheCopyrightActto
define“localsignal”and“distantsignal”(seeLocalSignalandDistantSignal
Regulations,SOR/89-254),butnoconditionshavebeenprescribedunder
paragraph31(3)(b).Generally,thesignalsofaprivatelocaltelevisionstationare
“localsignals”andnot“distantsignals”undertheLocalSignalandDistantSignal
Regulations.

[36]TheBDUsthatwouldbeaffectedbytheproposedvalueforsignalregimeare
“retransmitters”andthusentitledtothebenefitofsubsection31(2)oftheCopyright
Act.Theeffectofsubsection31(2)isthataBDUdoesnotinfringethesection21
copyrightofaprivatelocaltelevisionstationwhenitretransmitsthestation’slocal
signals,iftheretransmissionislawfulundertheBroadcastingActandcomplies
withanyregulationsmadepursuanttoparagraph31(3)(b)oftheCopyrightAct,and
thesignalisretransmittedsimultaneouslyandwithoutalterationexceptasrequired
orpermittedbylaw.

[37]Becausesubsection31(2)contemplatesaroyaltyonlyfortheretransmission
ofdistantsignals(whichbydefinitionwouldnotincludethesignalofaprivatelocal
televisionstation),aprivatelocaltelevisionstationhasnorightundertheCopyright
ActtodemandaroyaltyfromaBDUforretransmittingitssignals.Onthatbasis,the
BDUsarguethatsubsection31(2)givesthemastatutoryright,akintotheuser
rightunderthefairdealingprovisionoftheCopyrightAct(seeCCHCanadianLtd.
v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13,[2004]1S.C.R.339,atparagraph
48),toretransmitthelocalsignalofaprivatelocaltelevisionstationwithoutpaying
aroyalty.Iagree,providedtheretransmissionmeetstheconditionsstatedin
subsection31(2).

[38]However,thesubsection31(2)conditionsaresignificant.Inparticular,
paragraph31(2)(b)requiresanyretransmissionofalocalsignaltobelawfulunder
theBroadcastingAct.ThatnecessarilymeansthataBDUwishingtotake
advantageoftheuserrightinsubsection31(2)oftheCopyrightActmustdosoin
compliancewiththeBroadcastingAct,anyregulationsmadeunderthe
BroadcastingAct,andanyconditionstheCommissionhasattachedtothe
retransmitter’sbroadcastinglicence.

[39]Paragraph31(2)(b)oftheCopyrightActmarksanintersectionofthetwo
statutoryschemes–oneimplementingCanada’sbroadcastingpolicyandtheother
implementingCanada’scopyrightpolicy.Inparagraph31(2)(b)oftheCopyright
Act,ParliamenthaspermittedtheCommissiontolimitthetransmissionrightsunder
subsection31(2)byimposinganyregulatoryorlicensingconditionconsistentwith
theCommission’sstatutorymandateasstatedintheBroadcastingAct.

[40]Putanotherway,bymakingtheBDUs’statutoryretransmissionrightsin
subsection31(2)oftheCopyrightActsubjecttoparagraph31(2)(b),Parliament
hasrankedtheobjectivesofCanada’sbroadcastingpolicyaheadofthosestatutory
retransmissionrights.IseenothingintheCopyrightActthatwouldjustifyareversal

ofthatrankingiftheCommissiondeterminesthatt
heobjectivesofCanada’s
broadcastingpolicyrequiretheimpositionofaregulationorlicensingconditionthat
wouldpermitaprivatelocaltelevisionstationtodemandcashorother
considerationfromaBDUfortherighttoretransmititssignals.

[41]Forsubstantiallythesamereasons,Iconcludethatitisopentothe
CommissiontoadoptaregulationoralicensingconditionthatwouldobligeaBDU
topaymoneytoaprivatelocaltelevisionstationfortherighttoretransmitits
signals,providedtheCommissiondeterminesthattheimpositionofsuchan
obligationisrequiredtomeettheobjectivesofCanada’sbroadcastingpolicyas
statedinsubsection3(1)oftheBroadcastingAct.

[42]Inmyview,itisirrelevantthatsuchanobligationmightbecharacterizedasan
obligationtopayaroyalty.Evennow,theCommissionrequiresBDUsto
compensateprivatelocaltelevisionstationsinrespectoftheretransmissionoftheir
signals,anditisnotsuggestedthatthoserequirementsarenotproperlyimposed.
Someoftherequiredcompensationisnotmonetary(mandatorycarriage,
preferentialchannelplacement,andsimultaneousdistribution),butitnevertheless
representssomethingofvaluepassingfromaBDUtoatelevisionstation.Someof
therequiredcompensationismonetary(thecontributionof1.5%ofgrossrevenues
tothelocalprogrammingimprovementfundandpotentially(startinginAugustof
2011),contractualconsiderationforanyretransmissionofalocaltelevisionsignal
outsideofthatstation’slocalmarket).Itseemstomethattheproposedvaluefor
signalregimeisdifferentonlyindegree,notinkind,substanceorfunction.

[43]TheBDUspresentafurtherargumentbasedonthelengthyandcomplex
historyofvariousproposalsmadeandrejectedtoamendtheCopyrightActtogrant
televisionstationsastatutoryrighttoaroyaltyorsimilarretransmissionfee.The
argumentisthatthishistoryshouldbeunderstoodtohaveresultedinadeliberate
legislativepolicyadoptedbyParliamentthatwouldbedefeatedbytheproposed
valueforsignalregime.Idonotacceptthisargument.

[44]ItmaywellbethatParliamenthasdeterminedforanynumberofreasons
relatingtoCanada’scopyrightpolicythattheCopyrightActshouldnotbeamended
toprovideprivatelocaltelevisionsstationswitharighttoaroyaltyforthe
retransmissionoflocalsignals.However,itdoesnotfollowthatthesame
determinationnecessarilyindicatesanyintentiononthepartofParliamentto
precludetheCommissionfromadoptingtheproposedvalueforsignalregimeinthe
interestsofCanada’sbroadcastingpolicy.Indeed,thepossibilitythatthe
Commissionmightadoptavalueforsignalregimehasbeenunderconsideration
forsometime,buttherecorddisclosesnohintthatParliamentortheGovernment
ofCanadawouldconsidersucharegimetobeanimproperorundesirable
intrusionintocopyrightpolicy.

[45]NoramIpersuadedthatthereismerittothesuggestionoftheBDUsthatthe
proposedvalueforsignalregimewouldundermineCanada’sstatedpositionin
relationtorecentproceedingsofthe2001WorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization
(“WIPO”)StandingCommitteeonCopyrightandRelatedRights.CertainlyCanada
hastakennosuchpositionbeforetheCommissionorinthisreference.Indeed,
Canadahaschosennottoparticipateinthisreferenceatall.

[46]Finally,InotethattheBDUsrelyonpaststatementsoftheCommission(in
1993,1999,2001and2003)totheeffectthatthematterofcompensationforlocal
retransmissionrightsshouldbeamatterofcopyrightpolicy,notbroadcasting
policy.Iplacenoweightonthosestatements,particularlysincetheCommission

hasbroughtthisreferencetohavethescopeofits
statutoryauthoritydetermined
asamatteroflaw.

[47]IconcludethatnothingintheCopyrightActoritslegislativehistoryprecludes
theCommissionfromadoptingtheproposedvalueforsignalregime.
·Section31–Retransmission

[Dissenting]TheValueForSignalregimeconflictswithParliament’sclearstatement
inparagraph31(2)(d)oftheCopyrightActthatroyaltiesmustbepaidonlyforthe
retransmissionofdistantsignalsandnotfortheretransmissionoflocalsignals.

CanadianRadio-televisionandTelecommunicationsCommission’sBroadcasting
RegulatoryPolicyCRTC2010-167andBroadcastingOrderCRTC2010-168(Re),
2011FCA64,(F.C.A.;2011-02-28)NadonJ.[dissident][Leavetoappealtothe
SupremeCourtofCanadagrantedon2011-09-29]
[49]IhavehadthebenefitofreadingtheReasonsofmycolleagueSharlowJ.A.,
butImustrespectfullydisagreewithherdispositionofthismatter.Inmyopinion,
thevalueforsignalregime(the“VFSregime”)proposedinBroadcastingOrder
CRTC2010-168(the“Order”)isultraviresthepowersoftheCanadianRadio-
televisionandTelecommunicationsCommission(the“CRTC”).Isoconclude
becausetheVFSregimeconflictswithParliament’sclearstatementinparagraph
31(2)(d)oftheCopyrightActthatroyaltiesmustbepaidonlyfortheretransmission
ofdistantsignalsandnotfortheretransmissionoflocalsignals.

·Section32.1–NoinfringementStatutoryobligations]

Itisnotaninfringementofcopyrightforapersontodisclosearecordpursuanttothe
AccessforInformationAct.
Toronto(City)(Re),2011CanLII43646(OntInformationandPrivacyCommissioner;
2011-06-30)
Simplyput,thefactthattheinformationcontainedintherecordsmaybesubjectto
copyright,whileitmaysuggestsomemeasureofownership,itdoesnot,inandof
itself,provideabasistodenyaccesstotheinformationundertheprovisionsofthe
Act,oroustitsapplication.

IVRemedies·Section34(1)–CopyrightRemedies

Wherecopyrighthasbeeninfringed,theownerofthecopyrightisentitledtoall
remediesbywayofinjunction,damages,accounts,deliveryupandotherwise(which

mayincludedestruction,anddeclarationofvalidit
y,ownershipandinfringement)that
areormaybeconferredbylawfortheinfringementofaright.

LouisVuittonMalletierS.A.v.SinggaEnterprises(Canada)Inc.,22011CarswellNat
2317(F.C.-SummaryTrial;2011-06-27)RussellJ.

[123]GiventhattheactivitiesofatleasttheAltecDefendantsareongoing,and
giventhenatureofandlongstandingactivitiesofeachoftheDefendantsinvolved,
thePlaintiffsareentitledtodeclarationsregardingvalidityandownership,injunctive
reliefagainsttheinfringingactivityanddeliveryupordestructionofinfringinggoods
asappropriateremediesundersection53.2oftheTrade-marksActandsections
34and38oftheCopyrightAct.SeeLouisVuittonMalletierS.A.v.486353B.C.
Ltd.,2008BCSC799,[2008]B.C.W.L.D.5075(B.C.S.C.[InChambers])at
paragraphs49-52;andMicrosoftCorp.v.9038-3746QuebecInc.,2006FC1509,
57C.P.R.(4th)204(F.C.)atparagraphs100-102

·Section34(1)–CopyrightRemedies

Whereplaintiffsshowthattheyhaveabonafideclaimthatunknownpersonsare
infringingtheircopyright,theyhavearighttohavetheidentityrevealedforthepurpose
ofbringingaction.
VoltagePicturesLLCv.JaneDoe,2011FC1024(F.C.;2011-08-29)ShoreJ.
[
16]Toobtainthenameandaddressofacustomerofaninternetserviceprovider,
plaintiffsmustprovethattheyhaveabonafideclaimagainstthatcustomerand
thattheymeetthecriteriaofRule238oftheFederalCourtsRules(BMG,above,at
paras.33and34[BMGCanadaInc.v.JohnDoe,2005FCA193]).

[17]VoltagePicturesLLChasabonafideclaimagainstthedefendants:ithas
broughtanactionagainstthemforhavinginfringeditscopyrightwhentheycopied
andpubliclydistributedthefilmHurtLocker.
·Section34(1)CopyrightRemedies

DeclaratoryandInjunctivereliefsarenotincompatible

TargetEventProductionLtdv.Cheung,2011FC83(F.C.-Costs;2011-01-25)
SimpsonJ.
[15]First,itestablishedcopyrightinitsMarketSitePlanandshowedthatitwas
knowinglyandrepeatedlyinfringed.Withoutthisinfringement,theDefendantswould
nothavebeenabletoopentheirmarketastheydidinJuneof2008.Inthisregard,I
refertomyReasonsforJudgmentandJudgmentofJanuary11,2010(theReasons)
atparagraphs45to49,98,111,112and231.Target’ssuccessinprovingthisclaim
ledtobothdeclaratoryandinjunctiverelief.
·Section34(1)–CopyrightRemedies[Injunction]

Wheretheplagiarizedpartscannotbedividedfrom
theotherparts,theinjunctionwill
issueforthewhole.
FormationetgestionPro-SantéM.R.Inc.v.Sampietro2011QCCS4266(Que.Sup.
Ct.;2011-08-10)GrenierJ.
[77]Lapreuved’undroitclairetapparentaétéétablie.Commeilestimpossiblede
fractionnercequiestplagiédecequinel’estpas,l’injonctiondoitêtreémisepour
interdirelapublicationetdistributionintégralesdesdocumentsP-7,P-7a)etP-7b).
·Section34(1)–CopyrightRemedies[Injunction]

Foraninjunctiontoissue,theplaintiffwouldhavetoshowthatthereisaprobability
offuturedamageorthatthedefendantislikelytocontinuetheinfringement.However
thepastconductofapartymaybeagoodindicationoftheprobabilityofrepetitionof
futureinfringements.
Century21CanadaLimitedPartnershipv.RogersCommuniationsInc2011BCSC
1196(B.C.S.C.;2011-09-02)PunnettJ.
[372]Insituationswheredamagesareanadequateremedy,injunctionswillbe
inappropriatetorestrainactionablewrongs:London&BlackwallRailwayCo.v.
Cross(1886),31Ch.D.354at369.Inthesamemanner,injunctionsshouldnotbe
grantedinsituationswheretheplaintiffcanbefullycompensatedbyanawardof
damagesorwherethewrongdoinghasceasedandthereisnolikelihoodofits
recurring:Proctorv.Bayley,(1889)42Ch.D.390.

[373]However,wherethedefendantwrongfullyinterfereswiththeclaimant’srights
asanownerofproperty,andintendstocontinuethatinterference,theclaimantis
primafacieentitledtoaninjunction:Hiltonv.BritishColumbia(Ministryof
TransportationandHighways),[1986]B.C.J.No.1077atpara.18(S.C.)citing
PrideofDerbyandDerbyshireAnglingAssociationv.BritishCelaneseLtd,[1953]
Ch.149at181;CanadianPacificLimitedv.Paulet.al,,(1983),2D.L.R.(4th)22
at40,(N.B.C.A.).
[374]Aninjunctionmayalsobenecessaryincircumstanceswherethebreachof
contractcannotbefairlycompensatedthroughamonetaryaward.Adefendant
cannotbuytheprivilegeofinfringingtheclaimant’srights.

[375]Inmyview,theplaintiffisentitledtoinjunctivereliefgiventhedifficultyof
assessingdamages,Zoocasa’spastconductandtheirapparentviewthatwiththe
consentofCentury21brokerstheycanaccesstheCentury21Websiteinviolation
oftheTermsofUse.
·Section34(1)–CopyrightRemedies[Injunction]

AnAntonPillerorderisusedtopreserveevidenceonthebasisthatthedefendant
wouldhideordestroyrelevantevidenceifnotifiedoftheactionAsputinCelanese
CanadaInc.v.MurrayDemolitionCorp.,2006SCC36(S.C.C.;2006-07-27)BinnieJ.,
atparagraph35,theonlyjustificationforsuchanextraordinaryremedyisthatthe
plaintiffhasastrongprimafaciecaseandcandemonstratethatonthefacts,absent

suchanorder,thereisarealpossibilityrelevant
evidencewillbedestroyedor
otherwisemadetodisappear.
VelsoftTrainingMaterialsInc.v.GlobalCoursewareInc.,2011NSSC274(N.S.S.C.;
2011-07-06)AntonPillerQuashed[58]Accordingly,Iamnotsatisfiedthattheplaintiffshaveestablished
arealpossibilitythatthedefendantswilldestroyevidenceinthe
absenceofanAntonPillerorder.
·Section34(1)–Civilremedies[Injunction]

Thenonrespectofanorderofthecourtissanctionedbycontemptproceedings.“In
sofarastheindividualdefendantsareconcerned,whereacompanyisfoundin
contempt,aidingandabettingofficersmaybeincontempt”

SetantaSportsCanadaLimitedv.GentileEnterprisesInc.(AcetiPizzeria&Pasta),
2011FC99(F.C.-Contempt;2011-01-27)RennieJ.
[Penaltyof$25,000.00againsteachdefendantcorporation,anda$10,000.00finefor
theindividualdefendants,plussolicitor-clientcosts.]
[12]Iamsatisfied,beyondareasonabledoubt,onthebasisoftheoraltestimonyand
photographsreceivedinevidencethattheDefendantshavebreachedtheinjunction
OrderofBarnesJ.inanopenandflagrantmanner,andthatthepurportedtransferof
ownershiptoanewnumberedcompanywaseffectedtothwartenforcementofthat
Order.

[13]Althoughtheevidencerequiredtoprovecontemptisequivalenttoacriminalcase,
andproofmustbebeyondareasonabledoubt,mensreaisnotanelementthatmust
beproven.Itisnotnecessarytoshowthatthedefendantisintentionallycontumacious
thoughcontumaciousconductmaybeamitigatingfactorwhenitcomestopenalty.

[14]Insofarastheindividualdefendantsareconcerned,whereacompanyisfound
incontempt,aidingandabettingofficersmaybeincontempt:TelusMobilityv
TelecommunicationsWorkersUnion,2002FCT656,[2002]FCJNo872.

[15]TheCourtissatisfied,beyondareasonabledoubt,thattheDefendantsdid,
subsequenttotheJanuary27,2009OrderofthisCourt,display,inclearviolationof
thetermsofthatOrder,Setantaprogramming.
·Section34(1)–CopyrightRemedies[Damages]

Aninfringerisliableforalllossactuallysustainedbythecopyrightownerthatisthe
naturalanddirectconsequenceoftheunlawfulactsoftheinfringement.Difficultyin
assessingdamagesorprofitsdoesnotrelievethecourtfromthedutyofassessing
themanddoingthebestitcan.
LouisVuittonMalletierS.A.v.SinggaEnterprises(Canada)Inc.,22011CarswellNat
2317(F.C.-SummaryTrial;2011-06-27)RussellJ.

[125]Inrelationtodamages,adefendantisliable
foralllossactuallysustainedby
aplaintiffthatisthenaturalanddirectconsequenceoftheunlawfulactsofthe
defendant,includinganylossoftradeactuallysufferedbytheplaintiff,either
directlyfromtheactscomplainedoforproperlyattributablethereto,thatconstitute
aninjurytotheplaintiff’sreputation,business,goodwillortrade.Thecourtmay
applyordinarybusinessknowledgeandcommonsense,andisentitledtoconsider
thattherecannotbedeceptivetradingwithoutinflictingsomemeasureofdamage
onthegoodwill.SeeRagdollProductions(UK)Ltd.v.JaneDoe,2002FCT918,21
C.P.R.(4th)213(Fed.T.D.)atparagraph40.

[126]Difficultyinassessingdamagesorprofitsdoesnotrelievethecourtfromthe
dutyofassessingthemanddoingthebestitcan.Thecourtisentitledtodraw
inferencesfromtheactionsofthepartiesandtheprobableresultsthattheywould
have.Onceaplaintiffhasproveninfringement,ifdamagesorprofitscannotbe
estimatedwithexactitude,thebestreasonableestimatemustbemadewithout
beinglimitedtonominaldamages.SeeRagdollProductions(UK)Ltd.,above,at
paragraphs40-45;LouisVuittonMalletierS.A.v.Yang,2007FC1179,62C.P.R.
(4th)362(F.C.)atparagraph28;andLouisVuittonMalletierS.A.v.486353B.C.
Ltd.,2008BCSC799,[2008]B.C.W.L.D.5075(B.C.S.C.[InChambers])at
paragraphs54-55.
[132]TheFederalCourtandBritishColumbiaSupremeCourthaveboth
recognizedtheneedtoallowforahighercalculationofdamagesinsituationsof
recidivistcounterfeitingactivitiesoveraperiodoftime.Therefore,wherethereis
evidenceofmorethanasingleattendanceatthelocationinquestion,anditcanbe
shownthatadefendantengagedinthecomplainedofactivitiesoveraperiodof
time,theCourtsinCanadahaveallowedthatthe”nominaldamages”AntonPiller
awardneedstobecalculatedona”perinstanceofinfringement”or,wherethe
evidenceisavailable,”perinventoryturnover”.SeeLouisVuittonMalletierS.A.v.
Yang,2007FC1179,62C.P.R.(4th)362(F.C.)atparagraph43;andLouisVuitton
MalletierS.A.v.486353B.C.Ltd.,2008BCSC799,[2008]B.C.W.L.D.5075(B.C.
S.C.[InChambers])atparagraphs59-60and65-67.
·Section34(1)–CopyrightRemedies[Damages]

Incircumstancesinvolvingcounterfeitactivitiesbyadefendantinwhichthe
intellectualpropertyrightsofmultipleplaintiffs’havebeeninfringed,eachplaintiffis
entitledtodamages.
LouisVuittonMalletierS.A.v.SinggaEnterprises(Canada)Inc.,22011CarswellNat
2317(F.C.-SummaryTrial;2011-06-27)RussellJ.

[134]Additionally,Canadiancourtshaveheldthatincircumstancesinvolving
counterfeitactivitiesbyadefendantinwhichtheintellectualpropertyrightsof
multipleplaintiffs’havebeeninfringed,eachplaintiffisentitledtodamages,asa
defendantwouldbeliablefordamagestoeachplaintiffifeachplaintiffenforcedits
rightsindividually.Thereisnoreasontolimitdamageawardsmerelybecause
multipleplaintiffsadvancedtheirclaimsinoneaction.Applyingsuchdamagesto
eachplaintiffisavailableinthecaseofajointactionbroughtbyatrade-mark
owneranditslicensee/distributor,toreflectdamagessufferedbyboththetrade-
markownerandthelicensee/distributor.SeeOakleyInc.v.JaneDoe(2000),193
F.T.R.42,8C.P.R.(4th)506(Fed.T.D.)atparagraphs12-13;LouisVuitton
MalletierS.A.v.Yang,2007FC1179,62C.P.R.(4th)362(F.C.)atparagraph43;

and
LouisVuittonMalletierS.A.v.486353B.C.Ltd.,2008BCSC799,[2008]
B.C.W.L.D.5075(B.C.S.C.[InChambers])atparagraphs67and72.
·Section34(1)–CopyrightRemedies[Punitive]

Damagesaretocompensatethecopyrightownerforhislossandpunitivedamages
shallbeawardedwhenadefendantcontinueitsactsofinfringement.

LouisVuittonMalletierS.A.v.SinggaEnterprises(Canada)Inc.,2011CarswellNat
2317(F.C.-SummaryTrial;2011-06-27)RussellJ.

[179]AsubstantialmonetaryawardagainsteachoftheDefendantsisrequiredto
adequatelycompensatethePlaintiffsforpastactivitiesandinordertopreventthe
Defendants’activitiesfromcontinuinginthefuture.Giventheegregiousnatureof
theiractivities,thenormaltrade-markandcopyrightprofitordamages
assessmentswouldnotbesufficient,andpunitiveandexemplarydamagesshould
beawarded.ThisisparticularlytruewiththeAltecDefendants,whohaveblatantly
continuedtheiractivitiesnotwithstandingcommencementofthisproceeding,and
haveignoredtheprocessofthisCourtindoingso.

·Section34(1)–CopyrightRemedies[Punitive]

Amaliciousandplannedintenttomonopolizethelaborofotherswillbetakeninto
accountinawardingpunitivedamages.

FormationetgestionPro-SantéM.R.Inc.v.Sampietro2011QCCS4266(Que.Sup.
Ct.;2011-08-10)GrenierJ.
[104]Lapreuveadémontréquel’atteinteétaitintentionnelle.Riend’autre
n’expliqueladémarchedeladéfenderessequeledésirdes’accaparerl’œuvrede
lademanderesseàdesfinsmercantilesetdanslebutévidentdes’éviterl’effort
intellectuelquedemandelacompilationd’uncoursdeformation,surtoutlorsqu’on
n’aaucuneexpérienceappropriéedansledomainedeladentisterie.

[105]Àl’automne2003,defaçontoutàfaitfortuite,ladéfenderesseéprouveun
engouementpourlachosedentaire.Elles’inscritaucoursdeformationdePro-
Santé.Ellenedémontreaucunintérêtparticulierpoursescoursetaccuseretards
etabsences.Aprèsavoirreçuladocumentationconvoitée,ellerentrechezelleet
ditaudéfendeur:pourquoinepasdonneruncoursdesecrétariatdentaire!

[106]Laproximitédanslesfaitsesttelle,qu’onnepeutconclurequ’àune
intentionmalicieusedes’accaparerlelabeurd’autrui.Rienicin’estaccidentel.
Toutestplanifié.L’écoledesdéfendeursétaitenpleinecroissanceetcesderniers
sespécialisentdansledomainedelasanté(préposéauxbénéficiaires,
assistancedentaire,assistanceenpharmacie,etc.).
·Section34(1)–CopyrightRemedies[Punitive]

PunitivedamagesarenotavailableundertheCopyri
ghtActiftheproceedingsare
takenintheProvinceofQuébec.[Indeed,intheProvinceofQuebecpunitive
damagesarenotavailableunlessthereisaspecificprovisionallowingthem.
Howeverthisdecisionappearstohavebeenrenderedwithoutknowledgeof
ConstructionDenisDesjardinsinc.v.Jeanson,2010CarswellQue6536(Que.C.A.-
Merits2010-07-07)wheretheQuebecCourtofAppeal,atparagraph47,confirmed
thatpunitivedamageswereavailableintheProvinceofQuébecforcopyright
infringementasanencroachmentofsection6oftheCharterofhumanrightsand
freedoms,RSQ,cC-12whichguaranteestoeverypersontherighttothepeaceful
enjoymentandfreedispositionofhispropertynorofRobinsonvFilmsCinarInc.
2011QCCA1361(Que.CA;2011-07-20),atparagraphs242etsq.

LietteCoutureArtsgraphiquesinc.v.ServicesimmobiliersVersaillesDBinc.,2011
QCCQ14165(Que.Ct.-SmallClaims;2011-11-15)RichardJ.
[21]Selonlapreuveprésentée,l’ententeintervenueentrelespartiesnevisequela
conceptionetlemontaged’unsiteinternetaumontantde800$,ensusdestaxes
applicables.Ceciétant,laréclamationdeLietteCouturequantauxmaquettespour
lapapeterieetlescartesd’affairesnepeutêtreaccueillie.

[22]QuantàlaconceptiondusiteinternetdeVersailles,LietteCoutureréclamela
sommede2260$,correspondantauprixréellementchargéàd’autresclients.
Avecrespect,cettepositionestinsoutenableendroit,puisquelapreuveétablitun
accorddevolontéportantuniquementsurlasommede800$àcetégard.

[23]Quantàlaréclamationde3000$«àtitrededommagesexemplaires»,mieux
connussouslenomde«dommages-intérêtspunitifs»,ellenepeutêtreaccueillie
pourlesmotifssuivants.
[24]Endroitquébécois,l’attributiondedommages-intérêtspunitifsouexemplaires
nepeutexisteràmoinsqu’uneloileprévoitdefaçonspécifique,telqu’ilappertde
l’article1621C.c.Q.:[…]

[25]Enl’espèce,leTribunalneretrouveaucuneloiquipermetàLietteCouturede
sevoirattribuerdesdommages-intérêtspunitifsouexemplaires.
·Section34(1)–CopyrightRemedies[Punitive]
“Wheretheawardingofpunitivedamagesisprovidedforbylaw,theamountofsuch
damagesmaynotexceedwhatissufficienttofulfiltheirpreventivepurpose.
“Punitivedamagesareassessedinthelightofalltheappropriatecircumstances,in
particularthegravityofthedebtor’sfault,hispatrimonialsituation,theextentofthe
reparationforwhichheisalreadyliabletothecreditorand,wheresuchisthecase,
thefactthatthepaymentofthedamagesiswhollyorpartlyassumedbyathird
person.”:Article1621oftheQuebecCivilCode.

Latourv.6921086Canadainc.(Édikom),2011QCCQ14817(Que.Ct.-Small
Claims;2011-11-09)DupuisJ.
[36]LeTribunalestd’avisqu’onneretrouvepasicila”conduitemalveillanteet
répréhensible,quidérogeauxnormesusuellesdelabonneconduite”,dansla

conduiteduprésidentd’ÉDIKOM.Certes,ilpourrait
s’agirdenégligence,peut-être
mêmed’unecertaineinsouciance,maisrienquinejustifiel’octroidedommages
punitifs.Latourdevaitfairelapreuvenonseulementdesrevenusdela
défenderesseetautresélémentspermettantauTribunald’octroyerdesdommages
exemplaires[Fn8Art.1621C.c.Q.:Lorsquelaloiprévoitl’attributionde
dommages-intérêtspunitifs,ceux-cinepeuventexcéder,envaleur,cequiest
suffisantpourassurerleurfonctionpréventive.Ilss’appréciententenantcomptede
touteslescirconstancesappropriées,notammentdelagravitédelafautedu
débiteur,desasituationpatrimonialeoudel’étenduedelaréparationàlaquelleil
estdéjàtenuenverslecréancier,ainsique,lecaséchéant,dufaitquelapriseen
chargedupaiementréparateurest,entoutouenpartie,assuméeparuntiers.
]maiselledevaitégalementfairelapreuvedesamauvaisefoi,oucelledeson
représentant,preuvequin’apasétéfaite.

·Section34(3)–CopyrightRemedies[Punitive]

Becausepunitivedamagesaretobeindividualized,defendantscannotbejointly
liable.
RobinsonvFilmsCinarInc.2011QCCA1361(Que.C.A.;2011-07-20)
[232]Cettedispositionexigequel’attributiondedommagespunitifssoitprévuepar
laloi.Ici,laLDAnecontenaitpas,àl’époqueoùlesintimésontintentéleurrecours,
unetelledisposition.Celle-ciestapparueen1997[Fn51Ils’agitdel’article38.1,
paragr.7,LDA.].Laquestionestcependantthéoriquepuisque,laviolationayant
étécontinue,lesintiméspouvaientmodifierleursprocédures,dès1997,pour
réclamerdesdommagespunitifs.Detoutefaçon,laCouradécidé,dansunarrêt
récent,dontlesmotifsontétéécritsparlajugeBich[ConstructionDenis
Desjardinsinc.c.Jeanson,2010QCCA1287,paras46-47],quel’atteinte
intentionnelleaudroitd’auteurétaituneatteinteaudroitdutitulaireàlajouissance
del’undesesbiensetqu’elleconstituaituneviolationdesarticles6et49dela
Chartedesdroitsetlibertésdelapersonne:[…]

[235][…]L’individualisationdesdommagespunitifspréconiséedansSolomon
[Solomonc.Québec(Procureurgénéral)2008QCCA1832],selonl’étatdela
situationpatrimonialedechaquecontrevenant,alemérited’éviterdeniveler
l’indemnité,verslehautouverslebas,enfonctiondupatrimoineduplusricheou
deceluiquil’estmoins.Elleaaussil’avantagede«punir»chaquecontrevenant
pourlesactesqu’ilaposés,enlecondamnantàunesommedéterminéesur
mesurepourlui.Enconséquence,lacondamnationàdesdommagespunitifsne
serapassolidaire.
[236]Avantd’examinerlaquestionduquantumdesdommagespunitifsaccordés,
rappelonslesrèglesfondamentalesapplicables.Ellesontétéénoncéeset
expliquéesparlaCoursuprêmedansl’arrêtWhitenc.PilotInsuranceCo.[Fn57
2002CSC18].Cetarrêt,d’unintérêtcertain,acependantuneportéelimitéeen
droitquébécois.Ilneremplacepaslescritèresdel’article1621C.c.Q.,maisilaide
àenpréciserlesbalisesd’évaluation[Fn58Jean-LouisBaudouinetPatrice
Deslauriers,Laresponsabilitécivile,7
eéd.,Cowansville,ÉditionsYvonBlais,
2003,no380,p.401.].Lesdommagespunitifssontl’exception.Ilssontjustifiés
danslecasd’uneconduitemalveillanteetrépréhensible,quidérogeauxnormes
usuellesdelabonneconduite.Ilssontaccordésdanslecasoùlesactes
répréhensiblesresteraientimpunisoulorsquelesautressanctionsne
permettraientpasderéaliserlesobjectifsdechâtiment,dedissuasionetde

dénonciation.Àcetégard,laCoursuprêmerappelle
quelesdommagespunitifs
n’ontpaspourbutd’indemniserledemandeur,maisbiendepunirledéfendeur,de
ledissuaderderecommenceretd’exprimerlaréprobationdel’ensembledela
communauté[Fn59VoiraussiDeMontignyc.Brossard(Succession),2010CSC
51].
[237]Encequiconcernelequantumdesdommagespunitifs,laCoursuprême
préconiseunerègledeproportionnalité.Celasignifiequelesdommagespunitifs
doiventêtreproportionnésàdifférentsfacteurscommelecaractèrerépréhensible
delaconduitedudéfendeur,lepréjudicecauséaudemandeur,savulnérabilité,les
bénéficestirésparledéfendeuretlesautresdommagesauxquelscedernieraété
condamné.

·Section34(3)–Costs

Theawardofcostsisamatterofjudicialdiscretionandunlesstheconductapartyis
reprehensible,scandalousoroutrageousorobstructive,nocostsonasolicitor-client
basisshouldbeawarded.
1429539OntarioLimitedv.CaféMirageInc.,2011FC1290(F.C.;2011-11-09)
MandaminJ.
[166]Inmyview,theactionsoftheDefendantsdonotconstituteabasisfor
punitivedamages.TheDefendants’conductwasplannedanddeliberatebutdid
notinvolveconcealment,obstructionofcourtproceedings,orprofitnot
compensablebydamages.ItsattempttoexploittheSymposiumCaféGroup’s
conceptwasmoreinthenatureofcommercialcompetitionoverreachinglawful
bounds.
[169]CostsarewithinthediscretionoftheCourt:FederalCourtsRules,SOR/98-
106,r400(1).Thenon-exhaustivefactorsthatmaybeconsideredinawarding
costsaredelineatedinrule400(3),including“anyothermatterthat[theCourt]
considersrelevant”.Anawardofsolicitor-and-clientcostsisexceptional.The
SupremeCourtofCanadahasstatedthatsolicitor-and-clientcostsshould
generallybeawardedonlywhenapartyhasdisplayedreprehensible,scandalous
oroutrageousconduct:HamiltonvOpenWindowBakeryLtd.,2004SCC9,[2004]
1S.C.R.303atpara26.
[170]Here,theDefendantsatworstcanbesaidtohavetriedtoexploitwhatthey
sawasabusinessopportunitywithoutdueregardforthePlaintiff’sintellectual
property.WhilethatconductoffendedanddistressedthePlaintiff,itcannotbesaid
tobereprehensible,scandalousoroutrageous.NordidtheDefendantsobstruct
thelitigationtoanydegreemorethanwhatwouldbeexpectedindefendinginan
action.

·Section34(3)–Costs

Thecostsofallpartiesinaproceedingforcopyrightinfringementareinthediscretion
ofthecourt[whichisnotverydifferentfromtheruleincivilmatters]andin
adjudicatingonthosecosts,thecourtmayconsidernumerousfactors,includingthe
adequacyofdamagesandtheconductoftheparties.

TargetEventProductionLtdv.Cheung
,2011FC83(F.C.-Costs;2011-01-25)
SimpsonJ.
[39]TheFederalCourtofAppealhasorderedpartyandpartycosts.Insettingalump
sum,IammindfulofthenormalrulethatTariffB,ColumnIIIgovernspartyandparty
costs.Forthereasonsgivenabove,Ihavereachedthefollowingconclusions:
·Thedamagefigureof$15,000.00doesnotrepresentthevalueofthelitigation.
ThismeansthatafigurebelowcolumnIIIisnotappropriate.
·ThePlaintiffwasuntruthfulaboutamaterialaspectofhisclaimandthe
damagesclaimedwereunreasonablyinflatedsoafigurebasedonorabove
ColumnVisnotappropriate.

·Section34(5)–PracticeandProcedure

AnactionorapplicationforcopyrightinfringementshouldfollowTheproceduralrules
ofthejurisdictioninwhichanactionforcopyrightinfringementisinstitutedshouldbe
followed.
FlowFilmsv.GlobalWealthTradeCorporation,2011ONSC1185(OntSupCt;2011-
02-15)LauwertsJ.
[14]Inrelationtocopyrightinfringement,theplaintiffsrelyonanumberof
provisionsintheCopyrightActbuthavenotmentionedthemintheStatementof
Claimnorhowtheyfactuallyrelatetotheclaim.Thisisimproperasnotedabove.

·Section34(5)–PracticeandProcedure

Wheni)thereproductionoftheinfringingworkisdoneinoneprovinceii)bya
defendantdomiciledinthesameprovince,iii)whoshiptheinfringinggoodsfromthat
province,iv)pursuanttoacontractmadeinthesameprovince,thereisarealcause
ofactioninthatprovinceandthecourtsofthatprovincewillbecompetenttohearan
actionforcopyrightinfringement,v)especiallywhenthedamagestotheplaintiffwere
sustainedinthatprovince!
LayetteMinimômeinc.c.Jarrar,2011QCCS1743(Que.Sup.Ct.;2011-04-11)
LaroucheJ.
[45]Enl’espèce,laconfectiondesœuvresartistiquesetdeséchantillonsaétéfaite
auCanadaparunecompagniecanadienneayantsonsiègesocialàMontréal
(Québec).LatransmissiondeséchantillonsàétéfaiteàpartirdeMontréalaux
requérants,résidentscanadiens,letoutenconformitéàuncontratliantlesparties,
contratétabliauQuébec.Lelienréeletimportantestainsidoncrespecté.Cette
Courestdonccompétentepourrendreunjugementdansleprésentdossier.

[46]Onsaitaussiquelesdommagessubisparlademanderesse/intimée,l’ontété
auQuébecpuisquecettedernièreypossèdesonsiègesocial.Ainsi,lelienréelet
importantavecleCanadaestindéniable.
·Section34.1–Presumptionsrespectingcopyrightandownership

Whenadefendantputsinissuetheexistenceofcop
yrightorthetitleoftheplaintiff
thereto,copyrightandownershiparepresumedandthedefendantwillbeartheonus
torebutthosepresumptions.
1429539OntarioLimitedv.CaféMirageInc.,2011FC1290(F.C.;2011-11-09)
MandaminJ.
[115]Inaddition,section34.1oftheCopyrightActprovidesthatinanyproceeding
forinfringementofcopyright,inwhichthedefendantputsinissuetheexistenceof
thecopyrightorthePlaintiff’stitletothecopyright,thencopyrightshallbe
presumed,unlessthecontraryisproved,tosubsistintheworkinanyproceedings
forinfringementofcopyright.TheDefendantshaveputtheSymposiumCafé
Group’scopyrightatissueaswellascontroloverthatcopyright.Iconsiderthe
Defendants’denialsasengagings.34oftheCopyrightAct.Accordingly,copyright
ispresumedandtheDefendantsmustprovethecontrary.Theyhavenot.Ineed
notgofurtherintothequestionofwhethermenufooddescriptionscanbe
copyrightedandpreservedforthelifetimeofanauthorplusfiftyyears.
·Section34.1Presumptionsrespectingcopyrightandownership

Theburdenofprovingthattheworkisnotanoriginalworkbelongstothedefendants.

[35]Lecertificatd’enregistrementétablitqueledroitd’auteursubsistedansl’œuvre
dontsontitulaireestpropriétaire.Lapartiecontestantedoitdoncrenversercette
présomptionlégale[ÉditionsHurtubiseHMHLtéec.CégepAndréLaurendeau,,
[1989]R.J.Q.1003,par.50].
·Section35–Liabilityforinfringement

Thereisacleardistinctionbetweencompensatorydamagestowhichthecopyright
ownerisentitledandtheprofitsmadebythepersonwhohasinfringedthisright.

RobinsonvFilmsCinarInc.2011QCCA1361(Que.C.A.;2011-07-20)
[159]Commeonpeutleconstater[insection35],lelégislateurétablitaupremier
paragraphedel’articleunenettedistinctionentrelesdommages-intérêts
compensatoiresauxquelsadroitletitulairedudroitd’auteuretlesprofitsréalisés
parlapersonnequiaviolécedroit.
·Section35–Liabilityforinfringement

Thecourtmayordertheinfringertopayashareof
theprofitshemadebutnotto
repaytheprofitsmadebytheallinfringers.

RobinsonvFilmsCinarInc.2011QCCA1361(Que.C.A.;2011-07-20)
[181]Lesappelantssoutiennentaussiquelejugeaerréenprononçantune
condamnationsolidaireencequiconcerneleremboursementdesprofits.En
s’appuyantsurletexteduparagraphe35(1)LDA,ilsplaidentqu’uncontrefacteurne
peutêtrecondamnéau-delàdesprofitsqu’ilalui-mêmeréalisés.

[182]LaCourestd’accordaveccetteinterprétation.

[183]Lafinduparagraphe35(1)LDAdéjàcitéindique,d’unefaçonclaire,quele
tribunalpeutcondamnerlecontrefacteuràpayeruneproportiondesprofitsqu’ila
réalisésetnonpaslecondamneràrembourserlesprofitsréalisésparl’ensemble
descontrefacteurs.

·Section35–Liabilityforinfringement

Inordertoascertainthepartoftheprofitsthattheinfringerhasmadeandthatshould
bepaidtothecopyrightowner,thecourtshalldiscriminatebetweentheinfringed
workandotherdistinctmatterforthecopyrightownerisonlyentitledtotheportionof
theprofitsoftheinfringerthatacausalconnectionwithhisinfringedwork.

RobinsonvFilmsCinarInc.2011QCCA1361(Que.C.A.;2011-07-20)
[196]Lejugedepremièreinstanceadonccommisuneerreurenconcluantau
caractèreindissociabledel’œuvremusicaleetdel’œuvrelittérairedeRobinson
Sucroë.Ilauraitdûsedemanderquelsprofitsauraientréalisélesappelantsselon
queleurœuvremusicaleaitaccompagnéounonuneœuvrenoncontrefaite.Il
estacquiseneffetquel’auteuradroitàlaremisedelaportiondesprofits
réalisésparlecontrefacteurquiaunliendecausalitéavecsonœuvre.
·Section35–Liabilityforinfringement

Thecourthasaverylargediscretionindeterminingthedamagesand/ortheportion
ofprofitstowhichacopyrightownerisentitled.
FormationetgestionPro-SantéM.R.Inc.v.Sampietro2011QCCS4266(Que.Sup.
Ct.;2011-08-10)GrenierJ.
[81]Commeonlesait,laLoisurledroitd’auteurestsuigenerisetson
interprétationestindépendanteduCodecivilduQuébec.Enmatièrede
dommages,elleestlargeetlibérale.Letitulairedudoitd’auteurn’apasàprouver
qu’ilasubidesdommagesréels.Toutefois,l’octroidesdommagesdoitêtrefondé
surlesenscommun.LeTribunaljouitd’unegrandediscrétion[SetymInternational
inc.c.Belout,REJB2001-27041(C.S.)].
[94]Nepouvantdistinguerentrelesfraisfixesetvariables,leTribunalseverra
contraintd’opterpourlebonsens.

·
Section36–Protectionofseparaterights

Theholderofaninterestinthecontentofasubscriptionprogrammingsignalor
networkfeed,byvirtueofcopyrightownershiporalicencegrantedbyacopyright
ownerhasarightofactionrecoverdamagesfromthepersonwhoengagedinthe
conduct,orobtainsuchotherremedy,bywayofinjunction,accountingorotherwise,
asthecourtconsidersappropriate.TheFederalCourtofCanadaisacourtof
competentjurisdictionfortherightofcivilactionprovidedbysubsection18(1)ofthe
RadiocommunicationAct(R.S.C.1985,c.R-2).

·Section36–Protectionofseparaterights

Alicenceisnotexclusiveunlessitssayssoandanon-exclusivelicenseecannotsue
forcopyrightinfringement

Century21CanadaLimitedPartnershipv.RogersCommuniationsInc2011BCSC
1196(B.C.S.C.;2011-09-02)PunnetJ..
[174]Anassignmentisatransferofarightsuchthattheassigneeistheownerof
thelegalinterestintherightandtheassignorisleftwithoutanycontroloverthe
righttransferred,exceptformoralrights.Underalicence,thelicenceeisgiven
permissiontodocertainactswhichmightotherwiseconstituteinfringementofthe
licencor’srightsanddoesnotinvolveanychangeofownershipinthecopyright:
Marquisv.DKLTechnologiesInc.(1989),24C.I.P.R.289(C.S.Que.);Fox
CanadianLawofCopyright,at380.

[177]Therighttoassignarightofactionarisesfroms.13oftheCopyrightAct
ss.6and7whichIwillrepeatforconvenience:[…]

·Section36–Protectionofseparaterights

Theassignementofajointinterestinthecopyright,includingtherighttoenforce,will
notpersebeconsideredaschampertous.
SetantaSportsCanadaLimitedc.840341AlbertaLtd.(Brew’inTaphouse),2011CF
709(F.C.;2011-06-16)O’ReillyJ.
[3]AccordingtotheaffidavitofMr.RodKeary,anofficeranddirectorofSetanta,in
2008,SetantaenteredintoanagreementwithZuffaLLC,theownerofUFC,and
CanadastarBoxingInc.,adistributorofpay-per-view[PPV]events,whichassigned
copyrightinUFCbroadcaststoSetantaandchargedSetantawithenforcingthe
others’intellectualpropertyinterestsinCanada.Theassignmentstatesthat
SetantaisajointholderofZuffa’sandCanadastarcopyright,“soastoenable
[Setanta]toenforceandtotakelegalproceedings…toenforceanyrightor
remedyavailableto[ZuffaandCanadastar]inrelationtotheirproprietaryrightsin
thebroadcastsofUFCPPVmatchesinCanada.”

[4]Thedefendantsmaketwoargumentsinrespectofthiscontract.First,they
suggestthattheagreementamountstoachampertousarrangement.Theysubmit
thatinthisproceedingSetanta’sonlyroleistolitigateonbehalfofZuffaand
Canadastar,anddivideanydamageswiththoseothercompanies.Ithasno
interestofitsownintheproceeding.Assuch,thedefendantsmaintainthatSetanta
isreallyengagedinimproperintermeddlinginalawsuitwithnolegitimateinterest
init,andtakingashareoftheproceeds.

[5]Inmyview,theassignmentgrantsSetantaajointinterestinZuffa’sand
Canadastar’sintellectualproperty,whichenablesittoenforcethatinterestfortheir
jointbenefit.Itisnotmerelyanassignmentoftherightofenforcement,althoughit
includesthatright.Accordingly,itisnotanimproper,champertousarrangement.

·Section37–ConcurrentjurisdictionofFederalCourt

Thepurposeofsection37oftheCopyrightActismerelythejurisdictionratione
materiaeofthecourtsanddoesnotexcludearbitrationasavalidforum.

Rhodesv.CieAmwayCanada*2011CarswellNat4872,2011FC1341(F.C.;2011-
11-23)BoivinJ.
[61]TheCourtobserves,asnotedbythedefendant,thatinthecaseofDesputeaux
[Desputeauxv.ÉditionsChouette(1987)inc.2003SCC17],theSupremeCourtof
Canadaheldthatthepurposeofsection37oftheCopyrightActwasmerelythe
jurisdictionrationemateriaeofthecourts.AnalogoustotheCompetitionAct,
section37oftheCopyrightActdidnotspecificallyconferjurisdictionuponthe
FederalCourtorprovincialsuperiorcourtstotheexclusionofarbitration.Onthis
basis,andnotwithstandingthefactthattheCopyrightActisofpublicorder,the
SupremeCourtofCanadaaccordinglydecidedtoenforcethearbitration
agreementatissueinDesputeaux.

[63]TheCourtthereforeagreeswiththedefendantthat,asinthecaseof
Desputeaux,above,section36(3)oftheCompetitionActdoesnotconferexclusive

jurisdictiontotheFederalCourt,butmerelyident
ifiestheFederalCourtasacourt
ofcompetentjurisdictiontohearsection36oftheCompetitionActclaims.Putin
otherwords,section36merelyprovidesfortherationemateriaejurisdictionofthe
FederalCourtandinnowayexcludesarbitrationasavalidforum.Theplaintiff’s
argumentinthisregardaccordinglyfails.
·Section37–ConcurrentjurisdictionofFederalCourt

Thepurposeofsection37oftheCopyrightActismerelythejurisdictionratione
materiaeofthecourtsoveramatteranddoesnotexcludeothercourtsorarbitrations
panels.

Seidelv.TelusCommunicationsInc.*2011CarswellBC553(S.C.C.;2011-03-18)
LebelandDeschampsJJ(dissenting)
[156]ThisCourtdisagreed[referringtoDesputeauxv.ÉditionsChouette(1987)inc.
2003SCC17],concludingthatthepurposeofs.37wasmerelytodesignatea
forum:
Thepurposeofenactingaprovisionlikes.37oftheCopyrightActisto
definethejurisdictionrationemateriaeofthecourtsoveramatter.Itisnot
intendedtoexcludearbitration.Itmerelyidentifiesthecourtwhich,withinthe
judicialsystem,willhavejurisdictiontohearcasesinvolvingaparticular
subjectmatter.Itcannotbeassumedtoexcludearbitraljurisdictionunlessit
expresslysostates.Arbitraljurisdictionisnowpartofthejusticesystemof
Quebec,andsubjecttothearrangementsmadebyQuebecpursuanttoits
constitutionalpowers.[para.42]
·Section37(1)–ConcurrentjurisdictionofFederalCourt

TheCopyrightBoardisnotprovinciallyregulatedandtheOntarioHumanRights
Tribunalhasnojurisdictionoverit.
SeguraMosquerav.UniversityofToronto*2011HRTO464(Ont.HumanRights
Trib.;2011-03-07)N.Overend
[Onapplicationunders.34oftheHumanRightsCode,R.S.O.1990,c.H.19,alleging
discriminationingoods,servicesandfacilitiesonthebasisofrace,colour,ancestry,
placeoforigin,citizenship,ethnicorigin,creed,sex,sexualorientation,maritalstatus
andage]
[18]Priortoservinganapplicationonthenamedrespondents,theTribunalwill
onlydismissitasbeingunderfederaljurisdictionwhereitisplainandobviousthat
themattersdonotfallwithinprovincialjurisdiction.Inthiscase,boththeCopyright
BoardofCanadaandtheCanadaHealthActDivision,iftheyareproperentities,
arepartofthefederalgovernment.Aspartofthefederalgovernment,itisplain
andobviousthatthesepotentialrespondentsarenotprovinciallyregulated.
Accordingly,theTribunalhasnojurisdictiontoproceedwiththeallegationsagainst
thesetwoentities.
·Section37(1)–ConcurrentjurisdictionofFederalCourt

Inthejudicialreviewofthedecisionofanarbitr
ator,thereasonablenessstandard
appliesanddeferenceisappropriate.

Sociétédesauteursderadio,télévisionetcinéma(SARTEC)c.Marcheterre*,2011
QCCS3562(Que.Sup.Ct.;2011-07-07)PaquetteJ.
[40]Parailleurs,lanormedecontrôleapplicableauxdécisionsdel’Arbitre
s’apparenteàcelleapplicableauxdécisionsd’unarbitredegriefsenmatièrede
relationsdetravail.Eneffet,ladynamiquedanslaquelles’inscriticilaprocédurede
griefs’apparenteàcelledesconventionscollectivesdetravail.L’Ententecollective
établitlesrèglesdujeuentrelespartiesqui,d’unepart,rendentlesserviceset
cellesqui,d’autrepart,lesretiennent.Laprocéduredegriefprévuepourlescasoù
undésaccordsurvientestcalquéesurcelleapplicableenmatièrederelationsde
travail.BienquelaLoisurlestatutdesartistesnecomportepasdeclause
privativeétanche,elleprévoittoutdemêmequelasentencearbitraleestsans
appel[Fn27Loisurlestatutdesartistes,préc.,note1,art.35.1.L’article13.29de
l’Ententecollectiveestaumêmeeffet.].Ils’agitd’undomaineoùlelégislateuret
lespartiesontmisenplaceunrégimeadministratifdistinctetparticulier.

[41]Enconséquence,etbienquelerespectderèglesdejusticenaturellesoiten
causeici,leTribunalconclutquelanormedelaraisonnabilités’applique.La
déférences’impose
·Section38(1)–Recoveryofpossessionofcopies,plates

Anauthoriseduseofthegoodsisnotconversion.
Can-AutoInspectionsInc.v.VascorLtd.2010BCSC1895(BCSC-Bifurcation;2010-
12-16)2011CarswellBC3197(B.C.S.C;2011-12-01)MyersJ.
[128]Conversioninvolvesawrongfulinterferencewiththegoodsofanother,such
astaking,usingordestroyingthesegoodsinamannerinconsistentwiththe
owner’srightofpossession.Anauthoriseduseofthegoodsisnotconversion.
373409AlbertaLtd.(Receiverof)v.BankofMontreal,2002SCC81atparas.8-9.

[129]SinceIhaveconcludedthattheuseofiSpectwasauthorisedforallusesto
whichitwasputbyVascor,bothbeforeandafterNovember2001,therecanbeno
claimforconversion.Itisthereforeunnecessaryformetodealwiththeissueasto
whetheranunauthoriseduseofsoftwarecanamounttoaconversion,asopposed
toabreachofcopyright,orbreachofalicenceagreement.
·Section38.1(1)–Statutorydamages

Whenelectingforstatutorydamagesundersection38oftheAct,aplaintiffwaivesits
righttorecoverdamagesandprofitundersection35oftheAct.Statutorydamages
willexcludepre-judgmentinterestsisnceaclaimforstatutorydamagesisonly
crystallizedwhentheproceedingsareinstituted.
SocietyofComposer,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav.IICEnterprisesLtd.
(Cheetah’sNightclub),2011FC1088(F.C.;2011-09-21)Lafrenière,Prothontary

[25]AccordingtoSOCAN,thecauseofactionforea
chyear’slicencefeesaroseon
February1ofeachyearbecausetheprovisionallicencefeesforeachyearwere
dueonJanuary31ofthatyear,butnotpaid.Whilethatmaybe,statutorydamages
areawarded“inlieuofanyotherremedyofamonetarynature”providedbythe
CopyrightAct.Byelectingstatutorydamages,SOCANhasessentiallywaivedits
righttopursueitsclaimforprovisionallicencefees,andanyinterestthatmayhave
accrued.Inshort,SOCANcan’thaveitscakeandeatittoo.

[26]Inanyevent,Iamnotpreparedtograntpre-judgmentinterestbeforethe
issuanceoftheStatementofClaimforthefollowingreasons.First,SOCANhas
failedtoestablishanycontractualorstatutoryrighttochargeintereston
outstandinglicencefees.Second,therehasbeensubstantialdelaybySOCANin
bringingthepresentactiontorecoverlicensefeesdatingbackto2006.Third,the
claimforstatutorydamageswasfirstmadeandonlycrystallizedwhenthe
proceedingwasinstituted.
·Section38.1(1)–Statutorydamages

Anawardofstatutorydamagesisinlieuofanyotherremedyofamonetarynature
(however,itdoesnotaffecttherightofthecopyrightownertohavepunitivedamages).

SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav.IICEnterprises
Ltd.(Cheetah’sNightclub),2011FC1399(F.C;2011-12091)LemieuxJ.
[27]However,Parliamentwasclearinsection36(1)oftheFederalCourtsActin
makingthatrequirementsubjectto“ExceptasotherwiseprovidedinanyotherAct
ofParliament.”

[28]TheCopyrightAct,intermsofremedies,providesforanumberofoptions
includingordinarydamages,statutorydamages,accountofprofits,putative
damagesandinterest.Section38ofthatActhasanumberofprovisions.One
dealsspecificallywithcollectivessuchasSOCAN.Itspeakstotheawardof
statutorydamagesoveracertainrangegearedtounpaidapplicableroyalties“in
lieuofanyotherremedyofamonetarynatureprovidedbythisAct.”

[29]TheProthonotaryreasonedthatbyelectingforstatutorydamagesSOCAN
haselectednottopursueitsclaimforunpaidprovinciallicensefeesand,asa
necessaryconsequence,pre-judgmentinterestonthatsum.Inmyview,the
Prothonotary’sreasoningiscompellingandfitswiththepurposeforwhichthe
electionwasgrantedbyParliamenttocollectivesocieties.SeeTelewizjaPolsat
S.A.vRadiopolInc.,2006FC584,[2007]1FCR444.
·Section38.1(3)–Specialcases[Statutorydamages]

Whenthereismorethanoneworkincorporatdeinasinglemedium,hasdiscretionto
awardalesseramointthantheminimaperworkprovidesinsubscetions38.1(1)and
39.1(2).
Century21CanadaLimitedPartnershipv.RogersCommuniationsInc2011BCSC
1196(B.C.S.C.;2011-09-02)PunnettJ

[421]Thereareanumberoffactorsthatmayberel
evantinconsideringthe
applicabilityof38.1(3).Inthiscasethelengthoftheinfringementwasrelatively
short,therewasnoevidencethatahighawardisrequiredtodeterothers.The
defendantstoppedtheactivityandIhavenotmadeafindingofbadfaithonthe
partofZoocasa.Inaddition,thenatureoftheinfringement,thefactthatthe
copyrightservesacommercialpurpose,andthattherewas,intheeyesofthe
defendants,abenefittotheplaintiff,supportsalesseraward.Ofmostimportance
isthattheactualdamagesclaimedarenotsubstantial.[…]

[426]Statutorydamagesprovidedforins.38.1,aresetat$500.00per
infringement,thiswouldresultinastatutorydamageawardof$64,000.However,
giventhecircumstancesofthiscaseincludingZoocasa’sapparentunintentional
infringementsuchanawardisgrosslyoutofproportiontotheinfringements.I
thereforeorderdamagesinthesumof$250perinfringementresultinginatotal
statutorydamageawardof$32,000.
·Section38.1(5)–Factorstoconsider[Statutorydamages]

Inexercisingitsdiscretionintheawardofstatutorydamages,thecourtshallconsider
theunderlyingpurposeofstatutorydamagesandevaluate,amongstothers,the
factorsenumeratedatsubsection38(5)oftheAct.
SocietyofComposer,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav.IICEnterprisesLtd.
(Cheetah’sNightclub),2011FC1088(F.C.;2011-09-21)Lafrenière,Prothontary
[19]SOCANhasidentifiedanumberoffactorsthatwouldjustifygrantinganaward
ofstatutorydamagesinexcessoftheprescribedminimum.First,theDefendant
hasdisplayedacompletedisregardforthetermsofitslicencewiththePlaintiff
overanextendedperiodoftime.Second,theDefendanthasbrazenlycontinuedto
advertiseandpubliclyperformSOCAN’smusicalworksatthenightclub.Third,the
DefendanthasrepeatedlyignoredSOCAN’sletters,callsandvisits,andevaded
serviceofdocuments.Fourth,theDefendanthascontinueditsinfringingactivities
afternoticeofthepresentactionwasgiven.IfindtheDefendant’sconductclearly
demonstratesbadfaithbothbeforeandduringtheproceedings.

[20]AlthoughtheDefendant’sconductisdeservingofsanction,theCourtis
requiredtorelatethefactsoftheparticularcasetotheunderlyingpurposeof
statutorydamages.Itmustaskitselfhowtheawardofstatutorydamageswould
furtheroneorotheroftheobjectivesofthelawandwhatisthelowestawardthat
wouldservethepurpose.Anyhigherawardwouldnotbejustified.

[21]Takingintoaccountthefactorslistedabove,andtheabsenceofanymitigating
circumstances,Iconcludethatanawardofstatutorydamagesofsixtimesthe
outstandinglicencefeesisappropriateinthiscase.Thesubstantialawardshould
serveassufficientdeterrenttotheDefendant,aswellastoothers,whoseekto
profitfromthePlaintiff’smusicalworkswithimpunity.Itwillbearemindertoall
licenseesofthepotentiallyseriousconsequencesofnon-compliancewiththe
annualreportingrequirementsandnon-paymentoftheapplicablelicencefees
underTariff3C.DamagesavailabletocopyrightholdersundertheCopyrightAct
serveanimportantfunctionandshouldnotbetreatedasjustanothercostofdoing
business.

·
Section38.1(5)–Factorstoconsider[Statutorydamages]

Theneedfordeterrenceinawardingstatutorydamagesisimportant.

LouisVuittonMalletierS.A.v.SinggaEnterprises(Canada)Inc.,22011CarswellNat
2317(F.C.-SummaryTrial;2011-06-27)RussellJ.

[155]Statutorydamagesforcopyrightinfringementareawardedonascalefrom
$500to$20,000perworkinfringed.Inexercisingitsdiscretion,theCourtis
requiredtoconsiderallrelevantfactors,including:
a.Goodorbadfaith;
b.Theconductofthepartiesbeforeandduringtheproceedings;and
c.Theneedtodeterotherinfringementsofthecopyrightsinquestion.
SeeCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,s.38.1;MicrosoftCorp.v.9038-3746
QuebecInc.,2006FC1509,57C.P.R.(4th)204(F.C.)atparagraph106;Microsoft
Corp.v.9038-3746QuebecInc.,2006FC1509,57C.P.R.(4th)204(F.C.)at
paragraph19;andLouisVuittonMalletierS.A.v.486353B.C.Ltd.,2008BCSC
799,[2008]B.C.W.L.D.5075(B.C.S.C.[InChambers])atparagraph74.

[156]Whereminimumstatutorydamagesaregrosslyoutofproportionwiththe
probableprofitsoftheinfringer,inthesensethattheyaremuchlowerthanthe
probableprofits,theCourtshouldawardahigheramount.SeeMicrosoftCorp.v.
9038-3746QuebecInc.,2006FC1509,57C.P.R.(4th)204(F.C.)atparagraphs
110-112.
157]Itshouldbeawardedonthehighendofthescalewheretheconductofthe
defendants,bothbeforeandduringtheproceedings,isdismissiveoflawandorder
anddemonstratesanecessityfordeterringfutureinfringements.SeeMicrosoft
Corp.v.9038-3746QuebecInc.,2006FC1509,57C.P.R.(4th)204(F.C.)at
paragraph113;andLouisVuittonMalletierS.A.v.Yang,2007FC1179,62C.P.R.
(4th)362(F.C.)atparagraphs21-25.
[158]Theneedfordeterrenceinawardingstatutorydamagesisimportant.Thereis
aneedfordeterrencewhere,asinthepresentcase,adefendantignorestheCourt
processwhilecontinuingthecounterfeitactivitiescomplainedof.SeeTelewizja
PolsatS.A.v.RadiopolInc.,2006FC584,52C.P.R.(4th)445(F.C.)atparagraph
50;andLouisVuittonMalletierS.A.v.Yang,2007FC1179,62C.P.R.(4th)362
(F.C.)atparagraph25.
[159]TheactivitiesoftheDefendants,andeachofthem,havebeenwilfuland
knowing,andentirelyinbadfaith.TheseDefendantshavetreatedwithdisrespect
theprocessofthisCourtinthisproceeding,andatleasttheAltecDefendants
continuetoengageinblatantrecidivistcounterfeitactivities.Giventheirongoing
actions,thereisaclearneedtodetertheactivitiesoftheDefendantsfrom
continuing,andtheiractionsareentirelydismissiveoflawandorder.
·Section38.1(5)–Factorstoconsider[Statutorydamages]

Inascertainingtheawardofstatutorydamages,thecourtshallconsiderthefactors
enumeratedinsubsection38.1(5)amongstwhichthecircumstancesrelatedtothe
goodorbadfaithoftheinfringer.

SetantaSportsCanadaLimitedc.840341AlbertaLtd
.(Brew’inTaphouse),2011CF
709(F.C.;2011-06-16)O’ReillyJ.
[19]Setantaseeksstatutorydamagesunders38.1oftheCopyrightAct,RSC
1985,cC-42.Itasksforanawardof$40,000.Takingaccountofthefactorssetout
ins38.1(5),namely,goodorbadfaith,theconductoftheparties,andtheneedfor
deterrence,Iamsatisfiedthatanawardof$20,000.00isappropriate.Inotethe
followingcircumstances:·failureofthedefendantstorespondtowrittencommunicationfromSetanta;
·failureofthedefendantstocomplywithanorderofthisCourt;
·failureofthedefendantstosubmitevidencetosupportitspleadings;
·atleasttwoclearviolationsofSetanta’scopyrightduringtherelevanttime
frame;and
·theneedforasignificantdamageawardinordertodeterfutureinfringing
activities.

·Section38.2–Maximumamountthatmayberecovered[Statutory
damages]

Subsection38.1(6)providesforthecircumstanceswherenostatutorydamagesmay
beawardedagainstaneducationalinstitution.Theamountofstatutorydamagesthat
mayberecoveredforcertainunauthorizedreprographicreproductionbyeducational
institutionsandthelikeappliesonlyifstatutorydamagesareclaimed;otherwise,
thereisnocap.
ReprographicReproduction,2011-2013,Re2011CarswellNat3708(Cop.Bd.;2011-
09-23)
[32][…]Neitherdoessection38.2oftheCopyrightActnecessarilycapdamages
payablefordigitalcopiestoacopyrightownerwhoseworksarenotinthe
repertoireofAccess[acollectivesociety].Aninstitutionprobablymustavailitselfof
theoptionprovidedforinsection29ofthetariffsincethecappertainsonlyto
“copyingofthatgeneralnatureandextent”[Fn14CopyrightAct,s.38.2(3)]as
coveredinthetariff.

·Section41–Limitationperiodforcivilremedies

Thethreeyearlimitationperiodappliestoinfringementofcopyrightaswellasof
moralrights.
Fabrikantv.Swany2011CarswellQue2903(Que.Sup.Ct.;2011-03-25)[motionto
dismisstheappealgranted2011QCCA2205(Que.C.A.;2011-11-28)]
[97]Themainfinancialclaimisbasedoncopyrightinfringement.Onthatissue,the
CourtcandonobetterthantoreproduceanextractofMadamJusticeSt-Pierre’s
judgmentofOctober13,2004onaMotiontoQuashthisaction[2004CanLII
43458].Discussingprescription,shereferredtosectionsoftheCopyrightAct
[47]Until1988,section41pertainedonlytothelimitationperiodfor
remediesforinfringementofcopyright.After1988,thissectionalsoapplies
toremediesforinfringementofmoralrights.Thenewtextprovides,without

distinction,that“[a]nactionshallnotbecommenc
edaftertheexpirationof
threeyearsimmediatelyfollowingtheinfringement.”

[48]Thisamendmenttosection41,however,cannothavetheeffectofthe
lossofrightsthatwerenotsubjectuntilthentoatimelimit.

[49]Theallegedinfringementsinthiscaseoccurredpriortothe1988
amendments,atatimewhentheActdidnotprovideforanylimitationperiod
forentitlementtocopyright.

[98]Iagreewiththesefindings.Theclaimindamagesforcopyrightinfringementis
prescribedandtheactionmustbedismissedwithrespecttothatclaim.
·Section42(1)–Offencesandpunishment

Thetimeseparatingthemakingoftheinfringingcopiesandputtingthemupforsale
becomesunimportantbecausethespecificintenttocommittheoffenceunder
section42(1)(a)ispresentassoonasaninfringingcopyismade.

R.vFiset2011QCCQ1344(Que.Ct.–Crim.Div;2011-02-21)BédardJ.
[82]Infact,sinceParliament’sintentionistoprohibituseforcommercialpurposes
inviolationofcopyright,andnotthemeremakingofinfringingcopiesofworks,the
limitationperiodwillstarttorunonlywhenintentisindicated,namelywhenthe
copiesareputupforsale.Thetimeseparatingthemakingoftheinfringingcopies
andputtingthemupforsalebecomesunimportantbecausethespecificintentto
committheoffenceundersection42(1)(a)ispresentassoonasaninfringingcopy
ismade.Thetwoessentialelementscoexistandcoincide.Theyareconcurrent.
Contrarytothecaseunderconsideration,aninfringermakesinfringingcopiesfor
sale.Thisisastagedeliberatelycompletedinpursuinganunlawfulobjective.

[83]TheCourtagreesthatprovingintenttosellwhilemakingtheinfringingcopies
maybeverydifficult.This,however,isParliament’schoice.Moreover,itdidnot
createpresumptiontoeasetheburdenofprooffortheprosecution,asinthecase
oftheoffencesundersections348and349Cr.C.[79]LeTribunalnepeutêtre
d’accordaveccetteprétention.Accepterlapropositiondelapoursuitesignifierait
rendreillégaluncomportementinitialquin’estpasinterdit.Ceseraitimputer
rétroactivementuneintentioncriminelleàl’accuséepourungesteirréprochable.
Cesénoncésvontàl’encontredetouslesprincipesdedroitcrimineletpénal.

·Section42(1)–Offencesandpunishment

Boththeinfringerwhomakesacopywiththeintenttosellandthesimplesellerof
infringingcopiesareliabletoprosecutionandsanction.

R.vFiset2011QCCQ1344(Que.Ct.-Crim.Div.;2011-02-21)BédardJ.
TRANSLATION[84]Contrarytowhattheprosecutionsuggests,failuretobeable
toproveintentdoesnotmaketheinfringerimmunefromanyprosecutionunderthe
Act.Infact,everypersonwhoknowinglysellsorbywayoftradeoffersforsalean
infringingcopycanbeprosecutedundersection42(1)(b)oftheAct.Thereisno
needtoprovetheauthoroftheinfringingcopy.Inaddition,thesellerisliabletothe

samesanction[Fn35Section42(1)
infineoftheCopyrightAct,supranote6]as
undersection42(1)(a).

[85]Thus,boththeinfringerwhomakesacopywiththeintenttosellandthe
simplesellerofinfringingcopiesareliabletoprosecutionandsanction.Inboth
cases,Parliament’sobjectivehasbeenachieved.Theusefortradepurposesis
controlledandtheoriginalityoftheartisticworkisprotected.

[86]Whentheaccusedformstheintenttosellaftertheinfringingcopyhasbeen
made,thechargeshouldbemadeundersection42(1)(b).Thefactsenteredin
evidencebeforetheCourtregardingcount4alonecorrespondmoretothe
situationcoveredbysection42(1)(b).Theprosecutionhasoptedfordifferent
chargesbyspecifyingtheperiodofoffence.Itmustlivewithitschoicesandprove
theessentialelementsoftheoffencesbeyondareasonabledoubt.

[87]Oneachcount,thereisnoevidencetoshowthattheaccusedmadeforsale
infringingcopieswiththespecificintenttosellatthetimeshereproducedthe
artisticwork.Noevidenceshowsthattheaccusedhadtheintenttodowhatis
prohibitedbytheActinsection42(1)(a),namelytomakeforsaleinfringingcopies.
Andtheaccusedisentitledtothebenefitofareasonabledoubtonthisessential
elementoftheoffence.Lastly,thereisnothingtoprovethatshemadeaninfringing
copyofanartisticworkbetweenMarch9and26,2008.

·Section42(1)–Offencesandpunishment

TheActprohibitsthereproductionofartisticworksinordertosellthemandthereis
nodivergencebetweentheEnglishandFrenchtextofparagraph42(1)(a)oftheAct.

R.v.Fiset,2011QCCQ1344(Que.Ct.-Crim.Div.;2011-02-21)BédardJ.
TRANSLATION[45]Tobeginwith,wemustrespondtotheargumentregarding
interpretationsubmittedbycounselforthedefendant,whoaskstheCourttogive
preferencetotheEnglishtextofsection42(1)(a)oftheAct.Inhisopinion,the
EnglishversionclearlyindicatesParliament’sintentionofrequiringtheconcurrence
oftheessentialelementsoftheoffence.
[46]Fortheprosecution,thereisnothingtointerpret.NeithertheEnglishnorthe
Frenchversionsofthetextlendmoresupporttothedefence’sposition.

[47]TheSupremeCourtofCanadastudiedtheissueofinterpretingbilingual
legislationinDaoust.[Fn10R.c.Daoust,2004CSC6(CanLII),[2004]1R.C.S.
217].Tointerpretstatutes,theremustbeadifferencebetweentheversions.The
Frenchtextofsection42(1)()usestheexpression”selivre,envuedelavente”
whiletheEnglishversionreads”makesforsale”.
[48]TheActdoesnotdefinetheseexpressions.Wemustrelyontheordinary
meaningofthewords.Literally”makesforsale”is[TRANSLATION]”tomakeor
manufactureinordertosell”.[FN11Larousse-Chambers,dictionnairefrançais-
anglais2005.]Admittedly,theFrenchwordsusedbyParliamentareapooror
awkwardtranslationoftheEnglishtext.Buttheexpression”selivrer”isusedherein
afigurativesenseandmeans[TRANSLATION]”toeffect,carryout,performan
activity”.[Fn12LenouveauPetitRobertdelalanguefrançaise2007.]

[49]TheCourtfindsthatthereisnoinconsistency
ordivergencebetweenthetwo
versions.Thereisthereforenoreasontoapplytheinterpretativeprocesssuggested
byBastaracheJ.inDaoust.[Fn13Préciténote10,paragraphes26etsuivants.].
Indeed,thereisnodiscordancebetweenthetwoversions.Neitherislikelytogive
risetomorethanoneinterpretation.Thereisnoambiguity.

[50]Regardlessoftheversionused,alitigantinevitablyunderstandsthepurposeof
theprovision,namely,theActprohibitsthereproductionofartisticworksinorderto
sellthem.ThisisthecommonmeaningthatmustbegiventoboththeEnglishand
Frenchversions.
·Section42(1)–Offencesandpunishment

Inusingtheword“knowingly”,subsection42)1)providesforamensreaoffence;
thereforetheactualintenttocommittheoffencemustbeproven.

R.v.Fiset,2011QCCQ1344(Que.Ct.-Crim.Div.;2011-02-21)BédardJ.
TRANSLATION[55]Thewordingofsection42(1)isnotconfusingwithregardto
theclassificationoftheoffence.Byusingtheterm”knowingly”(“sciemment”inthe
Frenchversion),Parliamentclearlyexpresseditsintentionofcreatingamensrea
offence.[FN15R.c.SaultSte-Marie1978CanLII11(CSC),
[1978]2R.C.S.1299,
jugeDickson,p.1325etp.1328(classificationdesinfractionsconfirmée
récemmentparlejugeLebeldansLévis(Villede)c.Tétreault2006CSC12
(CanLII),[2006]1R.C.S.420).VoiraussiG.Côté-Harper,A.D.ManganasetJ.
Turgeon,Droitpénalcanadien,3
ièmeédition,LeséditionsYvonBlaisInc.,1989,p.
281.]Thisconclusionisinlinewiththemajorityofcaselawconcerningsection42
oftheAct.[Fn16ProcureurgénéralduCanadac.Habib[2008]R.J.Q.1172(C.Q.),
par.30;R.c.Biron,[1992]N.B.J.no746(C.P.N.-B.)(QC/LN);R.c.LaurierOffice
Mart,[1995]O.J.no2063(C.J.Ont.)(QC/LN)].

[56]Fortheprosecutiontoprovethistypeofoffence,itmustshowbeyonda
reasonabledoubtthecommissionoftheprohibitedactandtheperpetrator’sguilty
stateofmind.Itmustprovetheactualintenttocommittheoffence.

[57]Theintentmustbeanalyzedsubjectively.Theaccusedmustbeshowntohave
theintenttodowhatisprohibitedbytheAct.Furthermore,theaccusedisentitled
tothebenefitofareasonabledoubtconcerningthisessentialelementofthe
offence.Fn17Collectiondedroit2008-2009,volume12,Droitpénal,infraction,
moyensdedéfenseetpeine,M.lejugeAlainMorand,p.48etp.49.].

[58]AnotherexpressioninformsusofthedegreeofintentrequiredbyParliament.
Thewords”makesfor”insection42(1)(a)oftheActindicatesthatitisacrimeof
specificintent.

·Section42(1)–Offencesandpunishment

TheCopyrightActdoesnotprohibitthepossessionofaninfringingcopyofworkor
thecopyingoforiginalcopyrightedworks;itisaimedtopreventthecommercial
marketingofinfringingworks.

R.v.Fiset,
2011QCCQ1344(Que.Ct.-Crim.Div.;2011-02-21)BédardJ.
TRANSLATION[60]Inthecasebeforeus,thepurposeorconsequencesoughtis
asale.Infact,bothsection42(1)(a)oftheActandthewordingoftheoffence
specifytheunlawfulobjective,namely:”makesforsale”(“selivrerenvuedela
vente”)aninfringingcopyofanartisticwork.

[61]Inkeepingwiththeseprinciples,theCourtisoftheopinionthattheevidence
mustshowbeyondareasonabledoubtthatatthetimetheaccusedengagedinthe
copyingoftheworks(s’estlivréàcopier),shehadtheintenttosellthem.The
reproductionisadeliberatestageinpursuinganunlawfulobjective,namely,the
saleofaninfringingcopyofanartisticwork.
[62]TheCopyrightActdoesnotprohibitthepossessionofaninfringingcopyof
workorthecopyingoforiginalcopyrightedworks.Areadingoftherelevant
provisionsrevealstheobjectiveofParliamentclearly.[Fn22SeeLegalProvisions,
par.48,above]:Itwishestocontroltheuseoftheartisticwork.Itwishestoprevent
thecommercialmarketingthereofaffectingprejudiciallytheownerofthecopyright.
Contrarytowhattheprosecutionclaims,section27(2)(d)doesnotmakeamere
infringingcopyaviolationoftheAct.Whatitprohibitsispossession”forthe
purposeofdoinganythingreferredtoinparagraphs(a)to(c)”,actionswhichall
refertotheuse,bywayoftrade,ofthecopyrightedworkwithouttheconsentofthe
ownerofthecopyright.
[63]Sincetheissueofapplyingsection42(1)(a)oftheActhasneverbeenbrought
beforethecourts,weshallnowtrytounderstanditsscopethroughananalogywith
otherprovisionsgeneratingoffencesinthesamecategory.

[64]Asmentionedearlier,section42(1)(a)createsanoffenceofspecificintent.
Theexpression”makesforsale”hasthesameeffectasthewords”withintentto
commitanindictableoffence”insections348(1)(a)and349(1)oftheCriminal
Code(Cr.C.).Fn23L.R.C.1985,ch.C-46.]
·Section42(1)–Offencesandpunishment

Thedegreeofcriminalresponsibilitytobeassumedbyanoffenderisrelativelyhigh
andexclusive,whentheroleoftheoffenderinthecommissionoftheoffenseis
centralandhewasfullyawareofthemagnitudeofhisgesture.

R.v.Gravel,2011QCCQ2517(Que.Ct.–Crim.Div;2011-03-24)AugerJ.
3.2Leprincipedelaproportionnalitédespeines
[16]L’article718.1énoncelepremierprincipefondamentalquelapeinedoitêtre
“proportionnelleàlagravitédel’infractionetaudegréderesponsabilitédu
délinquant”,soitlagravitéobjectiveetlagravitésubjective.

[17]Lagravitéobjectives’évalueparlelibellédel’article42delaLoisurledroit
d’auteurquiprévoitunepeinemaximalede6moisdedétentionferme.Le
ministèrepublicachoisidepoursuivrel’accuséparvoiededéclarationsommaire
deculpabilité.Or,lapeineestuneamendemaximalede25,000$ouunedétention
maximaledesixmois.Lagravitéobjectivetelqueprécisédansl’affaireCouillard
[Fn1R.c.MichelCouillard,4décembre2007,505-73-000318-068,Courdu
Québec,JugeAnne-MarieJacques.]semesureparlesobjectifsdelaLoisurle
droitd’auteur,carlepetitcommerçantquivendselonlaloidoitpayerles

redevancesauxdistributeursetauxartistesetfai
reunprofitsurunprixdevente
d’environ$40.Or,laventeillégalepourtroisfoismoinsconstitueuneconcurrence
déloyale.Commel’affaireCouillard,l’accusésavaitqu’ilagissaitmalhonnêtement,
maisc’étaittroplucratifpourarrêter.
[18]Lagravitésubjectivesemesuredanslafaçondontlecrimeaétécommis.Si
l’onretourneaufaitsénoncés,monsieurGravelsepromenaitaveclesDVDpourla
vente.Ilsortaitd’unetaverneavec120DVDcontrefaits.Auprixdevente,ilyade
forteschancesquelesacheteursétaientbienaucourantdelanaturecontrefaite
desœuvres.Lagravitésubjectives’apprécieparlesfacteursaggravantset
atténuantsdécoulantdescirconstancesdudossier.

[19]Quantaudegréderesponsabilitédudélinquant,ilestclairquelerôlede
monsieurGraveldanslacommissiondel’infractionestcentraletilavaitpleinement
connaissancedel’ampleurdesongeste.Or,àcetitre,ledegréderesponsabilité
pénaleàêtreassuméestrelativementélevéetexclusif.
·Section42(4)–Limitationperiod[Offencesandpunishment]

Penalproceedingsbywayofsummaryconviction,aresubjecttoatwoyearlimitation.

R.vFiset2011QCCQ1344(Que.Ct.-Crim.Div.;2011-02-21)BédardJ.
TRANSLATION[79]TheCourtcannotagreewiththisclaim.Acceptingthe
prosecution’sargumentwouldmeanmakingunlawfulinitialconductthatisnot
proscribed.Thiswouldretroactivelyattributecriminalintenttotheaccusedforan
irreproachableact.Thesestatementsgoagainstalltheprinciplesofcriminaland
penallaw.
[80]Finally,theprosecutionarguesthatbackingthedefence’spositionwouldbe
absurdasitwouldallowtheinfringertoavoidprosecutionundersection42(1)(a)of
theActbywaitingforthetwo-yearlimitationperiodtoexpirebeforesellingthe
copies.Accordingtotheprosecution,Parliamentcouldnothavewantedtoallow
suchasituation.
[81]Onceagain,withrespect,theCourtdoesnotagree.Section42(4)oftheAct
providesthatproceedingsmaybeinstitutedatanytimewithin,butnotlaterthan,
twoyearsafterthetimewhentheoffencewascommitted.Inthesituation
describedbytheprosecution,theoffenceiscommittedwhentheinfringergives
effecttoherintenttosell.

Someothercasesofinterestbutnotdirectlydealingwithcopyright.

R.v.Phillips,2011ONSC1881,(OntSC;2011-03-25)GordonJ.
Comment:Contraventionofrightsunders.7,8,9,10(b)and12oftheCanadian
CharterofRightsandFreedomsmayleadtotheexclusionoftheresultsofthe
searches.

R.v.Phillips2011ONSC1892,(OntSC;2011-03-25)GordonJ.

Comment:Astayofthechargescouldberequestedb
asedupontheinfringementof
therighttobetriedwithinareasonabletimeasguaranteedins.11(b)ofthe
CanadianCharterofRightsandFreedoms.

Esin(CollinsonConvenience)(Re)*,2011CanLII10877,(Ont.AlcohoolandGaming
Commission;2011-02-03)
Comment:ThedistributionofcounterfeitedDVDswouldconstituteareasonable
groundtobelievethattheRegistrantwillnotactinaccordancewiththelaw,orwith
integrity,honesty,orinthepublicinterest,hencetherevocationofitspermitasa
gamingsupplier.
M&EHermanosInc(VillageMart)(Re)*2011CanLII31670(Ont.Alcohooland
GamingCommission;2011-05-19)
Comment:OfferingforsalepiratedDVDmoviesinfringingcopiesofworkswould
constituteareasonablegroundtobelievethattheRegistrantwillnotactin
accordancewiththelaw,orwithintegrity,honesty,orinthepublicinterest,hencethe
revocationofitspermitasagamingsupplier
VAdministration·Section53–Registertobeevidence

Theburdenofprovingthattheworkisnotanoriginalworkbelongstothedefendant.
Theregistrationestablishesarebuttablepresumptionanditisuptothedefendantto
rebutthislegalpresumption

FormationetgestionPro-SantéM.R.Inc.v.Sampietro2011QCCS4266(Que.Sup.
Ct.;2011-08-10)GrenierJ.
[20]Lefardeaudeprouverquel’œuvren’estpasuneœuvreoriginaleappartient
auxdéfendeurs(art.33).L’enregistrementétablituneprésomptionjuristantum(art.
34.1a).
[35]Lecertificatd’enregistrementétablitqueledroitd’auteursubsistedansl’œuvre
dontsontitulaireestpropriétaire.Lapartiecontestantedoitdoncrenversercette
présomptionlégale[ÉditionsHurtubiseHMHLtéec.CégepAndréLaurendeau,,
[1989]R.J.Q.1003,par.50].
·Section53–Registertobeevidence

Copyrightcanbeassignedandtheassignmentrecorded.Acertificateofregistration
ofthisrecordalwillconstituteevinceofthefactsreferstointhecertificate.

HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.
,2011FC340(F.C.;2011-03-
18)HeneghanJ.
[204]Inthefirstplace,InotethattheCopyrightActrecognizesthatcopyrightcan
beassigned.TheCopyrightActfurtherprovides,atsections57and58,thatan
assignmentcanberegistered.Subsection53(2.1)providesthatacertificateof
registrationofacopyrightis“evidencethattherightrecordedinthecertificatehas
beenassignedandthattheassigneeregisteredistheownerofthatright”.

·Section55–Copyrightinworks

Therequirementsofinformationtobesuppliedforthepurposeofregistrationof
copyrightcouldbeappliedinamannerwhichwillbeinaccordancewithprivacy
concerns.
SuttievCanada(AttorneyGeneral)2011FC119(F.C.;2011-02-02)O’ReillyJ.
[2]Atthetimesheregisteredthebook,Ms.Suttiewasunawarethatthe
informationshehadprovidedwouldbepubliclyavailableonCIPO’swebsite.She
becameconcernedaboutherprivacy,particularlybecauseshehadgivenher
homeaddressonherregistrationapplication.Inaddition,sherealizedthatshehad
omittedherson’snamefromtheapplication.
[7]Insomecases,anauthor’shomeaddresscouldserveasameansofidentifying
himorher.Therefore,torequireanauthortoprovideahomeaddresscould
interferewithhisorherrighttoremainanonymous.Inmyview,therequirementin
theActtoprovideanaddressdoesnotobligeanauthortoidentifywhereheorshe
lives–itsimplyrequiresthepersontoprovideanaddressforpurposesof
correspondence.ThisinterpretationisborneoutbytheCopyrightRegulations,
whichrequireanauthortoprovideacompletemailingaddress,includingstreet
nameandnumber,andthepostalcode(SOR/97-457,s4(1)).

·Section57(4)–RectificationoftheRegisterbytheCourt

TheFederalCourtmayordertherectificationoftheregistertoreplacethe
addressofanauthorandaddaco-author.
SuttievCanada(AttorneyGeneral)2011FC119(F.C.;2011-02-02)O’ReillyJ.
[
8]GivenMs.Suttie’sprivacyconcerns,Iamsatisfiedthattheregistercontainsan
“errorordefect”(s57(4)(c))andwillissueanorderamendingtheregisterto
substituteMs.Suttie’scounsel’saddressforherhomeaddress.

IV.Order

[9]TheCourtordersthatMs.Suttie’scopyrightregistration(No.1065339)be
amendedtoaddthenameofherson,DenverSuttie,asajointauthor,andby
removingtheexistingaddressandreplacingitwiththeaddressofhersolicitors.
Thereisnoorderastocosts.

VIMiscellaneous·
Section64(3)–Exception[Noninfringementrecertaindesigns]

Subsection64(3)providesforexceptionstothenoninfringinguseofcertaindesigns.

LayetteMinimômeinc.c.Jarrar,2011QCCS1743(Que.Sup.Ct.;2011-04-11)
LaroucheJ.
[54]Lademanderesseajoutequ’ainsi,lesdéfendeursonttortdeprétendre
unilatéralementquelademanderessenepeutplusseprévaloirdesondroit
d’auteurpuisqu’elleapermislaproductiondesvêtementscopiésàplusde
cinquante(50)exemplaires.Eneffet,lesdéfendeursn’ontpastenucomptede
l’exceptionlégaleprévueàl’article64(3)delaLoisurledroitd’auteursurlaquelle
lademanderesseabasésonrecoursetdontelleentendprouverl’applicationlors
del’enquêteetaudition.

VIICopyrightBoardandCollectiveAdministrationofCopyright
·Section66.51–Interimdecisions

Aninterimtariffshouldreflectasmuchaspossiblethemostrecentagreements
betweentheparties.Aninterimtariffdoesnotdefinitelysettleissuessuchasliability,
whattriggersitorforhowlongitistriggered.
ReprographicReproduction2011-2013,Re2011CarswellNat2429(Cop.Bd.:2011-
06-28)[AdditionalreasonstoReprographicReproduction2011-2013,Interim
StatementofRoyaltiestobeCollectedbyAccessCopyright(Post-Secondary
EducationalInstitutions)(Re)(2011),92C.P.R.(4th)434(Cop.Bd.;2010-12-23)and
ReprographicReproduction2011-2013,Re2011CarswellNat2254,93C.P.R.(4th)
429(Cop.Bd.-ApplicationtovaryanInterimTariff;2011-04-07)]
[
13]Thesolutiontotheambiguityshouldbeinformedbytheprinciplethatthe
interimtariffshouldreflectasmuchaspossiblethemostrecentagreements
betweentheparties.Theseagreementsappliedforafullacademicyear.
Therefore,forthepurposesoftheinterimtariff,bothliabilityandtheamountof
royaltiesshouldbedeterminedonthebasisoftheacademicyear.Todovetailthis
approachwiththeapplicationperiodoftheinterimtariffprobablyrequires
providingthatfortheperiodsfromJanuary1toAugust31,2011andfrom
September1toDecember31,2013,royaltiespayableareonlyacorresponding
fractionofwhatisotherwisepayableforafullyear.Thiscanbeaddressed
throughproperwording.
[14]Wewillamendtheinterimtarifftoreflecttheprinciplessetoutinthe
precedingparagraphstartingJanuary1,2011.However,ratherthandictatingthe
wordingoftherequiredamendments,wepreferthattheGeneralCounselofthe
Boardandthepartiesattempttoagreeonsuchwording.TheGeneralCounselof
theBoardshallreportbacktousnolaterthanonFriday,August5,2011.Wewill

remainseizedofthematteruntilthewordingofth
erequiredamendmentsis
finalized.
[16]Somecouldarguethatsomeinstitutionsmaybetemptedto”game”the
interimtariff,forexamplebymakingallcopiestheyneedforanacademicyear
duringtheprecedingSummer.Wefeelnoneedtoaddresstheissuenow,but
wishtomaketwocomments.First,theinterimtariffdoesnotdefinitelysettle
issuessuchasliability,whattriggersitorforhowlongitistriggered.Accessputit
wellandsuccinctlybystatingthat”interpretingtheInterimTarifftodayas
establishinganacademicyear-basedroyaltyschemeisnoguaranteethatthe
Boardwillultimatelycertifythefinaltariffbasedonanacademicyear.”[Fn14
AccessCopyrightLettertotheBoard,June10,2011atp.3.].Theinterimtariff
cannotsettletheseissuesonceandforall:thiswouldbeunfairtotheparties(who
haveyettofiletheirevidenceandargument)andwouldillegallyfetterthe
discretionofthepanelthatwillbeaskedtosetthefinaltariff.Second,attemptsat
“gaming”theinterimtariffmightbearelevantfactorinsettingafinaltariffthatis
fairtobothusersandrightsholders.
·Section66.51–Interimdecisions

Aninterimtariffcanbemodifiedatanytimes.
AccessCopyrightInterimPost-SecondaryEducationalInstitutionTariff,2011-2013
92CPR(4
th)434(Cop.Bd.;2011-03-16)
[45][…]userswhoseconsumptionpatternsjustifydifferentratesremainfreeto
secure,fromAccessorfromothers,transactionalorotherlicencesthatwilltrump
thetariff.Thefactthattheinterimtariffcanbemodifiedatanytimeensuresthat
Accesswilldisplaygoodfaithinsuchnegotiations.Anymisconductonitspart
wouldnecessarilybereportedtotheBoard,whichwouldtakeitintoaccountinany
furtherconsiderationofthismatter.
·Section66.51–Interimdecisions

Absentanyobjection,theBoardwouldmostlikelyextendonainterimbasisa
certifiedtariff.
InterimtariffofleviestobecollectedbyCPCCin2012and2013onthesaleofblank
audiorecordingmediainCanadahttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2011/20112112.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2011-12-19)
OnNovember18,2011,CPCCasked,pursuanttosection66.51oftheCopyright
Act,thattheBoardextendfortheyears2012and2013,onaninterimbasis,the
applicationofthePrivateCopyingTariff,2011certifiedonDecember18,2010.
Objectorswerenotifiedoftheapplication;noneopposedit.TheBoardgrantsthe
application.Theinterimtariffwillremaininforce,unlessmodified,fromJanuary1,
2012untiltheBoardcertifiesthefinaltarifffor2012-2013.

·Section66.7(2)-Enforcementofdecisions

AnydecisionoftheBoardmaybemadeanorderoft
heFederalCourtorofany
superiorcourtandbeenforceableinthesamemannerasanorderthereof

Canada(HumanRightsCommission)v.Warman*,2011FCA297(F.C.A.;2011-10-
06)DawsonJ.
[DiscussingSection57oftheCanadianHumanRightsAct,R.S.C.,1985,c.H-6]
[67]Otherstatutoryprovisionsofthesamekindcanbefoundinthefollowing
federalstatutes:BroadcastingAct,S.C.1991,c.11,s.13,CanadaOilandGas
OperationsAct,R.S.C.1985,c.O-7,s.13,CanadaTransportationAct,S.C.1996,
c.10s.33,CopyrightAct,R.S.C.,1985,c.C-42,s.66.7,EmploymentEquityAct,
S.C.1995,c.44,s.31,NationalEnergyBoardAct,R.S.C.1985,c.N-7,s.17,
PatentAct,R.S.C.1985,c.P-4s.99,PublicServiceLabourRelationsAct,S.C.
2003,c.22,s.52,TelecommunicationsAct,S.C.1993,c.38,s.63.Allofthese
provisionshaveacommonthrust:thetribunalorderismadeanorderofthe
FederalCourtorofaprovincialsuperiorcourtbybeingfiledinthatcourt.The
referencetotheprovincialsuperiorcourtsdoesnotmakeamaterialdifferenceto
thescheme.Itsimplyprovidesthetribunalwiththealternativeoftaking
enforcementproceedingsintheprovincialsuperiorcourt.Forthepurposesofthis
discussion,IwillsimplyrefertothefilingofatribunalorderintheFederalCourt.

·Section67–Publicaccesstorepertoire–Interimdecisions

SOCANisacollectivesocietyundersection67oftheCopyrightAct.

SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav.IICEnterprises
Ltd.(Cheetah’sNightclub),2011FC1399(FC;2011-12091)LemieuxJ.
[11]Asiswellknown,SOCANisacollectivesocietyundersection67ofthe
CopyrightAct;itisauthorizedtograntlicencesforthepublicperformancein
Canadaofmusicalworksandtocollect,pursuanttosuchlicences,royaltiesorfees
sanctionedbytheCopyrightBoard.
·67.1–Filingofproposedtariffs

ATariffcannotimposeroyaltieswherenonearepayableundertheAct.ATarfifmay
containtransitionalprovisions.
PublicPerformanceofSoundRecordings,Re2011CarswellNat2797(Cop.Bd.;
2011-07-15)
[36]AttherequestofRe:Sound,thetariffexpresslyprovidesthatitdoesnotapply
toanyvenueoperatedbyanot-for-profitreligiousornot-for-profiteducational
institution,ifthedancingisprimarilymadeavailabletoparticipantsundertheageof
19.Someoftheactivitiesmentionedmayalreadybethesubjectofexceptions
undertheAct;othersarenot.Theprovisionhasthebenefitofmakingclearthat,in
somecases,Re:Sounddoesnotintendtocollectroyaltieseventhoughitmaybe
entitledtodoso.Itdoesnotimposeroyaltieswherenonearepayableunderthe
Act,sinceatariffcannotoverridethestatute.

[38]Finally,thetariffcontainstransitionalprov
isionsmadenecessarybecausethe
tarifftakeseffectonJanuary1,2008,whileitisbeingcertifiedmuchlater.Forthe
reasonssetoutinCBCRadio,2011[Fn9SOCAN-Re:SoundCBCRadioTariff,
2006-2011(8July2011)CopyrightBoardDecisionatparas.82to91.],weintend
tofollowthispracticetoallinstanceswhereatariffiscertifiedafterittakeseffect.A
tablesettingoutinterestfactorstobeusedonsumsowed,derivedusingthe
previousmonth-endBankRate,isincludedintheTariff.Interestisnot
compounded.Theamountowedforareportingperiodistheamountofthe
approvedtariffmultipliedbythefactorsetoutforthatperiod.

·Section68–Boardtoconsiderproposedtariffsandobjections

Equalityoftreatmentbetweenbroadcastersvis-à-viscollectivesdoesnotmeanthat
thesameformulashouldbeusedtocalculatetheroyalties.

PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,Re2011CarswellNat2658(Cop.Bd.;2011-
07-08)
[61][…]CBCdoeshaveauniquemandate.Havingauniquemandatedoesnot
necessarilyentitleCBCtobetreateddifferentlythancommercialradio.The
propositionthatCBCshouldnotbetreateddifferentlythancommercialradiodoes
notimply,however,thatCBCshouldpayroyaltiesusingaformulabasedonwhat
commercialradiopays.[…]
·71–Filingofproposedtariffs

Thetransparentexerciseofaclearrightisnotasignofbadfaith.Andwhena
collectivesocietyadministersrightsonanon-exclusivebasisandusersarefreeto
approachesaffiliatesdirectly
ReprographicReproduction,2011-2013,Re2011CarswellNat3708(Cop.Bd.;2011-
09-23)
[7]Accesshasactedandcontinuestoactingoodfaith.TheBoardhasalready
statedthatthetransparentexerciseofaclearrightisnotasignofbadfaith.By
conductingitsbusinessaccordingtotheinterimtariff,Accessisnotshowingbad
faith.Accessadministersrightsonanon-exclusivebasis;usersarefreeto
approachaffiliatesdirectly.[Fn2Inturn,affiliatesarefreetodealwithusers,to
declineissuingalicenceortoaskthemtodealwithAccess.]Accesshasinformed
itsaffiliatesofthepotentialconsequencesofissuingtransactionallicencesinthe
currentcontext,[FN3Seebelow,para.19.]buthasnottriedtodictatetheir
conduct,andcouldnotdoso.Ithaseveninformedthemthattheyretaintheoption
tolicenceinstitutionsdirectly;accordingtotheobjectors’ownevidence,many
continuetodo
·71–Filingofproposedtariffs

Acollective’srefusaltodealwithusersoutsideo
fthetariffdoesnotconstitute
misconductwarrantinganinterventiononthepartoftheBoard

ReprographicReproduction,2011-2013,Re2011CarswellNat3708(Cop.Bd.;2011-
09-23)
[16]Third,weagreethatonceatariffisinplace,acollectiveshouldbeentitledto
relyonit.Arguably,whenacollectiveoptsforatariff,itisinparttoavoidthecosts
associatedwithtransactionaldealings.Suchacourseofconductisrationaland
primafaciefair:seebelow,paragraph25.Therefore,acollective’srefusaltodeal
withusersoutsideofthetariffdoesnotconstitutemisconductwarrantingan
interventiononthepartoftheBoardabsentexceptionalcircumstanceswhichhave
notbeendemonstratedinthisinstance.
·71–Filingofproposedtariffs

Atransactionallicensingregimewithoutreporting,monitoringandauditprovisionsis
aninvitationtocopyrightviolation.
ReprographicReproduction,2011-2013,Re2011CarswellNat3708,(Cop.Bd.;
2011-09-23)
[21]Sixth,weagreewithAccessthattransactionallicencesinherentlyraise
monitoringissues,especiallyinsuchadecentralizedsettingastheinstitutions.
Theseissuesarecompoundedwithdigitalcopying.Yetratherthansuggesting
reportingandmonitoringmechanismsthatmightprovidesomecomforton
compliancecontrol,objectorsproposethetransactionallicencebeexemptfromall
oftheprovisionsofthetariff,includingthoserelatingtoreportingandmonitoring.

[22]Reporting,monitoringandauditprovisionsarekeytomostlicensingregimes:if
rightsholdersareentitledtoexpectthatuserswillseeklicenceswithoutbeing
prompted,[FN10AccessCopyrightInterimPost-SecondaryEducationalInstitution
Tariff,2011-2013(March16,2011)CopyrightBoardDecision.[InterimTariff],at
paras.40,41.]theyarealsoentitledtoexpectthatuserswilleitherproposeor
acceptmechanismsthatallowtheefficientmonitoringofcompliancewiththe
licence.Atransactionallicensingregimewithoutsuchprovisionsisaninvitationto
copyrightviolationandunthinkable.Yetobjectorsproposethattheybetakenat
theirword.Whowoulddecidethatpermissionisornotneeded?Howwouldthat
determinationbemade?Howwouldonecalculatethenumberofcopiestriggering
royalties?Wouldeachdownloadbecounted?Whatofmultipledownloadsbythe
sameperson?Adigitaltransactionallicencemaywellrequiregivingthecollective
fullaccesstoteachers’coursemanagementsystems:howcanthisbereconciled
withtheobjectors’claimsthatexistingreportingrequirementsalreadyengage
privacyissues?Basedontheinformationavailable,inthismarketandforthetime
being,adigitaltransactionalbusinessmodeldoesnotensurethatrightsholders
getpaidfortheusesoftheirworks.[Fn11Ibid.atpara.36]

[23]Thoughthereportingdifficultiesassociatedwithdigitaltransactionalcopyingin
institutionsmaynotbeasformidableasAccesspaintsthem,theyarenonetheless
significant.Earlierintheseproceedings,AUCCadmittedthatthevalueofadigital
licencecanbe”underminedbyonerousrecordkeepingprovisionsthat,ina
universitysetting,areimpracticalorimpossibletomeet.”[Fn12AUCC,January21,
2011letteratp.5.][ourunderlining]

·
71–Certification

Whoshouldbeinformedoftheirrightstoobjecttothecertificationofatariffisforthe
Boardtodecide.
EducationalRights2012-2016Re(Useofbroadcastprogramsbyeducational
institutions(2012-2016)),2011CarswellNat5316(Cop.Bd.;2011-12-23)
[2]Nooneobjectedtothestatement,whichessentiallyisidenticaltothetariff
certifiedbytheBoardfortheyears2007-2011.TheBoardthereforecertifiesthe
2012-2016tariffasfiledbyERCC.

Editorialcomment.Asprovidedbys.-s.71(1),EducationalRightsCollectiveof
Canada(ERCC)filedonMarch11,2011,itsstatementofproposedroyaltiestobe
collectedfromeducationalinstitutionsinCanada,forthereproductionand
performanceofworksorothersubject-matterscommunicatedtothepublicby
telecommunicationfortheyears2012to2016.Asprovidedbys.-s.72(1),the
statementwaspublishedintheCanadaGazetteonMay14,2011.Asstatedinthe
decision,“Educationalinstitutionsortheirrepresentativeswereinformedoftheir
righttoobjecttoit.”[Prospectiveretransmitterswereapparentlynotsoinformed
exceptbythepublicationintheCanadaGazette.]Asprovidedbys.-s.72(1)
objectionsweretobefiledbyJuly15,2011.Absentanyobjection,asprovidedby
s.-s.72(2),theBoardconsidertheproposedtariffand6monthsthereaftercertified,
asprovidedbys.-s.73(1)asistheproposedtariffandcauseittobe,asprovided
bys.-s.73(3),publishedintheDecember24,2011issueoftheCanadaGazette.

·Section71–Filingofproposedtariffs.

Arepertoireisdynamic,makingitimpossibletoprovideadefinitivelistofwhatison
it;
ReprographicReproduction2011-2013,Re2011CarswellNat2254,93CPR(4th)
429(Cop.Bd.-ApplicationtovaryanInterimTariff;2011-04-07)[Additionalreasons
at2011CarswellNat2429(Cop.Bd.;2011-06-28)][
19]Dansl’ensemble,noussommesd’accordavecAccess.Ilestimpossiblede
teniràjourunelistecomplètedesoeuvresfaisantpartiedurépertoire.Enboutde
piste,c’esttoujoursàl’utilisateurqu’ilincombedeprendrelesmesuresqui
s’imposentpourobtenirlesautorisationsnécessaires.Lesoutilsmisàsa
dispositionpourfacilitersaprisededécisionsnedevraientpaslierlasociétéde
gestion,sousréservedecequisuit.
·Section77(1)-Circumstancesinwhichlicencemaybegranted
[Unlocatablecopyrightowners]

Forthereproductionandthecommunicationtothepublicbythetelecommunication
ofthreeimages.

Mitchinson(Wendy)forthereproductionandthecommunicationtothepublicbythe
telecommunicationofthreeimagespublishedin
TheCanadianHomeJournalina
articleentitled”TheMedia,Gendered,FatandOtherProblematicBodies”
[Applicationby]File:2011-UO/TI-1;alsoavailableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/257-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2011-09-30)

·Section77(1)-Circumstancesinwhichlicencemaybegranted
[Unlocatablecopyrightowners]

Forthemechanicalreproductionandthecommunicationtothepublicby
telecommunicationofamusicalwork.

Taddo(Catherine)forthemechanicalreproductionandthecommunicationtothe
publicbytelecommunicationofamusicalworkentitled”MenareLikeStreetCars”by
LouisJordanorCharleyJordan[Applicationby],File2011-UO-TI-13;alsoavailable
athttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/256-e.pdf(Cop.Bd;
2011-09-30)

·Section77(1)-Circumstancesinwhichlicencemaybegranted
[Unlocatablecopyrightowners]

Forthesynchronization,reproductionandcommunica
tiontothepublicby
telecommunicationofanexcerptofamusicalwork.[Thequestionofmoralrightofan
authortobeassociatedwiththepromotionofaproductwasnotdiscussed.]

NolinBBDO,forthesynchronization,reproductionandcommunicationtothepublic
bytelecommunicationofanexcerptofamusicalworkentitled”Letempsestbon”
writtenbyStéphaneVenneandpublishedbyJFMInvestmentsInc.in1972
[Applicationby],File2011-UO/TI-24;alsoavailableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/255-f.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2011-09-26)

·Section77(1)-Circumstancesinwhichlicencemaybegranted
[Unlocatablecopyrightowners]

Forthereproduction,synchronizationandpublicperformanceofanexcerptofa
musicalrecording.
ProductionsPhi-Brassard(Jimmy)Inc.,Quebec,forthereproduction,
synchronizationandpublicperformanceofanexcerptofamusicalrecordingentitled
“SeeburgBackgroundMusicRecordBA-109A”inashortfilm,[Applicationby],File
2011-UO/TI-05;alsoavailableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-
introuvables/licences/254-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2011-08-30)
(1)Thelicenceauthorizesthesynchronizationofanexcerptofamusicalrecording
entitled”SeeburgBackgroundMusicRecordBA-109A”—totalduration:3minutes
and28seconds—inthe10-minute,55-secondshortfilmentitled”Hope”.
Thelicencealsoauthorizesthereproductionoftheexcerptinallformsofmedia
(e.g.,onDVD),itspublicperformanceoritscommunicationtothepublicby
telecommunication.
·Section77(1)-Circumstancesinwhichlicencemaybegranted
[Unlocatablecopyrightowners]

·
Section77(1)-Circumstancesinwhichlicencemaybegranted
[Unlocatablecopyrightowners]

Forthereproduction,synchronizationandpublicperformanceofanextractofa
televisionseries.
PCFAngleMortFilmInc.forthereproduction,synchronizationandpublic
performanceofanextractofatelevisionseriesentitled”MariadelBarrio”Application
by],File2010-UO/TI-17;2011CarswellNat829(Cop.Bd.;2011-02-21)
(1)Thelicenceauthorizesthesynchronizationofanextractofatelevisionseries
entitled”MariadelBarrio”—totalduration:10seconds—Theactiontakingplace
intheworkcanbedescribedasfollows:afemalecharacterlightsamatchwhile
utteringthewords”Prefierrolamuerte”andproceedstodropthematchtothe
ground,whereupontheentireroomburstsintoflame—inthe90-minutefilm
entitled”AngleMort”.

·Section77(1)-Circumstancesinwhichlicencemaybegranted
[Unlocatablecopyrightowners]

Forthereproductionofabook.
CanadianCoastGuard,Sydney,N.S.,forthereproductionof”Chaudièresmarine,
questionsetréponses”astranslatedbyW.D.Ewartfrom”MarineBoilersQuestions
andAnswers”byG.T.H.Flanaganandpublishedin1984byStanfordMaritime,
LondonUK[Applicationby],File2010-UO/TI-13;2011CarswellNat805,also
availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/251-e.pdf
(Cop.Bd.;2011-02-05)
(1)Thelicenceauthorizesthereproductionof”Chaudièresmarine,questionset
réponses”,astranslatedbyW.D.Ewartfrom”MarineBoilersQuestionsand
Answers”byG.T.H.Flanaganandpublishedin1984byStanfordMaritime,London,
UK.
Nomorethan500copiesoftheworkshallbereproduced.

Thelicencedoesnotreleasethelicenseefromtheobligationtoobtainpermission
foranyotherusenotcoveredbythislicence.

Summaryofthelicencesgrantedin2012bytheBoardwithrespecttounlocatable
copyrightowners:
CanadianCoast
Guard,Sydney,N.S.
Rre)
2010-UO/TI-13;Forthereproductionof
“Chaudièresmarine,questions
etréponses”astranslatedby
W.D.Ewartfrom”Marine
BoilersQuestionsand
Answers”byG.T.H.Flanagan
andpublishedin1984by
StanfordMaritime,LondonUK2011-01-05
2015-12-31
Educational$750
Access
CopyrightIncludesdigitalusesofthe
work
99pages
Nomorethan500copies
Licencecredit

PCFAngleMortFilm
Inc.(Re)
2010-UO/TI-17)
Forthereproduction,
synchronizationandpublic
performanceofanextractofa
televisionseriesentitled”Maria
[la]delBarrio”2011-02-21
2021-12-31
Commercial$250
PACCIncludescommunicationtothe
publicbytelecommunication
Substantially:10secondsofa
Mexicantelenovela(each
episodebeingof45
minutes)…

Centrecollégialde
développementde
matérieldidactique
(CCDMD)(Re)
2010-UO/TI-20)Forthereproductionofa
postercreatedbytheartists
groupKukryniksy
2011-08-29
2016-12-31
Commercial$100
SODRACNomorethan5000copies
ProductionsPhi-
Brassard(Jimmy)
Inc.(Re)
2011-UO/TI-05)Forthereproduction,
synchronizationandpublic
performanceofanexcerptofa
musicalrecordingentitled
“SeeburgBackgroundMusic
RecordBA-109A”inashort
film,2011-08-30
2018-08-31
Commercial$500
SODRACIncludesthereproductionof
theexcerptinallformsand
communicationtothepublicby
telecommunication
3’28”excerpt[thetotaltimeof
mineis2’54”butImaynot
havethesamecopy!]
NolinBBDO,(Re)
2011-UO/TI-24Forthesynchronization,
reproductionand
communicationtothepublicby
telecommunicationofan
excerptofamusicalwork
entitled”Letempsestbon”
writtenbyStéphaneVenne
andpublishedbyJFM
InvestmentsInc.in19722011-09-26
2016-12-31
Commercial$8750
SODRACForthepurposeofapublicity
campaignontelevision:
quaeremoralrights
Notheusual“Theissuanceof
thislicencedoesnotrelease
thelicenseefromthe
obligationtoobtainpermission
foranyotherusenotcovered
bythislicence”…

Substantiality:1’30”andtwo
15”extractsofa3’20”musical
work
Taddo(Catherine)
(Re)
2011-UO-TI-13;also)Forthemechanical
reproductionandthe
communicationtothepublicby
telecommunicationofa
musicalworkentitled”Menare
LikeStreetCars”byLouis
JordanorCharleyJordan2011-09-30
2016-12-31
Commercial$48.90
SODRACNomorethan600copies
Doesnotincludestherightto
publicperformancebut
includestherighttoreproduce
andcommunicatetothepublic
bytelecommunicationofthe
musicalworkforthepurpose
ofdigitalsales
Caveat:licenceprovided
inasmuchastheworkisnotin
thepublicdomain
Mitchinson
(Wendy)(Re)
2011-UO/TI-1

Forthereproductionandthe
communicationtothepublicby
thetelecommunicationofthree
imagespublishedin
The
CanadianHomeJournalina
articleentitled”TheMedia,
Gendered,FatandOther
ProblematicBodies”2011-10-20
2021-10-31
Commercial$300
CARCC
$150Right
holder(if
discovered)Nomorethan500copies
Reproductioninprintandin
electronicformatofthree
imagesandincludes
communicationtothepublicby
telecommunicationaspartofa
book

VIIIPrivateCopying
None
IXGeneralProvisions

·
Section89–Nocopyright,etc.,exceptbystatute

Copyrightisentirelyacreatureofstatuteandisapplicationisindependentofthe
QuebecCivilCode[orCommonLaw].

FormationetgestionPro-SantéM.R.Inc.v.Sampietro2011QCCS4266,(Que.Sup.
Ct.;2011-08-10)GrenierJ.
[81]Commeonlesait,laLoisurledroitd’auteurestsuigenerisetson
interprétationestindépendanteduCodecivilduQuébec.Enmatièrede
dommages,elleestlargeetlibérale.Letitulairedudoitd’auteurn’apasàprouver
qu’ilasubidesdommagesréels.Toutefois,l’octroidesdommagesdoitêtrefondé
surlesenscommun.LeTribunaljouitd’unegrandediscrétion[SetymInternational
inc.c.Belout,REJB2001-27041(C.S.)].

[94]Nepouvantdistinguerentrelesfraisfixesetvariables,leTribunalseverra
contraintd’opterpourlebonsens.
·Section89–Nocopyright,etc.,exceptbystatute

Rights,infringementandremediesaretobefoundintheCopyrightAct.

HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2011FC340(F.C.;2011-03-
18)HeneghanJ.
[145]Copyrightisacreatureofstatute.Assuch,itisnecessarytofindabasisin
theCopyrightActforsubsistenceofcopyrightinawork,forownership,andfor
infringement.Ifitcannotbegroundedinthestatutethenthereitisnoissueof
copyright.
·Section89–Nocopyright,etc.,exceptbystatute

Perse,copyrightinfringementdoesnotariseoutofabreachofcontract.

HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2011FC340(FC;2011-03-18)
HeneghanJ.
[261]Insimpleterms,thePlaintiffarguedthatanyviolationofthelicensing
agreementsconstitutedaviolationofcopyright.Thisargumentisinherentlyflawed
andcannotsucceedas“…copyrightinfringementdoesnotariseoutofabreachof
contract”;seeCorelCorp.v.GuardianInsuranceCo.ofCanada(2001),26C.C.L.I.
(3d)39(O.S.C.J.)atpara.22.AsIhaveexplained,copyrightisviolatedonlyifthe
defendanthasperformed,orauthorized,anactthatonlytheownercandowithin
theconfinesoftheCopyrightAct.

And,toconcludethisbriefreview:
Beingamemberofacollectivesocietydoesnotqualifynecessarilysuchmemberas
aprofessionalartist.

Reidv.Canada(PublicSafetyandEmergencyPrepare
dness)*,2011CanLII73054,
(ImmigrationandRefugeeBoard;2011-03-24))
[42]TheappellanthascutaCDofrapmusic,whichhasbeentenderedinto
evidence[Fn14ExhibitA-1]andsaidthatheisaregisteredartist.Hehastendered
intoevidenceanagreementbetweenhimselfandtheSocietyofComposers
AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanada[Fn15ExhibitA-1,p.8et9]..The
appellanthasnothingtoprovethatheisanythingmorethananamateurmusician,
whohasregisteredhimselfwiththeSocietyofComposersandPublishersfor
copyrightpurposes.Thereisnorealevidencethattheappellanthasembarked
uponaseriousmusiccareer.
[43]TheappellantdoesnotdriveanddoesnothaveatelephoneorcableTV.

[44]Iamoftheviewandsofindthattheappellanthasnofinancialorcareer
establishmentinCanadaatall.

[63]AlthoughtheappellanthasintheBiblicalsenseoftheword,spreadhisseed
sotospeak,thereisonlyveryscantevidencethathehasanyfamilialrelationship
withhischildren.Heismarginallyemployedandappearstocontributeverylittleif
anythingtohisfamily.
[64]Theappellant’ssojourninCanadahasaccountedforaboutonethirdofhislife,
buthehasnothingtoshowforit.Thereisnothingholdinghimhereexcepthisfour
children,whomhedoesnotappeartosupportinanysignificantway.Hehasno
worldlyassetsofanyconsequenceinCanadaandappearstohavefamilyin
Jamaica.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledans
touslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligente
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-

trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransf
ers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)