Robic's Newsletter

CLICK FOR LEGAL NOTICE

Publications Back to the newsletter

A Compilation of the Canadian Copyright Cases Decided in 2012

2013-04-08

ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006

ACOMPILATIONOFTHECANADIANCOPYRIGHTCASESDECIDEDIN2012

LAURENTCARRIÈRE*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

First,agenerallisting:
1.AccessCopyright-ProvincialandTerritorialGovernmentsTariffs(2005-2014)
Decision(Crownimmunityapplication)[alsosubnomineReprographic
Reproduction2005-2014,Re]2012CarswellNat6,2012CarswellNat7,98
C.P.R.(4th)21,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/20120105-2.pdf(Cop.
Bd.;2012-01-05);reasonsfororderavailableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/prov_reason_2012.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-03-15)2012
FCA22
,http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2012/2012fca22/2012fca22.html
(F.C.A-Motiontostrikeaffidavit;2012-01-23);affd2012CarswellNat6882012
FCA96,213A.C.W.S.(3d)183,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2012/2012fca96/2012fca96.html(F.C.A;
2012-03-20)

2.AdobeSystemsIncorporatedv.DaleThompsonDBAAppletreeSolutions,2012
FC1219,2012CarswellNat4062,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2012/2012fc1219/2012fc1219.html(F.C.;
2012-10-18)

3.Alberta(Education)v.AccessCopyright2012CarswellNat2420,2012SCC37,
J.E.2012-1382,216A.C.W.S.(3d)215,102C.P.R.(4th)255,347D.L.R.(4th)
287,38Admin.L.R.(5th)214,432N.R.134,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc37/2012scc37.html(S.C.C.;
2012-07-12)[reversing85C.P.R.(4th)349(F.C.A.;2010-07-23),whichwas
reversinginpart2009-Carswell1930(Cop.Bd.;2009-06-26);

4.Applicationtofixroyaltiesforalicenceanditsrelatedtermsandconditions
(SODRACv.ARTV).2012CarswellNat5;alsoavailableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/20120105.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-01-05)

©CIPS,2013.*Lawyerandtrade-markagent,LaurentCarrièreisapartnerwithROBIC,LLP,a
multidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,patentandtrademarkagents.Publishedaspartofa
releasetotheCanadianCopyrightActAnnotated(Carswell).Publication429.

2
5.Aramav.Azoulay,2012QCCQ10913,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2012/2012qccq10913/2012qccq10913.html(Que.
Ct.SmallClaims;2012-11-14)

6.BibliothèqueetArchivesnationalesduQuébec(BAnQ)forthereproductionand
communicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationofposters,periodicalsand
monographs[Reapplicationby],file2010-UO/TI-14];2012CarswellNat3069,
alsoavailableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/263-
f.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-07-19)

7.CanadianArtists’Representation/LeFrontdesartistescanadiens(CARFAC)
andLeregroupementdesartistesenartsvisuelsduQuébec(RAAV)v.
NationalGalleryofCanada(NGC),File:1330-08-001,Decision53,[2012]
C.A.P.P.R.T.D.No.1;http://www.capprt-tcrpap.gc.ca/eic/site/capprt-
tcrpap.nsf/eng/tn00626.html(C.A.P.P.R.T.;2012-02-16)

8.CanadianInstituteofNaturalandIntegrativeMedicine(CINIM)forthedigital
reproductionandthecommunicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationoftwo
jokes.[Reapplicationby]File:2012-UO/TI-05,2012CarswellNat3073,also
availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/264-f.pdf
(Cop.Bd.:2012-07-24)

9.Cloutier(Carol)forthereproductionof362photographsandalbumcoversina
book[Reapplicationby]File2007-UO/TI-20,2012CarswellNat94;also
availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/258-f.pdf
(Cop.Bd.;2012-01-03)

10.CollectiveAdministrationofPerformingRights&ofCommunicationRights,Re
2012CarswellNat181(Cop.Bd.;2012-01-30)

11.CorporationoftheCityofLondon(Re),2012CanLII28372(Ont.I.P.C.;2012-
05-18)

12.Donnelyc.Toth*,2012QCCQ2256,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2012/2012qccq2256/2012qccq2256.html
(Que.Ct.;2012-03-30)

13.Droitdelafamille-121702012QCCS326,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2012/2012qccs326/2012qccs326.html(Que.Sup.
Ct.;2012-02-03)

14.ÉditionsduQuartz,Rouyn-Norandaforthereproductionandtherepublication
onhardcopyofthetextinabook[Reapplicationby]File:2011-UO/TI-10,2012
CarswellNat991;alsoavailableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-
introuvables/licences/261-f.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-04-04)

15.ÉditionsduQuartz,Rouyn-Noranda,Quebec,forthereproductionandthe
republicationonhardcopyofthetextinabook[Reapplicationby],File:2011-
UO/TI-10,alsoavailableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-
introuvables/licences/266-f.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-10-22)

16.EmergingArtistsResearchandRatingService(CopyrightDepositoryInc.)v
Trustifiinc.,2012QCCS1038,2012CarswellQue2089,220A.C.W.S.(3d)
510,EYB2012-203934,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2012/2012qccs1038/2012qccs1038.html
(Que.Sup.Ct.;2012-03-19);revd2012QCCA1116,2012CarswellQue5938,
EYB2012-207826,J.E.2012-1273,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2012/2012qcca1116/2012qcca1116.html
(Que.C.A.;2012-06-15)

17.EntertainmentSoftwareAssn.v.SocietyofComposers,Authors&Music
PublishersofCanada,2012SCC34,2012CarswellNat2377,J.E.2012-1379,
102C.P.R.(4th)161,216A.C.W.S.(3d)218,347D.L.R.(4th)193,38Admin.
L.R.(5th)71,432N.R.200,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc34/2012scc34.html(S.C.C;
2012-07-12).[reversing86C.P.R.(4
th)258,2010CarswellNat3113,323D.L.R.
(4th)62,(subnom.EntertainmentSoftwareAssn.v.SOCAN)406N.R.288,86
C.P.R.(4th)258,2010FCA221,14Admin.L.R.(5th)151(F.C.A.;2010-09-02),
whichwasaffirming61C.P.R.(4
th)353(Cop.Bd.;2007-10-18)]

18.ForensicTechnologyInc.c.PyramidalTechnologiesLtd.,2012CarswellQue
5649
2012QCCS2463,EYB2012-207438,
http://canlii.ca/en/qc/qccs/doc/2012/2012qccs2463/2012qccs2463.html(Que.
Sup.Ct.;2012-06-06)

19.FrontierSchoolDivision,Winnipeg,Manitoba,forthemechanicalreproduction
andpublicperformanceofthemusicalworkentitled”RoadtoFortCoulonge”
writtenbyHarryReginald(Reg)HillandpublishedbyMelbourneMusi[Re
application]File2012-UO/TI-04,alsoavailableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/265-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-120-16)

20.GendarmerieRoyaleduCanadac.Benharroch,2012QCCQ017,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2012/2012qccq917/2012qccq917.html
(Que.Ct.;2012-01-17)

21.GlanzmannToursLtd.v.YukonWideAdventures2012CarswellYukon41,
2012YKSM3,214A.C.W.S.(3d)443,[2012]B.C.W.L.D.5249,
http://www.canlii.org/en/yk/yksm/doc/2012/2012yksm3/2012yksm3.html(YK-
SmallClaimsCt.;2012-05-10)

4
22.Hajduv.FRO,2012ONSC1835,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2012/2012onsc1835/2012onsc1835.html
(Ont.S.C.;2012-03-12)

23.HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2012CarswellNat334,
2012FCA226,http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fca/doc/2012/2012fca226/2012fca226.html
(F.C.A;2012-08-31)[confirming92C.P.R.(4th)6(F.C.;2011-03-18)]

24.Hidasiv.Davie&Associates,2012CarswellBC3457,2012BCHRT384,
http://canlii.ca/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2012/2012bchrt384/2012bchrt384.html(B.C.
HumanRightsTribunal;2012-11-02)

25.InsuranceCorporationofBritishColumbiav.CanadianOfficeandProfessional
EmployeesUnion,Local378,2012CarswellBC2470,2012BCSC1244,[2012]
B.C.W.L.D.7826,[2012]B.C.W.L.D.7764,220A.C.W.S.(3d)406,
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2012/2012bcsc1244/2012bcsc1244.html
(B.C.S.C.;2012-08-17)

26.KeatleySurveyingLtd.v.TeranetInc.,2012ONSC7120,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2012/2012onsc7120/2012onsc7120.html(Ont.
Sup.Ct.;2012-12-14)

27.Kennedyc.Ruminski,2012QCCS4417.
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2012/2012qccs4417/2012qccs4417.html(Que.
Sup.Ct.;2012-09-21)

28.Khanv.Tajdin,2012CarswellNat73,2012FCA12,211A.C.W.S.(3d)440,
426N.R.190,346D.L.R.(4th)712,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2012/2012fca12/2012fca12.html(F.C.A;
2012-01-16).[affirming2011FCA14(F.C.;2011-02-07)];leavetoappealtothe
SupremeCourtofCanadarefused2012CarswellNat2183,2012CarswellNat
2184,2012CanLII36252,http://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/csc-
a/doc/2012/2012canlii36252/2012canlii36252.html(S.C.C.;2012-06-28)

29.LaPresseTéléIIILtée,Montreal,QC,forthesynchronization,reproductionand
communicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationofanexcerptofamusical
work[Reapplicationby].File:2012-UO/TI-06,2012CarswellNat1763,
availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/262-f.pdf
(Cop.Bd.;2012-05-28]

30.LachancevProductionsMarieEykelinc.,2012QCCS1012(Que.Sup.Ct.-
Merits;2012-03-15)

31.Leutholdv.CanadianBroadcastingCorporation,2012CarswellNat2277,2012
FC748,2012CF748,217A.C.W.S.(3d)167,104C.P.R.(4th)401,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2012/2012fc748/2012fc748.html,

5
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2012/2012fc748/2012fc748.html(F.C.;2012-06-
14)[Leutholdv.CanadianBroadcastingCorporation,2012CarswellNat4204,
2012FC1257,2012CF1257,
http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fct/doc/2012/2012fc1257/2012fc1257.html(F.C.-Costs;
2012-10-29)]

32.Meadsv.Meads,2012ABQB571,2012CarswellAlta1607,
http://canlii.ca/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html(2012-09-
18;Alta.Q.B.)

33.NationalFilmBoardofCanadaforthereproductionandincorporationofa
photographinadocumentaryfilm[Reapplicationby]File2011UO/TI-25.2012
CarswellNat597;alsoavailableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-
introuvables/licences/260-f.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-02-10)

34.NauticalDataInternational,Inc.v.C-MapUSAInc.,2012FC300,2012
CarswellNat1055,http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fct/doc/2012/2012fc300/2012fc300.html
(F.C.;2012-04-03).

35.NexusSolutionsInc.v.Krougly,2012CarswellOnt1136,2012ONSC583,211
A.C.W.S.(3d)216,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2012/2012onsc583/2012onsc583.html
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-01-25)

36.NexusSolutionsInc.v.Krougly,2012CarswellOnt1136,2012ONSC583,211
ACWS(3d)216,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2012/2012onsc583/2012onsc583.html
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-01-25)

37.Pelletierv.SindicatumCarbonCapitalLtd.,2012QCCS6184,
http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccs/doc/2012/2012qccs6184/2012qccs6184.pdf
(Que.Sup.Ct.;2012-11-21)

38.PhilipMorrisProductsS.A.v.MarlboroCanadaLimited,2012CarswellNat
2208,2012FCA201,216A.C.W.S.(3d)994,103C.P.R.(4th)259,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2012/2012fca201/2012fca201.html(F.C.A.;
2012-06-29)[reversingonothergrounds90C.P.R.(4th)1(F.C.;2010-11-08)]

39.PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,Re2012CarswellNat2221,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/Decision_SOCAN_Various_Tariffs.pdf
(Cop.Bd.;2012-06-29)

40.PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,Re2012CarswellNat555,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/SOCAN-application-for-interim-tariff-22-
4-22-7.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-02-17)

6
41.R.v.Rundle(NecPlusUltra),2012ONSC5185,2012CarswellOnt11339,
2012ONSC5185,104C.P.R.(4th)190,220A.C.W.S.(3d)400
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2012/2012onsc5185/2012onsc5185.html(Ont.
Sup.Ct.;2012-09-14)

42.Re:SoundTariff5–UseofMusictoAccompanyLiveEvents,2008-2012(PartsA
toG),FilePublicPerformanceofSoundRecordings,2012CarswellNat1584;
alsoavailableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/20120430.pdf(Cop.
Bd.;2012-05-25)

43.Re:SoundTariffNo.6B–UseofRecordedMusictoAccompanyPhysical
Activities,2008-2009,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs-tarifs/certified-
homologues/2012/ReSound6_B_reasons.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-07-06)

44.Re:Soundv.MotionPictureTheatreAssociationofCanada,2012CarswellNat
2383,2012SCC38,J.E.2012-1378,216A.C.W.S.(3d)217,102C.P.R.(4th)
276,347D.L.R.(4th)308,38Admin.L.R.(5th)152,432N.R.163,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc38/2012scc38.html(S.C.C.;
2012-07-12)[affirming2011CarswellNat429(F.C.A.;2011-02-25)whichwas
affirming78C.P.R.(4th)64(Cop.Bd.;2009-00-16)]

45.RefencereBroadcastingRegulatoryPolicy2010-167andBroadcastingOrder
CRTC2010-168,2012SCC68.(S.C.C.;2011-09-29)[reversing91C.P.R.
(4th)389(F.C.A.;2011-02-28):

46.Reference,ReBroadcastingAct,2012CarswellNat214,2012SCC4,J.E.
2012-299,210A.C.W.S.(3d)360,341D.L.R.(4th)385,98C.P.R.(4th)391,
428N.R.190,[2012]1S.C.R.142,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc4/2012scc4.html(S.C.C.;
2012-02-09)[affirming2010FCA178,2010FCA178,322D.L.R.(4th)337,404
N.R.305,[2010]F.C.J.849,2010CarswellNat2092,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2010/2010fca178/2010fca178.html(F.C.A;
2010-07-07)]]

47.ReprographicReproduction2011-2013,ReReprographicReproduction2011-
2013,Re;2012FCA22(F.C.A.-Motiontostrikeaffidavit;2012-01-23)

48.RetransmisionofDistantRadioandTelevisionSignals2009-2013)Interim
Decisionforthe)asofJanuary1
st,2013http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/retrans-21122012.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-12-21)

49.RogersCommunicationsInc.v.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusic
PublishersofCanada,2012SCC35,2012CarswellNat2379,J.E.2012-1380,
102C.P.R.(4th)204,216A.C.W.S.(3d)219,347D.L.R.(4th)235,38Admin.
L.R.(5th)1,432N.R.1,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/csc/doc/2012/2012csc35/2012csc35.html[alsoShaw

7
CablesystemsG.P.v.SocietyofComposers,Authors&MusicPublishersof
Canada](S.C.C.;2012-07-12)[reversinginpart86C.P.R.(4th)239(F.C.A.;
2010-09-02),whichwasaffirming61C.P.R.(4th)353(Cop.Bd.;2007-10-18)]

50.SapientGridCorp.(Re),2012ABQB357,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb357/2012abqb357.html
(Alta.Q.B.;2012-05-28)

51.SOCAN(2008-2010),RE:SOUND(2008-2011),CSI(2008-2012),
AVLA/SOPROQ(2008-2011),ARTISTI(2009-2011)ReInterimdecision,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/radio-21122012.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-
12-21)

52.SOCANTariff22.A(2007-2010);CMRRA/SODRACInc.Tariff(2008-2010)
(OnlineServiceMusic),http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/socan-csi-
reasons.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-10-05)

53.SocietyforReproductionRightsofAuthors,ComposersandPublishersin
Canadav.CanadianBroadcastingCorp.2012CarswellNat4255,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/DecisionSODRAC5andArbitration02-
11-2012.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-11-02)

54.SocietyforReproductionRightsofAuthors,ComposersandPublishers
(Canada)v.CanadianBroadcastingCorporation(InteractiveKiosks;Explora;
BlanketLicence2012-2016),Files70.2-2011-03and70.22012-01;2012
CarswellNat1406,availableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/20120430.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-04-30)

55.SocietyofComposer,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav.IIC
EnterprisesLtd.(Cheetah’sNightclub),2012CarswellNat2812,2012FCA179,
2012CAF179,217A.C.W.S.(3d)168,433N.R.381,104C.P.R.(4th)387,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2012/2012fca179/2012fca179.html(F.C.A;
2012-06-14)[reversing2011CarswellNat5087(F.C.;2011-12-01);affirming
2011CarswellNat3810(F.C.-Proth.;2011-09-21)]

56.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav.BellCanada
2012SCC36,2012CarswellNat238,J.E.2012-1381,216A.C.W.S.(3d)216,
102C.P.R.(4th)241,347D.L.R.(4th)272,38Admin.L.R.(5th)186,432N.R.
103,http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc38/2012scc38.html
(S.C.C.;2012-07-12)[affirming83C.P.R.(4th)409(F.C.A.;2010-05-14);
affirming61CPR(4th)353(Cop.Bd.;2007-10-18)]

57.SODRACv.CBC/SRCandSODRACv.AstralReSODRACTariff5
(ReproductionofMusicalWorksinCinematographicWorksforPrivateUseor
forTheatricalExhibition),2009-2012;Applicationstofixroyaltiesforalicence

8
anditsrelatedtermsandconditions;alsoavailbaleathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/sodrac5-20-12-2012.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-12-20)

58.Uniondesartistes(UDA)v.Commissiondesrelationsdutravail2012QCCS
1733,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2012/2012qccs1733/2012qccs1733.html
(Que.Sup.Ct.;2012-04-23)CollierJ.[confirmingUniondesartistesc.festival
internationaldeJazzdeMontréalinc.*,2010QCCRT523.(Que.L.B.;2010-11-
08)];leavetoappealgranted[2012]J.Q.7173,2012QCCA1315,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2012/2012qcca1315/2012qcca1315.html
(Que.C.A.;2012-05-18)

59.VictorStanleyInc.,Re.2012CarswellNat885(CanadaPatentAppealBoard&
PatentsCommissioner;2012-03-28)

60.Waldmanv.ThomsonReutersCorporation,2012CarswellOnt2225,99C.P.R.
(4th)303(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-02-21);leavetoappealrefused2012
CarswellOnt7472,2012CarswellOnt7472,2012ONSC3436,219A.C.W.S.
(3d)12(Ont.Div.Ct.;2012-06-11)

61.Warmanv.Fournier2012FC803,2012CarswellNat3164,2012CF803,104
C.P.R.(4th)21,219A.C.W.S.(3d)661,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2012/2012fc803/2012fc803.html(F.C.;2012-
06-21)

9
Now,asectionbysectionanalysisofthose2012Canadiancases.

·Section1–Shorttitle
TheStatusoftheArtistActdoesnotreplaceormodifytheCopyrightActandnothing
wouldpreventscaleagreementstocontainstipulationsrelatingtocopyright.

CanadianArtists’Representation/LeFrontdesartistescanadiens(CARFAC)andLe
regroupementdesartistesenartsvisuelsduQuébec(RAAV)v.NationalGalleryof
Canada(NGC),File:1330-08-001,Decision53,http://www.capprt-
tcrpap.gc.ca/eic/site/capprt-tcrpap.nsf/eng/tn00626.html(C.A.P.P.R.T.;2012-02-16)
[87]TheTribunalstatedinCAPPRTDecision028thatParliament’s
intentioninpassingthe[StatusoftheArtist]Actwasnottoreplaceor
modifytheCopyrightAct.Thereisnoissuethatartistsalone
shouldhavetherighttodecidehowtheirworksshouldbeused
orexploited.Thereisnodoubtthattheregimeestablishedbythe
CopyrightActcontinuestobeapracticalavenueavailabletoartists
toprotecttheircopyrightsinternationallyandwithrespecttousers
notsubjecttotheAct.
[90]ParliamentpassedtheActin1992aspartofacommitmentto
recognizeandstimulatethecontributionoftheartstothecultural,
social,economicandpoliticalenrichmentofthecountry.TheAct
reflectstherecognitionthatconstructiveprofessionalrelationsinthe
artsandculturesectorareanimportantelementofavibrant
Canadiancultureandheritage.
[99]ManyscaleagreementsnegotiatedundertheActcontain
mattersrelatedtocopyright.Ithasbecomeastandardinthecultural
sectorthatthesemattersareincludedinscaleagreements.Itis
unusualforascaleagreementbetweenanartists’associationanda
producernottocontainstipulationsrelatingtotheuseofartistic
works.TheTribunalisoftheviewthatitwouldindeedbe
inconsistentwiththepurposeoftheActifascaleagreement
concludedundertheActthatgovernsprofessionalrelations
betweenartistsandproducerscouldnotcontainstipulations
relatingtocopyright.

·Section1–Shorttitle
JurisdictionovercopyrightissolelywithintheLegislativeauthorityofParliamentof
Canada.

10
Meadsv.Meads,2012ABQB571(2012-09-18;AltaQB)RookeJ.[Paragraph
numbersinthepublicjudgmentarechaotic][21]Theexamplesidentifiedabovewillverylikelybeencounteredin
relatedbutvariantforms.Forexample,Mr.Meadsexpressesthe
“fleshandbloodman”declarationmotifas“thelivingfleshandblood
sentient-man”andthatheis“thecreationfortheLordGodAlmighty
Jehovah”.Similarly,Mr.Meadsexpressescopyrightinhisnameina
differentmanner:“DENNISLARRYMEADS(Copyrightforthe
Province-Alberta)”.Inote,parenthetically,thatthisnotationis
nonsensicalgiventhatTheConstitutionAct,1867,30&31Vict.,c.
3,s.91explicitlyassignsjurisdictionforcopyrighttoCanada.
[Emphasisadded.]
·Section2-Definitionof”artisticwork”
Plansofsurveyareartisticworks.
KeatleySurveyingLtd.v.TeranetInc.,2012ONSC7120(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-12-14)
HorkingsJ.:[183]Thereisnodisputethatcopyrightexistsinplansofsurveyand
thatwhencreatedthesurveyorholdsthecopyright.

·Section2-Definitionof”artisticwork”
A”happening”istoovagueanotiontoqualifyimmediatelyasan”artisticwork”;
furthermore,ifitsorganizersdonotcontroltheperformanceoftheartsists,they
cannotqualifyasproducerwithinthemeaningoftheStatusoftheArtistsAct.

Uniondesartistes(UDA)v.Commissiondesrelationsdutravail2012QCCS1733
(Que.Sup.Ct.;2012-04-23)CollierJ.[confirmingUniondesartistesc.festival
internationaldeJazzdeMontréalinc.,2010QCCRT523.(Que.L.B.;2010-11-08);
leavetoappealgranted2012QCCA1315(Que.C.A.;2012-05-18)]
[62]Unelecturedestranscriptionsdestravauxparlementairesqui
ontmenéàl’adoptiondelaLSA[AnActrespectingtheProfessional
statusandconditionsofengagementofperforming,recordingand
filmartists,RSQ,cS-32.1]démontrequelesreprésentantsdel’UDA
n’exigeaientpasqueleterme«producteur»s’appliqueaux
personnesn’exerçantaucunoupeudecontrôlesurlesconditionsde
travaildesartistes.LesproposdemonsieurSergeDemerssont
éloquentsàcesujet:UDAvoulaitqueladéfinitionde«producteur»
soitétendueàceuxquiexerçaientunvéritablecontrôlesur
l’organisationetlaprésentationduspectacle,maisqui«se
déguisaient»ensimplelocateurdesalleafind’échapperà
l’applicationdelaLSA.Parsespropositionsd’amendement,UDA

11
reconnaissaitladistinctionentreleproducteuretlelocateurdesalle,
etelleacceptaitquelaLSAnes’appliquepasauxdiffuseursde
spectaclesquinecontrôlentpaslaprestationdel’artiste

[68]UDAprétendquelesfestivalsprésentésparleFestival
InternationaldeJazzdeMontréaletlesFrancofoliesdeMontréalsont
devenus,parleurampleuretrenommée,un«happening»,qui
constitueensoiune«œuvreartistique»ausensdeladéfinitionde
«producteur».SelonUDA,lesFestivalssontdonclesproducteurs
d’unegrandeœuvreartistiqueayantretenulesservicesd’artistesen
vuedelareprésenterenpublic.
[69]CetteprétentionaétérejetéeparlaCommission,qui
trouvaitquelanotiondu«happening»étaittropvague,
subjectiveetconfusepourserviràinterpréterlaLSA.LeTribunal
estd’accordaveclesconclusionsdelaCommissionquisontentous
pointsraisonnables.

[70]LeTribunalestaussid’avisquel’argumentdel’UDAestsans
pertinencevuladécisiondelaCommissionque,danslesfaits,les
Festivalsn’exerçaientpasdecontrôlesurlesprestationsdes
artistesàl’égardde22des26spectacles.Cetteabsencede
contrôleexiste,peuimportequel’œuvreartistiquesoitle
spectacleindividueloulefestivalvudanssonensemble.Dans
lesdeuxcas,lesfaitsn’appuientpaslaconclusionquelesFestivals
ontretenulesservicesd’artistesetqu’ilsontagiàtitrede
producteurs
·Section2-Definitionof”board”
ItisfortheCopyrightBoard,notthecourtssittinginrevision,tomakefindingsoffacts
andascertaintheapplicablelaw.
ReprographicReproduction2011-2013,Re2012FCA22,(F.C.A-Motiontostrike
affidavit;2012-01-23)[injudicialrevisionof2011CarswellNat3708(Cop.Bd.;2011-
09-23)]
[TheapplicantshavefiledtheaffidavitofGregoryL.Julianoinsupportoftheir
applicationforjudicialreviewofadecisionoftheCopyrightBoard.Therespondent,
AccessCopyright,movestostrikeitout.][17]IndeterminingtheadmissibilityoftheJulianoaffidavit,the
differingrolesplayedbythisCourt[theFederalCourtofAppeal]and
theCopyrightBoardmustbekeptfrontofmind.Parliamentgavethe
CopyrightBoard–notthisCourt–thejurisdictiontodetermine
certainmattersonthemerits,suchaswhethertomakeaninterim
tariff,whatitscontentshouldbe,andanypermissibleterms
associatedwithit.Aspartofthattask,itisfortheBoard–notthis

12
Court–tomakefindingsoffact,ascertaintheapplicablelaw,
considerwhetherthereareanyissuesofpolicythatshouldbe
broughttobearonthematter,applythelawandpolicytothe
factsithasfound,makeconclusionsand,whererelevant,
considertheissueofremedy.Inthiscase,theCopyrightBoard
hasalreadydischargeditsrole,decidingonthemeritstomakean
interimtariffandtorefusetoamendit.
·Section2-Definitionof”broadcaster”
Broadcasterdistributionundertaking(BDU)arenot”broadcaster”becausetheir
primaryactivityisrelationtocommunicationsignalsistheirretransmission.

ReferencereBroadcastingRegulatoryPolicy2010-167andBroadcastingOrder
CRTC2010-168,2012SCC68(S.C.C.;2011-09-29)RothsteinJ.[reversing91
C.P.R.(4th)389(F.C.A.;2011-02-28):[48]TheBDUsfirstsubmitthats.21(1)oftheCopyrightActconflicts
withthevalueforsignalregime.Section21(1)grantsbroadcastersa
limitedcopyrightintheover-the-airsignalstheybroadcast.This
copyrightgivesthebroadcasterthesolerighttoauthorizeortodo
fouractsinrelationtoacommunicationsignaloranysubstantialpart
ofit:(a)tofixit;
(b)toreproduceanyfixationofitthatwasmadewithoutthe
broadcaster’sconsent;(c)toauthorizeanotherbroadcastertoretransmitittothepublic
simultaneouslywithitsbroadcast;and
(d)inthecaseofatelevisioncommunicationsignal,toperformit
inaplaceopentothepubliconpaymentofanentrancefee,
andtoauthorizeanyactdescribedinparagraph(a),(b)or(d).

[49]Theaspectrelevantforthisappealisinpara.(c).Underthis
paragraph,abroadcasterhasthesolerighttoauthorizeanother
broadcastertoretransmitsimultaneouslyacommunication
signal.Section2oftheCopyrightActdefines“broadcaster”as
abodythat,inthecourseofoperatingabroadcasting
undertaking,broadcastsacommunicationsignalinaccordance
withthelawofthecountryinwhichthebroadcasting
undertakingiscarriedon,butexcludesabodywhoseprimary
activityinrelationtocommunicationsignalsistheir
retransmission.

[50]Theunderlinedportionofthedefinitionrefersto
BDUs.BDUsarenota“broadcaster”withinthemeaningofthe
CopyrightActbecausetheirprimaryactivityinrelation

13
communicationsignalsistheirretransmission.Thus,the
broadcaster’ss.21(1)(c)righttoauthorize,ornotauthorize,another
broadcastertosimultaneouslyretransmititssignalsdoesnotapply
againstBDUs.Inotherwords,unders.21oftheCopyrightAct,a
broadcaster’sexclusiverightdoesnotincludearighttoauthorizeor
prohibitaBDUfromretransmittingitscommunicationsignals.
·Section2-Definitionof”collectivework”
Acollectiveworkisaworkinwhichworksorpartsofworksofdifferentauthors,are
incorporated.
Lachancev.ProductionsMarieEykelinc.,2012QCCS1012(Que.Sup.Ct.-Merits;
2012-03-15)GrenierJ.
[42]LapreuvedémontrequePasse-Partout[AQuebecFrench
languagechildren’stelevisionprogramprodcuedbyTele-Québec
between1977and1987]estuneœuvrecollective:
·Lessynopsisdechaqueémissionontétérédigésparles
pédagoguesLouisePoliquinetCarmenBourassa;
·Lesthèmesdechacundesmodulesétaientchoisisparles
pédagogues;
·Lesscénariosontétérédigéspardesscénaristes
professionnels,MichèlePoirier,BernardTanguayet
RonaldPrégent;
·Laréalisationaétéconfiéeàquatreréalisateurs:Claude
Boucher,Jean-PierreLichoni,FrançoisCôtéetPierre
Tremblay;
·PierreF.Braultacomposélamusique;
·NicoleLapointeetPierreRégimbaldsontlescréateurs
desmarionnettes;
·ManonBrodeuracréélescostumes;
·LesdécorsontétécréésparClaudeLambert.

[43]Ledemandeurdonc,àl’instardespédagoguesetdes
membresdel’équipedeproductionavecquiilcollaborait,estl’un
desauteursdePasse-Partoutetsonapportn’estpasnégligeable.

·Section2-Definitionof”collectivesociety”
Thescaleagreementsnegotiatedbyanartists’associationmaycontain
provisionsrelatingtocopyrightinasmuchastheydonotbindacopyright
collectiveorencroachontherightsconferredbyanartisttoacopyrightcollective.

14
CanadianArtists’Representation/LeFrontdesartistescanadiens(CARFAC)v.
NationalGalleryofCanada(NGC),decisionNo.53,file1330-08-001,[2012]
C.A.P.P.R.T.D.No.1;C.A.P.P.R.T.;2012-02-16)
[101]Artists’associationsandcopyrightcollectivesaretwo
distinctentities.Artistsassociationsandcopyrightcollectives
regularlyenterintoagreementsonhowthoseagreementswillwork
withinparticularsectors.Wherecopyrightcollectivesexist,
memorandaofunderstandinghavebeenenteredintobetween
copyrightcollectivesandartistsassociationtoclarifytheircommon
understandingoftheirrespectivefunctions.[Fn2Suchasthe
MemorandaofUnderstandingagreedtobetweentheWriters’Union
ofCanadaandCANCOPY;theMemoofUnderstandingbetweenthe
WritersGuildofCanadaandCANCOPY;theAgreementbetweenthe
AmericanFederationofMusiciansoftheUnitedStatesandCanada
(AFM)nowtheCanadianFederationofMusicians/Fédération
CanadiennedesmusiciensetdesmusiciennesandtheSocietyof
Composers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanada(SOCAN)
copiesofwhichareavailablefromtheTribunal.]

[103]TheTribunalreaffirmstheprinciplesexpressedinCAPPRT
Decision028andCAPPRTDecision047[file1350–03–009;2003-
12-09]thatthe[StatusoftheArtist]Actwasintendedto
complementandsupplementtheregimeprovidedinthe
CopyrightAct.Itisintendedtodosobyprovidingartistswith
anadditionalmechanismtoobtaincompensationfortheirwork,
therebyenhancingandpromotingartists’freedomofchoiceasto
howtheywillexploitthefruitsoftheircreativetalents.TheTribunal
findsthattherighttouseanexistingworkisaservicethattheartist
whoholdsthecopyrighttothatworkmayprovidetoaproducer.The
Tribunalfurtherfindsthatrepresentingartists’interestinthis
fundamentalsocio-economicrightisanappropriateactivityfora
certifiedartists’associationtobargain.
[104]TheTribunalfindsthatanartistassociationmaynegotiate
andconcludeascaleagreementwhichcontainsminimumfees
fortheuseofartisticworks,aslongastheartistassociation
doesnotbindacopyrightcollectiveorencroachontherights
conferredbyanartisttoacopyrightcollective,suchas
SODRAC,andexercisedpursuanttotheCopyrightAct.

[105]ItisnotuptotheTribunaltodeterminethespecificproposalsor
contentofwhatthepartiesmaybargain.
[106]TheTribunalfindsthatartistsshouldhavethechoiceastohow
theywilldealwiththerightstotheirworks,beitthroughagents,

15
copyrightcollectives,scaleagreementsoracombinationofthese
mechanisms.
·Section2-Definitionof”collectivesociety”
Parliament’spurposeincreatingthecollectivesocietieswastoefficientlymanage
andadministerdifferentcopyrightsundertheCopyrightAct.

EntertainmentSoftwareAssn.v.SocietyofComposers,Authors&MusicPublishers
ofCanada,2012SCC34,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc34/2012scc34.html(S.C.C;.2012-
07-12)AbellaandMoldaverJJ.[reversing86C.P.R.(4
th)258(F.C.A.;2010-09-02),
whichwasaffirming61C.P.R.(4th)353(Cop.Bd.;2007-10-18)]
[11]JusticeRothsteinargues(atpara.126)thattheBoardcanavoid
such“double-dipping”bycopyrightownersbyadjustingthetwofees
inawaythat“dividesthepie”betweenthecollectivesocieties
administeringreproductionrights,ontheonehand,and
communicationrights,ontheother.However,thisseemstousto
undermineParliament’spurposeincreatingthecollective
societiesinthefirstplace,namelytoefficientlymanageand
administerdifferentcopyrightsundertheAct.Thisinefficiency
harmsbothendusersandcopyrightowners:
Whenasingleeconomicactivityimplicatesmorethanonetype
ofrightandeachtypeisadministeredbyaseparatecollective,
themultiplicityoflicencesrequiredcanleadtoinefficiency….
Theresultisthatthetotalpricetheuserhastopayforall
complementsistoohigh.[…]
[T]hefragmentationoflicencesrequiredforsingleactivities
amongseveralmonopolist-collectivesgeneratesinefficiencies,
fromwhichcopyrightownersasawholealsosuffer.[…](Ariel
Katz,“Commentary:IsCollectiveAdministrationofCopyrights
JustifiedbytheEconomicLiterature?”,inMarcelBoyer,Michael
TrebilcockandDavidVaver,eds.,CompetitionPolicyand
IntellectualProperty(2009),449,atpp.461-63)
·Section2-Definitionof”compilation”
Copyrightinacompilationareindependentanddistinctfromthecopyrightthatmay
subsistinitsindividualparts.
HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2012FCA226,
http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fca/doc/2012/2012fca226/2012fca226.html(F.C.A;2012-08-31)
GauthierJ.[confirming92C.P.R.(4th)6(F.C.;2011-03-18)]

16
[66]Finally,itisworthnotingthattheonlycasecitedbyHarmony:
StarDataSystemsInc.v.QuasimodoConsultingServicesLtd.
(1996),18O.T.C.42,67A.C.W.S.(3d)55(Ont.Gen.Div.),didnot
involveacompilationsuchasPetro.Generally,copyrightina
compilationareindependentanddistinctfromthecopyright
thatmaysubsistinitsindividualparts(CCHCanadianLtd.v.Law
SocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13(CanLII),2004SCC13,
[2004]1S.C.R.339;Robertsonv.ThomsonCorp.,2006SCC43
(CanLII),2006SCC43,[2006]2S.C.R.363).
·Section2-Definitionof”copyright”
Editor’scomment:acuriouslinguisticremark,inaFamilycase,ontheincorporation
oftheword”copyright”intheFrenchlanguage.
Droitdelafamille-121702012QCCS326,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2012/2012qccs326/2012qccs326.html(Que.Sup.Ct;
2012-02-03)DugréJ.[betweennote12and15]
[…]Letermeanglais«copyright»estundesnombreuxexemples
d’unmotanglaisdontl’empruntaétéconsidérécommenécessaire-
etfinalementaccepté-pourcompléterlevocabulairefrançais
spécialisédudroitd’auteur.[…]
·Section2-Definitionof”copyright”
Thecopyrightlawisnowviewedasamatterofpublicpolicytobalancetheinterests
ofthepublicandthoseoftheauthors.
Waldmanv.ThomsonReutersCorporation,99C.P.R.(4th)303(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-
02-21)PerellJ.[leavetoappealrefused2012CarswellOnt7472(Ont.Div.Ct.;2012-
06-11)][56]Copyrightlawisamatterofpublicpolicy.TheCopyrightAct
isabalancebetween,ontheonehand,promotingthepublicinterest
intheencouragementanddisseminationofworksoftheartsand
intellectand,ontheotherhand,ensuringthatthecreatorofawork
obtainsajustrewardandpreventingothersfromappropriatingthe
creator’sjustreward:Thébergev.Galeried’ArtduPetitChamplain
inc.,supra,[Thébergev.Galeried’ArtduPetitChamplaininc.,2002
SCC34]atpara.30.
[57]TheCopyrightActbalancesuser’srightswithcreator’s
rightsandneitherrightshouldbeinterpretedrestrictively:CCH
CanadianLimitedv.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,supra,[CCH

17
CanadianLimitedv.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13]at
paras.10,48.
·Section2-Definitionof”dramaticwork”
BroadcastingAct,S.C.1991(Canada),Re(2012),106C.P.R.(4th)241(S.C.C.;
2012-12-13)RothsteinJ.[reversing(2011),91C.P.R.(4th)389(F.C.A.;2011-02-28)]
[51]Inadditiontotheirs.21rightsincommunicationsignals,
broadcastersmayholdotherretransmissionrightsunderthe
CopyrightAct.Asmentioned,aprerecordedtelevisionprogramis
oftencopyrightsubjectmatterthatcanbeprotectedasanoriginal
“dramaticwork”ora”compilation”thereof(s.2oftheCopyrightAct).
Thebroadcaster,asacorporation,mayholdcopyrightinthepre-
recordedprogramorcompilationofprogramscarriedinitssignals,
eitherastheemployeroftheauthorofsuchaworkorasanassignee
ofcopyrightfromtheoriginalauthor.
·Section2-Definitionof”everyoriginalwork”
Copyrightlawprotectstheforminwhichtheideasarecommunicated,nottheideas
themselves.
Waldmanv.ThomsonReutersCorporation,2012ONSC1138(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-
02-21)PerellJ.[55]Thereisnoownershipinideas,butcopyrightprovidesa
propertyinteresttothepersonwhoputstheideaintowritten
form:Donoghuev,AlliedNewspapersLtd.[1938]Ch.106.The
purposeofcopyrightlawisnottoprotecttheideasoropinions
expressedbythecreator,butratheritprotectsthevarious
meansandformsbywhichthoseideasarecommunicated:
Thébergev.Galeried’ArtduPetitChamplaininc.,supra,[Théberge
v.Galeried’ArtduPetitChamplaininc.,2002SCC34]atpara.115;
CCHCanadianLimitedv.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC
13atpara.8
·Section2-Definitionof”everyoriginalwork”
Theauthoristhepersonwhoexpressestheideainanoriginalform.

Waldmanv.ThomsonReutersCorporation,2012ONSC1138(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-
02-21)PerellJ.[65][…]Authorshipofacopyrightableworkconnotesa
creativeprocessandingenuity;anauthorismorethanascribe,
editor,oramanuensisandexpressesideasinanoriginalornovel
form[…]

18
·Section2-Definitionof"everyoriginalwork”
Itistheoriginalexpressionofanoriginalthoughtthatwillbeprotected,notthe
thoughtitself.
Lachancev.ProductionsMarieEykelinc.,2012QCCS1012(Que.Sup.Ct.-Merits;
2012-03-15)GrenierJ.[23]Lefaitqu’unepersonnesoitimpliquéedansl’expression
d’uneidée,maisnel’aitpasexpriméeelle-même,nelaqualifie
pascommeauteur[Fn5Wallc.HornAbbottLtdetal,2007BCSC
33(CanLII),2007CANLII197paragr.501.]

[25]LaLoinedéfinitpascequiconstitueuneœuvreoriginale.
Toutefois,commeledroitd’auteurneprotègequel’expressiondes
idéesetnonl’idée,lecritèredel’originalitédoits’appliquerà
l’élémentexpressifdel’œuvreetnonàl’idée.
[…]
[40]Àl’évidence,lasériePasse-Partout[AQuebecFrench
languagechildren’stelevisionprogramprodcuedbyTele-Québec
between1977and1987]constitueuneœuvreoriginaleausensdela
jurisprudenceet,commetelle,ellejouitdelaprotectiondelaLoi:
ellen’estpasunecopieetelleestlefruitdutalentetdu
jugementdeplusieurspersonnes,dontledemandeur.
·Section2-Definitionof“infringingt”
Infringementcouldbefoundinthecopyingoftheoverallarrangementsofthe
impugnedwork.
PhilipMorrisProductsS.A.v.MalboroCanadaLimited,2012FCA201(F.C.A.;2012-
06-29)GauthierJ.[reversingonothergrounds90C.P.R.(4th)1(F.C.;2010-11-08)]
[120][t]hatthetrialjudgenotonlylookedattheparticularelements
identifiedthroughouthisreasonsbutalsoattheoverallarrangement
anddisplaybeforeconcludingthathewas“unabletofindsubstantial
similaritywhenviewingtheworksasawhole”.
·Section2-Definitionof”literarywork”
Whetherlegaldocumentsdeservescopyrightprotectionisapolicyquestionyettobe
decided.

19
Waldmanv.ThomsonReutersCorporation,2012ONSC1138(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-
02-21)PerellJ.[94]Thus,thereareseriouspolicyquestionsabouthowmuch,ifany,
protectionoflegaldocuments,includingcourtdocuments,should
have.
·Section2-Definitionof”literarywork”
Linguistictestscanbeprotectedas:literarywork.

R.v.Rundle(NecPlusUltra),2012ONSC5185(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-09-14)SmithJ.
[17]IamsatisfiedthattheAGhassatisfiedthefirstpartofthetestfor
thefollowingreasons:[…](e)IamsatisfiedthattheauthorsoftheSLEFrenchLanguage
testsexercisedconsiderableskillandjudgmentwhenproducing
theteststoassessthecandidates’secondlanguageabilities;
(f)inUniversityofLondonPressv.UniversityTutorialPress,
[1916]2Ch.601at608(describedbytheOntarioCourtof
Appealinasa“leadingauthorityinDelrinaCorp.(c.o.b.
CarolianSystems)v.TrioletSystemsInc.,2002CanLII11389
(ONCA),(2002)58O.R.(3d)339(C.A.)atpara.39)theCourt
heldthatmathematicsexaminationpapersdevelopedforthe
UniversityofLondonwere“literaryworks”withinthemeaningof
theCopyrightAct;
(g)asimilarconclusionwasreachedinEducationalTesting
Servicesv.Katzman,793F.2d533;1986U.S.App.atp.8,by
theUnitedStatesCourtofAppealfortheThirdCircuit,which
heldthatquestionsdevelopedfortheScholasticAptitudeTest
(“SAT”)were“originalworksofauthorship”andentitledto
copyrightprotection.
·Section2-Definitionof”literarywork”
Discoverytranscriptcouldbeprotectedasliterarywork.

Hidasiv.Davie&Associates,2012BCHRT384,(B.C.HumanRightsTribunal;
2012-11-02)Trerise,memberBDoesCopyrightPreventtheDisclosureofaDiscoveryTranscript?

[28]JasonPoonandDavie&Associateshaveadvisedthatthe
discoverytranscriptisacopyrighteddocumentandthattheyarenot
permittedtomakeanunauthorizedcopy.Theyhavenotprovided
anysupportforthefactthatthetranscriptiscopyrighted.However,I
havenoreasontodisbelievethat.

[29]Whetherthetranscriptiscopyrightedornot,Iamfamiliar
withthepracticeofprotectingtherightsofcourtreportersto
revenuesfromproducingdiscoverytranscriptsbyensuringthat
anycopiesoftranscriptsareproducedbythecourtreporter
whorecordedthetranscriptandpreparedit.
·Section2-Definitionof”photograph”
Photographsareartisticworks.
Aramav.Azoulay,2012QCCQ10913,(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2012-11-14)Veilleux
J.[13]IlnefaitpasdedoutepourleTribunalquelademanderesse
estl’auteuredelaphoto,quecelle-ciconstitueuneœuvre
originaleprotégéeparsondroitd’auteuretqueledéfendeur,en
utilisantcommeill’afaitlaphotodelademanderessesansson
consentement,aviolésondroitd’auteur.Bienquelelivredu
défendeuraitétéconfectionnéetdistribuédansunsoucidefaire
connaîtrelepatrimoinejuifàlajeunesse,iln’enrestepasmoinsque
l’œuvreoriginaledelademanderesseaétéutiliséesansson
autorisationetdefaçonpréjudiciableàtoutlemoinssurleplan
pécuniaire.Eneffet,lademanderesseestphotographe
professionnelle.
·Section2–Definitionof”soundrecording”
A“soundtrack”isa“soundrecording”exceptwhereitaccompaniesamotionpicture,
inwhichcase,itwillnottriggertherighttoremunerationprovidedforbysection19.

Re:Soundv.MotionPictureTheatreAssociationofCanada,2012SCC38(S.C.C.;
2012-07-12)LebelJ.[affirming2011CarswellNat429(F.C.A.;2011-02-25)which
wasaffirming78C.P.R.(4th)64(Cop.Bd.;2009-00-16)]
[26][…]Consequently,apre-existingsoundrecordingthatispartofa
soundtrackcannotbethesubjectofatariffwhenthesoundtrack
accompaniesthecinematographicwork.

[35]Accordingtos.2,a“soundrecording”isarecordingconsistingof
sounds,“butexcludesanysoundtrackofacinematographicwork
whereitaccompaniesthecinematographicwork”.Therefore,a
“soundtrack”isa“soundrecording”exceptwhereit
accompaniesthemotionpicture.Otherwise,theexclusionwould
besuperfluous.

21
[36]Whenitaccompaniesthemotionpicture,therefore,therecording
ofsoundsthatconstitutesasoundtrackdoesnotfallwithinthe
definitionof“soundrecording”anddoesnottriggertheapplicationof
s.19.Apre-existingsoundrecordingismadeupofrecordedsounds.
TheActdoesnotspecifythatapre-existingrecordingof“sounds”that
accompaniesamotionpicturecannotbea“soundtrack”withinthe
meaningofs.2.Inmyview,apre-existingsoundrecordingcannotbe
excludedfromthemeaningof“soundtrack”unlessParliament
expressedanintentiontodosointheAct.Itcouldhavedonethisby,
forexample,excludingonly“theaggregateofsoundsina
soundtrack”.

[36]Whenitaccompaniesthemotionpicture,therefore,the
recordingofsoundsthatconstitutesasoundtrackdoesnotfall
withinthedefinitionof“soundrecording”anddoesnottrigger
theapplicationofs.19.Apre-existingsoundrecordingismadeup
ofrecordedsounds.TheActdoesnotspecifythatapre-existing
recordingof“sounds”thataccompaniesamotionpicturecannotbea
“soundtrack”withinthemeaningofs.2.Inmyview,apre-existing
soundrecordingcannotbeexcludedfromthemeaningof
“soundtrack”unlessParliamentexpressedanintentiontodosointhe
Act.Itcouldhavedonethisby,forexample,excludingonly“the
aggregateofsoundsinasoundtrack”.

[50]Contrarytotheappellant’sassertion,a“ripped”(reproduced)
recordingofapre-existingsoundrecordingthataccompaniesa
motionpicturewouldbesubjecttocopyright.AstheCourtofAppeal
pointedout,onceapre-existingsoundrecordingisextractedfroma
soundtrackaccompanyingacinematographicwork,itonceagain
attractstheprotectionofferedforsoundrecordings.Thereistherefore
noviolationoftheRomeConvention.
·Section2-Definitionof”work”
Apersonalnamedoesnotattractcopyrightprotection.
[Editor’scomment,unfortunately,asdrafted,paragraph31ofthisjudgment,doesnot
clearlydenythegeneralcopyrightabilityofapersonalnameanditremainstobe
seenifOPCA[OrganizedPseudolegalCommercialArgument]litigantwilluseitin
supportoftheirgeneralcontentionprohibitingtheuseoftheirnameasabrachof
copyright].
Hajduv.FRO,2012ONSC1835(Ont.S.C..;2012-03-12)CoatsJ.
[24TheAppellanthasenteredintoaSecurityAgreementwith
himself,purportingtodividehimselfintotwopeople.TheAppellant
allegesthatPeterJanosHajdu©,isthedebtorwhoisthesubjectof
thesupportaction,apersonwhohasbeencopyrighted.The

22
securedpartyisa“naturalmanascreatedbyGod”,whohasbeen
granteda$1billionsecurityinterestoverthepossessionsofPeter
JanosHajdu,thedebtor,underaSecurityAgreementdatedAugust
17,2001.Thedebtorpurportstohavetransferredallofhis
possessionstothecreditor.Inaddition,thedebtorandcreditor
enteredintoaHoldHarmlessandIndemnityAgreementdated
August17,2001thatprotectsthecreditorfromanyofthedebtor’s
liabilities.
[25]TheAppellantclaimsthatthecopyrightingofhimselfcarriesfees
foreachuseoftheAppellant’scopyrightedtrade-names.The
securedpartycreditorPeterJanosHajdu©hasbeengranteda
securityinterestinthosefees.[…]
[31]TheAppellant’sassertionthattheDirectororthecourtwasin
breachofcopyrightlawthroughoutthedefaulthearingiswithout
merit.TheDirectorwasenforcingavalidsupportorderwhenit
issuedaNoticeofDefaultagainsttheAppellant.TheDirector’sclaim
wasagainsttheAppellantsupportpayorandnotagainstthe“literary”
workcopyrightedbytheAppellant.
·Section2-Definitionof”work”
Thereisnosuchthingascommonlawcopyrightand(bis)apersonalnamedoesnot
attractcopyrightprotectionandifso,copyrightwouldprobablyvestedintheparents
whogavethename,nottheindividualwhobearit!]
[Editor’’scomment:theparagraphnumbersinthepublicjudgmentarechaotic;
howeverthisjudgmentisapieceofanthologyonthetaxonomyofvexatioislitigants.]

Meadsv.Meads,2012ABQB571(2012-09-18;Alta.bQ.B.)RookeJ.
[57]Anothername-relatedindicationofanOPCA[Organized
PseudolegalCommercialArgument]litigantisthatthelitigantmarks
theirnamewithacopyrightand/ortrade-markindication,usuallythe
©,(T)andTMsymbols.Thesemarkingslikelyindicateafoisted
unilateralagreementstrategy.
[9]Similarly,anOPCAlitigantmaymakeanunusualmentionof
copyrightortrade-mark,typicallybecausetheOPCAlitigantclaims
copyrightortrade-markintheirownname:Hajduv.Ontario(Director,
FamilyReponsibilityOffice),2012ONSC1835(CanLII),2012ONSC
1835atpara.23;Dempseyv.EnvisionCreditUnion,2006BCSC
1324(CanLII),2006BCSC1324atpara.37,60B.C.L.R.(4th)309.
[38]Mr.Meads’copyrightandtrade-markclaimsaresuspectina
numberofways.First,heclaimsownershipofhis“…commonlaw

23
rightof,inandtomyCopyright(s),Trademark(s)andTrade-Name(s)
…”[emphasisadded].Thespecialpropertyinterestsprovidedby
copyrightandtrade-markflowfromlegislation(theCopyrightAct,
R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,andtheTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.
T-13).Therehasneverbeenacommonlawrighttoeither.
[39]Thereisnotauthoritypresent,nor,Ibelieve,capableof
establishingthatapersonalnamecanformacreativeworkthat
wouldbesubjecttocopyright.Inanycase,evenifthatwereso,
thencopyrightinanamewouldpresumablyvestwithitsauthors,
Mr.Meads’parents.[…]
[41]Theentire‘mynameiscopyright/trade-markprotected’
schemehasanoverwhelminglyjuvenilecharacter.People
necessarilyusenamesineverydayinteraction,commerce,and
mostcertainlyincourt.Doesitmakeanysensethatanyperson
whoweretocorrespondwithMr.Meadswouldbeliabletohim
for$100milliondollarssimplybecausetheyputhisnameinthe
address?Couldpeopleoperateinthisregime?Mustweall
addressoneanotherbyarbitrarynicknamesorsomekindof
functionaldescription?Theanswertothesequestionsisan
overwhelming“no.”
·Section2-Definitionof”workofjointauthorship”
Aworkofjointauthorshipisaworkproducedbythecollaborationoftwoormore
authorsinwhichthecontributionofoneauthorisnotdistinctfromthecontributionof
theother)s).
[Editor’scomment:athirdrequirement,namely,theexistenceofacommonintention
astojointauthorshipismentionedbutthisapproachhasbeenseriouslydoubted
(andrejected)in
Neugebauerv.Labieniec,75C.P.R.(4th)364(F.C.;2009-06-25);;affd.
(revdoncosts)
87C.P.R.(4th)1(F.C.A.-Merits;2010-09-15).]

Waldmanv.ThomsonReutersCorporation,2012ONSC1138(Ont.Sup..Ct;2012-
02-21)PerellJ.[71]Havingregardto[defendant]Thomson’sarguments,forthecase
atbar,itisimportanttonotethataliteraryworkmayhavemorethan
oneauthor.Ifauthorscollaborateonewiththeotherandthe
contributionofeachisnotdistinctfromthecontributionoftheothers,
theworkwillhavemorethanoneauthor.
[72]Theconstituentelementsofjointownershipare:(1)each
authormakesasubstantialalthoughnotnecessarilyequal
contributiontothework;and(2)thereisajointlabourin
carryingoutacommonpurposeordesign:Levyv.Rutley(1871),

24
6L.R.976(C.P.);Neugebauerv.Labieniec,supra.Somecourts
imposetheadditionalrequirementthattheauthorsintendthe
worktobeattributedtothemasajointwork:Neudorfv.Nettwerk
ProductionsLtd.,(1999),3C.P.R.(4th)129(B.C.S.C.);Dolmagev.
Erskine,(2003),23C.P.R.(4th)495(S.C.J.).
·Section2.4-Communicationtothepublicbytelecommunication
FromtheheadnoteoftheSupremeCourtofCanadaReports:”Theterms
“broadcasting”and“broadcastingundertaking”,interpretedinthecontextofthe
languageandpurposesoftheBroadcastingAct,arenotmeanttocaptureentities
whichmerelyprovidethemodeoftransmission.TheBroadcastingActmakesitclear
that“broadcastingundertakings”areassumedtohavesomemeasureofcontrolover
programming.Thepolicyobjectiveslistedunders.3(1)oftheActfocuson
content.WhenprovidingaccesstotheInternet,whichistheonlyfunctionofISPs
placedinissuebythereferencequestion,theytakenopartintheselection,
origination,orpackagingofcontent.Theterm“broadcastingundertaking”doesnot
contemplateanentitywithnoroletoplayincontributingtotheAct’spolicy
objectives.Accordingly,ISPsdonotcarryon“broadcastingundertakings”underthe
BroadcastingActwhentheyprovideaccessthroughtheInternetto“broadcasting”
requestedbyend-users.”
Referencere:BroadcastingAct(Can.)applicabilitytoInternetServiceProviders98
C.P.R.(4th)391(S.C.C.;2012-02-09)[affirming2010CarswellNat2092(F.C.A;.
2010-07-07)][5]AnISPdoesnotengagewiththesepolicyobjectiveswhenitis
merelyprovidingthemodeoftransmission.ISPsprovideInternet
accesstoend-users.WhenprovidingaccesstotheInternet,
whichistheonlyfunctionofISPsplacedinissuebythe
referencequestion,theytakenopartintheselection,
origination,orpackagingofcontent.WeagreewithNoëlJ.A.that
theterm“broadcastingundertaking”doesnotcontemplateanentity
withnoroletoplayincontributingtotheBroadcastingAct’spolicy
objectives.
[6]Thisinterpretationof“broadcastingundertaking”isconsistentwith
ElectricDespatchCo.ofTorontov.BellTelephoneCo.ofCanada,
(1891),20S.C.R.83.InElectricDespatch,theCourthadtointerpret
theterm“transmit”inanexclusivitycontractrelatingtomessenger
orders.LiketheISPsinthiscase,BellTelephonehadnoknowledge
orcontroloverthenatureofthecommunicationbeingpassedoverits
wires.ThisCourthadtodeterminewhethertheterm“transmit”
implicatedanentitywhomerelyprovidedthemodeof
transmission.TheCourtconcludedthatonlytheactualsenderofthe
messagecouldbesaidto“transmit”it,atp.91:

Itisthepersonwhobreathesintotheinstrumentthemessage
whichistransmittedalongthewireswhoalonecanbesaidto
bethepersonwho”transmits”themessage.Theownersofthe
telephonewires,whoareutterlyignorantofthenatureofthe
messageintendedtobesent,cannotbesaid…totransmita
messageofthepurportofwhichtheyareignorant.[Emphasis
added]

[7]ThisCourtreliedonElectricDespatchinSocietyofComposers,
AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav.CanadianAssn.of
InternetProviders,,2004SCC45,[2004]2S.C.R.427,aproceeding
undertheCopyrightAct,toconcludethatsinceISPsmerelyactasa
conduitforinformationprovidedbyothers,theycouldnotthemselves
beheldtocommunicatetheinformation.
[11]WethereforeagreewithNoëlJ.A.’sanswertothereference
question,namely,thatISPsdonotcarryon“broadcasting
undertakings”undertheBroadcastingActwhen,intheirroleas
ISPs,theyprovideaccessthroughtheInternetto
“broadcasting”requestedbyend-users.Wewouldtherefore
dismisstheappealwithcosts.
·Section2.4-Communicationtothepublicbytelecommunication
Inascertainingtheextentofthedamagesflowingfromaninfringement,theCourtwill
nottakeintoconsiderationeachtechnicalinfringementsandeachtransmissionby
theBroadcasterDistributionUnderakingswillnotconstituteaseparate
communicationtothepublicthatmustbecompensated.
Leutholdv.CanadianBroadcastingCorporation,2012FC748(F.C.;2012-06-14)
ScottJ.[128]TheCopyrightActismeanttoproperlycompensatetheowner
ofacopyrightifhisrightsareinfringed.Inthepresentcasetherights
ofMissLeutholdwereinfringed.Onsixseparateoccasionsher
PhotographswereviewedbyCanadiansforadurationof18seconds
withoutherauthorization.TheCourtwillcompensateMissLeuthold
foreveryoneofthesixcommunicationstotheCanadianpublic,butit
cannotaccepttheprinciplethatcompensationmustbeawardedon
thebasisofeachtechnicalactofinfringementbecauseapplyingsuch
amethodrunscountertoourreadingoftheBroadcastingActwiththe
CopyrightAct.TothisCourtsubparagraph2.4(1)(c)(ii)ofthe
CopyrightActmustbereadinconjunctionwiththedefinitionof
broadcastintheBroadcastingAct.Theimportantfactortoconsider
isthenumberofoccasionstheinfringingbroadcastscouldbeseenby
thepublic.Inthisinstancethereweresixseparateoccasionslasting

26
18secondseachwheretheCanadianpublicwhosubscribetocable
couldseethePhotographsonNewsworld.Thetechnicalmeans
usedtorelaytheinfringingworkhasnobearingontheamount
ofcompensationowedtoMissLeutholdsavefortherevenues
derivedfromtheinfringingbroadcast.Whatisimportantinthis
Court’sopinionistoadequatelycompensateacopyrightownerforthe
damagesuffered.Thenumberofpotentialviewersbearssome
significanceintermsofthevaluetobeassignedtoalicense.
·Section3-Copyrightinworks(norighttodistribute)
Section3doesnotprovideforarighttodistribute.

NauticalDataInternational,Inc.v.C-MapUSAInc.,(2012),106C.P.R.(4
th)341
(F.C.;2012-04-03)ZinnJ.[revd.2013FCA63,(F.C.A.;2013-03-03)
[Onsummarymotionbydefendantsfordismissalforlackofstanding]
[22]NDIclaimsthatthreepermissionsweregiventoitunderthe
Agreement:therighttoproduce,tointegrateandtodistribute.Only
twoofthesethreerights,therighttoproduceandtherightto
integrate,areprotectedundertheCopyrightAct.Therightto
distributeisnotprotectedbecausesubsection3(1)oftheCopyright
Actdoesnotmentiondistributionasaprotectedright.Anumberof
decisionshaveheldthatanexclusiverighttodistributeisnotan
interestinthecopyright:MobilevisionTechnologyIncvRushing
WaterProductsLtd,[1984]FCJNo1199atpara3[Mobilevision
Technology];Tele-MetropoleIncvBishop,[1987]18CPR(3d)257
(CA)at263[Tele-Metropole],aff’d(withoutreferencetothisissue)
1990CanLII75(S.C.C.),[1990]2SCR467;955105OntarioIncv
Video99,(1993),48CPR(3d)204at208[955105];JeffreyRogers
KnitwearProductionsLtdvRD.InternationalStyleCollectionsLtd,
(1986),19CPR(3d)217at221-222[JeffreyRogersKnitwear
Productions];andCloseUpInternationalLtdv1444943OntarioLtd,
[2006]OJNo3857atpara24[CloseUp].Iagreewiththe
submissionofthedefendantsthat“acollateralinteresttodistribution
…isnotactionableundertheCopyrightAct:”Mobilevision
Technologyatpara3.ThisprincipleissupportedbyTele-Metropole
at263;955105at208;JeffreyRogersKnitwearProductionsat221-
222;andCloseUpatpara24.
·Section3-Copyrightinworks(substantialpart)
Decidingwhetherasubstantialpartofaworkhasbeenreproducedisaquestionof
factandinvolvesaqualitativeratherthanquantitativeanalysis.

27
Warmanv.Fournier2012FC803(F.C.;2012-06-21)RinnieJ.
[23][…].Whetherasubstantialpartofaworkhasbeen
reproducedisaquestionoffactandinvolvesaqualitativerather
thanquantitativeanalysis.Therelevantfactorstobeconsidered
include:a.thequalityandquantityofthematerialtaken;
b.theextenttowhichtherespondent’suseadverselyaffects
theapplicant’sactivitiesanddiminishesthevalueofthe
applicant’scopyright;
c.whetherthematerialtakenisthepropersubject-matterofa
copyright;
Page:10
d.whethertherespondentintentionallyappropriatedthe
applicant’sworktosavetime
andeffort;and
e.whetherthematerialtakenisusedinthesameorasimilar
fashionastheapplicant’s:U&RTaxServicesLtdvH&R
BlockCanadaInc,[1995]FCJNo961,atpara35.
·Section3-Copyrightinworks(authorization)
Authorizingthecommunicationofaworkisarightdistinctfromthecommunication
itself.However,makingaworkavailableonaninternetwebsiteaccessibletothe
publicconstitutesauthorizationofcommunicationbytelecommunication.

Warmanv.Fournier2012FC803(F.C.;2012-06-21)RinnieJ.
[36]TheapplicationinrespectoftheBarreraWorkmustfailbecause
anycommunicationoftheBarreraWorkbytelecommunicationwas
authorizedbytheapplicant.Communicationofaworkby
telecommunicationwillonlyconstituteinfringementifitwas
unauthorized.InPublicPerformance,[PublicPerformanceofMusical
Work(Re)[1999]C.B.D.5]theCopyrightBoardheldatpage19that
makingaworkavailableonaninternetwebsiteaccessibletothe
publicconstitutesauthorizationofcommunicationby
telecommunication:Authorization”constitutesaseparateprotecteduseunderthe
Act.Toauthorizeistosanction,approveorcountenance.The
personwhomakesamusicalworkavailableonanInternet-
accessiblesiteauthorizesitscommunication.Theworkis
postedforthesolepurposeofbeingcommunicatedandwith
fullknowledgeandintentionthatsuchacommunicationwould
occur.Thepersonwhomakestheworkavailabledoesmore
thanmerelyprovidethemeanstocommunicatethework;
he/sheeithercontrolsorpurportstocontroltherightto
communicateit.

28
·Section3-Copyrightinworks
TechnologicalneutralitymeansthattheCopyrightActshallbeofequalapplication
betweendifferentmedia.
EntertainmentSoftwareAssn.v.SocietyofComposers,Authors&MusicPublishers
ofCanada,2012SCC34(S.C.C;.2012-07-12)AbellaandMoldaverJJ.[reversing86
C.P.R.(4
th)258(F.C.A.;2010-09-02),whichwasaffirming61C.P.R.(4th)353(Cop.
Bd.;2007-10-18)][4]Thefocusofthisappealisonthemeaningoftheword
“communicate”ins.3(1)(f),atermwhichisnotdefinedinthe
Act.TheSocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersof
Canada(SOCAN),whichadministerstherightto“communicate”
musicalworksonbehalfofcopyrightowners,appliedtotheBoardfor
atariffunderthisprovisiontocoverdownloadsofmusicalworksover
theInternet.TheEntertainmentSoftwareAssociationandthe
EntertainmentSoftwareAssociationofCanada(collectively,ESA),
whichrepresentabroadcoalitionofvideogamepublishersand
distributors,objectedtothetariff,arguingthat“downloading”avideo
gamecontainingmusicalworksdidnotamountto“communicating”
thatgametothepublicbytelecommunicationunders.
3(1)(f).Instead,a“download”ismerelyanadditional,moreefficient
waytodelivercopiesofthegamestocustomers.Thedownloaded
copyisidenticaltocopiespurchasedinstoresorshippedto
customersbymail,andthegamepublishersalreadypaycopyright
ownersreproductionroyaltiesforallofthesecopyingactivities.

[5]WeagreewithESA.Inourview,theBoard’sconclusionthata
separate,“communication”tariffappliedtodownloadsofmusical
worksviolatestheprincipleoftechnologicalneutrality,which
requiresthattheCopyrightActapplyequallybetweentraditional
andmoretechnologicallyadvancedformsofthesamemedia:
Robertsonv.ThomsonCorp.,2006SCC43(CanLII),[2006]2S.C.R.
363,atpara.49.Theprincipleoftechnologicalneutralityisreflected
ins.3(1)oftheAct,whichdescribesarighttoproduceorreproducea
work“inanymaterialformwhatever”.Inourview,thereisno
practicaldifferencebetweenbuyingadurablecopyoftheworkina
store,receivingacopyinthemail,ordownloadinganidenticalcopy
usingtheInternet.TheInternetissimplyatechnologicaltaxithat
deliversadurablecopyofthesameworktotheenduser.
[12]Inourview,theBoardimproperlyconcludedthattheInternet
deliveryofcopiesofvideogamescontainingmusicalworks
amountsto“communicating”theworkstothepublic.Thisview
isevidencedbythelegislativehistoryoftheCopyrightAct,

29
whichdemonstratesthattherightto“communicate”is
historicallyconnectedtotherighttoperformaworkandnotthe
righttoreproducepermanentcopiesofthework.
·Section3-Copyrightinworks(communication)
The1988replacementoftheword”radio-communication”bytheword
“telecommunication”merelyexpandsthemeansoftransmittingacommunication(but
doesnotexpandthecommunicationrighttotechnologiesthatinvolvetransmitting
datainawaythatgivesendusersapermanentcopyofthework).

EntertainmentSoftwareAssn.v.SocietyofComposers,Authors&MusicPublishers
ofCanada,2012SCC34(S.C.C;.2012-07-12)AbellaandMoldaverJJ.[reversing86
C.P.R.(4
th)258(F.C.A.;2010-09-02),whichwasaffirming61C.P.R.(4th)353(Cop.
Bd.;2007-10-18)][23SOCANarguesthatthe1988amendmentfrom“radio
communication”to“telecommunication”demonstratesParliament’s
intenttoremoveallreferenceins.3(1)(f)toconventionalperformance
orbroadcastingactivities,andtoexpandthecommunicationrightto
technologiesthatinvolvetransmittingdatainawaythatgivesend
usersapermanentcopyofthework.
[24]Withrespect,wedisagree.The1988amendmentstothe
CopyrightActfoundatss.61to65oftheCanada-UnitedStatesFree
TradeAgreementImplementationAct,wereenactedinordertogive
effecttoArticles2005and2006ofthe1987Canada-U.S.FreeTrade
Agreement(CUFTA):seeCanadianWirelessTelecommunications
Assn.v.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersof
Canada,2008FCA6(CanLII),2008FCA6,[2008]3F.C.R.539
(CWTAv.SOCAN),atpara.27.BeforeCUFTA,Canadiancourtshad
heldthat“radiocommunication”undertheformers.3(1)(f)was
limitedtoHertzianradiowavesanddidnotextendto
communicationbyco-axialcables:CanadianAdmiralCorp.v.
Rediffusion,Inc.,[1954]Ex.C.R.382,atp.410.CUFTA,however,
requiredCanadatocompensatecopyrightownersforthe
retransmissionoftelevisionsignalsthatweresentovercable
lines.Theamendmentswerethereforedesignedtoensurethat
cablecompanies,andnotjustradiobroadcasters,wouldalsobe
capturedunders.3(1)(f):JohnS.McKeown,FoxonCanadianLaw
ofCopyrightandIndustrialDesigns(4thed.(loose-leaf)),atpp.21-86,
21-87and29-1.
[25]Inthiscontext,thereplacementofthewords“radio
communication”with“telecommunication”shouldbeunderstoodas
merelyexpandingthemeansofcommunicatingawork—thatis,from

30
radiowaves(“byradiocommunication”)tocableandotherfuture
technologies(“tothepublicbytelecommunication”).Inourview,by
substitutingtheword“telecommunication”in1988,Parliament
didnotintendtochangethefundamentalnatureofthe
communicationright,whichhadforover50yearsbeen
concernedwithperformance-basedactivities.Instead,
Parliamentonlychangedthemeansoftransmittinga
communication.Theword“communicate”itselfwasnever
altered.
·Section3-Copyrightinworks(communication)
Communicationrightisacategoryofperformanceright.

EntertainmentSoftwareAssn.v.SocietyofComposers,Authors&MusicPublishers
ofCanada,2012SCC34(S.C.C;2012-07-12)AbellaandMoldaverJJ.[reversing86
C.P.R.(4
th)258(F.C.A.;2010-09-02),whichwasaffirming61C.P.R.(4th)353(Cop.
Bd.;2007-10-18)][26]Parliament’sadditionofthephrase“tothepublic”tos.3(1)(f)
alsosupportsthisinterpretationofthe1988amendments.Before
1988,therewasnodoubtthatallcommunicationswere“tothe
public”,asthenatureofabroadcastthroughradiowaveswas
necessarilypublic.Theterm“telecommunication”,however,risked
introducingambiguityintotheAct,astelecommunicationcouldalso
includeprivatecommunications.Byaddingthephrase“tothe
public”withtheterm“telecommunication”in1988,Parliament
clarifieditsintenttomaintainthecommunicationrightasa
categoryofperformanceright.
·Section3-Copyrightinworks(performance)
Contrarytoreproduction,performanceisimpermanentinnature.Furthermore,the
righttocommunicateshouldnotbetransformedbytheuseoftheword
“telecommunication”inawaythatwouldcaptureactivitiesakintoreproduction.

[37]EventhoughBishop[Bishopv.Stevens,[1990]2S.C.R.467
(S.C.C.;1990-08-16)]interpretedthepre-1988versionofthe
CopyrightAct(beforethe“telecommunication”amendment),the
distinctionbetweenperformance-basedandreproduction-basedrights
establishedins.3(1)isevidencedintheprovisionsofthecurrent
Act.Forexample,ins.2.2(1),theterm“publication”includes“making
copies”,butexpresslyexcludes“theperformanceinpublic,orthe
communicationtothepublicbytelecommunication”ofa
work.Similarly,theeducationalinstitutionsexceptionins.29.4(2)
referstotherightto“reproduce”andtherightto“communicateby
telecommunicationtothepublic”asdistinctrights.Thesameistrue
ofs.15(1),whichcategorizesneighbouringrightsundertheActinto
twocategories:therightto“communicate”and“perform”a
performance,andtherightto“reproduce”afixationofthe
performance.
[38]Thedistinctionbetweenperformanceandcommunication
rightsontheonehandandreproductionrightsontheotheris
alsoevidentinthecollectiveadministrationofcopyrighttariffs
undertheCopyrightAct.In1993,SOCAN—aperformingrights
society—wasputinchargeofadministeringthecommunicationright
ins.3(1)(f)inrelationtomusicalworks:S.C.1993,c.23,s.3:see
McKeown,atpp.3-12,27-2and27-3.Theseprovisionsare
containedinasectionoftheActentitled“CollectiveAdministrationof
PerformingRightsandofCommunicationRights”:ss.67to68.2(S.C.
1997,c.24,s.45):seeMcKeown,atp.26-3.EventheCopyright
Boarditselfcategorizesitsdecisionsrelatingtomusicalworksinto
twocategories:“PublicPerformanceofMusic”and“Reproductionof
MusicalWorks”:http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/index-e.html.

[39]Therefore,theterm“communicate”ins.3(1)(f),whichhas
historicallybeenlinkedtotherighttoperform,shouldnotbe
transformedbytheuseoftheword“telecommunication”ina
waythatwouldcaptureactivitiesakintoreproduction.Such
transformationwouldresultinabandoningthetraditionaldistinctionin
theActbetweenperformance-basedrightsandrightsof
reproduction.Thereisnoevidenceeitherin1988orinsubsequent
amendmentstotheActthatParliamentintendedsuchabandonment.
·Section3-Copyrightinworks(definedterm)
Theintroductorypartofsubsection3(1)defineswhatconstitutes“copyright”and,ny
usingtheterm“means”clearlyindicatesthatthedefinitionisexhaustiveandthe

32
enumeratedrightsaremerelyillustrative.EntertainmentSoftwareAssn.v.Societyof
Composers,Authors&MusicPublishersofCanada,2012SCC34(S.C.C;.2012-07-
12)AbellaandMoldaverJJ.[reversing86C.P.R.(4
th)258(F.C.A.;2010-09-02)
[41]Inourview,theCourtinBishop[Bishopv.Stevens,[1990]2
S.C.R.467(S.C.C.;1990-08-16)]merelyusedthisquoteto
emphasizethattherightsenumeratedins.3(1)aredistinct.Bishop
doesnotstandforthepropositionthatasingleactivity(i.e.,a
download)canviolatetwoseparaterightsatthesame
time.ThisisclearfromthequoteinAshv.Hutchinson,whichrefers
to“two…acts”.InBishop,forexample,thereweretwoactivities:
1)themakingofanephemeralcopyofthemusicalworkinorderto
effectabroadcast,and2)theactualbroadcastoftheworkitself.In
thiscase,however,thereisonlyoneactivityatissue:downloadinga
copyofavideogamecontainingmusicalworks.
[42]Noristhecommunicationrightins.3(1)(f)asuigeneris
rightinadditiontothegeneralrightsdescribedins.3(1).The
introductoryparagraphdefineswhatconstitutes“copyright”.It
statesthatcopyright“means”thesolerighttoproduceor
reproduceaworkinanymaterialform,toperformaworkin
public,ortopublishanunpublishedwork.Thisdefinitionof
“copyright”isexhaustive,astheterm“means”confinesits
scope.Theparagraphconcludesbystatingthatcopyright
“includes”severalotherrights,setoutinsubsections(a)through
(i).Asaresult,therightsintheintroductoryparagraphprovidethe
basicstructureofcopyright.Theenumeratedrightslistedinthe
subsequentsubparagraphsaresimplyillustrative:Sunny
Handa,CopyrightLawinCanada(2002),atp.195;seealsoApple
ComputerInc.v.MackintoshComputersLtd.,[1987]1F.C.173
(T.D.),atp.197.Therentalrightsins.3(1)(i)referredtobyJustice
Rothstein,forexample,canfitcomfortablyintothegeneralcategory
ofreproductionrights.
·Section3-Copyrightinworks(communication)
Itisnecessarytoconsiderthecontextofthecommunication,notthemeansused,to
determineifthecommunicationrightwasinfringedandacommunicationunder
paragraph3(1)(f)isnotrestrictedtoapurelynon-interactivecontext.

RogersCommunicationsInc.v.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishers
ofCanada,2012SCC35(S.C.C.;2012-07-12)RothsteinJ.[reversinginpart86
C.P.R.(4
th)239(F.C.A.;2010-09-02),whichwasaffirming61C.P.R.(4th)353(Cop.
Bd.;2007-10-18[30]Focusingoneachindividualtransmissionlosessightofthe
truecharacterofthecommunicationactivityinquestionand

33
makescopyrightprotectiondependantontechnicalitiesofthe
allegedinfringer’schosenmethodofoperation.Suchan
approachdoesnotallowforprincipledcopyright
protection.Instead,itisnecessarytoconsiderthebroader
contexttodeterminewhetheragivenpoint-to-pointtransmission
engagestheexclusiverighttocommunicatetothepublic.This
istheonlywaytoensurethatformdoesnotprevailover
substance.

[33]Withrespect,thispropositiontoomustberejected,forthesame
reasonthatfocusingtheanalysisontherecipientofatransmission
ratherthanontheoverallcontextofthecommunicationproduces
resultsinconsistentwiththetruecharacterofthecommunication.[…]

[34]Inaddition,theappellants’proposedrulethateachtransmission
beanalyzedinisolationbecauseeachisinitiatedattherequestof
individualmembersofthepublicwouldhavetheeffectofexcludingall
interactivecommunicationsfromthescopeofthecopyrightholder’s
exclusiverightstocommunicatetothepublicandtoauthorizesuch
communications.Astreamisofteneffectuatedattherequestofthe
recipient.On-demandtelevisionallowsviewerstorequestandview
thedesiredprogramatthetimeoftheirchoosing.Bydefinition,on-
demandcommunications—relatingtotheso-called“pull”
technologies—areinitiatedattherequestoftheuser,independently
ofanyotheruser,andeachindividualtransmissionhappensina
point-to-pointmanner.Noneofthesetelecommunicationswouldbe
consideredasbeingmade“tothepublic”simplybecausetheactual
transmissionoccursattheinitiativeanddiscretionoftheconsumerto
accepttheinvitationtothepublictoaccessthecontent.

[35]Nothinginthewordingofs.3(1)(f)oftheActimpliessucha
limitation.Acommunicationisnotrestrictedtoapurelynon-
interactivecontext.

·Section3-Copyrightinworks(communication)
Thecommunicationrightprovidedbyparagraph3(1)(f)wasamendedtothe
technologicallyneutralrightto“communicate…tothepublicbytelecommunication.

RogersCommunicationsInc.v.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishers
ofCanada,2012SCC35(S.C.C.;2012-07-12)RothsteinJ.[reversinginpart86
C.P.R.(4
th)239(F.C.A.;2010-09-02),whichwasaffirming61C.P.R.(4th)353(Cop.
Bd.;2007-10-18[36]Therighttocommunicatetothepublicishistoricallylinkedto
traditionalmediathatoperatedonabroadcasting,or“push”,

34
model.Aspointedoutbytheappellants,thepredecessortos.
3(1)(f)guaranteedcopyrightholdersanexclusiverightto
communicateliterary,dramatic,musicalorartisticworksbyradio-
communication.Thepredecessorsectionwasintroducedin1931,
implementingArticle11bisoftheBerneConventionforthe
ProtectionofLiteraryandArtisticWorks,828U.N.T.S.221(Rome
Revisionof1928):J.S.McKeown,FoxonCanadianLawof
CopyrightandIndustrialDesigns,(4thed.(loose-leaf),atp.21:86;
Composers,AuthorsandPublishersAssoc.ofCanadaLtd.v.CTV
TelevisionNetworkLtd.,1968CanLII89(S.C.C.),[1968]S.C.R.
676,atp.681.Radio-communicationswereunderstoodtoinclude
transmissionsbymicrowaveovertheairwaves:CanadianAdmiral
Corp.v.Redifussion,Inc.,[1954]Ex.C.R.382.Assuch,theradio-
communicationrightextendedtoradioandtraditionalover-the-air
televisionbroadcasting,notablyleavingtransmissionsbycable
outsideofcopyrightprotection.
[37]Thistechnology-specificcommunicationrightwasamendedto
thetechnologicallyneutralrightto“communicate…tothepublicby
telecommunication”toreflecttheobligationsenteredintobyCanada
underNAFTA(Canada-UnitedStatesFreeTradeAgreement
ImplementationAct,S.C.1988,c.65,ss.61and62).Thechange
fromradio-communicationtotelecommunicationmeantthat
Canadiancablecompanieswhichpreviouslyescapedanypayment
ofroyaltiesunderthe“radio-communication”right,werenowcaught
bytheAct:S.Handa,CopyrightLawinCanada,(2002),atp.320.

[38]Thehistoricrelationshipbetweentherighttocommunicateto
thepublicandbroadcasting-type,“push”technologies,andthe1988
amendmentinparticular,isevidencethattheActhasevolvedto
ensureitscontinuedrelevanceinanevolvingtechnological
environment.Thehistoricrelationshipdoesnotsupportreading
intotheActrestrictionswhicharenotapparentfromandare
eveninconsistentwiththeneutrallanguageoftheActitself.
·Section3-Copyrightinworks
Apoint-to-pointtransmissionisnotnecessarilyaprivatetransactionoutsideofthe
scopeoftheexclusiverighttocommunicatetothepublic.”Ifthecontentis
intentionallymadeavailabletoanyonewhowantstoaccessit,itistreatedas
communicated“tothepublic”evenifusersaccesstheworkatdifferenttimesand
places”.(D.Vaver,IntellectualPropertyLaw:Copyright,Patents,Trade-Marks,(2nd
ed.2011)atp.173).”

35
RogersCommunicationsInc.v.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishers
ofCanada,2012SCC35(S.C.C.;2012-07-12)RothsteinJ.[reversinginpart86
C.P.R.(4
th)239(F.C.A.;2010-09-02),whichwasaffirming61C.P.R.(4th)353(Cop.
Bd.;2007-10-18)[52][…]CCH(S.C.C.)[CCHCanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyofUpper
Canada,2004SCC13,S.C.C.;2004-03-04)]determinedthata
“seriesofrepeated…transmissionsofthesameworkto
numerousdifferentrecipients”mayconstituteacommunication
“tothepublic”withinthemeaningofs.3(1)(f)oftheAct(CCH
(S.C.C.),atpara.78).Wheresuchaseriesofpoint-to-point
communicationsofthesameworktoanaggregationofindividualsis
foundtoexist,itmatterslittleforthepurposesofcopyrightprotection
whetherthemembersofthepublicreceivethecommunicationinthe
sameorindifferentplaces,atthesameoratdifferenttimesorat
theirownorthesender’sinitiative.
·Section3-Copyrightinworks
TheCopyright
Actdoesnotgivetheownerofthecopyrightsanexclusiverighttouse
thecopyrightedwork.
HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2012FCA226(F.C.A.;2012-
08-31)GauthierJ.[confirming92C.P.R.(4th)6(F.C.;2011-03-18)]
[76]Iagreewiththetrialjudgethatthe
Actdoesnotgivetheowner
ofthecopyrightsanexclusiverighttousethecopyrightedwork.In
thatrespect,therightsofacopyrightownerdifferfromthose
grantedtotheownerofapatentoratrademark.
·Section3-Copyrightinworks
Allthingsbeingequal,usingtworightsshouldcostmorethanusingonlyone.

SOCANTariff22.A(2007-2010);CMRRA/SODRACInc.Tariff(2008-2010)(Online
ServiceMusic)http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/socan-csi-reasons.pdf(Cop.
Bd.;2012-10-05)
[80]ThisapproachignoresaprincipletheBoardhasexpressed
onmanyoccasions:allthingsbeingequal,usingtworights
shouldcostmorethanusingonlyone.[FN53SOCAN–Tariff
22.A(Internet–OnlineMusicServices)fortheyears1996-2006(18
October2007)CopyrightBoardDecision.Seealso
CMRRA/SODRACInc.(OnlineMusicServices)fortheyears2005to
2007(16March2007)CopyrightBoardDecisionatpara.84.]Asa
resultofESA,5[FN54EntertainmentSoftwareAssociationv.Society
ofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanada,2012SCC
34]however,thisnolongerisrelevantinthisinstance.

36
·Section3-Copyrightinworks
Adiscoverytranscriptattractscopyrightprotectionandacourtreportershallbe
compensatedforitsreproduction.
Hidasiv.Davie&Associates,2012BCHRT384(B.C.HumanRightsTribunal;2012-
11-02)Trerise,memberBDoesCopyrightPreventtheDisclosureofaDiscoveryTranscript?
[29]Whetherthetranscriptiscopyrightedornot,Iamfamiliarwith
thepracticeofprotectingtherightsofcourtreporterstorevenues
fromproducingdiscoverytranscriptsbyensuringthatanycopiesof
transcriptsareproducedbythecourtreporterwhorecordedthe
transcriptandpreparedit.
[30]Becauseofthis,IdonotintendtoorderMr.PoonorDavie&
Associatestoprovideacopyofthetranscriptwhichisintheir
possession.However,itisclearthatMr.Hidasihasarighttoa
copyofthetranscript.IthereforeorderthatDavie&Associates
ascertainthecostofobtaininganoriginalcopyofthetranscript
fromthecourtreporterwhoproducedit,thattheyprovideMr.
Hidasiwithastatementofthatcostandthat,uponprovisionby
Mr.HidasitoDavie&Associatesoftheequivalentsum,that
theyorderacopyofthetranscriptforMr.Hidasiandprovideit
tohim.
·Section3-Copyrightinworks
Theretransmissionrightispartoftherighttocommunicatetheworktothepublicby
telecommunicationbutthisrightiscarvedbytheprovisionsdealingwiththe
retransmissionofalocalordistantsignals.
ReferencereBroadcastingRegulatoryPolicy2010-167andBroadcastingOrder
CRTC2010-168,2012SCC68(S.C.C.;2011-09-29)RothsteinJ.[reversing91
C.P.R.(4th)389(F.C.A.;2011-02-28)]:[58][…]Ontheonehand,thecopyrightownerisgranteda
generalrighttoretransmitthework.Thisretransmissionright
ispartoftheright,unders.(3)(1)(f),tocommunicatethework
bytelecommunicationtothepublic.Ontheotherhand,the
owner’sgeneralrighttoretransmitisrestrictedbyacarve-outin
s.31(2)oftheCopyrightAct,whicheffectivelygrantstoa
specificclassofretransmitterstworetransmissionrights.Thefirst
rightletstheseuserssimultaneouslyretransmitwithoutaroyalty
payment,workscarriedinalocalsignal.Thesecondrightletsthem
simultaneouslyretransmitworkscarriedindistantsignals,butonly

37
subjecttothepaymentofroyaltiesunderaformofcompulsory
licenceregime(CopyrightAct,s.31(2)(a)and(d)).Bothuserrights
are,subjecttos.31(2),beyondtheowner’scontrol.
·Section3-Copyrightinworks
Communicatingaworktothepublicbycableisanexclusiverightcoveredbythe
communicationofaworktothepublicbytelecommunication.

ReferencereBroadcastingRegulatoryPolicy2010-167andBroadcastingOrder
CRTC2010-168,2012SCC68(S.C.C.;2011-09-29)RothsteinJ.[reversing91
C.P.R.(4th)389(F.C.A.;2011-02-28)]:[74]Thesamepurposefulbalancingisevidencedinthelegislative
historyofthes.31regimefortheretransmissionofworks.The
predecessortothecurrents.3(1)(f)guaranteedcopyrightholdersan
exclusiverighttocommunicateworksbyradio
communication.Jurisprudenceinterpretedtheradiocommunication
rightasexcludingtransmissionsbycable:CanadianAdmiralCorp.v.
Rediffusion,Inc.,[1954]Ex.C.R.382.Section3(1)(f)was
amendedin1988toconfertheexclusiverightto“communicate
theworktothepublicbytelecommunication”toreflectthe
obligationsenteredintobyCanadaundertheFreeTradeAgreement
betweentheGovernmentofCanadaandtheGovernmentofthe
UnitedStatesofAmerica,Can.T.S.1989No.3(seeCanada-United
StatesFreeTradeAgreementImplementationAct,S.C.1988,c.65,
ss.61and62;seealsoRogersCommunicationsInc.v.Societyof
Composers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanada,2012SCC35
(CanLII),2012SCC35,atparas.36-37andMcKeown,atpara.
3:2(b)).Thechangefromradiocommunicationto
telecommunicationmeantthatcablecompanieswerenowliable
forcopyrightinfringementwhentheycommunicatecopyright-
protectedworkstothepublic.

·Section3-Copyrightinworks[translation]
Themerescanningofanoriginalworkisnotatranslationofaworkandthescan
doesnotconstituteanoriginalworkattractingcopyrightprotection.

KeatleySurveyingLtd.v.TeranetInc.,2012ONSC7120(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-12-14)
HorkingsJ.:[119]Whatisatranslation?Theword“translation”isnotdefinedin
theCopyrightAct.However,thereiscaselawandauthoritativetexts
thatdiscussthemeaningofthiswordasusedintheAct.Inessence
thesesourcesconfirmthattheword“translation”isusedinthe

38
Actinits“primarysenseoftheturningofsomethingfromone
humanlanguageintoanother.”(JohnS.McKeown,Foxon
CanadianLawofCopyrightandIndustrialDesigns,4thed.,looseleaf
(Toronto:Carswell,2003)at21:9;DavidVaver,CopyrightLaw
(Toronto:IrwinLaw,2000)at130).Inordertoconstitutea
“translation”,theresultingworkmustalsobeoriginal.

[122]Thestatementofclaimallegesthatcopiesoftheplansof
survey“weretranslatedintovariousdigitalformats,including
PortableDocumentFolder(PDF)andTaggedImageFileFormat
(TIFF)”.FollowingApple[AppleComputer,Inc.v.Mackintosh
ComputersLtd.,,[1988]1F.C.673atpara.3(C.A.),aff’d[1990]2
S.C.R.209.],Iconcludethatscanningtheplansofsurveyto
createadigitalformatisnotatranslationwithinthemeaningof
s.3(1)(a)oftheCopyrightAct.Theresultingdigitalplanof
surveyisnotanoriginalwork,asthereisno“skilland
judgment”involvedinsimplyscanningtheplansofsurvey.Itis
thereforeplainandobviousthatthereisnoinfringementof
copyrightfor“translatingcopies”oftheplansofsurveyby
convertingtheplansintodigitalformats.Asaresult,thoseparts
ofthestatementofclaimdealingwithtranslationtoadvancean

Section5-Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright
ThedegreeoforiginalityundertheCopyrightActislesserthanthedegreeof
originalityrequiredundertheIndustrialDesignAct(which,onewillnote,israther
referringtonoveltythanoriginality)
VictorStanleyInc.,Re.2012CarswellNat885(CanadaPatentAppealBoard&
PatentsCommissioner;2012-03-28)[42]Thedegreeoforiginalityrequiredtoregisteranoriginal
designisgreaterthanthatlaiddownbyCanadiancopyright
legislation,butlessthanthatrequiredtoregisterapatent:
RothburyInternationalInc.c.Canada(Ministredel’industrie),2004
FC578(F.C.)at¶35.
·Section12-WherecopyrightbelongstoHerMajesty
TheCopyrightActbindstheCrown.

AccessCopyright-ProvincialandTerritorialGovernmentsTariffs(2005-2014)
Decision(Crownimmunityapplication)98C.P.R.(4th)215(Cop.Bd.;2012-01-05)
[1]Alberta,Manitoba,NewBrunswick,NewfoundlandandLabrador,
NovaScotia,Nunavut,PrinceEdwardIslandandSaskatchewan

39
(collectivelytheObjectors)relyontheprincipleofCrownimmunity,as
codifiedinsection17oftheInterpretationAct,[Fn1R.S.C.1985,c.I-
21]toclaimthattheCopyrightAct[Fn2R.S.C.1985,c.C-42](the
“Act”)doesnotapplytothemandthat,consequently,thetariffs
proposedbyAccessCopyrightinrespectofProvincialandTerritorial
governmentscannotbindthem.
[2]TheObjectors’claimforCrownimmunityisdismissedbyreason
thattheActbindstheCrownbynecessaryimplication.
·Section12-WherecopyrightbelongstoHerMajesty
TherightsandprivilegesreservedtotheCrowndonotmeanthattheCrownis
immunefromcopyrightliability.
AccessCopyright-ProvincialandTerritorialGovernmentsTariffs(2005-2014)
Decision(Crownimmunityapplication)2012CarswellNat609(Cop.Bd.;2012-03-15)
[40]Thepartiesdebatedatlengththemeaningofthewords“without
prejudicetoanyrightsorprivilegesoftheCrown”.If,astheObjectors
argue,theserightsandprivilegesarealltherightsandprivilegesaccorded
totheCrown,includingimmunity,thentheinferenceisthatbyadopting
section12,ParliamentspecificallyallowedtheCrowntomaintainits
overallimmunityfromtheActdespitetheCrownbeinggrantedcertainrights
pursuanttootherprovisionsoftheAct.Ontheotherhand,ifthese
wordsmeanonlythosecopyrightsgrantedtotheCrownunder
commonlaw,thensection12islimitedtothegrantofcopyrightand
cannotbereadtoinferanyParliamentaryintentregardingimmunity
[68][…]WhenanalyzingthewholeoftheActcontextually,weare
irresistiblydrawntothelogicalconclusionthattheActgenerallybindsthe
Crown.Certainexceptionswereputinplacetoensurethatcertain
activitiesundertakenbytheCrown–bothfederalandprovincial–didnot
infringecopyright.
·Section12-WherecopyrightbelongstoHerMajesty
Crown’sprerogativesrelatingtoCrowncopyright,arepreservedbysection12oftheAct,not
otherformsofprerogatives.

AccessCopyright-ProvincialandTerritorialGovernmentsTariffs(2005-2014)
Decision(Crownimmunityapplication)2012CarswelNat609(Cop.Bd.;2012-03-15)
[42]Section12oftheActfindsitssourceinsection18oftheImperial
CopyrightActof1911.Thisprovisionwassignificantlyamended,
especiallywiththepassageoftheCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct

40
of1988,whichsimplifiedtheregimeofCrowncopyrightandabolished
theperpetualCrowncopyrightinunpublishedworksoftheCrown.By
contrast,section12hasbeeninplace,unchanged,sincetheCanadianAct
cameintoforcein1924,eventhoughtheActhasundergoneanumber
ofsignificantreviews,includingin1988and1997.

[49]Section12hasremainedunchanged.Parliamenthasaddressed
no“mischief,evilorcondition”inherenttothissectionthatanyreportmay
haveattemptedtohighlight.Thiscanonlyconfirmtheneed,consistent
withMorguardProperties,[MorguardPropertiesLtd.v.CityofWinnipeg
[1983]2S.C.R.493at499]tolimitourinquirytothewordsofsection12
andthecontextofthatprovision.
[50]Whenundertakingthisinquiry,thefollowingfactsshouldbekeptinmind.
First,section12grantsHerMajestyrightsinworkspreparedorpublished
byorunderherdirectionorcontrol.However,Crowncopyrightcovers
manyworkswhicharenotpreparedorpublishedunderthedirectionor
controlofHerMajesty,suchasjudicialdecisions.Second,therights
grantedinsection12generallylimittheprotectionto50yearsfollowing
thefirstpublicationofthework[Fn29Atermshorterthan“normal”
copyright.]whereasitisarguablethatCrowncopyrightundertheCrown
prerogativeisperpetual.Putanotherway,Crowncopyrightunderthe
Crownprerogativeiswiderinscopeanddurationthanwhatsection12
provides.
[51]Inaddition,section12mustnotbereadinisolation.Rather,itmustbe
interpretedwithintheoverallcontextandschemeoftheActand,in
particular,inrelationtosection89whichstates:
89.Nopersonisentitledtocopyrightotherwisethanunderandin
accordancewiththisActoranyotherActofParliament,butnothinginthis
sectionshallbeconstruedasabrogatinganyrightorjurisdictioninrespect
ofabreachoftrustorconfidence.
[52]Certaininferencescanbedrawnbyreadingsection12togetherwith
section89.Asaresultofsection89,allcopyrightisexclusivelycontained
withinthelegalstructureoftheAct.Withouttheopeningphraseofsection
12,section89wouldoperatetoeliminateallremainingcommonlaw
copyrightheldbytheCrown.Thisseemstoconfirmthattheterms
“withoutprejudicetoanyrightsorprivilegesoftheCrown”arenecessaryto
maintaintheCrownprerogativeinitscopyrightandthatthosewords
mustbereadtomeansuchaprerogative.
[55]Moreover,section89targetscopyrightexclusively.Asaresult,
theopeningwordsofsection12fullyservetheirpurposebypreserving
theCrown’sprerogativesrelatingtoCrowncopyright,nototherformsof
prerogativessuchasCrownimmunity.Thisiswheresection17ofthe

41
InterpretationActcomesintoplay:itisunderthatprovisionthatanyclaimof
Crownimmunitymustbemade.Ifsection12alsofulfillsthatpurpose,as
isarguedbytheObjectors,thentheopeningwordsofsection12are
largelyredundant.ThiscannotbeParliament’sintent.
·Section12-WherecopyrightbelongstoHerMajesty
Section12appliestofederalandprovincialCrownsaswellasCrowncorporations.

AccessCopyright-ProvincialandTerritorialGovernmentsTariffs(2005-2014)
Decision(Crownimmunityapplication)20112Carswell609(Cop.Bd.;2012-03-15)
[70]TheimplicationsofourdecisionarethereforegreaterthantheObjectors
contend.Crownimmunityapplies,ifatall,toanyandalltariffproceedings
beforetheBoardseekingtosetroyaltiesfortheuseofcopyrightedworks
bytheCrown.ItappliesnotonlytoObjectorswhohaveraisedthe
issue,buttothefederalandprovincialCrownsandtheiragents.
ThiswouldincludeCrowncorporationsthatholdandusea
significantamountofcopyrightedmaterial,suchastheCBC,Telefilm,
theNationalFilmBoard,provincialeducationaltelevisionsstations,
andscoresofothersimilarprovincialandfederalagencies.
·Section12-WherecopyrightbelongstoHerMajesty
Crownimmunityisajurisdictionalissuethatshallberaisedpropriomotubythe
decider.
AccessCopyright-ProvincialandTerritorialGovernmentsTariffs(2005-2014)
Decision(Crownimmunityapplication)2012CarswellNat609(Cop.Bd.;2012-03-15)
[71]Furthermore,Crownimmunityisajurisdictionalissue.The
Boardisobligedtoraisesuchissuespropriomotu.Weretheclaim
ofCrownimmunitytosucceedinthiscase,theBoardwouldbeobligedto
rejectofitsownmotionanytarifffiledinrespectofanyemanationofthe
Crownunlessimmunityhadbeenwaived.

[75]Moderngovernmentscreate,transact,monetiseanduse
copyrightedmaterial,notjustinrelationtosection12,butsignificantlyas
aresultofthegeneralcopyrightgrantedpursuanttosections3,15,18
and21oftheAct.Governmentsholdsuchcopyrighteitherasofright(as
firstownersofthecopyright),asamatterofcontract(whentheyacquire
therightsofothers)andevenasaresultofcommonorstatutorylaw
(escheat).Governmentsareunabletoenforceanyofthoserightswithout
thebenefitoftheAct.Inotherterms,giventheambitofgovernmentaction
inthecopyrightmarketandtheextenttowhichgovernmentsmustrely

42
ontheActtoenforcetheircopyrights,theActmakesnosenseunlessit
bindstheCrown.
·Section12-WherecopyrightbelongstoHerMajesty
WhenaworkwaspreparedbortheCrown,thecopyrightinthisworkisvestedintoHer
Majesty
R.v.Rundle(NecPlusUltra),2012ONSC5185(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-09-14)SmithJ.
[11]Section12oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.,1985,c.C-42,provides
thatwhereaworkhasbeenpreparedbytheCrownthecopyright
belongstoHerMajesty.
·Section12-WherecopyrightbelongstoHerMajesty
Whencreatingplansforsurveyasurveyormaybetheownerofthecopyrightin
thoseplans;however,whentheyareregisteredand/ordepositedintheOntarioland
registryoffice,thecopyrightisthenvestedinherMajesty.

KeatleySurveyingLtd.v.TeranetInc.,2012ONSC7120(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-12-14)
HorkingsJ.:
[Uponmotionforforcertificationofaproposedclassactionpursuanttos.5ofthe
ClassProceedingsAct,1992,S.O.1992,c.6]
[100]Applyings.12,Teranetsaysthatcopyrightbelongstothe
Crowniftheplansofsurveyare:(5)publishedbytheCrown;
(6)publishedunderthecontroloftheCrown;
(7)publishedunderthedirectionoftheCrown;
(8)preparedbytheCrown;
(9)preparedunderthecontroloftheCrown;or
(10)preparedunderthedirectionoftheCrown.

[101]Teranetarguesthattheplansofsurveyfallintoatleastfiveof
thesixcategories.Inparticular,Teranetsaysitisplainandobvious
thattheplansofsurveyarepreparedunderthedirectionorcontrolof
theCrown,andthereforethecopyrightinfringementclaimwillfail.

[102]Forexample,surveyorsmustcomplywithatleastseven
statutesandapplicableregulationswhenpreparingplansofsurvey.
Legislationdictatesthemannerinwhichthesurveyisconducted,the
contentoftheplanofsurvey,theformoftheplan,andevendetailsof
theplan’sphysicalappearance,suchasthetypeofpaperused,the
shapeofthepaperandthetypeofinkused.

43
[103]Themannerofconductingasurvey,andinparticular,the
preparationofaplanofsurvey,isregulatedandsubjecttostatutory
compliance.O.Reg.43/96,madeundertheRegistryAct,R.S.O.
1990,c.R.20,appliestoplansthataretoberegisteredordeposited
undertheRegistryActortheLandTitlesAct,R.S.O.1990,c.L.5.
Section5(1)ofO.Reg.43/96statesthatplanssubmittedfor
registrationordepositshallcomplywith:
(a)theRegistryAct,ortheLandTitlesActiftheplanwas
preparedunderthatAct;
(b)Regulation43/96madeundertheRegistryAct;
(c)theSurveysAct,R.S.O.1990,c.S.30andtheregulations
undertheSurveysAct;
(d)theActandregulationsunderwhichtheplanwasprepared
(forexample,theCondominiumAct,1998,S.O.1998,c.19or
theExpropriationsAct,R.S.O.1990,c.E.26);and
(e)theSurveyorsAct,R.S.O.1990,c.S.29andtheregulations
madeunderit.

[104]Inparticular,thestatutoryframeworkfortheregistration
anddepositofplansofsurveystatesthatallplanssubmittedfor
depositorregistrationatalandregistryofficebecomethe
propertyoftheCrown.Section165(1)oftheLandTitlesAct
providesthat:Everyregisteredinstrumentanddepositedorregisteredplanis
thepropertyoftheCrownand,exceptasotherwiseprovidedin
theregulations,shallberetainedinthecustodyoftheland
registrarinhisorheroffice.[Emphasisadded.]

[105]Similarly,section50(3)oftheRegistryActprovides:
EveryregisteredinstrumentisthepropertyoftheCrownand,
subjecttosubsection17(3)andtheregulations,shallbe
retainedinthecustodyofthelandregistrarinhisorheroffice.
[Emphasisadded.]

[106]Inaddition,section18(10)oftheRegistryActprovides:
Allbooks,indexes,photographicfilmreproductionsandother
recordsusedandkeptinandforthepurposesofalandregistry
officearethepropertyoftheCrown.[Emphasisadded.]

[107]Consistentwiththestatutoryprovisionsthatplansof
surveyarepropertyoftheCrown,aplanofsurveywillnotbe
acceptedforregistrationordepositatalandregistryofficeifit
containsanycopyrightmark,bywordsorsymbols,ontheface
oftheplan.

44
·Section13-Ownershipofcopyright
Numerousfactorscanbeconsideredinordertodeterminethestatusoftheauthoras
anemployeeoranindependentcontractor(actingonhisownaccount),amongst
whichistheintegrationofthetasksoftheauthorinthebusiness.

LachancevProductionsMarieEykelinc.,2012QCCS1012(Que.Sup.Ct.-Merits;
2012-03-15)GrenierJ.[47]Lecontratentreledemandeuretsonemployeurestun
contratd’emploi.Biensûr,ledemandeurjouissaitd’unegrande
latitudeprofessionnelle.Cecin’enfaitpaspourautantun
travailleurautonomecommeill’aprétendu.Lecontrôleeffectif
del’employeurneconstituepaslecritèreleplusimportant
lorsque,parsonsavoir,unemployéjouitd’uneautonomie
professionnelle[Fn15BICH,Marie-France,«Emploietpropriété
intellectuelle–méditationssurlesdroitsmorauxdusalarié»,dans
Développementsrécentsendroitdelapropriétéintellectuelle,
Cowansville(Qc),YvonBlais,1999,p.205.]
[48]LapreuvearévéléqueLaurentLachanceétaitsubordonnéà
sonemployeur,leministèredel’Éducation:SonsupérieurimmédiatétaitAndréChamberland,directeurde
laProductionaudiovisuellepourleMinistère;
Lesfichesdenotationdudemandeurindiquentquecedernier
travaillaitsousl’autoritédudirecteurdelaProduction
audiovisuelle(D-7);
LeMinistèreimposaitaudemandeurlecadregénéraldeson
travail(D-7);
LeMinistèrel’évaluaitannuellement;
Ilrecevaitunsalaire,étaitsyndiquéetavaitdesprélèvementsà
lasource.
[49]Lesfichesd’évaluationindiquentqueledemandeur,entant
quecoordonnateurdesecteur,avaitlaresponsabilitégénéralede
l’aspectpédagogiqued’ungroupededocumentspédagogiques
audiovisuels,qu’ilavaitunbudgetàadministreretdesresponsables
pédagogiquesàdiriger.
[50]Ilvasansdirequeletravaildudemandeurétaitintégréà
l’entreprisequil’employaitetquiluifournissaitlesoutils
appropriéspourmeneràbienlemandatquesonsupérieur
immédiatluiavaitconfié.Lefaitqu’ilaitfournisaprestationde
travaildansdeslocauxquiappartenaientàJPLProductionset,plus
tard,àTélé-Québec,nechangerienàlasituation.Ledemandeur
demeuraitunemployéduMinistèredel’Éducation.

45
·Section13-Ownershipofcopyright
Ontheimportanceofconductinganeffectiveduediligenceontheownershipofthe
workspriortotheiracquisition.

Donnelyc.Toth,2012QCCQ2256(Que.Ct.;2012-03-30)RenaudJ.
[15]Deplus,laventecomportaittouteslesimagescontenuessurle
disqueduroules«CD»oulagaleried’imagesd’art.Or,ledéfendeur
aconstatéqueledemandeurousonentreprisen’étaitpas
propriétairedetoutescelles-ci.Desdroitsdepropriétéintellectuelle
devaientêtrepayésàdestiercesentreprises.
[26]Ledéfendeur,sicettesituationétaitsiimportante,auraitdû
communiqueravecledemandeurbienavantquecelui-ciexigele
premierversementde5000$.Alalimite,onpeuttoujoursdirequ’il
encoûteraitdesdizainesdemilliersdedollarspourvendretoutesces
nombreusesimages,maiscen’étaitpaslafinalitédecettevente.Ily
avaitsuffisammentd’imagesdedisponiblespouropérer,sans
enfreindreleslimitesdesrèglesdelapropriétéintellectuelle.
·Section13-Ownershipofcopyright
Thereisnouniversaltesttoascertaintheexistenceofanemployer-employee
relationship.
HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2012FCA226(F.C.A.;2012-
08-31)GauthierJ.[confirming92C.P.R(4th)6(F.C.;2011-03-18)]
[56]In671122OntarioLtd.v.SagazIndustriesCanadaInc.2001
SCC59(CanLII),2001SCC59,[2001]2S.C.R.983,(Sagaz
Industries),theSupremeCourtofCanadaacknowledgedthatthere
isnouniversaltesttoestablishtheexistenceofanemployment
relationship.Thecentralquestioniswhetherthepersonhas
beenperformingtheservicesasapersoninbusinessforhisor
herownaccount(SagazIndustriesatparagraph47).
·Section13-Ownershipofcopyright
Ascertainingwhtheranauthorwasanemployeeofacontractorgoesonthemeritof
acaserelatingtocopyrightownership
Kennedyc.Ruminski,2012QCCS4417(Que.Sup.Ct.;2012-09-21)PoulinJ.
[OnamotionforsummarydismissalofthestatementofDefenceandCross-demand]

46
[11]CONSIDÉRANTQUE,poursapart,ledéfendeurestd’avisque
laquestionportantsurlaqualitéd’employéoude«commercial
associate»enestjustementunequidevraêtretranchéeparlejuge
duprocès;
·Section14.1-Moralrights
Misattributionoftheauthorshipisaninfringementofoneofthemoralrightsbutcan
onlybelitigatedbythebeneficiaryofthoserights,whichcannotbeassigned.

HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2012FCA226,(F.C.A;2012-
08-31)GauthierJ.[confirming92C.P.R.(4th)6,((F.C.;2011-03-18)]
[74]Ihavenotbeenpersuadedthatthetrialjudgemadeapalpable
andoverridingerrorinconcludingthatHarmonyhadnotestablish
thatmodificationofthestart-upscreennecessarilyinvolvedmaking
anunauthorisedreproduction.Thus,insuchcircumstances,the
changeinthenameappearingonthatscreen(alleged
misattributionofthework)couldonlybechallengedbythe
ownerofthemoralrightsinPetro.Suchrightscannotbe
assignedandarevestedintheauthor.
·Section19-Righttoremuneration
Therighttoremunerationfortheperformanceinpublicorthecommunicationtothe
publicbytelecommunicationofasoundrecordingisarightdistinctfromtherightof
theperformanceinpublicofcommunicationtothepublicofawork.

Re:SoundTariffNo.6B–UseofRecordedMusictoAccompanyPhysicalActivities,
2008-2009,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs-tarifs/certified-
homologues/2012/ReSound6_B_reasons.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-07-06)

[28]Unders.19oftheAct,theappellantisentitledtocollect
equitableremunerationonbehalfofperformersandmakersofsound
recordingswhentheirrecordingsareperformedinpublicor
communicatedtothepublicbytelecommunication.Therightto
collecttheseroyaltieswasaddedtotheActin1997aspartofa
packageof“neighbouringrights”insoundrecordingswhich
canbedistinguishedfromtraditionalcopyrightsheldby
creatorsofmusicalworkssuchascomposersandlyricists(S.C.
1997,c.24).Thesenewneighbouringrightswereintroducedby
ParliamenttocomplywithCanada’sobligationsundertheRome
Convention.Inadditiontoart.12oftheRomeConvention,which
establishestherighttoequitableremunerationwhereapublished
phonogram“isuseddirectlyforbroadcastingorforany

47
communicationtothepublic”,art.10providesthat“[p]roducersof
phonogramsshallenjoytherighttoauthoriseorprohibitthedirector
indirectreproductionoftheirphonograms.”
[29]AsImentionedabove,therighttocollectroyaltiesonbehalfof
performersandmakersofsoundrecordings,althoughprovidedforin
s.19,isdependentonthedefinitionof“soundrecording”ins.2of
theAct.Thisdefinitionhasabearingonthelimitsoftheright.
Unlesswhatisbeingperformedorcommunicatedtothepublic
bytelecommunicationisa“soundrecording”,therightto
collectroyaltiesonthatperformanceorcommunicationwillnot
betriggered.

·Section19-Righttoremuneration
Whenasoundrecordingisontherepertoireofacollectivesociety,thiscollective
collectsroyaltiesforboththeperfomrerandthemaker,evenifonlyoneofthem
broughtthesoundrecordingintherepertoireofthecollective.

Re:SoundTariffNo.6B–UseofRecordedMusictoAccompanyPhysicalActivities,
2008-2009,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs-tarifs/certified-
homologues/2012/ReSound6_B_reasons.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-07-06)
76]Eitherthemakerortheperformercanbringaneligiblerecording
intotheRe:Soundrepertoire.Furthermore,whenthisoccurs,allthe
rightsintherecordingbecomepartoftherepertoire,notjustthose
ofthepersonwhobroughttherecordingintotherepertoire.

[77]Asaresult,whentherecordingisintherepertoire,Re:Sound
isentitledtocollectroyaltiesforthebenefitofbothperformers
andmakers,evenifsomehavenotassignedtheirrightsto
Re:Sound.Re:Soundisinturnrequiredtodistributeequalshares
toperformersandmakers,whetherornottheyaremembersofa
Re:Soundcollective.Hence,therequirementinsubsection19(3)ofthe
Actthatequitableremunerationbeequallysharedbetweenthe
performerandmakerissatisfied.
[81][…]Thatprovision[section58.1oftheCopyrightAmendmentAct,
S.C.1997,c.24]limitstheambitofanyassignmentofarightthatwould
bearighttoremunerationundertheActmadeinanagreement
concludedbeforeApril25,1996.Aprovisionthatlimitsassignmentsis
notrequiredwherenoassignmentispossible.

48
·Section20–Conditions[totherightofremuneration]
Fortherighttoremunerationtoapply,severalconditionsaretobemet:i)recordings
madeinanon-RomecountrybyamakerwhoisnotaRomeresidentarenoteligible,
ii)eligibilitytotheremunerationdependsentirelyonthestatusofthemakerorthe
locationofthefixationandnotoftheperformers,andiii)residence-basedeligibilityis
determinedbylookingatthemakeritself.
Re:SoundTariffNo.6B–UseofRecordedMusictoAccompanyPhysicalActivities,
2008-2009,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs-tarifs/certified-
homologues/2012/ReSound6_B_reasons.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-07-06)
[66]Section20oftheActprovidesthatasoundrecordingcantrigger
equitableremunerationpursuanttosection19(i.e.iseligible)ifthemaker
residesinaRomeconventioncountry(residencebasedeligibility)orif
allfixationsweremadeinsuchacountry(location-basedeligibility).For
thepurposesoftheseproceedings,thisisimportantinatleastthree
respects.
[67]First,recordingsmadeinanon-Romecountrybyamaker
whoisnotaRomeresidentarenoteligible.Thisincludesthevast
majorityofrecordingsmadeintheUnitedStates.[Fn6Essentially,the
CanadianActappliestoworksoriginatingfromacountrythatisa
partytotheBerneConventionfortheProtectionofLiteraryand
ArtisticWorksandtosoundrecordingsoriginatingfromacountrythatis
apartytotheRomeInternationalConventionfortheProtectionof
Performers,ProducersofPhonogramsandBroadcasting
Organisations.SeveralcountriesthatarepartiestotheBerne
ConventionarenotpartiestotheRomeConvention,mostnotablythe
UnitedStates.]UserscanavoidpayingRe:Soundroyaltiesbyplaying
onlysoundrecordingsthatarenoteligible.Thistaskbecomeseasierif
musicisprovided,forexample,byasupplierofexercisemusicor
videos(e.g.,Zumba),ifthesupplieronlyusesnon-eligiblerecordings.
[68]Second,whoperformersare,wheretheyliveandwhetherthey
aremembersofacollectiveareirrelevanttotheissueofsound
recordingeligibility;thisdependsentirelyonthestatusofthe
makerorthelocationofthefixation.
[69]Third,residence-basedeligibilityisdeterminedbylooking
atthemaker,notitsparentcompanyoritsCanadianagent.A
recordingmadeinanon-Romecountrybyanon-Romemakeris
ineligibleevenifthemakerisawhollyownedsubsidiaryofaRome
residentorifthemaker’sCanadianagentisaRomemaker.
Contractualarrangementsbetweenthemakeranditsparent
companyoragentcannotmakeeligiblearecordingthatisnot.

49
·Section21-Copyrightintelecommunication
CanadianRadio-televisionandTelecommunicationsCommission(Re),2012SCC4
(S.C.C.;2012-02-09)[affirming2010CarswellNat2092,F.C.A.;2010-07-07)
[6]Thisinterpretationof“broadcastingundertaking”isconsistentwith
ElectricDespatchCo.ofTorontov.BellTelephoneCo.ofCanada,
(1891),20S.C.R.83.InElectricDespatch,theCourthadtointerpret
theterm“transmit”inanexclusivitycontractrelatingtomessenger
orders.LiketheISPsinthiscase,BellTelephonehadnoknowledge
orcontroloverthenatureofthecommunicationbeingpassedoverits
wires.ThisCourthadtodeterminewhethertheterm“transmit”
implicatedanentitywhomerelyprovidedthemodeof
transmission.TheCourtconcludedthatonlytheactualsenderofthe
messagecouldbesaidto“transmit”it,atp.91:Itisthepersonwhobreathesintotheinstrumentthemessage
whichistransmittedalongthewireswhoalonecanbesaidto
bethepersonwho”transmits”themessage.Theownersofthe
telephonewires,whoareutterlyignorantofthenatureofthe
messageintendedtobesent,cannotbesaid…totransmita
messageofthepurportofwhichtheyareignorant.[Emphasis
added]

ReferencereBroadcastingRegulatoryPolicy2010-167andBroadcastingOrder
CRTC2010-168,2012SCC68(S.C.C.;2011-09-29)RothsteinJ.[reversing91
C.P.R.(4th)389(F.C.A.;2011-02-28):[49]Theaspectrelevantforthisappealisinpara.[21(1)](c).Under
thisparagraph,abroadcasterhasthesolerighttoauthorizeanother
broadcastertoretransmitsimultaneouslyacommunication
signal.Section2oftheCopyrightActdefines“broadcaster”as
abodythat,inthecourseofoperatingabroadcasting
undertaking,broadcastsacommunicationsignalinaccordance
withthelawofthecountryinwhichthebroadcasting

50
undertakingiscarriedon,butexcludesabodywhoseprimary
activityinrelationtocommunicationsignalsistheir
retransmission.

[50]TheunderlinedportionofthedefinitionreferstoBDUs.BDUs
arenota“broadcaster”withinthemeaningoftheCopyrightAct
becausetheirprimaryactivityinrelationcommunicationsignals
istheirretransmission.Thus,thebroadcaster’ss.21(1)(c)rightto
authorize,ornotauthorize,anotherbroadcastertosimultaneously
retransmititssignalsdoesnotapplyagainstBDUs.Inotherwords,
unders.21oftheCopyrightAct,abroadcaster’sexclusiverightdoes
notincludearighttoauthorizeorprohibitaBDUfromretransmitting
itscommunicationsignals.
[67]Inmyview,s.21(1)representstheexpressionbyParliament
oftheappropriatebalancetobestruckbetweenbroadcasters’
rightsintheircommunicationsignalsandtherightsofthe
users,includingBDUs,tothosesignals.Itwouldbeincoherent
forParliamenttosetupacarefullytailoredsignals
retransmissionrightintheCopyrightAct,specificallyexcluding
BDUsfromthescopeofthebroadcasters’exclusiverightsover
thesimultaneousretransmissionoftheirsignals,onlytoenable
asubordinatelegislativebodytoenactafunctionallyequivalent
rightthrougharelatedregime.Thevalueforsignalregimewould
upsettheaimoftheCopyrightActtoeffectanappropriate“balance
betweenpromotingthepublicinterestintheencouragementand
disseminationofworksoftheartsandintellectandobtainingajust
rewardforthecreator”(Théberge,atpara.30[Thébergev.Galérie
d’ArtduPetitChamplaininc.,2002SCC34]).
·Section21-Copyrightintelecommunication
Section21definescopyrightinacommunicationsignal.

ReferencereBroadcastingRegulatoryPolicy2010-167andBroadcastingOrder
CRTC2010-168,2012SCC68(S.C.C.;2011-09-29)RothsteinJ.[reversing91
C.P.R.(4th)389(F.C.A.;2011-02-28)]:[81]Contrarytos.89,thevalueforsignalregimewouldcreatea
newtypeofcopyrightbyregulationorlicensing
condition.Sections2and21oftheCopyrightActdefinecopyright
inacommunicationsignaltoincludethesolerighttoauthorize
anotherbroadcastertoretransmitittothepublicsimultaneouslywith
itsbroadcast.Authorizingsimultaneousretransmissionisthenan
aspectofcopyright,althoughtherightundertheCopyrightActis

51
limitedtoauthorizingonlyspecificdefinedentities,other
broadcasters.Inlightofthelegislativehistorydiscussedabove,this
limitationoncopyrightappearstobetheresultofaspecific
Parliamentarychoicenottochangethebalancestruckinthe
CopyrightActbetweenbroadcastersandBDUs.Thevaluefor
signalregimewouldcreateanewrighttoauthorize
retransmission(andcorrespondinglypreventretransmissionif
agreementastocompensationisnotachieved),ineffect,
amendingthecopyrightconferredbys.21.Thusthevaluefor
signalregimewouldcreateanewtypeofcopyrightandwoulddoso
withouttherequiredActofParliament,contrarytos.89.

·Section25–Ownershipofcopyright
Therighttoremunerationisassignable.
Re:SoundTariffNo.6B–UseofRecordedMusictoAccompanyPhysicalActivities,
2008-2009,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs-tarifs/certified-
homologues/2012/ReSound6_B_reasons.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-07-06)
Thesection19remunerationrightclearlyisoneof“therightsconferred
bythisPart”forwhichsection25oftheActspecifiesthattheyare
transferable.Subsection19(3)requiresthatroyaltiesbedividedsothat
performersandmakerseachreceivehalf.Nomentionismadeofany
successorintitletotheremunerationright.
·Section27-Infringement
Consentmaybeexpressorimpliedbutmustbeclear.

Khanv.Tajdin,2012FCA14(F.C.A;2012-02-16)GauthierJ.[affirming2011FCA14
(F.C.;2011-02-07);leavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadarefused2012
CarswellNat2183(S.C.C.;2012-06-28)][15]Itisnotdisputedthatconsent,inthisstatutoryprovision,
canbeeitherexpressorimplied.“Suchaconsentmaybe
presumedfromthecircumstances.Theinferenceofconsentmustbe
clearbeforeitwilloperate[…]andmustcomefromtheperson
holdingtheparticularrightallegedtobeinfringed”(H.G.Fox,The
CanadianLawofCopyrightandIndustrialDesigns,2ded(Toronto:
Carswell,1967)at339,citedwithapprovalbyChiefJustice
McLachlininBishopvStevens,[1990]2SCR467atparagraph35).

[18]Thefactthat,inlightofhisundisclosedintentionsandhis
knowledgeofhis“Farmansproject”,Mr.Tajdinmayhavehada

52
genuinesubjectivebeliefthatthroughthisexchangeconsentwas
givenforthepublicationandsaleofthecopyrightedworksoftheAga
Khan,pastandfuture,solongasthesalesanddistributionwere
madeonlytoIsmailis,isnotparticularlyrelevant.Thetesttobe
appliedhereisanobjectiveone,andthefocusisonwhetherthe
ownerofthecopyrightcanbepresumedtohaveconsentedto
theotherwiseinfringingactions.
·Section27-Infringement
Absenceofconsentoftheownerofthecopyrightshallbeproveninanactionfor
copyrightinfringement.
Waldmanv.ThomsonReutersCorporation,2012ONSC1138(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-
02-21)PerellJ.[59]Forthepurposesofthecaseatbar,itisimportanttonotethat
foraclassmembertoprovecopyrightinfringement,theclass
membermustprovefourelements:(1)thatcopyrightexistsinthe
work;(2)thatheorsheistheownerofthecopyrightinthework;(3)
thatThomson[thedefendant]hasdoneathingthatonlytheownerof
thecopyrighthastherighttodo;and(4)thattheclassmemberdid
notconsenttoThomson’sconduct
[87][…]Consentisafundamentalpartofanycopyright
infringementcase.Theclassmembermustestablishthatheorshe
istheownerofthecopyrightinawork,andthattheworkhasbeen
reproducedwithoutconsent.
[88]Consentcanbeexpress.Itcanalsobeimplied,forexample,
throughknowledgeandconduct.
·Section27-Infringement
Itistheburdenoftheplaintifftoprovetheabsenceofconsentofthecopyrightowner.

HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2012FCA226,(F.C.A;2012-
08-31)GauthierJ.[confirming92C.P.R.(4th)6(F.C.;2011-03-18)]
[29]Harmony[Theappelant/defendant]arguesthatthetrialjudge
misplacedtheburdenofproofwithrespecttotheelementofconsent.
RelyingonthedecisionoftheFederalCourtinAgaKhanv.Tajdin,
2011FC14(CanLII),2011FC14,329D.L.R.(4th)521,(AgaKhan),
aff’d2012FCA12(CanLII),2012FCA12,426N.R.190(AgaKhan
F.C.A.),Harmonysaysthatconsentisadefenceand,assuch,the
burdenofestablishingitrestsonFoss.Itsubmitsthatthetrialjudge

53
misconstruedanearlierdecisionofthisCourt:PositiveAttitude
SafetySystemInc.v.AlbianSandsEnergyInc.,2005FCA332
(CanLII),2005FCA332,[2006]2F.C.R.50(Positive).Initsview,
thisCourtneverintendedtoshifttheburdenofprooftotheplaintiffin
thatcase.Icannotagree.
[30]InAgaKhanF.C.A.,thisCourtconfirmedtheFederalCourt
decisioninAgaKhan,notingexpresslythattheFederalCourt’s
statementswithrespecttotheburdenofproofwouldnotconstitute
anoverridingerrorintheparticularcircumstancesofthatcase.Itis
nowimportant,inmyview,toreaffirmanearlierstatementofthis
Courtonthisquestion.

[31]WritingfortheCourtinPositive,JusticePelletierheldthat
infringementisdefinedinthe
Actintermsoftheabsenceof
consentand,consequently,proofofinfringementrequiresproof
oflackofconsent(seeparagraph39).Inmyview,thisstatement
canonlymeanthattheplaintiffbearstheburdenofpersuasion
withrespecttothelackofconsent.Thisisinlinewiththe
generalprinciplethataplaintiffmustestablishonabalanceof
probabilitiesallthenecessaryelementsofitsclaim.
·Section27-Infringement
Useofaprotectedwork,withouttheconsentofthecopyrightowner,evenforagood
cause,isinfringement.AvailabiltyofaworkontheInternetisnotpersean
authorizarionanddoesnotexempttorequireconsentoftheownerofthecopyright
inthiswork.
Aramav.Azoulay,2012QCCQ10913,(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2012-11-14)Veilleux
J.[13]IlnefaitpasdedoutepourleTribunalquelademanderesse
estl’auteuredelaphoto,quecelle-ciconstitueuneœuvreoriginale
protégéeparsondroitd’auteuretqueledéfendeur,enutilisant
commeill’afaitlaphotodelademanderessesansson
consentement,aviolésondroitd’auteur.Bienquelelivredu
défendeuraitétéconfectionnéetdistribuédansunsoucidefaire
connaîtrelepatrimoinejuifàlajeunesse,iln’enrestepasmoinsque
l’œuvreoriginaledelademanderesseaétéutiliséesansson
autorisationetdefaçonpréjudiciableàtoutlemoinssurleplan
pécuniaire.Eneffet,lademanderesseestphotographe
professionnelle.

[14]Enfin,cen’estparcequecettephotoaététrouvéeparle
défendeursurInternetqu’ilpeutl’utiliserimpunément.

54
·Section27-Infringement
Itisuptotheplaintifftoadducesufficientevidencetoestablishinfringement.

HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2012FCA226(F.C.A.;2012-
08-31)GauthierJ.[confirming92C.P.R.(4th)6,((F.C.;2011-03-18)]
[93]Iwouldaddthatitisessentialtoprovidethetrialjudgewith
preciseandcleartechnicalevidencesupportingone’sargumentthat
reproductionisnecessarilyinvolvedincarryingoutcertainactionsin
infringementactionsinvolvingcomputerprograms.Findingsmadein
othercasescannotreplaceactualevidenceinthecaseatbar.
Harmonydidnotpresentanyexpertevidenceanditattemptedto
makeitscasethroughthetestimonyofFoss’witnesses.Thisis
alwaysrisky.Infact,thetrialjudgefoundthatHarmonyhadproduced
insufficientevidencetoestablishinfringementonabalanceof
probabilities.
·Section27-Infringement
Consentistobeprovidedbytheownerofthecopyright.

LachancevProductionsMarieEykelinc.,2012QCCS1012(Que.Sup.Ct.-Merits;
2012-03-15)GrenierJ.[51]Ledemandeurn’étantpastitulairedudroitd’auteur,les
défendeursn’ontpasbesoindesonconsentementpourreproduire
lesémissionsPasse-PartoutsursupportDVDetlescommercialiser.
·Section27-Infringement
Theabsenceofintenttoinfringecopyrightisnotadefencetocopyrightinfringement.

GlanzmannToursLtd.v.YukonWideAdventures2012CarswellYukon41(YK-
SmallClaimsCt.;2012-05-10)FaulknerJ.[12]Attheendoftheday,itremainsunclearhowtheplaintiff’saurora
photofounditswayontothedefendant’scomputerandwebsite.
However,itisnotadefencetothepresentactionthatthe
copyrightinfringementwasinadvertent.Theplaintiffisstillentitled
todamagesequaltothelosshesufferedfromtheinfringement.
·Section28.2-Natureofrightofintegrity

55
Forinfringementofthemoralrighttointegritytobefound,prejudicetothehonouror
reputatonoftheauthorshouldbeproven.
Waldmanv.ThomsonReutersCorporation,2012ONSC1138(OntSupCt;2012-02-
21)PerellJ.[75][…]Theneedforprejudicetothehonourorreputationofthe
authorisanessentialelementofaninfringementoftherightof
integrity;withoutprejudice,therightofintegrityisnotinfringed:
PrisedeparoleInc.v.GuerinEditeurLtee,(1995),66C.P.R.(3d)
257at265,aff’d,(1996),73C.P.R.(3d)557;HarmonyConsulting
Ltd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2011FC340atpara.290.
·Section29-Research
Asauser’sright,fairusemustnotmeconstruedrestrictively;“research”mustbe
givenalargeinterpretation
Waldmanv.ThomsonReutersCorporation,2012ONSC1138(OntSupCt;2012-02-
21)PerellJ.[84]Fairdealingwasauser’srightandinordertomaintainthe
properbalancebetweentherightsofacopyrightownerandusers’
interests,itmustnotbeinterpretedrestrictively.Inordertoshow
thatadealingwasfairunders.29oftheCopyrightAct,adefendant
mustprove:(1)thatthedealingwasforthepurposeofeither
researchorprivatestudyand(2)thatitwasfair.“Research”hasa
largeandliberalinterpretationinordertoensurethatusers’
rightsarenotundulyconstrainedandwasnotlimitedtonon-
commercialorprivatecontexts.Researchforthepurposeof
advisingclients,givingopinions,arguingcases,preparingbriefs
andfactumswasresearch.
·Section29-Research
“Fairdealingisa“user’sright”,andtherelevantperspectivewhenconsidering
whetherthedealingisforanallowablepurpose[…]isthatoftheuser”

Alberta(Education)v.AccessCopyright2012SCC37,(S.C.C.;2012-07-12)Abella
J.[reversing85C.P.R.(4th)349(F.C.A.;2010-07-23),whichwasreversinginpart
2009-Carswell1930(Cop.Bd.;2009-06-26)][21]Thesecases,then,totheextentthattheyaregermane,donot
standforthepropositionthat“research”and“privatestudy”are
inconsistentwithinstructionalpurposes,butfortheprinciplethat
copierscannotcamouflagetheirowndistinctpurposeby

56
purportingtoconflateitwiththeresearchorstudypurposesof
theultimateuser.

[22]AsnotedinthecompanionappealSOCANv.Bell[2012SCC
36(S.C.C.;2012-07-12)],fairdealingisa“user’sright”,andthe
relevantperspectivewhenconsideringwhetherthedealingisforan
allowablepurposeunderthefirststageofCCH[CCHCanadianLtd.
v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13,S.C.C.;2004-03-
04)]isthatoftheuser(CCH,atparas.48and64).Thisdoesnot
mean,however,thatthecopier’spurposeisirrelevantatthe
fairnessstage.If,asinthe“coursepack”cases,thecopier
hidesbehindtheshieldoftheuser’sallowablepurposein
ordertoengageinaseparatepurposethattendstomakethe
dealingunfair,thatseparatepurposewillalsoberelevanttothe
fairnessanalysis.

[27]Withrespect,theword“private”in“privatestudy”shouldnotbe
understoodasrequiringuserstoviewcopyrightedworksinsplendid
isolation.Studyingandlearningareessentiallypersonal
endeavours,whethertheyareengagedinwithothersorin
solitude.Byfocusingonthegeographyofclassroominstruction
ratherthanontheconceptofstudying,theBoardagainartificially
separatedtheteachers’instructionfromthestudents’studying.
·Section29-Research
Fortheexceptiontoapply,thecourtmustdeterminewhetherthedealingisforoneof
theenumeratedpurposeand,thereafter,whetheritisfair.Researchisnottobe
confinedtocreativeresearch.
SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav.BellCanada2012
SCC36,(S.C.C.;2012-07-12)AbellaJ.[affirming83C.P.R.(4th)409(F.C.A.;2010-
05-14);affirming61CPR(4th)353(Cop.Bd.;2007-10-18)]
[13]ThetestforfairdealingarticulatedinCCH[CCHCanadianLtd.
v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13,S.C.C.;2004-03-
04)]involvestwosteps.Thefirstistodeterminewhetherthe
dealingisforthepurposeofeither“research”or“privatestudy”,the
twoallowablepurposeslistedunders.29.Thesecondstep
assesseswhetherthedealingis“fair”.Theonusisontheperson
invoking“fairdealing”tosatisfybothaspectsofthetestunderCCH.

[21]Itistruethatanimportantgoaloffairdealingistoallowusersto
employcopyrightedworksinawaythathelpsthemengageintheir
ownactsofauthorshipandcreativity:AbrahamDrassinower,
“TakingUserRightsSeriously”,inMichaelGeist,ed.,InthePublic

57
Interest:TheFutureofCanadianCopyrightLaw(2005),462,atpp.
467-72.Butthatdoesnotargueforpermittingonlycreative
purposestoqualifyas“research”unders.29oftheCopyright
Act.Todosowouldignorethefactthatthedisseminationofworks
isalsooneoftheAct’spurposes,whichmeansthatdissemination
too,withorwithoutcreativity,isinthepublicinterest.Itwouldalso
ignorethat“privatestudy”,aconceptthathasnointrinsic
relationshipwithcreativity,wasalsoexpresslyincludedasan
allowablepurposeins.29.Since“research”and“privatestudy”
bothqualifyasfairdealingpurposesunders.29,weshouldnot
interprettheterm“research”morerestrictivelythan“privatestudy”.

[22]Limitingresearchtocreativepurposeswouldalsorun
countertotheordinarymeaningof“research”,whichcan
includemanyactivitiesthatdonotdemandtheestablishment
ofnewfactsorconclusions.Itcanbepiecemeal,informal,
exploratory,orconfirmatory.Itcaninfactbeundertakenforno
purposeexceptpersonalinterest.Itistruethatresearchcan
beforthepurposeofreachingnewconclusions,butthis
shouldbeseenasonlyone,nottheprimarycomponentofthe
definitionalframework.
[26]UnliketheAmericanapproachofproceedingstraighttothe
fairnessassessment,wedonotengageinthefairnessanalysisin
Canadauntilwearesatisfiedthatthedealingisforoneofthe
allowablepurposesenumeratedintheCopyrightAct.Underthetest
setoutinCCH,“fairness”isnotconsidereduntilthesecondstepof
thetestforfairdealing:seeCCHatpara.51;[…]
[27]Inmandatingagenerousinterpretationofthefairdealing
purposes,including“research”,theCourtinCCHcreateda
relativelylowthresholdforthefirststepsothattheanalytical
heavy-hittingisdoneindeterminingwhetherthedealingwas
fair.SOCAN’ssubmissionthat“research”berestrictedtothe
creationofnewworkswouldconflatetheallowablepurpose
withthefairnessanalysisandundulyraisethebarforentering
thatanalysis.[…]
·Section29-Research
Ifanactfallswithinthefairdealingexception,itdoesnothavetobecoveredbya
tariff.

58
SOCANTariff22.A(2007-2010);CMRRA/SODRACInc.Tariff(2008-2010)(Online
ServiceMusic),http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/socan-csi-reasons.pdf(Cop.
Bd.;2012-10-05)
[148]ThepreviousCSItariffspecifiedthatpreviewsofnomore
than30secondsdidnotattractroyalties.Thisprovisionis
removed,sincesuchusesalmostcertainlyinvolvefairdealing.

·Section29-Research
Whatisfairdealingisamatterofcontextandevidence.

SOCAN(2008-2010),RE:SOUND(2008-2011),CSI(2008-2012),AVLA/SOPROQ
(2008-2011),ARTISTI(2009-2011)ReInterimdecision,
http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/radio-21122012.pdf
(Cop.Bd.;2012-12-21)
[10]CABfurthersubmitsthatBell[SOCANv.BellCanada,2012
SCC36]isdirectlyapplicabletoastation’sevaluationandselection
copies.Therearesimilaritiesbetweenlisteningtoapreview
beforepurchasingaworkandlisteningtoacompleteworkto
decidewhetherornottobroadcastit.Therearealsosome
significantdifferences,towhichtheSupremeCourtitselfalluded,for
example,fullreproductionvs.Shortexcerpts,identicalqualityvs.low
quality,andstreamingvs.Downloading[Bell,paras.35,36,47,48.].
Asignificantamountofadditionalevidencewillnodoubtberequired,
sincethequestionofwhatisorisnotfairisaboveallamatterof
context.

·Section29.2–Newsreporting
Thenewsreportingexceptionalsorequiresthatthesourceandauthorbementioned.

Warmanv.Fournier2012FC803(F.C.;2012-06-21)RinnieJ.
[29]Inthealternative,evenifthereproducedportionsoftheKay
Workamounttoasubstantialpart,Ifindthattherespondents’
reproductionconstitutesfairdealingforthepurposesofnews
reporting,pursuanttosection29.2oftheCopyrightAct.

[30]TheSCC’sdecisioninCCH[CCHCanadianLtd.v.LawSociety
ofUpperCanada2004SCC13]setsoutimportantguiding
principlesinapplyingthefairdealingexception.TheSCC
emphasizedatparagraph48thatfairdealingisbestunderstood
asanintegralpartofthecopyrightregimeandasauser’sright,
ratherthanadefence.Inordertoavailthemselvesofthe
exceptiontherespondentsmustestablishfirst,thatthedealing

59
wasforoneofthepurposesarticulatedinsection29ofthe
CopyrightAct,andsecond,thatthedealingwasfair.

[31]TheSCCstatedinCCH,atparagraph51,thatthefairdealing
purposes(inthatcase,research)“mustbegivenalargeandliberal
interpretationinordertoensurethatusers’rightsarenotunduly
constrained.”Applyingthislargeandliberalinterpretationtonews
reporting,Ifindthattherespondents’dealinginrespectoftheKay
Workfallswithinthispurpose.TheypostedtheexcerptsoftheKay
WorkonFreeDominiontopromulgatethefactsrecountedinthat
article.Thus,thefirstcriterionforfairdealingismet.Thenews
reportingexceptionalsorequiresthatthesourceandauthorbe
mentioned,whichisalsosatisfiedinthiscase.

·Section30.6-PermittedActs(Comoputerprograms)
Absentanyevidence,“backuppurposes”hasitsordinarymeaningofsomethingkept
inreserveforemergencyreplacement.
HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2012FCA226,(F.C.A;2012-
08-31)GauthierJ.[confirming92C.P.R.(4th)6((F.C.;2011-03-18)]
[72]Therewasnoexpertevidenceestablishingthattheexpression
“forbackuppurposes”hadanytechnicalmeaningotherthanits
ordinarymeaningofsomethingkeptinreserveforemergency
replacement.Noristhereanysuchevidencethat“emergency”hasa
specificmeaninginthatindustryrestrictingittocertaineventsand
excludingcorruptionorerrorswhileworkingonthesoftware.

·Section30.7-Incidentaluse
Theincorporationinafilmofaspecificphotograph,evenforabriefduration,does
notqualifyasincidentaluse,andtoavoidinfringement,alicenceshallbeobtained.

NationalFilmBoardofCanadaforthereproductionandincorporationofa
photographinadocumentaryfilm[Reapplicationby]File2011U)/TI-25;also
availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/260-f.pdf
(Cop.Bd.;2012-02-10)[1][…]Laphotographieestennoiretblancetfaitpartied’uncollagefaitpar
M
meBaillargeonàl’époque.
L’imagecinématographiquedelaphotographiedureraauplus22
secondesdanslefilmdocumentairede75minutes.
Lalicenceautoriseaussil’exécutionenpublicetlacommunicationau
publicpartélécommunicationdelaphotographieainsiincorporéeainsi
quelareproductiondufilmdocumentairesurtoutsupportàdesfinsde

60
distributionpourreprésentationprivée,commepartiedel’exploitationdu
filmdocumentaire
2).Lalicenceexpireàl’égarddel’œuvrelorsquecelle-cirelèveradu
domainepublic.
4)Lalicenceestrétroactiveàladatedelapremièrereproductionde
l’imagedanslefilmdocumentairementionnéauparagraphe1).[starting
October2011]
·Section31-Interpretation[Retransmission]
Section31isanexceptiontothecopyrightowner’srighttocontrolthecommunication
oftheirworktothepublicbytelecommunication.
ReferencereBroadcastingRegulatoryPolicy2010-167andBroadcastingOrder
CRTC2010-168,2012SCC68(S.C.C.;2011-09-29)RothsteinJ.[reversing91
C.P.R.(4th)389(F.C.A.;2011-02-28)]:[54][…]However,s.31(2)oftheCopyrightActproceedsin
detailedfashiontocircumscribetherightofcopyrightownersto
controltheretransmissionofliterary,dramatic,musicalor
artisticworkscarriedinsignals.“Signal”isdefinedforthe
purposesofs.31(2)tomean“asignalthatcarriesaliterary,
dramatic,musicalorartisticworkandistransmittedforfreereception
bythepublicbyaterrestrialradioorterrestrialtelevisionstation”(see
s.31(1)).Section31(1)defines“retransmitter”as“apersonwho
performsafunctioncomparabletothatofacableretransmission
system…”.

[56]Readtogether,ss.31(1)and31(2)createanexceptiontothe
exclusiverightofthecopyrightownersofliterary,dramatic,
musicalorartisticworkstocontrolthecommunicationoftheir
workstothepublicbytelecommunication.Theexception,or
user’sright,ineffect,entitlesBDUstoretransmitthoseworkswithout
thecopyrightowners’consent,wheretheconditionssetoutinparas.
(a)through(e)aremet.Paragraph(b)providesthatthe
retransmissionmustbelawfulundertheBroadcastingAct.Iwill
comebacktothemeaningofthisparticularcondition.

[58][…]Ontheonehand,thecopyrightownerisgrantedageneral
righttoretransmitthework.Thisretransmissionrightispartofthe
right,unders.(3)(1)(f),tocommunicatetheworkby
telecommunicationtothepublic.Ontheotherhand,theowner’s
generalrighttoretransmitisrestrictedbyacarve-outins.31(2)
oftheCopyrightAct,whicheffectivelygrantstoaspecificclass
ofretransmitterstworetransmissionrights.Thefirstrightlets
theseuserssimultaneouslyretransmitwithoutaroyalty

61
payment,workscarriedinalocalsignal.Thesecondrightlets
themsimultaneouslyretransmitworkscarriedindistantsignals,
butonlysubjecttothepaymentofroyaltiesunderaformof
compulsorylicenceregime(CopyrightAct,s.31(2)(a)and
(d)).Bothuserrightsare,subjecttos.31(2),beyondtheowner’s
control.
·Section31-Interpretation[Retransmission]
Thegoalofsection31istofacilitatethesimultaneousretransmissionoftelevision
programsbycable.
ReferencereBroadcastingRegulatoryPolicy2010-167andBroadcastingOrder
CRTC2010-168,2012SCC68(S.C.C.;2011-09-29)RothsteinJ.[reversing91
C.P.R.(4th)389(F.C.A.;2011-02-28)]:[71]TherecentlegislativehistoryoftheCopyrightActsupportsthe
viewthatParliamentmadedeliberatechoicesinrespectofcopyright
andbroadcastingpolicy.ThehistoryevidencesParliament’s
intenttofacilitatesimultaneousretransmissionoftelevision
programsbycableandlimittheobstaclesfacedbythe
retransmitters.
·Section32.1-Noinfringement[Statutoryobligations]
TheCopyrightActprovidesforexceptionfromcopyrightinfringementswhentheact
isdoneincompliancewithafederalstatute.
AccessCopyright-ProvincialandTerritorialGovernmentsTariffs(2005-2014)
Decision(Crownimmunityapplication)2012CarswellNat609(Cop.Bd.;2012-03-15)
[60]AfirstsetofexceptionsappeartobenefittheCrownwritlarge.
Paragraph45(1)(b)hasexistedsincetheActcameintoforcein1924.It
makeslawfulcertainformsofparallelimportationofaworkorother
subject-matter“forusebyadepartmentoftheGovernmentofCanada
oraprovince”.SincetheCrownisanartificialperson,unavailabletoshield
theseintermediaries(whethercivilservantsorothers)fromliability.
Anothersuchexceptionissubsection32.1(1),whichexemptsfrom
copyrightinfringementcopiesmadetocomplywithfederalor
provincialaccesstoinformationorprivacylegislation.Such
legislationlargelyconcernsemanationsoftheCrown
·Section34-CivilRemedies
Foraquiettimetinjuctiontoissue,aplaintiffshallestablishedirreparableharm.

62
NexusSolutionsInc.v.Krougly,2012ONSC583,,(OntSupCt;2012-01-25)Hockin
J.[25]Theplaintiff’sonlyanswertothisofferisthatbecauseLimesoft’s
productionsareunreliableordoctored,therewasnopointtoa
comparison.Thereisnoevidenceofthisbeyondconjectureor
suspicion.
[26]Thereisastrongcontrollingpolicyinthelawfavouring
settlementofdisputeswithoutlitigation.Thislitigationislikelytoend
afteracomparisonofthesourcecodesandsourcecodecontrol
systems.Thereisanopportunitynowtodeterminethisasamatterof
fact.Thedefendantsareanxiousthatthiscomparisontakeplaceand
havegonesofarastoconsenttotheparticipationoftheplaintiff’s
expertforthispurpose.Itwouldbewrongforthiscourttograntrelief
bywayofinjunctionwherethedefendantsarepreparedtosubmit
theirsoftwaretothetestofacomparisonwhentheplaintiffagrees
theresultwillshowwhethertherehasbeenabreachofcopyright.
Thecourtshouldnotsetthepartiesadrifttosuffergreatand
unnecessarycostinthesecircumstances.
[27]Thisactionisaquiatimetproceeding.Theplaintiffhasnot
lostacontracttothedefendants.Furthermore,theplaintiffhas
notestablishedirreparableharm.Moreover,thebalanceof
conveniencefavoursthedefendants.Thedefendantcompanyis
anewcompanywhichwillundoubtedlywitherordieifitis
prohibitedfromsellingitssoftwaretothetimeoftrial.
·Section34-CivilRemedies
Inanactionforcopyrightinfringement,theplaintiffshallprovethatthedefendant
committheunauthorizedact.

ForensicTechnologyInc.c.PyramidalTechnologiesLtd.,2012QCCS2463,(Que.
Sup.Ct.;2012-06-06)CollierJ.[30][…]Similarly,afindingofcopyrightinfringementrequires
proofthatthedefendantreproducedthework,orauthorized
anothertoreproducethework,withoutthecopyrightowner’s
permission.[Fn19CopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,s.3.]Inthe
presentcase,thereisnoevidencethatthedefendantsmadea
prohibiteduseoftheplaintiff’strade-markorengagedinanactof
copyrightinfringement.Ifanything,CrimeGunSolutionscommitted
theseacts,notthedefendants.

63
·Section34-CivilRemedies
PrejudmentinterestmaybeawardedonmonetaryawardundertheCopyrightAct.

SocietyofComposer,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav.IICEnterprises
Ltd.(Cheetah’sNightclub),2012FCA179,(F.C.A;2012-06-14)SharlowJ.[reversing
2011CarswellNat5087(F.C.;2011-12-01);affirming2011CarswellNat3810(F.C.-
Proth.;2011-09-21)][21]TheCopyrightActsaysnothingaboutprejudgmentinterest,andI
havebeenunabletofindanyotherActofParliamentthatcould
possiblybeinterpretedtoprecludeanawardofprejudgmentinterest
onamonetaryawardmadeundertheCopyrightAct.Itfollowsthatin
thiscase,subsection36(1)oftheFederalCourtsActapplies.
SOCAN’sentitlementtoprejudgmentinterestmustbedeterminedby
thelawofBritishColumbia.
·Section34-CivilRemedies
Anemployermaybeheldliableforthecopyrightinfringementofhisemployee.

Leutholdv.CanadianBroadcastingCorporation,2012FC748(F.C.;2012-06-14)
ScottJ.[170]However,heisnotliableforthisinfringementbecausetheCBC
isheldresponsibleforthemisconductofitsemployees.Vicarious
liabilityis“atheorythatholdsonepersonresponsibleforthe
misconductofanotherbecauseoftherelationshipbetweenthem.
Althoughthecategoriesofrelationshipsinlawthatattractvicarious
liabilityareneitherexhaustivelydefinednorclosed,themostcommon
onetogiverisetovicariousliabilityistherelationshipbetweenmaster
andservant,nowmorecommonlycalledemployerandemployee”
(see671122OntarioLtdvSagazIndustriesCanadaInc,2001SCC
59atpara25[Sagaz]).Morespecifically,themaster’storttheory
“positsthattheemployerisvicariouslyliablefortheactsofhis
employeebecausetheactsareregardedasbeingauthorizedby
himsothatinlawtheactsoftheemployeearetheactsofthe
employer”(seeSagazatpara28).
·Section34-CivilRemedies
Damagesdonotdependofthetechnicalmeansusedtoinfringe.

Leutholdv.CanadianBroadcastingCorporation,2012FC748(F.C.;2012-06-14)
ScottJ.[128]TheCopyrightActismeanttoproperlycompensatetheowner
ofacopyrightifhisrightsareinfringed.Inthepresentcasetherights

64
ofMissLeutholdwereinfringed.Onsixseparateoccasionsher
PhotographswereviewedbyCanadiansforadurationof18seconds
withoutherauthorization.TheCourtwillcompensate[theplaintiff]
MissLeutholdforeveryoneofthesixcommunicationstothe
Canadianpublic,butitcannotaccepttheprinciplethat
compensationmustbeawardedonthebasisofeachtechnical
actofinfringementbecauseapplyingsuchamethodruns
countertoourreadingoftheBroadcastingActwiththe
CopyrightAct.TothisCourtsubparagraph2.4(1)(c)(ii)ofthe
CopyrightActmustbereadinconjunctionwiththedefinitionof
broadcastintheBroadcastingAct.Theimportantfactortoconsideris
thenumberofoccasionstheinfringingbroadcastscouldbeseenby
thepublic.Inthisinstancethereweresixseparateoccasionslasting
18secondseachwheretheCanadianpublicwhosubscribetocable
couldseethePhotographsonNewsworld.Thetechnicalmeans
usedtorelaytheinfringingworkhasnobearingontheamount
ofcompensationowedtoMissLeutholdsavefortherevenues
derivedfromtheinfringingbroadcast.Whatisimportantinthis
Court’sopinionistoadequatelycompensateacopyrightownerforthe
damagesuffered.Thenumberofpotentialviewersbearssome
significanceintermsofthevaluetobeassignedtoalicense.
·Section34-CivilRemedies
Injunctionreliefwillbegrantedifthereisaprobabilityofrepetitionoftheinfringing
act.
Leutholdv.CanadianBroadcastingCorporation,2012FC748(F.C.;2012-06-14)
ScottJ.[161]ThereisnonecessitytograntMissLeutholdtheinjunctionrelief
sought.CBCceasedtobroadcasttheProductionin2005.The
injunctionwouldhavenoeffectwhatsoever(seeDeMontignyc
Cousineau,[1950]SCR297atpage304;DurandandCievPatrie
PublishingCo,[1960]SCR649atpage658)Thereisnoprobability
ofarepetitionoftheparticularactcomplainedof(seeCanadian
PerformingRightSocietyLtdvCanadianNationalExhibition
Association,[1934]OR610(HC)).

·Section34-CivilRemedies
Theallegedirreparableharmtobesufferedbyadefendantwillnotrestrainacourtto
issueaninterlocutoryinjunctionwhenthedefendantclearlyinfringewithouitcause
thecopyrightsoftheplaintiff.

R.v.Rundle(NecPlusUltra),2012ONSC5185(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-09-14)SmithJ.
[interlocutoryInjunctiongranted][23]Thedefendantsubmitsthatherbusinesswillsufferirreparable
harmifsheisnotallowedtocontinuetouseacopyoftheofficialSLE
teststoprepareherstudents.Idonotagreeandfindthatsheshould
notbepermittedtocopyandusetheCrown’scopyrightedSLEtest
materialsforherownfinancialbenefit.Allowinghertouseacopyof
theSLEtestquestionsinvalidatesthetestresultsandgivesher
studentsaveryunfairadvantage.Ifindthatpreventingthe
defendantfromcontinuingtomakeunauthorizeduseofthe
copyrightprotectedSLEtestswouldnotcauseirreparableharm
tothedefendantbecausesheneverhadpermissiontousea
copyoftheSLEtestsfromthePSCinthefirstplace.
·Section34-CivilRemedies
Anawardofcostsonasolicitoir-clientbaisisappropriatewhenapartyhasactedina
reprehnesivemanner.
AdobeSystemsIncorporatedv.DaleThompsonDBAAppletreeSolutions,2012FC
1219(F.C.;2012-10-18)CampbellJ
[14]Finally,thePlaintiffsrequestanawardofcostsonasolicitor
clientbasiswithintheCourt’sdiscretionarypowerssetoutinRule
400(1)oftheFederalCourtRules.Suchcostsareappropriatewhere
apartyhasactedinareprehensible,scandalousoroutrageous
manner(LouisVuittonMalletierS.A.vYang,supra;YoungvYoung,
1993CanLII34(S.C.C.),[1993]4SCR3(S.C.C.)atpara66;Ricev.
NewBrunswick,2002SCC13(CanLII),[2002]1SCR405(S.C.C.)
atpara86).Inmyopinion,thisissuchacase.
·Section34-CivilRemedies
Anawardofstatutorydamagesdoesnotprecludeanawardforpunitiveand
exemplarydamages.
AdobeSystemsIncorporatedv.DaleThompsonDBAAppletreeSolutions,2012FC
1219(F.C.;2012-10-18)CampbellJ[9]ThePlaintiffsseekpunitivedamagesintheamountof$15,000
perPlaintiffforatotalof$45,000.Section38.1(7)oftheAct
providesthatanawardofstatutorydamagesdoesnotpreclude
thePlaintiffsfrompunitiveandexemplarydamages.

66
[11]Itappearsthatifadefendant’sconductcanbecharacterizedas
“outrageous”,“highlyunreasonable”orshowingacallousdisregard
fortherightsoftheplaintiff,punitivedamageswillbewarranted
(LouisVuittonMalletierS.A.vSinggaEnterprises(Canada)Inc.,
2011FC776(CanLII),2011FC776(F.C.)atpara168).When
assessingwhetherconductcanbecharacterizedinsuchterms,
thefollowingfactorsarehelpfultoconsider:(i)thescaleand
durationoftheinfringingactivities;(ii)cooperationofthe
infringingpartyduringcourtproceedingsandwillingnessto
admitwrongdoing;(iii)whethertheinfringingparty’sactions
wereknowing,plannedanddeliberate;(iv)whetherthe
infringingpartyattemptedtoconcealandcoverup
wrongdoings;(v)whethertheinfringingpartycontinuesto
infringethecopyrightinquestion;and(vi)whethertheconduct
oftheinfringingpartyinthecourseoftheproceedingshas
resultedintheadditionalcoststothePlaintiffs(LouisVuitton
MalletierS.A.vSinggaEnterprises(Canada)Inc.,supraatpara170-
176).
·Section34.1–Presumptionsrespectingcopyrightandownership
Inacivilproceedingforcopyrightinfringement,copyrightshallbepresumed.

R.v.Rundle(NecPlusUltra),2012ONSC5185(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-09-14)SmithJ.
[17]IamsatisfiedthattheAGhassatisfiedthefirstpartofthetestfor
thefollowingreasons:[…](b)theSLEtestsarestamped“CrownCopyrightsReserved”;
(c)wherecopyrightisinissue,theexistenceofcopyrightis
presumedunlessthecontraryisprovenpursuantto
s.34.1(1)(a)oftheCopyrightAct,supra;
·Section34.1–Presumptionsrespectingcopyrightandownership
Thepresumptionrespectingcopyrightandownershiparerebuttablepresumptions.

HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2012FCA226C.A;2012-08-
31)GauthierJ.[confirming92C.P.R.(4th)6,((F.C.;2011-03-18)]
[62]Finally,althoughitwouldhavebeenpreferableforthejudgeto
refertothepresumptionsetoutin
subparagraph34.1(2)(b)(ii)ofthe
Act,thispresumption,liketheoneinfavouroftheauthorsetoutin
subsection34.1(1)(b)towhichthejudgerefers,iseasilyrebutted
when,likehere,thepartyforwhosebenefititisintendedprovides
directevidenceofthelegalbasisonwhichitsnameappearsonthe
copyrightedworkasowner,andthejudgeholdsthatbasistobe

67
untenable.Thetrialjudgediscardedthepresumptioninfavourofthe
authorbasedontheevidencebeforeher,andfoundthat
subsection
13(3)oftheActapplied.
·Section35–Liabilityforinfringement
Whendamagescannotbeexactlyproven,theCourtwillgrantdamagesatlarge.

Leutholdv.CanadianBroadcastingCorporation,2012FC748(F.C.;2012-06-14)
ScottJ.[131]Moreimportantlythejurisprudenceholdsthat“evenifthe
evidencetosupportacalculationontheabove-mentionedbasisis
notavailable,damageswillneverthelessbeawardedbasedonthe
evidenceavailableanddrawingreasonableinferences,using
common-sense.Copyrightissaidtobeapropertythatisawasting
asset.Whencopyrightinfringementisestablishedandactual
lossorspecificdamagescannotbeprovenbut,nevertheless,it
isshownthatdamagesresulteddirectlyfromtheinfringement,
damageswillbegrantedatlargeand”maybedealtwith
broadlyandasamatterofcommonsense,withoutprofessing
tobeminutelyaccurate””(IntellectualPropertyDisputes:
Resolutions&remedies,Vol2,RonaldE.Dimock,«Monetary
Relief–DamagesbyMeFrançoisGrenier,Carswell,2003,Toronto,
atpage17-16;PrismHospitalSoftwarevHospitalMedicalRecords
Institute,[1994]BCJNo1906atpara665).
·Section35–Liabilityforinfringement
Foranaccountingofprofitstobeordered,alinkmustbeprovenbetweenthe
infringingactivitiesandtherevenuesderivedtherefrom.

Leutholdv.CanadianBroadcastingCorporation,2012FC748(F.C.;2012-06-14)
ScottJ.[148]TheCourtwillonlygrantanaccountingofprofitswhereit
findsadirectlinkbetweentheinfringementsandtheprofitsof
theinfringer.Inthepresentcase,thereisnoevidenceonthe
recordlinkingtherevenuesofNewsworldtothesixunauthorized
communicationstothepublic.Newsworldrevenuesdidnotincrease
asaresultofthesixcommunicationstothepublic[…]
·Section35–Liabilityforinfringement
Damagesfromcopyrightinfringementaresufferedatthedomicileofthecopyright
owner.

Pelletierv.SindicatumCarbonCapitalLtd.,2012QCCS6184(Que.Sup.Ct.;2012-
11-21)SchragerJ.
[UponmotioncontestingthejurisdictionofthecourtsofQuebec]
[29]Moreover,ifM.A.P.iscorrectinhisallegationsthattheideas
encompassedinhisdesignwereappropriatedbyS.C.C.,thenthe
resultingcopyrightinfringementsufferedbyM.A.P.wouldmean
thatthedamagewassufferedbyM.A.P.intheProvinceof
Québecwhereheisdomiciled.ThiswasthecaseinMP3Network
Ltd.vs.Pena[Fn5009QCCS4531]

·Section35–Liabilityforinfringement
Absenceevidence,ifringementdoesnotwasteentirelythevalueofthecopyrightin
theinfringedwork.
GlanzmannToursLtd.v.YukonWideAdventures2012CarswellYukon41(YK-
SmallClaimsCt;2012-05-10)FaulknerJ.[26]Ihavealreadynotedthat,thusfar,theplaintiffhasmadeno
attempttomarketthephotoinquestion.Itmaybereasonableto
assumethatthevalueofthephotohasbeendiminished
somewhat,butthereisnoevidencecapableofshowingthatthe
valueoftheauroraphotograph,whateveritwas,hasbeen
completelyandutterlydestroyedbytheactionsofthe
defendant.

[27]Inmyview,theonlyreasonableestimationofdamagesinthis
casemustbebasedonareductioninthemarketvalueofthephoto.
Onemeasureofthatreductioninvaluewouldbethecostofasingle
uselicence—whichwouldbeunlikelytohavenettedtheplaintiff
morethan$400.00to$500.00,especiallyconsideringthatthe
plaintiffreceives37.5%ofthegrossrevenue.
·Section35–Liabilityforinfringement
Whenthereisnospecificevidenceastothedamagesflowingfrominfringement,the
Courtwillfixanarbitraryawardofdamages.
Aramav.Azoulay,2012QCCQ10913(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2012-11-14)Veilleux
J.[14]Enfin,cen’estparcequecettephotoaététrouvéeparle
défendeursurInternetqu’ilpeutl’utiliserimpunément.Cette
utilisationnonautoriséedelaphotoentraîneunpréjudice

69
pécuniairequeleTribunaldoitarbitrer,fauted’unepreuve
spécifiqueàcetégard.

[15]Àlalumièredeladiffusionlimitéedelaphotosans
l’autorisationpréalabledelademanderesse,leTribunaloctroieà
cettedernièreunmontantde2000$endommages-intérêts
compensatoires.
·Section36–Protectionofseparaterights[nowsection41.23]
DistributionrightsarenotarightundertheCopyrightActandadistributordoesnot
havethestandingtobringanactionforcopyrightinfringement.

NauticalDataInternational,Inc.v.C-MapUSAInc.,2012FC300,(F.C.;2012-04-03)
ZinnJ.
[Onsummarymotionbydefendantsfordismissalforlackofstanding]
[28]TheAgreementdoesnotexplicitlystatethatCHSpromisesnot
toproduceorintegrateCHSWorks.AllthatCHShaspromisedin
section2.1oftheAgreementisnotto“distributetheProductsor
ProductUpdatestoanyperson[emphasisadded].”Aspreviously
noted,therighttodistributeisnotarightundertheCopyright
Act.Therefore,althoughNDImaybecorrectthatithasan
exclusivelicencetodistributetheCHSWorksforcommercial
purposes,itdoesnotfollowthattheAgreementgivesitan
exclusivelicenceincopyrightbecausetherighttodistributeis
notaprotectedrightundertheCopyrightAct.
[39]Forthesereasons,theAgreementdoesnotqualifyasan
exclusivelicence.Consequently,NDIdoesnothavethegrantof
interestnecessarytobringanactionforcopyrightinfringementwith
respecttotheCHSWorksundertheCopyrightAct.Sincethe
plaintiffdoesnothavestandingtoadvancetheclaimsinthese
actions,thereisnogenuineissuefortrial.Accordingly,these
motionsforsummaryjudgmentaregrantedandtheactionsare
dismissedintheirentirety,withcostsinfavourofthedefendants.
·Section36–Protectionofseparaterights[nowsection41.23]
Anexclusivelicenseehastheproperstandingtosueforcopyrightinfringement.

Warmanv.Fournier2012FC803(F.C.;2012-06-21)RinnieJ.
[22]Theapplicantobtainedanexclusivelicensetothecopyright
intheKayWorkonJanuary13,2010,andthereforeisabletosue

70
athirdpartyforinfringement:EuroExcellencevKraftCanadaInc,
2007SCC37,atpara31.[…]
·Section37–ConcurrentjurisdcitioonofFederalCourt[nowsection
41.24]
Copyrightinfringementoccuringduringalabourdisputeisnotwithintheexclusive
realmofarbitrationandthecopyrightownermayaskthecourtstorestrainthis
infringement.
InsuranceCorporationofBritishColumbiav.CanadianOfficeandProfessional
EmployeesUnion,Local378,2012BCSC1244(BCSC;2012-08-17)WillcockJ.
[35]Insummary,theCourt,onanapplicationforaninjunctioninthe
courseofalabourdispute,isrequiredtolookattheambitofthe
collectiveagreementandtheessentialnatureofthedisputethat
comesbeforetheCourt.Theplaintiffinthiscasedoesnotseekan
orderrestrictingpicketingorleafleting.Itdoesnotseekanyrelief
arisingoutoftheCode[LabourRelationsCode,RSBC1996,c244]
theRegulations,orthecollectiveagreement.Whilethequestion
beforemehasariseninthecourseofalabourdispute,theessential
issuebetweenthepartiesrelatestotheplaintiff’sproprietaryinterest
initsinternetcorrespondenceplatformandthecorrespondence
itself.Thetrademarkandcopyrightclaims,aswellastheclaim
inconversionandpassingoff,allariseoutoftheplaintiff’s
allegationthatthereisanunlawfulinterferencewithits
proprietaryintereststhatdoesnotariseunderthecollective
agreement.Theissuebeforeme,inmyview,doesnotinits
essentialcharacterarisefromtheinterpretation,application,
administration,oranallegedviolationofthecollective
agreement.Accordingly,itisnotadisputefallingwithinthe
broadremedialandjurisdictionalauthorityoftheBoard.Itis
notacaseinvolvingthe“why”,“where”,or“when”
communicationmayoccur,norisitanattempttoregulatethe
contentofcommunication;itis,rather,aboutthe“how”
communicationoccurs,and,asintheVancouver(City)v.
VancouverMunicipalAndRegionalEmployees’Uniondecision,
supra,[(1994),118D.L.R.(4th)417(B.C.S.C.]aquestionwith
respecttothepropertythatmaybeusedtocommunicate.
[62]TheplaintiffallegestheconductoftheUnionanditsmembers
infringesitsrightasownerofregisteredtrademarkstotheexclusive
useofthosetrademarks.ItsaystheUnion’suseofthemarksis
likelytohavetheeffectofdepreciatingthevalueofthegoodwill
attachingtothem.Itfurthersaystherehasbeencopyright
infringementinthereproductionofasubstantialportionofits

71
copyrightmaterialbytheUnion.Thepartieshavereferredtoa
numberofleadingtrademarksandcopyrightcases,includingNHLv.
Pepsi-Cola,andthelabourcasesofBritishColumbiaAutomobile
Assn.v.OfficeandProfessionalEmployeesandCompagnie
généraledesEtablissementsMichelin-Michelin&Ciec.Syndicat
nationaldel’automobile,del’aerospatiale,dutransportetdesautres
travailleursettravailleusesduCanada(TCA-Canada),1996CanLII
3920(F.C.),[1997]2C.F.306(TD).Thesecaseshaveaddressed
theinterestinganddifficultquestionofwhetheruseofanemployer’s
marksbyaUnioninthecourseofalabourdisputecanbesaidto
constituteuseinassociationwiththewaresorbusinessesor
servicesoftheunion.Whilethecaselawcastssomedoubtuponthe
argumentbytheemployerthattheconductoftheUnioninthiscase
canbesaidtoamounttouseofanyofitstrademarkedor
copyrightedmaterial,suchastogiverisetoastatutoryinjunction,I
neednotaddressthatquestion,givenmyfindingthatthereisaprima
faciecasethattheconductoftheunionanditsmembersconstitutes
conversionoftheemployer’sinterestinitscorrespondence.Iwill
thereforenotaddressthetrademarkandcopyrightclaims
·Section38–Recoveryofpossessionofcopies,plates
Aplaintiffhasarighttotherecoveryoftheinfringingcopiesandtheburdenisupon
thedefendanttojustifywhythisrecoveryshouldnotbeordered.

Leutholdv.CanadianBroadcastingCorporation,2012FC748(F.C.;2012-06-14)
ScottJ.[163]Subsection38(1)oftheCopyrightActgovernstherightforthe
Plaintifftorecoverallinfringingmaterialinpossessionofthe
Defendants.Itistheinfringer’sburdentoestablishareason
whythisCourtshouldrefusethismeasure.Thisreasoncannot
bebasedontheinfringer’sbehaviorormotives(CBC’spractice
concerningitsloggertapesandarchives).Inthepresentcase
delivery-upisordered.
·Section38.1–Statutorydamages
Prejudgmentinterestcanbeorderedonstatutorydamages.

72
[23]Ajudgmentforstatutorydamagesundersubsection38.1(4)of
theCopyrightActisa“pecuniaryjudgment”withinthemeaningofthat
phraseasusedinsubsection1(1)oftheCourtOrderInterestActof
BritishColumbia.Itiswellestablishedbythejurisprudenceofthe
BritishColumbiacourtsthatwheresubsection1(1)applies,anaward
ofprejudgmentinterestfromthedateonwhichthecauseofaction
aroseismandatory(subjecttotheexceptionsinsubsection1(2),
subsection1(4),orsection2):see,forexample,Gouldv.RoyalTrust
Corp.ofCanada,2010BCSC16(CanLII),2010BCSC16.Noneof
thestatedexceptionsapplyinthiscase.
[24]TheprothonotaryconstruedSOCAN’selectionforstatutory
damagesinlieuofjudgmentforunpaidroyaltiesasimplicitlyincluding
awaiverofitsstatutoryentitlementtoprejudgmentinterestonunpaid
royalties,whichIassumewasintendedtoinvokeparagraph2(d)of
theCourtOrderInterestAct.Generally,apartyisnottakentohave
waivedastatutoryentitlementinwritingunlessthewritingthat
isallegedtoconstitutethewaiverisexplicit,orsufficiently
explicitinitsintentthatitwouldbeunreasonabletocharacterize
itasanythingbutawaiverofthestatutoryentitlement.Here,the
electionforstatutorydamagesisnecessarilyawaiverofthe
righttojudgmentforunpaidroyalties,butitcannotreasonably
betakenasevidenceofanintentiononthepartofSOCANto
waiveanyotherstatutoryentitlement.Inmyview,the
prothonotaryerredincharacterizingSOCAN’selectionfor
statutorydamagesasawaiverofitsentitlementtoprejudgment
interestundertheCourtOrderInterestAct.

[25]IconcludethatSOCANisentitledinthiscasetoprejudgment
interestonthestatutorydamagesawardedbytheprothonotaryfrom
thedateonwhichthecauseofactionarose.Undersubsection1(1)of
theCourtOrderInterestAct,thecourthasnodiscretiontochoose
anyotherperiodforwhichprejudgmentinterestispayable.
·Section38.1–Statutorydamages
Additionofprejudmentinterstismandatory,evenifitmaybeharshonthedefendant.

73
butitistheintendedconsequenceofthepolicyunderlying
subsection38.1(4)oftheCopyrightAct.Itmaybethatinsome
circumstances,themandatoryadditionofprejudgmentinterest
tothefullamountofthestatutorydamagesfromthedateon
whichtheroyaltieswerepayablerepresentsanunreasonable
windfalltothecollectivesocietyandacorrespondinglyundue
burdenonthedebtor.However,therearetwowaysinwhichthe
potentialharshnessofthelackofjudicialdiscretionmaybealleviated.

[27]First,adefendantmayhaverecoursetosection4oftheCourt
OrderInterestAct.Itprovidesthatincertaincircumstances,a
defendantmayavoidprejudgmentinterestbymakingapaymentinto
courtinsatisfactionoftheclaim.
[28]Second,thecourthasthediscretiontodeterminetheappropriate
rateofinterest.Inthatregard,theBritishColumbiacourtshave
determinedthatsubsection1(1)oftheCourtOrderInterestAct
requiresprejudgmentinteresttobeawardedonpunitivedamages,
butthejudgehasthediscretiontosettheapplicablerateofinterest
onthepunitivedamagesatanominalrate:seeJ.L.M.v.P.H.(1998),
109B.C.A.C.165.Byanalogy,thecourtmayexerciseitsdiscretionto
determinetherateofinterestonstatutorydamagesatanannual
interestratethatcombinesanormalrateofinterestontheunpaid
royalties,andalesserrateontheremainder.
·Section38.1–Statutorydamages
Theattitudeofadefendantwillbetakenintoconsiderationwhenfixingtheamountof
statutorydamages.
AdobeSystemsIncorporatedv.DaleThompsonDBAAppletreeSolutions,2012FC
1219,(F.C.;2012-10-18)CampbellJ.[8]GivenwhatIconsidertobeabadfaithattitudeonthepartof
theDefendant,hisconductasrecountedabove,theneedfor
deterrentreliefasIhaveexpressed,andgiventhatnoargument
hasbeenadvancedbytheDefendantonanythesequestion,Ifind
noreasonnottoawardmaximumstatutorydamagesinthe
amountof$340,000,being$20,000perworkinfringedforeachofthe
threePlaintiffs.
·Section41-Limitationofprescriptionperiodforcivilremedies[now
section43.1]

74
Aninjunctionmayissueirrespectiveoftheprescriptionperiodifitislikelythatthe
defendantwillnotstoptheinfringingactivities.
Warmanv.Fournier2012FC803(F.C.;2012-06-21)RennieJ.
[15]Theapplicanthasacknowledgedthatheknewaboutthe
respondent’sinfringementoftheWarmanWorksinceSeptember
2007.Thus,hedidnotbringthisproceedingwithinthelimitation
periodprescribedbysection41(1)oftheCopyrightActandtherefore
heistime-barredfromraisingcopyrightinfringementinrespectofthat
work:PhilipMorrisProductsSAvMalboroCanadaLtd,2010FC
1099atpara353.
[20]Inmyview,evenifsection41(1)doesnotprecludethe
grantingofinjunctiverelief,itattheveryleastinformsthe
exerciseoftheCourt’sdiscretiontograntaninjunctionfor
copyrightinfringement.ItwouldbecontrarytoParliament’s
intenttofindthataninjunctionispresumptivelyavailableforan
infringementiftheapplicationisbroughtoutsidethelimitation
period.ItismoreconsistentwiththeCopyrightActfortheCourt
tolimittheexerciseofitsdiscretiontograntaninjunctionto
circumstanceswhereitwillhavesomepracticaleffectandthe
balanceofconveniencestronglyfavoursgrantingtheinjunction.
TheSupremeCourtofCanada(S.C.C.)confirmedinCCHCanadian
Ltd.vLawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13,atpara85,that
aninjunctionisanequitableremedyandthuswithintheCourt’s
discretion.
[21]Inthiscase,theapplicanthasnotshownthataninjunctionis
necessarytopreventfurtherinfringement;rather,theevidenceisthat
therespondentshaveremovedtheWarmanWorkfromtheirserver
andthephysicalcopiestheyretainareforthepurposesofdefending
thedefamationactionbroughtagainstthembytheapplicant.Thus,I
declinetoexercisemydiscretiontograntaninjunctioninrespectof
theWarmanWorkandthisaspectoftheapplicationisdismissed

·Section42-Offencesandpunishment
Generalprinciplesofsentencingincriminallawwillapplytoconvictiononindictment
forcopyrightinfringement.
GendarmerieroyaleduCanadavBenharroch2012QCCQ017(Que.Ct.;2012-01-
17)
Sentencingafterhavingpleadedguiltyofknowinglyexposedorofferedforsaleby
wayoftradecounterfeitclothingbearingpopularbrands]

75
[41]LeTribunalajoutequeladissuasionindividuelletend
égalementversl’impositiond’unepeineayantdes
répercussionssignificativesquisusciterontuneréflexion
profondechezledéfendeur.Lespossibilitésderécidives
existent.L’accuséopèredanslemêmedomainequelorsqu’ila
commisl’infraction.Saconjointen’exercepasd’influencedissuasive
surluipuisquel’infractionaétécommiseauvuetausudecelle-ci.Il
fréquentelesmêmeslieuxpropicesàcesoffresillégalesde
vêtementscontrefaits.Ilfautespérerquelapeinesera
suffisammentdissuasivepourmotiverl’accuséàrefuserde
tellesoccasionsdanslefutur.
·Section45-Exceptions
ItislawfultoimportforusebyadepartmentoftheGovernmentofCanadaora
provincecopiesofaworkorothersubject-mattermadewiththeconsentoftheowner
ofthecopyrightinthecountrywhereitwasmade;
AccessCopyright-ProvincialandTerritorialGovernmentsTariffs(2005-2014)
Decision(Crownimmunityapplication)2012CarswellNat609(Cop.Bd.;2012-03-15)
[60]AfirstsetofexceptionsappeartobenefittheCrownwritlarge.
Paragraph45(1)(b)hasexistedsincetheActcameintoforcein1924.It
makeslawfulcertainformsofparallelimportationofaworkor
othersubject-matter“forusebyadepartmentoftheGovernment
ofCanadaoraprovince”.SincetheCrownisanartificialperson,
unavailabletoshieldtheseintermediaries(whethercivilservantsorothers)
fromliability.Anothersuchexceptionissubsection32.1(1),which
exemptsfromcopyrightinfringementcopiesmadetocomplywithfederal
orprovincialaccesstoinformationorprivacylegislation.Suchlegislation
largelyconcernsemanationsoftheCrown.
·Section55–Copyrightinworks
Poorman’scopyrightconsistsinthesendingbyregisteredmailofacopyofthework
bytheauthortohimself.
EmergingArtistsResearchandRatingService(CopyrightDepositoryInc.)vTrustifi
inc.,2012QCCS1038,(Que.Sup.Ct.;2012-03-19)BeaugéJ.[revd2012QCCA
1116(Que.C.A;.2012-06-15)][2]Constituéeen2007,EmergingArtists,domiciliéeenOntario,se
donnepourmissiondefaciliterletravaild’artistesetcréateurs
indépendantsparlaprotectiondeleursdroitsd’auteurs.Àcettefin,
elleseproposed’offrirunealternativeàlaméthodeimmémoriale
du«poorman’scopyright»selonlaquellel’artistes’adresseun

76
colisscellécontenantsonœuvreparcourrierrecommandé,puis
leconserveintact.Selonceprocédé,lesceauofficieldelaSCP
etlecolisscelléattestentdel’existencedel’œuvreàune
certainedate,etdesonintégrité.
·Section66-Establishment
ThejurisdictionfotheCopyrightBoardandoftheCourtaredifferentandtheCourt
sittinginrevisionofadecisionoftheCopyrightBoardThisCourtcanonlyreviewthe
overalllegalityofwhattheBoardhasdone.
ReprographicReproduction2011-2013,Re2011CarswellNat3708,(Cop.Bd.;2011-
09-23);2012FCA22,(F.C.A.-Motiontostrikeaffidavit;2012-01-23)
[TheapplicantshavefiledtheaffidavitofGregoryL.Julianoinsupportoftheir
applicationforjudicialreviewofadecisionoftheCopyrightBoard.Therespondent,
AccessCopyright,movestostrikeitout.][17]IndeterminingtheadmissibilityoftheJulianoaffidavit,the
differingrolesplayedbythisCourt[theFederalCourtofAppeal]and
theCopyrightBoardmustbekeptfrontofmind.Parliamentgave
theCopyrightBoard–notthisCourt–thejurisdictionto
determinecertainmattersonthemerits,suchaswhetherto
makeaninterimtariff,whatitscontentshouldbe,andany
permissibletermsassociatedwithit.Aspartofthattask,itisfor
theBoard–notthisCourt–tomakefindingsoffact,ascertain
theapplicablelaw,considerwhetherthereareanyissuesof
policythatshouldbebroughttobearonthematter,applythe
lawandpolicytothefactsithasfound,makeconclusionsand,
whererelevant,considertheissueofremedy.Inthiscase,the
CopyrightBoardhasalreadydischargeditsrole,decidingon
themeritstomakeaninterimtariffandtorefusetoamendit.

[18]NowbeforetheCourtisanapplicationforjudicialreviewfrom
thisdecisiononthemerits.Insuchproceedings,thisCourthasonly
limitedpowersundertheFederalCourtsActtoreviewtheCopyright
Board’sdecision.ThisCourtcanonlyreviewtheoveralllegality
ofwhattheBoardhasdone,notdelveintoorre-decidethe
meritsofwhattheBoardhasdone.

[19]BecauseofthisdemarcationofrolesbetweenthisCourt
andtheCopyrightBoard,thisCourtcannotallowitselfto
becomeaforumforfact-findingonthemeritsofthematter.
Accordingly,asageneralrule,theevidentiaryrecordbeforethis
Courtonjudicialreviewisrestrictedtotheevidentiaryrecord
thatwasbeforetheBoard.Inotherwords,evidencethatwasnot
beforetheBoardandthatgoestothemeritsofthematter

77
beforetheBoardisnotadmissibleinanapplicationforjudicial
reviewinthisCourt.AswassaidbythisCourtinGitxsanTreaty
Societyv.HospitalEmployees’Union,[2000]1F.C.135atpages
144-45(C.A.),“[t]heessentialpurposeofjudicialreviewisthereview
ofdecisions,notthedetermination,bytrialdenovo,ofquestionsthat
werenotadequatelycanvassedinevidenceatthetribunalortrial
court.”SeealsoKalliesv.Canada,2001FCA376atparagraph3;
Bekkerv.Canada,,2004FCA186atparagraph11.
·Section66-Establishment
ConcurrentjurisditcionoftheCopyrightBoardandthecourtsonlegalquestion
negatestheapplicationofthetestofreasonablenesswhenacourtissittinginreview
ofadecsionoftheCopyrightBoardonaquestionoflaw.

RogersCommunicationsInc.v.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishers
ofCanada,2012SCC35,(S.C.C.;2012-07-12)RothsteinJ.[reversinginpart86
C.P.R.(4
th)239(F.C.A.;2010-09-02),whichwasaffirming61C.P.R.(4th)353(Cop.
Bd.;2007-10-18)][15]Becauseoftheunusualstatutoryschemeunderwhichthe
Boardandthecourtmayeachhavetoconsiderthesamelegal
questionatfirstinstance,itmustbeinferredthatthelegislative
intentwasnottorecognizesuperiorexpertiseoftheBoard
relativetothecourtwithrespecttosuchlegalquestions.This
concurrentjurisdictionoftheBoardandthecourtatfirst
instanceininterpretingtheCopyrightActrebutsthe
presumptionofreasonablenessreviewoftheBoard’sdecisions
onquestionsoflawunderitshomestatute.Thisisconsistent
withDunsmuir[Dunsmuirv.NewBrunswick,2008SCC9(S.C.C.;
2008-03-07)],whichdirectedthat“[a]discreteandspecial
administrativeregimeinwhichthedecisionmakerhasspecial
expertise”wasa“facto[rthat]willleadtotheconclusionthatthe
decisionmakershouldbegivendeferenceandareasonableness
testapplied”(para.55).Becauseofthejurisdictionatfirstinstance
thatitshareswiththecourts,theBoardcannotbesaidtooperatein
sucha“discrete…administrativeregime”.Therefore,Icannot
agreewithAbellaJ.thatthefactthatcourtsroutinelycarryoutthe
sameinterpretivetasksastheboardatfirstinstance“doesnot
detractfromtheBoard’sparticularfamiliarityandexpertisewiththe
provisionsoftheCopyrightAct”(para.11).Inthesecircumstances,
courtsmustbeassumedtohavethesamefamiliarityandexpertise
withthestatuteastheboard.Accordingly,Iamoftheopinionthatin
SOCANv.CAIP,BinnieJ.determinedinasatisfactorymannerthat
thestandardofcorrectnessshouldbetheappropriatestandardof

78
reviewonquestionsoflawarisingonjudicialreviewfromthe
CopyrightBoard(Dunsmuir,atpara.62).
[20]ItshouldbeequallyclearthattheBoard’sapplicationofthe
correctlegalprinciplestothefactsofaparticularmattershould
betreatedwithdeference,asarethedecisionsofthisnatureby
trialjudgesonappellatereview.However,Icannotagreewith
AbellaJ.[dissentingonthispoint]thatthequestionarisinginthis
appealisaquestionofmixedfactandlaw(para.74).Theissuein
thiscasehasbeenarguedbythepartiesasapurequestionof
law.TheCourtisaskedtodeterminewhetherapoint-to-point
transmissioncaneverconstituteacommunication“tothepublic”
withinthemeaningofs.3(1)(f)oftheCopyrightAct(A.F.atpara.
2).Thisisnota“questio[n]ofmixedfactandlaw[that]involve[s]
applyingalegalstandardtoasetoffacts”(Housenv.Nikolaisen,at
para.26);itisanextricablequestionoflaw.
·Section66.51–Interimdecision
Interimdecisionsaremadetomainatinthestatusquopendingproceedingsandin
ordertovaryaninterimdecison,evidenceofachangeinthecircumstancesmustbe
adduced.

Applicationtofixroyaltiesforalicenceanditsrelatedtermsandconditions
(SODRACv.ARTV).http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/20120105.pdf(Cop.
Bd.;2012-01-05)[8]Aninterimdecisionserveschieflytoavoidthedeleterious
effectscausedbythelengthoftheproceedings.Ingeneral,the
bestwaytofulfilltheseobjectivesistomaintainthestatusquo
whileavoidingalegalvacuum.

[9]Inthiscase,anegotiatedagreementwasinplaceuntilthedayon
whichSODRACfileditsapplication.ARTVsubmitsthatitdoesnot
needablanketlicence.Thissubmissionreliesonlegalandfactual
argumentsthatreiteratethemainpointsarguedintheAstral
arbitrationunderreserve.Moreover,thepartieshaveagreednotto
proceedonthemeritsinthisinstanceuntiltheBoardhasruledon
theAstralfile.Therefore,atthisstage,wecannotassumethat
ARTV’ssubmissionsarecorrect.Thatuncertaintyandthelegal
vacuumresultingfromtheabsenceofalicencejustifymakingan
interimdecision.
10]SODRACrequeststheinterimextensionofthelicence
agreementrecentlyterminatedbyARTVuntilafinaldecisionis
issued.ARTVontheotherhandwishestonegotiaterightsonan

79
individualbasis,or,alternatively,tosignificantlyamendthetermsand
conditionsoftheagreement.
[11]Whenthereisanagreementinexistencebetweenthe
parties,itisgenerallypreferabletoextenditonaninterimbasis,
unlessthereisachangeincircumstancestendingtojustify
anotherapproach.ARTVhasnotdemonstratedanychangein
circumstances.ThefactthatARTVchallengestheneedforageneral
licenceisinsufficienttojustifyachangeinthestatus
Quo.
·Section66.51–Interimdecision
Maintainingthestatusquopendingproceedingsandavoidingalegalgaparethe
purposesofinterimdecisions.
PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,Re2012CarswellNat555(Cop.Bd.;2012-02-
17)[12]TheBoardhas,overtheyears,issuedanumberofinterim
decisions,reflectingthepurposeofinterimordersasarticulatedby
theSupremeCourtofCanadainBellCanadav.Canada(Canadian
Radio-televisionandTelecommunicationsCommission).[Fn9Bell
Canadav.Canada(CRTC),[1989]1S.C.R.1722at1754.Inthat
decision,Mr.JusticeGonthierspeakingfortheCourt,stated:
Traditionally,suchinterimrateordersdealinginan
interlocutorymannerwithissueswhichremaintobedecidedin
afinaldecisionaregrantedforthepurposeofrelievingthe
applicantfromthedeleteriouseffectscausedbythelengthof
theproceedings.Suchdecisionsaremadeinanexpeditious
manneronthebasisofevidencewhichwouldoftenbe
insufficientforthepurposesofthefinaldecision.Thefactthat
anorderdoesnotmakeanydecisiononthemeritsofanissue
tobesettledinafinaldecisionandthefactthatitspurposeis
toprovidetemporaryreliefagainstthedeleteriouseffectsofthe
durationoftheproceedingsareessentialcharacteristicsofan
interimrateorder.

[13]TheBoardhasstatedonanumberofoccasionsthatthebest
waytoachievethepurposesofaninterimdecisionistomaintain
thestatusquowhilepreventingalegalvacuum.[Fn10SODRAC
v.MusiquePlusinc.(22November1999)CopyrightBoardDecision;
SODRACv.LeschaînesTéléAstralandTeletoonInc.(14December
2009)CopyrightBoardInterimDecision;AccessCopyright-Post-
SecondaryEducationalInstitutions2011-2013(16March2011)

80
CopyrightBoardDecision;SODRACv.ARTV(5January2012)
CopyrightBoardInterimDecision.]
[14]Whilemaintainingthestatusquoisnottheonlyfactortobe
takenintoaccount,itdoesremainanimportantconsideration.
OnemustlookatthelasttariffcertifiedbytheBoardinorderto
determinethenatureofthestatusquointhisinstance.
·Section66.51–Interimdecision

PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,Re2012CarswellNat555(Cop.Bd.;2012-02-
17)[19]Finally,largelyforthereasonsadvancedbytheObjectors,we
concludethattherearenodeleteriouseffectsthatcannotbe
remediedthroughtheissuanceofthefinaltariff.Foronething,the
delayatissuerunsfrom2007to2012andthematterwillproceedina
fewmonths.IntheeventthatSOCANmakesitscaseandthatatariff
iscertifiedinaccordancewiththetermsitproposed,SOCANwill
receivethequantumofroyaltiestowhichitsmembersareentitledon
aretroactivebasis.
·Section66.51–Interimdecision
TheCopyrightBoardwillnotissueinterimdecisionsforaperiodlongerthanthetariff
theyaretobeappliedto.
SocietyforReproductionRightsofAuthors,ComposersandPublishers(Canada)v.
CanadianBroadcastingCorporation(InteractiveKiosks;Explora;BlanketLicence
2012-2016),Files70.2-2011-03and70.22012-01;availableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/20120430.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-04-30)
[10]WeagreewithSODRAC.Theapplicationisnotpremature.The
conditionssetoutinsection70.2oftheActhavebeenmet.Inarbitration
matters,theBoardisseizedwhenanoticeofapplicationisfiled,as
longaspartiesareunabletoagreeandthatthepersonwhofiledthe
noticeadvisedtheotherofitsintentiontodoso.Thefactthatthe
inabilitytoagreemayresultfromtheabsenceofafinaldecisionin
another,earliermatterissimplynotrelevant.
[11]Neitheristheapplicationunnecessary.TheMarch2009interim
decisiondoesprovidethatitappliesuntiltheBoarddisposesofthe
matterunderadvisement.However,interimmeasurescannotachieve
morethanwhatissoughtinthemainapplication.Thatapplicationtargets
usesendingonMarch31,2012.Thedatehaspassed.Itistherefore

81
possible,ifnotprobable,thattheMarch2009interimlicencehasceased
tobeineffect.
·Section66.51–Interimdecision
Unlessthereisaninterimdecision,compliancewiththereportingrequirementsare
thosereferredtointhehomolgatedtariffratherthantheonetobeapproved.

SODRACv.CBC/SRCandSODRACv.AstralReSODRACTariff5(Reproductionof
MusicalWorksinCinematographicWorksforPrivateUseorforTheatrical
Exhibition),2009-2012;Applicationstofixroyaltiesforalicenceanditsrelatedterms
andconditions;alsoavailbaleathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/sodrac5-20-
12-2012.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-12-20)
[2]Reportingrequirementsundertheinterimtariffarethoseset
outinthe2004-2008tariff.Distributorsarenotrequiredto
complywiththereportingrequirementssetoutinthe2009-2012
tariff,forthetimebeing.WeretheBoardtoconcludethattheCBC
ratestructureforvideocopiesisalsosuitedtothemarkettargetedin
Tariff5,thereportingrequirementssetoutinthe2009-2012tariff
probablywouldbereinstated.Distributorswillwishtogovern
themselvesaccordinglyandtoensuretheyhaveaccesstothe
requiredinformation,atleastwithrespecttotheirdealingsasof
January1,2013.
·Section66.51–Interimdecision
Whendealingwitharequestforinterimdecision,theCopyrightBoardmayconsider
theissuesatstake,aswellasthebalanceofconvenienceintheeventofaneedfor
reimbursementofoverpayment.
SOCAN(2008-2010),RE:SOUND(2008-2011),CSI(2008-2012),AVLA/SOPROQ
(2008-2011),ARTISTI(2009-2011)ReInterimdecision,
http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/radio-21122012.pdf
(Cop.Bd.;2012-12-21)
[16]Theapplicationforaninterimdecisionisdeniedinallother
respects,forthefollowingreasons.
[17]First,theevidentiaryproblemsandlegalissueswealludedto
regardingtheapplicationonthemeritsareasmuchatissueinthe
applicationforaninterimdecision.Wedonotseehowwecould
dealwiththeinterimapplicationmoreexpeditiouslyorwithless
evidencethanforthedecisiononthemerits.Itismore
convenientandfairtoleavethepartiesintheircurrentstateand
todealwithallofthesequestionswhentheapplicationis
consideredonthemerits,solongasthisisdonewithoutdelay.

[18]Second,thepointofviewthatCSImayhaveexpressedbeforea
parliamentarycommitteeisnotevidenceinthiscasetosubstantiate
CAB’sclaims.Aperson’sargumentmaysetoutwhatthatperson
thinksbutitdoesnotconstituteabasisforstatutoryinterpretation.

[19]Third,thebalanceofconvenience,totheextentthatitis
relevantinthisinstance,favoursthecollectivesocieties.A
stationismorelikelytogooutofbusinessthanacollective.A
stationcouldeasilyandquicklydeductanyoverpaymentfrom
futureroyalties.Ifoverpaymentsareconsiderable,theBoardcould
easilyprovideinthetariffthatthecollectivesaretopaythemback
immediately.Theinverseisnotnecessarilypossible.
·Section66.52–Variationofdecisions
Tariffsenforcementaregenerallyforthecourtstodecide,nottheCopyrightBoard;in
anyeventtheissuesatstakeshouldnotbemeaningless.

CollectiveAdministrationofPerformingRights&ofCommunicationRights,Re2012
CarswellNat181(Cop.Bd.;2012-01-30)[3]Foritspart,Re:Soundarguesthatsection66.52cannotbe
invoked,becausenomaterialchangeincircumstanceshasoccurred
sincethedecision.Re:Soundalsoadvancesanumberoffactual
statementstoarguethatitslicensingpracticesareperfectly
acceptableandthatnothinguntowardhashappenedinitsdealings
withtheapplicant.
[5]Theapplicationisdismissed.Totheextenttheapplication
raisesissuesoftariffenforcement,thesegenerallyareforthe
courts,nottheBoard,todecide.TotheextentMontagebelieves
thattheamountsclaimedareimproperlycalculated,itshouldsubmit
toRe:Soundadifferentcalculation:achangetothetransitional
provisionsofthetariffwouldnotsettlethisissue.Totheextent
Re:Soundaskedtobepaidtwoweeksearly,Montage’sremedy
consistedinsimplywaitinguntilroyaltiesweredue.Finally,the
amountsatplayforanyuserunderthistariffaresotrivialthat
theywouldnotjustifytheBoard’sinterventioninanyevent.
·Section66.52–Variationofdecisions
Legislativeamendmentsmaywarrantthevariationofanearlierinterimdecision.

83
SOCAN(2008-2010),RE:SOUND(2008-2011),CSI(2008-2012),AVLA/SOPROQ
(2008-2011),ARTISTI(2009-2011)ReInterimdecision,
http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/radio-21122012.pdf
(Cop.Bd.;2012-12-21)
[15]WenowturntotheapplicationtovarythetariffinrespectofCSI
fortheperiodfromNovember7toDecember31,2012.TheBoard
willneedtodealwithit,sincealegislativeamendmentmay
justifyvaryingadecision:InterimDecision(s.66.52ofthe
CopyrightAct)ontheApplicationtoVarytheTelevision
RetransmissionTariff,1992-1994[(29February1994)Copyright
Board,Decision.[Retransmission(Interim)1994]]
·Section66.7-Generalpowers,etc.
JuridictionalissuesaretoberaisedpropriomotubytheCopyrightBoard.

AccessCopyright-ProvincialandTerritorialGovernmentsTariffs(2005-2014)
Decision(Crownimmunityapplication)2012CarswellNat609(Cop.Bd.;2012-03-15)
[71]Furthermore,Crownimmunityisajurisdictionalissue.The
Boardisobligedtoraisesuchissuespropriomotu.Weretheclaim
ofCrownimmunitytosucceedinthiscase,theBoardwouldbeobligedto
rejectofitsownmotionanytarifffiledinrespectofanyemanationofthe
Crownunlessimmunityhadbeenwaived.
·Section66.7-Generalpowers,etc.
“
Splittinguptheexaminationofthesubstantiveissuesraisedinasinglematter
shouldbetheexception.”

SOCAN(2008-2010),RE:SOUND(2008-2011),CSI(2008-2012),AVLA/SOPROQ
(2008-2011),ARTISTI(2009-2011)ReInterimdecision,
http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/radio-21122012.pdf
(Cop.Bd.;2012-12-21)
[12]Second,itispreferabletodisposeoftheapplicationonthe
meritsatthesametimeasforalloftheproposedtariffsfor
commercialradio,ratherthanaspartofaprocessdealingsolelywith
CAB’sclaims.Splittinguptheexaminationofthesubstantive
issuesraisedinasinglemattershouldbetheexception.
Singlingoutfortreatmentanissueatapreliminarystageis
justified,forexample,ifitcanbeconvenientlyisolated,ifthe
evidencerequiredtodecideitdoesnotoverlapwiththerestof
theevidenceonthemerits,andifdecidingitfirstmayavoidthe
needtoengageothercontroversialissues.Suchisnotthecase
here.Decidingtheapplicationrequiressubstantialevidencethat
relatestotheverycoreofthedebate,namelythescope(andhence,

84
thevalue)oftheprotectedreproductionactivitiesthatstations
engagein.

·
Section67–Publicaccesstorepertoire
Theonlysection19collectivestargetedinsections67to68.2arethosethatcollect
theremunerationforsoundrecordingsofmusicalworks..

Re:SoundTariffNo.6B–UseofRecordedMusictoAccompanyPhysicalActivities,
2008-2009,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs-tarifs/certified-
homologues/2012/ReSound6_B_reasons.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-07-06)
[73]Section67providesthattheonlysection19collectivestargeted
insections67to68.2arethosethatcollecttheremunerationfor
soundrecordingsofmusicalworks.If,asRe:Soundargues,it
representsalleligiblesoundrecordingsofmusicalworks,thenthe
words[insubsection67.1(4)oftheAct]“withrespecttothe[…]sound
recordinginquestion”(notethesingular)areredundant.Theeligible
repertoirewouldbeeither“allin”or“allout”.
[74]Third,the68(2)(a)(i)requirementthatremunerationflowonly
toeligiblerecordingsdoesnotrequirethatremunerationflowtoall
suchrecordings.Itisjustasreasonabletoconcludethatthe
requirementexiststoensurethatnoremunerationflowtonon-
eligiblerecordings,whetherornotremunerationflowstoall
eligiblerecordings.
[75]Re:Soundisentitledtocollectequitableremunerationonlyinregardto
recordingsthatwerebroughtintoitsrepertoire.Giventhewordingof
subsection67.1(4)oftheAct,usersareentitledtouseeligible
recordingsthatarenotinRe:Sound’srepertoireforfree,unlessthe
MinisterresponsiblefortheActauthorizesanactionforrecoveryof
royalties.
[140]Themisinterpretationofthetariffisworrisome;ifusers
accidentallyordeliberatelymisinterpretourtariffsinabiasedway,the
amountsgeneratedaremuchlowerthantheywouldotherwisebe.

·Section67.1-Filingofproposedtariffs.
RecapoftheprinciplesuponwhichatheCopyrightBoardisinterveningtosetatariff.

SocietyforReproductionRightsofAuthors,ComposersandPublishersinCanadav.
CanadianBroadcastingCorp.2012CarswellNat4255(Cop.Bd.;2012-11-02)

85
[58]AfewprinciplesthatgenerallyformthebasisfortheBoard’s
decisionsareworthrepeatinghere
[59]First,copyrightownersgenerallyarefreetostructuretheir
dealingswithusersastheywish.SODRACmembersarefreeto
decidehow(andtowhom)tolicencetheircopyrightsinanygiven
market.Thisgeneralprincipleissubjecttoexceptions,someofwhich
wewilladdresslater.Userswhodonotwishtodealwithowners
mustavoidmakingprotectedusesoftheowners’copyrights.

[60]Second,ownerswhoaskacollectivetoadministertheir
rightsarenolongerfreetostructuretheircopyrightdealingsas
theywish.WhentheBoardisaskedtodecidehowacollectivewill
dealwithusers,thecollectivenolongercanrefusetolicenceusesin
thatmarket.Ownerscanregainfullcontrolovertheirdealings
onlyiftherelevantrightsceasebeingadministeredcollectively.

[61]Third,oncetheBoardsetsthetermsandconditionsofa
licence,concerneduserscaninsistthatthecollectivedealwith
themaccordingly.Usersremainfreetoclearrightsthroughother
channels,totheextentthisispossible.Asaresult,thepricesthe
Boardsetswilltendtoactasacaponroyalties.

[62]Fourth,theBoardcannotimposeliabilitywheretheActdoes
notorremoveliabilitywhereitexists.[Fn20Reproductionof
MusicalWorks,Re[2007CarswellNat623(CopyrightBd.)](16
March2007)CopyrightBoardDecisionatpara.119.[CSI—Online
MusicServices(2007)]Consequently,theBoardcannotdecide
whoshouldpay,onlywhatshouldbepaidforwhichuses,and
onlytotheextentthattheenvisageduserequiresalicence.

[63]Fifth,animportantdistinctionexistsbetweenatariff
proceedingandanarbitrationconductedpursuanttosection
70.2oftheAct.Inthefirst,theBoardimposesobligationsonabsent
usersasamatterofcourse:atariffisaprospectivenormofgeneral
application.Bycontrast,anarbitrationconcernsonlytheparties
involved.ThelicencesweissueherebindonlyCBCandAstral,not
anyotherbroadcaster.Afortioriitisnotpossibleforustoimpose
througharbitrationobligationsoncopyrightuserswhooperate
upstreamordownstreamfromthetransactionsforwhichweseta
price:wecannotforceproducerstosignthrough-to-the-viewer
licences.Neithercanwe,throughtheseproceedings,forceSODRAC
todealwiththem.

86
·Section67.1-Filingofproposedtariffs.
Usinginterestfactorsisapracticethatshouldbegeneralizedwhereretroactive
paymentsareobtainedthroughanhomolagatedtariff.

PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,Re2012CarswellNat2221,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/Decision_SOCAN_Various_Tariffs.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-06-
29)[43]Inarecentdecision,theBoardwrotethat”thepracticeofusing
interestfactorsshouldbegeneralized”whereretroactivepayments
obtain.[FFn8SOCAN-Re:SoundCBCRadioTariff,2006-2011(8
July2011)CopyrightBoardDecisionatpara.131.]Weagree.That
beingsaid,wearereluctanttodisturbtheagreementnegotiated
betweenSOCANandtheusersofitstariff.Assuch,wedeclineto
addaninterestfactorclausetothetariffwherenonehasbeen
proposed.

·Section68–Boardtoconsiderproposedtariffsandobjections
Apartfromtheretransmissionrightandprivatecopying,acollectivecanonlycollect
royaltiesfortheirrepertoire.
Re:SoundTariffNo.6B–UseofRecordedMusictoAccompanyPhysicalActivities,
2008-2009,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs-tarifs/certified-
homologues/2012/ReSound6_B_reasons.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-07-06)
[71]First,inmostregimestheBoardadministers,acleardistinction
existsbetweenwhatiseligibleandwhatattractsroyaltiespursuanttoa
tariff.Generallyspeaking,acollectivecanonlycollectroyaltiesfor
whatitsrepertoirecontains.Theretransmissionandprivatecopying
regimesaretheonlyexceptionstothisrule.Intheseregimes,copyright
ownerswhohavenotjoinedacollective(sometimesreferredtoas
“orphans”)canclaimtheirsharefromacollectivesocietytheBoard
designates.Forthatreason,theamountofroyaltiesissetatalevel
sufficienttocompensatealleligiblecopyrightsubjectmatters.
·Section68–Boardtoconsiderproposedtariffsandobjections
TariffsarebothprospectiveandofgeneralapplicationandtheCopyrightBoardmayinvite
interestedthirdpartiestomakerepresentations.
Re:SoundTariff5–UseofMusictoAccompanyLiveEvents,2008-2012(PartsAtoG),
FilePublicPerformanceofSoundRecordings,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/20120430.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-05-25)
[10]Beforecertifyingatariffbasedonagreements,itis
generallyadvisabletoconsider(a)theextenttowhichthe

87
partiestotheagreementscanrepresenttheinterestsofall
prospectiveusersand(b)whetherrelevantcommentsor
argumentsmadebyformerpartiesandnon-partieshavebeen
addressed.Thesearenothardandfastrules:prospectiveuserswho
didnotfileatimelyobjectionnolongerhavearighttoairtheirviews
beforetheBoard.Yetbecausetariffsarebothprospectiveandof
generalapplication,someaccountmustbetakenoftheinterests
ofthosewhoarenotbeforeusandwhowillbeaffectedbyour
decision,especiallywithtariffsoffirstimpression.Thisiswhy
subsection68(1)oftheActallowedtheBoardtoraiseobjectionsofits
own.Thisisalsowhyweallowedtheobjectorstointerveneaslatein
thedayaswedid.

[24]TheBoardisgenerallyconcernedwithinternaltariffcoherence
whenmorethanhalfofuserspaytheminimumfeeorwhentoofew
qualifyfortheminimum.[…]

[41]Weremainconvincedthatasarule,sharinginformationamong
collectivesdealingwiththesameclients,andusingthesameratebase,
isbothefficientanddesirable.TheSportsObjectorsdidnotprovide
anyevidenceorargumentthatmightleadustodisallowsuch
informationsharinginthisinstance.

[47]Generallyspeaking,Boardapprovedtariffsaresubstitutesto
marketnegotiatedlicences.[…]
·Section70.2–Applicationtofixamountofroyalty
Inarbitrationmatters,theCopyrightBoardisseizedwhenanoticeofapplicationisfiledand
willremainseizeduntiladecisionismadeortheapplicationwithdrawn.

SocietyforReproductionRightsofAuthors,ComposersandPublishers(Canada)v.
CanadianBroadcastingCorporation(InteractiveKiosks;Explora;BlanketLicence
2012-2016),Files70.2-2011-03and70.22012-01;availableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/20120430.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-04-30)
[10]WeagreewithSODRAC.Theapplicationisnotpremature.The
conditionssetoutinsection70.2oftheActhavebeenmet.Inarbitration
matters,theBoardisseizedwhenanoticeofapplicationisfiled,as
longaspartiesareunabletoagreeandthatthepersonwhofiledthe
noticeadvisedtheotherofitsintentiontodoso.Thefactthatthe
inabilitytoagreemayresultfromtheabsenceofafinaldecisionin
another,earliermatterissimplynotrelevant.
[11]Neitheristheapplicationunnecessary.TheMarch2009interim
decisiondoesprovidethatitappliesuntiltheBoarddisposesofthe

88
matterunderadvisement.However,interimmeasurescannotachieve
morethanwhatissoughtinthemainapplication.Thatapplicationtargets
usesendingonMarch31,2012.Thedatehaspassed.Itistherefore
possible,ifnotprobable,thattheMarch2009interimlicencehasceased
tobeineffect.
·Section70.2–Applicationtofixamountofroyalty
Anarbitrationconcernsonlythepartiesinvolvedwhileatariffisofgeneral
application.
SocietyforReproductionRightsofAuthors,ComposersandPublishersinCanadav.
CanadianBroadcastingCorp.2012CarswellNat4255(Cop.Bd.;2012-11-02)
[63]Fifth,animportantdistinctionexistsbetweenatariff
proceedingandanarbitrationconductedpursuanttosection
70.2oftheAct.Inthefirst,theBoardimposesobligationson
absentusersasamatterofcourse:atariffisaprospective
normofgeneralapplication.Bycontrast,anarbitration
concernsonlythepartiesinvolved.Thelicencesweissuehere
bindonlyCBCandAstral,notanyotherbroadcaster.Afortioriitis
notpossibleforustoimposethrougharbitrationobligationson
copyrightuserswhooperateupstreamordownstreamfromthe
transactionsforwhichwesetaprice:wecannotforceproducersto
signthrough-to-the-viewerlicences.Neithercanwe,throughthese
proceedings,forceSODRACtodealwiththem.

·Section71–Fixingofproposedtariffs
Royaltiesforretransmissionaredeterminedwithintheschemeprovidedforby
homologation,whenapplicable.
ReferencereBroadcastingRegulatoryPolicy2010-167andBroadcastingOrder
CRTC2010-168,2012SCC68(S.C.C.;2011-09-29)RothsteinJ.[reversing91
C.P.R.(4th)389(F.C.A.;2011-02-28)]:[57]Inthecaseofworkscarriedindistantsignalsonly,thesection
providescopyrightownerswitharighttoreceiveroyaltiesas
paymentforthesimultaneousretransmissionofthoseworksbya
BDU.TheroyaltiesaredeterminedbytheCopyrightBoard,onthe
basisoftariffsfiledbycollectivesocieties,pursuanttotheregime
detailedinss.71to74oftheCopyrightAct.Unders.31(2),works
carriedinlocalsignalsattractnoroyaltywhenretransmittedin
accordancewithallconditionsofthatsection.[…]

89
·Section76–Claimsbynon-members
ReferencereBroadcastingRegulatoryPolicy2010-167andBroadcastingOrder
CRTC2010-168,2012SCC68(S.C.C.;2011-09-29)RothsteinJ.[reversing91
C.P.R.(4th)389(F.C.A.;2011-02-28)]:[58]Itbearsunderliningthat,inthecaseofworkscarriedinboth
localanddistantsignals,thecopyrightownerhasnorightto
prohibitthesimultaneousretransmissionofthework;recourse
islimitedtoreceivingthroughacollectivesocietythe
prescribedroyalty,butonlyforthesimultaneousretransmission
ofworkscarriedindistantsignals(ss.76(1)and76(3)ofthe
CopyrightAct).[…]
·Section77–CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbytheBoard
[Ownerswhocannotbelocated]
Alicencewillnotissueifavalidconsentwasprovidedoriftheworkisinthepublic
domain.
Cloutier(Carol)forthereproductionof362photographsandalbumcoversinabook
[Reapplicationby]File2007-UO/TI-20,2012CarswellNat94(Cop.Bd.;2012-01-03)
[1]Lalicenceautoriselareproductionde362photographiesetpochettes
dedisques,inclusesdanslelivreintituléLeDiscographedesannées50-
59,danslamesureoùunepermissionquifutdonnéeàl’égardd’une
œuvren’estpasvalable(voirAnnexeA)et/oudanslamesureoù
l’œuvrenefaitpaspartiedudomainepublic(voirAnnexesAetB).

[2]Ladélivrancedecettelicencenelibèrepasletitulairedelalicencede
l’obligationd’obteniruneautorisationpourtouteutilisationnonviséepar
cettelicence.
·Section77–CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbytheBoard
[Ownerswhocannotbelocated]
Aretroactivelicencemaybegranted.
NationalFilmBoardofCanadaforthereproductionandincorporationofa
photographinadocumentaryfilm[Reapplicationby]File2011U)/TI-25.2012
CarswellNat597(Cop.Bd.;2012-02-10)[1][…]Laphotographieestennoiretblancetfaitpartied’uncollagefaitpar
M
meBaillargeonàl’époque.
L’imagecinématographiquedelaphotographiedureraauplus22
secondesdanslefilmdocumentairede75minutes.

90
Lalicenceautoriseaussil’exécutionenpublicetla
communicationaupublicpartélécommunicationdela
photographieainsiincorporéeainsiquelareproductiondufilm
documentairesurtoutsupportàdesfinsdedistributionpour
représentationprivée,commepartiedel’exploitationdufilm
documentaire
[2]Lalicenceexpireàl’égarddel’œuvrelorsquecelle-cirelèveradu
domainepublic.
[4]Lalicenceestrétroactiveàladatedelapremièrereproductionde
l’imagedanslefilmdocumentairementionnéauparagraphe1).[starting
October2011]
·Section77–CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbytheBoard
[Ownerswhocannotbelocated]
Whenissuingalicence,theCopyrightBoardmaysetalimittotheprintruns.

ÉditionsduQuartz,Rouyn-Norandaforthereproductionandtherepublicationon
hardcopyofthetextinabook[Reapplicationby]File:2011-UO/TI-10,2012
CarswellNat991;alsoavailableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-
introuvables/licences/261-f.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-04-04)
[1]Lalicenceautoriselareproductionetlarééditionsursupportpapierdu
textedel’œuvrelittéraireintitulée«Monpremierlivredelecture»de
MargueriteForestetMadeleineOuimetetpubliéeparlesÉditions
Grangeretfrèresen1951.
[2]Letiragenedevrapasdépasser1000exemplaires.

[3]Ladélivrancedecettelicencenelibèrepasletitulairedelalicencede
l’obligationd’obteniruneautorisationpourtouteutilisationnonviséepar
cettelicence.
·Section77–CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbytheBoard
[Ownerswhocannotbelocated]
LicenceissuedbytheCopyrightBoardarenon-exclusiveandrestrictedtoCanada.

LaPresseTéléIIILtée,Montreal,QC,forthesynchronization,reproductionand
communicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationofanexcerptofamusicalwork
[Reapplicationby].File:2012-UO/TI-06,availableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/262-f.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-05-28]

91
[1]Lalicenceautoriselasynchronisation,lareproductionetla
communicationaupublicpartélécommunicationd’unextraitde2minutes
del’œuvremusicaleLetempsestbon,écriteparStéphaneVenneet
publiéeparJFMInvestmentsInc.,diffuséeàlatélévision

[2]Lalicenceexpirele31mai2014.Touteutilisationviséeauparagraphe
(1)devraêtrecomplétéed’icicettedate.
[3]LalicenceestnonexclusiveetvalideseulementauCanada.Pour
lesautrespays,c’estlaloidupaysquis’applique.

·Section77–CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbytheBoard
[Ownerswhocannotbelocated]
LicenceissuedbytheCopyrightBoardarelimitedtothespecificrightsand/oruse
referredtointheapplication;locatedcopyrightownermayendthelicencegrantedby
theCopyrightBoard
BibliothèqueetArchivesnationalesduQuébec(BAnQ)forthereproductionand
communicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationofposters,periodicalsand
monographs[Reapplicationby],file2010-UO/TI-14];alsoavailableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/263-f.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-07-19)
[1]Lalicenceautoriselareproductionde40affiches,6périodiques
et2monographies(voirAnnexeApourlalistedesoeuvres)ainsi
queleurcommunicationaupublicpartélécommunication(voir
AnnexeBpourlesutilisationsspécifiquesaccordées).

[2]Ladélivrancedecettelicencenelibèrepasletitulairedela
licencedel’obligationd’obteniruneautorisationpourtoute
utilisationnonviséeparcettelicence.
[3]Lalicenceexpireàl’égardd’uneoeuvrelorsquecettedernière
rejointledomainepublic.
[4]Lalicenceestnon-exclusiveetvalideseulementauCanada.Pour
toutautrepays,laloiinternedupayss’applique.

(6)Letitulairedudroitd’auteurpeutmettrefinàlaprésente
licenceenremettantunavisécritàceteffetàBAnQ.Cette
dernièremetfinauxutilisationsquepermetlaprésentelicenceau
plustard30joursaprèsavoirreçul’avis.Letitulairequimetfinàla
licenceanéanmoinsdroitauxredevancesprévuesauparagraphe
(5).

·Section77–CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbytheBoard
[Ownerswhocannotbelocated]
LicenceissuedbytheCopyrightBoardarenon-exclusiveandrestrictedtoCanada.

CanadianInstituteofNaturalandIntegrativeMedicine(CINIM)forthedigital
reproductionandthecommunicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationoftwojokes.
[Reapplicationby]File:2012-UO/TI-05,2012CarswellNat3073(Cop.Bd.:2012-07-
24)[1]Thelicenceauthorizesthedigitalreproductionandthe
communicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationofthefollowing
publishedjokes,providedtheyarenotinthepublicdomain.
·TheCleverLittleGirl
·TheYoungBusinessman

[2]ThelicenceexpiresDecember31,2015.
[3]Thelicenceisnon-exclusiveandvalidonlyinCanada.For
othercountries,itisthelawofthecountrythatapplies.

[4]Theissuanceofthelicencedoesnotreleasethelicensee.
[Ouritalics.]
·Section77–CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbytheBoard
[Ownerswhocannotbelocated]
Whenissuingalicence,theCopyrightBoardmayordertothebearertoidentifythe
sourceofthework.
ÉditionsduQuartz,Rouyn-Noranda,Quebec,forthereproductionandthe
republicationonhardcopyofthetextinabook[Reapplicationby],File:2011-UO/TI-
10,alsoavailableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/266-f.
LicenceissuedbytheCopyrightBoardarenon-exclusiveandrestrictedtoCanada.
pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-10-22)
(1)Lalicenceautoriselareproductionetlarééditionsursupport
papierdutextedel’oeuvrelittéraireintitulée«Monpremierlivrede
lecture»deMargueriteForestetMadeleineOuimetetpubliéepar
lesÉditionsGrangeretfrèresen1951.
(2)Letiragenedevrapasdépasser3000exemplaires.

(3)Ladélivrancedecettelicencenelibèrepasletitulairedela
licencedel’obligationd’obteniruneautorisationpourtoute
utilisationnonviséeparcettelicence.

(4)Lalicenceexpirele31octobre2017.
(5)Lalicenceestnon-exclusiveetvalideseulementauCanada.
Pourtoutautrepays,laloiinternedupayss’applique.

(6)Letitulairedelalicencedoitindiquerclairementpour
l’oeuvreutiliséelaréférencebibliographiqueselonles
conventionsd’usage:titredel’oeuvre,auteur,éditeur,lieuet
datedepublication.
·Section77–CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbytheBoard
[Ownerswhocannotbelocated]
TheCopyrightBoardwillnotissuealicenceiftheworkisinthepublicdomain.

FrontierSchoolDivision,Winnipeg,Manitoba,forthemechanicalreproductionand
publicperformanceofthemusicalworkentitled”RoadtoFortCoulonge”writtenby
HarryReginald(Reg)HillandpublishedbyMelbourneMusi[Reapplication]File
2012-UO/TI-04,alsoavailableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-
introuvables/licences/265-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2012-10-16
(3)Thelicenceisvalidprovidedthatthemusicalworkisnotin
thepublicdomain.
·Section89–Nocopyright,etc.,exceptbystatute
TheCopyrightActisexahustive.

Waldmanv.ThomsonReutersCorporation,2012ONSC1138(Ont.Sup.Ct;.2012-
02-21)PerellJ.[54]CopyrightisacreatureoftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.
C-42,andtherightsandremediesitprovidesareexhaustive:
Thébergev.Galeried’ArtduPetitChamplaininc.,2002SCC34at
para.5.
·Section89–Nocopyright,etc.,exceptbystatute

Whensubmittingabuildingplantoapublicauthorityforpermitpurposes,thereisno
expectationofconfidentiality
CorporationoftheCityofLondon(Re),2012CanLII28372(Ont.I.P.C.;2012-05-18)
Beamish,AssistantCommissioner

94
[Summary:Thecityreceivedarequestfromamemberofthepublicforbuildingplans
thatwerepreparedbytheappellant.Thecity’sBuildingDivisiondisclosedthe
buildingplanstothethirdpartyuponpaymentofafee.Theappellantclaimsthatthe
cityshouldhavenotifieditinaccordancewithsection21(1)(a)oftheAct[Municipal
FreedomofInformationandProtectionofPrivacyAct,R.S.O.1990,c.M.56]because
thecitykneworoughttohaveknownthatthedisclosureoftheplanswouldcause
harmtotheappellantunderthethirdpartyinformationexemptioninsection10(1)of
theAct.Thisorderupholdsthecity’sdisclosureofthebuildingplans,astherecords
werenotsuppliedtotheinstitutioninconfidence,eitherexplicitlyorimplicitly,as
requiredbysection10(1)oftheAct.]
[29]WhileIappreciatethatthebuildingplansweresubmittedas
partofthebuildingpermitapplicationprocess,theexpectation
thattheplanswouldbeusedforthispurposealoneisnot
equivalenttoareasonableexpectationofconfidentiality.In
addition,thecityprovidedevidencethatitisitspracticetomake
buildingplansavailabletothepublicuponrequest,forafee.Sucha
practiceiscontrarytoareasonableandobjectiveexpectationof
confidentialityonthepartoftheappellant.Hadtheappellantor
propertyownermadeinquiriesofthecity,theywouldhavebeen
informedthatbuildingplansareroutinelydisclosedtothirdpartieson
request.Furthermore,astheplanswerenotsubmitteddirectlyby
theappellant,thecitycouldnotreasonablyhaveknownthatthe
appellantexpectedthattheplanswouldbekeptconfidential.Finally,
thebuildingplanswerenotstamped“Confidential”orotherwise
notedashavingbeenprovidedinconfidence.Instead,thenotation
onthebuildingplansonlystatesthatthe“CopyrightActappliesto
useandproduction”oftheplans.Whilethelackofa
“Confidential”stampornotationisnotnecessarily
determinative,inmyview,thecircumstancesofthisappeal,the
city’sroutinepracticesandtheplansthemselvesleadmeto
concludethattheywerenotsuppliedwithareasonable
expectationofconfidentiality.
·Section89–Nocopyright,etc.,exceptbystatute
Theexhaustivityreferredtoinsection89onlyappliestocopyright,notanyother
rightsorrecourses.
AccessCopyright-ProvincialandTerritorialGovernmentsTariffs(2005-2014)
Decision(Crownimmunityapplication)2012CarswelNat609(Cop.Bd.;2012-03-15)
[52]Certaininferencescanbedrawnbyreadingsection12togetherwith
section89.Asaresultofsection89,allcopyrightisexclusively
containedwithinthelegalstructureoftheAct.Withouttheopening
phraseofsection12,section89wouldoperatetoeliminateallremaining

95
commonlawcopyrightheldbytheCrown.Thisseemstoconfirmthatthe
terms“withoutprejudicetoanyrightsorprivilegesoftheCrown”are
necessarytomaintaintheCrownprerogativeinitscopyrightandthat
thosewordsmustbereadtomeansuchaprerogative.

[55]Moreover,section89targetscopyrightexclusively.Asa
result,theopeningwordsofsection12fullyservetheirpurposeby
preservingtheCrown’sprerogativesrelatingtoCrowncopyright,notother
formsofprerogativessuchasCrownimmunity.Thisiswheresection17of
theInterpretationActcomesintoplay:itisunderthatprovisionthatany
claimofCrownimmunitymustbemade.Ifsection12alsofulfillsthat
purpose,asisarguedbytheObjectors,thentheopeningwordsof
section12arelargelyredundant.ThiscannotbeParliament’sintent.
·Section89–Nocopyright,etc.,exceptbystatute
TherightsandremediesprovidedundertheCopyrightActareexhaustive.

Leutholdv.CanadianBroadcastingCorporation,2012FC748(F.C.;2012-06-14)
ScottJ.[132]TheCourtmustfirstunderlinethefactthatinCanada,
copyright“isacreatureofstatuteandtherightsandremediesit
providesareexhaustive”(seeThébergevGaleried’ArtduPetit
Champlaininc,[2002]2SCR336,2002SCC34,atpara5;Bishopv
Stevens,[1990]2SCR467,atpage477;CompoCovBlueCrest
MusicInc,[1980]1SCR357,atpage373).
·Section89–Nocopyright,etc.,exceptbystatute
ArighttocopyrightmustbefoundintheCopyrightActitselfandcannotbecreated
bysubordinatelegislation.
ReferencereBroadcastingRegulatoryPolicy2010-167andBroadcastingOrder
CRTC2010-168,2012SCC68(S.C.C.;2011-09-29)RothsteinJ.[reversing91
C.P.R.(4th)389(F.C.A.;2011-02-28):[80]Thereisonefinalpointtobemade.Section89oftheCopyright
Actprovides:
89.Nopersonisentitledtocopyrightotherwisethanunderand
inaccordancewiththisActoranyotherActofParliament,but
nothinginthissectionshallbeconstruedasabrogatingany
rightorjurisdictioninrespectofabreachoftrustorconfidence.

Thedeliberateuseofthewords“thisActoranyotherActof
Parliament”ratherthan“thisActoranyotherenactment”

96
meansthattherighttocopyrightmustbefoundinanActof
Parliamentandnotinsubordinatelegislationpromulgatedbya
regulatorybody.“Act”and“enactment”aredefinedins.2ofthe
InterpretationAct,R.S.C.1985,c.I-21,where
“Act”meansanActofParliament;
And
“enactment”meansanActorregulationoranyportionofanAct
orregulation.

ThedefinitionsconfirmthatParliamentdidnotintendthata
subordinateregulatorybodycouldcreatecopyrightbymeansof
regulationorlicensingconditions.

[82][…]Describingthisnewrightgrantedtobroadcastersunderthe
valueforsignalregimeasaseriesofregulatorychangesdoesnot
alterthetruecharacteroftherightbeingcreated.Notcallingit
copyrightdoesnotremoveitfromthescopeofs.89.Ifthat
typeofrepackingwasallthatwasrequired,s.89wouldnot
serveitsintendedpurposeofrestrictingtheentitlementto
copyrighttograntsunderandinaccordancewithActsof
Parliament.
·Section91–AdherencetoBerneandRomeConventions
IftheCopyrightActhastobeinterpreted,itshouldbeinaccordancewiththe
internationalobligationsofCanada,
Re:Soundv.MotionPictureTheatreAssociationofCanada,2012SCC38,(S.C.C.;
2012-07-12)LebelJ.[affirming2011CarswellNat429(F.C.A.;2011-02-25)which
wasaffirming78CPR(4th)64(Cop.Bd.;2009-00-16)]
[51]AsthisCourtnotedinNationalCornGrowersAssn.v.Canada
(ImportTribunal),[1990]2S.C.R.1324:…wherethetextofthe
domesticlawlendsitselftoit,oneshouldalsostriveto
expoundaninterpretationwhichisconsonantwiththerelevant
internationalobligations”(p.1371).Inthecaseatbar,theBoard’s
interpretationisconsonantwithCanada’sobligationsunderthe
RomeConvention.

·Section83—Copyrightandmanuscripttoreverttoauthor[Bankruptcy
andInsolvencyAct]
Theonusisonaclaimanttoprovehisclaiminthebankruptand,absentany
evidencetothecontrary,theauthorwillbedeemedtheownerofthecopyright.

97
SapientGridCorp.(Re),2012ABQB357(Alta.Q.B.;2012-05-28)Schlosser,
Registrar[20]BothKoblerandRenneberghaveadvancedsection81claims.
Section81providesthatthepersonclaimingpropertyinpossession
oftheBankruptshouldprovideasufficientlyparticularizedProofof
Claim(subsection81(1),(2)).Section81(3)putstheonusonthe
claimanttoestablishtheirpropertyclaim.(ReMelnitzer,(1991)9
CBR(3d)30,87Alta.LR(4th)696).
[21]Thestartingpointforintellectualpropertyclaimsisthefederal
CopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,C-42.Theauthor(ofacomputer
program)istheowneroftheprograminissue(section13(1)),unless
ownershipisdisplacedbyemployment,oragreement.Massieand
RenwickLimitedv.UnderwritersSurveyBureauLimitedetal,[1940]
SCR218.(Thereisasimilarprovisionwithrespecttoauthor’s
manuscriptsinsection83oftheBankruptcyandInsolvencyAct).

[22]Inthiscase,theevidencedoesnotdiscloseanyclearagreement
displacingownership.
[23]Thatleavesemployment.Amongmanydecidedcasesonthe
topic,671122OntarioLtd.v.SagasIndustriesCanadaInc.,2001
SCC59and,morerecently(forexample),AlbertaPermitProv.
Booth,2007ABQB562,perReid,J.atparas.129-147,setoutthe
considerationsfordeterminingwhetherapersonisanemployee.The
testsinthosecasesarenotsatisfiedontheevidencebeforeme.The
gistoftheevidenceinthepresentcaseisthatRennebergandKobler
weremorelikejointventurerswiththeBankrupt,thanemployees.

[24]Itisalsonotfortheclaimanttodisprovepotential
exceptionstoownership.Onbalance,theevidencedoesnot
demonstratethatoneoftheexceptionsshouldapply.Applyingthe
standardofcorrectnesstothesection81claims,theappealsofthe
Trustee’sdisallowancesofthepropertyclaimsarealsoallowed.

Andtoconclude:
1115038AlbertaLtd.v.1163256AlbertaLtd.,2012CarswellAlta947(Alta.Q.B.;
2012-05-18)GillJ.[78]Theliquidationapproachdidnotgenerateanyvaluebecausethe
companydidnotownsignificanttangibleassetssuchastrademarks
orcopyright.[Theunderlinningisours.]

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,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;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”)