A Compilation of the Canadian Copyright Cases Decided in 2015
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
ACOMPILATIONOFTHECANADIANCOPYRIGHTCASESDECIDEDIN2015*
LAURENTCARRIÈRE*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS
First,agenerallisting:
1.1395804OntarioLimited(Blacklock’sReporter)v.CanadianVintnersAssociation,
2015CanLII65885,[2015]O.J.5369,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscsm/doc/2015/2015canlii65885/2015canlii65885.ht
ml(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-10-16)ON
2.
3GeniusCorporationv.Ritchie.,2015CarswellOnt6123,253A.C.W.S.(3d)705,
[2015]O.J.2131,2015ONSC1439(subnomine3GeniusCorporationv.
LocationaryInc),
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc1439/2015onsc1439.html
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-04-24)DowJ.SachsJ.[leavetoappealrefused2015ONSC
4558,2015CarswellNat10871,256A.C.W.S.(3d)10,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc4558/2015onsc4558.html
(Ont.Sup.Ct–Div.Ct.;2015-07-15)]ON
3.
9054-8181Québecinc.v.Planification-organisation-publications,2015
CarswellQue3139,254A.C.W.S.(3d)835,EYB2015-250422,2015QCCS1402,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2015/2015qccs1402/2015qccs1402.html
(Que.Sup.Ct.;2015-03-20)QC
4.9105-8503QuébecInc.v.TouchtunesMusicCorp.
*,2015CarswelNat1421,
2015CarswellNat1420,2015TMOB78,[2015]T.M.O.B.5078,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tmob/doc/2015/2015tmob78/2015tmob78.html(Opp.
Bd.;2015-04-22)TMOB
5.
9223-9755Québecinc.(MedusaFilm)c.BlackBoxProductionsLtd.,2015
QCCQ9165b
http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccq/doc/2015/2015qccq9165/2015qccq9165.html
(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-10-02)QC
6.
AgrosTradingConfectionerySP.Z.O.O.v.K-MaxCorp.,2015CarswellOnt7483,
254A.C.W.S.(3d)664,2015ONSC3166,[2015]O.J.2522,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc3166/2015onsc3166.html
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-06-19)ON
©CIPS,2016.
*Lawyerandtrade-markagent,LaurentCarrièreisa
partnerwithROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirm
oflawyers,patentandtrade-markagents.PublishedaspartofareleasetotheCanadianCopyright
ActAnnotated(Carswell).Theboldintheextractsareours
.Publication455.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
2
7.AmbassadorsforChristMinistriesInc.forthemechanicalreproductionoffour
musicalworks[Non-exclusivelicenceissuedto],[File:2015-UO/TI-23and2015-
UO/TI-24],2015CarswellNat7081,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-
introuvables/licences/290-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2015-11-17)CopBd
8.ArctekDesignConsultantsv.Ellis,
[2015]O.J.4068(Ont.Sup.Ct.-SmallClaims;
2015-07-30)ON
9.
AssociationdesréalisatricesetréalisateursduQuébec(ARRQ)etZone3-
XXXVIIinc.(griefsyndical),2015QCTA213,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcdag/doc/2015/2015canlii13326/2015canlii13326.html
(Que.Arbitration;2015-03-13)QC
10.
AvidworxProductionsLtd.v.Culbertson,2015CarswellBC207,2015BCSC135,
[2015]B.C.J.150,2015BCSC135,[2015]BCWLD2228,[2015]BCWLD2262,
250ACWS(3d)489,
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2015/2015bcsc135/2015bcsc135.html(B.C.
S.C.;2015-01-29)BC
11.
Barryv.Syndicatdeprofessionnellesetprofessionnelsdugouvernementdu
Québec(SPGQ),2015QCCRT528,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccrt/doc/2015/2015qccrt528/2015qccrt528.html(Que.
C.R.T.;2015-10-13)
QC
12.
BasicHumanNeedsProductionsforthereproduction,thesynchronization,the
publicperformanceandthecommunicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationof
asoundrecording,[Non-exclusivelicenceissuedto],[File:2015-UO/TI-02],2015
CarswellNat3303,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-
introuvables/licences/286-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2015-07-24)CopBd
13.
Bessettev.Lemieux,2015CarswellQue7830,2015QCCQ3483,EYB2015-
255431,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2015/2015qccq3483/2015qccq3483.html
(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-03-23)QC
14.
Boilyv.GroupeTVAinc.,2015QCCQ3558,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2015/2015qccq3558/2015qccq3558.html
(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-04-29QC
15.
Boisjoli(Re),2015CarswellAlta1889,2015ABQB629,[2015]A.J.1092,[2016]
A.W.L.D.11,[2016]A.W.L.D.77,261A.C.W.S.(3d)60,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2015/2015abqb629/2015abqb629.html(Alta.
Q.B.;2015-10-08)AB
16.
BordenLadnerGervaisLLPv.GDCCommunities*,2015CarswllNat50,2015
TMOB50,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tmob/doc/2015/2015tmob50/2015tmob50.html
(Registrar;2015-03-23)TMOB
17.
BrasseursGMTinc.,2015QCCLP1083,2015LNQCCLP319;2015EXPT-790,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcclp/doc/2015/2015qcclp1083/2015qcclp1083.html
(Que.C.L.P.;2015-02-23)QC
18.BroadcastingDecisionCRTC2015-187[RemovalofKST
P-TVMinneapolisfrom
theListofnon-Canadianprogrammingservicesauthorizedfordistribution],2015
LNCRTCB59,http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2015/2015-187.htm(C.R.T.C.;
2015-05-13)CRTC
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
3
19.CanadianBroadcastingCorp.v.SODRAC2003Inc.,2015SCC57,2015
CarswellNat6092,[2015]S.C.J.57,392D.L.R.(4th)1,2015EXP-3409,J.E.
2015-1873,EYB2015-259030,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc57/2015scc57.html(SCC;2015-
11-26)[reversing118C.P.R.(4th)79(F.C.A.;2014-03-31)whichwasreversing
2012CarswellNat4255(Cop.Bd.;2012-11-02)]SCC
20.
CanadianCopyrightLicensingAgency(AccessCopyright)v.Alberta,2015
CarswellNat6247.2015FCA268,[2015]F.C.J.1397,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/caf/doc/2015/2015caf268/2015caf268.html(F.C.A.;
2015-11-26)FC
21.
CanadianStandardsAssociationv.P.S.KnightCo.Ltd.,2015CarswellOnt
19522,2015ONSC7980,[2015]O.J.6762,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc7980/2015onsc7980.html
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-12-22)ON
22.
Chevrierv.L’hebdomadaireLeMirabel,2015CanLII44077,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccpq/doc/2015/2015canlii44077/2015canlii44077.html
(Que.C.P.Q.;2015-02-06)QC
23.
Ciprianiv.Savard,2015QCCQ12911,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2015/2015qccq12911/2015qccq12911.html
(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-12-14)QC
24.CollectiveAdministrationofPerformingRightsand
ofCommunicationRights(Re),
2015CarswellNat3747(subnominePublicPerformanceofSoundRecordings,
Re),[2015]C.B.D.1,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2015/DEC-2015-03-
27.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2015-03-27)CopBd
25.
CommissiondelaconstructionduQuébecv.9125-5273Québecinc.*,2015
QCCRT315,[2015]D.C.R.T.Q.316.
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccrt/doc/2015/2015qccrt315/2015qccrt315.html(Que.
Lab.Bd.;2015-06-15)QC
26.
CorporativodeMarcasGJB,S.A.deC.V.v.Bacardi&Co.*,2015CarswellNat
1816,2015CarswellNat1817,2015TMOB51,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tmob/doc/2015/2015tmob51/2015tmob51.html(Opp.
Bd.;2015-03-24)TMOB
27.
Crochetière-Brousseauv.9107-0234QuébecInc.(Grattex),2015CarswellNat
5220,2015CF1219,259A.C.W.S.(3d)745,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/cfpi/doc/2015/2015cf1219/2015cf1219.pdf(F.C.;2015-
10-29)FC
28.
DeCostev.Burns,2015CarswellBC740,2015BCPC52,[2015]B.C.W.L.D.
3072,[2015]B.C.W.L.D.3073,251A.C.W.S.(3d)663,[2015]BCJ543,
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2015/2015bcpc52/2015bcpc52.html(B.C.
Prov.Ct.;2015-03-12)BC
29.
DepartmentofCanadianHeritagefortheReproductionandpublicperformanceof
twophotographs[Non-exclusivelicenceissuedto],[File:2015-UO/TI-19],2015
CarswellNat4924,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-
introuvables/licences/288-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2015-09-21)CopBd
30.
Desgagnév.GroupeVille-MarieLittératureinc.,2015CarswellQue11218,2015
QCCS5448,[2015]J.Q.12777,EYB2015-259012,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2015/2015qccs5448/2015qccs5448.html
(Que.Sup.Ct.;2015-11-17)QC
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
4
31.Dongluv.SinoquébecMediainc.,2015QCCQ2337,
http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccq/doc/2015/2015qccq2337/2015qccq2337.html
(Que.Ct.;2015-03-09)QC
32.Droitdelafamille–152575,
2015CarswellQue9755,2015QCCS4730,261
A.C.W.S.(3d)156,EYB2015-257613,[2015]Q.J.10389,
http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccs/doc/2015/2015qccs4730/2015qccs4730.pdf
(Que.Sup.Ct.;2015-11-13QC
33.
Egbersv.Canada(AttorneyGeneral)*,2015FC1342,[2015]F.C.J.1576,2015
CarswellNat7137(subnomineLigondév.(AttorneyGeneral)),
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc1342/2015fc1342.html(F.C.;2015-
12-04)FC
34.
FédérationÉtudianteCollégialeduQuébecv.Drapeau*,2015CarswelNat8909,
2015TMOB233,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tmob/doc/2015/2015tmob233/2015tmob233.html(Opp.
Bd.;2015-12-23)TMOB
35.
Ferreirav.Tavares,2015CarswellQue4366,2015QCCA844,J.E.2015-906,
EYB2015-251970,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2015/2015qcca844/2015qcca844.html(Que.
C.A.;2015-05-08)[affirming2014QCCS6046(Que.Sup.Ct.2014-11-19)]QC
36.
Format-Constructioninc.v.Pérusse,2015CarswellQue3636,2015QCCS1661,
EYB2015-251209,[2015]JQ3370,
www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2015/2015qccs1661/2015qccs1661.html(Que.Sup.
Ct.–InterimInj.;2015-04-17);2015CarswellQue10519,2015QCCS5108,EYB
2015-258379,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2015/2015qccs5108/2015qccs5108,html
(Que.Sup.Ct.;2015-11-05)QC
QC
37.
Gagnév.Faguy,2015QCCQ11832,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2015/2015qccq11832/2015qccq11832.html
(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-11-25)QC
38.
Genestv.Allianz,anunreportedjudgement,Courtdocket500-17-090190-151
(Que.Sup.Ct.;2015-12-11)DécarieJ.QC
39.
GeophysicalServiceIncv.AntrimEnergyInc,2015CarswellAlta1439,2015
ABQB482,[2015]A.J.862,[2015]A.W.L.D.3654,257A.C.W.S.(3d)193,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2015/2015abqb482/2015abqb482.html(Alta
Q.B.;2015-07-31)AB
40.
GeophysicalServiceIncorporatedv.ArcisSeismicSolutionsCorp,2015ABQB
88,[2015]A.J.137,20Alta.L.R.(6th)112,249A.C.W.S.(3d)565,72C.P.C.
(7th)203,[2015]A.W.L.D.1377,[2015]A.W.L.D.1378,,2015CarswellAlta177,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2015/2015abqb88/2015abqb88.html(Alta.
Q.B.;2015-02-04)AB
41.
GestionSharkHockey,divisiondeGroupeSharkMediainc.v.Groupeconseil
Esgestioninc.,2015QCCQ11557,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2015/2015qccq11557/2015qccq11557.html
(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-10-09)QC
42.
GMAXWorldRealtyIncv.RE/MAX,LLC*,2015CarswelNat4607,2015TMOB
147,http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tmob/doc/2015/2015tmob147/2015tmob147.html
(Registrar;2015-08-28)TMOB
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
5
43.GowlingLafleurHendersonLLPv.SanMiguelCorporation*,2015CarswelNat
7481,2015TMOB213,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tmob/doc/2015/2015tmob213/2015tmob213.html
(Registrar;2015-11-30)TMOB
44.
Grovesv.CanasonicsInc,2015CarswellAlta892,2015ABQB314,[2015]
A.W.L.D.2499,[2015]A.W.L.D.2500,254A.C.W.S.(3d)438,[2015]AJ551,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2015/2015abqb314/2015abqb314.html(Alta.
Q.B.2015-05-19)AB
45.
Hains(CindyHainsPhotographe)v.Ermel(StudioZaf),2015CarswellQue3224,
2015QCCQ1152,EYB2015-250956,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2015/2015qccq1152/2015qccq1152.html
(Que.Ct.-SmallClaims;2015-02-02)QC
46.KeatleySurveyingLtd.v.TeranetInc.,
2015ONCA248,[2015]O.J.1828,331
O.A.C.324,125O.R.(3d)447,252A.C.W.S.(3d)18,66C.P.C.(7th)223,2015
CarswellOnt5147,384D.L.R.(4th)147,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2015/2015onca248/2015onca248.html(Ont.
C.A.;2015-04-14)[varying2014CarswellOnt3792(Ont.Sup.Ct.-Div.Ct;2014-
03-26),addreasons2014CarswellOnt9193(Ont.Sup.Ct.-Div.Ct;2014-06-26),
reversing107CPR(4th)237(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-12-14)]ON
47.
Kertechianv.VanierCollege,2015QCCQ2839,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2015/2015qccq2839/2015qccq2839.html(Qu.
Ct.–SmallClaims;2015-03-17)QC
48.
Keyzerforthemechanicalreproductionofamusicalwork[Non-exclusivelicence
issuedtoJackde],[File:2014-UO/TI-14],2015CarswellNat383,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/283-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2015-01-27)CopBd
49.
KingDavidInc.v.AndrinInvestmentLtd.,2015CarswellOnt3980,251A.C.W.S.
(3d)4122015ONSC1935,[2015]O.J.1451,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc1935/2015onsc1935.html
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-03-25)ON
50.
KrugerProductsL.P.v.CascadesCanadaULC*,2015CarswelNat3975,2015
TMOB124,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tmob/doc/2015/2015tmob124/2015tmob124.html(Opp.
Bd.;2015-07-09)TMOB
51.
KrugerProductsL.P.v.CascadesCanadaULC*,2015CarswelNat584,2015
TMOB39,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tmob/doc/2015/2015tmob39/2015tmob39.html(Opp.
Bd.;2015-02-22)TMOB
52.
Lasantév.RoulotteProliteinc.,2015CarswellQue11853,2015QCCA2053,
EYB2015-259591,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2015/2015qcca2053/2015qcca2053.html
(Que.C.A.;2015-12-07)[confirming2014CarswellQue10221(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2014-10-03)]QC
53.Leutholdv.CanadianBroadcastingCorp.;
leavetoappealtotheSupreme
CourtofCanadarefused2015CarswellNat1281,[2014]S.C.C.A.417,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/csc-a/doc/2015/2015canlii22994/2015canlii22994.html
(S.C.C.;2015-04-30);[from126C.P.R.(4th)399(F.C.A.-Merits;2014-06-27)
confirming104C.P.R.(4th)401(F.C.;2012-06-14)and126C.P.R.(4th)412
(F.C.A.-Costs;2014-06-27)confirming2013CarswelNat4204(F.C.;2012-010-SCC
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
6
29)]
54.LFCinc.v.Swooinc.,2015CarswellQue2520,2015QCCQ1460,EYB2015-
249879,[2015]J.Q.2380,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2015/2015qccq1460/2015qccq1460.html
(Que.Ct.;2015-03-05)QC
55.
Martomagic,S.L.U.v.Bungie,Inc.*,2015CarswelNat986,2015TMOB22,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tmob/doc/2015/2015tmob22/2015tmob22.html
(Registrar;2015-01-30)TMOB
56.
Mathv.Mainse*,2015CarswelNat1385,2015TMOB32,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tmob/doc/2015/2015tmob32/2015tmob32.html
(Registrar;2015-02-24)TMOB
57.
Ménage-Polyinc.v.Abdelali,2015CarswellQue4429,2015QCCS2072,EYB
2015-252111,[2015]J.Q.4228,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2015/2015qccs2072/2015qccs2072.html
(Que.Sup.Ct.;2015-05-01)QC
58.
Michalakopoulosv.Hachem,2015CarswellQue469,2015QCCA166,253
A.C.W.S.(3d)814,EYB2015-247540,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2015/2015qcca166/2015qcca166.html(Que.
C.A;.2015-01-29)[affirming2012CarswellQue9582(QueSupCt;2012-09-10)]QC
59.
Migunav.WalmartCanada,2015CarswellOnt14328,258A.C.W.S.(3d)398
2015ONSC574,[2015]O.J.4874
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc5744/2015onsc5744.html
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-09-18);2015ONSC6835,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc6835/2015onsc6835.html
(Ont.Sup.Ct.–Costs;2015-11-09)ON
60.
Nadonv.SphèreMédiaPlusinc.,2015CarswellQue2202,2015QCCA511,EYB
2015-249577,[2015]J.Q.2213
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2015/2015qcca511/2015qcca511.html(Que.
C.A.;2015-03-17)[confirming2013CarswellQue9429(Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-09-
18)]QC
61.
NavsunHoldingsLtd.v.SadhuSinghHamdardTrust*,2015CarswelNat7475,
2015CarswellNat7475,2015CarswellNat7476,2015TMOB214,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tmob/doc/2015/2015tmob214/2015tmob214.html(Opp.
Bd.;2015-11-30)TMOB
62.
Netflix,Inc.v.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanada,
2015CarswellNat7147,2015FCA289,[2015]F.C.J.1485,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2015/2015fca289/2015fca289.html(F.C.A.;
2015-12-17)[reversing2014CarswellNat2616(Cop.Bd.;2014-07-18)sub
nominePublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,Re]FC
63.
NYMMinistriesforthemechanicalreproductionofamusicalwork[Non-exclusive
licenceissuedto],[File:2014-UO/TI-20],2015CarswellNat382,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/282-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2015-01-14)CopBd
64.
OrderF2015-15;AlbertaEnergy(Re),[2015]A.I.P.C.D.6,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/aboipc/doc/2015/2015canlii57425/2015canlii57425.ht
ml(Alta.I.P.C.;2015-05-22)AB
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
7
65.OrderPO-3463-I;UniversityofOttawa(Re),[2015]O.I.P.C.36(Ont.I.P.C.;2015-
02-20)ON
66.
Parév.TaxisCoopdelaMauricie1992,2015QCCQ11581,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2015/2015qccq11581/2015qccq11581.html
(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-11-11)QC
67.
PassionPicturesforthereproduction,thepublicperformanceandcommunication
tothepublicbytelecommunicationofanexcerptofafilm[Non-exclusivelicence
issuedto],[File:2015-UO/TI-03],2015CarswellNat2837,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/284-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2015-06-19)CopBd
68.
PlanonSystemsInc.v.NormanWadeCompanyLimited,2015CarswellOnt
17457,2015ONSC6825,260A.C.W.S.(3d)489,2015O.J.5966,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc6825/2015onsc6825.html
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-11-09)ON
69.
PossDesignLtd.v.BeogradMachine&ToolsCo.,2015CarswellOnt1225,2015
ONCA74,249A.C.W.S.(3d)310,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2015/2015onca74/2015onca74.html(Ont.
C.A.;2015-02-02)theCourt[confirming2014CarswellOnt6638(Ont.Sup.Ct.;
2014-05-21)]ON
70.
ProSuiteSoftwareLtd.v.InfokeySoftwareInc.,2015CarswellBC320,2015
BCCA52,[2015]8W.W.R.417,[2015]B.C.W.L.D.1774,[2015]B.C.J.214,249
A.C.W.S.(3d)300,368B.C.A.C.74,382D.L.R.(4th)698,633W.A.C.74,74
B.C.L.R.(5th)49,
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2015/2015bcca52/2015bcca52.html(B.C.
C.A.;2015-02-12)BC
71.Rv.Maurer,
2015CarswellSask388,2015SKQB175,[2015]S.J.332,123
W.C.B.(2d)404,
http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skqb/doc/2015/2015skqb175/2015skqb175.html(Sask
Q.B.;2015-06-18)[affirming2014CarswellSask319(Sask.Prov.Ct.;2014-05-
26)]SK
72.
R.v.Campbell*,[2015]O.J.5151,2015ONSC6199,24C.R.(7th)1,125W.C.B.
(2d)170,2015CarswellOnt15060(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-10-06)ON
73.
RedLabelVacationsInc.(redtag.ca)v.411TravelBuysLimited
(411travelbuys.ca),131C.P.R.(4th)6,2015FC19,2015CarswellNat427,250
ACWS(3d)677,[2015]FCJ220,[2015]F.C.J.1523,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc19/2015fc19.html(F.C.;2015-01-
07);affd2015CarswellNat7643,[2015]F.C.J.1523,2015FCA290,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2015/2015fca290/2015fca290.html(F.C.A.;
2015-12-18)]FC
FC
74.
ResourceEyeServicesInc.v.AtrumCoalGroundhogInc.,2015CarswellBC
1335,2015BCSC821,[2015]B.C.W.L.D.4334,[2015]B.C.W.L.D.4411,[2015]
B.C.W.L.D.4457,[2015]B.C.W.L.D.4462,254A.C.W.S.(3d)311,
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2015/2015bcsc821/2015bcsc821.html(B.C.
S.C.;2015-05-15)BC
75.
RogersCommunicationsPartnershipv.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusic
PublishersofCanada,129C.P.R.(4th)395,94Admin.L.R.(5th)19,2015FC
286,[2015]F.C.J.280,2015CarswellNat520,250A.C.W.S.(3d)417,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc286/2015fc286.html(F.C.;2015-
03-06)FC
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
8
76.Sahalukv.Alberta(TransportationSafetyBoard),2015CarswellAlta343,2015
ABQB142,[2015]A.W.L.D.1386,[2015]A.W.L.D.1438,253A.C.W.S.(3d)713,
329C.R.R.(2d)194,75M.V.R.(6th)10,[2015]A.K.231
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2015/2015abqb142/2015abqb142.html(Alta.
Q.B.;2015-02-27)AB
77.
SALTBranding,LLCLimitedLiabilityCompanyCaliforniav.SaltCreativeGroup,
Inc.,2015CarswelNat7477,2015TMOB207,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tmob/doc/2015/2015tmob207/2015tmob207.html(Opp.
Bd.;2015-11-24)TMOB
78.
Seggiev.RoofdogGamesInc.,2015QCCS6462,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2015/2015qccs6462/2015qccs6462.html
(Que.Sup.Ct.;2016-12-18)QC
79.
ShawCommunicationsIncv.TELUSCorporation*,2015CarswelNat5836,2015
TMOB173,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tmob/doc/2015/2015tmob173/2015tmob173.html(Opp.
Bd.;2015-09-29)TMOB
80.
Smart&Biggarv.MercedesTextilesLtd*,2015CarswelNat3982,2015TMOB
112,http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tmob/doc/2015/2015tmob112/2015tmob112.html
(Registrar;2015-06-18)TMOB
81.
Sociétédedéveloppementdesentreprisesculturelles(SODEC)v.SociétéRadio-
Canada,2015CarswellQue11621,2015QCCA2013,EYB2015-259455,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2015/2015qcca2013/2015qcca2013.html
(Que.C.A.;2015-12-02)[affirming2014CarswellQue2051(Que.Sup.Ct.;204-
03-12)]QC
82.
SoftLayerTechnologies,Incv.GroupeiWebInc*,2015CarswelNat4034,2015
TMOB131,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tmob/doc/2015/2015tmob131/2015tmob131.html(Opp.
Bd.;2015-07-30)TMOB
83.SpectralabScientificInc.v.NorthernPharmInc.,
[2015]O.J.6386(Ont.Sup.Ct.–
SmallClaims;2015-10-13)ON
84.
StarIslandEntertainment,LLCv.ProventHoldingsLtd*,2015CarswelNat1543,
2015TMOB25,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tmob/doc/2015/2015tmob25/2015tmob25.html(Opp.
Bd.;2015-01-30)TMOB
85.StargroveEntertainmentInc.v.UniversalMusicPub
lishingGroupCanada,2015
CarswellNat6185,[2015]C.C.T.D.17,2015Comp.Trib.17(Comp.Trib.;2015-
11-18);2015CarswellNat6857,[2015]C.C.T.D.26,2015Comp.Trib.26(Comp.
Trib.;2015-12-14)Comp
Trib
CompTrib
86.StatementofRoyaltiestobeCollectedbyAccessCopyrightfortheReprographic
Reproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsRepertoire[ProvincialandTerritorial
Goverments–2005-2014],2015CarswellNat1792(subnomineReproductionof
LiteraryWorks,Re)[2015]C.B.D.2(subnomineCollectiveAdministrationin
RelationtoRightsUnderSections3,15,18and21(Re)),http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/2015/DEC-2015-03-22.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2015-05-22)
CopBd
87.StrathearnConsultingInc.v.Kirshenblatt,
2015CarswellNat8672,[2015]F.C.J.
1547,2015FC1404,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc1404/2015fc1404.html(F.C.;2015-FC
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
9
12-21)
88.
Syndicatdeschargéesetchargésdecoursdel’UQAMv.UniversitéduQuébecà
Montréal,2015CarswellQue7161,2015QCTA405,D.T.E.2015T-474,EYB
2015-254956,2015CanLII45385,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcsat/doc/2015/2015canlii45385/2015canlii45385.html
(QCSAT;2015-04-20);judicialreviewrefused(subnomineUniversitéduQuébec
àMontréalv.Gagnon)2015CarswellQue5050,2015QCCS2398,256A.C.W.S.
(3d)190,J.E.2015-1067,D.T.E.2015T-453,EYB2015-252762,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2015/2015qccs2398/2015qccs2398.html
(Que.Sup.Ct.;2015-06-02);leavetoappealtotheQuebecCourtofappeal
refused2015QCCA1256,[2015]J.Q.7007,2015EXP-2346,2015EXPT-1497,
J.E.2015-1316,D.T.E.2015T-577,EYB2015-254964,
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2015/2015qcca1256/2015qcca1256.html
(Que.C.A.2015-07-28)QC
QC
QC
89.
Tan-JenLtd.v.DiPede,2015CarswellOnt10415,2015ONSC4503,255
A.C.W.S.(3d)565,44C.L.R.(4th)329,75C.P.C.(7th)108,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc3685/2015onsc3685.html
(OntSupCt;2015-06-03);2015CarswellOnt13750,257A.C.W.S.(3d)779,2015
ONSC5642,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc5642/2015onsc5642.html
(OntSup.Ct.;2015-09-11).ON
ON
90.
TORooftopFilmsInc.fortheincorporation,reproduction,publicperformanceand
communicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationoftwoarticles[Non-exclusive
licenceissuedto],[File:2015-UO/TI-06],2015CarswellNat3302,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/285-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2015-07-21)CopBd
91.Toronto(City)(Re),
2015CanLII17929,[2015]O.I.P.C.64,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onipc/doc/2015/2015canlii17929/2015canlii17929.html
(Ont.I.P.C.;2015-03-31)ON
92.
VilledeSorel-Tracypourlareproduction,l’exécutionenpublicetla
communicationaupublicpartélécommunicationd’unephotographie[Non-
exclusivelicenceissuedto],[File:2015-UO/TI-14],2015CarswellNat7110,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/289-e.pdf(Cop.Bd.;
2015-11-03)CopBd
93.VoltagePicturesLLCv.JohnDoe
,2015CarswellNat7089,2015FC1364,[2015]
F.C.J.1469http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc1364/2015fc1364.html
(F.C.;2015-12-09)FC
94.Waldmanv.ThomsonReutersCanadaLimited,
2015ONCA53,[2015]O.J.395,
2015CarswellOnt857,249A.C.W.S.(3d)251,127C.P.R.(4th)401,330O.A.C.
142,71C.P.C.(7th)33,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2015/2015onca53/2015onca53.html(Ont.
C.A.;2015-01-28)[quahingtheappealandreferringthemattertotheDivisional
Courtfordeterminationforleavetoappeal];2015CarswellOnt8982,255
A.C.W.S.(3d)10,2015ONSC3843,[2015]O.J.3135,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2015/2015onsc3843/2015onsc3843.html
(Ont.Sup.Ct.Div.;2015-06-16)[grantingleavetoappealfrom120C.P.R.(4th)
127(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2014-03-04)]ON
ON
95.Weaverv.Corcoran,
2015CarswellBC247,2015BCSC165,[2015]B.C.W.L.D.
1517,[2015]B.C.W.L.D.1595,[2015]B.C.W.L.D.1596,[2015]B.C.W.L.D.1597,BC
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
10
[2015]B.C.W.L.D.1598,249A.C.W.S.(3d)478,[2015]B.C.J.179,
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2015/2015bcsc165/2015bcsc165.pdf(B.C.
S.C.;2015-02-05)
96.
Weinbergv.ProductionsNilemInc.,[2001]S.C.C.A.439(S.C.C.-Taxation2015-
02-02)[Robinsonv.FilmsCinarInc.,83C.P.R.(4th)1(Que.Sup.Ct.;2009-08-
26);vard.108C.P.R.(4th)165(Que.C.A.;2011-07-20);vard.118C.P.R.(4th)1
(S.C.C.;2013-12-23)]SCC
97.ZeroSpillSystems(Int’l)Inc.v.Heide
,2015FCA115,[2015]F.C.J.554,130
C.P.R.(4th)291,252A.C.W.S.(3d)806,472N.R.127,2015CarswellNat1357,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2015/2015fca115/2015fca115.html(F.C.A.);
2015-05-04)[infirminginpart111C.P.R.(4th)317(F.C.;2013-07-18)]FC
98.Zheng(c.o.b.Kevin’sConvenience)(Re)
[2015]O.L.A.T.D.64(Ont.Lic.App.
Trib.;2015-04-01)ON
These104decisionsrelateto97casesdividedasf
ollows:Alberta:06;British
Columbia:05;Ontario:19(including2fromSmallClaimsand2fromadministrative
boards);Quebec:32(including10fromSmallclaimsand6fromadminsitrative
boards);Saskachewan:01;FederalCourtsofCanada:10(including2from
CopyrightBoard);SupremeCourtofCanada:03(oneonthemeritfromthe
CopyrightBoard,twoleavesrefusedfromFederalCourtandonetaxationofcosts
fromQC);CopyrightBoard10(including7forunlocatablecopyrightowners);
CanadianRadio-TelevisionandTelecommunicationsCommission:01;Competition
Tribunal:02;Trade-marksOppositionBoard:16.·Section1–Shorttitle
Copyrightlawsarealsopropertyandcivilrightslawswhichareusuallyattributedto
theprovinces;however,itisnotacontrollingfactorforjuricitionalissuessincethe
ConstitionalAct,1867specificallyattributestotheFederaljurisdictionovercopyright.
Sahalukv.Alberta(TransportationSafetyBoard),2015CarswellAlta343(Alta.Q.B.;
2015-02-27)WakelingJ.
[131]Sometimesthereisanobviousgrammaticalsolutiontothe
problemthatarisesifbothprovincialandfederalheadsofpowerare
activated.Forexample,thefederallistofclassesoflawincludesbills
ofexchange,promissorynotes,interestandcopyrightlaws.[Fn210
ConstitutionAct,1867,s.91(18)(19)(23).]
Billsofexchange,
promissorynotesandinterestareasubsetofcivilrightsorcontract
law.Copyrightisasubsetofpropertylaws,whichisonthe
provinciallist.[Fn211ConstitutionAct,1867,s.92(13).].Onlythe
federalgovernmentmaypassbillsofexchange,promissorynotes,
interestandcopyrightlaws.ThisisbecausetheConstitutionAct,
1867expresslygrantedthefederalgovernmentthepowertopass
interestandcopyrightlaws.Thatbillsofexchange,promissory
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
11
notes,interestandcopyrightlawsarealsopropertyandcivil
rightslawsisnotcontrolling.[Fn212Theprovincedoesnothave
jurisdictionoverthissubsetofpropertyandcivilrights.
Saskatchewanv.Canada,[1949]A.C.110,123(P.C.1948)(Can.);
Albertav.Canada,[1939]A.C.117,129-30(P.C.1938)(Can.)&
CitizensInsuranceCo.ofCanadav.Parsons,7A.C.96,110(P.C.
1881)(Can.).
[200]Asnotedearlier,thephrase“propertyandcivilrights”appeared
ins.8ofTheQuebecAct,1774.[Fn28114Geo.III,c.83(U.K.).]It
referredtothoselawswhichgoverneddisputesrelatingtothe
ownershipofproperty,thenatureofobligationspersonsowedto
eachotherandgenerallyallotherprivateissues.Themeaning
attachedtothephrasebythe1774enactmenthasbeensignificantly
circumscribedbythestructureoftheConstitutionAct,1867.The
1867enactmentaccordedmanysubjectswhichotherwisewere
withintheconceptofpropertyandcivilrightstothefederal
government–tradeandcommerce,banking,billsofexchange,
promissorynotes,interest,bankruptcyandinsolvency,patents,
copyrightsandmarriageanddivorce.Butwhatisleftisstill
significant.Itcoverslawsregulatingrelationshipsbetweenpeople–
suchascontract,tortandsuccessionlaw–andmanyrelationships
betweentheprovinceandthepeople,excludingcriminallawand
specificsubjectslistedins.91.
·Section2–definitionof »architecturalwork »
Thebuildingisnotonlytheshell.Thebuildingisalsowhatiserectedinside »forthe
purposeoftheuseforwhichitisintended »,whichcouldincludebridgesandinterior
designelements.
CommissiondelaconstructionduQuébecv.9125-5273Québecinc.*,[2015]
D.C.R.T.Q.316(Que.Lab.Bd.;2015-06-15)LegaultJ.
[61]Aufildutemps,lescommissairesontretenuquelanotion
debâtimentincluaitnonseulementlastructureabritantdes
hommes,desanimauxoudeschoses,maiségalement,les
mûrsintérieursetlesplanchersainsiquetouteautrechose
construitepourpermettrel’usageauquellebâtimentest
destiné.DansCommissiondelaconstructionduQuébecc.Béton
projetéM.A.H.inc.,[2004]AZ-50261383(C.I.C.),[judicialreview
refusedsubnomineBétonprojetéMahInc.c.Larivière,2005CanLII
23033(Que.Sup.Ct.;2005-06-10);leavetoappealrefusedsub
nomineBétonprojetéMahinc.c.Commissiondelaconstructiondu
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
12
Québec,2005QCCA829Que.CA;2005-08-29)]lecommissaire
rappelaitl’étatdudroitenlamatière[atparas31-43][…]
[85]Enl’espèce,lapreuveconvainclaCommissionquelastructure
estunemezzaninedubâtimentutiliséeauxfinsdesopérationsde
l’entreprise.LestravauxvisésparlaréclamationdelaCCQsont
assujettisàlaLoiR-20puisqu’ils’agitd’érectiond’unélémentdu
bâtiment,surleslieuxmêmesduchantieretàpiedd’œuvre.
·Section2–Definitionof »artisticwork »
Alogofallsinthedefinitionofanartisticwork.
Hains(CindyHainsPhotographe)v.Ermel(StudioZaf),2015CarswellQue3224
(Que.Ct.-SmallClaims;2015-02-02)ClicheJ.[42]Dansleprésentcas,laphotographie«Bébé-Pirate»crééeet
priseparlademanderesse,ainsiquesonlogo«Ourson-Pirate»,
apparaissantsurlavoiledelapetitebarqueetsurlecache-œilporté
parl’enfant,constituentdesœuvresartistiquesprotégéesen
vertudelaLoisurledroitd’auteur.
·Section2–Definitionof »artisticwork »
Workingdrawingsareartisticworksattractingcopyrightprotection.
ArctekDesignConsultantsv.Ellis,[2015]O.J.4068(Ont.Sup.Ct.-SmallClaims;
2015-07-30)HuntD.J.
[54]Iconclude,onthebasisoftheevidencebeforeme,the
operationoftheActandthetestfor »originality »laidoutbythe
SupremeCourtofCanadathattheworkingdrawingsofthe
plaintiffatissueinthislitigationwereoriginalworksprotected
bytheAct.
·Section2–Definitionof »Board »
TheCopyrightBoardisaneconomicagency.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
13
StatementofRoyaltiestobeCollectedbyAccessCopyrightfortheReprographic
Reproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsRepertoire[ProvincialandTerritorial
Goverments–2005-2014],2015CarswellNat1792(subnomineReproductionof
LiteraryWorks,Re)(Cop.Bd.;2015-05-22)
[197][…]Asaneconomic
regulatoryagency,theBoardmust
relyontheevidencebeforeitto
establishafairandequitable
royalty.
[197][…]LaCommissiondoit,àtitre
d’organismederéglementation
économique,sefondersurlapreuve
qu’elleadevantellepourétablirdes
redevancesjustesetéquitables.
·Section2–Definitionof »Board »
Thepresumptionthatdeferenceshouldbegiventoadministrativebodieswhenthey
areapplyingtheirhomestatutedoesnotapplywhenwhentheCopyrightBoardand
theCourtshavetoconsiderthesamequestions.Thestandardofcorrectnessmay
applytosomeaspectofadecisionoftheBoardandastandardofreasonableness
forothers.
CanadianBroadcastingCorp.v.SODRAC2003Inc.,2015CarswellNat6092
(S.C.C.;2015-11-26)RothsteinJ.
[35]Whetherbroadcast-incidental
copiesengagethereproductionright,
andthuswhethertheCopyrightAct
allowsSODRACtoseekalicencefor
CBC’sbroadcast-incidentalcopying,
isaquestionoflaw.ThisCourthas
establishedthatthereisa
presumptionthatthedecisionsof
administrativebodiesshould
receivedeferencewhen
interpretingorapplyingtheirhome
statute.However,becauseofthe
“unusualstatutoryschemeunder
whichtheBoardandthecourtmay
eachhavetoconsiderthesamelegal
question[undertheCopyrightAct]at
firstinstance”,thepresumptionis
rebuttedhere:Rogers
CommunicationsInc.v.Societyof
Composers,AuthorsandMusic
PublishersofCanada,2012SCC35
(CanLII),[2012]2S.C.R.283,atpara.
15.Thus,astandardofcorrectness
appliestothisissue.[35]Laquestiondesavoirsilescopies
accessoiresdediffusionmettenten
causeledroitdereproduction,etdonc
desavoirsila
LDApermetàla
SODRACdechercheràobtenirune
licencepourlescopiesaccessoiresde
diffusiondelaSRC,estunequestionde
droit.LaCouraétabliqu’ilexisteune
présomptionselonlaquelleilfaut
fairepreuved’unecertaineretenueà
l’endroitdesdécisionsdes
organismesadministratifslorsqu’ils
interprètentouappliquentleurloi
constitutive.Toutefois,étantdonnéle
«caractèreparticulierdurégime
législatifenvertuduquellaCommission
etunecourdejusticepeuventêtre
respectivementappeléesàstatueren
premièreinstancesurunmêmepoint
dedroit[souslerégimedelaLDA]»,
cetteprésomptionestréfutéeen
l’espèce:RogersCommunicationsInc.
c.Sociétécanadiennedesauteurs,
compositeursetéditeursdemusique,
2012CSC35(CanLII),[2012]2
R.C.S.283,par.15.Lanormedela
décisioncorrectes’appliquedoncà
l’égarddecettequestion.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
14
[36]WhetheralicenceforCBC’s
broadcast-incidentalcopyingis
impliedintheassociated
synchronizationlicencesinvolvesboth
thescopeofthereproductionright
andtheinterpretationofSODRAC’s
synchronizationlicences.Asthis
Courthasrecentlyobserved,
“[c]ontractualinterpretationinvolves
issuesofmixedfactandlawasitisan
exerciseinwhichtheprinciplesof
contractualinterpretationareapplied
tothewordsofthewrittencontract,
consideredinlightofthefactual
matrix”:SattvaCapitalCorp.v.
CrestonMolyCorp.,2014SCC53
(CanLII),[2014]2S.C.R.633,atpara.
50.Thelicencesherefallunderthat
principle.Accordingly,astandardof
reasonablenessapplieswhen
reviewingtheBoard’s
determinationregardingwhatmay
beimpliedfromtherelevant
synchronizationlicences.[36]Laquestiondesavoirsiunelicence
permettantàlaSRCdefairedescopies
accessoiresdediffusions’infèredes
licencesdesynchronisationquiysont
associéesmetencauseàlafoisla
portéedudroitdereproductionet
l’interprétationdeslicencesde
synchronisationdelaSODRAC.Ainsi
quelaCourl’afaitremarquer
récemment,«[l]’interprétation
contractuellesoulèvedesquestions
mixtesdefaitetdedroit,carils’agit
d’enappliquerlesprincipesauxtermes
figurantdanslecontratécrit,àla
lumièredufondementfactuel»:
Sattva
CapitalCorp.c.CrestonMolyCorp.,
2014CSC53(CanLII),[2014]2
R.C.S.633,par.50.Leslicencesen
causeenl’espècesontviséesparce
principe.Parconséquent,lanormede
ladécisionraisonnables’applique
auxfinsdecontrôlerladécisiondela
Commissionsurcequel’onpeut
inférerdeslicencesde
synchronisationencause.
·Section2–Definitionof »Board »
Asanadminsitrativebody,theCopyrightBoardenjoysgreatlatitudeinsettingits
ownprocedurebuthasadutytoactfairlyincomingtodecisionsthataffectpersons’
rights,privilegesandinterests.
Netflix,Inc.v.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanada,2015
CarswellNat7147(F.C.A.;2015-12-17)NadonJ.[reversing2014CarswellNat2616
(Cop.Bd.;2014-07-18)subnominePublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,Re]
[37]InDunsmuirv.NewBrunswick,2008SCC9(CanLII),the
SupremeCourt,atparagraph79ofitsreasons,opinedthat
“[p]roceduralfairnessisacornerstoneofmodernCanadian
administrativelaw”.Asanadministrativebody,theBoardhasa
dutytoactfairlyincomingtodecisionsthataffectpersons’
rights,privilegesandinterests.ForexampleinFitnessIndustry
[Re:Soundv.FitnessIndustryCouncilofCanada,2014FCA48],this
CourtsetasideadecisionoftheBoardbecauseapartywas
“deprivedofafairhearingbecauseithadnopriornoticeofthebasis
oftheBoard’sdecision,andthushadnoopportunitytomake
submissionsontheappropriatenessoftheBoard’smethodology”
(paragraph75).
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
15
[38]Administrativedecisionmakersenjoygreatlatitudein
settingtheirownprocedure,includingaspectsthatfallwithinthe
scopeofproceduralfairnesssuchaswhetherarequestfor
adjournmentshouldbegranted,theextentofdisclosurebyparties,
theextentofcross-examinationthatwillbeallowedandwhether
representationsbyalawyershouldbeallowed.“Contextand
circumstanceswilldictatethebreadthofthedecision-maker’s
discretiononanyoftheseproceduralissues,andwhetherabreach
ofthedutyoffairnessoccurred”(FitnessIndustry,paragraph37).
·Section2–Definitionof »collectivesociety »
Acollectivesocietycouldnotgivealicenceforrightsitdoesnotmanage.
StatementofRoyaltiestobeCollectedbyAccessCopyrightfortheReprographic
Reproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsRepertoire[ProvincialandTerritorial
Goverments–2005-2014],2015CarswellNat1792(subnomineReproductionof
LiteraryWorks,Re)(Cop.Bd.;2015-05-22)
126]InitsK-12decision,[Fn71Access
Copyright(EducationalInstitutions)2005-
2009(June26,2009)CopyrightBoard
decision[K-12]theBoardheldthatthe
cashingofaroyaltychequebyacopyright
owner,issuedinrelationtooneormore
copyingactivities,hadtheeffectthatthose
activitiesweretherebylegitimized,such
that“[thecopyrightowner]cannottake
proceedingsforinfringementofcopyright
againstthepersonwhomadethecopy.”
[Fn72K-12,atpara.133]TheBoardwent
ontoholdthat[126]Dansladécision
K-12[Fn71
AccessCopyright(Établissements
d’enseignement)2005-2009(26
juin2009)décisiondelaCommission
dudroitd’auteur.[K-12]],laCommission
aconcluquel’encaissementduchèque
deredevancesparuntitulairedudroit
d’auteur,émisrelativementàuneou
plusieursactivitésdephotocopie,avait
eupoureffetderendrecesactivités
légitimes,detellesorteque«[le
titulairedudroitd’auteur]nepourrait
poursuivrelecopistepourviolationdu
droitd’auteur»[Fn72K-12,aupara.
133].LaCommissionaensuitefait
observéque:
[t]heexistenceofanimpliedagency
relationship,arisingfromthecashingof
thechequeandlimitedtoonlythose
copiesthatwerecapturedinthestudy,
issufficienttoleadustoincludethese
copiesinthecalculationof
remuneration.[Fn73K-12,atpara.133][l]’existenced’unmandattacite,
quel’encaissementduchèque
matérialise,limitéauxseules
copiesquel’enquêteacaptées,
suffitpourdéciderd’inclureces
mêmescopiesdanslecalculdela
rémunération[Fn73K-12,aupara.
133].
[138]SinceAccesscannotlicensethe
copyingofaworkforwhichithasnot
itselfreceivedauthorizationfromthe
ownerofcopyright,theactofcopyinga
[138]Étantdonnéqu’Accessnepeut
pasaccorderdelicencepourla
copied’uneoeuvrepourlaquelleelle
n’apaselle-mêmereçu
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
16
workofanon-affiliatedrightsholderis
apotentialinfringementofcopyright.
Arguably,thisactofpotential
infringementmayberetroactively
“legitimized,”bythecopyrightowner’s
cashingaroyaltychequerelatedtothat
copying.However,ifthecopyrightowner
doesnotreceivesuchacheque,aswill
almostalwaysbethecase,shecanbring
proceedingsforinfringementofcopyright.
Thiswouldbesodespitethefactthat
royaltieshavenotionallybeenpaidin
relationtothemakingofthatcopybythe
licenseetothemakingofthatcopybythe
licenseetoAccess.
d’autorisationdelapartdutitulaire
dudroitd’auteur,lareproduction
d’uneoeuvred’unnon-affilié
constitueuneéventuelleviolationdu
droitd’auteur.Onpeutsoutenirque
cettereproductionquiconstitueune
éventuelleviolationpeutêtre
rétroactivement«légitimée»aumoyen
del’encaissementparletitulairedu
droitd’auteurd’unchèquede
redevancesconcernantlacopie
effectuée.Toutefois,siletitulairedu
droitd’auteurnereçoitpasuntel
chèque,commeceserapresque
toujourslecas,ilpeutintenterdes
poursuitespourviolationdudroit
d’auteur.Ilenseraitainsimalgrélefait
quedesredevancesaientété
théoriquementpayéesàAccessparle
titulairedelalicencerelativementàla
réalisationdelacopie.
·Section2–definitionof »compilation »
Wheretheskillandjudgementexpressedbytheauthorinthecompilationarenot
containedintheportioncopied,onlytheunderlyingworkiscopied,andnotthe
compilationinwhichthatworkiscontained.
StatementofRoyaltiestobeCollectedbyAccessCopyrightfortheReprographic
Reproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsRepertoire[ProvincialandTerritorial
Goverments–2005-2014],2015CarswellNat1792(subnomineReproductionof
LiteraryWorks,Re)(Cop.Bd.;2015-05-22)
[114][…]However,inorderfora
substantialpartofacompilationtobe
copied,apartofthecompilationthat
representsasubstantialportionofthe
author’sskillandjudgmentexpressed
thereinwouldhavetobecopied.
[Fn58CinarCorporationv.Robinson,
2013SCC73,[2013]3S.C.R.1168
atpara.26]Wheretheskilland
judgementexpressedbytheauthor
inthecompilationarenot
containedintheportioncopied,
suchaswhereonlyonework,or
less,iscopiedfromsucha
compilation,onlytheunderlying
workiscopied,andnotthe
compilationinwhichthatworkis
contained.Furthermore,evenifthe[114][…]Toutefois,pourqu’unepartie
importanted’unecompilationsoit
reproduite,unepartiedelacompilation
quireprésenteunepartimportantedu
talentetdujugementdel’auteur
exprimésdansl’oeuvredevraitêtre
reproduite[Fn58
CinarCorporationc.
Robinson,2013CSC73,[2013]3
R.C.S.1168aupara.26].Lorsquele
talentetlejugementexpriméspar
l’auteurdanslacompilationne
figurentpasdanslapartiereproduite,
commedanslecasoùuneseule
oeuvre,ouunepartied’uneoeuvre,
estreproduiteàpartird’unetelle
compilation,seulel’oeuvresous-
jacenteestreproduite,etnonla
compilationdanslaquellecette
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
17
makerofthecompilationaddsfactual
information,ormakesmechanical
changestotheunderlyingwork,such
aschangingthefontorcorrecting
grammaticalorspellingerrors,these
areinsufficienttowarrantcopyright
protection.[Fn59CCHCanadianLtd.
v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,
2004SCC13,[2004]1S.C.R.339at
para.35]oeuvrefigure.Enoutre,mêmesi
l’auteurdelacompilationajoutedes
donnéesfactuelles,ouapportedes
modificationsmécaniquesàl’oeuvre
sous-jacente,commelamodificationde
lapolicedecaractèreoulacorrection
d’erreursgrammaticalesoudefautes
d’orthographe,celan’estpassuffisant
pourjustifierlaprotectiondudroit
d’auteur[Fn59CCHCanadienneLtéec.
BarreauduHaut-Canada,2004CSC13,
[2004]1R.C.S.339[CCH]aupara.35].
·Section2–Definitionof »computerprogram »
Acomputerprogramisaliterarywork.
Crochetière-Brousseauv.9107-0234QuébecInc.(Grattex),2015CarswellNat5220
(F.C.;2015-10-29)LeBlancJ
[27]Selonlapreuveaudossier,l’exécutiond’unetâched’intégration,
commecellequ’avaitàeffectuerledemandeur,requiertjugementet
talentdelapartd’unprogrammeurencesensqu’elleexigedesa
partuneffortintellectuelnonnégligeable,c’est-à-dire,lerecoursaux
connaissancespersonnelles,lacapacitédesefaireuneopinionet
celledeprocéderàuneévaluationencomparantdifférentesoptions
possibles.
[28]Jesuisdoncprêtàreconnaîtrequeleprogramme
d’ordinateurélaboréparledemandeursatisfaitàcestrois
conditionsetqu’ilconstitue,parconséquent,une«œuvre
littéraire»ausensdelaLoi.
·Section2–Definitionof »computerprogram »
AvideogameisaworkprotectedundertheCopyrightAct,eitherasacompilation,or
asacinematograph,literary,ormusicalwork.
Seggiev.RoofdogGamesInc.,2015QCCS6462(Que.Sup.Ct.;2016-12-18)Roy
J.
[57]Àjustetitre,lespartiessonttoutesdeuxd’avisquelejeu
vidéoestprotégéparledroitd’auteuretqu’ilfautinterpréterde
manièrelibéralelesdéfinitionsde«compilation»,d’«œuvre
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
18
littéraire»,«œuvrecinématographique»et«œuvremusicale»
édictéesàl’article2delaLoisurledroitd’auteur[Fn36Nintendoof
AmericaInc.v.CamericaCorp.,[1991]F.C.J.No.58(C.F.)(confirmé
enappel,(1991)127N.R.232(CAF));NintendoofAmericaInc.v.
CoinexVideoGamesInc.,[1983]2F.C.189;B.SOOKMAN,
Sookman:Computer,InternetandElectronicCommerceLaw,
Toronto,Carswell,feuillesmobiles(2012),p.18-21;L.-P.
GRAVELLEetJ.-F.JOURNEAULT,«Protectiondesjeuxvideo:la
propriétéintellectuelleenmodemultijoueur»,dansDéveloppements
récentsendroitdelapropriétéintellectuelle,Cowansville,Éd.Yvon
Blais,2012,p.156-157;H.G.RICHARDetL.CARRIÈRE,Canadian
CopyrightActAnnotated,volume1,Toronto,Carswell,éd.feuilles
mobiles,p.2-127à2-129.]
·Section2–Definitionof »everyoriginal…work »
Generally,thereisnosufficientoriginalityinametatagtowarrantcopyright
protection.
RedLabelVacationsInc.(redtag.ca)v.411TravelBuysLimited(411travelbuys.ca),
131C.P.R.(4th)(F.C.;2015-01-07)MansonJ.[affd.2015CarswellNat7643(F.C.A.;
2015-12-18)]
[101]Inthiscasethereislittle
evidenceofanysufficientdegreeof
skillandjudgementincreatingthese
metatags,asisrequiredbythetest
setoutbytheSupremeCourtof
CanadainCCH,above[CCH
CanadianLtdvLawSocietyofUpper
Canada,2004SCC13],orforthe
originalityrequiredincompilingdata
orothercompilations,asdiscussedby
theFederalCourtofAppealinTele-
Direct[Tele-Direct(Publications)Incv
AmericanBusinessInformation,Inc,
[1998]2FCR22(CA)].Whilein
somecasestheremaybesufficient
originalityinmetatagstoattract
copyrightprotectionwhenviewed
asawhole,thesubstanceofthe
metatagsassertedbythePlaintiff
inthiscasedoesnotmeetthe
thresholdrequiredtoacquire
copyrightprotectioninCanada.[101]Enl’espèce,ilyapeudepreuve
d’undegrésuffisantdetalentetde
jugementdanslacréationdeces
métabalises,commel’exigelecritère
énoncéparlaCoursuprêmeduCanada
dansl’arrêt
CCH,précité[CCH
CanadienneLtéec.BarreauduHaut-
Canada,2004CSC13],oude
l’originalitérequisedanslecadredela
compilationdedonnéesoud’autres
compilations,commel’aexpliquéla
Courd’appelfédéraledansl’arrêtTélé-
Direct[Tele-Direct(Publications)Incc
AmericanBusinessInformation,Inc,
[1998]2RCF22(CA)].Mêmes’ilpeut
yavoir,danscertainscas,assez
d’originalitédansdesmétabalises
pourqu’ellesbénéficientdela
protectiondudroitd’auteur
lorsqu’onlesconsidèreglobalement,
lefonddesmétabalisesque
revendiquelademanderesseen
l’espècenesatisfaitpasauseuil
requispouracquérirlaprotection
queconfèreledroitd’auteurau
Canada.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
19
·Section2–Definitionof »everyoriginal…work »
Minoradditionstopre-existingformsdonotgiverisetoneworiginalworks.
Michalakopoulosv.Hachem,2015CarswellQue469(Que.C.A.2015-01-29)the
Court[affirming2012CarswellQue9582(QueSupCt;2012-09-10)]
[5]L’appelant,parailleurs,ditavoirpréparédescontratsde
franchisepourcertainsdesintimésetpourlesquelsilaété
rémunéré.Ilenréclametoutefoislapropriétéintellectuelleet
demandeundédommagementadditionnelparcequelesintimés
auraientparlasuite,àsoninsu,utilisésesmodèlespourd’autres
franchiséssanslerémunérer.
[6]Làencore,lejugen’apascommisd’erreurenconcluantqueles
contratspréparésparl’appelantnebénéficiaientpasdelaprotection
delaLoisurledroitd’auteur[Fn2L.R.C.(1985)c.C-42,art.5.].
Premièrement,l’appelantconcèdelui-mêmequelescontrats
ontétépréparésàpartirdemodèlesexistants.Deuxièmement,
lesseulsajoutsqu’ilaapportésàcesmodèlessontdes
modificationsàlanumérotationdesparagraphes,ladate,le
nomdespartiesdemêmequelesmontantsd’argentetles
pourcentagesderémunération.Detouteévidence,lescontrats
préparésparl‘appelantnesequalifientpasd’œuvre«originale»au
sensdel’article5delaLoisurledroitd’auteur.
·Section2–Definitionof »everyoriginal…work »
Severalstockelementscouldgiverisetoanoriginalwork.
Hains(CindyHainsPhotographe)v.Ermel(StudioZaf),2015CarswellQue3224
(Que.Ct.-SmallClaims;2015-02-02)ClicheJ.
[46]Bienqueleconceptdu«Bébé-Pirate»nesoitpasnouveau,
c’estlamiseenscèneetl’ensembledescomposantesdecelle-
ciquifutcopiéparladéfenderesse,sansautorisationdelapart
delademanderesse.
·Section2–Definitionof »everyoriginalwork… »
Rawdataisincapableofattractingtheprotectionofcopyrightsinceitdoesnot
qualifyasanoriginalwork.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
20
ResourceEyeServicesInc.v.AtrumCoalGroundhogInc.,2015CarswellBC1335
(B.C.S.C.;2015-05-15)HarveyJ.
[APPLICATIONbyplaintifftoaddtwodefendantstoaction,andtoamendclaimto
addunjustenrichment.]
[39]InresponsetoademandforparticularsservedbyAtrum
Groundhog,theplaintiffadvisedthattheclaimforbreachofcopyright
isassertedover »coordinatesofthedrillholesandCoreLogReports
andCoreSamplereports ».Theplaintiff’sprincipalacknowledges
suchinformationisroutinelyperformedwithinageologist’sscopeof
work.Hefurtheracknowledgesthatheneverpreparedareport
settingouthisanalysisandevaluationoftheproject,baseduponthe
samplesobtained;rather,heprovidedtherawdatatogetherwiththe
coordinatesofthedrillholes.
[40]Inmyview,rawdatasuchaswasprovidedbytheplaintiffto
WestHawkisincapableofattractingtheprotectionofcopyright.
[41]InGeophysicalServiceInc.v.Canada-NovaScotia
OffshorePetroleumBoard,2014FC450(F.C.),AnnisJ.
concluded,atpara.24, »Nocopyrightcansubsistin
geophysicaldataorseismicdata.Thecopyrightmustexistin
thecompilationsanalysisthereof. »
[42Absentanysuggestionofthematerialcomprisingoriginalworkor
areportsettingouttheanalysisandevaluationoftheproject,the
subjectmatteroftheallegedbreachofcopyrightdisplaysnoneofthe
originality,creativity,skilledlabororjudgmentthatarguablyattracts
theprotectionofcopyright.
[43]Assuch,Iconcludethattheclaimforbreachofcopyrightas
againstbothproposeddefendantsisunsustainableuponthefacts
allegedintheproposedAmendedNOCC.
·Section2–Definitionof »everyoriginal…work »
Evenifthemakerofthecompilationaddsfactualinformation,ormakesmechanical
changestotheunderlyingwork,suchaschangingthefontorcorrectinggrammatical
orspellingerrors,theseareinsufficienttowarrantcopyrightprotection.
StatementofRoyaltiestobeCollectedbyAccessCopyrightfortheReprographic
Reproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsRepertoire[ProvincialandTerritorial
Goverments–2005-2014],2015CarswellNat1792(subnomineReproductionof
LiteraryWorks,Re)(Cop.Bd.;2015-05-22)
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
21
[114][…]However,inorderfora
substantialpartofacompilationtobe
copied,apartofthecompilationthat
representsasubstantialportionofthe
author’sskillandjudgmentexpressed
thereinwouldhavetobecopied.
[Fn58CinarCorporationv.Robinson,
2013SCC73,[2013]3S.C.R.1168
atpara.26]Wheretheskilland
judgementexpressedbytheauthorin
thecompilationarenotcontainedin
theportioncopied,suchaswhere
onlyonework,orless,iscopiedfrom
suchacompilation,onlythe
underlyingworkiscopied,andnotthe
compilationinwhichthatworkis
contained.Furthermore,evenifthe
makerofthecompilationadds
factualinformation,ormakes
mechanicalchangestothe
underlyingwork,suchaschanging
thefontorcorrectinggrammatical
orspellingerrors,theseare
insufficienttowarrantcopyright
protection.[Fn59CCHCanadianLtd.
v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,
2004SCC13,[2004]1S.C.R.339at
para.35][114][…]Toutefois,pourqu’unepartie
importanted’unecompilationsoit
reproduite,unepartiedelacompilation
quireprésenteunepartimportantedu
talentetdujugementdel’auteur
exprimésdansl’oeuvredevraitêtre
reproduite[Fn58
CinarCorporationv.
Robinson,2013SCC73,[2013]3
S.C.R.1168atpara.26].Lorsquele
talentetlejugementexpriméspar
l’auteurdanslacompilationnefigurent
pasdanslapartiereproduite,comme
danslecasoùuneseuleoeuvre,ouune
partied’uneoeuvre,estreproduiteà
partird’unetellecompilation,seule
l’oeuvresous-jacenteestreproduite,et
nonlacompilationdanslaquellecette
oeuvrefigure.Enoutre,mêmesi
l’auteurdelacompilationajoutedes
donnéesfactuelles,ouapportedes
modificationsmécaniquesàl’oeuvre
sous-jacente,commelamodification
delapolicedecaractèreoula
correctiond’erreursgrammaticales
oudefautesd’orthographe,cela
n’estpassuffisantpourjustifierla
protectiondudroitd’auteur[Fn59
CCHCanadienneLtéec.Barreaudu
Haut-Canada,2004CSC13,[2004]1
R.C.S.339[CCH]aupara.35].
·Section2–Definitionof »everyoriginalwork… »
AnotherOPCAcase.Thereisnocopyrightinthenameofaperson.Copyrightflows
fromthestatuteasthereisnocommonlawcopyright.
Boisjoli(Re),2015CarswellAlta1889(Alta.Q.B.;2015-10-08)RookeJ.
[45]Boisjoli’sMay19,2015“NoticeofCopyright”claimsthatanyone
whouseshisnameinvariousdifferentformsandpermutationsowes
him$100,000peruse.Thisisinadditionto“tripledamages”and
costs.ThisNoticeisafoistedunilateralagreementinthatit
(allegedly)imposesthisregimeonanyonewhodarestouse
Boisjoli’sname.Noagreementisnecessary.Theunfortunate
recipientofthisdocumentis(purported)tohavewaivedalldefences.
[46]Canadiancourtshavesystematicallyrejectedthe
preposterousconceptthatapersoncandemandpaymentfor
useoftheirname,anddocuments,suchasthe“Noticeof
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
22
Copyright”,whichpurporttostructurehowthis“common-law
copyright”wouldwork:MeadsvMeadsatparas494-504;Bankof
MontrealvRogozinskyatparas80-87;Gravlinetal.vCanadian
ImperialBankofCommerceetal,2005BCSC839(CanLII)atpara
9,140ACWS(3d)447;DempseyvEnvisionCreditUnion,2006
BCSC1324(CanLII),60BCLR(4th)309;HajduvOntario(Director,
FamilyResponsibilityOffice),2012ONSC1835(CanLII)atparas23-
25;SquamishIndianBandvCapilanoMobilePark,2011BCSC470
(CanLII)atpara62,affirmed2012BCCA126(CanLII),318BCAC
239.
[47]Therearenumerousflawswiththisconcept.Forone,thereis
nosuchthingas“common-lawcopyright”.Copyrightandtrade-
marksarepropertyintereststhatflowfromlegislation:the
CopyrightAct,RSC1985,cC-42,andtheTrade-marksAct,RSC
1985,cT-13.IfanyonehadcopyrightinBoisjoli’snameitwouldbe
hisparents.TheNoticeofCopyrightisalsoinvalidforitsattemptto
extinguishtheinherentjurisdictionofthisCourtbyclaimingthatthe
Officerisdeemedtohavewaivedalldefences.Privateactorscan
neverexcludethescrutinyofCanadiancourtsintotheirbargains
(Canada(HumanRightsCommission)vCanadianLibertyNet,1998
CanLII818(SCC),[1998]1SCR626atpara32;Brotherhoodof
MaintenanceofWayEmployeesvCanadianPacificLtd.,1996
CanLII215(SCC),[1996]2SCR495atpara5,136DLR(4th)289),
includingconfidentialmediations(UnionCarbideCanadaInc.v
BombardierInc.,2014SCC35(CanLII),[2014]1SCR800).
[48]InMeadsvMeads,atpara504,IcharacterizedDennisLarry
Meads‘copyrightedname’schemeashaving“anoverwhelmingly
juvenilecharacter.”Thesameistruehere.
·Section2–Definitionof »everyoriginalwork… »
Aworkcanbeoriginalevenifitincorporatesworksthatarenotthoseoftheauthor.
Parév.TaxisCoopdelaMauricie1992,2015QCCQ11581(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;
2015-11-11)LabbéJ.
[29]Dansuneaffairedécidéeparunarbitreetprésentantquelques
ressemblancesavecleprésentdossier[Fn13Syndicatdeschargées
etchargésdecoursdel’UniversitéLaval(FNEEQ-CSN)et
UniversitéLaval(DanielDoucet),D.T.E.2012T-210,2012EXPT-645,
AZ-50833549.[Fn13Syndicatdeschargéesetchargésdecoursde
l’UniversitéLaval(FNEEQ-CSN)etUniversitéLaval(DanielDoucet),
D.T.E.2012T-210,2012EXPT-645,AZ-50833549],l’arbitreadécidé
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
23
qu’undocumentpédagogiquepréparéparunprofesseuràsesfrais
constituaituneœuvrequ’unautreprofesseurnepouvaitutilisersans
sonconsentement.
[30]Mêmesiledocumentpréparéparledemandeuretdeuxautres
personnescontientplusieurscopiesdetexteslégislatifs,iln’en
demeurepasmoinsqu’unpeuplusdelamoitiédudocument
constitueuneœuvreoriginaleausensdelaloietdela
jurisprudence.Eneffet,ledemandeuradûrédigerplusieurspages
concernantlesinformationsmentionnéesplushautauparagraphe6.
Ledemandeuraégalementprisdenombreusesphotographies
d’écrandelatabletteélectroniqueetdutaximètrequisontinstallés
danslesvéhiculestaxis.Ilenestdemêmeconcernantlemodede
paiementetlesystèmedescoupons.
[31]LapreuveamènedoncleTribunalàlaconclusionquele
documentpréparéparledemandeurpourdesfinsdeformation
constitueuneœuvreausensdelaLoisurledroitd’auteur.
·Section2–Definitionof »everyoriginalwork… »
WhethertheformatofaTVprogramcouldattractcopyrightprotectionisdoubted.
Sociétédedéveloppementdesentreprisesculturelles(SODEC)v.SociétéRadio-
Canada,2015CarswellQue11621(Que.C.A.;2015-12-02)[affirming2014
CarswellQue2051(Que.Sup.Ct.;2014-03-12)]
Fn2Ardisseprésentecommeletitulairedesdroitsd’auteursurce
format.Laquestiondesavoirsiuntelconceptpeutfairel’objetd’un
droitd’auteurn’estpasdiscutéedanslaprésenteaffaireetlaCour
neseprononcepasàcesujet,lesdroitsd’Ardis,surcepoint,
n’ayantpasétécontestés.
·Section2–Definitionof »everyoriginalwork… »
Whetheraworkiscapableofcopyrightprotectionisafindingoffactwhichshouldnot
bedisturbedbyaCourtofappeal.
RedLabelVacationsInc.(redtag.ca)v.411TravelBuysLimited(411travelbuys.ca),
2015CarswellNat7643(F.C.A.;2015-12-18)WebbJ.[affirming131C.P.R.(4th)6
(F.C.;2015-01-07)]
[28]RedLabeldoesnotdisputethatcopyrightprotectionwill
onlybeavailableifskillandjudgmentwererequiredtoproduce
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
24
thework.However,RedLabeldisputesthefollowingfindingmade
bytheFederalCourtJudge:101Inthiscasethereislittleevidenceofanysufficientdegree
ofskillandjudgementincreatingthesemetatags,asisrequired
bythetestsetoutbytheSupremeCourtofCanadainCCH,
above[CCHCanadianLtdvLawSocietyofUpperCanada,
2004SCC13(S.C.C.;2004-03-04)McLachlinatpara16],or
fortheoriginalityrequiredincompilingdataorother
compilations,asdiscussedbytheFederalCourtofAppeal
inTele-Direct[Tele-Direct(Publications)IncvAmerican
BusinessInformation,1997CanLII6378(F.C.A.;1997-10-27)].
Whileinsomecasestheremaybesufficientoriginalityin
metatagstoattractcopyrightprotectionwhenviewedasa
whole,thesubstanceofthemetatagsassertedbythePlaintiff
inthiscasedoesnotmeetthethresholdrequiredto
acquirecopyrightprotectioninCanada.
[29]ThisisafindingoffactandRedLabelhasnotestablished
thattheFederalCourtJudgemadeanypalpableandoverriding
errorinmakingthisfinding.SincethisissufficienttodismissRed
Label’sappealinrelationtocopyrightinfringement,itisnot
necessarytoaddresstheotherreasonsgivenbytheFederalCourt
JudgefordismissingRedLabel’sclaimforcopyrightinfringement.
·Section2–Definitionof »everyoriginal…work »
Whatconstitutesa »work »shouldbeconstruedliberally.
Seggiev.RoofdogGamesInc.,2015QCCS6462(Que.Sup.Ct.;2016-12-18)Roy
J.
[57]Àjustetitre,lespartiessonttoutesdeuxd’avisquelejeuvidéo
estprotégéparledroitd’auteuretqu’ilfautinterpréterdemanière
libéralelesdéfinitionsde«compilation»,d’«œuvrelittéraire»,
«œuvrecinématographique»et«œuvremusicale»édictéesà
l’article2delaLoisurledroitd’auteur[Fn36Nintendoof
AmericaInc.v.CamericaCorp.,[1991]F.C.J.No.58(C.F.)(confirmé
enappel,(1991)127N.R.232(CAF));NintendoofAmericaInc.v.
CoinexVideoGamesInc.,[1983]2F.C.189;B.SOOKMAN,
Sookman:Computer,InternetandElectronicCommerceLaw,
Toronto,Carswell,feuillesmobiles(2012),p.18-21;L.-P.
GRAVELLEetJ.-F.JOURNEAULT,«Protectiondesjeuxvideo:la
propriétéintellectuelleenmodemultijoueur»,dansDéveloppements
récentsendroitdelapropriétéintellectuelle,Cowansville,Éd.Yvon
Blais,2012,p.156-157;H.G.RICHARDetL.CARRIÈRE,Canadian
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
25
CopyrightActAnnotated,volume1,Toronto,Carswell,éd.feuilles
mobiles,p.2-127à2-129.]
·Section2–Definitionof »infringing »
Infringementistheappropriationoftheexpressionofideas.
Hains(CindyHainsPhotographe)v.Ermel(StudioZaf),2015CarswellQue3224
(Que.Ct.-SmallClaims;2015-02-02)ClicheJ.
[44]Or,leconceptphotographiqueetlaphotopriseparla
défenderesseainsiquesapublicationsurlapageFacebookdeson
entreprise,constituentunereproductionetunepublicationquasi
identique,ouàtoutlemoinsimportante,del’œuvreartistiquedela
demanderesse.
[45]Ladéfenderesses’estdoncapproprié,sansautorisation,
l’expressiondesidéesdelademanderesseapparaissantdans
sonœuvreoriginale.
·Section2–Definitionof »infringing »
Toomanysimilaritiesbetweenthecopyandtheoriginalcouldleadtoaconclusionof
infringement.
Format-Constructioninc.v.Pérusse,2015CarswellQue3636(Que.Sup.Ct.–
InterimInj.;2015-04-17)PinsonneaultJ.
[7]IlesttoutàfaitincroyablequemonsieurFrédérickPérusse[one
ofthedefendants]puisseaffirmersoussermentavoirélaboréces
textesàpartirde2009avecsonpèreetquecelasoitplutôtla
demanderessequis’ensoitinspirépourl’élaborationdesespropres
textes.
[8]Or,unexamenattentifeffectuéparlesoussignédestextes
élaborésparM.Nadeau[ofthePlaintiff]en2006eten2007prouve
absolumentlecontraire.Encoreunefois,lasimilitudedesmots
utilisésen2007,encomparantlaversionde2007aveccelledes
défendeursesttellequ’ilestraisonnablementimpossiblede
croireàunepurecoïncidence.
·Section2–Definitionof »infringing »
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
26
Forasubstantialpartofacompilationtobecopied,apartofthecompilationthat
representsasubstantialportionoftheauthor’sskillandjudgmentexpressedtherein
wouldhavetobecopied.
StatementofRoyaltiestobeCollectedbyAccessCopyrightfortheReprographic
Reproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsRepertoire[ProvincialandTerritorial
Goverments–2005-2014],2015CarswellNat1792(subnomineReproductionof
LiteraryWorks,Re)(Cop.Bd.;2015-05-22)
[114][…]However,inorderfora
substantialpartofacompilationto
becopied,apartofthecompilation
thatrepresentsasubstantial
portionoftheauthor’sskilland
judgmentexpressedthereinwould
havetobecopied.[Fn58Cinar
Corporationv.Robinson,2013SCC
73,[2013]3S.C.R.1168atpara.26]
Wheretheskillandjudgement
expressedbytheauthorinthe
compilationarenotcontainedinthe
portioncopied,suchaswhereonly
onework,orless,iscopiedfromsuch
acompilation,onlytheunderlying
workiscopied,andnotthe
compilationinwhichthatworkis
contained.Furthermore,evenifthe
makerofthecompilationaddsfactual
information,ormakesmechanical
changestotheunderlyingwork,such
aschangingthefontorcorrecting
grammaticalorspellingerrors,these
areinsufficienttowarrantcopyright
protection.[Fn59CCHCanadianLtd.
v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,
2004SCC13,[2004]1S.C.R.339at
para.35][114][…]
Toutefois,pourqu’une
partieimportanted’une
compilationsoitreproduite,une
partiedelacompilationqui
représenteunepartimportantedu
talentetdujugementdel’auteur
exprimésdansl’oeuvredevrait
êtrereproduite
[Fn58Cinar
Corporationc.Robinson,2013CSC73,
[2013]3R.C.S.1168aupara.26]
.
Lorsqueletalentetlejugement
exprimésparl’auteurdansla
compilationnefigurentpasdansla
partiereproduite,commedansle
casoùuneseuleoeuvre,ouune
partied’uneoeuvre,estreproduiteà
partird’unetellecompilation,seule
l’oeuvresous-jacenteestreproduite,
etnonlacompilationdanslaquelle
cetteoeuvrefigure.Enoutre,même
sil’auteurdelacompilationajoute
desdonnéesfactuelles,ouapporte
desmodificationsmécaniquesà
l’oeuvresous-jacente,commela
modificationdelapolicede
caractèreoulacorrectiond’erreurs
grammaticalesoudefautes
d’orthographe,celan’estpas
suffisantpourjustifierlaprotection
dudroitd’auteur
[Fn59CCH
CanadienneLtéec.BarreauduHaut-
Canada,2004CSC13,[2004]1
R.C.S.339aupara,35]
.
·Section2–Definitionof »infringing »
Plagiarismandcopyrightinfringementarenotthesame.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
27
UniversitéduQuébecàMontréalv.Gagnon,2015CarswellQue5050(Que.Sup.
Ct.;2015-06-02)DavisJ.[refusingjudialreviewof2014CanLII16661(Que.S.A.T.;
2014-04-10;subnomineSyndicatdeschargéesetchargésdecoursdel’UQAMv.
UniversitéduQuébecàMontréal);leavetoappealtotheQuebecCourtofappeal
refused[2015]J.Q.7007(Que.C.A.2015-07-28)]
[42]Leplagiatn’estpasnécessairementliéaudéfautde
respecterlalégislationetlesrèglesrelativesaudroitd’auteur.Il
n’étaitpasdéraisonnablepourl’arbitreGagnonderegarderleplagiat
sousl’optiquedusensbienconnuduverbeplagier:«Copier(un
auteur)ens’attribuantindûmentdespassagesdesonœuvre.»
[Fn14LePetitRobert2013].
[44]Mêmes’ilsepeutqueM.Robillardn’apasreproduitdesparties
importantesdesdeuxœuvres,lapreuverapportéeparl’arbitre
permetnéanmoinssaconclusiondeplagiat,vulessimilitudes
repéréesparl’Universitédurantsonenquêtedontl’existencen’apas
étécontreditparpersonne.Lasentencedel’arbitreàcetégardn’est
pasdéraisonnable.
·Section2–Definitionof »infringing »
Infringementincludesareproductionoracolourableimitation.
GeophysicalServiceIncv.AntrimEnergyInc,2015CarswellAlta1439(AltaQ.B.;
2015-07-31)Hanebury,Master
[Onapplicationforsummarydismissaloftheclaim:denied.]
[48]Inessence,theActprovidesthattheownerofaworkistheonly
personwhohastherighttoreproducetheworkorasubstantialpart
ofthework.Ifsomeoneelsereproducesit,includinga
colourableimitation,hehasinfringedcopyrightunlesshehad
theowner’spermission.
·Section2–Definitionof »infringing »
Thefactthatthecopiedprotectedworkisuselessisnotadefencetoinfringement.
GeophysicalServiceIncv.AntrimEnergyInc,2015CarswellAlta1439(AltaQ.B.;
2015-07-31)Hanebury,Master
[Onapplicationforsummarydismissaloftheclaim:denied.]
[50]AstheActmakesclear,itisonlytheownerwhohastheright
tomakeacopyoftheoriginalwork.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
28
[51]InthiscaseAntrimhasadmittedthatitdirectedthatacopybe
madeoftheGSIdata.Thefactthatitreceivedacopythatwas
blurryanditdeterminedwasuselessforitsintendedpurposes
isnotthedeterminativefactor.Itcopiedthedata.Asaresult,I
havecometotheconclusionthatitsdefencethatthecopywasnot
usefuldoesnothavesuchalikelihoodofsuccessthatGSI’sclaim
againstitshouldbedismissed.
·Section2–Definitionof »infringing »
Themerepossessionoftheoriginalworkisnotsufficeinttocreateapresumptionof
infringement.It’suptotheplaintifftoproveinfringement.
GestionSharkHockey,divisiondeGroupeSharkMediainc.v.Groupeconseil
Esgestioninc.,2015QCCQ11557(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-10-09)ThérouxJ.
[10]Iln’yadoncaucunepreuveprobantedémontrantqu’un
logicielquelconque,copiéouinspirédulogicieldeShark,aété
misenmarchénimêmetentéd’êtrecommercialisépar
eGestion.
[11]ToutcequeSharkestenmesurededémontrerpour
supportersesprétentions[Fn1Article2803duCodecivildu
Québec(C.c.Q.).]estlefaitqueDavidTherriaultaeuensa
possessionunecopiedesonlogicieldurantunepériode
indéterminée.
[12]Pourlereste,ellesupposequesonlogicielaétéutilisépar
eGestionàdesfinscommerciales,maiscommel’admetM.Beaulieu,
cettesuppositionnereposesuraucunfaitprécis.
[13]DavidTherriaultadmetavoirgardéensapossessionunecopie
dulogicieldeSharkaprèsavoirrompusesliensavecl’entreprise.Il
s’agissait,selonlui,d’unecopiedesecours.
[14]Ilniecependantl’avoirutiliséeàdesfinsdecommercialisation
aprèsl’avoirtransformée.
·Section2–Definitionof »infringing »
Plagiarismdoesnotconstitutefraudbyitself,whichrequiresdeprivationandamens
reaofdishonesty.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
29
Egbersv.Canada(AttorneyGeneral)*,2015CarswellNat7137subnomineLigondé
v.(AttorneyGeneral)(F.C.;2015-12-04)CampJ.
[ApplicationsbytwoworkersforjudicialreviewofdecisionbythePublicService
CommissionofCanadafindingtheirplagiarismconstitutefraudinaninternal
appointmentprocess.]
[16]Althoughtheexaminstructionslackedclarityandfailedto
specifywhethercandidatescouldusetheInternettoconsultor
referencepublicallyavailableinformation,theCommissionfoundthat
thiswasnottheconcern.Rather,accordingtotheCommission,the
concernwaswhethertheapplicantscommittedplagiarism.The
Commissionfoundthatareasonableperson,particularlyonewho
wasuniversity-educated,wouldbeawareofplagiarism,knowthat
plagiarismwasnotpermitted,andknowthatcopyingandpasting
informationwithoutproperattributionwouldpreventtheassessor
fromevaluatingthecandidate’sabilitytocommunicateeffectivelyin
writing.
[42][…]plagiarismwillnotalwaysamounttofraud.Tomeetthe
definitionoffraud,theactofplagiarismmustbedeceitful,or
onewhichareasonablepersonwouldotherwiseviewas
dishonest;andtheplagiarismmust,infact,resultinactualor
potentialdeprivationtothepropertyofanother.Furthermore,
theremustbeasubjectivemensreatodefraud.Theindividual
mustbeawarethatthedishonestactofplagiarismcould,asa
consequence,depriveothersofwhatistheirs.
[47]Theconcernisnotwhetherplagiarismwascommitted,but
whetherfraudwas.Inassessingwhethertheplagiarism
amountedtofraud,allofthesurroundingcircumstancesshould
havebeenconsidered.OncetheCommissionisolatedandthen
ignoredthefactthattheinstructionswerenotclearandthat
confusionresulted,considerationoftheactionsoftheapplicants
becameunreasonable.Thisisnottosaythattheshortcomingsofthe
examinationprocedurearethesubjectoftheseproceedings;but
thoseshortcomingsareimportantwhengaugingtheconductofthe
applicants.
[54]ThosewhodidlookattheInternetthenbehavedinvarious
ways,acrossaspectrum.Some,itseems,usedtheInternetasan
aidememoireorafactchecker.PerhapssomeusedtheInternet
moresubstantiallyandbasedtheiranswersdirectlyonwhatthey
sawthere,butchangedthewordingsufficientlyfortheauthoritiesnot
toviewitascopyingorplagiarism.(Anotherwayoflookingatthis
conductwouldbetosaythatittrulywasindicativeofaguiltyframe
ofmind.)Yetthesepeoplewerenotcalledtotaskandpresumably
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
30
madeitthroughtothenextroundinahigherproportionthanthose
whodidnotaccesstheInternetorexternalsourcematerialduring
theexam.ThentherewerethosethatusedtheInternet,copiedand
pasted,butmadeattribution.Lastlythereweresomesixcandidates
whousedtheInternet,butdidnotmasktheirtrackssufficiently,and
didnotmakeattribution.Thetwoapplicantsareamongstthelast
group.
[57]Forpracticalpurposes,whetheraparticularactof
plagiarismamountstofraudisoftenaquestionofdegreerather
thankind.Ontheoneendofthespectrum,acarelesssingle
omissionofasourcewillrarelyrisetothelevelofdishonest
deprivation.Ontheotherendofthespectrum,accessingthe
correctionguidetoanexamandcopyingthematerialwordforword
isnotonlyplagiarism,butconductwhichevincesaclearintentto
defraud:Challal.Astherespondentpointsout,replicatinganentire
textwithoutindicatingitssourcecouldalsosufficeincertain
contexts:NicolasvCanada(AttorneyGeneral),2010FC1045
[Nicolas],althoughInotethatNicolasconcernedafindingof
plagiarism,notfraud.Again,thetwoconceptsshouldnotbe
conflated.WhileIagreewiththerespondentthatreferencetomore
egregiousexamplesinthecaselawdoesnotnecessarilyleadtothe
conclusionthatlessseriousconductshouldfalloutsidethemeaning
offraud,thecaselaw,inmyview,doesillustrateapoint:asubjective
mensrea,suchasanintenttodeceive,mustbeestablishedinthe
evidence.
[58]Inmyview,asthefactsofthepresentcasefallonneitherendof
thespectrum,theCommissionwasrequiredtocarefullyconsider
whetherthefacts–allthefacts–establishedthattheapplicants’
possessedtherequisitesubjectivemensreatodefraud.Plagiarism
thatistheproductofmerecarelessnessornegligenceor
confusiononthepartoftheapplicantsisinsufficient.
·Section2–Definitionof »literarywork »
Translationofanoriginalliteraryworkisalsoaliterarywork.
Desgagnév.GroupeVille-MarieLittératureinc.,2015CarswellQue11218(Que.Sup.
Ct.;2015-11-17)HamiltonJ.
[51]Latraductiond’uneœuvrelittéraireconstitueelle-même
uneœuvrelittéraire[Fn55Voirladéfinitionde«touteœuvre
littéraire,dramatique,musicaleouartistiqueoriginale»àl’article2
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
31
delaLoisurledroitd’auteur.]Commeauteurdecetteœuvre
littéraire,Desgagnéestlepremiertitulairedudroitd’auteuretdes
droitsmorauxsursatraduction.
·Section2–definitionof »maker »
Failingproperinstructionsfromthedirector/makeraproducermayterminateits
contractforthemakingofafilm.
9223-9755Québecinc.(MedusaFilm)v.BlackBoxProductionsLtd.,2015QCCQ
9165(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-10-02)TremblayJ.
[25]TheCourtagreeswithMr.Kouyoumjian.BlackBoxcannotbe
blamedforhisinexperience.Mr.Kouyoumjianmadeaconscious
decisionnottoprepareashotlist.Itwashisprerogative.Hecannot
blameBlackBoxfornotpreventinghimtofilmbecausehedidnot
haveoneorbecausehisscriptand/orcreativevisionkeptchanging
asfilmingwasoccurring.
[29]Theevidencerevealsastrongandsignificantcontractualdefault
onthepartofthePlaintiffsthatjustifiedBlackBoxtoterminatethe
Contractforcause,asperclause16,onJuly16,2010[Fn27Articles
1590and1604C.c.Q.].Asaresultoftheirownadmissions[Fn28
ExhibitsD-8andP-18]thePlaintiffswerethenindefaultbythesole
operationofthelaw[Fn29Article1597C.c.Q.].
·Section2–Definitionof »photograph »
Aphotographfallswithinthedefinitionofanartisticwork.
Hains(CindyHainsPhotographe)v.Ermel(StudioZaf),2015CarswellQue3224
(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-02-02)ClicheJ.
[42]Dansleprésentcas,laphotographie«Bébé-Pirate»crééeet
priseparlademanderesse,ainsiquesonlogo«Ourson-Pirate»,
apparaissantsurlavoiledelapetitebarqueetsurlecache-œilporté
parl’enfant,constituentdesœuvresartistiquesprotégéesen
vertudelaLoisurledroitd’auteur.
·Section2–Definitionof »photograph »
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
32
Photographsareartisticworks.
Bessettev.Lemieux,2015CarswellQue7830(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-03-23)
ClicheJ.
[38]Dansleprésentcas,lesphotographiesprisesdela
défenderesse,parmadameHainsetparleconjointdela
demanderesse,constituentdesœuvresartistiquesprotégéesen
vertudelaLoisurledroitd’auteur.
·Section2–Definitionof »photograph »
Aphotographisanartisticwork.
Gagnév.Faguy,2015QCCQ11832(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-11-25)BrunelleJ.
[23]Parailleurs,l’article2delaLoisurledroitd’auteur[Fn6LRC
1985,c.C-42](LDA)prévoitclairementqu’unephotographie
peutconstituerune«œuvreartistique»[Fn7Dauphinaisc.Club
autosportdéfiInc.,2004CanLII15307(QCCQ),par.12(j.Massol);
JacMatinc.c.Gazmétropolitain,2006QCCQ14757(CanLII),par.
6(j.Pinsonnault)][…]
·Section2–Definitionof »treatycountry »
Evidenceofapartytohavenationalstandingtoenforceaclaimforcopyright
infringementcouldbegatheredbydiversesources,includingWIPOelectronic
recordsofthemembersoftheBerneConvention.
AgrosTradingConfectionerySP.Z.O.O.v.K-MaxCorp.,2015CarswellOnt7483
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-06-19)MorganJ.
[45]Section2oftheCopyrightActspecifiesthatthetreaty
referencedinsection5(1)(a)istheBerneConventionforthe
ProtectionofLiteraryandArtisticWorks,828UNTS221,
September9,1886,asrevised.TheSupremeCourtofCanadahas
observedonseveraloccasionsthattheCopyrightActwas
originallyenactedtoimplementforCanadathetermsofthe
BerneConvention:seeBishopvStevens,1990CanLII75(SCC),
[1990]2SCR467,at473-74;EntertainmentSoftwareAssociationv
SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanada,
2012SCC34(CanLII),[2012]2SCR231,atpara13.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
33
·Section2–Definitionof »workofjointownership »
Whetheraworkisaworkofjointownershipisamixedmatteroffactandlaw.The
contributionoftheco-authordoesnothavetobeequalprovideditrelatestoa
contributiontoasubstantivepart;itshouldbecollaborative.Providingideasand
discussingisnotenoughforauthorship.
Seggiev.RoofdogGamesInc.,2015QCCS6462(Que.Sup.Ct.;2016-12-18)Roy
J.[59]Lajurisprudenceélaborecertainsprincipespourdécidersiune
œuvreestcrééeencollaboration[Fn37H.G.RICHARDetL.
CARRIÈRE,CanadianCopyrightActAnnotated,id.,p.2-655à2-
658;Neugebauerc.Labieniec,2009CF666(CanLII)(appelrejeté,
2010CAF229(CanLII));Drapeauc.Girard,2003CanLII5575(QC
CA),[2003]R.J.Q.2539(C.A.)(requêtepourautorisationdepourvoi
àlaC.S.Canrejetée);Pintoc.CentreBronfmandel’éducationjuive,
2013CF945(CanLII);AtlanticCanadaRegionalCouncilof
Carpenters,Millwrights,andAlliedWorkersv.Maritime
EnvironmentalTrainingInstituteLtd.,2014NSSC64(CanLII).]
·uneœuvreconjointeestainsiqualifiéeàlalumièredela
loietdesfaits;
·l’apportdescoauteursn’apasbesoind’êtreéquivalent,
maisl’apportdechacundoitêtresubstantiel;
·unecertainecollaborationdoits’établirentreles
coauteursdanslapoursuited’undesseincommun;
·ilfautprouverplusquedesidéesetdessuggestions;
unecertainejurisprudenceconsidèreégalement
pertinentel’intentioncommunedespartiesdecréerou
nonuneœuvreencollaboration.
[60]LapreuvedémontrequeERTn’estpasuneœuvrecrééeen
collaboration.
[61]Ilyapeut-êtreeudesdiscussions,propositionsou
échangesentreamis,maisc’estM.Germainquiaréalisé,
matérialisél’idée[Fn38Ledroitd’auteurprotègel’expressiondes
idéesdanslesœuvres,etnonlesidéescommetelles,CCH
Canadienneltéec.BarreauduHaut-Canada,2004CSC13(CanLII),
par.8];ilaprogrammélepremierprototypedujeuettoutesles
modificationsultérieures
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
34
·Section3–Copyrightinworks
Thesubstantialpartofaworkisthatwhichrepresentsasubstantialportionofthe
author’sskillandjudgment.Infringementshouldbelookedfromaqualitative,not
quantitativeperspective.Forafindingofinfringementtooccur,thereshouldbe
substantialsimilaritybetweentheoriginalworkandtheallegedlyinfringingworkthat
isobservablewhentheyareviewedasawhole.
RedLabelVacationsInc.(redtag.ca)v.411TravelBuysLimited(411travelbuys.ca),
131C.P.R.(4th)6(F.C.;2015-01-07)MansonJ.[affd.2015CarswellNat7643
(F.C.A.;2015-12-18)]
[92]Aswell,thereisnodisputethat
whetherthereisinfringementornotis
determinedundersection3(1)and
27(1)oftheCopyrightAct,suchthatit
isaninfringementofcopyrightfor
anyonetoreproduce“theworkorany
substantialpartthereof”.The
questionofwhetherasubstantial
partofaworkhasbeenreproduced
isdeterminedbyitsqualityandnot
itsquantity.Thesubstantialpartof
aworkisthatwhichrepresentsa
substantialportionoftheauthor’s
skillandjudgment(Cinar
CorporationvRobinson,2013SCC
73(CanLII)atparas25-27).
[92]Deplus,nulnecontestequela
questiondesavoirs’ilyaviolationou
nonestdéterminéeparl’applicationdes
paragraphes3(1)et27(10)delaLoisur
ledroitd’auteur,desortequetoute
personnequireproduit«latotalitéou
unepartieimportantedel’œuvre»
commetuneviolationdudroitd’auteur.
Laquestiondesavoirsiunepartie
importanted’uneœuvreaété
reproduiteestdéterminéeparsa
qualité,etnonparsaquantité.La
partieimportanted’uneœuvreest
cellequireprésenteunepart
importantedutalentetdujugement
del’auteur(CinarCorporation
cRobinson,2013CSC73(CanLII),aux
paragraphes25à27).
[102]Ialsofindthatevenifcopyright
couldsubsistinthePlaintiff’s
metatags,therehasnotbeen
substantialcopying,whenonehas
regardtothePlaintiff’swebsiteasa
whole.TheDefendantsonlycopied
metatagson48pagesof
approximately180,000pagesonthe
Plaintiff’swebsite.WhiletheCourt
shouldlookatinfringementfroma
qualitative,notquantitative
perspective,whatisrequiredis
substantialsimilaritybetweenthe
originalworkandallegedly
infringingworkthatisobservable
whentheyareviewedasawhole.I
donotfindthatasubstantialpartof
thereproductioncontainsasubstantial
partoftheskillandjudgmentonthe
partofthePlaintiff’sauthororauthors
–thisisparticularlytruewhenone
considerstheuseofthemetatagsis[102]Jeconclusaussiquemêmesiles
métabalisesdelademanderesse
peuventfairel’objetd’undroitd’auteur,
iln’yapaseudereproduction
importante,sil’onexaminelesiteWeb
delademanderessedansson
ensemble.Lesdéfendeursn’ont
reproduitdesmétabalisesqu’àpartirde
seulement48desquelque
180000pagesquecomptelesiteWeb
delademanderesse.
BienquelaCour
doiveexaminerlaviolationsousun
anglequalitatif,etnonquantitatif,ce
quiestexigéestunesimilitude
marquéeentrel’œuvreoriginaleet
l’œuvrecensémentcontrefaiteque
l’onpeutobserverlorsqu’onexamine
lesœuvresdansleurensemble.Je
conclusqu’unepartieimportantedela
reproductionnecontientpasunélément
importantdutalentetdujugementdu
oudesauteursdelademanderesse–
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
35
primarilyfunctionalinnature:their
purposeistoaffectthebehaviourof
searchengines,notwithstandingsome
discretionexistsinthechoiceofwords
todescribethetraveloptionsinthe
metatags.etcelaestparticulièrementvrai
lorsqu’onconsidèrequel’emploides
métabalisesestprincipalement
fonctionnel:ellessontpourobjet
d’influencerlecomportementde
moteursderecherche,mêmes’ilexiste
unecertainelatitudequantauchoixdes
motsquel’onpeutemployerpour
décrirelesoptionsdevoyagedansles
métabalises.
·Section3–Copyrightinworks
Theexclusiverightsreferredtoinsection3oftheCopyrightActarevestedonlyin
thecopyrightowner.
Hains(CindyHainsPhotographe)v.Ermel(StudioZaf),2015CarswellQue3224
(Que.Ct.-SmallClaims;2015-02-02)ClicheJ.
[43]Seulelademanderessedétenait,envertudel’article3de
cetteloi,ledroitexclusifdereproduire,publieroucommuniquerau
publicsonœuvreouunepartieimportantedecelle-ci,ycompris
d’autorisercesactes.
·Section3–Copyrightinworks
Thetransmissionofringtonedownloadsrepresentsreproductionsofmusicalworks
andnotpubliccommunicationsofthem.
RogersCommunicationsPartnershipv.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusic
PublishersofCanada,129C.P.R.(4th)395(F.C.;2015-03-06)O’ReillyJ.
[42]Therefore,themajorityinESA
[EntertainmentSoftwareAssociationv
SocietyofComposers,Authorsand
MusicPublishersofCanada,[2012]2
SCR231]concludedthattheInternet
deliveryofacopyofavideogame
containingamusicalworkdidnot
amounttoacommunicationofthat
work.Itfollowsthatthetransmission
ofaringtonedownloadcontaininga
musicalworkdoesnotconstitutea
communicationofthatwork.
[42]Dansl’arrêtESA[Entertainment
SoftwareAssociationvSocietyof
Composers,AuthorsandMusic
PublishersofCanada,[2012]2SCR
231],lesjugesmajoritairesontdonc
concluquelalivraisonparInternetd’une
copied’unjeuvidéocontenantune
œuvremusicaleneconstituepasune
communicationdecetteœuvre.C’est
direquelatransmissionpar
téléchargementd’unesonnerie
contenantuneœuvremusicalene
constituepasunecommunicationde
l’œuvre.
[44]IagreewithSOCANthatthere
aredifferencesbetweendownloadsof[44]JeconviensaveclaSOCANqu’il
existedesdifférencesentrele
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
36
ringtonesanddownloadsofother
formsofmusicalworks.However,I
failtoseehowthesedifferencesmake
ringtonesakintoperformancesof
musicalworks,whichwouldengage
thecommunicationrightunderthe
Act.Inmyview,thetransmissionof
ringtonedownloads,likethe
transmissionofdownloadsof
digitalmusicalfilesconsideredin
Rogers[RogersCommunicationsInc
vSocietyofComposers,Authorsand
MusicPublishersofCanada,[2012]2
SCR283]andESA,represent
reproductionsofmusicalworks,
notpubliccommunicationsof
them.téléchargementd’unesonnerieetle
téléchargementd’autresformes
d’œuvresmusicales.Jeneparviens
cependantpasàvoircommentces
différencespermettraientd’assimilerles
sonneriesàl’exécutiond’uneœuvre
musicaledemanièreàmettreenjeule
droitdecommunicationinscritdansla
Loi.
J’estimequelatransmissionpar
téléchargementdesonneries,tout
commelatransmissionpar
téléchargementdefichiers
numériquescomportantuneœuvre
musicaledontilétaitquestiondansles
affairesRogers[Rogers
CommunicationsIncvSocietyof
Composers,AuthorsandMusic
PublishersofCanada,[2012]2SCR
283]etESA,constitueunereproduction
d’uneœuvremusicale,etnonsa
communicationaupublic.
·Section3–Copyrightinworks
Copyringistobeevaluatedwithrespecttotheoriginalpart,irrrespectiveasto
whetherthecopyreplacestheoriginal.
StatementofRoyaltiestobeCollectedbyAccessCopyrightfortheReprographic
Reproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsRepertoire[ProvincialandTerritorial
Goverments–2005-2014],2015CarswellNat1792(subnomineReproductionof
LiteraryWorks,Re)(Cop.Bd.;2015-05-22)
[200]Wedisagree.Asstatedabove,
thedeterminationofsubstantiality
isbasedontheevaluationofskill
andjudgmentexpressedinthe
copiedportion.Considerations
suchaswhetheracopyreplaces
theoriginalmayberelevantinthe
considerationofthe“fairness”ofa
dealing,butdoesnotgotowards
establishthesubstantialityof
copying.[200]Nousnesommespasd’accord.
Commeilaétémentionnéci-dessus,
la
déterminationdel’importanceest
fondéesurl’appréciationdutalentet
dujugementexprimésdanslapartie
copiée.Lesfacteurs,commela
questiondesavoirsiunecopie
remplacel’original,peuventêtre
pertinentsdansl’examendu
«caractèreéquitable»d’une
utilisation,maisnepeuventêtre
utiliséspourétablirl’importancedela
reproduction.
·Section3–Copyrightinworks
Theownerofthecopyrightinaworkhasexclusiverightstherein.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
37
AgrosTradingConfectionerySP.Z.O.O.v.K-MaxCorp.,2015CarswellOnt7483
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-06-19)MorganJ.
[51]Further,section3(1)providesthattheauthorasownerofthe
copyrightedworkhasexclusiverightstherein:“Forthepurposesof
thisAct,‘copyright’,inrelationtoawork,meansthesolerightto
produceorreproducetheworkoranysubstantialpartthereofinany
materialformwhatever…”ThePlaintiff’sexclusivityisnot
trumpedbytheDefendant’ssubsequentregistrationunderthe
CopyrightAct.ThePlaintiffretainsitsexclusiverightstothebox
design.
·Section3–Copyrightinworks
Theownerofaworkistheonlypersonwhohastherighttoreproducetheworkora
substantialpartthereof.
GeophysicalServiceIncv.AntrimEnergyInc,2015CarswellAlta1439(AltaQ.B.;
2015-07-31)Hanebury,Master
[Onapplicationforsummarydismissaloftheclaim:denied.]
[48]Inessence,theActprovidesthattheownerofaworkisthe
onlypersonwhohastherighttoreproducetheworkora
substantialpartofthework.Ifsomeoneelsereproducesit,
includingacolourableimitation,hehasinfringedcopyrightunlesshe
hadtheowner’spermission.
·Section3–Copyrightinworks
Itisonlytheownerwhohastherighttomakeacopyoftheoriginalwork
GeophysicalServiceIncv.AntrimEnergyInc,2015CarswellAlta1439(AltaQ.B.;
2015-07-31)Hanebury,Master
[Onapplicationforsummarydismissaloftheclaim:denied.]
[50]AstheActmakesclear,itisonlytheownerwhohastheright
tomakeacopyoftheoriginalwork.
[51]InthiscaseAntrimhasadmittedthatitdirectedthatacopybe
madeoftheGSIdata.Thefactthatitreceivedacopythatwas
blurryanditdeterminedwasuselessforitsintendedpurposes
isnotthedeterminativefactor.Itcopiedthedata.Asaresult,I
havecometotheconclusionthatitsdefencethatthecopywasnot
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
38
usefuldoesnothavesuchalikelihoodofsuccessthatGSI’sclaim
againstitshouldbedismissed.
·Section3–Copyrightinworks
Themeredistributionofaninfringingworkdoesnotgiverisetoprimarycopyright
infringement.
Migunav.WalmartCanada,2015CarswellOnt14328(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-09-18)
MewJ[Applicationbydefendantsforsummaryjudgement:granted.]
[31]Consortium’soneofthedefendants]positionontheallegationof
primaryinfringementisthatthereisnoevidencethatConsortium
published,producedorreproduced“PeelingBackTheMask”.
Consortiumpointstothefactthatithadadistributionagreementwith
GilgameshPublishingLtd.Itsonlyrolewithrespecttothebookwas
asadistributor.Consortiumarguesthat,infact,itneversupplieda
singlecopyof“PeelingBackTheMask”toanyone.
[54]Ifindthatthereisnoevidenceofprimarycopyrightinfringement
bythedefendantsinrelationto“PeelingBackTheMask”.Bald
allegationsthatevidenceofprimaryinfringementhasbeen
contortedorsuppressedarenotenoughtodischargethe
plaintiff’sburdenofestablishingsuchinfringementona
balanceofprobabilities.
·Section3–Copyrightinworks
Useofatranslationissubordinatetotheauthorizarionofthecopyrightownerinthe
translatedwork.
Desgagnév.GroupeVille-MarieLittératureinc.,2015CarswellQue11218(Que.
Sup.Ct.;2015-11-17)HamiltonJ.
[52]Toutefois,latraductionestuneœuvredérivéedel’œuvre
originaleetlesdroitsdutraducteursontsubordonnésàceux
dudétenteurdudroitd’auteurdel’œuvreoriginale[Fn56Sunny
HANDA,CopyrightLawinCanada,Markham,ButterworthsCanada,
2002,p.199.VoiraussiPasickniakv.Dojacek,[1928]M.J.No.56
(C.A.),par.32-33Becauseitisaderivativework,however,atranslationmustnot
prejudicetherightsoftheownerofanycopyrightinthework
translated.Thatis,anyrightsatranslatorhasinatranslationof
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
39
aworksubjecttocopyrightaresubordinatetotherightsofthe
authoroftheoriginalwork.
(Référencesomises)
·Section3–Copyrightinworks
Therighttopublishisoneoftherightsofthecopyrightowner.
Gagnév.Faguy,2015QCCQ11832(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-11-25)BrunelleJ.
[25]Le«droitexclusif»dontilestquestion[atsubsection3(1)of
theAct]faitensortequelapublicationd’uneœuvren’estpas
possiblesansleconsentementpréalabledutitulairedudroit
d’auteur.[Fn9Art.2.2(3)LDA]
·Section3–Copyrightinworks
Broadcast-incidentalcopyingactivitiesdoengagethereproductionright.
CanadianBroadcastingCorp.v.SODRAC2003Inc.,2015CarswellNat6092
(S.C.C.;2015-11-26)RothsteinJ.[reversing118C.P.R.(4th)79(F.C.A.;2014-03-
31)whichwasreversing2012CarswellNat4255(Cop.Bd.;2012-11-02)]
[1]Broadcastingaprogramthat
usescopyright-protectedmusic
engagestherighttocommunicate
theworktothepublicby
telecommunication—arightthat
restsexclusivelywiththecopyright
holderforthatmusicalwork.Thus,
broadcastersmustsecurealicenceto
communicatethework.Broadcasting
activitiesarecomplex,however,and
broadcastersoftenengagenotonlyin
thetelecommunicationofmusical
worksaspartoftheairingofa
program,butalsoinmakingcopiesof
programs,andthusofthemusic
incorporatedtherein,forinternaluse.
Wherethesecopiesaremadeto
facilitatebroadcasting,theymaybe
describedasbroadcast-incidental
copies.
[1]Ladiffusiond’uneémission
incorporantunemusiqueprotégée
parundroitd’auteurmetenjeule
droitdecommuniquerl’œuvreau
publicparvoiedetélécommunication
—undroitquiappartient
exclusivementautitulairedudroit
d’auteursurl’œuvremusicaleen
question.C’estpourcetteraisonque
lesdiffuseursquicommuniquentl’œuvre
doiventobtenirunelicence.Celadit,les
activitésdediffusionsontcomplexes,et
ilarrivesouventquelesdiffuseursnon
seulementeffectuentla
télécommunicationd’œuvresmusicales
danslecadredeladiffusiond’une
émission,maisaussiconfectionnentdes
copiesd’émissions—et,par
conséquent,delamusiquequecelles-ci
contiennent—àdesfinsd’utilisation
interne.Danslescasoùellesvisentà
faciliterladiffusion,cescopiespeuvent
êtrequalifiéesdecopiesaccessoiresde
diffusion.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
40
[2]Makingcopiesofacopyright-
protectedworkimplicatesthe
reproductionright,whichalsorests
exclusivelywiththecopyright
holder.Thiscaseconcernsthe
relationshipbetweenbroadcast-
incidentalcopiesandthereproduction
rightestablishedbys.3(1)(d)ofthe
CopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42.
[2]Laconfectiondecopiesd’uneœuvre
protégéeparundroitd’auteurmeten
jeuledroitdereproduction,qui
appartient,luiaussi,exclusivementau
titulairedudroitd’auteur.Leprésent
pourvoiportesurlerapportquiexiste
entrelescopiesaccessoiresdediffusion
etledroitdereproductionviséà
l’al.3(1)d)delaLoisurledroitd’auteur,
L.R.C.1985,c.C-42(«LDA»ou
«Loi»).
[43]Section3(1)(d)oftheCopyright
Actprovidesthecopyrightholderwith
thesoleright“tomakeanysound
recording,cinematographfilmorother
contrivancebymeansofwhich[a]
workmaybemechanically
reproducedorperformed”.
[43]L’alinéa3(1)d)delaLDAconfèreau
titulairedudroitd’auteursuruneœuvre
ledroitexclusif«d’enfaireun
enregistrementsonore,film
cinématographiqueouautresupport,à
l’aidedesquelsl’œuvrepeutêtre
reproduite,représentéeouexécutée
mécaniquement».
[44]SODRAC’seffortstoseeklicence
paymentsforCBC’sbroadcast-
incidentalcopyinghavetheiroriginsin
thisCourt’sdecisioninBishop[Bishop
v.Stevens,1990CanLII75(SCC),
[1990]2S.C.R.467].ThisCourtheld
thatthemakingof“ephemeral”copies
—inthatcase,recordingsofa
musicalperformancemadeto
facilitatealaterbroadcast—does
engagethereproductionrightunder
thelanguageofs.3(1)(d)ofthe
CopyrightAct,andthattherightto
makesuchcopiesisnotimpliedby
lawinabroadcastlicence:pp.484-
85.
[44]LeseffortsdelaSODRACenvue
d’obtenirdesredevancespourla
confectiondecopiesaccessoiresde
diffusionparlaSRCtirentleuroriginede
ladécisionrendueparlaCourdans
Bishop[Bishopv.Stevens,1990CanLII
75(SCC),[1990]2S.C.R.467].Selon
cetarrêt,laconfectiondecopies
«éphémères»—danscetteaffaire,les
enregistrementsd’uneprestation
musicalevisantàenfaciliterladiffusion
àunedateultérieure—metenjeule
droitdereproductionausensoùilfaut
l’entendrepourl’applicationde
l’al.3(1)d)delaLDA,etunelicencede
diffusionn’emportepasnécessairement
endroitceluidefairedetellescopies:
p.484et485.
[49]Theordinarymeaningofthetext
oftheCopyrightActindicatesthat
broadcast-incidentalcopying
activitiesdoengagethe
reproductionright.AsthisCourt
heldinBishop,thetextofs.3(1)(d)
coverssuchactivitybyitsterms.
Makingbroadcast-incidentalcopiesis
themakingofa“soundrecording,
cinematographfilmorother
contrivancebymeansofwhichthe
workmaybemechanically
reproducedorperformed”:s.3(1)(d).
ThoughthisCourt’sunderstandingof
thepurposeofcopyrighthasevolved
sincetheobservationinBishopthat[49]Suivantlesensordinairedutexte
dela
LDA,lesactivitésrelativesaux
copiesaccessoiresdediffusion
mettenteffectivementenjeuledroit
dereproduction.AinsiquelaCourl’a
concludansBishop,lelibellémêmede
l’al.3(1
)d)couvreunetelleactivité.La
confectiondecopiesaccessoiresde
diffusionéquivautàfaireun
«enregistrementsonore,film
cinématographiqueouautresupport,à
l’aidedesquelsl’œuvrepeutêtre
reproduite,représentéeouexécutée
mécaniquement»:al.3(1)d).Bienque
lamanièredontlaCourinterprètel’objet
dudroitd’auteuraitévoluédepuisla
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
41
its“solepurpose”isprotectingauthor
interests,norecoursetothis
observationisrequiredtoreads.
3(1)(d)asbeingengagedby
broadcast-incidentalcopying
activities:para.1.Theplainlanguage
ofthestatuteitselfestablishesthis
much.remarqueénoncéedans
Bishopselon
laquelleson«butunique»estde
protégerlesdroitsdel’auteur,iln’est
pasnécessairedeseréféreràcette
remarquepourenarriveràlaconclusion
quel’al.3(1)d)estmisencauseparles
activitésrelativesauxcopies
accessoiresdediffusion:par.1.Le
libelléordinairedelaloimêmele
confirme.
·Section3–Copyrightinworks
Thesynchronizationprocessisanexerciseofthereproductionright.
CanadianBroadcastingCorp.v.SODRAC2003Inc.,2015CarswellNat6092
(S.C.C.;2015-11-26)RothsteinJ.
[9]Aproducerwhowishestousea
musicalworkinanaudiovisual
programmustincorporatethatwork
intotheproductioncopyofthe
program,aprocessknowninthe
industryas“synchronization”.The
partiesdonotdisputethatthe
synchronizationprocessisan
exerciseofthereproductionright,
andthusrequiresalicenceifthe
musicalworkbeingincorporatedis
undercopyright.Oncethe
synchronizationprocessiscomplete,
thefinalproductisreferredtoasa
“master”copy.Wheretheproduceris
notalsoabroadcaster,thiscopyis
thenpassedononcetheprogramhas
beensoldorlicensedtoa
broadcaster.[9]Leproducteurquisouhaiteseservir
d’uneœuvremusicaledansune
émissionaudiovisuelledoitincorporer
cetteœuvredanslacopiedeproduction
del’émission,unprocessusqueles
initiésappellentla«synchronisation».
Lespartiesnecontestentpasquele
processusdesynchronisation
constitueunexercicedudroitde
reproductionetqu’ilrequièrel’octroi
d’unelicencesil’œuvremusicalequi
estincorporéeestprotégéeparun
droitd’auteur
.Leproduitcréégrâceau
processusdesynchronisationest
appelélacopie«maîtresse».Sile
producteurn’estpasundiffuseur,cette
copieesttransmiselorsdelaventeou
delaconcessionenlicencede
l’émissionàundiffuseur.
·Section3–Copyrightinworks
Thedifferencebetweensynchronizationcopiesandbroadcast-incidentalcopiesis
tiedtothefundamentallydistinctactivitiesofproductionandbroadcasting.Theyare
differentfunctions.
CanadianBroadcastingCorp.v.SODRAC2003Inc.,2015CarswellNat6092
(S.C.C.;2015-11-26)RothsteinJ.
[63]Nordoestechnologicalneutrality
standfortheproposition,asCBC[63]Laneutralitétechnologiquene
permetpasnonplusd’avancer,comme
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
42
urges,thattheCopyrightActprohibits
thecreationof“additionallayersof
royaltiesatthebehestofcollective
societies”suchthatdisaggregating
synchronizationandbroadcast-
incidentalcopyingislegally
impermissible:A.F.,atpara.105.This
argumentreadsESA[Entertainment
SoftwareAssociationv.Societyof
Composers,AuthorsandMusic
PublishersofCanada,2012SCC34
(CanLII),[2012]2S.C.R.231]too
broadly.Thedifferencebetween
synchronizationcopiesand
broadcast-incidentalcopiesistied
tothefundamentallydistinct
activitiesofproductionand
broadcasting.Theyaredifferent
functions.Thisdifferenceisnot
basedonparticulartechnological
details;itwouldexistregardlessofthe
technologiesusedeithertoproduce
ortobroadcast.Thus,adecision
recognizingproductionand
broadcastingasdistinctactivities,and
thusasthevalidsubjectof
disaggregatedlicences,doesnot
offendtheprinciplethat“anadditional
layerofprotectionsandfees”notbe
imposedbasedsolelyon
technologicalchange:ESA,atpara.
9.laSRClefaitvaloir,quela
LDA
empêchelacréationde[TRADUCTION]
«couchessupplémentairesde
redevancesàlademandedessociétés
degestion»detellesortequela
distinctionentrelescopiesde
synchronisationetlescopies
accessoiresdediffusionnepuisseêtre
permiseendroit:m.a.,par.105.Cet
argumentreposesuruneinterprétation
troplibéraledel’arrêtESA
[EntertainmentSoftwareAssociationv.
SocietyofComposers,Authorsand
MusicPublishersofCanada,2012SCC
34(CanLII),[2012]2S.C.R.231].La
différenceentrelescopiesde
synchronisationetlescopies
accessoiresdediffusiontientau
caractèrefondamentalementdistinct
desactivitésdeproductionetde
diffusion.Ellessontdesfonctions
différentes.Cettedifférencenerepose
passurdesdétailstechnologiquesen
particulier;elleexisteraitsanségardaux
technologiesutiliséespourproduireou
pourdiffuserlesœuvres.Donc,la
décisionquireconnaîtlecaractère
distinctdelaproductionetdela
diffusion,justifiantenconséquence
l’octroidelicencesdistinctes,ne
contrevientpasauprincipeselonlequel
«unpaliersupplémentairedeprotection
etd’exigibilitéd’uneredevance»nedoit
pasêtreimposésurleseulfondement
d’unchangementtechnologique:ESA,
par.9.
·Section3–Copyrightinworks
TheprincipleofatechnologicallyneutralinterpretationisthattheCopyrightActshall
notdiscriminateagainstanyparticularformoftechnology.
CanadianBroadcastingCorp.v.SODRAC2003Inc.,2015CarswellNat6092
(S.C.C.;2015-11-26)RothsteinJ.
[66]Theprincipleoftechnological
neutralityisrecognitionthat,
absentparliamentaryintenttothe
contrary,theCopyrightActshould
notbeinterpretedorappliedto
favourordiscriminateagainstany
particularformoftechnology.Itis
[66]Selonleprincipedeneutralité
technologique,enl’absenced’une
intentioncontrairedulégislateur,la
LDAnedoitêtreniinterprétéeni
appliquéedemanièreàfavoriserou
àdéfavoriseruneformede
technologieenparticulier.Ce
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
43
derivedfromthebalancingofuser
andright-holderinterestsdiscussed
bythisCourtinThéberge[Théberge
v.Galeried’ArtduPetitChamplain
inc.,2002SCC34(CanLII),[2002]2
S.C.R.336]—a“balancebetween
promotingthepublicinterestinthe
encouragementanddisseminationof
worksoftheartsandintellectand
obtainingajustrewardforthe
creator”:para.30.Becausethislong-
standingprincipleinformsthe
CopyrightActasawhole,itmustbe
maintainedacrossalltechnological
contexts:“Thetraditionalbalance
betweenauthorsandusersshouldbe
preservedinthedigitalenvironment”:
ESA[EntertainmentSoftware
Associationv.SocietyofComposers,
AuthorsandMusicPublishersof
Canada,2012SCC34(CanLII),
[2012]2S.C.R.231],atpara.8.
principedécouledelamiseen
équilibredesintérêtsdel’utilisateur
etdeceuxdutitulaired’undroitdont
laCourafaitl’analysedansl’arrêt
Théberge[Thébergev.Galeried’Artdu
PetitChamplaininc.,2002SCC34
(CanLII),[2002]2S.C.R.336]—soit
l’«équilibreentre,d’unepart,la
promotion,dansl’intérêtdupublic,dela
créationetdeladiffusiondesœuvres
artistiquesetintellectuelleset,d’autre
part,l’obtentiond’unejusterécompense
pourlecréateur»:par.30.Puisquece
principereconnudepuislongtemps
guidel’interprétationdelaLDAdans
sonensemble,ildoitêtremaintenu
danstouslescontextes
technologiques:«[l]’équilibre
traditionnelentreauteursetutilisateurs
doitêtrepréservédanslemonde
numérique»:ESA[Entertainment
SoftwareAssociationv.Societyof
Composers,AuthorsandMusic
PublishersofCanada,2012SCC34
(CanLII),[2012]2S.C.R.231],par.8.
·Section3–Copyrightinworks
Technologicalneutralityimpliesthatitwouldbeimpropertoimposehighercopyright
licensingcostsontheuserofonetechnologythanwouldbeimposedontheuserof
adifferenttechnology.
CanadianBroadcastingCorp.v.SODRAC2003Inc.,2015CarswellNat6092
(S.C.C.;2015-11-26)RothsteinJ.
[71]Theconverseisalsotrue.Where
theuserofonetechnologyderives
greatervaluefromtheuseof
reproductionsofcopyrightprotected
workthananotheruserusing
reproductionsofthecopyright
protectedworkinadifferent
technology,technologicalneutrality
willimplythatthecopyrightholder
shouldbeentitledtoalargerroyalty
fromtheuserwhoobtainssuch
greatervalue.Simplyput,itwouldnot
betechnologicallyneutraltotreat
thesetwotechnologiesasiftheywere
derivingthesamevaluefromthe
reproductions.
[71]L’inverseestégalementvrai.
Lorsquel’utilisateurd’unetechnologie
tireuneplusgrandevaleurde
l’utilisationdereproductionsd’une
œuvreprotégéeparledroitd’auteur
qu’unepersonnequienfaitune
utilisationsimilaireenseservantd’une
autretechnologie,leprincipedela
neutralitétechnologiesupposequele
titulairedudroitd’auteurauraitdroità
desredevancesplusélevéesde
l’utilisateurquiobtientlaplusgrande
valeurenquestion.Bref,ilneseraitpas
neutresurleplantechnologiquede
traitercesdeuxtechnologiescommesi
ellespermettaientdetirerlamême
valeurdesreproductions.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
44
[72]Indeterminingwhethera
separatecommunicationrightwas
engagedinESA[Entertainment
SoftwareAssociationv.Societyof
Composers,AuthorsandMusic
PublishersofCanada,2012SCC34
(CanLII),[2012]2S.C.R.231],this
Courtheldthattechnological
neutralityrequiredtheconsideration
ofthedifferencebetweentheoldand
newformsofdeliveryofworks.Inthe
absenceofanydifferencebetween
them,noseparaterightwasengaged:
“Inourview,thereisnopractical
differencebetweenbuyingadurable
copyoftheworkinastore,receiving
acopyinthemail,ordownloadingan
identicalcopyusingtheInternet.The
Internetissimplyatechnologicaltaxi
thatdeliversadurablecopyofthe
sameworktotheenduser”:ESA,at
para.5.Similarly,inthevaluationof
aright,technologicalneutrality
requiresthatdifferenttechnologies
usingreproductionsofcopyright
protectedworkthatproducethe
samevaluetotheusersshouldbe
treatedthesameway.Conversely,
differenttechnologiesusing
reproductionsthatproduce
differentvaluesshouldnotbe
treatedthesameway.
[72]Lorsqu’elleaexaminélaquestion
desavoirsiundroitdecommunication
distinctaétémisenjeudansESA
[EntertainmentSoftwareAssociationv.
SocietyofComposers,Authorsand
MusicPublishersofCanada,2012SCC
34(CanLII),[2012]2S.C.R.231],la
Couraconcluqueleprincipede
neutralitétechnologiqueexigeaitde
prendreenconsidérationladifférence
entrelesmodesanciensetnouveauxde
livraisondesœuvres.Enl’absencede
quelquedifférencequecesoitentre
elles,aucundroitdistinctn’entreenjeu:
«Ànotreavis,iln’yaaucunedifférence
d’ordrepratiqueentreacheterun
exemplairedurabledel’œuvreen
magasin,recevoirunexemplaireparla
posteoutéléchargerunecopie
identiquesurleWeb.Internetne
représentequ’untaxitechnologique
assurantlalivraisond’unecopiedurable
delamêmeœuvreàl’utilisateur»:
ESA,par.5.Demême,lorsqu’ilest
questiondedonnerunevaleuràun
droit,leprincipedeneutralité
technologiqueexigequedes
technologiesdifférentesquiutilisent
desreproductionsd’uneœuvre
protégéeparledroitd’auteuretqui
engendrentunemêmevaleurpour
lesutilisateurssoienttraitéesdela
mêmefaçon.Inversement,des
technologiesdifférentesquiutilisent
desreproductionsquigénèrentdes
valeursdifférentesnedevraientpas
l’être.
[73]Inthiscase,ifCBCderives
greatervaluefromtheuseof
broadcast-incidentalcopiesinits
digitaltechnologythanitdidunderits
prioranalogtechnology,thisisa
factorinfavourofthecopyrightholder
beingentitledtogreaterroyaltiesfor
useofitscopyrightprotectedworkin
CBC’sdigitaltechnology.
Technologicalneutralityrequires
thattheBoardcomparethevalue
derivedfromtheuseof
reproductioninthetwo
technologiesinitsvaluation
analysis.Aswillbeexplained,itdid
notdosointhiscase,nordidittake
intoaccounttheprincipleofbalance,[73]Enl’espèce,silaSRCtireuneplus
grandevaleurdel’utilisationdecopies
dediffusionaccessoiresenutilisantsa
technologienumériquequ’ellenele
faisaitlorsqu’elleutilisaitlatechnologie
analogique,ils’agitd’unfacteurqui
militeenfaveurdudroitdutitulairedu
droitd’auteuràdesredevancesplus
importantespourl’utilisationparlaSRC
desonœuvreprotégéeaumoyendela
technologienumérique.
Laneutralité
technologiqueexigequela
Commissioncomparelavaleurtirée
del’utilisationd’unereproductionau
moyendesdeuxtechnologiesdans
sonanalysedelavaleur.Commeje
l’expliquerai,ellenel’apasfaiten
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
45
towhichInowturn.l’espèce;etellen’apasnonplustenu
compteduprincipedemiseenéquilibre,
surlequeljevaismaintenantm’attarder.
·Section5–Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright
Forcopyrighttosubsistinawork,thisworkshallbeanoriginalone.
Michalakopoulosv.Hachem,2015CarswellQue469(Que.C.A.2015-01-29)the
Court[affirming2012CarswellQue9582(QueSupCt;2012-09-10)]
[6]Làencore,lejugen’apascommisd’erreurenconcluantque
lescontratspréparésparl’appelantnebénéficiaientpasdela
protectiondelaLoisurledroitd’auteur[Fn2L.R.C.(1985)c.C-42,
art.5.].Premièrement,l’appelantconcèdelui-mêmequeles
contratsontétépréparésàpartirdemodèlesexistants.
Deuxièmement,lesseulsajoutsqu’ilaapportésàcesmodèles
sontdesmodificationsàlanumérotationdesparagraphes,la
date,lenomdespartiesdemêmequelesmontantsd’argentet
lespourcentagesderémunération.Detouteévidence,les
contratspréparésparl‘appelantnesequalifientpasd’œuvre
«originale»ausensdel’article5delaLoisurledroitd’auteur.
·Section5–Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright
Theevidenceofapartytohavenationalstandingtoenforceaclaimforcopyright
infringementcouldbegatheredbydiversesources,includingWIPOelectronic
recordsofthemembersoftheBerneConvention.
AgrosTradingConfectionerySP.Z.O.O.v.K-MaxCorp.,2015CarswellOnt7483
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-06-19)MorganJ.
[46]TheWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization,ofwhichCanada
isamember,administerstheBerneConvention,amongothers.It
keepscompleterecordsofeachcountrythathassigned,
ratified,andproclaimedthetreatyintoforce.Asamatterof
legalresearch,itisreadilyascertainablethatbothPolandand
Canadahavelongbeen“treatycountries”undertheCopyright
Act–i.e.membersofandadherentstotheBerneConvention.
PolandbroughttheBerneConventionintoforceonJanuary28,
1920,andCanadabroughtitintoforceonApril10,1928.
[47]ThePlaintiffthereforedoeshavestandingtoenforceaclaimfor
violationoftheCopyrightAct.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
46
·Section6–Termofcopyright
Alicenceisnon-exclusiveandlimitedtotherightcovered,andforCanadaonly;it
maybegrantedretroactivelybutnotforatermlongertothetermofprotectioninthe
licensedartisticwork;itcouldbegrantedformorethanoneoftherightsofthe
copyrightowner;itwayrequirestheappearanceofcredits;thedelayforthe
collectivetorepaytheunlocatableownermaybelongerthanthetermofthelicence.
TORooftopFilmsInc.fortheincorporation,reproduction,publicperformanceand
communicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationoftwoarticles[Non-exclusive
licenceissuedto],[File:2015-UO/TI-06],2015CarswellNat3302(Cop.Bd.;2015-07-
21)
[1]Pursuanttotheprovisionsofsubsection77(1)of
theCopyrightAct,theCopyrightBoardgrantsalicencetoTO
RooftopFilmsInc.asfollows:(1)Thelicenceauthorizestheincorporationofthefollowing
articlesfromtwoeditionsofWeekendMagazineina
documentaryfilm,entitled »StayAwhile »:
•HowtheCRTCrangtheBells(Vol.22,No.9,1972)
•FiveBellsandall’swell(No.7,1967)
Thelicencealsoauthorizesthereproductionforfilmdistribution
andsale(viatheatricalexhibition,DVD,video-on-demand,
Internetstreaminganddownloads),thepublicperformanceand
thecommunicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationofthe
articles.
(2)ThelicenceisvalidfromNovember2014untilthework
isnolongerprotectedbycopyright.
·Section6–Termofcopyright
Alicencecouldcoverthedissociablepartofanotherwork;alicenceisnon-exclusive
andlimitedtotherightcoveredandtoCanada;itcouldbegrantedformorethanone
oftherightsofthecopyrightowner;itmaybegrantedretroactivelybutnotforaterm
longertothetermofprotectioninthelicensedsoundrecording;ifthereisno
collectiverepresentingtherightlicensed,thenitwillbeuptotheownerofthe
copyrighttomakeitselfknownandcollectthelicensingfee.
BasicHumanNeedsProductionsforthereproduction,thesynchronization,thepublic
performanceandthecommunicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationofasound
recording,[Non-exclusivelicenceissuedto],[File:2015-UO/TI-02],2015CarswellNat
3303(Cop.Bd.;2015-07-24)
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
47
[1]Pursuanttotheprovisionsofsubsection77(1)oftheCopyright
Act,theCopyrightBoardgrantsalicencetoBasicHumanNeeds
Productionsasfollows:(1)Thelicenceauthorizesthesynchronizationofasound
recordingentitled »TroubleDon’tLastAlways »performed
byTheGospelHummingbirdsandproducedin1980ina
film.
Thelicencealsoauthorizesthereproduction,thepublic
performanceandthecommunicationtothepublicby
telecommunicationofthework.Nomorethantwothousandfive
hundred(2,500)DVDsmaybeproduced.
(2)ThelicenceisvalidfromOctober2014untiltheworkis
nolongerprotectedbycopyright.[…]
(5)Thelicenseewillpaythesumofonehundreddollars($100)
toanypersonwhoestablishes,within5yearsoftheexpiryof
thelicence,ownershipofcopyrightoftheworkcoveredbythis
licence.
·Section6.1–Anonymousandpseudonymousworks
Alicenceisgrantedontheassumptionthattheworksarestillprotectedbycopyright;
itcouldcoverthedissociablepartofanotherwork;alicenceisnon-exclusiveand
limitedtotherightcovered,andforCanadaonly;itmaybelimitedintimebutcannot
extendthetermofcopyrightinthelicensedartisticworks;thedelayforthecollective
torepaytheunlocatableownermaybelongerthanthetermofthelicence.
DepartmentofCanadianHeritagefortheReproductionandpublicperformanceof
twophotographs[Non-exclusivelicenceissuedto],[File:2015-UO/TI-19],2015
CarswellNat4924(Cop.Bd.;2015-09-21)
[3](2)Thelicenceexpiresontheearliestofthefollowingdates:
September30,2035orthedateonwhichtheworksbecomepart
ofthepublicdomain.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright
[FromtheCourt’sheadnote]Chambersjudgeerredinfailingtoconsiderwhether
fairnessandconsistencyinthelitigationrequiredthatwaiverbeimplied.Inthiscase,
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
48
becausethepleadingreferredbothduressandnolegaladvice,itputDefendants’
stateofmindintoissueinsuchawaythatfairnessrequireddisclosure.Chambers
judgeerredinconcludingtherecouldbenodeemedwaiverunlessadvicewas
receivedinrelationtotheagreementitself,giventhatthesubjectmatterofthe
previousadvicewasanimportanttermoftheagreement.
ProSuiteSoftwareLtd.v.InfokeySoftwareInc.,2015CarswellBC320(B.C.C.A.;
2015-02-12)NewburryJ.
[29]Second,thechambersjudgeassumedthatforwaivertobe
found,theadviceinquestionmusthavebeengivenregardingthe
December2007agreementspecifically,ratherthanregardinga
subjectdealtwithintheagreement—theownershipofcopyright
andotherrightsinthePro-Suitesoftware.Inmyviewthisisnota
distinctionofprinciple.Asthedefendantsseemtoconcede,advice
regardingownershipofthePro-Suitesoftware—albeitreceived
afewyearsearlier—wouldobviouslyberelevanttothestateof
Mr.Lounine’smind,includingpossibleduress,whenhesigned
theagreement.Hehimselfhadreferredtoittwoweeksearlierin
discussionswiththeplaintiffs.Whateveropinionhehadreceived
wouldaffectthestrengthofhispleaofduress(andmaybe
relevanttotheargumentof’noconsideration’whichcounsel
alsointendstoassertattrial.)IfhehadadvicethatheorInfokey
didnotholdcopyrightinthesoftware,forexample,thecourtmight
inferMr.Louninethoughtthathewasconcedingverylittleinsigning
theletteragreementorthoughtthathedidnotneedfurtheradvice.
Asthedefendantsthemselvesstatedintheirfactum:
Thereisadifferencebetweensaying, »Iactedonmysolicitor’s
(goodorbad)adviceindoingX, »toanswer,forexample,aplea
ofbadfaithandsaying »Ihadnolegaladvice »asanadjunctto
apleaofduress.Intheformersituationtheadvicemayhave
been »don’tdoX »andunlesstheadvicecouldbeconfirmedit
wouldbeunfairtotheotherparty—henceawaiverofprivilege
mustgotoallowthechallenge.Inthelattercase,ifapleaof
duresswereadvancedanditturnedoutthepartyhadthe
benefitoflegaladviceabouttheverysituationathand,itwould
withoutdoubtseriouslyundermineordefeatentirelythepleaof
duress,theessenceofwhichistheinabilitytoproperlyactin
one’sowninterest.
[Emphasisadded.]
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright
Copyrightassignmentcouldco-existwithacontractforservices.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
49
LFCinc.v.Swooinc.,2015CarswellQue2520(Que.Ct.;2015-03-05)SiroisJ.at
para65
[65]Lacessiondedroitsd’auteurn’estpasincompatibleavec
uncontratdeservice.Lacessiondesdroitsd’auteurnetransforme
pasuncontratdeserviceencontratdevente.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright
Whenacopyrightisassignedtheassigneeistheonlyonewhocanexerciseor
authorizetheexerciseoftheexclusiverightsvestedintheownership.Theperson
whoisphotographeddoesnothaveassuchanycopyrightinthephotographsofhis
person.
Bessettev.Lemieux,2015CarswellQue7830(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-03-23)
ClicheJ.
[39]Seulelademanderesse,suiteàlacessionensafaveurdes
droitsd’auteurquepossédaitmadameHainssursesphotographies,
détenaitledroitexclusifdelesreproduire,publieroules
communiqueraupublic,ycomprisd’autorisercesactes.
[40]Lefaitqueladéfenderesseaitacquisd’abordcesmêmes
photosàtitregratuitauprèsdelademanderesseetparlasuite
àtitreonéreuxauprèsdemadameHains,etqu’ils’agissede
photographiesdesaproprepersonne,n’ychangerien.
[41]Eneffet,ladéfenderessen’ajamaisobtenuledroitdepouvoir
lespublieroulesutiliseràdesfinscommerciales,niobtenula
cessiondesdroitsd’auteursurcelles-ci.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright
Onlythecopyrightownerofaworkcouldgrantauthorizationwithrespecttotheuse
ofsaidwork.
Bessettev.Lemieux,2015CarswellQue7830(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-03-23)
ClicheJ.
[66]Àtoutévénement,comptetenuquemadameHains[the
model]nedétenaitaucundroitsurcesphotographies,ellene
pouvaitconsentiràladéfenderessequelqueautorisationquece
soitquantàleurutilisation.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
50
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright
Alicencedoesnothavetobeinwriting:itcouldflowfromanoralorimpliedlicence.
KingDavidInc.v.AndrinInvestmentLtd.,2015CarswellOnt3980(Ont.Sup.Ct.;
2015-03-25)DunphyJ.
[1]Theplaintiffinthiscasebroughtamotionforpartialsummary
judgmentallegingbreachoftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42.
Itrapidlybecameclearduringargumentthattheplaintiffwas
underthemisapprehensionthattherewasalegalrequirement
foranylicensetousecopyrightmaterialtobeinwritingwhereas
thedefendantclaimed,basedondisputedevidence,tohavehadthe
benefitofalicensetousethematerialarisingfromoralorimplied
consent.Unfortunatelyfortheplaintiff,thewritingrequirement
relieduponappliesonlytoconveyancesofaninterestinthe
copyrightitself(s.13(4))andnotmerelytoconsenttotheuseof
copyrightedmaterialforwhichnowritingrequirementis
specified(s.27).Thiswasnotasuddenflashofinsightofferedfrom
thebenchtothesurpriseofcounselwhohadneverconsideredthe
matterinthatlightbefore.Thiswasindeedacentraltheme–ifnot
THEcentraltheme–oftherespondent’sfactumandarisesfroma
plainandstraightforwardreadingofthestatute.Allthatbecameclear
tocounselinargumentwasthattherespondent’sargumenthad
founditsmarkandIwasgreatlypersuadedbyit.
[2]Whilevaliantlyargued,theplaintiffultimatelyacceptedthe
inevitableand,takingadvantageofanofferedbreak,agreedto
abandonitsmotionontermsnegotiatedbetweentheparties.The
onlyoutstandingissueregardingthedispositionofthepartial
summaryjudgmentmotionwasthematterofcosts.Themoving
partyplaintiffacceptedthatitwouldberesponsibleforcostsbutwas
unabletoreachagreementonthequantum.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright
Bewareofforms.
Grovesv.CanasonicsInc,2015CarswellAlta892(Alta.Q.B.2015-05-19)WilsonJ.
[51]Notwithstandingthereisnodefinitionoftheword“consideration”
ineithertheassignmentorinhisemploymentcontract,Iamunable
toacceptthePlaintiff’sinterpretation.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
51
[52]ThisisbecausethePlaintiffwishesaninterpretationof
“consideration”tomeanortoincludefuturesalary,i.e.unpaidsalary.
However,theassignmentdocumentspecificallystatesthatthe
considerationhadbeenpaidoveratthetimeofexecutionofthe
assignmentdocument,i.e.“inconsiderationofOneDollarand
othergoodandvaluableconsideration,ofwhichIacknowledge
receipt,…”(Court’semphasis).
[53]ThePlaintiff’sinterpretationissimplyatoddswiththe
assignmentthathehadsignedandIdonotacceptit.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright
Alicencecouldonlybegivenbyanauthorizedagent.
StatementofRoyaltiestobeCollectedbyAccessCopyrightfortheReprographic
Reproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsRepertoire[ProvincialandTerritorial
Goverments–2005-2014],2015CarswellNat1792(subnomineReproductionof
LiteraryWorks,Re)(Cop.Bd.;2015-05-22)
[138]SinceAccesscannotlicense
thecopyingofaworkforwhichit
hasnotitselfreceivedauthorization
fromtheownerofcopyright,theact
ofcopyingaworkofanon-affiliated
rightsholderisapotential
infringementofcopyright.Arguably,
thisactofpotentialinfringementmay
beretroactively“legitimized,”bythe
copyrightowner’scashingaroyalty
chequerelatedtothatcopying.
However,ifthecopyrightowner
doesnotreceivesuchacheque,as
willalmostalwaysbethecase,she
canbringproceedingsforinfringement
ofcopyright.Thiswouldbesodespite
thefactthatroyaltieshavenotionally
beenpaidinrelationtothemakingof
thatcopybythelicenseetoAccess.
[138]Étantdonnéqu’Accessnepeut
pasaccorderdelicencepourlacopie
d’uneoeuvrepourlaquelleellen’a
paselle-mêmereçud’autorisationde
lapartdutitulairedudroitd’auteur,la
reproductiond’uneoeuvred’unnon-
affiliéconstitueuneéventuelle
violationdudroitd’auteur.Onpeut
soutenirquecettereproductionqui
constitueuneéventuelleviolationpeut
êtrerétroactivement«légitimée»au
moyendel’encaissementparletitulaire
dudroitd’auteurd’unchèquede
redevancesconcernantlacopie
effectuée.Toutefois,siletitulairedu
droitd’auteurnereçoitpasuntel
chèque,commeceserapresque
toujourslecas,ilpeutintenterdes
poursuitespourviolationdudroit
d’auteur.Ilenseraitainsimalgrélefait
quedesredevancesaientété
théoriquementpayéesàAccessparle
titulairedelalicencerelativementàla
réalisationdelacopie.
·Section13–Onershipofcopyright
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
52
Thesaleofamachinedoesnotconveypersetherighttotransferthelicenceinthe
softwarerequiredtooperateit,especiallyifthelicenceagreementindicatesthatsaid
licenceisnon-transferable.
SpectralabScientificInc.v.NorthernPharmInc.,[2015]O.J.6386(Ont.Sup.Ct.
SmallClaims;2015-10-13)StabileD.J.
[22]Spectralab[thePlaintiff]submitsthatitdoeshavelegalauthority
tosell/transferthesoftware.Itacknowledgesthatitdoesnothave
legalauthoritytosell/transferthelicenceandarguesthatitatnotime
representedtoNorhernthatthetransactionincludedthelicence.
[28]Itisabundantlyclearfromthewrittenagreementthatthe
machinewasbeingsold »withsoftware »…guaranteedinaworking
order ».
[29]Therewasnoevidenceofconsenttoassignthesoftwarefrom
Waters[theownerofthecopyrightinthesoftware].Thus,basedon
theprovisionsoftheCopyrightActreferredtoabove,Northerndid
notacquirelegaltitletothesoftware.
[30]Ifindthattheabilitytousethesoftwarewasacondition
thatgoestotherootoftheagreementas,withoutthesoftware,
themachinecouldnotbeusedbyNorthernforitsintended
purpose.Accordingly,Northernisentitledtorelyontheprovisionsof
theSaleofGoodsAct,whichprovisionsaresetoutbelow.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright
Evenwithoutacontract,thereisanimpliedtermthatthepersonwhopaysforawork
tobedonewillbeentitledtousethiswork,irrespectiveoftheownershopofthe
copyright.
Crochetière-Brousseauv.9107-0234QuébecInc.(Grattex),2015CF1219(F.C.;
2015-10-29)LeBlancJ
[38]Commejel’aidéjàmentionné,ledevissoumisparle
demandeurn’aétésuivid’aucuncontratécritentrelesparties.Le
devislui-mêmenecontientaucuneclauserelativeauxdroits
d’auteur.L’ententeentrelespartiesestdoncmuetteàcetégard.Il
m’apparaîtévidenttoutefoisquelecontratintervenuentreles
partiescomportait,aubénéficedeladéfenderesse,unelicence
implicited’utilisationduprogrammed’ordinateurquedevaitlui
livrerledemandeur,licencequil’autorisaitaussiàmodifierledit
programmedemanièreàenaméliorerl’efficacitéselonses
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
53
besoins.Sinon,onpeutbiensedemanderpourquoila
défenderesseaurait,contreleversementd’unerémunérationetsans
qu’illuisoitpossibled’yapporterd’autresmodificationspourson
propreusage,confiéaudemandeurlemandatdemoderniserson
siteWeb.
[41]Lecontratintervenuentrelespartiesprévoyaitlaréalisation
d’une«œuvre»moyennantunerémunérationlibrementnégociée
entreelles.End’autrestermes,ilprévoyaitcequeledemandeur
avaitsansdouteconsidéré,ens’engageantàréaliserlestravaux,
«unejusterécompensepourlecréateur»(Robinson,précitéau
para23[CinarCorporationcRobinson,2013CSC73(CanLII),
[2013]3RCS1168]).Ilétaitdonc,àmonsens,dansl’ordredes
chosesqueladéfenderessesoitautoriséeàutiliserl’œuvreauxfins
pourlesquellesellel’avaitcommandéeetàéventuellementy
apporter,pourlesmêmesfins,desaméliorations.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright
Theauthorofaworkisthefirstownerofcopyrighttherein.
Desgagnév.GroupeVille-MarieLittératureinc.,2015CarswellQue11218(Que.
Sup.Ct.;2015-11-17)HamiltonJ.
[34]Commeauteure,elleestlepremiertitulairedudroitd’auteur
surcetteœuvre[Fn42Article13(1)delaLoisurledroitd’auteur,
L.R.C.(1985),ch.C-42.]
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright
Onecannotgrantmorerightsthanhehas.Authorizationmustbefromthecopyright
ownerorhislegalrepresentative.Obiter:Couldaformatbeprotectedbycopyright?
Sociétédedéveloppementdesentreprisesculturelles(SODEC)v.SociétéRadio-
Canada,2015CarswellQue11621(Que.C.A.;2015-12-02)[affirming2014
CarswellQue2051(Que.Sup.Ct.;2014-03-12)]
[3]Pardiverscontratssuccessifs,Distraction,moyennant
redevances,concèdeàSRClesdroitsdeproductionetdediffusion
qu’elledétientelle-mêmed’ArdisS.A(«Ardis»)surleformatde
l’émission«Toutlemondeenparle»(le«Format»)[Fn2Ardisse
présentecommeletitulairedesdroitsd’auteursurceformat.La
questiondesavoirsiuntelconceptpeutfairel’objetd’undroit
d’auteurn’estpasdiscutéedanslaprésenteaffaireetlaCourne
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
54
seprononcepasàcesujet,lesdroitsd’Ardis,surcepoint,
n’ayantpasétécontestés.].Lederniercontratconcluentre
DistractionetSRC,etdontl’exécutiondonnelieuauprésentlitige,
estdatédenovembre2007etviselessaisonstélévisées2008-2009
et2009-2010.
[5]LesdroitsconférésàDistractionparArdissonttoutefois
conditionnelsàl’exécutiondecertainesobligationsqueluiimposela
Conventionmaîtresse,laquellecontientdesurcroîtuneclausede
résiliationunilatéraleetautomatiqueducontrat,advenant
manquementdeDistractionauxditesobligations[Fn3Cetteclause
permettaitdemêmeàDistractionderésilierlaconventionsiArdis
manquaitàsesobligations,scénarioquin’estpasencauseici.].
DistractionnepouvantconcéderàSRCplusdedroitsqu’elle
n’endétenaitelle-mêmesurleFormat,lesdroitsdeSRCse
trouvaientégalement,encorequ’implicitement,assujettiset
subordonnésàlaconditiondelasurvieducontratunissant
ArdisetDistraction.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright
Acopyrightassignmentmustbeinwriting.
Lasantév.RoulotteProliteinc.,2015CarswellQue11853(Que.C.A.;2015-12-07)
[confirming2014CarswellQue10221(Que.Sup.Ct.;2014-10-03)]
[Leavetoadducenewevidenceintheformofawrittenassignment:granted]
[8]Celadit,laCourestd’avis,enl’espèce,quelesdocuments
déposésparl’intiméeautitredelapreuvenouvelledémontrent
clairementqu’uncontratécrit,préparéparl’appelant,est
intervenuentrelespartiesen2004,quecelui-ciprévoitla
cessiondesesdroitsd’auteurviséeàl’article13,paragr.4,Loi
surledroitd’auteuretqueM.MichelMiron,signataireducontratau
nomdel’appelant,étaitdûmentautoriséparcedernieràcefaire.
[9]Dèslors,comptetenudesmoyensinvoquésparl’appelant,lequel
faitreposersonappelexclusivementsurl’absencedecessionde
sesdroitsd’auteur,etvulapreuvenouvelle,l’appelantneconvainc
paslaCourducaractèredéterminantdel’omissiondujuge.
·Section13–Ownershipofcopyright
Authorizationmustbegivenfromthecopyrightownerorhislegalrepresentative.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
55
Ciprianiv.Savard,2015QCCQ12911(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-12-14)Lavoie
J.
[6]Nousconcluonsqueledéfendeurs’estappropriésans
autorisationlesdroitsrattachésauxphotographiesfaitesparle
demandeur.Maiscommeiln’apasmisencauselemannequin
NathalieDuchainebienqu’illuiaitcommuniquésaréponseàla
miseendemeuredudemandeur,nousréservonssesdroitsde
poursuivreàsontourcettepersonnesurlafoidel’engagement
prisparelleetdécoulantdelasignatureducontratintervenu
entreledéfendeuretcetteartistemodèle[namelythatsheowned
alltheauthorizationfortheuseoftheimpugnedphotographs]
·Section13–Copyrightownership
Thetransferofpossessionofaworkdoesnotconveybyitselfthetransferofthe
copyrightinsuchwork.
Seggiev.RoofdogGamesInc.,2015QCCS6462(Que.Sup.Ct.;2016-12-18)Roy
J.
[78]Leseultransfertdelapossessiond’uneœuvren’équivaut
pasàunecessiondudroitd’auteur[Fb38H.G.RICHARDetL.
CARRIÈRE,CanadianCopyrightActAnnotated,volume3,Toronto,
Carswell,éd.feuillesmobiles,p.27-27;Massie&RenwickLimitedv.
Underwriters’SurveyBureau,1940CanLII1(SCC),[1940]S.C.R.
218,p.229;DynabecLtéec.Sociétéd’informatiqueR.D.G.Inc.inc.
[1985]C.A.236.]
·Section14.1–Moralrights
Moralrightsareimportanttoafilmdirector.Alicencegrantedbyadirectortoa
makerdoesnotcarrybyitselfawaiverofthemoralrightsofthedirector.
AssociationdesréalisatricesetréalisateursduQuébec(ARRQ)etZone3-XXXVII
inc.(griefsyndical),2015QCTA213(Que.Arbitration;2015-03-13)Moro,Arbitrator
[24]Ilestvrai,commelesouligneZone3,queletribunaldoittenir
comptequ’envertudel’article14.1(2)delaLoisurledroitd’auteur,
etbienquelesdroitsmorauxsoientincessibles,leréalisateurpeut
renoncerentoutouenpartieàsondroitd’auteur.Cetteloipréciseà
l’article14.1.(3)queLacessiondudroitd’auteurn’emportepas
renonciationautomatiqueauxdroitsmoraux.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
56
[25]Ildemeuretoutefoisqueletribunaldoitaussiprendreen
considérationl’ententecollectiveintervenueentrel’ARRQet
l’APFTQ.L’article13.8decetteententeénoncespécifiquement,en
destermessimilairesàceuxutilisésàl’article14.1(3)delaLoisur
lesdroitsd’auteurconcernantlacessiondudroitd’auteurbienque
visantleslicencesetnonledroitd’auteur,queLeslicences
accordéesauproducteurn’emportentpasunerenonciationaux
droitsmorauxduréalisateur.Mais,contrairementàlaLoisurledroit
d’auteur,l’ententecollectiveneprévoitpasqueleréalisateurpuisse
renonceràsesdroitsmoraux.
[27]Àlalumièredel’ensembledesdispositionsdel’article13de
l’ententecollectiverelativesauxDroitd’auteur,licenceet
rémunérationadditionnelle,quiprévoientlesdiversaspectsreliésà
laproductionetàl’exploitation,forceestdeconclurequelestermes
Leslicencesaccordéesauproducteurn’emportentpasune
renonciationauxdroitsmorauxduréalisateurdel’article13.8
signifientqu’ensoi,lefaitpourunréalisateurd’accorderune
licencenepeutentraînercommeconséquencequ’ilrenonceà
sesdroitsmoraux.
[28]Cesdroitsmorauxsontd’unegrandeimportancepourle
réalisateur[…]
·Section14.1–Moralrights
Afilmdirectorcannotwaiveitsmoralrightstoamakerifthiswaiverisnot
contemplatedbythecollectiveagreementgoverninghisstatusundertheQuebecAct
respectingtheprofessionalstatusandconditionsofengagementofperforming,
recordingandfilmartists,sincesuchawaiverwillbelessadvantageousthanthe
conditionssetforthinthecollectiveagreement.
AssociationdesréalisatricesetréalisateursduQuébec(ARRQ)etZone3-XXXVII
inc.(griefsyndical),2015QCTA213(Que.Arbitration;2015-03-13)Moro,Arbitrator
[30]Lesproposdel’arbitreLaporterapportésplushautau
paragraphe[sentencearbitraleinterlocutoiredu22juin2003dans
l’affaireAPFTQAssociationdesproducteursdefilmsetdetélévision
duQuébecetARRQAssociationdesréalisateursetréalisatricesdu
Québec,àlapage4]ainsiquelespassagesprécitésdeladécision
del’arbitreBastien[sentencearbitraledu30mai2008,corrigéele9
juin2008],jointsaufaitquecedernierindiqueàl’article14.8de
l’ententecollectivequeLeslicencesaccordéesauproducteur
n’emportentpasunerenonciationauxdroitsmorauxduréalisateur
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
57
(article13.8del’ententecollectiveactuelle)appuientetconfirmentla
prétentiondel’ARRQvoulantquecettedispositionaitétéadoptée
pourprotégerl’intégritédel’œuvreetqu’elleconsacreàtitrede
conditionminimaled’engagementqueleréalisateurnepeut
renonceràsondroitmoral.Conclureautrementvideraitl’article13.8
del’ententecollectivedetoutsens.
[31]Si,envertudel’article8delaLSA,leréalisateuralaliberté
denégocieretd’agréerlesconditionsdesonengagementpar
unproducteur,ilnepeutpourautantstipulerunecondition
moinsavantageusequecelleprévueàl’ententecollective.Ilne
peutdoncrenonceràsondroitmoral,touterenonciationétant
nécessairementmoinsavantageusequelaconditionminimale
énoncéeàl’article13.8del’ententecollective,quineprévoit
aucunerenonciationoucompensation.
[32]Letribunaldoitdoncconclurequepourêtrevalide,toute
renonciationcontractuelleparunréalisateuràundroitmoral,qui
viendraitforcémentmodifiercetarticle13.8del’ententecollective,
doitd’abordêtreagrééeparl’ARRQparlebiaisd’uneLettre
d’entente,puisqu’uneententeindividuelledetravailn’écartepasle
régimemisenplaceparlaLoi(GuildedesmusiciensduQuébecet
ClubdeJazzBiddle’sInc.,AZ-50065750,BernardLefebvre,arbitre,
àlapage12.)
[33]Commel’ententecollectiveprévoitqueLeslicencesaccordées
auproducteurn’emportentpasunerenonciationauxdroitsmoraux
duréalisateur,lastipulationcontractuelleparleproducteuretle
réalisateurd’uneconditiond’engagementmoinsavantageuseest
égalementcontraireàl’article8delaLoisurlestatutprofessionnel
etlesconditionsd’engagementdesartistesdelascène,dudisqueet
ducinéma.
·Section14.1–Moralrights
Thetranslatorhastherighttobeassoicated–ornot–withhiswork.
Desgagnév.GroupeVille-MarieLittératureinc.,2015CarswellQue11218(Que.
Sup.Ct;2015-11-17)HamiltonJ.
[131]LesdroitsmorauxdeDesgagné[thetranslator]incluentledroit
«d’enrevendiquer,mêmesouspseudonyme,lacréation,ainsique
ledroitàl’anonymat.»[Fn84VoiraussiSuttiec.Canada(Procureur
général),2011CF119(CanLII);Jacobsc.Canada(Procureur
général),2009CF628(CanLII).]
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
58
[132]Ilestclairqu’audéparttoutaumoins,Desgagnévoulaitquele
livresoitpubliésoussonnom.Enconséquence,Ville-Marieavait
l’obligationd’inclurelenomdeDesgagnélorsqu’ellepubliela
traduction.
[135]Desgagnéavaitledroitdechangerd’idéeetd’exigerque
sonnomsoitretiréjusqu’àlapublicationdulivre.Unefoisle
livrepublié,iln’estplusenmesured’exercercedroit.
·Section27–Infringementgenerally
Towardsanewconcept:innocentinfringementforactsofprimaryinfringement.
RedLabelVacationsInc.(redtag.ca)v.411TravelBuysLimited(411travelbuys.ca),
131C.P.R.(4th)6(F.C.;2015-01-07)MansonJ.[affd.2015CarswellNat7643
(F.C.A.;2015-12-18)]
[103]Moreover,Ialsofindonthe
evidencethatthereproductionof
theredtag.cametatagswas
inadvertentlydonebythe
Defendant411TravelBuysandits
employee,Ms.Ntia,andwould
haveconstitutedinnocent
infringementifanyinfringement
hadoccurred.[103]Deplus,jeconclusaussiauvude
lapreuveque
lesmétabalisesde
redtag.caontétéreproduitespar
inadvertanceparladéfenderesse
411TravelBuysetsonemployée,M
meNtia,etques’ilyavaiteu
violation,celle-ciauraitété
innocente.
·Section27–Infringementgenerally
Copyrightinfringementamountstoviolationofpropertyrights.
Hains(CindyHainsPhotographe)v.Ermel(StudioZaf),2015CarswellQue3224
(Que.Ct.-SmallClaims;2015-02-02)ClicheJ.
[54]Laviolationdudroitd’auteurconstituedeplusuneviolationdu
droitdepropriétédesontitulaire[Fn13Paragraphe102,page1221
del’arrêtCinar[CinarvRobinson,2013CSC73(CanLII),[2013]3
R.C.S.1168.].
[59]Or,laviolationd’undroitd’auteurconstitueuneatteinteaux
droitsprévusàl’article6delaChartedesdroitsetlibertédela
personne[Fn15R.L.R.Q.c.C-12.](Charte)[…]
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
59
·Section27–Infringementgenerally
Thereproductionofaprotectedworkforanadminsitrativehearingisnotexemptof
copyrightliability.
BrasseursGMTinc.,2015QCCLP1083(Que.C.L.P.;2015-02-23)Racine,J
[73]Cetteétudeestdifficileàlirepuisqueplusieursparagraphes
sontmaculésdegrisetquelenomdel’éditeurLippincottWilliams&
Wilkinsainsiqu’uneinscription«UnauthorizedUseProhibited»sont
impriméssurtouteslespages.LaCommissiondeslésions
professionnellesignoresicettecopieaétéfaiteen
contraventiondesdroitsd’auteursdeset,sitelestlecas,elle
nepeutcautionnerunetelledérogation.
·Section27–Infringementgenerally
Thewords »forpublication »intheheaderofanemaildoesconstituteanauthorization
topublish.
DeCostev.Burns,2015CarswellBC740(B.C.Prov.Ct.;2015-03-12)ChallengerJ.
[4]Astothematerialsinquestion,Mr.DeCostesenttheletterwith
theattachedblogtoMr.BurnsbyemailonNovember14
th2013.The
emailaddresstowhichthematerialsweresentwas
burrardviewnewsletter@hotmail.com.Thesubjectlineread“For
Publication”.Mr.Burnsreferencedsomepassagesfromtheletter
inafurthereditorialandincludedtheblogintheNovember
newsletterwhichwaspublishedshortlythereafter.
[7]Mr.DeCostealsoarguedthathehadmistakenlyfailedtochange
thesubjectheading.Thereisnothingintheevidencetosuggestthat
Mr.Burnsshouldhaveknownthatthiswasanerror.Tothecontrary,
Ifindthatgiventhehistoryofdifficultiesputbeforethecourtandthe
tenoroftheothermaterialsMr.DeCostehasproducedinthepast
thatheintendedforthesematerialstobecirculated.Indeed,once
theyappearedinthenewsletterMr.DeCosteimmediatelycirculated
theentireletterandhisblogthroughouttheco-op.
·Section27–Infringementgenerally
Copyrightinfringementamountstoviolationofpropertyrights.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
60
Bessettev.Lemieux,2015CarswellQue7830(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2015-03-23)
ClicheJ.[53]Laviolationdudroitd’auteurconstituedeplusune
violationdudroitdepropriétédesontitulaire[Fn22CinarCorp.
c.Robinson,2013CSC73(CanLII),[2013]3R.C.S.1168,
paragraphe1221del’arrêt
].
[54]Dansleprésentcas,lademanderesseréclame,entreautres,5
000,00$àtitrededommagespréétablisconformémentaux
dispositionsprévuesàl’article38.1delaLoisurledroitd’auteur.
[55]Dansuntelcas,detelsdommages,encasdeviolations
commisesàdesfinscommerciales,nepeuventêtreinférieursà
500,00$etsupérieursà20000,00$.
[56]Cependant,lemontantfinalestdéterminéparleTribunal
suivantcequ’ilestimeéquitabledanslescirconstances.
·Section27–Infringementgenerally
Consentcouldbeimpliedfromthedealingsofthecopyrightowner.
KeatleySurveyingLtd.v.TeranetInc.,2015CarswellOnt5147(Ont.C.A.;2015-04-
14)SharpeJ.[varying2014CarswellOnt3792(Ont.Sup.Ct.-Div.Ct;2014-03-26),
addreasons2014CarswellOnt9193(Ont.Sup.Ct.-Div.Ct;2014-06-26),reversing
107CPR(4th)237(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-12-14)]
[55]TheDivisionalCourt’sassessmentoftheseproposedcommon
issuesisentirelyconsistentwithdecisionsdealingwithcertificationin
othercopyrightcases.AsinRobertsonv.ThomsonCorp.(1999),43
O.R.(3d)161(Ont.Gen.Div.),atpara.30,Teranet’sprocedural
positionthattheissueofconsentiswhollyindividualcannotbe
reconciledwithitssubstantivepositionthatbydepositinga
surveyintheregistry,asurveyormustbetakentohaveagreed
toTeranet’suseofthesurveyinthemannercontemplatedby
thelandregistryscheme.SeealsoWaldmanv.ThomsonReuters
Corp.,2012ONSC1138(Ont.S.C.J.),atparas.162-65and182-83,
leavetoappealrefused,2012ONSC3436(Ont.Div.Ct.).
·Section27–Infringementgenerally
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
61
Alicencemaybeinferredfromtheactionsofacopyrightowner,suchascashinga
checkforroyaltiesforpastreproductionofitswork.
StatementofRoyaltiestobeCollectedbyAccessCopyrightfortheReprographic
Reproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsRepertoire[ProvincialandTerritorial
Goverments–2005-2014],2015CarswellNat1792(subnomineReproductionof
LiteraryWorks,Re)(Cop.Bd.;2015-05-22)
[126]InitsK-12decision,[Fn71
AccessCopyright(Educational
Institutions)2005-2009(June26,
2009)CopyrightBoarddecision[K-12]
theBoardheldthatthecashingofa
royaltychequebyacopyrightowner,
issuedinrelationtooneormore
copyingactivities,hadtheeffectthat
thoseactivitieswerethereby
legitimized,suchthat“[thecopyright
owner]cannottakeproceedingsfor
infringementofcopyrightagainstthe
personwhomadethecopy.”[Fn72K-
12,atpara.133]TheBoardwentonto
holdthat[126]Dansladécision
K-12[Fn71
AccessCopyright(Établissements
d’enseignement)2005-2009(26
juin2009)décisiondelaCommission
dudroitd’auteur.[K-12]],[K-12],la
Commissionaconcluque
l’encaissementduchèquede
redevancesparuntitulairedudroit
d’auteur,émisrelativementàuneou
plusieursactivitésdephotocopie,avait
eupoureffetderendrecesactivités
légitimes,detellesorteque«[letitulaire
dudroitd’auteur]nepourraitpoursuivre
lecopistepourviolationdudroit
d’auteur»[Fn72K-12,atpara.133].La
Commissionaensuitefaitobservéque:
[t]heexistenceofanimplied
agencyrelationship,arisingfrom
thecashingofthechequeand
limitedtoonlythosecopiesthat
werecapturedinthestudy,is
sufficienttoleadustoinclude
thesecopiesinthecalculationof
remuneration.[Fn73K-12,atpara.
133][l]’existenced’unmandattacite,que
l’encaissementduchèque
matérialise,limitéauxseulescopies
quel’enquêteacaptées,suffitpour
déciderd’inclurecesmêmescopies
danslecalculdelarémunération
[Fn73
K-12,aupara.133].
[138]SinceAccesscannotlicense
thecopyingofaworkforwhichit
hasnotitselfreceivedauthorization
fromtheownerofcopyright,theact
ofcopyingaworkofanon-affiliated
rightsholderisapotential
infringementofcopyright.Arguably,
thisactofpotentialinfringementmay
beretroactively“legitimized,”bythe
copyrightowner’scashingaroyalty
chequerelatedtothatcopying.
However,ifthecopyrightowner
doesnotreceivesuchacheque,as
willalmostalwaysbethecase,she
canbringproceedingsfor
infringementofcopyright.This
wouldbesodespitethefactthat
royaltieshavenotionallybeenpaid
inrelationtothemakingofthat
copybythelicenseetoAccess.
[138]Étantdonnéqu’Accessnepeut
pasaccorderdelicencepourlacopie
d’uneoeuvrepourlaquelleellen’a
paselle-mêmereçud’autorisationde
lapartdutitulairedudroitd’auteur,la
reproductiond’uneoeuvred’unnon-
affiliéconstitueuneéventuelle
violationdudroitd’auteur.Onpeut
soutenirquecettereproductionqui
constitueuneéventuelleviolationpeut
êtrerétroactivement«légitimée»au
moyendel’encaissementparletitulaire
dudroitd’auteurd’unchèquede
redevancesconcernantlacopie
effectuée.Toutefois,siletitulairedu
droitd’auteurnereçoitpasuntel
chèque,commeceserapresque
toujourslecas,ilpeutintenterdes
poursuitespourviolationdudroit
d’auteur.Ilenseraitainsimalgréle
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
62
faitquedesredevancesaientété
théoriquementpayéesàAccesspar
letitulairedelalicencerelativementà
laréalisationdelacopie.
·Section27–Infringementgenerally
Itistheunauthorizedactofcopyingthatconstitutestheinfringementofcopyright.
GeophysicalServiceIncv.AntrimEnergyInc,2015CarswellAlta1439(AltaQ.B.;
2015-07-31)Hanebury,Master
[Onapplicationforsummarydismissaloftheclaim:denied.]
[49]TheplainmeaningoftheseprovisionsoftheActleadstothe
conclusionthatitistheunauthorizedactofcopyingthat
constitutestheinfringementofcopyright.Caselawsupportsthis
view:Robinsonv.FilmsCinar,2013SCC73(CanLII),para24,(a
casenotcitedbytheparties).InJamesLorimerandCo.[1984]77
C.P.R.(2d)262(F.C.A.),(acasenotcitedbytheparties),theCourt
saidatp.268:Infringementdoesnotrequirethattheinfringingworkcompete
inthemarketplacewiththatinfringed;itrequiresonlythatthe
infringerdosomethingthatthecopyrightowneralonehasthe
righttodo.
·Section27–Infringementgenerally
Offeringforsaleonaforeignwebsitetonon-Canadiansisnotofferingforsalein
Canada,eveniftheoffercanbeviewedbyCanadians.
Migunav.WalmartCanada,2015CarswellOnt14328(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-09-18)
MewJ[Applicationbydefendantsforsummaryjudgement:granted.]
[22]Second,althoughthewalmart.comwebsiteisvisibleby
internetusersbasedinCanada,personslocatedinCanada
cannotpurchaseitemsfromthewalmart.comwebsiteanditems
purchasedonthatsitecannotbeshippedtoaddressesin
Canada.
[33]Thetestforsecondaryinfringementisconvenientlysummarised
bytheSupremeCourtofCanadainEuroExcellenceInc.v.Kraft
CanadaInc.,2007SCC37(CanLII)atpara.19inthefollowingterms:
InCCH[CCHCanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada],
atpara.81,thisCourtheldthatthreeelementsmustbeproven
toestablishsecondaryinfringement:(1)aprimaryinfringement;
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
63
(2)thesecondaryinfringershouldhaveknownthatheorshe
wasdealingwithaproductofinfringement;and,(3)the
secondaryinfringementsold,distributedorexposedforsalethe
infringinggoods.Perhapsthemoststraightforwardof
secondaryinfringementariseswhenonesellsacopyofan
infringingwork.
[38]Withrespecttothesecondbranchofthetestforsecondary
infringement(thesecondaryinfringershouldhaveknownthatitwas
dealingwithaproductofinfringement),evenassumingthatthe
infringingcopiesofthebookdidordoexist,bothdefendantsdeny
thattheyeverdealtwithacopyofthebook.Sincetheynever
receivedanycopiesofthebookandneverpossessedthebook
inanyform,theyassertthattheycouldnotandhavenotdealtwith
a“copy”ofthebookthatwasaproductofprimaryinfringemen
[42]Thirdly,thedefendantsdenythattheysold,distributedor
exposedaninfringingproductforsale.Thedefendantsassertthat
despiteMr.Miguna’sallegationsandbeliefstothecontrary,the
weightoftheevidencedemonstratesthatConsortiumnever
soldordistributedasinglecopyofMr.Miguna’sbookandthat
nocopyofthebookwassoldbyWal-MartStoreseither.The
informationrelatingtothebookwhichwaspostedonthe
walmart.comwebsiteanddiscoveredbyMr.MigunainAugust2014
doesnotconstituteanofferforsalewithinthemeaningof
theCopyrightActbecausetheofferwasmadeintheUnitedStates,
notCanada.Furthermore,Mr.Migunaacknowledgedduringcross-
examinationthatthereferencecontainedinthewalmart.comwebsite
identifiedhimastheauthorofthebookandthattheimageofthe
bookappearingonthewebsiteseemedtobeanaccuratedepiction
ofthecoverofthebook.
[55]Nor,forthereasonsarticulatedinthesubmissionsofthe
defendants,cantherebeanybasisforsecondaryinfringementor
infringementoftheplaintiff’smoralrights.
·Section27–Infringementgenerally
Knowledgeisanessentialelementofsecondaryinfringement.
Migunav.WalmartCanada,2015CarswellOnt14328(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-09-18)
MewJ.[Applicationbydefendantsforsummaryjudgement:granted.]
[40]Thedefendantsassertthattheyhadnoreasontobelievethat
theyweredealingwithaproductofcopyrightinfringement.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
64
Consortium]oneofthedefendants]arguesthatitwasreasonablefor
ittorelyonrepresentationsmadebyGilgameshUKthatithadthe
righttogranttoConsortiumthevariousmarketing,distributionand
salesrightsprovidedforunderaDistributionAgreementwhichithad
withGilgameshUK(andwhich,inaschedule,listedtheplaintiff’s
book).Eventheplaintiffdidnot,untilcomparativelyrecently,atleast
inthisaction,distinguishbetweenGilgameshUKandGilgamesh
Africa–theywereeffectivelytreatedasoneentity.Consortium
assertsthatthereisnobasisforrequiringittotestthe
representationsmadebyGilgameshUK.
[55]Nor,forthereasonsarticulatedinthesubmissionsofthe
defendants,cantherebeanybasisforsecondaryinfringementor
infringementoftheplaintiff’smoralrights.
·Section27–Infringementgenerally
Thedistributionwithoutauthorization,ofaninfringingphotographforcommercial
purposes,withadeliberatefalseattributionofautorhipisprejudialtothecopyright
owner.
Gagnév.Faguy,2015QCCQ11832(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-11-25)BrunelleJ.
[30]Lamiseencirculation,parMonsieurFaguy,d’une
photographiedontilseprétendl’auteur–cequ’iln’estpas–
auxfinsd’attirer,dansunbutcommercial,uneclientèle
égalementconvoitéeparMonsieurGagnéestdoublementvisée
parlesinterdictionsdesalinéasb)etc)duparagraphe27(2)dela
LDA.
·Section27–Infringementgeneally
Theexclusiverightsofacopyrightowneraredescribedinsection3oftheCopyright
Actandthoserightsareinfringedonlyiftheyaredonewithouttheauthorizationof
thecopyrightowner.
Seggiev.RoofdogGamesInc.,2015QCCS6462(Que.Sup.Ct.;2016-12-18)Roy
J.
[77]LaLoisurledroitd’auteurprévoitcequecomprendledroit
d’auteur.Cedroitn’estvioléquesiunepersonneaccomplitun
acteréservéautitulairedudroit,sansleconsentementdece
dernier[…]
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
65
·Section27–Infringementgenerally
Consentcouldbeimplied.Consentwithoutconsiderationcouldberevokedatany
time.
Seggiev.RoofdogGamesInc.,2015QCCS6462(Que.Sup.Ct.;2016-12-18)Roy
J.
[82]Letitulairedudroitd’auteurpeutégalementautoriserun
tiersàutiliserl’œuvre[Fn50H.G.RICHARDetL.CARRIÈRE,
CanadianCopyrightActAnnotated,précité,note48,p.27-26et
27-27;Robertsonc.ThomsonCorp.,2006CSC43(CanLII),par.54-
58;CCHCanadienneLtéec.BarreauduHaut-Canada,précité,note
38,par.37-38;Tajdinc.AgaKhan,2012FCA12(CanLII),2012
CAF12,par.14-15;CéjibéCommunicationinc.c.Constructions
Cleary(1992)inc.,J.E.98-2071(C.S.)(appelrejeté),par.63-65;
AmusementsWiltroninc.c.Mainville,[1991]R.J.Q.1930(C.S);
MightyStarLtd./Ltéec.Sicard,[1984]C.S.766;Motel6Inc.c.No.6
MotelLtd.,[1982]1C.F.638].Leconsentementpeutêtreinféré
delaconduitedesparties,maislefardeaudeleprouverrepose
surlesépaulesdeceluiquis’appuiesurceconsentement}Fn51
Tajdinc.AgaKhan,id.[2012FCA12(CanLII),2012CAF12,par.14-
15];JamcÉditionsTrois-Pistoles,2010QCCQ9886(CanLII)].Par
ailleurs,unconsentementàtitregratuitpeutêtrerévoquéen
touttemps[Fn52Katzv.Cytrynbaum,(1983)1983CanLII557(BC
CA),76C.P.R.(2d)276(BCCA);H.G.RICHARDetL.CARRIÈRE,
CanadianCopyrightActAnnotated,précité,note48,p.27-27.]
[83]LapreuvedémontrequeM.Seggieabeletbienautorisé
RoofdogetM.Germainàutilisersesdessins.Leséchanges
écritsentrelespartiesledémontrentabondamment.M.Seggie
s’estvolontairementoffertpourdessinerlesvoituresetilesttenuau
courantdesdéveloppementsdujeu.Ilsaitpertinemmentquelejeu
estlancésurleAppStorele3août.IlnedemandepasàM.
Germaindelesôter.Aucontraire,ilfélicitesonami.
[84]Ilexistepeut-êtreuneambiguïtéquantàsavoirsiM.Seggie
s’attendaitàrecevoirunecompensationounon,mais
l’autorisationdemettresesdessinsenlignenefaitpasde
doute.
·Section28.1–Infringementgenerally[moralrights]
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
66
Foraclaimofinfringementofmoralrightstobemaintainedthereshouldbesome
evidenceoffailedattributionofauthorshiporprejudicialdistortion.
Migunav.WalmartCanada,2015CarswellOnt14328(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-09-18)
MewJ.[Applicationbydefendantsforsummaryjudgement:granted]
[44]Finally,totheextentthattheplaintiffclaimsthathismoral
rightshavebeeninfringed,thereisnoevidencethatthe
defendants(oranyoneelse)everfailedtoattributeauthorshipof
“PeelingBackTheMask”toMr.Miguna.Similarly,inthe
announcementsissuedbythedefendantsthatrefertothebook
(i.e.thewebsitereferences)theworkwasinnoway“distorted,
mutilatedorotherwisemodified”or“usedinassociationwitha
product,service,causeorinstitution”.
[55]Nor,forthereasonsarticulatedinthesubmissionsofthe
defendants,cantherebeanybasisforsecondaryinfringementor
infringementoftheplaintiff’smoralrights.
·Section28.2–Natureofrightofintegrity
Apublishermaycorrectatextinasmuchasititisnotprejudicaltotheauthor.The
rightofapublishertomakechangesinatextcanbelimitedorexcludedbythe
contractbetweentheauthorandpublisher.Absentsuchprovision,thecircumstances
surroundingthecontractcanbetakenintoaccount.
Desgagnév.GroupeVille-MarieLittératureinc.,2015CarswellQue11218(Que.
Sup.Ct;2015-11-17)HamiltonJ.
[73]LaLoisemblereconnaîtreledroitdupropriétaired’une
œuvred’yapporterdesmodifications,danslamesureoùilne
violepasledroitmoraldel’auteuràl’intégritédesonœuvre.
SelonlaCourSuprêmedansThéberge[Fn67VoirThébergev.
Galeried’ArtduPetitChamplaininc.,2002CSC34(CanLII),par.
57:Ilsembleclair,àtoutlemoinsparinférencenégative,quele
législateuravouluquel’acheteuraitledroitd’apporterà
l’œuvreunchangementquin’estpas«préjudiciableà
l’honneurouàlaréputationdel’auteur».
[74]L’éditeurquidétientledroitd’auteurs’apparenteàl’acheteurde
l’œuvre.Ilauraitdoncledroitdemodifierletexte,silesmodifications
nesontpaspréjudiciablesàl’honneurouàlaréputationdel’auteur.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
67
Cettequestionseratraitéedanslaprochainesectiondece
jugement.
[75]Toutefois,cedroitdel’éditeurdefairedesmodificationsdansun
textepeutêtreencadréoulimitéoumêmeexcluparlecontratentre
l’auteuretl’éditeur[Fn68Isle-Principia(USA)inc.c.Guimond,2013
QCCS3730(CanLII),par.656].
[76]LecontratentreVille-MarieetDesgagnéestsilencieuxsurce
point.Ilfautdoncexaminerlescirconstancesentourantlecontrat
pourtrouverl’intentiondesparties[Fn69Nicholasv.Environmental
Systems,(International)Ltd.,2010FC741(CanLII),par.97-98].
[77]Parmilescirconstancesquipeuventêtrepertinentes,le
Tribunalidentifielessuivantes:
·Lanaturedelarelationentrel’éditeuretl’auteur;
·Lesintérêtséconomiquesdesparties;
·Lanaturedel’ouvrage;
·L’attributiondel’ouvrageàl’auteur;
·Lanaturedesmodifications;
·Laconduitedesparties;et
·Leconsentementexprèsouimplicitedel’auteur.
[78]Ilfautdanschaquecasregarderl’ensembledescirconstances.
[91]Danstoutescescirconstancesetenparticulierparcequela
traductionluiestattribuée,leTribunalconclutque,defaçon
générale,Ville-MairedevaitsoumettrelesmodificationsàDesgagné
avantdepublierlaversionfinaledelatraduction.Toutefois,Ville-
Marieavaitl’obligationdefairelesmodificationsnécessairespour
rendrelatraductionconformeàl’original,etDesgagnéreconnaîtque
Ville-Marieavaitledroitdefairedesmodificationsmineuressansles
luisoumettre.
[91]Danstoutescescirconstancesetenparticulierparcequela
traductionluiestattribuée,leTribunalconclutque,defaçon
générale,Ville-Mairedevaitsoumettrelesmodificationsà
Desgagnéavantdepublierlaversionfinaledelatraduction.
Toutefois,Ville-Marieavaitl’obligationdefairelesmodifications
nécessairespourrendrelatraductionconformeàl’original,et
DesgagnéreconnaîtqueVille-Marieavaitledroitdefairedes
modificationsmineuressanslesluisoumettre.
·Section28.2–Natureofrightofintegrity
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
68
Whethertherightofintegrityisinfringedcallsforanobjectivedeterminationofa
prejudiceandnotasubjectiveone.
Desgagnév.GroupeVille-MarieLittératureinc.,2015CarswellQue11218(Que.
Sup.Ct;2015-11-17)HamiltonJ.
[124]Maisiltémoigneavoirhontedelatraductiontellequepubliée.
Ilnelaprésentemêmepasàsescollèguesetauxmembresdesa
famille.Ilmaintientquelatraductiontellequepubliéeestune
atteinteàsaréputationetàsonhonneur.
[125]Cettedeuxièmeconditioncomporteunélémentsubjectifetun
élémentobjectif[Fn77Isle-Principia(USA)inc.c.Guimond,2013
QCCS3730(CanLII),par.654.].
[126]LessentimentséprouvésparDesgagnéetlepréjudice
qu’ilcroitavoirsubipeuventsatisfaireaucritèresubjectif,mais
nesontpassuffisantspoursatisfaireaucritèreobjectif.Dans
l’affaireIsle-Principia,l’artistesedit«écœuré»parlafaçonqueses
imagessontprésentées[Fn77Isle-Principia(USA)inc.c.Guimond,
2013QCCS3730(CanLII),par.674.].Maiscelanesuffitpas.Le
jugeYergeauremarque[Fn77Isle-Principia(USA)inc.c.Guimond,
2013QCCS3730(CanLII),par.675.]:
[675]Commedanslecasprécédentetlescassuivants,
Guimondnefaitentendreaucunexpertàcepropos.Son
opinionpersonnelledevientainsil’étalondemesuredeses
prétentions.Ilnefournitaucunepreuveindépendanted’une
atteinteàsonhonneuretàsaréputation.L’ensembledela
preuveofferteprêtemêmeàconclurelecontraire.
[127]LejugeYergeaufaitsienlepassagesuivantdel’auteure
MistraleGoudrea[Fn80MistraleGOUDREAU,Ledroitmoralde
l’auteurauCanada(1994),25R.G.D.403,p.420,citédansIsle-
Principia,précitéenote68,par.682.VoiraumêmeeffetSnowv.
TheEatonCentreLtd.,[1982]O.J.No.3645,par.6;PrisedeParole
Inc.v.Guérin,ÉditeurLtée,[1995]F.C.J.No.1583,par.25-28;
Sociétédedroitsd’auteurenartsvisuelsc.Bombardierinc.
(Servicesimmobiliers),2008QCCQ5311(CanLII),par.33.]:
Si,aucontraire,iln’yapasdepreuvequed’autresépousent
lesvuesdel’auteursurlecaractèrepréjudiciabledela
modification,letribunalpeutêtreamenéàconclurequesa
prétentionn’estpassérieuse.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
69
[128]Danslecasprésent,iln’yaaucunepreuvequequelqu’unà
partDesgagnétrouvequelatraductiontellequepubliéeporte
préjudiceàsaréputationouàsonhonneur.
[130]LeTribunalconclutdoncqueDesgagnén’apasprouvéqueles
modificationsfaitesàsontexteparVille-Marieontportépréjudiceà
saréputationouàsonhonneur.Enconséquence,iln’apasprouvé
queVille-Marieaviolésondroitàl’intégritédesonœuvre.
·Section29–Research,privatestudy,etc.[fairdealing]
·Section29.1–Crtiticsmorreview[fairdealing]
·Section29.2–Newsreporting[fairdealing]
Fairdealingisnottobeconfusedwithfairuse.
OilCountryTubularGoods(Re),2015CarswellNat1359,19T.T.R.(2d)656[2015]
C.I.T.T.69(C.I.T.T.;2015-03-23)
Fn15WhilecounselsuggestedthattheTribunalmayfindguidance
inwhatwasreferredtoasthe »fairusedoctrine »ofcopyrightlaw
(seeTranscriptofPublicHearing,Vol.2,27January2015,at90-91),
theTribunalremarksthattheconceptof »fairuse »doesnot
existperseinCanadiancopyrightlaw;rather,Parliamenthas
includedvariousprovisionsintheCopyrightActconcerningthe
similarbutdistinctconceptof »fairdealing »(sections29-29.2).
·Section29–Research,privatestudy,etc.[fairdealing]
·Section29.1–Criticsmorreview[fairdealing]
·Section29.2–Newsreporting[fairdealing]
FortheFairDealingexceptionstocomeintooperation,itisnotrequiredthatthe
complainedactsbemadeonlyforthepurposeenumeratedintheenumerated
puposesoftheseexceptions.
StatementofRoyaltiestobeCollectedbyAccessCopyrightfortheReprographic
Reproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsRepertoire[ProvincialandTerritorial
Goverments–2005-2014],2015CarswellNat1792(subnomineReproductionof
LiteraryWorks,Re)[2015]C.B.D.2(subnomineCollectiveAdministrationin
RelationtoRightsUnderSections3,15,18and21(Re))(Cop.Bd.;2015-05-22)
[243]Wedisagreewiththisapproach.
Unlikesomeotherexceptionsto[243]Nousnepartageonspascepoint
devue.
Contrairementàcertaines
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
70
copyrightinfringementintheAct
(e.g.,section30.61,“reproducethe
copyforthesolepurposeof
obtaininginformation;section
30.63,“forthesolepurpose[…]of
assessingthevulnerabilityofthe
computer”),fairdealingneednotbe
donefora“solepurpose.”Nor
doestheActrequirethatfair
dealingbe“mainly,”“chiefly,”or
otherwise“predominantly”donefor
theenumeratedpurposes.Instead,
“the[SupremeCourt]inCCH[CCH
CanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyofUpper
Canada,2004SCC13,[2004]1
S.C.R.339]createdarelativelylow
thresholdforthefirststepsothatthe
analyticalheavy-hittingisdonein
determiningwhetherthedealingwas
fair.”[Fn147SocietyofComposers,
Authors,andMusicPublishersof
Canadav.BellCanada,2012SCC36,
[2012]2S.C.R.326,atpara.27]
exceptionsàlaviolationdudroit
d’auteurprévuesparlaLoi(àtitre
d’exemple,l’article30.61,
«[reproduire]sonexemplairedansle
seulbutd’obtenirdel’information»;
l’article30.63,«dansleseulbut
d’évaluerlavulnérabilitéd’un
ordinateur»),l’utilisationéquitable
n’apasàselimiterà«unseulbut».
LaLoin’exigepasnonplusque
l’utilisationéquitablesoit«
principalement»,«surtout»ou
autrementfaite«demanière
prédominante»pourl’undesbuts
énumérés.Enfait,«[d]ansCCH
CanadienneLtéec.BarreauduHaut-
Canada,2004CSC13,[2004]1
R.C.S.339],laCour[suprême]applique
uncritèrerelativementpeustrictau
premiervolet,desortequelegrand
branle-basanalytiquen’intervientqu’au
secondvolet,celuideladétermination
ducaractèreéquitable.»[Fn147Société
canadiennedesauteurs,compositeurs
etéditeursdemusiquec.BellCanada,
[2012]2RCS326,2012CSC36au
para.27].
[244]InitsK-12decision,theBoard
statedthatitdoesnotagreewiththe
propositionthat“[i]fthepredominant
purposeisnotanallowableone,the
exceptionwouldnotapply,evenifthe
dealingisfairandincidentallyforan
allowablepurpose,”[Fn148Access
Copyright(EducationalInstitutions)
2005-2009(June26,2009)Copyright
Boarddecision,atpara.88]explaining
thatthiswouldrendersuperfluousthe
analysisofthedealing’spurpose
withinthediscussiononwhatisfair.
[Fn149AccessCopyright(Educational
Institutions)2005-2009(June26,
2009)CopyrightBoarddecision,at
para.88][244]Danssadécision
K-12,la
Commissionamentionnéqu’ellene
souscrivaitpasàl’affirmationselon
laquelle«[s]il’objetprincipaln’estpas
unefinénumérée,l’exceptionnejouerait
pas,mêmesil’utilisationestéquitableet
qu’elleviseaccessoirementunefin
énumérée»[Fn148AccessCopyright
(Établissementsd’enseignement)2005-
2009(26juin2009)décisiondela
Commissiondudroitd’auteur.[K-12]],at
para.88],enexpliquantquecela
rendraitinutilel’analysedubutde
l’utilisationdanslecadredudébatsur
cequiestéquitable[Fn149K-12au
para.88].
[246]Inassessingsteponeofthe
fair-dealingtest,itisnotanobstacle
thatadealingisdoneformultiple
purposes,aslongasitwasalso
doneforapermittedpurpose.
Therefore,evenwhereadealingis
notdonepredominantlyforan
enumeratedpurpose(butisactually
doneforanenumeratedpurpose),it
willmeetthethresholdofthefirst
[246]Dansl’examenrelatifaupremier
voletducritèreapplicableenmatière
d’utilisationéquitable,lefaitqu’une
utilisationserapporteàdemultiples
finsneposepasproblème,dansla
mesureoùl’utilisationserapporte
égalementàunefinpermise.Par
conséquent,mêmesiuneutilisation
neserapportaitpasdemanière
prédominanteàunefinpermise(mais
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
71
stepofthefair-dealingtest.[…].qu’elleserapportaitbeletbienàune
finalitépermise),ellesatisferaaux
exigencesencequiconcernele
premiervoletducritèreapplicableen
matièred’utilisationéquitable.[…]
·Section29–Research,privatestudy,etc.[fairdealing]
·Section29.1–Crtiticsmorreview[fairdealing]
·Section29.2–Newsreporting[fairdealing]
Whetheradealingisfairisamatteroffactanditisuptothedefendanttoprovethe
fainessofthedealing.
StatementofRoyaltiestobeCollectedbyAccessCopyrightfortheReprographic
Reproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsRepertoire[ProvincialandTerritorial
Goverments–2005-2014],2015CarswellNat1792(subnomineReproductionof
LiteraryWorks,Re)(Cop.Bd.;2015-05-22)
[219]Therefore,itispossibleto
evaluatethefairnessofadealing
withoutevidenceoneveryfactor.
Indeed,thisisbecausewhethera
dealingis“fair”remainsaquestion
offactand“amatterofimpression.”
[Fn125Alberta(Education)v.
CanadianCopyrightLicensingAgency
(AccessCopyright),2012CC37,
[2012]2S.C.R.345atpara.37;CCH
CanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyofUpper
Canada,2004SCC13,[2004]1
S.C.R.339atpara.52]This
impressionmaybegainedthrough
whateverevidenceisbeforethe
decision-maker.Ifthereisevidence
thatwouldtendtoshowthata
dealingismoreorlessfair,it
shouldbeadducedbytheparty
wishingtomakethecorresponding
argument.[219]Parconséquent,ilestpossible
d’apprécierlecaractèreéquitable
d’uneutilisationenl’absencede
preuvesurtouslesfacteurs.Ilenest
ainsiparcequecequ’ilfautentendre
par«équitable»estunequestionde
faitetune«unequestion
d’impression»[Fn125
Alberta
(Éducation)c.CanadianCopyright
LicensingAgency(AccessCopyright),
[2012]2RCS345,2012CSC37au
para.37;CCHCanadienneLtéec.
BarreauduHaut-Canada,2004CSC13,
[2004]1R.C.S.339[CCH]aupara.52]
.
Cetteimpressionpeutêtreobtenueau
moyenden’importequellepreuvedont
disposeledécideur.S’ilexisteune
preuvequitendàdémontrerqu’une
utilisationestplusoumoins
équitable,cetélémentdepreuve
devraitêtreproduitparlapartiequi
souhaitefairevaloirl’argument
correspondant.
·Section29–Research,privatestudy,etc.[fairdealing]
·Section29.1–Crtiticsmorreview[fairdealing]
·Section29.2–Newsreporting[fairdealing]
Forthepurposeofdeterminingifthereisafairdealing,itistheultimateuserthat
shouldbetakenintoaccountandnottheintermediaries.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
72
StatementofRoyaltiestobeCollectedbyAccessCopyrightfortheReprographic
Reproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsRepertoire[ProvincialandTerritorial
Goverments–2005-2014],2015CarswellNat1792(subnomineReproductionof
LiteraryWorks,Re)(Cop.Bd.;2015-05-22)
[230]Wedisagree.Itisnotthe
employerofthepersonwhomakesa
copyofaworkthatmustbethe
“user.”InAlberta[Alberta(Education)
v.CanadianCopyrightLicensing
Agency(AccessCopyright),2012
SCC37,[2012]2S.C.R.345],even
thoughtheteacherswereagentsof
theirschools,thisdidnotresultinthe
purposetobeconsideredtobethat
oftheschools,itwasstillthatof
theactualindividualwhoused(in
thatcase,read)thework:the
student.Norisitthatsince
governmentsareoftenthe
beneficiariesofthedealings
performedbytheemployeesthatthey
mustbetheuserthroughwhoseeyes
thepurposewillbeconsidered.[230]Nousnesommespasd’accord.
L’«utilisateur»n’estpasl’employeurde
lapersonnequifaitunecopie.
DansAlberta(Éducation)c.Canadian
CopyrightLicensingAgency(Access
Copyright)
,[2012]2RCS345,2012
CSC37],mêmesilesenseignants
étaientlesmandatairesdeleursécoles,
celan’apasfaitensortequelafinqui
étaitconsidéréeétaitcelledes
écoles;c’étaittoujourslafindela
personnequiavaitréellementutilisé
(enl’espèce,lu)l’oeuvre:l’étudiant.
Lesgouvernements,mêmes’ils
bénéficientsouventdesutilisations
faitesparlesemployés,nedoiventpas
êtreceuxparquilafindel’utilisationest
examinée.
[233]Similarly,wedonotconsiderthe
purposeforwhichtheObjector
governmentshavetheiremployees
carryouttheirduties,exceptperhaps
totheextentitmaybeevidenceof
thatemployee’spurposeofa
particulardealing.Instead,we
considerthepurposeofeachofthe
users,thepersonwhoactuallyused
theworkbyreadingitorotherwise
perceivingitscontents(usuallyan
employeeofoneoftheObjectors),for
whichthedealingwascarriedout.As
thereisnoreasonwhyan
employeecouldnothavedealtwith
acopyrightedworkforpurposes
otherthanresearch,wedonot
excludefromourconsiderationthe
possibilitythatfairdealing
occurredinrelationtoworksfor
purposesotherthanresearch.[233]Danslamêmeveine,nous
n’examinonspaslafinpourlaquelleles
gouvernementsopposantsdemandentà
leursemployésdes’acquitterdeleurs
fonctions,saufpeutêtredanslamesure
oùcelapeutconstituerunepreuvedela
finpoursuivieparl’employéàl’égard
d’uneutilisationparticulière.Nous
examinonsplutôtlafinpoursuiviepar
chaqueutilisateur,soitlapersonnequi
utiliseréellementl’oeuvre,enlalisantou
enprenantautrementconnaissancede
soncontenu(habituellement,un
employédel’undesopposants).
Puisqu’iln’yaaucuneraisonpour
laquelleunemployénepourraitpas
utiliseruneoeuvreviséeparundroit
d’auteurpourunefinautrequela
recherche,nousn’excluonspasde
notreexamenlapossibilitéque
l’utilisationéquitableaiteulieu
relativementàdesoeuvrespourdes
finsautresquelarecherche
.
·Section29–Research,privatestudy,etc.[fairdealing]
·Section29.1–Crtiticsmorreview[fairdealing]
·Section29.2–Newsreporting[fairdealing]
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
73
Allofthepurposesenumeratedinthefairdealingsectionsmustreceivealargeand
liberalinterpretation.
StatementofRoyaltiestobeCollectedbyAccessCopyrightfortheReprographic
Reproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsRepertoire[ProvincialandTerritorial
Goverments–2005-2014],2015CarswellNat1792(subnomineReproductionof
LiteraryWorks,Re)(Cop.Bd.;2015-05-22)
[240]Lastly,thereisnoapparent
reasonwhy“research”mustbegiven
alargeandliberalinterpretationin
ordertoensurethatusers’rightsare
notundulyconstrained,whileother
purposes,suchasnewsreportingor
privatestudy,wouldnotbesubjectto
suchaconsideration.TheSupreme
Courtstatedthatfairdealingisa
user’sright,notthatonlyfairdealing
forthepurposeofresearchisauser’s
right.Therefore,allofthepurposes
enumeratedinsections29-29.2of
theActmustreceivealargeand
liberalinterpretation.[240]Endernierlieu,ilnesemblepasy
avoirderaisonpourlaquellela«
recherche»devraitêtreinterprétéede
manièrelargeetlibéraleafindefaireen
sortequelesdroitsdesutilisateursne
soientpasindûmentlimités,alorsque
lesautresbuts,commela
communicationdenouvellesoul’étude
privée,neseraientpasassujettisàla
mêmeconsidération.LaCoursuprême
aénoncéquel’utilisationéquitableest
undroitdel’utilisateur,etnonque
seulementl’utilisationéquitableauxfins
derechercheestundroitdel’utilisateur.
Parconséquent,touteslesfins
prévuesauxarticles29à29.2dela
Loi
doiventêtreinterprétéesde
manièrelargeetlibérale
·Section29–Research,privatestudy,etc.[fairdealing]
Forateachernottoprovidehissourcesmayfallundertheexceptionoffairdealing
butstillconstituteplagiarism,whichisparticularlyreprehensibleintheacademia.
UniversitéduQuébecàMontréalv.Gagnon,2015CarswellQue5050(Que.C.A.
2015-07-28)BichJ.[refusingleavetotheQuebecCourtofappealof2015
CarswellQue5050Que.Sup.Ct.;2015-06-02)whichwasrefusingjudicialreviewof
2015CarswellQue7161(QCSAT;2015-04-20)]
[14]Entoutrespectpourlapropositioncontraire,ilestdifficiledevoir
enquoicesdéterminationssontdéraisonnables,etce,mêmesiles
empruntsfaitsparlesalariéavaientpuconstituerune
utilisationéquitableausensdel’article29delaLoisurledroit
d’auteur(cequineparaîtpascertain,dureste:l’usage
équitableenmatièred’éducationpeut-ilpermettred’avaliserun
comportementquiestordinairementblâmésévèrementdansce
milieu,c’est-à-direlefaitd’emprunteràl’œuvred’autruioude
sel’appropriersansdévoilersessources?)
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
74
[15]Malheureusement,mêmes’iln’yavaitpasviolationdelaLoisur
ledroitd’auteur,lasituationdel’espèceestbiencelled’unplagiat,
c’est-à-dired’un«empruntlittérairecaché»[Fn5LeGrandRobert
delalanguefrançaise,versionnumérique3.1.0(7.0),Dictionnaires
LeRobert,«plagiat»]oud’une«imitationnonavouée»[Fn6Le
GrandRobertdelalanguefrançaise,versionnumérique3.1.0(7.0),
DictionnairesLeRobert,«plagiat»
].L’arbitreajugéque,auregard
despolitiquesapplicablestantauxprofesseursqu’auxétudiants,ce
plagiatdénotaitunmanquedeprobitéetconstituaitunefauteque
l’intiméepouvaitsanctionner.Vulanormederévisionapplicable,le
jugedepremièreinstanceaconcluquecepointdevueétait
raisonnable.Onnepeutluidonnertort.
·Section29–Research,privatestudy,etc.[FairDealing]
·Section29.1–Criticsmorreview[FairDealing]
Adefenseoffairdealingisnotopenwhenthecopyrightedmaterialwasobtained
illegally.
1395804OntarioLimited(Blacklock’sReporter)v.CanadianVintnersAssociation,
[2015]O.J.5369(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-10-16)GilbertJ.
[53]NotwithstandingtheforegoingconclusionthattheDefendants
haveillegallyobtainedthePlaintiff’scopyrightedmaterial,canthey
stillavailthemselvesoftheprotectionaffordedoffairdealingunder
theAct?
[54]Havingreviewedthecaselawauthoritiescitedtomeand
consideringtheschemeandpolicyobjectivesoftheActandmost
importantlysection41.1(1)thereof,itispatentlyclearthatunless
youhaveobtainedthemateriallegally,youcannotavailyourself
ofthedefenceoffairdealingforthepurposeofeducation,
criticismorreview.ThefactsinCCH[CCHCanadianLtd.v.Law
SocietyofUpperCanada,(2004)2004SCC13(CanLII),1S.C.R.
339(SCC)]andthelawcitedthereinmakeitperfectlyclearthat
youmustfirstobtainthemateriallegallyandwithcolourofright
·Section30.61–Interoperabilityofcomputerprogram
·Section30.63Security
Thereproductionofacomputerprogramforassessingtheinteroperabilityor
vulnerabilityofacomputerwillnotconstituteinfringementifitisthesolepurposeof
thereproduction.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
75
StatementofRoyaltiestobeCollectedbyAccessCopyrightfortheReprographic
Reproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsRepertoire[ProvincialandTerritorial
Goverments–2005-2014],2015CarswellNat1792(subnomineReproductionof
LiteraryWorks,Re)[2015]C.B.D.2(subnomineCollectiveAdministrationin
RelationtoRightsUnderSections3,15,18and21(Re))(Cop.Bd.;2015-05-22)
[243]Wedisagreewiththisapproach.
Unlikesomeotherexceptionsto
copyrightinfringementintheAct
(e.g.,section30.61,“reproducethe
copyforthesolepurposeof
obtaininginformation;section
30.63,“forthesolepurpose[…]of
assessingthevulnerabilityofthe
computer”),fairdealingneednotbe
donefora“solepurpose.”Nor
doestheActrequirethatfair
dealingbe“mainly,”“chiefly,”or
otherwise“predominantly”donefor
theenumeratedpurposes.Instead,
“the[SupremeCourt]inCCH[CCH
CanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyofUpper
Canada,2004SCC13,[2004]1
S.C.R.339]createdarelativelylow
thresholdforthefirststepsothatthe
analyticalheavy-hittingisdonein
determiningwhetherthedealingwas
fair.”[Fn147SocietyofComposers,
Authors,andMusicPublishersof
Canadav.BellCanada,2012SCC36,
[2012]2S.C.R.326,atpara.27][243]Nousnepartageonspascepoint
devue.
Contrairementàcertaines
exceptionsàlaviolationdudroit
d’auteurprévuesparlaLoi(àtitre
d’exemple,l’article30.61,
«[reproduire]sonexemplairedansle
seulbutd’obtenirdel’information»;
l’article30.63,«dansleseulbut
d’évaluerlavulnérabilitéd’un
ordinateur»),l’utilisationéquitable
n’apasàselimiterà«unseulbut».
LaLoin’exigepasnonplusque
l’utilisationéquitablesoit
«principalement»,«surtout»ou
autrementfaite«demanière
prédominante»pourl’undesbuts
énumérés.Enfait,«[d]ansCCH,[CCH
CanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyofUpper
Canada,2004SCC13,[2004]1S.C.R.
339],laCour[suprême]appliqueun
critèrerelativementpeustrictaupremier
volet,desortequelegrandbranle-bas
analytiquen’intervientqu’ausecond
volet,celuideladéterminationdu
caractèreéquitable.»[Fn147CCH
CanadienneLtéec.BarreauduHaut-
Canada,2004CSC13,[2004]1
R.C.S.339aupara.27]
·Section30.7–Incidentaluse
Forthisexceptiontoapply,theinclusionshallnotbedeliberate.
CanadianBroadcastingCorp.v.SODRAC2003Inc.,2015CarswellNat6092
(S.C.C.;2015-11-26)RothsteinJ.
[54]Thenecessaryimplicationofs.
30.7,alsoenactedin1997,isthatit
absolvesincidental,non-deliberate,
inclusionofaworkfrom
infringement—asterileprovision
andofnopracticaleffecthad
Parliamentconsideredincidental
inclusiontobeoutsides.3(1)(d)in
[54]L’article30.7,luiaussiédictéen
1997,empêchenécessairementque
l’inclusionaccessoired’uneœuvre,
maisnoncellequiestdélibérée,
constitueuneinfraction—une
dispositionquiauraitétéstérileet
sanseffetpratiquesilelégislateur
avaitjugéquelesinclusions
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
76
thefirstplace.Thereisnodoubtthat
thisprovisionappliestobroadcasting,
amongotheractivities,andthatthe
useofbroadcast-incidentalcopiesis
deliberateandthusnotexempted.
SeeD.Vaver,IntellectualProperty
Law:Copyright,Patents,Trade-Marks
(2nded.2011),atp.223.
accessoiresn’étaientpasviséespar
l’al.3(1)d).Ilnefaitaucundouteque
cettedispositions’appliqueàla
diffusion,entreautresactivités,etque
l’utilisationdecopiesaccessoiresde
diffusionestdélibéréeet,par
conséquent,n’estpasvisépar
l’exception.VoirD.Vaver,Intellectual
PropertyLaw:Copyright,Patents,
Trade-Marks(2
eéd.2011),p.223.
·Section30.8–Ephemeralrecordings
·Section30.9–Ephemeralrecordings–broadccastingundertaking
Therightofreproductiondidnotvanishwiththebroadcast-incidentalcopies.
Furthermore,fortheseexceptionstoapply,verystringentconditionsmustbemet.
CanadianBroadcastingCorp.v.SODRAC2003Inc.,2015CarswellNat6092
(S.C.C.;2015-11-26)RothsteinJ.
[50]Thebroaderstatutorycontextof
theActfurtherprovidesstrong
indicationsthatthelegislature
intendedforbroadcast-incidental
copiestoengagethereproduction
right.Mostsignificantly,ss.30.8and
30.9(setoutinfullintheAppendix),
enactedaspartofaseriesof
amendmentstotheActin1997,
establishspecificcircumstancesin
which“[i]tisnotaninfringementof
copyright”tomakecopiestofacilitate
broadcasting:S.C.1997,c.24,s.
18(1).Inordertogainthebenefitof
ss.30.8or30.9,broadcastersmust
meetalistofstringentconditions
concerning,amongotherthings,
thetiming,recordkeeping,and
destructionofthecopies.As
counselforCBCacknowledgedduring
thehearingbeforethisCourt,CBC’s
broadcast-incidentalcopyingactivities
donotfitwithinthelanguageofss.
30.8or30.9:transcript,atp.26.[50]Lecontextelégislatifplusgénéral
dela
LDAillustreenoutreclairementle
souhaitdulégislateurquelescopies
accessoiresdediffusionmettenten
jeuledroitdereproduction.Plus
importantencore,lesart.30.8et30.9
—(reproduitsintégralementenannexe)
etédictéscommepartieintégrante
d’unesériedemodificationsapportées
àlaLDAen1997—,établissentles
circonstancesexactesdanslesquelles
laconfectiondecopiespourenfaciliter
ladiffusion«neconstituepasune
violationdudroitd’auteur»:L.C.1997,
c.24,par.18(1).Afindepouvoirtirer
profitdesart.30.8ou30.9,les
diffuseursdoiventsatisfaireàune
sériedeconditionsrigoureusesse
rapportantnotammentauchoixdela
date,àlatenuederegistresetàla
destructiondescopies.Ainsique
l’avocatdelaSRCl’areconnupendant
l’audiencetenuedevantlaCour,les
activitésdelaSRCrelativesauxcopies
accessoiresdediffusionnerelèventpas
dulibellédesart.30.8ou30.9:
transcription,p.26.
[53][…]Thus,thescopeofss.30.8
and30.9wasspecificanddeliberate.
Parliamentcouldhaveadopted[53][…]Ainsi,laportéedesart.30.8et
30.9étaitpréciseetvoulue.Le
législateurauraitpuleurdonnerune
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
77
broaderprovisions.Itchosenotto.Itis
notfortheCourttodoby
“interpretation”whatParliamentchose
nottodobyenactment.portéepluslarge.Ilachoisidenepas
lefaire.Iln’appartientpasàlaCourde
faire«eninterprétant»laloicequele
législateurachoisidenepasfaireen
l’adoptant.
[55]Althoughmadeintheprocess
ofbroadcasting,thesebroadcast-
incidentalcopiesnevertheless
triggerthereproductionright.They
arenotexemptedbyss.30.8and
30.9
.Thereisnothinginthetext,
contextorlegislativehistoryofthese
provisions(ors.3(1))thatsupportsthe
viewthatthebroadcastingprocess
obviatesthefactthatbroadcast-
incidentalcopiesarereproductions
undertheCopyrightAct.Arguments
basedonpurposeintheformof
technologicalneutralityandbalance
areadvancedtocometotheopposite
conclusion,butpurposiveconstruction
isatoolofstatutoryinterpretationto
assistinunderstandingthemeaningof
thetext.Itisnotastand-alonebasis
fortheCourttodevelopitsowntheory
ofwhatitconsidersappropriatepolicy.
Accordingly,theBoardwascorrect
inproceedingonthebasisthat
broadcastincidentalcopiesengage
thereproductionrightunders.
3(1)(d)oftheCopyrightAct.
[55]Mêmesiellessont
confectionnéesdanslecadredu
processusdediffusion,cescopies
accessoiresdediffusionmettenten
jeuledroitdereproduction.Ellesne
sontdoncpassoustraitesà
l’applicationdecedroitparles
art.30.8et30.9.Riendanslelibelléde
cesdispositions(oudupar.3(1)),dans
leurcontexteoudansleurhistorique
législatifn’étayel’opinionselonlaquelle
leprocessusdediffusionannulelefait
quelescopiesdecetypeconstituent
desreproductionsausensoùilfaut
l’entendrepourl’applicationdelaLDA.
Lesargumentsfondéssurl’objetvisé
quesontlaneutralitétechnologiqueet
lamiseenéquilibresontinvoquéspour
qu’onenarriveàlaconclusioninverse.
Or,l’interprétationfondéesurl’objet
viséestunoutild’interprétation
législativequichercheàaideràla
compréhensiondusensdutexte.Elle
neconstituepasunfondement
indépendantautorisantlaCourà
élaborersaproprethéoriedecequ’elle
jugeêtreunepolitiqueappropriée.Par
conséquent,c’estàjustetitrequela
Commissionatenupouracquisque
lescopiesaccessoiresdediffusion
mettentencauseledroitde
reproductionenapplicationde
l’al.3(1)d)delaLDA.
·Section30.8–Ephemeralrecordings
Broadcast-incidentalcopyingactivitiesdoengagethereproductionright.
CanadianBroadcastingCorp.v.SODRAC2003Inc.,2015CarswellNat6092
(S.C.C.;2015-11-26)RothsteinJ.[reversing118C.P.R.(4th)79(F.C.A.;2014-03-
31)whichwasreversing2012CarswellNat4255(Cop.Bd.;2012-11-02)]
[1]Broadcastingaprogramthat
usescopyright-protectedmusic
engagestherighttocommunicate
theworktothepublicby
[1]Ladiffusiond’uneémission
incorporantunemusiqueprotégée
parundroitd’auteurmetenjeule
droitdecommuniquerl’œuvreau
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
78
telecommunication—arightthat
restsexclusivelywiththecopyright
holderforthatmusicalwork.Thus,
broadcastersmustsecurealicenceto
communicatethework.Broadcasting
activitiesarecomplex,however,and
broadcastersoftenengagenotonlyin
thetelecommunicationofmusical
worksaspartoftheairingofa
program,butalsoinmakingcopiesof
programs,andthusofthemusic
incorporatedtherein,forinternaluse.
Wherethesecopiesaremadeto
facilitatebroadcasting,theymaybe
describedasbroadcast-incidental
copies.
publicparvoiedetélécommunication
—undroitquiappartient
exclusivementautitulairedudroit
d’auteursurl’œuvremusicaleen
question.C’estpourcetteraisonque
lesdiffuseursquicommuniquentl’œuvre
doiventobtenirunelicence.Celadit,les
activitésdediffusionsontcomplexes,et
ilarrivesouventquelesdiffuseursnon
seulementeffectuentla
télécommunicationd’œuvresmusicales
danslecadredeladiffusiond’une
émission,maisaussiconfectionnentdes
copiesd’émissions—et,par
conséquent,delamusiquequecelles-ci
contiennent—àdesfinsd’utilisation
interne.Danslescasoùellesvisentà
faciliterladiffusion,cescopiespeuvent
êtrequalifiéesdecopiesaccessoiresde
diffusion.
[2]Makingcopiesofacopyright-
protectedworkimplicatesthe
reproductionright,whichalsorests
exclusivelywiththecopyright
holder.Thiscaseconcernsthe
relationshipbetweenbroadcast-
incidentalcopiesandthereproduction
rightestablishedbys.3(1)(d)ofthe
CopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42.
[2]Laconfectiondecopiesd’une
œuvreprotégéeparundroitd’auteur
metenjeuledroitdereproduction,
quiappartient,luiaussi,
exclusivementautitulairedudroit
d’auteur.Leprésentpourvoiportesur
lerapportquiexisteentrelescopies
accessoiresdediffusionetledroitde
reproductionviséàl’al.3(1)d)delaLoi
surledroitd’auteur,L.R.C.1985,
c.C-42(«LDA»ou«Loi»).
[43]Section3(1)(d)oftheCopyright
Actprovidesthecopyrightholderwith
thesoleright“tomakeanysound
recording,cinematographfilmorother
contrivancebymeansofwhich[a]
workmaybemechanicallyreproduced
orperformed”.[43]L’alinéa3(1)
d)delaLDAconfèreau
titulairedudroitd’auteursuruneœuvre
ledroitexclusif«d’enfaireun
enregistrementsonore,film
cinématographiqueouautresupport,à
l’aidedesquelsl’œuvrepeutêtre
reproduite,représentéeouexécutée
mécaniquement».
[44]SODRAC’seffortstoseeklicence
paymentsforCBC’sbroadcast-
incidentalcopyinghavetheiroriginsin
thisCourt’sdecisioninBishop[Bishop
v.Stevens,1990CanLII75(SCC),
[1990]2S.C.R.467].ThisCourtheld
thatthemakingof“ephemeral”copies
—inthatcase,recordingsofa
musicalperformancemadetofacilitate
alaterbroadcast—doesengagethe
reproductionrightunderthelanguage
ofs.3(1)(d)oftheCopyrightAct,and
thattherighttomakesuchcopiesis
notimpliedbylawinabroadcast[44]LeseffortsdelaSODRACenvue
d’obtenirdesredevancespourla
confectiondecopiesaccessoiresde
diffusionparlaSRCtirentleuroriginede
ladécisionrendueparlaCourdans
Bishop
[Bishopv.Stevens,1990CanLII
75(SCC),[1990]2S.C.R.467].Selon
cetarrêt,laconfectiondecopies
«éphémères»—danscetteaffaire,les
enregistrementsd’uneprestation
musicalevisantàenfaciliterladiffusion
àunedateultérieure—metenjeule
droitdereproductionausensoùilfaut
l’entendrepourl’applicationde
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
79
licence:pp.484-85.l’al.3(1)d)delaLDA,etunelicencede
diffusionn’emportepasnécessairement
endroitceluidefairedetellescopies:
p.484et485.
[49]Theordinarymeaningofthetext
oftheCopyrightActindicatesthat
broadcast-incidentalcopying
activitiesdoengagethe
reproductionright.AsthisCourtheld
inBishop,thetextofs.3(1)(d)covers
suchactivitybyitsterms.Making
broadcast-incidentalcopiesisthe
makingofa“soundrecording,
cinematographfilmorother
contrivancebymeansofwhichthe
workmaybemechanicallyreproduced
orperformed”:s.3(1)(d).Thoughthis
Court’sunderstandingofthepurpose
ofcopyrighthasevolvedsincethe
observationinBishopthatits“sole
purpose”isprotectingauthorinterests,
norecoursetothisobservationis
requiredtoreads.3(1)(d)asbeing
engagedbybroadcast-incidental
copyingactivities:para.1.Theplain
languageofthestatuteitself
establishesthismuch.[49]Suivantlesensordinairedutexte
dela
LDA,lesactivitésrelativesaux
copiesaccessoiresdediffusion
mettenteffectivementenjeuledroit
dereproduction.AinsiquelaCourl’a
concludansBishop,lelibellémêmede
l’al.3(1)d)couvreunetelleactivité.La
confectiondecopiesaccessoiresde
diffusionéquivautàfaireun
«enregistrementsonore,film
cinématographiqueouautresupport,à
l’aidedesquelsl’œuvrepeutêtre
reproduite,représentéeouexécutée
mécaniquement»:al.3(1)d).Bienque
lamanièredontlaCourinterprètel’objet
dudroitd’auteuraitévoluédepuisla
remarqueénoncéedansBishopselon
laquelleson«butunique»estde
protégerlesdroitsdel’auteur,iln’est
pasnécessairedeseréféreràcette
remarquepourenarriveràlaconclusion
quel’al.3(1)d)estmisencauseparles
activitésrelativesauxcopies
accessoiresdediffusion:par.1.Le
libelléordinairedelaloimêmele
confirme.
·Section30.8–Ephemeralrecordings
Alicencetomakebroadcast-incidentalcopiesshouldnotbeimpliedfrom
synchronizationlicences.
CanadianBroadcastingCorp.v.SODRAC2003Inc.,2015CarswellNat6092
(S.C.C.;2015-11-26)RothsteinJ.
[5
]TheBoardwascorrectinfinding
thatbroadcast-incidentalcopying
engagesthereproductionright,
consistentwiththisCourt’sdecisionin
Bishopv.Stevens,1990CanLII75
(SCC),[1990]2S.C.R.467,andthe
contextofthestatutoryschemesetout
intheCopyrightAct.Thoughthis
Court’ssubsequentdecisionsin
Thébergev.Galeried’ArtduPetit
Champlaininc.,2002SCC34
(CanLII),[2002]2S.C.R.336,and[5]LaCommissionaconcluàjuste
titrequel’activitéconsistantàfaire
descopiesaccessoiresdediffusion
metencauseledroitde
reproduction,unedécisionconformeà
ladécisiondelaCourdansl’arrêt
Bishopc.Stevens,1990CanLII75
(CSC),[1990]2R.C.S.467,etavecle
régimelégislatifmisenplaceparla
LDA.Silesdécisionsrendues
subséquemmentparlaCourdansles
arrêtsThébergec.Galeried’ArtduPetit
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
80
EntertainmentSoftwareAssociationv.
SocietyofComposers,Authorsand
MusicPublishersofCanada,2012
SCC34(CanLII),[2012]S.C.R.231
(“ESA”),haverefinedour
understandingofthepurposesof
copyrightlaw,thecentralholdingin
Bishop,thatephemeralcopies
engagethereproductionright,
remainssound.Ifurtheragreewith
theBoardandtheFederalCourtof
Appealthatalicencetomake
broadcast-incidentalcopiesshould
notbeimpliedfrom
synchronizationlicencesissuedby
SODRAC.
Champlaininc.,2002CSC34(CanLII),
[2002]2R.C.S.336etEntertainment
SoftwareAssociationc.Société
canadiennedesauteurs,compositeurs
etéditeursdemusique,2012CSC34
(CanLII),[2012]2R.C.S.231(«ESA»)
ontprécisénotrecompréhensiondes
objectifsdudroitd’auteur,la
conclusioncentraledel’arrêtBishop,
soitquelescopieséphémères
mettentencauseledroitde
reproduction,demeurevalide.En
outre,j’estime,àl’instardela
CommissionetdelaCourd’appel
fédérale,qu’ilfautsegarderd’inférer
deslicencesdesynchronisation
octroyéesparlaSODRACl’existence
delicencesautorisantlaconfection
decopiesaccessoiresdediffusion.
·Section31–Interpretation[retransmission]
TheapplicationoftheretransmissionregimeisoutsidethemandateoftheCanadian
Radio-televisionandTelecommunicationsCommission.Theissuanceofa
broadcastingpermitbytheCRTCisnotanauthorizationtoinfringecopyright.
BroadcastingDecisionCRTC2015-187[RemovalofKSTP-TVMinneapolisfromthe
Listofnon-Canadianprogrammingservicesauthorizedfordistribution],2015
LNCRTCB59(C.R.T.C.;2015-05-13)
[22]TheissuesraisedbyHubbardBroadcastingrelatingtothe
retransmissionregime,agreeduponbyCanadaandtheU.S.inthe
Agreementandimplementedthroughsection31oftheCopyright
Act,includingretransmission,broadcastrightsandcompensation,
andequaltreatment,lieoutsidetheCommission’smandateunder
theBroadcastingAct.TheadditionofastationtotheListdoes
notauthorizeaBDUtoinfringecopyright,norisitan
endorsementthataBDUisorwillbeactingconsistentwiththe
CopyrightAct.ItsimplypermitsaBDUtocarryastationin
compliancewiththeBroadcastingAct.Therefore,
thecopyrightissuesraisedbytheapplicantaremoreproperly
addressedinanotherforum.
[23]Therequirementssetoutinthegeneralnotesrelatingto
programmingrightsandnon-exclusivityrequirementsonlypertainto
non-Canadianspecialtyandpayservices,whichhavebeenthe
primaryfocusofCommissionpolicyrelatingtotheList.Sincethe
retransmissionregimeappliestoU.S.televisionstations,these
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
81
requirementsarenotrelevanttothesestationsontheList.The
Commissionintendstodrawattentiontothisfactinthegeneral
notes.
·Section32.1–Noinfringement
TobeexemptedfromdisclosureundertheOntarioFreedomofInformationand
ProtectionofPrivacyActarecordshould,interalia,containcommercial,scientificor
technicalinformationthatbelongstotheGovernmentofOntariooraninstitutionand
havemonetaryvalueorpotentialmonetaryvalue,suchascopyright.
OrderPO-3463-I;UniversityofOttawa(Re),[2015]O.I.P.C.36(Ont.I.P.C.;2015-02-
20)Haly,Member
[35]Forinformationto »belongto »aninstitution,theinstitutionmust
havesomeproprietaryinterestiniteitherinatraditionalintellectual
propertysense–suchascopyright,trademark,patentorindustrial
design–orinthesensethatthelawwouldrecognizeasubstantial
interestinprotectingtheinformationfrommisappropriationby
anotherparty.
[36]Examplesofinformationbelongingtoaninstitutionaretrade
secrets,business-to-businessmailinglists,customerorsupplierlists,
pricelists,orothertypesofconfidentialbusinessinformation.Ineach
oftheseexamples,thereisaninherentmonetaryvalueinthe
informationtotheorganizationresultingfromtheexpenditureof
moneyortheapplicationofskillandefforttodeveloptheinformation.
If,inaddition,theinformationisconsistentlytreatedinaconfidential
manner,anditderivesitsvaluetotheorganizationfromnotbeing
generallyknown,theconfidentialbusinessinformationwillbe
protectedfrommisappropriationbyothers.[Fn10OrderPO-1763,
upheldonjudicialreviewinOntarioLotteryandGamingCorporation
v.Ontario(InformationandPrivacyCommissioner),[2001]O.J.No.
2552(Div.Ct.);seealsoOrdersPO-1805,PO-2226andPO-2632.]
[Nota:Ontheterm »belongsto »andareferenceto »copyright »seealso:OrderPO-
3464-I;UniversityofOttawa(Re),[2015]O.I.P.C.37(Ont.I.P.C.;2015-02-20)Haly,
Adjudicatoratparas.46-47;OrderPO-3463-I;UniversityofOttawa(Re),[2015]
O.I.P.C.60(Ont.I.P.C.;2015-02-20)Haly,Adjudicatoratparas.35-36;OrderMO-
3174-I;Amprior(Town)(Re),[2015]O.I.P.C.59(Ont.I.P.C.;2015-03-30)Corban,
Adjudicatoratparas.98-99;OrderMO-3175;Amprior(Town)(Re),[2015]O.I.P.C.
60(Ont.I.P.C.;2015-03-30)Corban,Adjudicatoratparas.97-98;InterimOrderMO-
3177-I;Markham(City)(Re),[2015]O.I.P.C.62(Ont.I.P.C.;2015-03-30)Ball,
Adjudicatoratparas.115-116;OrderPO-3475;NiagaraParksCommission(Re),
[2015]O.I.P.C.67(Ont.I.P.C.;2015-03-31)Faughnan,Adjudicatoratparas.104-
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
82
105;OrderMO-3166;Kincardine(Municipality)(Re),),[2015]O.I.P.C.42(Ont.I.P.C.;
2015-03-04)Hale,Adjudicatoratparas.68-69;OrderMO-3182;TorontoHydroCorp.
(Re),[2015]O.I.P.C.71(Ont.I.P.C.;2015-04-10)Hale,Adjudicatoratparas.23-24;
MO-3205;BrantfordHydroInc.(Re),[2015]O.I.P.C.115(Ont.I.P.C.;2015-06-05)
Smith,Adjudicatoratparas.128-132;MO-3206;Kincardine(Municipality))Re,[2015]
O.I.P.C.116(Ont.I.P.C.;2015-06-05)Hale,Adjudicatoratparas.38-39;MO-3207;
BuildTorontoInc.(Re),[2015]O.I.P.C.117(Ont.I.P.C.;2015-06-09)Halmilton,
Adjudicatoratparas.87-88;OrderPO-3541;IndependentElectricitySystem
Operator(Re),[2015]O.I.P.C.206(Ont.I.P.C.;2015-10-21)JamesAdjudicatorat
paras.44-45]·Section32.1–Noinfringement
CopyrightdoesnotpreventapublicbodyofitsdutytogiveaccessunderanAccess
toInformationActofcopyrightmaterial.
OrderF2015-15;AlbertaEnergy(Re),[2015]A.I.P.C.D.6(AltaI.P.C.;2015-05-22)
Swanek,Adjudicator
[Applicationforaccesstostudies,reportsordocumentscomparingAlberta’sroyalty
ratesandregimefornon-renewableenergyresourcescoststoroyaltyratesand
regimesinotherjurisdictions.]
[44]WithrespecttotheThirdParty’sclaimthathonouringthe
copyrightnoticewouldhavemadeaninquiryunnecessary,Inote
thatcopyrightdoesnotnegateapublicbody’sdutytorespond
toarequestforaccessmadeundertheFOIPAct.Inthiscase,
thePublicBodydeterminedthatinformationfromreportsoftheThird
Partywereresponsivetoanaccessrequest;itwasrequiredunder
theFOIPActtoconsiderwhetheritmustgrantaccesstothat
informationundertheAct.
[45]InOrderF2008-018,theadjudicatorconsideredtherelevanceof
acopyrighttotheapplicationofsection16(1)(b).Shesaid(atparas.
81-82):
·IdonotfindthecopyrightwarningonRecord125,orthe
recordreferredtoinACS’sincamerasubmissions(discussed
below)toberelevanttotheissueofconfidentiality.Rather,
thesewarningscautiontheuserthattheworkiscopyrighted
andthattheownerofthecopyrightisassertingthoserights
againstunauthorizedcopyinganddistribution.Thecopyright
warningdoesnotmeanthattherightofaccesstothe
copyrightedworkisrestricted.Infact,section32.1ofthe
CopyrightActpermitscopyingofcopyrightedworksforthe
purposeofcomplyingwithfederalandprovincialaccessto
informationlegislation.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
83
·IagreewiththereasoningoftheInformation
CommissioneroftheUnitedKingdom,whenhesaidinDecision
FS50083358:
·…thefactthatinformationmaybesomeone’s
intellectualpropertydoesnotofitselfprecludeits
legitimateavailabilitytoothers.Justaslibrarybooksmay
beprotectedbycopyright,theirpublicavailabilityisnot
restrictedbecauseofthatstatus.
[46]Thatsaid,atthetimetheThirdPartyprovideditsreportstothe
PublicBody,itclearlyintendedthattheinformationremain
confidential.ThePublicBodyagreesthattheinformationwas
providedexplicitlyinconfidenceandtheconfidentialitynoticeis
evidenceofthis.Ithereforefindthatsection16(1)(b)ismet.
·Section32.1–Noinfringement
Forthestatutoryexceptionofdisclosureundertoapply,thedisclosuremustbedone
pursuanttoanactsimilartotheCanadianAccestoInformationAct.TheCanada–
NewfoundlandandLabradorAtlanticAccordImplementationNewfoundlandand
LabradorAct,isnotsuchanact.
GeophysicalServiceIncv.AntrimEnergyInc,2015CarswellAlta1439(AltaQ.B.;
2015-07-31)Hanebury,Master
[Onapplicationforsummarydismissaloftheclaim:denied.]
[35]Inotefirstthatthereisnothingintheevidencethatindicatesa
requestoranintentionbyeitherpartytoobtainorreleasetheGSI
seismicdataundertheATIA.TheATIAprovidesforcertain
procedurestobefollowed,includingtheprovisionofachequefor
$25(ormore).Thereisnoevidenceofanypaymentbeingmade.
[40]Finally,Antrimsuggeststhatifthereleaseofthedatadid
occurpursuanttotheprovincialAccordAct,theCopyrightAct
extendsprotectiontodatareleasedpursuantto“like”provincial
legislation,ie.legislationsimilartotheATIA.AsAntrimitself
acknowledged,theunderlyingpurposeoftheAccordActisnot
accesstogovernmentinformation.TheprovincialAccordActis
notprovincialaccesstoinformationlegislationsimilartothe
ATIA.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
84
Toproperlypleadaclaimincopyright,apartyshouldstatei)theidentityofthework,
suchthatitiswithinthemeaningoftheCopyrightAct,ii)thenationalityoftheauthor
andiii)asthecasemaybe,theplaceoffirstpublication.However,ifitisnotraisedin
atimelyfashionanditiscoveredbythediscoveries,itwillbewithoutconsequence
onthemeritofthecase.
RedLabelVacationsInc.(redtag.ca)v.411TravelBuysLimited(411travelbuys.ca),
131C.P.R.(4th)6(F.C.;2015-01-07)MansonJ.[affd.2015CarswellNat7643
(F.C.A.;2015-12-18)]
[90]Itistruethattoproperlypleada
claimincopyright,apartyshould
statetheidentityofthework,such
thatitiswithinthemeaningofthe
CopyrightAct,thenationalityofthe
authorandtheplaceoffirst
publication.However,itisclearfrom
discoverythattheprimaryauthoris
Mr.Gennaro,anemployeeofthe
Plaintiff,whocreatedtheredtag
websiteinthecourseofhis
employmentandtoalesserdegree,
possiblyMr.Demarinis,andthatthe
PlaintiffisaCanadiancorporationand
theredtag.cawebsitewasfirst
publishedinCanada.Idonotfindthat
theDefendanthasraisedanyvalid
objectionstothePlaintiff’spleading
withrespecttocopyrightonthese
preliminarybases.[90]
Ilestvraique,pourplaider
convenablementunerevendication
dedroitd’auteur,unepartiedoitfaire
étatdel’identitédel’auteurde
l’œuvre,ausensdela
Loisurledroit
d’auteur,delanationalitédecet
auteur,ainsiquedulieudela
premièrepublication.Cependant,il
ressortclairementdel’interrogatoire
quel’auteurprincipalestM.Gennaro,
unemployédelademanderesse,quia
créélesiteWebredtag.cadansle
cadredesonemploiet,dansune
moindremesure,peut-être
M.Demarinis,quelademanderesseest
unesociétécanadienneetquelesite
Webredtag.caaétépubliépourla
premièrefoisauCanada.Jeconclus
quelesdéfendeursn’ontpassoulevé
d’objectionsvalablesquantaux
revendicationsdelademanderesseen
matièrededroitd’auteursurle
fondementdecesbasespréliminaires.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Waldmanv.ThomsonReutersCanadaLimited,2015CarswellOnt857(Ont.C.A.;
2015-01-28)[quashingtheappealandreferringthemattertotheDivisionalCourtfor
determinationofleavetoappeal]MacFarlandJ.
Ajudgmentrefusingtohomologateasettlementinaclassactionisnotafinal
judgmentandleavetoappealshouldbeasked.
[23]Here,althoughthesettlementagreementwasnotapproved,the
litigationcontinues,andthepartiescannotbesaidtohavelosta
substantiverightrelatingtothemeritsofthelitigation.Theorderis
interlocutoryandanyappealliestotheDivisionalCourtwithleave.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
85
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Aninterlocutoryinjunctionwillbedeniedofthecopyrightissuesarenotclear.
AvidworxProductionsLtd.v.Culbertson,2015CarswellBC207(B.C.S.C.;2015-01-
29)CrawfordJ.
[97]Thecopyrightissueisalsonotclear.Mr.Gomesand
Mr.MacIsaacappeartohavemanyyearsofexperienceinthe
industryandhavebeenmakingsimilarproducttotheplaintiff
throughout.Mr.Gomespointsouttherearemanyfirmsinthe
industryandthusputsintoissuetheplaintiff’sclaimthattheyhavea
nichemarketandthereforesomeformofmonopolyintheindustry.It
wouldseemiftherearesimilaritiesinthedisplayboards,thatis
somethingthatcouldbeobtainedfromlookingatastore
display.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies
Thecostsareinthediscretionofthecourtsbut,absentspecialdirections,shouldbe
awardedasprovidedbytherulesbutwithadutytominimizethecostsoflitigation.
Weinbergv.ProductionsNilemInc.,[2001]S.C.C.A.439(S.C.C.-Taxation2015-02-
02)D.J.Power[Robinsonv.FilmsCinarInc.,83C.P.R.(4th)1(Que.Sup.Ct.;2009-
08-26);vard.108C.P.R.(4th)165(Que.C.A.;2011-07-20);vard118C.P.R.(4th)1
(S.C.C.;2013-12-23)]
[ApplicationonthecostsontheappealbeforetheSupremeCourtofCanada,as
reported118C.P.R.(4th)1(S.C.C.;2013-12-23),paragraph112ofwhichread »
[152]IwouldawardRobinsonandNilemcoststhroughout,inadditiontothetrial
judge’sawardof$1,500,000insolicitor-clientcostsfortheproceedingsatthetrial
level.ThetrialjudgewaswellplacedtoobservethelitigationstrategyoftheCinar
appellants,aswellasallotherfactorsrelevanttoexercisinghisdiscretiontoaward
solicitor-clientcostsundertheCopyrightAct.IwoulddeclinetoawardRobinsonand
Nilemcostsonasolicitor-clientbasisfortheappealsbeforetheCourtofAppealand
thisCourt.Therewereseriouspointsoflawtoargueanditisnotestablishedthat,on
appeal,theCinarappellantsactedinbadfaithorotherwiseconductedthemselvesin
amannerthatwarrantsanawardofcostsonasolicitor-clientbasis. »][152]Jesuis
d’avisd’accorderàM.RobinsonetàNilemleursdépensdevanttouteslescoursen
plusdeshonorairesextrajudiciairesde1500000$pourlesprocéduresdepremière
instanceaccordésparlejugeduprocès.Cedernierétaitbienplacépourobserverla
stratégiedesappelantsCinar,ainsiquetouslesautresfacteursàprendreen
considérationdansl’exercicedesonpouvoirdiscrétionnaired’accorderdes
honorairesextrajudiciairesenvertudelaLoisurledroitd’auteur.Jesuisd’avisde
refuserd’octroyeràM.RobinsonetàNilemlesdépenssurunebaseavocat-client
pourlesappelsdevantlaCourd’appeletdevantnotreCour.Ilyavaitdesquestions
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
86
dedroitimportantesàdébattreetiln’estpasétablique,enappel,lesappelants
Cinarontagidemauvaisefoiouqu’ilssesontautrementconduitsd’unemanièrequi
justifiel’octroidedépenssurlabaseavocat-client.]ZZZ
[2]Inthebillsofcostsfiledwiththe
RegistrarbyRobinsoninthewithin
taxations,thecostsclaimedforthe
proceedingsinthisCourtareas
follows:
*File34466:counselfees$8134.65;
disbursements$7155.71(total
$15,290.36);
*File34467:counselfees$5067.45;
disbursements$524.52(total
$5591.97);
*File34468:counselfees$5051.25;
disbursements$460.03(total
$5511.88);
*File34469:counselfees$66,610.10;
disbursements$165,373.41(total
$231,983.51).[…][2]Danslesmémoiresdefraistaxéspar
Robinsonauprèsduregistrairedansle
cadredesprocéduresdetaxationdontil
estquestiondanslesprésentes,les
dépensréclaméspourlesprocédures
devantlaCoursontlessuivants
*Dossier34466:honoraires8134,65$;
débours7155,71$(total15290,36$);
*Dossier34467:honoraires5067,45$;
débours524,52$(total5591,97$);
*Dossier34468:honoraires5051,25$;
débours460,03$(total5511,88$);
*Dossier34469:honoraires66610,10
$;débours165373,41$(total231
983,51$).
[11]Withrespecttothebooksof
authoritiesfiledin34469,inmany
instancesmorethanjusttherelevant
excerptsofcasesrelieduponwere
copied,resultingintheunnecessary
reproductionofhundredsofpages.
Theexpensesclaimedforthemmust
bedisallowed.Excessive
reproductionisinconsistentwith
thedutytominimizecostsof
litigation:James-Assiniboia
Teachers’AssociationoftheManitoba
Teachers’Societyv.St.James-
AssiniboiaSchoolDivision(taxation
decisiondatedJuly24,2003;Court
file29581).ItalsoaviolationofRules
44(3-4)[…]
[11]Lesrecueilsdesourcesdéposés
dansledossier34469comportaient
pourleurpart,trèssouvent,beaucoup
plusquelesextraitsdescausessur
lesquellessesontfondéeslesparties,
cequiaentraînélareproductioninutile
decentainesdepages.Ilfautdonc
refuserlesdépensréclamésàcet
égard.Lareproductionexcessiveest
incompatibleavecl’obligationde
minimiserlesdépensdulitige:
James-AssiniboiaTeachers’Association
oftheManitobaTeachers’Societyc.St.
James-AssiniboiaSchoolDivision
(décisionsurlataxationdatéedu24
juillet2003;dossierno29581).Elle
contrevientaussiauxpar.44(3)et(4)
desRègles[…]:
[14]Applyingthereductionssetout
above,Robinson’sbillsofcostsshall
betaxedasfollows.
*File34466:counselfees$6067.80;
disbursements$2690.89(total
$8758.69);
*File34467:counselfees$6100.20;
disbursements$2756.93(total
$8857.13);
*File34468:counselfees$6084.00;
disbursements$2693.04(total
$8777.04);
*File34469:counselfees$25,964.00;Enappliquantlesréductionsdedépens
commel’énoncentlesprésentsmotifs,
lesmémoiresdefraisdeRobinsonsont
taxésdelafaçonsuivante
*Dossier34466:honoraires6067,80$;
débours2690,89$(total8758,69$);
*Dossier34467:honoraires6100,20$;
débours2756,93$(total8857,13$);
*Dossier34468:honoraires6084,00$;
débours2693,04$(total8777,04$);
*Dossier34469:honoraires25964,00
$;débours55124,47$(total81088,47
$)
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
87
disbursements$55,124.47(total
$81,088.47).
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Thereisnoconnectionbetweenaclaimforcopyrightinfringementandacross-
demandforunpaidinvoices.
PossDesignLtd.v.BeogradMachine&ToolsCo.,2015CarswellOnt1225(Ont.
C.A.;2015-02-02)theCourt[confirming2014CarswellOnt6638(Ont.Sup.Ct.;
2014-05-21)]
[Plaintiffcommencedactioninrelationtocopyrightbreachandwrongfulcompetition
andmarketingofgoods;Defendantcounterclaimedontwooutstandinginvoices
relatedtomachineryandequipmentthatdefendantproducedanddeliveredto
plaintiff.]
[1]Weareinagreementwiththemotionjudge’sreasonsforfinding
therewasnoarguableissuefortrialraisedbytheequitablesetoff
claims.Therequisitecloseconnectionbetweentheclaimswas
simplynotdemonstratedonthisevidence.[i.e.[« 22]Usingthis
principleasguidance,onecanreadilyconcludethatthisisnot
acaseforequitablesetoff.Anunquantifiabledamagesclaimfor
copyrightbreachorwrongfulcompetitionandmarketingof
goods,isnotconnectedwith-letalone »closelyconnected
with »-thetwounpaidinvoicesonwhichBeogradseeks
judgment. »]
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
CopyrightlawisofgeneralapplicationthroughoutCanada.
GeophysicalServiceIncorporatedv.ArcisSeismicSolutionsCorp,2015
CarswellAlta177,(AltaQ.B.;2015-02-04)MacleodJ.
[51]Inreachingthisdecision,Ialsofindthatconversionand
copyrightinfringementareverysimilartothetortofmisuseof
confidentialinformation,andreceiptoftheinformationisasignificant
partofthetort.
[62]SincethecopyrightedmaterialsweresentbytheBoard
directlytoAlbertacorporations,andbecausecopyrightlawisof
generalapplicationthroughoutCanada,IfindthatAlbertahasa
realandsubstantialconnectiontothesubjectmatterofthe
litigation.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
88
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Withoutfurtherjustification,theCourtwillnotordertheassignmentofthecopyrightin
defamatoryarticles.
Weaverv.Corcoran,2015CarswellBC247(BCSC;2015-02-05)BurkeJ.
[292]Dr.Weaversoughtaninjunctionandassignmentofcopyright.I
directthedefendantstoremovetheoffendingarticlesfromany
electronicdatabase,wheretheyareaccessibleunderthecontrolof
theNationalPostInternetsitesandelectronicdatabases.Inaddition,
thedefendantsarerequiredtoexpresslywithdrawanyconsentgiven
tothirdpartiestore-publishthedefamatoryexpressionandto
requirethesethirdpartiestoceasere-publication.
[293]Further,thedefendantswillpublishacompleteretractionofthe
defamatoryexpressioninthehardcopyNationalPostInternetsites
andelectronicdatabasesinaformagreedtobytheplaintiff.Failing
agreement,thepartiesareatlibertytoapplytothisCourtfor
directionsconcerningtheformandcontentofsuchretraction.Asto
thequestionoforderinganassignmentofcopyright,without
morefoundation,Iamunabletoaccedetothatasrequestedby
theplaintiffinthismatter.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Copyinganarticlewithoutindicatingthesourceisajournalisticmisconductandthe
absenceofcollaborationofthepublisherinacomplaintofplagiarismisalsofaulty.
Chevrierv.L’hebdomadaireLeMirabel,2015CanLII44077(Que.C.P.Q.;2015-02-
06)[5]Àlalecturedesdeuxarticlessoumis,leConseilconstatequela
journalisteaplagié,àquelquesdétailsprès,letextedeM.Chevrier.
Del’avisduConseil,lajournalisteamanquéderigueurenne
mentionnantpaslasourcedesonarticle,laissantainsicroire
auxlecteursquelecontenudesontexteétaitdesonpropre
cru.Unetellefaçondefaireestcontraireàladéontologie
journalistique.
[9]Auvudecequiprécède,leConseildepresseduQuébecretient
laplaintedeM.JocelynChevriercontrelajournalisteMmeCarole-
AnneJacquesetl’hebdomadaireLeMirabelpourlegriefdeplagiat.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
89
[10Poursonmanquedecollaboration,enrefusantderépondreàla
présenteplainte,leConseildepresseblâmel’hebdomadaireLe
Mirabel.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
ACourtofappealwillnotreviewfindingsoffact.
Nadonv.SphèreMédiaPlusinc.,2015CarswellQue2202(Que.C.A.;2015-03-17)
[confirming2013CarswellQue9429(Que.Sup.Ct.;2013-09-18)]
[Appealfromajudgmentdismissinganactionforcopyrightinfringementofthe
conceptofaTVseries.]
[1]Unecourd’appelnesauraitintervenirenl’absencede
démonstrationd’uneerreurmanifesteetdéterminantedansl’analyse
desfaitsmenéeparlejuged’instance.
[2]L’analysedesfaitsestdudomainesouveraindesjuges
d’instanceetiln’appartientpasàunecourd’appelderefaire
cetteanalysepourentirersespropresinférences
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Anunfoundedclaimofcopyrightinfringementmaygiveraisetodamages.
9054-8181Québecinc.v.Planification-organisation-publications,2015CarswellQue
3139(Que.Sup.Ct.;2015-03-20)LabelleJ.
[125]LeTribunalconstatequ’aumomentdel’envoidesmises
endemeure,POPSetPosadaexigeaientdesdemandeursune
reconnaissancededroitsqu’ellesnedétenaientpasetellesont
refusédefournircetactedecessionjusqu’enaoût2010.LeTribunal
nepeutconclurequ’enuneabsencedebonnefoidelapartde
POPSetPosadadenaturefautiveàl’endroitdesdemandeurs.
[126]Cecomportementestrépréhensibleencequ’ilaentraînépour
lemoinsunralentissementdesactivitésd’IDPfaceàdesmisesen
demeurerevendiquantlareconnaissancededroitsqu’ellesne
possédaientpas.Cettefauteestdemeuréeprésentedefaçon
continuejusqu’enaoût2010.D’ailleurs,laCourfédéraledéclareque
POPSestlatitulairedecesdroitsd’auteurs,sousréservedeceux
queM.SallenaveetM.Doutriauxpourraientavoir,etce,depuisla
datedecettecession,soitle28octobre2008[Fn522014CF185
(CanLII)atpar.84.].
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
90
[135]L’attitudeinutilementbelliqueusedesdéfenderesses,ne
reposantàl’époquesuraucunappuijuridique,aoccasionné
destroublesetinconvénientsàl’endroitdesdemandeursquele
Tribunalqualifiedemajeurs.
[136][Thedefendant]Posadaaadoptéuneattitudecomplètement
ferméepourrechercherunesolutionauxproblèmesdécoulantdes
logicielsalorsquelesdemandeursonteffectuédesdémarchespour
tenterdesolutionnerlaquestiondelapropriétédeslogiciels.
[137]Àlasuitedel’envoidesmisesendemeure,[theco-plaintiff]
IDPacessédedévelopperdenouveauxclientsdevantl’incertitude
crééeparPosadaenraisondesmenacesgravesdepoursuitepour
violationdedroitsd’auteur.
[138]Àcetégard,Bazoge[theco-plaintiff]faitvaloirqu’ils’agit
d’unsujetextrêmementsensibledanslemilieuuniversitaire
danslequelilévolue.Lefaitdeviolerundroitd’auteurconstitue
unmotifdecongédiement.Ilrappellequ’iloccupelepostedevice-
doyenauxétudesàl’Écoledessciencesdelagestiondel’UQAM.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Eveninappeal,proposedclassdefinitionandcommonissuestoaclassactioncould
berecasted.
KeatleySurveyingLtd.v.TeranetInc.,2015CarswellOnt5147(Ont.C.A.;2015-04-
14)SharpeJ.[varying2014CarswellOnt3792(Ont.Sup.Ct.-Div.Ct;2014-03-26),
add.reasons2014CarswellOnt9193(Ont.Sup.Ct.-Div.Ct;2014-06-26),reversing
107CPR(4th)237(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-12-14)]
[23]Theseguidingprinciplesdonot,however,placean
appellatecourtinastraightjacketthatwouldfrustratethe
interestsofjustice.Ithasbeenjudiciallyrecognizedthatgiven
theirverynature,classproceedingsevolveastheyworktheir
waythroughthecourtsystem.Certificationhasbeendescribed
as »afluid,flexibleproceduralprocess »thataffordsplaintiffs
somescopetoreformulatetheirapproachonappealasholding
« plaintiffsstrictlyatthecertificationstagetotheirpleadingsand
argumentsastheywereinitiallyformulatedwouldinmany
casesdefeattheobjectsoftheAct—judicialeconomy,access
tojustice,andbehaviourmodification »:Halvorsonv.British
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
91
Columbia(MedicalServicesCommission),2010BCCA267,4
B.C.L.R.(5th)292(B.C.C.A.),atpara.23.
[29]Whiletherecastdefinitioniscertainlydifferentfromalegal
perspective,Icannotagreethatitfundamentallychangedthe
natureofthecasepresentedonappealinawaythatwould
prejudiceTeranet.Althoughdifferentlydescribed,theproposed
classremainsessentiallythesame.Themerits-based
language— »whoaretheownersofcopyrights »—is
replacedwithlanguagethatidentifiestheclassmembers
inneutraltermsbyidentifyingthenatureoftheiractual
connectionwiththe-surveys-« author », »employer »or
« assignee ».
[50]Teranetsubmitsthewords »whoseplanofsurvey »
necessarilyrefertoownershipofcopyrightand,asthatisan
issuetobedeterminedintheaction,theproposedclass
definitionremainsmerits-based.
[51]Thissubmissioniswithoutmerit.Therevisedclass
definitiondoesnotrestuponorrequireadeterminationof
copyrightownership. »Whoseplanofsurvey »relatesnotto
copyrightownershipbuttotheconnectionsbetweenthe
classmembersandthesurvey,betheytheauthor,the
employeroftheauthorortheassigneeoftheauthoror
employer.Thatthoseconnectionsmaybefoundtoprovide
abasisforcopyrightownershipdoesnotmaketheclass
definitionmerits-based.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Inacademiccommunitiesplagiarismisagravemisconductbutsanctionsmustbe
graduated;itdoesnotbyitselfwarrantautomaticdismissal,especiallyifthe
professordidnotattempttopassoffthecopiedworksforhisown.
Syndicatdeschargéesetchargésdecoursdel’UQAMv.UniversitéduQuébecà
Montréal,2015CarswellQue7161(QCSAT;2015-04-20)Flynn,Arbitrator[Judicial
reviewrefused(subnomineUniversitéduQuébecàMontréalv.Gagnon)2015
CarswellQue5050(Que.Sup.Ct.;2015-06-02);leavetoappealtotheQuebecCourt
ofappealrefused2015QCCA1256(Que.C.A.2015-07-28)]
[157]Danslemilieuuniversitaire,toutefraudeintellectuelle
exercéeparunétudiantestconsidéréecommegrave,carelle
contrevientàl’objetmêmedecesinstitutions.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
92
[159]Parailleurs,ilestaussibienétabliquetoutenseignantexerce
unegrandeinfluencesurlesélèvesetildoit,enraisondecette
fonction,respectercertainesvaleursquitranscendentlasociétéet
desurcroitcellespropresàuneinstitutiond’enseignementsupérieur
dontlaprobitéintellectuelle:
[167]Enfin,leplagiatpeutselonlescirconstancesêtre
assimilableàunvollittéraireouunefraudeintellectuelleet
constituerunactemalhonnête.Lamalhonnêtetéestconsidérée
commeunefautegravedanslemilieudetravail.Toutefois,
commelejugeIacobuccidelaCoursuprêmeduCanadal’a
exprimé,lecongédiementnereprésentepaslaseulesanctionjuste
ouappropriéedanstouslescasoùlamalhonnêtetédel’employéest
invoquée[McKinleyv.BCTel,2001CSC38(CanLII)atpar.48.]
[169]Ilvasansdirequel’utilisationpartielleoutotaled’une
œuvred’untiersenlafaisantpasserpoursienconstitueune
fautetrèsgrave.Et,commeleprocureurpatronall’asouligné,
unepreuvedirectedel’intentiondefairepasserladite
reproductionpoursiennen’estpasrequisepuisqueladite
intentiondécouleducontextedanslequellareproduction
illégitimeouirrégulièreaétéfaite.Ainsi,unétudiantquireproduit
dansunethèsededoctoratdesécritsd’untierssanslescitersera
accusédeplagiatgravepuisqu’ill’afaitdansuncontexteoùil
défendsathèsecommeétantlefruitdesaréflexion.Toutcommela
reproductiond’untexteprovenantd’untierssansréférencedansune
publicationouundocumentsignéparunenseignantconstitueune
fautegraveetdontlevoletintentionneldécouledesource[Fn13
UniversityofWindsorandFacultyAssn.OftheUniversityofWindsor
(Taboun)(Re),[2002]O.L.A.A.No1020atpara.77-78].Lagravité
duplagiats’appréciedoncàpartirdeplusieursfacteursdontle
contexte,lestatutdelapersonneetl’utilisationduproduitcontenant
duplagiat.
[174]IlaétéaussidémontréqueM.Hamadaomisdanslatrès
grandemajoritédescasd’obtenirlapermissionexplicitedeses
collègues.Et,commeMmeLareaul’asouligné,ledegréde
sensibilitéàlaprotectiondesdroitsd’auteursvariegrandementd’un
enseignantàl’autre.Cependant,quelquesoitcedegréde
sensibilité,ilvasansdirequelaprotectiondesdroitsd’auteursest
unerègleélémentaireetbienconnuedanslemilieuuniversitairetout
commeleplagiatrésultantd’unesimpleomissionderéférence.
Ainsi,jenecroispasquel’onpuisseinvoquercommeexcuselefait
quecertainsenseignantsprêtentoupartagentplusfacilementleurs
œuvres(acétates)pourjustifierunmanquementàunerègle
élémentaireenmilieuuniversitaire,àsavoircitersessources.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
93
[176]Detelleserreurscommisesparunenseignantenmilieu
universitairesontgravesetméritentunesanctionsévère
d’autantplusquelesenseignantsdoivents’assurerqueles
élèvesrespectentlesrèglesacadémiquesdontcelleinterdisant
touteformedeplagiat.Cecomportementporteaussiombrageà
sonrôledemodèleetceàl’égardd’unenormefondamentale
dansuneinstitutionuniversitaireetenverslaquellel’Université
aadoptéunepolitiquedetolérancezéro.
[177]Toutefois,unepolitiquedetolérancezéronesignifiepas
l’impositiondelapeinelaplussévèreàtouslescasdeplagiat
etcommelaCoursuprêmeduCanadal’asouligné,toutactede
malhonnêtetécommisparunemployén’entrainepas
automatiquementlecongédiement.
[183]Ensomme,l’EmployeuradémontréqueM.Hamadafait
preuved’unmanquederigueuretdenégligenceenomettant
d’indiquersessourcessurlesacétatesutilisésenclasseetsurle
matérieldéposésurlesiteInternetdesditscours.Toutefois,
l’Employeurn’apasprouvéqueM.Hamadaitcherchéenagissant
ainsiàfairepasserleditmatérield’autruipoursiensaufdanslecas
del’examenintra.Vulerôledemodèlequeleplaignantexerce
commeenseignantetl’importancedurespectdesrègles
académiquesdansuneinstitutiond’enseignementsupérieur,lafaute
commiseparM.Hamadestgraveetmériteunesanctionsévère.
Cependant,vul’absenced’intentionmalveillantesoitdansles
circonstancesdefairepasserpoursienlesacétatesdeses
collègues,j’estimelecongédiementexcessif,cettemesureétantla
plussévèrepouvantêtreappliquée.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
ACourtcanorderadefendanttoceasecopyingthewebsiteorextracttherefromof
acompetitor.
Ménage-Polyinc.v.Abdelali,2015CarswellNat4429(Que.Sup.Ct.;2015-05-01)
LangloisJ.[17]CONSIDÉRANTqu’àl’automne2014MénagePro-Tech
annoncesesservicessurunsiteinternet;quelquespassagesdu
textedecetteannoncesontunecopiedecertainsextraitsdetexte
publiésurlesitedelademanderesse[Fn5PiècesP-10a)etP-10b)];
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
94
[39]ORDONNEaudéfendeurTiyalYoussefdecessertout
plagiatdutexteoud’extraitsdutexteapparaissantausite
internetdelademanderesse;
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Inspectionofthepremisesisnotalwaysrequiredtoassessinfringementof
architecturaldrawingsespeciallywhenthemouldsandprecastelementscouldbe
simplycomparedagainstthosedrawings.
Tan-JenLtdv.DiPedeLtd,2015CarswellOnt10415(OntSupCt;2015-06-03)Muir,
Master
[2]Thisactionarisesfromtheconstructionbythedefendantsofa
largenewhomelocatedinWoodbridgeOntario(the“Property”).The
plaintiffsuppliedmouldsandprecastelementsforuseontheexterior
oftheProperty.Theplaintiffallegesthatthedefendantshave
wrongfullyretaineddesignrelatedpropertybelongingtotheplaintiff
andalsoallegesthatthedefendantshaveconvertedandusedthe
plaintiff’spropertyinbreachoftheplaintiff’scopyright.
[13]However,Idonotviewaninspectionbyanarchitectas
necessary.Itwouldnotbeusefulorprobativeofanymatterinissue
inthisproceeding.Theplaintiffarguedthatthearchitect’sinspection
wouldberelevanttotheissueofcopyrightandtheextenttowhich
theinteriordesignfeaturesinfluencedtheexteriormouldsand
precast.Forthereasonssetoutabovewithrespecttotheproduction
request,itismyviewthatthisargumentoverstatesthepositionbeing
takenbythedefendants.Thepleadinginquestionallegesthat
certaindrawingspreparedbyMs.DiPedebetween2002and2004
influencedthedesignofthemouldsandtheprecast.Itisnotalleged
thattheentireinteriordesigninfluencedthoseexteriorfeatures.
Moreover,aninspectionbyanarchitectin2015wouldnotbeuseful
indeterminingthisissue.Thedefendantshaveproducedthe
drawingsreferencedintheirpleading.Thearchitectwillbeable
togiveanopiniononthisissuebycomparingthedrawingsto
themouldsandtheprecast.Ialsonotethattheplaintiffhasnot
providedanyevidencefromanexpertarchitectstatingthatheorshe
requiredaninspectionofthecurrentinteriordesigninordertoopine
onthismatter.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Howmanysinscouldbefoundinajudgmenttouchinglawyer’sfees?
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
95
Waldmanv.ThomsonReutersCanadaLimited,2015CarswellOnt8982(Ont.Sup.
Ct.Div.;2015-06-16)[grantingleavetoappealfrom120C.P.R.(4th)127(Ont.Sup.
Ct.;2014-03-04)]SwintonJ.
[Uponapplicationforleaveofajudgementrefusingtoapproveasettlementofthe
proceedingorclasscounselfeesinacopyrightinfringementcase.]
[2]Iwouldgrantleavetoappeal,asthereisgoodreasontodoubt
thecorrectnessofthisorderforanumberofreasons,andtheappeal
raisesissuesofimportanceforthedevelopmentofthelaw.
[3]First,themotionsjudgeappearstohaveaddedanewcriterionfor
theapprovalofsettlementstothosenormallyconsideredandwhich
aresetoutinhisreasonsatparas.84and87.Thatcriterionis
institutionalfairness,whichhedescribedaselevatingthestandardof
approval(seepara.89).Hegavethisfactorgreatweight,ratherthan
consideringindetailthefactorssetoutinpara.87.Moreover,tothe
extentthatinstitutionalfairnessistoprotectagainstsettlements
obtained,ashesays,through »misadventure,incompetence,
lassitudeorfatigue »,thesefactorsdonotappeartoapplyinthe
presentcase.
[4]Second,themotionsjudgegavegreatweighttothefactthat
classmemberswere,ineffect,givingupa »propertyright »
becauseoftherequirementthattheygiveanon-exclusive
licencetothedefendantiftheydonotoptoutofthesettlement.
Thischaracterizationofthelicenceappearstobeinconflict
withthedecisionoftheSupremeCourtinRoberstonv.
ThomsonCorp.,[2006]2S.C.R.363atpara.56,wheresucha
licencewasdescribedasadefencetoaclaimofinfringement
andnotatransferofapropertyright.
[5]Third,themotionsjudgeappearstohavefocusedonwhathe
consideredtobetheproprietarynatureofthelicenceandnottaken
intoconsiderationthelikelihoodoftheclassmembers’recoveryor
successinthelitigation.Forexample,inassessingthesettlement
fromtheperspectiveoftheclassmembers,hefailedtoconsiderthe
« prohibitivelyhigh-risk »natureofthelitigation,ashedescribedthe
litigationatpara.92.Healsofailedtoconsiderthatthelicence
appearstohavegivennothingmoretothedefendantthanwhatit
couldhaveachieved,ifsuccessful,throughadefenseoffairdealing
inlightoftheCopyrightPentalogyoftheSupremeCourtofCanada.
[6]Fourth,themotionsjudgemeasuredtheproposedsettlement
againstahypothetical »fairerandmorereasonableresolution »which
heproposed-adiscontinuanceoftheaction-withoutconsidering
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
96
thelikelihoodofthedefendantagreeingtosuchanoutcomewhile
stillpayingtoestablishthecy-prèsfund.
[7]Fifth,themotionsjudge,inconsideringbehaviourmodification,
appearsnottohaveconsideredthestrengthofthedefenseand
whethertherewasanobligationforthedefendanttochangeits
behaviour,especiallygiventheSupremeCourt’scopyright
jurisprudence.Inanyevent,therewasevidenceofchangesin
behavior–forexample,withrespecttotheoperationofLitigator.
[8]Sixth,themotionsjudgeappearstohaveerredinsayingthathe
hadnoauthoritytoaltertheclasscounselfees,whichformedpartof
thesettlement.TheNoticeofMotionaskedforapprovalinthe
amountsoughtor »suchotheramountasmaybejust. »Counselalso
offeredtoreducetheirfeesbyincreasingthecy-prèsfundby
$150,000.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Plagiarismcouldleadtoadministrativesanctionsunderacollectiveagreeement.
UniversitéduQuébecàMontréalv.Gagnon,2015CarswellQue5050(Que.Sup.
Ct.;2015-06-02)DavisJ.[refusingjudialreviewof2014CanLII16661(Que.S.A.T.;
2014-04-10;subnomineSyndicatdeschargéesetchargésdecoursdel’UQAMv.
UniversitéduQuébecàMontréal);leavetoappealtotheQuebecCourtofappeal
refused2015QCCA1256(Que.C.A.2015-07-28)][42]Leplagiatn’estpasnécessairementliéaudéfautde
respecterlalégislationetlesrèglesrelativesaudroitd’auteur.Il
n’étaitpasdéraisonnablepourl’arbitreGagnonderegarderleplagiat
sousl’optiquedusensbienconnuduverbeplagier:«Copier(un
auteur)ens’attribuantindûmentdespassagesdesonœuvre.»
[Fn14[2008]1RCS190par.49].
[44]Mêmes’ilsepeutqueM.Robillardn’apasreproduitdes
partiesimportantesdesdeuxœuvres,lapreuverapportéepar
l’arbitrepermetnéanmoinssaconclusiondeplagiat,vules
similitudesrepéréesparl’Universitédurantsonenquêtedont
l’existencen’apasétécontreditparpersonne.Lasentencede
l’arbitreàcetégardn’estpasdéraisonnable.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Whenthereisaright,thereisaway.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
97
AgrosTradingConfectionerySP.Z.O.O.v.K-MaxCorp.,2015CarswellOnt7483
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-06-19)MorganJ.
[60]“Itisasettledandinvariableprinciple…thateveryright
whenwithheldmusthavearemedy,andeveryinjuryitsproper
redress”:1W.Blackstone,CommentariesontheLawsof
England23.ThetortiousconductengagedinbytheMovingParties
callsfortheequitablereliefofaninjunction.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Whetherornotplagiarismconstitutescopyrightinfringementisnotalwaysrelevantto
ascertaintheprobityrequiredfromofanemployee.
UniversitéduQuébecàMontréalv.Gagnon,2015CarswellQue5050(Que.C.A.
2015-07-28)BichJ.[refusingleavetotheQuebecCourtofappealof2015
CarswellQue5050Que.Sup.Ct.;2015-06-02)whichwasrefusingjudicialreviewof
2015CarswellQue7161(QCSAT;2015-04-20)]
[14]Entoutrespectpourlapropositioncontraire,ilestdifficiledevoir
enquoicesdéterminationssontdéraisonnables,etce,mêmesiles
empruntsfaitsparlesalariéavaientpuconstituerune
utilisationéquitableausensdel’article29delaLoisurledroit
d’auteur(cequineparaîtpascertain,dureste:l’usage
équitableenmatièred’éducationpeut-ilpermettred’avaliserun
comportementquiestordinairementblâmésévèrementdansce
milieu,c’est-à-direlefaitd’emprunteràl’œuvred’autruioude
sel’appropriersansdévoilersessources?)
[15]Malheureusement,mêmes’iln’yavaitpasviolationdelaLoisur
ledroitd’auteur,lasituationdel’espèceestbiencelled’unplagiat,
c’est-à-dired’un«empruntlittérairecaché»[Fn5LeGrandRobert
delalanguefrançaise,versionnumérique3.1.0(7.0),Dictionnaires
LeRobert,«plagiat»]oud’une«imitationnonavouée»[Fn6Le
GrandRobertdelalanguefrançaise,versionnumérique3.1.0(7.0),
DictionnairesLeRobert,«plagiat»
].L’arbitreajugéque,auregard
despolitiquesapplicablestantauxprofesseursqu’aux
étudiants,ceplagiatdénotaitunmanquedeprobitéet
constituaitunefautequel’intiméepouvaitsanctionner.Vula
normederévisionapplicable,lejugedepremièreinstancea
concluquecepointdevueétaitraisonnable.Onnepeutlui
donnertort.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
98
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Anawardofcostsisnotalwayseasytoascertain.
Tan-JenLtd.v.DiPede,2015CarswellOnt13750(OntSup.Ct.;2015-09-11)Short,
Master
[45]Imustconfessthatinthiscase,asaconsequence,therewasa
reluctanceonmyparttowadebackintothisquagmire.
[46]Havingnowdoneso,Ihavenowdeterminedtotakea
macheteapproachtocuttingthroughthisjunglewithaviewto
reachinganamountthatIfeelisfairinallthecircumstances
andtakesintoconsiderationtosomedegree,allofthenuancesand
issuesraisedbycounselintheirdetailedsubmissions.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
ThemereviewingfromCanadaaforeignwebsitedisplayingallegedinfringingworks
doesnotprovideasufficientnexustogivejurisdictiontoaCanadiancourt.
Migunav.WalmartCanada,2015CarswellOnt14328(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-09-18)
MewJ.[Applicationbydefendantsforsummaryjudgement:granted.]
[34]Bothdefendantsalsopointtotheterritorialprinciple,which,they
submit,isanessentialelementofCanadiancopyrightlaw.This
principle,anditsimplications,aredescribedbyBinnieJ.inSocietyof
Composers,Authors&MusicPublishersofCanadav.Canadian
AssociationofInternetProviders,2004SCC45(CanLII)atparas.
56-57inthefollowingterms:
56.Copyrightlawrespectstheterritorialprinciple,reflecting
theimplementationofa“webofinterlinkinginternational
treaties”basedontheprincipleofnationaltreatment(seeD.
Vaver,CopyrightLaw(2000),atp.14).
57.TheapplicabilityofourCopyrightActtocommunications
thathaveinternationalparticipantswilldependonwhether
thereisasufficientconnectionbetweenthiscountryandthe
communicationinquestion.ForCanadatoapplyitslaw
consistentwiththe“principlesoforderandfairness…that
ensuressecurityof[cross-border]transactionswithjustice”…
[35]InThumbnailCreativeGroupInc.v.BluConceptInc.2009
B.C.S.C.1833atpara.21,theBritishColumbiaSupremeCourt
cited,withapproval,thefollowingextractfromthetextTheCanadian
LawofCopyrightandIndustrialDesignsinwhichitisstated:
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
99
ACanadiancourthasnojurisdictionattheinstanceofthe
Canadianproprietorofacopyrightworktorestrainthe
threatenedinfringementbyaCanadiancitizeninanyforeign
countrythatadherestotheBerneConvention.Foreignauthors
areprotectedinCanada,notbecauseoftheprovisionsofthe
Conventions,butasaresultoftheCopyrightActprovisions,the
Conventionidentifiesthecountries,thecitizensofwhichenjoy
copyrightprotection,butitisthetextoftheCopyrightActthat
definitivelyprovidestheprotection….
[42]Thirdly,thedefendantsdenythattheysold,distributedor
exposedaninfringingproductforsale.Thedefendantsassertthat
despiteMr.Miguna’sallegationsandbeliefstothecontrary,the
weightoftheevidencedemonstratesthatConsortiumneversoldor
distributedasinglecopyofMr.Miguna’sbookandthatnocopyof
thebookwassoldbyWal-MartStoreseither.Theinformation
relatingtothebookwhichwaspostedonthewalmart.com
websiteanddiscoveredbyMr.MigunainAugust2014doesnot
constituteanofferforsalewithinthemeaningoftheCopyright
ActbecausetheofferwasmadeintheUnitedStates,not
Canada.Furthermore,Mr.Migunaacknowledgedduringcross-
examinationthatthereferencecontainedinthewalmart.comwebsite
identifiedhimastheauthorofthebookandthattheimageofthe
bookappearingonthewebsiteseemedtobeanaccuratedepiction
ofthecoverofthebook.
[43]Furthermore,thedisplayofthereferenceto“PeelingBack
TheMask”onthewalmart.comwebsitewasanextra-territorial
actthatcannotconstituteinfringementofCanadiancopyright
law.Thereisnoevidenceofa“realandsubstantialconnection”
betweenthedisplayofinformationconcerningthebookonthe
walmart.comwebsiteandthejurisdictionofCanada.Thefactthat
Mr.MigunacouldviewthewebsiteinCanadaisnotsufficientto
createameaningfulnexustoCanada.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Plagiarismcoudbeagroundfordismissal;aunionisnotobligedtodefendoneofits
membersifthereisnohopeofsuccessofthegrievance.Theinfringementofthe
copyrightofanemployeeisnotnecessarilyintheambitofacollectiveagreement.
Barryv.SyndicatdeprofessionnellesetprofessionnelsdugouvernementduQuébec
(SPGQ),2015QCCRT528(Que.C.R.T.;2015-10-13)
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
100
[6]Le8juillet2013,ilestrelevéprovisoirementdesesfonctions.On
lesoupçonnedeplagiatdanssesécrits.L’enquêteestconfiéeàune
firmeexterne.
[7]Le17septembre,l’employeurcommuniquelesrésultatsde
l’enquêteauplaignantetàlaconseillèreenrelationsdutravaildu
Syndicatquil’accompagne(laconseillère).Ilestformellement
accusédeplagiat,entreautresquantàdesportionsdel’Avisqu’ila
rédigé.Àcetteoccasion,leplaignantdonnedesexplicationssurles
reprochesquiluisontfaits.Lesdocumentsanalyséssontdes
documentsdetravailquidevaientêtrepeaufinésetparfaits.Malgré
cela,ilestcongédiédanslesjourssuivantscequ’ilcontesteparvoie
d’untroisièmegrief.
[9]Danssaréponsedatéedu18décembre2013,laconseillèrelui
répètequelaconventioncollectivedetravailnes’appliquepas
enmatièrededroitd’auteur.LeSyndicatnepeutdoncdéposer
degriefouluifournirl’avisjuridiquerequis.Elleajoutequ’«en
cequiregardelesautresgriefs,soyezassuréquenousvous
apporteronslesoutiennécessaire».Finalement,leplaignantn’ira
pasplusloinavecsamiseendemeure.
[38]Or,cederniern’estpastenud’adhéreràlaposition
défendueparleplaignant.S’ilestd’avis,aprèsuneétude
sérieuse,objectiveethonnête,quelegriefn’aaucunechance
desuccès,ilpeutchoisird’userdesonappréciablediscrétion
etnepasledéféreràl’arbitrage(GuildedelaMarineMarchande
duCanadac.Gagnon,1984CanLII18(CSC),[1984]1R.C.S.509).
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Thetesttodetermineifpunitivedamagesareappropriateistodetermineifanyofthe
Defendants’conductamountstobeinghigh-handed,malicious,vindictiveand
oppressive.Severalfactorsofdeterrenceshouldbetakenintoaccount,amomgst
whichthetrivilializationofplaintiff’swork,falselyassertingafairdealingpurpose,
refusingtorevealthesourceoftheinfringement.
1395804OntarioLimited(Blacklock’sReporter)v.CanadianVintnersAssociation,
[2015]O.J.5369(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-10-16)GilbertJ.
[65]Dotheiractionsmeetthetestforanawardinpunitivedamages?
ThePlaintiffsubmitsthatpunitivedamagesareappropriateinthis
case.Thetesttodetermineifpunitivedamagesareappropriate
istodetermineifanyoftheDefendants’conductamountsto
beinghigh-handed,malicious,vindictiveandoppressive.They
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
101
areintendedtobecompensatory.Theyreflectthecourt’sview
thatcompensatorydamageswillnotachievesufficient
deterrencetherebyformingabasisforpunishingthe
defendant’sactions.Thereisprecedentforawardingpunitive
damagesincopyrightinfringementcases.(seeSOCAMv.348803
AlbertaLtd.,1997CanLII5389(FC),1997CanLII5389andLouis
VuttonMalletierS.A.etal.v.LinPi-ChuYangetal.2007FC1179
(CanLII).)
[66]IagreewiththePlaintiff’ssubmissionsthatthisisacasewhere
punitivedamagesareappropriatetakingintoaccountamongstwhich
arethefollowingfactors:theDefendants’attitudetrivializingthe
valueofthePlaintiff’sworkanditseffortsatprotectingits
copyrightedmaterial;themannerinwhichthecopyrightwasillegally
obtained;assertingthatthepurposeinobtainingthematerialwasfor
educationalandresearchpurposeswhenultimatelyneitherwas
engagedin;refusingtorevealthesourceofthematerialuntilordered
todosoandinvolvingathirdpartyexposingittoanactionfor
infringement.Inthiscase,anappropriateamountforpunitive
damagesisinthesumof$2000.00.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Solicitor-clientcostsshouldbeprovenproperlylikeanythingelse.
Format-Constructioninc./Construction-TrainingInc.v.Pérusse(Formation
Constructionenr.),2015CarswellQue10519(Que.Sup.Ct.;2015-11-05;Lamarche
J.
[38]Quantauxhonorairesextrajudiciairesde25000$réclaméspar
Format-Construction,mêmesileTribunalconclutqueladéfenseest
d’apparenceabusivesurlaquestiondesdroitsd’auteur,ilnepeut
accorderceshonorairespuisquelescomptesd’honoraires
déposéssontentièrementcaviardéssaufpourlessommes
dues.IlestimpossiblepourleTribunaldes’assurerdu
caractèreraisonnabledeceux-ci.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Thereisastrongpublicinterestinpromotingthetimelyresolutionofdisputes.
PlanonSystemsInc.v.NormanWadeCompanyLimited,2015CarswellOnt17457
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-11-09)PennyJ.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
102
[Uponmotionforanorderdismissingtheactionforiannordinateandinexcusable
delayof25years]
[9]Itiswellsettledthatitistheplaintiffthathasapositive
responsibilitytomovetheactionforwardandthatdoingsoisnotthe
responsibilityofthedefendant,Alexanderv.RosedaleUnited
Church,2010ONSC4224(Ont.Master);Wallacev.Crate’sMarine
SalesLtd.,supra[Wallacev.Crate’sMarineSalesLtd.,[2013]O.J.
No.5668(Ont.S.C.J.).].
[29]Forthesereasons,Idonotthinktheplaintiffshave
adequatelydischargedtheironusofovercomingthepresumed
prejudiceresultingfromthe25yeardelayforwhichtheyare
responsibleinthiscase.Ifindthatthedelaymustbepresumedto
haveprejudicedEtnaandMorand’sdefenceandabilitytohaveafair
trial.Further,thefactthatneitherRichardWadenorAlfredBuckley
areavailabletotestifyconstitutesmaterial,actualprejudicewhichis
adirectresultofthedelay.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Copyrightinfringementcouldconstituteanunlawfulandintentionalinterferencewith
therightofapersontothepeacefulenjoymentandfreedispositionofhisproperty
andgiverisetopunitivedamages.
Gagnév.Faguy,2015QCCQ1183(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-11-25)BrunelleJ.
[31]Parconséquent,leTribunaljugequeMonsieurFaguy[the
defendant]aportéuneatteinteinjustifiée[Fn11L’article9.1dela
Chartequébécoise,quipeutparfoispermettredejustifierune
atteinteaudroitgarantiparl’article6,netrouvemanifestementpas
applicationàlalumièredesfaitsmisenpreuve]audroitde
MonsieurGagné[theplaintiff]àlajouissancepaisibledeses
biensgarantiparlaChartequébécoise,demêmequ’àsondroit
d’auteurprotégéparlaLDA[Fn12Notreproducedinthe
judgement].
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
InQuebec,copyrightinfringementisconsideredasaninfringementoftheproperty
rightsguaranteedbytheCharterand,ifintentional,giverisetopunitivedamages.
Intentionalityrefersnottotheintenttocommitthefaultbutrathertotheintentto
causetheresultthereof.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
103
Gagnév.Faguy,2015QCCQ11832(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-11-25)BrunelleJ.
[58]AuQuébec,l’attributiondedommages-intérêtspunitifsest
prévueexpressémentaudeuxièmealinéadel’article49delaCharte
québécoise.Elleestainsiconditionnelleàladémonstrationd’une
atteinte«illiciteetintentionnelle»àl’undesdroitsdelaCharte.
[59]Quantàl’appréciationducaractère«intentionnel»d’une
atteinteillicite,elle«s’attachenonpasàlavolontédel’auteur
decommettrelafaute,maisbienàcelled’enentraînerle
résultat»[Fn16deMontignyc.Brossard(Succession),2010CSC
51(CanLII),[2010]3R.C.S.64,par.60(j.LeBel)][…]
[60]Enl’espèce,MonsieurFaguyadélibérémentprésentécomme
sonœuvreunephotographiequ’iln’avaitpaspriselui-mêmeetqu’il
autilisée,sansdroit,àdesfinscommerciales.
[61]Cetteappropriationillicitedel’œuvreartistiqueàlaquelle
MonsieurGagnéavaitconsacrésontalentagénéré,chezlui,un
sentimentlégitimededépossessionintellectuellequiest,de
l’avisduTribunal,uneconséquence«immédiateetnaturelleou
aumoinsextrêmementprobable»del’atteintecommisepar
MonsieurFaguyaudroitgarantiparl’article6delaCharte
québécoise[Fn18ConstructionDenisDesjardinsinc.c.Jeanson,
2010QCCA1287(CanLII),[2010]R.J.Q.1600(C.A.),par.47et48].
[62]Celaétant,considérantquel’atteinteilliciteetintentionnelleau
droitd’auteurdeMonsieurGagnés’estmanifestéesurunepériode
relativementbrève[Fn19Gahelc.CorporationXprima.com,2008
QCCA1264(CanLII),par.65(j.Morissette)](43jours)etqu’ellea
aujourd’huicessé,leTribunalconsidèrequ’unesommede500,00$
paraîtsuffisantepourassurerlafonctionpréventiveattribuéeaux
dommages-intérêtspunitifs
[20].
[63]Enétablissantcemontant,leTribunaltientcomptedufait
que«l’effetdissuasif»particulier,l’undesobjectifsattribués
auxdommages-intérêtspunitifsenvertudelaCharte
québécoise[Fn21CinarCorporationc.Robinson,2013CSC73
(CanLII),[2013]3R.C.S.1168,par.126et134(j.McLachlin)],adéjà
étéprisencompteaumomentdedéterminerlemontantdes
dommages-intérêtspréétablisenvertudelaLDA.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
104
Therighttoexpectedprivacyshallbeweightedagainsttherightofacopyrightholder
toenforceitsrightagainstinfringement.
VoltagePicturesLLCv.JohnDoe,2015CarswellNat7089(F.C.;2015-12-09)Annis
J.
[57]Butthebackgroundcircumstantialresultsdonotsitwellwiththe
Court.Theyconfirmthatthepolicyinthesetypesofmotions
shouldnormallybetofacilitatetheplaintiff’slegitimateefforts
toobtaintheinformationfromISPsontheprimafacieillegal
activitiesofitssubscribers.Inmyview,courtsshouldbecareful
nottoallowtheISP’sinterventiontoundulyinterfereinthecopyright
holder’seffortstopursuethesubscribers,exceptwhereagoodcase
ismadeouttodoso.Whileitmaybeapracticetorequire
prepaymentoftheISP’scostsofthemotion,thecourtmustnotlet
thisissuedelayunnecessarilytheexecutionoftheordertothe
extentpossible.Reasonablesecurityforcostsmaybepreferablein
somecases.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
ForQuebeccourtstoassertjurisdictionoveradisputeinvolvingforeigndefendants,
oneofthefollowingcriteriawillhavetobefound:i)afaultwascommittedinQuébec,
ii)damagewassufferedinQuébec;iii)aninjuriousactoccurredinQuébec;oriv)one
oftheobligationsarisingfromthecontractwastobeperformedinQuébec.The
recognizanceofsubsistenceofcopyrightinaworkdoesnotequatetotherecognizance
ofarightofaction;theCanadianCopyrightActdoesnothaveanextra-territorialambit
perse.
Genestv.Allianz,anunreportedjudgement,Courtdocket500-17-090190-151(Que.
Sup.Ct.;2015-12-11)DécarieJ.
[Upondefendants’motionforsummarydismissal:granted.]
[5]LeseulfacteurderattachementinvoquéparGenestestceluiquel’on
retrouveauparagraphe3148(3)C.c.Q.Ilprétendqu’unpréjudiceaété
subiauQuébec.Cepréjudicec’estlaviolationdesondroitd’auteur
canadien,enFrance,etlapertepécuniairequ’ilsubitauQuébec.En
somme,ilplaidequelepréjudiceestsubiauQuébecparcequeson
patrimoineesticietqu’ilenestaffecté.
[7]Enl’espèce,le
situsréeldupréjudiceprétendumentsubiparGenest,
c’estlapertedumonopolequiluiaétéconféréparsondroitd’auteur
canadien.Cetteperteestsurvenuesurleterritoirefrançaisbienquela
conséquencedecettepertedemonopolesoitcomptabiliséeici.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
105
·Section34.1–Presumptionsrespectingcopyrightandownership
Propermarkingofentailsaplaintifftojuristantumpresumptions.
Parév.TaxisCoopdelaMauricie1992,2015QCCQ11581(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;
2015-11-11)LabbéJ.
[27]Dansl’arrêtRTITurboinc.c.CanadaAlliedDieselCompagny
Ltd[Fn112007QCCA1420(CanLII)atpar.54]laCourd’appeldu
Québecrappelaitquel’article34.1(2)a)LDAprévoitqu’ilya
présomptionquelenomquiapparaîtàuneœuvreestceluideson
auteur.
[28]Ilappartientdoncàlapartiequicontesteledroitd’auteurd’en
fairelapreuvecommel’écrivaitlaCourd’appelduQuébecdans
l’arrêtDesjardinsdéjàcité
[Fn122010QCCA1287(CanLII)atpar.18].
·Section34.1–Presumptionrespectingcopyrightandownership
Registeringworksinthenameofhusbandandwifewithacollectivesocietymay
createdifficultiesintheeventofdivorceproceedings.
Droitdelafamille–152575,2015CarswellQue9755(Que.Sup.Ct.;2015-11-13)
PerraultJ.
[46]Atthebeginningofthehearing,Monsieuramendedhis
proceedingssothathecouldaddthefollowingconclusion:
· »OrdonneràMadamed’inscrireaucompteSocanles35chansons
composéesetproduitesparMonsieurseul. »
[47]Thepartiesareco-founderofamusicbandcalled »[bandA] ».
Monsieurtestifiedthatheisthesolecomposerandproducerof
certainsongs,despitethefactthatthecopyrights(« droits
d’auteur »)withrespecttothesesongsareregisteredwiththe
Socaninthenameofbothparties.Madamedisagrees.
[48]Duringthehearing,theattorneysforthepartiesindicatedtothe
Courtthattheywoulddiscussthisissueamongstthemselvesandno
furtherrepresentationwasmadeorevidenceadducedonthat
subject.
[49]Consideringthelackofevidence,theCourtcannotissuethe
orderrequested.However,sincethepartiesexpressedadesireto
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
106
discussthissubjectinthehopeofarrivingatanagreement,the
CourtwillreserveMonsieur’srightstoinstituteproceedingswith
respecttothecopyrights(« droitsd’auteur »)heisclaiming,inthe
eventnoagreementisreached.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Absentspecialcircumstances,thedirector/shareholderofacorporationisnotliable
forcopyrightinfringement.
Seggiev.RoofdogGamesInc.,2015QCCS6462(Que.Sup.Ct.;2016-12-18)Roy
J.[94]Le17février2012,M.Germainaoffert10000$àM.Seggie.
Encomparantaveclessommesverséesauxautresillustrateurs,qui
ontcrééencoreplusdedessinsquenel’afaitM.Seggie,leTribunal
conclutquecettesommereprésenteunejustecompensationpour
l’utilisationdesdessinsencause.Parailleurs,seuleRoofdogdoit
êtrecondamnéepuisquec’estlacompagniequiamislejeuen
ligne,diffusél’oeuvreetengrangélesprofits.
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Bewareofunsubstantiantedorfalseallegationsinastatementofopposition:they
couldbedefamatory.
Seggiev.RoofdogGamesInc.,2015QCCS6462(Que.Sup.Ct.;2016-12-18)Roy
J.
[97]M.Seggie[thecrossdefendant]continuesesproposfaux,
malveillantsetexagérésdanssesprocéduresjudiciaires.
[98]Auparagraphe2desarequêteamendée,M.Seggieallègue
queM.GermainetRoofdog[thecrossplaintiff]auraient«blatantly,
voluntarilyandabusivelyinfringedhiscopyright».LetitreIVréfèreà
un«unjustified,illegalandabusiverefusal»delereconnaître
commecoauteur.Auparagraphe37,M.Seggierevientavecl’idée
queM.Germainatentédetireravantagedelasituationetaabusé
desaconfiance.Auparagraphe40,ilprétendqueM.Germainest
demauvaisefoi.Auparagraphe44,M.Seggieparlemêmede
fraude.Aucunepreuvenesoutientdetellesallégations.Ces
qualificatifsforts,toutàfaitinjustifiés,nesontretirésqu’àla
dernièreminute,àlasuggestionduTribunal.Maisletortest
fait.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
107
[101]Laprocédureallègueégalementqu’àuncertainmoment,
RoofdogauraitretirélenomdeM.Seggiecommeillustrateur[Fn58
Par.40delarequête.].Iln’enestrien.Cetteallégationestfausse.
[104]Untelcomportementestfautifetinacceptable.Nombre
desallégationssontnonseulementfausses,mais,deplus,
ellesontétéécritesmalicieusement,ouavecunetémérité
équivalantàmaliceetiln’yavaitaucuneraisonvalablede
présenteruntelportraitdulitigeopposantlesparties[Fn59Vary
c.Vary,2007QCCS3586(CanLII);Bélisle-Heurtelc.Tardif,[2000]
R.J.Q.2391(C.S.)(requêtepourpermissiond’appelrejetée)].
·Section34–Copyright[civilremedies]
Inanactionfortheinfringementofthedesignofarenovationtoaresidentialproperty
outsideinspectionofthepremisesisnotundulyinvasiveontheprivacyofathird
party,wasnecessary,andwouldbeofthenaturetoshortenorfocusthediscoveries.
StrathearnConsultingInc.v.Kirshenblatt,2015CarswellNat8672(F.C.;2015-12-21)
StricklandJ.
[34]Inmyview,itisevidentfromthe
InspectionOrderthattheProthonotary
understoodthebalancing
requirementsofRule249andapplied
themtotheevidenceandfactsbefore
her.Shedidnotexerciseher
discretionbasedonawrongprinciple.
TheProthonotary’sreasons
demonstratethatshewasoftheview
thattheinspectionwasnecessaryand
thattherewasareasonablepossibility
thatitwouldrevealsomethinguseful
forthetrieroffact.Inotherwords,she
didnotaccepttheAppellant’s
contentionthattheseriesof
photographsthatitproducedwas
sufficient,shewasclearlyofthe
opinionthatthesitevisitmight
producesomethingmorestating
that“becausethehouseisan
adaptationofapreviouslybuilt,
originalhouse,itisnot
unreasonablethatasitevisitwould
bebettertoinformastowhatis
original,whatisnew,andhowthe
twoworktogetherthanwoulda
seriesofphotographs”.Ifindno
[34]Àmonavis,ilressortclairementde
l’Ordonnanced’examenquela
protonotaireacomprislesexigences
relativesàlamiseenbalancedes
facteursprévusàl’article249des
Règlesetlesaappliquéesàlapreuve
etauxfaitsquiluiontétéprésentés.
Ellen’apasexercésonpouvoir
discrétionnaireensefondantsurun
principeerroné.Lesmotifsdela
protonotairedémontrentqu’elleétait
d’avisquel’examenétaitnécessaireet
qu’ilyavaitunepossibilitéraisonnable
quel’examenrévèlequelquechose
d’utileaujugedesfaits.End’autres
mots,ellen’apasacceptél’argument
del’appelanteselonlequellasériede
photographiesquecelle-ciavait
produiteétaitsuffisante.La
protonotaireétaitclairementd’avis
quelavisitedusitepermettraitd’en
apprendredavantage,elleadéclaré
que[TRADUCTION]«lamaisonétant
uneadaptationd’unemaison
originaleconstruiteantérieurement,
iln’estpasdéraisonnablequ’une
visitedusitesoitplusadéquatepour
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
108
issueorerrorwiththisconclusion
andnotethatwhentaking
photographsofthehousethe
Appellantmayhavefocusedon
similaritieswiththeotherhouse
whiletheRespondent’sexpert
mightfocusondifferences.Further,
thestatedimmediatepurposeofthe
inspectionistoinformtheexpert’s
opinion,notmerelytoprovidefurther
photographs.And,asseenfrom
ApotexFCA2013[ApotexIncvEli
LillyCanadaInc,2013FCA45
(F.C.A.;2013-02-19)],theproposed
inspectionneednotbetheonly
meansavailabletotheRespondent,
normustaninspectionorderbe
premisedonanexceptionalcase.
déterminercequiestoriginal,cequi
estnouveau,etcommentlesdeux
fonctionnentensemble,
contrairementàcequepermettrait
defairedessériesde
photographies».Jeneconstate
aucunproblèmeouerreurencequia
traitàcetteconclusionetjefais
remarquerquelorsdelaprisede
photographiesdelamaison,
l’appelantepeutavoirmisl’accent
surlessimilaritésavecl’autre
maison,alorsquel’expertdel’intimé
peutmettrel’accentsurles
différences.Parailleurs,l’objectif
immédiaténoncédel’examenest
d’éclairerl’avisdel’expert,etnonpas
simplementdefournird’autres
photographies.Deplus,commeil
ressortdel’arrêtApotexCAF
2013[ApotexIncvEliLillyCanadaInc,
2013CAF45(C.A.F.;2013-02-19)],
l’examenproposénedoitpasêtrele
seulmoyendontdisposel’intimé,etune
ordonnanced’examennedoitpasêtre
fondéesuruncasexceptionnel.
·Section35–Liabilityforinfringement
Damagesforstressandinconvenienceflowingfromcopyrightinfringementarenot
incompatiblewithdamagesforcopyrightinfringement.
Dongluv.SinoquébecMediainc.,2015QCCQ2337(Que.Ct.;2015-03-09)Edwards
J.[18]Inlightoftheabove,theCourtwillgrantthefollowingdamages:
1)LawyerandBailiffcosts:$370.60[Fn1Article34(3)CopyrightAct,
R.S.C.,1985,c.C-42.];b)Translatorcostsforexhibits:$140.00;c)
Stressandinconvenience:$750.00;d)Breachofcopyright:$750.00
[Fn2Article38.1(1)(a)CopyrightAct,R.S.C.,1985,c.C-42.The
statutorydamagesforinfringementforcommercialpurposesvary
fromaminimumof$500to$20,000.],thewholetotalling$2,010.60.
·Section35–Liabilityforinfringement
Liabilitycouldbejointandseveralbetweenthehomeownerandthearchitectwhen
thereiscoparticipationintheinfringementofarchitecturalplans.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
109
ArctekDesignConsultantsv.Ellis,[2015]O.J.4068(Ont.Sup.Ct.SmallClaims;
2015-07-30)HuntD.J.
[55]IfurtherfindthattheoriginalworkofMr.Tersigniwasused,with
onlyminorvariations,withouthisknowledge,consentorapproval.
Theplaintiffisentitledtodamagesforthatmisuse.Theprayerfor
reliefinthePlaintiff’sClaimsought$5,000.00undertheheadof
damagesforbreachofcopyright.Ifindthissumtobereasonable;I
finditnottobeoverreaching.Iawardtheplaintiffthesumof
$5,000.00;itsallocationandinclusioninthejudgmentwillbe
addressedintheconclusiontothesereasons.
[60]ThebreachofCanadiancopyrightlawwhichhasresultedin
theawardof$5,000.00couldnothaveoccurredunlessAnna
Ellis[thedefendanthomeowner]hadprovidedtheplaintiff’s
workingdrawingstoAntonellaFerrone-Wild[thedefendant
architecturaltechnologist]andunlessMs.Ferrone-Wildhad
usedthemandIhavefoundthatbothoccurred.Intheresult,all
threedefendantsarefoundtobejointlyandseverallyliablefor
the$5,000.00componentofthejudgment.Thissumshallalsobear
preandpostjudgmentinterestfromMay30,2013,butattheratesof
theCourtsofJusticeAct.[Fn33R.S.O.1990,c.C.43]
·Section35–Liabilityforinfringement
TheCourtcanaccessdamagesforcopyrightinfringementinnumerousways.
1395804OntarioLimited(Blacklock’sReporter)v.CanadianVintnersAssociation,
[2015]O.J.5369(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-10-16)GilbertJ.
[59]Thecumulativeapproachthatthelawcitedabovetakesonthe
measureofdamagestobeawardedallowstheCourttoassess
damagesinavarietyofwaysincluding(1)suchdamagesasthe
ownerhassufferedalongwithadisgorgementofanyprofitsthe
infringermayhavemadeprovidedtherehasisnooverlapor
duplication,or(2)statutorydamagesofarangebetween$500.00
and$20,000.00thattheCourtconsidersjustprovidedthe
infringementsareforcommercialpurposes.Theelectionismade
beforefinaljudgmentisrendered.Inthiscase,nosuchspecific
electionhasbeenmadebutthePlaintiffissubmittingthatdamages
becalculatedonwhataninstitutionalsubscriptionwouldhavecost
theDefendants.Ineithercase,whereinfringementisbymorethan
oneperson,theliabilityisjointandseveral.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
110
·Section35–Liabilityforinfringement
Copyrightinfringementcannotbecondonedonlybecausethedamagesaredifficult
toprove.
GeophysicalServiceIncv.AntrimEnergyInc,2015CarswellAlta1439(AltaQ.B.;
2015-07-31)Hanebury,Master
[Onapplicationforsummarydismissaloftheclaim]
[67]InassessingdamagesincopyrightcasestheCourtistousethe
evidenceavailable,drawreasonableinferences,andutilizecommon
sense.TheActwillnotletsomeonewhohasinfringedcopyright
avoiddamagesbecausedamagesareimpossibleordifficultto
prove:Leutholdv.CanadianBroadcastingCorporation,2012CanLII
748(F.C.),para’s121,131,134-136.Seeaswell:C.P.KochLtd.v.
ContinentalSteelLtd.,1984CarsellBC912(BCSC),para’s29,30.
[68]ThefactthatAntrimhadpreviouslydeterminedthatitwouldnot
purchasealicenceforthedataandGSIthereforesufferednoactual
lossisnotdeterminative.Thestartingpointforassessingdamages
canstillbetheusualcostofalicencetoaccessthematerial.
Everyonewhopiratesamovieormusichadlikelypreviously
determinedheorshewouldnotpayforit.
[69]Similarly,asthecaselawhasmadeclear,thefactthatAntrim
madenoprofitfromthedataisalsonotdeterminative.Itisthe
losstoGSIthatisthestartingpointforwhatcanbea“rough
andready”calculation:Slumber-MagicAdjustableBedCo.v.
Sleep-KingAdjustableBedCo.(1984)1984CanLII54(BCSC),3
CPR(3d)81(BCSC)para.30.
·Section35–Liabilityforinfringement
Refusingareasonableofferofsettlementcouldbetakenintoconsiderationinthe
assessementofdamagesasthelegalinterests.Damagescannotalwaysbe
assessedonthebasisoffreenegotiations.
Seggiev.RoofdogGamesInc.,2015QCCS6462(Que.Sup.Ct.;2016-12-18)Roy
J.
[92]LapreuvedémontrequelesdessinateursultérieurspourERTet
ERT2n’ontreçuquequelquesmilliersdedollarspourleurtravail,
pourtantplusimportantenquantitéqueceluieffectuéparM.Seggie
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
111
(environ2500$pourM.Deneset5500$pourledessinateurde
ERT2).
[93]Parailleurs,iln’estpasappropriédecomparerletravailde
M.Seggieàceluidumusicienquianégociéuneentente
contractuelle,quijouitdéjàd’unerenomméeaumomentoùil
composelamusiquedujeuetquiasignéunecessiondedroit.
[94]Le17février2012,M.Germainaoffert10000$àM.Seggie.
Encomparantaveclessommesverséesauxautresillustrateurs,qui
ontcrééencoreplusdedessinsquenel’afaitM.Seggie,leTribunal
conclutquecettesommereprésenteunejustecompensationpour
l’utilisationdesdessinsencause.Parailleurs,seuleRoofdogdoit
êtrecondamnéepuisquec’estlacompagniequiamislejeuenligne,
diffusél’oeuvreetengrangélesprofits.
[95]LeTribunaln’accordeaucunintérêtsurlepaiementdecette
sommeavantladatedujugement,niaucunsdépens[Fn54Art.34
(3)delaLoisurledroitd’auteur.],puisqueM.Germainaoffertune
compensationadéquateavantmêmeledébutdesprocédures.Ceci
auraitd’ailleursdûpermettred’évitertoutrecoursjudiciaire.
·Section38–Recoveryofpossessionofcopies,plates
Merefactualknowledgeisnotachattelcapableofsustaininganactionin
conversion.
ResourceEyeServicesInc.v.AtrumCoalGroundhogInc.,2015CarswellBC1335
(B.C.S.C.;2015-05-15)HarveyJ.
[APPLICATIONbyplaintifftoaddtwodefendantstoaction,andtoamendclaimto
addunjustenrichment:denied.]
[44]Thepropertysaidtoformthesubjectofconversionbythe
defendantsandtheproposeddefendantsisinformationaboutthe
locationofdrillholesanddatapertainingtocoresamplestakenfrom
theProperty,whichwasformerlyownedbyBrookesandnowowned
byAtrumGroundhog.
[45]Theplaintiffdescribesitinitspleadingsas »confidential
informationproducedbytheplaintiffforitsownpurpose.Without
license,permission,authorizationorattribution. »Laterinthe
pleadings,theplaintiff’sworkproductisdescribedas »dataand
analysis ».
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
112
[46]IagreewithcounselforBrookes[thedefendantproposed
tobeadded]thattheplaintiff’sworkproductisnotachattel
capableofsustaininganactioninconversion.
[48]CaugheyJ.’sfindinginK.R.Thompson[K.R.Thompson
EngineeringLtd.v.Webster(1980),31N.B.R.(2d)329(N.B.Q.B)]
wasadoptedbythiscourtinCoin-A-Matic(Pacific)Ltd.v.Saibil
(1986),38A.C.W.S.(2d)195(B.C.S.C.)[1986CarswellBC733
(B.C.S.C.)],whereMurrayJ.dismissedtheplaintiff’sactionfor
conversionrelatingtoinformationinthedefendant’spossession,
mainlytheplaintiff’sformcontractandcomparativeanalysissales
technique.Similartothecaseatbar,thisinformationwasnot
protectedatlawundercopyrightorpatent,andwassharedwith
othersintheindustry.Thecourtconcludedthatthistypeof
factualknowledgewasnotachattelcapableofwithstandingan
actioninconversion.
[49]Inanyevent,evenifsuchdatahadthecharacterofachattel,
conversionrequiresademandforthereturnofthechattelbeforean
actionissustainable.Thereisnopleadingsuggestingsucha
demandwasmadeofeitherBrookesorAtrumNLatanytimeafter
theplaintiffgainedknowledgethatboth,atonetime,hadpossessed
thedatasaidtobethesubjectoftheconversion.
[50]Hence,Iconcludetheactioninconversionasagainstthe
proposeddefendantsisunsustainable.
·Section38.1–Statutorydamages
Theawardofstatutorydamagesisamatterofdiscretionwhichshouldbeassessed
intakingintoconsiderationthecircumstancesoftheinfringementandtheattitudeof
thedefendant.
Hains(CindyHainsPhotographe)v.Ermel(StudioZaf),2015CarswellQue3224
(Que.Ct.-SmallClaims;2015-02-02)ClicheJ.
[69]Cependant,lemontantfinalestdéterminéparleTribunal
suivantcequ’ilestimeéquitabledanslescirconstances.
[72]LeTribunalaaussitenucompte,dansl’établissementdecette
indemnité,desélémentssuivants:
1.Lapreuven’apasrévéléqueladéfenderesseaagide
mauvaisefoiayantplutôtéténégligenteetinsoucianteau
momentdeviolerledroitd’auteurdelademanderesse;
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
113
2.Bienqueladéfenderesseaitretirérapidementsesphotosde
sapagecommercialeFacebook,aprèslaréceptiondelamise
endemeuredelademanderesse,cellemontrantlabarquevide
surmontéed’unevoileportantlelogo«Ourson-Pirate»esttout
demêmedemeuréeprésentesurcettepagependantplusde
quatremoissupplémentaires.
3.Laviolationdudroitd’auteurcommiseparladéfenderesse
aétéeffectuéeàdesfinscommerciales.
4.Àtitredephotographeprofessionnel,ladéfenderessedoit
êtredissuadéedecommettreunetelleviolationdansle
futur.
[73]Suivantl’ensembledecetteanalyse,leTribunalfixeà2500,00
$lesdommagesintérêtsdontlademanderesseestendroitd’être
indemniséesuiteàlaviolationdesondroitd’auteurcommiseparla
défenderesse.
·Section38.1–Statutorydamages
Theattitudeofadefendantwillhavebearingontheamountofstatutorydamages.
Dongluv.SinoquébecMediainc.,2015QCCQ2337(Que.Ct.;2015-03-09)Edwards
J.
[5]However,italsoincludedaphotoofMs.Yu’soriginaland
personalartworkandnoauthorizationwasgivenbyherforthatuse.
Also,thearticleincorrectlyreferredtotheworkasbeingpartofthe
Assassin’sCreedvideogame.
[13]Finally,afterthelegalproceedingswerefiledintoCourt,
Sinoquébecissuedacorrectionbutstillmadenoapologyforany
inconvenience.ThiscorrectionwasonlypublishedonMarch15,
2013,somefourmonthsafterthepublicationoftheoriginal
article.Thislongandexcessivedelaywasnotjustifiedby
Sinoquébecatthehearing.Thepassingofsuchalongtimeperiod
meantthatthemisinformationpublishedcontinuedtocause
damagesandwasnotcorrected.Ingeneral,acorrectionshould
bepublishedswiftlyinordertohaltoratleastreducethe
damagescausedbytheerror.
[14]Strangely,thecorrectionwasmadeinEnglishonlyandnotin
Chinesewhichisthelanguageofthenewspaper.Ms.Yutestified
thatthispreventedmostreadersofthenewspaperfrom
understandingthecontentofthetardycorrection.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
114
[15]TheCourtholdsthatSinoquébecwasnegligentinvirtueof
Article1457oftheCivilCodeofQuebecandbreached
applicablejournalisticnormsofduediligenceinfailingtocarry
outreasonableverificationsbeforepublishingthearticlewhich
containedseveralimportanterrors.
[17]Ms.Yumadeproofthatherworkhasbeenchargedoutfor
severalthousandsofdollarsdependingonitsconfiguration(Exhibit
P-11).
[18]Inlightoftheabove,theCourtwillgrantthefollowingdamages:
1)LawyerandBailiffcosts:$370.60[Fn1Article34(3)CopyrightAct,
R.S.C.,1985,c.C-42.];b)Translatorcostsforexhibits:$140.00;c)
Stressandinconvenience:$750.00;d)Breachofcopyright:$750.00
[Fn2Article38.1(1)(a)CopyrightAct,R.S.C.,1985,c.C-42.The
statutorydamagesforinfringementforcommercialpurposesvary
fromaminimumof$500to$20,000.],thewholetotalling$2,010.60.
·Section38.1–Satutorydamages
Assessementofstatutorydamagesisamatterofdiscretionandequity.
Bessettev.Lemieux,2015CarswellQue7830(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-03-23)
ClicheJ.
[53]Laviolationdudroitd’auteurconstituedeplusune
violationdudroitdepropriétédesontitulaire[Fn22CinarCorp.
c.Robinson,2013CSC73(CanLII),[2013]3R.C.S.1168,
paragraphe1221del’arrêt
].
[54]Dansleprésentcas,lademanderesseréclame,entreautres,5
000,00$àtitrededommagespréétablisconformémentaux
dispositionsprévuesàl’article38.1delaLoisurledroitd’auteur.
[55]Dansuntelcas,detelsdommages,encasdeviolations
commisesàdesfinscommerciales,nepeuventêtreinférieursà
500,00$etsupérieursà20000,00$.
[56]Cependant,lemontantfinalestdéterminéparleTribunal
suivantcequ’ilestimeéquitabledanslescirconstances.
·Section38.1–Statutorydamages
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
115
Thereisaburdenonadefendanttoprovetothecourtthatithadnoreasonable
groundstobeawareoftheinfringement,especiallywhennoverificationismade.
Boilyv.GroupeTVAinc.,2015QCCQ3558(Que.Ct.-SmallClaims;2015-04-29)
SaucierJ.[14]LeTribunalconclutquel’infographisteestnégligeantenne
prenantpaslesprécautionsraisonnablespouréviterde
s’approprierl’œuvred’unautre.TVAneconvaincpasleTribunal
qu’ellenesavaitpasetn’avaitaucunmotifraisonnabledecroire
qu’ellen’apasvioléledroitd’auteurausensdel’article38.1(2)dela
Loisurledroitd’auteur[Fn1L.R.C.1985,c.C-42
].
[15]TVAn’apassuivisonpropreprocessusdevérificationsurles
droitsd’auteur.Elleautilisésansdroitladitephotographie.TVAa
doncviolél’article27delaLoisurledroitd’auteur.
·Section38.1–Statutorydamages
Theassessementofstatutoydamagesisamatterofjudicialdiscretionwithinthe
parametersoftheAct.Aplaintiffoptingforstatutorydamagesdoesnothavetoprove
realdamages.
Parév.TaxisCoopdelaMauricie1992,2015QCCQ11581(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;
2015-11-11)LabbéJ.[34]Iln’estpascontestéquelaCoopautiliséàsixreprisesle
documentdudemandeuretqu’elleenadistribuédesphotocopies
auxnouveauxchauffeursquisuivaientlaformation.
[35]L’article38.1LDAmentionnéplushautprévoitdesdommages
préétablisquisesituententre500$et20000$queleTribunaldoit
fixerdefaçonéquitable.LeTribunalpeutdoncexercerune
certainediscrétion,maisévidemmentdefaçonjudiciaireselon
lapreuvefaite.
[36]C’estdecettedispositiondontseprévautledemandeurde
sortequ’iln’apaslefardeaud’établirdesdommagesréels.Le
minimumprévudanslecasdeviolationàdesfinscommercialesest
de500$.
·Section38.1–Statutorydamages
Theneedofdeterrenceisonefactortotakeintoaccountinassessingexemplary
damages.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
116
Gagnév.Faguy,2015QCCQ11832(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-11-25)BrunelleJ.
[37]Laprésencedel’adverbe«notamment»auparagraphe38.1(5)
delaLDAindiquebienquelesfacteursd’appréciationénumérésne
sontpasexhaustifs.D’autresfacteurspeuventainsiêtreprisen
compte.
4.L’effetdissuasif
[55]Àlalumièredelapreuve,leTribunalestimeque,parson
comportement,MonsieurFaguybanaliselesdroitsd’auteurque
laloireconnaîtàMonsieurGagné.
[56]Endiffusant,sansautorisationetàdesfinscommerciales,une
photographiedontiln’estpasl’auteurmaisqu’ilprésente
faussementcommeunexempledesontravail«original»,[the
defendant]MonsieurFaguycommetungesteillicitequ’ilfaut
dissuader.
·Section41.1–Prohibition[technologicalprotectionmeasure]
Notpayingasubscriptionfeetoaccesstoprotectedmaterialisconsideredas
circumveningatechnicologicalmeasureofprotection.
1395804OntarioLimited(Blacklock’sReporter)v.CanadianVintnersAssociation,
[2015]O.J.5369(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-10-16)GilbertJ.
[45]Theevidencedisclosesacourseofconductwhichlogically
amountstoanefforttoobtainaccesstomaterialtheycouldnothave
obtainedwithouteitherhavingtheirownsubscriptionorusing
someoneelsewhopossessedsubscriberrights.[…]
[46]TheDefendantschosetobypassthepaywall.[…]
[52]Applyingthelawtotheforegoingfindingsoffactrelatingtothe
basicquestionastowhethertheDefendantshavebreachedthe
Plaintiff’scopyright,section41.1(1)isclearandapplicable.Youare
prohibitedfromcircumventingatechnologicalprotectionwhichuses
aneffectivetechnologytocontrolaccesstoawork.Whatthe
Defendantsdidisjustthat.Theyknewtherewaslimitedaccessto
thefullarticle.Theyknewthataccesswassubscriptionbasedonly
andthatsubscriptionscostmoney.Theyknewthattherewasa
technologicalbarriertothataccess.Theyknewthatunlesstheypaid
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
117
theycouldnotgetit.Theyknewandchoseanotherwayaroundit.
Havingbreachedthatprohibition,theyhaveobtainedcopyrighted
materialbelongingtothePlaintiffillegally.
·Section41.23–Protectionofseparaterights
TheSmallClaimsDivisionoftheQuebecCourtisnottheproperforumtorevisethe
findingofplagiarismmadebyaschoolbody.
Kertechianv.VanierCollege,2015QCCQ2839(Que.Ct.SmallClaims;2015-03-17)
CoutléeJ.
[1]Ledemandeurréclamesolidairementauxdéfendeurslasomme
de7000$àtitrededommages.Ledemandeursoutientqueles
défendeursluiontcauséuntorténormeenl’accusantetenle
condamnantdeplagiatlorsd’unexamendemathématique.Le
demandeurcontestelesconclusionsduComité.Cefaisant,ildésire,
parcetteprocédure,refaireleprocèsquiamenéleComitéàle
déclarercoupabledeplagiat.
[3]LeTribunalnepeutréviserladécisionduComitéquiconclut
queledemandeuraplagiélorsd’unexamendemathématique.
SeulelaCoursupérieurepeutréviserjudiciairementladécision
d’uncomitéadministratifducollège.
·Section41.23–Protectionofseparaterights
Inaclassaction,eachmemberbenefitsfromthefindings,includingcopyright
ownership.
KeatleySurveyingLtd.v.TeranetInc.,2015CarswellOnt5147(Ont.C.A.;2015-04-
14)SharpeJ.[varying2014CarswellOnt3792(Ont.Sup.Ct.-Div.Ct;2014-03-26),
addreasons2014CarswellOnt9193(Ont.Sup.Ct.-Div.Ct;2014-06-26),reversing
107CPR(4th)237(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2012-12-14)]
[67]IfKeatleyisabletoestablishabreachofcopyrighton
behalfofallorsomemembersoftheclass,thoseclass
memberswouldlegallybenefitfromajudgmentholdingthat
theyretaincopyrightintheplansofsurveytheyregisterand
depositinOntario’selectroniclandregistrysystem.Theywould
certainlygainfromanydamagesordisgorgementorderedwith
respecttopastinfringement.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
118
·Section41.24–ConcurrentjurisdictionofFederalCourt
Arbitrationcouldnotgobeyondthesubjectmatterofthearbitration.
Ferreirav.Tavares,2015CarswellQue4366(Que.C.A.;2015-05-08)[affirming2014
QCCS6046(QueSup.Ct.2014-11-19)]
[29]Commel’anotélajuge,laclaused’arbitrageenlitigeneconfère
pasàl’arbitreunecompétencepourdéterminers’ilyaeudesabus
oudesinjusticesausensdel’article241L.c.s.a.Demême,ellene
luiaccordepaslepouvoirderendredesordonnancesde
redressementdenatureinjonctive,commelerequiertTavares[Fn9
Danslarequêteenoppression,lamajoritédesconclusions
recherchéesparTavaressontdenatureinjonctive.Ilenestainsides
ordonnancesvisantàforcerFerreiraet970àrembourseràFM
Restodesavances,desprêtsetdesdividendesqui,encedernier
cas,totalisentprèsde2.5millions$.].
[30]Également,ellen’accordeaucunecompétenceàl’arbitre
poursesaisirdelademanderelativeauxdroitsd’auteursque
Tavaresprétenddétenirsurlesrecettes,nonplusqu’àl’égardde
l’indemnitéde250000$qu’ilréclameàtitrededélaicongépourla
terminaisondesoncontratdetravail.
[31]Seulelaquestionrelativeaurachatdesesactionsestcouverte
parlaclaused’arbitrage.
·Section41.24–ConcurrentjurisdictionofFederalCourt]
DocumentsproducedbytheCopyrightBoardinresponsetoarequestunderrule
317donotformpartoftherecordunlessincludedincanoneoftheparties’s
applicationrecord:itdoesnothavetobeintroducedbywayofaffidavit.Ifthe
materialtobesubmittedismaterialthatonepartyhasinitspossessionandthatwas
beforetheadministrativedecision-makeratthetimeitmadethedecisioninissue,
thismaterialistobeintroducedbywayofaffidavit.
CanadianCopyrightLicensingAgency(AccessCopyright)v.Alberta,2015
CarswellNat6247(F.C.A.;2015-11-26)StratasJ.
[7]Attherootofthismotionisa
question:onajudicialreview,how
doesonebringthematerialsthatwere
beforetheadministrativedecision-[7]Laquestionsuivanteestàlabasede
larequête:dansuncontrôlejudiciaire,
commentunepersonneprésente-t-elle
devantlacourderévisionles
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
119
makerbeforethereviewingcourt?documentsquiontétéprésentésau
décideuradministratif?
[17]Materialsproducedbythe
administrativedecision-makerin
responsetoaRule317requestcan
simplybeplacedintheapplicant’s
recordortherespondent’srecord:
seeRule309(2)(e.1)andRule
310(2)(c.1).Whenthatisdone,the
materialisintheevidentiaryrecord
beforethereviewingcourtandmaybe
usedbythepartiesandthecourt.No
affidavitisnecessary.
[17]Lesdocumentstransmisparle
décideuradministratifenréponseà
unedemandefaiteenvertude
l’article317peuventêtresimplement
versésdansledossierdudemandeur
oudel’intimé:voirles
alinéas309(2)e.1)et310(2)c.1)des
Règles.Lorsquecelaestfait,les
documentssetrouventalorsdansle
dossierdelapreuvedontestsaisiela
courderévisionetilspeuventêtre
utilisésparlespartiesetparlacour.
Aucunaffidavitn’estnécessaire.
[19]Iturnnowtomaterialhattheparty
hasinitspossessionandthatwas
beforetheadministrativedecision-
makeratthetimeitmadethedecision
inissue.Thismaterialispotentially
relevanttothejudicialreview,butis
notproducedbyadecision-makerin
responsetoaRule317request.Rules
309and310donotpermitthis
materialtobefiledintotheapplicant’s
recordortherespondent’srecord.
Thus,thepartiesmusttakeaffirmative
stepstoplacethatmaterialbeforethe
reviewingcourt.[19]Jevaismaintenantaborderla
questiondesdocumentsqu’unepartiea
ensapossessionetdontledécideur
administratifétaitsaisiaumomentoùil
arendusadécision.Cesdocuments
peuventêtrepertinentsauxfinsdu
contrôlejudiciaire,maisilsnesontpas
transmisparundécideurenréponseà
unedemandefaiteenvertude
l’article317.Lesarticles309et310ne
permettentpasdeverserces
documentsdansledossierdu
demandeuroudel’intimé.Par
conséquent,lespartiesdoiventposer
concrètementlegestedeprésenterces
élémentsdevantlacourderévision.
[20]Here,wemustlookatRules306-
310.Butbeforedoingso,wemust
appreciatethatthoserulessit
alongsideafundamentalgeneral
principle:factsmustbeprovenby
admissibleevidence.Thereare
exceptionstothis,suchasthe
availabilityofjudicialnotice,the
presenceoflegislativeprovisions
speakingtotheissue,andanagreed
statementoffacts(includingan
agreementthatcertaindocuments
shallbeadmissible).
Puttingthose
exceptionsaside,documentsby
themselves,notintroducedbyan
affidavitauthenticatingthem,are
notadmissibleevidence.
Documentssimplystuffedintoan
applicationrecordarenot
admissible.[20]Ilconvientd’examinericiles
articles306à310.Cependant,ilfaut
avanttoutcomprendrequecesarticles
vontdepairavecunprincipegénéral
fondamental:lesfaitsdoiventêtre
prouvésaumoyend’élémentsdepreuve
admissibles.Ilexistedesexceptionsà
cetterègle,commelaconnaissance
d’office,lesdispositionslégalestraitant
delaquestionouunexposéconjoint
desfaits(ycomprisuneententeselon
laquellecertainsdocumentssont
admissibles).
Saufpources
exceptions,desdocumentsquine
sontpasprésentésavecunaffidavit
quiencertifiel’authenticiténesont
pasensoidesélémentsdepreuve
admissibles.Lesdocuments
simplementversésdansundossier
dedemandenesontpasadmissibles.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
120
[25]Inthiscase,AccessCopyright
simplyincludedinitsapplication
recordmaterialithadinitspossession
thatitsayswasbeforetheBoardat
thetimeitmadeitsdecision.Itdidnot
introducethematerialbywayofan
affidavit.[25]Enl’espèce,AccessCopyrighta
simplementinclus,danssondossierde
demande,desdocumentsqu’elleavait
ensapossessionetqui,selonelle,
étaientdevantlaCommissionau
momentoùcelle-ciarendusadécision.
Lesdocumentsn’ontpasétédéposés
aumoyend’unaffidavit.
[26]Theforegoinganalysisshowsthat
thiswasanerror.AccessCopyright
shouldhaveservedanaffidavit
explainingthatthematerialwasbefore
theBoardwhenitmadeitsdecision,
appendingtherelevantmaterialtothat
affidavit.Afterreceivingthataffidavit,
therespondentsmighthaveexercised
theirrighttocross-examine.As
explainedinparagraph23,above,the
righttocross-examinecanbe
importantinsomecircumstances.In
thiscase,Icannottellwhetherornot
therespondentswouldhaveexercised
theirrighttocross-examine.Thefact
theymighthaveunderscorestheneed
forAccessCopyrighttohaveserved
anaffidavit.Finally,followingany
cross-examinations,AccessCopyright
shouldhaveincludedtheaffidavit(with
exhibits)andanycross-examination
transcriptsinitsapplicationrecord:
seeRule309(2)(
d)andRule
309(2)(e).[26]D’aprèsl’analysequiprécède,il
s’agissaitlàd’uneerreur.Access
Copyrightauraitdûsignifierunaffidavit
expliquantquelaCommissionétait
saisiedesdocumentsaumomentoù
ellearendusadécision,etjoindreles
documentspertinentsàcetaffidavit.
Aprèsavoirreçucetaffidavit,lesintimés
auraientpuexercerleurdroitde
contre-interroger.Commejel’aiexpliqué
auparagraphe23,ledroitde
contre-interrogerpeutêtreimportant
danscertainescirconstances.En
l’espèce,jenepeuxpasdiresiles
intimésauraientexercéounonleurdroit
decontre-interroger.Parcequ’ils
auraientpuexercercedroit,lefait
qu’AccessCopyrightauraitdûsignifier
unaffidavitprenddel’importance.
Finalement,àlasuitedetoutcontre-
interrogatoire,AccessCopyrightaurait
dûinclurel’affidavit(aveclespièces)et
latranscriptiondes
contre-interrogatoiresdansledossierde
demande:voirlesalinéas309(2)
d)et
309(2)e)desRègles.
·Section41.24–ConcurrentjurisdictionofFederalCourt
AnactionforbreachoftheCopyrightAct,theTrade-marksActandtheCompetition
ActbeforetheFederalCourtisnotsufficienttostayanactionindefamationbefore
theOntarioCourtofJusticeeventhoughtheproceedingshavesimilarfactual
footprintsandsomeoverlappinglegalissues.
CanadianStandardsAssociationv.P.S.KnightCo.Ltd.,2015CarswellOnt19522
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-12-22)PerellJ.
[12]InamendingitsStatementofClaim,itistobenotedthatCSA
didnotatthesametimejoinacommonlawdefamationclaimtothe
FederalCourtaction.Theexplanationisthatsuchajoinderwould
nothavebeenpossiblebecauseacommonlawclaimfordefamation
isoutsidethejurisdictionoftheFederalCourt,whichisastatutory
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
121
court.See:Graceyv.CanadianBroadcastingCorp.(CBC),[1990]
F.C.J.No.1155(T.D.);Ochiichagwe’babig’iningFirstNationv.
Beardy,[1995]F.C.J.No.1268(T.D.).
[23]Thecaselawaboutrule21.01(3)(c)establishesthatthecourt’s
discretiontograntastayistobeexercisedsparingly,andthetestfor
determiningwhetheranactionshouldbedismissedorstayedisthat
astayordismissalshouldonlybeorderedintheclearestofcases,
and:(a)wherethecontinuationoftheactionwouldcausetheparty
seekingastayprejudiceorinjustice,notmerelyinconvenienceor
additionalexpense;and(b)wherethestayordismissalwouldnotbe
unjusttotheotherparty.Thus,theonusisonthepartyseekinga
staytoshowboth:(1)thatitwouldbeoppressiveorvexatiousorin
someotherwayanabuseofprocesstohavetobeinvolvedinmore
thanoneproceeding;and,also(2)thatthestaywouldnotcausean
injusticeorprejudicetotheotherparty[…]
[24]Factorstobeconsideredindeterminingwhetherapermanentor
temporarystayshouldbegrantedinclude:(a)differencesinthe
substantivescopeandremedialjurisdictionofthetwocourts;(b)any
juridicaladvantagesassociatedwiththeplaintiff’schoiceof
jurisdiction;(c)thecomparativeprogressofthetwoproceedings,
includingwhichproceedingstartingfirst;(d)whethertheproceedings
willproceedsequentiallyorintandem;(e)theeffectoftwo
proceedingsaboutthesamesubjectmatterproceedingintandem;(f)
theabilityofthedefendanttoadequatelyrespondtobothmatters
apartfromjustthefinancialburdenorinconvenienceofhavingtodo
so;(g)thepossibilityofinconsistentresults;(h)thepotentialfor
doublerecovery;and(i)theeffectofastayindelayingorprejudicing
accesstojustice[…]
[25]Wherethemovingpartyseeksonlyatemporarystay,although
theonusonthepartyseekingthestaytojustifythestaydoesnot
change,thecourtmaybemorepreparedtograntthetemporarystay
where:thereisasubstantialoverlapinthefactualbackgroundandof
thelegalissuesinthetwoproceedings;thedeterminationofthe
issuesinoneproceedingwillhaveasubstantiveeffectonthe
determinationoftheissuesintheother;andissuingatemporarystay
willavoidunnecessaryandcostlyduplicationofjudicialresources
[…]
[26]Whileamultiplicityofproceedingsshouldbeavoided,courts
shouldnotbequicktostayacivilactionsimplytoavoidamultiplicity
ofproceedingsandthemovingpartymustsatisfythetestforastay
withclearandspecificevidence[…]
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
122
·Section42–Offences[criminalremedies]
Beingchargedwithsellingorofferingforsalesinfringingcopies,irrespectiveofa
verdictofculpability,providesreasonablegroundsforthebeliefthatagamersupplier
willnotactwithhonesty,integrityorinaccordancewithlawandthathislicense
shouldberevoked.Inadministrativemattertheburdenofproofisoneofbalanceof
probabilities,notoneofbeyondreasonabledoubt.
Zheng(c.o.b.Kevin’sConvenience)(Re)[2015]O.L.A.T.D.64(Ont.Lic.App.Trib.;
2015-04-01)Spencer,Member
[24]InresponsetoaquestionfromMr.Sederoff,OfficerHoward
testifiedthattherewasnospecificevidencethattheDVDswere
beingofferedforsale,notwithstandingthefactthatthepolicedidlay
chargesundertheCopyrightActonDecember10,2014.No
alternateexplanationwasofferedforthepresenceoftheboxof
DVDswhichMsLeadbettertestifiedcontainedmultiplecopiesof
newlyreleasedmovies.AlthoughOfficerHowardtestifiedthathehas
notyetreceivedadefinitivereportthattheDVDswerecounterfeit,
bothheandMsLeadbettertestifiedthattheirpackagingwas
consistentwithpiratedcopies.TheTribunalnotesthattheDVDs
werenotopenlydisplayedatthestore.ThefactthatMsLeadbetter
receivedatipthatpiratedDVDswerebeingsoldatKevin’s
Convenience,thenatureoftheDVDsandtheirquantityleads
theTribunaltoconcludethatitismorelikelythannotthatthe
DVDswerebeingsold.
[29]Mr.SederoffnotedthattherearenofindingswithrespecttoMr.
Zheng’sdirectconductasagamingsupplier.However,in
assessingthepastconductoftheAppellantanddetermining
theappropriatesanction,theTribunalmustconsiderthetotality
ofhisconduct,notjustthatdirectlyrelatedtohisregistrationas
asupplier.Thepresenceofvideogamingmachines,counterfeit
DVDsandunmarkedcigarettesprovidereasonablegroundsto
believethatMr.Zhengwillnotactasasupplierinaccordance
withlaworwithhonesty,integrityorinthepublicinterest.
·Section42–Offences[criminalremedies]
Computerdataisnotapropertyandisnotcapableofbeingstolenorconverted
withinthemeaningofs.322(1)oftheCriminalCode.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
123
Rv.Maurer,2015CarswellSask388(SaskQ.B.;2015-06-18)GabrielsonJ.
[affirming2014CarswellSask319(Sask.Prov.Ct.;2014-05-26)]
[21]ThetrialjudgerelieduponthecasesofAlexanderandStewart
[RvAlexander,[2006]OTC715(OntSupCt);andRvStewart,1988
CanLII86(SCC),[1988]1SCR963].ThecourtintheAlexander
caseheldthat,althoughstealingwasnotnormallyanessential
elementoftheoffenceofunauthorizeduseofacomputerwithintent
tocommitmischief,astheCrownhadallegedthetheft,itmustbe
proven.Thecourtfurtherheldthatthemereaccessingandsharing
ofdatadidnotconstitutestealing.IntheStewartcase,theaccused
waschargedwithcounsellingahotelemployeetocommitfraudand
theftofinformation.Theaccusedwasconvictedofthechargeof
counsellingtheindictableoffenceoftheft.TheSupremeCourtof
Canadaallowedtheappealandheldthat,whiletheunauthorized
useofcopyrightedinformationlikeanemployees’list
constitutesaninfringementofcopyrightundertheCopyrightAct,
RSC1970,cC-30(sincerep),itcouldnotconstitutetheftunder
thecriminallawbecause,forpolicyreasons,confidential
informationshouldnotbeconsideredaspropertyforthe
purposesofthelawoftheft.Inpara.31,thecourtstated:
31.…Iamoftheviewthat,givenrecenttechnological
developments,confidentialinformation,andinsomeinstances,
informationofacommercialvalue,isinneedofsomeprotection
throughourcriminallaw.Bethatasitmay,inmyopinion,the
extenttowhichthisshouldbedoneandthemannerinwhichit
shouldbedonearebestlefttobedeterminedbyParliament
ratherthanbythecourts.
[22]Aspointedoutbythetrialjudgeinthecurrentcase,the
distributionofintimateimageswithoutconsentisnowacriminal
offencebyvirtueofrecentamendmentstos.162.1oftheCriminal
Code.However,BillC-13didnothaveroyalassentuntilDecember
9,2014,anddidnotcomeintoeffectuntilthreemonthsafterthat
date.BillC-13wasnotinplaceatthetimeofthedateslistedinthe
information,whichwasbetweenAugust12andOctober2,2012.
[23]Iamsatisfiedthatthetrialjudgewascorrectinherdetermination
thatcomputerdataconsistingofnudeimagesofthe
complainantwasnotcapableofbeingstolenorconverted
withinthemeaningofs.322(1)oftheCriminalCode.Therefore
herfindingthatMaurerwasnotguiltyonbothcountsisalsocorrect.
·Section43.1–Limitationorprescriptionperiodforcivilremedies
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
124
Thedeterminationonthelimitationperiodissuecouldsometimesbeamatterof
credibilityandcontextandbebetterassessedattrial.
3GeniusCorporationv.Ritchie.,2015CarswellOnt6123(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-04-24)
DowJ.[leavetoappealrefused2015CarswellNat10871(Ont.Sup.Ct–Div.Ct.;
2015-07-15)]
[Uponmotionforsummaryjudgmentdismissingcaseforlimitation:denied.]
[21]Again,giventhecredibilityissueanddivergenceofthe
evidenceofthepartiesastowhatoccurred,itistheCourt’s
viewthatthereremainsaplausibleclaimbytheplaintiffagainst
thedefendantsthatisnotbarredbythetwo-yeartimelimit
imposedbytheLimitationsAct(andthusthethree-yeartime
limitimposedbytheCopyrightAct).Specifically,thesaleof
LocationarytoAppleinJune,2013,appearstohavetriggeredthe
needtoresolvetheissueofthevalueofthesoftwaredevelopment
createdbytheplaintiff,whichitagreedthedefendantcorporation
coulduse.IrelyonthecommentsofMewJ.inthedecision
ofHancockv.Hancock,2014ONSC5551where,atparagraph47,
hestates, »Forajudgetoassesswhatisreallygoingoninthiscase,
heorshewillhavetonotonlylistentoandreadtheevidence,but
willalsowanttoobservethedemeanourofthewitnessesinrespect
ofthefullrangeoftheissuesbetweenthepartiesandtoconsiderthe
humandynamicsinvolved. »
·Section43.1–Limitationorprescriptionperiodforcivilremedies
Thedeterminationonthelimitationperiodissuecouldsometimesbebettermadeat
trialratherthanonsummaryjudgment.
3GeniusCorporationv.Ritchie.,2015CarswellNat10871(Ont.Sup.Ct–Div.Ct.;
2015-07-15)SachsJ.[refusingleavetoappealto2015CarswellOnt6123(Ont.Sup.
Ct.;2015-04-24)]
[Uponmotionforsummaryjudgmentdismissingcaseforlimitation:denied]
[15]Inthiscase,itcannotbesaidthatthemotionjudgeerredin
principlewhenhefoundthathecouldnotdecidethequestionof
whetherthePlaintiffshouldhaveknownoftheexistenceofthe
QuitclaiminMayof2011whenArlenRitchiewasprovidedaccessto
adropboxcontaininganumberofdocuments.Itdoesnotconstitute
anerrorinprincipletoconcludethatthecontextsurroundingthe
providingofthedropboxandtheevidenceofwhatwasgoingon
betweenthepartiesbeforeandafterMayof2011,onwhichthere
wasconsiderabledivergence,wouldreasonablyhavetobe
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
125
assessedandconsideredbeforeadeterminationonthelimitations
periodissuecouldbemadeinafairandjustmanner.
[16]WhiletheDefendantsarecorrectthattherearecaseswhere
courtshavereachedconclusionsrespectinglimitationsperiod
issueswhendiscoverabilityisaconcernonsummaryjudgment
motions,thisdoesnotmeanthatthemotionjudge’sdecisionis
inconflictwiththosedecisions.Themotionjudgemadehis
decisionbasedontherecordbeforehim,arecordthatwasdifferent
thantherecordintheotherdecisionstheDefendantsputforward.In
otherwords,totheextentthatthemotionjudge’sdecision“conflicts”
withotherdecisions,itisnotaconflictonanissueofprinciple;itisa
conflictarisingfromtheapplicationofthesamesetoflegalprinciples
toadifferentfactualrecord.
·Section53–Registertobeevidence
Thepresumptionsflowingforcopyrightregistrationarerebuttable.
AgrosTradingConfectionerySP.Z.O.O.v.K-MaxCorp.,2015CarswellOnt7483
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-06-19)MorganJ.
[51]Further,section3(1)providesthattheauthorasownerofthe
copyrightedworkhasexclusiverightstherein:“Forthepurposesof
thisAct,‘copyright’,inrelationtoawork,meansthesolerightto
produceorreproducetheworkoranysubstantialpartthereofinany
materialformwhatever…”ThePlaintiff’sexclusivityisnot
trumpedbytheDefendant’ssubsequentregistrationunderthe
CopyrightAct.ThePlaintiffretainsitsexclusiverightstothebox
design.
·Section64–Interpretation[certaindesigns]
Foranarticletobeexemptedfromcopyrightprotectionundersubsection64(2)ofthe
CopyrightActtwoconditionsaremet:i)theremusthavebeenmorethan50copies
ofthearticlelawfullymade,andii)thearticlemustbefunctional.
ZeroSpillSystems(Int’l)Inc.v.Heide,130C.P.R.(4th)291(F.C.A.;2015-05-04)
StratasJ.[infirminginpart111C.P.R.(4th)317(F.C.;2013-07-18)]
[22]Beforeleavingthisissue,IwishtoexaminetheFederalCourt’s
apparentfindingthatallfeaturesofanindustrialdesignthatare
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
126
functionalareunprotectablebyvirtueofparagraph5.1(a)even
thoughthosefeaturesmightalsoappealtotheeye:Reasonsofthe
FederalCourtatparagraphs130-32,134-35.Here,too,Idisagree
withtheFederalCourt.
[23]TheFederalCourt’sinterpretationrunscountertoboththe
ordinarymeaningofparagraph5.1(a)andthepurposeofthe
IndustrialDesignAct.Properlyunderstood,onlyfeaturesofan
industrialdesignwhoseformaredictatedsolelybyfunctionare
excludedfromprotectionbyparagraph5.1(a).
[24]Lookingfirstattheordinarymeaningofparagraph5.1(a),
functionalfeaturesofanindustrialdesignmaybeprotectedbythe
IndustrialDesignAct.Paragraph5.1(a)statesthatfeatures“applied
toausefularticlethataredictatedsolelybyautilitarianfunctionof
thearticle[myemphasis]”areineligibleforprotection.Featuresmay
besimultaneouslyusefulandvisuallyappealing.Insuchacase,on
itsface,paragraph5.1(a)cannotapply.
[25]Moreover,theverypurposeoftheIndustrialDesignActisto
provideresidualprotectionforfunctionaldesignsthatwould,
butforsection64oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,be
subjecttocopyrightprotection:RogerT.HughesandSusanJ.
Peacock,HughesonCopyrightandIndustrialDesign,loose-leaf
(consultedonApril7,2015),2ded.(Markham,ON:LexisNexis,
2005)at§152;RogerT.Hughes,CopyrightLegislation&
Commentary,2015ed.(MarkhamON:LexisNexis,2015)atpages
360-61.
[26]Undersubsection64(2)oftheCopyrightAct,anarticleis
exemptfromcopyrightprotectioniftwoconditionsaremet.
First,theremusthavebeenmorethan50copiesofthearticle
lawfullymade.Second,thearticlemustbefunctional.The
IndustrialDesignActtwouldservenopurposeifitdidnotprotect
functionalfeatures.
[27]Together,theplaintextofparagraph5.1(a)andthepurpose
underlyingtheIndustrialDesignActconfirmthatfunctionalfeatures
ofdesignsmaybeprotectedundertheAct.Onlythosefeatures
whoseformaredictatedsolelybyfunctionarenotprotected.
·Section66.3–Conflictofinterestprohibited
ItisnotuptotheCompetitionTribunaltopolicethedutiesoftheCopyrightBoard.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
127
StargroveEntertainmentInc.v.UniversalMusicPublishingGroupCanada,2015
CarswellNat6185(Comp.Trib.;2015-11-18)BarnesJ.
[UponmotiontostriketheaffidavitofaformerGeneralCounseloftheCopyright
Boardascontaininginformationdisclosedinconfidence:denied.]
[13]AfurtherdifficultywithCMRRA’sargumentisthatMr.
Bouchard’s[formerGeneralCounseloftheCopyrightBoard]
involvementwasnotonbehalfofapartytotheOntarioclass
proceeding.HewasactingonbehalfoftheCopyrightBoardwhich
maywellhavehadaroletoplayingivingpracticaleffecttoa
settlementofthatcase;buthewasdecidedlynotretainedasa
disinterestedmediatorofthatdispute.Mr.Bouchard’sroledoesnot,
therefore,fitwithinthelegalparametersofasettlementprivilegeas
describedbytheSupremeCourtofCanadainBombardierinc.c.
UnionCarbideCanadainc.,2014SCC35(S.C.C.)atpara31,[2014]
1S.C.R.800(S.C.C.)[…]
[14]ThereisnothingaboutMr.Bouchard’sroleasdescribedbyMs.
Riouxthatcreatesaprivilege.TheCMRRAwasnotobligedto
disclosetoMr.Bouchardanyinformationthatitconsideredtobe
confidentialorofastrategicnature.TheCMRRAwasalsoquite
capableofrequiringthatMr.Bouchardmaintainanyconfidenceit
thoughtnecessaryasapreconditiontodiscussionswiththe
CopyrightBoard.Itcannotadvanceitspositionnowhaving
neglectedtotakeprotectiveactionatthetime.Althougha
confidentialityagreementisnotarequirementforestablishinga
settlementprivilegeasbetweenthepartiestoadispute,itwould
beexpectedwhereconfidentialdiscussionstakeplacewithan
outsideparty.Inthosecircumstancesthedisclosureof
informationwouldbepresumedtobeunrestrainedunless
protectedbyaconfidentialityagreement.
[15]Indeed,theconcernsexpressedbyMs.Riouxaboutthe
CMRRA’slossofconfidenceintheCopyrightBoardandofthe
correspondingneedtotakeprotectivestepsinthefuturearean
implicitacknowledgementofitspreviousindifference.Iwouldadd
thatitisnottheroleoftheCompetitionTribunalwhenacting
withinitsownjurisdictiontoprotectthesupposedintegrityof
theprocessesoftheCopyrightBoard.ThatBoardisquite
capableofprotectingitsowninterestswithoutinterferencefromme.
·Section66.52–Variationofdecisions
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
128
TheCopyrightBoardalwayshasthepowertovaryitsroyaltydecisionswherethere
hasbeenamaterialchangesubsequenttoitsdecision.
RogersCommunicationsPartnershipv.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusic
PublishersofCanada,129C.P.R.(4th)395(F.C.;2015-03-06)O’ReillyJ.
[23]However,pursuanttotheCopyrightAct,theBoardalwayshas
thepowertovaryitsroyaltydecisionswheretherehasbeena
subsequentmaterialchangeincircumstances(s66.52).Inthat
sense,adecisionoftheBoardisneverreallyfinal.Similarly,
refugeedecisionsrenderedbytheImmigrationandRefugeeBoard,
whichhasacomparablepowertoreconsideritsownrulings,arenot
consideredfinalforpurposesofresjudicata(AdarvCanada(MCI),
[1997]FCJNo695atparas10-11).
·Section66.7–Generalpowers,etc
·Section68–Boardtoconsiderproposedtariffsandobjections
·Section70.14–Applicationofcertainprovisions
·Section70.2–Applicationtofixamountofroyalties,etc.
·Section70.6–Examinationandfixingofroyalty
·Section72–Publicationofproposedtardiffs.
·Section78–Boardmaydeterminecompensation
·Section83–Filingofpoposedtariffs,etc.
Toestablishroyalty,theBoardmustrelyinevidencebeforeit.
StatementofRoyaltiestobeCollectedbyAccessCopyrightfortheReprographic
Reproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsRepertoire[ProvincialandTerritorial
Goverments–2005-2014],2015CarswellNat1792(subnomineReproductionof
LiteraryWorks,Re)(Cop.Bd.;2015-05-22)
[197][…]Asaneconomicregulatory
agency,theBoardmustrelyonthe
evidencebeforeittoestablishafair
andequitableroyalty.
[197][…]LaCommissiondoit,àtitre
d’organismederéglementation
économique,sefondersurlapreuve
qu’elleadevantellepourétablirdes
redevancesjustesetéquitables.
·Section66.7–Generalpowers,etc.
Asanadminsitrativebody,theCopyrightBoardenjoygreatlatitudeinsettingitsown
procedurebuthasadutytoactfairlyincomingtodecisionsthataffectpersons’
rights,privilegesandinterests.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
129
Netflix,Inc.v.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanada,2015
CarswellNat7147(F.C.A.;2015-12-17)NadonJ.[reversing2014CarswellNat2616
(Cop.Bd.;2014-07-18)subnominePublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,Re]
[37]InDunsmuirv.NewBrunswick,2008SCC9(CanLII),the
SupremeCourt,atparagraph79ofitsreasons,opinedthat
“[p]roceduralfairnessisacornerstoneofmodernCanadian
administrativelaw”.Asanadministrativebody,theBoardhasa
dutytoactfairlyincomingtodecisionsthataffectpersons’
rights,privilegesandinterests.ForexampleinFitnessIndustry
[Re:Soundv.FitnessIndustryCouncilofCanada,2014FCA48],this
CourtsetasideadecisionoftheBoardbecauseapartywas
“deprivedofafairhearingbecauseithadnopriornoticeofthebasis
oftheBoard’sdecision,andthushadnoopportunitytomake
submissionsontheappropriatenessoftheBoard’smethodology”
(paragraph75).
[38]Administrativedecisionmakersenjoygreatlatitudein
settingtheirownprocedure,includingaspectsthatfallwithinthe
scopeofproceduralfairnesssuchaswhetherarequestfor
adjournmentshouldbegranted,theextentofdisclosurebyparties,
theextentofcross-examinationthatwillbeallowedandwhether
representationsbyalawyershouldbeallowed.“Contextand
circumstanceswilldictatethebreadthofthedecision-maker’s
discretiononanyoftheseproceduralissues,andwhetherabreach
ofthedutyoffairnessoccurred”(FitnessIndustry,paragraph37).
·Section67.1–Filingofproposedtariffs
Restrictingtherightofapartywhichdidnotavailitselfofitsrightinatimelyfashion
doesnot,perse,constituteabreachofthedutyofproceduralfairness.Howeverthe
proposedroyaltiesstatementsshouldbeclearenoughtoallowprosepectiverusers
tointerveneandobject.
Netflix,Inc.v.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanada,2015
CarswellNat7147(F.C.A.;2015-12-17)NadonJ.[reversing2014CarswellNat2616
(Cop.Bd.;2014-07-18)subnominePublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,Re]
[39]Pursuanttosection67.1oftheCopyrightAct,copyright
collectivesocieties,suchasSOCAN,haveadutytofileonorbefore
March31ofeachyear,statementsofproposedroyaltieswiththe
Boardwhichwill,inturn,bepublishedintheCanadaGazette.
Prospectiveusersthenhave60daystoobject.Inthepresentmatter,
theBoardreliedonNetflix’sfailuretoparticipateintheopposition
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
130
processandonthedelayswhichwouldnecessarilyoccurifNetflix
wereallowedtoparticipateatalatestageoftheproceedings,to
justifyitsrefusaltoallowNetflixtointroducenewevidenceormake
submissionswithrespecttothefairdealingissue.TheBoard’s
decisionnodoubtaffectedNetflix’srighttobeheard,whichright
encompassedtherighttoreceivepriornoticeoftheBoard’s
decision,toadduceevidenceandtomakesubmissions(SeeBrown
andEvans,JudicialReviewofAdministrativeActioninCanada,
Loose-leaf,Toronto,Carswell2015,Volume2,Chapter10at10-1.
[40]SOCANsaysthatNetflixdidnotabstainfromobjectingbecause
theinitialproposalscontainedinthepublishedtariffs“contained
nothingobjectionable”butratherbecauseNetflixreliedonthe
Objectorstochallengetheproposedroyaltiestherebyavoidingthe
interrogatoryprocess.Whetherthisbethecaseornot,SOCAN’s
assertioncannot,inthecircumstancesofthiscase,denyNetflixofits
proceduralrightswithregardtothesubjectmatterswhichdidnot
appearintheTariffinitiallyproposedandpublishedintheCanada
Gazette.
[41]IagreewithSOCANthatrestrictingtherightofapartywhichdid
notavailitselfofitsrightinatimelyfashiondoesnot,perse,
constituteabreachofthedutyofproceduralfairness.However,in
thepresentinstanceNetflixonlyobjectstoparagraph3(b)of
theTariffwhichdealswithroyaltiesforfreetrialsubscriptions,
aprovisionthatdidnotappearintheversionoftheTariffthat
waspubliclyavailableduringtheentiretyoftheregular
objectionperiod.
[42]ThequestionthatarisesiswhetherNetflixhadarighttobe
heardwithrespecttofreetrialroyaltiesnotwithstandingthefactthat
itdidnotparticipateintheinitialoppositionprocess.Inmyopinion,
theanswermustbeintheaffirmative.AlthoughNetflixitselfdidnot
havethisright,theindustryaffectedbytheprovisionatissueenjoyed
thatrightandthereforeshouldhavetheopportunitytobeheardand
putitscaseforward.
·Section67.1–Filingofproposedtariffs
TherighttoobjectcannotbelostordeniedwhenevertheBoardcertifiesatariff
whichcontainssubjectmatterthatdidnotappearinthetariffpubliclyadvertised.
Netflix,Inc.v.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanada,2015
CarswellNat7147(F.C.A.;2015-12-17)NadonJ.[reversing2014CarswellNat2616
(Cop.Bd.;2014-07-18)subnominePublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,Re]
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
131
[44]Anotherfactorthatmustnecessarilybeconsideredisthat
throughsection67.1oftheCopyrightActParliamentestablishedan
oppositionmechanismallowingaffectedpartiestobeheard.That
rightcannotbelostordeniedwhenevertheBoardcertifiesatariff
whichcontainssubjectmatterthatdidnotappearinthetariffpublicly
advertised.Therecanbenodoubtthatthenoticepubliclygiven
totheindustrybywayoftheCanadaGazetteiscrucialtothe
decisiontoobjectornottoaproposedtariff.
·Section67.1–Filingofproposedtariffs
Aprospectiveobjectorsmustbegiventheopportunitytointevenewithrespecttoa
settlementthatmayaffecthim.
Netflix,Inc.v.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanada,2015
CarswellNat7147(F.C.A.;2015-12-17)NadonJ.[reversing2014CarswellNat2616
(Cop.Bd.;2014-07-18)subnominePublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,Re]
[49]Third,IdisagreewiththeBoard’sgeneralstatementin
Re:Sound5that“prospectiveuserswhodidnotfileatimely
objectionnolongerhavearighttoairtheirviewsbeforetheBoard”
(paragraph10).Innormalcircumstances,theBoard’scommentdoes
notposeaprobleminthatobjectionprocessesmusthaveanendto
themandhencepartiesshouldbediligentindefendingtheir
interests.However,where,ashere,asettlementagreementdeals
withsubjectmatterthatdidnotappearinthepublished
proposedroyaltiesandwherenoneofthepartiesatthe
negotiatingtableareadverselyaffectedbythechange,asisthe
casehere,itseemstomethatproceduralfairnessrequiresthat
arepresentativememberoftheaffectedsegmentoftheindustry
begiventheopportunity,ifitsochooses,tomakeitscomments
andpointofviewknownanddealtwithbytheBoard.
·Section68–Boardtoconsiderproposedtariffsandobjections
Thecertificationofatariffisnotsomethingbetweentheparties:itmusttakeinto
accounttheeventualusers.
CollectiveAdministrationofPerformingRightsandofCommunicationRights(Re),
2015CarswellNat3747(subnominePublicPerformanceofSoundRecordings,Re
(Cop.Bd.;2015-03-27)
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
132
[55]Third,whencertifyingatariff,
theBoardmusttakeinto
considerationnotonlytheparties
involvedintheproceedingbutalso
eventualuserswhomaybesubject
tothetariff.Therecorddoesshow
thatthetwoobjectors,FICand
Goodlife,representthemajorityof
fitnessvenuesinCanada;together,
theyaccountforover5,000fitness
venueswithoverfourmillion
members.AsRe:Soundcorrectly
pointedout,theBoardhaspreviously
heldthatwherearesolutiononatariff
issupportedbyanindustry
associationrepresentingthevast
majorityofusers,theBoard »cantake
forgrantedthattheagreementisin
theinterestofalluserssubjecttothe
tariff. »[Fn16SOCANVariousTariffs
(29June2012)CopyrightBoard
Decisionatpara30.]However,the
tariffwillalsoapplytodance
instructionvenues.Theextentto
whichtheyarerepresentedbyFICis
unknown,butthelackofevidence
preventsusfromexaminingpossible
fairnessissuesinrespectofthe
representativenessofthesevenues.
[55]Troisièmement,pourhomologuer
untarif,laCommissiondoittenir
comptenonseulementdespartiesà
l’instance,maisaussidesutilisateurs
éventuelsquipeuventêtreassujettis
autarif.Ilressortdudossierqueles
deuxopposants,leCSCPetGoodlife,
représententlamajoritédes
établissementsdeconditionnement
physiqueauCanada;ensemble,ils
représententplusde5000
établissementsdeconditionnement
physiqueetcomptentplusdequatre
millionsdemembres.CommeRé:Sonne
l’asoulignéàjustetitre,laCommission
adéjàstatuéque,lorsqu’unerésolution
relativeàuntarifestappuyéeparune
associationdel’industriereprésentantla
vastemajoritédesutilisateurs,la
Commission«dédui[t]quel’ententesert
lesintérêtsdetouslesutilisateurs
assujettisàcetarif»[Fn16Diverstarifs
delaSOCAN(29juin2012)décisionde
laCommissiondudroitd’auteuraupara
30.].Cependant,letarifs’appliquera
aussiauxlieuxd’enseignementdela
danse.Onnesaitpasdansquelle
mesurecelles-cisontreprésentéespar
leCSCP,maisl’absenced’élémentsde
preuvenousempêched’examinerles
questionsd’équitéquipeuventseposer
àl’égarddelareprésentativitédeces
lieux.
·Section68-Boardtoconsiderproposedtariffsandobjections
·Section70.2–Applicationtofixamountofroyalties,etc.
·Section70.6–Examinationandfixingofroyalty
·Section73-Certification
·Section83-Filingofproposedtariffs
Tariffsareprospectiveandofgeneralapplication.
Netflix,Inc.v.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanada,2015
CarswellNat7147(F.C.A.;2015-12-17)NadonJ.[reversing2014CarswellNat2616
(Cop.Bd.;2014-07-18)subnominePublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,Re]
[43]SincetariffscertifiedbytheBoardareofgeneralapplication,
theintereststhatmustbeconsideredarethoseofanindustryas
opposedtothoseofanindividualoranentity.Thisisarelevant
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
133
factorthatmustbetakenintoaccountwhendeterminingwhethera
breachofthedutyofproceduralfairnesshasoccurred.
·Section70.2Applicationtofixamountofroyalty,etc.
TechnologicalneutralityrequiresthattheBoardcomparethevaluederivedfromthe
useofreproductioninthetwotechnologiesinitsvaluationanalysis.
CanadianBroadcastingCorp.v.SODRAC2003Inc.,2015CarswellNat6092
(S.C.C.;2015-11-26)RothsteinJ.
TechnologicalNeutralityinValuation
[70]Becauserightsholdershavethe
exclusiverighttoreproducetheir
worksunders.3(1)(d),theyare
entitledtobejustlycompensatedfor
theuseofthatright.Oneelementof
justcompensationisanappropriate
shareofthebenefitthattheuser
obtainsbyusingreproductionsoftheir
copyrightprotectedworkinthe
operationoftheuser’stechnology.
Thatjustcompensationmustbe
valued,however,inaccordance
withtheprincipleoftechnological
neutrality.Whilehighlyunlikely,
whereusersarederivingthesame
valuefromtheuseof
reproductionsofcopyright
protectedworksusingdifferent
technologies,technological
neutralityimpliesthatitwouldbe
impropertoimposehigher
copyrightlicensingcostsonthe
userofonetechnologythanwould
beimposedontheuserofa
differenttechnology.Todosowould
privilegetheinterestsoftherights
holdertoagreaterdegreeinone
technologyovertheotherwherethere
isnodifferencebetweenthetwoin
termsofthevalueeachuserderives
fromthereproductions.[70]Selonl’al.3(1)
d),lestitulairesdu
droitd’auteurontledroitexclusifde
reproduireleursœuvres.Ilsontdonc
droitàunejustecompensationlorsqu’il
yausagedecedroit.Unetelle
compensationconsistenotammenten
unpartageappropriédesbénéfices
qu’obtientl’utilisateurdereproductions
desœuvresprotégéesparledroit
d’auteurdanslecontextedel’utilisation
delatechnologiedel’utilisateur.Cette
justecompensationdoitcependant
êtreévaluéeenconformitéavecle
principedeneutralitétechnologique.
Bienquecelasoittrèsimprobable,
lorsquedesutilisateurstirentla
mêmevaleurdel’utilisationdes
reproductionsd’œuvresprotégées
parledroitd’auteurenutilisantdes
technologiesdifférentes,laneutralité
technologiquesupposequ’ilserait
incorrectd’exigerdesredevances
plusélevéesàl’utilisateurd’une
technologieparticulièrequ’à
l’utilisateurd’unetechnologie
différente.Agirainsidonneraitau
titulairedesdroitsd’auteursplusde
droitsdanslecontextedel’utilisation
d’unetechnologieplutôtqued’une
autre,mêmes’iln’existeaucune
différenceentrelavaleurqueretire
l’utilisateurdelapremièredeces
reproductionsparrapportàcelleque
retirel’utilisateurdelaseconde.
[71]Theconverseisalsotrue.Where
theuserofonetechnologyderives
greatervaluefromtheuseof[71]L’inverseestégalementvrai.
Lorsquel’utilisateurd’unetechnologie
tireuneplusgrandevaleurde
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
134
reproductionsofcopyrightprotected
workthananotheruserusing
reproductionsofthecopyright
protectedworkinadifferent
technology,technologicalneutrality
willimplythatthecopyrightholder
shouldbeentitledtoalargerroyalty
fromtheuserwhoobtainssuch
greatervalue.Simplyput,itwouldnot
betechnologicallyneutraltotreat
thesetwotechnologiesasiftheywere
derivingthesamevaluefromthe
reproductions.l’utilisationdereproductionsd’une
œuvreprotégéeparledroitd’auteur
qu’unepersonnequienfaitune
utilisationsimilaireenseservantd’une
autretechnologie,leprincipedela
neutralitétechnologiesupposequele
titulairedudroitd’auteurauraitdroità
desredevancesplusélevéesde
l’utilisateurquiobtientlaplusgrande
valeurenquestion.Bref,ilneseraitpas
neutresurleplantechnologiquede
traitercesdeuxtechnologiescommesi
ellespermettaientdetirerlamême
valeurdesreproductions.
[72]Indeterminingwhethera
separatecommunicationrightwas
engagedin
ESA[Entertainment
SoftwareAssociationv.Societyof
Composers,AuthorsandMusic
PublishersofCanada,2012SCC34,
[2012]2S.C.R.231],thisCourtheld
thattechnologicalneutralityrequired
theconsiderationofthedifference
betweentheoldandnewformsof
deliveryofworks.Intheabsenceof
anydifferencebetweenthem,no
separaterightwasengaged:“Inour
view,thereisnopracticaldifference
betweenbuyingadurablecopyofthe
workinastore,receivingacopyinthe
mail,ordownloadinganidenticalcopy
usingtheInternet.TheInternetis
simplyatechnologicaltaxithat
deliversadurablecopyofthesame
worktotheenduser”:ESA,atpara.5.
Similarly,inthevaluationofaright,
technologicalneutralityrequires
thatdifferenttechnologiesusing
reproductionsofcopyright
protectedworkthatproducethe
samevaluetotheusersshouldbe
treatedthesameway.Conversely,
differenttechnologiesusing
reproductionsthatproduce
differentvaluesshouldnotbe
treatedthesameway.[72]Lorsqu’elleaexaminélaquestion
desavoirsiundroitdecommunication
distinctaétémisenjeudans
ESA
[EntertainmentSoftwareAssociationc.
SocietyofComposers,Authorsand
MusicPublishersofCanada,2012CSC
34,[2012]2R.C.S.231],laCoura
concluqueleprincipedeneutralité
technologiqueexigeaitdeprendreen
considérationladifférenceentreles
modesanciensetnouveauxdelivraison
desœuvres.Enl’absencedequelque
différencequecesoitentreelles,aucun
droitdistinctn’entreenjeu:«Ànotre
avis,iln’yaaucunedifférenced’ordre
pratiqueentreacheterunexemplaire
durabledel’œuvreenmagasin,
recevoirunexemplaireparlaposteou
téléchargerunecopieidentiquesurle
Web.Internetnereprésentequ’untaxi
technologiqueassurantlalivraison
d’unecopiedurabledelamêmeœuvre
àl’utilisateur»:ESA,par.5.Demême,
lorsqu’ilestquestiondedonnerune
valeuràundroit,leprincipede
neutralitétechnologiqueexigeque
destechnologiesdifférentesqui
utilisentdesreproductionsd’une
œuvreprotégéeparledroitd’auteur
etquiengendrentunemêmevaleur
pourlesutilisateurssoienttraitées
delamêmefaçon.Inversement,des
technologiesdifférentesquiutilisent
desreproductionsquigénèrentdes
valeursdifférentesnedevraientpas
l’être.
[73]Inthiscase,ifCBCderives
greatervaluefromtheuseof
broadcast-incidentalcopiesinits
digitaltechnologythanitdidunderits[73]Enl’espèce,silaSRCtireuneplus
grandevaleurdel’utilisationdecopies
dediffusionaccessoiresenutilisantsa
technologienumériquequ’ellenele
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
135
prioranalogtechnology,thisisa
factorinfavourofthecopyrightholder
beingentitledtogreaterroyaltiesfor
useofitscopyrightprotectedworkin
CBC’sdigitaltechnology.
Technologicalneutralityrequires
thattheBoardcomparethevalue
derivedfromtheuseof
reproductioninthetwo
technologiesinitsvaluation
analysis.Aswillbeexplained,itdid
notdosointhiscase,nordidittake
intoaccounttheprincipleofbalance,
towhichInowturn.faisaitlorsqu’elleutilisaitlatechnologie
analogique,ils’agitd’unfacteurqui
militeenfaveurdudroitdutitulairedu
droitd’auteuràdesredevancesplus
importantespourl’utilisationparlaSRC
desonœuvreprotégéeaumoyendela
technologienumérique.
Laneutralité
technologiqueexigequela
Commissioncomparelavaleurtirée
del’utilisationd’unereproductionau
moyendesdeuxtechnologiesdans
sonanalysedelavaleur.Commeje
l’expliquerai,ellenel’apasfaiten
l’espèce;etellen’apasnonplustenu
compteduprincipedemiseen
équilibre,surlequeljevaismaintenant
m’attarder.
·Section70.2–Applicationtofixamountofroyalty,etc.
Whattoconsiderwhenevaluatingaright.
CanadianBroadcastingCorp.v.SODRAC2003Inc.,2015CarswellNat6092
(S.C.C.;2015-11-26)RothsteinJ.
[79]Here,wheretherightisengaged,
theissuebecomesoneofvaluationof
thatright,andtheprinciplesof
technologicalneutralityandbalance
mustbeadaptedtothevaluation
context.Whenitistaskedwith
determiningthevalueofaright,an
importantconsiderationfortheBoard
isthevalueofthatrighttotheuser.
Thevalueoftheuseof
reproductionsinonetechnology
maystemfromfunctional
differencesfromuseinanother
technology.Valuedifferencesmay
alsostemfrominternalefficiencies
betweentechnologies.Ignoring
internalefficiencieswouldresultin
rightsholdersbeingdenied
additionalroyaltieswhentheuseof
theircopyrightedworkinthemore
efficienttechnologyconfersgreater
valuetotheuserofthat
technology.Thiswouldhardly
constitute“gratuitousfees”,as
assertedbyJusticeAbella
[dissenting]:para.182.[79]Enl’espèce,oùledroitentreenjeu,
laquestiondevientcelledela
déterminationdelavaleurdecedroit,et
lesprincipesdeneutralitétechnologique
etdemiseenéquilibredoiventêtre
adaptésàcecontexte.Lorsqu’elleest
appeléeàdéterminerlavaleurd’un
droit,ilestimportantquelaCommission
prenneenconsidérationlavaleurdece
droitpourl’utilisateur.
Lavaleurde
l’utilisationdereproductions
lorsqu’unetechnologieestutilisée
peutdécoulerdedifférences
fonctionnellesparrapportà
l’utilisationd’uneautretechnologie.
Lesdifférencesdevaleurpeuvent
aussiprovenirdegainsinternesen
efficacitédestechnologies.Ignorer
cesgainspriveraitlestitulairesde
droitsderedevancesadditionnelles
lorsquel’utilisationdeleurœuvrepar
latechnologieplusefficaceprocure
uneplusgrandevaleuràl’utilisateur
decettetechnologie.Celane
constitueraitassurémentpasdes
«redevances[…]injustifiées»comme
leprétendlajugeAbella:par.182.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
136
·Section70.2–Applicationtofixamountofroyalty,etc.
AlicenceoftheBoardundersection70.2isnotautomaticallybindingonuserswho
donotconsenttobeboundbyitsterms.
CanadianBroadcastingCorp.v.SODRAC2003Inc.,2015CarswellNat6092
(S.C.C.;2015-11-26)RothsteinJ.
[104]IdonotreadtheCopyrightActto
necessitatethatdecisionsmade
pursuanttotheBoard’slicence-setting
proceedingsunders.70.2havea
bindingeffectagainstusers.Section
70.2itselfprovidesthatwherea
collectiveorganizationandauser
cannotagreeonthetermsofa
licence,eitherpartymayapplytothe
Boardto“fixtheroyaltiesandtheir
relatedtermsandconditions”:
CopyrightAct,s.70.2(1).Thisgrant
ofpowerspeaksoftheBoard’s
authoritytosetdowninwritinga
setoftermsthat,initsopinion,
representafairdealtolicencethe
useoftheworksatissue.Itsays
nothing,however,aboutwhether
thesetermsaretobebinding
againsttheuser.[104]Àmonavis,la
LDAn’exige
pasquelesdécisionsprisesdansle
cadredesinstancesdelaCommission
visantàfixerlesmodalitésd’unelicence
envertudel’art.70.2aientuneffet
obligatoireàl’égarddesutilisateurs.
L’article70.2lui-mêmeprescritque
lorsquelasociétédegestionet
l’utilisateurnepeuvents’entendresur
lesmodalitésd’unelicence,l’uneou
l’autrepartiepeuts’adresseràla
Commissionetluidemanderde«fixer
cesredevancesoumodalités
[afférentes]»:par.70.2(1).Cela
témoignedupouvoirdela
Commissiondeformulerparécrit
unesériedemodalitésqui,àson
avis,représententuneentente
raisonnableenvued’autoriser
l’utilisationdesœuvresencause.
Cettedispositionrestecependant
muettesurlaquestiondesavoirsi
cesmodalitésdoiventlier
l’utilisateur.
[105]Thestatutorycontext
supportstheconclusionthat
licencescraftedpursuanttos.70.2
proceedingsarenotautomatically
bindingonusers.[…]
[105]Lecontextelégislatifpermetde
conclurequelesmodalitésdontles
licencessontassortiesdanslecadre
d’instancestenuesenapplicationde
l’art.70.2nelientpas
automatiquementlesutilisateurs.[…]
[106]Thisprovisionmakesitclearthat
auserwhosecopyingactivitieswere
thesubjectofas.70.2proceeding
mayavailitselfofthetermsand
conditionsestablishedbytheBoardas
awaytogainauthorizationtoengage
intheactivitycontemplatedinthe
Boardproceeding.Thelanguageofs.
70.4doesnot,ofitsownforce,bind
theusertothetermsandconditionsof
thelicence.
[106]Ilestclair,suivantcette
disposition,quel’utilisateurdontla
confectiondecopiesafaitl’objetd’une
instancefondéesurl’art.70.2peutse
prévaloirdesmodalitésfixéesparla
Commissioncommemoyenpour
obtenirl’autorisationd’accomplir
l’activitéenvisagéedanslecadrede
l’instancequisedérouledevantla
Commission.Letextedel’art.70.4en
lui-mêmeneliedoncpasl’utilisateur
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
137
auxmodalitésdontlalicenceest
assortie.
[107]TheconclusionthatBoard
licencesestablishedpursuanttos.
70.2arenotbindingonusers
comportswiththemoregenerallegal
principlethat“nopecuniaryburden
canbeimposeduponthesubjectsof
thiscountry,bywhatevernameitmay
becalled,whethertax,due,rateor
toll,exceptuponclearanddistinct
legalauthority”:Goslingv.Veley
(1850),12Q.B.328,116E.R.891,at
p.407,asapprovedandadoptedin
OntarioEnglishCatholicTeachers’
Assn.v.Ontario(AttorneyGeneral),
2001SCC15(CanLII),[2001]1
S.C.R.470,atpara.77,andAttorney-
Generalv.WiltsUnitedDairies,Ltd.
(1921),37T.L.R.884(C.A.),atp.885.
Tobindausertoalicencewouldbeto
makeitliableaccordingtoitsterms
andconditionsshoulditengageinthe
coveredactivity.Intheabsenceof
clearanddistinctlegalauthority
showingthatthiswasParliament’s
intent,theburdensofalicence
shouldnotbeimposedonauser
whodoesnotconsenttobebound
byitsterms.[107]Laconclusionselonlaquelleles
licencesdontlesmodalitéssontfixées
parlaCommissionenvertude
l’art.70.2nelientpaslesutilisateursest
compatibleavecleprincipejuridique
plusgénéralselonlequel«aucune
chargepécuniairenepeutêtreimposée
auxsujetsdecepays,peuimportele
nomqu’onluidonne,qu’ils’agisse
d’unetaxe,d’unecotisation,d’untarif
oud’unpéage,saufenvertud’une
autoritélégaleclaireetdistincte»:
Goslingc.Veley
(1850),12Q.B.328,
116E.R.891,p.407,telqu’approuvéet
adoptédansOntarioEnglishCatholic
Teachers’Assn.c.Ontario(Procureur
général),2001CSC15(CanLII),[2001]
1R.C.S.470,par.77,et
Attorney-Generalc.WiltsUnited
Dairies,Ltd.(1921),37T.L.R.884
(C.A.),p.885.Lierunutilisateurà
l’égardd’unelicencereviendraità
l’assujettiràsesmodalitéss’ilenvenait
àaccomplirl’activitévisée.En
l’absence,danslaloi,d’unpouvoir
clairetdistinctdémontrantque
c’étaitlàl’intentiondulégislateur,le
fardeaud’unelicencenedevraitpas
êtreimposéàl’utilisateurquine
consentpasàêtreliéparses
modalités.
[108]SODRAC’sframingoftheissue
isnotentirelywrong:theBoarddoes
havethepowerunders.70.2to“fix
theroyaltiesandtheirrelatedterms
andconditions”.Thatis,theBoard
maydecideuponafairroyaltytobe
paidshouldtheuserdecidetoengage
intheactivityatissueundertheterms
ofalicence.However,thispower
doesnotcontainwithinitthepower
toforcethesetermsonauserwho,
havingreviewedtheterms,decided
thatengaginginlicensedcopying
isnotthewaytoproceed.Of
course,shouldtheuserthen
engageinunauthorizedcopying
regardless,itwillremainliablefor
infringement.Butitwillnotbeliable
asalicenseeunlessitaffirmatively
assumesthebenefitsandburdens
ofthelicence.[108]Laformulationdelaquestionen
litigeparlaSODRACn’estpas
entièrementerronée:laCommissiona
effectivementlepouvoir,auxtermesde
l’art.70.2,de«fixercesredevancesou
modalités[afférentes]»,cequisignifie
qu’ellepeutfixerdesdroitsd’auteur
équitablesàversersil’utilisateurdécide
d’accomplirl’activitéencausesuivant
lesmodalitésd’unelicence.Toutefois,
cepouvoirn’emportepasen
lui-mêmeceluidecontraindre
l’utilisateuràacceptercesmodalités
lorsqu’aprèslesavoirexaminées,il
décidedenepaseffectuerlescopies
viséesparlalicence.Évidemment,si
l’utilisateureffectueensuitedes
copiesnonautorisées,ildemeurera
responsabledelaviolation.Par
contre,ilneserapasresponsableen
tantquetitulaireàmoinsqu’ilne
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
138
souscriveexpressémentaux
avantagesetauxobligationsdontla
licenceestassortie.
·Section70.2–Applicationtofixamountofroyalty,etc.
LicencesfixedbytheBoarddonothavemandatorybindingforceoverauser.
CanadianBroadcastingCorp.v.SODRAC2003Inc.,2015CarswellNat6092
(S.C.C.;2015-11-26)RothsteinJ.
[112]Iconcludethatthestatutory
licensingschemedoesnot
contemplatethatlicencesfixedby
theBoardpursuanttos.70.2
shouldhaveamandatorybinding
effectagainstusers.However,this
casedoesnotrequirethisCourtto
decidewhetherthesameistrueof
collectiveorganizations.Itmaybethat
thestatutoryscheme’sfocuson
regulatingtheactionsofcollective
organizations,andthecaselaw’s
focusonensuringthatsuch
organizationsdonotdevolveinto
“instrumentsofoppressionand
extortion”(Vigneuxv.Canadian
PerformingRightSocietyLtd.,1943
CanLII38(SCC),[1943]S.C.R.348,
atp.356,perDuffJ.,quoting
Hanfstaenglv.EmpirePalace,[1894]
3Ch.109,atp.128)wouldjustify
findingthattheBoarddoeshavethe
powertobindcollectiveorganizations
toalicencebasedontheuser’s
preferredmodel—transactionalor
blanket—ontermsthattheBoard
findsfairinviewofthatmodel.
However,thisissuewasnotarguedin
thiscase.
[112]Jeconclusquelerégime
législatifd’octroidelicences
n’envisagepaslapossibilitéquedes
licencesfixéesparlaCommissionen
vertudel’art.70.2aientuneffet
obligatoireàl’égarddesutilisateurs.
Cependant,laprésenteaffairen’oblige
paslaCouràdéciders’ilenestde
mêmeàl’égarddessociétésdegestion
collective.Ilsepeutquel’objectif
principaldurégimelégislatifde
réglementerlesactionsdessociétésde
gestioncollectiveetceluidela
jurisprudencedefaireensortequede
tellessociétésnesetransformentpas
endes[TRADUCTION]«instruments
d’oppressionetd’extorsion»(Vigneux
c.CanadianPerformingRightSociety
Ltd.,1943CanLII38(SCC),[1943]
R.C.S.348,p.356,lejugeDuff,citant
Hanfstaenglc.EmpirePalace,[1894]3
Ch.109,p.128)justifientlaconclusion
selonlaquellelaCommissiona
effectivementlepouvoirdecontraindre
lessociétésdegestionàaccepterune
licencecomptetenudumodèlepréféré
del’utilisateur—ponctuelougénéral—
selonlesmodalitésquelaCommission
jugeéquitableseuégardàcemodèle.
Toutefois,cettequestionn’apasété
débattuedanslaprésenteaffaire.
[113]Ifindthatlicencesfixedbythe
Boarddonothavemandatory
bindingforceoverauser;the
Boardhasthestatutoryauthorityto
fixthetermsoflicencespursuant
tos.70.2,butauserretainsthe
abilitytodecidewhethertobecome
alicenseeandoperatepursuantto
[113]Jesuisd’avisqueleslicences
octroyéesparlaCommissionnesont
pasrevêtuesd’uncaractère
obligatoireàl’égardd’unutilisateur;
laCommissionalepouvoirdefixer
lesmodalitésd’unelicenceenvertu
del’art.70.2,maisl’utilisateurreste
librededéciderdedevenirtitulaire
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
139
thatlicence,ortodecline.delalicenceetmenersesactivités
conformémentàcettedernière,oude
refuserdelefaire.
·Section70.2Applicationtofixamountofroyalty,etc.
Theprincipleoftechnologicalneutralityappliestovaluationofareproductionlicence.
CanadianBroadcastingCorp.v.SODRAC2003Inc.,2015CarswellNat6092
(S.C.C.;2015-11-26)RothsteinJ.
[67]Intheregulatorycontext,the
principleoftechnologicalneutrality
appliestovaluationofa
reproductionlicence,justasitdoes
indeterminingwhetheranactivity
implicatescopyrightatall.The
Boardoperatespursuanttothe
CopyrightAct,andinitsregulatory
roleoffixingroyaltiesunders.70.2,
itmaynotsimplysetasidethe
principlesthatguideits
interpretationoftheActonceithas
begunitsvaluationanalysis.While
theBoard’svaluationanalysiswillvary
accordingtothefactsofeachcase,it
isunreasonablefortheBoardto
ignoretheprincipleof
technologicalneutralityinthat
analysisincaseswhereitis
implicated.[Fn1Thiscasepertainsto
theBoard’spowertofixroyalties
unders.70.2oftheCopyrightAct.The
considerationsacourtmighttakeinto
accountinassessingmonetary
remediesforinfringementislefttobe
decidedifandwhensuchacase
arises.]
[67]Danslecontexteréglementaire,
leprincipedeneutralité
technologiques’appliqueà
l’évaluationd’unelicencede
reproduction,toutcommeàla
questiondesavoirsiuneactivitémet
encauseundroitd’auteur.La
Commissionmènesesactivitésen
applicationdelaLDA,etlorsqu’elle
assumelerôlequeluiconfère
l’art.70.2decetteloidefixerles
redevances,ellenepeutpas
simplementmettredecôtéles
principesquiguidentson
interprétationdelaloiunefoisqu’elle
entreprendsonanalysedelavaleur.
SicetteanalysefaiteparlaCommission
varieselonlesfaitspropresàune
affaire,ilestcependantdéraisonnable
que,cefaisant,elleécarteleprincipe
deneutralitétechnologiquedansles
casoùilestmisencause[Fn1La
présenteaffaireconcernelepouvoirde
laCommissionprévuàl’art.70.2dela
LDAdefixerlesredevances.La
questiondesfacteursdontuntribunal
peuttenircomptepourévaluerles
redressementsmonétairesparsuite
d’uneinfractionn’estpastranchéeen
l’espèceetlesera,lecaséchéant,
lorsquelaCourserasaisied’unecause
portantsurlaquestion.]
[68]Indeed,itwouldbeinconsistentto
requireatechnologicallyneutral
interpretationoftheCopyrightActbut
notrequireatechnologicallyneutral
applicationoftheAct.AsProfessor
Vaverhaswritten:“Copyrightlaw
shouldstrivefortechnological
neutrality”:p.172.Interpretationand
applicationoftheActareboth[68]Eneffet,ilseraitillogiqued’exiger
quela
LDAsoitinterprétéecomptetenu
duprincipedeneutralitétechnologique
sansexigeruneapplicationdelaloiqui,
elleaussi,soitconformeàceprincipe.
Commel’aécritleprofesseurVaver[
TRADUCTION]«Ledroitd’auteurdevrait
viserlaneutralitétechnologique»,
p.172.Tantl’interprétationdelaloique
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
140
importantinseekingthisobjective.sonapplicationsontimportantesdansla
poursuitedecetobjectif.
·Section70.15–Certification
ActsofcopyingthatarenotcoveredbytheTariff,remainpotentialactsofcopyright
infringement.
StatementofRoyaltiestobeCollectedbyAccessCopyrightfortheReprographic
Reproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsRepertoire[ProvincialandTerritorial
Goverments–2005-2014],2015CarswellNat1792(subnomineReproductionof
LiteraryWorks,Re)(Cop.Bd.;2015-05-22)
[171]Copyingeventswherethework
copiedwaswithinAccess’repertoire
mustbeauthorizedundertheTarifffor
thoseeventstobecompensable.
WheretheTariffhaslimitations
wherebyacopyingeventinthe
VolumeStudywouldnotbe
permitted,thateventisnot
compensableforthepurposesof
determiningtheroyaltyrateforthis
Tariff.Suchactsofcopyingarenot
coveredbytheTariff,andremain
potentialactsofcopyright
infringement.[171]Lescasdecopieauregard
desquelsl’oeuvrecopiéefaisaitpartie
durépertoired’Accessdoiventêtre
autorisésauxtermesduTarifpourque
cescasdonnentdroitàrémunération.
LorsqueleTarifprévoitdeslimitesen
vertudesquellesuncasdecopie
relevédansl’enquêtedevolumene
seraitpaspermis,cecasnedonne
pasdroitàrémunérationpourles
besoinsdel’établissementdutauxde
redevancesautitredutarifen
l’espèce.Detelsactesdecopiene
relèventpasdelaportéeduTarifet
demeurentdepossiblesactesde
violationdudroitd’auteur
.
[172]Tocountsuchcopyingas
compensablewouldhavetheeffectof
makingtheObjectorspayforactivities
thattheTariffdoesnotauthorize.
Therefore,thoseeventsthatwouldnot
havebeenauthorizedbytheTariff,
haditbeeninplaceatthetimewhen
thecopiesweremade,arenot
compensableforthepurposesofthe
Tariff.[172]Considérerdetelsactesdecopies
commedonnantdroitàrémunération
auraitpoureffetdefairepayerles
opposantspourdesactivitésquinesont
pasautoriséesparleTarif.Ils’ensuit
quelescasquin’auraientpasété
autorisésparleTarif,danslamesureoù
celui-ciétaitenvigueuraumomentoù
lescopiesontétéeffectuées,ne
donnentpasdroitàrémunérationpour
lesbesoinsduTarif.
·
Section70.15–Certification
Atariffisnotbindinguponacopyrightownertheworksofwhicharenotincludedin
therepertoireofthecollectivesocietyobtainingsuchtariff.Acceptationofthe
payementofroyaltiescouldlegitimizeretroactivelywhatwouldhaveconstituted
copyrightinfringement.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
141
StatementofRoyaltiestobeCollectedbyAccessCopyrightfortheReprographic
Reproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsRepertoire[ProvincialandTerritorial
Goverments–2005-2014],2015CarswellNat1792(subnomineReproductionof
LiteraryWorks,Re)(Cop.Bd.;2015-05-22)
[138]SinceAccesscannotlicense
thecopyingofaworkforwhichit
hasnotitselfreceived
authorizationfromtheownerof
copyright,theactofcopyinga
workofanon-affiliatedrights
holderisapotentialinfringementof
copyright.Arguably,thisactof
potentialinfringementmaybe
retroactively“legitimized,”bythe
copyrightowner’scashingaroyalty
chequerelatedtothatcopying.
However,ifthecopyrightowner
doesnotreceivesuchacheque,as
willalmostalwaysbethecase,she
canbringproceedingsfor
infringementofcopyright.This
wouldbesodespitethefactthat
royaltieshavenotionallybeenpaid
inrelationtothemakingofthat
copybythelicenseetothemaking
ofthatcopybythelicenseeto
Access.
[138]Étantdonnéqu’Accessnepeut
pasaccorderdelicencepourlacopie
d’uneoeuvrepourlaquelleellen’a
paselle-mêmereçud’autorisationde
lapartdutitulairedudroitd’auteur,la
reproductiond’uneoeuvred’unnon-
affiliéconstitueuneéventuelle
violationdudroitd’auteur.Onpeut
soutenirquecettereproductionqui
constitueuneéventuelleviolationpeut
êtrerétroactivement«légitimée»au
moyendel’encaissementparletitulaire
dudroitd’auteurd’unchèquede
redevancesconcernantlacopie
effectuée.Toutefois,siletitulairedu
droitd’auteurnereçoitpasuntel
chèque,commeceserapresque
toujourslecas,ilpeutintenterdes
poursuitespourviolationdudroit
d’auteur.Ilenseraitainsimalgréle
faitquedesredevancesaientété
théoriquementpayéesàAccesspar
letitulairedelalicencerelativementà
laréalisationdelacopie.
·Section70.5–Definitionof »Commissioner »
Thefactthattheimpugnedconductiscarriedoutbyapartywithanexclusive
intellectualpropertyrightisnotabartoreliefandthegrantofacompulsorylicence
maynotbelimitedtosection32oftheCompetitionAct.Forthepuposeofthisact,an
intellectualpropertyrightmaybeconsidered,arguendo¸asa »product ».
StargroveEntertainmentInc.v.UniversalMusicPublishingGroupCanada,2015
CarswellNat6857(Comp.Trib.;2015-12-14)BarnesJ.
[Uponmotionundersection76oftheCompetitionActtoacceptcomplainantasa
mechanicallicenseeforsoundrecordings.]
[31]InlightofthelimitedscopeofWarnerMusic[Canada
(CompetitionAct,DirectorofInvestigationandResearch)vWarner
MusicCanadaLtd,[1997]C.C.T.D.No.53,78CPR(3d)321]it
remainsanopenquestionwhetheracopyrightis,forsome
statutorypurposes,a »product ».InWarnerMusicatpara30the
Tribunalrecognizedthatpossibility:alsoseeCinemasGuzzoInc.v
Canada,2005FC691atpara56aff’d,2006FCA160.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
142
[33]IfStargroveisabletoestablishthatsomeorallofthe
Respondents,singularlyorinconcert,discriminatedagainstitby
refusingtoissuemechanicallicensesmotivatedbyStargrove’slow-
pricingpractices,anargumentforsection76reliefcouldbe
available.Thecaseforreliefcouldbeenhancedbycredible
evidencethatmechanicallicensesareroutinelygrantedbymusic
publisherstorecordlabelsonstandardbusinesstermsandthat
Stargrovewastreateddifferently.
[35]Byvirtueofparagraph76(3)(c),thefactthattheimpugned
conductiscarriedoutbyapartywithanexclusiveintellectual
propertyrightisnotabartorelief.Presumably,byenactingthis
provision,Parliamentrecognizedthatsomeformsofanti-
competitiveconductshouldbethesubjectofrelief
notwithstandingtheexistenceofintellectualpropertyrights.In
thefaceofthisprovision,Idonotagreethatitisclearthe
authoritytoorderacompulsorylicenseresidesonlyinsection
32oftheAct.Italsostrikesmethatdiscriminatoryconduct
fallingundersection76maynotbe »themereexerciseofan
intellectualpropertyright »asdescribedinEliLilly&Co.v.Apotex
Inc.,2005FCA361(F.C.A.)atparas28and34.
[36]IalsoagreewithStargrovethatitisstillanopenquestion
whether,ineveryinstance,section76requiresproductresaleorthat
aproductinputcouldneverbethesubjectofrelief.Theseareissues
worthyoffurtherconsideration.
[37]Thereisalsoanargumenttobemadethatrelieffor
reviewableconductundersection76[oftheCompetitionAct]is
noteffectivelytheequivalentofacompulsorylicensingregime.
If,inaparticularcase,abreachofsection76isproven,itisarguably
opentotheTribunaltoorderanappropriateremedyunderthat
provision.Thispresumablywouldnotopenthedoortoanyoneto
obtainacopyrightlicenseregardlessofthebasisforitsrefusal.
Wheretheownerofanexclusiveintellectualpropertyright
lawfullyrefusesalicense,nocompulsoryremedywouldbe
availabletothepartyaffected.
·Section77-CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbyBoard
Alicenceisgrantedontheassumptionthattheworkisstillprotectedbycopyright;a
licenceisnon-exclusiveandlimitedtotherightcovered,andforCanadaonly;itmay
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
143
begrantedforalimitedtime;delayforthecollectivetorepaytheunlocatableowner
maybelongerthanthetermofthelicence.
NYMMinistriesforthemechanicalreproductionofamusicalwork[Non-exclusive
licenceissuedto],[File:2014-UO/TI-20],2015CarswellNat382(Cop.Bd.;2015-01-
14)
[4](2)ThelicenceexpiresonJanuary31,2025.Theauthorized
reproductionmustthereforebecompletedbythatdate.
[5](3)Thelicenceisvalidprovidedthatthemusicalworkis
protectedbycopyright.
·Section77-CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbyBoard
Alicenceisnon-exlusiveandlimitedtotherightcovered,andforCanadaonly;itmay
begrantedretroactivelyandforalimitedtime;thedelayforthecollectivetorepaythe
unlocatableownermaybelongerthanthetermofthelicence.
Keyzerforthemechanicalreproductionofamusicalwork[Non-exclusivelicence
issuedtoJackde],[File:2014-UO/TI-14],2015CarswellNat383(Cop.Bd.;2015-01-
27)
[2](1)Thelicenceauthorizesthemechanicalreproductionofthe
musicalworkentitled »C.O.D. »byLeoGoodenforuptotwo
thousand(2,000)CDsretroactivelytoAugust1,2014.
199.20CMRRA
[4](2)ThelicenceexpiresonJanuary31,2020.Theauthorized
reproductionmustthereforebecompletedbythatdate.
·Section77-CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbyBoard
Alicenceisnon-exclusiveandlimitedtotherightcovered,andforCanadaonly;it
couldbegrantedformorethanoneoftherightsofthecopyrightowner;itmaybe
grantedforalimitedtime;itmaybegrantedtoanon-Canadian;thedelayforthe
collectivetorepaytheunlocatableownermaybelongerthanthetermofthelicence.
PassionPicturesforthereproduction,thepublicperformanceandcommunicationto
thepublicbytelecommunicationofanexcerptofafilm[Non-exclusivelicenceissued
to],[File:2015-UO/TI-03],2015CarswellNat2837(Cop.Bd.;2015-06-19)
[2](1)Thelicenceauthorizesthereproductionofa16-second
excerptofafilmentitled »GoingThroughCustoms »producedin1977
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
144
byRollyProductionsinadocumentaryfilmentitled »TheSunshine
Makers »,foruptofiftythousand(50,000)DVDs.
[3]Thelicencealsoauthorizesthepublicperformanceand
communicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationofthe
footage.
[4]Theissuanceofthelicencedoesnotreleasetheapplicantfrom
theobligationtoobtainpermissionforanyotherusenotcoveredby
thislicence.
[5](2)ThelicenceexpiresonJune30,2025.Theauthorized
reproductionmustthereforebecompletedbythatdate.
[6](3)Thelicenceisnon-exclusiveandvalidonlyinCanada.For
othercountries,itisthelawofthecountrythatapplies.
[7](4)Theissuanceofthelicencedoesnotreleasethelicenseefrom
theobligationtoobtainpermissionforanyotherusenotcoveredby
thislicence.
·Section77-CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbyBoard
Alicenceisnon-exclusiveandlimitedtotherightcovered,andforCanadaonly;it
maybegrantedretroactivelybutnotforatermlongertothetermofprotectioninthe
licensedartisticwork;itcouldbegrantedformorethanoneoftherightsofthe
copyrightowner;itwayrequirestheappearanceofcredits;thedelayforthe
collectivetorepaytheunlocatableownermaybelongerthanthetermofthelicence.
TORooftopFilmsInc.fortheincorporation,reproduction,publicperformanceand
communicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationoftwoarticles[Non-exclusive
licenceissuedto],[File:2015-UO/TI-06],2015CarswellNat3302(Cop.Bd.;2015-07-
21)
[1]Pursuanttotheprovisionsofsubsection77(1)of
theCopyrightAct,theCopyrightBoardgrantsalicencetoTO
RooftopFilmsInc.asfollows:(1)Thelicenceauthorizestheincorporationofthefollowing
articlesfromtwoeditionsofWeekendMagazineina
documentaryfilm,entitled »StayAwhile »:
•HowtheCRTCrangtheBells(Vol.22,No.9,1972)
•FiveBellsandall’swell(No.7,1967)
Thelicencealsoauthorizesthereproductionforfilmdistribution
andsale(viatheatricalexhibition,DVD,video-on-demand,
Internetstreaminganddownloads),thepublicperformanceand
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
145
thecommunicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationofthe
articles.
(2)ThelicenceisvalidfromNovember2014untilthework
isnolongerprotectedbycopyright.
·Section77-CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbyBoard
Alicencecouldcoverthedissociablepartofanotherwork;alicenceisnon-exclusive
andlimitedtotherightcoveredandtoCanada;itcouldbegrantedformorethanone
oftherightsofthecopyrightowner;itmaybegrantedretroactivelybutnotforaterm
longertothetermofprotectioninthelicensedsoundrecording;ifthereisno
collectiverepresentingtherightlicensed,thenitwillbeuptotheownerofthe
copyrighttomakeitselfknownandcollectthelicensingfee.
BasicHumanNeedsProductionsforthereproduction,thesynchronization,thepublic
performanceandthecommunicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationofasound
recording,[Non-exclusivelicenceissuedto],[File:2015-UO/TI-02],2015CarswellNat
3303(Cop.Bd.;2015-07-24)
[1]Pursuanttotheprovisionsofsubsection77(1)oftheCopyright
Act,theCopyrightBoardgrantsalicencetoBasicHumanNeeds
Productionsasfollows:(1)Thelicenceauthorizesthesynchronizationofasound
recordingentitled »TroubleDon’tLastAlways »performedby
TheGospelHummingbirdsandproducedin1980inafilm.
Thelicencealsoauthorizesthereproduction,thepublic
performanceandthecommunicationtothepublicby
telecommunicationofthework.Nomorethantwothousandfive
hundred(2,500)DVDsmaybeproduced.
(2)ThelicenceisvalidfromOctober2014untiltheworkis
nolongerprotectedbycopyright.[…]
(5)Thelicenseewillpaythesumofonehundreddollars
($100)toanypersonwhoestablishes,within5yearsofthe
expiryofthelicence,ownershipofcopyrightofthework
coveredbythislicence.
·Section77-CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbyBoard
Alicenceisgrantedontheassumptionthattheworksarestillprotectedbycopyright;
itcouldcoverthedissociablepartofanotherwork;alicenceisnon-exclusiveand
limitedtotherightcovered,andforCanadaonly;itmaybelimitedintimebutcannot
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
146
extendthetermofcopyrightinthelicensedartisticworks;thedelayforthecollective
torepaytheunlocatableownermaybelongerthanthetermofthelicence.
DepartmentofCanadianHeritagefortheReproductionandpublicperformanceof
twophotographs[Non-exclusivelicenceissuedto],[File:2015-UO/TI-19],2015
CarswellNat4924(Cop.Bd.;2015-09-21)
[3](2)Thelicenceexpiresontheearliestofthefollowingdates:
September30,2035orthedateonwhichtheworksbecomepart
ofthepublicdomain.
·Section77-CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbyBoard
Alicencemayissueevenifthenameoftheauthorisknown;alicenceisnon-
exclusiveandlimitedtotherightcovered,andforCanadaonly;itmayberetroactive
andlimitedintime;itwayrequirestheappearanceofcredits;thedelayforthe
collectivetorepaytheunlocatableownermaybelongerthanthetermofthelicence.
VilledeSorel-Tracypourlareproduction,l’exécutionenpublicetlacommunication
aupublicpartélécommunicationd’unephotographie[Non-exclusivelicenceissued
to],[File:2015-UO/TI-14],2015CarswellNat7110(Cop.Bd.;2015-11-03)
[1]Conformémentauxdispositionsduparagraphe77(1)delaLoisur
ledroitd’auteur,laCommissiondudroitd’auteurduCanadaaccorde
unelicenceàlaVilledeSorel-Tracycommesuit:[…]
2)Lalicenceestvalidedu18juin2015au30juin2020.Toute
utilisationautoriséeparcettelicencedoitêtrecomplétéeàcette
date.[…]
4)Letitulairedelalicencedoitclairementmentionnerla
référencebibliographiquedel’oeuvreutiliséeselonles
conventionsd’usage:titredel’oeuvre,auteur,éditeur,lieuet
datedepublication.
·Section77-CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbyBoard
Alicenceisnon-exclusiveandlimitedtotherightcovered,andforCanadaonly;it
mayberetroactiveandlimitedintime;thedelayforthecollectivetorepaythe
unlocatableownermaybelongerthanthetermofthelicence.
AmbassadorsforChristMinistriesInc.forthemechanicalreproductionoffour
musicalworks[Non-exclusivelicenceissuedto],[File:2015-UO/TI-23and2015-
UO/TI-24],2015CarswellNat7081(Cop.Bd.;2015-11-17)
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
147
[5](2)ThelicenceisvalidfromSeptember17,2015toNovember
30,2025.Theauthorizedreproductionmustthereforebecompleted
bythatdate
·Section89–Nocopyright,etc,exceptbystatute
CanadiancopyrightisCanadianstatutelaw.
Boisjoli(Re),2015CarswellAlta2036(Alta.Q.B.;2015-10-08)RookeJ.
[74]InternationallawandtreatydoesnottrumpCanadian
legislationorcommonlaw:CapitalCitiesCommunicationsInc.v
CanadianRadio-TelevisionCommission,1977CanLII12(SCC),
[1978]2SCR141.
[103][…]InCanada,lawcomesfromlegislationpassedby
Parliamentandtheprovinciallegislatures,andthecourtsandits
judgments,notarchaicandforeignhistoricalcuriosities.
·Section89–Nocopyright,etc,exceptbystatute
Copyrightlawdoesnotreplacethecontractualrulesandstandardsotherwise
applicabletotherelationsbetweentheparties.
Crochetière-Brousseauv.9107-0234QuébecInc.(Grattex),2015CF1219(F.C.;
2015-10-29)LeBlancJ[42]Ilestvraiqueledemandeurn’apasétépayéàlalivraison
del’œuvre,qu’unedisputes’estalorsengagéeconcernantla
portéeetlajustevaleurdestravauxeffectuésetqu’aucun
compromisn’apuêtretrouvéàcetégard.Toutefois,celarelève
àmonsensdudroitdescontrats,etnondudroitd’auteur,un
droitautonomevisantàassurerquelecréateurd’uneœuvre
«tireraavantagedeseseffortsdanslebutdefavoriserlacréation
denouvellesœuvres»(Robinson,précitéaupara23[Cinar
CorporationcRobinson,2013CSC73(CanLII),[2013]3RCS
1168])).Cetavantage,lecontratleprocuraitaudemandeuretrien
n’empêchaitcelui-cid’enassurer,devantleforumapproprié,la
pleineexécutionenvertududroitrégissantlescontrats.Ledroit
d’auteurn’apaspourfonctiondesesubstituerauxrèglesetnormes
contractuellesautrementapplicables
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
148
·Section91–AdherencetoBerneandRomeConventions
Evidenceofapartytohavenationalstandingtoenforceaclaimforcopyright
infringementcouldbegatheredbydiversesources,includingWIPOelectronic
recordsofthemembersoftheBerneConvention.
AgrosTradingConfectionerySP.Z.O.O.v.K-MaxCorp.,2015CarswellOnt7483
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-06-19)MorganJ.
[45]Section2oftheCopyrightActspecifiesthatthetreaty
referencedinsection5(1)(a)istheBerneConventionforthe
ProtectionofLiteraryandArtisticWorks,828UNTS221,September
9,1886,asrevised.TheSupremeCourtofCanadahasobserved
onseveraloccasionsthattheCopyrightActwasoriginally
enactedtoimplementforCanadathetermsoftheBerne
Convention:seeBishopvStevens,1990CanLII75(SCC),[1990]2
SCR467,at473-74;EntertainmentSoftwareAssociationvSociety
ofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanada,2012SCC
34(CanLII),[2012]2SCR231,atpara13.
Aside:CopyrightandTrade-marksbeforetheTrade-marksOppositionBoard
NoncompliancewiththeCopyrightActmaybeagroundofoppositionunder
paragraphs30)a)/30(i)oftheTrade-marksAct.
StarIslandEntertainment,LLCvProventHoldingsLtd*,2015CarswelNat1543
(Opp.Bd.;2015-01-30)N.dePaulsen
[24]Asection30(i)groundof
oppositionwillsucceedwhere
thereisaprimafaciecaseofnon-
compliancewithafederalstatute
suchastheCopyrightActRSC
1985,cC-42,FoodandDrugsAct,
RSC1985,cF-27orCanadaPost
CorporationAct,RSC1985,cC-10
[InteractivDesignPtyLtdvGrafton-
FraserInc(1998),87CPR(3d)537
(TMOB)at542-543].
[24]Unmotifd’oppositioninvoquéen
vertudel’alinéa30i)seraaccueillis’il
yaunepreuvesuffisanteàpremière
vuedenon-conformitéàuneloi
fédérale,commelaLoisurledroit
d’auteur,LRC1985,chC-42,laLoisur
lesalimentsetdrogues,LRC1985,ch
F-27,oulaLoisurlaSociété
canadiennedespostes,LRC1985,ch
C-10[voirInteractivDesignPtyLtdc
Grafton-FraserInc,(1998),87CPR(3d)
537(COMC),pages542et543].
Betrayedbycopyrightnoticesthatareoutsidetherelevantperiod.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
149
Martomagic,S.L.U.vBungie,Inc.*,2015CarswelNat986(Registrar;2015-01-30)A.
Bene
[11]Insupport,Mr.Jenkinsattaches
thefollowingexhibitstohisaffidavit:
[…]
ExhibitDconsistsofsixphotographs
ofvariousfigurinesthatMr.Jenkins
attests“wereavailableforsaleand
soldinCanada”duringtherelevant
period.TheMarkappearsonthe
frontandbackofthefigurine
packaging.Inotethat,where
visible,thecopyrightdatesonthe
backofthepackagingarefor2007
orearlier.[…][11]Pourétayersesdires,M.Jenkinsa
jointlespiècessuivantesàsonaffidavit:
[…]
LaPièceDestconstituéede
sixphotographiesmontrantdiverses
figurinesqui,attesteM.Jenkins,[
TRADUCTION]«étaientoffertesenvente
etvenduesauCanada»pendantla
périodepertinente.LaMarquefigure
surledevantetaudosdel’emballage
desfigurines.Jesoulignequeles
datesdecopyrightqu’ilestpossible
dediscerneraudosdecertains
emballagessontde2007ou
antérieuresà2007.[…]
ExhibitsEandKconsistofseveral
printoutsofwebpagesfromthe
Owner’sgamewebsite,bungie.net,
thatMr.Jenkinsattests »isaccessible
toandisaccessedbyinternetusersin
Canadaandthroughouttheworld,
includingtheRelevantPeriod. »He
atteststhatthewebpagesshow
« gameadvertisingandgameplay
statisticalinformation »andthatthe
ExhibitKprintoutsshowtheOwner’s
gamewebsitefromOctoberand
November2010.TheMarkappearsat
thetopofthewebpages.TheExhibit
Eprintoutsappeartobefromafterthe
relevantperiod,bearingacopyright
dateof2013.Inotethatthetopofthe
twowebpagesshowinggameplay
statisticsindicatethat »Thedataon
thispageisnolongerbeingupdated.
Thelastupdatewas03/31/2012. »
[i.e.therelevantdatewasfrom2009-
011-13to2012-11-13].LespiècesEetKsont
composéesde
plusieursimprimésde
pagesWebtirésdusiteWebdejeude
laPropriétaire,bungie.net,lequel,
attesteM.Jenkins,[TRADUCTION] »est
accessiblepartoutdanslemondeetest
utilisépardesinternautesduCanadaet
dumondeentier,ycomprispendantla
périodepertinente ».Ilattestequeles
pagesprésentent[TRADUCTION] »dela
publicitépourdesjeuxainsiquedes
statistiquesdejeu »etquelesimprimés
delapièceKmontrentl’apparence
qu’avaitlesiteWebdelaPropriétaireen
octobreetennovembre2010.La
MarquefigureauhautdespagesWeb.
LesimprimésdelapièceEsemblent
êtrepostérieursàlapériodepertinente
puisqueladatedecopyrightindiquée
est2013.Jesoulignequ’auhautdes
deuxpagesWebquiprésententdes
statistiquesdejeu,onretrouvela
mention[TRADUCTION] »Lesdonnées
affichéessurlaprésentepagenesont
plusmisesàjour.Ladernièremiseà
jourdatedu03/31/2012″[i.e.lapériode
pertinenteétaitdu2019-011-13ay
2012-11-13].
Betrayedbyacopyrightnoticebearingadateearlierthanthedateoffilingon
proposeduseoftheopposedtrade-mark.
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
150
KrugerProductsL.P.vCascadesCanadaULC*,2015CarswelNat584(Opp.Bd.;
2015-02-22)J.Carrière
[36]However,Ihavenotedthatthe
packagingbearsthefollowing
inscription:©CascadesCanadaULC,
2011.Thiscopyrightnoticeover
thecontentsofthepackage
thereforedatesbacktonolater
thanDecember31,2011,whichis
beforetherelevantdate[the
proposedtrade-markwasfiledon
2012-05-08].Ithereforefindthatthe
submissionofthisexhibitcanbe
admittedasevidence.Itwasperfectly
lawfulfortheApplicanttosubmit
evidenceiftheApplicantconsidered
thatithadnotmanufacturedthe
purchasedproductorthatsaid
productwasnotrepresentativeof
whatwasbeingsoldinstoresat
December31,2011.[36]Jenotecependantquel’emballage
portelamentionsuivante:©Cascades
CanadaULC,2011.
Cetavisdedroit
d’auteursurlecontenude
l’emballageremontedoncauplus
tardau31décembre2011,soit
antérieurementàladatepertinente
[theproposedtrade-markwasfiled
on2012-05-08].J’estimedoncquela
productiondecettepièceestadmissible
enpreuve.Ilétaitparfaitementloisibleà
laRequérantedeprésenterunepreuve
sielleconsidéraitqu’ellen’avaitpas
fabriquéleproduitachetéouquecelui-ci
n’étaitpasreprésentatifdecequiétait
surlemarchéau31décembre2011.
Amissionstatementcontainingacopyrightnoticewithintherelevantperiodwillnot
besufficienttoproveuseinCanadawithinthemeaningofsection4oftheTrade-
marksAct.
MathvMainse*,2015CarswelNat1385(Registraire;2015-02-24)K.Barnett
[13]Ms.Mainsestatesthatsincethe
dateofregistration,theMarkhas
beenanintegralandactivelyused
partoforganizing,coordinating,
assistingandfacilitatingorganizations
engagedinmissionaryservices,in
promotionalactivities,videosand
audiopresentations,andcurriculum
developmentforaninstructional
manualinChristiandoctrineandfaith.
Insupport,sheprovidesthefollowing
atExhibits4to15:[…][13]MmeMainseaffirmeque,depuisla
datedel’enregistrement,laMarquea
faitpartieintégranteetaétéactivement
employéedanslecadrede
l’organisation,delacoordination,de
l’aideetdelafacilitationpour
organismesengagésdanslesservices
missionnaires,ainsiquedanslecadre
d’activitéspromotionnelles,de
présentationsaudioetvidéoetde
l’élaborationd’unprogramme
d’enseignementpourunmanuel
d’instructionayanttraitàlafoietàla
doctrinechrétiennes.Pourétayerses
dires,elleafournilespièces4à15,
lesquellessontrésuméesci-dessous:
[…]
Thevisionstatementfor“World
Embrace”,whichincludesa
copyrightnoticedated2012
(Exhibit5);[…]l’énoncédevisionpour«World
Embrace»,lequelcomprendunavis
dedroitd’auteurdatéde2012
(pièce5);[…]
[16]TheRequestingPartysubmits,[16]LaPartierequérantesoutient,etje
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
151
andIagree,thatthereisnoevidence
tosupportthattheMarkwasusedin
Canadaduringtherelevantperiod.
Thereisnoevidencethatanyofthe
GoodsweresoldinCanadabearing
theMark,andthereisnoevidence
thatanyoftheServiceswere
performedorofferedinCanadain
connectionwiththeMarkduringthe
relevantperiod.suisd’accordavecelle,qu’iln’ya
aucunepreuvedel’emploidelaMarque
auCanadapendantlapériode
pertinente.Iln’yapaslamoindre
preuvequ’unouplusieursdesProduits
arborantlaMarqueontétévendusau
Canada,etqu’unouplusieursdes
servicesontétéexécutésouoffertsen
liaisonaveclaMarqueauCanada
pendantlapériodepertinente.
[17]Indeed,theevidenceprovided
pertainstoactivitiesoutsideof
Canada,activitiesoutsideofthe
relevantperiod,andinternal
planningdocuments–nothingthat
wouldconstituteuseoftheMarkin
Canadaduringtherelevantperiod
inaccordancewithsections4(1)or
4(2)oftheAct
.
[17]Eneffet,lapreuveproduitese
rapporteàdesactivitésquionteu
lieuàl’extérieurduCanada,des
activitésquionteulieuendehorsde
lapériodepertinenteetdes
documentsdeplanificationinterne–
rienquel’onpuisseconsidérer
commeunemploidelaMarqueau
Canadapendantlapériode
pertinenteausensdesarticles4(1)
ou4(2)delaLoi.
Appearanceofthetrade-markonacopyrightnoticeisnotatrade-markusefor
serviceswithinthemeaningofsubsection4(2)oftheTrade-marksAct.
BordenLadnerGervaisLLPvGDCCommunities*,2015CarswellNat50(Registrar;
2015-03-23)K.Barnett
[24]OntheprintoutoftheRegistrant’s
websiteprovidedinExhibitD,the
contextinwhichGDCCOMMUNITIES
isusedsuggestsitisbeingusedto
identifytheRegistrant,andwouldnot
beperceivedasatrade-mark.
Furthermore,onceagain,GDC
COMMUNITIESisnotsetapartfrom
thesurroundingtext,butappearsin
thesamesizeandfont.Inaddition,
thecopyrightnoticeatthebottom
ofthewebpageliststhecopyright
ownerasGDCCOMMUNITIES,
immediatelyfollowedbythe
Registrant’saddress,suggesting
thatGDCCOMMUNITIESisbeing
usedtoidentifythelegalentitythat
ownsthecopyrightandisnotbeing
usedasatrade-mark.Thisis
consistentwithhowGDC
COMMUNITIESisusedintherestof
thewebpage.[24]Dansl’imprimétirédusiteWebde
l’Inscrivantequiestfournicomme
pièceD,lesmotsGDCCOMMUNITIES
sontemployésdansuncontextequi
donneàpenserqu’ilsserventàidentifier
l’Inscrivante,etneseraientdoncpas
perçuscommeunemarquede
commerce.Enoutre,etcommedansles
autresexemplesd’emploi,lesmotsGDC
COMMUNITIESnesedémarquentpas
dutexteenvironnant,carilssontécrits
danslamêmetailledecaractèresetla
mêmepolice.Quiplusest,dansl’avisde
droitd’auteurquifigureaubasdela
pageWeb,ilestindiquéqueletitulaire
desdroitsd’auteurestGDC
COMMUNITIESetcettementionest
immédiatementsuiviedel’adressede
l’Inscrivante,cequidonneàpenser
queGDCCOMMUNITIESestemployé
pouridentifierl’entitéjuridiquequi
détientledroitd’auteur,etnonàtitre
demarquedecommerce.Cetemploi
rejointlafaçondontlesmotsGDC
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
152
COMMUNITIESsontemployésailleurs
danslapageWeb.
[25]InallcasesinwhichGDC
COMMUNITIESappearsinthe
Registrant’sevidence,itisnot
presentedinamannerwhichsetsit
apartfromothercorporateinformation
orinamannersuchthatitwouldbe
perceivedbyaconsumerasatrade-
mark.[25]Nullepartdanslesexemples
d’emploicomprisdanslapreuvede
l’Inscrivante,lesmotsGDC
COMMUNITIESnesontprésentésd’une
manièrequilesdistinguedesautres
renseignementsd’entrepriseoud’une
manièretellequ’unconsommateurles
percevraitcommeunemarquede
commerce.
Copyrightinfringementmaybeagroundofoppositionunderparagraphs
38(2)(a)/30(i)oftheTrade-marksAct.
CorporativodeMarcasGJB,S.A.deC.V.v.Bacardi&Co.*,2015CarswellNat1816
(Opp.Bd.;2015-03-24)A.Flewelling
[15]AttheoralhearingtheOpponent
citedahandfulofcasesinwhicha
section30(i)groundofoppositionwas
successful[FremantleMediaNorth
AmericaInc.v.WrightAlternative
AdvertisingInc.(2009),77C.P.R.
(4th)311(T.M.Opp.Bd.);Chery
AutomobileCo.v.Wang(2013),113
C.P.R.(4th)327(T.M.Opp.Bd.);
LifestylesImprovementCenters,LLP
v.Chorney(2007),63C.P.R.(4th)
261(T.M.Opp.Bd.)].In
FreemantleMediaandLifestyles,bad
faithwasfoundonthepartofthe
applicant.InChery,theuseofthe
applied-formarkwasfoundto
createaprimafaciecaseof
copyrightinfringementandthusto
becontrarytosection30(i)ofthe
Act.Bycontrast,theApplicantrelies
ontwocasesinwhichasection30(i)
groundwasdismissedasasituation
amountingtobadfaithwasnotfound[Pepsi-ColaCanadaLtd.v.Molson
Breweries(1993),51C.P.R.(3d)256
(T.M.Opp.Bd.);PurafilCanadaLtd./
PurafilCanadaLtéev.PurafilInc.,
2012TMOB105(T.M.Opp.Bd.)].[15]Àl’audience,l’Opposanteacité
quelquescasdanslesquelsunmotif
d’oppositioninvoquéenvertude
l’alinéa30
i)aétéaccueilli
[FremantleMediaNorthAmericaIncc
WrightAlternativeAdvertisingInc
(2009),2009CanLII90402(CACOMC),
77CPR(4th)311(COMC);Chery
AutomobileCocWang(2013),113CPR
(4th)327(COMC);Lifestyles
ImprovementCentres,LLPcChorney
(2007),63CPR(4th)261(COMC)].
DansFreemantleMediaetLifestyles,ila
étédémontréquelapartierequérante
avaitfaitpreuvedemauvaisefoi.Dans
Chery,ilaétéétabliqu’ilyavait,à
premièrevue,violationdudroit
d’auteurdansl’emploidelamarque
viséeparlademandeetdonc,qu’ily
avaitmanquementàl’alinéa30i)dela
Loi.Enrevanche,laRequérante
s’appuiesurdeuxcasdanslesquelsun
motifd’oppositioninvoquéenvertude
l’alinéa30i)aétérejeté,puisqu’aucune
situationdemauvaisefoin’apuêtre
établie[Pepsi-ColaLtdcMolson
Breweries,APartnership(1993),51
CPR(3d)256(COMC);PurafilCanada
LtdcPurafil,Inc(2013)COMC105].
Anopponentcouldbetheownerofthetrade-markforthegoodsandanotherperson
couldbetheownerofthecopyrightinthematerialrelatedtothegoods,explaining
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
153
theapparentinconsistencybetweenthedisplayofthetrade-markoncomputer
screensandthecopyrightnotices,especiallyifthereisevidenceofcross-licensing.
9105-8503QuébecInc.v.TouchtunesMusicCorp.*,2015CarswelNat1421(Opp.
Bd.;2015-04-22)A.Robitaille
[33]Ishallindicateatthispointofmy
analysisthat,contrarytothe
Applicant’scontention,thefactthat
onecompanyownsthecopyrightin
thesoftwareandanotherinthe
trade-markisnotinitself
problematic.[…][33]Jedoispréciser,àcestadedemon
analyse,que,contrairementàceque
prétendlaRequérante,
lefaitquele
droitd’auteursoitdétenuparune
entrepriseetlamarquedecommerce
paruneautren’estpasensoiproblématique.[…]
Betrayedbyacopyrightnoticeposteriortotherelevantperiod.
Smart&BiggarvMercedesTextilesLtd*,2015CarswelNat3982(Registrar;2015-
06-18)J.Carrière
[9]However,theRequestingParty
arguesandIagreethatanyusethatis
shownbytheproductsheetmaynot
haveoccurredduringtheRelevant
Period.Atbest,the2014copyright
noticeontheproductsheetleads
metoinferthattheproductsheet
showshowtheMarkwasdisplayed
aftertheRelevantPeriod[2010-12-
04to2013-12-04].TheRegistrant
providednoevidencetoclarifywhen
theproductsheetwasproducedandI
cannotresolvethisambiguityinthe
Registrant’sfavour[seePlough,
supra][Plough(Canada)LtdvAerosol
FillersInc(1980),53CPR(4th)62
(FCA)][9]Toutefois,laPartierequérante
soutientégalement,etjesuisd’accord
surcepoint,quel’emploidonttémoigne
lafichedeproduitpeuttrèsbiennepas
avoireulieupendantlaPériode
pertinente.
Aumieux,l’avisdedroit
d’auteurendatede2014quifigure
surlafichedeproduitmepermet
d’inférerquelafichedeproduitest
représentativedelafaçondontla
Marqueaétéemployéeaprèsla
Périodepertinente[2010-12-04to
2013-12-04].L’Inscrivanten’afourni
aucunélémentdepreuvequim’aurait
permisdedétermineràquelmomentla
fichedeproduitaétécrééeetilm’est
impossiblederésoudrecetteambiguïté
enfaveurdel’Inscrivante[voirPlough,
précité][Plough(Canada)Ltdc.Aerosol
FillersInc(1980),53CPR(4th)62
(CAF)].
Acopyrightnoticeonthegoodsofathirdpartythatindicatesadateearlierthanthe
dateoffilingofanapplicationbasedonproposedusemightbesufficienttoprove
earlieruseofasimilartrade-markand,thereforetheabsenceofdistinctivenessof
theopposedtrade-mark.
KrugerProductsL.P.vCascadesCanadaULC*,2015CarswelNat3975(Opp.Bd.;
2015-07-09)C.Tremblay
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
154
[79]Indeed,apartfromMr.Candido’s
statementthatthepagesofthe
websites »accuratelyrepresentthe
unbleachedtissueproductsthatare
nowandhavebeensoldordistributed
inCanada”(myunderlining),Iagree
withtheOpponentthatagood
numberofproductswerefoundon
eachofthewebsitesasofDecember
17,2012.Itherebyagreewiththe
Opponentthatitisdifficulttoconceive
thateachandeveryoneofthese
productswaslaunchedonlybetween
June13andDecember17,2012.
Moreover,duringthehearing,the
Opponentpointedoutthateach
packageofrollsofSEVENTH
GENERATIONpapertowelsbearsthe
copyrightnotice »©2010Seventh
Generation,Inc. »(myunderlining)
[Exhibits35and36ofMr.Morrison’s
affidavit].Iconcludethiscopyright
noticedatesbacktonolaterthan
December31,2010.Itherefore
agreewiththeOpponentthatitis
reasonabletoinferthataproduct
forwhichthepackagingbearssuch
acopyrightnoticewaslaunchedon
themarketbeforeJune13,2012
[i.e.,thefilingdateoftheopposed
application][Byanalogy,seeKruger
ProductsLPvCascadesCanadaULC,
2015TMOB39(CanLII)atpara.36.][79]Eneffet,outreladéclarationde
M.CandidoquelespagesdessitesWeb
«
accuratelyrepresenttheunbleached
tissueproductsthatarenowandhave
beensoldordistributedinCanada”
(monsoulignement),jeconviensavec
l’Opposantequ’unbonnombrede
produitsseretrouvaientsurchacundes
sitesWebau17décembre2012.Partant,
jeconviensavecl’Opposantequ’ilest
difficiledeconcevoirquetousetchacun
decesproduitsauraientétélancés
uniquemententreles13juinet
17décembre2012.D’ailleurs,lorsde
l’audience,l’Opposanteasoulignéque
chaqueemballagederouleaud’essuie-
toutdemarqueSEVENTH
GENERATIONportelamention«©2010
SeventhGeneration,Inc.»(mon
soulignement)[pièces35et36de
l’affidavitdeM.Morrison].Jeconclus
quecetavisdedroitd’auteurremonte
auplustardau31décembre2010.Je
conviensdoncavecl’Opposantequ’il
estraisonnabled’inférerqu’unproduit
dontl’emballageporteuntelavisde
droitd’auteuraétélancésurlemarché
avantle13juin2012[i.e.ladatede
prodcutiondelademandesous
opposition].[Voir,paranalogie,Kruger
ProductsLPcCascadesCanadaULC,
2015COMC39(CanLII)auparagr.36.]
Acopyrightnoticeinthenameofathirdpartymayraiseanissueofthe
distinctivenessoftheappliedfortrade-mark,evenifasubsidiaryoftheapplicant,if
thereisnoevidenceofalicensingscheme.
SoftLayerTechnologies,IncvGroupeiWebInc*,2015CarswelNat4034(Opp.Bd.;
2015-07-30)A.Robitaille
[85]Mr.Toupinstatesthatthe
ApplicantbeganusingtheMarkin
associationwiththeServicesshortly
aftertheapplicationwasfiled(i.e.in
October2010).Insupportofhis
assertionsofuseheattachestohis
affidavitasExhibitPLT-1whathe
describesasprintoutsfromthe
Applicant’swebsiteavailableat
http://www.iweb.comfortheyears
2010to2013.Headdsthatsomeof
[85]M.Toupinaffirmequela
Requéranteacommencéàemployerla
MarqueenliaisonaveclesServices
peudetempsaprèslaproductiondela
demande(c.-à-d.enoctobre2010).À
l’appuidesesallégationsd’emploi,il
jointcommePiècePLT-1àsonaffidavit
cequ’ildécritcommeétantdes
imprimésdusiteWebdelaRequérante
accessibleauhttp://www.iweb.compour
lesannées2010à2013.Ilajouteque
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
155
theseprintoutshavebeenprinted
fromtheInternetarchiveWayback
Machine[para6oftheaffidavit].
Uponreviewoftheseprintouts,I
notethattheyallbearcopyright
noticesreferringtoeitheriWeb
Technologiesoranotherentity
namediWebInc.Atpage10ofthe
transcriptofhiscross-examinationMr.
Toupinassertsthattheiweb.com
domainnameisownediWeb
Technologies.Hefurtherassertsat
pages19to21thatiWebInc.does
notexist.Itconsistsofthe
abbreviationofiWebTechnologies.certainsdecesimpriméssonttirésdu
sited’archivesInternetWayback
Machine[para.6del’affidavit].
Après
examendecesimprimés,jesouligne
qu’ilsprésententtousunavisde
droitd’auteurmentionnantiWeb
Technologiesouuneautreentité
nomméeiWebInc.Àlapage10dela
transcriptiondesoncontre-
interrogatoire,M.Toupinaffirmequele
nomdedomaineiweb.comappartientà
iWebTechnologies.Ilaffirmeégalement
auxpages19à21qu’iWebInc.n’existe
pas.iWebInc.constituel’abréviation
d’iWebTechnologies.
[94]Inthepresentcase,nopublic
noticehasbeengivenandthereisno
clearstatementthattheApplicanthas
directorindirectcontroloverthe
characterorqualityoftheServices,as
isrequiredundersection50ofthe
Act.Infact,Mr.Toupinprovidesno
explanationswhatsoevernorattaches
anyevidenceshowinganycontrolby
theApplicantontheuseoftheMark
byiWebTechnologies
[94]Enl’espèce,aucunavispublicn’a
étédonnéetaucunedéclarationclaire
n’estfaiteselonlaquellelaRequérante
exerceuncontrôledirectouindirectsur
lescaractéristiquesoulaqualitédes
Services,ainsiquel’exigel’article50de
laLoi.Enfait,M.Toupinnefournit
aucuneexplicationniaucunélémentde
preuvedémontrantuncontrôleexercé
parlaRequérantesurl’emploidela
MarquepariWebTechnologies.
Acopyrightnoticeoutsidetherelevantperiodmaybeexplainedifthematerialis
shownasillustrativeofwhatwasavailableduringtherelevantperiod.
GMAXWorldRealtyIncvRE/MAX,LLC*,2015CarswelNat4607(Registrar;2015-
08-28)A.Bene
[26]Insupport,Mr.Ashattachesthe
followingexhibitstohisaffidavit:[…]
[26]Àl’appui,M.Ashjointlespièces
suivantesàsonaffidavit:[…]
ExhibitFalsoincludes
screenshotsfromwww.remax.net,
whichMr.Ashattestsshow“how
RE/MAXUniversitymaybe
accessedusingmobiledevices
andviaRokuasatelevision
service”.Thewebpagesinclude
instructionsforusingtheRoku
digitalmediaplayer.Mr.Ash
explainsthatalthoughthe
screenshotshavea2014
copyrightnotice,theindividual
webpagesshownwereavailable
duringtherelevantperiod[2010-
11-19to2013-11-19].TheMarkis
displayedatthetopofthe
webpages.LapièceFinclutégalementdes
capturesd’écrande
www.remax.net
qui,attesteM.Ash,montre
[T
RADUCTION]«lafaçondontilest
possibled’accéderàl’université
RE/MAXgrâceàdesappareils
mobilesetparRokucommeservice
detélévision».LespagesWeb
incluentdesdirectivessurl’utilisation
dubaladeurnumériquemultimédia
Roku.M.Ashexpliquequebien
quelescapturesd’écran
présententunavisdedroit
d’auteurdatantde2014,lespages
Webindividuellesmontrées
étaientdisponiblesaucoursdela
périodepertinente[2010-11-19to
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
156
2013-11-19].LaMarqueest
présenteauhautdespagesWeb.
Copyrightnoticesarenotdeterminativeofthedateonwhichparticularcontent
appearedonawebsitebutshouldbewithinthematerialdate.
ShawCommunicationsIncvTELUSCorporation*,2015CarswelNat5836(Opp.Bd.;
2015-09-29)L.Reynolds
[31]Theprint-outsattachedas
Exhibits52to58wereprintedin
April2012andtheyareeither
undatedorreferenceadatewhich
post-datesthematerialdatesfor
boththesection12(1)(b)[2010-05-13]
anddistinctivenessgroundsof
opposition[2011-09-27].Idonot
considercopyrightnoticestobe
determinativeofthedateonwhich
particularcontentappearedona
website,astheyarenotnecessarily
updatedtoreflecteverychangeor
additionwhichmayoccurona
websiteoveraperiodoftime.Notably,
oncross-examination,Mr.Pitt
acknowledgedthatinExhibits52to
58,wherevertheword“optic”isused,
itisimmediatelyprecededorfollowed
bytheword“fibre”[lines9-13,page
45].
[31]Lesimprimésjointscomme
pièces52à58ontétéréalisésen
avril2012etsoitilsneportentpasde
date,soitilsportentunedatequiest
postérieureauxdatespertinentesqui
s’appliquentauxmotifsd’opposition
fondésrespectivementsurl’article12(1)b)
[2010-05-13]etsurl’absencede
caractèredistinctif[2011-09-27].Je
considèrequelesavisdedroitd’auteur
nepermettentpasdedétermineravec
certitudeladateàlaquelleuncontenu
donnéétaitaffichésurunsiteWeb,carils
nesontpasnécessairementactualisés
defaçonàreflétertousleschangements
ouajoutsquipeuventêtreeffectuéssur
unsiteWebaucoursd’unepériode
donnée.Faitnotable,encontre-
interrogatoire,M.Pittareconnuque
chacunedesoccurrencesdumot
«optic»[optique]danslespièces52à
58estimmédiatementprécédéeousuivie
dumot«fibre»[lignes9à13,page45].
Copyingthestatementofgoodsofanother’strade-markapplicationdoesnotleadto
afindingofbadfaithintheadoptionofthistrade-markandwillnotsustainaground
ofoppositionunderparagraphs38(2)(a)/30(i)oftheTrade-marksAct.
SALTBranding,LLCLimitedLiabilityCompanyCaliforniacSaltCreativeGroup,
Inc.*,2015CarswelNat7477(Opp.Bd.;2015-11-24)P.-K.Fungatpara.45-46et48
[45]WhiletheCanadianIntellectual
PropertyOfficemaintainsalistofpre-
approvedgoodsandservicesinits
GoodsandServicesManual,itdoes
notcommentonpracticesthatinvolve
thecopyingofstatementsofgoods
andservicesfromthirdparty
applicationsorregistrations,in
Canadaorabroad.Inotethatthe
statementofservicesinquestiondoes
[45]Sil’Officedelapropriété
intellectuelleduCanadatientuneliste
deproduitsetdeservicespré-
approuvésdanssonManueldes
produitsetdesservices,ilneformule
pasdecommentairesquantaux
pratiquesimpliquantlecopiaged’états
déclaratifsdeproduitsetdeservices
figurantdansdesdemandesoudes
enregistrementsdetiers,auCanadaou
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
157
notappeartobetakenfromthepre-
approvedlistfoundintheGoodsand
ServicesManual.Instead,thesubject
applicationsappeartohavebeen
heavilyinspiredbythestatementof
servicesfoundintheOpponent’sUS
registrationsforthetrade-marksSALT
andSALTBRANDING.àl’étranger.Jesoulignequel’état
déclaratifdesservicesenquestionne
semblepasêtretirédelalistepré-
approuvéequecontientle
Manueldes
produitsetdesservices.Lesdemandes
encausesemblentplutôtêtrefortement
inspiréesdel’étatdéclaratifdesservices
figurantdanslesenregistrements
américainsdesmarquesdecommerce
SALTetSALTBRANDINGde
l’Opposante.
[46]Evenso,Iamoftheviewthatthe
merecopyingofastatementof
servicesdoesnotbyitselfputsinto
questiontheveracityofthe
Applicant’sstatementmadeunder
section30(i)foreachofits
applications,especiallywhenItake
intoconsiderationthefactthatthe
owneroftheApplicanthadbeen
operatingasimilarbusinessusinga
namethatbearssignificantsimilarities
withtheMarksyearsbeforethe
Opponent’sceaseanddesistletter.[46]Mêmedanscecas,j’estimequele
simplecopiaged’unétatdéclaratifdes
servicesnemetpasàluiseulendoute
lavéracitédeladéclarationdela
Requérantefaiteautitredel’article30
i)
delaLoiàl’égarddechacunedeses
demandes,surtoutlorsquejetiens
comptedufaitquelapropriétairedela
Requéranteexploitaituneentreprise
semblablesousunnomquiressemble
beaucoupauxMarquesdesannées
avantderecevoirlamiseendemeure
del’Opposante.
[48]Inviewoftheforegoing,Iam
unabletoconcludethatthe
applicationsweresubmittedinbad
faithsimplybasedonthefactthat
theApplicantappearstohaveused
thewordingofstatementsof
servicesfoundintheOpponent’s
registrations,whenfilingitsown
applicationsfortheMarks.[…][48]
Comptetenudecequiprécède,il
m’estimpossibledeconclurequeles
demandesontétéproduitesde
mauvaisefoidusimplefaitquela
Requérantesembleavoiremployéle
libellédesétatsdéclaratifsdes
servicesfigurantdansles
enregistrementsdel’Opposante
lorsqu’elleaproduitsespropres
demandesrelativesauxMarques
.[…]
Copyrightinfringementisnotrelevantindeterminingentitlementtoregistrationor
distinctivenessofanopposedtrade-mark[note:inthisoppostion,noncompliance
withparagraph30(i)wasnotmakingreferencetocopyrightinfringement].
NavsunHoldingsLtd.v.SadhuSinghHamdardTrust*,2015CarswelNat7475(Opp.
Bd.;2015-11-30)M.Herzig
[23]Atcross-examinationtherewas
somediscussionofwhethertheword
AJITappearinginPunjabiscriptinthe
parties’newspapermastheadswere
identical.Itbecameapparentfrom
remarksmadebycounselforthe
applicantthatthepartieswerein
litigationovercopyrightissues
concerningthewordAJITappearingin[23]Encontre-interrogatoire,certains
échangesontportésurlaquestionde
savoirsilemotAJITécritencaractères
pendjabimanuscritsquifiguredansles
cartouchesdetitredesjournauxde
chacunedespartiesétaitidentiquedans
lesdeuxcartouches.Ilestdevenu
évident,suiteàcertainesremarques
formuléesparl’avocatdelarequérante,
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
158
Punjabiscript.Ofcourse,such
copyrighttissuesarenotrelevantin
thisproceeding.[…]quelespartiesétaientégalementparties
àunlitigerelatifàdesquestionsdedroit
d’auteurconcernantlemotAJITécriten
caractèrespendjabimanuscrits.
Ilva
sansdirequecesquestionsdedroit
d’auteurnesontpaspertinentesen
l’espèce.[…]
Acopyrightnoticeonawebpageinthenameofalicenseewillsupportuseofthe
trade-markbytheownerofthetrade-markaslicensor.
GowlingLafleurHendersonLLPvSanMiguelCorporation*,2015CarswelNat7481
(Registrar;2015-11-30)A.Bene
[7]Inhisaffidavit,Mr.Manabat
identifieshimselfastheExport
ManagerofGinebraSanMiguelInc.
(GSMI),asubsidiaryoftheOwnerand
anauthorizeduseroftheMark.[…][7]Danssonaffidavit,M.Manabat
attestequ’ilestledirecteurdes
exportationsdeGinebraSanMiguelInc.
(GSMI),unefilialedelaPropriétaireet
uneusagèreautoriséedelaMarque.
[…]
[9]AttachedtoMr.Manabat’saffidavit
arethefollowingexhibits:[9]Lespiècessuivantessontjointesà
l’affidavitdeM.Manabat:
ExhibitAandBconsistof
printoutsfromtheOwner’s
exportswebsite,
www.sanmiguelexports.com
.
ExhibitAconsistsofthewebsite’s
homepageandgenerally
describestheOwner’sbusiness.
Mr.Manabatatteststhatthe
ExhibitBprintoutslistthe“non-
alcoholicbeveragesthatbearthe
trademarkSUNCATCH(the
“TrademarkedWares”)andare
availableinternationallythrough
theexportswebsite”.
Inotethat“SuncatchMango
JuiceDrink”and“Suncatch
CalamansiJuiceDrink”arelisted
anddescribednexttopicturesof
whatappearstobethepackaging
ofeachbeverage.TheMarkis
displayedonthepackaging.
whichisalsothenamedisplayed
inthebanneratthetopofeach
webpage.[…]LespiècesAetBsecomposent
d’impriméstirésdusiteWebdes
exportationsdelaPropriétaire,
accessibleàl’adresse
www.sanmiguelexports.com
.La
pièceAestforméedelapage
d’accueildusiteWebetdécritde
façongénéralelasociétédela
Propriétaire.M.Manabatattesteque
lesimprimésdelaPièceBdressent
lalistedes[T
RADUCTION]«boissons
nonalcooliséesquiarborentla
marquedecommerceSUNCATCH
(les“Marchandisesportantla
marquedecommerce”)etquisont
offertesàl’échelleinternationalepar
l’entremisedusiteWebdes
exportations».
Jesoulignequelesboissons
«SuncatchMangoJuiceDrink»
(boissonàbasedejusdemangue
Suncatch)et«SuncatchCalamansi
JuiceDrink»(boissonàbasedejus
decalamondinSuncatch)sont
présentéesetdécritesàcôtéde
photographiesdecequisembleêtre
l’emballagedechaqueboisson.La
Marquefiguresurlesemballages.
[…]
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
159
OriginalityofadesignorownershipofcopyrightintheREDSQUAREWITH
GOLDENPIN&Designisnotrelevanttotheissueofdistinctivenessinanopposition
proceeding.
FédérationÉtudianteCollégialeduQuébecvDrapeau*,2015CarswelNat8909
(Opp.Bd.;2015-12-23)J.Carrière
[11]Throughouthiscross-
examination,theApplicantinsisted
onthe’originality’oftheMark,
referringtotheCopyrightAct.
Needlesstosay,Idonothaveto
comment,withinthecontextofthis
opposition,ontherightsthatwould
havebeengrantedtotheApplicant
undertheCopyrightAct.Inany
event,thereisnodocumentary
evidenceofrecordtothiseffect.[11]Toutaulongdesoncontre-
interrogatoireleRequérantainsistésur
lecaractère‘original’delaMarqueen
seréférantàla
Loisurlesdroits
d’auteur.Ilvadesoiquejen’aipasà
commenter,danslecadredecette
opposition,lesdroitsquiauraientété
octroyésauRequérantenvertudes
dispositionsdelaLoisurlesdroits
d’auteur.Àtoutévénement,iln’yapas
depreuvedocumentaireaudossierà
ceteffet.
[37]TheApplicantclaimstoholda
copyright[sic]certificatetotheMark.
Thereisnoevidenceofrecordonthis
subject.Inanyevent,justbecause
anentityholdsacopyrighttoa
workdoesnotmeanitis
automaticallyentitledtoobtaina
trade-markregistrationofthis
work.[37]LeRequérantprétenddétenirun
certificatdedroitd’auteursurla
Marque.Iln’yapasdepreuveau
dossieràcesujet.Àtoutévénement,ce
n’estpasparcequ’uneentitédétientun
droitd’auteursuruneœuvrequ’ellea
automatiquementledroitd’obtenirun
enregistrement,àtitredemarquede
commerce,surcetteœuvre.
Andtoconclude:·Section2–Definitionof »musicalwork »
Lyricsofasongcouldnotbeconsideredasanadmissionofthetruthofthefactsin
saidlyrics.
R.v.Campbell*,2015CarswellOnt15060(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2015-10-06)NordheimerJ.
[25]Thereisanotheraspecttothisevidencethatshouldnotbelost
sightof.Itisanaspectthatstronglysuggeststhatsuchevidence
shouldgenerallybeapproachedwithconsiderablecaution.Rap,
particularlyrap,oftendealswiththesubjectmatterofdrugs,
guns,shootings,violence,andthelike.Themerefactthatan
artistrecordsarapwithlyricsthatreferstosuchactivities
cannotbetakenasanadmissionbytheartistthattheywere
involvedinsuchactivities,evenwherethelyricsareusedinthe
firstperson.Whilethisistrueformusicasawhole,itisparticularly
ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
160
thecasewithgangsterrap.Thereisalonghistoryofartistssinging
abouteventsasiftheywerepersonallyinvolvedinthemwhen,in
fact,theyhadnoinvolvementinthematall.[Fn1Forexample,no
onewouldsuggestwhen,in1955,JohnnyCashwroteandsangin
FolsomCityBlues »ButIshotamaninReno,justtowatchhimdie »
thatJohnnyCashwasconfessingtoactuallyhavingshotaman.]
Absentsomeotherevidencethatwouldestablishthattheartistis
trulyspeakingaboutapersonalexperience,thereisafundamental
flawinassertingthatsuchfirstpersonlyricsarethetruth.Thereisan
evengreaterdangerinassertingthattheycanbetakenas
amountingtoaconfession.