The Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Trial Judge’s Ruling In a Fact Driven Case on Copyright Infringement



THEONTARIOCOURTOFAPPEALUPHOLDSTRIALJUDGE’SRULINGINAFACT
DRIVENCASEONCOPYRIGHTINFRINGEMENT

By
AlexandraSteele*
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
TheOntarioCourtofAppealrecentlyrefusedtooverturnatrialjudge’sruling
ontheissuesofcopyingandcopyrightabilityinacasepertainingto
infringementofasoftwareprogram.TheCourtofAppealdismissedthe
appealasitfoundnooverridingorpalpableerroroffactonthepartofthe
trialjudge(DelrinaCorp.v.TrioletSystemsInc.,[2002]O.A.C.TBEd.MR.003,
March1,2002,Morden,CarthyandMacPhersonJJ.A.).
Thefacts
BrianDuncombe(hereinafter“Duncombe”)wasanemployeeofDelrina
Corp.(hereinafter“Delrina”)foraperiodofapproximatelytwoyears.Hewas
hiredbyDelrinainordertoimproveacomputersoftwareprogramdesigned
toallowtheoperatorofacertaintypeofcomputertoassesstheoperational
efficiencyofthesaidcomputer.Subsequenttotheterminationofhis
employmentatDelrina,Duncombeproceededtodesignasecondsoftware
programwhichwastocompetedirectlywiththesoftwareprogramhehad
previouslydesignedforDelrina.
Delrinainstitutedanactionforcopyrightinfringementofitssoftwareagainst
DuncombeandTrioletSystemsInc.(hereinafter“Triolet”).Afteradetailedand
carefulconsiderationofthefactsandevidence,includingexpertreports,the
trialjudgeruledthattherewasnocopyrightinfringementofDelrina’ssoftware
program.Inhisjudgement,thetrialjudgeconcludedthatDuncombehad
notcopiedDelrina’ssoftwareprogram,andthat,inanyevent,various
elementsofDelrina’ssoftwareprogram,whichDelrinaallegedwerecopied



















































©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2002.*OftheLawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andthePatentandTrademarkAgencyFirmROBIC,
g.p.Publication142.141.



byDuncombe,wereeithernotcopiedornotcopyrightable.Delrina
appealedthetrialjudge’sdecision.
TheCourtofAppealjudgement
TheCourtwasseizedoffourgroundsofappeal.
ThefirstgroundsetoutbyDelrinawasthatthetrialjudgehaderredinhis
definitionof“copying”.AccordingtoDelrina,thetrialjudge’sdefinitionwas
toorestrictivesincehehadusedthetermintheliteralsense,i.e.copying
wouldresultonlyifthecopywasmadefromsomethingthatisphysically
beforeaperson.TheCourtagreedwithDelrina’sargument,namelythat
copyrightinfringementmayresultnotonlyfromliteralcopying,butalsofrom
copyingfrommemory,evensubconsciousmemory.However,theCourt
dismissedDelrina’sfirstgroundofappealsinceitwasoftheviewthattheerror
hadnotaffectedthetrialjudge’sessentialfindings.
Delrina’ssecondgroundofappealwasbasedonthetrialjudge’s
considerationofanumberoffactorstoexcusethesimilaritiesbetweenthe
twocomputersoftwareprogramsandwhichDelrinadeemedirrelevantin
copyrightlaw.Forexample,thetrialjudgehadconcludedthatmanyofthe
similaritiesbetweenthesoftwareprogramscouldbeexplainedbythefact
thatDuncombewastheauthorofbothprograms,andthatthesoftware
programsweresimilarbecauseDuncombehaddesignedbothofthemto
performthesamefunctions.TheCourtcouldfindnoerrorinthetrialjudge’s
conclusions:functionalsimilaritiesbetweenthesoftwareprogramscouldnot
readilybeconstruedasevidenceofcopying.TheCourtacceptedthetrial
judge’sreasons,asfollows:
“[…]Similaritiesattributabletothenatureoftheproduct,the
limitedwaysinwhichanideacanbeexpressed,stockdevicesand
commontoolsofthetrade,theuseofcommonsources,knowledge
andinformation,constraintsimposedbythenatureoftheproduct,
arenotindicatorsofcopyingorofsubstantialsimilaritybetweenthe
copyrightandallegedlyinfringingwork
[…]”

TheCourtthereforedismissedDelrina’ssecondgroundofappeal.
Delrina’sthirdgroundofappealwasbasedonthetrialjudge’srulingon
copyrightabilityandthestandardororiginalityrequiredundercopyrightlaw.
UnderCanadianlaw,theworkinsuitmustfirstbeexaminedasawholein
ordertodetermineifitiscopyrightable.Intheaffirmative,thentheindividual
elementsofthework,whichareallegedlyreproducedintheinfringingwork,
canbeexaminedinordertodetermineifthereisasubstantialreproduction



oftheelementsfromoneworktotheother.Thetrialjudgehadfound
Delrina’ssoftwareprogramtobecopyrightable,buthealsofoundthatthe
variousindividualelementsallegedlyreproducedbyDuncombewereeither
notcopied,ornotentitledtocopyrightprotection.
UnderCanadiancopyrightlaw,aparticulararrangementofelementsnot
entitledtocopyrightprotectionmaybesubjecttocopyrightifthesaid
arrangementisoriginal.TheCourtagreedwiththetrialjudge’sassessment
thatthesimilaritiesbetweenDelrinaandDuncombe’ssoftwareprograms
wereeithertheresultoffunctionalconsiderations,and/orsimplynotsubject
tocopyright.Thearrangementofelementswasnotdeemedoriginalto
warrantcopyrightprotection.
Delrinafurtherarguedthatthetrialjudgeerredinhisapplicationtothecase
atbarofthestandardfororiginality.TheCourtreiteratedthattheguiding
principleincopyrightlawapplicableinCanada,andinothercountries,such
astheUnitedStatesandtheUnitedKingdom,isthatthatcopyrightlaw
“protectsonlyoriginalexpression.Itdoesnotprotecttheideaunderlyingthe
expression.”TheCourtstatedthat:
“[…]Clearly,ifthereisonlyoneoraverylimitednumbersofwaysto
achieveaparticularresultinacomputerprogram,toholdthatway
orwaysprotectablebycopyrightcouldgivethecopyrightholdera
monopolyontheideaorfunctionitself.”
Sincethetrialjudgehadconcluded,basedontheevidencebeforehim,
includinganexpert’sreport,thatthesimilaritiesbetweenthecomputer
programswerearesultoftheuseofsimilarsourcesofreferenceand
programmingpractices,theCourtagreedthattheelementscommonto
bothsoftwareprogramswerenotthe“original”expressionofideas.
Consequently,theCourtdismissedDelrina’sthirdgroundofappeal.
ThefourthgroundofappealsetforthbyDelrinawasbasedontheadverse
inferencedrawnbythetrialjudgeresultingfromthefactthatDelrinadidnot
produceanexpertisereportitconsideredunfavourable.TheCourtruledthat,
althoughthetrialjudgeshouldnothavedrawnanegativeinference,the
errorwasnotafactorinthefinaldeterminationofwhetherornotDuncombe
hadcopiedthesoftware.Consequently,thefourthgroundofappealwas
dismissed.
Sincethecaseatbarwas“factdriven”,thatthetrialjudgehadclearly
acceptedtheevidenceoftheDefendantsDuncombeandTriolet,theCourt
refusedtore-examinethetrialjudge’sfindingsoffactsinceitcouldfindno
overridingorpalpableerroroffact.



ThiscasethereforeconstitutesanexampleofhowourAppellateCourtsare
reticenttooverturnatrialjudge’sjudgementonaquestionoffact.In
addition,thiscaseunderlinestheimportanceforaPlaintifftomakeitscase
beforethetrialjudge,especiallyincopyrightinfringementcaseswherethe
trialdivision’srulingmaybedeterminedbythequalityoftheevidence
adducedbeforeit.
Publishedat(2002),16-7WIPR4-5underthetitleCourtFindsElementsof
SoftwareNotInfringedorNotCopyrightable
©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2002.



ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaquailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedes
intangibles.
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.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