Robic's Newsletter

CLICK FOR LEGAL NOTICE

Publications Back to the newsletter

A Compilation of the Canadian Copyright Cases Decided in 2013

2014-01-07

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

ACOMPILATIONOFTHECANADIANCOPYRIGHTCASESDECIDEDIN2013

LAURENTCARRIÈRE*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

First,agenerallisting:

1.
1572704OntarioInc.(c.o.b.Sandie’sReadingN’Greetings),[2013]
O.L.A.T.D.79,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onlat/doc/2013/2013canlii21155/2013canlii21155.html
(OntarioLicenceAppealTribunal;2013-04-17)
2.
7716v.RegistrarofAlcoholandGaming,2013CanLII21155,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onlat/doc/2013/2013canlii21155/2013canlii21155.html
(Ont.-LicenceAppealTribunal;2013-04-17)
3.
AccessCopyright(EducationalInstitutions)2005-2009–Redetermination,
[2013]C.B.D.4;2013CarswellNat58,availableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2013/Access-Redetermination-18-01-2013.pdf(Cop.Bd.;
2013-01-18)
4.
AccessCopyright(EducationalInstitutions)2010-2015,File:Reprographic
Reproduction,2010-2015,interimdecision;2013CarswellNat1656,[2013]
C.B.D.4;availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2013/access2010-
2015-29-05-2013.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2013-05-29)
5.
(AOM)NAInc.v.RevealGroup,2013ONSC8014,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2013/2013onsc8014/2013onsc8014.html(Ont.
Sup.Ct.;2013-12-30)
6.
Applicationtofixroyaltiesforalicenceanditsrelatedtermsandconditions
(SODRACv.CBC/SRC)InterimDecision,2013CarswellNat43.[2013]
C.B.D.3,alsoavailableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2013/sodrac-
16012013.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2013-01-16)

©CIPS,2014.*Lawyerandtrade-markagent,LaurentCarrièreisapartnerwithROBIC,LLP,a
multidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,patentandtrademarkagents.Publishedaspartofa
releasetotheCanadianCopyrightActAnnotated(Carswell).Publication432.

2
7.Averyv.RoyalCanadianMountedPolice,2013CarswellNB250,2013NBBR
152,2013NBQB152,1048A.P.R.290,404N.B.R.(2d)290,[2013]NBJ
149,http://canlii.ca/fr/nb/nbbr/doc/2013/2013nbbr152/2013nbbr152.html(N.B.
Q.B.;2013-05-06)
8.
Banquisedugolfeinc.c.Paulin,2013CarswellQue7815,EYB2013-225342,
J.E.2013-1460,2013QCCQ7997,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2013/2013qccq7997/2013qccq7997.html(Que.
Ct-;2013-05-14)
9.
BellMediainc.v.Sociétédudroitdereproductiondesauteurscompositeurs
etéditeursauCanada,2013CarswellQue10817,EYB2013-228424,2013
QCCS5203,[2013]JQ14340,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2013/2013qccs5203/2013qccs5203.pdf
(Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-10-23)
10.
BibliothèqueetArchivesnationalesduQuébec(BAnQ)forthereproduction
andcommunicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationofmonographs
(Applicationby),file2012-UO/TI-10,2013CarswellNat3457,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/273-f.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2013-08-21)
11.
BibliothèqueetArchivesnationalesduQuébec(BAnQ),pourlareproduction
etlacommunicationaupublicpartélécommunicationdepériodiquesetde
programmesdethéâtre(Applicationby),file2011-UO/TI-29,2013
CarswellNat2591,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-
introuvables/licences/271-f.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2013-05-23)
12.
BiocadMedicalinc.v.PantheraDentaireinc.,2013CarswellQue2344,EYB
2013-219605,2013QCCS905,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2013/2013qccs905/2013qccs905.html(Que.
Sup.Ct;2013-03-12)
13.
Boirev.Lefebvre,2013QCCQ921,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2013/2013qccq921/2013qccq921.html(Que.Ct.
SmallClaims;2013-01-10)
14.
Canada’sHistorySociety,forthereproduction,themakingavailableandthe
communicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationofthreepaintings
[Applicationby],File:2013-UO/TI-01,2013CarswellNat2378,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/268-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2013-02-13)
15.
CanadianArtists’Representation/LeFrontdesartistescanadiens(CARFAC)
andLeregroupementdesartistesenartsvisuelsduQuébec(RAAV)v.
NationalGalleryofCanada(NGC),File:1330-08-001,Decision58,[2012]
C.A.P.P.R.T.D.053,2012CarswellNat4332http://www.capprt-

3
tcrpap.gc.ca/eic/site/capprt-tcrpap.nsf/eng/tn00626.html(CAPPRT;2012-02-
16);revd.NationalGalleryofCanadav.Regroupementdesartistesenarts
visuelsduQuébec,2013CarswellNat507,2013CarswellNat508,226
A.C.W.S.(3d)557,443N.R.121,2013F64,2013CAF64,[2013]FCJ205.
http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2013/2013fca64/2013fca64.html(FCA;2013-
03-04);leavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadagranted,2013
CarswellNat2950,[2013]SC190(S.C.C.;2013-08-15)
16.
CanadianSolarSolutionsInc.v.RASolarLeasingInc.,2013CarswellOnt
955,
2013ONSC671,97C.B.R.(5th)119,225A.C.W.S.(3d)126,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2013/2013onsc671/2013onsc671.html
(Ont.Sup.Ct.[CommercialList];2013-01-29);CarswellOnt2787,226
A.C.W.S.(3d)971,2013ONSC1573,[2013]OJ390,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2013/2013onsc1573/2013onsc1573.html(Ont.
Sup.Ct.[CommercialList]-Costs;2013-03-13)
17.
Chélinv.Girouard,2013CarswellQue12420,EYB2013-229977,2013
QCCQ8742,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2013/2013qccq8742/2013qccq8742.html(Que.
Ct-SmallClaims;2013-08-16)
18.
Cojocaruv.BritishColumbiaWomen’sHospitalandHealthCentre,2009
BCSC494,65C.C.L.T.(3d)75,[2009]BCJ731,2009CarswellBC91,
http://canlii.ca/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2009/2009bcsc494/2009bcsc494.html(B.C.-
S.C.;2009-04-09)];revd2011BC192,17B.C.L.R.(5th)253,303B.C.A.C.
278,512W.A.C.278,44AdminL.R.(5th)231,81C.C.L.T.(3d)183,[2011]7
W.W.R.82,[2011]B.C.J.No.680(QL),20112011CarswellBC886,,
http://canlii.ca/en/bc/bcca/doc/2011/2011bcca192/2011bcca192.html(B.C.
C.A.;2011-04-14),revd2013CarswellBC1400,[2013]SCJ30,2013SCC
30,http://canlii.ca/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc30/2013scc30.html(S.C.C.;
2013-05-24)
19.
Cormierv.R.,2013QC2068,[2013]JQ16785,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2013/2013qcca2068/2013qcca2068.html(Que.
C.A.;2013-12-02)
20.DeltaHotelsv.Backus-Naur,2013CarswellOnt657,225A.C.W.S.(3d)33,
2013ONSC582,[2013]OJ312,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2013/2013onsc582/2013onsc582.pdf
(Ont.Sup.Ct;2013-01-24)
21.DesmarteauvOntarioLotteryandGamingCorporation,2013CarswellQue
12333,2013QC2090,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2013/2013qcca2090/2013qcca2090.html(Que.
C.A.;2013-12-05)

4
22.Distrimedicinc.v.DispillInc.,2013CarswellNat3663,2013FCJ1093,2013
FC1043,[2013]FCJ1093,
http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fct/doc/2013/2013fc1043/2013fc1043.html(F.C.;2013-
10-15)
23.
ÉditionsduQuartz,pourlareproduction,larééditionetladistributionsur
supportpapierdutexted’unlivre(ApplicationbyLes),file2013-UO/TI-08,
2013CarswellNat2590,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-
introuvables/licences/270-f.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2013-05-23)
24.
ÉditionsQuébec-Amériqueinc.v.DruideInformatiqueinc.,2013
CarswellQue212,2013QCCS82,EYB2013-216810,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2013/2013qccs82/2013qccs82.html(Que.Sup.
Ct;2013-01-21);2013QCCS5693,[2013]JQ15910,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2013/2013qccs5693/2013qccs5693.html(Que.
Sup.Ct;2013-10-16)
25.
FilosofiaÉditionsinc.v.EntreprisesFoxmindCanadaltée,2013CarswellQue
5393,EYB2013-222959,J.E.2013-1170,2013QCCS2519,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2013/2013qccs2519/2013qccs2519.html
(Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-06-07);leavetoappealgranted2013CarswellQue
8297,EYB2013-225993,J.E.2013-1575,2013QC1422,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2013/2013qcca1422/2013qcca1422.html
(Que.C.A.-Motionforleavetoappeal;2013-08-23)
26.
GestionReperinc.v.Brassard,2013CarswellQue11277,EYB2013-
228998,2013QCCS5453,[2013]JQ15141,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2013/2013qccs5453/2013qccs5453.html(Que.
Sup.Ct;2013-11-06)
27.
Hernandezv.Purcell,2013CarswellNS708,2013NSSC303,
http://canlii.ca/en/ns/nssc/doc/2013/2013nssc303/2013nssc303.html(N.S.
S.C.;2013-09-25)
28.
Isle-Principia(USA)inc.v.Guimond,2013CarswellQue7711,2013QCCS
3730.
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2013/2013qccs3730/2013qccs3730.pdf
(Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-07-03)
29.
Jenkinsforthereproductionandcommunicationtothepublicby
telecommunicationofafilm(ApplicationbyRebecca),file2012-UO/TI-16,
2013CarswellNat3468,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-
introuvables/licences/274-E.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2013-08-21)
30.
KeatleySurveyingLtd.v.TeranetInc.,107CPR(4th)237,2012CarswellOnt

5
15894.2012ONSC7120,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2012/2012onsc7120/2012onsc7120.html(Ont.
Sup.Ct.;2012-12-14);2013CarswellOnt2587,2013ONSC1361,34C.P.C.
(7th)280,226A.C.W.S.(3d)950,[2013]OJ1093,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2013/2013onsc1361/2013onsc1361.html(Ont.
Sup.Ct.-Costs;2013-03-11)
31.
KV265,Chicagofortheuseofaliteraryworkinpublicperformances
[Applicationby],File:2013-UO/TI-02,2013CarswellNat2379,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/269-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2013-04-03)
32.
LayetteMinimômeinc.v.Jarrar,2013QCCS6084,[2013]JQ16948,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2013/2013qccs6084/2013qccs6084.html(Que
Sup.Ct;2013-12-05)
33.
Mobinv.Stephens,2013ONCJ53,[2013]O.J.648,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/oncj/doc/2013/2013oncj53/2013oncj53.html(Ont.Sup.
Ct.;2013-02-26)
34.
MonumentsGibsonincv.Québec(Commissiondelaconstruction),2013
QCCRT68,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccrt/doc/2013/2013qccrt68/2013qccrt68.html(Que
C.C.R.T.;2013-02-11)
35.
MuséedeCharlevoixforthereproductionanddisplayofaposter(Application
by),file2013-UO/TI-10,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-
introuvables/licences/272-f.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2013-06-10)
36.
MuséedeCharlevoix,LaMalbaie(Québec)pourlareproductionet
l’expositiond’uneaffiche(Applicationby),file2013-UO/TI-10,2013
CarswellNat2594,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-
introuvables/licences/272-f.pdf(Cop.Bd;2013-06-10)
37.
NadonetSphèreMédiaPlusinc.,2013CarswellQue9429,EYB2013-
227016,2013QCCS4489,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2013/2013qccs4489/2013qccs4489.html(Que.
Sup.Ct.;2013-09-18)
38.
NationalFilmBoardofCanadaforthereproductionandthecommunicationto
thepublicbytelecommunicationofaphotographinadocumentaryfilm
[Applicationby],File:2012-UO/TI-18,2013CarswellNat2370,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/267-f.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2013-01-31)
39.
NauticalDataInternational,Inc.v.C-MapUSAInc.,2012FC300,2012
CarswellNat1055,106C.P.R.(4th)
341,http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fct/doc/2012/2012fc300/2012fc300.html(FC;2012-

6
04-03);revd2013CarswellNat5092013F63,226A.C.W.S.(3d)1140,110
C.P.R.(4th)317,444N.R.108,[2013]FCJ260http://decisions.fca-
caf.gc.ca/en/2013/2013fca63/2013fca63.html(FCA;2013-03-03;leaveto
appealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadarefused,[2013]SC183(S.C.C.;
2013-08-15))
40.
OakcraftHomesIncv.Ecklund,2013CanLII41981,[2013]OJ3215,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscsc/doc/2013/2013canlii41981/2013canlii4198
1.html(Ont.Sup.Ct.–SmallClaims;2013-07-02)
41.
OntarioPowerAuthority(Re),2013CanLII70436,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onipc/doc/2013/2013canlii70436/2013canlii70436.html
(Ont.IPC;2103-10-25)
42.
OpenGovernmentInitiative(Re),[EvaluatingtheGovermentofBritish
ColumbiaOpenGovermentIntiative,InvestigationReportF13-03[2013
BCIPC19,[2013]B.C.I.P.C.D.No.19,
http://canlii.ca/en/bc/bcipc/doc/2013/2013bcipc19/2013bcipc19.html(2013-
07-25)
43.
Pelchatc.Zone3inc.,2013QCCS78,[2013]JQ197,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2013/2013qccs78/2013qccs78.html,2013
CarswellQue216,EYB2013-216815,J.E.2013-506Que.Sup.Ct;2013-02-
21)
44.
Pintov.BronfmanJewishEducationCentre,2013FC945,2013FCJ992,
2013CarswellNat3396,
http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fct/doc/2013/2013fc945/2013fc945.html(F.C.;2013-09-
11)
45.Planification-Organisation-PublicationsSystèmes(POPS)Ltéev.9054-8181
QuébecInc.,2013CarswellNat1230,2013FC427,2013CF427,227
A.C.W.S.(3d)1146,111C.P.R.(4th)1,2013FC427,[2013]FCJ479,
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2013/2013fc427/2013fc427.html(FC;2013-04-
25)
46.
PrivateCopying2012,2013and2014,112C.P.R.(4th)460,2013
CarswellNat3149,availableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2013/30082013.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2013-08-30)
47.
R.v.Dulac*,2013QCCQ8200,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2013/2013qccq8200/2013qccq8200.html
(Que.Ct.–Crim.Div.;2013-07-19)
48.
R.v.Rundle(NecPlusUltra),2012ONSC5185,[2012]O.J.4296,104
C.P.R.(4th)190,2012CarswellOnt11339,

7
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2012/2012onsc5185/2012onsc5185.html
(OntSupCt;2012-09-14);additionalreasons2013CarswellOnt5920,228
A.C.W.S.(3d)823,2013ONSC2747,[2013]OJ2199,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2013/2013onsc2747/2013onsc2747.html
(Ont.Sup.Ct;2013-05-14)
49.
R.v.Strowbridge,2013CarswellNfld3342013,109W.C.B.(2d)85NL57,
[2013]NJ406,
http://canlii.ca/en/nl/nlca/doc/2013/2013nlca57/2013nlca57.html(Nfld.C.A.;
2013-09-09)
50.
Rainsv.Molea,2013CarswellOnt11337,2013ONSC5016,231A.C.W.S.
(3d)787,[2013]OJ3716,114C.P.R.(4th)161,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2013/2013onsc5016/2013onsc5016.html(Ont.
Sup.Ct.;2013-08-15)
51.
ReprographicReproduction2011-2013,Re2010CarswellNat5028,2010
CarswellNat5029,92CPR(4th)434,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2010/decision_of_the_board.pdf(CopBd;2010-12-23);
var.2011CarswellNat2254,2011CarswellNat2253,93CPR(4th)429,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2011/20110407.pdf(CopBd-Applicationto
varyanInterimTariff;2011-04-07);additionalreasonsat2011CarswellNat
2429,2011CarswellNat2430,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2011/20110628.pdf
(CopBd:2011-06-28)and2011
CarswellNat3708,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2011/20110923.pdf
(CopBd;2011-06-28);AccessCopyright-ProvincialandTerritorial
GovernmentsTariffs(2005-2014)Decision(Crownimmunityapplication),98
CPR(4
th)215,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/20120105-2.pdf
(CopBd;2012-01-05);2012CarswellNat7,98CPR(4th)215,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2012/prov_reason_2012.pdf;additionalreasons2012
CarswellNat609(CopBd;2012-03-15)2012F22,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2012/2012fca22/2012fca22.html(FCA-
Motiontostrikeaffidavit;2012-01-23);affd2012CarswellNat688,2012F96
(FCA;2012-03-20);affdsubnomineManitobav.CanadianCopyright
LicensingAgencyOperating(AccessCopyright),2013CarswellNat785,
2013F91,225A.C.W.S.(3d)1102,358D.L.R.(4th)563,444N.R.202,112
C.P.R.(4th)1,[2013]FCJ358
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2013/2013fca91/2013fca91.html,
http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2013/2013fca91/2013fca91.pdf(F.C.A.;
2013-04-03)
52.
RetransmissionofDistantTelevisionandRadioSignals,File:Retransmission
2009-2013;alsoavailableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2013/retrans-

8
29112013.pdf
(Cop.Bd.;2013-11-29
53.
Robinsonv.Cinar,2013CarswellQue12345,2013SCC73,[2013]SCC73,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc73/2013scc73.html(S.C.C.;
2013-12-23)
54.
Rouév.NovaScotia,2013CarswellNS97,225A.C.W.S.(3d)923,1036
A.P.R.346,327N.S.R.(2d)346,2013NSSC45,
http://canlii.ca/en/ns/nssc/doc/2013/2013nssc45/2013nssc45.html(N.S.S.C.;
2013-02-06);2013CarswellNS599,2013NSSC254,231A.C.W.S.(3d)636,
1055A.P.R.40,333N.S.R.(2d)40,
http://canlii.ca/en/ns/nssc/doc/2013/2013nssc254/2013nssc254.html(N.S.
S.C.;2013-08-09);leavetoappealrefusedCarswellNS615,2013NS94,42
C.P.C.(7th)48,232A.C.W.S.(3d)42,1055A.P.R.327,333N.S.R.(2d)327,
http://canlii.ca/en/ns/nsca/doc/2013/2013nsca94/2013nsca94.html(N.S.C.A.;
2013-08-27)
55.
SOCANTariff24-Ringtones(2003-2005),RingtonesandRingbacks(2006-
2013)-ApplicationtoVary,2013CarswellNat58,[2013]C.B.D.5;available
athttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2013/SOCAN-Tariff-24-18-01-2013.pdf
(Cop.Bd.;2013-01-18)
56.
SODRACTariffNo.5(2009-2012),[2013]C.B.D.6,availableat
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2013/sodrac5-26-04-2013.pdf(Cop.Bd.;
2013-04-26)
57.
SpanskiEnterprises,Inc.v.IMB+RecordsInc.,2013CarswellOnt12610,
2013ONSC5382,[2013]OJ4113,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2013/2013onsc5382/2013onsc5382.html(Ont.
Sup.Ct.;2013-09-11
58.
StatementofRoyaltiestoBeCollectedbySODRACfortheReproduction,in
Canada,ofMusicalWorksEmbeddedintoCinematographicWorksforthe
PurposeofDistributingCopiesofTheseCinematographicWorksforPrivate
UseorforTheatricalExhibition-TariffNo.5(2009-2012)[Redetermination],
2013CarswellNat2325,availableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2013/sodrac5-05-07-2013.pdf(Cop.Bd;2013-07-05)
59.
Stoyanovav.DisquesMileEnd,2013CarswellQue11696,EYB2013-
229306,2013QCCS5631,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2013/2013qccs5631/2013qccs5631.html(Que.
Sup.Ct.;2013-11-13

9
60.TencyMusicSASv.Lefrançois,2013CarswellQue4285,2013QSCS1947,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2013/2013qccs1947/2013qccs1947.html
(Que.Sup.Ct;2013-04-29)
61.
Tremblayv.OrioCanadaInc.,2013CarswellNat1145,2013FCJ105,2013
FC109,http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2013/2013fc109/2013fc109.html
F.C.;2013-01-31);affd.2013CAF225,
2013CarswellNat3483[2013]ACF
1031,http://canlii.ca/fr/ca/caf/doc/2013/2013caf225/2013caf225.html(F.C.A.;
2013-09-25)
62.
Trudeauv.AD4DistributionCanadainc.,2013QCCS2678,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2013/2013qccs2678/2013qccs2678.html(Que.
Sup.Ct.;2013-06-17)

10
Now,asectionbysectionanalysisofthose2013Canadiancases.

·Section1‒Shorttitle

Theartists’professionalservicesandtermsofengagementundertheStatusofthe
ArtistAct(SAA)donotincludenecessarymattersrelatingtocopyright.

NationalGalleryofCanadav.CanadianArtists’Representation,2013CarswellNat
507(F.C.A.;2013-03-04)NoëlJ.[reversingCanadianArtists’Representation/Le
Frontdesartistescanadiens(CARFAC)andLeregroupementdesartistesenarts
visuelsduQuébec(RAAV)v.NationalGalleryofCanada(NGC),2012CarswellNat
4332(C.A.P.P.R.T.;2012-02-16);leavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanada
granted,docket35353,2013CarswellNat2950(S.C.C.;2013-08-15)]
[99]Thisdistinctionisequallyfundamentalinthepresentcase.
Whereascaleagreementspertainstocommissionedworks
(“œuvrescommandées”,tousetheFrenchphrase),nocopyrightis
involvedsincetheworkdoesnotexistatthetimetheagreementis
signed.Consequently,the“provisionof…services”requiredto
realizethecommissionedworkandtherightsofusethatanartist
mayassignwithrespecttothecontemplatedworkdonotentailany
possibleconflictwiththeCopyrightAct.Inotethattheprovisionof
artistsservicestoproducecommissionedworksisacommon
practiceintheartworld,asisevidencedbyBill90[Statusofthe
ArtistAct,S.C.1992,c.33]andbytheActitselfwhichappliesto
specifiedproducersthat“engageoneormoreartiststoprovidean
artisticproduction”(paragraph6(2)(a)oftheAct).

[100]ConflictswiththeCopyrightActonlyarisewhereone
seekstoextendscaleagreementstoworksthatarecreated
otherwisethaninthecontextofacommission,astheTribunal
didinthiscase.
[102]InextendingtheapplicationoftheActtoworksmade
otherwisethaninthecontextofacommission,theTribunal
distortedthewordsusedbyParliament.Nolinguistic
gymnasticscanjustifytheassertionthattheassignmentofa
copyrightisa“provisionofartists’services”.
[115]Ithereforeconcludethatmattersrelatingtocopyright,
includingtheimpositionofminimumfeesfortheuseofexisting
works,donotcomewithintheparametersoftheAct[Statusof
theArtistAct,S.C.1992,c.33]andthattherefore,theTribunalhad
noauthoritytocompelthepartiestonegotiatesuchmatters.Beyond
this,theNationalGallerycouldnotvalidlyagreetoascale
agreementaffectingcopyrights.[…]

11
·Section2–Definitionof”architecturalwork”

Evenconsideredasanarchitecturalwork,amausoleumisstillabuildingandas
such,itsconstructionmustobeytotheprovisionsoftheprovincialconstruction
legislationwhichgovernsworkonconstructionsitesforsafetyissuesandtoensure
thatconstructionstandardsarefollowedforthepurposeofpublicinterest.

MonumentsGibsonincv.Québec(Commissiondelaconstruction),2013QCCRT68
(QueC.C.R.T.;2013-02-11)MireaultJ.
[Uponmotiontodetermineiftheconstructionofamausoleumonaprivatelotina
cemeteryfallsunderAnActRespectingLabourRelations,VocationalTrainingand
WorkforceManagementintheConstructionIndustry]
[39]C’estlanaturedestravauxexécutésquidétermine
l’assujettissementàlaloi.Ainsi,lespersonnesquiexécutentoufont
exécuterdestravauxvisésparlaloisontassujettiesàses
dispositionsindépendammentdeleurqualitéoudeleurstatut.

[53]Aucunepreuven’aétésoumiseselonlaquellelespersonnes
ayanttravailléàl’érectiondumausoléedelafamilleCossetteétaient
membresd’uneassociationreconnueenvertudelaLoisurlestatut
professionneldesartistesdesartsvisuels,desmétiersd’artetdela
littératureetsurleurscontratsaveclesdiffuseursoumembresd’une
associationderestaurateursreconnueetdontlenomaétépubliéà
laGazetteofficielleduQuébec.Ilsnepeuventdoncbénéficierde
cetteexception.
[54]Enrésumé,silestravauxsontcomprisdansunedesactivités
énuméréesaupremieralinéadel’article1f)delaLoiR-20,s’ilssont
effectuéssurunbâtimentouunouvragedegéniecivil,surun
chantierdeconstructionetqu’aucunedesexceptionsdel’article19
decetteloines’applique,ilsserontassujettis.

[58]Ilressortdecettedécision[Commissiondelaconstructiondu
Québecc.LogisDécorJ.G.S.inc.833,2juin1994(Commissairede
laconstruction)]quel’interventiond’unartistepeintreprofessionnel
etd’autresintervenantsdel’équipedeMonumentsGibsonavantet
pendantl’exécutiondestravauxnedoitpasêtrepriseencompteet
n’apasdeconséquencesurl’assujettissementdestravaux.

[70]Enfin,lefaitquedestravauxoudesmatériauxpuissentêtre
couvertspardesdroitsd’auteurnefaitpasobstacleà
l’applicationdelaLoiR-20.[Loisurlesrelationsdutravail,la

12
formationprofessionnelleetlagestiondelamain-d’œuvredans
l’industriedelaconstruction]
·Section2–Definitionof”architecturalwork”

Houseplansarecopyrightable–In1988,thequalifier”ofart”wasdroppedfromthe
definitionof”architecturalwork”in1988.
OakcraftHomesIncv.Ecklund,2013CanLII41981(Ont.Sup.Ct.–SmallClaims;
2013-07-02)Gilbert,J.
[40]TheCopyrightActclearlyrecognizesthathouseplansare
subjecttocopyrightprotectiononthebasisthat“artisticwork”
includes“plans”and“architecturalworks”.Caselawhasfurther
confirmedthatcopyrightexistsinahouseplan.HayandHay
ConstructionCo.v.Sloan,1957CarswellOnt27(Ont.S.C.)

[41]ItistobenotedthattheCopyrightActwasamendedin1988.
Priortothatdate,theCopyrightActcovered“architecturalworkof
art”insteadof“architecturework”,makingitarequirementtoconfine
theprotectionoftheActtotheartisticcharacteranddesignofthe
work.Thisrequirementwasdroppedwiththeamendmenttothe
Act.Therefore,anycasesdealingwithafactsituation
originatingatthetimewherethepreviousversionoftheAct
wasinforcemustbeexaminedwithscrutiny.

·Section2–Definitionof”artisticwork”

Copyrightprotectsthetangibleexpressionofanideaandnotthevisual
approach/perveptionofanartist.
Rainsv.Molea,114C.P.R.(4th)161(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2013-08-15)ChiappettaJ.
[22]Further,inmyviewitwouldbeunwisetoextendcopyright
protectiontothevisualperceptionofanartisticwork,whichis
intangibleandsubjective.Copyrightsubsistsintheexpressionof
anideainafixedmaterialform:CCH,atpara.8[CCHCanadianLtd.
v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13,].Thereisgood
reasonforthis.Thescalewouldbetippedinfavourofthecreator’s
rightsifcopyrightweretoprotectanundefinedandunarticulated
feelingemotedfromartisticworks.Therewouldbelittleroomforthe
publicdomaintoflourish.Otherswouldbeunabletoproducenew
artisticworkswithoutfearofinfringingacreator’sself-imposedor
critically-bequeathedimpreciseevocationofhiswork’sfeelingor
expression.Moreover,theprotectionwouldoftenextendtoworksnot

13
yetcreated.Thiswouldbeaperverseresultconsideringthepurpose
oftheActassetoutabove.
·Section2–Definitionof”board”

TheBoarddoesnotregulatecollectives:itsetstariffs.

SOCANTariff24-Ringtones(2003-2005),RingtonesandRingbacks(2006-2013)-
ApplicationtoVary,2013CarswellNat75(Cop.Bd.;2013-01-18),theBoard:
[21][…]TheapplicantsstatethattheBoardsupervisesandregulates
thecollectiveadministrationofpublicperformingrightsinmusical
works.Thisisnotentirelyaccurate.TheBoardonlysetstariffsand
therelatedtermsandapplicableconditions.[…]
·Section2–Definitionof”commerciallyavailable”

IfaworkcanbecopiedunderaTariff,thisworkiscommerciallyavailable.

AccessCopyright(EducationalInstitutions)2010-2015,2013CarswellNat58(Cop.
Bd.;2013-01-18)
[19]Paragraph(a)ofthedefinitionof”commerciallyavailable”
providesthataworkissoavailableifitisavailableontheCanadian
marketundercertainconditions(reasonabletime,reasonableprice,
reasonableeffort).Paragraph(b)ofthedefinitionprovidesinaddition
thataworkalsoiscommerciallyavailableif,underthesame
conditions,alicenceisavailablefromacollectivesociety.

[20]Itisnotdisputedthat,forthepurposesoftheseproceedings,ifa
workcanbecopiedpursuanttotheAccessTariff,itis
commerciallyavailable.

[21]OnlythreeprovisionsoftheAct,asitstoodbeforeNovember7,
2012,usetheexpression”commerciallyavailable”:subsections
29.4(3),30.1(2)and32(3).Eachprovisioncreatesacarve-outwithin
aprovisionthatotherwisecreatesaspecificexception.
·Section2–Definitionof”compilation”

Foracompliationtobeprotectedsomeskillandjudgmentintheselectionshallbe
demonstrated.

Rainsv.Molea,114C.P.R.(4th)161(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2013-08-15)ChiappettaJ.
[17]TheActdefines“artisticwork”toincludecompilationsofartistic
works.Inmyview,theClassicalSeriesisnotacompilationas
definedintheAct.ThereisnoevidencethatRainsexercisedskill
andjudgmenttoselectacrumpledpaperimageandarrangeitwith
othersintheClassicalSeriessuchthatcopyrightsubsistsinthe
arrangementoftheseriesitself.Rather,Rainschoseathemein
1991,alabelforaseriesofpaintingsheintendedtocreateto
expresshisideaofpaintingstilllifecrumpledpaper.Thelabel
existedfarbeforethemanyimageshecreated;healsointendsto
addtotheClassicalSeriesbycreatingmoreimagesthatproperlyfit
withinthetheme.TheClassicalSeriesisnotacompleteindependent
workofcarefullyselectedpaintings.Rather,itisalabelcommonto
existingandfutureRainspaintings,eachindividuallycreatedto
expresshisideaofpaintingarealisticimageofcrumpledwhite
paper.Thereisnooriginalityinthelabelitself;thereisno
skillfulorganizationalaspectoftheClassicalSeriesthat
warrantsprotectionfortheseriesasawhole

[21]Accordingly,IrejectRains’submissionthattheClassical
Seriesisacompilationbecauseitevokesafeelingcommonto
allhisworks,IconcludethattheClassicalSeriesisnota
compilationasdefinedbytheActbecause“gestalt”ora
“feeling”isinsufficienttomeetthetest.
·Section2‒Definitionof”compilation”

Forcopyrighttosubsistinacompilation,theselectionandarrangementofindividual
worksmustbeoriginal,involvingtheexerciseoftasteanddiscretion.

Pintov.BronfmanJewishEducationCentre,2013CarswellNat3396(F.C.;2013-09-
11)RennieJ.[151]Accordingly,inadditiontothecopyrightwhichattachesto
individualworks,theremaybeasecond,concurrentcopyright
tothecompilationasawhole.Thissecondcopyrightdoesnot
extinguishthecopyrightoverindividualcomponentsofthe
collectivework.Eachexistssimultaneously:Robertsonv
ThomsonCorp,2006SCC43atpara31,[2006]2SCR363.

[152]Inorderfortheretobeacopyrightinthecompilation,the
selectionandarrangementofindividualworksmustbeoriginal,
involvingtheexerciseoftasteanddiscretion:Hugheson
Copyright&IndustrialDesign,ch22at186;Slumber-Magic

15
AdjustableBedCovSleep-KingAdjustableBedCo,[1984]BCJNo
3054atpara6.
[153]IfindthatemployeesofBJECdidexercisesubstantialexpertise
andoriginalityinselectingthecompilation.Ms.Shimon,inparticular,
hasexpertiseinpedagogy.Ms.Farkasexplainedthatthemusicand
songswerenotcreatedforartisticpurposes:“ifBarbaraStreisand
decidestoproducemusic,shewouldgoby,let’ssay,hertaste…
whenyoudoacurriculum,thenwhatdetermineswhatgoesinis
educationalstandards.Not–andthenhowthemusicfitsandisthe
musicappropriate,isitageappropriate,isitcontentappropriateand
soforth.”
[154]Ms.ShimonexplainedhowdifferentelementsofTaLAMwere
selectedtodevelopvariousintelligences,includingthechildren’s
creativityandlogicalreasoning.Sheexplainedthatdifferent
charactersandimageswereselectedtoestablishconnectivitywith
Israelandcohesionbetweentheteachingtoolsandeducational
level,fromthechoiceofcolour,design,andgraphics,tothelyrics
andtheoverallpedagogicalobjectives.
[155]Accordingly,thequestionbecomeswhethertheBJEC
employeeshadMr.Pinto’sconsenttousehismusicinthe
compilation.Iftheydid,subsection3(1)oftheActgrantsBJEC(and
nowTaLAM)copyrightoverthecompilation:Slumber-Magic,atpara
7.Iftheydidnot,BJECinfringedMr.Pinto’scopyrightincreatingthe
compilation.
·Section2–Definitionof”compilation”

Toattractcopyrightprotectionacompilationmustbeoriginal.

Distrimedicinc.v.DispillInc.,2013CarswellNat3663,(F.C;2013-10-15)de
MontignyJ.[321]Compilationsandforms,therefore,mustbesubjecttothe
samethresholdoforiginalityasanyotherwork.TheCCH[[CCH
CanadianLtd.vLawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC
13])]decisiondefined“compilation”asaformofexpressionthat
ariseswhenanindividual(the“arranger”)takesexistingmaterialand
castsitinadifferentform.Itisnottheindividualcomponentsthat
arethesubjectofthecopyrightbuttheoverallarrangementof
them,whichthearrangerhasproduced:seeCCH,above,atpara
33.

16
[323]Itfollowsthatthealignmentoffactualdatainanon-
originalwayisnotsufficienttoattractcopyrightprotection:
Tele-Direct(Publications)IncvAmericanBusinessInformationInc.
),
(1997),76CPR(3rd)296(FCA),leavetoappealrefused,[1997]
SCNo660.Moreover,whenanideacanbeexpressedinonlya
limitednumberofways,thentheexpressionofthatideaisnot
protected,asprotectingitwouldgrantamonopolyontheidea
itself.Inthosesituations,therefore,thethresholdoforiginalityisnot
metandthereisnocopyrightprotection:DelrinaCorpvTriolet
SystemsInc,(2002),17CPR(4th)289,atparas48-52(OntCA),
leavetoappealrefused,(2002),305NR398.
·Section2–Definitionof”computerprogram”

Copyrightcannotattachsimplytowhatacomputerprogramdoes.

(AOM)NAInc.v.RevealGroup,2013ONSC8014,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2013/2013onsc8014/2013onsc8014.html(Ont.Sup.
Ct.;2013-12-30)Macleod,Master[17]Copyrightisaveryspecificrightattachingtoa“work”.Iagree
withthedefendantsthatthepleadingisvagueaboutwhatitisthatis
subjecttocopyrightandwhatitisallegedhasbeenthebreachof
copyrightgivingrisetothiscauseofaction.Copyrightcannotattach
toanideasuchasamethod.Itcanofcourseattachtothemanuals
orothermaterialinwhichthemethodisdescribed.Similarlywith
computersoftware,copyrightcanattachtosourcecode,toa
graphicuserinterface,tomanualsandtoothermaterialas
definedintheAct.Copyrightcannotattachsimplytowhata
computerprogramdoes.Theplaintiffmustspecifywhatitisthatis
coveredbycopyrightandwhatitallegeshasbeendonethatgives
risetothestatutoryremedies.
·Section2–Definitionof”copyright”

Copyrightisanincorporealformofpropertycreatedbystatute.

Mobinv.Stephens,2013ONCJ53(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2013-02–6)JonesJ.
[41]Anindividualwhocomposes,performsorrecordsanoriginal
musicalworkhasacopyrightinsuchwork.“Copyright”iscreatedby
statute.Thus,areferenceto“copyright”referstotherightsconferred
bythelegislation.[Fn2CopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42in
CanadaandtheU.S.CopyrightAct,Title17oftheUnitedStates

17
Code.]Acopyrightisanincorporealformofproperty.[Fn3
Sanderson,P.,MusiciansandtheLawinCanada–3rdEd.,Carswell,
Toronto,2000,p.3.]Ithasaconceptual,non-physicalexistence,
andiscomprisedofthebundleofstatutoryrightsthataccrueto
thecreatorofanoriginalwork.
·Section2–Definitionof”dramaticwork”

Atelevisonseriecouldbeadramaticwork.
Pelchatv.Zone3inc.,2013CarswellQue216(Que.Sup.Ct;2013-02-21)PayetteJ.
[40]Uneémissiondetélévisionpeutdoncconstitueruneœuvre
dramatiqueausensdelaLoi.
[68]Certesonpeut,danslelangagecommun,faireétatd’une
«œuvre»pourdécrire«l’ensembledesdifférentesœuvres(d’un
auteur),considérédanssasuite,sonunitéetsoninfluence»[Fn51
LeNouveauPetitRobert,2009,subverbo«œuvre».]
.Maislorsqu’il
s’agitderéclamerlaprotectiondelaLoi,chaqueexpressiond’une
idée,chaqueincarnationdecetteidéeconstitueuneœuvre
susceptibled’êtreprotégéepourautantqu’ellesoitoriginale,encore
qu’ilsoitpossiblequ’uneœuvredonnéesoitconstituéededifférentes
partieselles-mêmesoriginales,formantuntout[Fn52Interbox
PromotionCorp.c.9012-4314QuébecInc.(HippoClub),[2003]
F.C.J.No1581,par.22.].Ainsi,chaqueémissiondesLooksest
susceptibledeconstitueruneœuvredramatiquedistincte[Fn53
FranceAnimation,s.a.c.Robinson,2011QC1361,par.27etsuiv.,
58-60(requêtepoursuspendrel’exécutiond’unjugementaccueillie
enpartie,C.A.,09-12-2011(jugementrectifiéle19-12-2011),500-
09-020033-098,500-09-020014-098et500-09-020035-093,2011
QC2305)(requêtespourautorisationdepourvoiàlaCoursuprême
accueillies,C.S.C.,24-05-2012,34469,34468,34467et34466)].
·Section2–Definitionof”everyoriginalliterary,dramatic,musicaland
artisticwork”

Examinationsandstandardizedtestscouldattractcopyrightprotection.

R.v.Rundle(NecPlusUltra),2013CarswellOnt5920(Ont.Sup.Ct;2013-05-14)
BeaudoinJ.[supplementaryreasonsto104C.P.R.(4th)190(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-09-
14)][37]Whatisrequiredtoattractcopyrightprotectioninthe
expressionofanideaisanexerciseofskillandjudgment.Iam

18
satisfiedthattheSLEtestsmeetthedefinitionoforiginalwork.Their
authorsexerciseconsiderableskillandjudgmentinproducingan
evaluativetooltoassesscandidates’secondlanguageabilities.
ProducingSLEtestsrequiresexpertise,judgmentandexperience.

[38]Examinationsandstandardizedtestsareentitledtocopyright
protection.[…]
·Section2–Definitionof”everyoriginal…work”

Copyrightprotectstheoriginalexpressionofideas,specificandindividualized

Pelchatv.Zone3inc.,2013CarswellQue216(Que.Sup.Ct;2013-02-21)PayetteJ.
[41]Celadit,cen’estpasfairepreuved’originalitédedirequele
principedebaseenmatièrededroitd’auteurestquelaLoine
protègepaslesidéeselles-mêmes,aussinovatricessoient-elles.
Ellen’enprotègequel’expressionoriginale,particulièreet
individualisée.[Fn26FranceAnimation,s.a.c.Robinson,2011
QC1361,par.27(requêtepoursuspendrel’exécutiond’unjugement
accueillieenpartie,C.A.,09-12-2011(jugementrectifiéle19-12-
2011),500-09-020033-098,500-09-020014-098et500-09-020035-
093,2011QC2305)(requêtespourautorisationdepourvoiàlaCour
suprêmeaccueillies,C.S.C.,24-05-2012,34469,34468,34467et
34466);NormandT
AMARO,Loisurledroitd’auteur,texteannoté,8e
éd.,Toronto,ÉditionsCarswell,2009,p.197;Duffc.Québec
(Procureurgénéral),2005QC661(CanLII),2005QC661,par.43-44.]

[43]Ainsi,leseulfaitdereprendreunthèmeouuneidée,de
construiresurduterrainconnunepermetpasdeconclureàplagiat
sinon«iln’yauraitqu’unseulromand’amoursurlaseuletablettede
nosbibliothèques»[Fn28NormandT
AMARO,Loisurledroitd’auteur,
texteannoté,8eéd.,Toronto,ÉditionsCarswell,2009,p.185;
Arbiquec.Gabriele,J.E.99-352(C.S.)(appelrejeté,C.A.,23-01-
2003,500-09-007641-996,J.E.2003-297);Fénollarc.PRBMédia,
2006QCCS1956,par.46;Nicholsc.UniversalPicturesCorporation
etal,45F.2d119(2ndCir.,1930)p.4-5.]
·Section2–Definitionof”everyoriginal…work”

Originalityhasnothingtodowithcreativity,noveltyoruniqueness.

Pelchatv.Zone3inc.,2013CarswellQue216(Que.Sup.Ct;2013-02-21)PayetteJ.
[87]Or,d’unepart,lesimplechangementdesupportnepeut
conféreràceluiquiyapensélemonopolesurl’idéequiestainsi

19
exprimée[Fn60NormandTAMARO,The2012AnnotatedCopyright
Act,Toronto,ÉditionsCarswell,2011,p.257-258;MelvilleB.
NIMMER
andDavidN
IMMER,NimmeronCopyright,vol.2,SanFrancisco,
LexisNexis,2012,par.8.01[B],p.6-7;Robertsonc.ThomsonCorp.,
[2006]2R.C.S.363,par.89.]etd’autrepart,mêmes’ilsavaientété
lespremiersàexploiterl’idée,celan’auraitpasd’importancepourla
solutiondulitige.
[88]Eneffet,l’originalitérequisepourqu’uneœuvrepuisse
profiterdelaprotectiondelaLoines’entendpasdesonaspect
créatif,novateurouunique.L’élémentessentielàlaprotection
d’uneœuvreparledroitd’auteurestqu’ellesoitlerésultatde
l’exercicedutalentetdujugementdesonauteur[Fn61CCH
CanadienneLtéec.BarreauduHaut-Canada,[2004]1R.C.S.339,
par.16.]
·Section2–Definitionof”everyoriginal…work”–

“Thescopeforjudicialcreativityisnarrow,butnotnon-existent.”

Cojocaruv.BritishColumbiaWomen’sHospitalandHealthCentre,2013CarswellBC
1400(S.C.C.;2013-05-24)McLachlinJ.[reversing2011CarswellBC886,(B.C.C.A.;
2011-04-14),whichwasreversing2009CarswellBC917(B.C.-S.C.;2009-04-09)]
[32]Tosetasideajudgmentforfailuretoattributesourcesor
forlackoforiginalityalonewouldbetomisunderstandthe
natureofthejudge’staskandthetime-honouredtraditionsof
judgment-writing.Theconventionssurroundingmanykindsof
writingforbidplagiarismandcopyingwithoutacknowledgement.
Termpapers,novels,essays,newspaperarticles,biographicaland
historicaltomesprovidereadyexamples.Inacademicand
journalisticwriting,thewriterisfacedwiththetaskofpresenting
originalideasforevaluationbyaninstructororbypeers,orof
engaginginprincipleddebateinthepress.Thetaskofjudgment-
writingismuchdifferent.[…]
·Section2-Definitionof”everyoriginal…work”

Thereisnocopyrightinidea.
Isle-Principia(USA)inc.v.Guimond,2013CarswellQue7711(Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-
07-03)YergeauJ.[728]Qu’ilsoitl’auteurduconceptoriginald’USAestunfaitadmis
parPrincipia.Maisuneidéeàelleseuleneconfèreaucundroit
d’auteurenvertudelaLDA.Ainsiquelesoulignel’auteurNormand

20
Tamaro:«Commel’œuvreestl’expressiondelapenséeoriginalede
l’auteur,nepeutêtreconsidéréeauteure,lapersonnequise
contentedefournirl’idéed’uneœuvre:Cuisenairec.SouthWest
ImportsLtd.,[1969]R.C.S.208»[FN204NormandTAMARO,Loisur
ledroitd’auteur,Texteannoté,9
eéd.,Toronto,Carswell,2012,p.
400].
[729]Guimondnedétientdoncpasdedroitd’auteursurl’idéequ’ila
euederéaliserundocumentairesurlasociétéaméricainecrééà
partirdesontravaild’artistevisuel.
·Section2–Definitionof”everyoriginal…work”

Copyrightcannotbeassertedonanideabutonlyinthewaythisideaisrendered.

Rainsv.Molea,114C.P.R.(4th)161(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2013-08-15)ChiappettaJ.
[14]Itissettledthatcopyrightlawprotectstheexpressionof
ideasinworks;itdoesnotprotectideasinandofthemselves
(See:Moreauv.St.Vincent,[1950]Ex.C.R.198,atp.203).Molea
submitsthatRainsisseekingtoassertacopyrightintheideaof
paintingarealisticimageofcrumpledwhitepaper.Hearguesthat
thenatureofthesubjectmatterofrealisticcrumpledpapermerges
theideainitspossibleexpression.Themergerdoctrineemphasizes
that”[i]fanideacanbeexpressedinonlyoneorinaverylimited
numberofways,thencopyrightofthatexpressionwillberefusedfor
itwouldgivetheoriginatoroftheideaavirtualmonopolyonthat
idea.Insuchacase,itissaidtheexpressionmergeswiththeidea
andisthusnotcopyrightable”(See:DelrinaCorp.(c.o.b.Carolian
Systems)v.TrioletSystemsInc.2002CanLII11389(ONCA),
(2002),58O.R.(3d)339atpara48,[2002]O.J.No.676(C.A.),leave
toappealrefused,[2002]S.C.C.A.no.189).
[15]Inmyview,themergerdoctrineasexpressedbytheOntario
CourtofAppealisnotapplicabletothefactsofthiscase.The
dichotomybetweenanideaandtheexpressionofanideadoesnot
applytoapaintinginthesamewaytheCourtofAppealappliesittoa
functionofacomputerprogram.Aswillbediscussedbelow,for
differentreasonsandwithdifferentintentions,RainsandMoleaboth
hadtheideaofpaintingarealisticimageofcrumpledpaper.Their
respectiveexpressionsoftheideaarerepresentedinthe
imagesthemselves.Theimageisaproductofdiligentwork.The
artistsspendhoursexercisingskillandjudgment.Theyapply
intellectandemploytechniqueslearnedthroughstudy,
experience,talent,andinfluencetodevelop,explore,and
perfecttheexpressionofthatideainapainting.BothRainsand

21
Molearepeatedlyexpresstheideathroughimages.Eachimage
isadifferentexpressionandthatexpression,iforiginal,is
subjecttocopyright.

[99]Thiscaseinvolvestwoartistswhohadthesame(andnot
unique)ideatopaintcrumpledpaperinarealisticwayusing
conventionalpaintingtechniques.Theirmotivationsaredifferent.
Theirprocessesaredifferent.Theirresultantexpressionsare
different.TheActprotectseachoriginalRainspaintingandeach
originalMoleapaintingfrominfringement.IfanyofMolea’s17
comparisonworksweresubstantialcopiesorcolourableimitationsof
Rains’comparableimages,Rainswouldbesuccessfulinhisclaimof
copyrightinfringement.However,simplybecauseRains
expressedhisideabeforeMoleaandfoundcommercialsuccess
andcriticalacclaimfordoingso,doesnotmeanthatMoleaor
anyotherpainterisforeverprohibitedfromindependently
creatinganexpressionofcrumpledpaperinstilllifeform.Inmy
view,togiveRainsexclusiveaccesstothisterritorywould
unfairlysilenceindependentexpressionsoftheideaandrender
absurdtheverypurposeoftheAct.
·Section2–Definitionof”everyoriginal…work”

Thelawdoesnotprotectideasbutonlytheiroriginalexpression,specificand
individualized.

Nadonv.SphèreMédiaPlusinc.,2013CarswellQue9429(Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-09-
18)CasgrainJ.[74]Ilestbienétablienjurisprudencequelaloineprotègepasles
idéesmaisseulementleurexpressionoriginale,particulièreet
individualisée.
·Section2–Definitionof”everyoriginal…work”

Industriousnessornoveltyarenotcriteriaforaworktobeoriginal.

Distrimedicinc.v.DispillInc.,2013CarswellNat3663(F.C;2013-10-15)deMontigny
J.[320]Incomingtothatconclusion,theCourtpurportedtostrikea
middlegroundbetweentwopriorcompetingviewsonthemeaningof
“original”incopyrightlaw.Accordingtosome,anauthordeservedto
havehisorhereffortsinproducingaworkrecognizedsolongasit
wasnotamerecopyofanotherwork.Othersfavouredamore
restrictiveview,requiringaworktobecreativetobeoriginal.The

22
Courtdecidedtooptforapositionthatfallsbetweenthesetwo
extremes.Inotherwords,itwillnotbesufficient,assuggestedbythe
PlaintiffbyCounterclaim,todemonstrateindustriousnessor“sweat
ofthebrow”tomakeaworkcopyrightable:see,forexample,U&R
TaxServicesLtdvH&RBlockCanadaInc,(1995),62CPR(3d)
257(FCTD)[U&RTaxServicesLtd].Conversely,thebarshouldnot
besetsohighsoastoexcludeeveryworkthatisnotcreativeinthe
senseofbeingnovelorunique.Whatisrequired,attheendofthe
day,isnotcreativityperse,butatleastsomesortofintellectual
effort.Forcopyrighttosubsist,skillandjudgmentmustbe
exercisedintheexpressionofanidea:seeCCH,above,atpara
18.
·Section2–Definitionof”everyoriginal…work”

Tobethefirsttoexpressanewideadoesnotattractcopyrightprotectionontheidea
itself,especiallywhenthewaystorendersuchideaarelimitedorwhnethe
expressionoftheideaissolelydictatedbythefunctionofthework.

Distrimedicinc.v.DispillInc.,2013CarswellNat3663(F.C;2013-10-15)deMontigny
J.[324]Similarly,whenthecontentandlayoutofaformislargely
dictatedbyutilityand/orlegislativerequirements,itisnottobe
consideredoriginal.Agoodillustrationofthisprincipleisfoundin
thecaseofBonnettecEntrepriseDominionBluelineInc,2005
QC342(CanLII)[Bonnette].[…]

[337]Inthecaseatbar,Ihavenotbeenconvincedthattheselection
ofinformationanditsarrangementintheDOSDispillLabelForm
requiredofitsauthorthetypeofskillandjudgmentdeservingof
copyrightprotection.Itmaybe,assuggestedbycounselfor
Richards,thatDispillwasthefirsttocreateamethodofgenerating
thenecessarypatientinformationforprintingoneachcellofapill
dispenser.Thiscannotbethesubjectofcopyrightprotection,
however,asitwouldamounttocreatingamonopolyonanidea
ormethod,whichthelawdoesnotpermit.
·Section2–Definitionof”everyoriginal…work”

Iftheselectionofinformationisdictatedbythelegislationandthearrangementsis
presentedinanonoriginalmanner,thentheresultingworkwillnotattractcopyright
protection.

23
Distrimedicinc.v.DispillInc.,2013CarswellNat3663(F.C;2013-10-15)deMontigny
J.[342]IftheoriginalDOSDispillLabelFormisnotoriginalwithinthe
meaningoftheCopyrightActbecausetheselectionofinformationis
mostlydictatedbylegislation,utilityandcommonsense,thesame
mustbesaidfortheDispillsectionoftheWindowsMentorprogram.
TheinformationthatisspecifictoDispillisminimal,andthereisno
greateroriginalityinthelayoutoraestheticsofthethirdscreenofthe
WindowsForm.Thescreenisnomorethanalistoflegislatively
requiredorcommonsensefieldsforprinting,expressedina
non-originalmanner,andnoevidencehasbeenbroughtto
suggestthatitistheproductofanauthor’sexerciseofskilland
judgment.Ifind,therefore,thatneithertheDOSnortheWindows
versionoftheDispillLabelFormcanbeprotectedbycopyrightunder
theCopyrightAct.
·Section2–Definitionof”everyoriginal…work”

Copyrightprotectstheexpressionofanidea,evenifthisexpressionisobsoleteor
wasnotsubstantiallymodified.
GestionReperinc.v.Brassard,2013CarswellQue11277(Que.Sup.Ct;2013-11-
06)ReimnitzJ.[146]LajugeTrahan[inConexsysSystemsinc.v.AimeStar
Marketinginc.2003CarswellNat2003(Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-09-02)]
rappelleparlasuitequeledroitd’auteurneprotègepasl’idée,mais
l’expressiondel’idée,soitlaformeconcrètequ’ondonneàcette
idée,sa«manifestationexterne».CommelenotelajugeTrahan,
«lamanifestationexternedel’idéeestdigned’êtreprotégéeparce
qu’elleestlefruitd’untravail,d’unlabeur».

[147]Aussi,ilfautquel’expressiondel’idéeconstitueuneœuvre
originale,sinonellen’estpasprotégéeparlaLoisurledroitd’auteur.
Cetteoriginalitéaétéamplementdémontrée.Ils’agitduseullogiciel
decettenatureexistantauCanada,selonlepointdevuede
madameBrassardelle-même.
[148]Selonletribunal,ilestclairquel’expressiondel’idéequ’a
eumadameBrassardaétéclairementconcrétiséedans[the
computerprogram]123GoPMO.Cettemanifestationexternede
l’idéedoitêtreprotégéeetcettemanifestationaétéclairementfaite
aumomentoùmadameestactionnairedeBLPetbienavantla
faillite.Ilyadetouteévidencesimilaritéentre123GoPMOetGo
PMOSystèmeExpert.

24
[152]Lesdéfendeursplaidentquedepuis2005,lelogicielestdésuet.
Letribunalconsidèrequel’idéenel’estpas.C’estlemême
concept,lamêmeidéequiaétématérialiséedanslesecond
logiciel,avecdesaméliorationscertes,maiscesaméliorations
nechangentenrienl’idéeàlabasedelaconceptionde123
Go.

[153]Mêmesilesupport4Destplusperformantquelesupport
Excel,celanechangerienàl’idéedeBLPconçueàl’époqueetqui
seretrouvesurlelogiciel.

·Section2–Definitionof”everyoriginal…work”

Nocopyrightinideasorelelementsfromthepublicdomain

CinarCorporationv.Robinson,2013CarswellQue12345(S.C.C.;2013-12-23)
McLachlinJ.[23]TheCopyrightActstrikes“abalancebetweenpromotingthe
publicinterestintheencouragementanddisseminationofworksof
theartsandintellectandobtainingajustrewardforthecreator”:
Thébergev.Galeried’ArtduPetitChamplaininc.,2002SCC34,at
para.30[…]Itseekstoensurethatanauthorwillreapthebenefitsof
hisefforts,inordertoincentivizethecreationofnewworks.
However,itdoesnotgivetheauthoramonopolyoverideasor
elementsfromthepublicdomain,whichallarefreetodraw
uponfortheirownworks.Forexample,“[t]hegeneralstockof
incidentsinfictionordramaisfreeforalltouse―asubstantialpart
ofeveryone’sculture,notofanyoneindividual’swork”:D.Vaver,
IntellectualPropertyLaw:Copyright,Patents,Trade-marks(2nded.
2011),atp.182.
·Section2–definitionof”everyoriginal…work”

Thedevelopmentofcharacterscouldattractcopyrightprotection.

CinarCorporationv.Robinson,2013CarswellQue12345(S.C.C.;2013-12-23)
McLachlinJ.[46]Thedevelopmentofagroupofcharactersthathavespecific
personalitytraitsandwhoseinteractionshingeonthose
personalitiescanrequireanexerciseofskillandjudgment
sufficienttosatisfytheCopyrightAct’soriginalitycriterion:see
forexampleProductionsAvantiCiné-VidéoInc.v.Favreau1999
CanLII13258(QCCA),(1999),177D.L.R.(4th)568(Que.C.A.),
leavetoappealrefused,[2000]1S.C.R.xi.Sucroëreproducesmore

25
thangenericelementswhichallarefreetodrawuponforinspiration.
ItreproducesCuriosity’sparticularcombinationofcharacterswith
distinctpersonalitytraits,livingtogetherandinteractingonatropical
island―elementsthatrepresentasubstantialpartoftheskilland
judgmentexpressedinCuriosity.
[47]Inessence,theaspectsofthetrialjudge’sreasonsthattheCinar
appellantstakeissuewitharefindingsofmixedfactandlaw.
·Section2–Definitionof”infringing”

Infringementinvolvesacertainextentofcopying.
Pelchatv.Zone3inc.,2013CarswellQue216(Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-02-21)PayetteJ.
[74]Danscettedécision,laCourajoutequemêmesilesdeux
œuvressontsimilairesdansleursprincipesessentielsetmêmesi
l’auteurdel’œuvresubséquentetientsaconnaissancedusystème
oudel’arrangementdéveloppédansl’œuvredudemandeur,ce
derniern’auragaindecauseques’ildémontrequec’estl’œuvre
elle-même,danssonexpressionoriginale,quiaétécopiée[Fn
58Moreauc.St-Vincent,[1950]Ex.C.R.198,p.206-207].

·Section2–Definitionof”infringing”

Todeterminewhatconstitutesthesubstantialpartofacopiedwork,isqualitative
ratherthanquantitativeandthecopiedworkshallbeconsideredasawhole.

Pelchatv.Zone3inc.,2013CarswellQue216(Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-02-21)PayetteJ.
[91]Pourprouverlacontrefaçon,ledemandeurdoitprouver
qu’ilexisteuneressemblancesubstantielleentrelesdeux
œuvresetqu’ilyaeucopie.Letestdelaressemblance
substantielleestqualitatifetquantitatif
.[Fn62Fénollarc.PRB
Média,2006QCCS1956,par.37;voiraussiHuttonc.Canadian
BroadcastingCorporation,1992AB39,par.4;FranceAnimation,s.a.
c.Robinson,2011QC1361,par.59(requêtepoursuspendre
l’exécutiond’unjugementaccueillieenpartie,C.A.,09-12-2011
(jugementrectifiéle19-12-2011),500-09-020033-098,500-09-
020014-098et500-09-020035-093,2011QC2305)(requêtespour
autorisationdepourvoiàlaCoursuprêmeaccueillies,C.S.C.,24-05-
2012,34469,34468,34467et34466);ÉdutileInc.c.Assoc.pourla
protectiondesautomobilistes,[2000]4C.F.195(C.A.F.),par.21-22;
Prestonv.20thCenturyFoxCanadaLtd.,[1990]F.C.J.No.1011,

26
p.26-27,conf.parPrestonv.20thCenturyFoxCanadaLtd.,[1993]
A.C.F.No.1259.]
[92]Pourdéterminers’ilyareprisesubstantielled’uneœuvre,il
fautconsidérercelle-cidanssaglobalit
é.[Fn63FranceAnimation,
s.a.c.Robinson,2011QC1361,préc.,note62,par.43,46.]

[93]Celaimpliquequ’iln’yapaslieudeladisséquerpour
décidersilespartiesainsiisoléespourraientêtreprotégéespar
ledroitd’auteuretvoirsiellesseretrouventdanslacopie.
[Fn64Ladbroke(Football)Ltd.c.WilliamHill(Football)Ltd.,[1964]1
W.L.R.273,p.276-277;Fénollarc.PRBMédia,préc.,note62,par.
40;ProductionsAvantiCinéVidéoinc.c.Favreau,[1999]R.J.Q.
1939(C.A.),1944-1946;Huttonc.CanadianBroadcastingCorp.,
1989CanLII3311(ABQB)par.58,conf.par1992AB39.]

[94]Celasignifieaussiqu’iln’yapaslieud’identifierapriorice
quiconstituelapartieessentielledelapremièreœuvrepour
voirsionlaretrouvedanslaseconde.Celabiaiseraitl’exerciceet
risqueraitd’amenerleTribunalàexaminersilesdeuxœuvressont
issuesdumêmeconcept,cequiestautorisé,plutôtquededécidersi
ellesprennentlamêmeformepourl’exprimer[Fn65Huttonc.
CanadianBroadcastingCorporation,préc.,note62,par.10;Baigent
&Leighc.RandomHouseGroupLtd,[2007]EWCiv247,par.93,99,
153-154.],cequiestprohibé.
[95]Parailleurs,silesressemblancespermettentdedéterminer
s’ilyaempruntd’unepartiesubstantielled’uneœuvre,leurs
différencespeuventappuyerlathèsed’unecréation
indépendante[66]FranceAnimation,s.a.c.Robinson,2011
QC1361,par.61(requêtepoursuspendrel’exécutiond’unjugement
accueillieenpartie,C.A.,09-12-2011(jugementrectifiéle19-12-
2011),500-09-020033-098,500-09-020014-098et500-09-020035-
093,2011QC2305)(requêtespourautorisationdepourvoiàlaCour
suprêmeaccueillies,C.S.C.,24-05-2012,34469,34468,34467et
34466).]

[96]Eneffet,commel’indiquelejugeBuffonidansThibaultc.
ImportationsGéocaninc.[Fn67J.E.2004-1127,par.37(C.S.).]
(…)onnepeutdéduirequel’accumulationdedifférences
constitueforcémentautantd’actesdedéguisement.Autrement,
l’argumentdevientcirculaire:àlalimite,ilsignifieraitqueplus
unconcurrentchercheàsedémarquerparuneexpression
différented’uneidéecommune,plusiltentede«déguiser»
sonforfait.

27
[97]Latâchededéterminersil’œuvreattaquéereprendune
partiesubstantielledel’œuvredesdemandeursrevientau
Tribunal.[Fn68]ProductionsAvantiCinéVidéoinc.c.Favreau,
[1999]R.J.Q.1939(C.A.).]Letestàutiliserestceluidelapersonne
ordinaireetraisonnable,àtoutlemoinscelleàquil’œuvreest
destinée.[Fn69FranceAnimation,s.a.c.Robinson,préc.,note66,
par.72;Cummingsv.GlobalTelevisionNetworkQuebec,I.p.[2005]
CanLII17671,par.50(QCC.S.);Prestonv.20thCenturyFox
CanadaLtd.,[1990]F.C.J.No.1011,p.27,conf.parPrestonv.20th
CenturyFoxCanadaLtd.,[1993]A.C.F.No.1259.]

[98]S’agissantdesériesd’émissionsdetélévision,leTribunal
porteraattention,entreautres,àl’auditoireciblé,auxthèmes
spécifiques,àleurdéveloppement,àlastructure,auxdialogues,à
l’ambiance,aumontage,aurythme,auxséquences,aux
personnages[Fn70Fénollarc.PRBMédia,2006QCCS1956,par.
48-49;Prestonv.20thCenturyFoxCanadaLtd.,préc.,note69,p.
26.]brefàlaformequelesidéesyprennent.
·Section2–Definitionof”infringing”

Independantcreationisadefencetoinfringement.
Pelchatv.Zone3inc.,2013CarswellQue216(Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-02-21)PayetteJ.
[211]MêmesileTribunalavaitconcluàl’existenced’unnombre
substantieldesimilitudesentrelesdeuxœuvrespermettantdecréer
uneprésomptiondeplagiat,lesdéfendeurspouvaientétablir
qu’ilsn’ontpascontrefaitl’œuvredesdemandeursen
démontrantqu’ilsn’yontpaseuaccèsouqueMétamorphose
estlerésultatd’unecréationindépendante[Arbiquec.Gabriele,
2003CanLII16298,par.3,5,7(QCC.A.);Bonnettec.Dominion
BluelineInc.,[2005]QC342,par.69;Thibaultc.ImportationsGéocan
inc.,2003CanLII54588,par.41(QCC.S.);Fénollarc.PRBMédia,
2006QCCS1956,par.43-45.].
·Section2–Definitionof”infringing”

Aplaintiffmustshowthatasubstantialpartofhisworkhasbeencopied.

R.v.Rundle(NecPlusUltra),2013CarswellOnt5920(Ont.Sup.Ct;2013-05-14)
BeaudoinJ.[supplementaryreasonsto104C.P.R.(4th)190(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-09-
14)][41]Thecopyingneednotbedirecttoconstitutecopyright
infringement.TheOntarioCourtofAppealheldthat“copying”inthe

28
lawofcopyright“goesbeyondcopyingfromsomethingthatis
physicallybeforethepersonwhocopies.Itincludescopyingfrom
memory,evensubconsciousmemory”.[Fn17DelrinaCorp.v.Triolet
Systems58O.R.(3d)339(C.A.),para10.].Itisalsowell
establishedthatitisimmaterialwhethertheinfringingarticleis
deriveddirectlyorindirectlyfromtheoriginalwork.Aplaintiff
mustshow,onanobjectivebasis,thattheoriginalwork-ora
substantialpartthereof-hasbeenreproduced.[Fn18Great
CanadianOilChangev.DynamicVenturesCorp.,2002BCSC1295,
para46.]
·Section2–Definitionof”infringing”

Confusionisnotthepropertesttodeterminecolourableimitation.

Rainsv.Molea,114C.P.R.(4th)161(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2013-08-15)ChiappettaJ.
[28]Copyrightinfringementthereforeisestablishedwhenthe
defendanthasproducedasubstantialcopy,includingacolourable
imitationoftheplaintiff’swork.Infringementisnotlimitedtoan
exactcopy.

[44]Moreover,inmyviewitwouldbeunwisetoestablish
confusionasthetestforcolourableimitationofanartisticwork.
Thistestbyitsverynaturelendsitselftothesubjectivenuances
ofcomparisonbylaypeople,thosewhoenjoyaninterestinart,
andthosewhostudyarthistoryandmethods.
·Section2–Definitionof”infringing”

Minorvariationsarenotsufficeinttoescapeinfringement.

Banquisedugolfeinc.v.Paulin,2013CarswellQue7815(Que.Ct-;2013-05-14)
RondeauJ.[37]Ainsi,lapreuveétablit,demanièreprépondérante,qu’àtravers
ladistributionetlaventeeffectuéesparledéfendeuràdesfins
commerciales,cederniervioleledroitd’auteurdelademanderesse
selonl’article27delaLoi.

[38]Manifestement,ilestinvraisemblablequeledéfendeurinventela
mêmeillustrationquelademanderesseetqu’enplus,illamodifiede
lamêmemanière.
[39]LeTribunalretientqueledéfendeurutiliseleconceptdela
demanderesseafindemettreenventeleproduitfiniavec

29
quelquesmodificationsmineures,pensantainsipouvoiréviter
d’êtretenuresponsabledeplagiat.
·Section2–Definitionof”infringing”

Similaritiesbetweentwoworkswillnotgroundafindingofinfringementifthese
similaritiesareinthepublicdomain.
Distrimedicinc.v.DispillInc.,2013CarswellNat3663,(F.C;2013-10-15)de
MontignyJ.[361]Inthecaseofworkscontainingelementsnotprotectedby
copyright,onlysimilaritieswithrespecttocopyright-protected
elementsmustbelookedat,asitisnotcopyrightinfringement
tocopyideas,arrangementsorsystems(Moreau,above,atparas
14-15).Inthesamevein,similaritiesbetweentwoworkswillnot
groundafindingofinfringementifthesesimilaritiesareinthe
publicdomain(PhilipMorrisProductsS.A.vMarlboroCanadaLtd,
2010FC1099,atpara320,aff’doncopyrightissuesat2012F201
[PhilipMorrisProductsS.A.]).Accesstotheworkbythealleged
infringermustalsobeestablished;ifthesecondworkwas
createdindependently,therewillbenoinfringement(U&RTax
ServicesLtd,above,at268;PhilipMorrisProductsS.A.,above,at
para320).[…]
·Section2–definitionof”infringing”

Substantialappropriationistobeanalyzedfromtheplaintff’swork.

CinarCorporationv.Robinson,2013CarswellQue12345(S.C.C.;2013-12-23)
McLachlinJ.[24][…]Infringementconsistsoftheunauthorizedtakingofthat
originality.
[39]Thequestionofwhethertherehasbeensubstantialcopying
focusesonwhetherthecopiedfeaturesconstituteasubstantial
partoftheplaintiff’swork―notwhethertheyamounttoa
substantialpartofthedefendant’swork:Vaver,atp.186;E.F.
JudgeandD.J.Gervais,IntellectualProperty:TheLawinCanada
(2nded.2011),atp.211.Thealterationofcopiedfeaturesortheir
integrationintoaworkthatisnotablydifferentfromthe
plaintiff’sworkdoesnotnecessarilyprecludeaclaimthata
substantialpartofaworkhasbeencopied.AstheCopyrightAct

30
states,infringementincludes“anycolourableimitation”ofawork:
definitionof“infringing”,s.2.
[40]Thisisnottosaythatdifferencesareirrelevanttothe
substantialityanalysis.Ifthedifferencesaresogreatthatthe
work,viewedasawhole,isnotanimitationbutratheranew
andoriginalwork,thenthereisnoinfringement.AstheCourtof
Appealputit,“thedifferencesmayhavenoimpactiftheborrowing
remainssubstantial.Conversely,theresultmayalsobeanoveland
originalworksimplyinspiredbythefirst.Everythingisthereforea
matterofnuance,degree,andcontext”(para.66).
[41]Thetrialjudgeengagedinaqualitativeandholistic
assessmentofthesimilaritiesbetweentheworks,whichtook
intoaccounttherelevantsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetween
theworks.[…]Heconcludedthat,despiteanydifferencesbetween
theworks,itwasstillpossibletoidentifyinSucroëfeaturescopied
fromCuriosityandthatthesefeaturesconstitutedasubstantialpart
ofRobinson’swork.Thetrialjudgedidnoterrinapproachingthe
matterinthisway.
·Section2–Definitionof”literarywork”

Computerprogramsareprotectedasliteraryworks.
Tremblayv.OrioCanadaInc.,2013CarswellNat1145(F.C.;2013-01-31)BoivinJ.
[affd.2013F225(F.C.A.;2013-09-25)][29]Thecaselawalsostatesthatcopyright“protectstheexpression
ofideasintheseworks;itdoesnotprotectideasinandof
themselves”(CCH,above,atpara8[CCHCanadianLtd.vLaw
SocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13]).Aworkmustthereforebe
inafixedmaterialformtoattractcopyrightprotection,asindicated,
forexample,bythedefinitionof“computerprogram”.Thedefinition
ofaliteraryworkinsection2oftheActalsoexpresslyincludes
computerprograms,andacomputerprogramisdefinedas“aset
ofinstructionsorstatements,expressed,fixed,embodiedorstoredin
anymanner,thatistobeuseddirectlyorindirectlyinacomputerin
ordertobringaboutaspecificresult”.Inthiscase,itisclearand
uncontestedbythepartiesthatcopyrightexistsinthemodifiedSAM
program.Theissueiswhoownsit.
·Section2–Definitionof”literarywork”

31
Judicialwritingishighlyderivative.
Cojocaruv.BritishColumbiaWomen’sHospitalandHealthCentre,2013CarswellBC
1400(S.C.C.;2013-05-24)McLachlinJ.[reversing2011CarswellBC886,(B.C.C.A.;
2011-04-14),whichwasreversing2009CarswellBC917(B.C.-S.C.;2009-04-09)]
[33]Thescopeforjudicialcreativityisnarrow,butnotnon-existent.It
findsexpressionintheorderingofthereasonsandthedispositionof
theargumentsandissues,andintheoccasionaleloquentstatement
ofthefactsorrestatementofthelaw.Nevertheless,itremainsthe
casethatjudicialopinions,especiallytrialjudgments,differfromthe
kindofwritingsthattraditionallyattractcopyrightprotection,withthe
concomitantdemandsoforiginalityandattributionofsources.
Judgmentsare“usuallycollaborativeproductsthatreflectawide
rangeofimitativewritingpractices,includingquotation,paraphrase,
andpastiche”(Stern,atp.2[STERN(Simon),CopyrightOriginality
andJudicialOriginality(2013),63:1UniversityofTorontoLaw
Journal1]).Judgmentsroutinelyincorporatephrasesandparagraphs
fromavarietyofsources,suchasdecidedcases,legaltreatises,
pleadings,andargumentsoftheparties.Appellatejudgesmay
incorporateparagraphsborrowedfromanotherjudgeonthecaseor
fromahelpfullawclerk.Oftenthesourcesareacknowledged,but
oftentheyarenot.Whetheracknowledgedornot,theyarean
acceptedpartofthejudgment-writingprocessanddonot,without
more,rendertheproceedingunfair.
[65]Asthepreviousdiscussionestablishes,judicialwritingis
highlyderivativeandcopyingaparty’ssubmissionswithout
attributionisawidelyacceptedpractice.Theconsiderations
thatrequireattributioninacademic,artisticandscientific
spheresdonotapplytoreasonsforjudgment.Thejudgeisnot
expectedtobeoriginal.
·Section2–Definitionof”literarywork”

Psychologicaltestscouldattractcopyrightprotectionasliteraryworks.

Hernandezv.Purcell,2013CarswellNS708(N.S.S.C.;2013-09-25)BourgeoisJ.
[Uponmotionsseekingthereleaseoffilematerialsofapsychologistand
neuropsychologist][27][…]ThereisnospecificevidencebeforetheCourtastothe
natureofthepsychologicaltestsinquestion,althoughin
submissions,thereappearstobeabroadacknowledgementthat
thetestsarestandardizedtestinginstrumentswhichare
copyrighted.

[28]Astothefirstprongofthetest,Iamsatisfiedthatthematerials
inquestion,aresuchthatspecialconsiderationsonreleaseshould
beconsidered.AlthoughIrecognizetheexistenceofcopyright,
andtheprofessionalobligationsoftheprofessionalsinvolved
asconsiderations,itisthesensitivityofthetestmaterialsto
disseminationwhichisthemostpressingconcern.Standardized
psychologicaltestinginstrumentsareusedwidelyforthediagnosis
andassessmentofindividualswithahostofdifficulties,anditis
importantthattheintegrityoftheresultsbeprotected.Itisa
legitimateconcernthatiftestingprotocols,questionsandanswers
enteredintothepublicdomain,thetestsmaybecomelessreliable
andultimately,thosewhobenefitfromthesematerialswouldbe
negativelyimpacted.
[29]Inthesecondprong,theCourtmustbesatisfied,baseduponthe
evidencebeforeit,thatthereisa”realrisk”thatwithoutadded
protectionsbeyondtheimpliedundertaking,thatthetestingmaterial
wouldbeusedforimproperpurposes.
·Section2‒Definitionof”maker”

Themakerofasoundrecordingisthepersonwhotakesthefinancialriskas
opposedtothedirectororthepersonwhomakesthearrangementsforthe
prodcution.
Pintov.BronfmanJewishEducationCentre,2013CarswellNat3396(F.C.;2013-09-
11)RennieJ.[143]Section2oftheActprovidesthatthe“maker”is“thepersonby
whomthearrangementsnecessaryforthefirstfixationofthesounds
areundertaken.”Section2.11explainsthatthenecessary
arrangementsinclude“enteringintocontractswithperformers,
financialarrangementsandtechnicalarrangementsrequiredforthe
firstfixationofthesoundsforasoundrecording.”

[144]Caselawinterpretingtheseprovisionshasemphasizedthe
elementoffinancialriskandpaymentfortherecording.The
makerisnotnecessarilythepersonwhohaspersonally
undertakenthenecessaryarrangements,butinsteadthe
individualorcorporationthatborethefinancialriskofdoingso,
suchasarecordcompany:HughesonCopyright&Industrial
Design,ch24at219.

[145]Theevidenceonthisissueismixed.

[146]Mr.Pintoengagedtheservicesofthemusicstudiosand
undertooktopaythestudio’shourlychargesfortheuseofthe
facilitiesandequipment.Hehiredandpaidthefemalevocalist,
selectedchildrentosingandrehearsedthesongswiththem.

[147]However,itwasBJECthatultimatelyassumedthefinancialrisk
fortherecording,asitspaymentstoMr.Pintocoveredallofhis
costs,includingpayingthestudioandvocalist.Additionally,Ms.
Farkashadsomeinvolvementintherecordingprocess,thoughshe
wasnotatthestudio.Shetestifiedthat“…ifMr.Pintocalledmefrom
thestudio,howyoudothisandhowyoudothat,thenIwasinvolved.
SoforsureIwasinvolved.Iwasn’tinvolvedinthesinging.Iwasn’t
involved–Ididn’tplaythekeyboard.ButforsureIwasinvolvedin
whatwasdoneandIwasabreastwithwhatwasdoneatevery
stage.”
Inmyview,thoughhewasnotanemployee,hewasentitledtobe
reimbursedforhisexpensesandthereforedidnotassumethe
financialresponsibilityfortherecording.Itissignificantthatfor
fourteenyearsBJECpaideveryinvoiceprovidedbyMr.Pinto,
includingalldisbursements.Accordingly,IconcludethatBJECwas
themakerofthesoundrecordingandownedthecopyright.
·Section2–definitionof”musicalwork”

Expertevidencemaybehelpulltodeterminesimilarities

CinarCorporationv.Robinson,2013CarswellQue12345(S.C.C.;2013-12-23)
McLachlinJ.[52]Totakeanexample,twopiecesofclassicalmusicmay,tothe
untrainedear,sounddifferent,perhapsbecausetheyareplayedon
differentinstruments,oratdifferenttempos.Anexpertmusician,
however,mightseesimilaritiessuggestingasubstantialparthas
beencopied―thesamekeysignature,thesamearrangementof
thenotesinrecurringpassages,orarecurrentandunusualharmonic
chord.Itwillbeforthejudgetodeterminewhetherthesimilarities
establishcopyingofasubstantialpart,tobesure.Butinmaking
thatdetermination,thejudgemayneedtoconsidernotonly
howtheworksoundstothelaypersonintheintended
audience,butalsostructuralsimilaritiesthatonlyanexpertcan
detect.

34
·Section2‒Definitionof”soundrecording”

“Asoundrecordinghas“alifeofitsown,”apartfromtheperformanceofawork.”

Pintov.BronfmanJewishEducationCentre,2013CarswellNat3396(F.C.;2013-09-
11)RennieJ.[142]Asoundrecordinghas“alifeofitsown,”apartfromthe
performanceofawork.AstheSupremeCourtofCanada
explained,“[o]ncethecomposerhasmadeorauthorizedarecording
ofhiswork,hehasirrevocablygivenupmuchofhiscontroloverits
presentationtothepublic”:BishopvStevens,[1990]2SCR467at
para21.
·Section2–Definitionof”work”

Priorsearchesastoexistingworksisnotwarrantedforaworktobeoriginal.

Pelchatv.Zone3inc.,2013CarswellQue216(Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-02-21)PayetteJ.
[336]Deuxièmement,s’ilestpossibledes’inspirercarrémentd’une
œuvrepourencréerunenouvelle,onpeutsedemanderàquoiil
serviraitd’entreprendredetellesrecherches.
[337]Troisièmement,àpartirdumomentoùl’onconvientque
deuxcréateurspeuvent,àbondroit,créerlamêmeœuvre
pourvuqu’ilslefassentdefaçonindépendante,ilserait
illogiquederestreindrelepouvoircréatifdel’unenexigeant
qu’ilrecherchel’œuvredel’autre.

[338]Enfait,cettepropositiondesdemandeursestlerefletdeleur
définitiondecequeconstitueleurœuvreenvertudelaLoi.Ellen’a
desensquesiondéfinitleurœuvreenfonctiondesonsubstrat
conceptuelplutôtqueparsaformeetsil’ontransposeaudroit
d’auteurlesprincipespropresaubrevet.Or,laLoinelepermet
pas.
·Section2‒Definitionof”worksofjointauthorship”

Thecombinationoflyricsandmusicinasongcreatesaworkofjointauthorship.
Eachofthejointauthorsmustauthorizeuseoftheworkofjointauthorship.

35
Pintov.BronfmanJewishEducationCentre,2013CarswellNat3396(F.C.;2013-09-
11)RennieJ.[139]EmployeesofBJEC’sCurriculumDevelopmentDepartment
wrotelyricsforthe58songsforwhichMr.Pintocomposedthe
music.ThecombinationofMr.Pinto’smusicwithBJEC’slyrics
createdoneartisticwork,theTaLAMsong.Thereisjoint
authorshipandthereforejointcopyrightownership,inthis
cohesivewhole.
[140]Asaresult,subjecttotheissueofconsentthelegaleffectof
whichwillbediscussedbelow,bothMr.PintoandBJEC(nowTaL
AM)mustauthorizeanyrecordingorperformanceofthesongs
atissue.
·Section3–Copyrightinworks

Copyrightlawpreventstheunauthorizedcopyingofawork,notitsdisclosure,
especiallytoacourtappointedreceiver.

CanadianSolarSolutionsInc.v.RASolarLeasingInc.,2013CarswellOnt955(Ont.
Sup.Ct.[CommercialList];2013-01-29)Brown,J.[
2013CarswellOnt2787
(Ont.Sup.Ct.[CommercialList]-Costs;2013-03-13)]

[38]IgivenoeffecttoRALtd.’sargumentthatbecauseitmayhold
copyrightintheSolsticeDatabasesoftwareprogram,thatprogram
andtheinformationstoredonit,donotfallwithintheambitofsection
5oftheAppointmentOrderbecausetheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985
containsstatutoryprovisionswhichprohibitsuchdisclosure.First,I
haveconcludedthattheevidencefiledisnotsufficienttomakea
findingastowhichRAentityownsthesoftwareprogramormight
enjoycopyrightinit.Second,RALtd.’sinterpretationoftheclosing
languageofparagraph5oftheAppointmentOrderisflawed.That
portionoftheAppointmentOrderreads:providedhoweverthatnothinginthisparagraph5orin
paragraph6ofthisOrdershallrequirethedeliveryofRecords,
orthegrantingofaccesstoRecords,whichmaynotbe
disclosedorprovidedtotheReceiverduetotheprivilege
attachingtosolicitor-clientcommunicationorduetostatutory
provisionsprohibitingsuchdisclosure.
RALtd.didnotrefertoanycaselawwhichhasinterpretedthe
phrase,”duetostatutoryprovisionsprohibitingsuchdisclosure”,as
carvingoutfromtheobligationtodisclosetoareceiverRecords
whichmightconstitute”works”inwhichcopyrightresides.NordidRA
Ltd.pointtoanyprovisionintheCopyrightActwhichwouldprohibit
disclosureofanysuchRecordtoareceiver.Indeed,ingeneral

36
termscopyrightlawpreventstheunauthorizedcopyingofa
work,notitsdisclosure.[Fn8DavidVaver,IntellectualProperty
Law(Toronto:2011,IrwinLaw),at59.Moreover,RALtd.’sproffered
interpretationoftheModelOrderargument,ifaccepted,would
seriouslyunderminetheabilityofreceiverstoaccessandcopy
electronicrecordsrelatingtotheoperationofadebtor’sbusinessto
theextentthoserecordsmightconstitute”works”.Inanagewhen
mostinformationisstoredinelectronicform,suchanargument
woulddeprivereceiversofinformationnecessarytoperformtheir
court-directeddutiesandenabledebtors,orthoserelatedtothem,to
holdhostagevitalinformationrequiredbyreceivers.Iseenobasisin
law,orinthepracticalitiesofreceiverships,fortheargument
advancedbyRALtd.

·Section3–Copyrightinworks

Copyrightisasetofrights.
R.v.Rundle(NecPlusUltra),2013CarswellOnt5920,,228A.C.W.S.(3d)823,2013
ONSC2747(Ont.Sup.Ct;2013-05-14)BeaudoinJ.[supplementaryreasonsto2012
ONSC5185,104C.P.R.(4th)190(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-09-14)]
[39]Section3oftheCopyrightActdefinescopyrightasasetof
rightswhichbelongexclusivelytothecopyrightholder.[…]
·Section3–Copyrightinworks

Copyrightisabundleofstatutoryrights.
Mobinv.Stephens,2013ONCJ53(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2013-02-26)
[41]Anindividualwhocomposes,performsorrecordsanoriginal
musicalworkhasacopyrightinsuchwork.“Copyright”iscreatedby
statute.Thus,areferenceto“copyright”referstotherights
conferredbythelegislation.[Fn2CopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.
C-42inCanadaandtheU.S.CopyrightAct,Title17oftheUnited
StatesCode.]Acopyrightisanincorporealformofproperty.[Fn3
Sanderson,P.,MusiciansandtheLawinCanada-3rdEd.,Carswell,
Toronto,2000,p.3]
Ithasaconceptual,non-physicalexistence,
andiscomprisedofthebundleofstatutoryrightsthataccrueto
thecreatorofanoriginalwork.
·Section3‒Copyrightinworks

Therecouldbeaseparatecopyrightinthemusic,lyricsandtheircombination

Pintov.BronfmanJewishEducationCentre,2013CarswellNat3396(F.C.;2013-09-
11)RennieJ.[130]TherearemultiplelayersofcopyrightfortheTaLAMmusic,
songs,recordingsandcurriculumoverall.Eachoftheseconstitutes
separateworksforthepurposeofcopyrightandwillbe
consideredinturn.

·Section3–Copyrightinworks

Rightsofauthorsandusersmustbebalanced.
Distrimedicinc.v.DispillInc.,2013CarswellNat3663,(F.C;2013-10-15)de
MontignyJ.[315]CopyrightinCanadaisacreationofstatute.TheCopyright
Acthasthedualobjectiveofpromotingthepublicinterestinthe
encouragementanddisseminationofworksandobtainingajust
rewardforthecreator.IninterpretingtheAct,courtsmuststriveto
maintainanappropriatebalancebetweenthesegoals:Thébergev
Galeried’ArtduPetitChamplainInc,[2002]2SCR336,2002SCC
34,atparas30-31.
·Section3-Copyrightinworks

Whatconstituteanauthorizationmustbeinterpretedrestictively.

Distrimedicinc.v.DispillInc.,2013CarswellNat3663,(F.C;2013-10-15)de
MontignyJ.[361][…]Finally,“toauthorize”,forthepurposesofcopyright
law,mustbeinterpretedrestrictivelyas“tosanction,approve
andcountenance”.Accordingly,courtswillpresumethataperson
whoauthorizessomethingdoesso“onlysofarasitisin
accordancewiththelaw”(CCH,aboveatparas37-38,43[CCH
CanadianLtdvLawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13]).
·Section3–Copyrightinworks

Whatconstitutesthesubstantialpartofaworkisaflexiblenotion.

CinarCorporationv.Robinson,2013CarswellQue12345(S.C.C.;2013-12-23)
McLachlinJ.[25]However,theActdoesnotprotectevery“particle”ofanoriginal
work,“anylittlepiecethetakingofwhichcannotaffectthevalueof

38
[the]workasawhole”:Vaver,atp.182.Section3oftheCopyright
Actprovidesthatthecopyrightownerhasthesolerighttoreproduce
“theworkoranysubstantialpartthereof”.

[26]Asubstantialpartofaworkisaflexiblenotion.Itisamatterof
factanddegree.“Whetherapartissubstantialmustbedecidedby
itsqualityratherthanitsquantity”:Ladbroke(Football),Ltd.v.William
Hill(Football),Ltd.,[1964]1AllE.R.465(H.L.),atp.481,perLord
Pearce.Whatconstitutesasubstantialpartisdeterminedinrelation
totheoriginalityoftheworkthatwarrantstheprotectionofthe
CopyrightAct.Asageneralproposition,asubstantialpartofawork
isapartoftheworkthatrepresentsasubstantialportionofthe
author’sskillandjudgmentexpressedtherein.
[27]Asubstantialpartofaworkisnotlimitedtothewordsonthe
pageorthebrushstrokesonthecanvas.TheActprotectsauthors
againstbothliteralandnon-literalcopying,solongasthecopied
materialformsasubstantialpartoftheinfringedwork.[…]
·Section3–Copyrightinworks

Theissueofsubstantialityisoneofmixedfactandlaw.

CinarCorporationv.Robinson,2013CarswellQue12345(S.C.C.;2013-12-23)
McLachlinJ.[30][…]Theconclusionofthetrialjudgethatasubstantialpartofa
plaintiff’sworkwascopiedisentitledtoappellatedeference.The
issueofsubstantialityisoneofmixedfactandlaw.
Consequently,anappellatecourtshouldgenerallydefertothetrial
judge’sfindingsonsubstantiality,unlessthosefindingsarebasedon
anerroroflaworpalpableandoverridingerrorsoffact[…]

[35][…]Canadiancourtshavegenerallyadoptedaqualitative
andholisticapproachtoassessingsubstantiality.“Thecharacter
oftheworkswillbelookedat,andthecourtwillinallcaseslook,not
atisolatedpassages,butatthetwoworksasawholetoseewhether
theusebythedefendanthasundulyinterferedwiththeplaintiff’s
right”:J.S.McKeown,FoxonCanadianLawofCopyrightand
IndustrialDesigns(loose-leaf),atp.21-16.4(emphasisadded).

[36]Asageneralmatter,itisimportanttonotconductthe
substantialityanalysisbydealingwiththecopiedfeatures
piecemeal:DesignersGuild,atp.705,perLordHoffman.The
approachproposedbytheCinarappellantswouldriskdissecting
Robinson’sworkintoitscomponentparts.The“abstraction”of

39
Robinson’sworktotheessenceofwhatmakesitoriginalandthe
exclusionofnon-protectableelementsattheoutsetoftheanalysis
wouldpreventatrulyholisticassessment.Thisapproachfocuses
undulyonwhethereachofthepartsofRobinson’sworkis
individuallyoriginalandprotectedbycopyrightlaw.Rather,the
cumulativeeffectofthefeaturescopiedfromtheworkmustbe
considered,todeterminewhetherthosefeaturesamounttoa
substantialpartofRobinson’sskillandjudgmentexpressedin
hisworkasawhole.
·Section3–Copyrightinworks

Rightsofauthorsmustbebalancedwiththoseofusers.

CinarCorporationv.Robinson,2013CarswellQue12345(S.C.C.;2013-12-23)
McLachlinJ.[28]Theneedtostrikeanappropriatebalancebetweengiving
protectiontotheskillandjudgmentexercisedbyauthorsinthe
expressionoftheirideas,ontheonehand,andleavingideas
andelementsfromthepublicdomainfreeforalltodrawupon,
ontheother,formsthebackgroundagainstwhichtheargumentsof
thepartiesmustbeconsidered.
·Section5–Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyrigh

Aworkmustbeinafixedmaterialformtoattractcopyrightprotection.Aworkdoes
nothavetoberegisteredtobeprotectedbycopyright.

Tremblayv.OrioCanadaInc.,2013CarswellNat1145(F.C.;2013-01-31)BoivinJ.
[affd.2013F225(F.C.A.;2013-09-25)][29]Thecaselawalsostatesthatcopyright“protectstheexpression
ofideasintheseworks;itdoesnotprotectideasinandof
themselves”(CCH,above,atpara8[CCHCanadianLtd.vLaw
SocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13]).Aworkmusttherefore
beinafixedmaterialformtoattractcopyrightprotection,as
indicated,forexample,bythedefinitionof“computerprogram”.The
definitionofaliteraryworkinsection2oftheActalsoexpressly
includescomputerprograms,andacomputerprogramisdefinedas
“asetofinstructionsorstatements,expressed,fixed,embodiedor
storedinanymanner,thatistobeuseddirectlyorindirectlyina
computerinordertobringaboutaspecificresult”.Inthiscase,itis
clearanduncontestedbythepartiesthatcopyrightexistsinthe
modifiedSAMprogram.Theissueiswhoownsit.

[27]First,theCourtnotesthatcopyrightlawisstatutory;itsrightsand
remediesarethereforefoundintheAct(CCHCanadianLtd.vLaw
SocietyofUpperCanada2004SCC13atpara9]Althoughitis
possibletoregisterone’scopyright,itisnotnecessarytodoso
inCanada:theauthormerelyneedstobeCanadian,oracitizen
ofanyothersignatoryoftheBerneConventionfortheProtection
ofLiteraryandArtisticWorksofSeptember9,1886,andthework
needstohavebeenfirstpublishedinsuchacountry,if
publicationisrelevant.
·Section5–Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyrigh

Useofelectronictoolsdoesnotdepriveaworkofcopyrightability.

OakcraftHomesIncv.Ecklund,2013CanLII41981(Ont.Sup.Ct.–SmallClaims;
2013-07-02)Gilbert,J.
[47]Firstandforemost,thelawgrantscopyrightprotectionforhouse
plans.Inorderforhouseplanstoattractcopyrightprotection,they
mustbeoriginalinthesensesetoutinthecaselawcitedabove
[ConstructionDenisDesjardinsInc.v.Jeanson,2010CarswellQue
15614(Que.CA].Inorderforthecourttomakeafindingoforiginality,
itmustbeshownthattheauthorexercisedskillandjudgment.Toput
itanotherwaytheauthorcreatescopyrightmaterialbytheuseof
intellectualeffortsoasnottobecharacterizedasapurely
mechanicalexercise.
[48]Secondly,theideasthemselvesneednotbeoriginal.
Sometimes,thearrangementsofcomponents,thatinandof
themselvesandstandingaloneasideasmaynotbethesubject
ofprotection,inauniquewaycanmakethosecomponents
uniquelyarrangedcopyrightable.

[49]ItisclearfromtheevidenceandIsofindthatThompson
embarkeduponacourseofconductovertimethatturnedhisvisions
intellectuallyappliedandconceptuallyconceivedintoanexceptional
workdeservingofcopyrightprotection.Hisplanaspresentedtothe
Ecklandsandafterconsultationwiththemembodiedhisvisionand
wasuniquetothatvision.Thefactthattheplanwassenttoa
draftsmanwhoreducedittotechnicalstandardscommandedby
planningauthoritiesdoesnotinanywaydiminishtheintellectual
exerciseusedtocreatetheoriginalplannordoesitshiftownershipto
thedraftsperson.Draftingforthatpurposeisatechnicalartusing
technicaldrawingtools.Today,thatarthasbecomeasciencebythe

41
useofcomputeraideddesign(CAD).Canitbesaidthattheuseof
CADtherebyconvertsownershipintheoriginalworktothe
computersoftwaretechnicianoperatingthemachineorthe
computersoftwareprogrammerwhoprogrammedtheCAD
software?Theanswerisobvious….NO!
·Section5–Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright

Aworkmustbeinafixedmaterialformtobeprotected.

Distrimedicinc.v.DispillInc.,2013CarswellNat3663,(F.C;2013-10-15)de
MontignyJ.[316]ItiswellestablishedinCanadianlawthatwhatisprotectedby
copyrightisnottheideaitself,buttheexpressionofthatidea[…]

[318]Becausecopyrightonlyprotectstheexpressionofideas,a
workmustalsobeexpressedinsomewayorbeinafixed
materialform,inordertoattractcopyrightprotection:CCH,
above[CCHCanadianLtdvLawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004
SCC13],atpara8;GoldnervCanadianBroadcastingCorp(1972),7
CPR(2d)158(FCTD).Ideasorschemespersearepublic
propertyassoonastheyaredisclosed,howevergoodand
valuabletheymaybe.[…]
·Section5-Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright

Thedocumentsevidencingthefirstfixationofaworkarerelevanttoascertainits
creation.
DesmarteauvOntarioLotteryandGamingCorporation,2013CarswellQue12333
(Que.C.A.;2013-12-05)GasconJ.[36]Enfin,l’appelantsoutientvouloirseservirdecespiècespour
fairelapreuvedelacréationetdel’élaborationdesonœuvredans
lesannées2005et2006.Ilinsistequecettepreuvevise
particulièrementàétablirlafixationinitialedel’œuvreausujetde
laquelleildemandelareconnaissancedesondroitd’auteur.Ilveut
aussiseservirdespiècespourétayersondéveloppementde
plusieurstypesdejeux.Ilveutenfindémontrerqu’àlasuiteduvolde
sonordinateur,ilareconstituésonœuvreàpartirdecesnotes
manuscritesetd’uneversionsursupportinformatiquequ’ilpossédait
surdisquette.
[37]Celaétant,austadepréliminaired’unerequêteenradiation,
alorsqu’ilfautaborderlaquestionavecprudenceetdonnerle

42
bénéficedudouteàl’allégation,jevoismalcommentl’onpeut
évacuercettepreuvecommenonpertinente.
[39]Avecégards,j’estimequeladifficultéquepourraitavoir
l’appelantàprouverquesonœuvreaétécommuniquéeaux
intiméesnerendpaspourautantnonpertinentelapreuvequi
établiraitlafixationinitialedecetteœuvreetlemomentdesa
créationdansletemps[…]

·Section5–Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright

Originalityisrequiredforcopyrighttosubsistinawork

CinarCorporationv.Robinson,22013CarswellQue12345(S.C.C.;2013-12-23)
McLachlinJ.[24]TheActprotectsoriginalliterary,dramatic,musical,andartistic
works:s.5.Itprotectstheexpressionofideasintheseworks,rather
thanideasinandofthemselves:CCHCanadianLtd.v.LawSociety
ofUpperCanada,2004SCC13,[2004]1S.C.R.339,atpara.8.An
originalworkistheexpressionofanideathroughanexerciseof
skillandjudgment:CCH,atpara.16.Infringementconsistsofthe
unauthorizedtakingofthatoriginality.
·Section5–Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright

TheconditionsofsubsistenceofcopyrightinCanadamustbepleaded.

(AOM)NAInc.v.RevealGroup,2013ONSC8014,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2013/2013onsc8014/2013onsc8014.html(Ont.Sup.
Ct.;2013-12-30)Macleod,Master[12]DamagesforbreachofcopyrightininCanadaareavailableasa
statutoryremedyundertheprovisionsoftheCopyrightAct,RSC
1985,c.C.42andinparticulars.41.23oftheAct.Forcopyright
thatoriginatedintheUnitedKingdomtobeenforceablein
CanadaundertheAct,theplaintiffmustbringitselfwithinthe
ambitofthestatute.
·Section12–WherecopyrightbelongstoHerMajesty

TheCrownisboundbytheCopyrightAct.

43
Manitobav.CanadianCopyrightLicensingAgency(AccessCopyright),112C.P.R.
(4th)1,(F.C.A.;2013-04-03)GauthierJ.[confirming98C.P.R.(4th)215(Cop.Bd.;
2012-01-05)][34]Havingcarefullyexaminedthewordingofsection12initsoverall
context,includingthestructureoftheAct,itslegislativehistoryand
evolution,andotherprovisions,suchassection89,Iagreewiththe
Boardthatthewords“[w]ithoutprejudicetoanyrightor
privilegeoftheCrown”setoutinsection12areintendedto
refertoandpreservetheCrown’srightsandprivilegesofthe
samegeneralnatureascopyrightthatmaynotfallwithinthe
meaningoftherestofthisprovision.Theserightsand
privilegescouldotherwisebeexcludedbythegeneralprinciple
setoutinsection89whichprovidesthatnopersonisentitledto
copyrightotherwisethanunderandinaccordancewiththeAct
oranyotherActofParliament.
[47]Inmyview,thereferencesintheActtoverystrictconditions,to
tariffsfixedbytheBoard,totheconsentofthecopyrightowners,and
tothepowerofthecourtwhenthedefendantisan“educational
institution”,includingafederalorprovincialgovernmentdepartment,
allpointtoonlyonelogicalandplausibleconclusionastotheintent
ofParliament:theCrownisbound.
·Section12–WherecopyrightbelongstoHerMajesty

Whereaworkwaspreparedforagovermentdepartment,thecopyrightbelongsto
theCrown.
R.v.Rundle(NecPlusUltra),2013CarswellOnt5920(Ont.Sup.Ct;2013-05-14)
BeaudoinJ.[supplementaryreasonsto2012ONSC5185,104C.P.R.(4th)190(Ont.
Sup.Ct.;2012-09-14)][34]Pursuanttosection12oftheCopyrightAct,whereaworkhas
beenpreparedorpublishedunderthedirectionorcontrolofHer
Majestyoranygovernmentdepartment,thecopyrightinthe
workshallbelongtoHerMajesty[…]

·Section13‒Ownershipofcopyright

Thesignedwritingrequirementisasubstantiallegalrequirementforthevalidityofan
assignementofcopyright.
Tremblayv.OrioCanadaInc.,2013CarswellNat1145(F.C.;2013-01-31)BoivinJ.
[affd.2013F225(F.C.A.;2013-09-25)]

44
[38]Thewritingandsignaturerequirementsinthissubsectionhave
remainedunchangedsinceitsadoptionin1921anditscominginto
forcein1924(SC1921,c24;SC1923,c10,s5).Thepurposeof
thissubsectionhasbeenconsideredinMensysBusinessSolution
CentreLtdvDrummond(Municipalitérégionaledecomté),[2002]
RJQ765,[2002]JQno169(QL)[…]

[39]Thesignedwritingrequirementisasubstantiallegal
requirementandnotamereruleofevidence,asindicatedin
Motel6,IncvNo6MotelLimitedandJohnVanEdmondBeachcroft
Hawthorne,[1982]1FC638atpara26[…]

[41]Inshort,subsection13(4)oftheAct,whichgovernsthe
assignmentofcopyrightandthegrantingoflicences,doesnot
requireanyparticularwordingasaconditionofvalidity;instead
itsetsoutacopulativecondition:writingandasignature.
.
[48]Inthiscase,theCourthasnochoicebuttofindthatasignature
islacking.AlthoughthepartieshaveconfirmedbeforethisCourtthat
theplaintiffsubmittedotherbidstothedefendantthatincludethe
sameclause,thereisnothingintheevidencetosupportafinding
thatthebidssubmittedafterApril2007weresigned.Furthermore,
thedefendanthasnotfiledanyotherevidencebeforethisCourtthat
couldstandinforasignature(Milliken&CovInterfaceFlooring
Systems(Canada)Inc,[1998]3FC103,143FTR106).

[49]Haditnotbeenfortheabsenceoftheplaintiff’ssignature,there
wouldhavebeenanassignmentofthecopyrightundertheAct,butin
thecircumstances,theCourtcanonlyfindthat,pursuantto
subsection13(4)oftheAct,theplaintiffdidnotassignhiscopyrightin
themodifiedSAMprogram.Acceptingthedefendant’sargumentand
makingtheoppositefindingsolelyonthebasisoftheplaintiff’s
testimonywouldrendermeaninglesstherequirementimposedby
Parliament.Thisfindingmayappearrigid,butitcomplieswith
theformalrequirementsoftheAct..[…]
·Section13‒Ownershipofcopyright

Assignmentofacopyrightisnota“provisionofartists’services”.

45
4332(C.A.P.P.R.T.;2012-02-16););leavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanada
granted,docket35353(S.C.C.;2013-08-15)][99]Thisdistinctionisequallyfundamentalinthepresentcase.
Whereascaleagreementspertainstocommissionedworks
(“œuvrescommandées”,tousetheFrenchphrase),nocopyrightis
involvedsincetheworkdoesnotexistatthetimetheagreementis
signed.Consequently,the“provisionof…services”requiredto
realizethecommissionedworkandtherightsofusethatanartist
mayassignwithrespecttothecontemplatedworkdonotentailany
possibleconflictwiththeCopyrightAct.Inotethattheprovisionof
artistsservicestoproducecommissionedworksisacommon
practiceintheartworld,asisevidencedbyBill90[Statusofthe
ArtistAct,S.C.1992,c.33]andbytheActitselfwhichappliesto
specifiedproducersthat“engageoneormoreartiststoprovidean
artisticproduction”(paragraph6(2)(a)oftheAct).

[100]ConflictswiththeCopyrightActonlyarisewhereoneseeksto
extendscaleagreementstoworksthatarecreatedotherwisethanin
thecontextofacommission,astheTribunaldidinthiscase.

[102]InextendingtheapplicationoftheActtoworksmade
otherwisethaninthecontextofacommission,theTribunal
distortedthewordsusedbyParliament.Nolinguistic
gymnasticscanjustifytheassertionthattheassignmentofa
copyrightisa“provisionofartists’services”.
[103]Acopyrightisnota“service”underanyacceptation,beit
atcivillaw,atcommonlaw,undertheCopyrightAct,or
accordingtotheplainmeaningofthewordbeitinEnglishor
French.Acopyrightconsistsofrightsrecognizedandprotected
bylawownedbyanartistinrelationtohisorherwork(section
3oftheCopyrightAct).Theresultisthattheassignmentof
suchrightsgivesrisetoatransferofproperty.Noonewould
thinkofdescribingatransferofpropertyasa“provisionof…
services”.
·Section13‒Ownershipofcopyright

Alicencegivenforconsiderationcannotberevokedatwill.

Planification-Organisation-PublicationsSystèmes(POPS)Ltéev.9054-8181Québec
Inc.,111C.P.R.(4th)1(F.C.;2013-04-25)CramptonJ.
[128]Asdiscussedintheimmediatelyprecedingsectionabove,IDP
providedsubstantialconsiderationinexchangeforanexplicitor
impliedlicencetouseandtocontinuetodeveloptheSoftware.That

46
considerationwasprovidedpursuanttoanexplicitorverbal
agreement,andwasfurtherevidencedbyacourseofconduct
pursuedbythepartiesoverthecourseofmanyyears.Accordingly,
POPSwasnotentitledtounilaterallyrevokethatlicence(Katz
(MichaelKatzAssociates)vCytrynbaum(1983),76CPR(2s)276,at
para19(BCCA),citingHGFox,TheCanadianLawofCopyrightand
IndustrialDesigns,2ded(Toronto:Carswell,1967),atpp339-340);
seealso(JSMcKeown,Fox,CanadianLawofCopyrightand
IndustrialDesigns,4thed,(Toronto:Carswell,2009)at19:4(e);and
WinterGardenTheatrevMilleniumProducts,[1948]A.C.173,at193
and198).
·Section13‒Ownershipofcopyright

Anassignmentmustbeinwritingbutnotalicence.

Planification-Organisation-PublicationsSystèmes(POPS)Ltéev.9054-8181Québec
Inc.,111C.P.R.(4th)1(F.C.;2013-04-25)CramptonJ.
[50][…]Inaddition,inaddressingthescopeoftherightsgranted
undertheagreement,ArticleII(1)statesthat“theauthorsexpressly
andexclusivelycedetothepromotertherightstotranslateinall
languagesandallcountries,tomarket,toadaptandtoreproduce
[Ceres]byallexistingandfuturevisual,audio[and]electronic
means,withoutexceptionorreserve.”Thereisnolanguageinthat
articlewhichassignsthecopyrightinCerestoPOPS.

[54]Givenalloftheforegoing,IagreewiththeDefendantsthateven
ifMr.SzendrovitsownedthecopyrightinCeresin1985,the1985
AgreementdidnottransferthatownershipinteresttoPOPS.
However,itwaseffectiveinconferringuponPOPSaverybroad
andexclusivelicenceto,amongotherthings,distribute,adapt
andsellCeres.
·Section13‒Ownershipofcopyright

Forworkscreatedbyemployee,thecopyrightisvestedintheemployer,withoutthe
necessityofawrittenassignment.
OakcraftHomesIncv.Ecklund,2013CanLII41981(Ont.Sup.Ct.–SmallClaims;
2013-07-02)Gilbert,J.
[55]TheCourthasrecognizedovertheyearsthatwhendealingwith
seniorofficersofcorporationslikepresidentsorotherkeyofficers,
thatthesepeopleareusuallyconsideredanemployeeofthe
company,whetherornotawrittencontractofservicesexistsandthe

47
copyrightwillthereforebeownedbythecompany.B&S
PublicationsInc.v.Max-ContactsInc,.2001CarswellAlta69atpara.
21.
[56]Ontheissueofwhoownsthecopyrightintheplanandthe
allegationthatthePlaintiffisnottherightfulowner,thelawis
clearinthatwhereanindividualintheemployofacorporate
entityisaprincipal/ownerandseniorofficerthereofandhe
createstheworkwhileinthecorporation’semploy,the
ownershipresidesinthecorporationandaformalassignment
ofonetotheotheristhereforeunnecessary.

·Section13‒Ownershipofcopyright

Alicenceisthelawoftheparties.

Isle-Principia(USA)inc.v.Guimond,2013CarswellQue7711Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-
07-03)YergeauJ.
[382]Parcontre,lorsquel’auteurcèdesesdroitsparvoiedelicence,
c’estlalicencequisesubstitueàlaLDA,celle-cineprenantlerelais
quepourcequiexcède.

[383]Danslamesureoùunelicencededroitsestoctroyéesur
unephotographieouunensembledephotographies,c’estdonc
lalicencequifaitlaloidespartiesàl’exclusiondelaLoisurle
droitd’auteur.Lalicenceestalorssoumiseauxrègles
généralesd’interprétationdescontrats[FN124Leutholdc.
SociétéRadio-Canada,2012CF748]

[648]Parailleurs,onavuquelecontratdelicenceestvenuse
substitueraucontratderéalisationpourtoutcequiestcomprisdans
lepremier.Danslamesureoùlesimages,lesphotosetles
photomontagesdeGuimondetlesimagestiréesdesesArchivesont
étéutilisésdansLesÉtatsinventésd’Amériqueconformémentau
contratdelicence,Guimondn’estdoncpasfondédeplaiderviolation
desondroitd’auteur.Acontrario,toutusagefaitparPrincipia
outrepassantlecontratdelicencepeutdonnerouvertureen
toutouenpartieauxconclusionsrecherchéesparGuimond.

[649]AinsiquelejugeenadécidédansÉditionsHurtubiseHMHltée
c.CégepAndré-Laurendeau[FN182[1989]R.J.Q.1003],siune
licencepermetuniquementlareproductionintégraleetnon
modifiéedel’œuvre,devientalorsuneviolationdelalicenceet
dudroitd’auteurlefaitdereproduireouderendrepublique
l’œuvred’unemanièrepartielleoumodifiée.Maislecontratde

48
licencenecomportepasiciderestrictiondecetype.Iln’yapasde
contrefaçondudroitd’auteurduseulfaitd’avoirutilisé,parexemple,
desphotomontagesinachevésdeGuimond[Voiràcepropos,l’arrêt
Netupskyc.DominionBridgeCompanyLtd.,[1972]R.C.S.368.].

·Section13-Ownershipofcopyright

Onlytheownerofthecopyrightcanassignit.
Chélinv.Girouard,2013CarswellQue12420(Que.Ct-SmallClaims;2013-08-16)
VadeboncoeurJ.[31]Ilestdonclégitimed’affirmerquelacessionentrele
photographeetlademanderessen’aaucunevaleurjuridique
puisquelephotographenedétenaitpasdedroitd’auteursurla
photo.Seullejournall’Expressd’Outremontauraitpucéderson
droitd’auteur
[40]Telquementionnéprécédemment,lacessiondudroitd’auteur
parlephotographeenfaveurdelademanderesse(P-12)aété
signéesansdroitetn’aaucunevaleurjuridique.

·Section13‒Ownershipofcopyright

Consentoftheco-ownerofcopyrightisrequiredtoexploitaworkofjointauthorship.

Pintov.BronfmanJewishEducationCentre,2013CarswellNat3396(F.C.;2013-09-
11)RennieJ.[135]Asaresult[i.e.,noemploymentnorassignment],BJEC
requiredhisconsent,alicence,tousehismusicforTaLAM,
includingproducingasoundrecordingandincorporatingthemusic
intothecurriculum.

·Section13‒Ownershipofcopyright

AcopyrightassignmentmustbeinwritingbuttheCourtmayconsidertheadmission
ofanassignmentbytheassignor.Tremblayv.OrioCanadaInc.,2013CAF225,2013CarswellNat3483(C.A.F.;
2013-09-25)[affirming2013CarswellNat1145(F.C.;2013-01-31)]MainvilleJ.
[15]Ilnefaitaucundoutequel’intentiondespartiesétaitquetout
développementfaitparl’appelantsurlelogicielSAMdeviendraitla
propriétéexclusived’Orio.Laclausereproduiteci-hautetincluseaux

49
documentsdesoumissionnepeuts’interpréterautrementque
commeprévoyantlacessionenfaveurd’Oriodudroitd’auteurdans
lelogicielSAMmodifié.Lorsquela«propriétéexclusive»surle
développementd’unlogicielestcédée,celacomportedesoila
propriétédudroitd’auteurdanscedéveloppement.

[18]L’objetdelaLoisurledroitd’auteurestd’établirunjuste
équilibreentrelapromotion,dansl’intérêtpublic,delacréationetde
ladiffusiondesœuvresartistiquesetintellectuelles,d’unepart,et
l’obtentiond’unejusterécompensepourlecréateur,d’autrepart:
CCHCanadienneLtéec.BarreauduHaut-Canada,2004CSC13,
[2004]1R.C.S.339aupar.23.C’estaveccetobjectifàl’esprit
quelelégislateurexigequelapropriétédudroitd’auteurne
puisseêtrecédéequeparunécritsignéparletitulairedudroit
d’auteur.Ceprincipes’appliquetantàlacessionpureetsimple
dudroitd’auteur(par.13(4)delaLoi)qu’àunelicenceexclusive
àl’égarddecedroit(par.13(7)delaLoi).

[19]Eneffet,cequicaractériseunecessionouunelicenceexclusive
parrapportàunelicencenonexclusiveestletransfertd’undroitde
propriétédansledroitd’auteur.[…]Afindeprotégerlestitulaires
dudroitd’auteur,laloiexigedoncquecesderniersdoivent
consentirdefaçonclaireàlacessiondelapropriétédeleur
droit.C’estpourquoilaLoisurledroitd’auteurexigequele
titulairedudroitdoivesignifiersonconsentementéclairéau
transfertdepropriétéaumoyend’unécritportantsasignature.

[21][…]Ainsi,lajurisprudenceprévoitdefaçonunanimequ’onne
peutopposeràuntitulaired’undroitd’auteurunecessionouune
licenceexclusivequin’estpasconstatéparunécritsignéparle
titulairedudroitencause[…]
[22]Cependant,cesdécisionsnetraitentpasd’uncasoùletitulaire
dudroitd’auteurreconnaîtdevantletribunalavoirconsentiau
transfertdepropriétédudroitencause.Ilm’apparaîtd’unformalisme
exagéréquederendreinopposableàuncédantuneclausede
cessiondedroitd’auteurquecelui-cialui-mêmerédigéeetqu’il
reconnaîtdevantletribunalcommerégissantsesrapportsavecle
cessionnaire,etcepourlasimpleraisonquecelle-cin’estpas
signée.Commejel’aisignaléplushaut,lebutdesparagraphes
13(4)et(7)delaLoisurledroitd’auteurestdeprotégerletitulaire
dudroitd’auteurcontreunecessiondedroitquin’estpasconsentie
defaçonclaire.Lorsquelecessionnairereconnaîtlui-même
devantletribunallaclausedecessionquirégitsesrapports,le
butrecherchéparlaLoiestquantàmoirempli.

50
[23]Danslescirconstancesparticulièresduprésentlitige,oùle
titulairedudroitreconnaîtdevantletribunalchargédetrancher
laquestionquelaclausedecessiondedroitrégitsesrapports
aveclecessionnaire,laformenedevraitpasl’emportersurle
fond.Jenoted’ailleursquecelitigeaprisnaissanceauQuébecet
quel’article7duCodeCivilduQuébec,L.Q.1991,c.64,prévoit
qu’«[a]ucundroitnepeutêtreexercéenvuedenuireàautruiou
d’unemanièreexcessiveetdéraisonnable,allantainsiàl’encontre
desexigencesdelabonnefoi.»

·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Thecontextofanassigmentisrelevantindeterminingitsscope.

Distrimedicinc.v.DispillInc.,2013CarswellNat3663,(F.C;2013-10-15)de
MontignyJ.[350][…]Ofcourse,wheninterpretinganassignmentorlicense,the
Courtmaylookatthecontextofthecontractandtheintentofthe
partiestodetermineitsscope;however,caremustbetakennotto
givetoowideaninterpretationtoanassignmentoralicense,given
theclearobjectiveofcopyrightlawtoprotectcreators[…]

·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Copyrightintheworkdonebyanemployeebelongstotheemployer.

Cormierv.R.,2013QC2068(Que.C.A.;2013-12-02)GagnonJ.
[80]Toutd’abord,toutcommemoncollègue,j’écartel’argumentde
l’appelantselonlequelilnepouvaitavoirvolélesdocumentsse
rapportantauprojetFild’Ariane[unedémarched’interventionvisant
àcontrerl’absentéismeautravail]pourleseulmotifqu’ildétenaitun
droitd’auteursurceprojet[Fn33Loisurledroitd’auteur,L.R.C.
(1985),c.C-42.]
[81]Ilressortdelapreuvequel’appelants’estobligévis-à-vis
desonemployeur,moyennantrémunération,àexécuterune
prestationdetravailconsistantàdévelopperavecl’aided’autres
collaborateursunprogrammedepréventionenvuederéduirele
tauxd’absentéismedanslesentreprisesetlesétablissements
publics.LecontextedanslequelleprojetFild’Arianeaétéréalisé
esttoutsimplementincompatibleaveclapropositionselonlaquelle
l’appelantdétenaitundroitd’auteursurceprojet.Ilnem’estpas
nécessaired’endiredavantagesurlavaleurdecemoyen

51
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Thechainoftitleandtheparticularsofthegrantmustbepled:itcannotbemerely
inferred.Alicencetosellanddeliverisassuchnotagrantofinterestinthe
copyright.
(AOM)NAInc.v.RevealGroup,2013ONSC8014,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2013/2013onsc8014/2013onsc8014.html(Ont.Sup.
Ct.;2013-12-30)Macleod,Master[14]S.41.23oftheActprovidesthat“theownerofanycopyright”or
apersonderivinganyright,titleorinterestby“assignmentorgrantin
writingfromtheowner”may“protectandenforceanyrightthatheor
sheholds”andtotheextentofthatright,titleorinterest,“isentitledto
theremediesprovidedbytheAct.”InthedecisionsoftheFederal
courtcitedbythedefendantthecourthasheldthatthechainoftitle
andtheparticularsofthe“grantinwriting”mustbepled
becausetheyareaconstituentpartofthestatutoryrightof
action.Iagree.

[15]Inthiscaseitispleadedthattheauthorsofthe“method”were
NeilBentleyandRichardJeffrey,thefoundersofAOMi.Copyright
normallyattachestotheauthorsandthoughonemightinfer
fromthispleadingthatBentleyandJeffreyassignedtheir
copyrighttoAOMithepleadingdoesnotstatethis.Similarly
WBSIwhichissaidtobeasubsidiaryofAOMiissaidtobethe
owneroftheAOMSoftwarebuthowcopyrightaroseorwasassigned
isnotpleaded.
[16]ThepleadingthenstatesthatAOMNAislicensedtoselland
delivertheAOMmethodandsoftwareinNorthAmerica.The
amendedpleadingstatesthatAOMiandWBSIhave“conferredupon
AOMnatheauthoritytopursuetheinfringementandbreaches
describedherein.Iagreethatitisnotclearfromthisstatement
whetherAOMnahasa“right,titleorinterest”inspecificcopyright
pursuanttoan“assignmentorgrantinwritingfromtheowner”as
requiredbys.41.23andwhetheranysuchassignmentisvalidunder
s.13(4).

·Section14.1‒MoralRights

Moralrightscannotbeassignedbuttheycanbewaived.

52
Isle-Principia(USA)inc.v.Guimond,2013CarswellQue7711(Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-
07-03)YergeauJ.
[655]S’ilpeutyavoircessiondudroitd’auteur,ilnepeutyavoir
cessiondesdroitsmoraux,bienquel’auteurpuisseyrenoncer
parcontrat.Ilestfréquentquelescontratscomportentmaintenant
uneformulederenonciationauxdroitsmoraux.Guimondn’apas
renoncéauxsiens.
·Section27–Infringementgenerally

Alicencemaybeimplied.
Tremblayv.OrioCanadaInc.,2013CarswellNat1145(C.F.2013-01-31)BoivinJ.
[affd.2013F225(F.C.A.;2013-09-25)][53]Therefore,inlightoftheevidence,theCourtfindsthatthe
plaintiffgrantedthedefendantanimpliedlicencetousethemodified
SAMprogram.Ithasbeenrecognizedinthecaselawthatan
impliedlicencecanbeinferredfromtheparties’conductand
neednotbemadeinwriting(SilversonvNeonProductsLtd
(1978),39CPR(2d)234(BCSC);CselkoAssociatesIncvZellersInc
(1992),44CPR(3d)56(OntCtGenDiv)).TheCourtisoftheview
thatthisisthecasehere.
[57]Asindicatedabove,theevidenceintherecordshowsthat
theplaintiffimplicitlyconsentedtothedefendant’suseofthe
modifiedSAMprogramandgranteditauserlicence.Itfollows
thattheplaintiff’sclaimthathiscopyrightwasinfringedunder
section27oftheActforlackofconsentonhispartcannotbe
accepted,sincetherewasconsentonhispart.
·Section27–Infringementgenerally

Alicencecannotgobeyonditsterms,failingwhichthereisinfringement.

Boirev.Lefebvre,2013QCCQ921(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2013-01-10)LeResteJ.
[42]Lapreuveprépondérantedémontrequeladéfenderesseafait
imprimerà500exemplairesundocumentàdesfinspublicitairessur
lequelapparaîtunesculptureimposanteappartenantaudemandeur.

[43]Lapreuvenoncontreditedémontrequeladéfenderesse
n’avaitpasl’autorisationpréalableexpressedudemandeurpour
cefaire.

53
[44]Queledemandeuraitdonnésonconsentementàla
demanderesseafinqu’elleutilisesursapagewebdesinformations
dudemandeuretdeuxphotographiesdesesœuvresestunechose.
Cependant,l’utilisationcommercialephotographiquedelasculpture
appartenantaudemandeurestuneautrechosebiendistincte.
·Section27–Infringementgenerally

Independentcreationisanabsolutedefencetocopyrightinfringement.

Rainsv.Molea,114C.P.R.(4th)161(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2013-08-15)ChiappettaJ.
[47]Aplaintiffalleginginfringementmustestablishthatthedefendant
hadaccesstotheplaintiff’swork.Thisrequirementhasbeen
describedasthecausalconnection:Seee.g.AtomicEnergyof
CanadaLtd.v.AREVANPCanadaLtd.,2009FC980,78C.P.R.
(4th)113,atpara.35.AlthoughIfoundinsufficientsimilaritiesamong
the17comparisoncopyrightedimagesinScheduleA,Iwill
nonethelesscommentonaccess.
[48]Directevidenceofaccesstothecopyrightedworkisnotrequired
tosatisfythecausalconnection.Thecourtwillpresumetheexistence
ofacausalconnectionwherethedefendant’sworkissufficiently
similartothecopyrightedworkanditisshownthedefendanthadthe
reasonablepossibilityofaccesstothecopyrightedwork:Atomic
Energy,atpara35.

[68]Whereaplaintiffestablishessimilaritywiththedefendant’s
workandthereasonablepossibilityofaccess,theburdenthen
shiftstothedefendanttoprovethesecondworkwascreated
independentlyofthefirst.Independentcreationoftheimpugned
workisanabsolutedefencetoacopyrightinfringement:Philip
MorrisProductsS.A.v.MarlboroCanadaLtd.,2010FC1099,[2010]
F.C.J.No.1385,aff’dwithrespecttocopyright,2012F201,[2012]
F.C.J.No.878,atparas.116-124,leavetoappealtoS.C.C.refused,
[2012]S.C.C.A.No.413,[2012]C.S.C.R.No.413.
·Section27‒Infringementgenerally

Theburdenisontheplaintifftoprovetheabsenceofconsent.

Pintov.BronfmanJewishEducationCentre,2013CarswellNat3396(F.C.;2013-09-
11)RennieJ.[157]Asthepartyseekingtoestablishinfringement,Mr.Pinto
bearsthelegalburdenofprovingthathedidnotconsent[…]

[159]Mr.Pintohasfailedtomakeoutthiscriticalcomponentof
infringement.TheevidenceestablishesthatMr.Pintoconsentedto,
andindeedactivelyfacilitated,BJEC’suseofhismusic.Thisisnota
caseofuncertaintyorambiguity.Theevidenceisconsistentwith
consent.
·Section27–Infringementgenerally

Contractsmayberecoursedtoinordertoascertaininfringement.

Rouév.NovaScotia,2013CarswellNS97(N.S.S.C.;2013-08-09)RosinskiJ.[affd.
2013CarswellNS615(N.S.C.A.;2013-08-27)][106]ToestablishliabilityofanyoftheRespondents,theRouésmust
demonstrateonevidencethattheircopyrightand/ormoralrights
subsistingintheAssertedDrawingshavebeenviolatedorinfringed,
asthecasemaybe,byreferencetooneofthefollowingsections:
3(a),14.1,14.2,27(1),28.1,34,35,38.1,39or39.1oftheCopyright
Act.Thesearedistinctclaimsandthecontractsmayberelevant
tosomeandnotothers.
·Section27–InringementGenerally

Alicencecanbeimplied.
Tremblayv.OrioCanadaInc.,2013CAF225,2013CarswellNat3483(C.A.F.;
2013-09-25)[affirming2013CarswellNat1145(F.C.;2013-01-31)]MainvilleJ.
[26][…]Lalicenceimpliciterésultantdel’ensembledesrapports
entrelespartiespermetdoncàOriodecopierlecodesourcedu
SAMmodifiéafindelefaireretravaillerpardestiers.Lejugede
premièreinstancen’adonccommisaucuneerreurendécidantainsi.
·Section27–Infringementgenerally

Animpliedlicencecouldbetransfered.
Stoyanovav.DisquesMileEnd,2013CarswellQue11696(Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-11-
13BrossardJ.[32]Celadit,desauteursetunecertainejurisprudence
reconnaissentqu’ilexiste,outrelacessiondudroitd’auteur,une
formedelicenced’autorisationd’exploiterledroitainsilicencié,dans
lamesurepermiseparlalicence.Cetteautorisationn’apasàêtre
écriteetpeutêtreimplicite
[FN26StéphaneGILKER,«Principes

55
générauxdudroitd’auteur»dansBarreauduQuébec,Congrèsdu
Barreau,CongrèsannuelduBarreauduQuébec(2009),p.71,75-
77
].Cettelicencepourraitêtretransféréeàuntiers,selonla
portéedelalicenceimpliciteconféréeaubénéficiaireoriginal[Fn
27
Id,p.78].

·Section28.1‒InfringementGenerally

Modificationtoaworkmustbetotheprejudiceofthehonourorreputationofthe
authorforinfringementofhisrighttotheintegrityoftheworktobefound.

Isle-Principia(USA)inc.v.Guimond,2013CarswellQue7711(Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-
07-03)YergeauJ.
[655]S’ilpeutyavoircessiondudroitd’auteur,ilnepeutyavoir
cessiondesdroitsmoraux,bienquel’auteurpuisseyrenoncerpar
contrat.Ilestfréquentquelescontratscomportentmaintenantune
formulederenonciationauxdroitsmoraux.Guimondn’apasrenoncé
auxsiens.

[656]Ensomme,Guimond,pourréussir,devaitdémontrerque
Principiaautilisésontravaild’unemanièrequidébordelecadre
ducontratdelicenceouencorequeleproducteur,mêmeà
l’intérieurdececadre,apervertiletravaildeGuimondenn’en
respectantpasl’intégralitéaupointdeporteratteinteàses
droitsmorauxsursonœuvre.

[657]Dansleprésentdossier,lesdeuxquestionssuivantesse
posentdonc.L’usagequePrincipiafaitdesArchivesetdesŒuvres
deGuimonddansLesÉtatsinventésd’Amériqueest-ilceluiprévuau
contratdelicence?Principiaa-t-elleportéatteinteauxdroitsmoraux
deGuimondsursonœuvreenaltérantlesimagestiréesdeses
archivesoulesphotosetlesphotomontagescréésdanslecadrede
laréalisationdufilmaupointdeporterombrageàsaréputation?

[681]Àlalumièredesenseignementsdelajurisprudencedansl’arrêt
CarltonIllustratorsc.Coleman&Co.[[1911]1K.B.771].et,au
Canada,dansl’arrêtSnowdéjàcité[Snowc.TheEatonCentreLtd.,
(1982),70C.P.R.(2d)105(H.C.Ont.).,leTribunalenvientàla
conclusionqu’onnepeutpasparlerdemutilationdesimages
d’unematièrepréjudiciableàl’honneurdel’artistedanslefait
d’avoirinclusdanslefilmdesimagesoffrantunerésolution
inférieureàcellesouhaitéeparGuimond.Pourconclureainsi,le
Tribunals’enremetàlalittératurespécialiséeetàla
jurisprudence.

[684]Danslecasprésent,leTribunalconclutquel’utilisation
dansLesÉtatsinventésd’Amériqued’imagesd’unerésolution
inférieureàcellesouhaitéeparGuimondn’apaseupoureffet
d’entraîner,mêmeenadmettantquel’intégritédesœuvresn’a
pasétérespectée,uneatteinteàsaréputation.Encoreunefois,
Guimondn’ainvitéaucunexpertenappuidecequ’ilavance,
nonplusqu’aucundesespairs.
·Section29–Researchorprivatestudy

ThefunctionofaCourtisnottojudgetheartisticmeritofawork.

Trudeauv.AD4DistributionCanadainc.,2013QCCS2678(Que.Sup.Ct..;2013-
06-17)LeBelJ.[44]Iln’appartientpasauxtribunauxd’adjugerdumérite
artistiqueoudusimpleméritedel’œuvreproduiteparAD4ou
dedistinguerlesmauvaisescaricaturesdesbonnesoude
sanctionnerlesparodiesquiseraientdemauvaisgoût.

[45]Danslasphèrepublique,lalibertéd’expressionautoriseet
permetlacritique,lecommentaire,ledébat,lacontestation,pardes
procéduresoudesmanifestationsouparl’humouroulacaricatureou
laparodie,desfaitsetgestesdeceuxquinousgouvernentouqui,
commelespoliciers,setrouventenpositiond’autorité.

[41]Danscecontexteparticulier,unpolicierouunagentdelapaix
estunfonctionnairepublic,quelqu’unquiestinvestid’uneautorité
particulièreetquijoueunrôleimportantdansnotresociété.Qu’on
puisseprétendresoustraireunetellepersonneàlacritiqueouau
commentaire,fut-cesouslaformedelaparodieoudelacaricature,
eninvoquantlanotiondel’atteinteàlavieprivéesemblepourle
moinsétonnant.
·29.4–Reproductionforinstruction

Interimtariffiswarrantedtoaccountforalegislativedevelopment.

AccessCopyright(EducationalInstitutions)2010-2015,2013CarswellNat1656,
(Cop.Bd.-interimdecision;2013-05-29)
[15]Thereremainsbutonereasontoadoptanewinterimtariff.Asa
resultofrecentamendmentstosection29.4oftheAct,examination

57
copiesthatwerecompensablebythesolereasonthatAccess
offeredalicencenolongerattractroyalties.Therecordofthe
proceedingsthatledtothecertificationofthe2005-2009tariffshows
thatapproximately15centsoftherateof$4.81wasattributableto
suchcopies[Fn66,995,451photocopiedpagesforministry
examinations÷246,001,462photocopiedpagestriggering
remuneration×5.16=15¢(FTERatecertifiedin2009):seeAccess
K-12(2009),Supranote2,Table2.].Accessproposestocease
collectingthose15cents.Thisispreciselythesortofchangein
statusquothatoughttobereflectedinaninterimdecision:justasan
interimtariffwasrequiredinInterimDecision–SOCAN-NRCCTariff
1.A(CommercialRadio)fortheYears2003to2007[Fn7(24
November2006)CopyrightBoardDecision]toadjusttheroyalty
ratetoaccountforjurisprudentialdevelopments,aninterim
tariffadjustingtheroyaltyratesetinthe2005-2009tariffis
warrantedtoaccountforthislegislativedevelopment.
·29.4–Reproductionforinstruction

Acollectivelicencetocopyaworktoamediummakestheworkcommercially
availableinthatmedium.
AccessCopyright(EducationalInstitutions)2010-2015,[2013]C.B.D.4(Cop.Bd.-
interimdecision;2013-01-18)
[18]Forthe29.4(3)carve-outtoapplyinrespectofatestor
examination,aworkmustbe:(i)commerciallyavailable;and,(ii)ina
mediumthatisappropriateforthepurposeofthattestor
examination.
[23]Insubsection29.4(3),thecarve-outappliesifthework”is
commerciallyavailableinamediumthatisappropriate”forthe
purpose.Insubsection30.1(2),thecarve-outappliesifthework
“iscommerciallyavailableinamediumandofaqualitythatis
appropriate”forthepurpose.Totheextenttherelevantpartsof
thewordingofbothsubsectionsareidentical,theymustbe
interpretedinthesamemanner.
[24]Tointerpretsubsection29.4(3)(andthus,byextension,
subsection30.1(2))astheObjectorssuggestwouldrender
paragraph(b)ofthedefinitionof”commerciallyavailable”
meaningless.TheObjectorsadmitasmuchwhenstatingthat
“authorizationtotransferaworktoaparticularmediumsimplydoes
notmaketheworkcommerciallyavailableinthatmedium”andthat
“alicencedoesnotmakeaworkavailableinanymedium”.Thisis
nottenable.Ifalicencedoesnotmakeaworkavailableinany

58
medium,the”appropriatemedium”conditioncanneverbesatisfied
throughalicencebeingavailablewithinthemeaningofparagraph
(b).Aworkforwhichacollective’slicenceisavailable(andtherefore,
commerciallyavailablepursuanttoparagraph(b)ofthedefinition)
willnevertriggereithercarve-outeventhough,fortheveryreason
thatalicenceisavailable,itiscommerciallyavailableandeven
thoughthedefinitionisusedonlyinthosetwoprovisionsthat,both,
createacarve-out.Paragraph(b)wouldbemeaningless.Theonly
waytoavoidthisabsurdityistoconcludethatifaworkis
commerciallyavailablebecausealicenceisavailable,thatworkmust
sometimes(notalways)beinanappropriatemediumprecisely
becausethelicenceisavailable.
[25]Accesssubmitsthatalicencetocopyaworktoamedium
makestheworkavailableinthatmedium.Thisinterpretation
doesnotleadtoabsurdresults;onthecontrary,itistheonly
onethatgivesmeaningtoparagraph(b)ofthedefinitionof
“commerciallyavailable”.

[26]Aworkforwhichacollective’slicenceisavailableis
availableinanappropriatemediumif,andonlyif,thelicence
authorisestheinstitutionorteachertouse(copy,perform,
communicate)theworkinthemediumthatisappropriatetothat
particulartestorexamination.Alicencetocopyaliterarywork
makestheworkavailableinanappropriatemediumifitallowsthe
teachertocopytheworkontothemediumtheteacherintendstouse
duringthetestorexamination.Alicencethatallowsonlydigital
copieswilltriggerthecarve-outiftestsareadministereddigitally,but
notiftestsareadministeredonpaper.Alicencetoperformawork
doesnotmaketheworkavailableinanappropriatemediumifthe
teacherintendsthestudenttosightreadthescore;itdoesifthe
teacherintendsstudentstolistentoarecordedperformanceofthe
workbeforecriticizingit.
[27]Applyingthesameruletothesubsection30.1(2)carve-outalso
yieldslogicalresults.Alicencethatallowsalibrarytocopysheet
music(butnotasoundrecordingofmusic)doesnottriggerthe
carve-outifthelibrarywishestoallowuserstolistentoarecordingof
themusic.Alicencethatallowsalibrarytoreproduceasound
recording(butnotsheetmusic)doesnottriggerthecarve-outifthe
librarywishestodisplayatranscriptionofthescore.

[28]Thisinterpretationisalsovalidifaworkisavailableforsalein
onemediumandthroughlicencesinanother.Forexample,ifatestis
availableforsaleonpaperandaninstitutionwishestoadministerthe
testdigitally,theinstitutionmayclaimthebenefitofthesubsection

59
29.4(2)exceptionunlessacollectivealsooffersalicenceallowing
theinstitutiontoadministerthetestdigitally.
[29]AnamendmenttotheActthatcameintoforceonNovember7,
2012confirmsourinterpretation.Asofthatdate,subsection29.4(3)
readsafollows:
(3)Exceptinthecaseofmanualreproduction,theexemption
fromcopyrightinfringementprovidedbysubsections(1)and(2)
doesnotapplyiftheworkorothersubject-matteris
commerciallyavailable,withinthemeaningofparagraph(a)of
thedefinition”commerciallyavailable”insection2,inamedium
thatisappropriateforthepurposesreferredtointhose
subsections.[ourunderlining]

[30]Ashasbeenthecasewithsubsection32(1)since1997,the
subsection29.4(3)carve-outnowappliesonlyiftheworkis
commerciallyavailablewithinthemeaningofparagraph(a)ofthe
definition.Fromnowon,theavailabilityofalicencenolongertriggers
thecarve-out.IftheActasitstoodbeforereadastheObjectors
suggest,thatamendmentwasunnecessary.
[31]Therefore,weconcludethatalicencetocopyaworktoa
mediummakestheworkavailableinthatmedium;ifthemedium
onwhichtheworkcanbecopiedisappropriateforthe
purposesofatestorexamination,theworkforwhichalicence
isavailablealsoisavailableinamediumappropriateforthe
purposesofthetestorexamination.

[32]Allthatremainsistoapplythisprincipletothefactsofthecase.
Thepartiesagreedthatthecopiesidentifiedasexaminationcopies
duringthevolumesurveyshouldbedeemedtobeexamination
copies.Allexaminationcopiescapturedduringthevolumestudyand
includedinthecalculationoftheroyaltiesweremadeonamedium
theuseofwhichtheAccessTariffauthorizes.Themediumonwhich
examinationcopiesweremadewasnecessarilyappropriate,since
eachinstitutionorteacherchose(orwasrequired)tousethat
mediumforthetestorexamination.Theapplicationconditionsofthe
carve-outhavebeenmet.
·Section29.7–Reproductionofbroadcast

Thereceiptbyunlawfulmeansofacommunicationtothepublicby
telecommunicationvoidstheeducationalreprodcutionbroadcastexception.

60
Manitobav.TheCanadianCopyrightLicensingAgencyOperatingas”Access
Copyright”,112C.P.R.(4th)1F.C.A.;2013-04-03)GauthierJ.[affirming2012
CarswellNat609(Cop.Bd.;2012-03-15)][42]Furtheron,thelegislatorprovidesthattheinstitutionwillnot
havetherighttotheexceptionsetoutinsubsection29.7(1)
wherethecommunicationtothepublicbytelecommunication
wasobtainedbyillegalmeans(section29.8oftheAct).
·Section30.1–Managementandmaintenanceofcollections

Acollectivelicencetocopyaworkinthemediumthatisappropriatemakesthework
commerciallyavailableinthatmedium.
AccessCopyright(EducationalInstitutions)2010-2015,[2013]C.B.D.4(Cop.Bd.
interimdecision;2013-01-18)
[23]Insubsection29.4(3),thecarve-outappliesifthework”is
commerciallyavailableinamediumthatisappropriate”forthe
purpose.Insubsection30.1(2),thecarve-outappliesifthework”is
commerciallyavailableinamediumandofaqualitythatis
appropriate”forthepurpose.Totheextenttherelevantpartsofthe
wordingofbothsubsectionsareidentical,theymustbeinterpretedin
thesamemanner.
[24]Tointerpretsubsection29.4(3)(andthus,byextension,
subsection30.1(2))astheObjectorssuggestwouldrender
paragraph(b)ofthedefinitionof”commerciallyavailable”
meaningless.TheObjectorsadmitasmuchwhenstatingthat
“authorizationtotransferaworktoaparticularmediumsimplydoes
notmaketheworkcommerciallyavailableinthatmedium”andthat
“alicencedoesnotmakeaworkavailableinanymedium”.Thisis
nottenable.Ifalicencedoesnotmakeaworkavailableinany
medium,the”appropriatemedium”conditioncanneverbesatisfied
throughalicencebeingavailablewithinthemeaningofparagraph
(b).Aworkforwhichacollective’slicenceisavailable(andtherefore,
commerciallyavailablepursuanttoparagraph(b)ofthedefinition)
willnevertriggereithercarve-outeventhough,fortheveryreason
thatalicenceisavailable,itiscommerciallyavailableandeven
thoughthedefinitionisusedonlyinthosetwoprovisionsthat,both,
createacarve-out.Paragraph(b)wouldbemeaningless.Theonly
waytoavoidthisabsurdityistoconcludethatifaworkis
commerciallyavailablebecausealicenceisavailable,thatworkmust
sometimes(notalways)beinanappropriatemediumprecisely
becausethelicenceisavailable.

61
[25]Accesssubmitsthatalicencetocopyaworktoamedium
makestheworkavailableinthatmedium.Thisinterpretation
doesnotleadtoabsurdresults;onthecontrary,itistheonly
onethatgivesmeaningtoparagraph(b)ofthedefinitionof
“commerciallyavailable”.

[27]Applyingthesameruletothesubsection30.1(2)carve-out
alsoyieldslogicalresults.Alicencethatallowsalibrarytocopy
sheetmusic(butnotasoundrecordingofmusic)doesnot
triggerthecarve-outifthelibrarywishestoallowuserstolisten
toarecordingofthemusic.Alicencethatallowsalibraryto
reproduceasoundrecording(butnotsheetmusic)doesnot
triggerthecarve-outifthelibrarywishestodisplaya
transcriptionofthescore.
·Section30.3–Noinfringementbyeducationalinstitution,etc.

Fortheactionsofaneducationalinstitution,library,archiveormuseum’snotto
constituteinfringementtheconditionsofsubsection30.2mustbestrictlyadheredto.

Manitobav.TheCanadianCopyrightLicensingAgencyOperatingas”Access
Copyright”,112C.P.R.(4th)1(F.C.A.;2013-04-03)GauthierJ.[affirming2012
CarswellNat609(Cop.Bd.;2012-03-15)][46]Turningbacktothe1997additionstotheAct,subsection30.3(1)
setsoutanotherscenariowhereaneducationalinstitution,library,
archiveormuseum’sactionswillnotconstituteinfringement.
However,thisscenarioissubjecttostrictconditionssetoutin
subsection30.3(2)[…]

62
·Section30.8–Ephemeralrecordings(Programmingundertaking)

Ifacollectivelicenceisavailabletomakethefixationorreproductionofaperformer’s
performance,asoundrecordingorawork,theephemeralrecordingexceptiondoes
notapply.
Applicationtofixroyaltiesforalicenceanditsrelatedtermsandconditions
(SODRACv.CBC/SRC)InterimDecision,2013CarswellNat43(Cop.Bd.;2013-01-
16),theBoard:
[21]ThelaststatementisevenmorerelevanttoCBCthantotherest
ofthebroadcastingindustry.Thus,theparticularcontextinwhich
CBCoperatesraisesthepossibilitythatitwillnotbeabletorelyon
section30.9oftheActforasignificantportionofitsreproductions.
Forexample,becauseofitsnatureandmandate,CBCregularly
engagesinlive-to-tapebroadcasting,broadcastinginmultipletime
zones,rebroadcasting,studiorecordings,etc.Itisarguable,atthe
veryleast,thatcopiesmadeinthecourseoftheseactivitiesdonot
meettherequirementsofsection30.9.Itmaywellbethatthese
sameactivitiesaretargetedinsection30.8oftheAct;however,
thisexceptionisnotapplicableifalicenceisavailablefroma
collectivesociety[Fn6Subsection30.8(8)oftheAct.]
·Section30.9–Epehemeralrecordings(Broadcastingundertaking)

Ifacollectivelicenceisavailabletomakethefixationorreproductionofaperformer’s
performance,asoundrecordingorawork,theephemeralrecordingexceptiondoes
notapply.
Applicationtofixroyaltiesforalicenceanditsrelatedtermsandconditions
(SODRACv.CBC/SRC)InterimDecision,2013CarswellNat43(Cop.Bd.;2013-01-
16),theBoard:
[21]ThelaststatementisevenmorerelevanttoCBCthantotherest
ofthebroadcastingindustry.Thus,theparticularcontextinwhich
CBCoperatesraisesthepossibilitythatitwillnotbeabletorelyon
section30.9oftheActforasignificantportionofitsreproductions.
Forexample,becauseofitsnatureandmandate,CBCregularly
engagesinlive-to-tapebroadcasting,broadcastinginmultipletime
zones,rebroadcasting,studiorecordings,etc.Itisarguable,atthe
veryleast,thatcopiesmadeinthecourseoftheseactivitiesdo
notmeettherequirementsofsection30.9.Itmaywellbethat
thesesameactivitiesaretargetedinsection30.8oftheAct;
however,thisexceptionisnotapplicableifalicenceisavailable
fromacollectivesociety[Fn6Subsection30.8(8)oftheAct.]

·Section32–Reproductioninalternateformat

Theavailabilityofacollectivelicencecannottriggerthecarve-outexception

AccessCopyright(EducationalInstitutions)2010-2015,File:Reprographic
Reproduction,2010-2015,interimdecision[2013]C.B.D.4(Cop.Bd.;2013-01-18)
[22]Thesubsection32(3)carve-outonlyappliesifthework”is
commerciallyavailable[…]withinthemeaningofparagraph(a)ofthe
definitionof”commerciallyavailable””.Thus,subsection32(3)
expresslyprovidesthatavailabilityofalicencefromacollective
cannottriggerthecarve-out;subsections29.4(3)and30.1(2)do
notsoprovide.
·Section32.1Noinfringement[StatutoryObligations]

Govermentshouldcreateaseparatecategoryforrecordsthatarenotpublishedon
thedisclosurelogduetoconcernsaboutcopyright-Whereitisdeterminedthat
recordsmaynotbepublishedduetocopyright,govermentshouldpublishasevered
versionoftherecord.
OpenGovernmentInitiative(Re),[EvaluatingtheGovermentofBritishColumbia
OpenGovermentIntiative,InvestigationReportF13-03.2013BCIPC19(2013-07-
25)E.Denham,InformationandPrivacyCommissionerforB.C.
Withtheexceptionofcopyrightmaterialdiscussedbelow,Iam
generallysatisfiedwithgovernment’sapproachtopublicationinthe
disclosurelog.However,Iintendtomonitorhowgovernmentapplies
itsexemptionstopublicationtoensureitiskeepingwithinthe
parametersithasestablished.
Aseparatecopyrightcategory

Theissuesrelatingtooneaspectofthebusinessexemptioncategory
ismorecomplicated.Wereviewed70businessexemptionfiles.

Inaboutonequarterofthecases,theinformationinthesefileswould
disclosetheidentityoftheapplicantandinformationabouttheir
business,orinformationthatmightcauseharmifrevealedtothe
public.Inthatlight,mypreviouscommentsaboutthe
appropriatenessofgovernment’sapproachtodisclosureapplyhere.

64
However,withrespecttotheremainingalmostthree-quartersof
thesefiles,thedecisionnottopublishtheinformationwasbasedon
thefacttherecordscontainedportionsoforentirecopiesof
newspaperarticles,orlinkstonewspaperarticlesinemails,or
reportswithphotographsorothercontentsubjecttocopyright.

Government’spositionisthatthepublicationofthismaterialmight
violatecopyrightlaw.Inmyview,these“copyright”fileexemptions
arenotalignedwiththeabove-describedlegitimateconcernsabout
harm.Iconsiderthatitisnotappropriatetoincludecopyright
concernsunderthebusinessinformationexemption.Therefore,my
firstrecommendationinrespectofthisissueisthatgovernment
createaseparatecategoryforrecordsthatarenotpublishedonthe
disclosurelogduetoconcernsaboutcopyright.

RECOMMENDATION8:
Govermentshouldcreateaseparatecategoryforrecordsthat
arenotpublishedonthedisclosurelogduetoconcernsabout
copyright-.Government’sapproachtothecopyrightexemption

Inreviewingthecopyrightexemptedfiles,weobservedthatthe
recordscontained,unliketheotherexemptedrecordsdealtwith
above,materialofpublicinterest,apartfrommaterialthatmaybe
copyright.Myconcernisthatundergovernment’scurrentpractice,a
controversialresponsetoanaccessrequestcouldbeexemptedfrom
publicationsimplybecauseitincludedanewspaperarticlerelatingto
thatissue.Thiswouldpreventpublicationoftheentireresponseon
thedisclosurelog.Thegovernment’sblanketapproachtothis
copyrightissueisproblematicbecauseitcouldbeusedtodefeatthe
purposesofopengovernment.

Itappearsthatgovernmenttakesaverybroadapproachtowhatit
considerscopyrightmaterial.Iexpressnoviewoncopyrightlaw,but
suggesttogovernmentthatitconsiderthisissueinlightofthe
commonlawandstatutoryframeworkrelatingtocopyrightand
accesstoinformation.Forinstance,Iobservethatthefollowing
provisionsofthefederalCopyrightActstate:
32.1(1)Itisnotaninfringementofcopyrightforanyperson
(a)todisclose,pursuanttotheAccesstoInformationAct,a
recordwithinthemeaningofthatActortodisclose,pursuant
toanylikeActofthelegislatureofaprovince,likematerial;

Itisarguablethattheabovesection,readinconcertwiths.71of
FIPPA,wouldauthorizethegovernmenttopublishcopyrighted

65
materialingeneralaccessrequestresponsepackages.Thisis
somethingonwhichgovernmentshouldobtainadvice.

Thereisalsocaselawthatindicatesthatgovernmentcouldpublish
linkstonewspaperarticleswithoutinfringingtheCopyrightAct.[Fn44
RichardWarmanandNationalPostCompanyv.MarkFournierand
ConstanceFournier,2012FC803.]Alternatively,shouldgovernment
prefernottodealwithanymaterialitconsidersproblematic,another
optionistoseverthecopyrightinformationfromtheresponse
packagespriortopublicationtothedisclosurelog.Asgovernment
itselfsays,itmustlimitthecircumstanceswhereitexemptsaccess
responsesfromdisclosurelogpublication.Itisimportantthat
governmentpublishasmuchinformationaspossibleonthe
disclosurelog,evenwhenthismeansthattheresponsepackage
senttoanapplicantisdifferentfromwhatispublishedonthe
disclosurelog.Giventhenumbersofexemptionsatissue,itdoesnot
seemundulyburdensomeforgovernmenttoreviewthefiles
concerningcopyrightandinstituteasecondaryseveringprocess.

Anyconfusionthatmayresultfromthisadditionalseveringcanbe
dealtwithbyasimpleexplanationofthereasonfordoingsoonthe
governmentdisclosurelogwebsite.
RECOMMENDATION9:
Govermentshouldreviewitspolicyregardingthedisclosureof
copyrightmaterialtodeterminewhetheritispermissibleto
publishcopyrightmaterialinresponsetoaccessrequest.
Whereitisdeterminedthatrecordsmaynotbepublisheddueto
copyright,govermentshouldpublishaseveredversionofthe
record.
·Section32.1–Reproductioninalternateformat

Copyrightinadocumentisinsufficientbyitselftopreventitsdisclosureunderan
Accesstoinformationact.
OntarioPowerAuthority(Re),2013CanLII70436,(Ont.I.P.C.;2103-10-25)L.
Cropley,Commissionner[64]InOrderM-37,formerCommissionerTomWrightcommentedon
therelationshipbetweencopyrightprotectionanddisclosureunder
theAct:
Initsrepresentations,theinstitutionalsostatesthatthefactthat
therecordisundercopyrightandwasdesignedsolelyforuse
byatrainedevaluatingcommitteeisevidencethatitwas
“suppliedinconfidence”.Theaffectedpartyclaimsthat”our

66
materialsarecopyrightandassucharenottobereproduced
withoutourexpressedpermission.”

[65]Iagreewiththesefindingsandconcludethatholdingcopyright
inadocument,onitsown,isinsufficienttoestablishthat
disclosureoftherecordatissuecouldreasonablybeexpected
toresultinanyofthesection17(1)[oftheFreedomof
InformationandProtectionofPrivacyAct,R.S.O.1990,c.F.31,]
harms.
·Section34–‒Copyright[civilremedies]

Costs–assessingcostsmustbeguidedbyreasonableness.

KeatleySurveyingLtd.v.TeranetInc.,2013CarswellOnt2587(Ont.Sup.Ct.-Costs;
2013-03-11)HorkinsJ.
Plaintiff’smotiontocertifyactionasclassproceedingpursuanttos.5ofClass
ProceedingsActwasdismissed[107CPR(4
th)237(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-12-14)]-
Thedefendantasksthecourttoawardit$496,617.67forfeesdisbursementsand
applicabletaxes.Thesecostsrepresentabout40%oftheactualcoststhatwere
incurredNovelpointofLaw–Nopublicinterestconsideration–Coststobefairand
reasonable-Taxationat$200.000.00
[27]Fixinganamountforcostsisnotdrivensolelybya
mathematicalcalculation.Thecourtmustbeguidedbythe
overridingprincipleofreasonablenessastheCourtof
AppealdirectedinBoucher[Boucherv.PublicAccountants
CouncilfortheProvinceofOntario,[2004]O.J.No.2634(C.A.)]

[33]Thefactthatthisactionraisesanovelpointoflawdoesnot
leadmetoordernocosts.First,theplaintifffailedtosatisfyall
oftheremainings.5criteria.Inparticular,therewasno
evidenceofanidentifiableclassoftwoormorepersons.Tothe
extentthatIfoundthepleadingtoraiseanovelpointoflaw
raisedbythepleading,thereisnoevidencethatanyoneother
thantheplaintiffhasaninterestinthispoint.Tobeclear,the
existenceofthenovelpointoflawissimplyoneofmany
factorsthatIhaveconsidered.

[34]Thedefendantisentitledtofairandreasonablecosts.
Basedonalloftheabove,Iallowthedefendanttheamountof
$200,000forallfees,disbursementsandapplicabletaxes.

67
·Section34‒Copyright[civilremedies]

Summaryproceedings–Proceedingsforinfringementofcopyrightormoralrights
maybetakenbywayofapplicationoraction.
Rouév.NovaScotia,2013CarswellNS97(N.S.S.C.;2013-02-06)RosinskiJ.[affd.
2013CarswellNS615(N.S.C.A.;2013-08-27)][60]Atthisjuncture,Ishouldnotethats.34oftheCopyrightAct
[infringementofcopyrightandmoralrights]itselfallowsfor
bothapplicationsandactionsasameansofproceeding.Thus,
copyrightisnotconsideredsoinherentlycomplexastorequirean
actiontoresolvethesometimesesotericissuesthatarise.

·Section34‒Copyright[civilremedies]

Whenallegingtheciviltortofconspiracy,materialfactspertainingtothistortoughtto
bepleaded.
Rouév.NovaScotia,2013CarswellNS97,225A.C.W.S.(3d)923,1036A.P.R.346,
327N.S.R.(2d)346,2013NSSC45,
http://canlii.ca/en/ns/nssc/doc/2013/2013nssc45/2013nssc45.html(N.S.S.C.;2013-
02-06)RosinskiJ.[affd.2013CarswellNS615(N.S.C.A.;2013-08-27)]
[95]InthecaseatBar,withitsdistinctpleadings,theApplicants
donotnecessarilyallegethetortofconspiracy-theuseofthe
words“conspiredtogether”isfoundinaclaimmadeagainst
eachoftheRespondentsbasedontheallegationthattheytook
apartintherestorationoftheBluenoseIIknowingthatthe
Applicantsobjectedtotherestorationproceedingwithouttheir
agreementbasedontheircopyrightclaims.Mr.Belliveau,atthe
hearingherein,confirmedthattheApplicantsarenotallegingthetort
ofconspiracyatthistime.
[96]TheRespondentshereinrelyonCATProductionsLtd.v.
Macedo,(1984),1C.P.R.(3d)517(FCTD),toarguethatsincethe
Applicantshaveinthiscopyrightinfringementcaseargued“civil
conspiracyorsomethingveryakintoit”[p.520],thematerialfactsto
supporttheelementsofthetortofconspiracymustbepleaded.That
caseisdistinguishableasIfindthereisnoallegationofthetortof
conspiracyhere,andinCATProductions,thecourtacceptedthatthe
DefendantswerejustifiedinnotfilingaDefenceatalluntilparticulars
wereprovidedsince“clearlythecasemaybecategorizedasone
requiringthedeliveryofparticularsbeforepleading…”-p.518.

[97]Idonotviewtheallegationasaclaimofatortofconspiracy,but
ratherafactualcharacterizationofthecollective,yetknowing,

68
dismissalbytheRespondentsoftheexistenceoftheApplicants’
claims,whichareforcopyrightrelatedinfringements,notconspiracy.
Therefore,sinceno“causeofaction”hereinispremisedonthe
tortofconspiracy,itcannotbesaidthatthereisnoreasonable
causeofactionregardingthetortofconspiracy.

·Section34‒Copyright[civilremedies]

Solicitor-clientcostsareexceptional.
Planification-Organisation-PublicationsSystèmes(POPS)Ltéev.9054-8181Québec
Inc.,2013CarswellNat1230(F.C.;2013-04-25)CramptonJ.
[156]Solicitor-clientcosts“areveryrarelygranted”andare
generallyonlyawardedifapartydisplays“reprehensible,
scandalous,oroutrageousconduct”orifsuchcostsare
justifiedby“reasonsofpublicinterest”(Quebec(Attorney
General)vLacombe,2010SCC38,atpara67;BakervCanada
(MinisterofCitizenshipandImmigration),[1999]2SCR817,atpara
77;YoungvYoung,[1993]SCJNo112,atpara251).

[157]Inadditiontobeingexceptional,Whereitisdeterminedthat
recordsmaynotbepublishedduetocopyright,goverment
shouldpublishaseveredversionoftherecord.
(ApotexIncvCanada(MinisterofNationalHealthandWelfare),
[2000]FCJNo1919,atparas7-8).
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Infringemententitlesthecopyrightownertoseekinjuctivereliefs.

R.v.Rundle(NecPlusUltra),2013CarswellOnt5920,(Ont.Sup.Ct;2013-05-14)
BeaudoinJ.[supplementaryreasonsto104C.P.R.(4th)190(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-09-
14)][44]Whereinfringementhasbeenestablished,theownerisprima
facieentitledtoaninjunctionrestrainingfurtherinfringementandfor
delivery-upofallinfringingcopies[…]
[45]Caselawindicatesthattheownerofacopyrightwhohas
demonstratedinfringementcanbegrantedapermanent
injunctionevenifheorshehasnotprovenorsuffered
damages.

[46]Theonusisontheinfringertoestablishgroundsagainst
grantingthisrelief.[…]

·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Arequestforaninterimordershallnotbeusedtogainleveragefornegotiation.

ÉditionsQuébec-Amériqueinc.v.DruideInformatiqueinc.,2013CarswellQue212
(Que.Sup.Ct;2013-01-21)GouinJ.
[interiminjunctiondenied][22]Or,loindechangersonconstatdelasituation,l’auditiona
permisdeconfirmercequeleTribunalpercevait,soitque
l’ordonnancedesauvegarderecherchées’inscritdansune
stratégiedenégociationqui,selontouteapparence,augmente
considérablementlapressionsurDruide,vuquesa
commercialisationdulogicielAntidote8pourraitconnaîtreunefin
abrupte.
[23]Teln’estpasetnedoitjamaisêtrel’utilitéetl’objectifd’une
ordonnancedesauvegarde.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Aninjunctioncouldprohibitfurtherusoftheinfringingmaterialanddeliveryupfor
destructionoftheinfringingmaterial.
TencyMusicSASv.Lefrançois,2013CarswellQue4285(Que.Sup.Ct;2013-04-29)
BlanchetJ.[39]Enconséquence,lesconclusionseninjonctionrecherchéespar
lademanderesseserontaccordées,maisàl’égardseulementdes
enregistrementssurlesquelselledétientoupourraitdétenirplustard
desdroitsd’auteur.L’ordonnanceinterdiral’utilisationdes
enregistrementsencause,maisimposeraaussiaudéfendeur
(1)dedétruiretoutecopiedecesenregistrementsqu’ilpourrait
avoirensapossessionousoussoncontrôleet(2)deconfirmer
letoutpardéclarationassermentéedansundélaidetrente
jours.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Damagesforcopyrightinfringementaresufferedattheplacewheretheheadofficeis
located.

70
FilosofiaÉditionsinc.v.EntreprisesFoxmindCanadaltée,2013CarswellQue
5393(Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-06-07)LalandeJ.[Leavetoappealgranted2013
CarswellQue8297(Que.C.A.;2013-08-23)
[40]Aussi,ilyalieudeconclurequelesviolationsdedroit
alléguéesparFilosofiarelativementàsamarquedecommerce
etsesdroitsd’auteursluicausentpréjudiceauQuébec.

[41]Cettesituationn’estpassansrappelercelledécritedansl’affaire
MP3Networks[Fn10MP3Networksetal.c.PenaetHall,2009
QCCS4531]danslaquellelejugeCastiglioconclutencestermesle
préjudicesubiàlasuited’uneviolationdedroitsàl’égardd’une
marquedecommerce:L’entreprisequisubitdesdommagesparsuitedelaviolationde
sesdroitsd’auteursoumarquesdecommercesubit
nécessairementunpréjudice,toutaumoinspartiellement,à
l’endroitoùestsituésonsiègesocial.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

WhetheraQuebecauthorityhasjurisdcitiontohearacaseofcopyrightinfringement
againstforeigninfringerisaninterestingquestionwarrantinggrantingleaveto
appeal.
FoxmindGamesNVv.FilosofiaÉditionsinc.,2013CarswellQue8297(Que.C.A.-
Motionforleavetoappeal;2013-08-23)MorrissetteJ.

[4]L’intiméealonguementinterrogéM.Caponaprèsdéfenseet,se
fondantsurlesrenseignementsainsiobtenus,elleaamendésa
requêteintroductived’instancepourajoutertroisdéfenderesses,
requérantesdevantmoi.Celles-ci,quisontexploitéesàl’étranger,
participeraientauxviolationsdesdroitsdepropriétéintellectuellede
l’intimée.Lesrequérantesontréagiensoulevantuneexception
déclinatoirefondéesurlesarticles3148et3135
C.C.P.qui,comme
jel’aidéjàmentionné,aétérejetéeenpremièreinstance.

[5]DeuxparagraphesdesmotifslivrésenCoursupérieureméritent
mentionicicarilssous-tendentledispositifdujugement:
[39]Lesfaitsdelaprésentecauseetl’interrogatoiredeM.
Caponpermettentdeconstaterqu’ilexisteunlienréelet
substantielentrelasourcedel’actionetlajuridictiondu
Québec.Lastructurecorporativemisedel’avantparl’âme
dirigeantedesdifférentesentitésdeFoxmindnedevraitpas
permettredesesoustraireàlacompétencedestribunaux
québécois.

71
[40]Aussi,ilyalieudeconclurequelesviolationsdedroit
alléguéesparFilosofiarelativementàsamarquedecommerce
etsesdroitsd’auteursluicausentpréjudiceauQuébec.

[6]Ilestpossiblequecesélémentssuffisentpourfonderla
compétencedestribunauxquébécoisenvertudutroisième
paragraphedel’article3148C.c.Q.Maiscen’estpascertain.

[7]UnerelectureattentivedesarrêtsQuebecorPrintingMemphisinc.
c.Regenairinc.[Fn22001CanLII27960(QCCA),[2001]R.J.Q.966
(C.A.).],BanquedeMontréalc.HydroAluminimWellsinc
.[Fn3J.E.
2004-479(C.A.).]OptionConsommateursc.InfineonTechnologies,
a.g.[Fn42011QC2116.],FederalCorporationc.TriangleTiresinc.
[Fn52012QC434.]etGreenPlanetTechnologiesLtd.c.Corporation
PneusBlackstone/OTRBlackstoneTireCorporation,[Fn62013
QC56.]meconvaincquelaquestiontellequ’elleseprésenteici
mériteexamenparuneformationdelaCour.Lesrequérantes
s’appuientsurcettejurisprudence.Ellesenfontunelecturequi
pourraitapporterdel’eauàleurmoulin,sijepuisdire.En
revanche,lescaractéristiquesparticulièresdelapropriété
intellectuelleetl’expansionconstanteducommerceparinternet
appellerontpeut-êtrequelquesnuancesadditionnellesdans
l’interprétationdesdispositionssurlaportéedesquellesse
prononcentcesarrêts.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Copyrightinfringementwarrantsabindingdeclarationofownership.

Rainsv.Molea,114C.P.R.(4th)161(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2013-08-15)ChiappettaJ.
[91]Inmyview,declaratoryreliefisappropriateifcopyrightsubsists
andinfringementisestablished.Copyrightvestsrightsexclusivelyin
itsowner.Amisappropriationofthoserightswarrantsabinding
declarationoftherightsdeterminedtobeproperlyvested:Seethe
Act,s.34(1);CourtsofJusticeAct,R.S.O.1990,C.C.43,s.97;and
OperationDismantleInc.v.Canada,1985CanLII74(SCC),[1985]1
S.C.R.441,atparas.31-33.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Damagesaretobeproven,evennominalones.
Rainsv.Molea,114C.P.R.(4th)161(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2013-08-15)ChiappettaJ.

72
[92]RainsseeksnominaldamagesforMolea’sinfringingworks.
Rainslednoevidenceondamages.ThereisnoevidencethatRains
sufferedanynegativefinancialconsequences,mentalanguish,or
distressasaresultofMolea’swork.Whilemathematicalprecision
isnotrequiredtoawarddamages,inthiscasethereissimply
noevidencefromwhichtoassessnominaldamagesandno
basistograntnominaldamagesasaremedy.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Successfulplaintiffisentitledtoinjunctiverelief.

Rainsv.Molea,114C.P.R.(4th)161(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2013-08-15)ChiappettaJ.
[97]Aplaintiffthatsuccessfullyestablishescopyrightisprima
facieentitledtoapermanentinjunction.Thedefendantbears
theonustorebutthepresumptioninfavourofgrantinga
permanentinjunction:TheQueenv.JamesLorimerandCo.,
[1984]1F.C.1065,1983CarswellNat72,atpara10(F.C.A.).Molea
providednoevidencetorebutthepresumption.Ifinfringementwere
found,IwouldorderMoleapermanentlyenjoinedfrominfringing
Rains’imagesofthe17comparisons.Iwouldlimittheorderfora
permanentinjunctiontothe17existingworks.Iwouldnotrestrain
Moleaonfutureinfringements;sucharestraintwouldbe
tantamounttograntingcopyrightprotectiontoafixedwork
priortoitscreation.
·Section34–Copyright[civilRemedies]

Asuccessfulplaintiffisentitledtodeliveryupoftheinfringingmaterial.

Rainsv.Molea,114C.P.R.(4th)161(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2013-08-15)ChiappettaJ.
[98]Aplaintiffthatsuccessfullyestablishescopyright
infringementispresumptivelyentitledtohavethedefendant
deliverupallinfringingworksinthedefendant’spossession.It
isforthedefendanttorebutthepresumption:L.S.Entertainment
GroupInc.v.FormosaVideo(Canada)Ltd.,2005FC1347,[2005]
F.C.J.No.1643,atparas.69-70.Ifinfringementwerefound,Iwould
orderdeliveryupoftheonlyremainingunsoldimageofthe17
comparisons,“BuildingWithLight”(2005).MoleasubmitsthatRains’
conductdisentitleshimtodeliveryupfordestructionofMolea’s
painting.Idisagree.IfindnoevidencefromMoleasufficienttorebut
thepresumptioninfavourofgrantinganordertodeliverup“Building
WithLight.”

73
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Damagesmustbeprovenbyapreponderanceofevidence–Punitivedamageswill
sanctionthecondcutofadefendant.
Banquisedugolfeinc.v.Paulin,2013CarswellQue7815(Que.Ct-;2013-05-14)
RondeauJ.[42]BienquecertainsindiceslaissentcroireauTribunalquela
demanderesseapusubirunpréjudiceéconomiquedûàlaviolation
dudroitd’auteur,ellen’apasréussiàétablircepréjudiceparpreuve
prépondérante.Eneffet,ilyaabsencecomplètedepreuvequeles
ventesdelademanderesseontdiminuéenraisonduplagiatdu
défendeur.
[47]Ainsi,onpeutretenirdesprincipesjurisprudentielsquelorsque
leTribunalconstateuncasdemauvaisefoi,decomportement
déloyaletdeplagiatdélibéré,celapeutjustifierl’octroidedommages
moraux.
[48]Comptetenudelapreuvesoumise,quidémontrequele
défendeurcopied’unefaçonpresqueidentiqueledessindela
demanderesse,leTribunalconclutqu’ilaagidefaçon
volontaireetqu’ilnes’agitpasd’unesimplenégligence.Au
surplus,ilacontinuédeprétendreêtrel’auteurdecedessin
mêmeaprèsavoirétéaviséparlademanderesse,cequi
démontreuncomportementmalicieuxetdemauvaisefoi.En
conséquence,leTribunalaccorde1000$àtitrededommages
exemplaires.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Proceedingsforinfringementofcopyrightormoralrightsmaybetakenbywayof
applicationoraction.
NovaScotiav.Roué,2013NS94,2013CarswellNS615,
http://canlii.ca/en/ns/nsca/doc/2013/2013nsca94/2013nsca94.html(N.S.C.A.;2013-
08-27)[affirming2013NSSC254,(N.S.S.C.l2013-08-09)]
[Leavetoappealfromajudgmentonapreliminarymotionrefusingtochangean
applicationintoatraditionalaction.]
[13]Indenyingtheappellants’conversionapplication,thejudge
wasexercisingdiscretiononaninterlocutorymatter.

74
[46]Beforeconcluding,Iwouldliketoacknowledgesome
practicalchallengestobefacedbytheappellantsasaresultof
thisruling.Theyraisedprimarilythreeinoralargument.Firstly,
theywillhavetopresenttheirevidencebywayofaffidavit
withoutfirsthavinghadthebenefitofthediscoveryprocess.In
otherwords,ifthismatterweretoproceedbywayofanaction,
theywouldhavethebenefitofexaminingtherespondentsunder
oathbeforecommittingtotheirversionofevents.Secondly,
theyfearbeingdeniedthebenefitofcallingoral,directevidence
(althoughthejudgehasnotruledthisout).Inotherwords,given
thefactthattheirreputationswillbeatstake,theyfearthat
importantnuanceswillbelostwithwrittenaffidavitsasopposed
tobeingabletoexplaintheirpositionorally.Thirdly,theyfeel
rushedinpreparingtheircasebecauseofthetighttimelines
prescribedbythejudge.

[47]Iacknowledgethat,iftimeandcostwereonlyincidentalfactors,
thenwhattheappellantscharacterizeastheseprocedural
safeguardsfortrialfairnessmightoccupytheirfullestscope.Buttime
andcostclearlydopertaintotheoverallobjectiveofaccessto
justice.Themotionsjudge’sjobunderRule6.02istoachievea
balancethatshortenstimeandlessenscost,whileensuringthatthe
proceedingathandmaintainstheessentialattributesofafairfact-
findingprocess.
[48]Therearesomeproceedingswheretheclassictrialprocedures
willbeessential.Forinstance,itmaybeimportantthatthejudge
hearthewitnessestelltheirstoriesinperson,asdirectevidence,
insteadofjustreadingtheinkonthelawyer-assistedaffidavits.Orit
maybethatimportantevidencerestswithunfriendlywitnesses,who
willnotsignaffidavits,andmustberequiredtotestifybysubpoena.
Thesearejustexamples,notanall-inclusivelist.Itisforthemotions
judge,inweighingthecriteriaunderRule6.02,toassesswhether
fairnessstepstotheforeonsuchmatters,whethertheapplicationin
courtunderRule5.07canaccommodatetheconcernwithan
adjustmenttotheprocedure,orwhetheritispreferable,inthe
interestsoffairness,thatthematterbetriedinthetraditionalmanner.
·Section34‒Copyright[civilremedies]

Forthepersonnalliabilityofdirectorstobeengagedevidenceofintentional
infringementbytheseindividualmustbeadduced.
Pintov.BronfmanJewishEducationCentre,2013CarswellNat3396(F.C.;2013-09-
11)RennieJ.

75
[188]Mr.andMs.Shimonhavenopersonalliability.Atallrelevant
times,theywereofficersandemployersofBJECandTaLAM.A
corporationhasaseparatelegalexistence,andaccordingly,an
individualwillnotbeliablefortheinfringementofacorporation
withwhichheorsheisassociated,absentevidencethatthe
individualisguiltyofintentionalinfringement:FoxCanadianLaw
ofCopyrightandIndustrialDesigns,ch24at16.2.

[189]TheevidencefallswellshortofestablishingthatMr.andMs.
Shimondeliberatelyorrecklesslyengagedinacourseofconduct
theyknewwaslikelytoconstituteinfringement.

·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

WhenalltheactsconstitutingcopyrightinfringementarecommitedoutsideCanada,
Canadiancourtsdonothavejurisdcition.
LayetteMinimômeinc.v.Jarrar,2013QCCS6084,(QueSup.Ct;2013-12-05)Roy
J.
[63]Mais,lesDéfendeursinvoquent,avecraison,quelaLoin’a
aucuneapplicationicipuisquelescopiesontétéfabriquéesen
Chine,àlademanded’unrésidentdeDubaïetontétévenduesdans
lesÉmiratsArabesUnis.CommelaCoursuprêmeduCanadale
soulignedansSociétécanadiennedesauteurs,compositeurset
éditeursdemusiquec.Associationcanadiennedesfournisseurs
Internet][Fn112004CSC45.],leParlementduCanadaalepouvoir
d’adopteruneloiayantuneportéeextraterritoriale,mais,en
l’absenced’unlibelléclairoud’unedéductionnécessaireàl’effet
contraire,ilestprésuménepasavoirvoululefaire[Fn12Id.,par.
54].Rienicinepermetdeconclurequelelégislateuravoulu
donneruneportéeextraterritorialeauxdispositionssurla
contrefaçonetriendanslapreuvenepermetdeconclurequ’un
élémentoul’autredelacontrefaçonaiteulieuauCanada.

[70]Mais,leTribunaladéjàconcluquelaLoinepeut
s’appliqueràunecontrefaçondonttousleséléments
constitutifssurviennentàl’extérieurduCanada.Laréclamation
baséesuruneviolationdelaLoiestdoncrejetée.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Variousremediesareavailabletosanctioncopyrightinfringement.

76
CinarCorporationv.Robinson,2013CarswellQue12345(S.C.C.;2013-12-23)
McLachlinJ.[1]Canadianlawprotectstheexclusiverightofcopyrightownersto
reproduceortoauthorizethereproductionoftheirworks.The
unauthorizedreproductionofasubstantialpartofanoriginal
workconstitutescopyrightinfringement,forwhichacopyright
ownercanseekvariousremedies.[…]
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Thepersonalliabilityofanofficerdoesnotflowfromitstitle:hemustbeknowingly
involvedintheinfringement.
CinarCorporationv.Robinson,2013CarswellQue12345(S.C.C.;2013-12-23)
McLachlinJ.[64]Theevidencerelieduponbythetrialjudgedidnotsupporta
serious,preciseandconcordantpresumptionthatDavinwas
personally,deliberatelyandknowinglyinvolvedinthecopying
of[plaintiff]Robinson’swork,asrequiredbyMentmore.
[MentmoreManufacturingCo.v.NationalMerchandising
ManufacturingCo.(1978),89D.L.R.(3d)195(F.C.A.),atpp.204-5,
perLeDainJ.].ThetrialjudgeinferredDavin’sknowingand
deliberateparticipationfromgeneralcircumstantialevidence.He
observedthatDavinwasa[
TRANSLATION]“Teflonman”whohad
participatedinfraudulentschemes(para.835).However,these
schemeswereunrelatedtothecopyingofRobinson’swork.
Evidenceofadishonestandarrogantpersonalitydoesnot
sufficetogroundaninferenceofparticipationincopyright
infringement.HealsoreliedonDavin’spositionasIzard’s
hierarchicalsuperior.Yet,thisalonedoesnotestablishpersonal
participationincopyrightinfringement.Anofficerofacorporation
cannotbeheldpersonallyliableforcopyrightinfringement
merelyonthebasisofhishierarchicalstatusasofficer.

·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Nonpecuniarydamagesthatdonotstemfrombodilyinjyryarenotcapped–Inthe
caseofcopyrightinfringement,theyareanalogoustothoseclaimedbyavictimof
defamation.
CinarCorporationv.Robinson,2013CarswellQue12345(S.C.C.;2013-12-23)
McLachlinJ.[97]However,theAndrews[Andrewsv.Grand&ToyAlbertaLtd.,
1978CanLII1(SCC),]capisinapplicabletonon-pecuniary

77
damagesthatdonotstemfrombodilyinjury,suchasthosethat
resultfromdefamation[…]
[100]Onthesecondargument,IdonotagreethatRobinson’snon-
pecuniarydamagescanbecharacterizedasstemmingfrombodily
injury,withinthemeaningofart.1607oftheCCQ.InQuebeccivil
law,aninjurycanonlybecharacterizedasabodilyinjury(“préjudice
corporel”)if“someformofabreachofphysicalintegrity”ismadeout:
Schreiberv.Canada(AttorneyGeneral),2002SCC62,[2002]3
S.C.R.269,atpara.62.Inmakingthischaracterization,itis
importanttolooktowhethertheactthatcausedtheinjurywasitselfa
breachofthevictim’sphysicalintegrity,ratherthantowhethertheact
hadanimpactonthephysicalhealthofthevictim:Gardner,atp.17.
Conversely,“interferenceswithrightsproperlycharacterizedasbeing
ofamoralnaturewillnotbeincludedwithinthisclassofclaims”:
Schreiber,atpara.64.

[101]TheinfringementofRobinson’scopyrightwasnotabreachof
hisphysicalintegrity.Theinfringementcausedsevereshock
resultingindeteriorationofRobinson’sphysicalhealth.However,as
discussed,impactonavictim’sphysicalhealthdoesnotsufficeto
characterizetheinjuryasabodilyinjury,intheabsenceofabreach
ofphysicalintegrity:seeforexampleLandryv.Audet,2011QC535
(CanLII),atpara.107,leavetoappealrefused,[2011]3S.C.R.v.
TheCourtofAppeal,withrespect,lostsightofthisdistinction.

[102]ItismoreappropriatetocharacterizeRobinson’s
psychologicalsufferingasanon-pecuniarydamagestemming
frommaterialinjury.Indeed,theinfringementofcopyrightwasa
breachofRobinson’spropertyrights.Itistheinitialbreach,rather
thantheconsequencesflowingfromthatbreach,whichservesto
characterizethetypeofinjurysuffered.[…]Asdiscussed,thescope
ofapplicationoftheAndrewscapislimited;itdoesnotapplytonon-
pecuniarydamagesstemmingfrommaterialinjury.
[108]Iagreewiththetrialjudgethat[plaintiff]Robinson’snon-
pecuniarydamagesareanalogoustothoseclaimedbyavictim
ofdefamation.TheproductofRobinson’sartisticexertionswas
takenfromhimandtheintegrityofhispersonalcreative
processwasviolated,causingdeeppsychologicalsuffering.
Theseharmsaresimilartothosesufferedbyavictimof
defamation.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

78
CopyrightinfringementisaviolationtotheCharterguaranteedrighttothepeaceful
enjoymentofproperty(aswellasanauthor’srighttoinviolabilityanddignity)and,if
intentional,givesrisetopunitivedamages.
CinarCorporationv.Robinson,2013CarswellQue12345(S.C.C.;2013-12-23)
McLachlinJ.[113]InQuebec,punitivedamagescanonlybeawardedwhere
theyareprovidedforbyaspecificenablingenactment:art.1621
CCQ.Thecourtsbelowdidnotfullyexaminethebasisforthe
punitivedamagesawardedinthiscase,althoughtheCourtofAppeal
alludedtotheCharterofhumanrightsandfreedoms,R.S.Q.,c.C-12
(“Charter”).

[114]Section49oftheCharterprovidesthatpunitivedamages
maybeawardedifthereisanunlawfulandintentional
interferencewithanyoftherightsandfreedomsthattheCharter
recognizes.Theevidenceestablishesunlawfulandintentional
interferencewithseveralofRobinson’sCharterrights.Copyright
infringementisaviolationofs.6oftheCharter,whichprovides
that“[e]verypersonhasarighttothepeacefulenjoymentand
freedispositionofhisproperty,excepttotheextentprovidedby
law”:seeConstructionDenisDesjardinsinc.v.Jeanson,2010
QC1287(CanLII),atpara.47.Additionally,theinfringementof
copyrightinthiscaseinterferedwithRobinson’spersonalrights
toinviolabilityandtodignity,recognizedbyss.1and4ofthe
Charter.

[115]Aninterferencewiththerighttoinviolability“mustaffectthe
victim’sphysical,psychologicaloremotionalequilibriuminsomething
morethanafleetingmanner”:St-Ferdinand[Quebec(PublicCurator)
v.Syndicatnationaldesemployésdel’hôpitalSt-Ferdinand,1996
CanLII172(SCC)],atpara.97.
[117]Here,Cinar,Weinberg,Charest,andIzardconsistentlyand
contemptuouslydeniedhavingaccesstoRobinson’swork,and
disparagedRobinson’sclaimsthattheyhadcopiedhiswork.
TheirbehaviourconstitutesaninterferencewithRobinson’s
Charterrighttodignity,andprovidesanadditionalbasisforthe
awardofpunitivedamages.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Punitivedamagesaretobeawardedwithrestraint.

79
CinarCorporationv.Robinson,2013CarswellQue12345(S.C.C.;2013-12-23)
McLachlinJ.[118]TheCourtofAppealwascorrecttoconcludethatonlyCinar,
Weinberg,Charest,andIzardcouldbefoundliableforpunitive
damages.Unders.49oftheCharter,punitivedamagesareonly
awardedifaninterferencewithprotectedrightsandfreedomsis
“intentional”.Aninterferenceisintentional“whentheperson
whocommitstheunlawfulinterferencehasastateofmindthat
impliesadesireorintenttocausetheconsequencesofhisor
herwrongfulconduct,orwhenthatpersonactswithfull
knowledgeoftheimmediateandnaturaloratleastextremely
probableconsequencesthathisorherconductwillcause”:St-
FerdinandQuebec(PublicCurator)v.Syndicatnationaldes
employésdel’hôpitalSt-Ferdinand,1996CanLII172(SCC)],,at
para.121.Thedetailedfindingsofthetrialjudgeestablishintentional
interferencewithprotectedrightsbyCinar,Weinberg,Charest,and
Izard.
[138]Thissaid,punitivedamagesmustbeawardedwith
restraint.[…]

[139]Inthiscase,therelevantfactorspointindifferentdirections.On
theonehand,thegravityoftheconductsuggestsahigh
amountofpunitivedamages.Cinar,Weinberg,Charest,andIzard
engagedinintentionalandcalculatedcopyrightinfringement,
whichtheyplannedtokeepsecretallthewhilereapingprofits
fromaninternationallysuccessfulchildren’stelevisionseries.
Theypersistentlydeniedhavingcopiedanyportionof
Robinson’sworkthroughoutthelengthylegalproceedings.
Conductofthisnaturethreatensoneofthefundamentalgoals
ofCanadiancopyrightlaw,namely“topreventsomeoneother
thanthecreator[ofawork]fromappropriatingwhatever
benefitsmaybegenerated”:Théberge,atpara.30.Theimpactof
thisconductonRobinsonwasequallyserious.Itdeprivedhim
notonlyofasourceofrevenue,butalsoofhissenseof
proprietorshipoveraprojectthathaddeeppersonal
significanceforhim.Heexperiencedprofoundanguish.Insult
wasaddedtoinjurybythecallousdenialsofcopyingandby
insinuationstotheeffectthatRobinsonwassimplyan
attention-seekingeccentric.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Punitivedamagescannotbeawardedonasolidarity(jointandseveral)basis.

CinarCorporationv.Robinson,2013CarswellQue12345(S.C.C.;2013-12-23)
McLachlinJ.[120]Inmyview,punitivedamagescannotbeawardedonasolidary
basisundertheCharter.Icometothisconclusionfortworeasons.

[126][…]Amongthenon-exhaustivelistoffactorsthatshouldbe
takenintoaccountwhenassessingthequantumofpunitivedamages
are“(1)thegravityofthedebtor’sfault,(2)thedebtor’spatrimonial
situation,(3)theextentofthereparationforwhichthedebtoris
alreadyliabletothecreditorand(4),wheresuchisthecase,thefact
thatthepaymentofthedamagesiswhollyorpartlyassumedbya
thirdperson”(e.g.aninsurer):ibid.,atpara.199.

[127]Boththeobjectivesofpunitivedamagesandthefactors
relevanttoassessingthemsuggestthatawardsofpunitive
damagesmustbeindividuallytailoredtoeachdefendant
againstwhomtheyareordered.Thisrequirementof
individualizationmilitatesagainstawardingpunitivedamages
onasolidarybasis.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Costsonasolicitor-clientbaismaybeawardedtosanctionareprehensiblelitigation
strategy.
CinarCorporationv.Robinson,2013CarswellQue12345(S.C.C.;2013-12-23)
McLachlinJ.[152]IwouldawardRobinsonandNilemcoststhroughout,in
additiontothetrialjudge’sawardof$1,500,000insolicitor-client
costsfortheproceedingsatthetriallevel.Thetrialjudgewaswell
placedtoobservethelitigationstrategyoftheCinarappellants,as
wellasallotherfactorsrelevanttoexercisinghisdiscretiontoaward
solicitor-clientscostsundertheCopyrightAct.Iwoulddeclineto
awardRobinsonandNilemcostsonasolicitor-clientbasisforthe
appealsbeforetheCourtofAppealandthisCourt.Therewere
seriouspointsoflawtoargueanditisnotestablishedthat,on
appeal,theCinarappellantsactedinbadfaithorotherwise
conductedthemselvesinamannerthatwarrantsanawardofcosts
onasolicitor-clientbasis.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Expertisemightbehelpfultoascertainwhetherathesubstantialpartwascopied.

CinarCorporationv.Robinson,2013CarswellQue12345(S.C.C.;2013-12-23)
McLachlinJ.[51]Inmyview,theperspectiveofalaypersonintheintended
audiencefortheworksatissueisausefulone.Ithasthemerit
ofkeepingtheanalysisofsimilaritiesconcreteandgroundedin
theworksthemselves,ratherthaninesoterictheoriesaboutthe
works.However,thequestionalwaysremainswhetherasubstantial
partoftheplaintiff’sworkwascopied.Thisquestionshouldbe
answeredfromtheperspectiveofapersonwhosesensesand
knowledgeallowhimorhertofullyassessandappreciateallrelevant
aspects―patentandlatent―oftheworksatissue.Insomecases,
itmaybenecessarytogobeyondtheperspectiveofalaypersonin
theintendedaudienceforthework,andtocalluponanexpertto
placethetrialjudgeintheshoesof“someonereasonablyversedin
therelevantartortechnology”:Vaver,atp.187.
·Section34.1–Presumptionsrespectingcopyrightandownership

Ininfringementproceedings,theexistenceofcopyrightandthetitleoftheplaintiffare
presumed.
R.v.Rundle(NecPlusUltra),2013CarswellOnt5920(Ont.Sup.Ct;2013-05-14)
BeaudoinJ.[supplementaryreasonsto104C.P.R.(4th)190(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-09-
14)][35][…]Inanyproceedingsforinfringementofcopyrightinwhichthe
Defendantputsinissueeithertheexistenceofthecopyrightorthe
titleofthePlaintiffthereto,copyrightispresumed,unlessthe
contraryisproved[…]

·Section34.1-Presumptionrespectingcopyrightandownership

Thereisanonusupondefendanttorebutthepresumptionoftheexistenceof
copyright,evenwhenthedefenceisbaseduponssubsection64(2).

LayetteMinimômeinc.v.Jarrar,2013QCCS6084(QueSup.Ct;2013-12-05)RoyJ.
[69]Toutcommedanscetteaffaire[MagasinsGreenbergltéec.
Import-ExportRenéDerhy(Canada)inc.,J.E.2004-749(C.A.)]les
œuvressonticiprésuméesprotégéesetilappartenaitaux
Défendeursdeprouverquelesreprésentationsgraphiques,le
matérieldontlemotifesttisséoutricotéetlesreprésentations
d’êtres,delieuxoudescènesréelsouimaginairesnesontpas
protégés.Ilsn’ontpasapportécettepreuve.Aucontraire,Layettea

82
expliquétoutleprocessusdecréationdesesvêtements,incluantles
dessins,laconfectiondutissu,lesdifférentsélémentsdécoratifs,etc.
L’article64(3)delaLoiauraitdoncpuprotégercertainsélémentsde
lacollection.
·Section34.1–Presumptionsrespectingcopyrightandownership

Defendanthastheburdentoprovethatcopyrightdoesnotsubsistintheinfringed
work.
CinarCorporationv.Robinson,2013CarswellQue12345(S.C.C.;2013-12-23)
McLachlinJ.[21][Thedefendant]Weinbergbearstheburdenofprovingthe
lossofcopyright:s.34.1oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-
42.[…]
·Section35–Liabilityforinfringement

Damagesforcopyrightinfringementarecompensatoryinnature–Royaltiesare
incomeforforchildsupportpurposes.
Mobinv.Stephens,2013ONCJ53(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2013-02-26)JonesJ.
[45]Damagesforcopyrightinfringementarecompensatoryin
nature.Theyarepaidtocompensatetheownerforhisorherloss
arisingfromtheinfringementofaright.Aswell,whereadefendant
hasprofitedfromtheinfringement,thecopyrightownermayclaimfor
suchprofits.[Fn10CopyrightAct.s.35(1)]
[52]Adeterminationastowhetherornotthefatherwasoperatinga
businesswouldnotendtheinquiryintothenatureofthesettlement
funds.Ifthefundsarenotbusinessincome,thequestionarisesasto
whetherthedamagespaidtothefathershouldbecharacterizedas
incomefromproperty,representingcompensationforhislossof
profitsorroyaltiesarisingfromtheinfringementofhiscopyright.
Royaltiesarisingfromcopyrightarejustasmuchincomefrom
property,fortaxpurposes,asrentalincomefromarented
duplex.
[56]Forthedeterminationoftheissuebeforethiscourt,itisnot
necessarytomakeafindingastowhetherthedamagesreceivedby
thefatherrepresentincometohimfortaxpurposes.Thatdecisionis
betterlefttoanotherforum.Whatisrelevanttothiscourtiswhether

83
thedamagesrecoveredbythefatherrepresent“income”tohimfor
thepurposesoftheChildSupportGuidelines.

[64]Accordingly,thiscourtisoftheviewthat,evenifthedamages
settlementreceivedbythefatherforcopyrightinfringementisnot
taxable,thesefundswouldneverthelessbe“income”ofthefatherfor
[ChildSupport]Guidelinespurposes.Thepaymentresembles
royaltiesorprofitsthatwouldhavebeenpaidfortheperformanceor
publicationofthefather’soriginalmusicalworkorthelicencingto
anotherperformeroftherighttoperformorpublishthework.As
previouslynoted,royaltiesorprofitsrepresenttheyieldorthe
incomefromthecopyright.Whendeterminingincomeforchild
supportpurposes,damagespaidincompensationforthese
royaltiesorprofitsareanalogoustotheroyaltiesorprofits
themselves.

[65]Thus,evenifthedamagespaidtothefatherforcopyright
infringementarenottaxabletothefather,thecourtwouldimpute
incometothefatherfortheyear2010inasumequivalenttothe
damagesreceivedbyhim.
·Section35–Liabilityforinfringement

Thenatureofthepaymentofanawardofdamageswillbedeterminedbywhatit
intendedtoreplace.Whetherdamagesaretaxableforincomepurposeisirrelevantto
determineifanawardofdamagesshouldconstituerevenueforalimonypurpose.

Mobinv.Stephens,2013ONCJ53(Ont.C.J.;2013-02-11)JonesJ.
[48]TheSupremeCourtofCanada[inTsiaprailisv.Canada,2005
SCC8(S.C.C.)CharronJ,atpar.15]hasstatedthatin
determiningwhetheranawardofdamagesistaxable,onemust
looktothenatureandpurposeofthepaymenttodetermine
whatitisintendedtoreplace.Thisapproachisreferredtoasthe
surrogatumprinciple.Thetaxconsequencesofthedamages
paymentwillbedeterminedaccordingtothischaracterization.
1
[50]thiscase,thepaymentofdamagestothefatherunderthe
settlementagreementwasforinfringementofhiscopyright.Heis
beingcompensatedforhisclaimforhislosssufferedduetothe
infringingacts,includinganylossofprofitsorroyalties.Theroyalties
thatwouldhavebeenpayablefromtheperformanceorpublicationof
thesongrepresentthe“yield”ortheincomearisingfromhisproperty
interest,namelyhiscopyright.

84
[51]Thecharacterizationofthedamagesasincomeisnot
dependentuponwhetherthefatherwasinthemusicbusiness
ornot.
[71]Thelegalquestionposedtothecourtisthereforeansweredas
follows:1.Thesettlementfundspaidtothefatheronaccountofthe
copyrightinfringementofoneofhismusicalcompositions,
constitutes“income”tothefatherfortheyear2010for
childsupportpurposespursuanttosection15oftheChild
SupportGuidelines;
2.Thereasonableexpensesdirectlyincurredbythefather
inordertorecoverthesettlementfundsmaybededucted
fromthegrosssettlementamountinordertocalculatehis
incomeforchildsupportpurposesfor2010.Thefatherhas
theonusofproofoftheamount,reasonablenessandactual
paymentofanysuchexpenses.
·Section35–LiabilityforInfringement

Theburdenisupondefendanttoproveeveryelementofcostsassociatedwiththe
infringingcopies.Profitsaretobecalculatedonthedifferentialmethod.

Rainsv.Molea,114C.P.R.(4th)161(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2013-08-15)ChiappettaJ.
[93]Ifinfringementwasfoundineachofthe17comparisons,there
wouldbeabasistograntRainsrecoveryofMolea’sprofitsearned
fromhisinfringement.Section35(2)(b)oftheActrequiresthata
defendantwhoisfoundtoinfringemustproveeveryelementof
costassociatedwithrevenuesreceivedfromtheinfringing
activities.Profitsshouldbecalculatedusingthedifferential
method:the“calculationoftherevenuesderivedfrom
infringementlessthosevariableandfixedcostswhich
contributedtothesumsreceivedasrevenues”:Wellcome
FoundationLtd.v.ApotexInc.1998CanLII8270(FC),(1998),82
C.P.R.(3d)466,atpara.42(F.C.T.D.),aff’d2001CanLII22028
(FCA),[2001]2F.C.618(F.C.A.),leavetoappealtoS.C.C.refused,
[2001]S.C.C.A.No.192.
·Section35–Liabilityforinfringement

Disgorgementofprofitsistotheextentresultingfromtheinfringement.

85
CinarCorporationv.Robinson,2013CarswellQue12345(S.C.C.;2013-12-23)
McLachlinJ.[77]Section35oftheCopyrightActprovidesthatadefendant
canbeorderedto“disgorgeitsprofittotheextentthatsuch
profitiscausedbytheinfringement.Therequirementfora
[causal]linkbetweeninfringementandprofitmayrequirethat
theprofitbeapportionedbetweenthatwhichisattributableto
theinfringementandthatwhichisnot”:McKeown,atp.24-82.3
(emphasisadded).Theonusisontheinfringerto“satisfactorily
separatenon-infringingfrominfringingactivities”:Vaver,atp.653;
Sheldonv.Metro-GoldwynPicturesCorporation,106F.2d45(2nd
Cir.1939),perLearnedHandJ.Insomecases,“aninfringermayso
interweavetheright-holder’sworkwithitsownastomakeseparation
impossible”:Vaver,atp.637.
[78]Theapportionmentofprofitsbetweeninfringingandnon-
infringingcomponentsofaworkisessentiallyafactual
determinationwhichissubjecttojudicialdiscretion

[80]Inmyview,theCourtofAppealerredbyinterferingwiththetrial
judge’sconclusionthattheprofitsstemmingfromthesoundtrack
couldnotbedissociatedfromtheprofitsderivedfromtheinfringing
material.The“differentialprofit”approachonwhichtheCourtof
Appealreliedisgenerallyusedincaseswhereaninfringement
allowstheinfringertocommercializeagoodinamoreprofitable
mannerthanhecouldhavewithouttheinfringement.However,there
isnoevidencethatthesoundtrackcouldhavebeencommercialized
asaseparateproductifCuriosityhadnotbeeninfringedinthefirst
place.Thesoundtrackwasonlycommercializedasacomponentof
thetelevisionshowSucroë,whichwasitselfcreatedbycopyinga
substantialpartofRobinson’swork.Thetrialjudgewasentitledto
concludethatthesoundtrackhadnostand-alonevalue,andthatit
generatedprofitsonlyasanaccessorytothetelevisionshow.
Consequently,hedidnotmakeareviewableerrorinconcludingthat
itwasinappropriatetoapportionprofitstothesoundtrackasanon-
infringingcomponentofthework.
·Section35–Liabilityforinfringement

Disgorgementofprofitsisdesignedtopreventunjustenrichmentandtoserveas
deterrence.Disgorgementdoesnotcallbyitselfforsolidaritybetweendefendants.

CinarCorporationv.Robinson,2013CarswellQue12345S.C.C.;2013-12-23)
McLachlinJ.

86
[85]Thetrialjudgeordereddisgorgementagainstallthepartiesthat
hefoundliableforinfringementonasolidarybasis.TheCourtof
Appealheldthatthismisconstruedthedisgorgementremedyunder
s.35oftheCopyrightAct.Itheldthatadefendantcanonlybemade
todisgorgeprofitsthatitmade,asopposedtotheprofitsofother
defendantswithwhomitparticipatedinaninfringement.

[86]IagreewiththeCourtofAppeal.Section35oftheCopyrightAct
providesadualremedyforcopyrightinfringement:damagesforthe
plaintiff’slossesanddisgorgementoftheprofitsretainedbythe
defendant.Disgorgementofprofitsunders.35isdesigned
mainlytopreventunjustenrichment,althoughitcanalsoserve
asecondarypurposeofdeterrence:Vaver,atp.650.Itisnot
intendedtocompensatetheplaintiff.Thisremedyisnotsubjectto
theprinciplesthatgoverngeneraldamagesawardedunderQuebec’s
lawofextra-contractualliability,whoseaimiscompensatory.
Consequently,solidarityofprofitsordereddisgorgedunders.35of
theCopyrightActcannotbeinferredfromart.1526oftheCCQ,
whichmakesco-authorsofafaultsolidarilyliableforthe“obligation
tomakereparationforinjurycausedtoanother”.

[87]Disgorgementunders.35oftheCopyrightActgoesno
furtherthanisnecessarytopreventeachindividualdefendant
fromretainingawrongfulgain.Defendantscannotbeheldliable
forthegainsofco-defendantsbyimposingliabilityfor
disgorgementonasolidarybasis.

·Section38‒Recoveriesofpossessionofcopies,plates

Apartfromaseizurebeforejudgement,theCourtsmayorderapartytosubmitany
materialevidencetoanexpert’sappraisal.
BiocadMedicalinc.v.PantheraDentaireinc.,2013CarswellQue2344(Que.Sup.
Ct;2013-03-12)OuelletJ.[1]Le11mars,legreffier,conformémentàl’article734(1)C.p.c.,a
autoriséladélivranced’unbrefdesaisieavantjugementauxfins:
«DeSAISIRunecopiedetoutlogiciel,incluantlescodes
sourceset/ouobjetdetouteslesversionsd’untellogiciel
destinéàlaConceptionetFabricationAssistéesparOrdinateur
deprothèsesdentairespersonnalisées,sousquelqueforme
matériellequecesoit,quisontenlapossession,souslagarde
oulecontrôledesdéfendeursPANTHERADENTAIREINC.,
LABORATOIREBODYCADINC.,JEANROBICHAUD,

87
GABRIELROBICHAUDet/ouBERNARDROBICHAUDàl’une
oul’autredesadressessuivantes:»

[2]Cejour,lesdemandeursmeprésentent,entantquejugeen
sonbureau,unerequêtepourmesuresaccessoiresàlasaisie
avantjugementetrecherchentlesconclusionsdécritesdansles
conclusionsdecetterequêteentreautresauxfinsd’encadrerla
miseenœuvredelasaisieavantjugement,depermettreàdes
expertseninformatiqued’accompagnerleshuissiersetde
préleverdescopiesdelogicielsincluantlecodesource.

[3]Considérantl’allégationdeviolationdudroitd’auteursoutenupar
desaffidavitsausoutiendelaréquisitionpourl’émissiondubrefde
saisieavantjugementainsiquedelarequêtequim’estsoumise.

[4]Considérantlesdispositionsdel’article38(1)delaLoisurle
droitd’auteurconférantautitulairedudroitd’auteurledroitde
recouvrerlapossessiondel’œuvrecontrefaiteetdetoutobjet
decedroitd’auteur.

[5]ConsidérantlesdispositionsduCodedeprocédurecivile
alléguéesparlesdemandeursdontl’article402(2)etl’applicationqui
enaétéfaiteparnostribunauxauQuébec.[Fn12946-1993Québec
inc.c.SysbyteTelecomInc.etals.,REJB2001-24940;Barcanaltée
c.Duparas,Alexandre,TremblayetAssociésinc.etal.,EYB1985-
143696;D&GEnviro-Groupinc.c.André-MartinBouchardetals,
2000CanLLII10535(QCCA).]
[6]Considérantlecaractèreraisonnabledesconclusions
recherchéesdesortequelesdéfendeursneserontpasprivésdela
possessiondeleursordinateurs,deslogicielsetdescodes,etce,
d’icilaprésentationdelarequêtepourordonnanced’injonction
interlocutoirele28mars2013.
[7]Ilyalieudefairedroitàlarequêtedesdemandeursselonles
conclusionsrecherchées.
·Section38.1‒Statutorydamages

Inspecialcases,thecourtsareentitledtoreducetheminimalamountofstatutory
damages.
TencyMusicSASv.Lefrançois,2013CarswellQue4285(Que.Sup.Ct;2013-04-29)
BlanchetJ.

88
[40]Plutôtquedes’aventurerdansl’exercicedifficiled’établirlaperte
réellerésultantdelaviolationdesondroit,lademanderesseaopté
pourlacompensationpréétabliedel’article38.1delaLoi,enplusde
réclamer50000$endommagespunitifs,commelepermetl’article
38.1,etleremboursementdesesfraisextrajudiciaires.S’agissant
d’uneviolationcommiseàdesfinscommerciales,simodestes
soient-elles,lacompensationminimaledebasedevraitdoncêtre
fixéeà493500$,soit500$pourchacunedes987oeuvresen
cause.
[41]LeTribunalidentifietoutefoisdanslaLoideuxdispositionsdont
ils’autoriserapourramenercettecompensationàdesdimensions
plusraisonnables,auregarddelapreuvedanssonensemble.

[42]D’abord,lorsquelesoeuvresusurpéessontincorporées
«dansunmêmesupportmatériel»,commec’estlecasavecle
siteInternet«ti-diable»,letribunalpeutréduirelemontant
minimalprévuàl’alinéa(1)a)s’ilestd’avisquelemontanttotal
desdommages-intérêtsserait«extrêmementdisproportionnéà
laviolation».Or,telestindéniablementlecasenl’espèce.

[48]Prenantenconsidérationlesfacteursénumérésci-dessus,tout
enayantàl’espritlesobjectifsvisésparlaLoisurledroitd’auteur,le
Tribunalestimeéquitablepourtousdefixerà12000$la
compensationpayableàlademanderesseenl’instance,plus
intérêts,indemnitéadditionnelleetlesdépensjudiciaires.Ce
montantcorrespond,dansl’espritduTribunal,àenviron100$pour
chacundesquelque120enregistrementsacquisparledéfendeur
auprèsdelademanderesse,selonuneestimationauprorata,après
quecettedernièrel’eutinformédesesdroitspourlapremièrefois,
enmars2011.
[52]Enfin,sileTribunalajugéopportundetempérerdansle
présentcaslarigueurdelaLoi,c’estprécisémentparcequ’ila
concluàl’entièrebonnefoidudéfendeuretàsa
méconnaissancedecettelégislation,fondamentalepourla
protectiondescréateursetinventeursàl’échelleinternationale.
[…]
·Section38.1‒Statutorydamages

Goodfaithandtheneedofdeterrencearefactorstoconsiderwhendetermining
statutorydamages.

89
Pintov.BronfmanJewishEducationCentre,2013CarswellNat3396(F.C.;2013-09-
11)RennieJ.[195]Thereshouldbesomerelationshipbetweentheactual
damagesandstatutorydamages[…]

[196]This,inturn,directstheinquirytoabroadrangeoffactors,
includingwhetherornotthedefendantsactedingoodorbadfaith
andtheneedfordeterrence.
[197]Badfaithrefersto“conductthatiscontrarytocommunity
standardsofhonesty,reasonablenessorfairness.Itisalso
conductwhereapartyactsinamannerthatsubstantially
nullifiesthecontractualobjectivesorcausessignificantharmto
theother,contrarytotheoriginalpurposesorexpectationsof
theparties”:

[202]Moreover,Ialsodonotthinkdeterrenceisarelevant
considerationinthepresentcircumstances.BJECandTaLAMhave
notdemonstratedanyreluctancetocomplywiththelaw.Whilethe
partieshavenotprovidedcaselawdealingspecificallywithstatutory
damagesawardedagainstnon-profitcorporations,Iconsiderthis
factorrelevanttothequestiononwhatimpacttheawardwillhave
againstthedefendants.AllrevenuegeneratedfromthesalesofTaL
AMmaterialshasbeenreinvestedintothedevelopmentofthe
curriculum.Thereisnoprofitmotive.
·Section39‒Injunctiononlyremedywhendefendantnotawareof
copyright

Whenadefendantreceivealetterofdemand,hecannolongerarguehisgoodfaith.

TencyMusicSASv.Lefrançois,2013CarswellQue4285(Que.Sup.Ct;2013-04-29)
BlanchetJ.[34]Toutefois,àcompterdu12janvier2011,ledéfendeurLefrançois
nepouvaitplusseretrancherderrièresonignorancedesdroits
revendiquésparTencyMusic,puisqu’ilenavaitétéinformédansun
courrielauquelilad’ailleursdonnésuiteparuneproposition
d’entente.Ilnefaitdoncaucundoutequ’enpoursuivantses
activitésau-delàdecettedate,etsurtoutaprèslafermeturede
soncompteparTencyMusic,ilausurpélesdroitsd’auteurde
cettedernièreenpleineconnaissancedecause,donnantainsi
ouvertureauxrecourscivilsprévusparlaLoi.

90
[45]Or,s’ilestvraiqueledroitd’auteurexistedelui-même,parle
seuleffetdelaLoi,sapublicitéàl’égarddestiersrequiertàcertains
égardsl’enregistrementdontfaitétatl’alinéa(2)del’article39(1).En
l’instance,onnetrouvetraced’untelenregistrementnidansles
allégationsdelarequêteintroductived’instance,nidanslespièces,
nidanslestémoignagesrendusàl’audience.
[46]Enl’instance,leTribunalestconvaincuqu’avant
l’interventiondelademanderesseauprèsdelui,enjanvier2011,
ilyavaitchezledéfendeurcetteignorancedontfaitétatletexte
delaLoi.C’estdireque,selonuneévaluationauprorata,latrès
grandemajoritédestitresacquisdeTencydepuisl’ouverturedusite
«ti-diable»,enavril2008,l’ontétéparunepersonnequi,en
raisondutravaildetransformationqu’elleexécutaitsurchaque
titre,croyaitentoutebonnefoinepasenfreindrelaLoiniporter
atteinteauxdroitsdequiconque.
·Section39‒Injunctiononlyremedywhendefendantnotawareof
copyright

Theabsenceofmarkingisirrelevantforcopyrighttosubsist.

OakcraftHomesIncv.Ecklund,2013CanLII41981(Ont.Sup.Ct.–SmallClaims;
2013-07-02)Gilbert,J.
[62]Thefailuretomarkownershipontheplandoesnotinlawas
setoutabove,defeattherighttocopyright.[…].TheEcklunds
cannotexcusetheirconductinpassingthoseplansontoToscana
merelybecausetheownershipisnotmarkedontheplansand
merelybecausethePlaintiffdidnotspecificallytelltheEcklundsthey
couldnotusethem.Itdefieslogicandcommonsenseforthe
Ecklundstousethosefactorsasanexcusetoescapeliabilityfor
theiractions.[…]

·Section39.1-‒Wideinjunction

Awideinjunctionisnotrestrictedtotheinfringedworks.

TencyMusicSASv.Lefrançois,2013CarswellQue4285(Que.Sup.Ct;2013-04-29)
BlanchetJ.[35][…]L’article39.1(1)disposeplusprécisémentqueletribunal
peutinterdireaudéfendeurdeviolerlesdroitsd’auteurdu
demandeurnonseulementsurlesoeuvresencausedanslelitige,

91
maisaussisurd’autresoeuvressurlesquellescedernieresttitulaire
d’undroitd’auteur.
[36]Dèslors,enl’instance,lademanderesseestfondéeàrequérir
uneordonnanced’injonctionprotégeanttouslesenregistrementslui
appartenant,incluantceuxàl’égarddesquelsiln’yavaitpasencore
eucontraventionaumomentdel’introductiondesademande,de
mêmequelesnouveauxenregistrementsqu’elleauraitréalisés
depuis.Ilseraitàlafoisinjusteetillogique,eneffet,d’interdire
audéfendeurl’utilisationdestitresacquisparlui,maisenlui
laissantlibrecoursàl’égarddetoutautreenregistrementqu’il
pourraitseprocureràl’avenirsurlesiteInternetdela
demanderesse.
·Section41.23–Protectionofseparaterights

Equitableownershipisanovelquestionoflawthatwillnotbestruckbyamotionfor
summaryjudgment.
DeltaHotelsv.Backus-Naur,2013CarswellOnt657(Ont.Sup.Ct;2013-01-24)
Abrams,Master[4]Thedefendantsalsosaythatequitableownershipofcopyrightis
anuntenablepleaand,assuch,shouldbedisallowed.Equitable
ownershipofcopyrightisarecognizedprincipleintheUnited
Kingdom.Ms.Zagarsubmits(andtheexcerptcitedbyherfrom
ProfessorVaver’sIntellectualPropertyLaw:Copyright,Patents,
Trademarks,2ded.,at140appearstosupporthersubmission)that
thereisnodirectdiscussioninCanadianjurisprudenceinfavouror
againstequitableownershipofcopyright.
[5]RelyingonSuccarv.WawanesaMutualInsuranceCo.,2006
CarswellOnt(S.C.J.),atparas.2,8-9,Ms.Zagarsaysthat“[c]laims
shouldnotbedismissedsimplybecausetheyarenovel.Evenifit
couldbesaidthattheproposedpleadingraisesan‘arguable,difficult
orimportantpointoflaw’,suchafindingwouldnotjustifystrikingout
theclaims”.Thatistrue.Shealsosaysthat,havingregardtothe
stateofthelawinCanada,itisnotabsolutelyclearthataclaim
foundedonequitableownershipofcopyrightisincapableof
success(evenifsuccessisuncertain).Onthematerialsbefore
me,Iaminclinedtoagreewiththissubmission,too.WhileIaccept,
asMr.Seedhasargued,thatthereisnownoprecedentinCanadian
lawforthealternativepleaproposed,Icannotsaythatitnecessarily
followsthatonthespecificfactsofanygivencase,orthiscase,there
couldneverbe.Tosaythatforeigncopyrightcasesmaynotbe

92
easilytransferabletoCanadaastheSupremeCourtdidinCCH
CanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,[2004]1S.C.R.
339,para.22isnottosaythattheyareatnotimeandunderany
circumstancestransferable.
·Section41.23–Protectionofseparaterights

Asarulecopyrightownersshouldbeenteredasparties.

SpanskiEnterprises,Inc.v.IMB+RecordsInc.,2013CarswellOnt12610(Ont.Sup.
Ct.;2013-09-11)MasterMacAfee[5]Thepartiesagreethattheissueonthismotioniswhether,in
accordancewithsection41.23(2)(c)oftheCopyrightAct,the
interestsofjusticedonotrequirethecopyrightownertobeaparty.

[6]Theonusisontheplaintiffstoshowthatitisintheinterests
ofjusticethatthecopyrightownersarenotaddedasparties
(EntralGroupInternationalInc.v.1438762OntarioInc.,[2005]O.J.
No.2140(Master)atpara17)
[12]Havingregardtotheabove-notedprovisionsandthefactthat
TVPisawareofthislitigationandhaschosennottoparticipate,Iam
satisfiedthatthereisnoreasonableprospectoffuturelitigationfor
copyrightinfringementifthecopyrightownerisnotaddedasaparty
·Section41.23–Protectionofseparaterights

Therighttouseinformationisnotarightorinterestinthecopyright.

NauticalDataInternational,Inc.v.C-MapUSAInc.,110C.P.R.(4th)317(F.C.A.;
2013-03-01)NadonandSharlowJJ.[reversing106C.P.R.(4th)341(F.C.;2012-04-
03);leavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadarefused,docket35345(S.C.C.;
2013-08-15)]
[7]Itiscommongroundthat,accordingtosubsection36(1)[nows.
41.23]oftheCopyrightAct,NDIisentitledtosueinitsownnamefor
breachofthecopyrightintheCHSWorksifithasaright,titleor
interestintheCrown’scopyrightbyvirtueoftheLicence

[8]Itisalsocommongroundthatsubsection36(1)oftheCopyright
ActisofassistancetoNDIonlyifitsrightsundertheLicencemeet
thedefinitionof“exclusivelicence”insection2.7oftheCopyright
Act,[…]

[9]So,thefirstquestionissimplythis:DoesanythingintheLicence
authorizeNDItodoanythingwithrespecttotheCHSWorksthatis
subjecttocopyright,totheexclusionofallothersincludingthe
Crown?
[10]Theactsthatare“subjecttocopyright”arethoselistedin
section3oftheCopyrightAct.Thisisessentiallyalistofthings
thatcanbedoneinrespectofacopyrightedworkonlybyor
withtheconsentofthecopyrightholder(necessarilyincluding
theconsentofthecopyrightholderthatisgivenbywayof
licence).

[11]AproblemforNDIisthatthekeyprovisionoftheLicence,
section2.1,authorizesNDItomakeuseoftheCHSData–the
information–buttherecanbenocopyrightininformation.
·Section41.23–Protectionofseparaterights

Whenacopyrightownershallbemadeaparty,itcouldbeasadefendantora
plaintiff.
(AOM)NAInc.v.RevealGroup,2013ONSC8014,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2013/2013onsc8014/2013onsc8014.html(Ont.Sup.
Ct.;2013-12-30)Macleod,Master[19]Iwillnotethatthedefendantalsoobjectstotheamended
pleadinginwhichAOMiandWBSLareaddedasplaintiffsbut“taking
nopartintheaction”.Idonotagreewiththatobjection.S.41.23(2)
oftheActrequiresthatifproceedingsundersubsection(1)aretaken
byapersonotherthanthecopyrightowner,thecopyrightowner
mustbemadeapartytotheproceedingsbuttheActgoesontostate
thatthecopyrightownerneednottakeanypartintheaction.While
itwouldcertainlybepossibletoaddthecopyrightownerasa
defendant,thereisnothinginthewordingoftheActthat
requiresitbedoneinthatmanner.
·Section41.24–ConcurrentjurisdictionofFederalCourt

Whethercertifiedtariffsissuedonanerroneousprinciplesarebindingwillbebest
decidebythecourtsrathertanbyanapplicationtotheBoardforvariationofits
decision.
SOCANTariff24-Ringtones(2003-2005),RingtonesandRingbacks(2006-2013)-
ApplicationtoVary,2013CarswellNat75(Cop.Bd.;2013-01-18),theBoard:

94
[39]Inouropinion,thecourts,nottheBoard,arethebestforum
todealwiththeissuesraised.Theyareallquestionsofordinary
lawwhichincludewhetherandifso,towhatextent,theprincipleof
finalityrequiresthatacertifiedtariffbebindingonallconcernedeven
thoughitreliesonaninterpretationofthelawnowknowntobe
incorrect.Inadditionthequestionofwhethertheapplicantsare
entitledtoaroyaltyrefundraisesanumberoflegalissuesincluding
mistakeoflawormistakeoffact,restitutionandunjustenrichment:
seeforexampleAirCanadav.BritishColumbia;[Fn22[1989]1
S.C.R.1161.]R.v.Turigan[FN231988AB333].Adecisionofa
courtwouldbemoreeffectiveandwouldhavemoreimmediate
andmoregeneraleffect.
·Section41.24-ConcurrentjurisdictionofFederalCourt

TheQuebecSuperiorCourthasjurisdcictiontorenderadeclaratoryjudgementina
matterofthreathenedcopyrightinfringementbutmaydeclinejurisdcitionwhenthe
issuesmaybemorecompletelydecidedbeforeanotherforum.

BellMediainc.v.Sociétédudroitdereproductiondesauteurscompositeurset
éditeursauCanada,2013CarswellQue10817(Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-10-23)RoyJ.
[MotiontodismissarequestforDeclaratoryjudgmentbeforetheQuebecSuperior
CourtbecauseasimilarmatterispendingbetweenthepartiesbeforetheCopyright
Board][8]Lapossibilitédeprocéderparjugementdéclaratoiredevant
laCoursupérieureexiste:
•l’article41.24delaLoiattribuecompétenceàlaCour
fédéraleetàlaCoursupérieurepourconnaîtredetoute
procédureliéeàl’applicationdelaLoi;
•BellMediaaunintérêtné,actueletimmédiatàfaire
déterminersisonprocessustechnologique,telqu’opéré
actuellement,constitueuneviolationdesdroitsd’auteursdes
œuvresutilisées;
••ilexisteunedifficultéréellepuisquelaSODRACestimequant
àellequelapositiondeBellMediaesterronée;•l’existenced’unrecoursalternatifnerendpas
automatiquementlerecoursdéclaratoireinapproprié[Fn5
OrdredesoptométristesduQuébecc.CoastalContactsinc.,2010
QCCS6097,par17(appelrejeté,2011QC1820)(requêtepour
autorisationdepourvoiàlaCoursuprêmerejetée).
]
•leseulfaitquelapoursuitedelademandedevantla
Commissionpourraits’avérernécessairepourfixerles
redevancesetleursmodalités,selonl’interprétationquela
Coursupérieuredonneraitauxnouvellesdispositions,
n’empêchepasensoil’exercicedurecoursdéclaratoire.

[9]MaisilestégalementvraiquelaCommission,danslecadrede
l’exercicedesacompétence,estrégulièrementappeléeàse
prononcersurlesdroitsquisous-tendentuntarifouuneredevance
et,parconséquent,àinterpréterlaLoi[Fn6RogersCommunications
Inc.c.Sociétécanadiennedesauteurs,compositeursetéditeursde
musique,2012CSC35,par.12;Alberta(Éducation)c.Canadian
CopyrightLicensingAgency(AccessCopyright),,2012CSC37;
Sociétécanadiennedesauteurs,compositeursetéditeursde
musiquec.BellCanada,2012CSC36;Ré:Sonnec.Fédérationdes
associationsdepropriétairesdecinémasduCanada,2012CSC38;
EntertainmentSoftwareAssociationc.Sociétécanadiennedes
auteurs,compositeursetéditeursdemusique,2012CSC34;Société
canadiennedesauteurs,compositeursetéditeursdemusiquec.
AssociationcanadiennedesfournisseursInternet,2004CSC45;
SiriusCanadainc.c.CMRRA/SODRACInc.,2010CAF348(requête
pourautorisationdepourvoiàlaCoursuprêmerejetée);AVS
TechnologyInc.c.CanadianMechanicalReproductionRights
Agency,2000CanLII15571(C.A.F.).
]Danslecadrede
l’établissementdesredevancesetmodalitésafférentesàlalicence
2012-16,laCommissionseraappeléeàinterpréterlesnouvelles
dispositionslégislativeseuégardauxreproductionseffectuéespar
BellMedia.
[10]Généralement,lajurisprudenceétablitqu’ilestpréférablede
laisseruntribunalspécialiséseprononcersurunequestionsur
laquelleilacompétenceaulieuderechercherunjugement
déclaratoiredevantunecoursupérieure[Fn7Conseildupatronatdu
Québecc.CommissiondelaconstructionduQuébec,2009QC209;
Syndicatcanadiendelafonctionpublique,sectionlocale1450c.
JournaldeQuébec,divisiondeGroupeQuebecorinc.,[1996]R.J.Q.
299(C.S.);Poulinc.CommissaireaulobbyismeduQuébec,2012
QCCS2573(appelrejeté,2013QC131);Landryc.Fédérationdes
producteursacéricolesduQuébec,2011QCCS6044;Rezac.
Canada,[1994]2R.C.S.394Danscesaffaires,lestribunauxontjugé
quelestribunauxadministratifsspécialisésétaientmieuxplacéspour
déciderdelaquestion.]
[11]Ici,lasituationestunpeudifférentepuisqu’àl’article41.24
delaLoi,lelégislateurattribuedirectementcompétenceàla
Coursupérieurepourconnaîtredeslitigesliésàl’applicationde
laLoi.LaCoursupérieureestdoncaussibienplacéequela
CommissionpourinterpréterlaLoi.Ildemeurenéanmoinsquela
SODRACadéjàsaisilaCommissiondecesquestionsle4février
2013,avantqueBellMedianedéposesarequêteenjugement
déclaratoire.Ilparaîtappropriédelaisserleprocessusdevantla

96
Commissionsepoursuivreplutôtquedemorcelerledossier
devantdesinstancesdifférentes.Ils’agitd’unesaine
administrationdelajusticeetcettefaçondeprocéderpermetde
limiterlescoûtspourlespartiesetd’éviterlamultiplication
induedeprocédures.
·Section42‒Offencesandpunishment

PriorconvictionundertheCopyrightActwillnegativelyimpactonthehonesty
requiredtoholdagaminglicence.
1572704OntarioInc.(c.o.b.Sandie’sReadingN’Greetings),[2013]O.L.A.T.D.79
(OntarioLicenceAppealTribunal;2013-04-17)Sproule,Vice-Chair
[Appealfromadecisiontorevokeapermitasalotteryretaileroperatorbecauseofa
twoconvictionsunderparagraph42(1)b)oftheCopyrightAct.]
[15]Inordertomaintaintheconfidenceofthepublicinthegaming
industryitisimportantthatregistrantsappeartohavetheutmost
honestyandintegrity.Basedontheevidencepresentedbyboth
parties,theTribunalfindsthattheconvictionofMr.Songforselling
infringingarticlesundertheCopyrightActwhileadirectorofthe
Applicant,togetherwiththeinexplicableconductofstoringlarge
sumsofmoneyunconnectedtothelegitimatebusinessofthe
Applicantatitspremises,providesreasonablegroundstobelieve
thattheApplicantwillnotactasasupplierinaccordancewithlawor
withintegrity,honesty,orinthepublicinterest.

·Section42‒Offencesandpunishment

PriorconvictionundertheCopyrightActwillnegativelyimpactonthehonesty
requiredtoholdagaminglicence.
7716v.RegistrarofAlcoholandGaming,2013CanLII21155(Ont.-LicenceAppeal
Tribunal;2013-04-17)Sproule,Adjudicator
[14][…]Inordertomaintaintheconfidenceofthepublicinthe
gamingindustryitisimportantthatregistrantsappeartohavethe
utmosthonestyandintegrity.Basedontheevidencepresentedby
bothparties,theTribunalfindsthattheconvictionofMr.Songfor
sellinginfringingarticlesundertheCopyrightActwhileadirectorof
theApplicant,togetherwiththeinexplicableconductofstoringlarge
sumsofmoneyunconnectedtothelegitimatebusinessofthe
Applicantatitspremises,providesreasonablegroundstobelieve
thattheApplicantwillnotactasasupplierinaccordancewithlawor
withintegrity,honesty,orinthepublicinterest.

97
·Section42–Offencesandpunishement

Thevalidityofasearchwarrantshallbecontestedatthefirtsopportunityandbefore
thecourtwhoissueditratherthanasacollateralattackinasubsequentclaimfor
damages.
Averyv.RoyalCanadianMountedPolice,2013CarswellNB250(N.B.Q.B.;2013-05-
06)GarnettJ.
[MOTIONforsummaryjudgmentbyRCMPdismissingplaintiffs’actionforbreachof
charterrights,falsearrest,negligentinvestigation,maliciousprosecution,
misfeasanceandinvasionofprivacy;MOTIONbycorporatedefendantforsummary
judgmentdismissingclaimsagainstitforfalseimprisonment.]
[26]A.G.[AttorneyGeneral]saysthePlaintiffscannotnowchallenge
thevalidityofthesearchwarrantsorraiseanyoftheallegationsthat
theirCharterrightswereviolatedbecausetheyhadtheopportunityto
dosobeforetheProvincialCourtandfailedtoexercisethat
opportunity.Theysaythatpermittingthemtodosonowamountstoa
collateralattack.
[28]Inthiscase,thesearchwarrantwasissuedbyaProvincial
Courtjudge.IfthePlaintiffswishedtochallengeittheycould
andshouldhavedonesointheProvincialCourtproceedings.
Theydidnotdoso.

[29]Inaddition,thePlaintiffsnowsaythattheissuanceofthe
SearchWarrantanditssubsequentexecutionamountedto
violationsoftheirCharterrights.Againtheycouldhaveand
shouldhaveraisedtheseissuesintheProvincialCourt
proceedingsanddidnotdoso.

[30]IfindthatthePlaintiffsareattemptingacollateralattackandthat
atrialjudgewouldnotpermitthemtodoso.
·Section42–Offencesandpunishement

Whetherpriorcriminalrecordjustifyemprisonmentratherthanfineisaquestionthat
deserveleavetoappeal.
R.v.Strowbridge,2013CarswellNfld334(Nfld.C.A.;2013-09-09)BarryJ.
[2]He[Mr.Strowbridge]acknowledgesaprisontermof9months
wasfitfortwofraudsandthreebreachesofprobation.However,he
arguesthat(i)a6monthconsecutiveprisontermforcopyrightand
trademarkinfringementswasdemonstrablyunfit;(ii)thesentencing

98
judgeerredinimposingrestitutionaspartofprobationinsteadofa
restitutionorderundersection738(1)oftheCriminalCode;and(iii)
thesentencingjudgeerredbyimposinga$5,000.00fineinlightof
theappellant’smeanstopay.
[5]Theappellant’sfirstgroundofappealisthatthesentencedoes
notfitwithintheappropriaterangeofsentenceasestablishedby
priorcaseswithconvictionsforcopyrightandtrademark
infringements.Theappellantnotesthattheusualdispositioninsuch
caseshasbeenafinewithorwithoutaconditionalsentencebutnot
aprisonterm.
[6]Crownagreesthatthecasesshowarangefromfinesuptoa
twelve-monthconditionalsentence,withmostofthecasesimposing
six-monthconditionalsentences.TheCrownpointsoutthatnoneof
theoffendersinthepriorcaseshadacriminalrecordcomparableto
thatofMr.Strowbridgenorweretheyactuallyservingasentencein
thecommunityatthetimeoftheoffencesaswasthecasehere.

[7]Withoutbeingshownapriorcasewithcircumstancessimilar
toMr.Strowbridgewherethesentenceimposedinvolveda
prisonterm,Iamsatisfiedtheappealhasarguablemerit
sufficienttowarrantthegrantingofleavetoappeal.SeeR.v.
Perrier,2009NL1,282Nfld.&P.E.I.R.171(N.L.C.A.),atpara.13.
Wherenopreviousauthoritativedecisionhasestablishedthe
needforaprisontermanddeterminedtherangeofsentencefor
asimilaroffencebyasimilaroffenderinsimilarcircumstances,
anappellantshouldnotbepreventedfromproceedingwithan
appealofacustodialsentenceandmakingsubmissionsasto
theappropriaterange.
·Section42–Offencesandpunishment

Allegedcopyrightownershipisnotadefencetotheftorfraud.

Cormierv.R.,2013QCCA2068(Que.C.A.;2013-12-02)ChamberlandJ.
[52]Selonmoi,ilseraiterronéderetenirl’argumentdel’appelant
voulantqu’ilnepuisseêtrecoupabledevolparcequ’ilserait
propriétairedesdonnéesenvertud’unquelconquedroit
d’auteur.D’abord,ilestclairquedanslecontexted’unprocès
criminel,laquestiondesavoirsiunechosepeutfairel’objet
d’undroitdepropriétédoitêtretranchéeultimementenfonction
dudroitcrimineletnondudroitcivil[[Fn11R.c.Stewart[988]1
R.C.S.963.P.976.Iln’estdoncninécessaireniutilederecouriràla
Loisurledroitd’auteurpourtrancherlaquestion.Ilmesembleclair

99
iciqueleCentredétientunintérêtpropriétairequelconquedansles
donnéesinformatiquesrelativesauFild’Arianeunedémarche
d’interventionvisantàcontrerl’absentéismeautravail]etlefaitque
l’appelantyaitcontribué–mêmebeaucoup–ensaqualité
d’employé,puisdeconsultant,n’ychangerien.[…]
·Section43.1–Limitationperiodforcivilremedies

Thelimitationperiodstartswitheachinfringement.

Rainsv.Molea,114C.P.R.(4th)161(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2013-08-15)ChiappettaJ.
[78]Thepartiesagreethattheapplicablelimitationperiodisthree
yearsfromthetimethattheplaintiffkneworcouldreasonablyhave
beenexpectedtoknowoftheinfringement:CopyrightModernization
Act,S.C.2012,c.20,ss.49,62,amendingtheAct,s.43.Further,
theyagreethateachnewinfringementconstitutesafreshcause
ofaction.Alimitationanalysisisrequiredvis-à-viseachalleged
infringement:JohnS.McKeown,FoxonCanadianLawofCopyright
andIndustrialDesigns,4thed.(Toronto:Carswell,2003),atp.24-9.
·Section54‒RegisterofCopyrights

Copyrightregistrationisnotcompulsory–Priorsearchesforconflictingworksatthe
Copyrightofficearenotrequired.
Pelchatv.Zone3inc.,2013CarswellQue216(Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-02-21)PayetteJ.
[332]Ilresteundernierargumentauxdemandeurs:lesdéfendeurs
auraientdûfairedesrecherchespourvérifiersiquelqu’un,quelque
part,n’avaitpasdéjàproduituneémissioncommecellequ’ils
s’apprêtaientàproduire.
[333]Lesdemandeursconviennentqu’iln’existeaucuneautoritéau
soutiendeleurpropositionqu’ilsappuientsurl’obligationgénérale
d’agirdebonnefoi.
[334]Cettepropositionnesauraitêtreretenue.
[335]Premièrement,iln’existeaucunmoyenfiableetpratiquepour
effectuerunetellerecherchecontrairementaunomd’une
compagnie,parexemple.Eneffet,mêmeleregistredesdroits
d’auteurn’estpasefficaceàcetégardpuisqu’iln’existepas
d’obligationd’yenregistreruneœuvrepourqu’ellesoit

100
protégée.Detoutefaçon,l’œuvre,elle-même,n’yapasété
déposée.
·Section54‒RegisterofCopyrights

Theevidencecreatedbyacertiifcateofregistrationisrebuttable.Registeration
obtainedafterthelaunchofproceedingscarrieslessweight.

Pintov.BronfmanJewishEducationCentre,2013CarswellNat3396(F.C.;2013-09-
11)RennieJ.[129]Dr.Goof-Licouldarguablybeconsideredonework.However,
inmyview,itisunnecessarytoresolvethisissue.Thecertificates
createonlyapresumptionofownership.Asthecertificateswere
registeredafterMr.Pintobegantheseproceedings,the
presumptionhaslessweight:CCHCanadianLtdvLawSocietyof
UpperCanada,2002F187atpara63.Inanyevent,inthiscase,
thereissubstantialadditionalevidenceregardingcopyright
ownership,allofwhichpre-datesregistration.Aswillbe
discussedbelow,thisevidencerebutsanypresumptioncreated
byregistration,assumingthatregistrationisvalid.
·Section66.51–Interimdecisions

Aninterimdecisionaimstocounteractthenegativeeffectsofdelays.

SODRACTariffNo.5(2009-2012),[2013]C.B.D.6(Cop.Bd.;2013-04-26),the
Board[17]Asageneralrule,theprincipleoffinalityrequiresthatdecisions
madebybodiessuchastheBoardmaynotbereopened,with
certainexceptions.
[44]Thepurposeofaninterimdecisionistocounteractthenegative
effectsofdelaysbetweeninstitutingaproceedingandmakingafinal
decision.]…]
·Section66.51–Interimdecisions

Applicationtovarymayleadtointerimtariff.
SOCANTariff24-Ringtones(2003-2005),RingtonesandRingbacks(2006-2013)-
ApplicationtoVary,2013CarswellNat75(Cop.Bd.;2013-01-18),theBoard:

101
[45]WheretheBoardacceptstoexamineanapplicationtovary,it
generallytransformstherelevantfinaltariffintoaninterimtariff.
·Section66.51–Interimdecisions

Interimdecisonsservetoavoidlegalvacuumormaintainstatusquo.

AccessCopyright(EducationalInstitutions)2005-2009–Redetermination,available
at2013CarswellNat58(Cop.Bd.;2013-01-18),theBoard:
[17]Aninterimdecisionserveschieflytoavoidthenegative
consequencescausedbythelengthoftheproceedingsand
mayservetoavoidthelegalvacuumscreatedwhenprotected
worksareusedwithoutauthorization.

[18]Ingeneral,thebestwaytoachievetheobjectivesofan
interimdecisionistomaintainthestatusquowhileavoidinga
legalvacuum.Theparties’claimsmayhelptodeterminewhethera
changetothestatusquoisdesirableonabalanceofconvenience.

·Section66.51–Interimdecisions

Interimtariffiswarrantedtoaccountforlegislativeorjurisprudentialdevelopment.

AccessCopyright(EducationalInstitutions)2010-2015,2013CarswellNat1656(Cop.
Bd.;2013-05-29),theBoard
[14]Totheextentthatitseekstosecureenforcementrightsthat
Accessdoesnotcurrentlyhave,theapplicationwould
accomplishnothing;onthatmuch,weagreewiththeObjectors.
Wealsoconcludethattheancillarymeasuresanddeclarations
soughtbyAccessareredundant.NothingisaddedbytheBoard
statingthatuserssubjecttoatariffmustcomplywithitstermsand
conditions,thatinterimpaymentsmayberevisitedinthefinal
decision,orthatcompliancewithaninterimtariffdoesnotpreventa
partyfromadvancingpositionsthatareincompatiblewiththattariff

[15]Thereremainsbutonereasontoadoptanewinterimtariff.Asa
resultofrecentamendmentstosection29.4oftheAct,examination
copiesthatwerecompensablebythesolereasonthatAccess
offeredalicencenolongerattractroyalties.Therecordofthe
proceedingsthatledtothecertificationofthe2005-2009tariffshows
thatapproximately15centsoftherateof$4.81wasattributableto
suchcopies[Fn66,995,451photocopiedpagesforministry

102
examinations÷246,001,462photocopiedpagestriggering
remuneration×5.16=15¢(FTERatecertifiedin2009):seeAccess
K-12(2009),Supranote2,Table2.].Accessproposestocease
collectingthose15cents.Thisispreciselythesortofchangein
statusquothatoughttobereflectedinaninterimdecision:justasan
interimtariffwasrequiredinInterimDecision–SOCAN-NRCCTariff
1.A(CommercialRadio)fortheYears2003to2007[Fn7(24
November2006)CopyrightBoardDecision]toadjusttheroyaltyrate
toaccountforjurisprudentialdevelopments,aninterimtariff
adjustingtheroyaltyratesetinthe2005-2009tariffiswarranted
toaccountforthislegislativedevelopment.
·Section66.52–Variationofdecision

ThepowersoftheBpardarelargeanddiscretionarybutnotillimited.

SOCANTariff24-Ringtones(2003-2005),RingtonesandRingbacks(2006-2013)-
ApplicationtoVary,2013CarswellNat75(Cop.Bd.;2013-01-18),theBoard:
[16]Pursuanttothisprovision,theBoardhasthepowertovary
anearlierdecisionifitisoftheopinionthattherehasbeena
materialchangeincircumstancessincethedecisionwasmade.
Evenwherethematerialchangeisestablished,theBoard
retainsdiscretiontodecidewhetherthedecisionshouldbe
reopenedandwhether,ifoncereopened,thevarianceshouldbe
granted.WhethertheBoardcanvarytariffsforpasttransactions
remainsanopenissue.WhethertheBoardcanvarya“spent”tariff
hasneverbeendecided
[23]Fourth,theapplicantscontend(andSOCANagrees)thatthe
powertovarycontainedinsection66.52oftheAct,havingregardto
theBoard’sbroaderpurposeandmandate,permitsbynecessary
implicationtheBoardtoreplaceitsinitialdecisionwithanewone
effectivelyrescindingSOCANtariff24asitappliestoringtones.We
donotagree.EvenifourActisliberallyinterpreted,onecannotread
intoitpowersthatarenotcontainedtherein
[34]TheBoard’spowertovary,whilediscretionary,isrestricted
tothepowertovarythetermsoftheotherwiseexisting
relationshipbetweencopyrightownersanduserswhena
materialchangeincircumstancesrequiresamodification.That
powerdoesnotincludeorextendtotheauthoritytoendtheir
relationshiportodeclarethatsuchrelationshipnolonger
exists.Thepowertovarymayincludethepowertosubstitute,

103
butfindingthatthereisnotariffisnotasubstitution.Itisa
rescissionorrepealoftheinitialdecision.

[36]Wealsoconcludethatthepowertorefusetocertifyatariff
exantedoesnot,ofitself,implythatthepowertovarysuch
tariffwillincludethepowertorescinditexpostfacto.The
powertodenyaremedyinthefirstplacedoesnotimplythe
powertorescindtheremedyalreadygranted;asarule,the
secondexistsonlyifexpresslygranted.
·Section66.7‒Genealpowers,etc.

TheBoardmaycorrectitspalpableerrors.
SODRACTariffNo.5(2009-2012),[2013]C.B.D.6(Cop.Bd.;2013-04-26),the
Board:[15]Tocorrectitserror,theBoardmusthavetheauthoritytodo
so.Weconcludeinthismatterthatitdoeshavethisauthority,fortwo
reasons.First,theerrorispalpable,andtheBoardhasthe
authoritytocorrectsuchanerror.Second,theerrorledtothe
certificationofatariffultrapetita,therebyresultinginabreach
ofproceduralfairness.
[27]TheBoarderred.Itbelieveditwasusingonetariffstructure
whileitwasactuallycertifyinganother.Thedecisionisnot
appealable.TheerrorisofthetypethatMunger[Mungerv.Citéde
Jonquière,[1962]B.R.381(Que.)],Fortin[Fortinv.Talbot,(1931),
51B.R.124(Que)]andJacques[Jacquesv.Paré,(1939),66B.R.
542(Que)]makeitpossibletocorrect.Itssourcewasinadvertence
ordistraction.Itwasalsopalpable:withoutdoubt,whattheBoard
thoughtCAFDEsoughtwasnotwhatCAFDEproposed.Itfollows
thattheBoardhastheauthoritytoreopenitsdecisionandtocorrect
itserror.Thispragmaticconclusionismadeallthemorenecessary
bythefactthatonjudicialreview,theFederalCourtofAppealwould
havenochoicebuttoallowtheapplication.Waitingforthatto
happenwillresultinasub-optimaluseofthetimeandresourcesof
thatjurisdiction.
[29][…]Evenastrictapplicationoftheprincipleoffinalityallows
decisionmakerstocorrecterrorsinexpressingtheirmanifest
intention.Butthatisnottheissuehere.TheBoardmadeapalpable
errorwithinthemeaningofMunger[Mungerv.CitédeJonquière,
[1962]B.R.381(Que],basedontheassumptionthatCAFDEwas
proposingonething,whileitwasactuallyproposinganother.Inlight

104
ofFortin,Jacques,MungerandChandler,thisisenoughtoreopen
thematter,eveniftheBoard’sintentionthetariffstructureit
wouldhavecertifiedifithadproperlyunderstoodCAFDE’sposition
wasnotmanifest.TheBoardmustreopenthefileandissuea
newdecision.
·Section66.7–GeneralPowers,etc.

TheBoardcancorrectitserrors.
StatementofRoyaltiestoBeCollectedbySODRACfortheReproduction,inCanada,
ofMusicalWorksEmbeddedintoCinematographicWorksforthePurposeof
DistributingCopiesofTheseCinematographicWorksforPrivateUseorforTheatrical
Exhibition-TariffNo.5(2009-2012)[Redetermination],2013CarswellNat2325(Cop.
Bd;2013-07-05)[1][…]First,theNovember2decisioncontainsanerrorthatthe
Boardhasthepowertocorrect.Second,sincethedecisionwas
renderedinbreachofproceduralfairness,the2009-2012tariffis
completelynullandvoid.
·Section70.15–Certification

ATariffwillbecertifiedevenifforarestraintamountofusersoruses.

StatementofRoyaltiestoBeCollectedbySODRACfortheReproduction,inCanada,
ofMusicalWorksEmbeddedintoCinematographicWorksforthePurposeof
DistributingCopiesofTheseCinematographicWorksforPrivateUseorforTheatrical
Exhibition-TariffNo.5(2009-2012)[Redetermination],2013CarswellNat232(Cop.
Bd;2013-07-05)[31]WestillagreewithSODRACthatthetariffshouldextendto
direct-to-videoreleases.ThefactthatfewCanadianaudiovisual
worksarereleasedinthismannerisnoreasonfornotcertifying
thetariff[Fn11SocietyforReproductionRightsofAuthors,
ComposersandPublishersinCanadav.CanadianBroadcasting
Corp.2012CarswellNat4255(Cop.Bd.;2012-11-02),atparagraphe
178].
·Section70.6–Filingofstatementofroyalties

Thereasonsfordecisionshallbesuffieinttoleadtothedecisionrendered.

105
Cojocaruv.BritishColumbiaWomen’sHospitalandHealthCentre,2013CarswellBC
1400S.C.C.;2013-05-24)McLachlinJ.[13][…]Reasonsneednotbeextensiveorcovereveryaspectofthe
judge’sreasoning;insomecases,thebasisofthereasonsmaybe
foundintherecord.Thequestioniswhetherareasonableperson
wouldconcludethattheallegeddeficiency,takingintoaccount
allrelevantcircumstances,isevidencethatthedecision-making
processwasfundamentallyunfair,inthesensethatthejudgedid
notputhermindtothefacts,theargumentsandtheissues,and
decidethemimpartiallyandindependently.
[25][…]Intheadministrativelawcontext,ithasheldthat
challengestothereasoningorresultofadecisiondonotattract
anindependentsufficiencyanalysisandshouldbedealtwith
withintheoverallreasonablenessanalysis:Newfoundlandand
LabradorNurses’Unionv.NewfoundlandandLabrador(Treasury
Board),2011SCC62(CanLII),2011SCC62,[2011]3S.C.R.708.
·Section70.6–Filingofstatementofroyalties

Incorporatingcopiedmaterialinadecsionisnotbyitselfevidenceofunfairness.

Cojocaruv.BritishColumbiaWomen’sHospitalandHealthCentre,2013CarswellBC
1400(S.C.C.;2013-05-24)McLachlinJ.[30]Theissuebeforeusisnotwhetherthepracticeofincorporating
whatothershavewrittenintojudgmentsisagoodthing.Aswewill
see,judicialcopyingisalongstandingandacceptedpractice,yetone
that,carriedtoexcess,mayraiseproblems.Rather,theissueis
when,ifever,copyingdisplacesthepresumptionofjudicial
integrityandimpartiality.

[31]Approachedfromthisperspective,anumberofthecriticisms
advancedagainstcopyingfallbythewayside.Onesuchcriticism,
madebythemajorityoftheCourtofAppealinthiscase,isthe
judge’sfailuretoattributetheincorporatedmaterialtotheoriginal
author.Thiscriticismisconnectedtotheideathatthereasonsshould
bethe“original”productofthejudge’smind,andthattotheextent
theyarenot,thejudgeshouldacknowledgehersources.Failureto
attributesourcesandlackoforiginality,withoutmore,donotassistin
answeringtheultimatequestion—whetherareasonableperson
wouldconcludefromthecopyingthatthejudgedidnotputher
mindtotheissuestobedecided,resultinginanunfairtrial.The
factthatajudgeattributescopiedmaterialtotheauthortellsus
nothingaboutwhethersheputhermindtotheissuesaddressedin
thatcopying.Norislackoforiginalityaloneaflawinjudgment-

106
writing;onthecontrary,itispartandparcelofthejudicialprocess.It
maynotbebestpracticeforjudgestobulkuptheirjudgments
withgreatswathsofborrowedmaterial.Butthefactremains
thatborrowedprose,attributedorotherwise,doesnot,without
more,establishthatthejudgehasfailedtocometogripswith
theissuesrequiredtobedecided.
·Section73–Certification

FormstoTariffsarerelevantbutcouldbeadaptedonconsentbytheparties.

RetransmissionofDistantTelevisionandRadioSignals,File:Retransmission2009-
2013;alsoavailableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2013/retrans-29112013.pdf
(Cop.Bd.;2013-11-29)[47]Theprincipleisclear.Adelayincollectingroyaltiesentails
opportunitycostsforthecollectiveoritsmembers.Sodoesa
delayinacollectivereceivingitsfullroyaltyallocation.Inboth
cases,thecollectivecannotdistributeamountsitdoesnothave.
Inbothcases,resultinglossesmustbecompensatedthrough
theimpositionofinterest.Therefore,interestshouldbepayable
onallocationadjustments.

[67]Aquestionaroseastowhethertheformsattachedtothetariffs
werestillrequired.Theformsonlyaskinformationthatiseither
expresslyrequiredbythetarifforimplicitlynecessarytosupport
royaltycalculations.Overtheyears,someretransmittershave
developedtheirownwaysofreportingtheinformationrequiredbythe
tariff,probablysothatthereportingformatdovetailswiththeirown
internalsystems;thecollectiveshaveacceptedoragreedtothis

[68]Thecollectivesconfirmedthattheformsfulfiltwoimportant
functions,whetherornottheyareactuallyused.First,
retransmittersknowpreciselywhichinformationtheymust
providewithouthavingtointerpretthetarifftodeterminewhat
thatinformationis.Second,theformsserveasafallback
positiononwhicheitherthecollectiveortheretransmittercan
relyifbothcannotagreeonwhatshouldbeprovidedandhow.

[69]Weaccepttheseexplanationsandwillcontinuetoattach
formstothecertifiedtariffs.Acollectiveandaretransmitter
remainfreetoagreetoadaptthereportingobligationsofthe
tariffstotheirparticularsituation

107
·Section77-Ownerswhocannotbelocated

Eachactsreferredtoinsection3requestaspecificlicence–Alicencecannotlast
longerthanthetermofcopyright.
NationalFilmBoardofCanadaforthereproductionandthecommunicationtothe
publicbytelecommunicationofaphotographinadocumentaryfilm[Applicationby],
2013CarswellNat2370(Cop.Bd.;2013-01-31)
1)Lalicenceautoriselareproductionetlacommunicationaupublic
partélécommunicationsurInternetd’unephotographieparuedansle
SoleildeQuébecdu21juin1969,incorporéedansundocumentaire
intitulé«Maiendécembre:GodardenAbitibi».Unelicencefut
délivréeparlaCommissionpourl’incorporationdelaphotographie
danslefilmle3mars2000(1999-UO/TI-25)
Lalicenceautoriselareproductionetlacommunicationaupublicpar
télécommunicationsurInternetd’unephotographieparuedansle
SoleildeQuébecdu21juin1969,incorporéedansundocumentaire
intitulé«Maiendécembre:GodardenAbitibi».
UnelicencefutdélivréeparlaCommissionpourl’incorporationdela
photographiedanslefilmle3mars2000(1999-UO/TI-25)

2)Lalicenceexpirelorsquel’œuvrerelèveradudomainepublic.

4)L’OfficenationaldufilmduCanadaversera500$àlaSociétédu
droitdereproductiondesauteurs,compositeursetéditeursau
Canada(SODRAC)[…]
·Section77-Ownerswhocannotbelocated

Alicencecouldcovermultipleusesofthework.
Canada’sHistorySocietyforthereproduction,themakingavailableandthe
communicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationofthreepaintings[Applicationby],
2013CarswellNat2378(Cop.Bd.;2013-02-13)(1)Thelicenceauthorizesthereproduction(inprintanddigital),the
makingavailableandthecommunicationtothepublicby
telecommunicationofthefollowingpaintingsbyClaireFauteuxinthe
April-MayissueofCanada’sHistorymagazine:-LeLavoir,Besançon,1941;
-Corvéedevaisselle,Besançon,1941;
-Chambre96B,Besançon,1941.

108
(5)Thelicenseewillpaythesumof$565($207perimageforthetwo
imagesreproducedoverhalfapageand$151fortheimage
reproducedoveraquarterofapage)totheSocietyforReproduction
RightsofAuthors,ComposersandPublishersinCanada(SODRAC)
[…]
·Section77-Ownerswhocannotbelocated

Alicencecannotbegrantedtothecopyrightowner.Thelicencecouldbeterminated
uponnoticebythelocatedowner.
KV265fortheuseofaliteraryworkinpublicperformances[Applicationby],2013
CarswellNat2379(Cop.Bd.;2013-04-03)(2)Thelicenceisvalidprovidedthattheapplicant’srepresentative,
Anne(Phillip)Barloworhersuccessors,isnotthecopyrightowner.

(5)Theapplicantundertakestopaythesumof$10.00forevery
performancetoanypersonwhoestablishes,beforeApril31,2023,
ownershipofthecopyrightintheworkcoveredinthislicence.

(6)Thecopyrightownercanterminatethelicencebypresentinga
writtennoticetothiseffecttotheapplicant.Theapplicantwillcease
usingtheworkfortheusesgrantedinthislicence,nolaterthan30
daysafterthereceiptofthenotice.Thecopyrightownerwho
terminatesthelicenceisstillentitledtotheroyaltiesdescribedin
paragraph(5)
·Section77-Ownerswhocannotbelocated

Whenissuingalicence,theCopyrightBoardmayordertothebearertoidentifythe
sourceofthework.
ÉditionsduQuartz,pourlareproduction,larééditionetladistributionsursupport
papierdutexted’unlivre(ApplicationbyLes),2013CarswellNat2590(Cop.Bd.;
2013-05-23)(1)Lalicenceautoriselareproduction,larééditionetladistribution
sursupportpapierdutextedel’œuvrelittéraireintitulée«Mon
deuxièmelivredelecture»deMargueriteForestetMadeleineOuimet
etpubliéeparlesÉditionsGrangeretfrèresen1959

(2)Letiragenedevrapasdépasser1000exemplaires

109
(6)Letitulairedelalicencedoitindiquerclairementpourl’œuvre
utiliséelaréférencebibliographiqueselonlesconventionsd’usage:
titredel’œuvre,auteur,éditeur,lieuetdatedepublication.
·Section77Ownerswhocannotbelocated

Alicencecouldcovermultipleusesofthework.Whenissuingalicence,the
CopyrightBoardmayordertothebearertoidentifythesourceofthework.

BibliothèqueetArchivesnationalesduQuébec(BAnQ),pourlareproductionetla
communicationaupublicpartélécommunicationdepériodiquesetdeprogrammes
dethéâtre(Applicationby),2013CarswellNat2591(Cop.Bd.;2013-05-23)
(1)Lalicenceautoriselareproductiondesœuvressuivantesainsi
queleurcommunicationaupublicpartélécommunicationetpar
d’autresméthodes(voirAnnexeApourlesutilisationsaccordées):

(6)Letitulairedudroitd’auteurpeutmettrefinàlaprésentelicence
enremettantunavisécritàceteffetàBAnQ.Cettedernièremetfin
auxutilisationsquepermetlaprésentelicenceauplustard30jours
aprèsavoirreçul’avis.Letitulairequimetfinàlalicencea
néanmoinsdroitauxredevancesprévuesauparagraphe(5).

(7)Letitulairedoitclairementmentionnerpourlesœuvresutiliséesla
référencebibliographiqueselonlesconventionsd’usage:titrede
l’œuvre,auteur,éditeur,lieuetdatedepublication.

(8)Letitulairedoitindiquerclairementlamentionsuivante:
«Certainesœuvressontutiliséesenvertud’unelicencenon
exclusivedélivréeparlaCommissiondudroitd’auteurduCanada.Si
vouscroyezdétenirlesdroitssurdesœuvresreproduitessurcesite,
veuillezcommuniqueraveclaSociétéquébécoisedegestion
collectivedesdroitsdereproduction(COPIBEC)

AnnexeA
Utilisationsaccordéespartypesd’œuvres
Périodiques:·Reproduirel’œuvresousformenumériqueetlacommuniquer
aupublicpartélécommunicationvialeportailInternetdeBAnQ.
·PermettreauxusagersduportailInternetdeBAnQd’utiliser
l’œuvrediffuséeàdesfinséducatives,d’étudeprivéeoude
recherche,àconditiond’indiquerlasource.
·Reproduirel’œuvre,sousquelqueformequecesoit,etla
communiqueraupublic,parquelquemoyenquecesoit,
notammentdanstousmédias,actuelsetàvenir,ycomprisles

110
médiassociauxdanslecadred’activitésoudepublications
découlantdesmissionsdeBAnQ.
·Reproduirel’œuvresousquelqueformequecesoit,àdesfins
noncommercialesdepromotiondesactivitésmentionnéesci-
dessus,etlacommuniqueraupublic,notammentdanstous
médias,actuelsetàvenir,ycomprislesmédiassociaux.
Programmesdethéâtre:·Reproduirel’œuvresousformenumériqueetlacommuniquer
aupublicpartélécommunicationvialeportailInternetdeBAnQ,
notammentdanssoncatalogueIris.
·PermettreauxusagersduportailInternetdeBAnQd’utiliser
l’œuvrediffuséeàdesfinséducatives,d’étudeprivéeoude
recherche,àlaconditiond’enindiquerlasource.
·Exposeretreproduirel’œuvreoudespartiesdel’œuvre,sous
quelqueformequecesoit,etlacommuniqueraupublic,par
quelquemoyenquecesoit,danslecadred’activitésoude
publicationsdécoulantdesmissionsdeBAnQ.
·Reproduirel’œuvreoudesPartiesdel’œuvre,sousquelque
formequecesoit,etlacommuniqueraupublic,parquelque
moyenquecesoit,notammentdanstousmédias,actuelsetà
venir,ycomprislesmédiassociaux,àdesfinsnon
commercialesdepromotiondesactivitésmentionnéesci-
dessus.
·Section77-Ownerswhocannotbelocated

Whenissuingalicence,theCopyrightBoardmaysetatimelimittotheprintruns.

MuséedeCharlevoixpourlareproductionetl’expositiond’uneaffiche(Application
by),2013CarswellNat2594(Cop.Bd;2013-06-10)
1)Lalicenceautoriselareproductionetl’exposition,àcompterdu11
mai2013,del’œuvresuivantepourl’exposition«Fêtepopulaires
d’ici:onvaavoird’l’agrément!»:·Festivaldescantons,auteurinconnu,éditeur:Sherbrooke:
Festivaldescantons(entre1974et1980)

2)Lalicenceexpirele31mai2014.Lesutilisationsautorisées
devrontêtrecomplétéesd’icicettedate.
4)LeMuséedeCharlevoixversera110$àlaSociétédudroitde
reproductiondesauteurs,compositeursetéditeursauCanada
(SODRAC)quipeutdisposerdecemontantcommebonluisemble,
pourlebénéficegénéraldesesmembres.LaSODRACs’engage
toutefoisàremboursertoutepersonnequiétablira,avantle31mai

111
2019,qu’elledétientledroitsurl’œuvrefaisantl’objetdelaprésente
licence.
·Section77-Ownerswhocannotbelocated

Alicencecouldcovermultipleusesofthework.Whenissuingalicence,the
CopyrightBoardmayordertothebearertoidentifythesourceofthework.The
licencecouldbeterminateduponnoticebythelocatedowner.

BibliothèqueetArchivesnationalesduQuébec(BAnQ)forthereproductionand
communicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationofmonographs(Applicationby),
2013CarswellNat3457(Cop.Bd.;2013-08-21)1.Lalicenceautoriselareproductiondesoeuvressuivantesainsi
queleurcommunicationaupublicpartélécommunicationetpar
d’autresméthodes(voirAnnexeApourlesutilisationsaccordées)
[…]Lalicenceautoriseaussilareproductiondel’oeuvresuivante
ainsiquesacommunicationaupublicpartélécommunicationetpar
d’autresméthodes(voirAnnexeApourlesutilisationsaccordées)
danslamesureoùils’agitd’uneoeuvreausensdelaLoisurledroit
d’auteur:

5.Letitulairedelalicenceversera525,00$àCOPIBECpourles
cinqpremièresoeuvres,quipeutdisposerdecemontantcommebon
luisemble,pourlebénéficegénéraldesesmembres.COPIBEC
s’engagetoutefoisàremboursertoutepersonnequiétabliradansun
délaidecinqanssuivantl’expirationdelalicenceàl’égardd’une
oeuvre,qu’elledétientledroitd’auteursuruneouplusieursoeuvres
faisantl’objetdelaprésentelicence.
6.Letitulairedelalicenceverseralasommede100,00$,pourla
sixièmeoeuvre,danslamesureoùils’agitd’uneoeuvreausensde
laLoi,àtoutepersonnequiétabliraqu’elledétientledroitd’auteur,
dansundélaidecinqanssuivantl’expirationdelalicenceàl’égard
del’oeuvre.
7.Letitulairedudroitd’auteurpeutmettrefinàlaprésentelicence
enremettantunavisécritàceteffetàBAnQ.Cettedernièremetfin
auxutilisationsquepermetlaprésentelicenceauplustard30jours
aprèsavoirreçul’avis.Letitulairequimetfinàlalicencea
néanmoinsdroitauxredevancesprévuesauxparagraphes5)et6).

8.Letitulairedoitclairementmentionnerpourlesoeuvresutilisées
laréférencebibliographiqueselonlesconventionsd’usage:titrede
l’oeuvre,auteur,éditeur,lieuetdatedepublication.

112
AnnexeA
Utilisationsaccordées
·Reproduirel’oeuvresousformenumériqueetlacommuniquerau
publicpartélécommunicationvialeportailInternetdeBAnQ;
·PermettreauxusagersduportailInternetdeBAnQd’utiliserl’oeuvre
diffuséeàdesfinséducatives,d’étudeprivéeouderecherche,à
conditiond’indiquerlasource;
·Reproduirel’oeuvreouuneouplusieurspagesdePceuvre,sous
quelqueformequecesoit,etlaoulescommuniqueraupublic,par
quelquemoyenquecesoit,notammentdanstousmédias,actuelset
àvenir,ycomprislesmédiassociauxdanslecadred’activitésoude
publicationsdécoulantdesmissionsdeBAnQ;
·Reproduirel’oeuvresousquelqueformequecesoit,àdesfinsnon
commercialesdepromotiondesactivitésmentionnéesci-dessus,et
lacommuniqueraupublic,notammentdanstousmédias,actuelset
àvenir,ycomprislesmédiassociaux.
·Lalicenceautoriselareproductiondesoeuvressuivantesainsi
queleurcommunicationaupublicpartélécommunicationetpar
d’autresméthodes(voirAnnexeApourlesutilisationsaccordées):
[Ourunderlinings.]
·Section77-Ownerswhocannotbelocated

Thebearercouldbeconsideredasadistributor.Thelicencecouldbeterminated
uponnoticebythelocatedowner.
Jenkinsforthereproductionandcommunicationtothepublicbytelecommunication
ofafilm(ApplicationbyRebecca),2013CarswellNat3468(Cop.Bd.;2013-08-21)
1.Thelicenceauthorizesthereproductionandcommunicationto
thepublicbytelecommunicationofafilmentitled”ByeByeBlues”for
distributionthroughvarionsmeansincluding,butnotlimitedto,
television(free,pay,table,satellite,etc.)andInternet,inCanada.

5.Forthepurposeofthislicence,thelicenseeisconsideredasthe
distributorofthefilm.
ThelicenseewillpaytheProducersAudiovisualCollectiveofCanada
(PACC)adistributionfeeof50percentofthelicensee’sgross
receiptsresultingfromthedistributionofthefilm.Thelicenseewill
alsopayPACCa$5,000fully-recoupableadvance;theadvanceisto
berecoupedoutofthedistributionfeeotherwisepayabletoPACC.

Thelicenseewillberesponsiblefornegotiatingandpayingresiduals.

113
Distributionexpenses,includingresiduals,willbebornebythe
licensee.
AccountingstatementsandpaymentwillbemadeannuallytoPACC
within60daysoftheendofeachcalendaryear.
PACCmayauditthelicensee’srecordsalanytimeduringthetermof
thelicenceandfortwoyearsfollowingtheexpiryofthelicence.The
righttoconductanauditwillbetransferabletothecopyrightownerif
located.
Thelicenseemayenterintoanagreementwithasub-distributor
provideditdoessounderthesameter,ins[sic]asthosesetoutin
thelicence.Thelicenseewillimposeonanysuchsub-distributorthe
obligationsthatareincumbenttothelicenseepursuanttothelicence;
thelicenseewillremainfiabletoPACC.Thelicenseewillinstructits
sub-distributortodirectaccountingstatementsandpaymentsdirectly
toPACC.Anycostsrelatedtotheenteringintoofasub-distribution
agreementwillbebornebythelicensee;formoreclarity,therewillbe
nodeductionfromPACC’sdistributionfeeasaresultofasub-
distributionagreement.
PACCmaydisposeofthosearnountsasitseesfitforthegeneral
benefitofitsmembers.PACCundertakes,however,toreimbursethe
amounttoanypersonwhoestablishes,beforeAugust31,2028,
ownershipofcopyrightoftheworkcoveredbyibislicence.

7.Thecopyrightownercanterminatethelicencebypresentinga
writtennoticetothiseffecttotheapplicant.Theapplicantwillcease
usingtheworkfortheusesgrantedinthislicence,nolaterthan30
daysafterthereceiptofthenotice.Thecopyrightownerwho
terminatesthelicenceisstiilentitledtotheroyaltiesdescribedin
paragraph(5).
·Section79–Definitions[Privatecopying]

AblankCDisanaudiorecordingmediumsubjecttoaprivatecopylevynutmicroSD
cardsarenot.
PrivateCopying2012,2013and2014,112C.P.R.(4
th)460,2013CarswellNat3149,
availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2013/30082013.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2013-
08-30)[10]TheMicroSDCardsExclusionRegulations(CopyrightAct)[Fn2
SOR/2012-226.](“Regulations”)wereregistered–andcameinto

114
forceonOctober18,2012andwerepublishedintheCanada
GazetteonNovember7,2012.TheRegulationsexcludemicroSD
cardsfromthedefinitionof“audiorecordingmedium”undersection
79oftheActfromthedatetheycameintoforce.Asaresult,
microSDcardscannotbesubjecttoaprivatecopyinglevyfromthat
date.
[22]WefindthereforethataCDremainsanaudiorecordingmedium
asdefinedinsection79oftheAct.
·Section83–Filingofproposedtariffs

AmicroSDcardisanaudiorecordingmedium.WhenaproposedTariffisfiled,the
CopyrightBoardisboundtostudyit,irrespectiveofsubsequenteventsasa
regulation.
PrivateCopying2012,2013and2014,112C.P.R.(4
th)460(Cop.Bd.;2013-08-30)
[48][…]Basedontherecordasitnowstands,andwithoutthe
benefitofevidencetheObjectorsmighthavefiledinPhaseIIof
theseproceedings,wewouldconcludethatamicroSDcardisan
audiorecordingmediumasdefinedinsection79oftheAct

[70]WedisagreewithRCContheissueofjurisdiction,forthe
reasonsCPCCoffered.TheBoardremainsseizedofthecurrent
matterasitrelatestomicroSDcardsfortheperiodfromJanuary1to
October17,2012.Wemustnowdecidethematter.
[71]Whethertherighttocollectalevyvestsonlyonceatariffis
certifiedisirrelevant.Thisisnottherightinissuehere.Whatisatplay
isCPCC’srighttorequestthattheBoarddecidewhetherornotitis
entitledtoatariff.ThatrightvestedwhenCPCCfiledatimely
proposedstatementofroyalties.
[72]Pursuanttosubsection83(8)oftheAct,theBoardisrequired,
uponconcludingitsconsiderationofaproposedprivatecopyingtariff,
tosetalevyanditsrelatedtermsandconditions,tovarythetariff
accordinglyandtocertifythetariffastheapprovedtariff.Subsection
83(9)alsoprovidesthat,inexercisingthisfunctionwithintheprivate
copyingregime,theBoard“shallsatisfyitselfthattheleviesarefair
andequitable

[73]Inthisinstance,dealingwithmicroSDcardsraisesunique
issues.Theseissuesstemnotfromthecontentofthetariff
proposal.Theyariseasaresultofasingleeventtriggerednot

115
bytheBoardorbyanyparty,butbyanagentexternaltothis
process:theauthoritythatmadetheRegulations.Insayingthis,
welookattheRegulationsnotasalegalinstrument,butasa
factorevent.Thissingleeventamplifiestherelativeimportance
andpracticalrepercussionsofboththeprocesstheBoard
wouldberequiredtofollowbeforeitcouldcertifyatariffandthe
measuresnecessarytoimplementsuchatariff.
·Section83–Filingofproposedtariffs

TheBoardisaneconomicregulator.WhenaproposedTariffisfiled,theBoardshall
studyitbuthasdiscretionastoitscertification.ATariffcanbeshort-livedand
retroactivebutmusbefairandequitable.
PrivateCopying2012,2013and2014,availableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2013/30082013.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2013-08-30)
[85]Dealingwiththecostsanddisruptionslinkedtoestablishing
accountingandreportingmechanismsandstructuresisaninherent
realitytoalltariffs.However,inthecaseathand,thisrealityis
exacerbatedbymanyfactors.Thisisatariffoffirstimpression.The
periodoverwhichtoamortizeassociatedcostsisbothveryshortand
alreadypast.Itisverydifficulttojustifysuchdisruptionswhenthe
tariffisshort-lived,likelyrelativelymodestandentirelyretroactive.

[86]Privatepartiesarefreetolitigateevenwhenthismakesno
economicsense.AnapplicationbeforetheBoardisnotacivil
causeofaction.Wemustbalancecompetinginterests,someof
whicharenotrepresented.Asaneconomicregulator,wemust
heedeconomicconsiderations.Any“friction”thatmayresultfrom
theretroactivecollectionofroyaltiesisarelevantconsiderationin
decidingwhetheritispossibletocertifyafairandequitabletariffin
thefirstplace.Anewtariff(orarateincrease)canbephasedinto
makeitmoreacceptable.Acompletelyretroactivetariffcannotbe
phasedin.
[87]WeagreewithCPCCthatthedecisionnottocollect
royaltiesretroactivelyshouldrestwithCPCConceatariffis
certified.Thisdoesnotaffectwhatwecanorshoulddoifwe
concludethatanytariffwemaycertifywouldbenotfairand
equitable.Inthisinstance,thetariffwouldbeshort-livedand
totallyretroactive.Thedifficultiesanddisruptionsresultingfrom
suchameasurewouldnotbesimplygreaterthanasinanypast
occurrenceintheprivatecopyingmarket;theywouldbeofadifferent
orderandnature.

116
[89]Whentakenasawhole,thecircumstancesofthiscasemake
anyattemptatcertifyingafairandequitabletariffformicroSDcards
impossible.Thedetermination,implementationandenforcement
ofanypotentialtariffwillalmostinevitablybelargelyfutile,
certainlyunfairandconsiderablydisruptive.Thisisan
exceptionalsituation,onethatlendsitselftotheproperexerciseof
ourdiscretiontorefusetocertifyatariffnotbecauseofalackof
evidence,butbecauseanytariffwewouldsetwouldbe,underthese
veryspecialcircumstances,manifestlyunfairandinequitable.
·Section83–Filingofproposedtariffs

Foreignpracticesshallbeviewdwithcaution.
PrivateCopying2012,2013and2014,availableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2013/30082013.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2013-08-30)
[43]TheBoardwillcontinueitspracticeofviewingforeignrateswith
caution.[Fn22SOCANTariff24(Ringtones),2003-2005(18August
2006)CopyrightBoardDecisionatpara.86]Thisexample
demonstrateswhy.Wedonotknowhowtheserateswereset.We
knowthatonlyfourarehigherthanthecurrentCanadianrate.We
alsoknowthattheratesvarybyafactorofasmuchas34to1.We
donotknowwhetherpricesatthelowerendwereinfluencedby
marketorother(political)considerationsthatdonotexistinCanada:
forexample,theimpositionofleviesonmedia(e.g.DVDs)thatare
notleviedinCanadaorondevices,whicharenotsubjecttothe
Canadianregime,mayresultintheoverallburdenofthelevybeing
distributedmorewidely.Itwouldbeimprudenttotakethose
pricesintoaccountinsettingthelevywithoutknowing
considerablymoreaboutthem

[45]Thecurrentlevyisarealityinthemarketplace.Leavingit
unchangedbothprovidesrightsholderswithsomecompensation
untilnoneispayableanylonger,whileavoidingsomeoftheperverse
effectsthattoorigidacalculationbasedonactualconsumptionmay
haveonthepricingofagoodattheendofitslifecycle.
·Section83–Filingofproposedtariffs

Tariffscouldbecertifiedfordistinctyearsevenifidenticalastheircontent.

PrivateCopying2012,2013and2014,availableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2013/30082013.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2013-08-30)

117
[96]OnJune25,2013,pursuanttoparagraph83(13)(b)oftheAct,
theBoardmadetheRegulationsEstablishingthePeriodsWithin
WhichEligibleAuthors,EligiblePerformersandEligibleMakersnot
RepresentedbyCollectiveSocietiesCanClaimPrivateCopying
Remuneration.[Fn29SOR/2013-143,CanadaGazettePartII,Vol.
147,No.15atp.199].Asrequiredbythisparagraph,theperiod
withinwhichaneligiblerightsholderwhohasnotauthorizeda
collectivetofileaproposedtariffisentitledtobepaidashareof
privatecopyingroyaltiesbeginswhenatariffceasestobeeffective.
ForreasonsoutlinedintheRegulatoryImpactAnalysisStatement
(RIAS)publishedwiththeRegulations[Fn30Ibid.atpp.2000-
2001.],CPCCisoftheviewthatthisrequirementundulycomplicates
theallocationofroyaltiescollectedpursuanttoamulti-yeartariff.To
avoidsuchcomplications,andastheBoardhadindicatedinthe
RIAS,wecertifyfor2012,2013and2014tariffsthatareseparate,
thoughidenticalinallrespectsexceptfortheireffectiveperiod.
·Section84–Distributionbycollectingbody

TheBoardisboundtoapportionthelevies.
PrivateCopying2012,2013and2014,availableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2013/30082013.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2013-08-30)
[95]Section84oftheActrequiresthatweapportionthelevyamong
authors,performersandmakers.[…]
·Section89–Nocopyright,etc.,exceptbystatute

Copyrightlawisstatutory.
Tremblayv.OrioCanadaInc.,2013CarswellNat1145(F.C.;2013-01-31)BoivinJ.
[affd.2013F225(F.C.A.;2013-09-25)][27]First,theCourtnotesthatcopyrightlawisstatutory;itsrights
andremediesarethereforefoundintheAct(CCHCanadianLtd.
vLawSocietyofUpperCanada2004SCC13atpara9,[2004]1
SCR339[CCH]).Althoughitispossibletoregisterone’scopyright,it
isnotnecessarytodosoinCanada:theauthormerelyneedstobe
Canadian,oracitizenofanyothersignatoryoftheBerneConvention
fortheProtectionofLiteraryandArtisticWorksofSeptember9,
1886,andtheworkneedstohavebeenfirstpublishedinsucha
country,ifpublicationisrelevant.

118
·Section89–Nocopyright,etc.,exceptbystatute

Copyrightisstatutelaw.
Mobinv.Stephens,2013ONCJ53(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2013-02-06)JonesJ.
[41]Anindividualwhocomposes,performsorrecordsanoriginal
musicalworkhasacopyrightinsuchwork.“Copyright”iscreatedby
statute.Thus,areferenceto“copyright”referstotherights
conferredbythelegislation.[Fn2CopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-
42inCanadaandtheU.S.CopyrightAct,Title17oftheUnited
StatesCode.]Acopyrightisanincorporealformofproperty.[Fn3
Sanderson,P.,MusiciansandtheLawinCanada–3rdEd.,Carswell,
Toronto,2000,p.3.]Ithasaconceptual,non-physicalexistence,
andiscomprisedofthebundleofstatutoryrightsthataccrueto
thecreatorofanoriginalwork.
·Section89–Nocopyright,etc.,exceptbystatute

TheCrownisnotexcludedfromtheapplicationoftheCopyrightAct.

Manitobav.CanadianCopyrightLicensingAgency(AccessCopyright),112C.P.R.
(4th)1(F.C.A.;2013-04-03)GauthierJ.[affirming2012CarswellNat609(Cop.Bd.;
2012-03-15)and98C.P.R.(4th)21(Cop.Bd.;2012-01-15)]
[34]Havingcarefullyexaminedthewordingofsection12initsoverall
context,includingthestructureoftheAct,itslegislativehistoryand
evolution,andotherprovisions,suchassection89,Iagreewiththe
Boardthatthewords“[w]ithoutprejudicetoanyrightorprivilegeof
theCrown”setoutinsection12areintendedtorefertoandpreserve
theCrown’srightsandprivilegesofthesamegeneralnatureas
copyrightthatmaynotfallwithinthemeaningoftherestofthis
provision.Theserightsandprivilegescouldotherwisebe
excludedbythegeneralprinciplesetoutinsection89which
providesthatnopersonisentitledtocopyrightotherwisethan
underandinaccordancewiththeActoranyotherActof
Parliament.
[47]Inmyview,thereferencesintheActtoverystrict
conditions,totariffsfixedbytheBoard,totheconsentofthe
copyrightowners,andtothepowerofthecourtwhenthe
defendantisan“educationalinstitution”,includingafederalor
provincialgovernmentdepartment,allpointtoonlyonelogical
andplausibleconclusionastotheintentofParliament:the
Crownisbound.

119

Andtoconclude
R.v.Dulac,2013QCCQ8200(Que.Ct.–Crim.Div.;2013-07-19)CharestJ.
[217]Enterminant,j’ajouteraiquel’onnepeutpastoutfaireoutout
direaunomdelalibertéd’expressionetdelacréationartistique:ce
quiestacceptableetcompréhensiblesurleplanartistiquenel’est
pastoujoursdansunesociétédémocratique.
[218]Lesnormespeuventêtreparfoisdifférentesetondoit
concevoirquel’expérienceartistiqueaseslimites.

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

120
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”)