Political parties, campaign literature, and the right to one’s image

POLITICALPARTIES,CAMPAIGNLITERATURE,ANDTHERIG
HTTOONE’S
IMAGE

LAURENTCARRIÈREANDSASHAMANDY*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
L
AWYERS,ANDPATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS

InBlocQuébécoisv.Sourour,[2009QCCA942(CanLII)]theCourtofAppealof
QuébecoverturnedinpartajudgementrenderedbyJusticeBrochetoftheCourtof
Québec,whoruledthattheBlocQuébécoisandMr.RogerClavet,aMemberof
Parliament,wereliablefordamagesbecausetheypublishedandcirculatedan
imageoftherespondentMs.ZainabSourourinacampaignleafletwithouther
permission.BoththeBlocQuébécoisandRogerClavetaskedforandreceived
leaveforappeal,arguingthatthelowercourterred.TheCourtofAppealtreated
bothappealsseparately.WithregardtoClavet,theCourtupheldthejudgement
againsthim.ThisarticlesummarisestheCourt’smotifswithregardtotheBloc
Québécois.
Facts
ZainabSourour,aMuslimofSudaneseorigin,wasadmittedtoCanadaasapolitical
refugee.ShebeganworkingafterarrivinginQuébecforanorganisationthathelped
immigrantwomenandtheirfamiliesintegrateintoQuébecsociety.Itwasduringthis
organisation’sDecember2005ChristmaspartythatshemetRogerClavet,a
MemberofParliamentrepresentingtheLouis-Hébertelectoraldistrict.Atthetime,
CanadawasinaperiodofgeneralelectionsandClavetwasrunningforre-election
aspartoftheBlocQuébécois(BQ),apoliticalpartywhosemaingoalistopromote
theseparationofQuébecfromtheCanadianfederation.Atthisparty,Clavetasked
Sourourifhecouldtakehisphotowithherandsheimplicitlygaveherconsent.

Inthedaysthatfollowed,Clavetpublishedacampaignleafletwhichincludedthe
photographhehadtakenofhimselfwithSourour.Thephotowasmeanttoshowhis
understandingandopennesstowardsimmigrantsandtheirconcerns.However,he

©CIPS,2009.*Lawyerandtrade-markagent,LaurentCarrière,isaseniorpartnerwithLEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentandtrade-markagents.SashaMandyisaSummer
studentwiththefirm.Publishedinthe2009-06-11issueofWorldMediaLawReport.Publication
328.065.

2
didnotobtainSourour’spermissionbeforepublishingherimage.Nordidheobtain
herpermissionbeforehebegancirculatingthe45,000leaflets.Souroursuedboth
theBQandClavet,allegingthattherighttoherimagehadbeenviolated.She
sought40,000$indamages,andwasawarded7,000$attrial.

Law
TheQuébecCharterofHumanRightsandFreedomsprotectseachindividual’sright
totheirreputationandtotherespectoftheirprivatelife.TheCivilCodeofQuébec
guaranteesthesamerightsandalsoprohibitsothersfrominfringingthem,
particularlybyusingaperson’sname,image,likenessorvoiceforapurposeother
thanthelegitimateinformationofthepublic.
Inrenderingitsjudgment,theCourtofAppealofQuébecreliedontheSupreme
CourtofCanada’sdecisionAubryv.ÉditionsVice-Versa[1998]1S.C.R.591.In
Aubry,theSupremeCourtheldthattherighttoprivacyincludestherighttocontrol
theuseofone’simage.Thisrightisviolatedtheinstantaphotographispublished
withoutaperson’sconsentandthepersonphotographedisidentifiable.Thereis
faulteveniftheimageisinnowayreprehensibleorhasnotinjuredtheperson’s
reputation.Withregardtothepublic’srighttoinformation,itisaquestionof
circumstance.Dependingonthecontext,apersonengagedinapublicactivitycan
havecertainaspectsoftheirprivatelifebecomemattersofpublicinterest.

ArgumentsandJudgement
Attrialandonappeal,ClavetarguedthatbecauseSourourimplicitlygaveher
consenttobephotographedatapublicevent,shehadlostherrighttoprivacy.She
cannotthereforerelyontheprotectionsoftheCharterandtheCivilCode.Clavet
alsoallegedthatthecourtmustweightwocompetinginterests;ontheonehand,a
person’srighttotheirimage,andontheother,theprotectionofdemocraticvalues.
Clavetarguedthatbecausethepublicationtookplaceduringthecontextofa
generalelection,itwasforapurposeoflegitimatepublicinformationandthus
democraticvaluesshouldtrumpaperson’srighttoprivacy.Attrialandonappeal,
theBQsubscribedentirelytoClavet’sarguments.
Onappeal,theBQaddedthatthereisnolinkbetweenacandidate’sactionsanda
politicalpartybecausetheCanadaElectionsActclearlydistinguishesbetweenthe
responsibilitiesofboth.UndertheAct,thecandidate’sOfficialAgent,andnotthe
politicalpartyforwhichthecandidateisrunning,mustauthorisethepublicationof
anycampaignmaterial.

3
Judgement
TheCourtofAppealrejectedClavet’sargumentthatSourourlostherrightto
privacy.ThenatureoftheChristmaspartywassuchthat,bysimplyagreeingtoa
photobeingtaken,apersoncouldnothavereasonablyexpectedthatthatimage
wouldbeprinted45,000timesanddistributedtoeveryhomeinthedistrict.The
CourtruledthatSourourdidnotbecomeapublicpersonainthecourseofone
evening,therebylosingtherighttocontrolherimage,eventhoughthepartywasan
eventopentothegeneralpublic.Herconsenttobeingphotographedauthoriseda
privateuseofherimage,anddidnotauthoriseClavet’sactions.

TheCourtalsorejectedClavet’spositionthatthepublicationservedthepublic’sright
toinformation.Clavetclaimedtohavepublishedtheimagebecause,asamember
oftheHouseofCommons’CitizenandImmigrationCommittee,hewantedtoshow
hissensibilitytoimmigrantsandimmigrationissues.TheCourtofAppealruledthat
Clavetcouldhavedemonstratedthisintentbyanynumberofdifferentmeans,and
hedidnotneedtopublishSourour’simagewithoutherconsenttodoso.

However,TheCourtofAppeal(JJDutilandBichforthemajority)quashedpartof
thetrialjudgementandexoneratedtheBQofanyresponsibility.TheCourtfound
thatinprovidingageneralleaflettemplatetoallitscandidates,theBQdidnotforce
itscandidatestousetheleafletnordidthepartycontrolitscontent.JusticeThibault,
dissentingonlyonthisquestion,foundtheleaflettobethejointworkofboththe
candidateandtheparty,andthusthepartyshouldbeheldliableforthedamages
caused.Eventhoughcandidateswerenotrequiredtousethetemplateprovidedby
theBQ,theleafletusedbyClavetstilldisplayedtheBQ’scampaignslogan,itslogo,
aphotooftheparty’sleaderGillesDuceppe,andamessagefromthesame.Forall
intentsandpurposes,thisleafletappearedlikeamessagefromboththeleaderof
theBQandfromoneofitscandidates.
Finally,theCourtofAppealdidnotrevisitthequantumofdamagesawardedattrial
againstClavet.TheCourtreliedagainonAubry,statingthatthesimpledispleasure
ofseeingone’simagepublishedcanbegroundsfordamages.Evenifevidenceof
anactualprejudicesufferedisthin,atrialjudgemaystillawarddamagesifthe
victim’scredibilitysupportsit.Inthiscase,neithertheBQnorClavetproduced
evidencethatthetrialjudgedcommittedamanifest,seriousorcriticalerrorinhis
appreciationofSourour’scredibility.
OnJanuary23,2006,RogerClavetlosthisseatintheHouseofCommonsby0.4%,
orjustover200votes.
Held,theappealwasgrantedinpartfortheabovereasons.

4

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
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

5
Trade-marksofLEGERROBICRICHARD,LLP(“ROBIC”)