Canada and the Berne Convention


ADHERENCEOFCANADATOTHEROMEREVISIONOFTHEBERNECONVENTION

SOMECOMMENTSONSECTION71OFTHECANADIANCOPYRIGHTACT

by
LaurentCarrière*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers,
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242-Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com

Textofsection
1.0RelatedSections
2.0RelatedRegulations
2.1Regulations
2.2Forms
3.0PriorLegislation
3.1CorrespondingSectioninPriorLegislation
3.2LegislativeHistory
3.2.1ListofStatutes
3.2.2TextofStatutes
4.0Purpose
5.0Commentary
5.1History
5.2BerneConvention
5.2.1General
5.2.2BerneConventionandtheBritishEmpire
5.2.3BerneConventionandCanada
5.3Construction
5.3.1″Maytakesuchaction”
5.3.2GovernorinCouncil
5.4EffectofTreaty
5.4.1ImplementationofTreaty
5.4.2ConventionasPartofCanadianLaw
5.4.3ConventionNotPartofCanadianLaw
5.5Interpretation
6.0CaseLaw
6.1CaseLaw-Canada
6.1.1InternationalIssues
6.1.2CopyrightIssues
6.2CaseLaw-UnitedKingdom
6.2.1InternationalIssues

©LaurentCarrière,1995.*Lawyerandtrademarkagent,LaurentCarrièreisaseniorpartnerinthelawfirmLEGER
ROBICRICHARD,g.p.andinthepatentandtrademarkagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.Publication
123.


6.2.2CopyrightIssues
7.0ListofCases
7.1ListofCases-Canada
7.1.1InternationalIssues
7.1.2CopyrightIssues
7.2ListofCases-UnitedKingdom
7.2.1InternationalIssues
7.2.2CopyrightIssues
7.3ListofCases-Australia
8.0Authors
8.1Authors-Canada
8.1.1InternationalIssues
8.1.2CopyrightIssues
8.1.3InterpretationIssues
8.2Authors-UnitedKingdom
8.3Authors-Varia
9.0ComparativeLegislation
10.0Varia
10.1OrderinCouncilP.C.1923-1395,July27,1923
10.2SenateDebates(1921.05.31),atpp.692-695
10.3CopyrightNotice(1924),57CanadaGazette3200
10.4CopyrightNotice(1924),57CanadaGazette3401
10.5DebatesHouseofCommons(1931.04.23),atpp.899-900
10.6DebatesSenate(1931.06.11),atpp.221-223
CONVENTIONOFROME
ADHERENCETOTHEROME
COPYRIGHTCONVENTION
71.TheGovernorinCouncilmay
takesuchactionasmaybe
necessarytosecuretheadherence
ofCanadatotherevised
Conventionfortheprotectionof
artisticandliteraryworksthatwas
signedatRomeJune2,1928and
thatissetoutinScheduleIII.
C
ONVENTIONDEROME
ADHÉSIONÀLACONVENTIONDE
ROMESURLEDROITD’AUTEUR
71.Legouverneurenconseilpeut
prendrelesmesuresnécessaires
pourassurerl’adhésiondu
CanadaàlaConventionrévisée
pourlaprotectiondesœuvres
littérairesetartistiques,signéeà
Rome,le2juin1928,etdontle
texteconstituel’annexeIII.

R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,s.71
§1.0RelatedSections


Section2(2.1)Definitionof”BerneConventionCountry”
Section5Worksinwhichcopyrightmaysubsist
Section26FeespaidtoMinister
Section44.1Definitions
Section45NoimportationwhererightorlicencetoreproduceinCanada
granted
§2.0RelatedRegulations
None
§3.0PriorLegislation
§3.1CorrespondingSectioninPriorLegislation
(1)Section12from1931.06.11to1953.09.14
(2)Section53from1953.09.15to1971.07.14
(3)Section51from1971.07.15to1988.12.11
(4)Section71from1988.12.12topresent
§3.2LegislativeHistory
§3.2.1ListofStatutes
(1)S.C.1931,c.8,s.12;C.I.F.1931.06.11
(2)R.S.C.1952,c.55,s.47;C.I.F.1953.09.15
(3)R.S.C.1970,c.C-30,s.47;C.I.F.1971.07.15
(4)R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,s.65;C.I.F.1988.12.12
§3.2.2TextofStatutes
(1)S.C.1931,c.8,s.12:


CONVENTIONOFROME
ADHERENCETOTHEROME
COPYRIGHTCONVENTION
12.TheGovernorinCouncilmay
takesuchactionasmaybe
neessarytosecuretheadherence
ofCanadatotherevised
Conventionfortheprotectionof
artisticandliteraryworkswhich
wassignedatRomethe2nddayof
June,1928,andwhichissetoutin
ScheduleAtothisAct.
C
ONVENTIONDEROME
ADHÉSIONÀLACONVENTIONDE
ROMESURLEDROITD’AUTEUR
12.Legouverneurenconseilpeut
prendrelesmesuresnécessaires
pourassurerl’adhésiondu
CanadaàlaConventionrevisée
pourlaprotectiondesœuvres
littérairesetartistiques,signéeà
Rome,le2juin1928,etdontle
texteconstituel’annexeAdela
présenteloi.

(2)R.S.C.1952,c.55,s.47:
CONVENTIONOFROME
ADHERENCETOTHEROME
COPYRIGHTCONVENTION
53.TheGovernorinCouncilmay
takesuchactionasmaybe
necessarytosecuretheadherence
ofCanadatotherevised
Conventionfortheprotectionof
artisticandliteraryworkswhichwas
signedatRomethe2ndday
ofJune,1928,andwhichissetoutin
theThirdSchedule.
C
ONVENTIONDEROME
ADHÉSIONÀLACONVENTIONDE
ROMESURLEDROITD’AUTEUR
53.Legouverneurenconseilpeut
prendrelesmesuresnécessaires
pourassurerl’adhésionduCanada
àlaConventionreviséepourla
protectiondesœuvreslittéraireset
artistiques,signéeàRome,le2
juin1928,etdontletexteconstitue
latroisièmeannexe.

(3)R.S.C.1970,c.C-30,s.47:


CONVENTIONOFROME
ADHERENCETOROMECOPYRIGHT
CONVENTION
51.TheGovernorinCouncilmay
takesuchactionasmaybe
necessarytosecuretheadherence
ofCanadatotherevised
Conventionfortheprotectionof
artisticandliteraryworkswhichwas
signedatRomethe2nddayof
June1928andwhichissetoutin
ScheduleIII.
C
ONVENTIONDEROME
ADHÉSIONÀLACONVENTIONDE
ROMESURLEDROITD’AUTEUR
51.Legouverneurenconseilpeut
prendrelesmesuresnécessaires
pourassurerl’adhésiondu
CanadaàlaConventionrevisée
pourlaprotectiondesœuvres
littérairesetartistiquessignéeà
Rome,le2juin1928,etdontle
texteconstituel’annexeIII.

§3.3Transitional
None
§3.4ProposedLegislation
None
§4.0Purpose
ThissectiongivesauthoritytotheGovernorinCounciltocauseCanadato
adheretotheBerneConvention(1886),asrevisedinRome(1928).
§5.0Commentary
§5.1History
Saveforgrammaticalchanges,thissectionremainsunchangedsinceits
introductionintheCopyrightAct.
ByOrderinCouncilP.C.1395datedJuly27,1923(publishedat(1924),57
CanadaGazette,PartII,p.4174)theGovernorinCouncilexpressedthe
intentofCanadatoadheretotheBerneConventionasrevisedinBerlin
(1908)anditsAdditionalProtocolofBerne(1914):seetextat§10.1,infra.This
adherencewasindeedcontemplatedbysection49[thereafterR.S.C.1985,


c.C-42,s.65;repealedbyS.C.1993,c.44,s.69]oftheCopyrightAct,1921,
whichthenreadasfollows:
CONVENTIONOFBERNE
ADHERENCETOTHEBERNE
CONVENTION
49.TheGovernorinCouncilmay
takesuchactionasmaybe
necessarytosecuretheadherence
ofCanadatotherevised
ConventionofBerne,signedthe
thirteenthdayofNovember,1908,
andtheAdditionalProtocolthereto
signedBernethetwentiethdayof
March,1914,setoutintheSecond
ScheduletothisAct.
C
ONVENTIONDEBERNE
ADHÉSIONÀLACONVENTION
RÉVISÉEDEBERNE
49.Legouverneurenconseilpeut
prendrelesmesuresnécessaires
pourassurerl’adhésiondu
CanadaàlaConventionrevisée
deBerne,signéeletreizièmejour
denovembre1908,etau
Protocoleadditionnelsignéà
Bernelevingtièmejourdemars
1914,énoncésàlaseconde
Annexedelaprésenteloi.

However,asaDominionofHisMajesty,Canadacouldnot,atthattime,
directlysignifyitsadhesiontothisinternationalconvention.Therefore,quite
ironically,theadhesionofCanadaasafullcontributorymemberratherthan
asapartoftheBritishEmpirewasfirstdonethroughanotedatedApril28,
1928oftheBritishLegationtotheSwissGovernment:seeUnioninternationale
-Canada(1928),41LeDroitd’Auteur57.
Thereafter,byOrderinCouncilP.C.1390datedJune12,1931,theGovernorin
CouncilexpressedtheintentofCanadatoadheretotheBerneConvention
asrevisedinRome(1928).ThisOrder-in-Council,whichwasnotpublishedin
theCanadaGazette,isreproducedhereinbelow:
“TheCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilhavehadbeforethem
areport,dated12thJune,1931,fromtheRightHonourablethe
SecretaryofStateforExternalAffairs,submitting,inconcurrence
withtheSecretaryofState,asfollows:
1.TheInternationalConventionofBernefortheProtection
ofLiteraryandArtisticWorks,revisedatRome,the2ndJune,
1928,wassignedonthatdatebytheHonourablePhilippeRoy,
onbehalfofCanada;
2.Section12oftheAct,entitled”AnActtoAmendthe
CopyrightAct”,11thJune,1931,providesthat”theGovernorin
Councilmaytakesuchactionasmaybenecessarytosecurethe


adherenceofCanadatotherevisedConventionforthe
protectionofartisticandliteraryworkswhichwassignedat
Romethe2nddayofJune,1928,andwhichissetoutin
ScheduleAtothisAct”;
3.Article28ofthesaidConventionprovidesthat”the
presentConventionshallberatifiedandtheratifications
depositedatRomenotlaterthanthe1stJuly,1931″;
4.Itisdeemedmostadvisablenowtohavethesaid
ConventionratifiedinrespectofCanada.
TheMinister,therefore,inconcurrencewiththeSecretary
ofState,recommendsthathisMajestytheKingmayhumblybe
movedtoratifythesaidConventioninrespectofCanada.
TheCommitteesubmittheforegoingforYourExcellency’s
approval.”

OnJune2,1928CanadasignedtheRomeRevision(1928)oftheBerne
Convention:seeUnioninternatonale-Canada(1928),41LeDroitd’Auteur
57.InviewofArticle28(1)thereof,thisRevisionwastoberatifiedbyits
signatoriesbyJuly1st,1931.
ToacceedtothisRevisionCanadahadtoamenditsCopyrightActtobringit
intocloserconformitywiththeRomeRevision(1928).Thiswasdonebythe
CopyrightAmendmentAct,1931(S.C.1931,c.8).FurthertotheOrderin
CouncilP.C.1390datedJune12,1931,CanadaratifiedtheRomeRevision
(1928)oftheBerneConventiononJune22,1931totakeeffectasofAugust
1st,1931:seeUnionInternationale-Nouvellesdiverses(1931),44LeDroit
d’Auteur96andCanadaTreatiesSeries1931,No.3,123L.N.T.S.233,1932
G.B.T.S.12.
ThetextoftheBerneConvention,asrevisedin1928inRomeisappendedas
ScheduleIIItotheCopyrightActbutthistextisnotformallyenactedintolaw.
SinceCanadahasalreadyadheredtotheRomeRevision(1928)ofthe
RevisedBerneConventionSection71appearsobsoleteanditmaybe
questionnedwhythissectionhasbeencarriedforwardinthe1985Revisionof
theCopyrightAct.Indeed,section65oftheCopyrightAct(R.S.C.1985,c.C-
42)whichdealtwiththeadherenceofCanadatotheRevised(Berlin,1908)
BerneConventionanditsAdditionalProtocol(Berne,1914)wasofasimilar
obsolescenceandrepealedasofJanuary1st1994byAnActtoImplement
theNorthAmericanFreeTradeAgreement(S.C.1993,c.44,s.69).


§5.2BerneConvention
§5.2.1General
TheBerneConventionfortheProtectionofLiteraryandArtisticWorks(“La
ConventiondeBernepourLaprotectiondesœuvreslittérairesetartistiques”)
wassignedonSeptember9,1886;supplementedinParisonMay4,1896;
revisedinBerlinonNovember13,1908;supplementedinBerneonMarch20,
1914;revisedinRomeonJune2,1928;revisedinBrusselsonJune26,1948;
revisedinStockholmonJuly4,1967;revisedinParisonJuly24,1971;
amendedinParisonOctober2,1979.
Subjecttosomequalifications,theBerneConventionprovidesbasicallythat,
withouttheperformanceofanyformalities,authorswhoarenationalsofany
countryoftheUnionshallenjoyfortheirworks,whetherpublishedornot,in
theothercountriesoftheUnion,thesamerightsasthosecountriesaregiving
totheirownnatives.
§5.2.2BerneConventionandtheBritishEmpire
InordertoallowGreatBritaintoadheretotheBerneConventionandto
uniformizesomeaspectsofCopyrightLawthroughtheBritishEmpire,some
modificationswerenecessarytotheUnitedKingdomCopyrightActsthat
wereapplicableandprevailingovercoloniallegislationthroughtheBritish
Empire:seeGraves&Co.Ltd.v.Gorrie(1903),[1903]A.C.496(J.C.P.C.-
Canada).
Therefore,intheUnitedKingdom,onJune25,1886,AnActtoamendtheLaw
respectingInternationalandColonialCopyright(49&50Vict.,c.33;tobe
citedastheInternationalCopyrightAct,1886)waspassedwiththefollowing
preamble:
“AndwhereasataninternationalconferenceheldatBernein
themonthofSeptemberonethousandeighthundredand
eighty-fiveadraftofaconventionwasagreedtoforgivingto
authorsofliteraryandartisticworksfirstpublishedinoneofthe
countriespartiestotheconventioncopyrightinsuchworks
throughouttheothercountries;
Andwhereas,withouttheauthorityofParliament,such
conventioncannotbecarriedintoeffectinHerMajesty’s
dominionsandconsequentlyHerMajestycannotbecomea


partythereto,anditisexpedienttoenableHerMajestyto
accedetotheConvention(…)”.
Section9oftheInternationalCopyrightAct,1886,specicallyprovidedforits
applicationtoeveryBritishpossessionasifitwerepartoftheUnitedKingdom.
Inviewofthedefinitionof”Britishpossession”insection11ofthisAct,Canada,
evenifitwereaselfgoverningdominion,wascoveredbytheapplicationof
theInternationalCopyrightAct,1886.
OnSeptember9,1886,GreatBritainsignedtheBerneConventionArticle19
[renumberedasArticle26intheBerlinRevision(1908)]ofwhichreadsas
follows:
Countriesaccedingtothepresent
Conventionshallalsohavetheright
toaccedetheretoatanytimefor
theirColoniesorforeignpossessions.
L
espaysaccédantàlaprésente
Conventionontaussiledroitd’y
accéderentouttempspourleurs
coloniesoupossessionsétrangères.

Theymaydothiseitherbyageneral
declarationcomprehendingalltheir
Coloniesorpossessionswithinthe
accession,orbyspeciallynaming
thosecomprisedtherein,orby
simplyindicatingthosewhichare
excluded.
[Translation.]
I
lspeuvent,àceteffet,soitfaire
unedéclarationgénérale,par
laquelletoutesleurscoloniesou
possessionssontcomprisesdans
l’accession,soitnommer
expressémentcellesquiyont
comprises,soitseborneràindiquer
cellesquiensontexclues.

Asitappearsfromtheprocès-verbalofsignatureofSeptember9,1886,Great
Britainmadethefollowingdeclarationwithreferencetotheinclusionofits
ColoniesorforeignpossessionstotheBerneConvention:
“TheplenipotentiariesofHerBritannicMajestystatethatthe
accessionofGreatBritaintotheConventionfortheprotectionof
literaryandartisticworkscomprisestheUnitedKingdomofGreat
BritainandIreland,andalltheColoniesandforeignpossessions
ofHerBritannicMajesty.
Atthesametime,theyreservetotheGovernmentofHer
BritannicMajestythepowerofannouncingatanytimethe
separatedenunciationoftheConventionbyoneorseveralof
thefollowingColoniesorpossessions,inthemannerprovidedfor
byarticle20oftheConvention,namely:-India,theDominionof
Canada,Newfoundland,theCape,Natal,NewSouthWales,


Victoria,Queensland,Tasmania,SouthAustralia,Western
Australia,andNewZealand.”
OnSeptember5,1887,GreatBritainratifiedtheBerneConvention:seeNote
-UnionInternationaleRatification(1888),2LeDroitd’Auteur7.
OnNovember28,1887,byanOrderinCouncilpassedundertheauthorityof
theInternationalCopyrightActs,1844to1886,(andpublishedintheLondon
GazetteofDecember2,1887)GreatBritaingaveeffecttoitsadhesiontothe
BerneConvention.Section1oftheaforesaidorderincouncilreadasfollows:
“TheConventionassetforthintheFirstScheduletothisOrder
shall,asfromthecommencementofthisOrder,havefulleffect
throughoutHerMajesty’sdominions,andallpersonsareenjoined
toobservethesame.”

ThisOrdercameintooperationonDecember6,1887(section9)andwasto
beconstruedasifformedanintegralpartoftheInternationalCopyrightAct,
1886(section8):seeDurandetCiev.LaPatriePublishingCoLtd.(1960),
[1960]S.C.R.649(S.C.C.)AbbottJ.,atp.655.
OnMay4,1896,GreatBritainsignedtheAdditionalActofParis(1896),which
modifiedtheBerneConvention(1886).OnSeptember9,1896,GreatBritain
ratifiedtheAdditionalActofParis(1896):seeNote-UnionInternationale
Ratification(1897),10LeDroitd’Auteur110.
OnMarch7,1898,byanOrderinCouncilpassedundertheauthorityofthe
InternationalCopyrightActs,1844to1886,GreatBritaingaveeffecttoits
adhesiontotheAdditionalActofParis(1896).Section1oftheaforesaid
orderincouncilreadasfollows:
“TheAdditionalActoftheBerneConventionassetforthinthe
ScheduletothisOrdershall,asfromthecommencementofthis
Order,havefulleffectthroughoutHerMajesty’sdominions,and
allpersonsareenjoinedtoobservethesame.”

ThisOrdercameintooperationonMarch7,1898(section8)andwastobe
construedasifitformedanintegralpartoftheInternationalCopyrightAct,
1886(section7).
OnNovember13,1908,GreatBritainsignedtheBerlinRevision(1908)ofthe
BerneConvention.However,inordertocomplywiththeBerlinRevision(1908)
oftheBerneConvention,GreatBritainhadtomodifyitscopyrightlegislation
andconsequentlypassedAnActtoamendandconsolidatetheLaw
relatingtoCopyright(1&2Geo.V,c.46;tobecitedastheCopyrightAct,
1911)whichcameintoforceonJuly1st,1912.


OnJune14,1912,GreatBritainratifiedtheBerlinRevision(1908)oftheBerne
Convention;thisratification,howeverwasonlytobeeffectiveasofJuly1st,
1912.Noteworthy,sincetheUnitedKingdomCopyrightAct,1911wasnot
applicabledeplanotoHisMajesty’sself-governingdominions(asCanada)
theratificationoftheBerlinRevision(1908)oftheBerneConventiondidnot
includeall”HisMajesty’sdominions”(seesubsections25(1)and35(1)ofthe
UnitedKingdomCopyrightAct,1911).Infact,Canadawasspecifically
excludedfromtheGreatBritaindeclarationofratificationoftheBerlin
Revision(1908)oftheBerneConvention:seeGrande-Bretagne-Adhésion
(1912),25LeDroitd’Auteur90.
Furthermore,onJuly1st,1912,pursuanttosection36oftheUnitedKingdom
CopyrightAct,1911,theInternationalCopyrightActsof1844,1852,1875and
1886aswellastheordersincounciladoptedthereunderwererepealed.
However,subsection26(2)oftheUnitedKingdomCopyrightAct,1911
providedthat”inanyself-governingdominiontowhichthisActdoesnot
extend,theenactmentsrepealedbythisActshall,sofarastheyare
operativeinthatdominion,continueinforceuntilrepealedbythelegislature
ofthatdominion.”InCanada,thisrepealoccursbywayofsection47[nows.
63]oftheCopyrightAct,1921,whichcameintoforceonJanuary1st,1924.
OnMarch20,1914,GreatBritainsignedtheBerneAdditionnalProtocol(1914)
totheBerneConvention,whichsignaturewasexcludingCanada.
§5.2.3BerneConventionandCanada
TheadhesionofCanadatotheBerneConventionasafullmemberofitsown
(ratherthanasaBritishdominion)wasproblematicinviewoftheserious
disharmonybetweentheCanadianrequirementsofregistrationforcopyright
protectionandtheliberalprincipleentranchedinArticle4oftheBerne
Conventionunderwhichtheenjoymentandtheexerciseoftherightsofthe
authorsshallnotbesubjecttotheperformanceofanyformality.ForCanada
toaccedetotheBerneConvention,itwasthereforenecessarytomodifyits
copyrightlegislationand,hence,theCopyrightAct,1921(S.C.1921,c.24)
wasadopted.
AsexpressedbyFOX(HaroldGeorge),TheLawofIndustrialandIntellectual
Property:1923-1947(1948),26CanadianBarReview226,atp.242:”Under
thepresentlaw[i.e.CopyrightAct,1921]copyrightisautomatic.Itrequires
noregistrationorotherformalactandconfersarightinanunpublishedas
wellasinapublishedwork.Canada’sadherencetotheBerneConvention
thusbecamepossible.ThisadherencewassignifiedbyOrderinCouncilP.C.
1395ofJuly27,1923(publishedat(1924),57CanadaGazette,PartII,p.4174)
andrelateddespatchofdiplomaticnotes(publishedat(1924),57Canada


Gazette3200and3401).OnApril10th,1928,itreiterateditsadherenceasa
fullcontributingmemberoftheUnion,havingtheretoforeenjoyedstatusas
partoftheBritishEmpire.”SeealsoZamacoisv.Douville(1943),[1945]R.L.155
(Ex.C.C.)AngersJ.,atp.166.TheBerneConvention(1886),asmodifiedby
theParisAdditionalAct(1896),theBerlinProtocol(1908)andtheBerne
Revision(1914)wasappendedasScheduleIItotheCopyrightAct,which
schedule,however,wasrepealedonJanuary1st,1994withthecominginto
forceofsection74ofAnActtoImplementtheNorthAmericanFreeTrade
Agreement(S.C.1993,c.44).
OnJune2,1928CanadasignedtheRomeRevision(1928)oftheBerne
Convention:seeUnioninternatonale-Canada(1928),41LeDroitd’Auteur
57.ToacceedtothisRevisionCanadahad,again,toamenditsCopyright
Act.ThiswasdonebytheCopyrightAmendmentAct,1931.Furthertothe
OrderinCouncilP.C.1390datedJune12,1931CanadaratifiedtheRome
Revision(1928)oftheBerneConventiononJune27,1931,totakeeffectasof
August1st,1931:seeUnionInternationale-Nouvellesdiverses(1931),44Le
Droitd’Auteur96andCanadaTreatiesSeries1931,No.3;seesection71.The
RomeRevision(1928)oftheBerneConventionisappendedasScheduleIIIto
theCopyrightAct.
CanadahasnotadheredtotheBrussellsRevision(1948)oftheBerne
Convention.
CanadahasadheredonJuly7,1970totheStockholmRevision(1967)ofthe
BerneConventionbutonlywithrespecttotheadministrativepartthereof,
namelyArticles22to38:seeUnionInternationale-Nouvellesdiverses(1970),
83LeDroitd’Auteur88.
CanadahasnotadheredtotheParisRevision(1971)nortotheParisRevision
(1979)oftheBerneConvention.However,Article1701.2(b)oftheNorth
AmericanFreeTradeAgreementrequesttheadherenceofCanadatothe
ParisRevision(1971)oftheBerneConvention.
§5.3Construction
§5.3.1″Maytakesuchaction”
Despitetheusualcanonsofinterpretationwherebytheword”shall”is
deemedtobeimperativewhiletheword”may”isratherdeemedtobe
facultative,theparliamentaryhistoryofsection65indicatesthattheword
“may”means”shall”sothattheGovernorinCouncilhadanobligationto
securetheadherenceofCanadatotheRevisedConventionofBerne:
DebatesSenate,1921(1921.05.31),atp.692.However,sinceCanadahas


adheredtotheRevisedConventionofBerne,suchadebatenowadays
wouldappearacademical.
§5.3.2GovernorinCouncil
Asprovidedforbysection13oftheConstitutionAct,1982provisionsinActsof
theParliamentreferringtotheGovernorGeneralinCouncilshallbe
construedasreferringtotheGovernorGeneralactingbyandwiththe
Adviceandconsentof,andinconjunctionwiththeQueen’sPrivyCouncilfor
Canada:seesection35oftheInterpretationAct(R.S.C.1985,c.I-21).
§5.4EffectofTreaty
§5.4.1ImplementationofTreaties
“Atreatymaybeimplementedbylegislationinoneofthreeways:first,
Parliamentmaytranslatethetreatyintoanumberofstatutesoramendments
toexistingstatutes;second,itmayenactagenerallawwhichusesthekey
termsofthetreatyandisclearlydesignedtoimplementthetreaty;finaly,it
maydirectlyenactthetreaty,withanappropriatepreamb;e,intoEnglish
[Canadian]law”:MACDONALD(RonaldSt.John),InternationalTreatyLaw
andtheDomesticLawofCanada(1975),2DalhousieLawJournal307,atp.
311.
Asageneralproposition,itmaybestatedthat”Intheabsenceofalegislative
act,themakingofatreatydoesnotchangethedomesticlawinCanada”:
Mastiniv.BellTelephoneCo.ofCanada*(1971),18D.L.R.215(Ex.C.C.)
JackettJ.,atp.217.Therefore,treatiestowhichCanadaisaparty,asthe
BerneConvention,arenotselfexecutinginCanadaastheyarenot
incorporatedintodomesticlaw,theyarenotenforceablebeforeCanadian
Courts,andtheCourtswillnotrecognizeacauseofactionfoundeddirectly
onanallegedtreatyviolation:seeÉTUDESGÉNÉRALES,Lanouvelleloi
canadiennedu4juin1921surledroitd’auteur(1921),34LeDroitd’Auteur73,
atp.76;JACOMY-MILLETTE(Anne-Marie),TreatyLawinCanada(Ottawa,
OttawaUniversity,1975),atch.3.
“Canada’sconstitutionallaw,derivedinthisrespectfromtheUnitedKingdom,
doesnotrecognizeatreatyaspartoftheinternal(or”municipal”)lawof
Canada.Accordingly,atreatywhichrequiresachangeintheinternallawof
Canadacanonlybeimplementedbytheenactmentofastatutewhich
makestherequiredchangeinthelaw”:HOGG(PeterW.),ConstitutionalLaw
ofCanada,3rded.(Toronto,Carswell,1992),atp.285.


“ItfollowsthatthecourtsofCanada(andofothercountrieswithBritish
derivedconstitutions)willnotgiveeffecttoatreatyunlessithasbeen
enactedintolawbytheappropriatelegislativebody;or,toputthesame
propositioninanotherway,thecourtswillapplythelawlaiddownbystatute
orcommonlaw,evenifitisinconsistentwithatreatywhichisbindingupon
Canada.InacasewhereCanada’sinternallawisnotinconformitywitha
treatybindinguponCanada,thenCanadaisinbreachofitsinternational
obligationsandmaybeliableininternationallawtopaydamagesorsuffer
othersanctions,butthebreachofatreatyisirrelevanttotherightsofparties
tolitigationinaCanadiancourt”:HOGG(PeterW.),ConstitutionalLawof
Canada,3rded.(Toronto,Carswell,1992),atp.286.
§5.4.2ConventionasPartofCanadianLaw
Inviewoftheaboveandofthecombinedeffectofsection1oftheUnited
KingdomInternationalCopyrightAct,1886(andtheOrdersinCouncilpassed
thereunder)andofsubsection26(2)oftheUnitedKingdomCopyrightAct,
1911foratime,theBerneConventionanditsParisActwerepartofthe
copyrightlawintheUnitedKingdom:Hanfstaenglv.EmpirePalace(1894),
[1894]3Ch.123(C.A.).Furthermore,inviewofsection1oftheUnited
KingdomInternationalCopyrightAct,1886(andtheOrdersinCouncilpassed
thereunder)andofsubsection26(2)oftheUnitedKingdomCopyrightAct,
1911theBerneConvention(1886)anditsAdditionalParisAct(1896)werealso
partofthedomesticcopyrightlawof”HerMajesty’sRealmsandTerritories”,
whichincludesCanada:seeMaryv.Hubert(1906),29C.S.334(Que.Sup.Ct.)
FortinJ.,atpp.338-341;(1906),15B.R.381(Que.C.A.)Lavigneatp.383;
Joubertv.Géracimo(1917),26B.R.97,(Que.C.A.)CarrollJ.,atpp.107-108
andCrossJ.,atp.114;Durand&Ciev.LaPatriePublishingCo.Limited
(1960),[1960]S.C.R.649(S.C.C.)AbbottJ.,atp.655.
Therefore,theapplicationoftheBerneConvention,aspartofthedomestic
lawinCanada,couldbesummarizedasfollows:
1887.12.05to1897.12.09BerneConvention(1886)
1897.12.09to1924.01.01BerneConvention(1886)and
theAdditionalActofParis(1896)
excludingitsDeclarationofInterpretation(1896).
§5.4.3ConventionNotPartofCanadianLaw
TheBerneConvention(1886),asmodifiedbytheRomeRevision(1928)is
appendedasScheduleIIItotheCopyrightActbutisnotformallyenacted


intolaw.”Ascheduleorappendixispartofthestatute,butwhetheritforms
partofthetextofthelawdependsuponthetermsoftheAct”:seeDRIEDGER
(ElmerA.),TheConstructionofStatutes(Toronto,Butterworths,1983),atp.
142;seealsoCÔTÉ(Pierre-André),TheInterpretationofLegislationinCanada
(Cowansville,Blais,1992),atpp.64-66.
TheyarenospecificprovisionintheCopyrightAct,orelsewhere,providing
thatthetermsoftheappendedConventionweretobetakenasifthey
formedanintegralpartoftheCopyrightAct,asitwasthecase,forinstance
intheUnitedKingdomInternationalCopyrightAct,1886.Anillustrationof
suchanincorporationbyreferenceofaninternationaltreatyreferenceis
givenbytheimplementationinCanadacouldoftheViennaConventionon
theinternationalsaleofgoods.Forinstance,section1ofAnActrespecting
theUnitedNationsConventiononContractsfortheInternationalSaleof
Goods(S.Q.1991,c.68)readsasfollows:
TheUnitedNationsConventiononContractsfortheInternational
SaleofGoods,reproducedasascheduletothisAct,hasforceof
lawinQuébec(…)

whilesections4and6oftheInternationalSaleofGoodsContracts
ConventionAct(S.C.1991,c.13)readasfollows:
“4.(…)theConvention[assetoutintheSchedule]isdeclaredto
havetheforceoflawinCanada(…)”
“6.Intheeventofanyinconsistencybetweenthetheprovisions
ofthisActortheConventionandtheprovisionsofanyotherlaw,
theprovisioonsofthisActortheConventionprevailtotheextent
oftheinconsistency.”
Futhermore,contrarytoScheduleI(“existingrights”)whichisincludedby
referenceinthetextofsection60(“subsistenceofsubstitutedrights”)ofthe
CopyrightAct,thereisnosuchreferencetoScheduleIIIintheCopyrightAct.
However,referenceisnotablymadetotheConventioninvarioussectionsof
theCopyrightAct,asinsubsections
¬2(2.1)(“BerneConventionCountry”)
¬5(1)(“conditionsforobtainingcopyright”),
¬5(2)(“Ministermayextendcopyrighttoothercountries”),
¬26(4)(“applicationofprovisionsregardinglicences”),
¬45(3)(“exceptions”tosomeimportationprohibitions),and
¬45(5)(“applicationofprovisionsregardingimportation”).
Inthesesubsections,theConventionmerelyidentifiesbyreferencethe
countrieswhosecitizenswillenjoyinCanadacopyrightprotection,according


tothetextoftheCanadianCopyrightAct.Suchareference,however,does
nothavetheeffectofintegratingthetextoftheConventionaspartofthe
substantivelawofcopyrightinCanada:seeLouvignyMontignyv.Cousineau
(1950),[1950]S.C.R.297(S.C.C.)TaschereauJ.,atp.310;foraviewtothe
contrary,seeGribblev.ManitobaFreePressCompany,Limited(1931),[1931]
3W.W.R.570(M.C.A.)PrendergastJ.atp.571andTruemanJ.,atp.586(an
actiondescribedinthejudgementasafriendlyactionortestcase).
§5.6Interpretation
ReferencetotheConventiontointerpretambiguousprovisionsinthe
CanadianCopyrightActispermissible:seeComposers,Authorsand
Publishers’AssociationofCanadaLimitedv.CTVTelevisionNetworkLimited
(1968),[1968]S.C.R.676(S.C.C.)PigeonJ.,atp.681,inwhichcaseitshouldbe
rememberedthattheEnglishtextoftheConventioninScheduleIIconstitutes
anunofficialversionoftheConvention,whichwasadoptedinFrench.
However,iftheCanadianprovisionisnotambiguous,thereisnoneedto
interpretitand,afortiori,toresorttotheConventiontointerpretit:seeBishop
v.Stevens(1990),[1990]2S.C.R.467(S.C.C.).SeealsoAmericanFarmBureau
Federationv.CanadianImportTribunal(1990),[1990]2S.C.R.1324(S.C.C.)
GonthierJ.,atp.1372andSchavernochv.ForeignClaimsCommission(1982),
[1982]1S.C.R.1092(S.C.C.)EsteyJ,atpp.1098and1101.
Noteworthy,inthecourseoftheSenateDebatessurroundingtheadoptionof
theCopyrightAct,1921,itwasproposedtoamendsection65[thensection
49]byaddingthefollowingwordsthereto:
“andonsuchadherencebeingsecurednothinginthisActshall
betaken,interpretedorappliedasbeingcontrarytoorin
violationoftherevisedBerneConvention.”
whichamendment,however,waswithdrawn:SenateDebates,1921
(1921.05.31),atpp.692and695.
Thebasicprinciplesastotheuseoftreatiesininterpretatingstatuteswere
summarizedbyMCDONALD(BruceC.),UsingTreatiestoInterpretCanadian
IntellectualPropertyStatutes(1976),38PatentandTrademarkInstituteof
CanadaBulletin615,atp.624,asfollows:
“1.Internationalconventionsmaynotberesortedtoasaidsto
statutoryconstructionunlessthestatuteisambiguous.
2.Everystatuteshouldbeinterpretedsofarasitslanguage
permits,soasnottobeinconsistentwithestablishedprinciplesof
internationallaw.Thecourtswillavoidsuchaninconsistency


unlesstheyarerequiredtoadoptitbyaperfectlyclearand
explicitlanguageadmittingnodoubtinterpretation.
3.Ininterpretatinganambiguoustreatythatinturnisbeingused
tointerpretastatute,
(a)Itshouldnotbepresumedthatthetreatywillusethe
termsofartcurrentinanyparticularcountry.
(b)Whereaninternationalagreementtowhichalarge
numberofcountriessubscibeisimplementedbyadomestic
statute,thestatutewillbeconstruedwithaviewtoattaining
uniformityamongthelawsofjurisdictionsinwhichtheagreement
isoperative.
(c)ThepracticeofgovernmentsoroftheCanadian
government,andhowtheyhaveactedinlightofthetreaty,isa
veryimportantaspectoftreatyinterpreation.
(d)Theintentionofthepersonsormeetingwhodrafted
thetreatyisrelevant.”
§6.0CaseLaw
§6.1CaseLaw-Canada
§6.1.1InternationalIssues
(1)Attorney-GeneralforCanadav.Ontario(Attorney-Generalfor)*
(1937),[1937]A.C.326(J.C.P.C.-Canada)AtkinJ.,atp.347-348:
“WithintheBritishEmpirethereisaelle-establishedrulethatthe
makingofatreatyisanexecutiveact,whiletheperformanceof
itsobligations,iftheyentailalterationoftheexistingdomestic
law,requireslegislativeaction.Unlikesomeothercountries,the
stipulationsofatreatydulyratifieddonotwithintheEmpire,by
virtueoftheTreatyalone,haveforceoflaw.(…)Thequestionis
nothowistheobligationformed,thatisthefunctionofthe
executive;buthowistheobligationyobeperformed,andthat
dependsupontheauthorityofthecompetentLegislatureor
Legislatures.”
(2)Francisv.R*
(1956),[1956]S.C.R.618(S.C.C.)RandJ.,atp.626:


“Exceptastodiplomatticstatusandcertainimmunitiesandto
belligerentrights,treatyprovisionsaffectingmattterswithinthe
scopeofmunicipallaw,thatis,whichpurporttochangeexisting
laworrestrictthefutureactionofthelegislature,including,under
ourconstitution,theparticipationoftheCrown,andinthe
absenceofconstitutionalprovisiondeclaringthetreatyitselfto
bethelawofthestate,asintheUnitedStates,mustbe
supplementedbystatutoryaction.”

(3)Mastiniv.BellTelephoneCo.ofCanada*
(1971),18D.L.R.215(Ex.C.C.)JackettJ.,atp.217:
“WhiletheTreaty[ofPeacewithItaly]wasratifiedaftertheHouse
ofCommonshad,byresolution,expresseditsapprovalofthe
Government’sproposalthatitberatified,Ihavenotbeen
referredtoanystatute,norOrderinCouncilundertheWar
MeasuresAct,R.S.C.1952,c.288,oranyotherthinghavingthe
forceoflawthatpurported,directlyorindirectly,togivethe
effectofdomesticlawinCanadatotheprovisionsoftheTreaty
oranyofthem.Intheabsenceofsomesuchlegislativeact,the
makingofatreatydoesnotchangethedomesticlawof
Canada.”
(4)CapitalCitiesCommunicationsInc.v.CanadianRadio-Television
Commission*
(1977),[1978]2S.C.R.141(S.C.C.)LaskinJ.,atp.173:
“ThesecondsubmissionaskthisCourttosaythattheprovisionsof
theBroadcastingActareambiguousinsofarastheyrelateto
thepowersofthe[CanadianRadio-Television]Commission,and
thatasanaidtotheirconstructionresortshouldbehadtothe
termsofthe[Inter-AmericanRadioCommunication]Convention.
Idonotfindanyambiguitythatwouldrequireresorttothe
Convention,whichis,inanyevent,nowherementionedinthe
BroadcastingAct;andcertainlytheConventionpersecannot
prevailagainsttheexpressstipulationsoftheAct:cf.R.v.Chief
ImmigrationOfficer,HeathrowAirport[1976]3AllE.R.843,atp.
850.”
(5)AmericanFarmBureauFederationv.CanadianImportTribunal*
(1990),[1990]2S.C.R.1324(S.C.C.)GonthierJ.,atp.1372:
Thesuggestionthatrecoursecanbehadtoanunderling
internationalagreementwherealatentambiguitycanbe
assertedimpliesthatthereisnoneedtofindapatentambiguity


beforeconsultationoftheagreementispossible.Asalatent
ambiguitymustariseoutofmattersexternaltothetexttobe
interpreted,suchinternationalagreementmaybeused,asI
havejustsuggested,atthepreliminarystageofdeterminingifan
ambiguityexists.
§6.1.2CopyrightIssues
(1)Maryv.Hubert
(1906),29C.S.334(Que.Sup.Ct.)FortinJ.,atp.338:
“LapremièrequestionquiseposeestdesavoirsilaConvention
deBerneestenvigueur,ouaforcedeloiaupays.
Cettequestionnousparaîtrésoluedansl’affirmativepardes
textresetdesprincipesàpeinediscutables.
Toutd’abordilestindiscutablequ’untraitéinternationalconclu
parl’Angleterredoits’appliqueràtouteslespartiesdel’empire,à
moinsquecetteapplicationnesoitrestreinteparlestermes
mêmesdutraité.Onnesauraitmettreendoute,eneffet,qu’un
étatsouverainaitledroitdelierainsitoussessujets.
Onnes’estpascontentéicidel’applicationdeceprincipe
général,maisleGouvernementimpérialaexpressémentdécrété
quecetteconventiondeBerne,ainsiquelaloipasséepourlui
donnereffet,s’appliqueraientàtouteslespossessions
britanniquesetparconséquentauCanada.”
(2)Joubertv.Géracimo
(1917),26B.R.97(Que.C.A.)CarrollJ.,atpp.107,107-108:
“EtquandmêmeletraitédeBerneauraitlaisséàchaquepays
signatairelesoinderéprimeràsongrélesatteintesportéesaux
droitsdesauteursétrangers,lamiseàeffetdecetteclausene
peutêtredéclaréeimpérativeenfaced’unstatutfaisantcorps
aveccemêmetraitédeBernetelqueratifiéparl’Angleterre,et
établissantdessanctionsprécises.”[atp.107.]
Enrésumé,voicicommentj’envisagelasituation:Dèsquenous
admettonslavalidité,auCanada,delaConventiondeBerne,-
etnoussommesd’accordsurcepoint,-ilmeparaîtlogiqued’en
fairel’applicationintégrale,àceuxquidemandentcette
applicationintégralesurtoutlorsquejuridictionspécialeest
donnéeauxtribunauxdescoloniesenmatièrededommages


pourreprésentationsillicitesdepiècesprotégées,-damagesto
berecoveredinanyCourthavingjurisdictioninsuchcasesin
thatpartoftheUnitedKingdomoroftheBritishDominionsin
whichtheoffenceshallbecommitted[3-4GuillaumeIV,ch.15].
Cettejuridictionterritoriale,crééeparlaloide1833[i.e.Dramatic
LiteraryPropertyActorDramaticCopyrightAct],n’ajamaisété
abolieencequiconcerneleCanada,pasplusaprèsl’Actede
laConfédérationqu’avant;elleamêmeétéimplicitement
confirméeparlaloibritanniquede1886[i.e.International
CopyrightAct],etellesubsisteratantqueleParlement
canadien,seprévalantdespouvoirsqueluiconfèrelaloi
britanniquede1911,n’yaurapasmisfin.”[atpp.107-108]
(3)CanadianPerformingRightSocietyLimitedv.FordHotelCo.of
Montreal,Ltd.
(1935),73C.S.18(Que.Sup.Ct.)MackinnonJ.,atp.22:
“Theamendingact21-22Geo.V,c.8,wasintroducedafterand
asaresultoftheRomeConventionanditwasstrenuouslyargued
thatfollowingthesedecisionsandtheagreementarrivedatin
Rome,thisamendingactdidnotintendtodealwiththequestion
ofpublicreceptionofradioprogrammes.TheCourtisnot
concernedwiththeagreementarivedatintheRome
Concentionbutonlywiththelegislationthatwasenactedinthis
countryfollowingthatconvention.TheCourtfindsthatthis
amendmentoftheCopyrightActinvokedinthepresentcaseis
notambiguousandisnotofsuchdoubtfulmeaningaswould
requireittoinquireastotheintentionofthelegislaturewhenit
enacteditandconsequentlythatitmustreadtheamendment
accordingtoitscontext.”

(4)Zamacoïsv.Douville
(1943),[1944]Ex.C.R.208(Ex.C.C.)AngersJ.,atpp.220-221:
“LeCanadaaadhéréàlaConventiondeBerne,telleque
reviséeparlaConventiondeBerlinle13novembre1908etparle
protocoleadditioneldeBernele20mars1914,aumoyend’un
arrêtéenconseiladoptéle27juilleyt1923(C.P.1395),publié
danslaGaxetteduCanadadu10mai1924.Le10avril1928ila,
commepaysunionistecontractant,réitérésonadhésionàla
ConventiondeBerne,réviséetelquesusdit,commeenfaitfoi
unelettrecirculaireduConseilfédéralsuisedu27avril1928,
aeresséeauxmembresdl’Union,dontunecopieaététransmise
auSecrétaired’EtatpourlesAffairesExtérieursduCanadapar
lettredusecrétaired’EtatbritanniquepourlesColoniesetles



AffairesdesDominionsdu25mai1928.Jusqu’au10avril1928,le
Canadafaisaitpartiedel’Unionàtotredecoloniebritannique,
auxtermesdeladitelettrecirculaire,oudefragmentdel’empire
britannique,selonLapradelleetNiboyet,RépertoiredeDroit
international(p.745).
Le2juin1928leCanadaasignél’actedeRomerevisantde
nouveaulaConventiondeBerne.Iladonnésonadhésionàla
CopnventiondeBerneainsiréviséeaumoyend’unarrêtéen
Conseil(C.P.1390)adoptéle12juin1931conformémentà
l’article12delaLoimodificativedudroitd’auteur,1931(21-22
Geo.V,chap.8)sanctionnélaveille.Ceciapparaîtaubulletin
no3duRecueildesTraités,1931,publiéen1933parl’imprimeur
duRoiauCanada.”
(5)Montignyv.Cousineau
(1950),[1950]S.C.R.297(S.C.C.)TaschereauJ.,at310:
“Ilsembleraitqu’envertudecetexte[i.e.,laLoide1921
concernantledroitd’auteur]lapropriétélittérairedesauteurs
françaisestprotégéauCanadanonpasàcausedestermesde
laConventiondeBerne,maiscommeconséquencedecet
article4[nowsection5],quiestlaloidomestiquedupays.La
Conventionidentifielespaysdontlessujetsjouirontdela
protectionlittéraire,maisc’estletextedenotreloiquil’assure
définitivementetenconsacrel’existence.”
(6)DurandetCiev.LaPatriePublishingCoLtd.
(1960),[1960]S.C.R.649(S.C.C.)AbbottJ.,atp.655:
“Priorto1911therightofforeignerstoobtaincopyrightprotection
intheUnitedKingdomdependeduponvariousCopyrightActs
(includingtheActsof1833and1842towhichIhavereferred)
andtwoInternationalCopyrightActs,namelytheInternational
CopyrightAct,1844,7-8Vic.c.12andtheInternational
CopyrightAct,1886.BoththeselatterActsprovidedfor
copyrightprotectiontoforeignersupontheircomplyingwith
certainregistrationrequirements,andweremadeapplicableto
allBritishDominions.TheInternationalCopyrightAct,1886,was
enactedfollowingtheInternationalConferenceheldinBernein
1885,anditempoweredtheCrown,byOrder-in-Council,to
adheretotheConventionagreedtoatthatConference.Both
FranceandBelgiumwerealsoadherentstotheConvention.On
November28,1887,anOrder-in-Councilwaspassedgiving
effecttotheBerneConvention,which(translatedintoEnglish)


appearsasaScheduletotheOrder.Asaconsequence,under
theInternationalCopyrightAct,1886,andtheOrder-in-Councilof
November28,1887,theBerneConventionitselfandthe
subsequentActofParis,weremadeeffectiveinGreatBritain,
becamepartofthemunicipallaw,and,assuch,havebeen
interpretedbytheCourts;Hanfstaenglv.EmpirePalace[1894]
3Ch.109.ThesameresultfollowedintheBritishDominions
(includingCanada)towhichtheActof1886andtheOrder-in-
Councilweremadeapplicable.”
(7)Composers,AuthorsandPublishers’AssociationofCanadaLimitedv.
CTVTelevisionNetworkLimited
(1968),[1968]S.C.R.676(S.C.C.)PigeonJ.,atp.681:
“Inthisconnection,thefollowingfactsshouldbenoted.Section
53[nows.71]oftheActreferstotheRomeConventionwhichis
setoutintheThirdSchedule.Fromthisitappearsthatthe
ConventionisinFrenchonly:theScheduleannexedtothe
Englishversionisexpresslystatedasatranslation.Thehistoryof
thelegislationshowsthatsub-para.(f)aswellass.53andthe
ThirdSchedulewerealladdedtotheactbytheCopyrightAct
AmendmentAct,1931,21-22Geo.V,c.8.Thismakesitobvious
thatsub-para(f)[ofsection3]wasinspiredbypara.1ofArticle
11bisoftheConvention(…)”
§6.2CaseLaw-UnitedKingdom
§6.2.1InternationalIssues
(1)MonteUlia(Owners)v.Banco*
(1970),[1971]P.137(C.A.)DenningJ.,atp.151:
“ItisnowlawfullyestablishedthatwhenanActofParliamentis
passedtogiveeffecttoanInternationalconvention,wecan
lookattheConventionsoastohelpustoconstruetheAct:see
Salomonv.CommissionersofCustomsandExcise[1967]2Q.B.
116;PostOfficev.EstuaryRadioLtd.[1968]1Q.B.740,andthisis
soeventhoughtheActofPaliamentdoesnotmentionthe
Convention.”
(3)TheJade*
(1976),[1976]1AllE.R.920(H.L.)DiplockJ.,atp.924:
“AstheActwaspassedtoenableHerMajesty’sgovernmentto
giveeffecttotheobligationsininternationallawwhichitwould


assumeinratifyingtheconventiontowhichitwasasignatory,
theruleofstatutoryconstructionlaiddowninSalomonv.
CommissionersofCustomsandExcise[1966]3AllE.R.871,[1967]
2Q.B.116andPostOfficev.EstuaryRadioLtd.[1967]3AllE.R.
633,[1968]1Q.B.740isapplicable.Ifthereisanydifference
betweenthelanguageofthestatutoryprovisionandthatofthe
correspondingprovisionoftheconvention,thestsatutory
languageshouldbeconstruedinthesamesenseasthatofthe
conventionifthewordsofthestatutearereasonablycapableof
bearingthatmeaning.”[Ourunderlinings.]
§6.2.2CopyrightIssues
(1)Sarpyv.Holland
(1908),[1908]2Ch.198(C.A.)Cozens-HardyJ.,atpp.203-204:
“ThatBerneConventionhadandcouldhavenooperation.It
wasnotcompetenttotheCrownunderexistingEnglishlegislation
tomakeanOrderinCouncilsanctionningit,ortocomeintothe
Convention.However,theActof1886waspassed,which
recitedtheBerneConvention,andthatitwasdesirablethat
effectshouldbegiventoitsoastobindEnglishsubjects,andnot
onlytoconferuponforeignerscertainprivilegesinEngland,but
toenableEnglishsubjectstosecure,bycomingintothe
Convention,certainrightsandprivilegesabroad.ThatActwas
followedbyanOrderinCouncilin1886.Ishallhavetoreferto
boththeActandtheOrdermoreorlessindetail;buttheeffect
ofthisvariousActs,Convention,andOrdersinCouncilisthatthe
BerneConventionhasexactlythesameeffectasthoughit,
togetherwiththeorderinCouncil,hadbeenintheformofan
Englishstatute.”[Ourunderlinings.]
(2)Salomonv.CommissionersofCustomsandExcise*
(1966),[1967]2Q.B.116(C.A.)DiplockJ.,atp.143:
“Where,byatreaty,HerMajesty’sGovernmentundertakeseither
tointroducedomesticlegislationtoachieveaspecifiedresultin
theUnitedKingdomortosecureaspecifiedresultwhichcanonly
beachievedbylegislation,thetreaty,sinceinEnglihlawisnot
self-governing,remainsirrelevanttoanyissuesintheEnglish
courtsuntilHerMajesty’sGovernmenthastakenstepsbywayof
legislationtofulfilitstreatyobligations.OncetheGovernment
haslegislated,whichitmaydoinanticipationofthecominginto
effectofthetreatyasitdidinthiscase,thecourtmustinthefirst
instanceconstruethelegislation,forthatiswhatthecourthasto


apply.Ifthetermsofthelegislationareclearandunambiguous,
theymustbegiveneffectto,whetherornottheycarryoutHer
Majesty’streatyobligations,forthesovereignpowerofthe
QueeninParliamentextendstobreakingtreaties(seeEllerman
LinesLtd.v.Murray,WhiteStarLineandU.S.MailSteamers
OceanicSteamNavigationCo.Ltdv.Comerford[1931]A.C.
126),andanyremedyforsuchabreachofaninternational
obligationliesinaforumotherhanHerMajesty’sowncourts.But
ifthetermsofthelegislationarenotclearbutarereasonably
capableofmorethanonemeaning,thetreatyitselfbecomes
relevant,forthereisaprimafaciepresumptionthatParliament
doesnotintendtoactinbreachofinternationallaw,including
thereinspecifictreatyobligations;andifoneofthemeanings
whichcanreasonablybeascribedtothelegislationisconsonant
withthetreatyobligationsandanotherorothersarenot,the
meaningwhichisconsonantistobepreferred.Thus,incaseof
lackofclarityinthewordsusedinthelegislation,thetermsofthe
treatyarerelevanttoenablethecourttomakeitschoice
betweenthepossiblemeaningsofthesewordsbyapplyingthis
presumption.”
(3)WarwickFilmProductionsLtd.v.Eisinger
(1967),[1969]1Ch.508(Ch.D.)PlowmanJ.,atpp.521-523:
[Discussingsubsection20(4)oftheUnitedKingdomCopyright
Act,1956,aprovisionsimilartosubsection34(3)oftheCanadian
CopyrightAct]
“Inmyjudgment,however,itisnotpermissibletorefertothe
BrusselsConventionforthatpurpose.
Theredoesnotappeartobeanyambiguityinsection20(4)
whichwouldentitlemetodepartfromwhatItaketobethe
generalrule,namely,thataconvention,suchastheBrussels
Convention,cannotbereferredtoforthepurposeofgivingtoa
sectionameaningotherthanitsnaturalmeaning.Thisprinciple
istobefoundinEllermanLinesLtd.v.Murray[1931]A.C.126,H.L.
(…)
ItistruethatinHoggv.Toye&Co.Ltd.[1935]Ch.497Maugham
L.J.didrefertoArticle11oftheBerneConvention,1886;but,
havingregardtotheEllermanLinescase[1931]A.C.126]to
whichhedidnotrefer),Ithinkthatthismustbeeitherhavebeen
madeperincuriam,asissuggestedinHalsbury,3rded.,vol.36,p.


411,orbecauseheregardedsection6(3)oftheActof1911as
ambiguous.Anysuchambiguityastheremayhavebeenhas,in
myjudgment,beenremovedbysection20(4)oftheActof1956.
IshouldperhapsaddthatinanycaseIamfarfromconvinced
thatareferencetotheBrusselsConventionwouldleadtoa
differentresult.”
§6.3CaseLaw-Australia
(1)Robinsonv.Sands&McDougallProprietaryLimited
(1917),23C.L.R.49(H.C.Australia)IsaacsJ.,atpp.53-54:
“ThewholesubjectofcopyrightnowdependsoftheActof1912,
whichcameintoforceon1stJulyofthatyear.TheEnglishActof
1911,whichisscheduledtotheAustralianAct,hasbeen
adoptedwhichsomemodifications,whichareimmaterialtothe
presentquestion.Thematterissocircumstancedastoimpelme
tostatemyownreasonsforrejectingthecontentionsoforcibly
presentedonbehalfoftheappellants.TheActscheduledispart
oftheinternationalarrangementconstitutedbytheBerlin
Conventionof1908,towhichGreatBritainwasaparty,andby
whichsheundertook,bythesecondarticletomakeprovisionfor
theprotectionofliteraryandartisticworksastheredefined.The
EnglishActof1911,waspassedinfulfilmentofthisobligation,and
itsadoptionbyAustraliaispartoftheImperialschemefor
effectuatingtheinternationalarrangement.Itisevidentthat,not
onnlybecauseofitsinter-Imperialapplicationbutalsobyreason
ofitsinternationalsignificance,anyinterpretationofthenewAct
demandstheclosestconsideration.Thequestionraisedbythis
appealiscrucial.Theinternationaloriginoftheenactmentdoes
notmorethancreateanunusualimportance:itaffords
considerableaidinunderstandingit.TheImperialParliament
necessarilyhadthetermsoftheConventionbeforeit,was
acquaintedwiththelanguageofthedocument,andwas
carryingoutthepromiseitcontained.”[Ourunderlining.]

§7.0ListofCases
§7.1ListofCases-Canada
§7.1.1InternationalIssues
Attorney-GeneralforCanadav.Ontario(Attorney-Generalfor)*


(1936),[1936]S.C.R.461(S.C.C.);(1937),[1937]A.C.326,[1937]1D.L.R.673,
[1937]1W.W.R.299,[1937]W.N.53(J.C.P.C.-Canada)
Francisv.R*
(1953),[1954]Ex.C.R.618;(1956),[1956]S.C.R.618,[1956]3D.L.R.641(S.C.C.)
Mastiniv.BellTelephoneCo.ofCanada*
(1971),18D.L.R.215(Ex.C.C.)
CapitalCitiesCommunicationsInc.v.CanadianRadio-Television
Commission*
[1975]1F.C.18,52D.L.R.(3d)415(F.C.A.);(1977),[1978]2S.C.R.141,36
C.P.R.(2d)1,81D.L.R.(3d)609,18N.R.181(S.C.C.)
Schavernochv.ForeignClaimsCommission
(1982),[1982]1F.C.233(F.C.A.);revd(1982),[1982]1S.C.R.1092,136D.L.R.
(3d)447(S.C.C.)
AmericanFarmBureauFederationv.CanadianImportTribunal
(1987),14C.E.R.1(C.I.T.);affd(1989),[1989]2F.C.517,58D.L.R.(4th)642,92
N.R.264,187C.E.R.268(F.C.A.);affd(1990),[1990]2S.C.R.1324,74D.L.R.(4th)
449(S.C.C.)
§7.1.2CopyrightIssues
Graves&Co.Ltd.v.Gorrie
(1900),32O.R.266(Ont.H.C.J.);(1900),1O.L.R.309,2C.L.R.186,9R.L.n.s.D-
516(Ont.Div.C.);(1901),3O.L.R.697,1O.W.R.259,2C.L.R.192
(Ont.H.C.J.D.C.);(1902),2C.L.R.201(Ont.C.A.);(1903),[1903]A.C.496,13
C.R.A.C.161,89L.T.111,19T.L.R.652,2C.L.R.207,2B.J.P.C.108,52W.R.113,
172L.J.95,[1901-04]MacG.Cop.C.60,9R.L.n.s.D-516,9R.L.n.s.553(J.C.P.C.-
Canada)
Maryv.Hubert
(1906),29C.S.334(Que.Sup.Ct.);(1906),15B.R.381,[1905-10]MacG.Cop.C.
236(Que.C.A.)
Joubertv.Geracimo
(1916),26B.R.97,35D.L.R.683,[1917-18]MacG.Cop.C.84(Que.C.A.);(1916),
26B.R.xxiii(S.C.C.)
Gribblev.ManitobaFreePressLtd.
(1931),[1931]3D.L.R.648,[1931]2W.W.R.501(M.Q.B.);(1931),[1932]1D.L.R.
169,[1931]3W.W.R.570,40Man.R.42(M.C.A.)


CanadianPerformingRightSocietyLimitedv.FordHotelCo.ofMontreal,
Ltd.
(1935),73C.S.18,[1935]2D.L.R.391(Que.Sup.Ct.);withrawalofappealfiled
1936.10.18(Que.C.A.)
Fielv.Lemaire
(1939),[1940]Ex.C.R.21,[1939]4D.L.R.56,[1938-39]MacG.Cop.C.318
(Ex.C.C.)
Zamacoïsv.Douville
(1943),intranslation[1944]Ex.C.R.208,2C.P.R.270,3FoxPat.C.44,[1943]2
D.L.R.257,inFrenchtext[1945]R.L.155(Ex.C.C.)
Montignyv.Cousineau
(1948),[1948]Ex.C.R.330,7FoxPat.C.217(Ex.C.C.);(1950),[1950]S.C.R.297,
12C.P.R.45,10FoxPat.C.161(S.C.C.)
Durand&Ciev.LaPatriePublishingCo.Limited
(1951),[1951]Ex.C.R.260,14C.P.R.129,12FoxPat.C.30(Ex.C.C.-Default);
(1951),[1952]Ex.C.R.32,15C.P.R.86,12FoxPat.C.59(Ex.C.C.-Particulars);
(1957),28C.P.R.1,17FoxPat.C.79(Ex.C.C.-Evidence);(1959),32C.P.R.1,19
FoxPat.C.93(Ex.C.C.);(1960),[1960]S.C.R.649,34C.P.R.169,20FoxPat.
C.85,24D.L.R.(2d)404,39R.I.D.A.123(S.C.C)
CircleFilmEnterprisesInc.v.CanadianBroadcastingCorporation
(1957),[1956-60]Ex.C.R.166,28C.P.R.5,17FoxPat.C.15(Ex.C.C.);(1959),
[1959]S.C.R.602,31C.P.R.57,19FoxPat.C.39,20D.L.R.(2d)211(S.C.C.);
(1960),33C.P.R.183,20FoxPat.C.139(Ex.C.C.-Reference)
Composers,AuthorsandPublishers’AssociationofCanadaLimitedv.CTV
TelevisionNetworkLimited
(1966),[1966]Ex.C.R.872,48C.P.R.246,33FoxPat.C.69,57D.L.R.(2d)5
(Ex.C.C.);(1968),[1968]S.C.R.676,55C.P.R.132,38FoxPat.C.108,68D.L.R.
(2d)98(S.C.C.)
LudlowMusicInc.v.CanintMusicCorporation
(1967),[1967]2Ex.C.R.109,51C.P.R.278,35FoxPat.C.114,62D.L.R.(2d)200
(Ex.C.C.)
Bishopv.Stevens
(1984),[1985]1F.C.755,4C.P.R.(3d)349(F.C.T.D.);(1987),18C.P.R.(3d)257,
16C.I.P.R.243,80N.R.302(F.C.A.);(1990),[1990]2S.C.R.467,31C.P.R.(3d)
394,72D.L.R.(4th)97,89N.R.160,J.E.90-1173(S.C.C.)

 
BaylinerMarineCorporationv.DoralBoatsLtd.
(1985),[1986]3F.C.346,5C.P.R.(3d)289,5C.I.P.R.268(F.C.T.D.);(1986),[1986]
3F.C.421,10C.P.R.(3d)289,9C.I.P.R.311,67N.R.139,13F.S.R.497(F.C.A.);
(1986),[1986]2S.C.R.v,14C.P.R.(3d)446(S.C.C.)
ThinkwayToysv.VickiCollections
(1989),[1990]1F.C.D-17,28C.P.R.(3d)572,27C.I.P.R.102(F.C.T.D.)
Milliken&Companyv.InterfaceFlooringSystems(Canada)inc.
(1993),62F.T.R.318,[1993]2F.C.D-17(F.C.T.D.Proth.-Pleadings);revdbyayet
unreportedjudgmentrendered1993.10.07bytheHonorableMr.Justice
Strayer(F.C.T.D.-Pleadings)
§7.2ListofCases-UnitedKingdom
§7.2.1InternationalIssues
Salomonv.CommissionersofCustomsandExcise*
(1966),[1967]2Q.B.116,[1966]3W.L.R.1223,[1966]3AllE.R.871(C.A.)
Cheneyv.Conn(InspectorofTaxes)*
(1967),[1968]1W.L.R.242(Ch.D.)
TheJade*
(1974),[1974]3AllE.R.307,[1975]1W.L.R.83(Ch.D.);(1975),[1976]1AllE.R.
441,[1976]1W.L.R.339(C.A.);(1976),[1976]1W.L.R.430,[1976]1AllE.R.920
(H.L.)
SmithKline&FrenchLaboratoriesv.R.D.Hardbottle(Mercantile)Ltd.*
(1979),[1979]5F.S.R.555,[1980]R.P.C.363(H.C.J.-PatentsCourt)
EnergyConversionDevicesIncorporated’sApplications*
(1981),[1983]R.P.C.231(PatentOffices);(1981),[1983]R.P.C.231-237(H.C.J.-
PatentsCourt);(1981),[1982]8F.S.R.544,[1983]R.P.C.231-239(C.A.);(1982),
[1982]8F.S.R.544-553,[1983]R.P.C.231-245(H.L.)
§7.2.2CopyrightIssues
Lowv.Routledge
(1865),33L.J.Ch.717(Ch.D.);(1868),L.R.100,37L.J.Ch.454,18L.T.874,16W.R.
1081(H.L.)
Booseyv.Jefferys



(1854),[1855]4H.L.C815,24L.J.Ex.81,3C.L.R.625,1Jur.615(H.L.)
Hanfstaenglv.EmpirePalace
(1894),70L.T.459(Ch.);(1894),[1894]2Ch.1,63L.J.Ch.417,70L.T.461,42
W.R.454(C.A.)
Hanfstaenglv.EmpirePalace
(1894),[1894]3Ch.109(Ch.);(1894),[1894]3Ch.123(C.A.);(1894),[1895]
A.C.20,64L.J.Ch.81,72L.T.1,11R.88(H.L.)
Sarpyv.Holland
(1908),[1908]1Ch.443(Ch.D.);(1908),[1908]2Ch.198,77L.J.Ch.637,99L.T.
317,24T.L.R.600,[1905-10]MacG.Cop.C.153(C.A.)
Hoggv.ToyeandCompany,Limited
(1934),[1935]1Ch.497(Ch.D.);(1935),[1935]1Ch.497-506,104L.J.Ch.232,
152L.T.495,51T.L.R.301,[1928-35]MacG.Cop.C.512(C.A.)
WarwickFilmProductionsLtd.v.Eisinger
(1967),[1969]1Ch.508,[1967]3W.L.R.1599,111S.J.961,[1967]3AllE.R.367
(Ch.D.)
§7.3ListofCases-Australia
Robinsonv.Sands&McDougallProprietaryLimited
(1917),23C.L.R.49(H.C.Australia)
Finnv.Pugliese
(1918),18S.R.N.S.W530(S.C.);(1918),18S.R.N.S.W530-538,35W.N.154(C.A.)
§8.0Authors
§8.1Authors-Canada
§8.1.1InternationalIssues
BEAUDOIN(Gérald-A.),Difficultésconstitutionnellesd’uneadhésiondu
CanadaàlaConventiondeVienne,inActesduColloquesurlavente
internationale(Montréal,Wilson&Lafleur,1989),atpp.175-180


BEAUDOIN(Gérald-A),LaconstitutionduCanada(Montréal,Wilson&Lafleur,
1990),atpp.561-575
CASTEL(Jean-G.),InternationalLawChieflyasInterpreteedandAppliedin
Canada(Toronto,Butterworths,1976),atpp.910-1068
CÔTÉ(Pierre-André),TheInterpretationofLegislationinCanada,2nded.
(Cowansville,Blais,1992),atpp.308-309
EMANUELLI(Claude),Droitinternationalpublic-TomeILesfondements,les
sources,lesÉtats(Montréal,Wilson&Lafleur,1990),atpp.77-85
FRÉCHETTE(Jean-Guy),Lapreuveendroitinternationalprivéquébécois
(1974),5Revuededroitdel’universitédeSherbrooke186
GIROUX(Lorne),Lacapacitéinternationaledesprovincesendroit
constitutionelcanadien(1967-68},9LesCahiersdeDroit241
GOTLIEB(AllanE.),CanadianTreaty-Making,(Toronto,Butterworths,1968),at
pp.3-6,12-13,20-21
GRENON(J.-Y.),Delaconclusiondestraitésetdeleurmiseenoeuvreau
Canada(1962),40CanadianBarReview151
HOGG(PeterW.),ConstitutionalLawofCanad,2nded.(Toronto,Carswell,
1985),atpp.241-256
HOGG(PeterW.),ConstitutionalLawofCanada,3rded.(Toronto,Carswell,
1992),atpp.45-53,281-299
JACOMY-MILLETTE(Anne-Marie),LesaccordsbilatérauxduCanadaen
matièred’assistanceaudéveloppementinternationalavantl’élaborationde
lanouvellestratégie:fluiditéetpragmatismedesconceptsjuridiques(1975),
6Revuegénéralededroit165
JACOMY-MILLETTE(Anne-Marie),TreatyLawinCanada(Ottawa,Ottawa
University,1975),atpp.177-207,224-225
MACDONALD(RonaldSt.John),InternationalTreatyLawandtheDomestic
LawofCanada(1975),2DalhousieLawJournal307
MANKIEWICZ(RenéH.),Solutionsjurisprudentiellesdesdivergencesentrele
texteauthentiqued’uneconventiond’unificationdedroitprivéetlaloi
nationaledesamiseenœuvre,ouuneloipostérieure(1974),5Revuede
droitdel’universitédeSherbrooke275



MORIN(Jacques-Yvan)etal.,LesconstitutionsduCanadaetduQuébecdu
régimefrançaisànosjours(Montreal,Thémis,1992),atpp.373-400
MORRIS(Gerald),TheTreaty-MakingPower:ACanadianDilemna(1967),45
CanadianBarReview478
SLATTERY(Brian),TheIndependanceofCanada(1989),5SupremeCourtLaw
Review369
§8.1.2CopyrightIssues
Avisetrenseignements-30.LescoloniesetpossessionsdelaGrande-
Bretagnefonttoutespartiedel’Union;ilenestdoncainsiduDominiondu
Canada(1904),17LeDroitd’Auteur14
BONCOMPAIN(Jacques),Ledroitd’auteurauCanada:étudecritique
(Montréal,CercledulivredeFrance,1971),pp.339-365
CanadianCopyright(1923),1CanadianBarReview782
CARY(GeorgeD.),Copyright-TheInternationalCopyrightConvention-
ComingintoForce-EffectintheUnitedStatesforForeignNationals-Possible
ImplementationbyCanada(1955),33CanadianBarReview716
CHITTY(R.M.Willes),CopyrightinCanada[1926]2DominionLawReports753
CLUTE(A.R.),CanadianCopyrightinitsConstitutionalandInternational
Aspects(1904),24TheCanadianLawTimes(SecondPart)345,atpp.353et
sq.
DebatesSenate,1921,pp.692-695(1921.05.31)
ÉTUDESGÉNÉRALES,LeCanadaetlaConventiondeBerne(1904),17LeDroit
d’Auteur67
ÉTUDESGÉNÉRALES,Lanouvelleloicanadiennedu4juin1921surledroit
d’auteur(1921),34LeDroitd’Auteur73
FOX(HaroldGeorge),TheCanadianLawofCopyrightandIndustrialDesigns,
2nded.(Toronto,Carswell,1967),atpp.539-557
FRANÇON(André),Ledroitd’auteur-aspectsinternationauxetcomparatifs
(Cowansville,Blais,1992),atpp.20-24


GOULD(RobertD.),TheInternationalIntellectualPropertyOrganizations
(1972),3CanadianPatentReporter(2d)249
HAYHURST(WilliamL.),IndustrialProperty(1972),5OttawaLawReview477,at
pp.478-480
KEYES(AndrewA.)etal.,CopyrightinCanada-ProposalsforaRevisionofthe
Law(Ottawa,C.C.A.C.,1977),atpp.17-23
KEYES(AndrewA.),LettresduCanada(1977),90LeDroitd’Auteur268
KEYES(AndrewA.),WhatisCanada’sInternationalPolicy?(1993),7
IntellectualPropertyJournal299
KIRBY(James),InternationalCopyright(1883),6TheLegalNews289
KIRBY(James),ForeignCopyright(1885),8TheLegalNews49
MAYER(H.B.),InternationalAspectsofCopyright,inCopyright:From
BeginningtoEnd(Toronto,CanadianInstitute,1991)
MCDONALD(BruceC.),IntellectualProperty(1974),15CanadianPatent
Reporter(2d)174
MCFARLANE(Gavin),CopyrightConventions(1972),CharteredInstituteof
PatentsAgents261
McKEOWN(JohnS.)etal.,Copyright,inCanadianEncyclopedicDigest,3rd
WesternEdition,(Toronto,Carswell,1991),Ch.35,atnos.14-15
MONTIGNY(Louvignyde),Duréedudroitd’auteurauCanada(1926-27),5
Revuedudroit267
MONTIGNY(Louvignyde),CopyrightinCanada:AStudyofLegislation
GoverningtheDurationofCopyright(1927),5CanadianBarReview27
MONTIGNY(Louvignyde),CopyrightinCanada(1928),6CanadianBar
Review109
MONTIGNY(Louvignyde),TheCanadianCopyrightAct(1930),8Canadian
BarReview643


NAVARRE(Alex),TheNewCanadianCopyrightLawProposalsandthe
EconomicImplicationsoftheInternationalAgreements(1979),44Business
Quaterly30
NEWCOMBE(E.L.),Copyright(1902),1CanadianLawReview377
NOEL(Wanda),SomeConstitutionalConsiderationsinCanadianCopyright
LawRevision(1981),54CanadianPatentReporter(2d)17,atpp.18-23
NoteandComment(1923),1CanadianBarReview717
Nouvellesdiverses-Unnouveaubillsurledroitd’auteur(1921),34LeDroit
d’Auteur47
O’DONOGHUE(JohnG.),CanadianCopyrightinitsConstitutionaland
InternationalAspects37CanadianLawJournal370,atpp.394-395
PERREAULT(Antonio),Lapropriétédesœuvresintellectuelles(1924),3La
revuededroit49;(1924),3Larevuededroit107,atpp.112-117
SMITH(DouglasA.),RecentProposalsforCopyrightRevision:AnEvaluation
(1988),14CanadianPublicPolicy175,atpp.176,179-180
SPURGEON(C.P.),TheUnitedStatesAdherencetotheBerneConvention:A
CanadianPerspective(1990),31CanadianPatentReporter(3d)417
TORNO(Barry),InternationalConsiderationsofCopyrightRevisioninCanada:
InternationalObligations(Ottawa,C.C.A.C,1978)
Unioninternationale-Canada(1928),41LeDroitd’Auteur57
UnionInternationale-Nouvellesdiverses(1970),83LeDroitd’Auteur88
UnionInternationale-Nouvellesdiverses(1931),44LeDroitd’Auteur96
VAVER(David),CopyrightinForeignWorks:Canada’sInternational
Obligations(1987),66CanadianBarReview76
§8.1.3InterpretationIssues
CÔTÉ(Pierre-André),TheInterpretationofLegislationinCanada
(Cowansville,Blais,1992),atpp.64-66


DRIEDGER(ElmerA.),ConstructionofStatutes,2nded.(Toronto,Butterworths,
1983),atp.142
MCDONALD(BruceC.),UsingTreatiestoInterpretCanadianIntellectual
PropertyStatutes(1976),38PatentandTrademarkInstituteofCanadaBulletin
615
§8.2Authors-UnitedKingdom
Avisetrenseignements-30.LescoloniesetpossessionsdelaGrande-
Bretagnefonttoutespartiedel’Union;ilenestdoncainsiduDominiondu
Canada(1904),17LeDroitd’Auteur14
BRIGGS(William),TheLawofInternationalCopyright(London,Sweet&
Maxwell,1906),atpp.475-570,587-633
DAVIS(Ivor),Unsièclededroitd’auteur:leRoyaume-UnietlaConventionde
Berne(1986),99LeDroitd’Auteur142
HALSBURY(Earlof),TheLawsofEngland(London,Butterworth,1909),Vol.VII,
Copyrightnos336-337
MACGILLIVRAY(E.J.),ATreatiseupontheLawofCopyright(London,Murray,
1902),atpp.186-205
Note-UnionInternationaleRatification(1897),10LeDroitd’Auteur7
Note-UnionInternationaleRatification(1888),2LeDroitd’Auteur110
O’CONNELL(D.P.),InternationalLaw,2nded.(London,Stevens&Sons,1970),
atpp.56-61and195-210
SCRUTTON(ThomasEdward),TheLawofCopyright,4thed.(London,Clowes,
1903),atpp.208-232
SKONEJAMES(F.E.),ProtectionintheUnitedKingdomofWorksofForeign
Origin(1959),7BulletinoftheCopyrightSociety271
SKONEJAMES(F.E.),CopingerandSkoneJamesontheLawofCopyright,8th
ed.(London,Sweet&Maxwell,1948),atpp.269-270,288-291,295-301
SKONEJAMES(EdmundP.)etal.,CopingerandSkoneJamesonCopyright,
13thed.(London,Sweet&Maxwell,1991),atch.17


UNDERDOWN(E.J.),TheCopyrightQuestion(1886),6TheLawQuaterly
Review213
§8.3Authors-Varia
COLLOVA(Taddeo)etal.,Dessanctionsetdelanotionderéciprocitédans
laConventiondeBerne(1964),77LeDroitd’Auteur10
DESANCTIS(Valerio),Lesconventionsinternationalesrelativesaudroit
d’auteur(1978),91LeDroitd’Auteur266
DESANCTIS(Valerio)etal.,LescentansdelaConventionsdeBerne:
l’évolutiondudroitd’auteurdansledomainedudroitd’auteurrésultantde
l’interactionentrelaConventionetleslégislationsnationales(1986),99le
Droitd’Auteur121
Étudesgénérales-LaconférencedeBerlin-sestravauxetsesrésultats[1909]
22Droitd’Auteur1;[1909]22Droitd’Auteur19
GELLER(PaulE.),CopyrightProtectionintheBerneConvention:Analyzingthe
Issues(1989),5IntellectualPropertyJournal1
Grande-Bretagne-Adhésion(1912),25LeDroitd’Auteur90
LADAS(StephenP.),TheInternationalProtectionofLiteraryandArtistic
Property,2Vol.inHarvardStudiesinInternationalLawNo.3(NewYork,
Macmillan,1938),atpp.71-107
McDOWELL(LynnNeumann),WilltheU.S.Semi-ConductorChipProtection
Actapproachovertakeexistingcopyrightsconventions?PartOne(1988),5
CanadianComputerLawReporter99;PartTwo(1988),5Canadian
ComputerLawReporter115;PartThree(1988),5CanadianComputerLaw
Reporter124
NEUMANN(LeeD.),TheBerneConventionandDroitdeSuiteLegislationinthe
UnitedStates-DomesticandInternationalConsequencesofFederal
IncorporationofStateLawforTreatyImplementation(1992),23International
ReviewofIndustrialPropertyandCopyrightLaw45,atpp.57-65
NORDEMANN(Wilhelm)etal.,InternationalCopyrightandNeighboringRights
Law(Weinheim,VCH,1990),atpp.4-11


POTU(Émile),LaConventiondeBernepourLaprotectiondesœuvres
littérairesetartistiquesReviséeàBerlinle13Novembre1908etleProtocole
additionneldeBernedu20mars1914(Paris,Rousseau,1914)
RICKETSON(Sam),TheBerneConventionfortheProtectionofLiteraryand
ArtisticWorks:1886-1986(London,CentreforCommercialLawStudies,1987)
RICKETSON(Sam),TheShadowLandofBerne:ASurveyoftheHiddenPartsof
theBerneConvention-PartI(1988),10EuropeanIntellectualProperty
Review197;TheShadowLandofBerne:ASurveyoftheHiddenPartsofthe
BerneConvention-PartII(1988),10EuropeanIntellectualPropertyReview
267;TheShadowLandofBerne:ASurveyoftheHiddenPartsoftheBerne
Convention-PartIII(1989),11EuropeanIntellectualPropertyReview58
SAWER(Geoffrey),Australia-EmbarrassigInterlude(1964),11Bulletinofthe
CopyrightSociety313
STEWART(StephenM.),InternationalCopyrightandNeighbouringRights,1st
ed.(London,Butterworths,1983),atch.5
STEWART(StephenM.)etal.,InternationalCopyrightandNeighbouringRights
,2nded.(London,Butterworths,1989),atnos.5.65-5.67
STOJANOVIC(Mihailo),QuelavenirpourlaConventiondeBerne?/What
futurefortheBerneConvention?(1986),130Revueinternationaledudroit
d’auteur3
§9.0ComparativeLegislation
None
§10.0Varia
§10.1OrderinCouncilP.C.1923-1395,1923.07.27
(1924),57CanadaGazette,PartII,p.4174:
TheCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilhavehadbeforethema
report,dated14thJuly,1923,fromtheMinisterofTradeand
Commerce,statingthatSection49oftheCopyrightAct,1921,
providesthattheGovernorinCouncilmaytakesuchactionas
maybenecessarytosecuretheadherenceofCanadatothe
RevisedConventionofBerne,signedthe13thdayof
November1908,andtheAdditionalProtocoltheretosigned


atBernethetwentiethdayofMarch,1914,setoutintheSecond
ScheduletothisAct.
Article1ofthesaidProtocolprovidesthat,whereanycountry
outsidetheUnionfailstoprotectinanadequatemannerthe
worksofauthorswhoaresubjecttothejurisdictionofoneofthe
contractingcountries,nothingintheConventionofthe13th
November,1908,shallaffecttherightofsuchcontractingstates
torestricttheprotectiongiventotheworksofauthorswhoare,at
thedateofthefirstpublicationthereofsubjectsorcitizensofthe
saidnon-unioncountry,andarenoteffectivelydomiciledinone
ofthecountriesoftheUnion.
Article2providesthat,therightaccordedbythepresent
Protocoltocontractingstatesbelongsequallytoanyoftheir
overseapossessions.
Article4providesthat,theStateswhichrestrictthegrantof
copyrightinaccordancewiththepresentProtocolshallgive
noticethereoftotheGovernmentoftheSwissConfederationby
awrittendeclarationspecifyingthecountriesinregardtowhich
protectionisrestricted,andtherestrictionstowhichrightsof
authorswhoaresubjecttothejurisdictionofthesecountriesare
subjected.
TheDominionofCanadarestrictsthegrantofcopyrightin
accordancewiththesaidProtocolinregardtotheUnitedStates
ofAmerica,andtherestrictionstowhichrightsofauthorswhoare
subjecttothejurisdictionofthatcountryaresubjected,areset
forthinSections13,14,15,and27ofthesaidCopyrightAct,1921.

Sub-section(2)ofSection25oftheCopyrightAct,1911,passed
bytheParliamentintheUnitedKingdomprovidesasfollows:
IftheSecretaryofStatecertifiesbynoticepublishedinthe
LondonGazettethatanyself-governingdominionhas
passedlegislationunderwhichworks,theauthorswhereof
wereatthedatreofthemakingoftheworksBritishsubjects
residentelsewherethaninthedominionor(notbeing
Britishsubjects)wereresidentinthepartsofHisMajesty’s
dominionstowhichthisActextends,enjoywithinthe
dominionrightssubstantiallyidenticalwiththoseconferred
bythisAct,then,whilstsuchlegislationcontinuesinforce,
thedominionshall,forthepurposesoftherightsconferred
bythisAct,betreatedasifitwereadominiontowhichthis

 
Actextends;anditshallbelawfulfortheSecretaryofState
togivesuchcertificateasaforesaid,notwithstandingthat
theremediesforenforcingtherights,ortherestrictionson
theimportationofcopiesofworks,manufacturedina
foreigncountry,underthelawofthedominion,differfrom
thoseunderthisAct.
IntheopinionoftheMinister,undertheprovisionsofthe
CopyrightAct,1921,asamendedbytheCopyrightAmendment
Act,1923,authorswhoareBritishsubjects,residentelsewhere
thanintheDominionofCanadaornotbeingBritishsubjects,are
residentwithinHisMajesty’sdominions,enjoywithintheDominion
ofCanadarightssubstantiallyidenticalwiththoseconferredby
thesaidCopyrightAct1911.
TheMinister,therefore,recommendsthatauthoritybegivenfor
thesubmissiontoHisMajesty’sGovernmentofarequestthatHis
Majestybegraciouslypleasedtotakesuchactionasmaybe
necessarytodeclaretheadhesionoftheDominionofCanada
totheRevisedConventionofBerne,signedthethirteenthdayof
November,1908,andtheAdditionalProtocoltheretosignedat
BernethetwentiethdayofMarch,1914,subjecttotherestriction
inregardtotheUnitedStatesofAmericaashereinbeforeset
forth.
TheCommittee,ontherecommendationoftheMinisterofTrade
andCommerce,advisethatYourExcellencymaybepleasedto
requestHisMajesty’sGovernmenttotakesuchactionasmaybe
necessayforthepublicationintheLondonGazetteofthenotice
oftheSecretaryofStateasprovidedbysub-section(2)ofSection
25ofthesaidCopyrightAct,1911.
Allwhichisrespectfullysubmittedforapproval.
§10.2SenateDebates(1921.05.31),atpp.692-695:
§10.3CopyrightNotice(1924),57CanadaGazette(March1,1924)atp.
3200:
§10.4CopyrightNotice(1924),57CanadaGazette(March15,1924),atp.
3401



§10.5DebatesHouseofCommons(1931.04.23),atpp.899-900:
§10.6DebatesSenate(1931.06.11),atpp.221-223:

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionet
àlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;
marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireet
artistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéet
étiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdansle
monde.Lamaîtrisedesintangibles.
LAURENTCARRIERELAURENTCARRIERELAURENTCARRIERELAURENTCARRIERELAURENTCARRIERELAURENTCARRIERE
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthe
valorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certification
marksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;
computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaand
throughouttheworld.Ideaslivehere.



ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,
droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-
howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerce
électronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,
litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdansle
monde.Lamaîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslive
here.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD

LAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENT
CARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENT
CARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRE