Robic's Newsletter

CLICK FOR LEGAL NOTICE

Publications Back to the newsletter

A Compilation of the Canadian Copyright Cases Decided in 2014

2015-06-25

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

ACOMPILATIONOFTHECANADIANCOPYRIGHTCASESDECIDEDIN2014

LAURENTCARRIÈRE*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

First,agenerallisting:
1.
Ahernv.1772887OntarioLtd.(MariageQuébec),2014QCCQ973,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2014/2014qccq973/2014qccq973.html(Que.
Ct.;2014-02-05)
2.
AnimalWelfareInternationalInc.v.W3InternationalMediaLtd.,2014
CarswellBC2902,2014BCSC1839,[2014]B.C.W.L.D.7532,[2014]
B.C.W.L.D.7535,[2014]B.C.W.L.D.7628,246A.C.W.S.(3d)734,[2014]
B.C.J.2442,
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2014/2014bcsc1839/2014bcsc1839.
html(B.C.S.C.;2014-10-01)
3.
AtlanticCanadaRegionalCouncilofCarpenters,Millwrights,andAllied
Workersv.MaritimeEnvironmentalTrainingInstituteLtd.,2014
CarswellNS125,2014NSSC64,237A.C.W.S.(3d)746,1081A.P.R.1,
341N.S.R.(2d)1,[2014]N.S.J.75,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/2014/2014nssc64/2014nssc64.html
(S.C.N.S.;2014-02-20)
4.
BankofMontrealv.Rogozinsky*,2014CarswellAlta2321,248A.C.W.S.
(3d)96,2014ABQB771,[2014]A.J.1422,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2014/2014abqb771/2014abqb771.ht
ml(AltaQ.B.;2014-12-16)
5.
Canada(AttorneyGeneral)v.Rundle(NecPlusUltra),2014CarswellOnt
5126,2014ONSC2136,239A.C.W.S.(3d)740,119C.P.R.(4th)225,
[2014]OJ1866,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2014/2014onsc2136/2014onsc2136.
pdf(Ont.Sup.Ct.-Damages;2014-04-09)
6.
CanadianArtists’Representation/LeFrontdesartistescanadiens
(CARFAC)v.NationalGalleryofCanada(NGC),2012CarswellNat4332
(C.A.P.P.R.T.;2012-02-16)reversed2013CarswellNat507(F.C.A.;

©CIPS,2015.*Lawyerandtrade-markagent,LaurentCarrièreisapartnerwithROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirm
oflawyers,patentandtrade-markagents.PublishedaspartofareleasetotheCanadianCopyright
ActAnnotated(Carswell).Publication445.

2
2013-03-04);reversed2014CarswellNat1904,2014SCC42,[2014]
S.C.J.101,121C.P.R.(4th)1,240A.C.W.S.(3d)963,371D.L.R.(4th)
383,458N.R.233,68Admin.L.R.(5th)1,J.E.2014-1093,EYB2014-
238368,2014EXP-1935,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2014/2014scc42/2014scc42.html
(S.C.C.2014-05-14)
7.
CanadianAssociationofFilmDistributorsandExportersv.Societyfor
ReproductionRightsofAuthors,ComposersandPublishersinCanada
(SODRAC)Inc.,2014CarswellNat4094,2014FCA235,246A.C.W.S.
(3d)439,378D.L.R.(4th)742,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2014/2014fca235/2014fca235.html
(F.C.A.;2014-10-20)
8.
CanadianBroadcastingCorp.v.Sodrac2003Inc.,2014CarswellNat
808,2014CAF84,2014FCA84,118C.P.R.(4th)79,241A.C.W.S.(3d)
434,457N.R.156,[2014]F.C.J.321,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2014/2014fca84/2014fca84.html
(F.C.A.;2014-03-31);leavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanada
granted2014CarswellNat3299,[2014]S.C.C.A.249(S.C.C.).
9.
Cayouettev.RNCMediainc.,[2014]J.Q.13537;2014QCCQ8301;
2014EXP-3258;EYB2014-245169,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2014/2014qccq8301/2014qccq8301.h
tml(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2014-09-22)
10.
Chayerv.Messier,2014CarswellQue860,2014QCCS357,240
A.C.W.S.(3d)249,J.E.2014-488,EYB2014-232907,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2014/2014qccq242/2014qccq242.html(Que.
Ct.;2014-01-27)
11.
CollectiveAdministrationinRelationsofRightsUnderSections3,15,18
and2,2014CarswellNat2978,[2014]C.B.D.5,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2014/media_monitoring_august_08.pdf(Cop.Bd.;
2014-08-08)
12.
CredentialSecuritiesInc.v.QTradeCanadaInc.,2014CarswellBC536,
2014BCSC345,238A.C.W.S.(3d)315,[2014]B.C.W.L.D.2662,[2014]
B.C.W.L.D.2668,[2014]B.C.J.370,
http://canlii.ca/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2014/2014bcsc345/2014bcsc345.html
(B.C.S.C.;2014-03-03)
13.
Davydiukv.InternetArchiveCanada,2014CarswellNat4162,246
A.C.W.S.(3d)568,[2014]FCJ1066,2014FC944,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2014/2014fc944/2014fc944.html(F.C.;
2014-10-06)
14.
DecisionNo.936/14*,2014ONWSIAT1332,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onwsiat/doc/2014/2014onwsiat1332/2014onw
siat1332.html(Ont.WorkplaceSafetyandInsuranceAppealsTribunal;

3
2014-06-18)
15.
DenturistGroupofOntariov.DenturistAssociationofCanada,2014
CarswellNat4191,246A.C.W.S.(3d)440,[2014]F.C.J.1077,2014FC
989,http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2014/2014fc989/2014fc989.html
(F.C.;2014-10-16)
16.
DiffusionDimediainc.v.LibrairieRenaud-Brayinc.,2014CarswellQue
5833;2014QCCS2670;244A.C.W.S.(3d)188;EYB2014-238487,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2014/2014qccs2670/2014qccs2670.ht
ml(Que.Sup.Ct;2014-06-12)
17.
dm-drogeriemarktGmbH+Co.KGv.911979AlbertaLtd.*,2014
CarswellNat1300,2014CarswellNat1301,[2014]T.M.O.B.5059,2014
TMOB59,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tmob/doc/2014/2014tmob59/2014tmob59.html
(Opp.Bd.;2014-03-12)
18.
Faasv.Coloroso,2014CarswellOnt10315,2014ONSC4494,[2014]
O.J.3571,243A.C.W.S.(3d)34,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2014/2014onsc4494/2014onsc4494.
html(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2014-07-29)
19.
FilosofiaÉditionsinc.v.EntreprisesFoxmindCanadaltée,2013
CarswellQue5393,(Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-06-07);affirmed2014Carswell
Que1554,242A.C.W.S.(3d)308;ETB2014-233958,2014QCCA399,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2014/2014qcca399/2014qcca399.html(Que.
C.A.;2014-02-28)
20.
Flansberry(KaptureDesign)v.6548890Canadainc.(TurboMarketing),
2014QCCQ10963,2014CarswellQue11833,[2014]J.Q.12818,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2014/2014qccq10963/2014qccq1096
3.html(Que.Ct;2014-06-01)
21.
ForestStewardshipCouncilv.G.H.ImportedMerchandise&SalesLtd.*,
2014CarswellNat2420,2014TMOB100,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tmob/doc/2014/2014tmob100/2014tmob100.ht
ml(Opp.Bd.;2014-05-13)
22.
GeneralMotorsLLCv.Wang*,123C.P.R.(4th)139,2014CarswellNat
3204,2014TMOB118,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tmob/doc/2014/2014canlii49744/2014canlii497
44.html(Opp.Bd.;2014-06-11)
23.
GeophysicalServiceIncorporatedv.NwestEnergyCorp.,2014
CarswellAlta546,2014ABQB205,240A.C.W.S.(3d)53,52C.P.C.(7th)
286,[2014]A.J.373,[2014]A.W.L.D.2806,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2014/2014abqb205/2014abqb205.ht
ml(Alta.Q.B.;2014-04-07)
24.
GeophysicalServiceIncorporatedv.Canada-Nova-ScotiaOffshore
PetroliumBoard,2014CarswellNat2186,[2014]F.C.J.616,242

4
A.C.W.S.(3d)185,2014FC450,http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-
cf/decisions/en/72202/1/document.do(F.C.;2014-05-09)
25.
GroupeInnomaxinc.v.HabitationsRoumainc.,2014CarswellQue4059,
EYB2014-236618,243A.C.W.S.(3d)430,[2014]J.Q.3859,2014
QCCS1790,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2014/2014qccs1790/2014qccs1790.p
df(Que.Sup.Ct.;2014-04-03)
26.
HaywardIndustriesinc.v.ÉquipementsdepiscineCarvininc.,2014
CarswellQue5143;2014QCCS2400;243A.C.W.S.(3d)58;EYB2014-
237915,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2014/2014qccs2400/2014qccs2400.ht
ml(Que.Sup.Ct.;204-05-27)
27.
Hendricksv.Arendse,[2014]O.J.4702,2014CanLII57551,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscsm/doc/2014/2014canlii57551/2014canlii
57551.html(Ont.Sup.-Ct.SmallClaims;2014-09-29)
28.
J.v.M.,117C.P.R.(4th)409,2014CarswellBC168,2014BCSC89,237
A.C.W.S.(3d)265,[2014]B.C.W.L.D.2650,[2014]B.C.W.L.D.2571,
[2014]B.C.W.L.D.2654,[2014]B.C.W.L.D.2595,[2014]B.C.W.L.D.
2652,[2014]B.C.W.L.D.2655,[2014]B.C.W.L.D.2596,[2014]B.C.J.
116,http://canlii.ca/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2014/2014bcsc89/2014bcsc89.html
(B.C.S.C.;2014-01-23)
29.
JulesJordanVideoinc.v.144942Canadainc.,2014CarswellQue6977,
EYB2014-239822,243A.C.W.S.(3d)60,J.E.2014-1583,[2014]J.Q.
7055,2014QCCS3343,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2014/2014qccs3343/2014qccs3343.ht
ml(Que.Sup.Ct;2014-07-15)
30.
KeatleySurveyingLtd.v.TeranetInc.,107CPR(4th)237(Ont.Sup.Ct.;
2012-12-14)reversed2014ONSC1677,2014CarswellOnt3792,119
O.R.(3d)497,51C.P.C.(7th)54,239A.C.W.S.(3d)862,371D.L.R.
(4th)534,319O.A.C.219,371D.L.R.(4th)534,51C.P.C.(7th)54,
[2014]O.J.140,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2014/2014onsc1677/2014onsc16
77.html(Ont.Sup.Ct.-Div.Ct;2014-03-26)SachsJ.[addreasons2014
CarswellOnt9193,[2014]O.J.3250,2014ONSC3690(Ont.Sup.Ct.-
Div.Ct;2014-06-26)
31.
Kennedyv.Ruminski,2014CarswellNat1842,2014FC526,240
A.C.W.S.(3d)965,240A.C.W.S.(3d)965,[2014]F.C.J.557,2014FC
526,http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2014/2014fc526/2014fc526.html
(F.C.;2014-05-30)
32.
Labrecque(OSauna)v.Trudel(CentreBellaza,s.e.n.c.),2014QCCQ
2595,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2014/2014qccq2595/2014qccq2595.h

5
tml(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2014-03-28)
33.
Lachancev.ProductionsMarieEykelinc.,2012CarswellQue5028(Que.
Sup.Ct.;2012-03-150affd2014QCCA158,2014CarswellQue637,J.E.
2014-304,239A.C.W.S.(3d)992,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2014/2014qcca158/2014qcca158.html(Que.
C.A.;2014-01-30)
34.
LaPressev.Yahoo!Québec,2014CanLII76357,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccpq/doc/2014/2014canlii76357/2014canlii763
57.html(Que.Conseildepresse;2014-12-05)
35.
Leutholdv.CanadianBroadcastingCorporation,104C.P.R.(4th)401
(F.C.;2002-06-14);affirmed2014CarswellNat2246,242A.C.W.S.(3d)
179,462N.R.181,656,[2014]F.C.J.2014,FCA173,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2014/2014fca173/2014fca173.html
(F.C.A.;2014-06-27);motionforleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtof
Canadafiled2014CarswellNat3986(S.C.C.;2014-09-30)
36.
LondonLife,compagnied’assurance-viev.Canada*,2014CarswellNat
1276;2014CarswellNat2977;2014FCA106;[2014]6C.T.C.55;2014
D.T.C.5108;242A.C.W.S.(3d)700;461N.R.138.
http://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/caf/doc/2014/2014caf106/2014caf106.pdf
(F.C.A.;2014-04-29)
37.
MediaMonitoring2011-2016,Re,2014CarswellNat2978,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2014/media_monitoring_august_08.pdf(Cop.Bd.;
2014-08-02)
38.
Mejiav.LaSalleCollegeInternationalVancouverInc.,2014CarswellBC
2454,[2014]B.C.W.L.D.7126,[2014]B.C.W.L.D.7129,[2014]
B.C.W.L.D.7220,[2014]B.C.W.L.D.7221,245A.C.W.S.(3d)110,2014
BCSC1559,[2014]B.C.J.2126,
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2014/2014bcsc1559/2014bcsc1559.
html(B.C.S.C.;2014-08-18)
39.
Messierv.LequotidienLaPresse,2014CanLII23871,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccpq/doc/2014/2014canlii23871/2014canlii238
71.html(Que.Conseildepresse;2014-03-21)
40.
MitchellRepairInformationCompanyv.WayneLong,2014CarswellNat
2195,242A.C.W.S.(3d)180,2014FC562,[2014]F.C.J.619,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2014/2014fc562/2014fc562.html(F.C.;
2014-06-11)
41.
NationalFilmBoardforthesynchronizationandthecommunicationto
thepublicbytelecommunicationofamusicalwork[Non-exclusivelicence
issuedto],File2013-UO/TI-14,2014CarswellNat1775,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/278-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2014-
05-12
42.
NationalFilmBoardofCanada,Toronto,Ontario,fortheincorporation,

6
thepublicperformance,thereproductionandthecommunicationtothe
publicbytelecommunicationoftwoimages[Non-exclusivelicenceissued
to],Files:2013-UO/TI-20,2014CarswellNat3944,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/281-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.2014-09-
22)
43.
Nicholasforthereproductionofapainting[Non-exclusivelicenceissued
toJane]File:2014-UO/TI-02;2014CarswellNat1778,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/279-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2014-
05-22)
44.
NYMMinistriesforthepublicperformance,thereproductionandthe
synchronizationoftwomusicalworks[Non-exclusivelicenceissuedto],
Files:2013-UO/TI-22and2014-UO/TI-01;2014CarswellNat2569,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/280-e.pdf
(Cop.Bd.;2014-06-23)
45.
Pintov.BronfmanJewishEducationCenter,2011QCCS3458,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2011/2011qccs3458/2011qccs3458.html
(Que.Sup.Ct.;2011-07-13)];affirmed2014CarswellQue2135;2014
QCCA508;EYB2014-234651,
http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qcca/doc/2013/2013qcca1555/2013qcca1555.
html(Que.C.A.;2014-03-12)
46.
Planification-Organisation-PublicationsSystèmes(POPS)Ltéev.9054-
8181QuébecInc.,111C.P.R.(4th)1(F.C.;2013-04-25);varied124
C.P.R.(4th)161,2014CarswellNat2798,243A.C.W.S.(3d)432,461
N.R.106,2014FCA185,[2014]F.C.J.773,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2014/2014fca185/2014fca185.html
(F.C.A.;2014-07-25)
47.
Pointdujouraviationltéev.Simard,2014QCCQ13560,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2014/2014qccq13560/2014qccq1356
0.html(Que.Ct.;2014-12-15)
48.
Pokorav.9064-0723Québecinc.,2014QCCQ5697,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2014/2014qccq5697/2014qccq5697.h
tml(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2014-05-14)
49.
PossDesignLimitedv.BeogradMachine&ToolsCo.Ltd.,2014
CarswellOnt6639,[2014]O.J.2405,2014ONSC3051,240A.C.W.S.
(3d)592,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2014/2014onsc3051/2014onsc3051.
pdf(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2014-05-21)
50.
PrivateCopying2015-2016,PrivateCopying2015-2016,Re,2014
CarswellNat5162,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2014/20141213.pdf
(Cop.Bd.;2014-12-12)
51.
PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,Re[SOCANTariffs22.D.1–
Audiovisualwebcastsand22.D.2–Audiovisualuser-generatedcontent

7
fortheyears2007to2013]2014CarswellNat2616,[2014]C.B.D.3,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs-tarifs/certified-
homologues/2014/socan22d2007-2013.pdf(Cop.Bd.2014-07-18)
52.
PublicPerformanceofSoundRecordings,Re[Re:SoundNo.Tariff8–
Non-interactiveandsemi-interactivewebcasts,2009-2012]2014
CarswellNat1577,[2014]C.B.D.2,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2014/ReSound8-60-motif.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2014-05-16)
53.
PublicPerformanceofSoundRecordings[Re:SoundTariff6.B-Useof
RecordedMusictoAccompanyPhysicalActivities,2008-2012],2014
CarswellNat1189,[2014]C.B.D.1,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2014/ReSound6.B-59.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2014-04-17)
54.
PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,Re[StatementofRoyaltiestoBe
CollectedbySOCANforthePublicPerformanceortheCommunicationto
thePublicbyTelecommunication,inCanada,ofMusicalorDramatico-
MusicalWorks-Tariff4(Concerts)2009],2014CarswellNat2802,[2014]
C.B.D.4,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2014/supplement-
20140725.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2014-07-25)
55.
R.v.Strowbridge,2014CarswellNfld30,2014NLCA4,112W.C.B.(2d)
6,[2014]N.J.29,112W.C.B.(2d)6,1078A.P.R.203,346Nfld.&
P.E.I.R.203,
http://canlii.ca/en/nl/nlca/doc/2014/2014nlca4/2014nlca4.html(N.L.C.A.;
2014-02-04)
56.
Re:Soundv.FitnessIndustryCouncilofCanada,120C.P.R.(4th)287,
2014CarswellNat395,2014FCA48,238A.C.W.S.(3d)445,455N.R.
87,[2014]F.C.J.215,238A.C.W.S.(3d)445,72Admin.L.R.(5th)1,
2014FCA48,
http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fca/doc/2014/2014fca48/2014fca48.html(F.C.A.;
2014-02-24)
57.
Re:SoundNo.Tariff8–Non-interactiveandsemi-interactivewebcasts,
2009-2012,2014CarswellNat1577,[2014]C.B.D.2,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2014/ReSound8-60-motif.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2014-05-16)
58.
RoulottesProliteinc.v.Lasanté,2014CarswellQue10221,2014QCCS
4727,J.E.2014-1943,EYB2014-242890,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2014/2014qccs4727/2014qccs4727.ht
ml(Que.Sup.Ct.;2014-10-03);inappeal500-09-024803-140.
59.
SandhuSinghHamdardTrustv.NavsunHoldingsLtd,2014CarswellNat
4989,[2014]F.C.J.1220,2014FC1139,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2014/2014fc1139/2014fc1139.html
(F.C.;2014-11-26)
60.
Sociétécanadiennedesauteurscompositeursetéditeursdemusiquec.
9004-1922Québecinc.(Bar-Asserie),2014CarwellQue3236,243
A.C.W.S.(3d)431,EYB2014-235851,2014QCCS1512,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2014/2014qccs1512/2014qccs1512.p

8
df(Que.Sup.Ct.;2014-03-31)
61.
Sociétédedéveloppementdesentreprisesculturelles(SODEC)v.
SociétéRadio-Canada(SRC),2014CarswellQue2051,2014QCCS951,
241A.C.W.S.(3d)838,J.E.2014-988,EYB2014-234556,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2014/2014qccs951/2014qccs951.html
(Que.Sup.Ct.;2014-03-12)
62.
SocietyforReproductionRightsofAuthors,ComposersandPublishersin
Canadav.ARTV,2014CarswellNat4808,[2014]C.B.D.6,
http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2014/application_for_arbitration_sodrac_artv.pdf
(Cop.Bd.;2014-11-27)
63.
Syndicatdesprofesseur(e)sdel’UniversitéduQuébecàMontréal[Le]v.
L’UniversitéduQuébecàMontréal,2014CanLII16661,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcdag/doc/2014/2014canlii16661/2014canlii166
61.pdf(Que.S.A.T.;2014-04-10)
64.
Telusv.Canada(AttorneyGeneral),2014CarswellNat1,2014FC1,236
A.C.W.S.(3d)360,
http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fct/doc/2014/2014fc1/2014fc1.html(F.C.;2014-01-
02)
65.
Tremblayv.Plourde,[2014]J.Q.419,2014EXP-896,J.E.2014-489,EYB
2014-232286,2014QCCS201,
http://canlii.ca/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2014/2014qccs201/2014qccs201.html(Que.
Sup.Ct.;2014-01-15)
66.
TroutPointLodgeLtd.v.Handshoe,2014CarswellNS110,2014NSSC
62,237A.C.W.S.(3d)940,1077A.P.R.343,237A.C.W.S.(3d)940,340
N.S.R.(2d)343,[2014]N.S.J.62,
http://canlii.ca/en/ns/nssc/doc/2014/2014nssc62/2014nssc62.html(S.C.
N.S.;2014-02-14)
67.
Uniondesartistesv.FestivalInternationaldeJazzdeMontréal,2010
QCCRT523.
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccrt/doc/2010/2010qccrt523/2010qccrt523.htm
l(Que.LabourBoard;2010-11-08);judicialreviewrefusedsubnomine
Uniondesartistes(UDA)v.Commissiondesrelationsdutravail2012
QCCS1733,2012CarswellQue7518,EYB2012-209432(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2012-04-23;affirmed2014CarswellQue6042;2014QCCA1268;242
A.C.W.S.(3d)415;J.E.2014-1208;D.T.E.2014T-460;EYB2014-
238814,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2014/2014qcca1268/2014qcca1268.h
tml(Que.C.A.;2014-06-19)
68.
UniversityofTorontov.CanadianCopyrightLicensingAgency,2014
CarswellOnt1940,2014ONSC646,237A.C.W.S.(3d)748,[2014]O.J.
785,http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2014/2014onsc646/2014onsc646.html

9
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2014-02-04)
69.
Vanassev.ÉditionsduGrandDuc,unedivisiondeGroupeÉducalivres
inc.,2014CarswellQue8497;2014QCCQ7020;J.E.2014-1660;EYB
2014-241110,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2014/2014qccq7020/2014qccq7020.h
tml(Que.Sup.Ct.;2014-07-2)
70.
VanHeldenv.R.*,2014CarswellNat1977;2014TCC196;2014DTC
1156;242ACWS(3d)742,
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tcc/doc/2007/2007tcc632/2007tcc632.html
(TCC;2014-06-13)
71.
Victoria’sSecretStoresBrandManagement,Inc.v.ThomasPink
Limited*,2014CarswellNat84,2014FC76,117C.P.R.(4th)83,237
A.C.W.S.(3d)201,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2014/2014fc76/2014fc76.html(F.C.;
2014-01-22)
72.
VoltagePicturesv.Doe,119C.P.R.(4th)232,2014CarswellNat1599,
2014FC161,240A.C.W.S.(3d)964,[2014]F.C.J.492,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2014/2014fc161/2014fc161.html(F.C.;
2014-02-20)
73.
Waldmanv.ThomsonReutersCanadaLimited,120C.P.R.(4th)127,
238A.C.W.S.(3d)303,56C.P.C.(7th)81,2014CarswellOnt2674,2014
ONSC1288,238A.C.W.S.(3d)303,[2014]O.J.1049,
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2014/2014onsc1288/2014onsc1288.html
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2014-03-04)
74.
Wanlessv.MayfairMusicPublicationsInc.,2014CarswellOnt12291,
2014ONSC4806,244A.C.W.S.(3d)817,[2014]O.J.4179,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2014/2014onsc4806/2014onsc4806.
html(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2014-09-08)

Now,asectionbysectionanalysisofthose2014Canadiancases.
·Section1–Shorttitle

Thereisapresumptionthatstatutesarenotinconflict.

CanadianArtists’Representation/LeFrontdesartistescanadiens(CARFAC))v.
NationalGalleryofCanada(NGC),121C.P.R.(4th)1(S.C.C.2014-05-14)Rothstein
J.[reversing2013CarswellNat507(F.C.A.;2013-03-04);reversing2012
CarswellNat4332(C.A.P.P.R.T.;2012-02-16)][21]IndraftingtheSAA[StatusoftheArtistAct,S.C.1992,c.33],
ParliamentispresumedtohaveknowledgeoftheCopyrightActand
tohaveintendedthatthetwostatutesnotconflict(R.Sullivan,

10
SullivanontheConstructionofStatutes(5thed.2008),atpp.205
and325).TheSAA’sexplicitreferencetotheCopyrightActins.
6(2)(b)(i)supportsthatpresumption.Intheabsenceofevidenceof
conflictorthatoneoftheselawsisintendedtoprovideanexhaustive
declarationoftheapplicablelaw,thetwostatutesmustberead
togetherinamannerthatallowsthemtoworkinacomplementary
fashion.
·Section2–Definitionof”architecturalwork”

Evenifqualifiedasan”architecturaldesign”abusinesssytemusingcomputerisnot
abuildingorstructureand,therefore,notan”architecturalwork”

J.v.M.,117C.P.R.(4th)409(BCSC;2014-01-23)BunyeatJ.
[60]WhiletheAmendedNoticeofCivilClaimdescribesthe“Work”
asan“architecturaldesign”,itisclearthatthe“Work”doesnotmeet
thedefinitionof“architecturalwork”.Itisnotabuildingorstructureor
modelthereof.Atbest,thePlaintiffandherteamimplementedan
ideaastohowtoreshapethenatureoftheordertrackingand
shippingsystemthatwasinplaceatSCMI.
·Section2–Definitionof”Board”

Thecontentofthedutyoffairnessisvariable.
Re:Soundv.FitnessIndustryCouncilofCanada,120C.P.R.(4th)287(F.C.A.;
2014-02-24)EvansJ.[34]Theblack-letterruleisthatcourtsreviewallegationsof
proceduralunfairnessbyadministrativedecision-makersona
standardofcorrectness:Canada(CitizenshipandImmigration)v.
Khosa,2009SCC12,[2009]1S.C.R.339atpara.43.

[35]Courtsgivenodeferencetodecision-makerswhentheissueis
whetherthedutyoffairnessappliesingivenadministrativeandlegal
contexts.ThisisevidentfromthediscussioninDunsmuirv.New
Brunswick,2008SCC9;[2008]1S.C.R.190atparas.77etseq.
(Dunsmuir)ofwhetherDavidDunsmuirwasentitledtoprocedural
fairnessbeforehisemploymentintheprovincialpublicservicewas
terminated.

11
[36]However,thestandardofreviewapplicabletoanallegationof
proceduralunfairnessconcerningthecontentofthedutyina
particularcontext,andwhetherithasbeenbreached,ismore
nuanced.Thecontentofthedutyoffairnessisvariablebecauseit
appliestoawiderangeofadministrativeaction,actors,statutory
regimes,andpublicprograms,withdifferingimpactsonindividuals.
Flexibilityisnecessarytoensurethatindividualscanparticipateina
meaningfulwayintheadministrativeprocessandthatpublicbodies
arenotsubjecttoproceduralobligationsthatwouldprejudicethe
publicinterestineffectiveandefficientpublicdecision-making.
·Section2–definitionof”Board”

ParliamentintendedtheBoardtohaveprimaryjurisdictionoverthecollective
enforcementofneighbouringrights,includingtheinterpretationofthestatutory
provisionsgoverningthiscomplex,rate-settingscheme.

Re:Soundv.FitnessIndustryCouncilofCanada,120C.P.R.(4th)287(F.C.A.;
2014-02-24)EvansJ.[44]Thesubstantivelegalquestionindisputeinthepresent
applicationiswhethertheCopyrightActentitlesacollectivesociety
toatariffcalculatedonthebasisofallthesoundrecordingseligible
forequitableremunerationthatareusedtoaccompanyparticular
activities,oronlythoseinrespectofwhichmakersorperformers
haveauthorizedthesocietytoactontheirbehalf.Thisisaquestion
ofstatutoryinterpretationbecauseitisnotlimitedtothefactsofthis
case.
[45]Re:Soundcontendsthatthepresumptionthatreasonablenessis
thestandardforreviewinganadministrativetribunal’sinterpretation
ofitsenablinglegislationisrebuttedwhentheBoardisinterpreting
theAct:RogersCommunicationsInc.v.SocietyofComposers,
AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanada,2012SCC35,[2012]2
S.C.R.283(Rogers).Writingforthemajorityinthatcase,Justice
Rothsteinstated(atpara.14):Itwouldbeinconsistentforthecourttoreviewalegalquestion
onjudicialreviewofadecisionoftheBoardonadeferential
standardanddecideexactlythesamelegalquestiondenovoif
itaroseinaninfringementactioninthecourtatfirstinstance.It
wouldbeequallyinconsistentifonappealfromajudicialreview,
theappealcourtweretoapproachalegalquestiondecidedby
theBoardonadeferentialstandard,butadoptacorrectness
standardonanappealfromadecisionofacourtatfirst
instanceonthesamelegalquestion.

[46]Inmyview,Rogersisdistinguishablebecausethequestionof
statutoryinterpretationindisputeinthepresentcasearisesfromthe
Board’sapprovalofaproposedroyaltyundersubsection68(3)ofthe
CopyrightAct.Determiningwhetheracollectivesocietyrepresents
eligiblerecordingsnotinitsrepertoirewhenproposingatariffunder
section67.1isnotwithinastatutorilycreated“sharedprimary
jurisdictionbetweentheadministrativetribunalandthecourts”:
Rogersatpara.18.

[47]Thisconclusiondoesnotrestonafindingthatthereareno
circumstancesunderwhichacourtcouldberequiredtodetermineat
firstinstancewhetheracollectivesocietyrepresentedalleligible
recordingsusedtoaccompanyparticularactivities,oronlythosethat
hadbeenbroughtintoitsrepertoireasaresultofsomeformof
authorizationfromtheperformerormaker.
[48]Forexample,whileacollectivesocietythathasfailedtofilea
tariffmaynotbringanactiontorecoverequitableremunerationfrom
auser,itcandosowiththewrittenconsentoftheMinisterof
Industry:subsection67.1(4).Auserofarecordingofmusicsuedin
suchanactionmightseektoreducetheamountclaimedbythe
collectivesociety,onthegroundthatthesocietymayonlycollect
royaltiesinrespectofrecordingsforwhichtheirmakersor
performershaveauthorizedittoactforthem.

[49]Inmyview,thistheoreticalandsomewhatremotepossibilityis
notsufficienttobringthepresentcasewithintheRogersexception.
TherequirementofMinisterialconsentbeforeasocietycanbringan
actiontorecoverequitableremunerationinsteadofseekingthe
Board’sapprovalofatariffisaclearindicationthatParliament
intendedtheBoardtohaveprimaryjurisdictionoverthecollective
enforcementofneighbouringrights,includingtheinterpretationofthe
statutoryprovisionsgoverningthiscomplex,rate-settingscheme.No
suchprovisionlimitedthecopyrightholder’srightinRogerstobring
aninfringementactionthatcouldhaverequiredacourttodecidethe
samelegalquestionasthatdecidedbytheBoard.

[50]Courtshavelongbeenfamiliarwiththeindividuallawof
copyrightthroughtheirjurisdictionoverinfringementactions.
However,theyhavenosimilarknowledgeofthestatutoryschemefor
thecollectiveadministrationoftherighttoequitableremuneration,a
complexandtechnicalmatterthattheActentrustsalmostexclusively
totheBoard:compareCanadianPrivateCopyingCollectivev.
CanadianStorageMediaAlliance,2004FCA424,247D.L.R.(4th)
103atpara.110.

13
·Section2–Definitionof”collectivesociety”

Collectivesocietiesmusteitheroperatealicensingschemeforarepertoireorcollect
anddistributeroyaltiespayableundertheCopyrightAct.

CanadianArtists’Representation/LeFrontdesartistescanadiens(CARFAC)v.
NationalGalleryofCanada(NGC),121C.P.R.(4th)1(S.C.C.2014-05-14)Rothstein
J.[reversing2013CarswellNat507(F.C.A.;2013-03-04),whichwasreversing2012
CarswellNat4332(C.A.P.P.R.T.;2012-02-16)]
[3]TheCopyrightActcontainsseveralprovisionsthatarerelevantto
thepresentappeal.Section2definesa“collectivesociety”
(sometimesreferredtoasa“copyrightcollective”)asasociety,
associationorcorporationthatcarriesonthebusinessofcollective
administrationofcopyrightforthebenefitofartists(amongothers)
whoassign,grantalicence,orotherwiseauthorizethesocietytoact
ontheirbehalfwithrespecttotheircopyrightssoassignedor
authorized.Collectivesocietiesmusteitheroperatealicensing
schemeforarepertoireofartists’workswherebythesociety
determinestheconditionsunderwhichitwillauthorizetheuseof
suchworks,orcollectanddistributeroyaltiespayableunderthe
CopyrightActbyusersofsuchworks.[…]
[13][…]Finally,allparties,intervenersandtheTribunaldonot
disputethatscaleagreementsundertheSAAdonotapplyto
collectivesocietiesgovernedbytheCopyrightAct.
·Section2–Definitionof”compilation

Toattractcopyrightprotectionacompilationmustalsobeoriginal.

DenturistGroupofOntariov.DenturistAssociationofCanada,2014CarswellNat
4191(F.C.;2014-10-16)MansonJ.[65]Acompilationcanqualifyforcopyrightprotectionsolongasthe
authorusesskillandjudgmentintherelevantsenseindetermining
thearrangementofthework(FoxonCanadianLawofCopyrightand
IndustrialDesigns,4thed.Fox,at7-16.1).Ifinformationhasbeen
arrangedaccordingtoindustrystandards,theamountofskill,
judgment,orlabourexercisedisminimalanddoesnotmeetthe
thresholdoforiginalityrequired(Tele-Direct(Publications)Incv

14
AmericanBusinessInformationInc,(1997),1997CanLII6378(FCA),
154DLR(4th)328(FCA)).
·Section2–Definitionof”computerprogram”

Awebsitecouldattractcopyrightprotection.
Tremblayv.Plourde,[2014]J.Q.419(Que.Sup.Ct.;2014-01-15)DallaireJ.
[266]Auparagraphe54,lademanderesseréclame20000$.Il
estenpreuvequeledéfendeur,pourconstruiresonsite,apigéen
bonnepartiesestextesàpartirdelapageweb,propriétédela
demanderesse.Cen’estpasnié.
[267]CettepagewebcouverteenvertudelaLoisurledroit
d’auteurestlapropriétédelademanderesse.

[268]Eneffet,laLoisurledroitd’auteurprévoitàsonarticle2
queleprogrammed’ordinateurestuneœuvrelittéraire[Fn12Loisur
ledroitd’auteur,LRC1985,cC-42.].

·Section2–Definitionof”computerprogram”

Originalityisnotamatterofquantity.
Planification-Organisation-PublicationsSystèmes(POPS)Ltéev.9054-8181Québec
Inc.,124C.P.R.(4th)161(FCA;2014-07-25)GauthierJ.[varying111C.P.R.(4th)1,
(FC;2013-04-25)]
[79]Inotethattheoriginalityofaworkisnotmeasuredbythe
numberoflines.[…]

15
·Section2–Definitionof”copyright”

Copyrightisanintangible.
LondonLifeInsuranceCompanyv.Canada,2014CarswellNat1276(F.C.A.;2014-
04-29)GauthierJ.
[56]Incorporealrightsshouldnotbeconfusedwithphysicalmedia.
Forexample,copyrightinaworkisnotseizedbyseizingthebook
itself.
·Section2–Definitionof”educationalinstitution”

Privateinstructordoesnotqualifyasaneducationalinstitution

VanHeldenv.R.*,2014CarswellNat1977(T.C.C.;2014-06-13)MillerJ.
[16]Iagreewithhiscomments[KamvR.,[2013]DTC1218(TCC)
FavreauJ.atpara.23].Areviewofthedebateswhichtookplacein
theHouseofCommonswhenthepredecessortosubsection
118.5(1)wasfirstproposedconfirmsthattheterm’educational
institution’wasnotintendedtoapplytosituationsasinthepresent
appeal.
[20]Inconclusion,theoriginalintentofthetuitioncreditwastomakepostsecondary
educationmoreaccessibletostudentsbylesseningtheirfinancialburden.Although
subsection118.5(1)[oftheIncomeTaxAct]shouldbeinterpretedbroadly,itisclear
thatParliamentdidnotintendthattheprovisionshouldapplytofeeswhichstudents
paidforprivatepianolessonsataninstructor’shome.
·Section2–Definitionof”everyoriginalwork…”

Hewhocreatesistheauthor.
Flansberry(KaptureDesign)v.6548890Canadainc.(TurboMarketing),2014
CarswellQue11833(Que.Ct.;2014-06-01)LapointeJ.

16
[71]Or,ilarrivequeceluiquiconfectionneuncertaintravail,en
l’occurrenceuneœuvreartistique,n’ensoitpaspourautantl’auteur
ausensdel’article3delaLoiquidressel’étatdesdroitsd’auteuret
desdroitsmorauxsurlesœuvres.Pourneprendrequ’unseul
exemple,lesténographequinotelemotàmotdespropostenuspar
uneautrepersonne,n’auraitpaslatitularitédudroitd’auteursurle
textelequelreviendraitàlapersonneayantdictéletexte.(Voiràcet
égardl’analysedeMeStéphaneGilker,«Principesgénérauxdu
droitd’auteur»,conférencedonnéeauCongrèsannuelduBarreau
duQuébec(2009)paragr.3.4.1).

[73]Et,l’ensembledelapreuvepermetdeconclurequ’enaucun
tempslademanderessereconventionnelleousesreprésentants
n’ontétéàl’originedesœuvresàunpointteletavecuneprécision
tellequelerôledugraphisteétaitréduitàconcrétiserses
suggestionsousesdescriptionssousformematérielledansunrôle
oudesgestespurementmécaniques.C’esttoutlecontraire.
·Section2–Definitionof”everyoriginalwork…”

Whoistheauthorofawebsite?Whatistheleveloforiginalityrequiredforawebsite
tobeprotected?
AnimalWelfareInternationalInc.v.W3InternationalMediaLtd.,2014CarswellBC
2902(B.C.S.C.;2014-10-01)RossJ.
[463]InSlumber-MagicAdjustableBedCo.Ltd.v.Sleep-King
AdjustableBedCo.Ltd.(1984),1984CanLII54(BCSC),3C.P.R.
(3d)81at84,[1985]1W.W.R.112(B.C.S.C.),MadamJustice
McLachlin,asshethenwas,heldthatprovided“work,tasteand
discretionhaveenteredintothecomposition,thatoriginalityis
established”.TheSupremeCourtofCanadainCCHCanadianLtd.v.
LawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13(CanLII)atpara.25,
heldthatthestandardbywhichtojudgeoriginalitycanbemeasured
as:25Theexerciseofskillandjudgmentrequiredtoproducethe
workmustnotbesotrivialthatitcouldbecharacterizedasa
purelymechanicalexercise.Whilecreativeworkswillby

17
definitionbe“original”andcoveredbycopyright,creativityisnot
requiredtomakeawork“original”.

[464]Therelevantconsiderationstodeterminingoriginalitywere
furtherexaminedinBCAA[BCAAv.OfficeandProfessional
Employees’Int.Union,2001BCSC156(B.C.S.C.;2001-01-26)]at
para.186,wheretheCourtheld:[186]…theoverallarrangementofcommonplaceelementssuch
ascolours,shapesanddesignscanobviouslyresultinan
originalartisticworkforwhichtheauthorisentitledtocopyright
protection.Suchaworkcannotbecopiedwithouttheauthor’s
consent.

[465][ThePlaintiff]AWIsubmitsthatbasedontheconsiderations
relevanttodeterminingoriginality,asoutlinedinthejurisprudence,
theoriginalityofthewebsiteisreflectedinitsgenerallookandfeel,
whichencompasstheproductsselectedtoappearonthehomepage,
thesizeoftheproductphotos,thesizeofthepricetext,theselection
ofanimagetofunctionasalogoforthewebsite,thelocationofthe
logo,andthegenerallocationofimages,text,andiconsonthe
webpage.
[466]AWIsubmitsthatthewebsitelayoutwasimplemented,finalized
andupdatedoninstructionfromAWI.Thereisnoevidencethe
websitewascreatedusingstandardformtemplatesorstandard
colourandiconschema.Theatypicalplacementoficons,variedicon
sizing,decisionsastowheretopsellingproductswouldbelisted,if
priceswouldbelistedonthehomepage,howoftentheproductson
thehomepagechanged,andtheoverallwebsitelayoutandcolour
schemeareallindicativeofCVTbeinganoriginalcreation.

·Section2–Definitionof”everyoriginalwork…”

Thereisnooriginalityinmerenumercialcodes.

DenturistGroupofOntariov.DenturistAssociationofCanada,2014CarswellNat
4191(F.C.;2014-10-16)MansonJ.[64]Inorderforcopyrightstobevalid,anauthormusthaveproduced
anoriginalworkthatrequiredhisorherskillandjudgmenttocreate

18
(CCHCanadianLtdvLawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13
(CanLII),[2004]1SCR339atpara16[CCH]).Therequisitelevelsof
skillandjudgmentmustmeetthelowcriteriaofnotbeing“sotrivial
thatitcouldbecharacterizedasapurelymechanicalexercise”and
exhibitsomeintellectualeffortonthepartoftheauthor”(CCHat
paras16,33-34).
[75]Idonotfindthatthereissufficientoriginalityorskilland
judgmenttojustifycopyrightsubsistinginmerefive-digitnumerical
codesand/orthefunctionaldescriptionsofthedenturistservices
associatedwiththosecodes.

·Section2–Definitionof”infringingcopy”

Infringementofacopyrightworkisavalidgroundofoppositiontotheregistrationof
atrade-markbutcopywillhavetobeproven.

dm-drogeriemarktGmbH+Co.KGv.911979AlbertaLtd.*,2014CarswellNat1300,
2014CarswellNat1301(Opp.Bd.;2014-03-12)C.Tremblay
[38]Iturntothesecondprongofthegroundofoppositionbasedon
allegationsthattheuseoftheMarkisinviolationoftheOpponent’s
copyrightexistinginlabelsshowninprint-outsattachedtothe
statementofopposition.
[39]Ihavefoundthatparagraph6andExhibit”F”oftheGallivan
affidavitconstituteinadmissiblehearsay.Further,theOpponentdid
notmakeanysubmissionsaboutthesecondprongofthegroundof
opposition.Thus,IconcludethattheOpponenthasfailedtomake
outaprimafaciecaseofcopyrightinfringement[seeE.RemyMartin
&Co.S.A.v.MagnetTradingCorp.(HK)Ltd.(1988),23C.P.R.(3d)
242(T.M.Opp.Bd.)].

·Section2–Definitionof”infringing”

Independentcreationwarantsafindingofnoninfringement.

GeophysicalServiceIncorporatedv.Canada-Nova-ScotiaOffshorePetroliumBoard,
2014CarswellNat2186(F.C.;2014-05-09)AnnisJ.
[32]Giventhelimitedcontributionoftheapplicant’sdatatoFigure
5.5anditsextensivemanipulationandreworkingbytheBoard,with
theoverwhelmingmajorityofthedatabeingprovidedfromother

19
sources,IdonotfindthatFigure5.5constitutesareproductionor
adaptationsuchastoconstituteaninfringementofGSI’scopyright.

·Section2–Definitionof”infringingcopy

Infringementofacopyrightworkisavalidgroundofoppositiontotheregistrationofa
trade-markbutcopywillhavetobeproved.

ForestStewardshipCouncilv.G.H.ImportedMerchandise&SalesLtd.*,2014
CarswellNat2420(Opp.Bd.;2014-05-13)C.R.Folz

[25]Section30(i)oftheActrequiresthatanapplicantdeclareitself
satisfiedthatitisentitledtousetheapplied-formark.Jurisprudence
suggeststhatnon-compliancewithsection30(i)canbefoundwhere
thereisaprimafaciecaseofnon-compliancewithafederalstatute
[suchastheCopyrightActRSC1985,cC-42,FoodandDrugsAct,
RSC1985,cF-27orCanadaPostCorporationAct,RSC1985,cC-
10andseeInteractivDesignPtyLtdvGrafton-FraserInc(1998),87
CPR(3d)537(TMOB),at542-543)].

[26]Inthiscase,theOpponentpleadsthattheapplicationdoesnot
complywithsection30(i)becausetheApplicanthasviolatedthe
CopyrightAct.Inordertomeetitsevidentialburdenunderthis
ground,theOpponentmustestablishaprimafaciecaseofcopyright
infringement[seeERemyMartin&CoSAvMagnetTradingCorp
(HK)(1988),23CPR(3d)242,(TMOB)].

[27]Inordertoestablishaprimafaciecaseofcopyrightinfringement,
theOpponentisrequiredtoestablish(i)copyrightinitstreedesign
and(ii)thattheMarkisasubstantialcopyingofthistreedesign[see
JonesvDragonTalesProductionInc(2002),27CPR(4th)369
(TMOB)].

[28]AttachedasExhibitAtotheaffidavitofMonikaPatelisacopyof
acopyrightassignmentfromthebusinessrecordsoftheOpponentin
whichTristanKentofKent,England,assignstotheOpponentall
copyrightrightsinallcountriesandterritoriesoftheworldinthe
worksasdefinedtherein(includingtheOpponent’sFSCandTree
Design).TheOpponentsubmitsthatthedocumentspeaksforitself
andshowsthattheOpponenthascopyrightinitstreedesignandis
theownerofthecopyright.

20
[29]TheOpponentfurthersubmitsthattheMarkisasubstantial
copyingoftheOpponent’smarkbecausebothtreedesigns
incorporatethefollowinguniqueelements:
•ahollowsilhouetteofatree;
•anopeningatthebottomofthedesign;and
•theuseofasinglecontinuouslineinthedesign.

[30]Inmyview,therearetoomanypointsofdissimilaritybetween
theMarkandtheOpponent’streedesignandtoofewpointsof
similaritybetweenthemformetoconcludethereisaprimafacie
caseofcopyrightinfringement.Inthisregard,theMarkfeaturesa
roundshapedtree,borderedbyasquareshapedelement.The
Opponent’smark,ontheotherhand,featuresamoretriangular
shapedtreecombinedwithacheckmarkshape,bothofwhichare
showninabold,regularstyleinblackagainstawhitebackground.
TheOpponent’smarkalsoincludesthelargeandprominentletters
FSC.

[31]AsIamnotsatisfiedthattheevidencesupportsaprimafacie
caseofcopyrightinfringement,thisgroundofoppositionfails.

Section2–Definitionof”infringingcopy”
Infringementofacopyrightworkisavalidgroundofoppositiontotheregistrationofa
trade-markbutcopywillhavetobeproven.
GeneralMotorsLLCv.Wang*,123C.P.R.(4th)139(Opp.Bd.;2014-06-11)
L.Reynolds[16]Thesecondgroundofoppositionwhichhasbeenraisedunder
section30(i)oftheActisbasedonanallegationthattheApplicant
couldnothavebeensatisfiedthatitwasentitledtousetheMarkat
thetimeofthefilingoftheapplicationasthedesigncomponentof
theMarkisanidenticalcopyofaworkthatisthesubjectofcopyright
registrationNo.1090977anditsusewouldthereforebeinviolation
oftheCopyrightActRSC,1985,cC-42.TheOpponentassertsthat
thisissuehasalreadybeendecidedbytheBoardinChery
AutomobileCo.v.Wang,2013TMOB104(T.M.Opp.Bd.).

[17]Non-compliancewithsection30(i)canbefoundwhereaprima
faciecaseofnon-compliancewithafederalstatutehasbeenmade
out[seeforexampleInterprovincialLotteryCorp.v.MonetaryCapital
Corp.(2006),51C.P.R.(4th)447(T.M.Opp.Bd.)andCanadian
Bankers’Assn.v.RichmondSavingsCreditUnion(2000),8C.P.R.
(4th)267(T.M.Opp.Bd.)].However,inthepresentcase,the

21
Opponenthasnotestablishedaprimafaciecaseofcopyright
infringement,asithasnotfiledanyevidencewhatsoeverinsupport
ofitsallegations[seeE.RemyMartin&Co.S.A.v.MagnetTrading
Corp.(HK)Ltd.(1988),23C.P.R.(3d)242(T.M.Opp.Bd.)].Rather,
ithassimplyreferencedarecentdecisionoftheBoardinvolvinga
similardesignandthesamepartiesinitspleading.

·Section2–Definitionof”infringing”

Infringementrequiresthecopyingsubstantivepartofanoriginalwork.

AnimalWelfareInternationalInc.v.W3InternationalMediaLtd.,2014CarswellBC
2902(B.C.S.C.;2014-10-01)RossJ.[461]Theelementsofasuccessfulcopyrightinfringementclaimwere
outlinedbytheCourtinIbcosComputersLtd.v.BarclaysMercantile
HighlandFinanceLtd.,[1994]F.S.R.275(Ch.D)[Ibcos].Citing
Ibcos,theCourtinBCAA[BCAAv.OfficeandProfessional
Employees’Int.Union,2001BCSC156(B.C.S.C.;2001-01-26)]held,
atpara.173,thatitmustbeestablishedthat:1.thereisanoriginalwork;
2.therehasbeenacopying;and
3.asubstantialportionoftheworkhasbeenreproduced.

·Section2–Definitionof”infringing”

Incompletedeletionsofreferencestothecopyrightownerinthecopywillhelpto
ascertaininfringement.
AnimalWelfareInternationalInc.v.W3InternationalMediaLtd.,2014CarswellBC
2902(B.C.S.C.;2014-10-01)RossJ.

22
[467]Withrespecttothesecondelement,copying,[thePlaintiff]AWI
submitsthatthefactthatCanaCreekwascreatedbysignificantly
copyingCVTcannotbedisputed.BothMyfanwyandMarcellusWong
testifiedthat[theDefendant]W3technicianscopiedtheCVTwebsite
foruseasatemplateforCanaCreek.W3thenscrubbedthecopied
CVTwebsiteforreferencestoAWIandCVTandinserted
CanaCreekinplaceofCVT.However,theprocesswasincomplete
andsomereferencestoCVTremainedonthewebsite.
·Section2–Definitionof”infringing”

Acknowledgingthesourcemaynotbesufficienttoescapeinfringement.

LaPressev.Yahoo!Québec,2014CanLII76357(Que.Conseildepresse;2014-12-
05)

[6]Àlalecturedesdeuxarticlesetdutableaucomparatiffournipar
lesplaignants,leConseilconstatequel’articlesignéparMartine
Turenneestconstituédanssaquasi-totalitédepassagesdel’article
deLaPresseréécritstrèslégèrement(permutations,reformulations
mineures,modificationdelaponctuation)etdeplusieurspassages
repiquésintégralement,sansl’utilisationdeguillemets.Seulsletitre
etlesphrasesd’amorce(«Lacorruption,del’histoireancienneau
Québec?Pasvraiment.»)sontattribuablesàMmeTurenne.Le
Conseilaétabliqu’autotal,94%dutexteestdurepiquageintégral
ouquasiintégral.
[7]LetextepubliéparYahoo!n’apporteninouvelleperspective,ni
rechercheoriginale,suivi,nouveauxrenseignements,ouréactions
supplémentaires,parrapportàl’articledeMmeLévesqueetde
M.Bergeron.
[8]BienqueLaPressesoitmentionnéecommeunesourceàquatre
reprisesdansletextepubliéparYahoo!Québec,leConseilestime
quedansuncasaussipoussédereproductionintégrale,lefaitdene
pasattribuerrigoureusement,pardesguillemets,chaquepassage
dutexteainsireprisestunefautedéontologiquequirisqued’induire
lepublicdansl’erreurquantauvéritableauteurdutexte.

[9]LeConseils’interrogeparailleursquantauxlimitesquedevraient
respecterlesmédiaslorsqu’ilscitentdesarticlesécritspard’autres.
Est-ilacceptableparexempledepublieruntextecomposéentotalité
decitations,dûmentplacéesentreguillemets,provenantd’unarticle
publiédansunautremédia,mêmesiletexteestpleinement

23
attribué?Lorsqu’ilcitedesextraitsd’unreportageprovenantd’un
autremédia,doit-ils’imposeruntraitementminimalpourpublierun
texte?Danslecasdelaprésenteplainte,ilauraitsansdouteété
souhaitablequel’autorisationdesauteursaitétéobtenue.LeConseil
estimequedansuncasoùlescontraintesdelapratique
journalistiquenepermettentpasdebonifieruneinformation,mieux
vautproduireuntrèscourtrésuméducontenuquel’onsouhaite
reprendre,etl’accompagnerd’unhyperlienconduisantàlasource
citée.
·Section2–Definitionof”legalrepresentative”

Anauthorizationmustbefromthecopyrightownerorhislegalrepresentative.

Pokorav.9064-0723Québecinc.,2014QCCQ5697(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;
2014-05-14)ChicoineJ.[5]CONSIDÉRANTquedameBerry-Fortin,alorsamiedu
demandeur,n’avaitaucuneautoriténimandatpourlierl’uneou
l’autredessociétésdéfenderesses;

·Section2–Definitionof”literarywork”

Acomputerprogramisaliterarywork.
Tremblayv.Plourde,[2014]J.Q.419(Que.Sup.Ct.;2014-01-15)DallaireJ.
[267]CettepagewebcouverteenvertudelaLoisurledroitd’auteurestla
propriétédelademanderesse.[268]Eneffet,laLoisurledroitd’auteurprévoitàsonarticle2
queleprogrammed’ordinateurestuneœuvrelittéraire[Fn12Loisur
ledroitd’auteur,LRC1985,cC-42.]

·Section2–Definitionof”maker”

Twocomponentsarerequired:hiringofartistsandmakingorrepresentingawork.

Uniondesartistesv.FestivalInternationaldeJazzdeMontréal,2014CarswellQue
6042(Que.C.A.;2014-06-19)DoyonJ.[affirming2012CarswellQue7518(Que.

24
Sup.Ct.;2012-04-23]whichwasrefusingjudicialreviewof2010QCCRT523(Que.
Lab.Bd.;2010-11-08)][34]LaCRTrappellequelanotiondeproducteurausensde
l’article2delaLSArecèledeuxcomposantes:1)larétentiondes
servicesd’unartiste2)envuedeproduireoudereprésenteren
publicuneœuvreartistiquedansundomainedeproductionvisépar
laLSA.Cetteinterprétationestconformeàlajurisprudence[Fn8
Uniondesartistes(UDA)c.Louis-PhilippeMétail,faisantaffairesous
lenom«Animationd’Autrefois»,2010QCCRT0134,D.T.E.2010T-
428,paragr.93.]etn’estpasremiseenquestion.
[35]Lapremièrecomposanteatoujoursétéaucœurdela
reconnaissancedustatutdeproducteur[Fn9Uniondesartistes
(UDA)c.Louis-PhilippeMétail,faisantaffairesouslenom
«Animationd’Autrefois»,2010QCCRT0134,D.T.E.2010T-428,
paragr.97-99].C’estd’ailleurscequesoulignelejugeSenécal,dela
Coursupérieure,dans2623-3494Québecinc.(CaféSarajevo)c.
Commissiondereconnaissancedesassociationsd’artistesetdes
associationsdeproducteurs,lorsqu’ilécritque«[l]arétentionde
servicesestdoncaucœurdelarelationproducteur-artiste.Celle-ci
nepeutexistersanscelle-là[Fn102623-3494Québecinc.(Café
Sarajevo)c.Commissiondereconnaissancedesassociations
d’artistesetdesassociationsdeproducteurs,J.E.2004-606,D.T.E.
2004T-265,paragr.57]».
[36]Cetterétentiondeservicesrenvoieàlanotiondecontrôle:
Seloncettedéfinition,unproducteurdoitêtreassimiléàun
maîtred’oeuvre,c’est-à-direàlapersonnequiassumela
directionetlecontrôled’uneproductionmusicaleou,plus
précisément,àcellequivoitàl’élaborationduprojetetàsa
réalisation.Danscetteoptique,leproducteurestnotamment
responsableduchoixdesmusiciensetdufinancementdu
spectacle,cequiinclutlarémunérationdesmusiciensettous
lesrisquesfinanciersliésàlaproductionduspectacle.[Fn11
GuildedesmusiciensduQuébecc.Chacra,D.T.E.2001T-346.]
·Section2–Definitionof”photograph”

Acommercialphotographisaprotectedwork.

Labrecque(OSauna)v.Trudel(CentreBellaza,s.e.n.c.),2014QCCQ2595(Que.
Ct.–SmallClaims;2014-03-28)GervaisJ.

25
[53]Laconclusionétantqueleclichéphotographiquedontilest
questioniciestuneœuvreprotégée,s’offreaupropriétairedece
droitplusieursoptions.

·Section2–Definitionof”workofjointauthorship”

Aworkofjointauthorshipisnotacollectivework.

Lachancev.ProductionsMarieEykelinc.,2014CarswellQue637(Que.C.A.;2014-
01-30),theCourt[confirming2012CarswellQue5028(Que.Sup.Ct;2012-03-15]
[17]Lepremiercibleladéterminationfactuelledelajugequi,dans
sesmotifs,écritquel’appelantestl’undesauteursdel’œuvre
précitéeausensdelaLDA.Laqualificationd’«œuvrecollective»
quiapparaîtdanslesmotifsestinexacte,maisunelectureattentive
dujugementpermetdecomprendrequel’emploidecetteexpression
parlajugerésulted’uneconfusionlexicale[Fn8Levocablequ’utilise
lajugeestunempruntdel’anglaisàl’art.2desdéfinitions,puisque
cetermen’estpasdéfinienfrançais,quiyutiliselemotrecueil
commetraductionde«collectivework».Maisdanslecontextede
cetteaffaire,ilsembleclairquelajugenepouvaitavoirprésentà
l’esprituneœuvresequalifiantcommerecueil.Ils’agitplutôtd’une
œuvredecollaborationdontladéfinitionest:«Oeuvreexécutéepar
lacollaborationdedeuxouplusieursauteurs,etdanslaquellelapart
crééeparl’unn’estpasdistinctedecellecrééeparl’autreoules
autres»]dénuéedeconséquence.Ils’agitmanifestementicid’une
œuvredecollaborationetc’estcequedécritlajuge.Lorsque,en
raisondesacollaboration,lajugeaqualifiél’appelantd’auteur,ilest
possiblequ’ellesesoitméprisesurcertainsélémentsdepreuve
versésaudossier.Néanmoins,laquestionenestunedefait,sans
impactsurledispositifdujugement,etiln’estpasdémontréquela
déterminationdelajugeestentachéed’uneerreurmanifesteet
déterminante;laquestionn’adoncpasàêtreréexaminéeici.
·Section2–Definitionof”workofjointauthorship”

Theinputoftheauthorsmustbesubstantialandnottrivial.

AtlanticCanadaRegionalCouncilofCarpenters,Millwrights,andAlliedWorkersv.
MaritimeEnvironmentalTrainingInstituteLtd.,2014CarswellNS125,2014NSSC
64,237A.C.W.S.(3d)746,1081A.P.R.1,341N.S.R.(2d)1,

26
http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/2014/2014nssc64/2014nssc64.html(S.C.N.S.;
2014-02-20)RobertsonJ.
[23]CasedcitedbytherespondentsNeudorfv.NettwerkProductions
Ltd.1999CanLII5293(BCSC),(1999),B.C.J.No.2831,[2000]3
W.W.R.522andWallv.HornAbbottLtd.,2007NSSC197,alsoset
outtherequirementsforjointauthorshipthatincludebothoriginality
andexpression.Althoughitisnotrequiredthatjointauthorsmakean
equalcontribution,thejointauthormustmadeasubstantial
contributiontotheexpressionoftheideas.
[26]IhavecarefullyreadtheaffidavitevidenceofGusDoyle
[Applicants’representative].Theapplicantshavefailedtoconvince
me,onthecivilstandardofthebalanceofprobabilities,thatthe
scaffoldingmanualwasaworkofjointauthorship.Hisaffidavit
evidencedoesnotestablishinanymanner,theapplicants’
contributiontothecreationofthiswork.Hisaffidavitconsistsofbare
assertionsastoownershipofthework.Itappearstometobea
commissionedworkwrittenbytheunknownUKcompany.Iam
persuadedthattheUKcompanywastheoriginalauthorofthe
manualinwhomthecopyrightwouldhavevestedin1991.Clearly
therewasnoassignmentofthecopyrightbytheUKcompany.
·Section2.4–Communicationtothepublicbytelecommunication

Distributionofanetwoksignalanditssubsequentcommunicationconstitutesasingle
communication.Eachretransmissionisnotaseparateactofinfringement.

Leutholdv.CanadianBroadcastingCorporation,2014CarswellNat2246(F.C.A.;
2014-06-27)PelletierJ.[affirming104C.P.R.(4th)401(F.C.;2002-06-14);motionfor
leavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadafiled2014CarswellNat3986
(S.C.C.;2014-09-30)]
[38]Itseemstomethatthebetterviewisthatparagraph2.4(1)(c)
legislatesthatthedistributionofanetworksignalincorporatinga
protectedworktoBDUsandthesubsequentcommunicationofthat
worktosubscribersisbutasinglenetwork-wideinfringementin
whicheachparticipatingBDUisjointlyandseverallyliablealongwith
thenetwork.Inthatway,allthosewhobenefitfromthe
communicationoftheworkshareintheliabilityforcompensatingthe
rightsholder,subjecttowhateverarrangementsmaybeinplace
betweenthem.

27
[39]Thisreadingofparagraph2.4(1)(c)oftheActmovesinthe
directionoftechnologicalneutralityinthatthenumberofinfringing
actsdoesnotvaryaccordingtothenumberofintermediariesinthe
transmissionchain.Thisisconsistentwiththegoaloftechnological
neutralitywhichtheSupremeCourtarticulatedinEntertainment
SoftwareAssociationv.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusic
PublishersofCanada,2012SCC34,[2012]2S.C.R.231,at
paragraphs5-10.
[40]Thereisoneactofinfringementwhethertheworkis
communicatedtothepublicviaoneBDUorviahundredsofthem.
Themeasureofdamagesmaydependuponthenumberofviewers
ofthework,whichhasarationalconnectionwithcompensation,
unlikethenumberofintermediaries,whichdoesnot.

[41]Paragraph2.4(1)(c)servestodistinguishthiscasefromBishop
v.Stevens[[1990]2S.C.R.467]where,asnoted,eachunauthorized
reproductionwasfoundtobeaviolationofthecopyrightholder’s
rights.Whilethatmayhavebeenthecaseforunauthorized
communicationstothepublicbytelecommunicationpriortothe
passageofparagraph2.4(1)(c)anditscompaniondisposition
subsection31(2)oftheAct,itisnolongerthecasenow.
[42]Iamoftheviewthatparagraph2.4(1)(c),properlyinterpreted,
hastheeffectofmakinganetworktransmissionofcable
programmingmaterialtothepublicviaBDUsasingleinfringementof
acopyrightholder’srightsifthenetworkhasnotproperlyclearedthe
rightswithrespecttothattransmission.Inthiscase,thesix
transmissionsofthedocumentarycontainingMs.Leuthold’simages,
inviolationofhercopyright,constitutedsixactsofinfringement,as
foundbytheTrialJudge.
·Section3–Copyrightinworks

Therighttoreproduceandtherighttoexecutearedifferentrights.

CanadianBroadcastingvSodrac2003Inc.,118C.P.R.(4th)79(F.C.A.;2014-03-31)
PelletierJ.[leavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadagranted[2014]S.C.C.A.
249(S.C.C.).]
[48]Inmyview,thispassagereaffirmsthefundamentaldistinction
betweenreproductionandperformance(communicationtothepublic
bytelecommunication)thattheCourtarticulatedinBishopv.
Stevens.Nothinginthispassage,orelsewhereinESA,would

28
authorizetheBoardtocreateacategoryofreproductionsorcopies
which,bytheirassociationwithbroadcasting,wouldceasetobe
protectedbytheAct.ESAdidnotexplicitly,orbynecessary
implication,overruleBishopv.Stevens.

[49]Asaresult,IamunabletoaccepttheBroadcasters’argument
thatthecommentsabouttechnologicalneutralityinESAhave
changedthelegallandscapetothepointwheretheBoarderredin
findingthatincidentalcopiesareprotectedbycopyright.The
Broadcasters’argumentwithrespecttotechnologicalneutralityfails.

·Section3–Copyrightinworks

TheprincipleoftechnologicallyneutralinterpretationisagainbeforetheSupreme
CourtofCanada.
CanadianBroadcastingvSodrac2003Inc.,118C.P.R.(4th)79(F.C.A.;2014-03-31)
PelletierJ.[LeavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadagranted[2014]
S.C.C.A.249(S.C.C.).]
CasesummaryaspreparedbytheOfficeoftheRegistrarofthe
SupremeCourtofCanada(LawBranch)forinformationpurposes
only.
Intellectualpropertylaw—Judicialreview—Copyright—Licenses
—Licensingsocieties—Royalties—Ephemeralcopies—
ApplicationbybroadcasterforreviewoflicensesissuedbyCopyright
Boardallowedinpart—Collectivesocietyimposingroyaltieson
producersofcontentandbroadcasters—Licencesallowcollective
societytocollectroyaltiesforcopiesincidentaltouseofnew
broadcasttechnologies—WhethertheCourtofAppealerredin
refusingtoapplytheprincipleoftechnologicalneutralityinits
interpretationandapplicationoftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-
42—WhethertheCourtofAppealerredbyadoptinganon-
technologicallyneutralinterpretationoftheCopyrightActthatfailsto
achievethecorrectbalancebetweentherightsofcopyrightholders
andusers,aswellasthepublicinterestinfosteringinnovation—
WhethertheCourtofAppealerredbydepartingfromthisCourt’s
jurisprudenceonthegroundsthattheyprovideinsufficientguidance.

SODRACappliedtocertifyaproposedtariffwhichrelatedtothe
royaltiesoncopiesofcinematographicworksforretail,rentaland
theatricaluse.Italsoappliedtosetthetermsandconditionsofa
licenceforthereproductionofmusicalworksinitsrepertoirebythe

29
CBC.TheBoardconsolidatedtheexaminationoftheCBCand
anotherarbitrationmatter.
Theapplicationwasallowed.Thetariffwascertified,andlicences
wereissuedtoCBCandtheotherbroadcaster.Aninterimorder
extendedthe2008-12licencependingafinaldeterminationof
SODRAC’ss.70.2applicationconcerninglicencescovering2012-16.

CBCsoughtjudicialreviewtosetasideseveraltermsina2008-12
licence(FederalCourtofAppealFileNo.A-516-12).Italsosought
judicialreviewoftheextensionofthe2008-12licence(FederalCourt
ofAppealFileNo.A-63-13)
·Section3–Copyrightinworks

Theviewer,readerorlistenerisnotliabletotheownerofthecopyrightfor
infringementmerelybyvirtueofhavingseenorheardtheinfringingmaterial.

GeophysicalServiceIncorporatedvNwestEnergyCorp.,2014CarswellAlta546
(Alta.Q.B.;2014-04-07)Robertson,Master
[67]Theclaimsforbreachofconfidenceandcopyrightinfringement,
asIunderstandit,proceedfromthepremisethatthesimplereceipt
ofinformation,eitherconfidentialinformationorcopyrightmaterial,
createsaliabilitytotheowneroftheconfidentialinformationorthe
copyrightwork,eveniftherecipientwasunawareofthe
confidentialityclaimorthecopyrightbytheowner.

[78]Inregardstocopyright,theclaimisinessencethatifaperson
obtainsapiratedcopyofcopyrightmaterialandperformsit,orshows
ittoothers,orplaysitontheradio,thentheviewer,readerorlistener
isliabletotheownerofthecopyrightforinfringementmerelyby
virtueofhavingseenorheardit.TheCopyrightAct(Canada)goesto
greatlengthstodefinewhatconstitutesinfringementofcopyright,but
Ihavebeenunabletofindinanyofthedefinitionsandexceptionsto
definitionsthatmerelyreceiving,reading,orhearingacopyrightwork
constitutesinfringement,eveniftherecipientknewthattheworkisa
piratedcopy
·Section3–Copyrightinworks

Incorporealrightsshouldnotbeconfusedwiththeirembedyingmedia.

LondonLife,compagnied’assurance-viec.Canada*,2014CarswellNat1276
(F.C.A.;2014-04-29)GauthierJ.[56]Incorporealrightsshouldnotbeconfusedwithphysicalmedia.
Forexample,copyrightinaworkisnotseizedbyseizingthebook
itself..
·Section3–Copyrightinworks

Dowloadinginvolvestherightofreproductionratherthantherightofcommunication.

Re:SoundNo.Tariff8–Non-interactiveandsemi-interactivewebcasts,2009-2012,
2014CarswellNat1577(Cop.Bd.;2014-05-16)theBoard

[214]Second,sincethedecisionoftheSupremeCourtofCanadain
EntertainmentSoftwareAssociationv.SocietyofComposers,
AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanada,[FN22012SCC34]
downloadsofmusicalworksorothersubject-matterdonotengage
therightofcommunicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationbut
onlythereproductionright.Therefore,thedistinctionbetweena
communicationandatransmission,whenreferringtocopyright-
protectedcontent,isnowveryimportant.Acommunicationisatype
oftransmissionbutnotalltransmissionsarecommunications.
·Section3–Copyrightinworks

Anancillaryusethatshouldbedealtwithatthesametimeasthemainuse.

PublicPerformanceofSoundRecordings,Re[Re:SoundNo.Tariff8–Non-
interactiveandsemi-interactivewebcasts,2009-2012]2014CarswellNat1577Cop.
Bd.;2014-05-16)[72]Inourview,theInternetsimulcastofaradiostation’sover-the-air
signalisatextbookexampleofanancillaryusethatshouldbedealt
withatthesametimeasthemainuse.Thevalueperlistenerfor
simulcastingandforover-the-airbroadcastingisthesame.That
valueisbestachievedbyattachingtheancillaryusetothemainone.
Accordingly,theroyaltiesshouldbeproportionaltotherelative
audience.[Fn24Supranote5[SOCAN-Re:SoundCBCRadioTariff,
2006-2011(8July2011)CopyrightBoardDecision.]atparas.118-
120.ThisisincontrastwiththeAmericanapproach,whichtreats
radiosimulcastingasaseparateproduct:17USC114(d)(1),CFR
380.3(a)(1).]

·Section3–Copyrightinworks

Infringementinvolvesthereproductionofanimportantpartoftheprotectedwork.

HaywardIndustriesinc.v.ÉquipementsdepiscineCarvininc.,2014CarswellQue
5143(Que.Sup.Ct.;204-05-27MorrisonJ.[70]Parcontre,iln’estpassuffisant,pourlesfinsd’établirune
contraventiondudroitd’auteur,dedémontrerqu’unepartied’un
œuvreaétécopiée.
[71]Pourréussiràétablirqu’ilyaeutellecontravention,l’œuvre,
danscecasletextedesmanuelsd’instructionsdeHayward,doitêtre
«original»[Fn17Loisurledroitd’auteur,L.R.C.(1985),c.C-42,art.
5(1)]etune«partieimportante»[Fn18Loisurledroitd’auteur,L.R.C.
(1985),c.C-42,art.3(1)]devraitêtrecopiée.
[72]SelonCarvin,unmanueld’instructionspourl’utilisationd’un
chlorateurn’estqu’undocumentquiaideunconsommateuràutiliser
leproduit.Danslecasdesproduitssimilairesdanslamême
industrie,elleplaidequecen’estpassurprenantquelesmanuels
soientsimilaires,vulemanqued’originalitéetdecréativitéinhérent.

[73]Àcetégardetparanalogie,ellefaitréférenceàunedécision
ontarienne[Fn19KilvingstonBros.Ltd.v.HerbertGoldbergetal.,
(1957)16FoxPat.,p.164-168],encitantlejugeJudsondelaCour
Suprêmedel’Ontario:Thesimilaritiesareplaintobeseenbuttheydonotenableme
todrawaninferenceofcopying.Tombstoneworkersworkingon
ataskofthiskindareworkingwithcommonideasandwithonly
alimitedfieldfortheexpressionofthoseideas.Itisnot
surprisingthattheresultsaresimilar.

[74]Autrementdit,l’informationquecontiennentlesmanuelsdes
deuxpartiesvientd’une«sourcecommune»,soit,dansleprésent
cas,l’opérationdeschlorateursauselpourpiscine,cequifaitque
lesidéesàêtreexpriméesdanslesmanuelssontcommunes[Fn20
Caronc.AssociationdespompiersdeMontréalinc.,1992
CarswellNat691,42C.P.R.(3d)292(CourfédéraleduCanada)].

[75]Deplus,Carvinplaidequelestextesauxquelsfaitréférence
Haywardcommeétantcopiésdirectementoumodifiéslégèrement
neconstituentpasune«partieimportante»desmanuels.

32
[76]Àcetégard,l’expression«partieimportante»nesignifiepas
uniquementuneperspectivequantitativemaisaussi,etdefaçonplus
importante,qualitative[Fn211429539OntarioLimitedc.CaféMirage
Inc.,2011FC1290,par.122].Haywardneplaidepasl’aspect
qualitatifdesesmanuels.Ellesefieprincipalementsurla
perspectivequantitative.
[77]Considérantcequiprécède,àcestadedesprocédures,la
preuveesttellequeleplusquel’onpuissedireestqueledroitde
Haywardestdouteuxquantàlacontrefaçond’undroitd’auteur,etle
Tribunalenconclutainsi.
·Section3–Copyrightinworks

Copyrightisanexclusiverighttodealwiththeprotectedwork.

Flansberry(KaptureDesign)v.6548890Canadainc.(TurboMarketing),2014
CarswellQue11833(Que.Ct;2014-06-01)LapointeJ.

[70]Ledébatquiresteestceluidelatitularitédudroitd’auteur.Cette
questionpeuttrouverréponseendéterminantd’abordquiestl’auteur
destravauxetensuitesilesdroitsdel’auteurontétécédés.L’article
3L.d.a.cernel’ampleurdudroitd’auteuretsonimportanceenun
principeclair.Ledroitd’auteurestledroitexclusifdeproduireoude
reproduireuneœuvresousuneformematérielle(art.3L.d.a.).
·Section3–Copyrightinworks

Infringementinvolvesthereproductionofanimportantpartoftheprotectedwork.

AnimalWelfareInternationalInc.v.W3InternationalMediaLtd.,2014CarswellBC
2902(B.C.S.C.;2014-10-01)RossJ.
[468]Thefinalrequirementtoestablishthatabreachofcopyright
hasoccurredisthattheoriginalworkwhichwascopiedwasactually
substantiallyreproducedinthecopiedworkandnotjustreproduced
indiscreteparts.TheCourtinBritishColumbiaJockeyClubv.
Standen,1983CanLII322(BCSC),[1983]4W.W.R.537,73C.P.R.
(2d)164(B.C.S.C.),aff’d1985CanLII591(BCCA),[1985]6W.W.R.
683,8C.P.R.(3d)283(B.C.C.A.),confirmedthat“substantial”,as
usedins.3oftheCA[CopyrightAct],doesnotmeanidentical.Text

33
canbeidentifiedassubstantiallycopiedevenifthelanguageis
altered.
·Section3–Copyrightinworks

Inacontest,thereisnoimpliedconditionsthatwhatwillbesubmittedwillnotinfringe
thecopyrightofthirdparties.

Cayouettev.RNCMediainc.,[2014]J.Q.13537(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2014-09-
22)LachapelleJ.
[32]RNCMediaquiestbienaufaitdesproblèmespotentielsreliésà
laquestiondesdroitsd’auteurauraitdûindiquerclairementqueles
participantsquisoumettaientdesphotosprovenantdel’internetou
d’autressourcesseraientdisqualifiés.
[34]LeTribunalestimequeRNCMediaaeffectivementmanquéà
sonobligationdedivulguertouteslesconditionsetlesmodalités
d’obtentionduprix.Parconséquent,conclutquemadameCayouette
adroitàdesdommages-intérêts.
·Section5–Conditionsofsubsistenceofcopyright

Copyrightonlyprotectstheexpressionofideas.Aworkmustbeinafixedmaterial
formtoattractcopyright.
J.v.M.,117C.P.R.(4th)409(B.C.S.C.;2014-01-23)BunyeatJ.
[57]The“Work”isabusinesssystemusingthecomputersofDCat
SCMIandisnotcapableofprotectionunderthe
Act.TheWorkisnot
aworkinwhichcopyrightmaysubsistwithinthemeaningoftheAct.
[…]
Itflowsfromthefactthatcopyrightonlyprotectstheexpressionof
ideasthataworkmustalsobeinafixedmaterialformtoattract
copyrightprotection:see
s.2definitionsof“dramaticwork”and
“computerprogram”and,moregenerally,Goldnerv.Canadian
BroadcastingCorp.(1972),7C.P.R.(2d)158(F.C.T.D.),atp.162;
Grignonv.Roussel1991CanLII6894(FC),(1991),38C.P.R.(3d)4
(F.C.T.D.),atp.7.

34
[58]Section5oftheActdescribesthetypesofworksinwhich
copyrightmaysubsistasbeingin“everyoriginalliterary,dramatic,
musicalandartistic”work.Section2ofthe
Actdefines“literarywork”
toincludea“computerprogram”,whichisfurtherdefinedasa“setof
instructionsorstatements,express,fixed,embodiedorstoredinany
manner,thatistobeuseddirectlyorindirectlyinacomputerinorder
tobringaboutaspecificresult”.Thedefinitionof“artisticwork”
includes“architecturalworks”whicharethemselvesdefinedas“any
buildingorstructureoranymodelofabuildingorstructure”.

[59]Thefactthatthe
Actdoesnotprotectideasmeansthatthereis
nocopyrightinanyarrangement,system,schemeormethodfor
doingaparticularthingorprocess:DelrinaCorp.(c.o.b.Carolian
Systems)v.TrioletSystemsInc.2002CanLII11389(ONCA),
(2002),58O.R.(3d)339(C.A.)atpara.35.
·Section5-Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright

Originalityisnotamatterofquantity.
Planification-Organisation-PublicationsSystèmes(POPS)Ltéev.9054-8181Québec
Inc.,124C.P.R.(4th)161(F.C.A.;2014-07-25)GauthierJ.[varying111C.P.R.(4th)
1(F.C.;2013-04-25)]
[79]Inotethattheoriginalityofaworkisnotmeasuredbythe
numberoflines.[…]
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Theemployeristhefirstownerofthecopyrightinworkscreatedbyhisemployee.

J.v.M.,117C.P.R.(4th)409(B.C.S.C.;2014-01-23)BunyeatJ.
[61]EvenifIamincorrectincomingtotheconclusionthatthe
Plaintiffcouldhavenoclaimunderthe
Act,Iwouldhavealso
concludedthatanyclaimtocopyrightforwhatwasproducedbythe
PlaintiffandothersintheiremployatSCMIwouldresultinaclaim
beingavailabletoSCMIunderthe
Act.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Theemployeristhefirstownerofthecopyrightinworkscreatedbyhisemployee.

Lachancev.ProductionsMarieEykelinc.,2014CarswellQue637(Que.C.A.;2014-
01-30),theCourt[confirming2012CarswellQue5028(Que.Sup.Ct.;2012-03-15]

[11]Surlemoyend’appelprincipal,l’appelantinvitelaCourà
faireunelecturerestrictivedel’article13(3)delaLDA,duseulfait
qu’ils’agiraitd’unedérogationàlarèglegénéraleédictéeàl’article
13(1)quiaccordelapossessiond’uneœuvreàsonauteur.Sans
nécessairementpartagertouslesmotifsdelajugedepremière
instance,laCourestd’avisqu’enl’espèceelleacorrectement
appliquélesconditionsnécessairesàl’applicationdel’article13(3)
auregarddelapreuveadministrée.Eneffet,l’employeuresttitulaire
dudroitd’auteurdansl’œuvredesonemployélorsquelesconditions
suivantessontsatisfaites:1)uneœuvreestcrééedanslecadred’un
contratd’emploi;2)pareilleœuvreestcrééeparl’employédans
l’exercicedecetemploi;et3)iln’yapasunestipulationàl’effet
contraire[Fn5NormandTamaro,Ledroitd’auteur-Fondementset
principes,Montréal,Pressesdel’UniversitédeMontréal,1994,p.
157;CanadianCopyrightAct-Annotated,HuguesG.Richardet.al.,
éditeurs,vol.2,Carswell,Toronto,feuillemobile,janvier2014,pp.
12-13].C’estdoncàbondroitquelajugeanoté[Fn6Jugement
entrepris,paragr.46à50]quelapreuvedémontrel’existencedes
troisconditionsdonnantouvertureàunetelleapplicationaubénéfice
del’employeur.
[12]Desurcroît,àmaintesreprisesdurantsontémoignage[Fn7
Voirnotammentinterrogatoireenchefetcontre-interrogatoire:pp.
719à721;p.758;p.764;p.773;pp.785à789;p.882et883;
p.894.],l’appelantaadmisquec’estsonemployeurquiseulavaitle
droitsurl’œuvre(etpartantledroitd’enexploiterlesdroitsdérivés).
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Statutoryprovisionsinregardsofcopyrightownershipmaybevariedbycontract.

Ahernv.1772887OntarioLtd.(MariageQuébec),2014QCCQ973,(Que.Ct.;2014-
02-05)RichardJ.
[21]Finalement,enannexeàlafacturedu17mai2007,M.Ahern
décritl’ententeverbaleintervenueavecunereprésentantede
MariageQuébecparlaquelleilvendsesdroitsdereproductiondes
photographiesaumagazineMariageQuébecoupourtouteautre
publicationdecemagazineàveniretnonpourtouteautreutilisation.
[i.e.Jean-YvesAherngardecependantlecopyrightsurcesphotoset

36
ilseréserveledroitd’utiliserlesditesphotosàtitrepromotionnel,et
ceàpartirdumoisdedécembre2007.]

[22]AucunepreuvedeMariageQuébecnecontreditcetteentente.

[23]Conséquemment,leTribunalconclutqueM.Ahernconserve
sondroitd’auteursurlesphotographiesprisesentre2007et2009à
lademandedeMariageQuébec,pourtouteutilisationautrequele
magazinequ’ellepublie.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Classactionforcopyrightinfringementmaybeappropriatebutanysettlement
agreementmustbefairtoallclassmembers.
Waldmanv.ThomsonReutersCanadaLimited,120C.P.R.(4th)127,(Ont.Sup.Ct.;
2014-03-04)PerellJ.[95]I,however,donotfindthattheSettlementAgreementis
substantively,circumstantially,orinstitutionallyfairtoClass
Members.Inthisregard,Iagreewiththegeneralsentimentofthe
objectorstotheSettlementthattheSettlementAgreementbringsthe
administrationofjusticeandclassactionsintodisreputebecause:(a)
theSettlementismorebeneficialtoClassCounselthanitistothe
ClassMembers;and(b)initspracticaleffect,theSettlement
expropriatestheClassMembers’propertyrightsinexchangefora
charitabledonationfromThomson.
[96]ThecaseatbarisnotlikeRobertsonv.ThomsonCanadaLtd.,
[2009]O.J.No.2650(S.C.J.),whereJusticeCullityapproveda
settlementinacopyrightinfringementclassaction.IntheRobertson
case,Thomsonsettledacopyrightinfringementactionbroughtby
freelancewritersforcompensationforthepublicationoftheirworks
onelectronicdatabases.Underthesettlement,Thomsonagreedto
paytheclassmembers,whoundoubtedlyhadthecopyrightintheir
literaryworks,$11million,whichaftercertaindeductionsincluding
legalfees,wastobedistributedtothoseclassmembersthat
providedlicences.Asanalternativetograntingthelicencesand
receivingpaymentsunderthedistributionsprocess,classmembers
couldelecttohavetheirworksremovedfromcommercially-available
electronicdatabases.
[97]UnlikeRobertson,inthecaseatbar,theClassMembersdidnot
receivecompensationfortheirlicencesbutonlythesatisfactionof

37
knowingthatThomsonpaid$350,000tobenefitaworthyprojectand
$850,000toClassCounsel.
[98]Butmoretothepoint,unlikeRobertson,thecaseatbarwas
alwaysabouttheprincipleandnotaboutthemoney.InRobertson,
theclassmembers’livelihoodwastobepaidfortheirliteraryworks,
andtheysuedtoearnrevenue.Inthecaseatbar,theClass
Membersmaketheirlivingaslawyersnotasauthors,andtheysued
notforincomebutfortheprinciplethatThomsonshouldnottake
whatmostlawyerswouldbepreparedtogiveawayforfreeifonly
politelyasked.
[99]UnlikeRobertson,wherethepaymenttotheclassmembersin
exchangeforalicencewasconsistentwiththepurposesoftheclass
action,inthecaseatbar,theexchangeofalicencewasinconsistent
withthepurposesoftheclassaction,whichwasneveraboutthe
moneybutabouttheprinciplethatThomsonshouldnotinfringethe
ClassMembers’copyrightsincourtdocuments.Underthis
Settlement,Thomsonhasachievedsomethingthatitcouldnothave
achievedevenbyasuccessfulcounterclaim;namely,copyright
licencesandreleasesofcopyrightinfringementclaimsbyClass
Memberswhoseintentionwastoprotectnottobepaidfortheir
copyright.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Foracopyrightassigmenttohaveeffect.Itmustbeclearastothetransferofrights.

Sociétédedéveloppementdesentreprisesculturelles(SODEC)v.SociétéRadio-
Canada(SRC),2014CarswellQue2051(Que.Sup.Ct.;2014-03-12)PetrasJ.

[83]EnFrance,seulletitulairedesdroitsd’auteur,quidisposeun
droitréel,peutagirencontrefaçon.Mêmeunlicenciéexclusifn’apas
lesqualitéspouragirencontrefaçoncariln’estpastitulairedes
droitsd’auteur.

[125]Pourprétendreautransfertd’undroitdepropriétéréel,ilfaut
destermesclairsdansuneconvention
·Section13–Ownershipofcopright

Evenincopyrightmatters,anappealbasedonfindingsoffactswillseldombe
successfull.

38
Pintov.BronfmanJewishEducationCenter,2014CarswellQue2135(Que.C.A.;
2014-03-12)[affirming2011QCCS3458(Que.Sup.Ct.;2011-07-13)]
[1][…]ThejudgeoffirstinstanceconcludedthatAppellant’sclient
wasBronfmanJewishEducationCentre,andnotFederationCJAnor
TalAmInc.SheconcludedthatRespondentsShlomoandTova
ShimondidnottakeadvantageoftheAppellant.Theydidnotcommit
themselvestonegotiateanagreementwithhimregardingthe
paymentofroyalties.ThelettersdatedJune13and14,2006were
notdraftedinordertoabusivelyobtainawaiverfromhimregarding
thepaymentofroyaltiesbutrathertoputanendtotheinterminable
discussionstheywerehavingregardingthisquestion.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Theprovisionsdealingwithorderedengravings,photographorportraitareapplicable
toworkscreatedbeforetherepealofsubsection13(2).

Labrecque(OSauna)v.Trudel(CentreBellaza,s.e.n.c.),2014QCCQ2595(Que.
Ct.–SmallClaims;2014-03-28)GervaisJ.

[42]Commeleprévoitexpressémentle2eparagraphedel’article13,
c’estlapersonnequiacommandélaphotographiequiesttitulairedu
droitd’auteurlorsqu’elleaverséunesommed’argentpourl’obtenir.
Telqueditplushaut,laLoisurlamodernisationdudroitd’auteur[Fn
3L.C.2012,ch.20]aabrogécesdeuxdispositions,maisprévoitaux
articles59et60queceux-cidemeurentmalgrétoutenvigueur
lorsquevientletempsdedéterminerlepropriétaired’undroit,pourvu
quelaphotographieaitétécommandéeavantl’entréeenvigueurde
celle-ci,cequiestlecasenl’espèce[…]

[43]Laconséquenceenestque,lapreuveétablissantquela
demanderesseacommandéetpayélaphotographieen2006,elle
estdétentricedudroitd’auteuràsonégard.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Anassignmentorgrantmustbeinwriting.Theeffectofaconfirmatoryassignmentis
betterdecidedbythetrialjudge.
GroupeInnomaxinc.v.HabitationsRoumainc.,2014CarswellQue4059(Que.Sup.
Ct.;2014-04-03)PicardJ.

39
[10]Laconcessiond’intérêtàlaquelleréfèrecettedisposition
[Subsection13(4)]viselalicenceexclusive,paroppositionàla
simplelicencenonexclusive[Fn1Article13(7)delaLoi.],laquelle
peutêtreverbale.
[12]Ainsi,d’unepart,l’écritestrequisafindepermettreau
cessionnaireoudétenteurd’undroit,titreouintérêtd’exercerson
recours;ils’agitd’uneexigencededroitsubstantiel,nonpasd’une
règledepreuveoudeprocédure[Fn2BradaleDistribution
EnterprisesInc.c.SafetyFirstInc.,(1987)18C.I.P.R.71(C.S.);
Motel6Inc.c.No.6MotelLtd.,(1981)C.P.R.44(C.F.).].D’autre
part,lapersonnenedétenantqu’unelicencenonexclusive
d’utilisationd’uneoeuvrenepossèdepasl’intérêtrequisafin
d’exercerunrecoursencontrefaçondedroitd’auteur[Fn3Normand
TAMARO,Loisurledroitd’auteur,texteannoté,9eédition,Carswell,
2012,p.881].[27]Ainsi,l’onseretrouvedevantunejurisprudence
contradictoire:d’uncôté,lesdécisionsBradaleDistribution
EnterprisesInc.[BradaleDistributionEnterprisesInc.v.SafetyFirst
Inc.,(1987)18C.I.P.R.71(Que.Sup.Ct..)]etHarmonyConsulting
Ltd.[HarmonyConsultingLtd.v.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2011FC
340;affd.(2012FCA226],donnantouverture,danscertaines
circonstances,àlareconnaissancedecontratsnuncprotuncde
cessiondedroitd’auteuretdel’autrecôté,ladécisionJ.L.DeBall
CanadaInc.,[J.L.deBallCanadaInc.v.421254OntarioLtd.,5
C.P.R.(4th)352(F.C.T.D.;1999-12-30]faisantéchecaurecours
introduitparlecessionnaire,fondésurdesviolationsdedroit
d’auteurantérieuresàladatedesignaturedelacessionnuncpro
tunc.

[29]Or,vulajurisprudencecontradictoireenmatièredecessions
dedroitd’auteurnuncprotunc,ilseraitprématurédemettrefinau
recoursdeG.I.,àcestade-ci,sansluiavoirpermisdefournir
d’élémentsdepreuvequantauxcirconstancesentourantlasoi-disant
cessionverbaledejuin2009etquantauxintentionsducédant,
GestionInnomaxLtée,àcettedate.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Copyrightlawshouldnotbeusedasatrapfortheunwarry.

Pokorav.9064-0723Québecinc.,2014QCCQ5697(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;
2014-05-14)ChicoineJ.

40
[11]CONSIDÉRANTQUE,sitelsdroitd’auteuroudecopyright
peuventexisterenfaveurd’unphotographedéjàpayépourlaprise
desphotos,encoreeût-ilfalluqueledemandeurlesréserve
explicitementou,àtoutlemoins,qu’ilenconvienneavecsonco-
contractantlorsdeleurconventioninitiale;
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Eveninfavourofacollectivesociety,anassignementoranexclusiveliencemustbe
i)inwritingandii)signedbythecopyrightowner(orhisrepresentative).

Claimingunemployementbenefitsimpliesthattheauthorwasanemployeeand
couldnotclaimfirstownershipoftheworkhecreated.

Kennedyv.Ruminski,2014CarswellNat1842(F.C.;2014-05-30)PhelanJ.
[23]IfindnomeritintheRespondent’scontentionthatthe
relationshipatissuewasapartnershipwithaweeklydraw.

[24]TheRespondentreportedhisincomeasemploymentincomefor
taxpurposesandidentifiedtheApplicantashisemployer.Heknew
thattheApplicantmadethenecessarysourcedeductionsfromhis
weeklypaycheques.
Hisclaimforemploymentbenefitsconstitutesanadmissionthatat
leasthesawhimselfasanemployee.Thisfact,combinedwiththe
natureofweeklypaymentsandhischaracterizationofthemas

41
employmentincome,issufficientinthiscasetoestablishthathewas
anemployee.
[25]Asaresultofthisfinding,s13(3)oftheActisrelevant.Itvests
copyrightintheworkscreatedduringthecourseoftheRespondent’s
employmentwiththeApplicantunlessthereisanagreementtothe
contrary.
[26]TheMemorandumconstitutessuchanagreement.Itgoverns
therespectiveownershipinterestsoftheApplicantandRespondent
intheworkscreatedbytheRespondentduringthecourseofthe
employmentrelationship.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Authorizationmustbefromthecopyrightownerorhislegalrepresentative.

TheStatusoftheArtistActandtheCopyrightActarenotmutuallyexclusiveor
contradictory.Establishingaminimumfeefortheuseofexistingworksdoesnot
affectanyoftherightsconferredoncopyrightholdersnordothescaleagreements
undertheStatusoftheArtistActbindcollectivesocietiesgovernedbytheCopyright
Act.

42
withtherighttousetheirartisticworks,namelypreventinganartist
fromdoingsoifnoproduceriswillingtoofferhimorhertheminimum
amountundertheapplicablescaleagreement.Ultimately,however,
thedecisionofwhetherornottoprovidetherighttouseanartistic
workremainswiththecopyrightholder.
[24]TheaboveinterpretationcausesnoconflictwiththeCopyright
Act’sprovisionsregardingcollectivesocieties.Ascounselfor
CARFAC/RAAVacknowledgedattheoralhearing,minimumfeesfor
existingworksdonotapplytoorbindcollectivesocietiessuchas
SODRAC.Collectivesocietieshavethepowertodeterminetariffsfor
theworksinwhichtheyholdthecopyright,subjecttotheapprovalof
theCopyrightBoard.However,theSAA[StatusoftheArtistAct,S.C.
1992,c.33]andtheTribunalprecedentareclear,andnoneofthe
partiestothisappealdisagree:scaleagreementsdonotbind
collectivesocieties.TheSAAonlygovernstheprofessionalrelations
betweenfederalgovernmentalproducers,asdefinedbythatAct,and
artistsinsofarastheychoosetoretaintheircopyrights.

[25]Artiststhereforehavetwooptionswhendealingwithfederal
governmentalproducersfortheuseoftheirexistingworks.One
optionistoassignorlicensetheircopyrighttoacollectivesocietyor
appointthatsocietyastheirauthorizedagent.Inthatcase,tariffsset
undertheCopyrightAct,andnottheSAAandanyscaleagreements
fortheirsector,willapplytotheworks.Theotheroptionistodeal
directlywiththeproducer,inwhichcasetheywillbeboundbyany
applicableSAAscaleagreements.Withinthisoption,artistsmay
eitheraccepttheminimumfees,termsandconditionssetoutinthe
scaleagreementsandmodelcontracts,ortheycanattemptto
negotiatehigherfeesormorefavourableterms.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Theprovisionsofsubsection13(2)mustbeinterpretedrestrictively:aninfographeris
notaphotographer.
Flansberry(KaptureDesign)v.6548890Canadainc.(TurboMarketing),2014
CarswellQue11833(Que.Ct;2014-06-01)LapointeJ.

[68]Leprocureurdelademanderessereconventionnelleaconsacré
beaucoupd’effortsenplaidoirie,àdresserunparallèleentrelerôle
modernedel’infographisteetceluijadisjouéparlephotographequi
manipulaitplanchesetnégatifs.Cetteapprocheprivilégieraitsa
clienteluiconférantlerôledeceluiquicommandeuneœuvreàun

43
photographecontrerémunération,commeprévuàl’article13(2)
L.d.a.

[69]Avecégards,leTribunalnepeutassimilerlestravauxen
questionàdelaphotographie.Lesdispositionsrelativesàla
photographiecommandéeparuntiers,sontuneexceptionau
principedel’article13(1)L.d.a.enfaveurducréateur.Cerégime
d’exceptiondoitêtreinterprétérestrictivement.(LapierreDesmarais
c.Edimaginc.etRobi,CAQ,3avril2003,CanLII17515,paragr.18
à20et49).
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Acopyrightlicenceisnotasaleofgoods.
Leutholdv.CanadianBroadcastingCorporation,2014CarswellNat2246(F.C.A.;
2014-06-27)PelletierJ.[affirming104C.P.R.(4th)401(F.C.;2002-06-14);motionfor
leavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadafiled2014CarswellNat3986
(S.C.C.;2014-09-30)][27]Alicenceagreementisnotasaleofgoods;nopropertyingoods
istransferredasaresultofalicenceagreement.Allthatisconveyed
isarighttousethepropertywhichissubjecttothegrantor’s
copyrightincertainways.Furthermore,anintangiblesuchasan
interestincopyrightisnotagood:seeR.vCacciatore,161OAC,
[2002]O.J.No.2366,atparagraph14.
[29]Ms.LeutholdalsoarguesthattheNewsworldbroadcastwasnot
coveredbytheStillsLicencebecauseitwasincontraventionof
Newsworld’soperatinglicencewhichprohibitsthesimultaneous
broadcastingofprogrammingontheCBC“regular”networkandon
Newsworld.Idonotfindthisargumentpersuasive,asregulatory
practicesarenotdispositiveofcopyrightissues.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Theinterpretationofacontractisamattertobedecidedunderthelawofthe
province.
Planification-Organisation-PublicationsSystèmes(POPS)Ltéev.9054-8181Québec
Inc.,124C.P.R.(4th)161(F.C.A.;2014-07-25)GauthierJ.[varying111C.P.R.(4th)
1(F.C.;2013-04-25)]

44
[39]Iagreewiththeappellantswhentheyindicateintheirnoticeof
appealthatthecontractualrelationshipsbetweenthepartiesmustbe
examinedinlightofthecivillawevenifcertainaspectsarealso
regulatedbytheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42(theAct).It
shouldbenoted,however,thattheappellants(andtherespondents)
askedthejudgetotakeintoaccountvariousdecisionsissuedin
commonlawjurisdictionsandthattheycontinuetorelyonthose
decisionsinthisproceeding.Thisexplainsthereferencetosuch
authoritiesinthejudge’sdecision.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Anon-exclusivelicencemaynotberevokedatwillwhenthelicenseeprovided
consideration.

Planification-Organisation-PublicationsSystèmes(POPS)Ltéev.9054-8181Québec
Inc.,124C.P.R.(4th)161(F.C.A.;2014-07-25)GauthierJ.[varying111C.P.R.(4th)
1(F.C.;2013-04-25)][45]Inmyopinion,thereisnogenerallyapplicableruleoflawthat
wouldprecludeanon-exclusiveuserlicencefrombeingnon-
revocablewhenthelicenseehasprovidedconsideration.Neitherthe
lawnortheActrestricttheparties’contractualfreedominthisregard.
Ineverycase,itisforthetrialjudgetodeterminethetermsthatare
implicitinthecontractinlightofalloftherelevantcontextual
elementsincivillaw.

·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright
Whenaworkiscreatedduringtheemployment,theemployeristheownerofthe
copyrighttherein.

Planification-Organisation-PublicationsSystèmes(POPS)Ltéev.9054-8181Québec
Inc.,124C.P.R.(4th)161(F.C.A.;2014-07-25)GauthierJ.[varying111C.P.R.(4th)
1(F.C.;2013-04-25)][74]Fromthisperspectiveandinviewofthejudge’sfactualfinding
thatElizabethPosadawasworkingforIDPwhentheselinesofcode
werewrittenandthatherjobincludeddevelopingEpsilonand
Comex,therulesetoutatsubsection13(3)oftheActappliedand
unlessotherwisestipulated,IDP(theemployer)wasthefirstownerof
thecopyright.
[84]Furthermore,itmatterslittlewhetherElizabethPosadaisthe
soleauthororoneofseveralauthorsofEpsilona.k.a.Comex.

45
Indeed,accordingtoElizabethPosada’stestimony,the20linesof
codethatwerewrittenwhenshewasemployedbyIDParewhat
distinguishEpsilonfromOmega.Therefore,evenifshewerethesole
authorofEpsilon,itappearstomethatthiscompilationcouldonly
havebeencreatedinthecontextofthatemploymentandatatime
whenPOPSwasdormant.Undersubsection13(3)oftheAct,IDPis,
intheabsenceofanagreementtothecontrary,thefirstownerofthe
copyright(seeparagraphs74to76above).
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Anassignmentmustbeinwriting.
Flansberry(KaptureDesign)v.6548890Canadainc.(TurboMarketing),2014
CarswellQue11833(Que.Ct;2014-06-01)LapointeJ.

[77]L’article13(4)delaLoiprévoit:«Letitulairedudroitd’auteursur
uneœuvrepeutcédercedroit,(…)».Plusloinl’articleprévoit
expressément:«(…)maislacessionoulaconcessionn’estvalable
quesielleestrédigéeparécritetsignéeparletitulairedudroitqui
enfaitl’objet…».

[78]Riendetelneressortdelapreuve.Iln’yeutaucuntelécrit;pas
plusqu’uncontratentrelespartiesrégissantl’ensembledeleurs
relations,cequin’estpasparticulièrementtroublantensoi.
D’ailleurs,l’absenced’écritrendplutôtvraisemblablelaconclusion
quelegraphisteétaitunentrepreneurouprestatairedeservicedans
uncréneausingulier,régitparlesdispositionssurlescontrats
d’entrepriseetdeservice(articles2098etsuivantsC.c.Q).

[79]Dansuntelcontexte,l’absencedecessionparécritestfataleà
celuiquiseveutpropriétairedel’œuvred’unautrequiluiestle
créateurartistiquedel’ouvrageausensdesdroitsd’auteur.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

ThecontractualprovisionsofAnActRespectingtheProfessionalStatusofArtistsin
theVisualArts,ArtsandCraftsandLiterature,andTheirContractswithPromoters
areofpublicorder.

Vanassev.ÉditionsduGrandDuc,unedivisiondeGroupeÉducalivresinc.,2014
CarswellQue8497(Que.Sup.Ct.;2014-07-2)MessierJ

[35]L’article42[delaLoisurlestatutprofessionneldesartistesdes
artsvisuels,desmétiersd’artdelalittératureetsurleurscontrats
aveclesdiffuseurs,RLRQcS-32.01],précisequ’àl’exceptiondes
paragraphes35et37,lesautresdecechapitre,soit30à41sont
d’ordrepublic.Lesdébatsàcesujetindiquent;«M.Brière:Mêmesi
l’artisteacceptaitlanon-conformité,ilseraitconsidérécomme
inexistantendroit.»
[36]DonclaLoiS-32.01aunbutdeprotectiondel’artistequis’étend
àlaprotectiondesécrivainsd’œuvresscientifiques,afind’inclureles
paragraphes30à42auxavantagesd’uncontratindividuelquidevra
respectercertainsparamètres.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Whenaworkisnotcreatedinthecourseofemployment,theemployeeremainsthe
firstownerofthecopyright.
Mejiav.LaSalleCollegeInternationalVancouverInc.,2014CarswellBC2454(B.C.
S.C.;2014-08-18)CohenJ.[207]TheplaintiffwashiredbyLaSalleasaninstructorandnotasa
photographer.Whileaninstructor“proceedinggenerallyabouthis
master’saffairs”couldpossiblybeengaginginawidevarietyof
activities,whetherpaidorunpaid,Idonotviewthetakingof
photographstobeanexampleofsuchanactivity.Inthe
circumstancesofthiscase,thetakingofphotographswasnotan
activitythatwasgenerallyconsideredtobewithinthedutiesofthe
plaintiffinstructor,andtherewasnocontractualagreementthathe
doso.Thoughthephotographisconnectedwiththeemployer
LaSallebyvirtueofitssubjectandthelocationinwhichitwastaken,
Idonotviewitasbeingconnectedwiththeplaintiff’semployment.

[208]Ifind,therefore,thatthephotographwasnotmadeinthe
courseoftheplaintiff’semploymentwithLaSalleand,assuch,s.
13(3)oftheCopyrightActdoesnotapply.Ifind,pursuanttos.13(1)
oftheCopyrightAct,thattheplaintiffisthefirstownerofthe
copyrightofthephotographinquestion.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

47
Theassignmentofcopyrightmustbeinwritingbutnottherigfhttosellcopyrighted
material.
Wanlessv.MayfairMusicPublicationsInc.,2014CarswellOnt12291(Ont.Sup.Ct.;
2014-09-08)AndréJ.[18]CounselforMr.LowethcontendsthatitispointlesstograntMs.
Wanless’motiontoamendherstatementofclaim,giventhat,by
virtueofsection13(4)oftheCopyrightAct(“the(“Act”),the
agreementbetweenMs.WanlessandthelateJohnLowethhadto
beinwritinginordertobevalid.
[19]Idisagree.Section13(4)oftheActindicatesthatany
assignmentofacopyrightmustbeinwritingtobevalid.Thesection
doesnotstatethatanagreementbetweentwopersonsinwhichone
givestheothertherighttosellcopyrightedmaterialmustbein
writing.Tothatextent,Ms.Wanless’oralcontractwithJohnLoweth
isnotinvalid.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Hewhoreceivedaplagiarizedexpertreportmayobtainthereimbursementofwhat
hepaid.
Hendricksv.WayneArendse&JBCInternationalForensicSolutions,[2014]O.J.
4702(Ont.Sup.Ct.SmallClaims;2014-09-29)KleinD.J.
[18]Ultimately,[theexpert]Vormbaumconcludes:Basedontheinformation…itwouldappearthatlargepartsof
the”QUALITYASSURANCEMANUAL–VLTS”writtenby[the
defendant]WayneArdendseandsubmittedtoKeSystemsby
ShaunHendrickshasbeencopiedverbatimfrominformation
availableontheInternet.
Thefactthatsomuchofthemanualhasbeencopiedform
copyrightedmaterialmakesthevaluationofthequalitymanual
aspreparedbyWayneArendseapointlessexerciseasitisthe
consideredopinionofKeSystemsthatthisworkhasbeen
plagiarizedandisofnocommercialvaluewhatsoeveranduse
ofthismanualinanymarketingorproposalactivitiesby
Hendrickscouldhaveexposedhimandorhisventureto

48
significantlegalcostsandpotentiallyruinousdamagetothe
reputationofhimselfandhisbusiness.

[19]Thecourtquestionsthenecessityofa$33,800quality
assessmentsystem.Whenitboilsdowntoit,thiscourtfindsthatthe
costfarexceedwhatwastrulyrequired.Thepricewaswayoutof
whackandthereareseriousquestionssurroundingthevalidityofthe
Arendse’sworkThiswasnotonlyoutlinedintheVormbaumreport,
butbecamequiteapparent,inasimplereadofthecomparisons
betweentheArendse’sreportandthosereadilyfoundontheInternet.
Arendse’sstatedthatallreportsuseastandardizedformof
language,butwhatcanbeseeninhisassessmentreportisbeyond
justamatterofstandardlanguage.Again,asindicated,thecourt
acceptsthefindingsandopinionofMr.Vormbaum.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Copyrightownershipmaybeinferredfromtherelationbetweentheparties,
irrespectiveofanywriting[but,fortunately,thecaseisinappeal!].

RoulottesProliteinc.v.Lasanté,2014CarswellQue10221(Que.Sup.Ct.;2014-10-
03)CaronJ.[inappeal]
[19]Ladeuxièmefacture[Fn6PièceP-6.]aétéémisele20mai
2004etcettefois-ci,onyindique:Conceptiond’unsiteWeb:400,00
$.

[20]Letotaldelafactures’élèveà570$etaubasdelafacture,
toutcommeonleconstatesurlesautresfactures,ilyestprécisé:Ce
reçuconfirmevotreachatdeproduitetdeservice.

[30]C’estdonchuitansaprèslacréationdusiteWebqueJames
réalisequeLasantésecomportecommepropriétairedusiteWeb.Le
Tribunalrappellequ’aucundocumentn’aétééchangéentreles
partiesquantaufonctionnementdusiteWebetlesseulsdocuments
échangéssontlesfacturesémisesparl’entreprisedeLasantéetles
informationsconcernantlecontenudusiteWeb.

49
[31]Jamesatoujourscru,enpayantlesfacturesetvulecontenu
decelles-ci,qu’ils’agissaitdusiteWebdesonentrepriseetà
l’occasion,ilindiquaitàLasantécertainscommentairesouformulait
desdemandespourretirerunepublicitéquipouvaitêtrenégativeàla
demanderesse.
[32]Ensomme,lademanderessepayaitlesfacturessoumises
parLasantéetn’avaitaucuneraisondecroirequelesiteWebn’était
passapropriété.LecontenudesfacturesémisesparLasanté
corroborelaversiondesfaitsdonnéeparJames.
[33]LasantéaexpliquéauTribunalquelesiteWebétaitsa
propriétéparcequelesiteétaitsaconceptionetqu’ilenétait
propriétaire,notammentenraisondesprotectionsoffertesparlaLoi
surledroitd’auteur.Pourtant,le20mai2004,Lasantéatransmisà
Jamesunefactureréférantspécifiquementàlaconceptiondusite
Web.
[41]Lasolutiondulitigerésidedanslarelationcontractuelledes
partiesàlafin2003etaudébut2004etnondansl’interprétationde
laLoisurledroitd’auteur.Àcetteépoque,lestémoignagesde
James,LasantéetdutémoinMironconfirmentquelavolontéde
JamesétaitdecréerunsiteWebpoursonentrepriseetenaucun
tempslesfaitsetgestesdeJameslaissentcroirequ’ilavaitaccepté
delaisserlapropriétédusiteàLasantéousonentreprise.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright

Anassignmentcannotbethebasisforanactionforaninfringementthatoccured
priortotheassignment.
DenturistGroupofOntariov.DenturistAssociationofCanada,2014CarswellNat
4191(F.C.;2014-10-16)MansonJ.[68]However,IagreewiththeApplicantthatwrittencopyright
assignmentsthatpost-datethisapplicationcannotformthebasisof
anactionforinfringementexceptinrespectofinfringingactivities
occurringafterthedateoftheeffectivewrittenassignments(JLDe
BallCanadaIncv421254OntarioLtd(1999),1999CanLII9222
(FC),179FTR231atpara24).

50
·Section19–Righttoremuneration–Canada

Therighttoanequitableremunerationformakersandperformersofsound
recordingsissubjecttotheeligibilityconditionssetforthbysection20.

Re:Soundv.FitnessIndustryCouncilofCanada,120C.P.R.(4th)287(F.C.A.;
2014-02-24)EvansJ.
[28]Subection19(1)createsarighttoanequitableremunerationfor
makersandperformersofsoundrecordingswhenperformedin
public.Inordertoproducethefundsrequiredtoprovideanequitable
remuneration,thosewhoperformtherecordingsinpublicareliable
topayroyaltiestothecollectivesocietyauthorizedtocollectthem.
Subsection20(1)setsouttheeligibilitycriteriaforequitable
remunerationandtheconditionsunderwhichtherightapplies:the
makerofasoundrecordingmustbeaCanadiancitizenora
permanentresident(or,inthecaseofacorporation,haveits
headquartersinCanada),orthefixationsfortherecordingmusthave
occurredinCanada.
·Section19–Righttoremuneration–Canada

Onlyacollectivesocietycancollecttheequitableremuneration.

PublicPerformanceofSoundRecordings,Re[Re:SoundNo.Tariff8–Non-
interactiveandsemi-interactivewebcasts,2009-2012],2014CarswellNat1577(Cop.
Bd.;2014-05-16)
[7]StreamingmusicovertheInternetcaninvolveasmanyassix
rightsorsetsofrights.[Fn7Forafullerdescriptionoftheserights
andofthecollectivesocietiesthatadministerthem,seeCommercial
RadioTariff(SOCAN:2008-2010;Re:Sound:2008-2011;CSI:2008-
2012;AVLA/SOPROQ:2008-2011;Artistl:2009-2011)(9July2010)
CopyrightBoardDecisionatparas.8to13.[CommercialRadio
(2010)]].Theseproceedingsonlyconcerntheequitableremuneration
towhichperformersandmakersareentitledwhenapublishedsound
recordingofamusicalworkiscommunicatedtothepublicby
telecommunication.[Fn8Act,s.19(1)]Thesetworights[Fn9The
issuewassettledinNeighbouringRightsCollectiveofCanadav.
SocietyofComposers,Authors&MusicPublishersofCanada,2003
FCA302,[2004]1F.C.R.303(F.C.A.)atpara.11.SeealsoAct,s.
23(2]alwaystriggerasinglepaymentforanytypeofsound
recording;inthecaseofsoundrecordingsofmusicalworks,that
paymentisalwaysmadetoacollectivesocietyauthorizedbythe
Boardtocollectit.[Fn10Act,ss.19(2)(a),68(2)(a)(iii).]Re:Sound

51
administerstheserightsforthevastmajorityofeligibleperformers
andmakers.
·Section20-Conditions-Canada[righttoremuneration]

Themaker’splaceofresidenceatthedateoffirstfixationisaconditionofeligibiltyto
receiveequitableremunerationforarecording.
Re:Soundv.FitnessIndustryCouncilofCanada,120C.P.R.(4th)287(F.C.A.;
2014-02-24)EvansJ.[118]Finally,Re:SoundsaysthattheBoarderredinlawbyreading
intosection20anadditionaleligibilityrequirement,namelythat
makersorperformerscanonlyreceiveequitableremunerationfora
recordingforwhichtheyhaveappointedacollectivesocietytoactfor
them.Again,Idonotagree.
[119]Requiringaperformerormakertosignuparecordingwitha
collectivesocietybeforebeingabletoreceiveequitableremuneration
isnotofthesamecharacterastheeligibilityconditionsinsection20,
namely,themaker’splaceofresidenceatthedateoffirstfixation,or
wherethefixationsoccurred.Thesecannotbechangedafterthe
recordinghasbeenmadeanddeterminewhetherequitable
remunerationiseverpayableinrespectofaparticularrecording.In
contrast,makersorperformersofrecordingsmayatanytime
authorizeacollectivesocietytoactontheirbehalfinrespectofa
recording.Moreover,asalreadynoted,signingupwithacollective
societyishardlyanonerousrequirement.
·Section27–Infringementgenerally

WhatisontheInternetisnotfreetouse.
Labrecque(OSauna)v.Trudel(CentreBellaza,s.e.n.c.),2014QCCQ2595(Que.
Ct.–SmallClaims;2014-03-28)GervaisJ.

[48]Lefaitquelesdéfendeursaientpumettrelamainsurcette
photographieparl’intermédiairedumoteurderechercheGooglesur
Internetvient-ilalorschangerledroitdontjouitmadameLabrecque?

[49]Onseraitsansdouteàpremièrevuetentédelepenservula
grandedémocratisationdel’informationqu’amèneInternet.

52
[50]Onytrouveeneffetunequantitéphénoménalededonnées
incluantdesimagesqui,pourlaplupart,n’indiquentpasêtre
protégéesparundroitd’auteurquelconque.

[51]Del’avisduTribunal,penserainsiauraitcommeeffetdepouvoir
bienfacilementcontournerlesdispositionslégislativesàcesujet,de
tellesortequedèslemomentoùuneœuvreestdisponiblesur
Internet,elleéchapperaitaudomainejuridiquedelapropriété
intellectuelle.
·Section27–Infringementgenerally

Intheworldofeducation,plagiarismisaseriousmatterbutsanctionsmustbe
graduated.
Syndicatdesprofesseur(e)sdel’UniversitéduQuébecàMontréal[Le]v.L’Université
duQuébecàMontréal,2014CanLII16661f(2014-04-10)Gagnon,arbitrator
[113]Leplagiatnesauraitêtretolérédelapartd’unenseignant.L’on
nesauraiteneffettolérerquelestitulairesdecettefonction
s’adonnenteux-mêmesàdesabusdecettenatureouàd’autresqui
sontinterditsauxétudiants.[…]
[114][…]Lesprofesseursdoiventenquelquesorteservirde
modèlesauxétudiants.L’institutionoùilsexercentleursfonctionsne
sauraittolérerlapratiqueduplagiatdeleurpart.S’ilenétaitainsi,les
étudiantspourraientavoirlesentimentqu’ilspeuventeuxaussiavoir
recoursàdesabusdecettenature,sanscraindrequedesmesures
quileursoitdéfavorablessoientprisesparl’institution
d’enseignementqu’ilsfréquentent.
[120]Telquementionnéauparavantlapreuveproduiteaucoursdes
séancesarbitralespermetd’affirmerqueledemandeuraagide
façoninacceptableenreprenantdanssonlivrecertainstextes
contenusdanslesouvragesdesauteursMarceauetTremblay,sans
mentionnerleurorigine.Cettefaçond’agirconstitueduplagiat.Un
professeurd’universitéquiplagied’autrespersonnesdansunede
sespublicationscommetenréalitéunefautegrave.
·Section27–Infringementgenerally

Knowledgeisanessentialelementtobeprovedforsecondaryinfringement.

53
SandhuSinghHamdardTrustv.NavsunHoldingsLtd,2014CarswellNat4989(F.C.;
2014-11-26)McVeighJ.[110]ThePlaintiff’spassing-offclaimagainstthedefendant
MasterWebfails.Similarly,thecopyrightclaimisdismissedagainst
thedefendantMasterWebasMasterWebhadnoknowledgeofany
allegedlyinfringingactivityandthecopyrightsettlementisacomplete
defensetotheclaim.
·Section29–Research,privatestudy,etc.

Allfreetrialsarenotcoveredbytheexceptionoffairuse.

PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,Re[SOCANTariffs22.D.1–Audiovisual
webcastsand22.D.2–Audiovisualuser-generatedcontentfortheyears2007to
2013],2014CarswellNat2616(Cop.Bd.2014-07-18)theBoard
[57]Netflixarguedthatroyaltiesonfreetrialsareaviolationofthe
SupremeCourtprincipleoftechnologicalneutralityestablishedin
ESA.Wedonotagree.
[58]Theprincipleoftechnologicalneutralityisthat,sinceonlythe
reproductionrightistriggeredwhenaCDissoldinastore,onlythe
reproductionrightshouldbetriggeredwhenadigitalalbumissold
online.TheCDisanalternativetechnologytothedigitaldownload.
Thereisnoalternative-technologyequivalenttoaNetflixfreetrial.
Videostoresneverofferedafreemonth’smembershipwiththeright
torentasmanyvideosasthecustomerwantedfornoadditional
charge.Thus,thereisnoissuewithtechnologicalneutrality

[59]NetflixalsowantedtheBoardtofindthatthefreetrialsarefair
dealinginthesamewaythattheBoardfoundthatfreepreviewsare
fairdealing.Wedeclinetodoso,forseveralreasons.

[60]First,theanalogybetweenfreepreviewsandfreetrialsisweak.
Inafreepreview,thecustomercanhearaportionofamusicalwork
inadegradedformat.Inafreetrial,thecustomercanhear
completemusicalworks,totheextentthatsuchworksarefixedin
theaudiovisualworkbeingwatched.
[61]Second,itisnotaltogetherclearthatNetflixistheonlyprovider
thatoffersfreetrials.WhentheBoardwasexaminingthefree
previewsofferedbyiTunes,itwaspossibletoarguethatiTuneswas
thedominantproviderofpermanentdownloads.Thus,inexamining

54
thepracticesofiTunes,theBoardwasessentiallyexaminingthe
practicesofthepermanent-downloadindustry.However,inthecase
ofNetflix,itisnotclearthattheydominatethemarketforvideos.
Withouttheargumentofmarketdominance,ananalysisofNetflix’s
policyoffreetrialswouldnecessarilybeincompletewithrespectto
theoverallvideoindustry.
[62]Third,andequallyimportantly,wedonothavetheevidentiary
basewithwhichtomakethatdecision.Whilewecoulddelaythis
decisionforseveralmoremonthsduringwhichtimewewouldbe
collectingevidencefromthepartiesonthisissue,thefactthatNetflix
declinedtoparticipateintheprocessformanymonthsissufficient
reasonforustodeclinetodoso.IfNetflixnowwantstoarguethatit
doesnotoweanythingforitsfreetrials,theappropriateforumin
whichtodosoisnottheBoard.
·Section29.2–NewsReporting

Usingaphotographtoillustrateanewsreportonamatterofpublicinterestmaybe
fairuse.
Messierv.LequotidienLaPresse,2014CanLII23871(Que.Conseildepressedu
Québec–Comitédesplaintes;2014-03-21)25]Selonlesplaignants,laphotoaccompagnantl’articleestunchoix
éditorialtendancieuxvisantàfairemalparaîtreM.Lesage.Ils
soutiennentqu’ilexistedesphotosplusavantageusesdeM.Lesage.
Ilssoulignentégalementquelaphotoaétéprisesurlapage
FacebookdeM.Lesagesanssonconsentement,cequiconstituerait
uneviolationdelapropriétéintellectuelle.
[26]MeBourbeaudeLaPressesoutientquel’usaged’une
photographietiréed’unepageFacebookconstitueuneutilisation
équitableausensdelaLoisurledroitd’auteuretneconstituepas
uneviolationdedroitsd’auteur.Ilprécisequeleguidede
déontologieduConseildepresseprévoitquelalibertédepresseet
ledroitdupublicàl’informationautorisentlesmédiasàchoisiret
diffuserlesphotographiesqu’ilsjugentd’intérêtpublicetqueceux-ci
doiventconserverleurentièrelibertérédactionnelleenlamatière.Il
ajoutequec’estM.Lesagequiachoisicettephotographiecomme
imageprincipalepoursonprofilFacebook.

[27]LeConseilconstatequelaphotoduprofilFacebookde
M.Lesageétaitpublique,sélectionnéeparlui-mêmeetaccessibleà

55
tous.L’intérêtpublicdureportagejustifiaitsadiffusion.Parailleurs,il
n’estpasdelacompétenceduConseildeseprononcersurlaLoisur
ledroitd’auteur.

[28]LeConseilrejettelegriefpourpartialité.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Eveniftheawardofcostsisdiscretionnay,anydecisionnottograntsameshall
bemotivated.
Lachancev.ProductionsMarieEykelinc.,2014CarswellQue637(Que.C.A.;2014-
01-30),theCourt[confirming2012CarswellQue5028(Que.Sup.Cté.;2012-03-15)]
[18]Leurdeuxièmemoyenveutquelajugeauraiterrédansson
dispositifenconcluantaurejetdel’actiondel’appelant,sansfrais,
puisqu’elleaomisdepréciserpourquoi.Endépitdelarèglegénérale
quiveutquelapartieperdantepaielesdépensdecellequiagainde
cause,l’article477C.p.c.permetaujugeduprocèsd’ydéroger,
maisildoitsejustifier.Enl’espèce,lesilencedelajugepermetàla
Courdesubstituersonavisausien[Fn9ConstructionsPépinet
Fortininc.c.RésidencedesBois-Francsinc.,A.J.Q./P.C.1999-1273
(C.A.);Lauzonc.Québec(P-G),2010QCCA1239].

[19]Bienquelajugeaitomisdemotiversaconclusionsurles
dépens,unexamendel’ensembledescirconstancesdanslesquelles
s’estdérouléleprocèspermetdecomprendrepourquoielleachoisi
denepaslesaccorderauxintimées.Desurcroît,cen’estquedurant
leprocèsqu’ilestdevenuapparentquel’intervenantefinançaitle
litigeauprofitdesintiméesqui,decefait,n’ontrieneuàdébourser.

·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Theburdentoprovetheinfringementlaysupontheplaintiff.

Chayerv.Messier,2014CarswellQue860(Que.Ct.;2014-01-27)CoutléeJ.
[8]Ledemandeurfondesaréclamationcontrecesdeuxdéfendeurs
surl’inactiondecesdernièresàenleverlestroisphotoscontenues
danslesdeuxsitesInternetdudéfendeurÉricMessierhébergépar
elles.

56
[9]EncequiatraitàladéfenderesseGodaddy.com,lapreuve
démontrequecettedernièreasuspendulesitedudéfendeurÉric
Messierdumomentqueledemandeurasignifiéquesesdroits
d’auteursavaientétéviolés.Lemêmejour,soitle
28décembre2009,ladéfenderesseadressaitunavisaudéfendeur
ÉricMessierpourqu’ilretirecesphotos.Entémoignage,le
défendeurÉricMessieraffirmel’avoirfaitlemêmejouretproduitun
courrieldeconfirmationdeladéfenderesse(D-2).Lesitedu
défendeurÉricMessieraétéremisenlignesuiteàceretrait.

[10]Ledemandeursoutientque,danslesfaits,lesphotosn’ont
jamaisétéretirées.C’estàcedernierqu’appartientlefardeaud’en
fairelapreuve.Ledemandeurproduitunesériedecourrielset
d’accusésderéceptiondeladéfenderesseGodaddy.com.Celane
prouverien.Ileuétéfaciled’imprimerlapageWebdudéfendeur
avecunedatepostérieureau28décembre2009.Enl’absenced’une
tellepreuve,ledemandeurnes’estpasrelevédesonfardeaude
preuve.Saréclamationestrejetéequantàladéfenderesse
Godaddy.com.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

ConditionsofissuanceofaNorwichOrder.TheCourtmustweighandbalancethe
privacyrightsofpotentiallyinnocentusersoftheinternetversustherightofcopyright
holderstoenforcetheirrights.

VoltagePicturesv.Doe,119C.P.R.(4th)232(F.C.;2014-02-20)Alto,Prothonotary
[133]Havingconsideredalloftheevidenceoftheparties,their
submissionsandthejurisprudence,thereisanumberofprinciplesto
begleaned.Theseprinciplesareinadditiontotheteststobeappliedfrom
BMG[
BMGCanadaInc.v.Doe,2005FCA193].TheCourtshouldgive
considerationtotheseprinciplestoweighandbalancetheprivacyrightsof
potentiallyinnocentusersoftheinternetversustherightofcopyright
holderstoenforcetheirrights.TheCourtoughttobalancetheserights
inassessingtheremedytobegranted.Whereevidencesuggeststhatan
impropermotivemaybelurkingintheactionsofacopyrightholder
plaintiff,themorestingenttheorder.However,itwouldonlybeinacase
wheretherewascompellingevidenceofimpropermotiveonbehaifofa
plaintiffinseekingtoobtaininformationaboutallegedinfringersthataCourt
mightconsiderdenyingthemotionentirely.TheCopyrightActengagesthe
Courttoenforcecopyrightandtherightsthatgowiththecreationof
copyrightedworks.AbsentaclearimpropermotivetheCourtshouldnot
hesitatetogravideremediestocopyrightholderswhoseworkshavebeen
infringed.

[134]Insummary,thefollowingisanon-exhaustivelistofconsiderations
whichflowfromcasesintheU.S.,UK.andCanada:
a)Themovingpartymustdemonstrateabonafidecase;
b)Puttingsafeguardsinplacesothatallegedintiingersreceivingany
“demand”letterfromapartyobtaininganorderundcrRule238ora
NorwichOrdernotbeintimidatedintomakingapaymentwithoutthe
benefitofunderstandingtheirlegalrightsandobligations;
c)WhenissuingaNorwichOrdertheCourtmayretaintheauthorityto
ensurethatitisnotabusedbythepartyobtainingitandcanimposeternis
onhowitsprovisionsarecarriedout;
d)ThepartyenforcingtheNorwichOrdershouldpaythelegalcostsand
disbursementsoftheinnocentthird-party;
e)Specificwarningsregardingtheobtainingoflegaladviceorthelike
shouldbeincludedinanycorrespondancetoindividualswhoareidentified
bytheNorwichOrder;
f)Limitingtheinformationprovidedbythethirdpartybyreleasingonlythe
naineandresidentialaddressbutnottelephonenumbersande-mail
addrcsscs;
g)EnsuringthereisamechanismfortheCourttomonitortheimplementation
oftheNorwichOrder;
h)Ensuringthattheinformationthatisreleasedremainsconfidentialandnot
bediscloscdtothepublicandbeusedonlyinconnectionwiththe
action;
i)Requiringthepartyobtainingtheordertoprovideacopyofany
proposed”demand”lettertoa11partiesonthemotionandtotheCourt
priortosuchletterbeingsenttotheallegedinfringers;
j)TheCourtshouldreservetherighttoorderarnendmentstothedemand
letterintheeventitcontainsinappropriatestatements;
k)LetterssenttoindividualswhosenainesarerevealedpursuanttoCourt
ordermustmakeclearthatthefactthatanorderfordisclosurehasbeen
madedoesnotmeanthatthecourthasconsideredthemeritsofthe
allegationsofinfringementagainsttherecipientandmadeanyfundingof
liability;
l)Anydemandlettershouldstipulatethatthepersonreceivingtheletter
maynotbethepersonwhowasresponsiblefortheinfringingacts;
m)AcopyoftheCourtorder,ortheentiredecisionshouldbeincluded
withanylettersenttoanallegedinfringer;and,
n)TheCourtshouldensurethattheremedygrantedisproportional.

·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Damagesforcopyrightinfringementaresufferedattheplacewheretheheadofficeis
located.Itistheeffectoftheinfringingactsthatshallbeconsidered,nothowthe
infringementwasorchestred.

FilosofiaÉditionsinc.v.EntreprisesFoxmindCanadaltée,2014CarswellQue1554
Que.C.A.;2014-02-28)[affirming2013CarswellQue5393(Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-06-
07)][7]Ilfautcomprendrequecenesontpaslesactivitéspropresaux
entreprisesappelantessurlesterritoiresétrangersquisontensoiun
facteurderattachement,maisbienleurinteractionaveccellesdela
miseencauseetl’impactquecelapourraitavoirsurlesactivitésde
cettedernièreenterritoirequébécois.
[8]End’autrestermes,cenesontpastantlesventesréaliséesà
l’étrangerparlesdiversessociétéscommercialesquiimportent,mais
plutôtleursconséquencesauQuébecsurlasituationéconomiquede
lamiseencauseenraisondelastructurecorporativemiseenplace
parM.Capon.
[9]Bref,cesontcesimpactsquipermettenticideconclureàunlien
derattachementsuffisant,impactsquivontbienau-delàdelasimple
comptabilisationdupréjudicemonétaireauQuébec.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Conditionsfortheissuanceofaninteriminjunction:clearprimafacierightmustbe
established,irreperableharmmustbeshown,andthebalanceofinconvenience
mustfavourtheplaintiff.GoverningCounciloftheUniversityof(Toronto)v.CanadianCopyrightLicensing
Agency,2014CarswellOnt1940(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2014-02-04)MarangerJ
[4]Ihaveappliedthetesttothefactsofthiscaseandwoulddismiss
UofT’smotionforaninteriminjunctionforthefollowingreasons:
·Theinteriminjunctionwillfinallydisposeoftheissueindispute.
Themotionseeksamandatoryorderandtheordersought
involvestheinterpretationofcontractualterms.Asa
consequencethestandardapplicablehereisthatofa“strong
primafaciecase”.Astrongprimafaciecasehasbeen
describedas“clearlyrightandalmostcertaintobesuccessful
attrial”.Barton–ReidCanadaLtd.v.AlfreshBeverages
CanadaCorp.[2002]O.J.No.4116para9.
·UofTreliesonitsinterpretationofthelicensingagreement,
suggestingthattherewasanimpliedtermthatAccess
Copyrightcouldnotusethismaterialinthemannerthatthey
areattemptinginthiscase.WhileUofThasavalidargumentit

59
isnotonethatconvincesmethattheyare“clearlyrightand
almostcertaintobesuccessfulattrial.”Theyhavenot
demonstratedastrongprimafaciecase.
·IamnotsatisfiedthatUofThasshownthatitwillsuffer
irreparableharmiftheinteriminjunctionisnotgranted.A
changeintheBoardratesfortheyears2011to2013,whichis
thesubjectmatterbeforetheBoard,willneverdirectlyaffectU
ofT.UofTsubmittedthattheuseofthisinformationbeforethe
Boardmayhypotheticallyaffectitbythesettingofratesin
futureyears.Thiscallsforspeculationandconjectureandisnot
evidencetosupportthepropositionthatUofTwillsuffer
irreparableharmiftheinjunctionisnotgranted.
·Finally,onabalanceofconveniencetherespondentwould
suffermoreprejudicebynotbeingabletousethisinformation
beforetheBoardthanUofTwouldsufferiftherespondent
usestheinformation

·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Inthesettlementofaclassaction,theextra-judicialcostsmustbeinrelationtothe
resultofthesettlement.
Waldmanv.ThomsonReutersCanadaLimited,120C.P.R.(4th)127(Ont.Sup.Ct.;
2014-03-04)PerellJ[117]Thebenefitsofthesettlementtoclassmembersandthebenefit
ofclassactionstoclasscounselarealwaysinterrelatedmatters.In
Lavierv.MyTravelCanadaHolidaysInc.,2013ONCA92,reversing
2012ONSC1673,theCourtofAppealruledthatIerredinawarding
classcounselafeethatwasgrosslydisproportionatetothebenefit
andaccesstojusticeobtainedbytheclass,whichhadonlytakenup
averysmallportionofthesettlementfunds,thebalanceofwhich
revertedtothedefendant.
[118]Inthecaseatbar,thecourtshouldhavebeenaffordedthe
optionofreducingtheCounselFeeasitthoughtappropriateand
thenapprovingtheSettlementAgreement.Forsettlementapproval
purposes,betterstillisthesituationwherethecourthastheoptionof
reallocatingaportionofclasscounsel’sfeetoenhancethebenefits
ofclassmembers.ThecourtwasprovidedwiththatoptioninSmith
v.NationalMoneyMart,2010ONSC1334;aff’d2011ONCA233,
whereIapprovedthesettlementandreducedclasscounsel’sfee.

60
[119]Iwouldhavenotexercisedtheseoptionsinthecaseatbar
becauseIthinktheSettlementAgreementisnotfairtotheClass,but
thecourtshouldhavebeengiventheoption,andtheSettlement
cannotbeapprovedforthisreasonalone.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Noinjunctiontoissueifitismorelikelythattheinfringementwillnotoccuragain.

Sociétécanadiennedesauteurscompositeursetéditeursdemusiquec.9004-1922
Québecinc.(Bar-Asserie),2014QCCS1512(Que.Sup.Ct.;2014-03-31)Morrison
J.[47]Vul’absencededébatjuridique,aumoinsselonlapreuve,le
Tribunalestd’avisqu’uneinjonctionn’estpasnécessaireetn’estpas
appropriéeàcestade.Deplus,uneinjonctionpourl’avenirne
devraitpasêtreordonnéeparleTribunalsimplementcomme
pénalitépourlepassé.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Plagiarismcouldleadtothelostofadministrativebenefits.

DecisionNo.936/14,2014ONWSIAT1332(Ont.WorkplaceSafetyandInsurance
AppealsTribunal;2014-06-18)Josefo,vice-chair
[21]Therewerevariousdocumentspertainingtotheworker’s
purportedplagiarismofmaterialswhileattendingLMR,which
plagiarismostensiblycontinueddespitetheworkerhavingbeen
explainedaboutwhatthiswas,whyitwasserious,andwarnednotto
continuewiththispractice.Theworker,whenIreferencedthese
documents,statedthathe“didnotwanttofail”,yethedenied
plagiarizingmaterial.Heclaimedthatheonlyhadlookedatthe
dictionary,deniedcopyingfromit,andstatedthathereallywasnot
involvedinplagiarism.
[55]InadditiontotheAdjudicator’sdetailedmemos,pursuanttothe
voluminousLMRportionofthefile,Ialsohavereportsfromthe
serviceprovider.TheMay27,2010progressreportdescribedthe
worker’songoingbreachoftheserviceprovider’splagiarismpolicy.
TheworkerinitiallyreceivedaverbalwarningonMay4,2010“after
heattemptedtotakecreditforwritingsentencesthathadbeen

61
copieddirectlyfromadictionary”.TheMay27,2010reportclearly
indicatesthattheworkerwastoldthatthiswasnotacceptable,and
theplagiarismpolicywasexplainedtohiminsomedetail.Theworker
apparentlytoldhisinstructorthatheunderstoodthesignificanceof
thisissueandthatitwouldnotberepeated
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

TheawardofcostsisfortheCourt’sdiscretion.
Planification-Organisation-PublicationsSystèmes(POPS)Ltéev.9054-8181Québec
Inc.,124C.P.R.(4th)161(FCA;2014-07-25)GauthierJ.[varying111C.P.R.(4th)1
(FC;2013-04-25)][87]Theallocationofcostsisadiscretionarydecisionofthejudge.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Court’sdiscretionastocosts:thenonacceptanceofareasonableoffermaytrigger
doublecosts,irrespectiveofthefinancialsituationofthepartywhorefusedtheoffer.

Leutholdv.CanadianBroadcastingCorporation,2014CarswellNat2246(F.C.A.;
2014-06-27)PelletierJ.[affirming2012CarswellNat4204(F.C.;2012-10-29);motion
forleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadafiled2014CarswellNat3986
(S.C.C.;2014-09-30)]
[3]Anorderofcostsisadiscretionaryorderandshouldnotbe
disturbedunlessthecourtbelowhaserredinprincipleorthecosts
awardisplainlywrong:seeSunIndalexFinance,LLCv.United
Steelworkers,2013SCC6,[2013]1S.C.R.271,atparagraph247.

[8]IagreewiththeTrialJudge’scommentsonriskassessment.I
mightaddthatinthiscase,Ms.Leutholddevelopedaverytechnical
argumentinsupportofanamountwhichshecouldneverhave
negotiatedinthecourseofbusiness.Noone,underany
circumstances,wouldhavepaidMs.Leutholdtwentymilliondollars
fortherighttobroadcastherimagessixtimesoveranational
network.Inassessingherrisk,Ms.Leutholdwasboundtoconsiderif
thepositionshewastakingmadecommercialsense.Hadshedone
so,shemighthaveviewedtheCBC’sofferinadifferentlight.Asa
result,IdonotbelievethatthefactthatMs.Leutholdrecoveredan

62
amountinthegeneralareaoftheCBC’sofferisofanyassistanceto
her.

[9]Ms.LeutholdthenarguesthattheTrialJudge,hadhedecidednot
toawarddoublecosts,shouldhaveawardedhercostsasthe
successfullitigant.Ms.Leuthold,unfortunately,isengagedinwishful
thinking.TheRulesprovideforthemakingofaformalofferof
settlementwithcostconsequencesiftheofferisnotaccepted.That
iswhathappenedhere.Itdoeslittlegoodtoargueafterthefactthat
noeffectshouldbegiventoRule420.

[10]Ms.Leutholdarguesthatthelawisclearthatcostsarenottobe
usedtopenalizeaparty,noraretheytobepunitiveorcripplingin
nature.Shearguesthatanawardofcostsofsome$80,000is
punitiveandapenaltyforapersonwhosegrossannualincomeis
approximately$20,000peryear.

[11]IagreewithMs.Leuthold’sstatementsofprinciplebutthose
principleshavetobeappliedinlightoftheobjectivesoughttobe
achievedthroughRule420,whichistodeterpartiesfromincurring
costsandinflictingthemonothersbycreatingafinancialincentiveto
compromisetheirclaims.Theincentive,inthecaseofthedouble
costsrule,istheavoidanceofapenalty.Idonotthinkitis
contentioustosaythatdoublingthecostsapartywouldotherwise
havetopay,orimposingcostsonamodestlysuccessfulparty,isa
penalty.Asaresult,itdoesnotassistMs.Leutholdtosaythatcosts
shouldnotoperateasapenalty.Costsshouldnotoperateasa
penaltyunlesstheRulesspecificallyintendthemtodoso.

[12]Ms.Leutholdarguesthat,havingregardtoherfinancial
circumstances,anorderforcostsof$80,000ispunitive.Itistruethat
animpecuniousclaimantwithameritoriousclaimshouldnotbe
preventedfrombringinghisorherclaimbyanorderforsecurityfor
costs,oradvancecosts:seeBritishColumbia(MinisterofForests)v.
OkanaganIndianBand,2003SCC71,[2003]3S.C.R.371,at
paragraph36andfollowing.However,onceamatterhasproceeded
totrialandjudgmenthasbeenrendered,aparty’simpecuniosityis
notarelevantfactorintheassessmentofcosts.Thepersonentitled
tocostshashadtoincurthecostsofproceedingtotrialandhasthe
righttobecompensatedwithinthelimitsprescribedbytheRulesof
Court.Issuesofenforceabilityaredistinctfromissuesofentitlement.

[13]Finally,Ms.Leutholdarguesthatanorderofcostsoughtnotto
besuchastobringtheadministrationofjusticeintodisrepute.Once
again,thisisanargumentbasedonimpecuniosity.Thesadfactof
thematteristhatlitigationproduceswinnersandlosers;thatiswhyit

63
issuchablunttoolintheadministrationofjustice.Butjusticeisnot
servedbyallowingpersonswhohaveimposedcostsonothersby
pursuingordefendingaclaimwhichlacksmerittoavoidthe
consequencesoftheirbehaviour.Suchapolicywouldbemorelikely
tobringtheadministrationofjusticeintodisreputethantheresultin
thiscase.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Nointerlocutoryinjunctionifirreperableharmnotproven.

GeophysicalServiceIncorporatedv.Canada-Nova-ScotiaOffshorePetroliumBoard,
2014CarswellNat2186(F.C.;2014-05-09)AnnisJ.

[38]Accordingly,Iconcludethattheapplicantmustdemonstrateby
clearandnon-speculativeevidencethatitwillsufferirreparable
harm,notcompensableindamages,betweennowandtheoutcome
ofthetrialiftheinjunctionisnotgranted.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

InterlocutoryinjuctionrefusedifPlaintiffdoesnotshowaclearright.

DiffusionDimediainc.v.LibrairieRenaud-Brayinc.,2014CarswellQue5833(Que.
Sup.Ct;2014-06-12)GouinJ[24]L’article5duRèglement[Règlementsurl’importationde
livresRLRQ,c.D-8.1(le«Règlement»)]permetd’ailleursuntelautre
approvisionnement,lorsqueledistributeurexclusifn’estpasen
mesurederespecter,dansles60joursdesaréception,la
commandedelivresenfrançaisimportésd’Europemaisnonen
stockauCanada,cequiétaitlecasdanslaprésenteaffaire.

[25]Or,ilesttrèsclairqu’ilnesertàrienpourRenaud-Bray,
depuislaDatedecessation,deplacerdescommandesdelivresdu
CatalogueauprèsdeDimedia,carcettedernièrenelesacceptetout
simplementplus.
[26]D’unautrecôté,Dimediaditêtreenmesuredelivrertoute
tellecommande,maisc’estplutôtRenaud-Brayquil’empêchedele
faire,vulenon-paiementdelaDetteetleDifférendquilesoppose.

[27]Or,c’estlàquelebâtblesse.
[28]EnrefusanttoutecommandedelivresduCatalogue
provenantdeRenaud-Bray,Dimediaaclairementindiquéquele
délaide60joursprévuauRèglementneseraitpasrespecté,
permettantparlefaitmêmel’importationdelivresduCatalogue
auprèsd’autressourcesd’approvisionnement.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

WhataretheconnectingfactorsforaCanadiancourttohavejurisdiction?

JulesJordanVideoinc.v.144942Canadainc.,2014CarswellQue6977(Que.Sup.
Ct;2014-07-15)GouinJ.

[54]Dansl’arrêtLépine[Fn35Sociétécanadiennedespostesc.
Lépine,2009CSC,paragr.[36];voiraussiIraq(Stateof)c.Heerema
Zwijndrecht,b.v.,2013QCCA1112,paragr.[13];Gérald
GOLDSTEIN,Compétenceinternationaleindirectedutribunal
étranger,Droitinternationalprivé,coll.JurisClasseurQuébec,
Montréal,LexisNexis,àjourau1
erjanvier2012,pp.11-14.],lejuge
LeBelécritquel’article3164C.c.Q.établitcomme«condition
fondamentaledelareconnaissanced’unjugementétrangerau
Québec,l’existenced’unlienimportantentrelelitigeetletribunal
d’origine.Lesarticles3165à3168énoncentensuitedemanièreplus
spécifiquelesfacteursderattachementpermettantdeconclureàun
liensuffisantentrelelitigeetl’autoritéétrangèredanscertaines
situations».
[55]Ainsi,sil’undesfacteursénoncésàl’article3168C.c.Q.trouve
application,l’onpeutalorsplusfacilementconclureàl’existenced’un
lienimportantentrelelitigeetletribunald’origine,telqu’articuléà
l’article3164C.c.Q.

[56]Or,lesDVDs,soitles«thirteencopyrightedadultDVDsowned
byJJVorGasperandfeaturingGasper’sperformances»faisant
l’objetduLitiged’origine,lequel,leTribunallerappelle,estreliéà
uneviolationalléguéedesdroitsd’auteurdesRequérantsselonle
droitaméricain,ontétévendusdansl’étatdelaCalifornie,etcefait
dommageableyacauséunpréjudice.
[57]Ils’agitd’uneapplicationdel’article3168(3)C.c.Q.,etaussiune
illustrationdel’existenced’unlienimportant,ausensdel’article3164

65
C.c.Q.,entreleLitiged’origineetlaCourdedistrictquiarendule
JugementOtero2.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]

Aplaintiffmaybeliableforthecostsifhewithdrawhismotionforinterlocutory
injunction.
Faasv.Coloroso,2014CarswellOnt10315(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2014-07-29)MorganJ.

[22]Thecaseswherecostsareawardedagainstamovingpartyfora
deemedabandonmentofamotiontendtobethosewheretherewas
eitheranimproprietyorthemotionwasill-advisedinthefirstplace.
Ontheotherhand,costsaregenerallynotawardedagainstan
abandoningpartywhere“[t]heapplicantswerejustifiedinissuingthe
application…thematerialsdisclosedabonafidecauseofactionthat
wasnotfrivolousorvexatious”:MorleyvMorley,2013ONSC1595
(Master).

[23]CounselforColorososubmitsthattherecordheredemonstrates
thattherewasacompellingandcogentbasisforbringingthe
injunctionatthetimeitwasbrought.Iagree.Asindicatedabove,
evenwithoutengaginginafulladjudicationofthemeritsitis
apparentthatColorosohadaseriouscopyrightconcernattheoutset.

[24]WhileFaaspartlyconcededthecopyrightproblemsattheoutset
ofthecontroversy,andhasbeenreasonableinnowproviding
assurancestoColoroso,thedynamicsofthedisputeweresuchthat
thepartiesdidnotcometotheirtemporaryresolutionuntiljustlast
month.Idonotblameeitherpartyforthedurationofthecontroversy.
Litigationisfrequentlyamovingtargetforbothsides.Itsometimes
takestimefortheprocesstoworkitswaythroughtoaconsensual
solution,evenatemporaryone.

[25]Coloroso’swithdrawalofthemotionispremisedontheparties
havingachievedasolutionthattheycaneachlivewithpendingtrial;
itwillbeuptothetrialjudgetomaketheultimatedecisionasto
whetheraninjunctioniswarranted.Inmyview,thisisanappropriate
caseforthetrialjudgetodeterminethecostsoftheaborted
interlocutorymotion.Thatjudgewillalsobeinthebestpositionto
determinehowmuchofthetimeandeffortspentonthemotionwas
usefulattrialandhowmuchwasthrownaway.

[26]CounselforFaassubmitsthatifnocostsareawardedtoFaas
underRule37.09(3),itwasinanycasereasonabletoseekthem

66
giventhecaselawthereunderthatsuggeststhatcoststothe
respondingpartyaretherule,nottheexception.Iagreewiththat
submission.Colorosomayhavebeenjustifiedinseekingthe
injunctioninthefirstinstance;butoncethehardfoughtmotionwas
withdrawn,Faaswasjustifiedinatleastrequestingcosts.
·Section34-Copyright[civilremedies]

WhataretheconnectingfactorsforaCanadiancourttohavejurisdiction.

Davydiukv.InternetArchiveCanada,2014CarswellNat4162(F.C.;2014-10-06)
McVeighJ[32]IfindthatInternetArchivedidreachintoCanadatotheIntercan
websitewhentheyrequestedthewebpages.Whetheritwas
automatedornotdoesnotaffectmyfinding.Theactionof“following
alink”or“requestingpages”asdescribedbyInternetArchive
requiresInternetArchivetoreachouttotheCanadianserversthat
subsequentlytransmitbacktotheUnitedStates.Therequestand
returntransmissionisnotdonewithpermissionoronconsent.The
Canadianpubliccanaccessthewebpageandhaveittransmitted
backtoCanada.Thisisexactlytheevidence[thePliantiff]Daniel
DavydiukprovidedtheCourt.
·Section34-Copyright[civilremedies]

Theburdentoprovetheinfringementlaysupontheplaintiff.

Pointdujouraviationltéev.Simard,2014QCCQ13560(Que.Ct.;2014-12-15)
ChalifourJ[6]Celuiquifaituneréclamationalefardeaudeprouver,selonla
prépondérancedesprobabilités,lebien-fondédesesprétentions.

[9]Tenantcomptedelapreuvecontradictoire,ledemandeurnes’est
pasdéchargédesonfardeaudepreuve.
·Section35–Liabilityforinfringement

CopyrightinfringementmayoveridetherighttoprivacybuttheCourtmayintervene
toensureminimalinvasionofthisright.

67
VoltagePicturesv.Doe,119C.P.R.(4th)232(F.C.;2014-02-20)Alto,Prothonotary
[30]ThesesectionsoftheCopyrightAct[s.35and38.1]provideacomplete
codefortherecoveryofdamagesforcopyrightinfringement.Voltageargues
thatithasdemonstratedabonafidecaseofinfringementandisentitledto
pursuetheallegedinfringersfordamagesinaccordancewiththesesectionsof
theCopyrightAct.

[35]Asnotedbrieflyaboveanddiscussedmorefullybelow,thereare
importantcornpetingpolicyconsiderationsastowhethertheNorwich
Ordershouldbegrantedinthiskindofsituation.Suchanorderisa
discretionaryandextraordinaryorder.Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,
giventhatVoltagebasdemonstratedabonafidecaseofcopyright
infringement,aNorwichOrderwillbegranted.ThisOrderwillbegranted
withqualificationsintendedtoprotecttheprivacyrightsofindividuals,and
ensurethatthejudicialprocessisnotbeingusedtosupportabusiness
modelintendedtocoerceinnocentindividualstomakepaymentstoavoid
beingsued.
[45]TheprinciplestobetakenfromBMG[
BMGCanadaInc.v.Doe,2005
FCA193]areasfollows:
·aplaintiffmusthaveabonafidecase;
·anon-party,inthiscaseTekSavvy,musthaveinformationonan
issueintheproceeding;
·anorderoftheCourtistheonlyreasonablcmeansof
obtainingtheinformation;
·thatfaimessrequirestheinformationbeprovidedpriorto
trial;and,
·anyordermadewillnotcauseunduedelay,inconvenienceor
expensetothethirdpartyorothers.

[57]TheenforcementofVoltage’srightsasacopyrightholderoutweighsthe
privacyinterestsoftheaffectedinternetusers.However,thatisnottheend
ofthemalter.AspartofmakinganyNorwichOrder,theCourtmust
ensurethatprivacyrightsareinvadedinthemostminimalwaypossible,
asdiscussedinparas.42to45ofBMG[
BMGCanadaInc.v.Doe,2005
FCA193].
·Section35–Liabilityforingringement

Hewhoplagiarizesmustpay.
Labrecque(OSauna)v.Trudel(CentreBellaza,s.e.n.c.),2014QCCQ2595(Que.
Ct.–SmallClaims;2014-03-28)GervaisJ.

68
[56]Oncomprenddecettedispositionquelelégislateuravouluque
celuiquinerespectepasledroitd’autruiets’approprieuneœuvre
quin’estpaslasiennesoitobligédepayerundédommagement,
notammentenversantlaportiondel’avantagepécuniairequ’ilena
retiré.

[57]Lerésultatenestquesipourdesfinscommercialesunindividu
ouuneentrepriseutiliselefruitdutravaild’uneautrepersonne,il
devraindemnisercelle-ciàlahauteurdel’avantagequecette
utilisationluiaprocuré.

[58]Parcontre,sidanscertainscasunquantumpeutaisémentêtre
établi,dansd’autresl’exerciceestplusardu.
·Section35-LiabilityforInfringement

Foranequitableset-offtobeapplicabletheclaimsmustbecloselyconnected.

PossDesignLimitedv.BeogradMachine&ToolsCo.Ltd.,2014CarswellOnt6639
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2014-05-21)MorganJ.
[22]Usingthisprincipleasguidance,onecanreadilyconcludethat
thisisnotacaseforequitablesetoff.Anunquantifiabledamages
claimforcopyrightbreachorwrongfulcompetitionandmarketingof
goods,isnotconnectedwith–letalone“closelyconnectedwith”–
thetwounpaidinvoicesonwhichBeogradseeksjudgment.

·Section38.1–Statutorydamages

Theamountofthestatutorydamagesarewithintherealmofdiscretionofthecourts.
Acondemnationtostatutorydamagescouldbejointandseveral.

Tremblayv.Plourde,[2014]J.Q.419(Que.Sup.Ct.;2014-01-15)DallaireJ.

[295]Letribunalnedéterminantpasdecondamnationàdes
dommagespunitifsconsidèrequ’ilyalieudeprononcerla
condamnationauxdommagesetintérêtssolidairemententreles
défendeurs.
[296]Eneffet,ilestenpreuvequeledéfendeurestl’âmedirigeante
deGTR,etcequibénéficieàl’unbénéficieàl’autre.

69
·Section38.1–Statutorydamages

Theproperawardofstatutorydamagesissometimedifficulttoevaluate.

Tremblayv.Plourde,[2014]J.Q.419(Que.Sup.Ct.;2014-01-15)DallaireJ.
[270]Cefaisant,ledéfendeurs’estappropriéillégalementuntexte,
fruitdeseffortsetd’unlabeurélaboréssurdenombreusesannées.
Letribunalarbitreraunesommede15000$pouvantcomprendre
quetousceseffortslorsquecopiésetdupliquésprésententàlafois
unimpactdirectetindirectsuruneusurpationdelapropriété
intellectuelle,cequiestàlafoischoquantenraisondesefforts
soutenusetvexantquantàl’effortintellectueldeconception.Cette
sommecomporteàlafoisunmontantliéaucoûtd’élaboration,la
demanderesseayantdéterminéunevaleurde218000$àses
étatsfinanciers,etunautresurl’aspectdelaviolation.

·Section38.1–Statutorydamages

Theconductofthepartiescouldbetakenintoconisderationintheassesmentof
statutorydamages.Acondemnationtostatutorydamagesisnotabartopunitive
damages.
TroutPointLodgeLtd.v.Handshoe,2014CarswellNS110(S.C.N.S.;2014-02-14)
CoadyJ.

[26][…]IfindthatMr.Handshoe’sconducttowardstheapplicantsover
thepastfewyearsamountsto“outrageousandhighlyreprehensible”
conduct.Thefour(4)infringementshereinmustbeviewedontopof
thedefamationthatcontinuestothisdateinthefaceofJusticeHood’s
injunction.Thisisacaseforgenerousstatutorydamagesaswellas
punitivedamages.

[27]Iawardthefollowingstatutorydamages:·Inrelationtothefirstphotograph(Ashoka),IawardCharles
Leary$20,000.
·Inrelationtothesecondphotograph(theLodge),IawardMr.
Perret$20,000.
·Inrelationtothethirdphotograph(Smulders),IawardTrout
PointLodgeLtd.$20,000.
·Inrelationtothefourthphotograph,IawardTroutPointLodge
Ltd.$20,000.

70
[28]InadditiontothesestatutorydamagesIawardtheapplicants
punitivedamagesof$100,000.
·Section38.1–Statutorydamages

Theneedtodeterisoneofthefactortobeconsidered.Inthecaseofcollective
society,theCourthasdiscretiontofixtheapproriatemultiplier.

Sociétécanadiennedesauteurscompositeursetéditeursdemusiquec.9004-1922
Québecinc.(Bar-Asserie),2014CarswellQue3236(Que.Sup.Ct.;2014-03-31)
MorrisonJ.[37]S’agit-ild’uncasoùilestnécessairedecréeruneffetdissuasifà
l’égarddeviolationséventuellesdudroitd’auteur?

[38]LeTribunalestd’avisqu’ilestnécessairedecréerunteleffet.
Ladéfenderessen’apasledroitdesimplementignorerlesdroits
d’auteursetdeplaidersonincompréhensiondesrèglesapplicables
oulafacturationdelaSOCAN.
[39]Ladéfenderessen’estpasobligéed’êtreenaccordavecla
SOCAN,maisdesimplementmettrefinàdespaiementsetattendre
d’êtrepoursuivien’estpaslafaçonlaplusappropriéepourexprimer
sonmécontentement.
[40]Parcontre,dansleprésentcas,enprenantenconsidérationles
facteursannoncésàl’art.38.1(5)delaLDA,leTribunalestime
équitabled’utiliserunfacteurdetrois(3)foislesredevancesetnon
pasquatre(4).
·Section38.1–Statutorydamages

Exemplarydamagesshallnotbeaduplicationofpunitivedamages.

Canada(AttorneyGeneral)v.Rundle(NecPlusUltra),119C.P.R.(4th)225(Ont.
Sup.Ct.-Damages;2014-04-09)JamesJ.[16]Whileitisclearthatpunitivedamagesareavailableinadditionto
anawardofstatutorydamages,itappearsthereissomeoverlap
betweenclauses(a)and(b)ofsubsection38.1(5)andthe
considerationsthatinformanentitlementtopunitivedamages.
Subsection38.1(5)specificallyreferstothequestionoftheconduct
ofthepartiesandthepossibilitythattheinfringeractedinbadfaith.
Punitivedamagesalsoaddressseriousmisconduct.Thepossibility

71
ofsuchanawardbecomesengagedwherethereare“advertent
wrongfulactsthataresomaliciousandoutrageousthattheyare
deservingofpunishmentontheirown.”(SeeKeaysv.Honda
CanadaInc.,[2008]2S.C.R.362atpara.62)

[17]Inmyview,onthespecificfactsofthiscase,includingthe
importantroleofdeterrenceasafactorinassessingdamagesin
copyrightcases,statutorydamagesaresufficientwithoutawarding
anadditionalamountforpunitivedamages.
[18]Inconsideringtheappropriateamounttoawardfordamages,I
notethatthereisnoinformationrespectingtheDefendant’ssales
volumesortheamountofprofitgeneratedbytheinfringingactivity.In
addition,thereisnoclearevidencethatanyinfringementscontinued
aftertheinjunctiongrantedbyR.SmithJ.in2012.Profitimproperly
gainedthroughcopyrightinfringementanddeliberatedefianceof
courtorderscanbeaggravatingfactorsinassessingdamages.

·Section38.1–Statutorydamages

Statutorydamagesareanalternativetorealdamages.Badfaith,concealmentofthe
activitiesorofdefendant’sidentity,refusaltodiscontinueinfringingacts,arefactors
tobetakenintoaccountinassessingstatutoydamages.

MitchellRepairInformationCompanyv.WayneLong,2014CarswellNat2195,(F.C.;
2014-06-11)AnnisJ.[5]Theplaintiffrequestsanorderawardingit$20,000instatutory
damagespursuanttosection38.1oftheCopyrightActinsteadofthe
damagesandprofitsotherwiseclaimablewhicharereferredtoin
subsection35(1).
[6]Inexercisingitsdiscretiontoawardstatutorydamages,theCourt
isrequiredtoconsiderallrelevantfactorsincludingthegoodorbad
faithofthedefendant,theconductofthepartiesbeforeandduring
theproceedingsandtheneedtodeterotherinfringementsofthe
copyrightinquestion.
[7]Theevidenceinthismatterdemonstratesthatthedefendant
actedinbadfaithbyattemptingtoconcealandobfuscatehisidentity,
includingposingasalawyerwarningtheplaintiffnottoproceed
further.Inaddition,thedefendantrefusedtodiscontinueinfringing
copyrightwhenaskedandheldtheplaintiffinderisionbytauntingit

72
withwordstotheeffectthathecouldnotbefoundorstoppedand
showingthe“JollyRoger”signinoneofhisrejoinders.

[8]Asifthiswerenotsufficientlyoutrageousandhigh-handed,the
plaintiff’semailcontainedderogatoryinvective,includingtheuseof
swearingandstatementsintendedtobederogatoryconcerningthe
sexualorientationsoftheplaintiff’spersonnel,accompaniedby
pornographicmaterialsandboastingabouthisunlawfulconduct.For
example,oneemailcontainedthefollowingreplyafterbeing
informedofhisinfringement:“Lolyoustupidf–kI’mincanada[sic]
I’mprotectedherefirstoffence250dollarslol”.
[9]Theplaintiffwasonlyabletodemonstrateonesaleoftheproduct
obtainedbyhisaffidavit,butIamsatisfiedthatmanyotherillicitsales
oftheproductweremadebythedefendant.Thepricedifferentialon
theaveragesalebytheplaintiffincomparisonwiththatbythe
defendantwasintheorderof$1,100.
[10]Iawardtheplaintiffstatutorydamagesinthetotalamountof
$20,000.
·Section38.1–Staturorydamages

Staturorydamagesdoesnotexcludepunitivedamages.

MitchellRepairInformationCompanyv.WayneLong,2014CarswellNat2195(F.C.;
2014-06-11)AnnisJ.[14]Itisnotedthatoptingforstatutorydamagespursuanttosection
38.1oftheCopyrightActdoesnotaffectanyrightthatthecopyright
ownermayhavetoanawardofexemplaryorpunitivedamages.
·Section38.1–Statutorydamages

Itistotheplaintifftooptbetweenstatutorydamages,anddamagesandprofits,notto
theCourt.

73
AnimalWelfareInternationalInc.v.W3InternationalMediaLtd.,2014CarswellBC
2902(B.C.S.C.;2014-10-01)RossJ.

[479]AWIsubmitsthatthedamagesitclaimspursuanttotheclaim
forlostprofitarisingfromthebreachofcontractarealsopartially
recoverablepursuanttotheclaimforbreachofcopyright.AWI
concedes,however,thatitisnotentitledtodoublerecovery.AWI
submitsthattoadegree,someelementofdamagesdoesstand
separateandapartfromlostsalesandcertainremediesmaybe
imposedundertheCAdespiteamajorrecoveryundertheheadof
breachofcontract.
[480]Inthealternative,AWIsubmitsthatitcanelecttoclaim
statutorydamagesinlieuofordinarydamagespursuanttos.38.1of
theC

[486]Iamsatisfiedthattheawardwithrespecttolossofprofitmade
pursuanttothebreachofcontractcompensatesAWIfortheprofits
lostduetobreachofcopyright.Ihaveconcludedthat,giventhe
scopeofthecopyingandthecommercialmotivationofW3,itis
appropriatetomakeanawardofstatutorydamageswhichIfixat
$20,000intotal.
·Section41.23–Protectionofseparaterights

Eveninaclassaction,therepresentativemusthaveacopyrightinterest.

KeatleySurveyingLtd.v.TeranetInc.,2014CarswellOnt3792(Ont.Sup.Ct.-Div.
Ct;2014-03-26)SachsJ.[addreasons2014CarswellOnt9193(Ont.Sup.Ct.-Div.
Ct;2014-06-26);reversing107CPR(4
th)237,(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-12-14);]
[47]Asthemotionjudgecorrectlyfound,toqualifyasaclass
member,asurveyorwouldhavetoownthecopyrighttoherplanof
survey.Yet,byvirtueofthedefencesasserted(includings.12ofthe
CopyrightAct),ownershipcouldnotbedetermineduntilsomeofthe
commonissueswerealsodetermined.Suchaclassdefinitionisnot
permissible

[49]IagreewiththeAppellantthattherevisedclassdefinitionisno
longermerits-based.TheRespondentsubmitsthatthephrase

74
“whoseplanofsurvey”impliesthattheclassmemberactuallyowns
thecopyright.Idisagree.Toqualifyasaclassmember,aperson
musteitherbetheplan’sauthor,theauthor’semployerorthe
assigneeofanauthororemployee.Further,theplaninquestion
musthaveappearedintheRespondent’selectronicdatabaseand
beenpreparedonorbeforethecertificationdate.

·Section41.23-Protectionofseparaterights

TobeentitledtotheremediesprovidedbytheAct,theplaintiffmustbethecopyright
ownerorhaveagrantofinterestinthecopyright.

GroupeInnomaxinc.v.HabitationsRoumainc.,2014CarswellQue4059(Que.Sup.
Ct.;2014-04-03)PicardJ.[11]Parailleurs,l’article41.23delaLoiprévoitquelerecoursen
violationdedroitd’auteurpeutêtreintroduitparletitulairedudroit
d’auteurouparquiconquepossèdeundroit,untitreouunintérêt
acquisparcessionouconcessionconsentieparécritparletitulaire.
Danscederniercas,lerecoursseraexercédanstoutel’étenduedu
droit,titreouintérêtencause.
·Section42–Offencesandpunishment

Evenincopyrightmatters,sentencingmustbeproportionate.

R.v.Strowbridge,2014CarswellNfld30(N.L.C.A.;2014-02-04)HoeggJ.
[43]FederalCrowncounselarguedthatthetrialjudgeemployed“the
step-upprinciple”insentencingMr.Strowbridge,sayingthatMr.
StrowbridgewasinitiallytreatedlenientlybytheCourtswithfinesand
probation,thenwasgraduatedtoaconditionalsentencebeforebeing
sentencedonthesecharges.CounselarguedthatgivenMr.
Strowbridge’spersistenceincommittingfinanciallymotivatedcrimes,
thesentencingjudgeinthiscaselogicallyraisedhissentenceforhis
continuingcriminalactivitytothenextlevel‒thatbeingacustodial
sentence.
[44]Thisargumentwascogentlypresentedandhascertainmerit.
However,accountmustbetakenofthemarginalandunsophisticated
natureofMr.Strowbridge’soffences-itisthoseoffencesforwhich
Mr.Strowbridgeisbeingsentenced.Whileitissothatthe
aggravatingfactorsofMr.Strowbridge’scaseweighagainstalenient

75
sentenceforhim,sightmustnotbelostofthefactsoftheoffences
beforetheCourt.Mr.Strowbridgeisnotbeingsentencedforhis
record.
[45]Whencomparedtothecasesreferredtoabove,itismyview
thatthesixmonthcustodialsentenceforMr.Strowbridge’s
trademarkandcopyrightoffencesisdisproportionalitylongforthe
gravityoftheoffenceshecommittedandhislevelofmoral
blameworthiness.Accordingly,itisdemonstrablyunfit.

[48]
Subsection734(2)makesclearthatinfininganoffender,ajudge
isrequiredtobesatisfiedthattheoffenderhastheabilitytopaythe
finebeforeimposingit.Infailingtoapplytheprovisionsof
subsection
734(2)byassessingMr.Strowbridge’sabilitytopaythe$5,000fine,
andtobesatisfiedthatMr.Strowbridgecoulddoso,thejudge
committedanerrorinprinciple.Accordingly,the$5,000finehe
imposedonMr.Strowbridgemustbequashed.
[50]Thefundamentalsentencingprincipleisproportionality.Whilea
custodialsentenceforMr.Strowbridge’soffences,giventheirnature
andmagnitude,couldbedisproportionatetotheirgravityandthe
levelofhismoralblameworthiness,theaggravatingfactorsofMr.
Strowbridge’sextensiverecordfor“economic”typeoffencesandthe
factthathewasservingaconditionalsentenceatthetimehe
committedtheseoffences,aswellasthewarningshereceivedabout
sellingcounterfeitproducts,makeincarcerationappropriate,as
federalCrowncounselargued.Inthisregard,Inotethecommentsby
theBritishColumbiaCourtofAppealinR.v.Bui,[2001]B.C.J.No.
1574,totheeffectthattheimpositionofasecondconditional
sentenceonapersonwhooffendswhileservingaconditional
sentenceshouldbereservedfor“therarestofcases”.Iwouldnot
statethepointquiteasstrongly.Nevertheless,ifanoffendercommits
anoffencewhileservingaconditionalsentence,especiallyan
offenceofsimilartypetotheoneforwhichheisalreadyservinga
conditionalsentence,heisdemonstrating,atleasttosomedegree,
thatheisnotabletoabidebythetermsofaconditionalsentence,
therebysuggestingthatanadditionalconditionalsentenceisnot
appropriate.InotethiswastheapproachtakenbytheNovaScotia
CourtofAppealinR.v.Perrin,2012NSCA85(CanLII),[2012]
N.S.J.No.443,2012NSCA85,inwhichthecourtremarkedthatan
offenderwhoreoffends,whileservingaconditionalsentencewould
ordinarilyattractasignificantdenunciatinganddeterrentsentencefor
thenewoffence.
[51]InMr.Strowbridge’scasehisfinancialsituation,especiallyhis
financialobligationswhichnowincludeanewrestitutionorder,would

76
maketheimpositionofafineveryburdensometohim.(Inthis
regard,IamcompelledtoremarkthatIamoftheviewthatitismore
importantforhimtopayrestitutiontohisfraudvictimsthantopaya
finetothefederalCrown.)Ithereforeamnotsatisfied,asImustbe
accordingtosection734(2)oftheCode,thathehastheabilitytopay
afine.IamofthesamemindasthesentencingjudgeinHu(noted
above)[R.v.BingMinPeterHu,(15November2008),Vancouver
Docket24383(B.C.S.C.),],whoimposedaconditionalsentenceon
Mr.Huduetohisstrainedfinancialcircumstancesandthefactthat
hewasarepeatoffender.IhastentoaddthatIdonotsuggestthata
custodialsentenceshouldautomaticallybesubstitutedforafineinall
caseswheretheoffenderdoesnothavetheabilitytopayafine.
However,incaseswheresignificantaggravatingfactorspresent,like
inMr.Strowbridge’scase,itcanbeappropriate.
[52]Accordingly,IwouldsentenceMr.Strowbridgetotwomonths’
incarcerationforhistrademarkandcopyrightoffencestobeserved
consecutivelytohissentencesforfraudandbreachesofprobation.
·Section43.1–Limitationorprescriptionperiodforcivilremedies

Thelimitationperiodsetforthbysection43.1onlyappliestocopyrightinfringement,
nottoothercausesofaction.
CredentialSecuritiesInc.v.QTradeCanadaInc.,2014CarswellBC536(B.C.S.C.;
2014-03-03)Muir,Master[38]Qtrade,ontheotherhand,submitsthattheamendmentsraise
newcausesofactionthatwouldsubstantiallyexpandthepleadings
andchangethecourseoftheaction.Qtradesubmitsthatthenew
causesofactionarestatutebarredbytheprovisionsoftheCopyright
Act,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,andtheLimitationAct,R.S.B.C.1996c.
266andthereforetheamendmentsshouldonlybegrantedifjustand
convenienttodoso
[55]TheCopyrightAct,s.43.1(1)providesforathreeyearlimitation
periodfromthetimetheplaintiffknewoftheallegedbreach.

[56]Basedonthetransitionprovisionsins.30ofthenewLimitation
Act,SBC2013,c.13,theLimitationActapplicabletotheclaims
otherthancopyrightistheformeract.

77
[59]Whatisallegedhereiswrongfulaccessandmisappropriation,
thereisnosuggestionofinjurytopropertyandtheappropriate
limitationperiodwouldbesixyearspursuanttoss.3(5)and3(6)(c).
·Section53–Registertobeevidence

Copyrightregistrationdoesnotcreatebutdeclaresrights.

GeophysicalServiceIncorporatedv.Canada-Nova-ScotiaOffshorePetroliumBoard,
2014CarswellNat2186(F.C.;2014-05-09)AnnisJ.
[21]Pursuanttosection53(2)oftheCopyrightAct,RSC1985,cC-
42,GSIreliesuponitscertificateofregistrationaspresumptive
evidencethatcopyrightsubsistsinthedataandthatGSIistheowner
ofthecopyright.Itacknowledgeshoweverthatcopyrightregistration
doesnotcreate,butonlydeclarestheright,andthatintheabsence
ofprooftothecontrary,thepersonregisteredisdeemedtoholdthe
rightclaimedbyhim.SeeGrignonvRoussell,[1991]FCJNo557,44
FTR121.
·Section53–Registertobeevidence

Thepresumptionsarerebuttable.
Planification-Organisation-PublicationsSystèmes(POPS)Ltéev.9054-8181Québec
Inc.,124C.P.R.(4th)161(F.C.A.;2014-07-25)GauthierJ.[varying111C.P.R.(4th)
1(F.C.;2013-04-25)]
[68]Suchacertificateofregistrationisevidencethatthecopyright
subsistsandthatthepersonregisteredistheownerofthecopyright.
Thepresumptioncreatedbythecertificatecanberebuttedby
credibleevidencetothecontrary(FoxonCanadianLawofCopyright
andIndustrialDesigns,4thed.(Toronto:Carswell,2014)atpage20-
6;HughesonCopyright&IndustrialDesign,2nded.(Markham:
LexisNexisCanada,2005)atpages422and423).
·Section57–Registrationofassignmentorlicence

TheFederalCourtmayrectifyacopyrightregistrationwhentheinformationis
erroneousorincomplete.
Planification-Organisation-PublicationsSystèmes(POPS)Ltéev.9054-8181Québec
Inc.,124C.P.R.(4th)161(F.C.A.;2014-07-25)GauthierJ.[varying111C.P.R.(4th)
1(F.C.;2013-04-25)][85]Duetotheerroneousorincompleteinformationcontainedinthe
Epsiloncertificate,itwasopentothejudgetostrikeitevenifEpsilon
isconsideredtobeacompilation
·Section57-Registrationofassignmentorlicence

Toaskfortherectificationofacopyrightregistrationtheplaintiffmustbean
interestedperson.
Victoria’sSecretStoresBrandManagement,Inc.v.ThomasPinkLimited*,117
C.P.R.(4th)83(2014-01-22)HughesJ.[21]Havingregardtotheprovisionsofthedefinitionof“person
interested”insection2oftheTrade-MarksAct,andsection53.2and
section57ofthatAct,Iconclude:
·a“personinterested”mustdemonstratethattheyareaffectedor
“reasonablyapprehend”thattheywillbeaffectedbyanactor
omissiondonebyanothercontrarytotheprovisionsoftheAct;
·section57isspecificinbeingdirectedtoexpungementof
entriesontheregistersuchasaregistrationofatrade-mark;
·section53.2mustbebroadlyconstruedtobedirectedtoany
otheractoromissiondonebyanotherperson,asmaybe
contemplatedbytheAct.

[28]Fromthisjurisprudence,Iconclude:
theprovisionsoftheTrade-MarksActmustbeconstruedinamanner
whichpromotesaccesstotheAct;
·adeterminationastowhoisa“personinterested”mustbedone
onacase-by-casebasis;
·a“personinterested”mustdemonstrateareasonable
apprehensionthatacommercialinterestthatithas,ormay
have,maybeaffected;
·thethresholdfordeterminingwhetherapersonisa“person
interested”islow.

79
·Section57–Registrationofassignmentorlicence

AcertificatecouldbeamendedbytheCourttoreflectco-ownershipofthecopyright.

Kennedyv.Ruminski,2014CarswellNat1842(F.C.;2014-05-30)PhelanJ.

[29]Thetechnicallibrariestotheextentthattheycannowbe
identified,havingbeencreatedbeforeemployment,areoutside
ownershipintheCertificates.Thetechnicallibrariesbecamepartof
theprojectbutonlybywayofafreelicense.
[30]ThereisnoevidencethattheCertificateswereonlytocoverthe
technicallibraries.Theevidencesuggeststhattheycoveredthework
doneaftertheMemorandumcameintoeffect.
[31]Therefore,theCertificatesshouldhavereflectedtheco-
ownershipoftheApplicantandRespondent
·Section62–Regulations

Thepowerstoregulateshallbewithintheconstraintsofthatlegislatedjurisdiction.
ThisprincipleapplytotheGovernorinCouncil,theMinistersandtheCopyright
Board.
Telusv.Canada(AttorneyGeneral),2014CarswellNat1(F.C.;2014-01-02)
StricklandJ.[83]TheMinister’sauthorityderivesfromstatuteandtheMinistercan
onlyactwithintheconstraintsofthatlegislatedjurisdiction.InVaziri,
above[VazirivCanada(MinisterofCitizenshipandImmigration),
2006FC1159],JusticeSniderquotedthefollowingfromGreenisle
EnvironmentalIncvPrinceEdwardIsland,[2005]PEIJNo41(QL),
2005PESCTD33atpara17:[17]itisa]fundamentalprinciplethatexecutivepowersare
grantedbystatuteanddefinedandlimitedbystatute.A
statutorydelegatemaymakeadecisionorruleonlyif
authorizedbystatutetodoso.Astatutorydelegatehasno
inherentauthority…

80
·Section66.51–Interimdecisions

Interimdecisionsaretoavoidalegalvacuo.
PublicPerformanceofSoundRecordings[Re:SoundTariff6.B-UseofRecorded
MusictoAccompanyPhysicalActivities,2008-2012],2014CarswellNat1189(Cop.
Bd.;2014-04-17)[5]AsaresultofthedecisionoftheFederalCourtofAppeal,Tariff
6.Bisanullityasitappliestoallfitnessactivitiesexceptskating.
Sincethisisaninauguraltariff,thereisnoearliertariffwhichcould
continuetoapplyonaninterimbasispursuanttoparagraph
68.2(3)(b)oftheAct.Re:Soundcannotcollectroyaltiesforfitness
activitiesotherthanskatinguntiltheBoardhascompliedwiththe
orderoftheFederalCourtofAppeal.Re:Soundmayevenbe
requiredtorefundroyaltiescollectedtodatepursuanttothetariff.
TheBoardrecognizedRe:Sound’sentitlementtocollectsome
royaltiesinitsJuly6,2012decision.
[7]TheMarch12,2014applicationbyRe:Soundforaninterim
decisionisgranted.ThosepartsofRe:SoundTariffNo.6.B(Useof
RecordedMusictoAccompanyPhysicalActivities)thatwereset
asideonFebruary24,2014inRe:SoundvFitnessIndustryCouncil
ofCanadaetal.(2014FCA48)arereinstatedonaninterimbasis
effectiveasofJanuary1,2008anduntiltheBoardissuesafurther
interimdecisionorafinaldecision.
·Section66.51–Interimdecision

AnappealpendingbeforetheSupremeCourtofCanadaisaproperreasonto
maintainthestatusquo.
SocietyforReproductionRightsofAuthors,ComposersandPublishersinCanadav.
ARTV,2014CarswellNat4808(Cop.Bd.;2014-11-27)
[9]SODRACrequeststheinterimextensionofthelicence
agreement,whichtheBoardhadalreadyextendedonceasperthe
interimdecisionofJanuary5,2012,untilafinaldecisionisissued.
ARTVagreeswithSODRAC’srequest.Giventhatthe2008-2012
arbitrationisbeforetheSupremeCourt,thepartiesagreeoncemore
nottoproceedonthemeritsuntilafinaldecisionisissuedinthis
matter,

81
·Section66.52–Variationofdecision

Forthissectiontoapplyamaterialchangeshouldhaveoccured.TheBoardhasan
impliedjurisdictiontocorrectitserrors.
Re:Soundv.FitnessIndustryCouncilofCanada,120C.P.R.(4th)287(F.C.A.;
2014-02-24)EvansJ.[86]First,theBoard’sexpressjurisdictiontovaryanorderunder
section66.52oftheActisexercisableonlyiftheBoardissatisfied
thattherehasbeenamaterialchangeincircumstancessinceit
rendereditsdecision.Inmyview,learningthebasisofatribunal’s
decisionwhenthedecisionispublishedisnot,forthispurpose,a
“changeincircumstancessincethedecisionwasmade”.

[87]Second,tribunalsgenerallyhaveimpliedjurisdictiontocorrect
breachesofthedutyoffairnessbyreopeningadecision:Poslunsv.
TorontoStockExchange,[1968]S.C.R.330at340,and,more
generally,Chandlerv.AlbertaAssociation.ofArchitects,[1989]2
S.C.R.848;andseeCanadianRecordingIndustryAssociationv.
Canada(AttorneyGeneral),2006FCA336(CopyrightBoard’s
reconsiderationcuredanypriorbreachofthedutyofprocedural
fairness).
[88]However,evenifsection66.52isnotexhaustiveoftheBoard’s
powertoreopenafinaldecision,itwasnotincumbentonRe:Sound
inthiscasetorequestareconsiderationbeforeapplyingforjudicial
review.Re:SoundcouldnothaveraisedbeforetheBoarditsother
twogroundsofreview,namelytheBoard’serroroflawinreducing
therepertoiretorecordingsforwhichtheperformersormakershad
authorizedittoactforthem,andtheunreasonablylowroyaltiesin
Tariff6.B.

·Section66.52-Variationofdecisions

Whenitsdecisionisrendered,theBoardisfunctusandcannotre-openthefile
otherwisetocorrectclericalerrors.
CanadianAssociationofFilmDistributorsandExportersv.SocietyforReproduction
RightsofAuthors,ComposersandPublishersinCanada(SODRAC)Inc.,2014
CarswellNat4094(FCA;2014-10-20)NoëlJ.[reversingSODRACTariffNo.5(2009-
2012),[2013]C.B.D.6(Cop.Bd.;2013-04-26)]

82
[68]TheBoardhastheauthoritytoreopenapriordecisionpursuant
tosection66.52oftheCopyrightActorbasedonthewell-
establishedcaselawthatentitlesadministrativetribunalstocorrect
slipsorothertypesoferrorscommittedinadvertently.Inthiscase,
theBoardauthorizeditselftoreopentheproceedingsinorderto
correctwhatititselfidentifiedasapalpableerror.

[69]Inmyopinion,theBoarderredinassumingtheauthorityto
reopenthematteronthisground.Thecorrectionofapalpableerror
isnotoneoftherecognizedexceptionstothefunctusofficiorule,nor
isitagroundforredeterminationundersection66.52ofthe
CopyrightAct,whichauthorizestheBoardtovaryitsdecisiontotake
intoconsiderationachangeincircumstancespostdatingthe
decision.
[73]AsacknowledgedbytheBoard,theerroritcommittedwasnota
simpleclericalerror,and,contrarytoitsassertion,itssourcewasnot
“inadvertence”or“distraction”(DecisiontoReopenatpara.27).Only
theBoard’smisunderstandingofthecoreissue(i.e.,thetariff
structureproposedbyoneoftheparties)canexplainitserror.This
typeoferror,howeverpalpableitmaybe,isnotonethatpermitsan
exceptiontobemadetothefunctusofficiorule.

[74]Ialsodonotbelievethatthegreaterflexibilitythatadministrative
tribunalsshouldbegiveninapplyingthefunctusofficiorulecould
leadtoadifferentoutcome(Chandlerat861and862[Chandlerc.
AlbertaAssociationofArchitects,1989]2R.C.S.848]).Infact,this
greaterflexibility,eventhoughitissignificant,doesnotallow
administrativetribunalstoexpandtherecognizedexceptionstothe
functusofficiorule(MetropolitanTorontoPoliceServicesBoard(Re),
1997CanLII11673(ONIPC)atpage5;Herzigv.Canada,2002FCA
36(CanLII)atpara.16),whichispreciselywhatwouldhavetobe
doneinordertoallowtheBoardtocorrectitspalpableerror.
·Section67-Publicaccesstorepertoire

Thereisadutyuponcollectivetoprovideinformationaboutitsrepertoire.

Re:Soundv.FitnessIndustryCouncilofCanada,120C.P.R.(4th)287(F.C.A.;
2014-02-24)EvansJ.[110]Third,section67oftheActimposesadutyonacollectivesociety,
whenrequestedbyamemberofthepublic,toprovideinformationabout
itsrepertoireofperformers’performancesandsoundrecordingsthatarein

83
currentuse.Itisdifficulttoseehowthisobligationcouldbedischargedif,
asRe:Soundargues,itsrepertoireincludesallperformancesand
recordingseligibleforequitableremuneration.Whileacollectivesociety
wouldbeawareofeligiblerecordingsandperformancesforwhichithad
beenauthorizedtoact,thiswouldnotnecessarilybetrueoftheothers.

[111]Fourth,itwouldbeanomalousifacollectivesocietywereableto
collectroyaltiesforalleligiblerecordingsusedinaparticularcontext,but
distributedthemonlytotheperformersandmakersofrecordingsinits
repertoire,andtothosewhomitwasabletodiscover.Re:Soundstated
thatitholdsinatrustaccountthemoneythatithadcollectedbutcouldnot
distributependingitsidentificationofthosewhohadnotsignedupwithit.
WhathappenstothefundsowingtothosethatRe:Soundneveridentifies
isunclear.Inmyview,Parliamentshouldnotlightlybetakentohave
intendedtocreatearegimethatproducessuchcumbersomeand
impracticalresults.
·Section67.1–Filingofproposedtariffs

Subsection67.1(4)providesanincentiveforcollectivesocietiestofileaproposed
tariff.
Re:Soundv.FitnessIndustryCouncilofCanada,120C.P.R.(4th)287(F.C.A.;
2014-02-24)EvansJ.[96]Inmyview,thefirstoftheBoard’sreasonssupportsits
interpretation.Therelevanceofsubsection67.1(4)inthiscontextis,
however,lessclear.TheFrenchversionofthestatutorytextdoesnot
containwordsequivalentto“withrespecttothework,performer’s
performanceorsoundrecordinginquestion”,which,accordingtothe
Board,supporttheviewthatRe:Sounddoesnotnecessarilycollect
royaltiesonbehalfofalleligiblerecordingsusedforthepurpose
identifiedinthetariff.

[97]TheFrenchversionofsubsection67.1(4)suggestsasituation
whereacollectivesocietyhasproposednotariffatall:«Lenon-
dépôtduprojetempêche,saufautorisationécriteduministre,
l’exercisedequelquerecoursquecesoit…pourrecouvrementdes
redevancesviséesàl’article19.»

[98]Onthisbasis,thefunctionofsubsection67.1(4)istoprovidean
incentiveforcollectivesocietiestofileaproposedtariffinaccordance
withthethreeprecedingsubsections.Thatis,acollectivesocietythat
failsinitsdutytofileatariffcannot,withoutthewrittenconsentofthe

84
Minister,looktootherlegalproceedingstorecoverequitable
remunerationfromusersofsoundrecordingsofmusicalworks.Ifthis
iscorrect,subsection67.1(4)isoflittleassistanceindeterminingfor
whomacollectivesocietymaycollect.
[99]InlightofthedifferencesintheEnglishandFrenchversionsof
thestatutorytext,andbearinginmindthatreasonablenessisthe
standardofreviewapplicabletotheBoard’sinterpretationofthese
provisionsoftheAct,IamnotpersuadedthattheBoardcommitted
anerroroflawinrelyingonsubsection67.1(4)tosupportits
decision,especiallysinceotherprovisionsoftheActprovidea
reasonablebasisfortheBoard’sdecision.
·Section67.1–Filingofproposedtariffs

Tariffmustbeeconomicallyrealistic.
Re:SoundNo.Tariff8–Non-interactiveandsemi-interactivewebcasts,2009-2012,
2014CarswellNat1577(Cop.Bd.;2014-05-16)[114]Thekeyadvantageofper-playratesisthattheyarestrictly
correlatedwithusage.Theyareatypeoftransactionalprice.
TransactionalpricesareusedinotherInternettariffstheBoardhas
certified,includinginsubsections5(3)and(4)oftheCSIOnline
MusicServicesTariff,2008-2010.Therearethusprecedentsforthe
useoftransactionalpricinginarelatedmarket.
[115]Inthisinstance,weoptforaper-playtariffbecauseitisbetter
correlatedwithusage,becauseitmonetizesmusicgivenforfree,
becauseusageismorereadilyandreliablymeasurable,becauseitis
technologicallypossibleandbecauseitisatransactionalprice.
[188]WeagreewithRe:Soundthatminimumfeesaregenerally
requiredtocoverthecostofissuinglicences.
·Section67.1–Filingofproposedtariffs

AcollectivecannotfileaTariffforrightsitdoesnotadminister.

Re:SoundNo.Tariff8–Non-interactiveandsemi-interactivewebcasts,2009-2012,
2014CarswellNat1577(Cop.Bd.;2014-05-16)[215]Third,Re:Soundonlyadministersrightsofpublicperformance
andthecommunicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationforthe
benefitofsoundrecordingmakersandperformers

85
·Section68–Boardtoconsiderproposedtariffsandobjections

Ancillaryuseistobeattachedtothemainuse.

Re:SoundNo.Tariff8–Non-interactiveandsemi-interactivewebcasts,2009-2012,
2014CarswellNat1577(Cop.Bd.;2014-05-16)[72]Inourview,theInternetsimulcastofaradiostation’sover-the-air
signalisatextbookexampleofanancillaryusethatshouldbedealt
withatthesametimeasthemainuse.Thevalueperlistenerfor
simulcastingandforover-the-airbroadcastingisthesame.That
valueisbestachievedbyattachingtheancillaryusetothemainone.
Accordingly,theroyaltiesshouldbeproportionaltotherelative
audience.[Fn24Supranote5[SOCAN-Re:SoundCBCRadioTariff,
2006-2011(8July2011)CopyrightBoardDecsion]atparas.118-120.
ThisisincontrastwiththeAmericanapproach,whichtreatsradio
simulcastingasaseparateproduct:17USC114(d)(1),CFR
380.3(a)(1)]
[82]Weagreethatportabilityhasvalue.Theabilitytostreammusic
overmobiledevicesincreasestheattractivenessofmusicstreaming.
Thisisalsotrueofmostformsofmusiclistening.RadiosetsandCD
playerswerenotalwaysportable.Musicroyaltyratesdidnot
increasewhenportabledevicesemergedorwhentheybecame
commonplace.Consequently,portabilitycannotofitselfjustifyhigher
royalties.
·Section68–Boardtoconsiderproposedtariffsandobjections

ItisopentothepartiestonegotiateanagreementoutsideaTariff.

Re:SoundNo.Tariff8–Non-interactiveandsemi-interactivewebcasts,2009-2012,
2014CarswellNat1577(Cop.Bd.;2014-05-16)[90]Third,weagreewiththeObjectorsthatthepossibleeffectsthat
anyrateimbalancebetweeninteractiveandotherformsof
webcastingmayhaveonthemarketisamatterbetterpursuedbythe
labels,inthefreemarket,usingtheexclusivereproductionright.

[103]WedisagreewiththeObjectorsabouttheextentoftheBoard’s
powers.Ataminimum,wecouldencouragewebcasterstoapply
technicalmeasurestopreventstreamrippingbyofferingthema

86
discount.However,wewillnotdosointhisinstance,forthefollowing
reasons.First,sufficientdoubtswereraisedaboutthefeasibilityof
somemeasurestorequirefurtherevidencebeforetheycanbe
imposedorencouraged.Second,thereisnoevidencethatstream
rippingisinfactaprobleminCanada.Third,somereproductionsof
streamedcontentalmostcertainlyinvolve“users’rights”(e.g.,
reproducingastreamaspartoffairdealingforanallowable
purpose),theexerciseofwhichshouldbeallowedforfree.Fourth,
theSRPCandothertechnicalmeasuresseektoprotectrightswhich
arenottargetedbythistariffandwhicharenotadministeredby
Re:Sound;aswesaidinparagraph90above,thisamatterbetter
pursuedbythelabels,inthefreemarket,usingtheexclusive
reproductionrightunlessaninterventiononourpartbecomes
absolutelynecessarytorestorebalanceinthemarket.
·Section68–Boardtoconsiderproposedtariffsandobjections

Tariffsshallbefairandequitableforall.
Re:SoundNo.Tariff8–Non-interactiveandsemi-interactivewebcasts,2009-2012,
2014CarswellNat1577(Cop.Bd.;2014-05-16)[98]Tobefairandequitable,atariffshouldneitherovercompensate
norundercompensaterightsowners.Ifsetcorrectly,neitheraper-
playratenorapercentage-of-revenueratewilltendtodoso,tothe
extentthateachcapturesa(different)measureofusage.Onthe
otherhand,atariffsetatthegreaterofthosetworatesishedgedin
favourofthecollective.Itmaypreventundercompensationifa
servicehaslowrevenues;itdoesnotpreventovercompensationin
thecaseofahigh-revenueservicethatusesfewsoundrecordings

[99]Agreater-offormulationalsoburdensuserswithanunfairshare
ofrisks.Re:Soundbenefitsiftherearehighrevenuesandalarge
numberofplays,iftherearehighrevenuesandasmallnumberof
plays,andiftherearelowrevenuesandalargenumberofplays.
Onlyiftherearelowrevenuesandasmallnumberofplaysdoesthe
userbenefit.Bycontrast,eitheraper-playorapercentage-of-
revenuetariff,withorwithoutaminimumfee,allocatesriskbetween
Re:Soundandtheusersmoreevenly
[101]Itisimportantnottoconfuseagreater-offormulationwitha
minimumfeeorarecoupableadvance.Underthesescenarios,the
userpaysthegreaterofafixedamountandtheamountaformula
yields.Here,Re:Soundisproposingthattheuserpaythelargest

87
amountofroyaltiesyieldedbytwodifferentformulas.Thepurposeof
aminimumfeeistoensurethatuserscannotuseprotectedsound
recordingsforfree.ThepurposeofRe:Sound’sproposedformulais
tomaximizeroyaltiesasafunctionofauser’sbusinessmodeland
success
·Section68–Boardtoconsiderproposedtariffsandobjections

Tariffsmustberealistic.
Re:SoundNo.Tariff8–Non-interactiveandsemi-interactivewebcasts,2009-2012,
2014CarswellNat1577(Cop.Bd.;2014-05-16)[114]Thekeyadvantageofper-playratesisthattheyarestrictly
correlatedwithusage.Theyareatypeoftransactionalprice.
TransactionalpricesareusedinotherInternettariffstheBoardhas
certified[…]
[115]Inthisinstance,weoptforaper-playtariffbecauseitisbetter
correlatedwithusage,becauseitmonetizesmusicgivenforfree,
becauseusageismorereadilyandreliablymeasurable,becauseitis
technologicallypossibleandbecauseitisatransactionalprice.
·Section68–Boardtoconsiderproposedtariffsandobjections

InanyhearingtoestablishaTariffevidenceisrequiredtosupportconcernsand
proposals.
PublicPerformanceofSoundRecordings,Re[Re:SoundNo.Tariff8–Non-
interactiveandsemi-interactivewebcasts,2009-2012],2014CarswellNat1577pdf
(Cop.Bd.;2014-05-16)[91]Again,Re:Sound’sconcerns,whilenotunreasonable,mustbesupported
byevidencebeforewecanactonthem.
·Section68–Boardtoconsiderproposedtariffsandobjections

PublicPerformanceofSoundRecordings,Re[Re:SoundNo.Tariff8–Non-
interactiveandsemi-interactivewebcasts,2009-2012],2014CarswellNat1577(Cop.
Bd.;2014-05-16)

88
[101]Itisimportantnottoconfuseagreater-offormulationwitha
minimumfeeorarecoupableadvance.Underthesescenarios,the
userpaysthegreaterofafixedamountandtheamountaformula
yields.Here,Re:Soundisproposingthattheuserpaythelargest
amountofroyaltiesyieldedbytwodifferentformulas.Thepurposeof
aminimumfeeistoensurethatuserscannotuseprotectedsound
recordingsforfree.ThepurposeofRe:Sound’sproposedformulais
tomaximizeroyaltiesasafunctionofauser’sbusinessmodeland
success.
·Section68–Boardtoconsiderproposedtariffsandobjections

PublicPerformanceofSoundRecordings,Re[Re:SoundNo.Tariff8–Non-
interactiveandsemi-interactivewebcasts,2009-2012],2014CarswellNat1577(Cop.
Bd.;2014-05-16)[113]Per-playratesareusedintheUnitedStatesandelsewhere
[Fn31Forexample,Germany,Ireland,Japan,theNetherlands,New
Zealand,andtheU.K:ExhibitRe:Sound-10,Exhibit66thereto.]for
webcasting;thisimpliesthatthetechnologyformeasuringplays
exists,isaffordableandisavailable.Whileitmaybenecessaryto
havetransitionalprovisionstoaddressthedifficultyofcountingplays
retroactively,thisdoesnotpresentaproblemonaprospectivebasis.

[114]Thekeyadvantageofper-playratesisthattheyarestrictly
correlatedwithusage.Theyareatypeoftransactionalprice.
TransactionalpricesareusedinotherInternettariffstheBoardhas
certified,includinginsubsections5(3)and(4)oftheCSIOnline
MusicServicesTariff,2008-2010.Therearethusprecedentsforthe
useoftransactionalpricinginarelatedmarket.
[115]Inthisinstance,weoptforaper-playtariffbecauseitisbetter
correlatedwithusage,becauseitmonetizesmusicgivenforfree,
becauseusageismorereadilyandreliablymeasurable,becauseitis
technologicallypossibleandbecauseitisatransactionalprice.
·Section68-Boardtoconsiderproposedtariffsandobjections
Homologation

Tariffsareprospectiveandofgeneralapplication.

PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,Re[StatementofRoyaltiestoBeCollectedby
SOCANforthePublicPerformanceortheCommunicationtothePublicby

89
Telecommunication,inCanada,ofMusicalorDramatico-MusicalWorks-Tariff4
(Concerts)2009],2014CarswellNat2802(Cop.Bd.;2014-07-25)
[54][…]ProspectiveuserswhodidnotfileatimelyObjectionarenot
officialobjectors.However,tariffsareprospectiveandofgeneral
application,inthattheBoardimposesobligationsonabsentusers.
Someaccountmustthereforebetakenoftheinterestsofthosewho
arenotbeforeusandwhowillbeaffectedbyourdecision.
·Section68–Boardtoconsiderproposedtariffsandobjections

Tariffsareofgeneralapplication.Boardwillnotrenderdeclaratoryjudgments.

PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,Re[SOCANTariffs22.D.1–Audiovisual
webcastsand22.D.2–Audiovisualuser-generatedcontentfortheyears2007to
2013],2014CarswellNat2616(Cop.Bd.2014-07-18)theBoard
[49]WerejectmostofFacebook’sargumentsforthefollowing
reasons.TheBoardhaslongheldthatwhenitcertifiesSOCAN
tariffs,thesearetariffsofgeneralapplication.[Fn15See,for
example,ArbitrationbetweenSODRACandCBC/Astral,November
2,2012,atpara.63.]IfFacebookdoesnotengageintheprotected
actswhosepricethetariffsets,itdoesnothavetopaythetariff.
FacebookwouldhavetheBoarddeterminethatitdoesnotengagein
theseprotectedactsasafindingoffact;theBoarddeclinestodoso
asthisisanissueforanotherforum.
·Section68.2–Effectoffixingroyalties

Anequitableremunerationtobepaidonlytoeligiblemakersandperformers.

Re:Soundv.FitnessIndustryCouncilofCanada,120C.P.R.(4th)287(F.C.A.;
2014-02-24)EvansJ.[95]Third,subparagraph68(2)(a)(i)providesthatatariffappliesonly
inrespectofperformersandmakersofrecordingseligiblefor
equitableremunerationundersection20.Thepurposeofthis
provisionistoensurethatroyaltiesarenotcollectedonbehalfof
non-eligiblerecordings,not,asRe:Soundargues,thatroyaltiesmust
bepaidinrespectofalleligiblerecordings.
[100]Idonotfindsubparagraph68(2)(a)(i)tobehelpfulinsupporting
theBoard’sdecision.IagreewiththeBoardthatthisparagraphdoes

90
notrequireacollectivesocietytocollectroyaltiesforalleligible
recordingsperformedinpublicinconnectionwithspecifiedactivities.
Itmerelystipulatesthattariffsmayapplyonlytoperformersand
makersofsoundrecordingseligibleundersection20:thatis,the
makeroftherecordingwasacitizenorpermanentresidentof
CanadaoraRomeConventioncountryatthetimeofthefirstfixation,
orallthefixationsdonefortherecordingoccurredinCanadaora
RomeConventioncountry.
·Section68.2–Effectoffixingroyalties

TheCopyrightBoardisresponsibleforcertifyingthetariffspresentedbythe
collectivesocietes.

Tariffsmustbefairandrelevant.
CollectiveAdministrationinRelationsofRightsUnderSections3,15,18and2,2014
CarswellNat2978(Cop.Bd.;2014-08-08)theBoardatparagraphs22and25
[22][…]Ourgoalistocertifyatariffthatisbothfairandrelevant.If
thetariffrateistoolowanddoesnotincludetheappropriate
provisions,userswillsimplyexecutesideagreementswithCBRA
[thecollectivesociety]andignorethetariff.
[25]InitsdecisionofMay25,2012onRe:Sound’sTariff5,theBoard
statedthatitisrecommendedtodetermineifsigningpartiestothe
agreementscanrepresenttheinterestsofallprospectiveusersandif
commentsandargumentsmadebyformerpartiesandnon-parties
havebeenaddressed.[Fn3Re:SoundTariff5.AtoG(Useof
RecordedMusictoAccompanyLiveEvents)2008-2012(25May

91
2012)CopyrightBoardDecisionatpara.10]Asaprospectivenormof
generalapplication,atariffimposesobligationsonabsentusers.As
such,itisimportanttoconsidertheinterestsofabsentusersthatwill
beaffectedbythecertifiedtariff.Accordingtotherecord,themajority
ofnon-commercialmediamonitorshaveenteredintoanagreement
withCBRA.Theyshouldrepresenttheopinionsofpotential
users.[Fn4The2006-2008non-commercialmediamonitoringtariff
wasbroadenedtoincludemunicipalgovernmentsaspotentialtariff
users.However,therecordsindicatethatnomunicipalgovernments
arecurrentlyusersofthenon-commercialtariff.Therefore,wedonot
thinkthattheirnon-representationinthecurrentproceedingsisan
issue.MediaMonitoring2006,2007-2008(20June2008)Copyright
BoardDecisionatpara.8]

·Section70.13–Filingofproposedtariffs

Tariffsareprospective.Tariffsmusttakeintoaccounttheinterestsofthepartiesas
wellasthoseoftheusers,whethertheyhaveparticipatedornottothehearing.

MediaMonitoring2011-2016,Re,2014CarswellNat2978(Cop.Bd.;2014-08-02)
[25]InitsdecisionofMay25,2012onRe:Sound’sTariff5,theBoard
statedthatitisrecommendedtodetermineifsigningpartiestothe
agreementscanrepresenttheinterestsofallprospectiveusersandif
commentsandargumentsmadebyformerpartiesandnon-parties
havebeenaddressed.[Fn3Re:SoundTariff5.AtoG(Useof
RecordedMusictoAccompanyLiveEvents)2008-2012(25May
2012)CopyrightBoardDecisionatpara.10]Asaprospectivenorm
ofgeneralapplication,atariffimposesobligationsonabsentusers.
Assuch,itisimportanttoconsidertheinterestsofabsentusersthat
willbeaffectedbythecertifiedtariff.Accordingtotherecord,the
majorityofnon-commercialmediamonitorshaveenteredintoan
agreementwithCBRA.Theyshouldrepresenttheopinionsof
potentialusers.[Fn4The2006-2008non-commercialmedia
monitoringtariffwasbroadenedtoincludemunicipalgovernmentsas
potentialtariffusers.However,therecordsindicatethatnomunicipal
governmentsarecurrentlyusersofthenon-commercialtariff.
Therefore,wedonotthinkthattheirnon-representationinthecurrent
proceedingsisanissue.MediaMonitoring2006,2007-2008,Re
[2008CarswellNat2007(CopyrightBd.)](20June2008)Copyright
BoardDecisionatpara.8.]

·Section70.15–Homologation

Tariffsareprospectiveandofgeneralapplication.

PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,Re[StatementofRoyaltiestoBeCollectedby
SOCANforthePublicPerformanceortheCommunicationtothePublicby
Telecommunication,inCanada,ofMusicalorDramatico-MusicalWorks-Tariff4
(Concerts)2009],2014CarswellNat2802(Cop.Bd.;2014-07-25)
[54][…]ProspectiveuserswhodidnotfileatimelyObjectionarenot
officialobjectors.However,tariffsareprospectiveandofgeneral
application,inthattheBoardimposesobligationsonabsentusers.
Someaccountmustthereforebetakenoftheinterestsofthosewho
arenotbeforeusandwhowillbeaffectedbyourdecision.
·Section70.15–Homologation

TheBoardhasjurisdcitiontoimposeinterestonlatepayments.

CollectiveAdministrationinRelationsofRightsUnderSections3,15,18and2,2014
CarswellNat2978(Cop.Bd.;2014-08-08)theBoardatparagraph28;
[28]TheprovincesofAlbertaandSaskatchewanbothobjectedtothe
provisionfortheinterestonlatepaymentsonthegroundsthatitwas
unreasonableand/orbeyondthejurisdictionoftheCopyrightBoard.
Interestonlatepaymentsprovisions,essentiallyidenticaltotheone
intheproposedmediamonitoringtariffs,arecommonintariffs
certifiedbytheCopyrightBoard.Moreover,theproposedreporting,
disclosure,interestonlatepaymentsandindemnityobligations,or
essentiallyidenticalprovisions,havebeenpartofthemedia
monitoringtariffssincetheywerefirstcertifiedin2005.Wetherefore
continuetocertifyaprovisionforinterestforlatepaymentsinthis
tariff.
·Section70.2–Applicationtofixamountofroyalties,etc.

ThedecisionsoftheBoardonquestionoflawarereviewableonthestandardof
correctnessandthoseoffactsonthestandardofreasonableness.

CanadianBroadcastingvSodrac2003Inc.,118C.P.R.(4th)79(F.C.A.;2014-03-31)
PelletierJ.[applicationforleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadafiled
2014CarswellNat2092(S.C.C.;2014-05-30)]

93
[27]TheBoardisunusualamongspecializedadministrativetribunals
inthatitsdecisionsonquestionoflawarereviewableonthe
standardofcorrectness:seeRogersCommunicationsInc.v.Society
ofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanada,2012SCC
35,[2012]2S.C.R.283atparagraphs10-15.Questionsoffactare
onlyreviewableiftheyare”madeinaperverseorcapriciousmanner
orwithoutregardforthematerialbeforeit[thetribunal]”:seesection
18.1(4)(d)oftheFederalCourtsAct,R.S.C.1985,c.F-7.InCanada
(CitizenshipandImmigration)v.Khosa,2009SCC12,[2009]1
S.C.R.339(Khosa),theSupremeCourtofCanadadescribedthis
provisionasproviding“legislativeprecisiontothereasonableness
standardofreviewoffactualissuesfallingundertheFederalCourts
Act”:Khosa,atparagraph46.
·Section73–Certification

Tariffsareprospectiveandofgeneralapplication.

Licencescanberetroactive–Licenceswillnotbeforlongertermthanthetermof
copyright.
NationalFilmBoardforthesynchronizationandthecommunicationtothepublicby
telecommunicationofamusicalwork[Non-exclusivelicenceissuedto],2014
CarswellNat1775(Cop.Bd.;2014-05-12),[1]ThelicenceauthorizestheSynchronizationandthe
communicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationofamusicalwork
entitled“L’Interplanétaire”byLesTalismans,beginningonApril1,
2013.Theissuanceofthelicencedoesnotreleasetheapplicant

94
fromtheobligationtoobtainpermissionforanyotherusenot
coveredbythislicence.
[2]Thelicenceexpireswhentheworkisnolongerprotectedby
copyright.

[3]Thelicenceisnon-exclusiveandvalidonlyinCanada.Forother
countries,itisthelawofthatcountrythatapplies.
·Section77-CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbyBoard

Thelicencemaybeforpaperorelectronicreproduction,orboth.

Nicholasforthereproductionofapainting[Non-exclusivelicenceissuedtoJane],
2014CarswellNat1778(Cop.Bd.;2014-05-22)[1]Thelicenceauthorizesthereproductionofapainting
entitled“Comfort”byRosalieEmslie,c.1920s.Thereproductionof
thepaintingwillbeincorporatedinabookentitled“TheModernGirl:
FeminineModernities,CommoditiesandtheBodyinthe1920s”by
RosalieEmslieandpublishedbytheUniversityofTorontoPress.

Nomorethan500hard-copiesofthebookshallbepressed.An
electronicbookversionwillalsobeproduced.Theissuanceofthe
licencedoesnotreleasetheapplicantfromtheobligationtoobtain
permissionforanyotherusenotcoveredbythislicence.
·Section77-CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbyBoard

Alicencemaybeforthereproductionandthepublicexecutionofthisreproduction.

NYMMinistriesforthepublicperformance,thereproductionandthesynchronization
oftwomusicalworks[Non-exclusivelicenceissuedto],2014CarswellNat2569(Cop.
Bd.;2014-06-23)[1]ThelicenceauthorizestheReproductionandsynchronizationof
twomusicalworksentitledRuby,performedbytheMegliSistersand
recordedatAmericanArtistsStudios(author,composerand
publisherareunknown),intheeventthatitisprotectedbycopyright
andChild’sRequest,writtenbyWilliamL.Carterandpublishedby
TennesseeMusic.Thelicencealsoauthorizesthepublic
performanceofthemusicalworksduringtheworkshopthatistobe
incorporatedonaDVD.

95
Nomorethan100copiesoftheDVDshallbemade.
·Section77–CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbytheBoard

Alicencecouldonlyissueforaprotectedwork.
NationalFilmBoardofCanada,Toronto,Ontario,fortheincorporation,thepublic
performance,thereproductionandthecommunicationtothepublicby
telecommunicationoftwoimages[Non-exclusivelicenceissuedto],2014
CarswellNat3944(Cop.Bd.2014-09-22)(1)Thelicenceauthorizestheincorporationinadocumentaryfilm
entitled“MyPrairieHome”,thepublicperformance,thereproduction
andthecommunicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationofthe
followingimages,intheeventthattheyareprotectedbycopyright,
beginningSeptember1,2012:
-Aframedprintofasemi-truckwithlights(titleandauthorunknown);
-AphotographoftheCalgaryskyline(titleandauthorunknown).
·Section79–Definitions[PrivateCopying]

CD’sareaudiorecordingmedium.
PrivateCopying2015-2016,2014CarswellNat5162(Cop.Bd.;2014-12-12)
[26]ThecoreissueinthisdecisioniswhetherornotCDsqualifyasa
mediumordinarilyusedforprivatecopying,pursuanttosection79of
theAct.Inouropinion,theydo[…]
·Section83-Filingofproposedtariffs

Tariffsareprospectiveandofgeneralapplication.

96
Someaccountmustthereforebetakenoftheinterestsofthosewho
arenotbeforeusandwhowillbeaffectedbyourdecision.
·Section84–Distributionbycollectingbody

Leviesmustbedistributedamongstthreegroups:authors,performersandmakers.

PrivateCopying2015-2016,2014CarswellNat5162(Cop.Bd.;2014-12-12)
[36]Section84oftheActrequiresthatweapportionthelevyamong
authors,performersandmakers.
·Section89–Nocopyright,etc.,exceptbystatute

OPCAridesagain:“CommonlawCopyrightNotice”
BankofMontrealvRogozinsky,2014CarswellAlta2321(AltaQ.B.;2014-12-16)
Schlosser,Master[82]However,the“CommonlawCopyrightNotice”doesnotmerely
stopwithMs.Rogozinsky’sname,butalsoextendstoherbiological
andphysicalproperties(para5)and“…absolutecontrolandmastery
overthepeacefulpossessionof[hisorher]body,mindandmental
facilities…”,which,thebankisapparentlyinterferingwithbyasking
thatthedebtberepaid.
[83]Othercourtshavebeenconfrontedwiththesamebizarre,
inexplicableclaims,forexampleGravlinetal.vCanadianImperial
BankofCommerceetal,atpara9;DempseyvEnvisionCredit
Union,2006BCSC1324(CanLII)2006CarswellBC2142,60BCLR
(4th)309;HajduvOntario(Director,FamilyResponsibilityOffice),
2012ONSC1835(CanLII)atparas23-25;SquamishIndianBandv
CapilanoMobilePark,2011BCSC470(CanLII)atpara62,affirmed
2012BCCA126(CanLII),318BCAC239.Ineachcasethecourt
concludedthesenonsensicaldocumentsandtheassociatedclaims
wereentirelywithoutmerit.
[84]DennisLarryMeads,theOPCAlitigantwhowasthesubjectof
AssociateChiefJusticeRooke’scomprehensiveanalysisinMeadsv
Meads,isyetanotherpersonwhoclaimedthiskindofintellectual
propertyinterest.Hetooalsoemployedacopyrightandtrade-mark

97
noticethatwasreproducedinthatdecision.ItandMs.Rogozinsky’s
documentsharecommonpassages,suggestingthatthesetwoitems
arerelatedanddescendfromacommonancestor.
[85]Meads[Meadsv.Meads,2012ABQB571(Alta.Q.B.;2012-09-
18]providesathoroughrebuttaltothisentireconcept:thereisno
suchthingasa“commonlaw”copyrightortrade-markasboth
propertyinterestsaretheresultoflegislation(paras501,503),
copyrightcannotsubsistinapersonalname(para502).

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledans
touslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligente
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC

98
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)