Acting in concert to send lawful emails is no cause of action

ACTINGINCONCERTTOSENDLAWFULEMAILSISNOCAUSE
OFACTION

LAURENTCARRIÈREANDJEAN-FRANÇOISJOURNAULT*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
L
AWYERS,ANDPATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS

PRECIS:InCarginanv.Bourgeois[2009QCCS4047]theQuebec’sSuperiorCourt
acceptedtodismisssummarilyanactionclaimingcollusionbetweenthedefendants,
asitfoundtheactionwasclearlyunfoundedanddoomedtofail.

Facts
In2005,theplaintiff,MichelCarignan(hereafter:“Carignan”),wasacandidatefor
mayoraltyinthesmalltownofRepentigny,ProvinceofQuebec.Duringthe
campaign,theplaintiffdistributed20,000copiesofapamphletcalled“L’Partisan”
whichwashighlycriticalofhisopponent,thethenMayoress,ChantalDeschamps
(hereianafter“Deschamps”).Boththenameandvisualappearanceofthesaid
pamphletwereverysimilartothoseof“L’Artisan”,aweeklynewspaperpublishedin
theareaforover30yearsbyMédiasTranscontinentalS.E.N.C.(hereafter:
“Transcontinental”).
FollowingprotestsfromDeschamps’organizingcommitteeandfrommanycitizens,
Transcontinentalpublishedastatementinanotherofitsregionalnewspaper,
denyinganyassociationwiththepamphletdistributedbyCarignan.Transcontinental
alsonotifiedCarignanandhispartytostopdistributingthepamphletandrequested
apublicstatementtotheeffectthattherewasnoconnectionbetween“L’Partisan”
and“L’Artisan”,buttonoavail.
Furthertothere-electionofDeschamps,Transcontinentalreceivednumerous
complaintsfromagroupofhersupporters(nowdefendantsinthisaction)
complainingabouttheconfusioncreatedbythesimilarityintitleanspresentationof
thepublicationL’PartisantoL’ArtisanandurgingTranscontinentaltotakelegal
actionagainsttheindividualsresponsibleforit.Inalmosteveryemail,theyalleged

©CIPS,2009.*Lawyerandtrade-markagent,LaurentCarrière,isaseniorpartnerwithLEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentandtrade-markagents.Jean-FrançoisJournaultis
anarticlingstudentwiththefirm.Publishedinthe2009-10-29issueofWorldMediaLawReport.
Publication328.075.

2
thatnumerousvoterswhoread“L’Partisan”weremisguidedintothinkingitwasin
fact“L’Artisan”thatwassocriticaloftheMayoress’administration.

TranscontinentalsuccessfullysuedCarignanandhispoliticalpartyforpassingoff
andwasawardeddamagesintheamountof$22,500.Thiscondemnationprompted
Carignantoinstitutehisownactionagainstthosesupporters,inwhichheclaims
damagesof$225,000.Hiscontentionsarethatthedefendantsconspiredtoharm
him,bysendingemailstoTranscontinental,inordertohelpitgatherevidenceof
confusionthatwaslaterusedintheactionagainsthim.

Followingtheplaintiff’sexaminationfordiscovery,defendantswereseekingthe
dismissaloftheaction.Theyreliedonthethenapplicablesection75.1ofthe
QuebecCodeofCivilProcedure.However,whilethejudgewasdeliberating,anew
lawwasenactedandsection75.1wasrepealedinfavourofnewprovisions
attributingbroaderpowerstojudgeswithregardstopreliminarydismissalofan
action.Inparticular,judgescannowdismissanactionwithoutbeinglimitedtothe
analysisoftheanswers(orlackofanswers)providedbyapartyduringan
examinationfordiscovery.
Judgment
JusticeFraibergidentifiedtwoquestionsrelevanttothiscase.Thefirstonewas
whetherthedefendantscommittedatortwhenactinginconcerttoconvince
TranscontinentaltopursuelegalactionagainstCarignan.IntheeventtheCourt
believedthedefendantswerecivillyliablefortheirconduct,itwouldthenneedto
determinewhetherthedamagesclaimedbyCarignanwerecausedbythesaidtort.
SincetheJudgeconcludedthatneitherofthesequestionscouldbeanswered
positively,itgrantedthedefendants’MotionforSummarilyDismissaloftheAction.

Whenanalysingtheexistenceofatort,thejudgeobservedthattheplaintiff’sclaim
wasrootedinthecollusionofthedefendants,aimedatprovidingTranscontinental
withevidenceofconfusionthatcouldbeusedinsubsequentlegalprocedures,
ratherthanonthecontentoftheemails.JusticeFraibergindicatedthattherewas
nothingwrongwithworkingtogethertosendemails,aslongasthecontentofthe
saidemailswaslawful.Anexaminationofthecontentiousemailsrevealedthatthe
contentwasperfectlylegitimateasthedefendantswerejustifiedtoassertthe
similarityofthepublicationsandtocomplainthatsomecitizensmighthavebelieved
thatthearticleswereinfactwrittenbyjournalistsfrom“L’Artisan”.Moreover,the
possibilityofconfusionwasadmittedbyCarignanhimselfduringhistrialagainst
Transcontinentalandagainduringhisexaminationfordiscoverypertainingtothe
currentaction.Thereforethedefendantscanhardlybeliableforcomplainingabout
it.

3
Onthematterofthecausalconnectionbetweenthedamagesandtheallegedtort,
thejudgeaffirmedthattherewasnodirectlinkwiththedamagesclaimed.Aplaintiff
inapassingoffactiondoesnothavetodemonstratethatindividualswereinfact
confused.Inordertomeethisburdenofproof,aplaintiffisonlyrequiredto
demonstratethattherewasapossibilityofconfusionforthepublicingeneral.Such
confusioncouldeasilybeestablishedbythesimplecomparisonofthepublications
atissueandtherefore,theemailssentbythedefendantswerenotessentialfor
Transcontinental’slegalactiontosucceed.Moreover,theCourtaffirmedthatthe
chronologyofeventsclearlydemonstratedthatTranscontinentalplannedon
pursuinglegalactionagainstCarignanlongbeforeitreceivedthedefendants’
emails,thenoticehavingbeenpublishedseveraldaysbeforeitreceivedtheemails.

Thejudgealsodismissedtheclaimforpunitiveandexemplarydamages.Inhis
reasons,henotedthatnoneoftheplaintiff’srightswereinfactinfringedbythe
defendantsandtherefore,noreparationcouldarise.Theemailsweresentseveral
daysaftertheelection.Asaresult,neitherCarignan’sfreedomofexpression,norhis
righttobecandidateatanelectionwereinfringed.Accordingtosection49ofthe
CharterofHumanRightsandFreedoms(aprovincialquasi-constitutionallaw
protectingindividualrightsandfreedomsintheProvinceofQuebec)nodamages
canbeclaimedintheabsenceofinfringementofrightsprotectedbythesaid
Charter.Thejudgeaddedthat,infact,itwouldbethedefendants’freedomof
expressionandopinionthatwouldbeinfringediftheyweredeniedtherightto
complainabouttheplaintiff’sactions.
Fortheforegoingreasons,theCourtacceptedthedefendants’MotiontoDismissthe
Action.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelle
danstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marques
decommerce,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

4
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDE
LAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofLEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP(“ROBIC”)