Judicial Review of Copyright Violation by means of Affidavits: General Scheme or Exception?

JUDICIALREVIEWOFCOPYRIGHTVIOLATIONBYMEANSOF
AFFIDAVITS:
GENERALSCHEMEOREXCEPTION?

LAURENTCARRIÈREANDROYMACHAALANY*
LEGERROBICRICHARD
,L.L.P.
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADEMARKAGENTS

PRECIS:Thedefendantintroducedanapplicationpursuanttosubsection34(6)of
theCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,inordertoexaminethejudicialreview,
broughtbytheapplicantpursuanttoparagraph34(4)(a)oftheCopyrightAct,asifit
wasanaction.
TheCourtclarifiedthatajudicialreviewofcopyrightviolation,bymeansofaffidavits,
isthegeneralschemewhereasproceedingbywayofanactionistheexception.

Thedefendant,HôteldesEncansdeMontréalInc.,isanauctioneercompany
specializinginpublicauction,wherecertainartisticworksareentrustedbythird
partiesandreproducedinitscataloguesandInternetsitewww.iegor.net.According
totheapplicant,Societyforthereproductionrightsofauthors,composersand
publishersinCanada(SODRACInc.),thedefendantcannotreproducethe
aforesaidartisticworks,andcommunicateorinformthepublic,withoutthe
authorizationofthecopyrightownersortheiragents.

TheapplicantconsidersthatthedefendantisinfringingtheCopyrightActandseeks
toobtainajudgmentforthepaymentof$81,584.16inroyaltiesandpenalties.
Furthermore,theproceedingwasintroducedpursuanttoRules300andfollowingof
theFederalCourtsRules,andparagraph34(4)(a)oftheCopyrightActwhichstate
thatacivilremedyforcopyrightinfringementcanbeintroducedeitherbywayof
actionorapplication.
Insupportofitsdefence,thedefendantintroducedtheaffidavitofitsvice-president,
enumeratingthattherewasnosubstantialreproductionoftheaforementioned
works;therewasauthorizationprovidedbythethirdparties;theapplicantdoesnot
havesuchrights;thedefendant’sactionsarejustifiedbytheequitableuseprovided
forintheAct;andtheapplicant’sargumentsconstituteabreachofthedefendant’s

©CIPS,2007.*Lawyerandtrade-markagent,LaurentCarrière,isaseniorpartnerwithLEGERROBICRICHARD,
L.L.P.,
amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.RoyMacHaalanyisan
articlingstudentwiththefirm.PublishedinWorldCopyrightLawReport.Publication328.036.

2
commercialfreedomofexpressionrecognizedbytheCanadianCharterofRights
andFreedomsandtheQuebecCharterofhumanrightsandfreedoms.

Furthermore,thedefendantunderlinedtheimportanceofthepresentcase,possibly
settingaprecedentofcopyrightinfringementagainsttheauctioneerinchargeofthe
saleofsuchartisticworks,puttingatstaketheCanadianartindustry.

Asfortheevidence,thedefendantindicated,ontheonehandinitsaffidavit,thatit
willintroduceexpertevidence,aswellastestimoniesofitsagentsandofother
similarcompanies.Ontheotherhandinitswrittenrepresentations,thedefendant
pointedoutthataffidavitevidenceisinsufficientinobtainingthetestimoniesofthird
parties.Therefore,itintendstoassign,aswitnesses,theagentsofvariousCanadian
auctioneercompaniesandownersofartgalleriestotestifyontheeffectofsuch
recourse.Yet,suchtestimoniescannotbeobtainedbywayofaffidavitsbecauseit
hasnocontroloverthesewitnesses.Consequently,itismoresuitablethatthe
presentcaseproceedsbywayofanaction,thusallowingthehearingofwitnesses
andexpertsbeforetheCourt.
Therearefewdecisions,oftheFederalCourtandtheFederalCourtofAppeal,
dealingwithwhatisconsideredinsubsection34(6)oftheCopyrightAct.

Assuch,inKraftCanadaInc.v.EuroExcellenceInc.,2003FCT46,theCourt
concludedthattheburdenofproofundersubsection34(6)oftheCopyrightActlies
againstthedefendantsimilarlytosubsection18.4(2)oftheFederalCourtActhaving
alikewording.Inaddition,thedefendant’sapplicationwasdismissedsinceitwasup
tothelattertopersuadetheCourttoexerciseitsdiscretionbyorderingthe
applicationtoproceedtotrialasanaction.
TheCourtdidnotconsider,inlightoftherequirementsinMacinnisv.Canada
(AttorneyGeneral)(C.A.),1994CanLII3467(F.C.A.),[1994]2F.C.464,thatthe
defendant’sevidencewouldbeinadequateifitwasintroducedbyaffidavit,in
comparisonwithtrialevidencewhichmightbesuperior.Additionally,theCourt
arguedthatthedefendanthadnotpresentedevidenceshowingthattheessential
proceduralrequirementsinthecaseatbarwouldbeprejudiciallybeyonditsscopeif
theapplicant’sinstantapplicationgoesforward.Further,theCourtdidnotseehow
thefactoftheapplicant’sproceedinggoingforwardundertheActasanapplication,
notanaction,wouldlimitthedefendant’slegitimateargumentsorgroundswhichhe
mighthave.
Inthecaseatbar,theCourtconcludedthatthedefendant’saffidavitsdidnotprovide
argumentsleadingtobelievethattheapplicationshouldhenceforthproceedasan
action.Likewise,thedefendant’sallegationsdidnotpersuadetheCourt.Moreover,
evenifthethirdparties’witnessesarenotunderthecontrolofthedefendant,this
contentionshouldnotaltertheconclusion.Thesewitnessesmaypossiblypresent

3
evidenceinfavourofthedefendantbutitwasnotestablishedthatallthewitnesses
wereapproachedand,infact,refusedtoprovideaffidavits.

Underthesescircumstances,theevidentiarygeneralschemeregardingthe
preparationandthehearingonthemeritsofajudicialreviewissufficienttoallowthe
defendanttopointout,adequatelyandwithoutprejudice,itsargumentsagainstthe
applicantwithoutresortingtotheprocessofintroducinganaction.

TheCourtaddedthatdespitethewordingandegalitarianappearanceofsubsection
34(4)oftheCopyrightAct,theCourtrefusedtoconsider,intheeventofacopyright
violation,thatfilingaproceedingbywayofanactionisthegeneralschemeandthe
judicialreview,bymeansofaffidavits,wouldlikelybetheexception.

4
ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdela
propriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielset
modèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationet
appellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsde
commerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsde
technologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademark
agentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofall
fieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;
trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,
softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsand
plantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;
licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationand
arbitration;duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTO
THEWORLD