Right of Privacy Versus Freedom of Expression: Aubry v. Edition Vive-Versa Inc

1999-01-01

RIGHTOFPRIVACYVERSUSFREEDOMOFEXPRESSION:AUBRYv.EDITIONVICE-
VERSAINC.

by
HuguesG.Richard*
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
OnApril9,1998,theSupremeCourtofCanadadeliveredajudgmentinthe
caseofAubry-vs-EditionVice-VersaInc.,whichcasecouldbecharacterizedas
atestcase.
Essentially,theCourthadtodealwiththebalancingoftherighttoprivacyand
freedomofexpressionundertheQuebecCharterofHumanRightsand
Freedoms,RCQ,c.C-2(hereafter:the“QuebecCharter”).Additionally,the
Courthadtodeterminewhetherthetrialjudgeerredindecidingthatthe
Plaintiffhadsufferedaprejudice,whichisanessentialelementofcivil
responsibilityunderQuebeclaw.Suchprejudicemaybeextrapatrimonialand
/orpatrimonial.
TheCourtunanimouslyfoundthatthebalancingofrightsfavouredthePlaintiff’s
righttoprivacy,buttwodessentingjudges(LamerC.J.andMajorJ.)foundthat
thePlaintiffdidnotestablishsufficientevidenceofprejudiceresultingfromthe
faultoftheDefendantstotriggertheircivilresponsibility.
ThemajorityoftheCourtfound,withrespecttoextrapatrimonialdamages,no
errorinthetrialjudge’sfindingthatmoralprejudicehadbeensustainedbythe
Plaintiff.Withrespecttopatrimonialdamages,themajorityoftheCourtwasof
theviewthatthecommercialorpromotionalexploitationofanimage,whether
ofthewell-knownpersonoraprivateindividual,cancausethevictimmaterial
prejudicewhichentitlesthevictimtoclaimanamountinexchangeforuseofhis
orherimage.Thepatrimonialaspectofthedamageswasnotdiscussedattrial
noronappeal.Noevidenceofpatrimonialdamageshavingbeenmadeand
nocross-appealhavingbeenfiled,theCourtdidnotvarytheamountof

©LEGERROBICRICHARD,1998.
*Lawyerandtrademarkagent,HuguesG.RichardisaseniorpartnerinthelawfirmLEGERROBIC
RICHARD,g.p.andinthepatent&trademarkagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.Publishedat(1998)5-3
IntellectualProperty281-283.Publication173.008.

$2,000.00awardedbythetrialjudgeforextra-patrimonialprejudice.
Thefactsofthecasehavebeensummarizedasfollows:
Therespondent,PascaleClaudeAubry,broughtanactionincivil
responsibilityagainsttheappellants,GilbertDuclosandLesÉditionsVice-
VersaInc.,fortakinganpublishingaphotographshowingtherespondent
sittingonastepinfrontofbuildingonSte-CatherineStreetinMontreal.
Bothsidesacceptthatthephotographwastakeninapublicplaceand
publishedwithouttherespondent’sconsent.Accordingtotheevidence,
itwastheAppellantGilbertDucloswhotooktherespondent’s
photograph.ThephotographwaspublishedbytheAppellantLesÉditions
Vice-VersaInc.inJuneissueofViceVersa,amagazinededicatedtothe
arts,and722copiesoftheissueinquestionweresold.Thephotograph
wasdrawntotheRespondent’sattentionbyafriendwhohadpurchased
acopyofthemagazine.TheRespondent,whowas17atthetime,
broughtthisactionfordamagesintheamountof$10,000.00,halfas
compensatorydamagesandtheotherhalfasexemplarydamages.
TheanalysisoftheSupremeCourtwaslimitedtothesoleissueofthepublication
ofaphotographtakenwithoutpermission.TheQuebecCharterstatesthe
following:
3.Everypersonisthepossessorofthefundamentalfreedoms,including
freedomofconscience,freedomofreligion,freedomofopinion,freedom
ofexpression,freedomofpeacefulassemblyandfreedomofassociation.
4.Everypersonhasarighttorespectforhisprivatelife.
9.1Inexercisinghisfundamentalfreedomsandrights,apersonshall
maintainaproperregardfordemocraticvalues,publicorderandthe
generalwell-beingofthecitizensofQuebec.
TheSupremeCourtconsideredthatthecaseatbarraisesaproblemofcivillaw
andsuchanactionissubjecttothecivillawprinciplesofrecovery.Asaresult,
thetraditionalelementsofliability,namely,damageandcausalconnexion,
mostestablished.
IntheCourt’sview,therighttoone’simage,whichhasanextra-patrimonialand
patrimonialaspect,isanelementoftherighttoprivacyunderSection5ofthe
QuebecCharter.IfthepurposeoftherighttoprivacyguaranteedbySection5
oftheQuebecCharteristoprotectasphereofindividualautonomy,thatright
mustincludetheabilitytocontroltheusemadeofone’simage.Sincetheright
toone’simageisincludedintherighttorespectforone’sprivatelife,every

personpossessesaprotectedrighttohisorherimage.Thereisaninfringement
oftheperson’srighttohisorherimage,andthereforefault,assoonasthe
imageispublishedwithoutconsentandenablesthepersontobeidentified.
Therighttorespectforone’sprivatelifecomesintoconflictherewithanother
rightprotectedbytheQuebecCharter,inSection3,namelytherightto
freedomofexpressionwhichincludesfreedomofartisticexpression.
Therighttorespectforone’sprivatelife,likefreedomofexpression,mustbe
interpretedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofSection9.1oftheQuebec
Charter.Forthispurpose,itisnecessarytobalancethesetworights.
TheCourtdidnotconsideritappropriatetoadoptthenotionof“sociallyuseful“
forthepurposesoflegalanalysisasitwasdonebytheCourtofAppeal.This
notionseemstohavebeenborrowedbyAmericanlaw.
TheCourtconsideredthatonlyonequestionarises,namelythebalancingofthe
rightsatissue.Whetherthepublic’srighttoinformationcanjustifydissemination
ofaphotographtakenwithoutanyauthorization.
IntheCourt’sviewtheartisticexpressionofthephotographwhichwasalleged
tohaveservedtoillustratecontemporaryurbanlife,cannotjustifythe
infringementoftherighttoprivacyitentails.Ithasnotbeenshownthatthe
public’sinterestinseeingthisphotographispredominant.
Whenthevalueisatissueandthecasemustbebalanced,itisimportantto
bearinmind,thatourlawischaracterizedbyrecognitionofinterrelatedrights
whosepurposeistostrengthenthedemocraticideal.Individualfreedomisat
theheartofthatideal.TheCourtconcludedthatthePlaintiff’srightto
protectionofherimageismoreimportantthantheDefendant’srighttopublish
thephotographofthePlaintiffwithoutfirstobtainingherpermission.
Thequestionofdamageswasthecauseofdecentamongthejudgesofthe
SupremeCourt,theminorityfoundthatdamageshavenotbeenprovenwhile
themajorityfeltthattheyhad,toasufficientextent.Allthejudgeshowever
agreedthatdamageshavetobeprovenbythePlaintiffbeforetheDefendant’s
civilliabilitycouldbeengaged.
Thiscasedealsonlywiththeclaimfordamagesresultingfromtheactivitiesof
theDefendant.Nothingissaidaboutanyinjunctiveorderwhichcouldhave
beensoughtunderSection49oftheQuebecChartertoobtainthecessationof
theinterferenceofthePlaintiff’srightorfreedomrecognizedbytheQuebec
Charter.

Hadsucharequestbeenmade,couldaninjunctionorderissueonlyifdamages
havebeenestablishedtothesatisfactionoftheCourt?Thejudgmentofthe
SupremeCourtseemstoindicatethatsuchapre-requisitewouldbenecessary
sincetheapproachtakenbytheCourtisthecivilliability
approachwhich
encompassesthetraditionalelementsofliability,namelyfault,damageand
causalconnection.
WhilewedosaythatthedecisionoftheSupremeCourtseems
toindicatethe
needforsuchapre-requisite,theremaystillberoomforsomeargument.As
such,Section49oftheQuebecCharterdoesnotmaketheestablishmentof
moralormaterialprejudiceapre-requisitetoobtainanorderforthecessationof
aninterference.Infact,Section49isquiteclear:anyunlawfulinterferencewith
anyrightorfreedomrecognizedbytheQuebecCharterentitlesthevictimto
obtainthecessationofsuchinterference.
Formoralormaterialprejudicetobeapre-requisitetoobtainaninjunctive
order,Section49wouldhavetobeinterpretedassaying:anyunlawful
interferencewithanyrightorfreedomrecognizedbythisCharterwhichcauses
moralormaterialprejudiceentitlesthevictimtoobtainthecessationofsuch
interferenceandcompensationforthesaidprejudice.
Section40oftheQuebecChartersimplydoesnotsaythat.Itistherefore
possibletothinkthataPlaintiffcouldobtainaninjunctiveorderunderSection49
evenifheorshecannotestablishmoralormaterialprejudiceaslongasthe
otherrequirementsoftheQuebecCharteraremet,includingthoseofSection
49.1.
Infact,thisdecisionofthemajorityoftheSupremeCourt(eventhoughitseems
tomakeproofofmoralormaterialprejudiceapre-requisitetotheissuanceof
anyinjunctiveorder)hassettheprejudicethresholdsolowthatitisforall
practicalpurposesalmostinexistent.Itissubmittedthatthisistheultimateresult
towhichtheminorityjudgesdidnotwanttocometo.
Itisnowopentodiscussionwhetherthisdecisionwillhaveanyapplicationor
effectoutsidetheProvinceofQuebec.Webelieveitwill,ifitwereonlyfromthe
pointofviewofhavingestablishedthatourlawischaracterizedbyrecognition
ofinterrelatedrights,whosepurposesistostrengthenthedemocraticidealand
thatindividualfreedomisattheheartofthatideal.Thisdealiscertainlynot
limitedtoQuebecbutappliestothewholeofCanada.

ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevouédepuis
1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:
brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertification
etappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdelartiste
interprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiqueset
obtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,
publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantau
Canadaquailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsand
utilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-
how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,
distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationand
arbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslivehere.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD