A compilation of the canadian copyright cases decided in 2019

1

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

ACOMPILATIONOFTHECANADIANCOPYRIGHTCASESDECIDEDIN2019*

LAURENTCARRIÈRE*
ROBIC,LLP
LAWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

First,agenerallisting:
1.9157-4335Québecinc.v.9180-3577Québecinc.,2019CarswellQue1180,
2019QCCA292,EYB2019-307524,[2019]J.Q.1086,
(Que.C.A.;2019-02-20).
2.
9286-3075Québecinc.v.QuébecVilleduRockinc.,2019CarswellQue3558,
2019QCCS1517,306A.C.W.S.(3d)38,EYB2019-310561,[2019]J.Q.3210,
(Que.Sup.Ct.;2019-04-05).
3.
Av.WatchTowerBibleandTractSocietyofCanada*,2019CarswellQue1512,
2019QCCS729,EYB2019-308071,[2019]J.Q.1540,

(Que.Sup.Ct.;2019-02-27);leavetoappeal500-09-028239-192granted2019
CarswellQue4858,2019QCCA968,306A.C.W.S.(3d)703,EYB2019-312357,
[2019]J.Q.4611,
(Que.C.A.;2019-06-03).
4.
Albov.TheWinnipegFreePress,2019CarswellMan164,2019MBQB34,163
C.P.R.(4th)126,303A.C.W.S.(3d)532,[2019]M.J.52,
(Man.Q.B.;2019-02-22).
5.
BarreauduQuébec(syndicadhoc)v.Brouillette*,2019QCCBDQ20,
(Conseildediscipline–BarreauduQuébec;2019-04-12)[re-rectifying
BarreauduQuébec(syndicadhoc)v.Brouillette,2017QCCDBQ085(Conseil
dediscipline–BarreauduQuébec;2017-11-03);appeals500-07-001033-194and500-07-001034-192.
6.
BellCanadav.Canada(AttorneyGeneral),2019SCC66,2019CarswellNat788,
[2019]S.C.J.66,312A.C.W.S.(3d)228,,
(S.C.C.;2019-12-19)[reversing154C.P.R.(4th)85(F.C.A.;2017-12-18)].

©CIPS,2020.
*Lawyerandtrademarkagent,LaurentCarrièreisapartnerwithROBIC,
LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmof
lawyers,patentandtrade-markagents.PublishedaspartofareleasetotheCanadianCopyrightAct
Annotated(ThompsonReuters).Publication486.

2

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

7.BellCanadav.RedRhinoEntertainmentInc,2019CarswellNat7834,2019FC
1460,[2019]F.C.J.1464,,
(F.C.-
Contempt;2019-11-19)[fromT-759-16Canadav.1326030OntarioInc.
(iTVBox.net),2016CarswellNat4944(F.C.;2016-06-01);affd2017CarswellNat
850(F.C.A.;2017-03-20)subnomineWesley(Mtlfreetv.com)v.BellCanada].
8.BellMediaInc.v.GoldTV.Biz,2019CarswellNat6733,2019FC1432,[2019]
F.C.J.1331,,
(F.C.;
2019-11-15);appealA-440-19.
9.BibliothèquequébécoiseInc(Re),2019CarswellNat160,(Cop.Bd.;2019-01-17)subnomine
Labonté,Re.
10.Bockarova,Re*,2019CarswellOnt14100,,-St_Decision_SGopikrishna.pdf(TorontoLocal
AppealBody;2019-08-30);affd2019CarswellOnt19612,
(TorontoLocalAppealBody;2019-10-28).
11.Burkev.RedBarnatMattick’sLtd.,2019CarswellBC93,2019BCSC69,301
A.C.W.S.(3d)476,[2019]B.C.J.75,

(B.C.S.C.;2019-01-24).
12.Canada(SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishers)v.BanoInc.
(GreenBeanJavaBistro),2019FC1011,
(F.C.;
2019-07-26).
13.Canada(SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishers)v.NLH
InvestmentsInc.(CowboyRanch),2019CanLII73165,
(F.C.;2019-08-06).
14.Canada(SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishers)v.Shakers
RoadhouseLtd.,2019FC1010,
(F.C.;
2019-07-26).
15.CapitalJPEGinc.v.CorporationZoneB4ltée*,2019CarswellQue6683,EYB
2019-314173,2019QCCS2986,[2019]J.Q.6105,

(Que.Sup.Ct.;2019-07-16).
16.Capitaleenfêteinc.v.Ouellet,2019CarswellQue4570,EYB2019-311705,2019
QCCQ2607,[2019]J.Q.4044,
(Que.Ct.;2019-05-01).

3

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

17.Carpentierv.FabricvilleCo.inc.,2019CarswellQue2867,2019QCCQ1515,
EYB2019-309956,
(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-02-08).
18.CharteredProfessionalAccountantsofOntariovCharteredInstituteof
ManagementAccountants*,2019CarswellNat7315,[2019]TMOB5104,2019
TMOB104,

,
(T.M.Opp.Bd.;2019-10-01).
19.Chenv.Canada(CitizenshipandImmigration)*,2019CarswellNat1896,2019
CanLII42210,[2019]I.A.D.D.162,
(C.A.I.R.B.;2019-01-25).
20.ChurchofAtheismofCentralCanadav.Canada(NationalRevenue)*,2019
CarswellNat7174,2019FCA296,[2019]F.C.J.1401,,

(F.C.A.;2019-11-29).
21.CollectiveAdministrationinRelationtoRightsunderSections15and19
CopyrightAct(Re),2019CarswellNat8151,[2019]C.B.D.4,(Cop.Bd.;2019-12-
11).
22.ConstellationBrandsUSOperationsv.Sociétédevininternationaleltée,2019
CarswellQue7681,2019QCCS3610,EYB2019-315686,[2019]J.Q.7355,
(Que.Sup.Ct.;2019-08-21);appeal500-09-028594-190.
23.CopyingforPrivateUse(Re),2019CarswellNat9041,[2019]C.B.D.5,
(Cop.Bd.;
2019-12-13).
24.CorusRadioIncvHarvardBroadcastingInc,2019CarswellAlta2449,2019
ABQB880,[2019]A.W.L.D.4510,[2019]A.W.L.D.4511,[2019]A.W.L.D.4512,
[2019]A.J.1543,

(AltaQ.B.-Int.inj.;2019-11-18).
25.CôtéChabotMorelArchitectesv.Assembléenationale*,2019CarswellQue
10113,EYB2019-321816,2019LNQCCAI298,2019QCCAI297,

(Que.Comm.Acc.Inf.;2019-09-19).
26.Dhillonv.Bernier,2019CarswellNat1518,305A.C.W.S.(3d)838,2019FC573,
[2019]F.C.J.498,
,
(F.C.;
2019-05-03)[motiontoextendthetimetoappealrefused19-A-34(F.C.A.;2019-
07-23);actiondismissedonproceduralgrounds2019FC1194,2019
CarswellNat4913,[2019]F.C.J.1079,

4

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

(F.C.;
2019-09-20);appealA-403-19].
27.Droitdelafamille—19884*,2019CarswellQue4198,EYB2019-311572,2019
QCCS1905,[2019]J.Q.3993,

(Que.Sup.Ct.;2019-05-14).
28.Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922,2019
QCCS848,304A.C.W.S.(3d)450,EYB2019-308642,[2019]J.Q.2036,

(Que.Sup.Ct.;2019-03-13).
29.EberhardVonHuene&associésinc.v.Salzman,[2019]J.Q.10868,2019QCCS
5321,

(Que.Sup.Ct;2019-11-07).
30.Farsiv.Georges,2019QCCQ2721,
(Que.Ct.;2019-05-07).
31.GeophysicalServiceIncorporatedv.FalklandOilandGasLimited,2019
CarswellAlta585,2019ABQB162,[2019]A.W.L.D.1839,304A.C.W.S.(3d)
744.

(Alta.Q.B.;2019-03-07);add.reasons2019CarswellAlta938,2019ABQB314,
[2019]A.W.L.D.2785,[2019]A.W.L.D.2867,307A.C.W.S.(3d)707,95Alta.
L.R.(6th)80(Alta.Q.B.–Costs;2019-05-02);affd2020CarswellAlta67,2020
ABCA21,

(Alta.C.A.;2020-01-20).
32.G.G.v.Québec(Travail,EmploietSolidaritésociale)*,2019CanLII100760,
(Que.Adm.Trib.;2019-10-22).
33.GroupeInnovamberInc,2019CarswellNat631,(Cop.Bd.;2019-02-18).
34.Henniv.FoodNetworkCanadaInc.,2019CarswellBC1138,2019BCSC660,
305A.C.W.S.(3d)277,[2019]B.C.J.750,

(B.C.S.C.;2019-04-29).
35.InfiniteMediaLtd.v.remBrandSportsInc.,166C.P.R.(4th)304,2019
CarswellOnt11164,307A.C.W.S.(3d)880,2019ONSC3940,[2019]O.J.3657,
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2019-07-10).
36.KeatleySurveyingLtdv.TeranetInc,2019SCC43,[2019]S.C.J.43,2019
CarswellOnt15110,309A.C.W.S.(3d)388,437D.L.R.(4th)567,5R.P.R.(6th)
1,
(S.C.C.;2019-09-26)[affirming2016CarswellOnt7233(Ont.C.A.;2017-09-08),
whichwasaffirming2017CarswellOnt14961(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2016-02-19)].

5

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

37.Knowmadicsv.Cinnamon,2019CarswellOnt18811,2019ONSC6549,[2019]
O.J.5796,
(Ont.Sup.Ct.–Int.inj.;2019-11-18).
38.Koch,Re,2019CarswellNat5889,(Cop.Bd.;2019-10-10).
39.Kuch,Re,2019CarswellNat773,(Cop.Bd.;2019-02-07).
40.Lawrence,Re,2019CarswellNat5890,(Cop.Bd.;2019-09-16).
41.Leclercv.Brodeur(ÉditionsduCarnet),2019QCCQ1613,
(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-02-05).
42.Lépinev.MunicipalitédeSainte-Marcelline-de-Kildare,2019QCCQ5182,
(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-07-23).
43.LouisVuittonMalletierS.A.v.Wang,2019CarswellNat6912,2019FC1389,
[2019]F.C.J.1352,
,
(F.C.;
2019-11-15).
44.Lukitsv.TreasuryBoard(DepartmentofNationalDefence)*,2019CarswellNat
1680,2019CarswellNat1681,140C.L.A.S.5,[2019]LNFPSLREB29,

(Fed.Pub.Sect.Lab.Rel.Emp.Bd.;2019-01-13).
45.LuxmeInternationalLtdv.Lasnier,2019CarswellQue1940,[2019]J.Q.2484,
2019QCCS1180,

(Que.Sup.Ct.;2019-03-27).
46.MadailMonzonv.AptitudeXinc.,2019QCCQ871,

(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-02-20).
47.McMillanLLPv.Forbes*,2019CarswellNat5965,2019TMOB114,[2019]
T.M.O.B.5114,

,
(T.MOpp.Bd.-Registrar;2019-10-18).
48.McNabv.Burton,2019CarswellOnt19631,2019ONSC6927,[2019]O.J.6082,
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2019-11-29).
49.ME2Productions,Inc.v.Doe,2019CarswellNat405,2019FC214,302
A.C.W.S.(3d)157,EYB2019-307691,164C.P.R.(4th)401,[2019]F.C.J.187,
,
(F.C.;
2019-02-21;appealA-106-19discontinued2019-09-06,appealsA-107-19and
A-108-19discontinuedon2019-09-13.

6

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

50.MédiaQMIinc.v.Murray-Hall,2019CarswellQue4291,307A.C.W.S.(3d)392,
EYB2019-311701,2019QCCS1922,[2019]J.Q.4040,

(Que.Sup.Ct.;2019-05-21);appeal500-09-028399-194discontinued(Que.
C.A.;2019-10-24).
51.Menardv.TheCentreforInternationalGovernanceInnovation*,2019
CarswellOnt1437,2019ONSC858,302A.C.W.S.(3d)766,[2019]O.J.534,

(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2019-02-04).
52.MillerThomsonv.GroupeModuloInc*,2020CarswellNat341,2019TMOB118,
,

(T.M.Registrar;2019-10-31).
53.Morinv.Boizette(AsahiPhoto),2019QCCQ3800,
(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-06-25).
54.N.G.v.Québec(Travail,EmploietSolidaritésociale*),2019CanLII55514,2019
LNQCTAQ1815,
(QCTAQ;2019-06-10).
55.O’Harav.Picard,2019QCCQ3302,
(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-04-10).
56.PabloEnterprisepte.Ltd.v.Tang*,2019CarswellNat3229,[2019]T.M.O.B.
5054,2019TMOB54,
,

(T.M.Opp.Bd.;2019-06-13).
57.Palettav.TheQueen*,2019CarswellNat5136,2019TCC205,[2019]T.C.J.
171,
(TaxCt.;2019-10-01);appealA-418-19.
58.PIPEDAReportofFindingsNo.2019-001*,2019CarswellNat5550,[2019]
C.P.C.S.F.1,2019CanLII35618(subnomineInvestigationintoEquifaxInc.and
EquifaxCanadaCo.’scompliancewithPIPEDAinlightofthe2017breachof
personalinformation),
(Can.P.C.C.;2019-04-09).
59.Pointe-à-Callière,citéd’archéologieetd’histoiredeMontréal,Re,2019
CarswellNat589,1(Cop.Bd.;
2019-08-23)subnomineAubut-Robitaille,Re.
60.PopsocketsLLCv.CaseWorldEnterprisesLtd,2019CarswellNat5165,2019
FC1154,311A.C.W.S.(3d)162,[2019]F.C.J.1133,
,
(F.C.;
2019-09-10).

7

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

61.PortraitsRembrandtltéev.Interdonato(Ikono),2019QCCQ5878,
(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-07-26).
62.Pourshianv.WaltDisneyCompany,2019CarswellOnt16536,2019ONSC5916,
311A.C.W.S.(3d)160,[2019]O.J.5242,
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2019-10-15).
63.ProlinePipeEquipmentIncv.ProvincialRentalsLtd,169C.P.R.(4th)247,[2019]
J.Q.1752,2019CarswellAlta2805,[2019]A.B.Q.B.983,[2020]A.W.L.D.376,
[2020]A.W.LD.377,[2020]A.W.L.D.394,313A.C.W.S.(3d)818,

(Alta.Q.B.;2019-12-19).
64.PyrrhaDesignInc.v.PlumandPoseyInc.,162C.P.R.(4th)406,2019
CarswellNat210,2019FC129,EYB2019-306811,303A.C.W.S.(3d)161,
[2019]F.C.J.115
(F.C.;
2019-01-30);appealA-98-19.
65.RallysportDirectLLCv.2424508OntarioLtd,2019FC1524,
,
(F.C.;
2019-11-28).
66.Ranchman’sHoldingIncv.BullBustin’Inc,2019CarswellAlta610,[2019]
A.W.L.D.1686,[2019]A.W.L.D.1687,[2019]A.W.L.D.1688,304A.C.W.S.(3d)
161,84Alta.L.R.(6th)55,2019ABQB220,[2019]A.J.393,

(Alta.Q.B.;2019-03-28).
67.ReprographicReproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsrepertoire(Re),2019
CarswellNat9042,[2019]C.B.D.3,(Cop.Bd.;2019-12-06).
68.RetransmissionofDistantTelevisionSignals,Re[InterimTariffforthe
RetransmissionofDistantTelevisionSignals(2019-2023)],2019CarswellNat
499,[2019]C.B.D.1,(Cop.Bd.;2019-02-22).
69.RetransmissionofDistantTelevisionSignals,Re,2019CarswellNat4088,[2019]
C.B.D.2,
(Cop.Bd.;2019-08-02).
70.RetransmissionofDistantTelevisionSignals,Re,2019CarswellNat499,[2019]
C.B.D.1,
(Cop.Bd.;2019-02-08).
71.Robillardv.91439Canadaltée(ÉditionsdeMortagne),2019CarswellQue7544,
EYB2019-315471,2019QCCS3529,[2019]J.Q.7194,310A.C.W.S.(3d)170,

(Que.Sup.Ct.;2019-08-19)(Que.Sup.Ct.;2019-08-19);leavetoappeal500-
09-028561-199granted2019CarswellQue11411,EYB2019-3349692019
QCCA2167,

8

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

(Que.C.A.;2019-12-09).
72.RowanWilliamsDavies&IrwinInc.v.ProWiseEngineeringInc.,2019
CarswellNat4914,168C.P.R.(4th)95,310A.C.W.S.(3d)606,2019FC1199,
[2019]F.C.J.1086,
,
(F.C.;
2019-09-23);appealA-404-19dismissedonconsent(F.C.A.;2020-01-10).
73.Samsonv.DeputyHead(DepartmentofJustice)*,2019CarswellNat2214,140
C.L.A.S.141,2019FPSLREB40,[2019]FPSLREB34,

(Fed.Pub.SectLabRel.Emp.Bd.;2019-04-19);appealA-147-19.
74.SandhuSinghHamdardTrustv.NavsunHoldingsLtd,2019CarswellNat7175,
2019FCA295,[2019]F.C.J.1400,313A.C.W.S.(3d)605,
,

(F.C.A.;2019-12-02)[varying160C.P.R.(4th)282(F.C.;2018-10-19);thename
ofPlaintiffshouldbeSadhuSinghHamdardTrust].
75.SOCAN-Re:Sound–PayAudioServicesTariffs,2007-2016,fileCB-CDA2019-
017(Unreported),(Cop.Bd.;2019-04-03).
76.StrassburgerHoldingsLimitedvXCGConsultantsLtd,2019CarswellOnt18751,
2019ONSC6578,[2019]O.J.5763,
(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2019-11-14).
77.Sullivanv.NorthwoodMediaInc.,2019CarswellOnt7681,2019ONSC9,[2019]
O.J.3833,308A.C.W.S.(3d)271,
(Ont.
Sup.Ct.;2019-07-18).
78.Syndicatdecopropriétédu5366,10eavenuev.DéveloppementP10inc.*,2019
CanLII96091,
(Que.O.A.G.B.R.N.;2019-09-24).
79.Thomsonv.AfterlifeNetworkInc,2019CarswellNat1479,[2019]F.C.J.483,305
A.C.W.S.(3d)252,2019FC545,2019FC545,[2019]F.C.J.483,
(F.C.;
2019-05-01).
80.Tremblayv.Brisson*,FileD-2018-01-001,
(Que.Conseilde
presse;2019-02-01).
81.Tremblayv.Fondsd’assuranceresponsabilitéprofessionnelleduBarreaudu
Québec*,2019CarswellQue11270,[2019]J.Q.10773,2019QCCS5267,

(Que.Sup.Ct.;2019-09-06).
82.Unidiscmusiqueincv.AgencedurevenuduQuébec,2019CarswellQue2647,
EYB2019-310426,2019QCCQ1818,[2019]J.Q.3095,

9

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

(Que.Ct.;2019-04-02);appeal500-09-028299-196.
83.UniversityofWesternOntario(Re)*,[2019]O.I.P.C.271,2019CanLII120754,
(Ont.I.P.C.;2019-12-10).
84.Vandergoot(Re),2019CarswellSask182,2019CanLII29087,
(Sask.I.P.C.;2019-04-05).
85.VoltagePictures,LLCv.Salna,2019CarswellNat4147,2019FC1047,[2019]
F.C.J.964,309A.C.W.S.(3d)268,,
(F.C.;
2019-08-06);appealA-291-19discontinuedon2019-11-15.
86.VoltagePictures,LLCv.Salna,2019FC1412,(F.C.;2019-11-12);appealA-439-19.
87.Wiltonv.Myhr*,2019CarswellOnt2748,2019ONSC77,[2019]O.J.980,CFLG
27520,306A.C.W.S.(3d)132,23R.F.L.(8th)383,

(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2019-02-26).
88.Youngv.AlbertaAssessors’AssociationPracticeReviewCommittee,2019
CarswellAlta2006,2019ABQB740,[2019]A.W.L.D.3691,[2019]A.W.L.D.
3756,310A.C.W.S.(3d)451,

(Alta.Q.B.;2019-09-24).
89.Youngv.Thakur,2019CarswellNat2971,2019FC835,307A.C.W.S.(3d)169,
[2019]F.C.J.739,,
(F.C.;
2019-06-20).

These89casesaredividedasfollows:Alberta:5;BritishColumbia:2;Manitoba:1;
Ontario:11(including1fromtheSupremeCourtand2fromadministrativeboards);
Quebec:28(including7fromSmallClaimsand6fromadministrativeboards);
Saskatchewan:1;FederalCourtsofCanada:19(including1fromtheSupremeCourt,
2fromtheFederalCourtofAppealand16fromtheFederalCourt);SupremeCourtof
Canada:2(alreadyincludedintheOntarioandFederalCourtscount)1;Copyright

1ExcludingrefusedmotionsforleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanada[P.S.KnightCo.v.
CanadianStandardsAssociation,[2019]S.C.C.A.37,2019CanLII45263,2019CarswellNat2072
(S.C.C.;2019-02-05);Stoyanovav.LitwinBoyadjianinc.,initscapacityastrusteeinbankruptcyofLes
DisquesMileEndinc.,2019CanLII32859,2019CarswellQue2648(S.C.C.;2019-04-18);Geophysical
ServiceIncorporatedv.MurphyOilCompanyLtdandGeophysicalServiceIncorporatedv.Encana
Corporation.,2019CanLII45275,2019CarswellAlta1008,[2019]S.C.C.A.32(S.C.C.;2019-05-23),
whichwerealldenied].NotealsoRochonv.Télé-Université,2019QCCA1956,
(Que.C.A.;2019-10-

10

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Board:13(including6unlocatablecopyrightowners);TaxCourtofCanada:1;
TrademarksandOppositionBoard:4;FederalPublicSectorLabourRelationsBoard:
2;ImmigrationBoard:1;PrivacyCommissioner:1.The*denotesanon-copyright
case.

Now,asectionbysectionanalysisofthose2019Canadiancopyrightcases.

Section2–Definitionof“artisticwork”─Jewellerycouldbeanartistic
work.
PyrrhaDesignInc.v.PlumandPoseyInc.,2019CarswellNat210(F.C.;2019-01-30)
PhelanJ.[appealA-98-19].
[84]ThePyrrhaDesignsareartisticworksandaresimilarto
engravingswhich,likeetchings,lithographs,woodcutsandprints,are
reproductionsofpreviouslycreatedimagesyetinadifferentmedium.
ThePyrrhaDesignsaretosomeextentalsolikeasculpturewhich
usesacastormodel.

[85]WhilethereislimitedauthorityinCanadaontheissueofwhether
jewelleryisan“artistic”work,Canadiancourtshavegenerallybroadly
interpretedthetypesof“works”protectableundertheAct,including
“artisticworks”(seeDRGIncvDatafileLtd(1987),18CPR(3d)538
at546,[1988]2FC243,(FCTD),aff’d(1991),25ACWS(3d)711
(FCA)[DRG].)

[86]TheDefendantshavenotchallengedthePlaintiffonthispointof
waxsealjewelleryasanartisticwork.

Section2–Definitionof“artisticwork”─Drawingmadeforafabricisan
artisticwork.
Carpentierv.FabricvilleCo.inc.,2019CarswellQue2867(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;
2019-02-08)NoletJ.
[38]Lorsdesontémoignage,madameCarpentierabienexposéles
diversesétapesrequisesàlacréationdudessinJYLG.L’ensemble
decesdémarchesétablitquecedessinpossèdeuneoriginalité
quiluiestpropreetquidécouledirectementdutalentetdu
jugementartistiquedelademanderesse.Ilyadonclieude
conclurequeledessinJYLGconstitueuneœuvreartistique.

Section2–Definitionof“artisticwork”─Drawingmadewithcomputer
couldbeartisticwork.
MadailMonzonv.AptitudeXinc.,2019QCCQ871(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-
02-20)ZoarJ.

25)[affirming2017QCCS5202(Que.Sup.;2017-11-15),whichwasaffirming2016CarswellQue8003,
2016QCTAT4389(Que.Trib.Adm.;2016-07-21)].

11

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[22]Enl’espèce,l’examendurecoursdesdemandeurss’effectueau
regarddelaLoisurledroitd’auteur[Fn7L.R.C.1985,c.C-42.]
(«LDA»)puisquelesdessinsparordinateur[dessinfiguratif
numérique(artconceptuel)]réalisésparMM.MonzonetTruong
constituentdesœuvresartistiques[Fn8LDA,art.2et41.24.],soit
unedesquatrecatégoriesd’œuvreprotégée[sic]ausensdecetteloi.

Section2–Definitionof“artisticwork”─Aphotographisanartisticwork.
O’Harav.Picard,2019QCCQ3302(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-04-10)ParadisJ.
[25]Ilconvientderappelerqu’unephotographieconstitueune
œuvreartistiqueausensdel’article2delaLoietqu’elleestainsi
protégéeparledroitd’auteurprévuàcettemêmeLoi.

Section2–Definitionof“artisticwork”─Copyrightindrawingsdoesnot
extendtotheresultingmachines─Industrialmachinesarenotartistic
works.
ProlinePipeEquipmentIncv.ProvincialRentalsLtd,169C.P.R.(4th)247(Alta.Q.B.;
2019-12-19)AckerlJ.
[16]IdonotacceptthatcopyrightintheProlinedrawings
extendstothepipebendingmachinesthemselves.Thedefinition
of“artisticworks”insection2oftheCopyrightAct”includes“paintings,
drawings,maps,charts,plans,photographs,engravings,sculptures,
worksofartisticcraftsmanship,architecturalworks,andcompilations
ofartisticworks.”Industrialmachinesarenotincludedinthis
definition.

Section2–Definitionof“artisticwork”─Paintingsareartisticworks.
Farsiv.Georges,2019QCCQ2721(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-05-07)Croteau
J.
[12]LaLoisurledroitd’auteur[Fn6L.R.C.,1985,c.C-42.](Loi)établit
lesprincipesgénérauxquidoiventguiderleTribunaldanslecadrede
l’analysed’unrecoursbasésurlaviolationdesdroitsd’auteuretdes
droitsmoraux:
Lespeintures,dessins,sculptures,œuvres
architecturales,gravuresouphotographiessont
considéréscommedes«œuvresartistiques»ausensde
laLoi[Fn7Article2delaLoi.].[…]

Section2─Definitionof“Board”─Boarddoesnotprovidelegaladvice.
Lawrence,Re,2019CarswellNat5890(Cop.Bd.;2019-09-16),theBoard.
[5]However,astheBoardcannotprovidelegaladvicetothe
public,weencourageyoutoobtainlegaladvicefromalawyer
specializedinthefield.

12

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section2─Definitionof“broadcaster”─Aphysicalpersoncannotbea
broadcaster.
Dhillonv.Bernier,2019CarswellNat1518(F.C.;2019-05-03)LafrenièreJ.[motionto
extendthetimetoappealrefused19-A-34(F.C.A.;2019-07-23);actiondismissedon
proceduralgrounds2019CarswellNat4913(F.C.;2019-09-20);appealA-403-19].
[38]ThePlaintiffssubmitthatMr.Dhillon,byelectronicallysharingthe
TimesofCanadaarticlewhichmentionsthewords“People’sPartyof
Canada”,actedasabroadcaster.Onthebasisoftherecordbefore
me,IamnotsatisfiedthatMr.Dhillonisabroadcasterwithinthe
meaningofsection2oftheCopyrightActorthatthework
claimedinthecertificateofregistrationisevenacommunication
signal.TheentirepremiseofthePlaintiffs’claimofcopyrightis
nonsensical.

Section2─Definitionof“collectivesociety”─Itistheresponsibilityofthe
collectivesocietytoseekandobtaintheauthorizationtomanagethe
copyrightsofauthors─Impliedagencycouldbeassumediftheproper
circumstancesareproven.
ReprographicReproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsrepertoire(Re),2019
CarswellNat9042(Cop.Bd.;2019-12-06)),theBoard.
[152][…]Second,thetheoryapproachestheissuefromthe
wrongangle:thereproductionrightaccordedtoauthorsunder
theActisanexclusiveright,anditisthereforetheresponsibility
ofAccesstoseekandobtaintheauthorizationsrequiredto
managereproductionrightsandnottheresponsibilityofthe
rightsholderstoadviseAccesstheydonotwishittomanage
thoserights.

[153]TheforegoingdecisionsoftheBoardservetoillustratehowa
findingofimpliedagencyisrootedveryfirmlyinthefactualcontextin
whichitarises.

[154]Wedonotsay,therefore,thatagencycanneverbeimpliedor
retroactive.Nonetheless,itiswell-establishedthatacollectivesociety
mustestablishthatithasvalidauthorizationsregardingtherights
holdersitisclaimingtorepresent.[Fn59SeeRe:SoundvFitness
IndustryCouncilofCanadaandGoodlifeFitnessCentresInc,2014
FCA48]Inthecircumstancesoftheseproceedings,given
Access’practicesanddistributionmethodology,asdescribed
above,wearenotsatisfiedthatthatarelationshipofimplied
agencyasbetweenAccessanditsnon-affiliateshasbeen
establishedtosupportitsauthorizationtorepresentthenon-
affiliatesforpurposesofthecollectiveadministrationoftheir
works.

13

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section2–Definitionof"collectivework"─Aseparaterightisattachedto
thecollection,independentlyofthevariousrightslikelytobeattachedto
thecontributionsbroughttogetherinthecollection.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.
[211]LeDNCFsequalifiede«recueil»ausensdelaLDA,comme
dictionnaireoucommeœuvreanalogueàuneencyclopédie[Fn192
Définitiond’ENCYCLOPÉDIE:«Ouvrageoùl’onexpose
méthodiquementoualphabétiquementl’ensembledes
connaissancesuniverselles(encyclopédiegénérale)ouspécifiques
d’undomainedusavoir(encyclopédiespécialisée).»:Dictionnaire
Larousse,enligne.],telleuneanthologie[Fn193Définition
d’ANTHOLOGIE:«Recueildemorceauxchoisisd’œuvreslittéraires
oumusicales»,DictionnaireLarousse,enligne;Art.2«recueil»LDA;
NormandTamaro,Loisurledroitd’auteur–Texteannoté,10eéd.,
Scarborough,Carswell,2015p.174etss].Ilregroupeplusieurs
œuvresdistinctes,certainesœuvreslittérairessontrédigéesà
l’interne,maisplusieursautressetrouventpuiséesunpeupartout,
notammentparmilesœuvresdudomainepublic(photographies
anciennes,armoiries,signaturesauthentiquesdesplusimportantes
figuresdenotrehistoire,cartesgéographiques,portraitsdes
pionniers,tableauxhistoriques,notamment.)Ainsi,laloireconnaît
expressémentqu’«undroitdistinctestrattachéaurecueil,
indépendammentdesdifférentsdroitssusceptiblesd’être
rattachésauxapportsréunisdanslerecueil[Fn194Normand
Tamaro,Loisurledroitd’auteur–Texteannoté,10eéd.,
Scarborough,Carswell,2015pp.174].»

[212]GabrielDrouinestl’instigateurdecettenouvelleformede
généalogieen1957;ilendécidelacomposition«surunplantoutà
faitpratiquepourlechercheur[Fn195Rapportd’expertise,Sylvie
Tremblay,26janvier2017,p.56].»Sansêtrenécessairementl’auteur
desœuvresquicomposentletome3,oncomprendqu’ilprendune
partactivedanslaréalisationdesacompilation,queleschoixetles
décisionsdéfinitivesdanslapréparationrelèventdelui.Ilsetrouve
donc,commepersonnephysique,àêtrel’auteurdurecueilque
constitueletome3duDNCF.

Section2–Definitionof“compilation”─Acompilerdoesnothavea
copyrightintheindividualcomponentsofacompilation─Acompilermay
havecopyrightintheformrepresentedbythe“compilation”.
Albov.TheWinnipegFreePress,163C.P.R.(4th)126(Man.Q.B.;2019-02-22)Saull
J.

14

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[63]Counselprovidedmewithnumerousauthoritiesrespecting
principlesofcopyrightlawthatarerelevanttothismatter.Asynthesis
oftheseauthoritiesisprovidedbelow:[…]
g)TheActrecognizesthattherecanbeacopyrightinthe
collectionandorganizationofother’sworks.Inthisregard,s.2
oftheActdefines“compilation”as:
(a)Aworkresultingfromtheselectionorarrangementofliterary,
dramatic,musicalorartisticworksorofpartsthereof;or
(b)Aworkresultingfromtheselectionorarrangementofdata.
h)A“compilation”takesexistingmaterialandcastsitina
differentform.Althoughthearrangerdoesnothavea
copyrightintheindividualcomponents,heorshemayhave
copyrightintheformrepresentedbythe“compilation”
(CCHatpara.33[CCHCanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyofUpper
Canada,2004SCC13]).
j)Incaseswhereaninterviewisthetargetofconcern,itis
theinterviewerwhoreducesaninterviewintoafixed
materialformwhoacquirescopyrightintheinterview,not
thepersonbeinginterviewed.

[69]Asstatedabove,althoughDr.Albomayverywellhavecopyright
inExhibit“7”asa“compilation”,hedoesnothavecopyrightinthe
individualelementsofthe“compilation”.HadthePresssimply
republishedExhibit“7”,Dr.Albowouldhaveaclaimforcopyright
infringementbutthisdidnothappen.

Section2–Definitionof“compilation”─Copyrightinthearrangement
doesnotextendtocopyrightinthepartsconstitutingthecompilation.
Albov.TheWinnipegFreePress,163C.P.R.(4th)126(Man.Q.B.;2019-02-22)Saull
J.
[76]Again,althoughDr.Albomayholdcopyrightinthe
arrangementoftheindividualelementsofExhibits“13”and“14”
as“compilations”,hehasnotsatisfiedmethatheholds
copyrightintheindividualelementscomprisingthesetwo
documents(see:CCHatpara.33[CCHCanadianLtd.v.Law
SocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13])andMaltzatpara.26[Maltz
v.Witterick,2016FC524]).

Section2–Definitionof"compilation"─Selectionorarrangementis
requiredforcopyrighttosubsistinacompilation.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.
[151]LaLDAprécisequelacompilationprotégéeparledroit
d’auteurrésulteduchoixoudel’arrangementdetoutoupartie
d’œuvresoudedonnées[Fn112Art,2,définitionde«compilation»,
LDA.].

15

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section2–Definitionof"compilation"─Talentandjudgmentarestill
requiredforcopyrighttoextendtocompilation.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.
[152]LaCourd’appelfédéraledansl’arrêtTélé-Direct(Publications)
Inc.c.AmericanBusinessInformation,Inc.[Fn11374C.P.R.(3d)72,
p.92(CF),confirmé:1997CanLII6378(CAF)]),citédansCCH[CCH
Canadienneltéec.BarreauduHaut-Canada2004CSC134],jugede
l’originalitérequisedanslecadredelacompilation:
Essentiellement,lacompilation,pourêtreoriginale,doitêtreune
œuvrequesonauteuracrééedefaçonindépendanteetqui,par
leschoixdontellerésulteetparsonarrangement,dénoteun
degréminimaldetalent,dejugementetdetravail.Cen’estpas
unehauteexigence,maisc’enestune.S’ilenétaitautrement,
n’importequeltypedechoixoud’arrangementsuffirait,puisque
cesopérationssupposentuncertaineffortintellectuel.Toutefois,
laLoiestclaire:seuleslesœuvresoriginalessontprotégées.Il
sepeutdoncquecertainescompilationsnesatisfassentpasà
cecritère.[Nossoulignés.]

[153]LaCourd’appelfédéralesoulignequ’«unesommeimportante
detravailalliéeàundegrénégligeabledetalentetdejugementne
suffiraitpaslaplupartdutemps,àconféreruncaractèreoriginalàune
compilation[Fn114Télé-Direct(Publications)Inc.c.American
BusinessInformation,Inc.,74C.P.R.(3d)72,p.92(CF),confirmé:
1997CanLII6378(CAF)].»

[154]Forceestdeconstaterqu’iln’estpasfaciledetracerlaligne
entrel’exercicedesuffisammentdetalentetdejugementpour
justifieruneconclusiond’originalitéetcequiconstitueune
entreprisepurementmécanique[Fn115ÉdutileInc.c.Assoc.pour
laprotectiondesautomobilistes,2000CanLII17129(CAF),par.13;
TorontoRealEstateBoardc.Commissairedelaconcurrence,2017
CAF236(CanLII),par.185et186].En2017,laCourd’appelfédérale
danssonarrêtTorontoRealEstateBoardc.Commissairedela
concurrence[Fn116TorontoRealEstateBoard,id.,par.187à191.]
faitressortirles«repères»delajurisprudencepourdécidersileseuil
del’originalitéestatteint,dontnotamment:
-lorsqu’uneidéenepeutêtreexpriméequed’unnombre
restreintdefaçons,sonexpressionn’estdoncpas
protégée,caronn’apassatisfaitaucritèredel’originalité
[Fn117RedLabelVacationsinc.c.411TravelBuys
Limited,2015CF18(CanLII),par.98;DelrinaCorp.(cob
CarolianSystems)c.TrioletSystemsInc.,2002CanLII11389

16

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

(ONCA),par.48–52,autorisationdepourvoiàlaC.S.C.
refusée,29190(28novembre2002)).];
-lesnormesdudomainepeuventêtrepertinentesdans
l’analyseservantàdécidersiuneœuvreestoriginaleest
légitimeetdemeure[Fn118Télé-Direct(Publications)Inc.c.
AmericanBusinessInformation,Inc.,74C.P.R.(3d)72,p.92
(CF),confirmé:1997CanLII6378(CAF)par.6-7;Harmony
ConsultingLtd.c.G.A.FossTransportLtd.,2011CF340
(CanLII),par.34,39,65,77,182–188,conf.2012CAF226
(CanLII),par.37–38,(HarmonyCAF);GeophysicalServiceInc.
v.EncanaCorp.,2016ABQB230(CanLII),par.105,38Alta.
L.R.(6th)48(Geophysical)];
-iln’yapasdedroitàlaprotectiondudroitd’auteurlorsque
lechoixoul’arrangementestdictépardespratiques
acceptéesetcourantesdudomaine[Fn119Geophysical
ServiceInc.v.EncanaCorp.,2016ABQB230,par.100–101.]:
-lorsquelecontenuetlaprésentationd’uneformulesont
largementtributairesdesonutilitéet/oudesexigencesde
laloi,ellenepeutêtreconsidéréecommeuneœuvre
originale.Lecaséchéant,seull’aspectvisueldelacompilation
estsusceptibled’êtreprotégéparledroitd’auteurs’ilestoriginal
[Fn120DistrimedicInc.c.DispillInc.,2013CF1043(CanLII),
par.324et325].

Section2–Definitionof"compilation"─Talentandjudgmentarestill
requiredforcopyrighttoextendtocompilation─Theanalysisshall
considerthetypeofwork.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.
[155]C’estàlalumièredel’ensembledecescritèresliésà
l’exercicedutalentetdujugementquelecaractèreoriginald’une
œuvres’apprécieenprenantenconsidérationletyped’œuvreet
leprocessusayantconduitàsacréation.

[162]Endroit,l’originalitéd’unecompilationestévaluéeen
fonctionduchoixoudel’arrangement[Fn126Art,2,définitionde
«compilation»,LDA.],etavecégards,leTribunalconstatequela
préparationetprésentationd’unefichenerésulte[sic]nidel’un,nide
l’autre.

Section2–Definitionof"compilation"─Meremechanicaltranscription
doesnotamounttoanexerciceoftalentandjudgment.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.[Referencestoevidenceomitted.]

17

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[166]Ensomme,lafichecorrespondàuneversionabrégéedel’acte
demariage,unecopiedecertainesinformationsprédéterminées,
dictéesparlesbesoinsdelagénéalogie.

[167]Ainsi,lesemployésdel’IGDn’exercentaucunediscrétionsurles
donnéesàcolliger;illeurfautsystématiquementretranscrirelesnoms
desconjoints,lesnomsdesparents,lelieuetladatedumariage.Il
n’estpascontestéque«c’esttoujourslemêmeprincipe»,soit«la
mêmeméthodedetravaild’extractiond’informations».Avecégards,
leTribunalestd’opinionqueletravailintellectuelrequispeutêtre
aisémentassimiléàuneentreprisepurementmécaniquevisantà
repérerlesinformationsrequisesdansl’actedemariageetàles
retranscriresurunefiche,sansplusdediscernement.

[168]Certes,pourcertainsactesanciens(seulement),letalentdu
généalogisteetsesconnaissancesenpaléographies’avèrent
nécessairesafindelirel’écritureancienneetlesabréviationsutilisées
danslebutd’extrairelesinformationsrequises.Cependant,celane
répondpasdavantageausecondcritère.Danstouslescas,le
Tribunalconstatequelasélectionetl’agencementdesdonnées
sontessentiellementfonctionnelsetqueletravaild’extraction
requisnedemandepasl’exercicedujugementausensdel’arrêt
CCH[CCHCanadienneltéec.BarreauduHaut-Canada2004CSC
134]etdelajurisprudencesubséquente.

[169]Enl’absenced’optionetdechoix,comptetenudes
possibilitésrestreintesdeprésentation,s’agissantd’une
opérationévidentequidemandeunexercicenégligeabledetalent
etdejugement,leTribunalestd’avisqueletravailrequisen
l’espècesedistinguedeceluiquenécessiteunsommaireouun
indexanalytique,œuvresreconnuesparlaCoursuprêmedansl’arrêt
CCH.

Section2–Definitionof"compilation"─Minorcorrectionsdoesnot
amounttotheexerciseofskillandjudgment
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.
[171]Quantauxcorrectionsmanuscritesdanslesvolumesdu
Kardexnoir,leTribunalestimequeletalentetlejugement
susceptiblesd’êtremisàcontributionpourapporterces
modificationsetcesajoutsmineurssonttropbanalspour
justifierlaprotectiondudroitd’auteur[Fn135CCHCanadienne
ltéec.BarreauduHaut-Canada,2004CSC134(par.35].

[172]Enfin,leclassementparordrealphabétiques’avèreêtreune
méthodologieclassique[Fn136DéfinitiondeDICTIONNAIRE:

18

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

«Ouvragedidactiqueconstituéparunensembled’articlesdont
l’entréeconstitueunmot,indépendantslesunsdesautresetrangés
dansunordredéterminé,leplussouventalphabétique.»[Nos
soulignés.],DictionnaireLarousse,enligne.],utiliséeparlespremiers
compilateursdedonnéesprovenantdesregistresdel’étatcivil.En
effet,plusieursregistrescontenaientdéjàdesindexesréalisésparles
prêtresàlafindechaqueannée,pourprésenterenordre
alphabétiquelesbaptêmes,mariagesetsépulturesinscritsdansle
registreaucoursdel’année,aveclenumérodepagecorrespondant,
leurpermettantdes’yretrouver[Fn137Rapportadditionnel
d’expertise,SylvieTremblay,18avril2018,p.2;Témoignagede
SylvieTremblay,6juin2018;DictionnaireManseau,pièceD-30]

Section2–Definitionof"compilation"─Classificationaccordingtothe
normsofanindustrywillnotamounttoskillandjudgmentsufficientto
warrantoriginality.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.[Referencestoevidenceomitted.]
[199]Del’avisduTribunal,lasituationquinousoccupes’associeà
l’affaireTélé-Direct[Télé-Direct(Publications)Inc.c.American
BusinessInformation,Inc.,74C.P.R.(3d)72,p.92(CF),confirmé:
1997CanLII6378(CAF)],soitderenseignementsgénériquesclassés
suivants[sic]desnormescourantesdel’industrie.Eneffet,dansle
domainedelagénéalogie,leclassementdesmicrofilmsparparoisses
etparannéesderegistresn’ariend’exceptionnelets’avèreplutôt
représentatifdusystèmed’enregistrementdesregistresparoissiaux
del’époque,sansplus.Rappelonsqu’uneficheregroupeles
référencesdetouslesregistresd’unemêmeparoisseetl’ensemble
desfichespermetenquelquesortedereconstituercequel’on
retrouvesurleterrain,danslesparoisses.Ya-t-ild’autresoptions?
Lapreuveneleditpas.

[200]Enréalité,riendanslesfaitsnepermetauTribunalde
conclurequelesystèmedefichesd’indexrelèved’uneapproche
originale,d’uneffortintellectuelpouroptimiserl’efficacitédu
classementouestautrementlefruitdel’exercicedutalentetdu
jugementdeGabrielDrouinoudesemployésdel’IGD.Au
contraire,l’organisationdesdonnéesapparaîtévidentepour
répondreauxbesoinsdelagénéalogie.

[201]Ensomme,leTribunaljugequelesétiquettesetlesfiches
d’indexnepossèdentpasledegréd’originalitérequispourbénéficier
delaprotectiondelaLDA.

Section2─Definitionof“communicationsignal”─Atitlesharedelectronically
isnotacommunicationsignal.

19

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Dhillonv.Bernier,2019CarswellNat1518(F.C.;2019-05-03)LafrenièreJ.[motionto
extendthetimetoappealrefused19-A-34(F.C.A.;2019-07-23);actiondismissedon
proceduralgrounds2019FC1194,2019CarswellNat4913(F.C.;2019-09-20);appeal
A-403-19].
[38]ThePlaintiffssubmitthatMr.Dhillon,byelectronicallysharingthe
TimesofCanadaarticlewhichmentionsthewords“People’sPartyof
Canada”,actedasabroadcaster.Onthebasisoftherecordbefore
me,IamnotsatisfiedthatMr.Dhillonisabroadcasterwithinthe
meaningofsection2oftheCopyrightActorthatthework
claimedinthecertificateofregistrationisevenacommunication
signal.TheentirepremiseofthePlaintiffs’claimofcopyrightis
nonsensical.

Section2–Definitionof“copyright”─“copyright”and“droitsd’auteur”
donotintellectuallyconveythesamemeaning.
Robillardv.91439Canadaltée(ÉditionsdeMortagne),2019CarswellQue7544(Que.
Sup.Ct.;2019-08-19)LangloisJ.[leavetoappealgranted2019CarswellQue11411
(Que.C.A.;2019-12-09)].
[71]LaCoursuprêmedéplored’ailleursl’usagedanslaL.D.A.,
àtitred’équivalents,del’expression«droitsd’auteur»dans
saversionfrançaise,laquelleenglobetoutunensemblede
droits,tantéconomiquesetmorauxetdel’expression
«copyright»danssaversionanglaisequiestsurtout
étroitementliéeauxdroitséconomiques[Fn32Thébergec.
Galeried’ArtduPetitChamplaininc,2002CSC34,atpara.62],
cequipeutporteràconfusion.

Section2–Definitionof“engravings”─engravingsareartisticworks.
PyrrhaDesignInc.v.PlumandPoseyInc.,2019CarswellNat210(F.C.;2019-01-30)
PhelanJ.[appealA-98-19].
[84]ThePyrrhaDesignsareartisticworksandaresimilarto
engravingswhich,likeetchings,lithographs,woodcutsand
prints,arereproductionsofpreviouslycreatedimagesyetina
differentmedium.ThePyrrhaDesignsaretosomeextentalso
likeasculpturewhichusesacastormodel.

Section2–Definitionof“engravings”─Copyrightmaysubsistinan
engravingbasedonanotherwork.
PyrrhaDesignInc.v.PlumandPoseyInc.,2019CarswellNat210(F.C.;2019-01-30)
PhelanJ.[appealA-98-19].
[100]AfurtherconsiderationisthattheActdefinesan“artistic
work”toincludeanengraving.AscommenteduponinJohnS
McKeown,FoxonCanadianLawofCopyrightandIndustrialDesigns,
4thed(Toronto:ThomsonReuters,2003)(loose-leafupdated2018),

20

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

ch10at10:11(d)[FoxonCopyright],“[t]hefactthatanengravingis
basedonanotherworkdoesnotprecludecopyrightintheengraving”.

[101]Asstatedearlier,the“artisticworks”inthiscase-thewax
sealjewellerydesigns-aremuchlikeanengraving;thejewellery
isbasedonanotherwork,thewaxsealorwaxsealtool.

Section2–Definitionof“everyoriginal…work”─Copyrightcannotbe
claimedinamethodoranidea.
PyrrhaDesignInc.v.PlumandPoseyInc.,2019CarswellNat210(F.C.;2019-01-30)
PhelanJ.[appealA-98-19].
[94]IhaveconcludedthatthePyrrhaDesignsareafixed
expressionsincethePlaintiffisclaimingcopyrightineachofthe
PyrrhaDesigns,whicharespecificexpressionsofacertainwax
sealimageinmetal,finishedinacertainway.ThePlaintiff’sclaim
intheirFurtherAmendedStatementofClaimthatitdevelopedthe
methodandideaforcreatingwaxsealjewellerycannotbeaccepted.
ThePlaintiffcannotclaimcopyrightinthemethodoflostwax
castingorintheideaofcreatingjewelleryfromcertainwaxseals.
Themethodandideaareinthepublicdomain.

Section2–Definitionof“everyoriginal…work”─Copyrightdoesnot
coverfacts─Skillandjudgmentarerequiredtoattractcopyright
protection.
Albov.TheWinnipegFreePress,163C.P.R.(4th)126(Man.Q.B.;2019-02-22)Saull
J.
[63]Counselprovidedmewithnumerousauthoritiesrespecting
principlesofcopyrightlawthatarerelevanttothismatter.Asynthesis
oftheseauthoritiesisprovidedbelow:[…]
e)Copyrightonlyprotects“original”works.The
copyrightedworkmustinvolveanexerciseofskilland
judgment.
k)Copyrightdoesnotcoverfacts(Hagerv.ECWPressLtd.,
1998CanLII9115(FC),[1999]2F.C.287(“Hager”)andMaltzv.
Witterick,2016FC524(CanLII),[2016]F.C.J.484(“Maltz”)).
l)Theuseofcommonwordsandshortphrases,whichare
generic,doesnotconstitutecopying(Tomasv.Boaden
CateringLtd.,[1995]F.C.J.No.1778).

[84]Moreover,theauthoritiesareclearthatthelevelofskilland
judgmentthatisrequiredtoproduceaworkthatacquires
copyrightprotectionmustnotbesotrivialthatitinvolves“a
purelymechanicalexercise”(see:CCHatpara.16[CCHCanadian
Ltd.v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13]).The

21

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

amortizationofthevalueofthegoldleafinquestionis,inmyview,a
purelymechanicalexercise.

Section2–Definitionof"everyoriginal…work"─Mereannotations
withoutsomesignificantintellectualeffortordiscernmentwillnotbe
sufficienttoattractcopyrightprotection.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.[Referencestoevidenceomitted.]
[192]Forceestdeconstaterquecelaneluidemandaitpasdavantage
d’exercersonjugement.Iln’estpasquestionicidesefaireune
opinionoudeprocéderàuneanalyseencomparantdifférentes
optionspossiblespourproduirelafiche.L’employévoitlesparoisses
concernéessurl’étiquettedelabobine,retranscritlesinformations
danslesfichesdesbonnesparoisses,sanseffortintellectuel
significatifoudiscernement.

[193]Parailleurs,desannotations,desmodificationsetdesphrases
complètesontétéinscritessurcertainesfichesaufildutemps.
Éparses,ils’agitd’informationsrelativesaucontenudumicrofilmou
concernantledépouillementdesdonnéesparlesemployésqui
vraisemblablementn’appellentpasundegrésuffisantdetalentetde
jugement.Cesannotationsnetouchentpasunemajoritédesfiches
produitesetelless’avèrentlargementtributairesdel’utilitédel’index.
Del’avisduTribunal,cesannotationssontaccessoireset
insuffisantesàellesseulespourjustifierlaprotectiondudroit
d’auteursurl’ensembledesfichesd’index[Fn169CCH
Canadienneltéec.BarreauduHaut-Canada2004CSC134par.3].

Section2─Definitionof“everyoriginal…work”─Thethresholdto
constituteoriginalityinaworkislowandcreativityisnotrequired.
Thomsonv.AfterlifeNetworkInc,2019CarswellNat1479(F.C.;2019-05-01)KaneJ.
[34]TheevidenceestablishesthattheApplicantandotherClass
Memberspersonallyauthoredtheobituariesusingtheirownskilland
judgment,choosingtheirownwordstoconveytheappropriate
messageaboutthelifeofthedeceasedpersonandtheirfuneral
arrangementsandaddingaphotographtakenbythemorbyanother
ClassMember.ClassMembersalsoexercisedtheirskillandjudgment
intakingthephotographsofthedeceasedperson.Theobituaries
andphotographsfallwithintheterm“originalwork”asithas
beeninterpretedbytheSupremeCourtofCanada.Asnoted,the
thresholdtoconstituteoriginalityintheworkislowand
creativityisnotrequired.

Section2–Definitionof“everyoriginal…work”─Croppingofa
photographmaybesufficienttoattractcopyrightprotection.

22

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Capitaleenfêteinc.v.Ouellet,2019CarswellQue4570(Que.Ct.;2019-05-01)Boutin
J.
[58]Pourobtenirunephotographiedétourée,ilfaut,outreune
photographied’origine,fairelechoixdulogicielinformatique,utiliser
lesoutilsadéquatsainsiqu’uncertainniveaudeconnaissances,de
talentetdejugement,lesquelss’acquièrentdeparl’expérience.C’est
lemélangedecesélémentsquipermetd’obtenirlerésultatrecherché,
lacréationdesphotographiesdétouréesnedécoulantpasd’une
simpleopérationmécaniquetelquel’indique,ausurplus,l’expert
Vachon[Fn12Àlapage10infinedesonRapport,M.Vachon
mentionnecequisuit:«Ilfautcependantêtreunretoucheurhabile
etd’expériencepourquel’illusionnesoitpasdétectable».].Dit
autrementetempruntantlestermesemployésparl’auteurMeJean
Goulet[Fn13JeanGOULET,Grandanglesurlaphotographieetla
loi,Montréal,WilsonetLafleur,2010,pages86et87.],les
photographiesdétouréesainsiobtenuesont«requisde[leur]
auteurpoursafacturefinalelamaîtrisedesparamètres
techniquesetesthétiquesnécessaires».

Section2–Definitionof“everyoriginal…work”─Copyrightwillsubsist
inaphotographbythechoice,thearrangementandtheposeofthesubject,
thechoiceoftheangleofviewandthelighting,andfinallybytheartistic
workandthepersonaleffortofthephotographer.
PortraitsRembrandtltéev.Interdonato(Ikono),2019QCCQ5878(Que.Ct.–Small
Claims;2019-07-26)ChoquetteJ.
[23]Unephotographieestuneœuvreartistiqueausensde
l’article2delaLoi.

[25]Enmatièredephotographie,enparticulier,onenreconnaît
lecaractèreoriginalnotammentparlechoix,l’aménagementet
laposedusujet,lechoixdel’angledeprisedevueetde
l’éclairage,enfinparletravailartistiqueetl’effortpersonneldu
photographe[Fn12AteliersTangoArgentininc.c.Festival
d’Espagneetd’Amériquelatineinc.,1997CanLII8852(QCCS)].

[26][ThephotographmadebyPlaintiff]Les3potsdesauces
«SaveursduSud»sontplacésdefaçonquasilinéaire,surfondblanc.
Laphotographiemontreenévidencelelogoetlesétiquettesconçus
parledéfendeur.

[27]Del’avisduTribunal,ils’agitdelareproductionpurement
mécanique–lacopied’uneautreœuvre,celledudéfendeur.Ilne
s’agitpasd’uneœuvreartistiqueoriginale.

Section2–Definitionof“everyoriginal…work”─Someintellectualeffort
isrequiredforaworktobeoriginal.

23

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

CorusRadioIncvHarvardBroadcastingInc,2019CarswellAlta2449(AltaQ.B.-Int.
inj.;2019-11-18)DiltsJ.
[30]Foraworktobeentitledtocopyrightprotection,itmustbean
originalartisticwork.Thismeansthattheremustbesome
intellectualeffortappliedtoproducethework:DistrimedicInc.v
DispillInc.,2013FC1043(CanLII)atpara319citingCCHCanadian
Ltd.vLawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13(CanLII)atpara
16.[…]

Section2–Definitionof“everyoriginal…work”─Aworkdoesnothave
tobeoverlycreativetoattractcopyrightprotection
RallysportDirectLLCv.2424508OntarioLtd,2019FC1524(F.C.;2019-11-28)
FuhrerJ.
[48]Basedontheabove,Iconcludethatthephotographsandproduct
descriptionsattractcopyrightprotection;Iamsatisfiedbasedonthe
evidenceprovidedthatRSDemployeesoriginallycreatedthem.
RSD’semployeeswererequiredtoacquire,situate,and
photographindividualautomotivepartsandaccessories-in
someinstancesarrangingtheminto“kits”-andtoselectthe
mostappealingphotos.This,asrecognizedinTrader[Traderv
CarGurus,2017ONSC1841],inherentlyinvolvesthejudgmentand
skilltothelevelrequiredbyCCH[CCHCanadianLtd.vLawSociety
ofUpperCanada,2004SCC13].Similarly,andassurmisedin
Century21[Century21CanadaLimitedPartnershipvRogers
CommunicationsInc.,2011BCSC1196],theimpugnedproduct
descriptionsalsomeetthisthreshold;whiletheproduct
descriptionsarenotoverlycreative,theyarenotrequiredtobe.
Whatisimportantistheyareanexerciseofskillandjudgment
(i.e.notmerelytrivialchangesmadetoanotherwork)andthey
involveintellectualeffort,notthemerecollationofdata:CCH,
aboveatpara16.Thiswasthecasehere;theproductdescriptions
themselvesexplaintheproductsinsuchawayastoincentivize
buyerstopurchasethemoverothers.Whiletheywerecreatedfor
marketingpurposes(orwhattheDefendantswouldcharacterize
as“businessinterests”),thisdoesnotdiminishthecreativity
requiredtoproduce,ortheoriginalityof,theworksthemselves.

Section2–Definitionof“infringing”─Absentdirectevidenceofcopying,
infringementmaybeprovenbyaccessandsimilarity.
PyrrhaDesignInc.v.PlumandPoseyInc.,2019CarswellNat210(F.C.;2019-01-30
PhelanJ.[appealA-98-19].
[120]Subsection27(1)oftheActprovidesthatitisaninfringementfor
anypersontodoanythingthattheownerofthecopyrighthastheright
todo.Oneofthoserightsisthesolerighttoproduceorreproducethe
workoranysubstantialpartthereofinanymaterialform(s3(1)).

24

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Infringementwillalsooccurwherethereisacolourableimitation
ofthework(s2).

[121]Inthiscase,Pyrrhahadtoestablisheitherdirectproofof
copying–ofwhichthereisnoevidence-ortwoelementsof
infringement:
1.Similarity–sufficientsimilaritybetweentheinfringingwork
andthecopyrightworkorofasubstantialpartofthe
copyrightwork;and
2.Access–evidenceofaccesstotheworkoraconnection
betweenthetwoworks,showingthatthecopyrightworkis
thesourcefortheinfringingwork.
(SeePhillipMorrisProductsS.A.vMarlboroCanadaLtd,2010FC
1099(CanLII)atpara315,195ACWS(3d)237,aff’drecopyright
2012FCA201(CanLII)atpara119,leavetoappealtoSCCrefused
[2012]SCCANo413[PhillipMorris].)

[122]AshowingbythePlaintiffofsufficientsimilarityandaccess
totheworkwouldraiseaprimafaciecaseofinfringement.
However,ashowingbytheDefendantsthattheinfringingwork
istheresultofworkfromacommonsourceorthatitisan
independentcreation,meansnoinfringementcouldbefound
(PhillipMorrisatpara320).

[123]AsnotedearlierandconfirmedinDRG[DRGIncvDatafileLtd
(1987),18CPR(3d)538,affd(1991),25ACWS(3d)711(FCA)]at
548,theinfringingworkmustcopyasubstantialpartofthe
copyrightworkandthesimplerthecopyrightedwork,thegreater
theneedtoestablishexactcopyinginordertoestablish
infringement.

Section2–Definitionof“infringing”─Foraworktobeinfringingthe
similaritiesmustrepresentasignificantpartoftheprotectedworkasa
wholeandnotoftheprotectedparts─Infringementisnotamatterof
confusion.
PyrrhaDesignInc.v.PlumandPoseyInc.,2019CarswellNat210(F.C.;2019-01-30
PhelanJ.[appealA-98-19].
[127]DecisionssuchasDelrina[DelrinaCorpvTrioletSystemsInc,
2002CanLII11389(ONCA)]andRains[RainsvMolea,2013ONSC
5016(CanLII)]tookalessholisticapproach.InCinar[Cinar
CorporationvRobinson,2013SCC73atpara36],unlikeinDelrina,
theCourtheldthatatrialjudgeshouldnoteliminatethenon-protected
elementsoftheworksandcomparetheleftoversimilarities.Instead,
acourtshouldmakeaholisticcomparisonanddetermine
whetherthesimilaritiesrepresentasubstantialpartofthe
originalityintheprotectedworkasawhole.

25

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[128]Thisholisticandqualitativeapproachallowsfornon-original
elementstoformpartofthesubstantialpartofanauthor’sskilland
judgmentwherethespecificcombinationoftheseelementshasbeen
copiedbytheallegedinfringer.

[129]Slightdifferencesbetweentheworksdonotnecessarily
preventasuccessfulclaimofsimilaritywheresuchdifferences
arecolourableimitation(Cinaratpara39;Act,s2).

[130]Unliketrademarkconfusioncases,thesubstantial
similarityanalysisisgroundedinwhetherasubstantialpartof
theworkhasbeencopied–notnecessarilywhetheralayperson
couldidentifythesimilarities.Thisisnotasituationofthe“hurried
(orharried)consumer”oftenreferredtointrademarkconfusioncases.

[131]Substantialsimilarityistobeassessedfromthe
perspectiveofsomeonewhocanassessandappreciateallthe
relevantaspectsofthework(Cinaratpara51).Thisisthetaskof
thetrialjudgepossiblyassistedbyexpertevidenceontherelevant
art,butbasedontheevidenceavailabletothejudgeastotherelevant
aspectsofthework.

Section2–Definitionof“infringing”─Assessmentofinfringementisan
holisticqualitativematter.
PyrrhaDesignInc.v.PlumandPoseyInc.,2019CarswellNat210(F.C.;2019-01-30)
PhelanJ.[appealA-98-19].
[146]Incompletingthisassessment,Iadoptedtheholisticqualitative
approachstipulatedinCinar[CinarCorporationvRobinson,2013
SCC73].Iconsideredallofthesimilaritiesandthendetermined
whetherthosesimilaritiesrepresentedasubstantialportionof
theauthor’sskillandjudgment.Inthissecondstep,thesimilarities
intheimagerydidnotformasubstantialpartoftheauthor’sskilland
judgmentastheimageryisinthepublicdomain(seealsothe
discussionoftheselectionofimageryinparagraph109).Theimagery
isonlyconsideredinassessingwhethertheoverallexpressionofthe
waxsealimagerywiththebordersandfinishingaresubstantially
similar.

Section2–Definitionof“infringing”─Similaritiesbetweenworkscouldbe
explainedfromthesourcesused.
PyrrhaDesignInc.v.PlumandPoseyInc.,2019CarswellNat210(F.C.;2019-01-30)
PhelanJ.[appealA-98-19].
[147]Further,IhavenotfoundPlumandPosey’sDesignstobea
“colourableimitation”ofthePyrrhaDesigns.Thedifferencesdonot
appeartobeaddedsuperficiallyorinawaythatsuggestsHardywas

26

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

camouflagingherallegedimitation.Thedifferencesaremore
plausiblytheresultofusingsimilar(butnotidentical)imagery
fromseparatesources(eachparty’sowncollection)but
choosingtomodifyandfinishthejewelleryinaslightlydifferent
way.

Section2–Definitionof“infringing”─Accessdoesnotonitsown
establishinfringement.
PyrrhaDesignInc.v.PlumandPoseyInc.,2019CarswellNat210(F.C.;2019-01-30)
PhelanJ.[appealA-98-19].
[153]However,accessdoesnotonitsownestablish
infringement.ThereisnodoubtthatPyrrhashowedPlumandPosey
andpotentiallyotherswhatcanbedonewithwaxseals.Infact,Pyrrha
maywellhaveinspiredHardytomoveinthedirectionofwaxseal
jewellerybutPyrrhadoesnothavecopyrightineithertheideaof
waxsealjewelleryorintheprocessusedtocreatesuchjewellery
–onlyintheexpressionfoundineachpiece.

[154]Thereisinsufficientevidencetoconvincemethatthechanges
inthePlumandPoseywebsitein2015andthecataloguein2017
constitutecopyingasallegedbythePlaintiff.Withoutevidencetothe
contrary,theuseofawhitebackgroundtodisplayjewelleryappears
tobeacommonmodernwaytodisplayonwebsites.Theuseof
picturesofwomenoutdoorsinacataloguesellingjewelleryprimarily
towomeniscommonandcannotbeprotected.Moreover,themodels
aredisplayed,posedanddresseddifferently.

Section2–Definitionof“infringing”─Worksdealingwiththesamesubject
mattercouldbesimilarinsubstance.
Tremblayv.Brisson*,FileD-2018-01-001,
(Que.Conseildepresse;
2019-02-01)
Bienqueleplaignantestimequelajournalistearepris«presquemot
pourmot»lanouvelleduJournalSaint-François,leConseiln’apas
constatédeplagiat.Surlefond,lesdeuxarticlesseressemblent,
puisqu’ilstraitentdumêmesujet,maispassurlaforme,Jessica
Brissonn’ayantcopiéaucunpassagedutexteduJournalSaint-
François,observeleConseil.

DansledossierD2017-09-108,leConseilarejetéungriefpourplagiat
enexpliquantquelefaitpourunjournalistedelire,desedocumenter
oudes’inspirerd’uneinformationdéjàrenduepubliquen’estpas
synonymedeplagiat.Encomparantlesextraitsencauseauxarticles
delaplaignante,leConseilavaitconstatéque«l’information
présentéepouvaitparfoisêtresimilaire,maisquelespassages
n’étaientpasécritsdelamêmefaçonetn’étaientpasnonplus

27

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

paraphrasés».Ilavaitaussiconstatéque«plusieursdesextraits
visésparlaplaintefaisaientétatdejugements[qui]étaientpublicsau
momentdeladiffusiondesreportages».

Defaçonsimilaire,danslecasprésent,leConseilrelèvequel’article
encausenecontientpasd’informationqueseulunjournalisteprésent
àl’audienceauraitpuobteniretquelesfaitsrapportésdansletexte
deJessicaBrissonsontdenaturepublique.

Section2–Definitionof“infringing”─Useofcommonsourcesmaylead
tothecreationofanoriginalwork.
Albov.TheWinnipegFreePress,163C.P.R.(4th)126(Man.Q.B.;2019-02-22)Saull
J.
[63]Counselprovidedmewithnumerousauthoritiesrespecting
principlesofcopyrightlawthatarerelevanttothismatter.Asynthesis
oftheseauthoritiesisprovidedbelow:[…]
d)Apersonisfreetousecommonsourcematerialand
ideastomakehisorherownwork,whichmaybesimilarto
another(see:Moreauv.St.Vincent,1950CanLII248(FC),
[1950]12C.P.R.32).

Section2–Definitionof“infringing”─Non-literalcopyingresultsfromthe
substantialtakingoftheexpressiveelementsofthecopyrightedwork.
Albov.TheWinnipegFreePress,163C.P.R.(4th)126(Man.Q.B.;2019-02-22)Saull
J.
[63]Counselprovidedmewithnumerousauthoritiesrespecting
principlesofcopyrightlawthatarerelevanttothismatter.Asynthesis
oftheseauthoritiesisprovidedbelow:[…]
t)Establishinganon-literalcopyrightinfringementrequiresmuch
morethanestablishingthecopyingofan“idea”.Tofindnon-
literalcopying,theCourtmustbesatisfiedthattherehas
beensubstantialtakingoftheexpressiveelement(s)ofthe
copyrightedwork(CinarCorporationv.Robinson2013SCC
73(CanLII)andMaltzatparas.28,30and32[Maltzv.Witterick,
2016FC524]).

Section2–Definitionof“infringing”─Absentthesharingofanyfeatures,
therewillbenoinfringement.
Albov.TheWinnipegFreePress,163C.P.R.(4th)126(Man.Q.B.;2019-02-22)Saull
J.
[97]ItisclearthattheWorksincomparisondonotshareany
featuresorcombinationoffeaturestosupportaconclusionthat
theBookisevenanon-literalcopyofanymaterialinwhichDr.
Albocanclaimcopyright.ThatwhichDr.Albodescribedashis
originalconceptisfarfromthe“narrativearc”providedbyTurner.

28

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section2–Definitionof“infringing”─Thecopyingmustberelatedtoa
substantialpartofplaintiff’sworkandnotofdefendant’swork─
Differencesinthetypeofworksdonotpreventafindingofinfringement.
Sullivanv.NorthwoodMediaInc.,2019CarswellOnt7681(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2019-07-18)
Short,Master.
[43]Thus,itwouldseemthatthequestionofwhethertherehasbeen
substantialcopyingfocusesonwhetherthecopiedfeatures
constituteasubstantialpartofPlaintiff’sworkandnotwhether
theyamounttoasubstantialpartofDefendant’swork.

[44]Thealterationofcopiedfeaturesortheirintegrationintoa
work,thatisnotablydifferentfromPlaintiff’sworkdoesnot
necessarilyprecludeaclaimthatasubstantialpartofaworkhas
beencopied.AstheCopyrightActstates,infringementincludes
“anycolourableimitation”ofawork.

Section2–Definitionof“infringing”─Proofofsimilarityandcopyingis
requiredforafindingofinfringement.
Ranchman’sHoldingIncv.BullBustin’Inc,2019CarswellAlta610(Alta.Q.B.;2019-
03-28)EamonJ.
[158]Theessentialelementsfortheclaimofinfringementare
proofofsubstantialsimilarityandcopying(HuttonvCanadian
BroadcastingCorporation,1992ABCA39(CanLII)atparas4-5).

[165]IdonotdiscernanyseriousissuethattheSnyderstookthe
Plaintiffs’workorasubstantialportionthereof.Someoftheideasin
thebrochuresarethesame,butthepresentationsaresubstantially
different.Lookandfeelisarelevantconsideration,buthaving
reviewedcolourcopiesofthebrochurestogether,Iconcludedthereis
notaseriousissuethatthesebrochuresmeetthetestfor
infringement.

Section2–Definitionof“infringing”─“Thesimilaritythatresultsfrom
« adoption »needstobedistinguishedfrom »plagiarism »throughthe
applicationofarigorouslegaltest”.
Bockarova,Re*,2019CarswellOnt14100(TorontoLocalAppealBody;2019-08-30)
Gopikrishna,Chair[affd2019CarswellOnt19612(TorontoLocalAppealBody;2019-
10-28)].
[Adoptingashersthereportofanotherplannerforasimilarlotdoesnotdiscreditthe
reportoftheplanner,especiallyitresultsfromtheuseofacommontemplate.]
[116]WhenaWitnessStatementis »adopted »,oneshouldnotbe
surprisediftheoriginal,andadoptedstatementscorresponda100%
toeachother,because »adopting »meansagreeingwiththeprevious
planner’sanalysis,andconclusions,andinteralia,possibleuseofthe
samesentencesandwords.Toreiterate,thesimilaritybetweenthe
concepts,andwords,ifnotfulsomeparagraphs,betweenthe

29

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Staffreportsfor14Grantbrook,and116Bogert,maybe
explainedbythefactthattheywerewrittenbythesameplanner,
andthatthesecondplanner,agreedwiththefindingsofthefirst
planner,and »adopted »theformersstatement.

[117]Thesimilaritythatresultsfrom »adoption »needstobe
distinguishedfrom »plagiarism »throughtheapplicationofa
rigorouslegaltest.SincetheTLABdoesnothavethejurisdiction,
northeexpertise,todeterminethetestforplagiarism,IaskedMs.
Stewarttoassistwithjurisprudenceonthismatter,andwasadvised
thatnoneexisted, »probablybecausenobodyhasplagiarizedbefore ».
Iamhighlyskepticalofthisanswer,sinceitisnotbackedupby
research,nottomentiontheunderlyingcircularlogic(i.e.noinstances
ofpriorplagiarismtranslatesintonopre-existingjurisprudence,while
thefactthatnojurisprudenceisavailableisinterpretedtomeanthat
therearenopreviouscasesofplagiarism).Itmaybenotedthatthe
guidelinesfromOxfordUniversity,aremereguidelines,anddonot
risetothelevelofjurisprudenceonplagiarism.

[118]Thelackofjurisprudenceondeterminationofplagiarism,means
thatthereisnomethodologytodistinguishMs.Choi’sWitness
Statementasplagiarism,whichisdistinctfromadoption.

[119]Ifindthatthechargesofsocalledplagiarismmakeamountain
ofamolehill,whennotexemplifyingwhatShakespearereferredtoas
« muchadoaboutnothing ».Noweightisassignedtotheallegationsof
plagiarism.

Section2–Definitionof“infringing”─Strikingsimilaritiesisa
circumstancetoconsiderinestablishinginfringement.
PopsocketsLLCv.CaseWorldEnterprisesLtd,2019CarswellNat5165(F.C.;2019-
09-10)SouthcottJ.
[38]ThePlaintiffrecognizesthatthereareminordifferencesbetween
itscopyrightedworksandthedrawingsontheDefendant’spackaging,
principallyintheuseorabsenceofcolour.Copyrightinfringement
canbeestablishedinthecaseofreproductionofallorany
substantialpartofacopyrightedwork,orinacircumstance
wherethereproductionisstrikinglysimilartothecopyrighted
work(see,e.g.,StorkMarketIncv.1736735OntarioInc.(HelloPink
LawnCardsInc),2017FC779atpara78).Aftercomparingthe
drawingsontheDefendant’spackagingwiththecopyrightedworks,
includingtakingintoaccountthedifferences,Ifindthatthedrawings
arestrikinglysimilartothePlaintiff’sworkswithCanadianregistration
numbers1147462,1147465,1147466and1147467andtherefore
representinfringementofthePlaintiff’srights,contrarytounder
section27oftheCopyrightAct.

30

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section2–Definitionof“infringing”─Similarities,identicalwording,
typographicalerrorsandmistakescouldhelptoproveinfringement.
Youngv.AlbertaAssessors’AssociationPracticeReviewCommittee*,2019
CarswellAlta2006(Alta.Q.B.;2019-09-24)ShelleyJ.
[66]IdonotaccepttheApplicants’submissionthattheycould
notanswerthecomplaintsbecausetheterms »copying/and/or
plagiarism »are »toovague »anditwasthereforeimpossiblefor
themtoknowwhatwasacceptableandwhatwasnot.Theseare
commontermswhicharegenerallyunderstoodbypost-
secondarystudents.Mostimportantly,aswaspointedoutbythe
Respondents,theBUSI499WorkbookandtheDeclarationsignedby
theApplicantsmadeitveryclearthatthiswasnotpermittedandcould
resultinsanctionsfromthestudents’professionalassociation.It
seemsself-evidentthatthistypeofbehaviourwouldbeprohibited,not
onlybytheAssociation,butbythevastmajorityofself-regulating
professionaloroccupationalgroups.

[70]Rather,theinvestigativeteam,initsmanualreview,andthe
Committeesintheirconsiderationoftheallegationsofmisconduct,
focusedtheirattentiononthoseaspectsoftheReportswhere
individualwordingwouldbeexpectedandsimilaroridenticalwording
couldnotreasonablybeaccountedforonthebasisofreferencesto
commonsourcematerials,suchasstandarddefinitions,textbook
formulas,etc.Theyrightlyconcludedthattheidenticalorhighlysimilar
wordingcontainedinthosesectionsoftheReportswhereanalysis
andapplicationofconceptswererequired,coupledwithcommon
typographicalerrorsandcommonmistakes,couldonlybereasonably
accountedforbycopyingorplagiarism.Givenwherethesimilarities
andidenticalwordingwerecontained,andgiventhatthe
typographicalerrorsandobviousmistakeswouldbeunlikelyto
befoundinatextbookorotherstudentresource,the
overwhelminginferenceisthatplagiarism/copyinghadoccurred
inrelationtotheReportsofMs.YoungandMs.Skolney.

Section2–Definitionof“infringing”─Substantialsimilarityandcopying
arerequirementsforinfringement.
CorusRadioIncvHarvardBroadcastingInc,2019CarswellAlta2449(AltaQ.B.-Int.
inj.;2019-11-18)DiltsJ.
[30][…]Inaclaimofcopyrightinfringement,theplaintiffmust
provesubstantialsimilarityandcopying:Ranchman’sHoldingInc
vBullBustin’Inc,2019ABQB220(CanLII)atpara158citingHutton
vCanadianBroadcastingCorporation,1992ABCA39(CanLII).

Section2–Definitionof“infringing”─Savingtimeandeffortisafactorto
considerindetermininginfringement.

31

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

CorusRadioIncv.HarvardBroadcastingInc,2019CarswellAlta2449(AltaQ.B.-Int.
inj.;2019-11-18)DiltsJ.
[42]Onefactorthatmayberegardedindeterminingwhethera
particularworkissubstantiallysimilartoanotherworkis
whethertherespondentintentionallyappropriatedthe
applicant’sworktosavetimeandeffortandwhethertheworkis
usedinthesameorsimilarfashionastheapplicant’swork:
WarmanvFournier,2012FC803(CanLII)atpara23citingU&RTax
ServicesLtdvH&RBlockCanadaInc,[1995]FCJNo962.Mr.Hall
testifiedthathelookedatthePOWER92Logoaswellasotherdesign
markedlogosintheradiospacewhenHarvardplanneditsrebrandof
the107.1station.Inaddition,Mr.Hall’sevidencewasthatHarvard
sawvalueinusinganamealreadyassociatedwithapopmusic
station.Theexistenceofthisevidencesupportsmyconclusionthat
thereisaseriousissuetobetriedwithrespecttoCorus’copyright
claim.

Section2–Definitionof“infringing”─Copyrightandtrademark
infringementarenotthesame.
SandhuSinghHamdardTrustv.NavsunHoldingsLtd,2019CarswellNat7175
(F.C.A.;2019-12-02)LaskinJ.[varying160C.P.R.(4th)282(F.C.;2018-10-19)].
[29]TheFederalCourtalsoerred,inmyview,inrelyinginparton
whetherNavsun’smodifiedmarkwassufficientlydifferenttoavoid
liabilityforinfringementofcopyright.Thecriteriaforcopyright
infringementandtrademarkinfringementarenotthesame.…[…]

Section2–Definitionof“infringing”─Torebuttheinferenceof
infringementflowingfromsubstantialsimilarity,evidenceofindependent
creationmustbeadduced.
PabloEnterprisepte.Ltd.v.Tang*,2019CarswellNat3229(T.M.Opp.Bd.;2019-06-
13)C.R.Folz,Member.
[26]WithrespecttothequestionofwhethertheApplicant’sMark
constitutesasubstantialcopyingoftheOpponent’sArtisticWork,Iam
satisfiedthattheOpponenthasdemonstratedaprimafaciecase
ofcopyrightinfringement.Inparticular,thedesigncomponentofthe
Applicant’sMarkisidenticaltothatshownintheOpponent’sArtistic
Work,asisthefontusedfortheword »PABLO ».Thereisnoevidence
fromtheApplicanttosuggestanythingotherthanasubstantial
copying,suchasevidenceofindependentcreationoftheMark
bytheApplicant.

Section2–Definitionof“infringing”─Evidenceofinfringementmustnot
bespeculative.
InfiniteMediaLtd.v.remBrandSportsInc.,166C.P.R.(4th)304(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2019-
07-10)GlusteinJ.

32

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[109]Therewasnoevidencetosupportanyclaimofbreachof
copyright.Sellorsacknowledgedthatheonlyknewthattwo
representativesoftracky.comhadaccesstotheInfinitesite.Hecould
notsayforwhatpurpose,forhowlong,orwhataspectsoftheInfinite
system,ifany,wereaccessed.

[110]Suchanevidentiarybasecannotsupportaclaimforbreachof
copyright.

[111]Thespeculativecommentsintheclosingsubmissionsthat
“Mr.SteeleenabledDavidLongneckerandotherstaffmembersat
Tracky,toaccessandviewtheproprietaryInfiniteKMiterationsothat
Mr.LongneckercouldcopyorreplicateportionsoftheInfiniteKM
softwarefortheVIKTRETrackyConfiguration”hadnoevidentiary
support.Similarly,Infinite’ssubmissionthatremBrandobtained
fundingbecause“theyallowedprospectiveinvestorstoviewthe
proprietaryInfiniteKMiteration”wasalsonotsupportedbyany
evidence.

[112]Inanyevent,thereisnoevidenceofdamages.

[113]Fortheabovereasons,IdismissInfinite’s“tobedetermined”
claimfordamagesforbreachofcopyright.

Section2–Definitionof“lecture”─Alectureisaliterarywork─Foralecture
tobeprotected,itmustbeexpressedinsomematerialform.
Albov.TheWinnipegFreePress,163C.P.R.(4th)126(Man.Q.B.;2019-02-22)Saull
J.
[63]Counselprovidedmewithnumerousauthoritiesrespecting
principlesofcopyrightlawthatarerelevanttothismatter.Asynthesis
oftheseauthoritiesisprovidedbelow:[…]
f)Section5(1)oftheActprovidesthatcopyrightsubsistsin
Canada,ineveryoriginalliterary,dramatic,musicalandartistic
work,providedcertainconditionsaremet.Itcanincludelectures.
Ifalectureisfixedinamaterialform,itwillbeprotectedas
aliterarywork,butalecturedeliveredwithoutwrittennotes
orotherwrittenevidenceofthelecture,willnot.

Section2─Definitionof“literarywork”─Obituariesareprotectedliterary
works.
Thomsonv.AfterlifeNetworkInc,2019CarswellNat1479(F.C.;2019-05-01)KaneJ.
[34]TheevidenceestablishesthattheApplicantandotherClass
Memberspersonallyauthoredtheobituariesusingtheirownskill
andjudgment,choosingtheirownwordstoconveythe
appropriatemessageaboutthelifeofthedeceasedpersonand

33

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

theirfuneralarrangementsandaddingaphotographtakenbythem
orbyanotherClassMember.ClassMembersalsoexercisedtheirskill
andjudgmentintakingthephotographsofthedeceasedperson.The
obituariesandphotographsfallwithintheterm“originalwork”asithas
beeninterpretedbytheSupremeCourtofCanada.Asnoted,the
thresholdtoconstituteoriginalityintheworkislowandcreativityisnot
required.

Section2–Definitionof"photograph"─Microfilmingofdocuments,
withoutchoice,arrangement,orintellectualorpersonaleffort,ispurely
mechanicalanddoesnotattractcopyrightprotection.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.[Referencestoevidenceomitted.]
[178]Oninsistesurlesajustementsdelalumièreetdeladistance
focale,propresàtoutephotographie.Silesimpleajustementdu
départdel’appareilphotopermetdequalifierlaphotographied’une
œuvre,touteslesphotographiesmériteraientprotection.En
l’occurrence,l’ajustementnécessaireapparaîtd’autantplus
négligeablealorsquelephotographesetrouvetoujoursdansles
mêmesconditionsdu«studiomobile»desoncamion,aménagépour
cefaire.

[179]Autrement,aucunchoixouaménagementoueffort
intellectueloupersonneln’estrequisdansletravaileffectuélors
dumicrofilmage.Enfait,lephotographeprendquelquessecondes
pourfairelesphotographiessubséquentes,cequiamèneleTribunal
àconclurequesontravailrelèvedavantagedel’automatisme,une
entreprisepurementmécaniquequelaLDAneprotègepas.

Section2–Definitionof“photograph”─Aphotographcanbeanartistic
work.
Capitaleenfêteinc.v.Ouellet,2019CarswellQue4570(Que.Ct.;2019-05-01)Boutin
J.
[46]L’article2delaLoisurledroitd’auteurdéfinitl’expression«
œuvreartistique»etprévoitqu’unephotographiepeut
constituerunetelleœuvre[…]

Section2–Definitionof“photograph”─Aphotographcanbeanartistic
work─Originalityresultsfromthechoiceandtheposeofthesubject,the
choiceoftheangleandthelighting,theartisticworkandthepersonaleffort
ofthephotographer.
PortraitsRembrandtltéev.Interdonato(Ikono),2019QCCQ5878(Que.Ct.–Small
Claims;2019-07-26)ChoquetteJ.
[23]Unephotographieestuneœuvreartistiqueausensde
l’article2delaLoi.

34

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[25]Enmatièredephotographie,enparticulier,onenreconnaît
lecaractèreoriginalnotammentparlechoix,l’aménagementet
laposedusujet,lechoixdel’angledeprisedevueetde
l’éclairage,enfinparletravailartistiqueetl’effortpersonneldu
photographe[Fn12AteliersTangoArgentininc.c.Festival
d’Espagneetd’Amériquelatineinc.,1997CanLII8852(QCCS)].

[26][ThephotographmadebythePlaintiffof]Les3potsdesauces
«SaveursduSud»sontplacésdefaçonquasilinéaire,surfondblanc.
Laphotographiemontreenévidencelelogoetlesétiquettesconçus
parledéfendeur.

[27]Del’avisduTribunal,ils’agitdelareproductionpurement
mécanique–lacopied’uneautreœuvre,celledudéfendeur.Ilne
s’agitpasd’uneœuvreartistiqueoriginale.

Section2–Definitionof“photograph”─Aphotographcanbeanartistic
work.
Farsiv.Georges,2019QCCQ2721(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-05-07)Croteau
J.
[13]LeTribunalconclutquelaPhotographieconstitueune«œuvre
artistique»ausensdelaLoi.M.Farsiestàlafoisl’auteurdela
Photographieetl’auteurdesquatreœuvresquiyfigurent.Àcetitre,
ildétientledroitexclusifdereproduirelaPhotographieetdela
communiqueraupublic.

Section2–Definitionof“photograph”─Someskillandjudgmentare
requiredforaphotographtobecopyrightprotected.
RallysportDirectLLCv.2424508OntarioLtd,2019FC1524(F.C.;2019-11-28)
FuhrerJ.
[48]Basedontheabove,Iconcludethatthephotographsandproduct
descriptionsattractcopyrightprotection;Iamsatisfiedbasedonthe
evidenceprovidedthatRSDemployeesoriginallycreatedthem.
RSD’semployeeswererequiredtoacquire,situate,and
photographindividualautomotivepartsandaccessories-in
someinstancesarrangingtheminto“kits”-andtoselectthe
mostappealingphotos.This,asrecognizedinTrader[Traderv
CarGurus,2017ONSC1841],inherentlyinvolvesthejudgmentand
skilltothelevelrequiredbyCCH[CCHCanadianLtd.vLawSociety
ofUpperCanada,2004SCC13].[…]Whiletheywerecreatedfor
marketingpurposes(orwhattheDefendantswouldcharacterize
as“businessinterests”),thisdoesnotdiminishthecreativity
requiredtoproduce,ortheoriginalityof,theworksthemselves.

35

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section2–Definitionof“sculpture”─Acastfallswithinthedefinitionof
sculpture.
PyrrhaDesignInc.v.PlumandPoseyInc.,2019CarswellNat210(F.C.;2019-01-30)
PhelanJ.[appealA-98-19].
[84]ThePyrrhaDesignsareartisticworksandaresimilarto
engravingswhich,likeetchings,lithographs,woodcutsand
prints,arereproductionsofpreviouslycreatedimagesyetina
differentmedium.ThePyrrhaDesignsaretosomeextentalso
likeasculpturewhichusesacastormodel.

Section2–Definitionof“workofjointauthorship”─Theinputofco-authors
doesnothavetobeequivalentbuteachmustbesubstantial.
Leclercv.Brodeur(ÉditionsduCarnet),2019QCCQ1613,(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;
2019-02-05)ClicheJ.
[41]Eneffet,lesprincipespermettantdeconclureàl’existenced’une
telleœuvresontlessuivants:
1.L’«œuvreconjointeestainsiqualifiéeàlalumièredela
loietdesfaits.
2.Lapartdescoauteursn’apasbesoind’êtreéquivalente,
maislapartdechacundoitêtresubstantielle.
3.Unecertainecollaborationdoits’établirentreles
coauteursdanslapoursuited’undesseincommun.
4.Ilfautprouverplusquedesidéesetdessuggestions.
5.Unecertainejurisprudenceconsidèreégalementpertinente
l’intentioncommunedespartiesdecréerounonun[sic]œuvre
encollaboration.»[Fn6Seggiec.RoofdogGamesinc.,2015
QCCS6462(CanLII),paragraphe59;Voiraussi:H.G.
RICHARDetL.CARRIÈRE,CanadianCopyrightActAnnotated,
volume1.Toronto,Carswell,éd.feuillesmobiles,p.2-655à2-
658;Neugebauerc.Labieniec,2009CF666(CanLII)(appel
rejeté,2010CAF229(CanLII));Drapeauc.Girard,2003CanLII
5575(QCCA),[2003]R.J.Q.2539(C.A.)(requêtepour
autorisationdepourvoiàlaC.S.Canrejetée);Pintoc.Centre
Bronfmandel’éducationjuive,2013CF945(CanLII);Atlantic
CanadaRegionalCouncilofCarpenters,Millwrights,andAllied
Workersv.MaritimeEnvironmentalTrainingInstituteLtd.,2014
NSSC64(CanLII).]

[42]Dansleprésentcas,lapreuveprépondérantedémontrequele
travailréaliséparmadameLeclercs’estlimitéàlarédactiondu
chapitre10deMémento.

[43]Parconséquent,leTribunalnepeutconclurequesa
participationàlarédactiondel’ensembledel’œuvrefut
substantielle.

36

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section2.2–Definitionof“publication”─Makingaworkavailabletothe
mayconstitutepublication.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.
[253]Eneffet,lapublicationestdéfinieparlaLDAcomme
étant«lamiseàladispositiondupublicd’exemplairesde
l’œuvre[Fn229Art.2.2(1)a)LDA.]».Commel’auteurNormand
Tamarol’expliquedanssonouvrage:«[l]apublicationpasseparla
distributionouladiffusionautoriséed’uneœuvre»etmême:«ilpeut
suffirequel’œuvresoitproposéeaupublicetquecelui-cipuisse
enprendreconnaissance[Fn230NormandTamaro,Loisurledroit
d’auteur–Texteannoté,10eéd.,Scarborough,Carswell,2015p.247
et248]».Enl’occurrence,l’IGDcommercialiselesgénéalogies.En
faisantlaventemêmeàuneseulepersonneàlafois,l’IGDrendait
intentionnellementcesœuvresaccessiblesaupublic.

Section2.2–Definitionof“publication”─Consenttothepublicationis
requiredforaworktobepublished.
Capitaleenfêteinc.v.Ouellet,2019CarswellQue4570(Que.Ct.;2019-05-01)Boutin
J.
[52]Ildécouleparailleursdudroitexclusifprécitéetprévuau
paragraphe13(1)delaLoiqueleconsentementpréalabledu
titulairedudroitd’auteurestrequisafinquelapublicationd’une
œuvreartistiquesoitpossible(art.2.2(3)delaLoi).

Section2.2–Definitionof“publication”─Mereavailabilityfor
consultation,evenontheInternet,doesnotconstitutepublication.
Pointe-à-Callière,citéd’archéologieetd’histoiredeMontréal,Re,2019CarswellNat
5891(Cop.Bd.;2019-08-23),theBoard.
[5]Enl’espèce,laCommissionadéterminéqu’iln’yapas
suffisammentdepreuvesquelaphotographiequevousdésirez
reproduireetexposerafaitl’objetd’unepublication.Ladisponibilité
delaphotographiedanslefondd’archivesdeClaudeMeunierà
laBAnQ,bienqu’accessibleparlepublicenligne,neconstitue
pasunepublicationdel’œuvreausensdelaLoi.Deplus,vous
n’avezpasétéenmesurededémontrerquedescopiesdela
photoavaientétéfaitesavecleconsentementdutitulairededroit
d’auteuretmisesàladispositiondupublic.

Section3─Copyrightinworks─Copyrightisthesolerighttodoor
authorizesomeacts.
Albov.TheWinnipegFreePress,163C.P.R.(4th)126(Man.Q.B.;2019-02-22)Saull
J.

37

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[63]Counselprovidedmewithnumerousauthoritiesrespecting
principlesofcopyrightlawthatarerelevanttothismatter.Asynthesis
oftheseauthoritiesisprovidedbelow:[…]
b)Section3oftheActprovidesthatcopyright,inrelationto
awork,meansthesolerighttoproduceorreproducethework
oranysubstantialpartthereofinanymaterialformwhatever,to
performtheworkoranysubstantialpartthereofinpublicor,if
theworkisunpublished,topublishtheworkoranysubstantial
partthereof.
n)Section3(1)oftheActdefinesthosethingswhichonly
thecopyrightownerhastherighttodo.Theownerhasthe
solerighttoproduceorreproducetheworkoranysubstantial
partthereofinanymaterialformwhatever,toperformthework
oranysubstantialpartthereofinpublicor,iftheworkis
unpublished,topublishtheworkoranysubstantialpartthereof.

Section3─Copyrightinworks─Copyrightinaworkdoesnotmean
copyrightinthesoundrecordingencompassingthiswork.
Unidiscmusiqueincv.AgencedurevenuduQuébec,2019CarswellQue2647(Que.
Ct.;2019-04-02)GouinJ.[appeal500-09-028299-196].
[21]Ainsi,laquestionenlitigeàlaquelleleTribunaldoitrépondre
consisteàdéterminersilesbiens(masterrecordings)incluantles
droitsprotégésparledroitd’auteurdoiventêtreconsidéréscomme
desbiensamortissablesdelacatégorie8del’annexeBduRIou
commedesimmobilisationsincorporellesausensdelaLoisurles
impôts(LI)[Fn17RLRQ,ch.I-3.].

[54]Ainsi,Unidisc,agissantparl’entremisedeM.Cucuzella,son
président,étaitparfaitementconscientequ’ellen’achetaitpas
l’ensembledesdroitsassociésauxœuvres.Leprixdeventefut
établienconséquence,sachantquelacommercialisationdes
œuvresenregistréessurlesbandesmaîtressesallaitrequérir
desdébourséssubséquents,payablesnonpasàl’ancien
propriétairedesbandesmaîtressesmaisauxauteurs,
compositeurs,interprètesetproducteurs(«publishers»),
conformémentàlaLDA.

Section3─Copyrightinworks─Physicaldispositionofsoundrecordings
doesnotmeanassignmentofthecopyrightinthosesoundrecordingsor
intheworkssorecorded.
Unidiscmusiqueincv.AgencedurevenuduQuébec,2019CarswellQue2647(Que.
Ct.;2019-04-02)GouinJ.[appeal500-09-028299-196].
[59]L’article18delaLDAprévoitlesdroitsdirectementliésàun
enregistrementsonore[…]

38

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[60]Envendantlesbandesmaîtresses,lesvendeurspouvaient
ainsicéderlesdroitsci-dessus.Etc’estcequ’ilsontfaitmais
pasplus.

[61]Danslalettred’interprétation[Fn39PièceP-4,p.3]quiconstitue
labasedescotisations,onréfèreàl’article18delaLDA.Toutefois,
enraisondel’omissionderéférerauxautresdroitsprotégéspar
d’autresarticles–lesdroitsquinesontpasliésàl’enregistrement
sonorelui-même,maisplutôtàl’œuvreetàsescréateurs,ils’ensuit
quelalettred’interprétationestjuridiquementincorrecteet
incomplète.

[62]Lesarticles3,13et15delaLDAencadrentlesdroitsdes
auteurs-compositeurs-interprètes,lesquelsdroitssont
indépendantsdel’enregistrementsonoreet,parconséquent,ne
sontpascédésparlasimplecessiond’unebandemaîtresse.

Section3─Copyrightinworks─Physicalownershipofsoundrecordings
doesnotequatetocopyrightinthosesoundrecordingsorintheworks
embeddedinthosesoundrecordings.
Unidiscmusiqueincv.AgencedurevenuduQuébec,2019CarswellQue2647(Que.
Ct.;2019-04-02)GouinJ.[appeal500-09-028299-196].
[67]Lalettred’interprétation[Fn41PièceP-4.]assimileerronément
lesdroitsd’auteurapplicablesàuneoeuvremusicaleauxdroits
intimementliésàl’enregistrementsonore.LetémoignagedeM.
Cuccuzella,présidentd’Unidiscestcohérentaveclalégislation
canadiennesurledroitd’auteur.

[68]Eneffet,Unidiscsaitcequ’elleachèteetcequ’ellen’achète
pas:elleachètelesbandesmaîtressesetlesdroitsinextricables
desbandesmaîtressesprotégésparl’article18.Elleest
conscientedecequ’elledevradébourseretàquiaumomentde
mettreenmarchélesCDoulescompilationsélectroniquestirées
desbandesmaîtresses.

[69]Enachetantdesbandesmaîtresses,elleachètelameilleure
qualitédel’enregistrementsonoreàpartirdelaquellelescopiesvont
pouvoirêtretiréesetainsimisesenmarché.

[70]Laqualitédel’enregistrementsonoren’arienàvoiravecles
droitsprotégésauxarticles3,13et15,nimême18delaLDA.Enfait,
laqualitédel’enregistrementsonoreatoutàvoiraveclaqualitédu
supportphysique,soitsaconservationdansdesconditionsoptimales,
saprotectioncontrelesaltérationsetlesvols,etfinalementsa
manipulationpardesprofessionnelsconsciencieuxselonlesrègles
del’artlorsdelaconfectiondescopies.

39

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[71]Unidisc,conformémentauxcontrats[Fn42PiècesP-1,D-6
(égalementP-2),D-7,D-8.],n’achètedoncnilesdroitsd’auteurs-
compositeurs-interprètes,niceuxdesproducteurs(«publishers»)au
sensdelaLDA.

[72]Quandl’ARQaffirmequelesbandesmaîtressesn’ont
aucunevaleursanslesdroitsassociésauxoeuvres,cequiest
incorrect,ceciéquivautàconfondrel’ensembledesdroits
protégésauxarticles3,13,15et18delaLDA.

[73]Quandl’ARQconclutqu’Unidiscaacquis,parl’acquisitiondes
bandesmaîtresses,lesdroitsdesauteurs-compositeurs-interprètes
etproducteurs,ceciestcontraireàlaLDA,aulibellémêmedes
contratsetàlacommuneintentiondesparties,demêmequ’au
témoignagenoncontestéetnoncontreditdeM.Cucuzella.

Section3─Copyrightinworks─Copyrightisthesolerighttodoor
authorizesomeacts.
Youngv.Thakur,2019CarswellNat2971(F.C.;2019-06-20)KaneJ.
[26]Subsection3(1)providesthatcopyrightmeansthesolerightto
produceorreproduce;performinpublic;or,ifunpublished,publisha
work.Copyrightalsoincludestherighttoauthorizesuchacts.
TheActfurtherdescribestherightsincludedinthecopyrightinrelation
tomusicalworksorsoundrecordings.

Section3─Copyrightinworks─Performanceisimpermanentinnature.
Youngv.Thakur,2019CarswellNat2971(F.C.;2019-06-20)KaneJ.
[28]TheApplicantsallegeonlythattheRespondents“performed”the
worksforthepublic.However,theApplicantshaveusedimprecise
languagetodescribetheRespondents’actionswhichunderlietheir
allegations.“Performance”,asdefinedintheAct,isimpermanent
innatureand,unlikereproduction,doesnotinvolvemaking
copies(EntertainmentSoftwareAssociationvSocietyofComposers,
AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanada,2012SCC34atparas35-
38,[2012]2SCR231).“Performance”doesnotaccuratelydescribe
theRespondents’actionsinpostingthemusicvideo,includingthe
SoundRecordingembodyingtheMusicalWork.TheRespondents
madecopiesoftheMusicalWorkandSoundRecordingbyuploading
themusicvideoonline.TheApplicants’allegationisinessencethat
theRespondentsreproducedtheMusicalWorkandSound
Recording.

Section3─Copyrightinworks─Goingbeyondwhatispermittedbya
limitedauthorizationconstitutesinfringement.
Youngv.Thakur,2019CarswellNat2971(F.C.;2019-06-20)KaneJ.

40

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[30]Theevidencealsoestablishesonabalanceofprobabilitiesthat
theApplicantsdidnotauthorizeanyoneelsereproducetheMusical
WorkorSoundRecording.TheApplicantsprovidedtheSound
RecordingtotheRespondentsonlyforthepurposeofproducingthe
musicvideo.Mr.Thakurassertsthathethoughthehadpermissionto
use,oratleasthadnotbeenprohibitedfromusing,theSound
Recordingwiththemusicvideoinhisportfolio.However,hisaffidavit,
whichappendsasanexhibitadraftagreementregardingthefilm
footage,suggeststhatheisawareofbasiccopyrightprinciples.
Althoughtheevidenceconflictsinseveralrespectsandtherewas
confusionaboutwhowasthepointpersonforthisproject,the
evidencedoesnotestablishthattheRespondentswere
authorizedtoperformtheMusicalWorkorSoundRecording.
Moreover,uponreceivingtheceaseanddesistletterinJanuary2018,
Mr.Thakurwasclearlymadeawarethathedidnothavepermission
tousetheMusicalWorkorSoundRecordingandhedidnottakedown
themusicvideoatthatpoint.

Section3─Copyrightinworks─Technologicalneutralityisaprincipleof
interpretationoftheCopyrightAct.
RetransmissionofDistantTelevisionSignals,Re,2019CarswellNat4088(Cop.Bd.;
2019-08-02),theBoard.
[253]Theprincipleoftechnologicalneutralityisarecognition
that,absentparliamentaryintenttothecontrary,theActshould
notbeinterpretedorappliedtofavourordiscriminateagainst
anyparticularformoftechnology.Itresultsfromthebalancingof
userandright-holderinterestsdiscussedbytheSupremeCourtof
CanadainThéberge,a“balancebetweenpromotingthepublic
interestintheencouragementanddisseminationofworksofthearts
andintellectandobtainingajustrewardforthecreator.”[Fn162
Thébergev.Galeried’ArtduPetitChamplaininc.,2002SCC34at
para30.]Becausethislong-standingprincipleinformstheActasa
whole,itmustbemaintainedacrossalltechnologicalcontexts:“The
traditionalbalancebetweenauthorsandusersshouldbepreservedin
thedigitalenvironment.”[Fn163CanadianBroadcastingCorp.v.
SODRAC2003Inc.,2015SCC57,[2015]3S.C.R.615atpara66;
EntertainmentSoftwareAssociationv.SocietyofComposers,Authors
andMusicPublishersofCanada,2012SCC34,[2012]2S.C.R.231
atpara8.]

Section3─Copyrightinworks─Consenttopublicationisrequiredfrom
thecopyrightowner.
O’Harav.Picard,2019QCCQ3302(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-04-10)ParadisJ.
[27]Cedroitd’auteurexclusiffaitensortequelapublication,
incluantladistributionoul’utilisationdesphotographies,n’est

41

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

paspossiblesansleconsentementpréalabledutitulairedu
droitd’auteur.

[46]L’utilisationdesphotographiessurlaplateformeAirbnbn’apas
étéautoriséeparM.O’Haraetaétéfaiteenviolationdesesdroits.

Section3─Copyrightinworks─Theexclusiverightsincludetherightto
authorize.
Farsiv.Georges,2019QCCQ2721(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-05-07)Croteau
J.
[12]LaLoisurledroitd’auteur[Fn6L.R.C.,1985,c.C-42.](Loi)établit
lesprincipesgénérauxquidoiventguiderleTribunaldanslecadrede
l’analysed’unrecoursbasésurlaviolationdesdroitsd’auteuretdes
droitsmoraux:[…]
L’auteurd’uneœuvreartistiquedétientledroitexclusif
deproduireoudereproduirelatotalitéouunepartie
importantedesonœuvre,demêmequedela
communiqueraupublic.Ildétientégalementledroit
exclusifd’autorisercesmêmesactes[Fn8Article3dela
Loi.].[…]

Section3─Copyrightinworks─Toavoidcopyrightinfringement,the
protectedworkshouldnotbeattachedtothepublisheddecision.
Syndicatdecopropriétédu5366,10eavenuev.DéveloppementP10inc.*,2019
CanLII96091(Que.O.A.G.B.R.N.;2019-09-24)Gagné,Arbitrator.
[267]Enfin,puisquelesdécisionssontpubliquesetdiffuséessur
plusieurssitesinternet[Fn104Àtoutlemoins:sitesinternetdela
RégieduBâtiment,jugements.qc.ca(Soquij),del’Organisme
d’arbitrageCCACetdelaGCR(Administrateur).],leTribunal
d’arbitrage,nevoulantcontreveniràaucuncopyrightdel’ASTM
nifairedefraispourunerechercheàcesujet,envoiecopiedela
normeATSME336-05(11pages)directementauxprocureursdes
partiesaudossieraveccettedécisionarbitrale,aulieudelafusionner
enannexeaumêmefichiercontenantlaprésentedécision.

Section3─Copyrightinworks─Section3definestherightsofacopyright
ownerinawork.
Pourshianv.WaltDisneyCompany,2019CarswellOnt16536(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2019-
10-15)Graham,Master.
[13]Asstated,theplaintiff’sactionisfordamagesforinfringementof
copyrightunderCanada’sCopyrightAct,RSC1985,c.C-42.The
applicablesectionsoftheActares.3,whichdefines“copyright”
andparticularizesthesolerightsoftheownerofthecopyrightin
awork,s.27(1)whichdefinesprimaryinfringementofacopyright,
ands.27(2)whichdefinessecondaryinfringement.

42

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section3─Copyrightinworks─Copyrightprotectsanowneragainst
copyingofthework.
CorusRadioIncv.HarvardBroadcastingInc,2019CarswellAlta2449(AltaQ.B.-Int.
inj.;2019-11-18)DiltsJ.
[29]ProtectionofworksundertheCopyrightAct,RSC1985,c.C-42
hasthedualobjectiveofpromotingthepublicinterestinthe
encouragementanddisseminationoforiginalworkandensuringthat
anybenefitfromorvalueintheworkisretainedbytheauthorofthe
work:ThébergevGaleried’ArtduPetitChamplainInc,2002SCC34
(CanLII)atparas30-31.Toachievethatend,copyrightlawsplace
inthehandsoftheowneroftheworkthesolerighttoproduce
andreproducethework,andtheyprotecttheowneragainstthe
workbeingcopiedbyothers.

Section3─Copyrightinworks─Reproductionandauthorizationto
reproducebelongtothecopyrightowner.
LouisVuittonMalletierS.A.v.Wang,2019CarswellNat6912(F.C.;2019-11-15)Roy
J.
[195]OnlytheownerofthecopyrightintheCopyrightedWorks
canproduceandreproducesuchworks,inwholeorin
substantialpart(s.3oftheCopyrightAct).Noauthorizationwas
evergivenbyLouisVuittontothedefendants.Infactthe
defendantsdidnotchallengetheinfringementoftheplaintiff’s
copyrightinthetwocopyrightedworks,relyinginsteadontheir
argumentthattheyhavenotinfringedtrade-marks,anargumentthe
Courthasalreadyconcludeddoesnothaveanairofreality.

Section3─Copyrightinworks─Fabricatingthepartsorassemblingthe
machinesdepictedinthedrawingsisnotreproductionofthework.
ProlinePipeEquipmentIncv.ProvincialRentalsLtd,169C.P.R.(4th)247((Alta.
Q.B.;2019-12-19)AckerlJ.
[17]To“produceorreproducetheworkoranysubstantialpartthereof
inanymaterialformwhatever,”thethingbeingproduced/reproduced
mustbethework–nottheideacontainedinthework.Inthiscase,
the“work”isthedrawingsthemselves.Anexampleofreproducingthe
workinadifferentmaterialformwouldbetocreateanelectroniccopy
ofthepaperdrawings,orviceversa.Conversely,fabricatingthe
partsorassemblingthemachinesdepictedinthedrawingsisnot
reproductionofthework.

Section3─Copyrightinworks─Aworkcannotbereproducedwithoutthe
consentoftheownerunlessthereproductionfallswithinanexception.
EberhardVonHuene&associésinc.v.Salzman,[2019]J.Q.10868(Que.Sup.Ct;
2019-11-07)RogersJ.
[24]Lesmodificationsdontilestquestionajoutentdesallégations
quantàlaprotectionofferteparledroitd’auteursurledesignetle

43

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

droitdefabricationdumurBeyondenvertudelaLoi.
Sommairement,cetteLoiinterdit,entreautres,qu’une«œuvre»
assujettieàundroitd’auteursoitproduite,reproduiteouvendue
parunepersonne,àmoinsqu’ellenedétiennelesdroits
d’auteurs[sic],quecellequilesdétientyconsentouquel’œuvre
fassel’objetd’uneexception.

Section3─Copyrightinworks─Copyingfromanarticleispresumedto
besubstantial.
ReprographicReproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsrepertoire(Re),2019
CarswellNat90423(Cop.Bd.;2019-12-06),theBoard.
[258]Inthemostrecentcaserelatingtocopyinginelementaryand
secondaryschools,theBoardusedthefollowingapproximations:any
copyingfromanarticle,whetherfromanewspaper,magazine,or
journal,waspresumedtobesubstantial;copyingofoneortwo
pagesfromabook(orconsumable)waspresumednottobe
substantial;anyothersuchcopyingispresumedtobe
substantial.[Fn128AccessCopyright(EducationalInstitutions)
2010-2015(19February2016)CopyrightBoardatparas225-226].

Section3─Copyrightinworks─Thecopyrightownermayusetheworkas
heseesfit.
RallysportDirectLLCv.2424508OntarioLtd,2019FC1524(F.C.;2019-11-28)
FuhrerJ
[49][…]Whyitchosetodosoisirrelevantforthepurposesof
theCopyrightAct.Havingcreatedtheoriginalworks,itwaswithin
RSD’srightstodecidewhocouldreproducethem:CopyrightActs
3(a).

Section5─Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright─Creativity,novelty,
oruniquenessarenotrequiredforaworktobeoriginal─Originality
requiresjudgmentbeyondatrivialorpurelymechanicalexercise.
PyrrhaDesignInc.v.PlumandPoseyInc.,2019CarswellNat210(F.C.;2019-01-30)
PhelanJ.[appealA-98-19].
[96]Althoughsubsection5(1)oftheActrequiresaworktobeoriginal
inorderforcopyrighttosubsist,theActdoesnotdefinean“original”
work.However,theSupremeCourtinCCH[CCHCanadianLtdvLaw
SocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13]atpara28setoutthethree
(3)elementsrequiredforanoriginalwork:
1.Theworkmusthaveoriginatedfromtheauthor;
2.Theworkmustnotbecopied;and
3.Theworkmustbetheproductoftheexerciseofskilland
judgmentthatismorethantrivial.

44

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[97]InaccordancewithCCH[CCHCanadianLtdvLawSocietyof
UpperCanada,2004SCC13]atpara16,skillreferstothe“useof
one’sknowledge,developedaptitudeorpracticalabilityinproducing
thework”andjudgmentreferstothe“useofone’scapacityfor
determiningorabilitytoformanopinionorevaluationbycomparing
differentpossibleoptionsinproducingthework”.

[98]Assuch,aworkdoesnothavetobecreative,novel,or
uniquetobeoriginalbuttheeffortputintocreatingitmustbe
morethanatrivialorpurelymechanicalexercise.CCHisan
exampleofthisnon-creativeoriginalandefforttocreatetensionin
holdingthatheadnotes,casesummaries,indicesandcompilationsof
originaldecisionsareoriginalwhiletheactualjudgmentsreflectedin
theseheadnotesetal.areinthepublicdomainandnotcopyrightable.

[99]Aworkcanstillbeoriginalifittakesexistingmaterialand
castsitinadifferentformaslongassufficientjudgmentis
exercised(seeCCHatpara33;Laincoatpara84[LaincoIncv
CommissionscolairedesBois-francs,2017FC825];Beachatpara
101[BeachvTorontoRealEstateBoard[2009]OJ5227]).

Section5─Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright─Creativity,novelty,or
uniquenessarenotrequiredforaworktobeoriginal.
PyrrhaDesignInc.v.PlumandPoseyInc.,2019CarswellNat210(F.C.;2019-01-30)
PhelanJ.[appealA-98-19].
[113]ContrarytotheDefendants’position,thePyrrhaDesignsdo
notneedtobenovel,uniqueorcreatedthroughinnovative
methodstobeheldasoriginal.ThefinalexpressionsofthePyrrha
DesignsareoriginalbecauseWilmoreandPapinexercisedsufficient
skillandjudgmentinchoosingtocreatetheparticularbordersand
finishingtoexpressaspecificimageinmetal.

Section5─Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright─Skillandjudgment
arerequiredforaworktobeoriginal.
PyrrhaDesignInc.v.PlumandPoseyInc.,2019CarswellNat210(F.C.;2019-01-30)
PhelanJ.[appealA-98-19].
[102]Whattakesthejewellerybasedonanotherworkintothe
realmofcopyrightprotectionistheskillandjudgmentusedto
makethejewellerybeyondthemerereplicationoftheimagery.
AsheldinInterlegoAGvTycoIndustriesIncandothers,[1988]3All
ER949at971,[1989]AC217(PC),asmallmaterialalterationor
embellishmentcanconvertasubstantiallycopiedworkintoanoriginal
work.

[106]ThePyrrhaDesignsarenotmerelyacopyofanantiquewax
seal.Althoughtheimageryiscopiedfromanantiqueseal,the

45

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

expressionoftheseal’simageinmetalisdifferentfrommerely
copyingadrawingorphotographfromanotherdrawingorphotograph.
TheDesignsaremorethanareplicaofthewaxsealoramere
reproduction.Skillandjudgmentwas[sic]usedtodisplaythe
imageryinmetal.

[107]Particularly,Wilmoreexercisedskillinknowinghowtoworkwith
waxtomodifythebordersofwaxsealimpressionsandjudgmentin
designingtheborders.Sheusedskillandjudgmentindeciding
howtofinishthepiecesbyoxidizingwithblackeningchemicals
andpolishing.Thefactthatemployeeshavetobetrainedover
monthstoperformthesefunctions(bothatPyrrhaandPlumand
Posey)suggestsomeelementofskillisinvolved.

[108]However,IdonotacceptthatWilmoreandPapinusedsufficient
skillandjudgmentintheselectionsofthesealstobeused.In
particular,thereislittleevidencetoshowhowtheseninesealswere
selectedoutofthe300-400antiquesealsthatPyrrhaproducesnor
how,ofthewholeofPyrrha’scollectionofseals,thesesealswere
chosen.Furthermoretheselectionprocessistoocloselyalignedwith
tryingtocopyrightanidea.

[109]CopyrightsubsistsineachindividualPyrrhaDesigntothe
extentthatPyrrhatooktheimageryofawaxsealandexpressed
itinmetalinaspecificway.

[110]AsrecognizedinRainsvMolea,2013ONSC5016(CanLII)at
paras13-16,231ACWS(3d)787[Rains],theuseofcommon
techniquesandmethodscanstillresultinanoriginalwork.The
Defendants’expertCorneliusacknowledgedthatthereareavariety
offinishingoptionsforsilverjewelleryandthatoxidizationand
polishingareverycommontechniques.

Section5–Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright─Forcopyrightto
exist,aworkmustbeinsomematerialform─Nocopyrightinideasor
methods.
PyrrhaDesignInc.v.PlumandPoseyInc.,2019CarswellNat210(F.C.;2019-01-30)
PhelanJ.[appealA-98-19].
[90]Forcopyrighttosubsistinawork,aworkmustbeafixed
expressionofanidea(CCHatpara8).Todeterminewhethera
workisfixed,asheldinCanadianAdmiralCorpvRediffusion,Inc,
[1954]ExCR382at394,20CPR75,itmustbeexpressedin“some
materialform,capableofidentification”andhavesome
“permanentendurance”.

46

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[91]Therefore,copyrightdoesnotprotectideas,conceptsor
methodsinandofthemselves.

Section5–Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright─Copyrightprotects
theexpressionofideas–Theoriginalityrequirementappliestothe
expressionoftheideas,nottheideaitself.
Albov.TheWinnipegFreePress,163C.P.R.(4th)126(Man.Q.B.;2019-02-22)Saull
J.
[63]Counselprovidedmewithnumerousauthoritiesrespecting
principlesofcopyrightlawthatarerelevanttothismatter.Asynthesis
oftheseauthoritiesisprovidedbelow:[…]
c)“Copyrightlawprotectstheexpressionofideas…;it
doesnotprotectideasinandofthemselves”.Itflowsfrom
thisthataworkmustalsobeinafixedformtoattract
copyrightprotection(CCHatpara.8)[CCHCanadianLtd.v.
LawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13].
i)Inviewofthefactthatcopyrightlimitsprotectiontothe
expressionorformofideas,nottheideasthemselves
“…theoriginalityrequirementmustapplytotheexpressive
elementoftheworkandnottheidea”(CCHatpara.14[CCH
CanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC
13]).).

Section5–Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright─Fixationofthework
isarequirementforcopyrightprotection─Nocopyrightinfactsorideas.
Albov.TheWinnipegFreePress,163C.P.R.(4th)126(Man.Q.B.;2019-02-22)Saull
J.
[63]Counselprovidedmewithnumerousauthoritiesrespecting
principlesofcopyrightlawthatarerelevanttothismatter.Asynthesis
oftheseauthoritiesisprovidedbelow:[…]
f)Section5(1)oftheActprovidesthatcopyrightsubsistsin
Canada,ineveryoriginalliterary,dramatic,musicalandartistic
work,providedcertainconditionsaremet.Itcanincludelectures.
Ifalectureisfixedinamaterialform,itwillbeprotectedas
aliterarywork,butalecturedeliveredwithoutwrittennotes
orotherwrittenevidenceofthelecture,willnot.

Section5–Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright─Fixationofthework
isarequirementforcopyrightprotection.
Albov.TheWinnipegFreePress,163C.P.R.(4th)126(Man.Q.B.;2019-02-22)Saull
J.
[70]Thelawisclearthatconversationsoranswerstooral
questionsthatarenotworksreducedtoafixed,materialformare
notcopyrightprotected(CCHatpara.8)[CCHCanadianLtd.v.Law
SocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13])..Infact,whereareporter
orinterviewerrecordstheanswersgivenbyasource,copyrightflows

47

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

tothebenefitofthereporterorinterviewer,notthesubjectofthe
interview,inthiscasethePress(see:Hageratparas.27–30)[Hager
v.ECWPressLtd.,1998CanLII9115].Tomymind,thediscussion
betweenDr.AlboandTurnerregarding“DNA”thatledtothesubtitle
oftheBookfallsintothiscategoryespeciallysince,basedonthe
evidencegivenatthistrialandthemannerinwhichitwasgiven,Iam
unabletoconcludewhofirstbroughtuptheDNAmetaphor.

[71]ThequotationsfromDr.Albothatappearinthearticlesandlater
theBookcamelargely,ifnotentirely,fromstatementsDr.Albomade
duringhisconversationwithTurneronFebruary13,2014.Itfollows
that,sinceDr.Albodoesnotholdcopyrightinthesestatements,the
quotationsfromDr.AlbointhearticlesandlatertheBookdonot
infringeanycopyright.

[72]SomeofthefactsandideasDr.AlbodiscussedwithTurnerare
referredtobyTurnerandhisothersourcesforthearticleandthe
Book.Dr.Albodoesnotholdcopyrightinsuchfactsorideas
(see:CCHparas.8and22)[CCHCanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyof
UpperCanada,2004SCC13].

Section5–Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright─Skillandjudgment
arerequiredforaworktobeoriginal.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.
[148]L’originalitéestuneconstructionjurisprudentielle,bâtie
surlestextesdesarticles2et5LDA,stipulantqu’uneœuvre
«s’entenddetouteproductionoriginaledudomainelittéraire,
scientifiqueouartistiquequelsqu’ensoientlemodeoulaforme
d’expression,telleslescompilations,livres,brochuresetautresécrits,
lesconférences,lesœuvresdramatiquesoudramatico-musicales,les
œuvresmusicales,lestraductions,lesillustrations,lescroquisetles
ouvragesplastiquesrelatifsàlagéographie,àlatopographie,à
l’architectureouauxsciences.»

[149]Depuisl’arrêtCCHCanadienneltéec.BarreauduHaut-Canada
en2004[Fn1092004CSC134(CanLII),[2004]1R.C.S.339.],iln’y
aplusdecontroversesurladéterminationducaractèreoriginal
quireposedésormaissurlescaractéristiquesretenuesparla
Coursuprême,soitl’exercicedutalentetdujugement[…]

Section5–Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright─Onlyanaturalperson
canbetheauthorofawork,notacorporation.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.

48

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[248]Enréalité,l’«auteur»nepeutêtrequ’unepersonnephysique
qui,suivantlelibellémêmedel’article83LFI[Bankruptcyand
InsolvencyAct],estvouéeàlamort,suscitel’ouvertured’une
successionparsondécèsetletransfertdesdroitsàseshéritiers
[Fn222Art.5(1),6,7,9,13(1),13(3)et14.2(2)LDA;PiscinesNautika
inc.c.FibreDesigninc.,2018QCCS3875(CanLII),par.29].De
l’analysedesdispositionsdelaLDA[Fn223Art.5(1),6,7,9,13(1),13
(3)et14.2(2)LDA;PiscinesNautikainc.c.FibreDesigninc.,2018
QCCS3875(CanLII),par.29.],deladoctrineetdelajurisprudenceen
matièrededroitd’auteur[Fn224Notamment:Pierre-YvesGautier,
Propriétélittéraireetartistique,préc.,note93,no.34;CCHCanadienne
ltéec.BarreauduHaut-Canada2004CSC134,par.16etss.;
Robertsonc.ThomsonCorp.,2006CSC43(CanLII),[2006]2R.C.S.
363,par.30etss.;Florence,Lucas,«Propriétéintellectuelleet
titularité»,dansJurisclasseurQuébec,coll.«Propriétéintellectuelle»,
Droitsintellectuels,fasc.2.Montréal,LexisNexisCanada,feuilles
mobiles,nos.2etss.,àjourau18novembre2014.],leTribunalretient
etréitèrequel’«auteur»d’uneœuvres’avèreêtrelapersonnephysique
«quidonnel’empreintedesapersonnalitéàuneœuvre,quiexerceson
talentetsonjugementpourcréeruneœuvreoriginale[Fn225Florence,
Lucas,«Propriétéintellectuelleettitularité»,
dansJurisclasseurQuébec,coll.«Propriétéintellectuelle»,Droits
intellectuels,fasc.2.Montréal,LexisNexisCanada,feuillesmobiles,
no.2.,àjourau18novembre2014.]».

Section5─Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright─Nocopyrightin
ideas─Originalityappliestotheexpressionoftheideas.
Ranchman’sHoldingIncv.BullBustin’Inc,2019CarswellAlta610(Alta.Q.B.;2019-
03-28)EamonJ.
[157]Itiswellestablishedlawthatthereisnocopyrightinideas
(CCHatpara8)[CCHCanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,
[2004]1S.C.R.339,2004SCC13].Theexpressionoftheideamight
becopyright[sic]providedtheworkisoriginal,andthat
requirementappliestotheexpressiveelementoftheworkandnot
theidea(ibidatparas8,14).Whatisrequiredtoattractcopyright
protectionintheexpressionofanideaisanon-trivialexerciseofskill
andjudgment(ibidatpara16).

Section5─Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright─Originalityisa
requirementtocopyrightprotection.
Henniv.FoodNetworkCanadaInc.,2019CarswellBC1138(B.C.S.C.;2019-04-29)
BakerJ.
[31]Paragraph13inwhichtheplaintiffsallegethatiftheFood
NetworkacceptedtheFoodFactoriesconcept,thecopyrightinthe
demoreelwouldbeassignedfromthepersonalplaintiffstothe
corporateplaintiffandthecorporateplaintiffwouldproducetheshow.

49

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Thisparagraphisfoundintheexistingclaim.Tobeprotectedby
copyright,aworkmustbeoriginal.Thereforethisparagraphalso
supportstheclaiminbreachofconfidence.

Section5─Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright─Thethresholdof
originalityislow─Creativityisnotrequiredforaworktobeoriginal.
Thomsonv.AfterlifeNetworkInc,2019CarswellNat1479(F.C.;2019-05-01)KaneJ.
[34]TheevidenceestablishesthattheApplicantandotherClass
Memberspersonallyauthoredtheobituariesusingtheirownskilland
judgment,choosingtheirownwordstoconveytheappropriate
messageaboutthelifeofthedeceasedpersonandtheirfuneral
arrangementsandaddingaphotographtakenbythemorbyanother
ClassMember.ClassMembersalsoexercisedtheirskilland
judgmentintakingthephotographsofthedeceasedperson.The
obituariesandphotographsfallwithintheterm“originalwork”
asithasbeeninterpretedbytheSupremeCourtofCanada.As
noted,thethresholdtoconstituteoriginalityintheworkislow
andcreativityisnotrequired.

Section5─Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright─Copyrightprotection
isautomatic.
PabloEnterprisepte.Ltdv.HaiLunTang*,2019CarswellNat3229(T.M.Opp.Bd.;
2019-06-13)C.R.Folz
[23]However,itiswellestablishedunderCanadianlawthat
copyrightprotectionarisesautomaticallyuponthemakingofa
workandacopyrightregistrationisnotrequiredinorderforthereto
beafindingofinfringementundertheCopyrightAct,thoughthe
registrationentitlestheownertocertainrebuttablepresumptionsas
discussedabove[seeMoreauv.St.Vincent1950CanLII248(FC),
[1950]ExCR198,12CPR32;seealsoJohnS.McKeown,Foxon
CanadianLawofCopyrightandIndustrialDesigns,4thEdition,
Chapter20:2].[…]

Section5─Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright─Copyrightprotection
isfortheexpressionoftheideasandnottheideasthemselves.
PortraitsRembrandtltéev.Interdonato(Ikono),2019QCCQ5878(Que.Ct.–Small
Claims;2019-07-26)ChoquetteJ.
[21]AuCanada,laLoisurledroitd’auteurprotègetouteœuvre
originalefixéesurunsupport[Fn8Art.5.LDA].LaLoiprotège
l’expressiond’uneidéeetnonl’idéeelle-même.

Section5─Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright─Ownershipofa
screenplaydoesnotequatetoownershipofthecopyrightintheresulting
film.
Palettav.TheQueen,2019CarswellNat5136(TaxCt.;2019-10-01)HoganJ.[appeal
A-418-19].

50

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[201]Atthattime,FoxonlyownedthescreenplayfortheSixIron
Film,itdidnotownthecopyrightinthecompletedfilmasthefilm
wasnotyetfullyproducedandcompleted.

Section5─Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright–Copyrightprotection
isautomatic.
RallysportDirectLLCv.2424508OntarioLtd,2019FC1524(F.C.;2019-11-28)
FuhrerJ.
[44]Copyrightautomaticallyexists“ineveryoriginalliterary,
dramatic,musicalandartisticwork”:CopyrightAct,s5(1)(a).

Section5─Conditionsforsubsistenceofcopyright–Copyrightprotection
doesnotdiscriminatebetweenprimaryandsecondaryuseoftheworks.
RallysportDirectLLCv.2424508OntarioLtd,2019FC1524(F.C.;2019-11-28)
FuhrerJ.
[50]IagreewiththeBCSCthat“works[createdand]usedfor
commercialpurposesarealsoentitledtocopyrightprotection”
solongastheworksthemselvesmeetthethresholdfor
attractingcopyrightprotectioninthefirstplace:Century21
[Century21CanadaLimitedPartnershipvRogersCommunications
Inc.,2011BCSC1196],aboveatparas183-184;TREB[TorontoReal
EstateBoardvCommissionerofCompetition,2017FCA236],above
atpara195.Thiswastheapproachfollowedbythe5-4majorityofthe
SupremeCourtinEuro-Excellence[Euro-ExcellenceInc.vKraft
CanadaInc.,2007SCC37].Incategoricallyrejectingthe“incidental
works”approachproposedbyBastaracheJ.,theSupremeCourt
heldallartisticworksreceivecopyrightprotectioniftheymeet
therequiredstandardsof‘skill’and‘judgment’setoutinCCH:
Euro-Excellence,aboveatparas4-6,111.TheSupremeCourt
rejectedthe“incidentalworks”approachexplicitlybecauseit
wouldbetoodifficulttodetermineconsistentlyprimaryand
secondaryuse.

Section6─Termofcopyright─Thedurationofcopyrightinaphotograph
was50yearsfromtheremainderoftheyearofthemakingoftheinitial
photograph─Aftertheexpirationotheterm,aworkfallsinthepublic
domain.
BibliothèquequébécoiseInc(Re),2019CarswellNat160(Cop.Bd.;2019-01-17),the
Board.
[1][…]elle[theBoard]nepeutvousdélivrerunelicencepuisqu’aucune
licencen’estrequisepourlareproductiondelaphotographiefaisant
l’objetdevotredemande:
1.Laphotod’AndréeMailletaétépriseentre1944et1945;
2.Laduréedelaprotectionaccordéeauxphotosàce
momentétaitde50anssuivantlafindel’annéedela

51

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

confectionduclichéinitialoudelaplanchedontlaphotoaété
directementouindirectementtirée,oudel’originallorsqu’iln’ya
pasdeclichéoudeplanche(art.9RS1927,c.C-32);
3.Laduréedelaprotectionaccordéeauxphotosentre1994et
1995étaittoujoursde50anssuivantlafindel’annéedela
créationdunégatiforiginal(Loidemiseenœuvredel’accordde
libre-échangenord-américain,SC1993,c.44,art.60(1));
4.Laphotoestdoncentréedansledomainepublicauplustard
le1erjanvier1996.

[3]Àlalumièredecequiprécède,laCommissionnepeutdonnersuite
àvotredemandedelicence.Ilnes’agitpasd’unequestiondepouvoir
discrétionnaire:laCommissionn’apascompétencepourdélivrerune
licenceenl’espèce,puisqu’ellenepeutdélivrerdelicencespour
l’utilisationd’œuvresdudomainepublic.

Section6─Termofcopyright─Aftertheexpirationoftheterm,awork
fallsinthepublicdomain.
GroupeInnovamberInc,Re,2019Carswell631(Cop.Bd.;2019-02-18),theBoard.
[1]LaCommissionaanalysévotredemandedelicencedéposéele
26juillet2018etconclu,pourlesmotifsquisuivent,qu’aucunelicence
n’estrequisepourl’utilisationdel’œuvrelittérairefaisantl’objetde
votredemande:1.L’œuvre«AusdenletztenJahrenderKaiserin
Elisabeth»delaComtesseIrmaSztarayaétépubliéeen1909;2.La
Loisurledroitd’auteurprévoitqueledroitd’auteurpourune
œuvrelittérairesubsistependantlaviedel’auteur,puisjusqu’à
lafindelacinquantièmeannéesuivantcelledesondécès(art.6
LR(1985),ch.C-42);3.L’auteurestdécédéeen1940,soitilyaplus
de78ans;4.L’œuvreestdoncdudomainepublicdepuisle1er
janvier1991.

Section6─Termofcopyright─Aftertheexpirationoftheterm,awork
fallsinthepublicdomainandisnolongerprotectedbycopyright.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.[Referencestoevidenceomitted.]
[220]LespartiesconviennentquelesgénéalogiesdeJosephDrouin
décédéen1937,fontpartiedudomainepublicauplustôtdepuis
1998,maisauplustarddepuis2003,parlejeudesarticles6et7
LDA.
.
[221]Parailleurs,touteexploitationactuelleetfuturedes
généalogiesdeJosephDrouinparlesdéfendeursestpermise
puisquecesœuvresnesontplusprotégéesparlaLDA.

52

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section6─Termofcopyright─Trademarkprotectionmaybeavailablefor
awork(orpartthereof)falleninthepublicdomain.
Sullivanv.NorthwoodMediaInc.,2019CarswellOnt7681(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2019-07-18)
Short,Master.
[37]Havingregardtothathistory,isitneverthelesspossiblefora
differentinterpretationtobemadewithrespecttothatstorybased
upontheworkofMs.Montgomery,whichisnolongersubjectto
copyrightprotectionbyvirtueofthelapseoftimefromtheoriginal
publication.TheAnnebrandishoweverstillsubjecttoprotectionwith
respecttovarioustrademarks.

Section12─WherecopyrightbelongstoHerMajesty─TheCrown
prerogativeiswithrespecttoamonopolyinpublishing.
KeatleySurveyingLtdv.TeranetInc,2019CarswellOnt15110(S.C.C;2019-09-26)
AbellaJ.(majority)[affirming2016CarswellOnt7233(Ont.C.A.;2017-09-08),which
wasaffirming2017CarswellOnt14961(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2016-02-19)].
[48]Theopeninglanguageofs.12—“[w]ithoutprejudicetoanyrights
orprivilegesoftheCrown”—reflectsthehistoricalCrownprerogative
overpublishing.Theprerogativepowerischaracterizednotas
“copyright”,butratherasa“propertyright”whichgrantsthe
Crownamonopolyonprintingcertainworksinperpetuity
(ElizabethF.Judge,“CrownCopyrightandCopyrightReformin
Canada”,inMichaelGeist,ed.,InthePublicInterest:TheFutureof
CanadianCopyrightLaw(2005),550,atp.557(“CrownCopyright”)).

Section12─WherecopyrightbelongstoHerMajesty─Directionorcontrol
oftheCrownoverthepreparationorpublicationoftheworkisrequired.
KeatleySurveyingLtdv.TeranetInc,2019CarswellOnt15110(S.C.C;2019-09-26)
AbellaJ.(majority)[affirming2016CarswellOnt7233(Ont.C.A.;2017-09-08),which
wasaffirming2017CarswellOnt14961(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2016-02-19)].
[63]Section12statesthattheCrownwillhavecopyrightwhenawork
ispreparedorpublishedbyorunderitsdirectionorcontrol.Criticalto
theassessmentofwhetherCrowncopyrightsubsists,isthenotion
andextentofgovernmentdirectionorcontrolinrelationtoawork.As
itisintheCopyrightActgenerally,the“work”isthelynchpinofs.12.
Whileitistruethats.12hastwoparts—thepreparedprongand
thepublishedprong—thesetwo“prongs”aredifferentonlyto
theextentthatpreparationandpublicationaredifferent
processes.Thegoalofthes.12inquiryinitsentiretyisto
determinewhetherthedegreeofdirectionandcontrolofthe
Crownoverthepreparationorpublicationoftheworkis
sufficienttovestcopyrightintheCrown.Whilethemannerof
assessingwhethertherequisitedegreeofdirectionorcontrolis
presentwillnecessarilyvarydependingonwhetherCrowncopyright
isassertedonthebasisofpreparationorpublication,theoverarching

53

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

questionremains:hastheCrownexercisedsufficientdirectionor
control,consistentwiththepurposesofCrowncopyright,thatitcan
besaidthatCrowncopyrightsubsists?

[64]Consideringfirstwhenitcanbesaidthataworkwaspreparedby
theCrownwithinthemeaningofs.12,itseemstomethattwo
circumstancesarebroadlycaptured.Aworkwillbepreparedbythe
CrownwhenanagentorservantoftheCrownbringstheworkinto
existenceforandonbehalfoftheCrowninthecourseofhisorher
employment.Insuchcircumstances,theCrown—includingitsagents
andemployees—hasultimatedirectionandcontroloverthecreation
ofawork.

[65]Similarly,aworkwillbepreparedundertheCrown’sdirectionor
controlwithinthemeaningofs.12whentheCrownessentially
determineswhetherandhowaworkwillbemade.Insuch
circumstances,CrowncopyrightwillsubsisteventhoughtheCrownis
notthe“author”oftheworkbecausetheCrownexercisesdirectionor
controloverthework’screation.Inthisway,worksproducedby
independentcontractorswhocompleteCrowncommissionsinwhich
theCrownexercisesthedirectionorcontroloverthecreationofthe
workwillbesubjecttoCrowncopyright.AsthereasonsofBelobaba
J.andDohertyJ.A.note,the“prepared”branchofs.12doesnot
extendtosituationsinwhichtheCrownmerelylaysdownformal
requirementsorguidelinesforhowaworkshouldbemade.Iagree
withProfessorVaver:aworkwillonlybepreparedundertheCrown’s
directionorcontrolif“theproductionofthework[is]…theprincipal
object,notaperipheralconsequence,ofthegovernment’sdirection
orcontrol”(IntellectualPropertyLaw,atp.134[Vaver,David.
IntellectualPropertyLaw:Copyright,Patents,Trade-marks,2nded.
Toronto:IrwinLaw,2011.]).

[66]Thisinterpretationofwhat“prepared”meanscohereswiththe
generalprinciplessurroundingtheownershipofcopyrightsetout
elsewhereintheAct,inparticular,s.13(3),whichgivesemployersthe
copyrightinworksproducedbyemployeesinthecourseoftheir
employment.WhiletheCrownwouldalreadyownthecopyrightinthe
worksproducedbyitsemployeesinthecourseoftheiremployment,
the“prepared”branchofs.12extendsCrowncopyrighttoworks
producedbyindependentcontractorsincircumstanceswhere
sufficientdirectionorcontrolispresent.Inthesetwocircumstances,
theCrownexercisesdirectionandcontroloverboththeperson
preparingtheworkandtheworkthatisultimatelyprepared.

54

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section12─WherecopyrightbelongstoHerMajesty─Crown’sinterest
intheworkatthetimeofthepublicationisrelevant─Crown’scontrolmust
besufficient.
KeatleySurveyingLtdv.TeranetInc,2019CarswellOnt15110(S.C.C;2019-09-26)
AbellaJ.(majority)[affirming2016CarswellOnt7233(Ont.C.A.;2017-09-08),which
wasaffirming2017CarswellOnt14961(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2016-02-19)].
[67]TheevaluationoftheCrown’sdirectionorcontroltakesona
heightenedimportanceindeterminingifaworkwaspublishedbythe
Crownwithinthemeaningofs.12.Merelymakingsomeoneelse’s
workavailabletothepublicisinsufficient.Thisisbecause,unlikethe
“prepared”prong,the“published”prong—ifinterpretedexpansively
—profoundlyderogatesfromthegeneralschemeoftheActwherein
theauthorofaworkownsthecopyrightinit.Theproperscope,
therefore,shouldbeconceptuallysymmetricalwiththeapproachto
“prepared”.JustastheCrownmustcausetheworktocomeinto
existenceforthepreparedbranchtoapply,aworkwillonlybe
publishedbyorunderthedirectionorcontroloftheCrownwhen
itcanbesaidthattheCrownexercisesdirectionorcontrolover
thepublicationprocess,includingboththepersonpublishingthe
workandthenature,formandcontentofthefinal,publishedversion
ofawork.

[68]LikeDohertyJ.A.[2015ONCA248],Iamoftheviewthat
determiningwhetheraworkwaspublishedwithsufficient
governmentaldirectionorcontroltocomplywiths.12necessitatesan
inquiryintotheCrown’sinterestintheworksatthetimeof
publicationsincethisinterestwilldemonstratethedegreeof
directionorcontrolexercisedbytheCrownoverthepublication
process.Aswiththe“prepared”prong,theCrownmustwield
directionorcontroloverthepublicationprocess,regardlessof
whethertheworksarepublished“by”theCrownitself,orbya
thirdpartyundertheCrown’s“directionorcontrol”.

Section12─WherecopyrightbelongstoHerMajesty─Indiciaexistto
ascertainwhetheraworkispublishedbytheCrown.
KeatleySurveyingLtdv.TeranetInc,2019CarswellOnt15110(S.C.C;2019-09-26)
AbellaJ.(majority)[affirming2016CarswellOnt7233(Ont.C.A.;2017-09-08),which
wasaffirming2017CarswellOnt14961(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2016-02-19)].
[69]Indeterminingwhetheraworkwaspublished“by”theCrownfor
thepurposesofs.12,relevantindiciaofgovernmentaldirection
orcontrolmayincludethepresenceofastatutoryscheme
transferringpropertyrightsintheworkstotheCrown;a
statutoryschemewhichplacesstrictcontrolsontheformand
contentoftheworks;whethertheCrownphysicallypossesses
theworks;whetherexclusivecontrolisgiventothegovernment
tomodifytheworks;theopt-innatureofthestatutoryscheme;

55

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

andthenecessityoftheCrownmakingtheworksavailabletothe
public.ItisonlywhenitcanbesaidthattheCrownhassufficient
governmentaldirectionorcontroloverthepublicationprocessthat
Crowncopyrightwillsubsistwithinthemeaningofs.12.

Section12─WherecopyrightbelongstoHerMajesty─measuringthe
degreeofcontroloftheCrownisparamount.
KeatleySurveyingLtdv.TeranetInc,2019CarswellOnt15110(S.C.C;2019-09-26)
AbellaJ.(majority)[affirming2016CarswellOnt7233(Ont.C.A.;2017-09-08),which
wasaffirming2017CarswellOnt14961(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2016-02-19)].
[71]Underboththepreparedandpublishedprongsofs.12,therefore,
theinquirywillalwaysbewhethertheextentofthegovernment’s
directionorcontroloverthepreparationorpublicationofthe
workaresufficientlyextensivetovestcopyrightintheCrown.
Thepreparedandpublishedprongsofthes.12inquirycohere:both
necessitateanexaminationintotheleveloftheCrown’sdirectionor
controloverthepersonpreparingorpublishingtheworkandthework
thatisbeingpreparedorpublished.Whiletheinquirymayvary,the
overarchingtaskisthesame—tomeasurethedegreeofdirectionor
controlexercisedbytheCrowninbringingaboutthecreationor
disseminationofawork.

Section12─WherecopyrightbelongstoHerMajesty─TheCrownis
vestedwiththe[economic]rightsoftheauthor─[Quaere:whataboutthe
moralrights?].
KeatleySurveyingLtdv.TeranetInc,2019CarswellOnt15110(S.C.C;2019-09-26)
AbellaJ.(majority)[affirming2016CarswellOnt7233(Ont.C.A.;2017-09-08),which
wasaffirming2017CarswellOnt14961(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2016-02-19)].
[79]Viewedinitsentirety,theschemedemonstratestheextentofthe
Crown’sdirectionorcontroloverthepublicationprocess.Therights
normallygiventothecreatorofthework,includingtherightto
amendtheworkandmakecopies,areinsteadgiventothe
Crown.TheCrowndirectsandcontrolseveryaspectofthe
publicationoftheregisteredanddepositedplansofsurvey.Because
oftheextentofthisdirectionandcontrol,copyrightvestsintheCrown
byoperationofs.12oftheActwhentheregisteredordepositedplans
ofsurveyarepublished.WhenitistheCrownthatpublishestheworks
bymakingthemavailablethroughtheLandRegistryoffices,theworks
arepublished“by”theCrownwithinthemeaningofs.12.

Section12─WherecopyrightbelongstoHerMajesty─Technological
neutralityisaprincipleofinterpretationoftheCopyrightAct.
KeatleySurveyingLtdv.TeranetInc,2019CarswellOnt15110(S.C.C;2019-09-26)
AbellaJ.(majority)[affirming2016CarswellOnt7233(Ont.C.A.;2017-09-08),which
wasaffirming2017CarswellOnt14961(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2016-02-19)].

56

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[87]ThisCourt’sjurisprudencehasrepeatedlyemphasizedthat
technologicalneutralityisafundamentaltenetofcopyrightlaw.
It“seekstohavetheCopyrightActappliedinsuchawaythatoperates
consistently,regardlessoftheformofmediainvolved,orits
technologicalsophistication”(SOCAN,atpara.43,citingRobertsonv.
ThomsonCorp.,2006SCC43(CanLII),[2006]2S.C.R.363,atpara.
43).Technologicalneutralityrequires“thattheCopyrightAct
applyequallybetweentraditionalandmoretechnologically
advancedformsofthesamemedia”(EntertainmentSoftware
Associationv.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishers
ofCanada,2012SCC34(CanLII),[2012]2S.C.R.231,atpara.5
(ESA)(emphasisadded)).

[88]Inotherwords,theCopyrightActshouldnotbeinterpretedor
appliedtoeitherfavourordiscriminateagainstanyformof
technology(ESA,atpara.5;Robertsonv.ThomsonCorp.,2006
SCC43(CanLII),[2006]2S.C.R.363,atpara.49;Canadian
BroadcastingCorp.v.SODRAC2003Inc.,2015SCC57,[2015]3
S.C.R.615,atpara.66).InESA,forexample,thisCourtreliedonthe
principleoftechnologicalneutralitytoconcludethattherewas“no
practicaldifferencebetweenbuyingadurablecopyoftheworkinthe
store,receivingacopyinthemail,ordownloadinganidenticalcopy
usingtheInternet.TheInternetissimplyatechnologicaltaxithat
deliversadurablecopyofthesameworktotheenduser”(para.5).

Section12─WherecopyrightbelongstoHerMajesty─Updatingofthis
provisionislefttoParliament.
KeatleySurveyingLtdv.TeranetInc,2019CarswellOnt15110(S.C.C;2019-09-26)
AbellaJ.(majority)[affirming2016CarswellOnt7233(Ont.C.A.;2017-09-08),which
wasaffirming2017CarswellOnt14961(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2016-02-19)].
[90]Afinalnoteons.12.Thisprovisionisacenturyold.Sincethisis
thefirsttimethisCourthasrevieweditsscope,ourapproachhas
takenintodeliberativeaccountthejurisprudentialdevelopmentsin
copyrightlawinrecentdecades.Parliamentisofcoursefreeto
considerupdatingtheprovisioninitscurrentreviewasitsees
fit.

Section12─WherecopyrightbelongstoHerMajesty─Forthissectionto
operate,theworkmustbeagovernmentwork.
KeatleySurveyingLtdv.TeranetInc,2019CarswellOnt15110(S.C.C;2019-09-26)
CôtéandBrownJJ(minority)[affirming2016CarswellOnt7233(Ont.C.A.;2017-09-
08),whichwasaffirming2017CarswellOnt14961(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2016-02-19)].
[99]Wewouldinterpret“preparedorpublishedbyorunderthe
directionorcontrol”oftheCrownaccordingtoitsordinarymeaning.
Toavoidtheabsurdresultfrominterpretingallofs.12literally,
however,wewouldadoptaninterpretationwherebythecopyrightina

57

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

workisvestedintheCrownwheretheworkis“preparedorpublished
byorunderthedirectionorcontrol”oftheCrown,andwherethework
isagovernmentwork.Agovernmentworkisaworkthatserves
apublicpurposeandinwhichvestingthecopyrightintheCrown
furthersthatpurpose.Thisinterpretationproperlyrespectsthe
languageofs.12,thepurposesofCrowncopyrightandthebalance
whichParliamentstruckbyenactingtheCopyrightAct.

[127]Itfollowsthat,onceacourtissatisfiedthataworkwas“prepared
orpublishedbyorunderthedirectionorcontrol”oftheCrown,itmust
thenconsiderwhether,atthetimeofpreparationorpublication,the
workisa“governmentwork”.Thisentailsexaminingthecharacter
andpurposeofthework.Theworkwillbea“governmentwork”
wheretheworkservesapublicpurposeandCrowncopyright
furthersthefulfillmentofthatpurposes[sic].Thesewillbeworks
inwhichthegovernmenthasanimportantinterestconcerningtheir
accuracy,integrity,anddissemination.

Section12─WherecopyrightbelongstoHerMajesty─Ascertainingifthe
Crownisattheoriginofthepreparationorpublicationoftheworkmay
avoiddifficulties.
KeatleySurveyingLtdv.TeranetInc,2019CarswellOnt15110(S.C.C;2019-09-26)
CôtéandBrownJJ(minority)[affirming2016CarswellOnt7233(Ont.C.A.;2017-09-
08),whichwasaffirming2017CarswellOnt14961(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2016-02-19)].
[113]Wewouldavoidtheseseriousdifficultiesbyaskingsimply
whethertheCrownbroughtaboutthepreparationorpublicationofthe
work,eitherbyitsownagentsandservantsorbyexercisingdirection
orcontroloverathirdparty,becauseinquiringintotheidentityofthe
preparerorpublisheroftheworkandthatperson’srelationshiptothe
Crownwillgeneratefindingsoffact,proceedingthuslyprovidesfar
morecertaintyandpredictabilitytoallparties.

Section12─WherecopyrightbelongstoHerMajesty─Section12applies
toworksthatservedapublicpurpose.
KeatleySurveyingLtdv.TeranetInc,2019CarswellOnt15110(S.C.C;2019-09-26)
CôtéandBrownJJ(minority)[affirming2016CarswellOnt7233(Ont.C.A.;2017-09-
08),whichwasaffirming2017CarswellOnt14961(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2016-02-19)].
[132]Fourthly,aninterpretationthatrestrictsCrowncopyrightto
governmentworksisharmoniouswiththeobjectivesofs.12.This
interpretationensuresthatCrowncopyrightisextendedtoworksonly
wheredoingsofurtherstheunderlyingpurposesofCrowncopyright.
Thosepurposeshavebeenidentifiedasensuringaccuracyand
integrityofworks.(E.Judge,“CrownCopyrightandCopyrightReform
inCanada”inM.Geist,ed.,InthePublicInterest:TheFutureof
CanadianCopyrightLaw(2005),atpp.551and554;Vaver(1996)

58

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[Vaver,David.“CopyrightandtheStateinCanadaandtheUnited
States”(1996),10I.P.J.187.],atpp.199-200and211-12).[…]

[135]Further,thesepurposesinformwhatworksaregovernment
workscoveredbys.12,byclarifyingthats.12appliestoworksofa
publiccharacter—thatis,wheretheyserveapublicpurpose.These
willbeworksforwhichaccuracy,integrityanddisseminationwillbe
importantfortheworkstoeffectivelyfulfilltheirpublicpurposes.In
determiningwhetheraparticularworkisagovernmentwork,then,the
purposeoftheworkmustbeconsidered.Section12givestheCrown
copyrightinworkswhereitwouldbedetrimentaltothepublicinterest
tohavemultipleversionsavailable,containingpotentiallydifferentand
contradictoryinformation.Itappliestoworkswhichthepublicwillrely
upon,suchthatthereisapublicinterestinknowingwheretoobtain
copiesoftheworkandreceivingauthenticversions.Additionally,it
coversworkstowhichmanypeoplemayneedaccess,suchthat
limiteddisseminationwouldnotbeinthepublicinterest,andworksto
whichaccessmayberestrictedinthepublicinterest.

[136]Themerefactthatthegovernmenthasaworkpreparedor
publishedisnotitselfconclusivethattheworkservesapublic
purpose.Fors.12toapply,thecourtmustbesatisfiedthatthework
servessuchapurpose,andthatgivingtheCrowncopyrighttoallowit
toensuretheaccuracy,integrityandappropriatedisseminationofthe
workassiststheworkinfulfillingthatpurpose.

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Theauthorofaworkisgenerally
thefirstownerofthecopyrighttherein.
BurkevRedBarnatMattick’sLtd.,2019CarswellBC93(B.C.S.C.;2019-01-24)
MacKenzieJ.
[Thisapplicationstemsfromaproposedclassactionforbreachofprivacyinvolving
thenon-consensualcaptureofexplicitimagesinaworkplacewashroom]
[38]Intellectualpropertyrightsinphotographsandvideorecordingsare
determinedundertheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42.Unders.
13(1),theauthorofawork–notitssubject–normallybecomes“thefirst
ownerofthecopyrighttherein.”Unders.3,theownerofthecopyrightin
aworkhasthesolerighttoproduce,reproduce,orpublishthatworkor
anysubstantialpartthereof,unlesstheyauthorizeotherstodoso.
Althoughthesubjectsofphotographsandvideorecordingshave
privacyrightsthatmaylimitwhatacopyright-holdercandowith
workscreatedwithoutthesubjects’consent(seeAubryv.Éditions
Vice-Versainc.,1998CanLII817(SCC),[1998]1S.C.R.591),those
subjectsdonotowntheintellectualpropertyinthosemedia.Asaresult,
Iamunabletoagreewiththeplaintiffs’contentionthattheimages
atissue“wererightlytheirproperty.”

59

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Thecopyrightinaworkcreatedby
anemployeebelongtotheemployer.
PyrrhaDesignInc.v.PlumandPoseyInc.,2019CarswellNat210(F.C.;2019-01-30)
PhelanJ.[appealA-98-19].
[83]PyrrhaistheownerofanycopyrightinPyrrhaDesignsunder
subsection13(3)oftheActasWilmoreandPapincreatedthe
PyrrhaDesignsinthecourseoftheiremploymentwithPyrrha.
WilmoreandPapinarebothCanadiancitizens.

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Royaltiesqualifyasincome─
Royaltiesareabusinessassetthatissubjecttonetfamilyproperty
equalization.
Wiltonv.Myhr*,2019CarswellOnt2748(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2019-02-26)DietrichJ.
[44]Royaltiesaretraditionallyunderstoodasaformofremuneration,
ratherthanaformofintangibleproperty(suchasacopyrightor
patent),thevalueofwhichwouldbesubjecttoequalization.However,
theroyaltiescouldalsobeconsideredacontingentinterestforthe
purposesoftheFamilyLawActandthereforepropertyforthe
purposesofequalization.InthecaseofClarkev.Clarke,2014BCSC
1617(CanLII)(“Clarke”),royaltieswereincludedinthedivisionof
familypropertyconsideration.However,theroyaltiesarosefromanoil
andgasleaseratherthanacatalogueoforiginalwork,suchasa
musicalcomposition,asisthecasehere.

[45]Attrial,Mr.Myhrandhisexpert,Mr.Sperti,usedtheterm
“royalties”toreferenceboththehusband’sincomeandtheproperty
thatgeneratedtheincome.Mr.SpertiprovidedtwocalculationsofMr.
Myhr’sincome.Oneincludestheroyaltyincomeearnedintheyear
andtheotherdoesnot.InvaluingKenMyhrMusic,Mr.Sperti
capitalizedthemorelucrativeroyaltiesandincludedthiscapitalized
amountaspropertyforthepurposesofcalculatingtheequalization
payment(asdiscussedinmoredetailbelow).

[46]Whetherroyaltiesqualifyaspropertyisnotastraightforward
analysis.Itiswell-establishedinthejurisprudencethatroyalties
qualifyasincome:Mobinv.Stephens,2013ONCJ53(CanLII)at
para.52.Thepartieswerenotabletopointtoanyjurisprudencein
whichroyaltiesfrommusicalcompositionqualifiedaspropertyforthe
purposeofs.5(1)oftheFamilyLawAct.Likewise,Iwasnotprovided
withanyjurisprudenceinwhichtheinclusionofsuchroyaltiesas
propertyforthepurposesofequalizationofnetfamilypropertiesis
specificallyrejected.Asnoted,intheClarkecase,royaltieswere
includedinthepropertydivisioncalculation,though,inthatcase,the
royaltiesarosefromaleaseandnotfrommusicalcomposition.

60

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[54]Inthecaseatbar,basedontheevidencebeforethecourt,Ifind
that,inadditiontogeneratingincome,Mr.Myhr’sroyaltiesarea
businessasset,orproperty,thatissubjecttonetfamilyproperty
equalization.

[55]Ialsofindthattheprincipleagainstdoublerecoveryordouble-
dippingdoesnotapplyinthiscase.Followingtheseparation,Mr.
Myhrretainedhisbusinessinitsentiretyanditremainsthe
principalsourceofthefamily’sincome.AsinMason[Masonv.
Mason,2014ONSC429],anequalizationofthevalueofthisasset
shouldnotdisentitlethespousetosupport;anditshouldnot,in
thiscase,reducetheamountofsupportthatmightotherwisebe
availabletoher.Accordingly,IfindthatMr.Myhr’stotalincome,
includingtheroyaltyincome,shallbetakenintoaccountforthe
purposesofspousalsupport.

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Interpretationofcontractsshould
alsobegovernedbygoodbusinesssense.
GeophysicalServiceIncorporatedv.FalklandOilandGasLimited,2019CarswellAlta
585,(Alta.Q.B.;2019-03-07)[add.reasons2019CarswellAlta938(Alta.Q.B.–Costs;
2019-05-02);affd2020CarswellAlta67(Alta.C.A.;2020-01-20)].
[91]DuringtheFOGLandBHPjointventurebothhaduse-licenses
withGSIcoveringalloftheSeismicDatathatcontainedsubstantially
similarterms–thatis,thoseoftheMDLA[MasterSeismicData
LicenseAgreement].BHPretainedathirdpartytocreate
ReprocessedSeismicDatafromtheSeismicDatatowhichithada
use-license.BHPprovidedtheReprocessedSeismicDatatoFOGL
andneitherBHPnorFOGLenteredintoadditionaluse-licensesor
paidadditionalfeestoGSIforthetransferofthatReprocessed
SeismicData.

[92]FOGLacknowledgesthatithadaccesstoReprocessedSeismic
DatacreatedbyBHPandthatitdidnotenterintoaseparatelicense
fortheuseofthatdata.GSIsubmitsthatthisviolatedthetermsofthe
MDLAeventhoughtheReprocessedSeismicDatawascreatedfrom
SeismicDatatowhichFOGLhadalicense.GSIsubmitsthatparties
couldonlycreateReprocessedSeismicDatathemselvesorthrough
theirownarrangementwithathirdparty.Anyotheraccessto
ReprocessedSeismicData,evenifcreatedfromSeismicDatato
whichthepartyhadalicense,requiredanadditionaluse-license.

[93]InmyviewFOGLhasshownthatGSI’sclaiminrelationtotheBHP
ReprocessedSeismicDatahasnomerit,andGSIhadnotshownanytriable
issuewithrespecttothatclaim.Specifically,theprovisionsofthe
MDLA,properlyinterpretedinlightoftheirfactualmatrix,mean
thatitwasnotaviolationoftheMDLAforFOGLtoaccessand

61

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

useReprocessedSeismicDatacreatedbyBHPfromSeismic
DatatowhichbothBHPandFOGLhaduse-licenses.

[99]ItseemsundulytechnicaltosaythatFOGLcouldhave
retainedthethirdpartytocreatethisidenticalReprocessed
SeismicData,butthatitisrequiredtopurchasealicensesimply
becausetherequestwasmadebyitsjointventurepartnerBHP
ratherthanbyFOGLitself.ItwouldmeanthatFOGLcouldask
BHPtocreatetheReprocessedSeismicData,orFOGLcouldask
athirdpartytocreatetheReprocessedSeismicData,butifBHP
asksthethirdpartytocreatetheReprocessedSeismicDatathen
FOGLhastopurchaseanadditionallicense.Thatinterpretation
makesnobusinesssense.

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Arighttousedoesnottranspose
aarightofownership.
LuxmeInternationalLtdv.Lasnier,2019CarswellQue1940(Que.Sup.Ct.;2019-03-
27)BachandJ.
[79]Deuxièmement,lapreuven’établitpas,selonlaprépondérance
desprobabilités,que[thePlaintiff]LuxmeouLuxmeTechest
devenuepropriétairedecettetechnologie,ouencoreque
Schrageleuracédédesdroitsdepropriétéintellectuelle.Il
ressortplutôtdelapreuvequeLuxmeaseulementacquisdeSchrage
undroitd’utilisationdecettetechnologiedanslesmarchéscanadien
etaméricain.

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Anassignorshouldbetheowner
oftherightitassigned–Circumstancialevidenceontheoriginofthe
assignedworksshouldbesatisfactoryonabalanceofprobabilities.
LuxmeInternationalLtdv.Lasnier,2019CarswellQue1940(Que.Sup.Ct.;2019-03-
27)BachandJ.
[69]Leproblèmenesesituepasauniveaudelacessiondesdroits
depropriétéintellectuellede[Plaintiff]LuxmeàLuxmeTech:envertu
del’ententededécembre2014,LuxmeaclairementcédéàLuxme
Techtouslesdroitsdepropriétéintellectuellequ’ellepossédait
relativementàsesactivitésdecommercialisationdesystèmesde
convoyeurstubulaires,ycomprissesdroitsd’auteur.Leproblème
estplutôtdûàl’insuffisancedelapreuvetendantàdémontrer
que,avantquecettecessionnesurvienne,Luxmeétaitbelet
bientitulairededroitsd’auteuràl’égarddesdessinstechniques
queM.LasnieretAxisontutilisésafindefabriquerdessystèmesde
convoyeurstubulaires.

[81]Ensomme,l’onnepeuttenirpouracquisquelesdessinsdontse
sontservisM.LasnieretAxisontétépréparéspardesemployésde
Luxmeetqu’ils’agitd’œuvresoriginalesausensdesdispositions

62

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

pertinentesdelaL.d.a.Pouravoirgaindecause,ilauraitfalluque
LuxmeTechoffreunepreuvebeaucoupplusprécisesurl’originede
cesdessinsainsiquesurlanatureetlateneurdupartenariatqu’elle
aconcluavecSchrageen1996.Lapreuvecirconstancielleà
laquelleelleachoisideselimiternesuffitdoncpaspour
conclure,selonlaprépondérancedesprobabilités,qu’elleest
titulairededroitsd’auteuràl’égarddesdessinstechniquesdont
sesontservisM.LasnieretAxis.

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Ownershipmustbeproven.
Ranchman’sHoldingIncv.BullBustin’Inc,2019CarswellAlta610(Alta.Q.B.;2019-
03-28)EamonJ.
[167]Inthecaseofphotographs,thereisnoevidencewhether
copyrightinanyphotographssubsistedinthephotographeror
thePlaintiffs,orabouttherelationshipofthephotographertothe
Plaintiffsorthetermsunderwhichthephotographsweregiventothe
SnyderDefendants.

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Thereisnospecificwordingfora
copyrightassignment─Anassignmentcouldbeimplicit─Thecommon
intentofthepartiesshouldbeascertained.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.
[229]Detouteévidence,lelibellédelaLDAnerequiertpas,
commeconditiondevalidité,quelacessionsoitrédigéeendes
termesexprès.Dansl’arrêtTurgeonc.Michaud[Fn210Turgeonc.
Michaud,2003CanLII4735(QCCA)],laCourd’appelexprimeles
considérationssuivantes:
[71]Ilmeparaît,parailleurs,déraisonnabled’invaliderune
cessionécritepourlesimplemotifqu’ellen’utilisepasune
formulationexpresse,alorsqu’ilressortdel’écritquel’intention
despartiesétaitdeprocéderàunetellecession.Àmonavis,
pourqu’unecessionsoitvalide,ilsuffitd’êtreenprésenced’un
écritsignéparletitulairedudroitetqu’ilenressorteclairement
quelavéritableintentiondecelui-ciétaitdecédercedroit.[Nos
soulignés.]

[230]Cetarrêtprésenteensuiteuneanalysecomplètedel’étatdu
droitàcetégardquiserésumeainsi:
−Lecontratestsoumisaudroitcivilquébécoisquidemandequ'on
recherchequ’elle[sic]aétélacommuneintentiondesparties;
−«Iln’existepasdeformulemiraclepourdéterminersiun
contrattransfèreundroitd’auteurexclusif.Danstoutesles
situationsquiluisontsoumises,untribunalanalyselesstipulations
ducontratetsedemandes’illaissevoirunvéritabletransfertde
droitdepropriétésurl’unoul’autredesdroitsexclusifs.[Fn211

63

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

NormandTamaroTamaro,Ledroitd’auteur:fondementset
principes,Montréal,Pressesdel’UniversitédeMontréal,1994,
p.187]»;
−Unecessionécriten’apasàêtreexplicite,étantentenduque
lavaliditédecelle-cin’esttributairequedel’intentiondes
parties.

[231]LaCourd’appelretientenfinlesenseignementsdelaCour
suprêmedansMassie&RenwickLtd.c.Underwriter’sSurveyBureau
Ltd.[Fn212Massie&RenwickLtd.c.Underwriter’sSurveyBureau
Ltd.,1940CanLII1(SCC)1940CanLII1(SCC),,[1940]R.C.S.218,
p.229,231,237,238et239.],ayant«concluqu’unecessionécrite
pouvaitêtreimpliciteenjugeantqu’uncontratdevente
d’entreprisepouvaitentraînerlacessiondesdroitsd’auteurà
l’égarddesœuvresprotégéescontenuesdanscetactif[Fn213
Turgeonc.Michaud,2003CanLII4735(QCCA)],par.82.].»

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Inanassetpurchaseagreement,
copyrightdoesnothavetobespecificallymentionedtobetransferred.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.
[233]CetteConventiond’achatd’actifsnefaitpeut-êtrepas
expressémentréférenceauxdroitsd’auteur,maislaconjugaisonde
touslesactessignéscejour-làconfirmecetteintention.

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Authorisnotdefinedinthe
CopyrightAct─Authorandfirstowneraredistinctconcepts.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.
[246]Ensuite,lanotiond’«auteur»n’estpasspécifiquement
définieparlelégislateurfédéral,nidanslaLFInimêmedansla
LDA.Cependant,oncomprendtoutdesuitedulibellédel’article14
LDAprécitéqu’ilyaunedistinctionimportanteàfaireentre
l’«auteur»etle«premiertitulaire».

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Anemployerisnotanauthor
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.
[247]Enrèglegénérale,l’«auteur»estlepremiertitulairedudroit
d’auteursuruneœuvre[Fn221Art.13(1)LDA.].Uneexceptionse
retrouveàl’article13(3)LDA,lorsqu’uneœuvreestexécutéedans
l’exerciced’unemploi.L’employeurestalorslepremiertitulairedu
droitd’auteur,àmoinsd’unestipulationcontrairedanslecontrat.Si
bienquel’employeurn’estjamaisl’«auteur»d’uneœuvreau
sensdelaLDA.

64

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Copyrightmaybetransferredby
will.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.[Referencestoevidenceomitted.]
[254]Parconséquent,c’estl’alinéa2del’article83quis’applique
enl’espèce.Ainsi,lesrecueilsetlesdroitsd’auteurdoivent
retourneràl’auteurGabrielDrouin,etdanslescirconstancesde
sondécès,àlaSuccessionetauxhéritiersdûmentreprésentéspar
ledemandeurdansleprésentrecours.

[255]Eneffet,ilyalieudereconnaîtrequelasuccessiondesdroits
d’auteursurlesœuvresestd’aborddévolueàJeanne-Côté-Drouin
(toujoursvivanteaumomentdelafailliteen1987)envertudulegs
universelstipulédansletestamentdeGabrielDrouin.Depuisson
décès,ilsfontpartiedelaSuccessiondecelle-ci.

[256]Ensomme,silerecoursdelaSuccessionestprescritpour
lesactesquionteulieuavantle20mai2012,ilrestequeleDNCF
(tome3)etlesgénéalogiesfamilialesparGabrielDrouinse
trouventactuellementexploitéssurlessitesInternetdes
défendeursetdanscescirconstancesparticulières,sans
autorisationdelaSuccessionquidétientlesdroits.Par
conséquent,leTribunaldoitprononceràcestadelesconclusions
recherchéesenmatièred’injonction.

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Masterrecordingsperseare
eligiblecapitalpropertyandnotdepreciableproperty.
Unidiscmusiqueincv.AgencedurevenuduQuébec,2019CarswellQue2647(Que.
Ct.;2019-04-02)GouinJ.[appeal500-09-028299-196].
[21]Ainsi,laquestionenlitigeàlaquelleleTribunaldoitrépondre
consisteàdéterminersilesbiens(masterrecordings)incluantles
droitsprotégésparledroitd’auteurdoiventêtreconsidérés
commedesbiensamortissablesdelacatégorie8del’annexeBdu
RIoucommedesimmobilisationsincorporellesausensdelaLoi
surlesimpôts[Fn17RLRQ,ch.I-3.](LI).

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Ownershipofsoundrecordings
doesnotimplyalicensetousethemwithoutclearingtherightsofthe
copyrightownersinsame.
Unidiscmusiqueincv.AgencedurevenuduQuébec,2019CarswellQue2647(Que.
Ct.;2019-04-02)GouinJ.[appeal500-09-028299-196].
[54]Ainsi,Unidisc,agissantparl’entremisedeM.Cucuzella,son
président,étaitparfaitementconscientequ’ellen’achetaitpas
l’ensembledesdroitsassociésauxœuvres.Leprixdeventefutétabli
enconséquence,sachantquelacommercialisationdesœuvres
enregistréessurlesbandesmaîtressesallaitrequérirdes

65

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

débourséssubséquents,payablesnonpasàl’ancien
propriétairedesbandesmaîtressesmaisauxauteurs,
compositeurs,interprètesetproducteurs(«publishers»),
conformémentàlaLDA.

[59]L’article18delaLDAprévoitlesdroitsdirectementliésàun
enregistrementsonore[…]

[60]Envendantlesbandesmaîtresses,lesvendeurspouvaientainsi
céderlesdroitsci-dessus.Etc’estcequ’ilsontfaitmaispasplus.

[61]Danslalettred’interprétation[Fn39PièceP-4,p.3]quiconstitue
labasedescotisations,onréfèreàl’article18delaLDA.Toutefois,
enraisondel’omissionderéférerauxautresdroitsprotégéspar
d’autresarticles–lesdroitsquinesontpasliésàl’enregistrement
sonorelui-même,maisplutôtàl’œuvreetàsescréateurs,ils’ensuit
quelalettred’interprétationestjuridiquementincorrecteet
incomplète.

[62]Lesarticles3,13et15delaLDAencadrentlesdroitsdes
auteurs-compositeurs-interprètes,lesquelsdroitssont
indépendantsdel’enregistrementsonoreet,parconséquent,ne
sontpascédésparlasimplecessiond’unebandemaîtresse.

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Thefirstownerofthecopyrights
mayassignorlicensethem.
Unidiscmusiqueincv.AgencedurevenuduQuébec,2019CarswellQue2647(Que.
Ct.;2019-04-02)GouinJ.[appeal500-09-028299-196].
[64]Lesparagraphes13(1)et(4)delaLDAencadrentlesdroits
dupremiertitulairedudroitd’auteur(auteur-compositeur)sur
uneœuvreetdelapossibilitédelecéderoudeconcéderune
licence

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Acquisitionofsoundrecordings
doesnotincludethecopyrightsinthem.
Unidiscmusiqueincv.AgencedurevenuduQuébec,2019CarswellQue2647(Que.
Ct.;2019-04-02)GouinJ.[appeal500-09-028299-196].
[67]Lalettred’interprétation[Fn41PièceP-4.]assimileerronément
lesdroitsd’auteurapplicablesàuneoeuvremusicaleauxdroits
intimementliésàl’enregistrementsonore.LetémoignagedeM.
Cuccuzella,présidentd’Unidiscestcohérentaveclalégislation
canadiennesurledroitd’auteur.

[68]Eneffet,Unidiscsaitcequ’elleachèteetcequ’ellen’achètepas:
elleachètelesbandesmaîtressesetlesdroitsinextricablesdes
bandesmaîtressesprotégésparl’article18.Elleestconscientedece

66

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

qu’elledevradébourseretàquiaumomentdemettreenmarchéles
CDoulescompilationsélectroniquestiréesdesbandesmaîtresses.

[69]Enachetantdesbandesmaîtresses,elleachètelameilleure
qualitédel’enregistrementsonoreàpartirdelaquellelescopiesvont
pouvoirêtretiréesetainsimisesenmarché.

[70]Laqualitédel’enregistrementsonoren’arienàvoiravecles
droitsprotégésauxarticles3,13et15,nimême18delaLDA.En
fait,laqualitédel’enregistrementsonoreatoutàvoiravecla
qualitédusupportphysique,soitsaconservationdansdes
conditionsoptimales,saprotectioncontrelesaltérationsetles
vols,etfinalementsamanipulationpardesprofessionnels
consciencieuxselonlesrèglesdel’artlorsdelaconfectiondes
copies.

[71]Unidisc,conformémentauxcontrats[Fn42PiècesP-1,D-6
(égalementP-2),D-7,D-8],n’achètedoncnilesdroitsd’auteurs-
compositeurs-interprètes,niceuxdesproducteurs(«publishers»)au
sensdelaLDA.

[72]Quandl’ARQaffirmequelesbandesmaîtressesn’ont
aucunevaleursanslesdroitsassociésauxoeuvres,cequiest
incorrect,ceciéquivautàconfondrel’ensembledesdroits
protégésauxarticles3,13,15et18delaLDA.

[73]Quandl’ARQconclutqu’Unidiscaacquis,parl’acquisitiondes
bandesmaîtresses,lesdroitsdesauteurs-compositeurs-interprètes
etproducteurs,ceciestcontraireàlaLDA,aulibellémêmedes
contratsetàlacommuneintentiondesparties,demêmequ’au
témoignagenoncontestéetnoncontreditdeM.Cucuzella.

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Documentsevidencingownership
arerelevantinacopyrightinfringementactionandshallbeproduced.
9286-3075Québecinc.v.QuébecVilleduRockinc.,2019CarswellQue3558(Que.
Sup.Ct.;2019-04-05)BellavanceJ.
[10]Aprèsavoirexaminécesdemandesdeproduction,leTribunal
rejettel’objectionetordonnelaproductiondesdocumentsenquestion
pourlesmotifsquisontexposésparlesdemanderesses,aux
paragraphessuivantsdeleurdocumentintitulé »Notesetautorités–
Demanderesses »:
8.Telqu’admisauxparagraphes23à25et28deladéfenseet
demandereconventionnelle,ledéfendeurSébastienGirardétait
employéparlademanderesse9220-8883Québecinc.entre
2010et2012;

67

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

9.Lesdemanderessessoumettentquelesengagements »Pré-
ENG-1,Pré-ENG-6,Pré-ENG-7,Pré-ENG-13″concernent
expressémentlesnégociationsintervenuesentrelesparties
concernantl’exploitationduconcours »Lévis,villeduRock »etles
droitsdepropriétéintellectuelleendécoulant;
10.Cesdemandessontpertinentesencequelaquestionde
titularitédesdroitsdepropriétéintellectuelleentourantle
concours »Lévis,villeduRock »sont[sic]aucoeurdulitige;

[11]LeTribunalconclutégalementquelademandeestsuffisamment
précisepourpermettreauxdéfendeursd’ydonnersuiteetsejustifie
enregarddesdispositionsdelaLoisurlesdroitsd’auteurexposée
précédemment.

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Assignmentoftheemployeetothe
employerisnotrequired─Authorshipandownershiparetwodifferent
concepts.
Capitaleenfêteinc.v.Ouellet,2019CarswellQue4570(Que.Ct.;2019-05-01)Boutin
J.
[49]Autermedeceparagraphe[13(3)],pointn’estbesoinque
l’employécèdesondroitpuisquesonemployeurenesttitulaire
d’embléedefaçonstatutaire.

[50]L’auteur,quicréel’œuvre,etletitulaire,quipossèdela
propriétéoulatitularitédudroitd’auteursurl’œuvre,recouvrent
doncdeuxnotionsdifférentes[Fn11StéphaneGILKER,Congrès
annuelduBarreauduQuébec(2009),Principesgénérauxdudroit
d’auteur,BarreauduQuébec–Servicedelaformationcontinue,
Cowansville,YvonBlais,2013,pages60,61,62.]

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Worksarenotacquestsbutprivate
property─Workssoldareproceedsandacquests.
Droitdelafamille—19884*,2019CarswellQue4198(Que.Sup.Ct.;2019-05-14)
TurcotteJ.
[43]L’épousedemandelepartagedelavaleurdesœuvresexécutées
pendantlemariagemaisnonencorevendues.Elledésireobtenir
l’équivalentdelamoitiéduprixauquelellessontoffertesenvente,
moinslacommissionàlaquellelegaleristeadroit.

[44]Poursapart,l’épouxplaidequelesœuvresenquestionsontdes
propresetqueseulslesrevenusquisontperçusaucoursdurégime
sontdesacquêts,conformémentàl’article458duCodecivildu
Québec[…]

[45]L’auteurBrigitteLefebvre[Fn4BrigitteLEFEBVRE,«Droit
d’auteur,droitmatrimonialetdroitsuccessoral»,dansUncocktailde

68

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

droitd’auteur=ACopyrightCocktail,Montréal,LesÉditionsThémis,
2007.]enseignequelesmodalitésd’exploitationd’uneœuvre
appartiennentàl’auteur,quiseuldétientundroitderegardquant
àladispositiondesacréation.Elleécritquecelienintimeentre
l’auteuretsonœuvrejustifiedequalifiercettedernièreàtitrede
bienpropre[…]

[49]LeTribunalestd’opinionquel’onnepeutassimilerlesœuvres
auproduitdutravaildel’époux.Lemot«produit»utiliséàl’article
449C.c.Q.désignelesdiversessourcesderevenusgagnésenraison
d’untravailtelslesalaire,leshonoraires,lescommissions,les
avantagessociaux,uneindemnitétenantlieudepréavisetune
compensationmonétairepourcongésdemaladienonutilisés[Fn7
AlainROY,«Commentairesousl’article449»,dansBenoîtMOORE
(dir.),CodecivilduQuébec:Annotations–Commentaires,3eéd.,
Montréal,ÉditionsYvonBlais,2018,p.422.].Ensomme,cenesont
quelesrevenusperçusdelaventedesœuvres,aucoursdurégime,
quisontdesacquêts.

[50]Lesœuvresquin’ontpasétévenduesaucoursdumariage
sontdemeuréesdesproprespuisqueseull’auteur,en
l’occurrencel’époux,aledroitdelesexploitercommeill’entend.

[51]Ellesnesontpassujettesàpartage.

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Copyrightroyaltiesareincome
resultingfromworkperformance.
N.G.vQuébec(Travail,EmploietSolidaritésociale)*,2019CanLII55514(QCTAQ;
2019-06-10)GouveiaandDieudonnéJJ.
[102]LapartieintiméeadéposéladécisionL.S.[Fn222018CanLII
67566(QCTAQ),2018QCTAQ03458],avecl’objectifd’établirque
lesdroitsd’auteurnepeuventêtreconsidéréscommedesrevenusde
travail.LeTribunalsemblaitêtred’accordaveclapositionque«la
prestationdetravaildoitalorsêtreexécutéedanslamêmepériodeoù
lesprestationsd’aidededernierrecoursluisontversées».

[103]DanslecasspécifiquedeMadameL.S.,leTribunalabaséson
raisonnementsurleratiodeciendi[sic]deladécisiondelaformation
dansl’affaired’I.G.c.Québec(EmploietSolidaritésociale)[Fn23
2006CanLII75268(QCTAQ),SAS-Q-111031-0409].

[127]Dansl’affaireC.B.etR.B.cQuébec(EmploietSolidarité
sociale)[Fn28SAS-Q-050729-9907/SAS-Q-050783-9907],les
requérantsnecontestaientpasqu’ilsaientperçudesredevancesde
droitd’auteur.Ilsestimaientquel’intiméauraitdûétalerlesmontants

69

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

surunepériodededouzemois.Ausujetdelanaturedeces
avantagespécuniaires,leTribunalaécrit:
«…ilestindéniablequelesargentsiciperçusnesontpasle
fruitd’activitésponctuelles:ilssontl’expressiondeventes
réaliséestoutaulongd’uneannée,consécrationd’uneœuvre
passée.Lesmodalitésd’attributiondetellesredevances
(versementssemestriels)nesauraientaltérercetteréalité,cela
tombesouslesens»

[128]LeTribunalaconcluquelesredevancesdedroitd’auteur
étaientdesrevenusdetravail.

[131]DanslacausedeP.V.c.Québec(EmploietSolidaritésociale)
[Fn30SAS-Q-104531-0401],lesrevenusencauseréféraientsurtout
àdesdroitsd’auteur[Fn31Page4deladécisionSAS-Q-104531-
0401,paragraphe5].LeTribunalindiqued’embléequelesmontants
sont«assimilésàdesrevenusdetravailquisontrépartissurune
périodededouzemoisetbénéficientdel’exemptionapplicableaux
revenusdetravail.»

[132]Quantàl’argumentdurequérantqueletravailaétéfait
antérieurementàlapériodeenlitige,ilestécritque:
«LeTribunalnepeutnonplussouscrireàl’argumentationdu
requérantàl’effetquelesdroitsd’auteurontétéverséspourdu
travailfaitantérieurementàlapériodeenlitigeetquepource
motifiln’yapaslieudelescomptabiliser.

Avecdéférencepourl’opinioncontraire,cetteinterprétationest
contraireàl’espritdelaLoietàl’interprétationjurisprudentielle.

L’article27delaLoiprécitéeapplicableenl’espècepréciseen
effetquelasituationd’unprestataireestanalysée
mensuellementafindedéterminerl’aideàverseretlecalculest
effectuéenfonctiondesbesoinsprévalantaudernierjourdu
moisprécédentdesquelssontsoustraitslesrevenusou
avantagespossédésparleprestatairecejour.»

[133]En2009,leTribunalestencoreappeléàrépondreàlaquestion
desavoircommentqualifierdesrevenusderedevancedelaSociété
canadiennedesauteurs,compositeursetéditeursdemusique
(SOCAN)dansl’affaireM.-A.B.cG.G.cQuébec(EmploietSolidarité
sociale)[Fn32SAS-M-134168-0707,2009CanLII14954(QCTAQ),
2009QCTAQ03742].Lerequérantétaitauteur-compositeur-
interprète.L’intiméconsidéraitleversementdumontantde119.35$
commeuneressourcefinancière.Lerequérantconsidéraitce
paiementcommeunrevenudetravail.Aprèsavoirexaminéles

70

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

articles27et100delaLoisurlesoutiendurevenuetfavorisant
l’emploietlasolidaritésociale[Fn33L.R.Q.,c.S-32.001.],
relativementàlanotionderevenudetravail,etl’article88du
Règlement,leTribunalconclutque:
«Lanotionderevenudetravailn’estdéfinienidanslaLoini
dansleRèglement.Lesenscommundecesmotsamènele
Tribunalàconclurequ’ils’agitd’unrevenuquel’onreçoiten
contrepartied’uneprestationdetravail.»

[134]DanscetteaffairedeM.-A.B.,lebancditêtreenaccordavecla
décisionduTribunaldansl’affaireG.G.cQuébec(EmploietSolidarité
sociale)etajouteque:
«lemontantdelaredevancededroitsd’exécutionpublique
verséaurequérantparlaSOCANdécouled’uneprestationde
travaildurequérantquiconstituebeletbienunrevenudetravail
qu’ilareçuàtitred’éditeurdesespropreschansons.»

[147]Selonladéfinitionprévueàl’article44duRèglement,
l’expression«revenusdetravail»visetouterémunérationaccordée
pourl’exécutiond’untravail.Silelégislateuravaitvouluattacher
unelimitetemporelle,enédictantquelaprestationdoitêtre
effectuéedemanièrecontemporaineauversementdel’aide
financière,ilavaitleloisirdelefaire,lorsqu’ilaprocédéaux
modificationslégislatives,ouàn’importequelautremoment.

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Theowneroftheinitialnegativeis
nolongerconsideredastheauthorofthephotograph─Copyright
ownershipdoesnottrumpprivacyconsiderations.
Morinv.Boizette(AsahiPhoto),2019QCCQ3800(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-
06-25)GuénardJ.
[Plaintiffsunpleasedwiththequalityoftheweddingphotographs]
[49]Certes,laLoisurledroitd’auteurneprévoitplus,eneffet,comme
ledéfendeursemblel’avoirplaidéaprèslemariage,queleclientest
le«premiertitulairedudroitd’auteur»dansdescirconstancescomme
cellesdel’espèce.Eneffet,l’ancienarticle13(2)deladiteLoi,quile
prévoyait,futabrogéen2012.

[50]Cecidit,cetteabrogationdel’article13(2)deladiteLoin’apas
faitensorted’abrogerleprincipeàl’effetquelespartiesàuncontrat
sonttenuesderespectercequiaétévalablementconclu–bref,de
respecterlesobligationsvalablementconvenuesentrecelles-ci.

[51]Or,enl’espèce,lapreuveclaireetnoncontrediteétablitqueles
partiesontconvenu,spécifiquement,queledéfendeurn’allait
pasutiliser,àmoinsd’unconsentementexprès,lesphotosdes
demanderesses,etce,pourlesmotifsmentionnésauprésent

71

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Jugement,telqu’explicitéenplusamplesdétailsparles
demanderesseslorsduProcès.

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Acopyrightassignmentdoesnot
constituteawaiverofthemoralrights.
Lépinev.MunicipalitédeSainte-Marcelline-de-Kildare,2019QCCQ5182(Que.Ct.–
SmallClaims;2019-07-23)ChoquetteJ.
[26]Maisletitulairedudroitd’auteur,ledemandeurenl’instance
peutconférerdesrestrictionsparticulièreslorsqu’ilcèdeson
droit[Fn4JacMatinc.c.GazMétropolitain2006QCCQ14757].Et
c’estlecasenl’espècealorsqu’iln’accepteaucunajoutouretrait.

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Copyrightcouldbeassignedin
wholeorinpart,withrestrictionsornot.
Robillardv.91439Canadaltée(ÉditionsdeMortagne),2019CarswellQue7544(Que.
Sup.Ct.;2019-08-19)LangloisJ.[leavetoappealgranted2019CarswellQue11411
(Que.C.A.;2019-12-09)].
[66]Lesdroitséconomiquessontfondéssuruneconceptiondes
œuvresartistiquesetlittérairesquilesconsidèrent
essentiellementcommedesobjetsdecommerce[Fn28Théberge
c.Galeried’ArtduPetitChamplaininc,2002CSC34,atpara.12].

[67]Conformémentàcetteconception,cesdroitspeuventêtre
achetésetvendusentotalitéouenpartie,d’unefaçongénérale
ouavecdesrestrictions[Fn29Thébergec.Galeried’ArtduPetit
Champlaininc,2002CSC34,atpara.13].

[69]Règlegénérale,souslerégimedelaL.D.A.,quiestdetradition
anglaiseetcontrairementàlatraditionciviliste,lesdroits
économiquessuruneœuvreunefoiscédés,nepermettentdoncpas
autitulairedudroitd’auteurdeconserverlecontrôlesurlesusages
ultérieursdesonœuvrepardestiersacquéreursdecopiesautorisés
[Fn30Thébergec.Galeried’ArtduPetitChamplaininc,2002CSC34,
atpara.65].

[70]Latraditioncivilistequantàelleconfèreàl’auteurundroitde
destination,c’est-à-diredecontrôlerdansunelargemesure
l’utilisationultérieuredescopiesautoriséesdesonœuvre[Fn31
Thébergec.Galeried’ArtduPetitChamplaininc,2002CSC34,at
para.63].

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Toascertainiftheauthorisan
employeeofafreelancer,recoursecouldbemadetolabourlawprinciples.
KeatleySurveyingLtdv.TeranetInc,2019CarswellOnt15110(S.C.C;2019-09-26)
AbellaJ.(majority)[referenceomitted][affirming2016CarswellOnt7233(Ont.C.A.;

72

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

2017-09-08),whichwasaffirming2017CarswellOnt14961(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2016-02-
19)].
[60]Itisworthnotingthats.13(3)oftheActstatesthatanemployer
willbethefirstownerofthecopyrightofaworkproducedbyan
employeeinthecourseoftheiremployment,orsomeotherperson
underacontractofservice.ThismeansthattheCrownwillown
copyrightinworksproducedbyitsemployeescreatedinthecourse
oftheiremployment.Becauses.13(3)generallyonlyappliesifthe
authorisanemployeeandnotafreelancerorindependent
contractor,adeterminationofwhethertheemployerownsthe
copyrightrequiresrecoursetolabourlawprinciples.The
relationshipbetweenthepartiesmustbeanalysedtodetermineifthe
authorisanindependentcontractororunderthecontrolofwhoeveris
payinghimorher(IntellectualPropertyLaw,atp.125[Vaver,David.
IntellectualPropertyLaw:Copyright,Patents,Trade-marks,2nded.
Toronto:IrwinLaw,2011]).

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Royaltiesarework.
G.G.cQuébec(Travail,EmploietSolidaritésociale)*,2019CanLII100760(Que.
Adm.Trib.;2019-10-22)GillJ.
[14]Lapreuvecontemporainedémontrequelasommereçue
équivautàdesdroitsd’auteurtelqu’indiquédanslecontrat
d’utilisationetd’exclusivité[Fn82019CanLII55514(QCTAQ),2019
QCTAQ064,àlapage9].

[15]LajurisprudenceduTribunalconsidèrequ’undroitd’auteurest
unrevenudetravailausensdelaréglementation[Fn9[2005]T.A.Q.
771,paragraphes5et44;SAS-M-074968-0203,paragraphe16et
2019CanLII55514(QCTAQ),2019QCTAQ0645paragraphes149]
Lasoussignéepartagecetavis.

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Thesaleofanoperatingbusiness
includesalltheassets,includingcopyright,tocontinuethebusiness.
CorusRadioIncvHarvardBroadcastingInc,2019CarswellAlta2449(AltaQ.B.-Int.
inj.;2019-11-18)DiltsJ.
[35]BothundertheCopyrightActandatcommonlaw,theauthor
ofaworkistheownerofthecopyrightinthework:CopyrightAct
section13(1).ForCorustoownthecopyright,eithertheoriginal
authormusthavebeenanemployeeofWIC,orWICmusthavebeen
assignedownershipintheworkbytheoriginalauthor.Section34.1(b)
oftheCopyrightActprovidesthatinanycivilproceedingstakenunder
theCopyrightActinwhichthedefendantputsinissuetheplaintiff’s
claimtothecopyright,theauthoroftheworkshallbepresumedtobe
theownerofthecopyrightunlessotherwiseproved.

73

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[36]TheevidenceIhaveisthatCorusacquiredWIC’sradio
broadcastingbusinessasanoperatingbusiness.WhiletheMaster
AgreementformingpartoftheWICTransactiondoesnotspecify
alloftheintellectualpropertyacquiredbyCorus,intheabsence
ofevidencetothecontraryitisreasonabletoconcludethatthe
saleoftheoperatingbusinessincludedalloftheauthorities
neededtooperatethatbusiness,includingtheauthorities
relatingtointellectualproperty.Thatexpectationisreinforcedby
theuncontrovertedevidencebothfromthetrademarkregistryandMr.
Phillip’sevidencethatthePOWER92Logowasinuseasearlyas
1991inrespectoftheoperationandpromotionofaradiostation.

Section13─Ownershipofcopyright─Assignmentaretobeinterpreted
purposivelyandinacommerciallyreasonablemanner.
McNabv.Burton,2019CarswellOnt19631(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2019-11-29)NishikawaJ.
ShouldtheRespondentbeRequiredtoProvidetheCode?
[16]TheApplicantsrelyons.5.8oftheFirstSHAtoarguethatthe
FlowTracker2.0andFTCryptorarethepropertyofFTI.Section5.8
states:

Inventions
EachShareholder/Employee,ShareholderandNomineeagrees
thatifheshalldevelopanyproduct,derivative,concept,process,
systemorimprovementrelatedinanywaytothebusinessofthe
Corporationofanykind,heshallpromptlynotifyalltheDirectors
oftheCorporationandshallprovidetheCorporationwithall
necessaryinformationordocumentationrelatedtheretowithout
compensationofanykindwhatsoever.Each
Shareholder/Employee,shareholderandnominee
acknowledgesthatanysuchproduct,derivative,concept,
process,systemorimprovementshallbecometheexclusive
propertyoftheCorporationwithoutcompensationorreservation
ofrightsofanykindwhatsoever.

[17]TheRespondentopposesonthebasisthats.5.8appliesto
inventions,asindicatedbytheheading,whichareitemsthatmaybe
patented.TheRespondentsubmitsthats.5.8wasnotintendedto
applytosoftware,whichwouldbeprotectedbycopyright.The
RespondentalsopointstoapatentheldbyMr.McNab’soverthefirst
versionofFlowtracker,whichisheldbyacorporationownedwholly
byhim,toarguethatitwasnotintendedthatashareholder’s
innovationwouldbecomethepropertyofFTI.TheRespondentfurther
arguesthats.5.8isprospective,andheperformedthebulkofthe
workonFTCryptorbeforebecomingashareholderofFTI.[18]Inmy
view,s.5.8cannotbereadasnarrowlyastheRespondent
suggests.Thereferenceto“product,derivative,concept,

74

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

process,systemorimprovement”wasintendedtobebroadand
tocoverintellectualpropertydevelopedbyemployeesor
shareholders.Thisbroadinterpretationisfurthersupportedby
thewords“relatedinanywaytothebusinessoftheCorporation
ofanykind[.]”

[19]Moreover,FTIhasonlyoneproduct,Flowtracker2.0.FTCryptor
isanintegralpartofthatsoftware.Interpretings.5.8purposively,and
inacommerciallyreasonablemanner,[Fn1GATXCorp.v.Hawker
siddeleyCanadaInc.(1996),1996CanLII8286(ONSC),27B.L.R.
(2d)251,atpara.38]FTIwouldbeexpectedtomaintainownership
overthesoftwarethatisatthecoreofitsbusiness.Aninterpretation
thatwouldfindthatFTIdidnotownsuchsoftware,orelements
essentialtoitsfunctioning,wouldnotbecommerciallyreasonable.
TheRespondentappearstohaverecognizedthiswheninAugust
2016,hepublishedFTCryptorwithacopyrightnoticeinFTI’sname.
WhiletheApplicantsdevelopedawork-aroundaftertheRespondent
refusedtoreturntheCode,thisdoesnotmeanthatitwasnot
necessarytoFTI’sbusiness.

[20]Basedonmyinterpretationofs.5.8,theCodeisthepropertyof
FTIandmustbereturnedtoitbytheRespondent

Section14─Limitationwhereauthorisfirstownerofcopyright─
Reversiondoesnotapplytocollectiveworks─Forreversiontoapply,the
authormustbethefirstownerofthecopyright.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.
[241]Detouteévidence,l’article41(1)[sic,shouldread14(1)]ne
s’appliquepasauxœuvresreconnuesenl’instance,leDNCF(tome
3)etlesgénéalogiesdeGabrielDrouin,lesquelles[sic]sequalifient
derecueilsausensdelaLDAettombentsousl’exceptiondu
paragraphe2[del’article14].

[242]Subsidiairement,soulignonsquepourtouteslescollectionsou
œuvresduFondsDrouin,lecaséchéant,laSuccessionseheurteau
faitquel’IGDestlepremiertitulairedesdroitssurlesœuvresdeses
employés[Fn218Art.13(3)LDA].

[243]Entoutétatdecause,onnepeutdoncparlerderéversibilité.

75

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section14.1─Moralrights─Moralrightsincludetherighttoclaim
authorshipofawork─Moralrightsincludetherighttotheintegrityofa
work.
Farsiv.Georges,2019QCCQ2721(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-05-07)Croteau
J.
[12]LaLoisurledroitd’auteur[Fn6L.R.C.,1985,c.C-42](Loi)établit
lesprincipesgénérauxquidoiventguiderleTribunaldanslecadrede
l’analysed’unrecoursbasésurlaviolationdesdroitsd’auteuretdes
droitsmoraux:[…]
LaLoiconsacreégalementdesdroitsmorauxsurl’œuvre.
Ainsi,l’auteurd’uneœuvreartistiquealedroità
l’intégritédesonœuvre,demêmequeledroitd’en
revendiquerlacréation[Fn9Article14.1delaLoi].[…]

Section14.1─Moralrights─Moralsrightincludetherighttotheintegrity
ofawork─Moralrightsincludetherighttoclaimauthorshipofaworkor
toremainanonymous.
Youngv.Thakur,2019CarswellNat2971(F.C.;2019-06-20)KaneJ.
[32]Subsection14.1(1)oftheActprovidesthattheauthorofawork
hastherighttotheintegrityofthework,tobeassociatedwith
theworkasitsauthor,andtoremainanonymous.Subsection
17.1(1)providesequivalentrights,specificallyinassociationwitha
performer’sperformance.Section28.1providesthatanyactor
omissionthatiscontrarytoanyofthemoralrightsoftheauthoror
performerwithouttheirconsentisaninfringement.

Section14.1─Moralrights─Subjectiveevidenceastotheattempttothe
honourorreputationofanauthorisacceptable─Objectiveevidenceofthe
prejudicewillalsohavetobeadduced─Theburdenofprovingthe
prejudiceliesontheauthor.
Youngv.Thakur,2019CarswellNat2971(F.C.;2019-06-20)KaneJ.
[34]Thejurisprudencehasestablishedthatthereisbotha
subjectiveandobjectiveaspecttothetesttoestablish
infringementofmoralrights.Theauthororperformerofthe
worksmayprovideevidencetoestablishsubjectivelyhowtheir
honourorreputationhasbeenaffected,buttheremustalsobe
objectiveevidenceoftheprejudice(CollettvNorthlandArt
CompanyCanadaInc,2018FC269atpara22,[2018]FCJNo349
(QL);MaltzvWitterick,2016FC524atpara49,[2016]FCJNo484
(QL);PrisedeparoleIncvGuérinÉditeurLtée(1995),66CPR(3d)
257,104FTR104(TD),aff’d(1996),73CPR(3d)557,[1996]FCJNo
1427(QL)(CA)).

[35]Theburdenofproofliesonthepartyseekingtoestablishan
infringementofmoralrights.TheApplicantsprovidednoevidence

76

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

orargumenttosupporttheirallegationofinfringementoftheirmoral
rights.

Section14.1─Moralrights─Partialreproductionofaliteraryworkmay
constituteinfringementofthemoralrighttointegrity.
Lépinev.MunicipalitédeSainte-Marcelline-de-Kildare,2019QCCQ5182(Que.Ct.–
SmallClaims;2019-07-23)ChoquetteJ.
[15]Bienqu’auxyeuxdeplusieurslemonumentsoitdebongoûtet
lesmotsdudemandeurparfaitementàpropos,AndréM.Lépineest
surprisetchoqué,n’ayantjamaisconsentiàl’utilisationd’unseul
quatrainsur16,cequi,selonlui,dénaturel’œuvre.

[28]Del’avisduTribunal,ils’agitd’uneviolationdesdroitsmorauxde
l’auteurlesquelssubsistentmêmelorsd’unecessiondesdroits
d’auteursurl’œuvre[Fn5Art.14(3)Loisurledroitd’auteur].

Section15─Copyrightinperformer’sperformance─Copyrightina
performer’sperformanceisdistinctfromtherightsinmusicalwork─
Physicalownershipofthesupportformusicalworksorperformer’s
performancesdoesnotincludethecopyrighttherein.
Unidiscmusiqueincv.AgencedurevenuduQuébec,2019CarswellQue2647(Que.
Ct.;2019-04-02)GouinJ.[appeal500-09-028299-196].
[59]L’article18delaLDAprévoitlesdroitsdirectementliésàun
enregistrementsonore[…]

[60]Envendantlesbandesmaîtresses,lesvendeurspouvaientainsi
céderlesdroitsci-dessus.Etc’estcequ’ilsontfaitmaispasplus.

[61]Danslalettred’interprétation[Fn39PièceP-4,p.3]quiconstitue
labasedescotisations,onréfèreàl’article18delaLDA.Toutefois,
enraisondel’omissionderéférerauxautresdroitsprotégéspar
d’autresarticles–lesdroitsquinesontpasliésàl’enregistrement
sonorelui-même,maisplutôtàl’œuvreetàsescréateurs,ils’ensuit
quelalettred’interprétationestjuridiquementincorrecteet
incomplète.

[62]Lesarticles3,13et15delaLDAencadrentlesdroitsdes
auteurs-compositeurs-interprètes,lesquelsdroitssont
indépendantsdel’enregistrementsonoreet,parconséquent,ne
sontpascédésparlasimplecessiond’unebandemaîtresse.

Section15─Copyrightinperformer’sperformance─Ownershipperseof
soundrecordingsdoesnotincludetherightsofthemakersorofthe
performers.

77

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Unidiscmusiqueincv.AgencedurevenuduQuébec,2019CarswellQue2647(Que.
Ct.;2019-04-02)GouinJ.[appeal500-09-028299-196].
[67]Lalettred’interprétation[Fn41PièceP-4]assimileerronément
lesdroitsd’auteurapplicablesàuneoeuvremusicaleauxdroits
intimementliésàl’enregistrementsonore.LetémoignagedeM.
Cuccuzella,présidentd’Unidiscestcohérentaveclalégislation
canadiennesurledroitd’auteur.

[68]Eneffet,Unidiscsaitcequ’elleachèteetcequ’ellen’achètepas:
elleachètelesbandesmaîtressesetlesdroitsinextricablesdes
bandesmaîtressesprotégésparl’article18.Elleestconscientedece
qu’elledevradébourseretàquiaumomentdemettreenmarchéles
CDoulescompilationsélectroniquestiréesdesbandesmaîtresses.

[69]Enachetantdesbandesmaîtresses,elleachètelameilleure
qualitédel’enregistrementsonoreàpartirdelaquellelescopiesvont
pouvoirêtretiréesetainsimisesenmarché.

[70]Laqualitédel’enregistrementsonoren’arienàvoiravecles
droitsprotégésauxarticles3,13et15,nimême18delaLDA.Enfait,
laqualitédel’enregistrementsonoreatoutàvoiraveclaqualitédu
supportphysique,soitsaconservationdansdesconditionsoptimales,
saprotectioncontrelesaltérationsetlesvols,etfinalementsa
manipulationpardesprofessionnelsconsciencieuxselonlesrègles
del’artlorsdelaconfectiondescopies.

[71]Unidisc,conformémentauxcontrats[Fn42PiècesP-1,D-6
(égalementP-2),D-7,D-8],n’achètedoncnilesdroitsd’auteurs-
compositeurs-interprètes,niceuxdesproducteurs(«publishers»)au
sensdelaLDA.

[72]Quandl’ARQaffirmequelesbandesmaîtressesn’ontaucune
valeursanslesdroitsassociésauxoeuvres,cequiestincorrect,ceci
équivautàconfondrel’ensembledesdroitsprotégésauxarticles3,
13,15et18delaLDA.

[73]Quandl’ARQconclutqu’Unidiscaacquis,parl’acquisition
desbandesmaîtresses,lesdroitsdesauteurs-compositeurs-
interprètesetproducteurs,ceciestcontraireàlaLDA,aulibellé
mêmedescontratsetàlacommuneintentiondesparties,de
mêmequ’autémoignagenoncontestéetnoncontreditde
M.Cucuzella.

Section17.1─Moralrights─Performersintheirperformancebenefitof
moralrights.

78

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Youngv.Thakur,2019CarswellNat2971(F.C.;2019-06-20)KaneJ.
[32]Subsection14.1(1)oftheActprovidesthattheauthorofawork
hastherighttotheintegrityofthework,tobeassociatedwiththework
asitsauthor,andtoremainanonymous.Subsection17.1(1)
providesequivalentrights,specificallyinassociationwitha
performer’sperformance.Section28.1providesthatanyactor
omissionthatiscontrarytoanyofthemoralrightsoftheauthoror
performerwithouttheirconsentisaninfringement.

Section17.1─Moralrights─Subjectiveevidenceastotheattempttothe
honourorreputationofanauthorisacceptable─Objectiveevidenceofthe
prejudicewillalsohavetobeadduced─Theburdenofprovingthe
prejudiceliesontheauthor.
Youngv.Thakur,2019CarswellNat2971(F.C.;2019-06-20)KaneJ.
[34]Thejurisprudencehasestablishedthatthereisbothasubjective
andobjectiveaspecttothetesttoestablishinfringementofmoral
rights.Theauthororperformeroftheworksmayprovideevidenceto
establishsubjectivelyhowtheirhonourorreputationhasbeen
affected,buttheremustalsobeobjectiveevidenceoftheprejudice
(CollettvNorthlandArtCompanyCanadaInc,2018FC269atpara
22,[2018]FCJNo349(QL);MaltzvWitterick,2016FC524atpara
49,[2016]FCJNo484(QL);PrisedeparoleIncvGuérinÉditeurLtée
(1995),66CPR(3d)257,104FTR104(TD),aff’d(1996),73CPR
(3d)557,[1996]FCJNo1427(QL)(CA)).

[35]Theburdenofproofliesonthepartyseekingtoestablishan
infringementofmoralrights.TheApplicantsprovidednoevidenceor
argumenttosupporttheirallegationofinfringementoftheirmoral
rights.

Section18─Copyrightinsoundrecordings─Copyrightinasound
recordingdoesnotincludepersethecopyrightinthemusicalworkorin
theperformer’sperformanceembeddedinthesoundrecording.
Unidiscmusiqueincv.AgencedurevenuduQuébec,2019CarswellQue2647(Que.
Ct.;2019-04-02)GouinJ.[appeal500-09-028299-196].
[59]L’article18delaLDAprévoitlesdroitsdirectementliésàun
enregistrementsonore[…]

[60]Envendantlesbandesmaîtresses,lesvendeurspouvaientainsi
céderlesdroitsci-dessus.Etc’estcequ’ilsontfaitmaispasplus.

[61]Danslalettred’interprétation[Fn39PièceP-4,p.3]quiconstitue
labasedescotisations,onréfèreàl’article18delaLDA.Toutefois,
enraisondel’omissionderéférerauxautresdroitsprotégéspar
d’autresarticles–lesdroitsquinesontpasliésà

79

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

l’enregistrementsonorelui-même,maisplutôtàl’œuvreetàses
créateurs,ils’ensuitquelalettred’interprétationest
juridiquementincorrecteetincomplète.

[62]Lesarticles3,13et15delaLDAencadrentlesdroitsdes
auteurs-compositeurs-interprètes,lesquelsdroitssont
indépendantsdel’enregistrementsonoreet,parconséquent,ne
sontpascédésparlasimplecessiond’unebandemaîtresse.

Section18─Copyrightinsoundrecordings─Copyrightinmusicalworks
shallnotbeconfusedwithcopyrightinthesoundrecordinginwhichthey
areincorporated.
Unidiscmusiqueincv.AgencedurevenuduQuébec,2019CarswellQue2647(Que.
Ct.;2019-04-02)GouinJ.[appeal500-09-028299-196].
[67]Lalettred’interprétation[Fn41PièceP-4]assimile
erronémentlesdroitsd’auteurapplicablesàuneoeuvre
musicaleauxdroitsintimementliésàl’enregistrementsonore.
LetémoignagedeM.Cuccuzella,présidentd’Unidiscestcohérent
aveclalégislationcanadiennesurledroitd’auteur.

[68]Eneffet,Unidiscsaitcequ’elleachèteetcequ’ellen’achètepas:
elleachètelesbandesmaîtressesetlesdroitsinextricablesdes
bandesmaîtressesprotégésparl’article18.Elleestconscientedece
qu’elledevradébourseretàquiaumomentdemettreenmarchéles
CDoulescompilationsélectroniquestiréesdesbandesmaîtresses.

[69]Enachetantdesbandesmaîtresses,elleachètelameilleure
qualitédel’enregistrementsonoreàpartirdelaquellelescopiesvont
pouvoirêtretiréesetainsimisesenmarché.

[70]Laqualitédel’enregistrementsonoren’arienàvoiravecles
droitsprotégésauxarticles3,13et15,nimême18delaLDA.Enfait,
laqualitédel’enregistrementsonoreatoutàvoiraveclaqualitédu
supportphysique,soitsaconservationdansdesconditionsoptimales,
saprotectioncontrelesaltérationsetlesvols,etfinalementsa
manipulationpardesprofessionnelsconsciencieuxselonlesrègles
del’artlorsdelaconfectiondescopies.

[71]Unidisc,conformémentauxcontrats[Fn42PiècesP-1,D-6
(égalementP-2),D-7,D-8],n’achètedoncnilesdroitsd’auteurs-
compositeurs-interprètes,niceuxdesproducteurs(«publishers»)au
sensdelaLDA.

[72]Quandl’ARQaffirmequelesbandesmaîtressesn’ont
aucunevaleursanslesdroitsassociésauxoeuvres,cequiest

80

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

incorrect,ceciéquivautàconfondrel’ensembledesdroits
protégésauxarticles3,13,15et18delaLDA.

[73]Quandl’ARQconclutqu’Unidiscaacquis,parl’acquisition
desbandesmaîtresses,lesdroitsdesauteurs-compositeurs-
interprètesetproducteurs,ceciestcontraireàlaLDA,aulibellé
mêmedescontratsetàlacommuneintentiondesparties,de
mêmequ’autémoignagenoncontestéetnoncontreditde
M.Cucuzella.

Section21─Copyrightincommunicationsignals─Onlyabroadcaster
mayhaverightsinacommunicationsignal.
Dhillonv.Bernier,2019CarswellNat1518(F.C.;2019-05-03)LafrenièreJ.[motionto
extendthetimetoappealrefused19-A-34(F.C.A.;2019-07-23);actiondismissedon
proceduralgrounds,2019FC1194(F.C.;2019-09-20);appealA-403-19].
[36]Atparagraphs22and23oftheStatementofClaim,thePlaintiffs
claimthatcopyrightsubsistsinacommunicationsignalfirstbroadcast
onJuly1,2015andthatMr.Dhillonhasbeenusingandbroadcasting
thecommunicatingsignalsincethattime.IfIunderstandtheclaim
correctly,Mr.Dhillonisassertingtheexclusiverighttoproduceor
reproducethewords“People’sPartyofCanada”inanymaterial
becausethewordsappearedinanarticleabouthimandhehas
sharedthearticlewithothersbye-mailorotherelectronicmeans.

[37]Therearespecialrulesforsubjectmatterotherthanworksas
definedintheCopyrightAct.Withregardtocommunication
signals,onlya“broadcaster”mayhaveacopyrightina
communicationsignal.Section21givesabroadcastercopyrightin
itscommunicationsignalsincludingthecompilationofallthe
programs,advertisementsandothercontentthatmakeupthesignal
transmittedbythebroadcaster:InterboxPromotionCorpv9012-4314
QuébecInc,2003FC1254atparagraph18.

Section21─Copyrightincommunicationsignals─Broadcasters’copyrightin
communicationsignalsdoesnotincludetherighttoauthorizetheir
retransmissionbybroadcastdistributionundertakings.
RetransmissionofDistantTelevisionSignals,Re,2019CarswellNat4088(Cop.Bd.;
2019-08-02),theBoard.
[165]Thus,subsection31(2)oftheActdoesnotcreateanexception
totherightsassociatedwiththesignalsthemselves,nora
correspondingrighttoreceiveroyaltypaymentswithrespecttothe
retransmissionofthesignalsthemselves.Thecopyrightheldby
broadcastersincommunicationsignalsundersection21ofthe
Actislimitedanddoesnotcreatetherighttoauthorizeor
prohibittheretransmissionofcommunicationsignalsbyBDUs.

81

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[Fn140ReferencereBroadcastingRegulatoryPolicy,supranote135
atparas50,59].

Section27─Itisaninfringementtodoanactthatonlythecopyrightowner
hastherighttodo.
PyrrhaDesignInc.v.PlumandPoseyInc.,2019CarswellNat210(F.C.;2019-01-30)
PhelanJ.[appealA-98-19].
[120]Subsection27(1)oftheActprovidesthatitisaninfringementfor
anypersontodoanythingthattheownerofthecopyrighthastheright
todo.Oneofthoserightsisthesolerighttoproduceorreproducethe
workoranysubstantialpartthereofinanymaterialform(s3(1)).
Infringementwillalsooccurwherethereisacolourableimitationof
thework(s2).

Section27–Infringementgenerally─Copyrightinfringementoccurswhen
someonedoessomethingabsentanauthorizationfromthecopyright
owner.
MadailMonzonv.AptitudeXinc.,2019QCCQ871(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-
02-20)ZoarJ
[25]Cettesituationdefaitsporteàconséquencepuisquelarègle
cardinaledelaLDAveutqu’uneœuvreprotégéeparledroit
d’auteurnepuisseêtreutiliséesansautorisation[…]

Section27–Infringementgenerally─Anauthorizationmustbeclear.
MadailMonzonv.AptitudeXinc.,2019QCCQ871(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-
02-20)ZoarJ
[42]Aptitudenepeuteneffetprétendreavoiruneautorisation
valideenselimitantàdemander«CanIshowyourartonthe
websiteofthecompany?».Ici,ilauraitfalluinformerM.Truong
quesixœuvresdûmentidentifiéesseraientutiliséespour
diffusionsurdifférentesplateformes,àdifférentesfinsetpour
unepériodedéterminée.Encoreplusessentiel,M.Truongdevait
savoirqu’ilnetireraitaucunbénéficedecetteutilisationpuisqueson
nomn’apparaîtraitnullepart.

[43]Enl’absencedecesinformations,Aptitudenepeutcertainement
passouteniravoirreçuuneautorisationlibreetéclairéedeM.Truong.

Section27–Infringementgenerally─Postingofaliteraryworkis
reproduction–Reproductionofaworkrequiresauthorization.
Thomsonv.AfterlifeNetworkInc,2019CarswellNat1479(F.C.;2019-05-01)KaneJ.
[37]ThepostingsonAfterlife’swebsiteprovideevidencethatit
reproducedtheoriginalworks.Theevidenceprovidedbythe
ApplicantandClassMembersestablishesthattheydidnotgive
permissiontoAfterlifetodoso.Theevidencealsoestablishesthat

82

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

someClassMembersaskedAfterlifetoremovetheiroriginalworks.
Afterliferemovedsomebutrefusedtoremoveothers.Afterlifedid
nottakeanystepstoremoveallthecontentortoseek
permissionfromtheauthorsonceconcernswerebroughttoits
attention.AfterlifeshutdownthewebsiteonlyaftertheApplicant
launchedthisApplication.Theevidencealsoestablishesthatthe
directorofAfterlifethensetupanotherobituarywebsite.

Section27–Infringementgenerally─Inclusionwithoutauthorizationofa
protectedphotographonawebsiteisinfringement.
Farsiv.Georges,2019QCCQ2721(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-05-07)Croteau
J.
[12]LaLoisurledroitd’auteur[Fn6L.R.C.,1985,c.C-42](Loi)établit
lesprincipesgénérauxquidoiventguiderleTribunaldanslecadrede
l’analysed’unrecoursbasésurlaviolationdesdroitsd’auteuretdes
droitsmoraux:[…]
Enfin,laLoidéfinitcequiconstitueuneviolationdesdroits
d’auteuretdesdroitsmoraux:
Defaçongénérale,ils’agitdel’accomplissementd’un
actequeseulletitulairedudroitd’auteuralafaculté
d’accomplirenvertudelaLoietpourlequeliln’apas
consenti[Fn10Article27.1delaLoi].[…]

[19]Ainsi,àlalumièredelapreuveprépondérante,le
TribunalconclutqueM.Georgesaviolélesdroitsd’auteur
deM.Farsienintégrant,sanssonconsentement,la
PhotographiesurlaplateformeWixsitedontilseservait
pourdiffusersoncurriculumvitae.

Section27–Infringementgenerally─Reproductionorcommunicationof
aprotectedworkrequiresauthorizationfromthecopyrightowner.
PortraitsRembrandtltéev.Interdonato(Ikono),2019QCCQ5878(Que.Ct.–Small
Claims;2019-07-26)ChoquetteJ.
[22]Lesdroitsd’auteurappartiennentdemanièreexclusiveau
titulairededroits.Uneautorisationestdoncnécessairepour
reproduire,présenteroucommuniqueruneœuvretelsune
photographie,unlivre,ouunarticledejournal[Fn9Art.3.LDA].LaLoi
prévoitégalementcertainesexceptionsquipermettentd’utiliserune
œuvreprotégéeouunepartiedecelle-cisansleconsentement
préalabledutitulairededroits[Fn10Art.29L’utilisationéquitable
d’uneœuvreauxfinsd’étudeprivée,derecherche,d’éducation,de
parodieoudesatireneconstituepasuneviolationdudroitd’auteur].

Section27–Infringementgenerally─Subsection27(1yfrelatestoprimary
infringementwhilesubsection27(2)relatestosecondaryinfringement.

83

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Pourshianv.WaltDisneyCompany,2019CarswellOnt16536(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2019-
10-15)Graham,Master.
[13]Asstated,theplaintiff’sactionisfordamagesforinfringementof
copyrightunderCanada’sCopyrightAct,RSC1985,c.C-42.The
applicablesectionsoftheActares.3,whichdefines“copyright”and
particularizesthesolerightsoftheownerofthecopyrightinawork,
s.27(1)whichdefinesprimaryinfringementofacopyright,and
s.27(2)whichdefinessecondaryinfringement.

Section27–Infringementgenerally─TheCopyrightActisterritorially
limitedtoCanada─Distribution,exposing,offerforsaleorrental,
importationintoCanadaconstitutesecondaryinfringement
Pourshianv.WaltDisneyCompany,2019CarswellOnt16536(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2019-
10-15)Graham,Master.
[39]IacceptthatPourshian’sclaimsareexclusivelyunderthe
CopyrightAct,whichhasnoapplicationoutsideCanada
(SOCAN,supra[SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusic
PublishersofCanadav.CanadianAssociationofInternetProviders,
2003SCC45]).However,asconcludedabove,theallegedconduct
ofWaltDisneyPicturesInc.indistributingINSIDEOUTfor
releaseinCanada,orimportingthefilmintoCanadaforthe
purposeofdistributingorexhibitingit,wouldamountto
secondaryinfringementinCanadaofPourshian’scopyright
unders.27(2)(b)and(e)oftheAct.Further,theconductofbothPixar
andWaltDisneyPicturesInc.incarryingonbusinessinOntarioby
allowingINSIDEOUTtobeshowninOntariotheatres,suchasto
“exposeoroffer[it]forsaleorrental,orexhibit[it]inpublic”,would
constitutesecondaryinfringementinCanadaunders.27(2)(c)ofthe
Act.

[41]Insummary,theproductionofINSIDEOUTbyPixarandWalt
DisneyPicturesInc.,inpartforthepurposeofcarryingon
businessinOntario,andthereleaseofINSIDEOUTbyWalt
DisneyPicturesInc.fordistributiontotheatresinCanada,do
createagoodarguablecaseofarealandsubstantialconnection
betweentheclaimsagainstthosedefendantsandOntario.This
conductonthepartofthedefendantsPixarandWaltDisneyPictures
Inc.wouldconstitutesecondaryinfringementofPourshian’scopyright
inhisInsideOutinOntario,suchthatthepresumptiveconnecting
factorsarenotrebutted.

Section27–Infringementgenerally─Secondaryinfringement
necessitatesthreeelements:primaryinfringement,knowledgeandsaleor
distribution.
VoltagePictures,LLCv.Salna,2019FC1412(F.C.;2019-11-12)BoswellJ.[appeal
A-439-19].

84

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[70]CIPPICmaintainsthatVoltagehasnotpleadedthefacts
necessarytomakeoutacaseofsecondaryinfringementunder
section27(2)oftheCopyrightAct.Itsaysthethreeelementsthat
mustbeproventoestablishsecondaryinfringementare:(i)a
primaryinfringement;(ii)asecondaryinfringershouldhave
knownthatheorshewasdealingwithaproductofinfringement;
and(iii)thesecondaryinfringersold,distributed,orexposedfor
saletheinfringinggoods.AccordingtoCIPPIC,sinceVoltagehas
notpleadedanyofthesefacts,itdoesnotmeettheplainandobvious
test.

Section27–Infringementgenerally─Subsection27(1yfrelatestoprimary
infringementwhilesubsection27(2yfrelatestosecondaryinfringement─
Secondaryinfringementnecessitatethreeelements:primaryinfringement,
knowledgeandsaleordistribution.
VoltagePictures,LLCv.Salna,2019FC1412(F.C.;2019-11-12)BoswellJ.[appeal
A-439-19].
[75]Subsection27(1)oftheCopyrightActdescribeswhatis
knownas »primaryinfringement »(ExcellenceInc.vKraftCanada
Inc.,2007SCC37atpara17[Excellence]).Itprovidesthatitisan
infringementofcopyrightforanyperson,withoutthecopyrightowner’s
consent,todoanythingthatonlytheownerhastherighttodounder
theCopyrightAct.Section3oftheCopyrightActsetsoutthe
catalogueofrightsthatacopyrightownerpossessesunderthe
CopyrightAct.Theserightsincludethesolerighttoproduceand
reproducecopiesofthecopyrightedwork,andtocommunicatethe
worktothepublicbytelecommunication.

[76]Withrespecttosecondaryinfringement,theSupremeCourtof
Canadahasheldthatthreeelementsmustbeproventoestablish
thiscauseofactionundersubsection27(2)oftheCopyrightAct:
(i)aprimaryinfringement;(ii)thesecondaryinfringershould
haveknownthatheorshewasdealingwithaproductof
infringement;and(iii)thesecondaryinfringersold,distributedor
exposedforsaletheinfringinggood(CCHCanadianLtd.vLaw
SocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13atpara81[CCH];Excellence
atpara19).

Section28.1─Infringementgenerally[moralrights]─Absenceof
authorizationisrequiredforinfringementofmoralrightstooccur─
Reproductionwithoutcredittotheauthorinfringesauthor’smoralrightto
beassociatedwiththework.
Farsiv.Georges,2019QCCQ2721(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-05-07)Croteau
J.

85

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[12]LaLoisurledroitd’auteur[Fn6L.R.C.,1985,c.C-42](Loi)établit
lesprincipesgénérauxquidoiventguiderleTribunaldanslecadrede
l’analysed’unrecoursbasésurlaviolationdesdroitsd’auteuretdes
droitsmoraux:[…]
Enfin,laLoidéfinitcequiconstitueuneviolationdesdroits
d’auteuretdesdroitsmoraux:[…]
Enoutre,toutacteouomissionnonautoriséet
contraireauxdroitsmorauxdel’auteurconstituera
uneviolationausensdelaLoi[Fn11Article28.1dela
Loi].

[20]Deplus,leTribunalconclutqueM.Georgesaaussiviolélesdroits
morauxdeM.Farsi.Iln’estpasquestionicid’unetransformationdela
Photographieportantatteinteàsonintégrité,maisplutôtd’une
reproductioneffectuéeavecomissiondecréditdesonauteur,violant
ainsilesdroitsmorauxdeM.Farsi.

Section28.2─Natureofrightofintegrity─Thereisbothasubjectiveand
anobjectiveaspecttothetesttoestablishinfringementofmoralrights─
Useofaworkinassociationwithaproductinfringetherighttointegrity.
Thomsonv.AfterlifeNetworkInc,2019CarswellNat1479(F.C.;2019-05-01)KaneJ.
[41]Theinterpretationofsection28.2hasbeenthesubjectofmore
recentjurisprudence[Ed.:MaltzvWitterick,2016FC524andCollett
vNorthlandArtCompanyCanadaInc,2018FC269],includinginthis
Court,whichhighlightsthatthereisbothasubjectiveandobjective
aspecttothetesttoestablishinfringementofmoralrights.

[45]TheevidenceestablishesthatAfterlifeassociatedtheoriginal
workswithaproductorservice,eventhoughtherewaslittle
connectionbetweenthetwo,byaddingthesaleofads,flowersand
candlestothepagesdisplayingobituaries.Clearlytheoriginal
workshavebeenusedinassociationwiththeseproducts.

[47]TheApplicantarguedthathonourisbasedonself-perception,
whilereputationisadjudgedbyothers,andnotedthatsection28.2
speakstoprejudicetohonourorreputation.TheApplicantalsoargued
thatsignificantweightshouldbegiventotheauthor’sviewwhether
prejudicehasoccurred.However,thejurisprudencehasestablished
thatthereisbothasubjectiveandobjectiveelementtoestablishing
thattheauthor’shonourorreputationhasbeenprejudiced.Inother
words,itisnotonlyprejudicetoreputationthatrequiresobjective
evidence.Theauthoroftheoriginalworksmust,therefore,
establishnotonlytheirownsubjectiveviewthattheirhonouror
reputationhasbeenprejudicedbutalsoprovideobjective
evidenceoftheprejudice.AlthoughtheApplicantissincereinher
beliefthatbothherhonourandreputationhavebeenprejudiced,no

86

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

objectiveevidencehasbeenprovided,suchaspublicopinionor
expertevidence.AlltheevidencedescribestheClassMembers’own
viewoftheimpactontheirdignityandthedignityoftheirdeceased
lovedones.Ihavenotbeendirectedtoanyauthority,norhaveI
foundany,thatsuggeststhattheCourtcanmakeitsown
determinationregardingprejudicetohonourorreputation
withoutobjectiveevidence.

Section28.2─Natureofrightofintegrity─Absenceofauthorizationis
requiredforinfringementofmoralrightstooccur.
Lépinev.MunicipalitédeSainte-Marcelline-de-Kildare,2019QCCQ5182(Que.Ct.–
SmallClaims;2019-07-23)ChoquetteJ.
[32]Il[theDefendant]luiappartenaitdes’assureretnonde
présumerqu’ellepossédaitlesautorisationsrequisesd’utiliser
l’œuvredudemandeurdelafaçondontellelefutalorsqu’ila
clairementexprimélaconditiond’aucunajout–aucunretrait,cequi
vadel’essencemêmedel’œuvreenacrostiche.Riennepermetau
public,observateurdelastèle,decomprendrel’essencedel’œuvre
dudemandeurauvudesdeuxsériesdedeuxlignesinscritesdansle
marbre.

Section28.2─Natureofrightofintegrity─Theintegrityofaworkis
attackedonlyiftheusecausesprejudicetothehonourorreputationofthe
author─Thesaleoftiredordamagedbooksdoesnotamounttoan
infringementofthemoralrightofintegrity.
Robillardv.91439Canadaltée(ÉditionsdeMortagne),2019CarswellQue7544(Que.
Sup.Ct.;2019-08-19)LangloisJ.[leavetoappealgranted2019CarswellQue11411
(Que.C.A.;2019-12-09)].
[100]Robillardfaitvaloirquelaventedesexemplairessousforme
abiméeetàvilprixapourconséquencequel’Œuvreest
autrementdéformée,cequiporteatteinted’unemanière
préjudiciableàl’honneuretàlaréputationdel’auteuretviolele
droitàl’intégritédel’Œuvre.

[101]Ilestvraiquecontrairementauxdroitséconomiques«les
droitsmorauxrestreignentdefaçonpermanentel’utilisationque
lesacheteurs…peuventfaired’uneœuvreunefoisqueson
auteurs’enestdéparti»[Fn43Thébergec.Galeried’ArtduPetit
Champlaininc.,2002CSC34,atpara.22].

[102]Toutefois,l’article28.2(1)prévoitqu’ilyaviolationdu
droitmoraldel’auteuràl’intégritédel’œuvrequesicelle-ci
est,d’unemanièrepréjudiciableàl’honneurouàla
réputationdel’auteur,déformée,mutiléeouautrement
modifiée.

87

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[103]Lescontratsdéfinissentl’oeuvrecommeétantlemanuscrit
dutomeviséparlecontratd’édition.

[104]Or,iln’yaeuaucunedéformation,mutilationou
modificationdumanuscritlequelestdemeuréintact,lavente
delivresabimésétantcelledelivresdontlamiseenforme
seulementestmodifiée.

Section29─Research,privatestudy,etc.─Anactfallingwithinthefair
dealingexceptiondoesnotconstituteinfringement─Theonustoprove
thatthedealingisfairisuponthedefendant.
Albov.TheWinnipegFreePress,163C.P.R.(4th)126(Man.Q.B.;2019-02-22)Saull
J.
[63]Counselprovidedmewithnumerousauthoritiesrespecting
principlesofcopyrightlawthatarerelevanttothismatter.Asynthesis
oftheseauthoritiesisprovidedbelow:[…]
o)Sections29and29.2oftheActprovidethatthereproduction
ofaworkwillnotbeaninfringementofcopyrightifitconstitutes
“fairdealing”.
p)Where“fairdealing”israised,“theonusisonadefendant
toprovethathisorherdealingwithaworkhasbeenfair.
Anyactfallingwithinthe“fairdealing”exceptionwillnotbe
aninfringementofcopyright.The“fairdealing”exception,like
otherexceptionsintheAct,isauser’sright”(CCHatpara.48)
[CCHCanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC
13].

Section29─Research,privatestudy,etc─Liberalinterpretationistobe
giventotheexception─Fairdealingisauser’sright.
Albov.TheWinnipegFreePress,163C.P.R.(4th)126(Man.Q.B.;2019-02-22)Saull
J.
[63]Counselprovidedmewithnumerousauthoritiesrespecting
principlesofcopyrightlawthatarerelevanttothismatter.Asynthesis
oftheseauthoritiesisprovidedbelow:[…]
q)“Research”and“newsreporting”mustbegivenalarge
andliberalinterpretationinordertoensurethatusers’
rightsarenotundulyconstrained.Thewordsmustbe
consideredfromtheperspectiveoftheuserorconsumer
(SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersof
Canadav.BellCanada,2012SCC36(CanLII)(“SOCAN”)at
para.11,CCHatpara.51[CCHCanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyof
UpperCanada,2004SCC13]),andWarmanv.Fournier,2012
FC803(CanLII)(“Warman”)atpara.31).

88

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section29─Research,privatestudy,etc.─Researchcanbepiecemeal,
informal,exploratory,orconfirmatory─Thethresholdforthe
categorizationoftheactivityislow.
Albov.TheWinnipegFreePress,163C.P.R.(4th)126(Man.Q.B.;2019-02-22)Saull
J.
[63]Counselprovidedmewithnumerousauthoritiesrespecting
principlesofcopyrightlawthatarerelevanttothismatter.Asynthesis
oftheseauthoritiesisprovidedbelow:[…]
r)“Research”canincludeactivitiesthatdonotdemandthe
establishmentofnewfactsorconclusions.Itcanbepiecemeal,
informal,exploratory,orconfirmatory.Itcaninfactbe
undertakenfornopurposeexceptpersonalinterest.The
firststepinthe“fairdealing”analysis(identifyingwhich
categoryapplies)isalowthreshold(SOCANatparas.22and
27[SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersof
Canadav.BellCanada,2012SCC36]).

Section29─Research,privatestudy,etc.─Researchistobegivena
liberalinterpretation─Forthefairdealingexceptiontoapply,therearetwo
prongs:characterizationoftheactivityandadealingwhichisfair─The
thresholdforthecategorizationoftheactivityislow.
Albov.TheWinnipegFreePress,163C.P.R.(4th)126(Man.Q.B.;2019-02-22)Saull
J.
[100]A“fairdealing”analysisimplicatestwostages.

[101]Atthefirststage,theCourtmustdetermineiftheuseofthe
materialsfallswithineitherofthe“fairdealing”provisionsintheAct,
i.e.iftheuseofthematerialsbythePressconstitutes“research”or
“newsreporting”(see:Sections29and29.2oftheAct).Asnotedin
SOCAN(atpara.27)[SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusic
PublishersofCanadav.BellCanada,2012SCC36]).,theterms
“research”and“newsreporting”aretobegivenabroadand
liberalinterpretationandthethresholdformeetingthe
requirementsislow.

[102]ThesecondstageoftheanalysisrequirestheCourttoconsider
ifthedealingwas“fair”.[…]

Section29─Research,privatestudy,etc.─Intheanalysisofthefairness
ofthedealing,considerationmustbegiventoi)thepurpose,ii)the
character,iii)theamount,iv)thealternatives,v)thenatureofthework,and
vi)effect.
Albov.TheWinnipegFreePress,163C.P.R.(4th)126(Man.Q.B.;2019-02-22)Saull
J.

89

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Thepurposeofthedealing
[103]Providedthatthedealingisforoneoftheallowablepurposesof
theAct,i.e.research,privatestudy,criticism,reviewornews
reporting,itwillbeconsideredfair.TheCourtmustundertakean
objectiveassessmentoftheuser’srealpurpose(ormotive)in
usingthecopyrightedwork(CCHatpara.54)[CCHCanadianLtd.
v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13].

[104]Here,thequotationswereusedbythePressinitsresearchand
writingofarticlesthatwerelaterrepublishedastheBook.The
publicationswereforthe“purpose”ofcirculatinginformationtothe
generalpublictoreadandlearnaboutthedevelopmentoftheCityof
Winnipeg.

Thecharacterofthedealing
[105]Astothe“character”ofthedealing,theCourtmustconsider
whetherthedealingwasfairinthecontextofthecustomor
practiceoftheparticulartradeorindustryi.e.themediaindustry
(see:CCHatpara.55)[CCHCanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyofUpper
Canada,2004SCC13].Here,thequotationswereobtainedby
Turner,anexperiencedjournalistandfeaturewriter,whousedthe
quotationstohelpdevelopthearticlesthatlaterwerereleasedasthe
Book.Thequotationswereusedfornootherpurpose.Inmyview,
therefore,thecharacterofthedealingweighsinfavouroffairness.

Theamountofthedealing
[106]The“amount”ofthedealingmustbeconsideredwithinthe
contextofthepurposeofthedealing(see:CCHatpara.56)[CCH
CanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13].As
notedabove,Dr.Albowasquotedalongwithmany,manyother
sources.Infactinthiscase,oneofDr.Albo’scomplaintsisthatthe
Pressonlyuseda“snippet”ofhisresearchandthen“tooktheproject
initsowndirection”.Inthatcircumstance,itcanhardlybesaidthatDr.
Albowasquotedtoomuch.

Alternativestothedealing
[107]NoristhereanyindicationinthiscasethatthePressacted
unfairlybynotusingan“alternative”tothequotesfromDr.Albo.Dr.
AlbowaspaidforhisresearchandtimehespentassistingTurner.In
addition,Dr.Albowasclearlyseekingexposurehimself.

Thenatureofthework
[108]Withrespecttothe“natureofthework”,inCCH(atpara.58
[CCHCanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13]))
theSupremeCourtofCanadastated“…ifaworkhasnotbeen
published,thedealingmaybemorefairinthatitsreproductionwith

90

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

acknowledgementcouldleadtoawiderpublicdisseminationofthe
work–oneofthegoalsofcopyrightlaw”.

[109]HereDr.AlbohadnotpublishedanythinghimselfontheCity
BeautifulMovement.Dr.AlbowasacknowledgedbythePressasthe
sourceofthequotationswithinthearticlesandtheBook.Thearticles
andlatertheBookwerepubliclydisseminatedtherebyleadingtoa
widerpublicdisseminationofhisWork.Tomymind,thistipsthe
scalestowardsfindingthatthedealingwasfair.

Theeffectofdealingonthework
[110]Thelastconsiderationistheeffectthatthedealingwillhaveon
thework.Inthatregard“ifthereproducedworkislikelyto
competewiththemarketoftheoriginalwork”thatmaytendto
suggestthatthedealingisnotfair.Thatisnotthecasehere.Dr.
Albohasnopublicationonthemarketthatiscapableofcompeting
withtheBook.

[111]Allofthesefactors,takentogether,leadmetoconcludethat,
evenifDr.Alboheldcopyrightinthestatementsquotedfromhim,the
useofthequotationsfallcomfortablywithinthecompassof“fair
dealing”andwouldnotbeaninfringementofDr.Albo’scopyright.

Section29─Research,privatestudy,etc.─Thereisnoexceptionforsatire
intheTrademarksAct─Commercialuse,existenceofalternatives,
colourableimitationinstyleandpresentation,competitionforthesame
marketarefactorstobeconsidered.
MédiaQMIinc.v.Murray-Hall,2019CarswellQue4291(Que.Sup.Ct.;2019-05-21)
PerreaultJ.[appeal500-09-028399-194discontinued(Que.C.A.;2019-10-24)].
[63]D’abord,lerecoursdeQMIsefondesurlaLMCetsurson
enregistrementdelamarquedecommerceLeJournaldeMontréalet
nonsurledroitd’auteur.L’exceptiondesatireetdeparodie
n’existepassouslerégimedelaLMC.Deplus,lenouveaulogodu
JournaldeMontréaln’apasfaitl’objetd’unenregistrementdedroit
d’auteur.

[64]Quoiqu’ilensoit,l’utilisationfaiteparMurray-Hallnerencontre
pasletestétabliparlaCoursuprêmedansl’arrêtCCHCanadienne
Ltéec.BarreauduHaut-Canada[Fn42CCHCanadienneltéec.
BarreauduHaut-Canada,2004CSC13(CanLII),[2004]1R.C.S.
339,par.52-59]afindedéterminercequ’ilfautentendrepar
«équitable»[…]

[65]Qu’enest-ilenl’espèce?
1)LareproductionparMurray-Hallestfaiteàdesfins
commerciales,

91

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

2)LeJournaldeMourréalreproduitlafaçondontLeJournal
deMontréaltraitelanouvelle,ycomprissongraphisme
caractéristiquedanslaprésentationvisuelledeses
publications,
3)Ils’agitd’unereproductioncontinuesurplusieursannées
demanièrerégulièreetnond’unereproductionuniqueet
isoléecommedanslecasdumagazineCrocoudeRBO,
4)Denombreusesautresalternativesexistent.Eneffet,la
publicationdenouvellesfictivesissuesounondel’actualité
peutsefairesanscréerdeconfusionaveclamarqueLe
JournaldeMontréal.D’ailleurs,c’estcequefaitMurray-Hall
avecsapublicationanglophoneWNDR,
5)Lecritèreconcernantlanaturedel’œuvrenes’appliquepas
danslecasprésent,
6)LeJournaldeMontréaletLeJournaldeMourréaltentent
tousdeuxd’attirerunlectoratsurlesréseauxsociaux.

Section29─Research,privatestudy,etc.─Plagiarismisnotcoveredby
thefairuseexception.
Samsonv.DeputyHead(DepartmentofJustice)*,2019CarswellNat2214(Fed.Pub.
SectLabRel.Emp.Bd.;2019-04-19)M.-C.Perreault,Member[appealA-147-19].
[244]Section29createstheexceptionoffairdealingtoinfringement
andreadsasfollows: »29Fairdealingforthepurposeofresearch,
privatestudy,education,parodyorsatiredoesnotinfringecopyright. »

[245]Thecase[CCHCanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,
2004SCC13]wasconcernedwithwhethercopyrightfeeshadtobe
paidforphotocopying.TheSupremeCourtruledthataslongas
thematerialswereusedforresearchorstudypurposes,nofees
wereowedthepublishers.

[246]Fromthat,thegrievorsomehowextrapolatedthatthe
SupremeCourtofCanadaallowedcopyinginthecontextof
providingadvice.Shedidnotseemtounderstandthat
photocopyinghasnothingtodowithprovidingamemoforwhich
theemployerpaysanemployeetomakealegalanalysis.

[247]Thegrievorarguedbeforemethatalltherespondent’sdecision
makershadlargelyignoredherargumentsaboutplagiarism,namely,
Mr.Fothergill(whoimposedthewrittenreprimand),Ms.Moore(who
imposedtheone-daysuspension),Mr.Bickert(whoimposedfurther
suspensionsandthetermination),andJohanneBernard,the
assistantdeputyministerandchieffinancialofficer(whowrotethe
final-levelresponsesforallthegrievances).

92

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[248]Onthecontrary,Ifindthatthosedecisionmakersdidindeed
considerthegrievor’sargumentsbutfoundthattheyhadnobasisin
law.Iagree.

Section29─Research,privatestudy,etc.─Fairdealingillustratesthe
balancebetweentherightsofauthorsandthoseoftheusers.
KeatleySurveyingLtdv.TeranetInc,2019CarswellOnt15110(S.C.C;2019-09-26)
AbellaJ.(majority)[affirming2016CarswellOnt7233(Ont.C.A.;2017-09-08),which
wasaffirming2017CarswellOnt14961(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2016-02-19)].
[46]Fairdealingis,ofcourse,onlyonecomponentofCanada’s
copyrightlaw.Itis,however,anemblematiconeasitpresentsa
clearsnapshotofthegeneralapproachtocopyrightlawinCanada—
anapproachwhichbalancestherightsofcreatorsofworksandtheir
users.AsProfessorMichaelGeisthasnoted,theusers’rights
framework,sointegraltoCanadiancopyrightlaw,is“increasingly
citedastheparadigmexampleforemphasizingbothcreatoranduser
rights”(MichaelGeist,“Introduction”,inMichaelGeist,ed.,The
CopyrightPentalogy:HowtheSupremeCourtofCanadaShookthe
FoundationsofCanadianCopyrightLaw(2013),iii,atp.iv).All
provisionsoftheCopyrightAct,includings.12,mustbeinterpreted
withthisbalanceinmindsothattheCopyrightActcontinuestofurther
thepublicinterest.

Section29.2─Newsreporting─Newsreportingmustbegivenaliberal
interpretation.
Albov.TheWinnipegFreePress,163C.P.R.(4th)126(Man.Q.B.;2019-02-22)Saull
J.
[63]Counselprovidedmewithnumerousauthoritiesrespecting
principlesofcopyrightlawthatarerelevanttothismatter.Asynthesis
oftheseauthoritiesisprovidedbelow:[…]
q)“Research”and“newsreporting”mustbegivenalarge
andliberalinterpretationinordertoensurethatusers’rights
arenotundulyconstrained.Thewordsmustbeconsideredfrom
theperspectiveoftheuserorconsumer(SocietyofComposers,
AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav.BellCanada,2012
SCC36(CanLII)(“SOCAN”)atpara.11,CCHatpara.51[CCH
CanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13]),
andWarmanv.Fournier,2012FC803(CanLII)(“Warman”)at
para.31).

Section29.2─Newsreporting─Includesrecountinginformationtaken
elsewhere.
Albov.TheWinnipegFreePress,163C.P.R.(4th)126(Man.Q.B.;2019-02-22)Saull
J.

93

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[63]Counselprovidedmewithnumerousauthoritiesrespecting
principlesofcopyrightlawthatarerelevanttothismatter.Asynthesis
oftheseauthoritiesisprovidedbelow:[…]
s)“Newsreporting”byamediaoutletincludesactivitiesbythat
outletwhichpromulgateinformationrecountedelsewhere
(Warmanatpara.31[Warmanv.Fournier,2012FC803],CCH
atpara.51[CCHCanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,
2004SCC13]).,SOCANatpara.11)[SocietyofComposers,
AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav.BellCanada,2012
SCC36].

Section31–Interpretation[Retransmission]─BDUareauthorizedto
simultaneouslyretransmittheworkcarriedinalocalsignalwithout
authorizationbythecopyrightowner─RoyaltiesarepayablebytheBDU
inthecasethesimultaneousretransmissionoftheworksinadistant
signal.
RetransmissionofDistantTelevisionSignals,Re,2019CarswellNat4088(Cop.Bd.;
2019-08-02),theBoard.
[161]Retransmitters,inthiscasereferredtoasBDUs[broadcast
distributionundertakings],arerequiredtopaytheretransmission
tarifftocompensateforthecommunicationtothepublicby
telecommunicationofthecopyright-protectedworkscarriedby
distantsignals.Theseworksincludetheprogramscarriedbythe
signalsandthe“broadcastday”compilationscreatedbythe
broadcasters.Asamatteroflaw,theBDUsarenotrequiredto
compensatebroadcastersfortheretransmissionofthesignals
themselves.

[162]Theretransmissionrightcontainedinsection31oftheActwas
enactedin1988pursuanttotheCanada-UnitedStatesFreeTrade
AgreementImplementationActtogiveeffecttoArticle2006ofthe
Canada-UnitedStatesFreeTradeAgreement.[Fn133Act,supra
[R.S.C.,1985,c.C-42,hereinafterthe“Act”]note2;Canada-United
StatesFreeTradeAgreementImplementationAct,SC1988,c65,ss.
61-65;Canada-UnitedStatesFreeTradeAgreement,1987[CUFTA].]
[…]

[163]TheSupremeCourtofCanadahasstatedthattheCopyright
Act’sobjectives−of“encouragingcreativityandprovidingreasonable
accesstothefruitsofcreativelabour”−arefurtheredthrough“a
carefullybalancedschemethatcreatesexclusiveeconomicrightsfor
differentcategoriesofcreators”whilegivingdueweighttothelimited
natureoftheserightsthroughspecificexemptions.[Fn135Reference
reBroadcastingRegulatoryPolicyCRTC2010-167andBroadcasting
OrderCRTC2010-168,[2012]3SCR489[ReferencereBroadcasting

94

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

RegulatoryPolicy]atpara36].Section31oftheActmaintainsthis
carefulbalancebycreatingaclassofusers’rightsapplicableto
BDUsinconjunctionwithacompulsorylicenceregimethat
compensatestheownersofcopyrightforuseoftheirworks.
[Fn136Ibidatparas54-56;Act,supranote2].

[164]Thecopyrightowner’srighttocommunicatetheworktothe
publicbytelecommunicationpursuanttoparagraph3(1)(f)oftheAct
capturestheactivityofretransmission.[Fn137Referencere
BroadcastingRegulatoryPolicy,supranote135atparas53-54,58.]
TheSupremeCourtofCanada,inReferencereBroadcasting
RegulatoryPolicyCRTC2010-167,statedthatsubsection31(2)is
directedatnarrowingthescopeoftheowner’srightunderparagraph
3(1)(f),by“circumscrib[ing]therightofcopyrightownerstocontrolthe
retransmissionofliterary,dramatic,musicalorartisticworkscarriedin
signals.”[Fn138Ibidatpara54(emphasisinoriginal]Subsection
31(2)oftheActentitlesBDUstosimultaneouslyretransmitthe
literary,dramatic,musicalorartisticworkscarriedinalocal
signal,withoutauthorizationbyorpaymenttothecopyright
owner,andinthecaseofdistantsignals,allowssimultaneous
retransmissionoftheworkscontainedinthesignalssubjectto
thepaymentofroyalties.[Fn139Ibidatparas54,56-57;Act,supra
note2]

[166]TheSupremeCourtofCanadahasdistinguishedtherespective
scopeandfunctionofsections21and31oftheActbynotingthatthe
“CopyrightActseekstoregulatetheeconomicrightsin
communicationsignals,aswellastheretransmissionofworksby
BDUs.”[Fn141Ibidatpara.52]Assuch,theretransmissionregime
onlyengagestherightsofbroadcastersintheircapacityas
ownersofcopyrightintheworkscontainedindistantsignals.
[Fn142Ibidatparas51,59.]

Section31–Interpretation[Retransmission]─CTRC’sobjectivescannot
conflictwiththepurposeoftheCopyrightAct.
BellCanadav.Canada(AttorneyGeneral,,2019CarswellNat788(S.C.C.;2019-12-
19)[reversing154C.P.R.(4th)85(F.C.A.;2017-12-18)].
[Themajorityisoftheviewthatitwasnotnecessarytodiscussthispointraisedbythe
dissentingjudgesAbellaandKarakatanisJJ.].
[96]Finally,BellandtheNFLarguethattheCRTC’s[CanadianRadio-
TelevisionandTelecommunicationsCommission]interpretationof
s.9(1)(h)[oftheBroadcastingAct,S.C.1991,c11]conflictswiththe
operationandpurposeoftheCopyrightAct.Itiswellestablished
thatthepurposeoftheCopyrightActistobalanceauthors’and
users’rightsandthattheCRTCmaynotchoosetopursueits
objectivesinwaysthatareincompatiblewiththepurposesofthe

95

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

CopyrightActorwhichoperationallyconflictwithitsspecific
provisions:ReferencereBroadcastingRegulatoryPolicyCRTC
2010-167andBroadcastingOrderCRTC2010-168,atpara.45.But
giventheNFL’srepeatedsubmissionthat“[U.S.]advertisingisnot
evenpartoftheSuperBowlgameorcoveredbytheNFL’scopyright,
muchlessintegraltotheSuperBowl”,itcanhardlycomeasasurprise
thattheCRTCadoptedthesameposition:A.R.,vol.II,atp.115
(emphasisadded).WeagreewithNearJ.A.thatthereisno
operationalconflictwiththeCopyrightAct.TheNFLsubmitsthatthe
SuperBowlOrderconflictswiths.31(2)(c)oftheCopyrightAct
becauseitisnot“requiredorpermittedbyorunderthelawsof
Canada”.AstheCourtofAppealpointedout,however,this
submissionignoresthattheOrderwasvalidlymadepursuanttos.
9(1)(h)oftheBroadcastingActandbywayofs.4(3)ofthe
SimultaneousSubstitutionRegulations.Finally,weseenothingwrong
withtheCRTC’sconclusionthattheinternationaltreatiesraisedby
thepartiesarepermissiveanddonotrequiresimultaneous
substitution.Thereisthereforenoconflictofpurpose.

Section32.1–Noinfringement─Disclosureofcopyrightedmaterial
pursuanttoaprovincialaccesstoinformationschemeisnotinfringing.
Vandergoot(Re)*,2019CarswellSask182(Sask.I.P.C.;2019-04-05)Kruzeniski,
Commissionner
[38]Additionally,Dr.Vandergoot’sresponsetotheApplicant’srequest
andsubmissionalsotookthepositionthatthetestquestionbooklets
couldnotbereleaseddueto‘copyrightlaws.’InReviewReport052-
2017[SaskatchewanPowerCorporation(Re),2018CanLII5138,
https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skipc/doc/2018/2018canlii5138/2018canl
ii5138.html(Sask.I.P.C.;2018-02-08)],myofficeconsideredthe
applicationofthefederalCopyrightActtoinformationthatthe
governmentinstitutionhadidentifiedascontainingthirdparty
information:

[30]Althoughtheterm“copyright”isnotcontemplatedunderFOIP
[TheFreedomofInformationandProtectionofPrivacyAct],thethird
partyhasputforwardargumentsofcopyrightandthattheappraisal
firmhascopyrightofthereport.Thethirdpartyasserts,“…thatthe
intentionaland/orforcedreleaseoftheappraisalwillinfringeon[third
party’s]copyrighttotheintegrityofitsworkinaccordancewiththe
CopyrightAct,RSC1985c.C-42….”

[31]Subsection32.1(1)(a)oftheCopyrightActprovides:
32.1(1)Itisnotaninfringementofcopyrightforanyperson
(a)todisclose,pursuanttotheAccesstoInformationAct,
arecordwithinthemeaningofthatAct,ortodisclose,

96

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

pursuanttoalikeActofthelegislatureofaprovince,
likematerial;

[32]InSaskatchewan,FOIPandTheLocalAuthorityFreedomof
InformationandProtectionofPrivacyAct(LAFOIP)wouldboth
constitute,“…alikeActofthelegislatureofaprovince…”
Whetherornotthethirdpartyholdscopyrightoftheappraisalis
irrelevantbecausethereleaseofitunderFOIPisnotan
infringementofcopyright.

[40]IfindthesameanalysiswouldapplytoHIPA[HealthInformation
ProtectionAct],assuchreleaseoftherecordsinresponsetoan
accesstoinformationrequestpursuanttoHIPAwouldnotbean
infringementofcopyright.

Section32.1–Noinfringement─Acopyrightnoticehasalimitedpurpose.
PIPEDAReportofFindingsNo.2019-001,Re*,2019CarswellNat1076(Off.Priv
Comm.Can.;2019-04-09)Therrien,Commissioner.
[103]EquifaxCanadanotesthatitsaffiliationwithEquifaxInc.isalso
signaledtoconsumersbyacopyrightnoteinthefooterofall
Equifax.cawebsites,includingpagesdescribingbothproducts
delivereddirectlybyEquifaxCanada,andthosedeliveredthrough
EquifaxInc,thatsays:“Copyright[date]EquifaxInc.Allrights
reserved.EquifaxandtheEquifaxmarksusedhereinaretrademarks
ofEquifaxInc.”However,consumerswouldnotreasonablyexpect
orlooktoacopyrightnoticeinafooterfornoticeofatransferof
informationtoathirdparty.

Section32.1–Noinfringement─Asaresultofacademicfreedom,
professor’smaterialisnotunderthecontroloftheeducationalinstitution
andisexemptfromproductionunderanaccesstoinformationrequest.
Lukitsv.TreasuryBoard(DepartmentofNationalDefence)*,2019CarswellNat1680
(Fed.Pub.Sect.Lab.Rel.Emp.Bd.;2019-01-13)Jaworski,Member
[Rightoffederalmilitarycollegetorequestproductionofprofessor’scoursenotes
undertheAccesstoInformationAct.–Notarecordunderthecontrolofafederal
institution.]
[143]Article5ofthecollectiveagreementsetsoutinverybroad
languagethecommonlawprinciplesascribedtotheconceptof
academicfreedom.Iagreeandacceptthattherelationshipbetween
auniversityanditsacademicstaffisdifferentinsomerespectsfrom
thestandardemployer-employeerelationshipbecauseoftheconcept
ofacademicfreedom,recognizingthatacademicfreedomisnot
anumbrellaandcatch-allforeverythingandanythingdonebya
university’steachingstaff.

97

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[144]Broadlyspeaking,thedifferenceismarkedbythosedocuments
andmaterialsthatarelargelyadministrative.Documentsthatwould
becoveredbyacademicfreedom,assetoutinthejurisprudence,
havebeenidentifiedasdocumentsandrecordscreatedbyteaching
staffrelatedtotheirteachingandresearch.

[145]Givenmyfindingthatthecoursenotesareinthegrievor’scontrol
andnottheCollege,iftheCollegeattemptedtoforcethe
productionofthem,itwouldbeabreachofarticle5ofthe
collectiveagreement,asitwouldbeanattemptbytheemployer
toforcetheproductionofmaterialcreatedforandinthecourse
ofteachingandresearchthatisotherwiseprotectedbythe
principleofacademicfreedom.

[150]Thecoursenoteswereenteredintoevidence.Thewhole
purposeofthegrievanceandtheissuebeforemewaswhetherthey
constitutearecordunderthecontrolofagovernmentinstitution.The
purposeofthegrievancewastostatethattheyareinthegrievor’s
controlandsonotsubjecttotheAIA.Notsealingthemwouldin
essencedefeatthepurposeofthegrievanceprocessbyputtingthem
inthepublicdomain,wheretheywouldbeaccessibletoanyone.

Section32.1–Noinfringement─Disclosureofcopyrightedmaterial
pursuanttoaprovincialaccesstoinformationschemeisnotinfringing.
CôtéChabotMorelArchitectesv.Assembléenationale*,2019CarswellQue10113
(Que.Comm.Acc.Inf.;2019-09-19)Khuong,Member.
[15]D’ailleurs,l’article32.1(1)a)delaLoisurledroitd’auteur[Fn3
L.R.C.(1985),c.C-42]prévoitquelacommunicationd’un
documentenvertud’uneloid’accèsprovincialeneconstituepas
uneviolationdudroitd’auteur.L’article12[oftheAccessto
InformationAct]nevisedoncpasàrestreindrel’accèsàundocument,
maisplutôtàrappelerquesonutilisationparledemandeurdoitse
fairedanslerespectdesdroitsdepropriétéintellectuelleapplicable
[Fn4Juneauc.Québec(Villede),[1989]C.A.I.245].

Section32.1–Noinfringement─Reasonableprospectofcopyright
litigationmaypreventthedisclosureofdocumentsrequestedunderthe
FreedomofInformationandProtectionofPrivacyAct.
UniversityofWesternOntario(Re)*,[2019]O.I.P.C.271(Ont.I.P.C.;2019-12-10)
Loukidelis,adjudicator
[26]Whethertheappellantisa“copyrighttroll”isnotat
issue,statesWesterninreply;whatmatters,theuniversity
says,isthatitslegalcounselwasawaretheappellantwas
enforcingcopyrightthroughlitigationagainstotherparties
andtheappellant’sdealingswiththeuniversitymatched
thefactsinthoselitigatedcases.Westernaddsthatthe

98

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

intentoftheappellanttosuetheuniversityisnotrelevant,
becausethelegaltestiswhetheritwasreasonableto
contemplatelitigationinthecircumstancesandthe
evidenceestablishesthatitwasso.

[32]Iflitigationdoesnotalreadyexist,morethanavague
orgeneralapprehensionoflitigationisrequiredtosatisfy
therequirementthatthepreparationhave[sic]been“in
contemplationoflitigation.”[Fn11OrdersPO-2323,MO-
2609andMO-3161.]Astheuniversitysubmits,relyingon
Carlucci[CarluccivLaurentianCasualtyCo.ofCanada,
1991CarswellOnt444(Ont.Sup.Ct.)],supra,thereneed
beonlya »reasonableprospect »thatgoesbeyonda
« suspicion. »Basedonalloftheevidence,Iamsatisfiedthat
litigationwasreasonablycontemplatedatthetimethe
recordsatissuewerecreated.Whiletheappellantsays,
now,thathehasnot,andindeedcouldnot,sueWestern
undertheCopyrightAct,therelevanttimetoassessthe
reasonablenessofthecontemplationoflitigationisthetime
atwhichtherecordswerecreated.Ifind,therefore,that
atthematerialtime,theinformationavailableto
Western’slawyerwassuchthatcopyright
infringementlitigationbytheappellantagainstthe
universitywasreasonablycontemplated.

Section32.2–Permittedacts─Whatarecharitableactivities.
ChurchofAtheismofCentralCanadav.Canada(NationalRevenue)*,2019
CarswellNat7174(FCA;2019-11-29)RivoalenJ.
[8]BecausetheActdoesnotdefine“charitableactivities”,wemust
turntothecommonlawtoanswerthisquestion.Atcommonlaw,there
arefourrecognizedcharitablepurposes,thetworelevanttothis
appealbeing“theadvancementofreligion”and“certainother
purposesbeneficialtothecommunity”(A.Y.S.A.AmateurYouth
SoccerAssociationv.Canada(RevenueAgency),2007SCC42,
[2007]3S.C.R.217,atparagraph26[A.Y.S.A]).

[9]Thecommonlawhasestablishedspecificrequirementsfor
boththe“advancement”andthe“religion”portionsofthathead
ofcharity.“Advancement”requiresactivepromotion;itisnot
enoughthatanorganizationcreatespaceforindependent
worship(FuaranFoundationv.Canada(CustomsandRevenue
Agency),2004FCA181,324N.R.78,atparagraph14).Thepresent
appealisconcernedmorewiththedefinitionoftheword“religion”.

99

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[10]Forsomethingtobea“religion”inthecharitablesenseunderthe
[Income]Act,eithertheCourtsmusthaverecognizeditassuchinthe
past,oritmusthavethesamefundamentalcharacteristicsasthose
recognizedreligions.Thesefundamentalcharacteristicsarenotset
outinaclear“test”.Areviewofthejurisprudenceshowsthat
fundamentalcharacteristicsofreligionincludethatthefollowers
haveafaithinahigherpowersuchasGod,entity,orSupreme
Being;thatfollowersworshipthishigherpower;andthatthe
religionconsistsofaparticularandcomprehensivesystemof
faithandworship(SyndicatNorthcrestv.Amseleum,2004SCC47,
[2004]2S.C.R.551,atparagraph39).

[26]Onefurtherwordontheregistrationofanorganizationasa
charityundertheAct.Thereisnodisputethatsuchregistrationisa
privilege,notaright(ManyMansionsSpiritualCenter,Inc.v.Canada
(NationalRevenue),2019FCA189,atparagraph6).Theprivilegeof
registrationasacharityfunctionsasanindirecttaxsubsidyto
encouragetheworkofregisteredcharities.TheSupremeCourtof
Canadahasfoundthat,inreviewingapplications,theMinisteris
obligedtolookatthesubstanceofthepurposeandactivitiesof
theapplicanttoensuretheycomplywiththerequirementsinthe
Act(CanadianMagenDavidAdomforIsraelv.Canada(Ministerof
NationalRevenue),2002FCA323,293N.R.144,atparagraphs2-3;
A.Y.S.A.atparagraph42).ThatispreciselywhattheMinisterhad
doneinthiscase.

Section34–Remedies[civil]─Maliciousintentofacopyrightownerisno
defensebutmaybeconsideredinawardingcosts.
PyrrhaDesignInc.v.PlumandPoseyInc.,2019CarswellNat210(F.C.;2019-01-30)
PhelanJ.[appealA-98-19].
[76]Badfaith/maliciousintentofthecopyrightownerisnota
defencetoinfringementorabartotherecognitionofcopyrights.
ThevigourwithwhichthePlaintiffpursuedHardycanequallybe
attributedtoanhonestbeliefthatHardywasinfringingthePlaintiff’s
rightswhichnegatesbadfaithormalice.ThePlaintiff’srecordonthis
issueisspottyinlightofitsshiftingpositiononwhichdesignshad
beeninfringedanditsuseofNoticestogaina10-dayonlinedelisting
ofPlumandPosey’sproducts.OnbalanceIconcludethatthePlaintiff
wasmotivatedbyareasonablebeliefintheirdisputeagainstthe
Defendants.Someofthesemattersmaygotowardthelevelof
costsawardedbutnottothecoreissuesinthislitigation.

Section34–Remedies[civil]─Apersonseekingtoassertarightshall
provethefactsonwhichhisclaimisbased,thedefencesaretobe
examined.

100

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Carpentierv.FabricvilleCo.inc.,2019CarswellQue2867(Que.Ct.–Smallclaims;
2019-02-08)NoletJ.
[25]L’article2803C.c.Q.indiqueque«Celuiquiveutfairevaloirun
droitdoitprouverlesfaitsquisoutiennentsaprétention.[…]».Ainsi,
sousréservedelacompétenced’attributiondelaDivisiondespetites
créancesàentendrelelitige,ilrevientàmadameCarpentierde
prouverqueledessindestissusvendusparBeau-Fabestun
dessincontrefaitdesondessinJYLG.Àcettefin,pourautantque
sondessinsoituneœuvreausensdelaLDA,ellebénéficieradela
présomptionlégaleprévueàcelle-ci.

[26]SimadameCarpentiers’acquittedesonfardeaudepreuve,ily
auralieud’analyserlesmoyensdedéfensedeFabricvilleetdeBeau-
Fab.

Section34–Remedies[civil]─Moraldamagesmayresultfromcopyright
infringement.
Carpentierv.FabricvilleCo.inc.,2019CarswellQue2867(Que.Ct.–Smallclaims;
2019-02-08)NoletJ.
[45]Deplus,lasituationacausédesdommagesmorauxà
madameCarpentierdontlefaitdeconstaterquel’ons’est
appropriésonœuvreunilatéralementetsanssonconsentement.
Elleamentionnéenavoirétéaffectéed’autantplusqu’ilestdifficile
degagnersavieentantqu’artiste.Ainsi,lefaitd’utilisersontravail
artistiquesansluienreconnaîtreleméritel’ablessée.Cetteviolation
desondroitd’auteurluiaégalementcausédenombreuxtroubleset
inconvénients.

Section34–Remedies[civil]─Norwichordersarenotgovernedbythe
CopyrightAct.
ME2Productions,Inc.v.Doe,2019CarswellNat405(F.C.;2019-02-21)PentneyJ.
[appealA-106-19discontinued2019-09-06,appealA-107-19discontinued2019-09-
13andappealA-108-19discontinued2019-09-13].
[112]Ifindthisisinerrorinseveralrespects.First,thequestionof
whetherTekSavvyisprejudicedbythisevidencemaybepertinent,
butitisfarfromdeterminativeoftheessentialquestion.Asismade
clearinBMG[BMGCanadaIncvDoe,2005FCA193],and
resoundinglyaffirmedinRogersCommunications[Rogers
CommunicationsIncvVoltagePictures,LLC,2018SCC38],the
Courtmustconsidertheinterestsofthecopyrightowner,butit
mustalsobeconcernedtoprotecttheinterestoftheindividual
subscriberswhosenamesaresubjecttodisclosure.

[113]Second,whilea“purposive”interpretationofthe[Copyright]Act
isundoubtedlyimportant,thatlegislationdoesnotgovernthe
grantingofaNorwichorder.Thetworegimesmustoperate“in

101

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

tandem,”buttheultimateprotectionagainstwrongfuldisclosureof
subscribers’names,andthebreachofprivacyandpublicexposure
thatmaybeassociatedwithit,restswiththeCourt.Thisisreflected
inthefinalelementofthetestinBMG:“…thepublicinterestinfavour
ofdisclosuremustoutweighthelegitimateprivacyconcernsofthe
personsoughttobeidentifiedifadisclosureorderismade”(para36).

[114]TheseareweightymattersandtheCourtisentitledto
demandthebestavailableevidencetobefiledinsupportofa
motionseekingtheextraordinaryequitablereliefofaNorwich
order.

Section34–Remedies[civil]─InanapplicationtoaNorwichorderallthe
relevantinformationmustbedisclosed.
ME2Productions,Inc.v.Doe,2019CarswellNat405(F.C.;2019-02-21)PentneyJ.
[appealA-106-19discontinued2019-09-06,appealA-107-19discontinued2019-09-
13andappealA-108-19discontinued2019-09-13].
[73]Iwillsaymoreonthisissuelater,butatthisstageIwouldsimply
notethatitisincumbentonanapplicantseekingaNorwichorder
toensurethatithasdisclosedallrelevantinformationtothe
Court,andthatitsmaterialisorganizedinamannerwhichcan
beeasilyunderstoodandverified.WhileIacceptProthonotary
Aalto’s[theCaseManagementJudge]findingthattheerrorshere
reflectthegrowingpainsassociatedwithimplementinganewregime,
Inotethatallofthepartieshavenowhadseveralyearstoadjust.
MaterialsfromcopyrightownersseekingNorwichordersshouldnow
beorganizedandcomplete.TheCourt,thesubscriberswhoseprivacy
interestsareaffectedbysuchextraordinaryorders,andtheISPsto
whomtheorderwillbedirected,deservenoless.

Section34–Remedies[civil]─Beingtheforeigncopyrightownerof
materialusedinQuebecmaysubjectthisownertothejurisdictionof
QuebecCourts.
Av.WatchTowerBibleandTractSocietyofCanada*,2019CarswellQue1512(Que.
Sup.Ct.;2019-02-27)CorriveauJ.[leavetoappealgranted2019CarswellQue4858
(Que.C.A.;2019-06-03)].
[26]LasociétéWTPApubliedelalittératureetlesouvragesbibliques
dontelledétientlesdroitsd’auteurquisontdiffusésàtraversle
monde,incluantauCanada.

[27]PourleTribunal,lefaitquelasociétéWTPAdétienneles
droitsd’auteuretagissecommeorganismequiélaborela
documentationetassuresadiffusion,créeunlienentrecette
sociétéaméricaineetlesmembresdelacommunautédes
TémoinsdeJéhovahquiadhèrentauxdictatsquiysontinscrits,
ycomprisauCanada.LesAnciens,lesmembresetlesvictimes

102

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

alléguéesd’agressionsexuelleauCanadasuiventces
enseignementsdefaçonstricte.

[29]CettedocumentationcontientlesrèglesquilientlesAncienset
lesmembres.Lesfautesalléguéessontissuesdesrègles
diffuséesetimposéesauxmembres.Celaestsuffisantpour
établirunliend’attachementausensdel’article3148(3)C.c.Q.

Section34─Remedies[civilremedies]─Itisunethicalforalawyertodraft
proceedingsclaimingunfoundedamountsindamages.
BarreauduQuébec(syndicadhoc)v.Brouillette*,2019QCCBDQ20(Conseilde
discipline–BarreauduQuébec;2019-04-12),theBoard[re-rectifyingBarreaudu
Québec(syndicadhoc)v.Brouillette,2017QCCDBQ085(Conseildediscipline–
BarreauduQuébec;2017-11-03);appeals500-07-001033-194and500-07-001034-
192].
[Undercount1,therespondentwasrecklessandinterferedwiththeproper
administrationofjusticebyparticipatinginandallowingproceedingsdenotinga
propensityforoverbiddingoutofallproportiontotheactuallitigationbetweenthe
partiesand/ordelayingtacticsand/orforthepurposeofharmingoradoptingan
attitudewhichgoesagainsttherequirementsofgoodfaithareundertakenand
continued]
[296]Letroisièmesous-paragrapheduchef1delaplaintereproche
àMeBrouillettederéclameraunomdesesclientslasommede
500000$enviolationdudroitdelapropriétéintellectuelledeces
dernierssansfondementjuridiqueapparent.

[297]CommeleremarquelejugeCastonguay,lessommes
réclaméessont«considérables»àcechapitre.

[298]LapreuveprésentéedevantleConseilparMeBrouillette
n’expliquetoujourspasdequellemanièrelaréclamationde500000$
aétéévaluéeetdéterminée.

[299]Aussi,MeBrouillettenedémontrepascommentlesTurgeon
pouvaientalléguerêtrelesdétenteursdelapropriétéintellectuelle.
Lesalléguésdelarequêteintroductived’instancesonttrèsmincesà
cechapitreetsontémoignageàcetégarddevantleConseilest
imprécis,peuconvaincant.

[300]Or,l’évaluationdesdommagesenmatièredepropriété
intellectuelles’effectueselondesrèglesquisontbienconnues
[FN559Robinsonc.FilmsCinarinc.,2009QCCS3793(conf.par.
CinarCorpv.Robinson,[2013]3S.C.R.);LaurentCARRIÈRE,
«Voiesetrecourscivilsenmatièredeviolationdedroitsd’auteurau
Canada»,ROBICs.e.n.c.r.l.,Montréal,2001].Enl’espèce,les
montantsréclamésnesontpasévaluésenfonctiondecesrègles.

103

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[301]Lefaitderéclamerdessommesexagéréesquinepeuvent
sejustifiercomptetenudescirconstancespropresaudossier
constitueunefautedéontologique,car«cen’estpaslerôled’un
avocatdedonnerdesleçonsàdestiersendéposantcontreeux,
devantlestribunaux,desréclamationsdeplusieursmilliersde
dollarsdontilestincapabledesoutenirlebien-fondé»[Fn560
BarreauduQuébec(syndicadjoint)c.Landry,2008QCCDBQ60,
par.222et228b.(inf.par2011QCTP208surlaquestiondela
suffisancedelapreuve;conf.par.2014QCCS5476;inf.par2017
QCCA238surl’opportunitéderetournerledossierconcernantla
sanction);BarreauduQuébec(syndicadjoint)c.Morand,2011
QCCDBQ099,par.19,20,24-26,32et33;Voiraussi:Barreaudu
Québec(syndicadjoint)c.Dahan,2010QCCDBQ133,par.72-79et
124-126].

Section34─Remedies[civilremedies]─Aninjunctionisanormalremedy
forcopyrightinfringement.
Thomsonv.AfterlifeNetworkInc,2019CarswellNat1479(F.C.;2019-05-01)KaneJ.
[49]Aninjunctionisanormalremedyforcopyrightinfringement,
inaccordancewithsection34oftheCopyrightAct.Aninjunction
iswarrantedtostopAfterlifefromcontinuingtoinfringetheClass
Members’rightsintheoriginalworks.Afterliferefusedsomefamilies’
requeststoremoveobituariesanddidnottakethewebsitedownuntil
thisApplicationwasfiled.Iagreethattheinjunctionshouldalsoname
Mr.Leclerc,whoisthedirectorofAfterlifeandhascontinuedtopost
obituariesathisnewwebsite,Everhere.

Section34─Remedies[civilremedies]─Damagesarearemedyfor
infringement─AssessingdamagesisamatterofdiscretionfortheCourts.
Thomsonv.AfterlifeNetworkInc,2019CarswellNat1479(F.C.;2019-05-01)KaneJ.
[55]Section34oftheCopyrightActprovidesthatdamagesarea
remedyforinfringement.Inclassproceedings,Rule334.28ofthe
FederalCourtsRules,SOR/98-106providesthatajudgemaymake
anyorderinrespectoftheassessmentofmonetaryreliefduetoa
class,includingaggregateassessments.

[59]TheCourthasdiscretioninassessinghowdamagesshould
beaggregated.Compensatorydamagesmaybeacombinationof
damagesforcopyrightinfringement,damagesformoralrights
infringement,andaggravateddamages.Aggregatedamagesare
appropriateinthiscasegiventhatassessingtheindividualdamages
oftheClassMembers,whichmayincludeoveronethousandpeople,
wouldbeimpractical,amongotherreasons.

104

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section34─Remedies[civil]─Areprehensiblebehaviordoesnotalways
warrantpunitivedamages.
Thomsonv.AfterlifeNetworkInc,2019CarswellNat1479(F.C.;2019-05-01)KaneJ.
[77]IagreewiththeApplicantthatAfterlife’sconduct,aptly
characterizedas“obituarypiracy”,ishigh-handed,
reprehensibleandrepresentsamarkeddeparturefrom
standardsofdecency.ThefactorsnotedinBauerHockey[Bauer
HockeyCorpvSportMaskaInc,2014FCA158]withrespecttothe
blameworthinessofAfterlife’sconductsuggestthatpunitivedamages
shouldbeimposed.However,punitivedamagesareexceptionaland
thehighthresholdfortheirimpositionhasnotbeenmetinthiscase.
Theinjunction,coupledwiththeimpositionofa$20,000,000award
againstAfterlife(representingstatutorydamagesof$10,000,000and
aggravateddamagesof$10,000,000)shouldbesufficientto
denounceanddeterAfterlife’sconduct.

Section34─Remedies[civil]─Costsonamotionshouldfollowtheevent
─Departureiswarrantedwhenanapplicationisbaseless.
Dhillonv.Bernier,2019CarswellNat1518(F.C.;2019-05-03)LafrenièreJ.[motionto
extendthetimetoappealrefused19-A-34(F.C.A.;2019-07-23);actiondismissedon
proceduralgrounds,2019FC1194(F.C.;2019-09-20);appealA-403-19].
[57]Atthehearing,counselfortheDefendantsrequestedthatcosts
befixedtothesuccessfulpartyonasolicitorandclientbasisinthe
fixedamountof$40,000.Plaintiffs’counselcounteredthatcosts
shouldbeintherangeof$5,000to$7,000,plusdisbursements.

[58]Thegeneralruleisthatcostsshouldfollowtheevent.The
“event”inthiscaseisthedispositionofthemotion.Thisisbecause
thediscreteissuetobedeterminediswhethertograntaninterlocutory
injunction.Thisisnottheissueattrial.TheCourtisconcernedonlyto
assesswhetherthePlaintiffshaveaclaimorarightthatoughttobe
protecteduntiltrial.

[59]GiventhattheDefendantswereentirelysuccessfulin
resistingtheconfusingandessentiallybaselessmotion,I
concludethatcostsshouldbeawardedatanelevatedscale.
Further,thePlaintiffs’allegedurgencywasunjustified.Costsare
herebyfixedintheamountof$20,000,inclusiveofdisbursementsand
taxes,payablebythePlaintiffsinanyeventofthecause,butnot
forthwith.

Section34─Remedies[civil]─Eveninanundefendedproceeding,an
applicantmustproveinfringementandentitlementtothereliefssought─
Theburdenofproofisonabalanceofprobabilities.
Youngv.Thakur,2019CarswellNat2971(F.C.;2019-06-20)KaneJ.

105

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[23]AlthoughtheRespondentshavenotdefendedthisApplication,
theApplicantsstillmustestablishtheinfringementand
entitlementtothereliefsoughtonabalanceofprobabilities.

[24]AsIfoundinThomsonvAfterlifeNetworkInc,2019FC545at
paras31-32,[2019]FCJNo483,theRespondents’failureto
participatemakestheapplicationanalogoustoadefaultjudgment.As
notedbyJusticeRennieinCuzzettovBusinessinMotionInternational
Corporation,2014FC17atpara4,445FTR261:
Onamotionfordefaultjudgmentwherenodefencehasbeen
filed,everyallegationinthestatementofclaimmustbetakenas
denied.EvidencemustbeledthatenablestheCourttofind,on
abalanceofprobabilities,thatthereisliabilityandthatthe
plaintiffisentitledtotheremediessought.

Section34─Copyright[Remedies]─Punitivedamagesareexceptional.
Youngv.Thakur,2019CarswellNat2971(F.C.;2019-06-20)KaneJ.
[52]Thismuddlestwodifferentconceptsregardingdamages.Punitive
damageshavenotbeensought,norwouldtheybewarranted.
Punitivedamagesareexceptional.Theyareawardedwherea
party’sconducthasbeenmalicious,oppressiveandhighhanded
andoffendsthecourt’ssenseofdecencyandwhereother
remediesarenotsufficienttoaccomplishtheobjectivesof
retribution,deterrence,anddenunciation(WhitenvPilotInsurance
Co,2002SCC18atparas36,123,[2002]1SCR595).Inthepresent
case,theinjunctionandthestatutorydamagesaresufficienttodeter
anddenouncetheRespondents’infringingconduct.

Section34─Copyright[Remedies]─Costsareawardedtothesuccessful
party─CostsareattheCourt’sdiscretion─Whenclaimingoutsidethe
Tariff,evidenceastothecostsshallbeadduced.
Youngv.Thakur,2019CarswellNat2971(F.C.;2019-06-20)KaneJ.
[67]Generally,costsareawardedtothesuccessfulparty.The
Applicantshavebeenpartlysuccessful.TheApplicants’Counsel
submittedorallythatMs.Younghadincurred$25,000inlegalcosts.
However,nosupportingevidencehasbeenprovidedtothe
Court.TheamountofcostsiswithintheCourt’sdiscretion.
Takingintoaccountallthecircumstances,includingthereliefsought
bytheApplicantsandthereliefawarded,Ifindthat$2,500isamore
appropriateamount.

Section34–Copyright[Remedies]─Accountingofprofitsisanavailable
remedy.
Canada(SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishers)v.BanoInc.(Green
BeanJavaBistro),2019FC1011,(F.C.;2019-07-26)St-LouisJ.
[9]THISCOURTORDERSthat:

106

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

3.TheDefendantshallpermitafullandcompleteaccountingofall
suchlicencefeesdueandanauditoftheDefendant’sbooksand
records

Section34–Copyright[Remedies]─Accountingofprofitsisanavailable
remedy.
Canada(SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishers)v.Shakers
RoadhouseLtd.,2019FC1010(F.C.;2019-07-26)St-LouisJ.
[9]THISCOURTORDERSthat:.
3.TheDefendantshallpermitafullandcompleteaccountingofall
suchlicencefeesdueandanauditoftheDefendant’sbooksand
records.

Section34–Copyright[Remedies]─Accountingofprofitsisanavailable
remedy.
Canada(SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishers)v.NLHInvestments
Inc.(CowboyRanch),2019CanLII73165(F.C.;2019-08-06)GasconJ.
[7]THISCOURT’SJUDGMENTisthat:
3.TheDefendantshallpermitafullandcompleteaccountingofall
suchlicensefeesdueandanauditoftheDefendant’sbooksand
records.

Section34–Copyright[Remedies]─Plagiarismisamisconductandmay
warrantareprimand.
Samsonv.DeputyHead(DepartmentofJustice)*,2019CarswellNat2214(Fed.Pub.
Sect.Lab.Rel.Emp.Bd.;2019-04-19)M.-C.Perreault,Member[appealA-147-19].
[249]Theissueinplagiarismisnottheactofcopyingperse.The
issueistakingcreditforworkthatonehasnotdone.Thegrievordoes
notseemtounderstandtheimportanceofalawyerprovidingherown
opinion,afterdoingherownresearch,andindicatingclearlythatshe
orheisnottheauthorofideasborrowedfromsomeoneelse.

[255]Ifinditcuriousthatincross-examination,thegrievorstrenuously
deniedcopyingthe »Whowins »paperforthepurposesofher
confidentialitymemo.Afterall,thegistofherargumentstothe
respondent,totheBoardinthesubmissionsfiledwiththegrievance,
andagaininheroralargument,hadbeenthatplagiarismnolonger
existsandthatboththeSupremeCourtofCanadaandtheCopyright
Actallowforit,asexplainedearlier.

[256]Asstatedbytherespondentthroughthegrievor’s
managers,plagiarismdoesexist,anditiswrong.Stealingis
wrong.Takingcreditforanother’swork,withoutproper
attribution,iswrong.Providinglegalanalysisasone’sown,
whenithasbeencopiedfromanunidentified(andunverified)

107

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

source,iswrong.Withadegreeinlaw,aftersixyearsof
universitystudies,thegrievorshouldknowthat.

[257]Thewrittenreprimandwaswarranted,tosanctionthe
misconduct.

Section34─Copyright[Remedies]─Arbitrationandmediationare
availableincasesofcopyrightdisputes.
CapitalJPEGinc.v.CorporationZoneB4ltée*,2019CarswellQue6683(Que.Sup.
Ct.;2019-07-16)BarinJ.
[27]Toutcommeennégociation,dansunprocessusdemédiationles
partiespeuventdiscuterd’unvasteéventaildesujetsoudedomaines,
lesconsidérer,lesrégleroutransiger,tantetaussilongtempsqu’ilne
s’agitpasdecertainesmatièresconsidéréesfondamentalesausein
del’ordrejuridiquequébécois,cequeconfirmed’ailleursl’article2632
C.c.Q.[Fn5Ouellettec.Sociétéderécupération,d’exploitationetde
développementforestiersduQuébec(Rexfor),EYB1997–02082
C.A.]

[28]Mêmesil’inversen’estpastoujoursvrai,cequipeutêtre
l’objetd’unarbitragepeutaussidevenirl’objetd’unemédiation.
Parexemple,lespartiespeuventtransigersurlesdroitsd’auteur
incluantlesdroitsmoraux,commeilspeuventlessoumettreà
l’arbitrage.

Section34─Copyright[Remedies]─Recklessnessdoesnotinitselfjustify
anawardofpunitivedamages.
ConstellationBrandsUSOperationsv.Sociétédevininternationaleltée,2019
CarswellQue7681(Que.Sup.Ct.;2019-08-21)BachandJ.[appeal500-09-028594-
190].
[38]Insum,thecircumstancesofthepresentcasearefarremoved
fromtheinstancesofplagiarism,[Fn30CinarCorporationv.
Robinson,2013SCC73(CanLII);SetymInternationalinc.c.Belout,
2001CanLII24941(QCCS).]willfulwrongdoing,[Fn31Microsoft
Corporationv.PCVillageCo.Ltd.,2009FC401(CanLII);Société
Radio-Canadac.Amberolalesdisques,s.e.n.c.,2001CanLII25236
(QCCS)],deliberateconfusion,[Fn322703203ManitobaInc.v.
Parks,2007NSCA36(CanLII);I.T.Logisticsinc.c.Jitlogisticinc.,
1999CanLII10882(QCCS);Diesel,s.p.a.c.BenistiImport-Export
inc.,2016QCCS1085(CanLII)(aff’d2016QCCA997(CanLII))],
malice[Fn33AteliersTangoArgentininc.c.Festivald’Espagneet
d’Amériquelatineinc.,1997CanLII8852(QCCS)]andbadfaith
[Fn34CentredeLocationRavary(Laval)ltéec.Télé-Direct
(Publications)Inc.,[1995]J.Q.No.3309(QCCS]atissueinthecases
Constellationsoughttorelyupon.Themostthatcouldbesaid,based
ontherecordasitstands,isthatSVIwasrecklessinitsuseof

108

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Constellation-ownedtrade-marksandcopyrightedmaterials.But,as
wasmentionedearlier,“recklessness,howeverwildand
foolhardy,”doesnotinitselfjustifyanawardofpunitive
damages.[Fn35CentredeLocationRavary(Laval)ltéec.Télé-Direct
(Publications)Inc.,[1995]J.Q.No.3309(QCCS),para.30]

Section34–Copyright[Remedies]─Copyrightinfringemententitlesa
plaintifftoseveralremedies.
PopsocketsLLCv.CaseWorldEnterprisesLtd,2019CarswellNat5165(F.C.;2019-
09-10)SouthcottJ.
[39]HavingfoundinfringementunderboththeTrademarksActand
theCopyrightAct,thePlaintiffisentitledtoremediesagainstthe
Defendant.[…].Similarly,section34(1)oftheCopyrightAct
providesthat,wherecopyrighthasbeeninfringed,theownerof
thecopyrightis,subjecttotheAct,entitledtoallremediesbyway
ofinjunction,damages,accounts,deliveryupandotherwisethatare
ormaybeconferredbylawfortheinfringementofaright.

Section34─Copyright[Remedies]─CostsareattheCourt’sdiscretion.
ConstellationBrandsUSOperationsv.Sociétédevininternationaleltée,2019
CarswellQue7681(Que.Sup.Ct.;2019-08-21)BachandJ.[appeal500-09-028594-
190].
[45]Constellationfirstinvokessection34(3)oftheCopyrightAct,
whichprovidesthattheparties’costsinmattersofcopyright
infringementarelefttotheCourt’sdiscretion.Whileacopyright
infringementhasbeenconcededbySVI,Constellationhasfailedin
itsmainclaimfortherecoveryofSVI’sprofitsaswellasinitsclaim
forpunitivedamages.Forthatreason,itwillnotbeawardedits
solicitor-clientfeesonthebasisofsection34(3)oftheCopyrightAct.

Section34─Copyright[Remedies]─Admissibleevidenceshallbeentered
properlyandinatimelyfashion.
RowanWilliamsDavies&IrwinInc.v.ProWiseEngineeringInc.,168C.P.R.(4th)95
(F.C.;2019-09-23)O’ReillyJ.[appealA-404-19dismissedonconsent(F.C.A.;2020-
01-10)].
[3]Inmyview,thiscaseturnsontheevidenceor,moreaccurately,
thelackofit.IagreewithProWisethatRWDIhasnotproperly
supporteditsapplicationwithadmissibleevidence.RWDI
attemptedtoremedythatsituationbyrequestingleavetofile
supplementaryevidenceontheeveofthehearingofitsapplication.
However,RWDIdidnotjustifyitsfailuretoprovidethatevidenceona
timelybasis.Ihave,therefore,deniedRWDI’srequest.Intheend,
thereisinsufficientadmissibleevidencebeforemeinsupportof
RWDI’sapplication.Imust,therefore,dismissit.

109

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section34─Copyright[Remedies]─Plagiarismmayleadtotheexpulsion
fromaprofessionalorder.
Youngv.AlbertaAssessors’AssociationPracticeReviewCommittee,2019
CarswellAlta2006(Alta.Q.B.;2019-09-24)ShelleyJ.
[67]WhileUBCmadeitclearthatcopyingandplagiarismwerenot
permittedinthepreparationofassignments,italsocontemplatedthat
thediscoveryofthesepracticescouldattractsanctionfroma
professionalassociation.Thiswouldclearlyextendto
copying/plagiarismdiscoveredpost-coursecompletion.

[75]Itisleft,then,todeterminewhethercopying/plagiarismconstitute
abreachofs19.Inthatregard,Iamsatisfiedthatcopyingand
plagiarismmeanthesameinthiscontext.Itistruethatneithers24of
theRegulation,nors19ofPOARA,refertocopyingorplagiarism.
TheExecutiveCommittee’sreasoninginrelationtothisissue,asset
outinpara63oftheseReasons,issound.Studentsenrolledinthe
BUSI499coursewereexpresslytoldthatcopyingorplagiarismwas
prohibitedandcouldresultinsanctionsfromthestudents’
professionalassociation.TheApplicantssignedadeclaration
acknowledgingthoseprohibitionsandwarnings.TheCodeofConduct
requiresitsmemberstoperformtheirdutieswithhonestyandintegrity.
Notonlywascopyingorplagiarisingprohibitedundertheterms
ofthecoursethatwasrequiredasaconditionofmembership,
copyinganother’sworkandholdingitouttobeone’sownwould
generallybeconsideredanactofdishonestyandalackof
integrity.Permittingthistypeofconduct—specifically
permittingstudentstopassoffother’sworkastheirowninthe
contextofobtainingaccreditation/membershipinaprofessional
organisation—mightwellresultinadiminishingofpublic
confidenceinthatprofessionalgroup.

Section34–Remedies[civil]─ByreleasingitsfilminOntario,theforeign
companysubjectsitselftothejurisdictionoftheOntarioCourts.
Pourshianv.WaltDisneyCompany,2019CarswellOnt16536(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2019-
10-15)Graham,Master.
[25]EvenconsideringthematterwiththecautionmandatedbyVan
Breda[ClubResortsLtd.v.VanBreda,2012SCC17],thereleaseof
afilminCanada,whichwouldincludeOntario,presumablysothat
peoplewouldgotoamovietheatreandpaytoseeit,ispreciselythe
sortofactualpresenceinthejurisdictioncontemplatedbytheCourt.
Pourshian’spleadingthatWaltDisneyPicturesInc.releasedINSIDE
OUTinCanadacreatesa“goodarguablecase”thatthatdefendant
carriedonbusinessinCanadainrelationtothesubjectmatterofthe
action.

110

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[26]Similarly,Pourshianpleadsinparagraph30ofthestatementof
claimthatthedefendantsPixarandWaltDisneyPicturesInc.arethe
producersofINSIDEOUT.Thecourtcanreasonablyinferthatthese
defendantsmadethefilmintheexpectationthatpeoplewouldpayto
seeit,whichrequiredthatitbeshowninmovietheatres.Pixar,by
releasingINSIDEOUTtobeshownintheatresinOntario,evenif
throughanotherentity,wasinsubstanceofferingitforsaletothe
province’smovie-goingpublic,thuscreatingatleasta“goodarguable
case”thatPixarwascarryingonbusinessinOntario.

[27]Accordingly,byproducingINSIDEOUTandreleasingitfor
distributiontoOntariomovietheatres,thedefendantsPixarand
WaltDisneyPicturesInc.werecarryingonbusinessinOntario.
Thepresumptiveconnectingfactorofcarryingonbusinessin
Ontarioisthereforeestablished.

Section34─Copyright[Remedies]─Accountingofprofitsandcostsare
availableremedies.
EberhardVonHuene&associésinc.v.Salzman,[2019]J.Q.10868(Que.Sup.Ct;
2019-11-07)RogersJ.
[25]Encasdecontravention,cetteloi[CopyrightAct]prévoitla
possibilitépourlapersonneléséederéclamerleremboursement
detouslesprofitsrécoltésparletiers,enplusdesfraisjuridiques
pourintenterlerecours.

[26]Danslesmodificationsvisées,deuxconclusionssontajoutées
afinderéclamerleremboursementdesprofitsetréserverlesdroits
delademanderessequantauxfraisdejustice.

Section34─Copyright[Remedies]─Ifindividualissuesarepredominant,
classactionmaynotbetheproperwaytoproceed.
VoltagePictures,LLCv.Salna,2019FC1412(F.C.;2019-11-12)BoswellJ.[appeal
A-439-19].
[145]First,IagreewiththerespondentsandCIPPIC[intervener]that
aclassproceedingisnotthepreferableprocedurebecauseVoltage’s
applicationpredominantlyraisesindividualissueswithintheproposed
class.Theresolutionoftheseissueswouldrequireacomplex,
individually-tailored,fact-findingprocessforeachpotentialclass
member.Consequently,judicialeconomyandfairnesswouldnotbe
achieved.

Section34─Copyright[Remedies]─Websiteblockingordersareavailable
remedies.

111

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

BellMediaInc.v.GoldTV.Biz,2019CarswellNat6733(F.C.;2019-11-15)GleesonJ.
[appealA-440-19]
[8]Despitetheissuanceoftheinterimandinterlocutoryinjunctions
againsttheDefendantssomeoftheGoldTVServicesremainin
operationandtheallegedinfringementcontinues.ThePlaintiffsnow
seekanorderthatwillcompeltheThirdPartyRespondentstoblock
accesstothewebsitesandInternetservicesoperatedbythe
Defendants.Anorderofthisnaturehasnotpreviouslyissuedin
Canadabuthasinotherjurisdictions,includingtheUnited
Kingdom,whereithasbeenreferredtoasa“website-blocking
order”(CartierInternationalAGv.BritishSkyBroadcasting
Ltd.,[2016]EWCACiv658[CartierCA]atpara5andCartier
InternationalAGv.BritishTelecommunicationsplc,[2018]UKSC28
[CartierSC]atpara5).Thepartiestothismotionrefertotheorder
soughtasa“site-blockingorder”.

THISCOURTORDERSthat
Withinfifteen(15)daysoftheissuanceofthisOrder,theThirdParty
Respondentsshallblockorattempttoblockaccessbyatleasttheir
residentialwirelineInternetservicecustomerstothewebsitesor
onlineservicesidentifiedatSchedule1tothisOrder(the“Target
Websites”),byblockingorattemptingtoblockaccesstoallofthe
TargetWebsites’domains,subdomainsandIPaddressesidentified
therein.Forclarity,theGoldTV.caServiceisaTargetWebsiteforthe
purposeofthisOrder.Schedule1tothisOrderisemptyforthe
GoldTV.caServiceasofthedateofissuanceofthisOrder,andmay
besupplementedbythePlaintiffsifandwhenappropriatein
accordancewithparagraph2ofthisOrder.

Section34─Copyright[Remedies]─Issuingawebsiteblockingorderis
withintheequitablejurisdictionoftheFederalCourt.
BellMediaInc.v.GoldTV.Biz,2019CarswellNat6733(F.C.;2019-11-15)GleesonJ.
[appealA-440-19]
A.DoesthisCourthavejurisdictiontoissueasite-blockingorder?

[26]IamsatisfiedthatthisCourt’sequitablejurisdictiondoes
encompasstheauthoritytoissueaninjunctioninthenaturesoughtby
thePlaintiffs.

[29]Parliament’schoicenottoadoptasite-blockingregimedoes
notequatetoParliamentprohibitingthisCourtfromexercising
itsequitablejurisdictiontoissueasite-blockingorder.
Furthermore,subsection34(1)oftheCopyrightActrecognizesthat,
subjecttothatAct,acopyrightowneris“entitledtoallremediesby
wayofinjunction[…]thatareormaybeconferredbylawforthe

112

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

infringementofaright”.Thisincludestherighttoseekreliefagainst
anon-partyincircumstanceswherethatnon-partyfacilitates,
albeitinnocently,theharmbeingcomplainedof(Equustek
[GoogleInc.v.EquustekSolutionsInc.,2017SCC34]atpara31).

Section34─Copyright[Remedies]─Balanceofconvenienceand
proportionalityaretobeconsideredwhenissuingawebsiteblocking
order.
BellMediaInc.v.GoldTV.Biz,2019CarswellNat6733(F.C.;2019-11-15)GleesonJ.
[appealA-440-19]
[51]Thefundamentalquestiontobeaskedwhereaninjunctionis
soughtiswhetherthegrantingoftheinjunctionisjustand
equitableinallofthecircumstances(Equustekatpara25[Google
Inc.v.EquustekSolutionsInc.,2017SCC34]).Thebalanceof
convenienceprongofthetestbestrepresentsthisbalancingof
equitiesandhasbeendescribedasadeterminationofwhichofthe
partieswillsufferthegreaterharmfromthegrantingorrefusalofthe
injunction(MetropolitanStoresatp.129[Manitoba(AttorneyGeneral)
v.MetropolitanStoresLtd.,[1987]1SCR110]).

[52]InCartierCA[CartierInternationalAGv.BritishSkyBroadcasting
Ltd.,[2016]EWCACiv658]theEWCAendorsedanumberof
principlesorfactorsasbeingrelevantindeterminingifasite-
blockingorderisproportional.Thefactorsare:
A.Necessity–aconsiderationoftheextenttowhichthereliefis
necessarytoprotecttheplaintiff’srights.Thereliefneednotbe
indispensablebutthecourtmayconsiderwhetheralternative
andlessonerousmeasuresareavailable;
B.Effectiveness–aconsiderationofwhetherthereliefsoughtwill
makeinfringingactivitiesmoredifficulttoachieveand
discourageInternetusersfromaccessingtheinfringingservice;
C.Dissuasiveness–aconsiderationofwhetherothersnotcurrently
accessingtheinfringingservicewillbedissuadedfromdoingso;
D.ComplexityandCost–aconsiderationofthecomplexityand
costofimplementingthereliefsought;
E.Barrierstolegitimateuseortrade–aconsiderationofwhether
thereliefwillcreatebarrierstolegitimateusebyundulyaffecting
theabilityofusersofISPservicestoaccessinformationlawfully;
F.Fairness–aconsiderationofwhetherthereliefstrikesafair
balancebetweenfundamentalrightsoftheparties,thethird
partiesandthegeneralpublic;
G.Substitution–aconsiderationoftheextenttowhichblocked
websitesmaybereplacedorsubstitutedandwhetherablocked
websitemaybesubstitutedforanotherinfringingwebsite;and
H.Safeguards–aconsiderationofwhetherthereliefsought
includesmeasuresthatsafeguardagainstabuse.

113

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[53]Thenecessityfactoris,inmyview,closelylinkedtothe
irreparableharmbranchofthetest.Iwillconsiderarguments
relatingtotheavailabilityofalternativeandlessonerousmeasures
underthisbranchofthetestandnotaspartofthebalanceof
convenienceanalysis.

Section34─Copyright[Remedies]─Evenifthereisastrongprimafacie
case,plaintiffmustproveirreparableharmforaninterlocutoryinjunction
toissue.
BellMediaInc.v.GoldTV.Biz,2019CarswellNat6733(F.C.;2019-11-15)GleesonJ.
[appealA-440-19]
[55]Wherecopyrightinfringementhasbeenallegedandastrong
primafaciecaseofsubstantialorcompletecopyingisdemonstrated
thejurisprudencerecognizesthattheallegationswarrantspecial
consideration.However,suchconsiderationdoesnotrelievethe
plaintiffsoftheburdenofestablishingirreparableharm(Bell
Canadav.1326030OntarioInc.(iTVBox.net)2016FC612atpara28
[iTVBox.net],upheldonappealbyWesley(Mtlfreetv.com)v.Bell
Canada),2017FCA55,citingSomervilleHouseBooksLtdvTormont
PublicationsInc(1993),50CPR(3d)390(FCTD)atpara10).

[56]AsrecognizedbyJusticeDanièleTremblay-LameriniTVBox.net
thethreeprongsoftheinjunctiontestarenottobetreatedas
individualsilos.Astrongfindinginrespectofoneoftheprongs
ofthetestmaylowerthethresholdontheothertwo.

Section34─Copyright[Remedies]─Declaratoryisaremedyavailableto
asuccessfulplaintiff.
LouisVuittonMalletierS.A.v.Wang,2019CarswellNat6912(F.C.;2019-11-15)Roy
J.
[201]Theplaintiffsalsoaskthattherebeadeclarationconcerningtwo
copyrightedworksofLouisVuittontotheeffectthatthedefendants
haveinfringedoraredeemedtohaveinfringedthecopyright.Thetwo
copyrightedworks,aMulticoloredMonogram-WhitePrintanda
MulticoloredMonogram-BlackPrintareshownatscheduleGtothe
judgment.TheCourthasalreadydealtwiththeissueofthestatutory
damagesavailableundertheCopyrightAct.Therewasan
infringementandtheplaintiffsareentitled.

Section34─Copyright[Remedies]─Previousjudgmentsagainst
defendants,defyingcourtordersandindirectlypursuingtheinfringement
arefactorstobeconsideredinawardingpunitivedamages.
LouisVuittonMalletierS.A.v.Wang,2019CarswellNat6912(F.C.;2019-11-15)Roy
J.

114

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[192]Nevertheless,thelevelofblameworthinessthatjustifiedpunitive
damagesof$250,000inLamChanKeemaybesufficientlyinferiorin
thecaseathandto,onaccountofproportionalityandrestraint,assess
punitivedamagesataslightlyinferiorlevel.First,therehadbeen
manycourtordersandjudgmentsagainstthedefendantsinthat
case(LamChanKee,2016FC987(CanLII),paras46to48).Second
theywerealreadysubjecttoaninjunctionpermanentlyrestraining
themfromfurtherinfringingtheChanelTrade-marks.Thedefendants
wereinfactdefyingordersdirectlyapplicabletothem.Theyhad
beentakentocourtbefore,andmorethanonce.Third,thebusiness
assetsoftheoriginalcorporatedefendantweresoldtoanumbered
companyafteranumberofcourtproceedingshadbeenlaunched
againstthecorporatedefendants.ButtheLamspousescontinued
tooperatethebusinessventureafteranewcorporateentitywas
formed.Inthatcase,theCourtallowedthesubstitutionofcorporate
defendantaftertheactionwasfiled.Therehavenotbeenthosekinds
ofpriorcourtproceedingsandpossibledeceptionsinthiscase.The
levelofblameworthinessismarginallyinferiortothatinLamChan
Kee,anappropriatecomparatorinmyestimation.Anamountof
$225,000inpunitiveandexemplarydamagesisthereforeawarded
totheplaintiffs,tobepayablejointlyandseverallybythe
defendants.

Section34─Copyright[Remedies]─Interlocutoryinjunctionisamatterof
discretion─Aninjunctioncanbeterritoriallylimited.
Knowmadicsv.Cinnamon,2019CarswellOnt18811(Ont.Sup.Ct.–Int.inj.;2019-
11-18)HacklandJ.
[28]Astheevidenceestablishesthatthedefendantshavenot
obtainedanycustomersforLDX’sFireCatsoftwareintheUnited
States,Iwouldexercisethecourt’sdiscretiontolimitthe
applicationoftheinterlocutoryinjunctiontotheCanadian
market.

Section34─Copyright[Remedies]─Injunctionisaremedywhenthereis
copyrightinfringement.
RallysportDirectLLCv.2424508OntarioLtd,2019FC1524(F.C.;2019-11-28)
FuhrerJ.
[69]Finally,RSDseeksaninjunctionrestrainingtheDefendantsfrom
reproducinganyofitscopyrightedworksonthewebsite
www.subiedepot.ca.Aninjunctionrelatedtotheinfringed
copyrightedworksbeforethisCourtisacommonremedy,and
warrantedinthiscase:ThomsonvAfterlifeNetworkInc.,2019FC
545atpara49.[…]

Section34─Copyright[Remedies]─Damagesareavailableforcopyright
infringement.

115

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

RallysportDirectLLCv.2424508OntarioLtd,2019FC1524(F.C.;2019-11-28)
FuhrerJ.
[58]TheCopyrightActpermitsthecopyrightownertoseek
damages,eitherprovableorstatutory,againstinfringements.
RSD’sownershipofcopyrightinthesephotographsandproduct
descriptionsisnotatissueinthisaction,andhencethismotion[for
summaryjudgment].

Section34─Copyright[Remedies]─Applicationforcopyright
infringementshallbedeterminedinasummaryway.
ProlinePipeEquipmentIncv.ProvincialRentalsLtd,169C.P.R.(4th)247((Alta.
Q.B.;2019-12-19)AckerlJ.
[12]Sections34(4)-(5)oftheCopyrightActstatethatcopyright
infringementproceedingsthatarecommencedbywayof
applicationshallbedeterminedinasummaryway,governedby
thecivilprocedurerulesofthecourtwheretheproceedingsare
commenced.Thissection,inconjunctionwithsection34.1,allowsme
todeterminesummarilywhetherProlineholdscopyrightinthe
drawingsatissueinthisapplication.

Section34.1─Presumptionsrespectingcopyrightandownership─
Affixingauthor’spseudonymorbusinessnamewillsupportthe
presumptionofauthorship.
Carpentierv.FabricvilleCo.inc.,2019CarswellQue2867(Que.Ct.–Smallclaims;
2019-02-08)NoletJ.
[39]D’autrepart,madameCarpentieraégalementtémoignéàl’effet
quesondessinJYLGestaccompagnédesonnomd’auteur,soit
«byjuliesfabrics».Ainsi,cetteœuvreartistiquebénéficiedela
présomptionprévueàl’article34.1(1)delaLDA[…]

Section34.1─Presumptionsrespectingcopyrightandownership─
Section34.1providesforpresumptionsofownership.
Capitaleenfêteinc.v.Ouellet,2019CarswellQue4570(Que.Ct.;2019-05-01)Boutin
J.
[62]Uneprésomptiondepropriétéestparailleursprévueàl’article
34.1delaLoi.

Section34.1─Presumptionsrespectingcopyrightandownership─The
authoroftheworkispresumedtobethecopyrightowner.
CorusRadioIncv.HarvardBroadcastingInc,2019CarswellAlta2449(AltaQ.B.-Int.
inj.;2019-11-18)DiltsJ.
[35]BothundertheCopyrightActandatcommonlaw,theauthorofa
workistheownerofthecopyrightinthework:CopyrightActsection
13(1).ForCorustoownthecopyright,eithertheoriginalauthormust
havebeenanemployeeofWIC,orWICmusthavebeenassigned

116

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

ownershipintheworkbytheoriginalauthor.Section34.1(b)ofthe
CopyrightActprovidesthatinanycivilproceedingstakenunder
theCopyrightActinwhichthedefendantputsinissuethe
plaintiff’sclaimtothecopyright,theauthoroftheworkshallbe
presumedtobetheownerofthecopyrightunlessotherwise
proved.

[37]IntheDistrimedicInc.case[DistrimedicInc.vDispillInc.,2013
FC1043],therewasadirectcontestbetweentheplaintiffby
counterclaimandthedefendantbycounterclaimregardingwho
createdtheallegedwork.Theplaintiffbycounterclaimproduced
documentsrespectingcertaincorporatetransactionsthatitargued
demonstratedatransferofthecopyright,butitdidnotcalltheperson
itclaimedtobetheauthoroftheallegedworkdespitethatperson’s
availabilitytotestify.Thecourtdrewanadverseinferenceagainstthe
plaintiffbycounterclaimforfailingtodoso.Inthecasebeforeme,
nopartyassertsacontraryclaimofownership,althoughInote
thatisnotrequiredundersection34.1(1)(b).

Section34.1─Presumptionsrespectingcopyrightandownership─
Copyrightispresumedtosubsistinawork.
CorusRadioIncv.HarvardBroadcastingInc,2019CarswellAlta2449(AltaQ.B.-Int.
inj.;2019-11-18)DiltsJ.
[40]Inmyview,particularlyinlightofHarvard’sownevidenceasto
howthePOWER107logowasdesigned,itwouldbeapresumptuous
andimprudentconclusionthatthePOWER92Logo[ofthePlaintiff]
wasnotanoriginalworkorthatitscreationdidnotrequiremorethan
trivialskillandjudgment.Corusneednotputforwardtheauthorofthe
workforthisCourttorecognizethatthegraphicartformitselfrequires
creativeeffort.

Section34.1─Presumptionsrespectingcopyrightandownership─To
rebutthepresumptionoftheexistenceofcopyrightadmissible,evidence
mustbemusttendered.
ProlinePipeEquipmentIncv.ProvincialRentalsLtd,169C.P.R.(4th)247((Alta.
Q.B.;2019-12-19)AckerlJ.

[13]Iconcludeforthepurposesofthisproceeding,pursuanttothe
section34.1presumption,thatcopyrightinthedrawingssubsistsin
Proline.ProvincialRentalshasnotproventhecontrary.Theformer
Prolineemployee’sstatementthatthedrawingsarecopiesis
inadmissiblehearsay,andwithoutthishearsaystatement,Ihave
onlyMr.Shipway’sbareassertionthattheProlinedrawingsare
notoriginalworks.Suchanassertionisnotsufficienttorebut
thesection34.1presumption.

117

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section35─Liabilityforinfringement─Damagesassessedtothelost
commissionsonthesaleofcopiesoftheinfringingwork.
Carpentierv.FabricvilleCo.inc.,2019CarswellQue2867(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;
2019-02-08)NoletJ.
[44]Encequiconcernelesdommagesréclamésparmadame
Carpentier,Fabricvilleavendupour8865$detissusimprimésdu
dessincontrefait.Selonlapreuveprépondérante,lepourcentagede
lacommissiondemadameCarpentierconcernantsesventesde
dessinsvariede10%à15%.Considérantlescirconstancesde
l’affaire,lepourcentagede15%réclamédanssamiseen
demeurepourlacommissiondontelleaétéprivéeseraretenu.
MadameCarpentieraainsidroit,àcetitre,à1329,75$.

[46]Ainsi,vuletémoignagedemadameCarpentier,leTribunalfixe
lemontantdesdommagesmorauxréclamésà2750$.

[49]CONDAMNEFabricvilleCo.Inc.àpayeràJulieCarpentierla
sommede4079$avecintérêtsautauxlégal,plusl’indemnité
additionnelleprévueàl’article1619duCodecivilduQuébec,à
compterdu27janvier2017,ainsiquelesfraisdejusticede300$.

Section35─Liabilityforinfringement─Infringermaybecondemnedto
paydamagesandpartofitsillegalprofits.
Capitaleenfêteinc.v.Ouellet,2019CarswellQue4570(Que.Ct.;2019-05-01)Boutin
J.
[63]S’agissantdesdommages,larèglegénéralequel’onretrouve
àl’article35delaLoiestàl’effetqueceluiquivioleledroit
d’auteurestpassibledepayerautitulairedecelui-cides
dommages-intérêtsainsiquelaproportion,considéréeéquitable
parleTribunal,desprofitsqu’ilaréalisésencommettantpareille
violation.

[64]Celaétant,letitulairedudroitd’auteurpeutnéanmoinschoisir,
auxtermesdel’article38.1delaLoi,derecouvrer,enlieuetplace
desdommagesetprofitsdontilestquestionàl’article35,les
dommages-intérêtspréétablisparlaLoi.[…]

Section35─Liabilityforinfringement─Infringerbearstheburdenof
provingitscostsandexpenses─Profitsthatcanbereclaimedarethose
resultingfromtheinfringement─Theplaintiffshallprovetheincreasein
theinfringer’srevenuesresultingfromtheinfringement.
ConstellationBrandsUSOperationsv.Sociétédevininternationaleltée,2019
CarswellQue7681(Que.Sup.Ct.;2019-08-21)BachandJ.[appeal500-09-028594-
190].

118

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[10]Throughoutthetrial,Constellationpressedthepointthat,after
havingprovedaviolationofeithertheCopyrightActortheTrade-
marksAct,itsburdenwaslimitedtoproving[Defendant]SVI’s
revenuesduringtherelevantperiod,andthatitwassubsequently
incumbentonSVItoprovecostsandexpensesthatcouldlegitimately
bedeductedfromthoserevenuesinordertodeterminetheprofitsto
beawarded.

[11]Constellationwasrighttoemphasizethattheinfringerbears
theburdenofproofwithrespecttothecostsandexpensestobe
consideredinthecalculationoftheamountofprofitstowhich
thecopyrightortrade-markholdermaybeentitled.This
propositionfindsamplesupportinthecaselaw.[Fn11Seee.g.Diesel,
s.p.a.c.BenistiImport-Exportinc.,2016QCCS1085(CanLII)(aff’d
2016QCCA997(CanLII)),para.129.]

[12]However,Constellation’spositionoverlookstwokeypoints.

[13]Thefirstisthattheholderofacopyrightortrade-markisonly
entitledtorecoverprofitsmadeasaresultofaninfringementof
itsintellectualpropertyrights.Thatisclearfromthetextofsection
35oftheCopyrightAct,[Fn12Section35readsasfollows:[…]See
alsoCinarCorporationv.Robinson,2013SCC73(CanLII),para.77]
butthepointisequallyvalidinthecontextofanactionseekingto
recoverprofitsbasedonsection53.2(1)oftheTrade-marksAct.[Fn
13Seee.g.:PhilipMorrisProductsS.A.v.MarlboroCanadaLtd.,
2015FC364(aff’d2016FCA55(CanLII)),para.25;Halsbury’sLaws
ofCanada:Trade-marks,PassingOffandUnfairCompetition,2016
Reissue(contributedbyRogerT.Hughes,ToniPolsonAshton,
PatrickCotter,SanjuktaTole),Toronto,LexisNexis,2016,para.HTM-
110(“[a]naccountingofprofitsisanequitableremedywherebythe
ownerofthetrade-markisentitledtoreceivetheentirebenefitthatthe
infringerhasimproperlygainedthroughtheuseofthetrade-mark”
[emphasisadded]).Asimilarapproachisfollowedinpatentmatters:
MonsantoCanadaInc.v.Schmeiser,2004SCC34(CanLII),para.
101(“[i]tissettledlawthattheinventorisonlyentitledtothatportion
oftheinfringer’sprofitwhichiscausallyattributabletotheinvention”
[emphasisadded]).]

[14]Thesecondkeypointisthat,inanactionseekingtherecoveryof
profits,itistheplaintiffwhobearstheburdenofprovingthe
increaseinthedefendant’srevenuesresultingfromthe
infringementofitsintellectualpropertyrights.[Fn14Seee.g.:
section35(2)(a)oftheCopyrightAct;3925928ManitobaLtd.v.
101029530SaskatchewanLtd.,2005FC1465(CanLII),para.9;
PhilipMorrisProductsS.A.v.MarlboroCanadaLtd.,2015FC364

119

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

(aff’d2016FCA55(CanLII)),para.25;DanielS.Drapeau,“La
compensationpécuniaireenlitigedemarquesdecommerce”,in
ServicedelaformationcontinueduBarreauduQuébec,
Développementsrécentsendroitdelapropriétéintellectuelle(2018),
Cowansville,YvonBlais,2018,1,p.92.]Theburdenonlyshiftstothe
defendant,withrespecttocostsandexpenses,uponproofof
revenuesresultingfromtheinfringement.

Section35─Liabilityforinfringement─Aplaintiffhastheburdenof
provingtherelationbetweentheinfringingactivitiesandtherevenuesof
theinfringer.
ConstellationBrandsUSOperationsv.Sociétédevininternationaleltée,2019
CarswellQue7681(Que.Sup.Ct.;2019-08-21)BachandJ.[appeal500-09-028594-
190].
[18]Thesituationhereisdifferent.Constellationisclaimingprofits
derivednotfromthesaleoftheallegedlyinfringingitems(SVI’s
leaflets),butratherfromthesaleofproductswhich,inandof
themselves,cannotpossiblybesaidtoinfringeonitsintellectual
propertyrights(SVI’swinebottles).Inotherwords,wearenot
dealingherewitharevenue-generatingproductsome
componentsofwhicharesaidtoinfringeontheplaintiff’s
intellectualpropertyrights—thusraisinganissueastowhether
theprofitswereatleastpartiallyattributabletoother,non-
infringingcomponentsofthatproduct.Thecaselawreliedupon
byConstellationwouldonlyhavebeenrelevanthadSVIarguedthat
anyprofitsactuallyshowntohavederivedfromtheuseoftheleaflets
wereonlypartiallyattributabletothepresence,onthoseleaflets,of
Constellation-ownedtrade-marksandcopyrightedmaterials.

[19]Constellation’smistakenbeliefthatitdidnothavetoprove
thattheprofitssoughtrelatedtorevenuesresultingfromSVI’s
useoftheleafletsisfataltoitsclaim.Therecordcontainsno
evidencetendingtodemonstratesuchcausation,andonecannot
simplyassumethattheuseoftheleafletsledtoanincreaseinSVI’s
revenues.Andevenifonecouldreasonablyassumethattheleaflets
hadsomepositiveimpactonSVI’srevenues,quantifyingthatimpact
inanon-arbitrarymannerwouldbeimpossiblegiventhecurrentstate
oftherecord.[Fn19Significantly,Constellation’srepresentativeMs.
JaymieA.Schoenbergadmittedduringthetrialthatthecompanyhad
noideahowmanypeoplewereexposedtoSVI’sleaflets].

Section35─Liabilityforinfringement─Acopyrightownermayclaimthe
profitsmadebytheinfringer.
EberhardVonHuene&associésinc.v.Salzman,[2019]J.Q.10868(Que.Sup.Ct;
2019-11-07)RogersJ.

120

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[25]Encasdecontravention,cetteloi[CopyrightAct]prévoitla
possibilitépourlapersonneléséederéclamerleremboursement
detouslesprofitsrécoltésparletiers,enplusdesfraisjuridiques
pourintenterlerecours.

[26]Danslesmodificationsvisées,deuxconclusionssontajoutées
afinderéclamerleremboursementdesprofitsetréserverlesdroits
delademanderessequantauxfraisdejustice.

Section38─Recoveryofpossessionofcopies,plates─Therecoveryof
possessioniswithrespecttotheinfringedwork─Deterrence,
commercialityoftheinfringementandexperienceoftheinfringeraretobe
takenintoconsideration.
Youngv.Thakur,2019CarswellNat2971(F.C.;2019-06-20)KaneJ.
[66]TheApplicantsalsoseekanorderrequiringtheRespondentsto
deliverup“allmaterialsintheRespondents’possession,custody,
controlorpower”,pursuanttosection38.TheApplicants’Counsel
clarifiedthattheApplicantsareseekingtherawfootagefromthe
musicvideoshoot.Section38providesfortherecoveryof
infringingcopiesofworks.TheonlythingtheApplicantsare
entitledtoistheMusicalWorkandSoundRecording.The
Applicantshavenotestablishedthattheyhaveanyrightstothe
filmfootage.TheApplicantscannotobtainaremedywhichisnot
relatedtotheinfringement.

Section38.1─Statutorydamages─Thedeterminationoftheamountof
statutorydamagesshallbejustandmaybereducedatthediscretionof
theCourt.
MadailMonzonv.AptitudeXinc.,2019QCCQ871(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-
02-20)ZoarJ
[49]LemontantfinalestdéterminéparleTribunalsuivantcequ’il
estimeéquitabledanslescirconstancesetentenantcomptedes
facteursénoncésausous-paragraphe5del’article38.1delaLDA.

[50]LeTribunalpeutaussiréduirelemontantminimalde500$
del’article38.1(1)a)lorsque,commeici,plusieursœuvressont
incorporésdansunmêmesupportmatériel[…]

[51]Enl’espèce,leTribunalconsidèreque:
-bienquelapreuveprépondéranteadémontréquela
défenderesseaagidemanièreinsoucianteetnégligente,iln’a
paspourautantétédémontréchezelleunétatd’espritempreint
d’undésiroud’unevolontédecauserlesconséquences
immédiatesouextrêmementprobablesdécoulantdesa

121

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

conduitefautive.Eneffet,sauflesimpressionsetles
conclusionsquetirentlesdemandeursdecettemésaventure,la
preuveadministréeendemanden’estpassuffisantepour
permettreauTribunaldefairedroitauxprétentionsjuridiques
desdemandeurs;
-laviolations’estmatérialiséesurplusieurssupports
numériques(siteweb,pageFacebooketvidéopromotionnelle);
-mêmesiAptitudearetirérapidementlesœuvressursimple
demandedesdemandeursàceteffet,ilappertqu’aujourdu
procès,undessindeM.Truongesttoujoursutilisécomme
arrière-plandelalettreXdunomAptitudeXsurlesitewebde
cettedernière[Fn18P-15];
-laviolationdudroitd’auteurcommiseparladéfenderessea
étéeffectuéeàdesfinscommerciales;
-sansêtreuncomportementgénéraliséauvudesaccords
obtenusdedifférentsartistes[Fn19Voirlesdéclarationsécrites
pourvaloirtémoignagedeYingDing,QiangZhangetAdrien
Lelièvre],lapreuvedémontrequ’AptitudeXn’apasnonplus
requisleconsentementpréalabledeM.Monfetteàlapublication
desesdessins;
-àtitredestudiod’externalisationspécialisédansla
productiond’objets3Detledéveloppementd’applications,
ladéfenderessedoitêtredissuadéedecommettreunetelle
violationdanslefutur.

[52]Suivantl’ensembledecetteanalyse,leTribunalfixeà7500$
(soit750$parœuvre)lesdommagesintérêtsdontlesdemandeurs
sontendroitd’êtreindemniséssuiteàlaviolationdeleurdroitd’auteur
commisparladéfenderesse.

Section38.1─Statutorydamages─Theconductofthepartiesisafactor
tobeconsidered.
Thomsonv.AfterlifeNetworkInc,2019CarswellNat1479(F.C.;2019-05-01)KaneJ.
[62]Subsection38.1(5)setsoutfactorsfortheCourttoconsiderin
exercisingitsdiscretiontoawardstatutorydamages.Therelevant
factorstoconsiderinthiscaseincludethegoodfaithorbadfaith
oftherespondent,theconductofthepartiesbeforeandduring
theproceedings,andtheneedtodeterotherinfringementsofthe
copyrightinquestion.Thesefactorsfullysupportanawardofstatutory
damages.Theinfringementswereforacommercialpurpose.
Afterlife’sgoalistoprofitbyusingtheobituarieswithouttheowners’
permission.Afterliferefusedtoremovesomeobituariesupon
requeststodosoandshutdownthewebsiteonlyafterthisApplication
wasservedandfiled.

Section38.1─Statutorydamages─Thecourtmayreducethestatutory

122

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

damageswhentheamountwouldbeunreasonable.
Thomsonv.AfterlifeNetworkInc,2019CarswellNat1479(F.C.;2019-05-01)KaneJ.
[63]Inthiscase,iftheCourtweretoawardthelowestamountof$500
perinfringementandapplythisamounttotheestimateof
approximatelytwomillioninfringements—whichisbasedontheonly
evidencebeforetheCourt,Afterlife’sownstatementregardingits
archives—thestatutorydamageswouldamountto$1billion.Inthese
circumstances,suchanamountwouldbegrossly
disproportionate.Amorereasonableamountmustbe
determinedinaccordancewithparagraph38.1(3)(b).

[64]TheApplicantseeks$10,000,000,whichreflectsamuchlesser
amountperworkinfringed.TheApplicantsubmitsthatthisamountis
reasonableandconservativerelativetotheamountstowhicheach
ClassMembermaybeentitled.Thetotalamountofdamagestobe
paidbyAfterlifemuststillyieldajustresult(Colette[sic][Collettv
NorthlandArtCompanyCanadaInc,2018FC26]atpara59,citing
TelwizjaPolsatSAvRadiopolInc,2006FC584atpara37,[2006]
FCJNo738(QL)).TheCourtagreeswiththeApplicant’ssubmission
that$10,000,000isajustandappropriateamountofstatutory
damagesintheparticularcircumstances.

Section38.1─Statutorydamages─Thefactorssetinsubsection38.1(5yf
arenonexhaustive.
Capitaleenfêteinc.v.Ouellet,2019CarswellQue4570(Que.Ct.;2019-05-01)Boutin
J.
[66]Enfin,leparagraphe38(5)[sicitshouldread38.1(5)]prévoitles
facteursquipeuventalorsêtreconsidérésparleTribunal,le
Législateurajoutant,parlaprésencedumot«notamment»,que
celle-cin’estpasexhaustive:labonneoumauvaisefoidu
défendeur,lecomportementdespartiesavantl’instanceouaucours
decelle-ci,lanécessitédecréeruneffetdissuasifàl’égardde
violationséventuellesdudroitd’auteurenquestion.

Section38.1─Statutorydamages─Theawardofstatutorydamagesisa
matteroftheCout’sdiscretion.
Youngv.Thakur,2019CarswellNat2971(F.C.;2019-06-20)KaneJ.
[60]TheCourthasdiscretiontoawardstatutorydamagesand
mustdeterminewhatamountofstatutorydamageswillyieldajust
result.Ajustresultisfairandproportionatebasedonthefactorsset
outinsubsection38.1(5)andthejurisprudencewhichtheCourthas
considered.

Section38.1─Statutorydamages─Theassessmentofstatutorydamages
shallbereasonable.
Youngv.Thakur,2019CarswellNat2971(F.C.;2019-06-20)KaneJ.

123

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[55]Thebasicprincipleisthatinassessingstatutorydamages,
theCourtshouldreachareasonableassessmentbasedonallof
thecircumstancesinordertoyieldajustresult:TelewizjaPolsat
SAvRadiopolInc,2006FC584atpara37,[2007]1FCR444
[Telewizja].

Section38.1─Statutorydamages─Statutorydamagesareassessedona
perworkinfringedbasis.
Youngv.Thakur,2019CarswellNat2971(F.C.;2019-06-20)KaneJ.
[41]ContrarytotheApplicant’ssubmission,thejurisprudencehas
establishedthatstatutorydamagesareassessedonaperwork
infringedbasis.Inotherwords,statutorydamagesareawarded
basedonthenumberofworksinfringed.Theyareassessedwith
respectto“allinfringementsinvolvedintheproceedingsfor
eachwork”.

[65]Asexplainedabove,statutorydamagesareawardedperwork
infringed.Twoworkswereinfringed:theMusicalComposition,the
copyrightofwhichbelongstoMs.YoungandMr.Tasker,andthe
SoundRecording,thecopyrightofwhichbelongstoMelxdie.
Therefore,statutorydamagesinanamountof$2000arewarranted.

Section38.1─Statutorydamages─Whenthereisanapprovedtariff,
statutorydamagesawardedtoacollectivesocietyareassessedonthe
basisoftheapplicableroyalties.
Canada(SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishers)v.BanoInc.(Green
BeanJavaBistro),2019FC1011(F.C.;2019-07-26)St-LouisJ.
[9]THISCOURTORDERSthat:
2.TheDefendantshallpaytothePlaintiffstatutorydamagesin
accordancewiththeCopyrightAct,intheamountof$1,715.37,
whichissix(6)timestheestimatedlicencefeesof$283.53,and
$14.19GSTowedbytheDefendanttothePlaintiffunderTariff15A
fortheyears2017throughto2019.
4.TheDefendantshallpaytothePlaintiffstatutorydamagesin
accordancewiththeCopyrightAct,intheamountofsix(6)timesany
additionallicencefeesfoundpayableunderTariff15Afortheyears
2017to2019pursuanttotheDefendant’sfullandcomplete
accountingofallsuchlicencefeesdueandanauditoftheDefendant’s
booksandrecords.

Section38.1─Statutorydamages─Whenthereisanapprovedtariff,
statutorydamagesawardedtoacollectivesocietyareassessedonthe
basisoftheapplicableroyalties.
Canada(SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishers)v.Shakers
RoadhouseLtd.,2019FC1010(F.C.;2019-07-26)St-LouisJ.
[9]THISCOURTORDERSthat:

124

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

2.TheDefendantshallpaytothePlaintiffstatutorydamagesin
accordancewiththeCopyrightAct,intheamountof$23,958.00,
whichissix(6)timestheestimatedlicencefeesof$3,960.00,and
$198.00GSTowedbytheDefendanttothePlaintiffunderTariff3A
fortheyears2017throughto2019.
4.TheDefendantshallpaytothePlaintiffstatutorydamagesin
accordancewiththeCopyrightAct,intheamountofsix(6)timesany
additionallicencefeesfoundpayableunderTariff3Afortheyears
2017to2019pursuanttotheDefendant’sfullandcomplete
accountingofallsuchlicencefeesdueandanauditoftheDefendant’s
booksandrecords.

Section38.1─Statutorydamages─Whenthereisanapprovedtariff,
statutorydamagesawardedtoacollectivesocietyareassessedonthe
basisoftheapplicableroyalties.
Canada(SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishers)v.NLHInvestments
Inc.(CowboyRanch),2019CanLII73165(FC;2019-08-06)GasconJ.
[7]THISCOURT’SJUDGMENTisthat:
2.TheDefendantshallpaytothePlaintiffstatutorydamagesin
accordancewiththeCopyrightAct,RSC1985,cC-42,intheamount
of$22,957.97,whichissix(6)timestheestimatedlicensefeesof
$3,788.92,plusGSTof$189.45plusNSFfeeof$35.00,owedbythe
DefendanttothePlaintiffunderTariff3A(livemusic),Tariff18
(recordedmusicfordancing)andTariff20(karaoke)fortheyears
2016to2019.

4.TheDefendantshallpaytothePlaintiffstatutorydamagesin
accordancewiththeCopyrightAct,RSC1985,cC-42,intheamount
ofsix(6)timesanyadditionallicensefeesfoundpayableunderTariffs
3A,18and20fortheyears2016to2019pursuanttotheDefendant’s
fullandcompleteaccountingofallsuchlicensefeesdueandanaudit
oftheDefendant’sbooksandrecords.

Section38.1─Statutorydamages─Eveniftheinfringerdidnotmakeany
profits,statutorydamagesmaybeawarded.
O’Harav.Picard,2019QCCQ3302(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;2019-04-10)ParadisJ.
[50]Conséquemment,mêmesiMmePicardetM.Boisvertn’ont
pastirédeprofitdelapublicitéfaitepourlalocationdeleur
résidence,laLoidoits’appliquerauprésentdossier.

Section38.1–Statutorydamages─Self-promotionoftheinfringerisa
commercialpurposetoconsider─Thefactorssetinsubsection38.1(5yfare
nonexhaustive─Thecourtcanreducethestatutorydamagesfortheir
awardtobeequitable.
PortraitsRembrandtltéev.Interdonato(Ikono),2019QCCQ5878(Que.Ct.–Small
Claims;2019-07-26)ChoquetteJ.

125

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[35]Enpubliantlesphotographiessursonsitewebetsurlesréseaux
sociaux,MonsieurInterdonatonefaitpasquepromouvoirlesproduits
deMadameVargasmaisilillustreégalementsapropreexpertise
dansledomainedelamiseenmarchéetcréationdelogoet
d’étiquettes.Ilnepeutdoncseprévaloirdesdispositionsrelatives
auxviolationspourdesfinsnoncommerciales[Fn13Art.38.1(1)
b)LDA].

[37]Leparagraphe38(5)[shouldread38.1(5)]delaLoiprévoitles
facteursquipeuventalorsêtreconsidérésparleTribunal,le
Législateurajoutant,parlaprésencedumot«notamment»,que
ceux-cinesontpasexhaustifs:labonneoumauvaisefoidu
défendeur,lecomportementdespartiesavantl’instanceouaucours
decelle-ci,lanécessitédecréeruneffetdissuasifàl’égardde
violationséventuellesdudroitd’auteurenquestion[Fn14Capitaleen
fêteinc.c.Ouellet2019QCCQ2607].

[38]Enl’occurrence,leTribunalconsidèrelabonnefoidudéfendeur,
sacroyanceraisonnablequelesphotographiesontétéprisespourla
commercialisationdesproduitsdeMadameVargas,cequiétaitau
cœurdesamission,l’absencedeprofitqu’iltiredeleurpublicationet
lefaitqueledéfendeuraretirélesphotographiessurréceptiondela
miseendemeure.L’ensembledescirconstancesmilitepour
l’impositionduminimumprévuàlafourchette,soit500$.

[39]Maisiln’endemeurepasmoinsquelaphotographieNo3illustre
MadameVargasportantuntablieraulogoconçuparledéfendeuret
les3pots«SaveursduSud»dontilaconçulelogoetlesétiquettes.

[41]Ilyadonclieud’appliquerlesdispositionsdel’article38.13)de
laLoi.LeTribunalestimequ’ilestéquitableenl’occurrencede
réduire,àl’égarddechaqueœuvreouautreobjetdudroitd’auteur,le
montantminimalviséàl’alinéa(1)a)ouauparagraphe2etd’attribuer
àtitrededommagespréétablis,lasommede200$.

Section38.1─Statutorydamages─Subsection38.1(5yfsetsthefactors
theCourtcanconsiderintheawardofpunitivedamages.
PopsocketsLLCv.CaseWorldEnterprisesLtd,2019CarswellNat5165(F.C.;2019-
09-10)SouthcottJ.
[46]Section38.1(1)oftheCopyrightActprovidesforthepaymentof
statutorydamages,ataclaimant’selection,intherangeof$500.00to
$20,000.00incasesofinfringementforcommercialpurposes.The
Plaintiffisseekingstatutorydamagesinthetotalamountof$5000.00
inrespectofallwrongfulconductrelatedtothepackagingofthe
Defendant’sgoods.

126

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[47]Section38.1(5)oftheCopyrightActprovidesalistofrelevant
factorsfortheCourttoconsiderinexercisingitsdiscretioninawarding
statutorydamages.Thosefactorsincludethegoodorbadfaithofthe
defendants,theconductofthepartiesbeforeandduringthe
proceedings,andtheneedtodeterotherinfringementsofthe
copyrightinquestion.WhiletheDefendanthasnotparticipated
substantivelyintheseproceedings,Mr.Gill’sJanuary2019letter
doesnotdemonstratewillingnesstotakeresponsibilityforthe
Defendant’sactsofinfringement.Nordidtheactsofcopyright
infringementceasefollowingtheDefendant’sreceiptofthe
cease-and-desistletters:theitempurchasedbyMr.Lambieon
October2,2018stilldisplaysonitspackagingthedrawingsthat
infringethePlaintiff’scopyrights.

[48]Takingintoaccountthosecircumstancesinthecontextofthe
factorsprescribedbysection38.1(5),IamsatisfiedthatthePlaintiffis
notoverreachingwithaclaimfor$5000.00instatutorydamages,
particularlygiventhemultipleactsofinfringement.

Section38.1─Statutorydamages─Liabilityofinfringerscanbejointand
several─Badfaithisoneimportantfactortoconsider.
LouisVuittonMalletierS.A.v.Wang,2019CarswellNat6912(F.C.;2019-11-15)Roy
J.
[196]Asaresult,theyareliabletodamagesfortheviolationofthe
CopyrightAct.PlaintiffLouisVuittonelectedtoseekstatutory
damagesasallowedundersection38.1oftheCopyrightAct.In
Singga[LouisVuittonMalletierS.A.vSinggaEnterprises(Canada)
Inc,2011FC776],theCourtordereddamagesatthemaximumofthe
statutoryscale.Thatisalsoappropriateinthiscase.TheCourtnoted
inthatcasethatrelevantfactorsintheexerciseofdiscretionarethe
goodorbadfaithofdefendants,theconductduringandbeforethe
proceedingandtheneedfordeterrence.Ifindmyselfincomplete
agreementwiththerationaleexpressedbytheCourtinSingga[Louis
VuittonMalletierS.A.,LouisVuittonCanada,Inc,BurberryLimited
andBurberryCanadaIncvSinggaEnterprises(Canada)Incetal,
2011FC776]which,inmyviewapplies,withequalstrength,ina
casewherethereisoverwhelmingevidence,overaperiodofafew
years,ofcontinuousinfringementoftheTrade-marksActandthe
CopyrightAct.

[198]Theinfringementsareequallyegregiousandthe
defendantshaveactedinbadfaiththroughout.Inmyview,plaintiff
LouisVuittonMalletierS.A.isentitledtothesedamagesonaccount
oftheviolationofthetwocopyrightedworks.Accordingly,theyare
awardeddamagesof$40,000(2×20000),withthedefendants
beingjointlyandseverallyliableforthedamages.

127

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section38.1─Statutorydamages─Inascertainingtheawardofstatutory
damages,thesituationofeachinfringermustbeassessedindividually.
VoltagePictures,LLCv.Salna,2019FC1412(F.C.;2019-11-12)BoswellJ.[appeal
A-439-19].
[123]Therespondentssayquestionseightandninearenotcommon
issues.Intherespondents’view,Voltage’sproposalfora »onesize
fitsall »damagesawardwouldside-stepthemandatorylanguage
insubsection38.1(5)oftheCopyrightAct,whichrequiresthe
Courttoconsideralltheenumeratedfactorsastheyrelateto
eachindividualrespondent.Astoinjunctiverelief,therespondents
notethatsuchreliefisequitableanddiscretionary,anditisafact-
drivenassessmentbasedoneachindividualclassmember’sunique
circumstances.

Section38.1─Statutorydamages─TheCourtmaylowertheamountof
statutorydamagesbutshallconsiderthefactorsenumeratedinthe
section.
RallysportDirectLLCv.2424508OntarioLtd,2019FC1524(F.C.;2019-11-28)
FuhrerJ.
[64]RSDhaselectedtopursuestatutorydamagesforinfringements
forcommercialpurposesintheminimumamountof$500.00/work:
CopyrightAct,s38.1(1)(a).TheCopyrightActgovernsstatutory
damagesassessmentsbysettingtheoutsideparametersfor
eachaward,listingwhatfactorstheCourtmustassesswhen
comingtoarangewithintheseparameters,andunderwhat
circumstancesaCourtmaywishtoconsidertojustifylowering
thepaymentoutsidethestatutoryparameters:CopyrightActss
38.1(1),38.1(5),and38.1(3)respectively.

[65]Whethertolowertheminimumamountofstatutorydamages
from$500.00/workremainsatthisCourt’sdiscretion:Copyright
Acts38.1(3).ThefactorslistedintheCopyrightActasjustificationfor
doingso-asinglemediumorgrosslydisproportionatetothe
infringement-arenotexhaustivenordeterminativeofthismatter.
Instead,thisCourtmustreasonablyassess“allofthecircumstances
inordertoyieldajustresult”:Telewizja[TelewizjaPolsatSAv
RadiopolInc.,2006FC584],aboveatparas34,37.

Section39─Injunctiononlyremedywhendefendantnotawareof
copyright─Awarenessisamatterofcommonsense.
Menardv.TheCentreforInternationalGovernanceInnovation*,2019CarswellOnt
1437(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2019-02-04)GrayJ.
[88]WhileIaccept,withsomereservations,Mr.Menard’sevidence
thathedidnotknowthatcopyrightmaterialwasbeingdownloaded,I

128

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

thinkhisevidenceshouldbetakenwithagrainofsalt.Anyreasonable
personwouldlikelyagree,ifasked,thatthereiscopyrightinacurrent
televisionprogramsuchas“GameofThrones”.Anyreasonable
personwouldknowthatonecanpurchase,inelectronicform,a
movie,atelevisionprogram,ormusic,andifonecanobtainit
throughcomputersoftwarewithoutpayingforitthereislikelya
problem.

Section39.1─Wideinjunction─Wideinjunctionmayissuewhenthereis
alikelihoodofcontinuedinfringement.
Thomsonv.AfterlifeNetworkInc,2019CarswellNat1479(F.C.;2019-05-01)KaneJ.
[50]Section39.1oftheCopyrightActexpandsthescopeof
injunctions.Subsection39.1(1)providesthatwhengrantingan
injunctionforcopyrightinfringement,thecourtmayalsogranta
wideinjunctiontoenjointhedefendantfrominfringingthe
copyrightinanyotherworksif(a)theplaintiffisthecopyrightowner
and(b)theplaintiffsatisfiesthecourtthatthedefendantswilllikely
infringethecopyrightinthoseotherworkswithoutsuchaninjunction.

[51]Theonusisclearlyonthepartyseekingtheinjunctionto
demonstratethattheinfringerwilllikelyinfringethecopyrightinother
works.Wideinjunctionshavebeenawardedwherethelikelihood
ofcontinuedinfringementwasdemonstrated(Nintendoof
AmericaIncvKing,2017FC246atparas175-177,[2018]1FCR509)
andrefusedwheretheCourtwasnotsatisfiedofthelikelihood
(InterboxPromotionCorpv9012-4314QuébecInc,2003FC1254at
para67,2003FCT1254).

Section39.1─Wideinjunction─Wideinjunctioncouldaimworksthatare
notyetinexistencebuttheysmustbeworksofthesameplaintiff.
Thomsonv.AfterlifeNetworkInc,2019CarswellNat1479(F.C.;2019-05-01)KaneJ.
[53]Section39.1permitstheCourttoenjointhesamedefendant
frominfringingotherworks,includingworksthatdidnotexist
whentheproceedingscommenced.However,thoseotherworks
mustbetheworksofthesameplaintiff.Inthiscase,awide
injunctionwouldonlyenjoinAfterlifeandMr.Leclercfrominfringing
otherworksoftheApplicantandClassMembers.TheCourthasno
evidencethatthereareotherworksbythesameClassMembersor
thattherewillbeotherworksbythesameClassMembers.TheCourt
mustalsobesatisfiedthatAfterlifeislikelytoinfringetheotherworks
oftheClassMembers.WhileMr.Leclerc’screationofanother
obituarywebsitesuggeststhatheisinclinedtorepeatasimilar
typeofconduct,whetherhewilllikelyinfringetheworksofClass
Membersremainsspeculative,asdoesthenotionthatthesame
ClassMemberswillauthorobituariesinthefuture.

129

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[54]TheCourtisnotsatisfiedthatawideinjunctionisjustifiedorwould
bepractical.Theinjunctionorderedpursuanttosection34,whichis
alsodirectedagainstMr.Leclerc,coupledwiththeawardofstatutory
damagesandaggravateddamagesshouldprovideasufficient
deterrent.

Section39.1–Wideinjunction─Wideinjunctioncouldcoverotherworks
ofaplaintiff.
Canada(SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishers)v.BanoInc.(Green
BeanJavaBistro),2019FC1011(F.C.;2019-07-26)St-LouisJ.
[9]THISCOURTORDERSthat:
6.TheDefendant,itselforthroughitsofficers,servants,agents,
employeesorotherwise,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,shallbe
restrainedfromperforming,authorizingorcausingtobeperformedon
thepremisesunderitscontrolmusicalworksinwhichthePlaintiff
ownstheperformingrightsunlesstheDefendanthasfirstobtained
fromthePlaintiffaperformingrightslicenceauthorizingsuchacts.
7.TheDefendant,itselforthroughitsofficers,servants,agents,
employeesorotherwise,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,shallbe
restrainedfrompermitting,forprofit,aplaceofentertainmenttobe
usedfortheperformanceofmusicalworksinwhichthePlaintiffowns
theperformingrightsunlesstheDefendanthasfirstobtainedfromthe
Plaintiffaperformingrightslicenceauthorizingsuchacts.

Section39.1–Wideinjunction─Wideinjunctioncouldcoverotherworks
ofaplaintiff.
Canada(SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishers)v.Shakers
RoadhouseLtd.,2019FC1010(F.C.;2019-07-26)St-LouisJ.
[9]THISCOURTORDERSthat:
6.TheDefendant,itselforthroughitsofficers,servants,agents,
employeesorotherwise,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,shallbe
restrainedfromperforming,authorizingorcausingtobeperformedon
thepremisesunderitscontrolmusicalworksinwhichthePlaintiff
ownstheperformingrightsunlesstheDefendanthasfirstobtained
fromthePlaintiffaperformingrightslicenceauthorizingsuchacts.

7.TheDefendant,itselforthroughitsofficers,servants,agents,
employeesorotherwise,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,shallbe
restrainedfrompermitting,forprofit,aplaceofentertainmenttobe
usedfortheperformanceofmusicalworksinwhichthePlaintiffowns
theperformingrightsunlesstheDefendanthasfirstobtainedfromthe
Plaintiffaperformingrightslicenceauthorizingsuchacts.

Section39.1─Wideinjunction─Wideinjunctionmayissuewhenthereis
alikelihoodofcontinuedinfringement.

130

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

RallysportDirectLLCv.2424508OntarioLtd,2019FC1524(F.C.;2019-11-28)
FuhrerJ.
[69]Finally,RSDseeksaninjunctionrestrainingtheDefendantsfrom
reproducinganyofitscopyrightedworksonthewebsite
www.subiedepot.ca.Aninjunctionrelatedtotheinfringedcopyrighted
worksbeforethisCourtisacommonremedy,andwarrantedinthis
case:ThomsonvAfterlifeNetworkInc.,2019FC545atpara49.To
furtherextendthisinjunctiontoallofRSD’sothercopyrighted
images(a“wideinjunction”),ImustbesatisfiedthePlaintiffis
theownerofthecopyright,andthattheDefendantswilllikely
infringethecopyrightinthePlaintiff’sotherworksorsubject-
matterunlessenjoinedbytheCourtfromdoingso:Copyright
Acts39.1(1).Withoutweighingonwhethertheadditional
infringementswhichcontinuetobeidentifiedemanatefromadditional
uploadsorinfringementswhichoccurredatthesametimebuthave
notyetbeendiscovered,Ibelieveinthesecircumstancesawide
injunctionisappropriate.

THISCOURTORDERSthat:[…]
2)WithoutlimitingIabove,thattheDefendantsremove,fromtheir
websitewww.subiedepot.caandanyotherwebsitewhichthe
Defendantscontroldirectlyorindirectly,andrefrainfromposting,
orassistingorpermittingany3rdpartytopostonsuchwebsite(s),
alloranyoftheinfringedcopyrightedworksandotheroriginal
photographicworksandproductdescriptionsinwhichthe
Plaintiffholdscopyright

Section41.24─ConcurrentjurisdictionofFederalCourt─TheQuebec
SmallClaimsCourthasjurisdictiontoadjudicateonacopyrightmatter.
Carpentierv.FabricvilleCo.inc.,2019CarswellQue2867(Que.Ct.–SmallClaims;
2019-02-08)NoletJ.
[30]Cesquelquesprincipesétanténoncés,ilyalieu,dansunpremier
temps,derépondreàlaquestionsoulevéeparBeau-Fab:laDivision
despetitescréancesa-t-ellelacompétenced’attributionafinde
trancherleprésentlitige?

[31]LaLDA[Fn10Loisurledroitd’auteur,L.R.C.(1985),ch.C-42,
art.41.24.]prévoitquelaCourfédérale,concurremmentavecles
tribunauxprovinciaux,entendlesdemandescivilesliéesà
l’applicationdecelle-ci.Encequiconcernelacompétencedela
Divisiondespetitescréances,cesontlesarticles536et537duCode
deprocédurecivilequiprécisentcequiconstitueunepetitecréance
etlesexceptions.

[33]Dansl’affaireParéc.TaxisCoopdelaMauricie1992[Fn112015
QCCQ11581(CanLII).Voiraussiàcesujet:Lapointec.Broquet,

131

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

2017QCCQ13516(CanLII).]lejugePierreLabbédenotreCoura
analysécettequestionetconclutqueleTribunalalacompétence
d’attributionpourentendreunlitigedelanaturedeceluiopposantles
parties.[…]

[34]Enl’espèce,madameCarpentierréclameunecréanceinférieure
à15000$concernantdesdommagesàlasuited’unecontravention
parlesdéfendeursàsondroitd’auteurdudessinJYLG.Cette
créancen’enn’étant[sic]pasuneinclusedanslesexceptionsde
l’article537C.p.c.etconsidérantlesdécisionsprécitées,ilya
lieudeconclurequeleTribunalalacompétenced’attribution
pourentendreleprésentlitige.

Section41.24─ConcurrentjurisdictionofFederalCourt─TheFederal
Courthasjurisdictiontoissueawebsiteblockingorder.
BellMediaInc.v.GoldTV.Biz,2019CarswellNat6733(F.C.;2019-11-15)GleesonJ.
[appealA-440-19].
[41]HavingconcludedabovethattheCourtmaybindtheThirdParty
Respondentsintheexerciseofitsequitablejurisdiction,Iagreewith
andadoptthePlaintiffs’submissionsinthisregard.Section36ofthe
TelecommunicationsActcannotbeinterpretedorappliedina
mannerthatwouldallowtheCRTCtointerferewithanorderof
theCourtaimedatimpedingfurtherinfringementofrightsunder
theCopyrightAct(ReferencereBroadcastingActSC1991
(Canada),2012SCC68atparas39and45).

[42]Insummary,theCourthasjurisdictiontogranttherelief
sought[aWebsiteblockingorder].Iamnotconvincedthatanyofthe
provisionsoftheTelecommunicationsAct,northefactthatthereis
ongoingdebateabouttheroleofsiteblockinginCanada’s
telecommunicationsregulatoryregime,supporttheviewthatthe
Courtshoulddeclinetoexerciseitsdiscretioninthiscase.

Section41.25─Noticeofclaimedinfringement─Thenoticeismeantto
serveasawarning─TheISPisaconduitbetweenthecopyrightownerand
thesubscriber/infringer.
ME2Productions,Inc.v.Doe,2019CarswellNat405(F.C.;2019-02-21)PentneyJ.
[appealA-106-19discontinued2019-09-06,appealA-107-19discontinued2019-09-
13andappealA-108-19discontinued2019-09-13].
[36]Thenoticeandnoticeregimeenablesacopyrightownerwho
hasreasontobelievethatanISP’scustomersarebreachingits
copyrighttosendanoticetotheISP,andthisinturnobligates
theISPtoforwardthatnoticetoitscustomer(s),andtomaintain
certainrecordsregardingthematter.Thenoticeismeantto
serveasawarning,toallowthecustomertotakestepstocease

132

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

theallegedlyinfringingactivity(RogersCommunicationsatpara23
[RogersCommunicationsIncvVoltagePictures,LLC,2018SCC38]).
Thenoticecanalsoserveasaprecursortothelaunchofaclaimfor
copyrightinfringement.Inthisregime,theISPisviewedasmerely
aconduitbetweenthecopyrightownerandthesubscriber–itis
not,itself,liablefortheinfringement.However,anISPthatfails
tofulfilitsobligationsundertheActmaybesubjecttostatutory
damages.

[37]Theobjectivesofthestatutoryreformarediscussedatlengthin
RogersCommunications,whichfindsthatthenoticeandnotice
regimeserves“twocomplementarypurposes:(1)todeteronline
copyrightinfringement;and(2)tobalancetherightsofinterested
parties”(atpara22).

Section41.25─Noticeofclaimedinfringement─Privacyrightsarenotto
bediscardedwhenenforcingtheCopyrightAct─ISPcanparticipateinthe
hearingfortheissuanceofaNorwichorder.
ME2Productions,Inc.v.Doe,2019CarswellNat405(F.C.;2019-02-21)PentneyJ.
[appealA-106-19discontinued2019-09-06,appealA-107-19discontinued2019-09-
13andappealA-108-19discontinued2019-09-13].
[87]InRogersCommunications[RogersCommunicationsIncv
VoltagePictures,LLC,2018SCC38]theSCCgoesfurther,noting
thatoneofthemainpurposesofthenoticeandnoticeregimeis
tobalancetheinterestsofallstakeholdersinthecopyright
regime,includingcopyrightowners,Internetusers,and
intermediariessuchasISPs.TheCourtfindsthatthenoticeandnotice
regimewasdesigned,inpart,toaccountfortheinterestsofInternet
subscribers“bymaintainingthepresumptionofinnocenceand
allowingthemtomonitortheirownbehaviour(and,morespecifically,
toavoidcontinuedcopyrightinfringement)”(para26).Italsofindsthat
thedeterrenceobjectiveoftheregimeisadvancedbygivingthe
subscribertheopportunitytoceasetheinfringingactivity,andthereby
possiblyavoidaclaimforcopyrightinfringement.

[88]Ifthesetworegimesaretooperate“intandem,”itonly
makessensethatacourtmustconsidertheprivacyrightsof
individualsubscribersindecidingwhethertograntaNorwich
order.Whileitistruethatsuchindividualswillhaveeveryrightto
defendtheirinterestsiftheiridentitiesaredisclosedandtheyare
subjecttoaclaimofcopyrightinfringement,Ifindthattheirinterests
arenotlimitedtothatstageoftheproceeding.Thisistheteachingof
BMG[BMGCanadaIncvDoe,2005FCA193],anditisconsistent
withtheobjectivesofthenoticeandnoticeregimeasfoundbythe
SCCinRogersCommunications.

133

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[89][…]WhileitisentirelythechoiceofanISPwhetherornotto
participateinsuchapplications,consistentwithBMGand
RogersCommunications,IfindthatwheretheISPchoosesto
becomeanactiveparticipant,itshouldnotbebarredatthe
courthousedoor.

Section41.25─Noticeofclaimedinfringement─ISPsarenotliableforthe
infringementoftheirsubscribers.
ME2Productions,Inc.v.Doe,2019CarswellNat405(F.C.;2019-02-21)PentneyJ.
[appealA-106-19discontinued2019-09-06,appealA-107-19discontinued2019-09-
13andappealA-108-19discontinued2019-09-13].
[140]ParliamentchosetoinsulateISPsfromanyliabilityfor
copyrightinfringementbytheirsubscribersandinsteadit
imposedaregimeofstatutorydamagesinordertoensure
compliancewiththenoticeandnoticeregime.Thisisconsistent
withthedeterrenceandbalancingofinterestsobjectivesidentifiedby
theSCCinRogersCommunications[RogersCommunicationsIncv
VoltagePictures,LLC,2018SCC38].Theamendmentsdonot
prescribeanyparticularprocedureforsuchclaims.TheCMJinthis
caseadoptedasensibleandpracticalapproach,drawingonthe
analogoussituationofacontemptofcourtproceeding.

Section41.25─Noticeofclaimedinfringement─ANorwichorderisa
discretionaryremedy─Copyrightownermustactwithdiligence.
ME2Productions,Inc.v.Doe,2019CarswellNat405(F.C.;2019-02-21)PentneyJ.
[appealA-106-19discontinued2019-09-06,appealA-107-19discontinued2019-09-
13andappealA-108-19discontinued2019-09-13].
[150]Itisequallyimportant,however,torememberthat“a
Norwichorderisanequitable,discretionaryandflexibleremedy.
Itisalsoanintrusiveandextraordinaryremedythatmustbe
exercisedwithcaution”(GEAGroupatpara85[GEAGroupAGv
VentraGroupCo(2009),96OR(3d)481(CA)]).WhenParliament
adoptedthenoticeandnoticeregime,itsoughttobalancethe
interestsofcopyrightowners,individualsubscribers,andInternet
intermediariessuchasISPs.Achievingthatbalancerequires
copyrightownerstoactwithdiligenceinpreparingtheirmaterial
andmeetingthenormalstandardsofevidencebywayof
affidavit.ItalsorequiresISPstodeliverthenoticetotheirsubscriber
andtomaintainassociatedrecords,ortofaceaclaimofstatutory
damagesforbreachoftheseobligations.Finally,itrequirescourtsto
playtheirroleingranting–orrefusing–Norwichorders,andthen
dealingwithclaimsofcopyrightinfringement.

Section41.25─Noticeofclaimedinfringement─Uponreceiptofanotice
ofclaimedinfringement,theISPshallforwardthenoticetoitssubscriber.

134

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

VoltagePictures,LLCv.Salna,2019CarswellNat4147(F.C.;2019-08-06)BoswellJ.
[appealA-291-19discontinuedon2019-11-15].
[5]Sections41.25and41.26oftheCopyrightAct,RSC1985,cC-42
[theAct],establishtheso-called“noticeandnotice”[N&N]regime.The
N&Nregimeimposestwoexplicitobligationsuponaninternetservice
provider[ISP]suchasRogers.

[6]First,afteracopyrightownerhassentanoticeofaclaimed
infringementtoanISPinaccordancewithsection41.25ofthe
Act,theISPmustforwardthenoticeelectronicallytotheperson
towhomtheIPaddressisassignedbyvirtueofparagraph
41.26(1)(a).Thesecondobligationiscontainedinparagraph
41.26(1)(b).

Section41.25─Noticeofclaimedinfringement─Thenoticeandnotice
regimeisnotacomprehensiveframeworktocombatonlineinfringement.
VoltagePictures,LLCv.Salna,2019FC1412(F.C.;2019-11-12)BoswellJ.[appeal
A-439-19].
[148]Thenotice-and-noticeregimewasenactedtoservetwo
complementarypurposes:todeteronlinecopyrightinfringementand
tobalancetherightsofinterestedparties,includingcopyrightowners,
internetusers,andISPs(Rogersatparas22and23[Rogers
CommunicationsIncvVoltagePictures,LLC,2018SCC38]).Itwas
notintendedtoestablishacomprehensiveframeworkbywhich
instancesofonlineinfringementcouldbeeliminatedaltogether.
Byrelyingonthenotice-and-noticeregime,Voltageisdiverting
Parliament’spurposeandintentionforitsownpurposes.[…]

Section41.26─Obligationsrelatedtonotice─TheISPshallkeeparecord
oftheidentityoftheIPsubscriberforsixmonthsafterthereceiptofthe
notice─Absentanyregulations,nofeescanbechargedbyanISPto
complywiththisbookkeepingobligation.
VoltagePictures,LLCv.Salna,2019FC1047(F.C.;2019-08-06)BoswellJ.[appeal
A-291-19discontinuedon2019-11-15].
[5]Sections41.25and41.26oftheCopyrightAct,RSC1985,cC-42
[theAct],establishtheso-called“noticeandnotice”[N&N]regime.The
N&Nregimeimposestwoexplicitobligationsuponaninternetservice
provider[ISP]suchasRogers.

[6]First,afteracopyrightownerhassentanoticeofaclaimed
infringementtoanISPinaccordancewithsection41.25oftheAct,
theISPmustforwardthenoticeelectronicallytothepersontowhom
theIPaddressisassignedbyvirtueofparagraph41.26(1)(a).The
secondobligationiscontainedinparagraph41.26(1)(b).It
requiresanISPtoretainrecordsallowingtheidentityofthe

135

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

persontowhomtheIPaddressisassignedtobedetermined,and
todosoforsixmonthsbeginningonthedayonwhichthenotice
ofclaimedinfringementwasreceivedbytheallegedinfringer.If
thecopyrightownercommencesproceedingsrelatingtotheclaimed
infringementandnotifiestheISPbeforetheendofthosesixmonths,
theISPmustretainsuchrecordsforoneyearafterthedayonwhich
theallegedinfringerreceivednoticeoftheclaimedinfringement.

[7]Subsection41.26(2)oftheActaddresseswhetheranISPmay
chargeafeeforcomplyingwiththeseobligations[…]

[8]TheMinisterhasnotyetfixedafee,sonofeemaybecharged
byanISPforcomplyingwithitsobligationsundersubsection
41.26(1)oftheAct.

Section41.26─Obligationsrelatedtonotice─ISP’sobligationsare
limited.
VoltagePictures,LLCv.Salna,2019FC1047(F.C.;2019-08-06)BoswellJ.[appeal
A-291-19discontinuedon2019-11-15].
[52]Inmyview,VoltageconfusesanISP’sobligationsstemming
fromsubsection41.26(1)oftheAct,whichare:(1)determining,
forthepurposesofforwardingnoticeelectronically,whowas
assignedtheIPaddressatthetimeoftheallegedinfringement;
(2)takingallstepsnecessarytoverifytheISPhasdoneso
accurately;and(3)takingallstepsnecessarytoverifythe
accuracyofrecordstopermittheISPtoidentifythenameand
physicaladdressofthepersontowhomnoticewasforwarded.

[53]TheN&NregimerequiresacopyrightholdertoidentifytheIP
addressallegedlyconnectedtoinfringementoftheircopyrightandthe
timeatwhichtheinfringementoccurred.TheISPhastoelectronically
forwardthenoticetotheaccountholderoftheIPaddress.Ifthe
accountholderprovidesanincorrectemail-whetheritwasincorrect
fromthebeginningorchanged,oriftheemailisfoundthroughan
automatedormanualsystem-thisaffectstheaccountholder’sability
toreceivethenoticebutitdoesnotaffectaNorwichorder.Takingthe
stepsnecessarytoverifytheaccuracyofrecordstopermitan
ISPtoidentifythenameandphysicaladdressofthepersonto
whomanoticewasforwardedcouldbemetinvariousways,
includingtheuseofinformationstoredoutsideanN&Nsystem
(inthiscase,Rogers’Remedysystem).

[54]Paragraph41.26(l)(b)oftheActdoesnotrequireanISPto
retainrecordsinaspecificformuseablebycopyrightholders
(RogersSCCatparas42and43)[RogersCommunicationsInc.v
VoltagePictures,LLC,2018SCC38].Fromtheinformationstoredin

136

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

itsN&NsystemanISPmustbeabletousethisinformation,oruse
theinformationtolinktoothersystems,tofindacustomer’snameand
address.Thelinkdoesnothavetobefoundinonestep,butthesteps
requiredmustbereasonable.

Section41.26─Obligationsrelatedtonotice─ISPcannotrecoverthe
costsassociatedwiththeirstatutoryobligations─ISPcanrecovertheir
costsforotherservicesrenderedpursuanttoaNorwichorder.
VoltagePictures,LLCv.Salna,2019FC1047(F.C.;2019-08-06)BoswellJ.[appeal
A-291-19discontinuedon2019-11-15].
[59]ThethirdstepoverlapswithRogers’obligationsasanISPunder
subsection41.26(1)oftheAct.ThetimeRogerstakestocomplete
thisstepisnotcompensablebecauseitisaproceduremandated
bysubsection41.26(1).Rogers’obligationsunderthis
subsectioninclude:(1)determining,forthepurposeof
forwardingnoticeelectronically,whowasassignedthe
impugnedIPaddressatthetimeoftheallegedinfringement;(2)
takingallstepsnecessarytoverifythattheISPhasdoneso
accurately;and(3)takingallstepsnecessarytoverifythe
accuracyofrecordstopermittheISPtoidentifythenameand
physicaladdressofthepersontowhomnoticewasforwarded.
TheseobligationsarisepriortoRoger’sobligationsarisingundera
Norwichorderanditshouldnotbepermittedtorecoverthecostof
carryingouttheseobligations(RogersSCCatpara51)[Rogers
CommunicationsInc.vVoltagePictures,LLC,2018SCC38].

[59]RogersisnotinthebusinessofreplyingtoNorwichorders.Ithas
establishedasystemwhichappliesequallytolawenforcement
requestsfordisclosureaswellasNorwichorders.Thetimesavedfor
theholderofaNorwichorderwhenRogersusestheRemedysystem
doesnotmakeupfortheinconvenienceofRogershavingtoprocess
Norwichordersdifferently.Asnotedabove,Norwichorderscomprise
aminorityofrequestsfordisclosure.Itisnot,inmyview,
unreasonableforRogerstousetheDHCPlookupmethodoverthe
Remedylookupmethodtocompletethisstep;thedifferenceintime
betweenthetwomethodsisnotsubstantial.

[60]Inanyevent,thetimeassociatedwithcompletingthefourth
stepiscompensable.ThisstepdoesnotoverlapwithRogers’
obligationsasanISPundersubsection41.26(1)oftheAct.The
timeRogerstakestofulfillitsobligationunderaNorwichorder
toactuallyidentifyapersonfromitsrecordsiscompensable.

Section41.26─Obligationsrelatedtonotice─ISPcannotrecoverthe
costsassociatedwiththeirstatutoryobligations.

137

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

VoltagePictures,LLCv.Salna,2019FC1047(F.C.;2019-08-06)BoswellJ.[appeal
A-291-19discontinuedon2019-11-15].
[63]AnISPisinthebestpositiontounderstandwhoisaccessingan
IPaddress.ThisfallssquarelyinwhattheSupremeCourtidentified
asanISP’sobligationstodetermine,forthepurposesofforwardinga
noticeelectronically,whowasassignedtheimpugnedIPaddressat
thetimeoftheallegedinfringement,andtotakeallstepsnecessary
toverifythatithasdonesoaccurately(Rogers[Rogers
CommunicationsInc.vVoltagePictures,LLC,2018SCC38]atpara
37).Theseobligationsarisebyvirtueofparagraph41.26(1)(a)of
theAct,andthetimeRogerstakestofulfillthemshouldnotbe
includedintheamountoftimeforwhichRogersshouldbe
compensated.ThefinalstepRogerssaysitmusttaketoverifythe
identityofapersoninresponsetoaNorwichorderinvolves,ineffect,
verifyingtheaccuracyoftheveryrecordsitwasrequiredtoretain
undersubsection41.26(1)andisnotcompensable(RogersSCCat
para52).[RogersCommunicationsInc.vVoltagePictures,LLC,2018
SCC38].

Section42─Offences─Notdisclosingapriorcriminalconvictionistobe
consideredintheexaminationofapermanentresidentvisaapplication─
Copyrightinfringementisaseriousoffence.
Chenv.Canada(CitizenshipandImmigration)*,2019CarswellNat1896(CAI.R.B.;
2019-01-25)A.Jung,Member[footnotesomitted].
[6]TheapplicantwasconvictedofthreeoffencesinCanada.On
November14,2007theapplicantwasconvictedofsellingan
infringingcopyofaworkinwhichcopyrightsubsists,contraryto
section42(1)(b)oftheCopyrightAct,andfailuretocomplywith
appearancenoticeorpromisetoappear,contrarytosection145(5)of
theCriminalCodeofCanada.Bothoffencesareliabletoconviction
onindictmentorsummaryconviction.

[16]Thenatureofthemisrepresentationandthefailuretoprovide
truthfulanswersisaseriousconsiderationandthesubmissionof
inaccurateanduntruthfulinformationunderminestheintegrityof
Canada’simmigrationsystem.Accurateinformationpertainingto
criminalhistoryandimmigrationhistoryisvitaltoimmigrationofficials
inassessingtherisktoCanadaandinensuringthesecurityof
Canadiansociety.Withrespecttothenatureoftheapplicant’s
criminalacts,whilefraudandcopyrightviolationsareserious
offencesthatundermineCanada’seconomy,Ifindthe
seriousnessoftheoffencesinthisrespectismitigatedbythe
factthattheapplicant’soffencesdonotinvolvetheelementof
violenceorphysicalharm.

138

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section43.1─Limitationorprescriptionperiodforcivilremedies─Each
actofinfringementrunsitsownlimitationperiod─Thepassageoftime
doesnotallowtheinfringertocontinueanactofinfringement.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.
[125]Rappelonsqu’enmatièrededroitd’auteur,chaqueactede
contrefaçonfaitcourirsaproprepériodedeprescription.Par
conséquent,unepartiedurecourspeuts’avérerprescriteconcernant
certainsactesdeviolation,alorsquel’actionestmaintenuepour
d’autresquisontpostérieursàlapériodedeprescription:
Theplainmeaningofsection43.1dictatesthateachdistinctact
ofinfringementwillsetinmotionitsownlimitationperiodofthree
years.Proceedingstakenoutsidethethreeyearperiodare
barred.However,iftheproceedingssotakencoverdistinctacts
ofinfringementfallingbothinsideandoutsidethelimitation
period,theactionwillbereceivablewithrespecttoactshaving
occurredlessthanthreeyearsbeforetheactionwas
commencedandbeconsideredstaleinrespectoftheearlier
acts.
Thefilingofproperlegalproceedingsinthecompetentcourtwill
havetheeffectofinterruptingtheprescription[…][Fn85Hugues
RICHARD,LaurentCARRIÈRE
(LégerRobicRichard),CanadianCopyrightAct–Annotated
Robic,volume3,Toronto,ThomsonCarswell,feuillesmobiles,
miseàjourcontinue,S.43.1§5.3.2et§5.5;LaurentCarrière,
PrescriptionetpropriétéintellectuelleouLaprescription
extinctivecommefindenon-recevoirenmatièredepropriété
intellectuelle(1993),10:2CanadianIntellectualProperty
Review,357,p.371etss.].

[126]Cetteprescriptiondetroisanspourlesrecourscivilsen
contrefaçonconstitueuneprescriptionextinctive,soitunmoyen
d’opposerunefindenon-recevoiràuneaction[FN86Art.2921
C.c.Q.],paroppositionàlaprescriptionacquisitive,unmoyen
d’acquérirledroitdepropriété[Fn87Art.2910C.c.Q.].Ainsi,
l’écoulementdutempsnedonneaucundroitaucontrefacteur,
aucunepropriétésurl’œuvred’autruiluipermettantdeposerou
decontinuerunactedecontrefaçondanslefutur[Fn88
CanadianCopyrightAct–AnnotatedRobic,préc.,note85S.43.1§
5.5].

[127]Ainsi,ilyaunedistinctionimportanteàfaireentrelacontrefaçon
quiperduredansletemps,decellequi«aeulieu»danslepassé.

139

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section43.1─Limitationorprescriptionperiodforcivilremedies─A
separatelimitationperiodwillapplytoeachactofinfringement─Inthe
caseofacontinuousact,thelimitationperiodwillstartfromeachact.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.
[128]L’auteurNormandTamaroécritqueledélaideprescription
«vautpourlesactesdecontrefaçonpassés,eninterdisant
notammentl’attributiondedommagesintérêts[Fn89Normand
Tamaro,Loisurledroitd’auteur–Texteannoté,10eéd.,
Scarborough,Carswell,2015,p.990].»Abondroit,ils’agitd’une
interprétationrestrictive[FN90«Lesdispositionsrelativesàla
prescriptionextinctive,parcequ’ellesportentatteinteauxdroits
individuelsenposantdeslimitesaudroitd’agirenjustice,doiventêtre
interprétéesrestrictivement»:LaurentCarrière,Prescriptionet
propriétéintellectuelleouLaprescriptionextinctivecommefindenon-
recevoirenmatièredepropriétéintellectuelle(1993),10:2Canadian
IntellectualPropertyReview,357,p.371;HuguesRICHARD,Laurent
CARRIÈRE(LégerRobicRichard),CanadianCopyrightAct
–AnnotatedRobic,volume3,Toronto,ThomsonCarswell,feuilles
mobiles,miseàjourcontinueS.43.1§5.6.1]del’article43.1LDA,
libelléaupassé,quifaitréférencenotammentaumomentoùl’acteou
l’omission«aeulieu»(«occurred»enanglais).

[129]Danslemêmeesprit,selonl’analysedesauteursHugues
RichardetLaurentCarrièredansleCanadianCopyrightAct–
Annotated,uneviolationquiperduredansletempssetrouve
assimiléeàuneinfractioncontinue,dontledélai
deprescriptionnecommenceàcourirqu’aumomentoùla
violationcesse[Fn91HuguesRICHARD,LaurentCARRIÈRE
(LégerRobicRichard),CanadianCopyrightAct–AnnotatedRobic,
volume3,Toronto,ThomsonCarswell,feuillesmobiles,miseàjour
continueS.43.1p.43.1-6et43.1-7:
Therefore,«[w]heretheoffenceisacontinuingone,and
continuesuptowithinlessthanthestatutorylimitationperiod
beforeinstitutionofproceedings,itis[immaterial][Fn92Erreur
danslaloiannotéecorrigée:Reginav.BelgalHoldingsLtd.,
1966CanLII190(ONSC)]ifitwasfirstcommittedatatime
anteriortotheperiod»:seeR.v.BelgalHoldingsLtd.(1966),
1966CanLII190(ONSC),[1967]3C.C.C.34,StewartJ.atp.
36.
However,iftheinfringementison-goingbutconsistsofaseries
ofdiscreteacts,aseparatelimitationperiodwillapplytoeach
suchact.Itremainsopentothepersonwhosecopyrighthas
beeninfringedbyacontinuousactofinfringementtofileatimely
claimwithinthreeyearsofthecompletionoftheact.

140

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[130]End’autresmots,«[l]aprescriptionnecourtpastantquel’œuvre
contrefaisantefaitl’objetd’uneexploitationdirecteetimmédiatepar
l’auteurdelacontrefaçon[…][Fn93Dansuncontextesimilaireen
droitfrançais,voirlesconsidérationsintéressantesdans:Pierre-Yves
Gautier,Propriétélittéraireetartistique,10eédition,collectionDroit
fondamental,Paris,P.U.F.,2017,nos.778à780.].»Ànepas
confondrecependantavecl’effetdel’écoulementdutempssurla
réclamationdudommagecontinu[Fn94Iln’yapaslieud’approfondir
cettequestionenl’instance,considérantlascissiond’instance.Jean-
LouisBaudouinetPatriceDeslauriers,Laresponsabilitécivile,
7eédition,Cowansville,ÉditionsYvonBlais.2013,vol1,no.1-1324].

Section43.1─Limitationorprescriptionperiodforcivilremedies─A
copyrightownermaysueforsubsequentorcontinuinginfringements
committedwithinthelimitationperiod.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.
[135]Ensomme,ilyalieuderetenirquelaprescriptionprévueà
l’article43.1LDAs’appliqueauxactespassésetachevés,quiont«eu
lieu»(«occurred»),etquelacomputationdudélaidetroisansdela
prescriptiond’unrecoursencontrefaçoncommenceàcourirau
momentoùlaviolationcesse.Parconséquent,unrecours
dénonçantdesactesdeviolationencoursouposésàl’intérieur
dudélaidetroisansn’estpasfrappédelaprescriptionextinctive
delaLDA.

[136]Enl’espèce,leTribunalestimequelerecoursdudemandeur
n’estpasprescritencequiconcernel’exploitationactuellesurles
sitesInternetdesdéfendeurs,etcepourlescollectionsduFonds
Drouinquisequalifientd’œuvresausensdelaLDA,dontl’analyse
faitl’objetdelasectionsuivante(3.4).Celadonneouvertureaux
recourscivilsdel’article34LDA,etnotammentàl’injonctionpourles
finsquinousoccupeàcetteétape[FN100lln’yapaslieu
d’approfondircettequestionenl’instance,considérantlascission
d’instance.Jean-LouisBaudouinetPatriceDeslauriers,La
responsabilitécivile,7eédition,Cowansville,ÉditionsYvonBlais.
2013,vol1,no.1-1324.].

Section43.1─Limitationorprescriptionperiodforcivilremedies─An
actioncouldbepartiallyprescribed─Reasonablediligencecouldbe
expectedfromacopyrightownerinthediscoveryofinfringement.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.
[147]LeTribunalconclutquelesdroitsetfaitssupportantlerecours
delaSuccessionenl’espècepouvaientêtredécouvertsbienavantle
20mai2012,soittroisansavantl’introductionduprésentrecours,et

141

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

ce,enfaisantpreuvedediligenceraisonnable.Parconséquent,la
présenteactionestenpartiefrappéedeprescription,pourles
actesdecontrefaçonantérieursàcettedate.Sousréservedela
section3.4,celatouchelapremièrepublication(miseàladisposition
dupublic[Fn107Art.2.2et7LDA.]lareproduction,laventedela
collectiondesmicrofilmsavecl’InventaireDrouinformatpapier(1998
à2004),laventedesrépertoiresLaMasculineetLaFéminineformat
papier(1998à2000),laventedesderniersexemplairesduDNCF
(1998),etlanumérisationdetouteslescollectionsduFondsDrouin
(2002à2006)[Fn108TémoignagedeJean-PierrePepin,14juin
2018.].

Section43.1─Limitationorprescriptionperiodforcivilremedies─
Limitationforpastactivitiesisnotabarforinjunctivereliefforthefuture.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.
[256]Ensomme,silerecoursdelaSuccessionestprescritpour
lesactesquionteulieuavantle20mai2012,ilrestequeleDNCF
(tome3)etlesgénéalogiesfamilialesparGabrielDrouinse
trouventactuellementexploitéssurlessitesInternetdes
défendeursetdanscescirconstancesparticulières,sans
autorisationdelaSuccessionquidétientlesdroits.Par
conséquent,leTribunaldoitprononceràcestadelesconclusions
recherchéesenmatièred’injonction.

Section43.1─Limitationorprescriptionperiodforcivilremedies─A
separatelimitationperiodwillapplytoeachactofinfringement.
Henniv.FoodNetworkCanadaInc.,2019CarswellBC1138(B.C.S.C.;2019-04-29)
BakerJ.
[12]Thethreenewdefendantswhichtheplaintiffsseektoaddare:
Cineflix(FoodFactory5)Inc.,Cineflix(FoodFactory6)Inc.,and
Cineflix(FoodFactoryUSA2)Inc.Thesecompanieshaveallbeen
createdsincethenoticeofcivilclaimwaslastamended,andare
simplythecurrentincarnationsoftheexistingdefendants.The
allegedbreachesofcopyrightcontinueeachyearwitheach
successiveincarnationoftheCineflixcompanies.Thedefendants
concedethatthesethreenewcompaniesareproperlyaddedtothe
actioninrelationtotheoriginalclaims.

Section53─RegisterofCopyrights─Thepresumptionofownershipis
rebuttable.
Dhillonv.Bernier,2019CarswellNat1518(F.C.;2019-05-03)LafrenièreJ.[motionto
extendthetimetoappealrefused19-A-34(F.C.A.;2019-07-23);actiondismissedon
proceduralgrounds,2019FC1194(F.C.;2019-09-20);appealA-403-19].

142

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[35]AsevidencedbyaCertificateofRegistrationofCopyright,Mr.
Dhillonistheownerofcopyrightinacommunicationsignal
for“People’sPartyofCanada”and“ThePeople’sPartyofCanada”.
However,thefactthatMr.DhillonisshownontheCanadian
CopyrightRegisterasownerofthecommunicationsignalmerely
createsarebuttablepresumptioninhisfavour:JulesJordan
VideoIncvElmaleh,2009FC488atparagraph16.

Section53─Registertobeevidence─Registrationdoesnotincludea
copyoftheworkbutcouldbecross-referencedbytheevidence.
PabloEnterprisepte.Ltd.v.Tang,2019CarswellNat3229(T.M.Opp.Bd.;2019-06-
13)C.R.Folz,Member.
[19]WithrespecttotheOpponent’sownershipofcopyrightinthe
ArtisticWork,theOpponenthasincludedaspartofitsevidencea
certifiedcopyoftheregistrationcertificateforCanadiancopyright
registrationNo.1135183.WhileCanadiancopyrightregistrations
donotincludeacopyoftheworkitself,inthiscase,theHughes
AffidavitidentifiestheArtisticWorkastheworkwhichisthe
subjectofcopyrightregistrationNo.1135183;Ms.Hughesbeing
theindividualthatfiledtheapplicationforthecopyrightregistrationon
behalfoftheOpponent.Ms.Hugheswasnotcross-examinedonher
affidavit,andsoherevidencethatitistheArtisticWorkthatisthe
subjectoftheOpponent’scopyrightregistrationisuncontroverted.

Section53─Registertobeevidence─Registrationcreatespresumptions
─Thesepresumptionsarerebuttable.
PabloEnterprisepte.Ltdv.HaiLunTang*,2019CarswellNat3229(T.M.Opp.Bd.;
2019-06-13)C.R.Folz,Member.
[20]ACanadiancopyrightregistrationentitlestheownerofthat
registrationtocertainrebuttablepresumptionsunderthe
CopyrightAct.Inparticular,section53oftheCopyrightActreadsin
partasfollows:[…]

[21]Inviewoftheaboveprovisions,thecertifiedcopyofCanadian
copyrightregistrationNo.1135183,togetherwiththeHughes
Affidavit,constitutesevidenceoftheparticularsenteredinthat
registration,andconstitutesevidencethatcopyrightsubsistsinthe
ArtisticWorkandthattheOpponentistheownerofcopyrightinthe
ArtisticWork.Inotethatitiscertainlypossibleforaresponding
partytorebutthepresumptionsthatarisefromacopyright
registrationundersection53oftheCopyrightAct.However,in
thepresentcase,theApplicanthasnotfiledanyevidencetorebut
thesepresumptionsthatarisefromtheOpponent’scopyright
registration.

143

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section53─Registertobeevidence─Acertifiedcopyoftheregistration
isevidenceoftheparticularssetoutintheregistration.
PabloEnterprisepte.Ltdv.HaiLunTang*,2019CarswellNat3229(T.M.Opp.Bd.;
2019-06-13)C.R.Folz,Member.
[23]However,itiswellestablishedunderCanadianlawthat
copyrightprotectionarisesautomaticallyuponthemakingofa
workandacopyrightregistrationisnotrequiredinorderfor
theretobeafindingofinfringementundertheCopyrightAct,
thoughtheregistrationentitlestheownertocertainrebuttable
presumptionsasdiscussedabove[seeMoreauv.St.Vincent1950
CanLII248(FC),[1950]ExCR198,12CPR32;seealsoJohnS.
McKeown,FoxonCanadianLawofCopyrightandIndustrialDesigns,
4thEdition,Chapter20:2].Inthepresentcase,theparticularsof
CanadiancopyrightregistrationNo.1135183indicatethattheArtistic
WorkwasfirstpublishedinOsaka,JapanonAugust1,2011,over
fouryearspriortothefilingdateoftheApplication.Asmentioned
above,section53(1)oftheCopyrightActprovidesthatthe
certifiedcopyoftheregistrationcertificateisevidenceofthe
particularssetoutintheregistration,whichwouldincludethe
firstpublicationdate.TheApplicanthasfilednoevidencetocontest
thedateoffirstpublicationoftheArtisticWorkidentifiedinthe
Opponent’scopyrightregistration,andtheApplicantdoesnotcontest
thatdateinitsWrittenArgument.

Section53─RegisterofCopyrights─Theproductionofacertificateof
copyrightregistrationcreatesarebuttablepresumptionoftitleand
ownership─Absentanyevidencetothecontrary,thechainoftitlemay
wellbeirrelevant.
Sullivanv.NorthwoodMediaInc.,2019CarswellOnt7681(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2019-07-18)
Short,Master.
[63][…]Inmyopinion,therefore,bytheproductionofthis
certificateandintheabsenceofanyevidencetothecontrary,the
plaintiffinthiscasehassatisfiedtheburdenofproof,boththe
primaryburden–thatwhichrestsuponaplaintiffasamatterof
substantivelawandissometimesreferredtoastheriskofnon-
persuasion–andalsothesecondaryburden,thatofadducing
evidence(…)

Section55─Copyrightinworks─Registrationofacopyrightwhilethe
rightsarecontestedmayconstituteparticipationtoforgeryofevidence.
BarreauduQuébec(syndicadhoc)v.Brouillette*,2019QCCBDQ20(Conseilde
discipline–BarreauduQuébec;2019-04-12),theBoard[re-rectifyingBarreaudu
Québec(syndicadhoc)v.Brouillette,2017QCCDBQ085(Conseildediscipline–
BarreauduQuébec;2017-11-03);appeals500-07-001033-194and500-07-001034-
192].

144

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[Undercount1,therespondentwasrecklessandinterferedwiththeproper
administrationofjusticebyparticipatinginandallowingproceedingsdenotinga
propensityforoverbiddingoutofallproportiontotheactuallitigationbetweenthe
partiesand/ordelayingtacticsand/orforthepurposeofharmingoradoptingan
attitudewhichgoesagainsttherequirementsofgoodfaith.]
[312]Finalement,ausixièmesous-paragrapheduchef1,leSyndic
adhocreprocheàMeBrouilletted’avoirparticipé«àl’inscriptiond’un
droitdepropriétéintellectuelleaubénéficepersonneldesesclients
alorsqu’ilsavaitounepouvaitignorerquecettepropriétéintellectuelle
faisaitl’objetd’unlitigefortementcontesténotammentdansledossier
deCour500-17-045473-082etqu’ÉditionsTonalityinc.sedéclarait
propriétairedecesdroitsdepropriétéintellectuelle».

[313]Bienquelapreuvedecesfaitsalléguéssoitétablie,leConseil
estd’avisqu’enposantcesgestes,MeBrouillettenecommetpasles
infractionsquisontreprochéesenvertudesdispositionsdes
rattachementsinvoquéesauchef1.

[314]Deplus,ilfautlirecesixièmesous-paragrapheaveclatêtedu
chef1.Laparticipationàl’inscriptiondudroitdepropriétéintellectuelle
enquestion,bienqu’ellepuisseêtrepossiblementreprochablesous
unautreanglecommeceluidelafabricationdepreuve,neconstitue
pasunedesprocédures«entreprisesetcontinuéesdansledossier
deCour500-17-045473-0820»reprochéesauchef1.

[315]C’estpourquoileConseilnepeutdéclarerMeBrouillette
coupabled’avoirposécegeste,enfonctiondulibelléduchef1.

Section55─Copyrightinworks─Acopyrightnoticehasalimitedscope.
PIPEDAReportofFindingsNo.2019-001*,2019CarswellNat5550(Can.P.C.C.;
2019-04-09)Therrien,Commissioner.
FN103EquifaxCanadanotesthatitsaffiliationwithEquifaxInc.is
alsosignaledtoconsumersbyacopyrightnoteinthefooterofall
Equifax.cawebsites,includingpagesdescribingbothproducts
delivereddirectlybyEquifaxCanada,andthosedeliveredthrough
EquifaxInc,thatsays:“Copyright[date]EquifaxInc.Allrights
reserved.EquifaxandtheEquifaxmarksusedhereinaretrademarks
ofEquifaxInc.”However,consumerswouldnotreasonablyexpect
orlooktoacopyrightnoticeinafooterfornoticeofatransferof
informationtoathirdparty.

Section66.51─Interimdecisions─AninterimTariffcanbevariedby
anotherinterimtariff.

145

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

RetransmissionofDistantTelevisionSignals,Re[InterimTarifffortheRetransmission
ofDistantTelevisionSignals(2019-2023)],2019CarswellNat499(Cop.Bd.;2019-02-
22),theBoard.
[4]Inlightoftheagreementregardingroyaltyallocations,the
applicationtovarytheInterimTelevisionRetransmissionTariff,2019-
2023isgranted.Theinterimtariffisamended[…]

Section66.91─Regulations─Boardhasabroaddiscretionin
establishingequitabletariffs.
RetransmissionofDistantTelevisionSignals,Re,2019CarswellNat4088(Cop.Bd.;
2019-08-02),theBoard.
[172]Forthereasonsthatfollow,despitetheseemingambiguityinthe
effectofthelegislativechangesinquestion,weareoftheviewthat
thecontinuingoperationoftheRetransmissionRegulationsis
notinconsistentwiththenewenactmentwhenreadasawhole.
EvenifweweretoacceptthattheRetransmissionRegulationswere
nolongerineffect,itiswell-establishedthattheBoardhasabroad
discretiontotakeintoaccountfactorsthatitdeemsrelevantand
appropriateinestablishingfairandequitableroyaltiesandtariffs
inanyevent.

[183]Whilewedonotviewthe1997modificationstotheActas
“minor”,wedoagreewiththeBDUsthattheRetransmission
Regulationsmadeunderthenowrepealeds.70.63arenot
inconsistentwiththenewss.73(1)and66.91,whichmustberead
togetherandinterpretedinamannerthatgivesthenewenactmenta
largeandliberal,andpurposive,meaning.[Fn147SeeRizzo&Rizzo
ShoesLtd.(Re),[1998]1S.C.R.27atparas21-22andBell
ExpressVuLimitedPartnershipv.Rex,[2002]2S.C.R.559atpara
26,bothquotingE.Driedger,ConstructionofStatutes(2nded.1983)
at87,foradiscussiononthemodernapproachtostatutory
interpretation.Recentcaseswhichhavealsoadoptedthemodern
approachincludeR.v.Myers,2019SCC18atpara19,Canada
(AttorneyGeneral)v.Thouin,[2017]2S.C.R.184atpara26,and
Cuthbertsonv.Rasouli,[2013]3SCR341atpara32.]

[185]ItmakessensetousthattheBoardshouldhaveregardtothe
criteriasetoutintheRetransmissionRegulations,andevenifnot
requiredtodoso,could,andinappropriatecaseswould,takethem
intoaccountinanyevent.Theirapplicationisthereforeinkeepingwith
thepurposeoftheAct.

[189]Fortheforegoingreasons,weconcludethattheRetransmission
Regulationsare“notinconsistentwiththenewenactment”,havenot
been“repealedorothersmadeintheirstead”,andtherefore“remain

146

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

inforceandaredeemedtohavebeenmadeunderthenew
enactment”:InterpretationAct,s.44(g).

Section67─Publicaccesstorepertoire─Collectivesocietiesmust
establishtheirrepertoire.
SOCAN-Re:Sound–PayAudioServicesTariffs,2007-2016,fileCB-CDA2019-017
(Unreported),https://cb-cda.gc.ca/avis-notice/2019/NOT-2019-04-03-CB-CDA-2019-
017.pdf(Cop.Bd.;2019-04-03),theBoard.
[2]AstheBoardhaspreviouslystated,andtheFederalCourthas
confirmed,collectivesocietieshaveanobligationtoestablish
thattheyactuallyrepresenttherepertoireinrelationtowhich
theyaremakingaclaim.

[5]Accordingly,andhavinginmindRe:Sound’sonustoestablish
itsrepertoire,theBoardordersthatRe:Soundshall:
(1)Identifythepersonorpersonsreferredtoinparagraph(a)
above[Foreachofthe300soundrecordingsselectedforaudit
(thesoundrecordingsinthe“AuditSpreadsheet”,asthatterm
isdefinedintheObjectors’LettertotheBoarddated
September19,2018),theidentityofthepersonorpersonsthat,
inRe:Sound’sview,wouldbeinthebestpositiontoprovide
documentaryinformationthatwouldprovidesupportforanyof
thefollowingpropositions:i.thatthepersonidentifiedasthe
makerbyRe:Soundisthemakerofthesoundrecording;ii.that
themaker’snationalityisthatidentifiedbyRe:Sound;iii.that
themakerwasacitizenorpermanentresidentof—or,ifa
corporation,haditsheadquartersin—thecountryidentifiedby
Re:Sound;iv.thatallthefixationsdoneforthesoundrecording
occurredinthecountryidentifiedbyRe:Sound;v.thatthefirst
fixationofthesoundrecordingoccurredintheyearidentified
byRe:Sound;andvi.thatthememberauthorizingRe:Soundto
collectequitableremunerationforthatsoundrecordinghasthe
authoritytodoso],andprovidethatinformationtotheBoardby
nolaterthanFriday,April12,2019[…]

Section67─Publicaccesstorepertoire─Thecollectivesocietyhasthe
onustoobtaintheauthorizationstomanagetherightsofthecopyright
owners─Impliedagencymustbeadequatelyproven.
ReprographicReproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsrepertoire(Re),2019
CarswellNat9042(Cop.Bd.;2019-12-06),theBoard.
[152][…]Second,thetheoryapproachestheissuefromthewrong
angle:thereproductionrightaccordedtoauthorsundertheAct
isanexclusiveright,anditisthereforetheresponsibilityof
Accesstoseekandobtaintheauthorizationsrequiredtomanage
reproductionrightsandnottheresponsibilityoftherights

147

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

holderstoadviseAccesstheydonotwishittomanagethose
rights.

[153]TheforegoingdecisionsoftheBoardservetoillustratehowa
findingofimpliedagencyisrootedveryfirmlyinthefactualcontextin
whichitarises.

[154]Wedonotsay,therefore,thatagencycanneverbeimpliedor
retroactive.Nonetheless,itiswell-establishedthatacollective
societymustestablishthatithasvalidauthorizationsregarding
therightsholdersitisclaimingtorepresent.[Fn59SeeRe:Sound
vFitnessIndustryCouncilofCanadaandGoodlifeFitnessCentres
Inc,2014FCA48]Inthecircumstancesoftheseproceedings,given
Access’practicesanddistributionmethodology,asdescribedabove,
wearenotsatisfiedthatthatarelationshipofimpliedagencyas
betweenAccessanditsnon-affiliateshasbeenestablishedtosupport
itsauthorizationtorepresentthenon-affiliatesforpurposesofthe
collectiveadministrationoftheirworks.

Section68.2─Publicationandnotification─TheBoardcanpublisha
noticerelatedtoaproposedtariffinthemanneritseesfit.
CollectiveAdministrationinRelationtoRightsunderSections15and19CopyrightAct
(Re),2019CarswellNat8151(Cop.Bd.;2019-12-11),theBoard.
[16]Unders.68.2oftheAct,theBoardcanpublishordistributea
noticerelatedtoaproposedtariffandobjectionstheretointhe
manneritseesfit.Thisconstitutesashiftfromthenoticepublication
requirementsintheCanadaGazetteundertheActpriortotheApril
2019changes.Asexplainedinagovernmentexplanatorynoteon
CopyrightBoardreform,thesechangesaremeantto »[…]empower
theBoardtopublishproposedtariffsbyanymeansitseesfitrather
thanmandatorilyintheCanadaGazette,asatpresent.Thisflexibility
inpublicationcouldreducethelengthofproceedingsbyafew
months. »[Fn2Innovation,ScienceandEconomicDevelopment
Canada,FactSheet:CopyrightBoardReform,availableat:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/693.nsf/eng/00168.html]

Section69─Requesttowithdraworamend─Sufficientnoticeistobe
given.
CollectiveAdministrationinRelationtoRightsunderSections15and19CopyrightAct
(Re),2019CarswellNat8151(Cop.Bd.;2019-12-11),theBoard.
[15]TheActdoesnotstipulatewhatconstitutes »sufficientpublic
notice »ofacollective’sintentiontomaketheapplicationto
withdrawaproposedtariffunders.69.Itdoes,however,provide
somehelpfulbenchmarks.

148

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[17]Thereisnoreason[thoseprovidedbys.68.2]whythese
considerationsshouldnotapplyequallytocircumstancesinvolvinga
noticeofwithdrawalofaproposedtariffinourview.Thereisnothing
intheActthatwouldrequireadifferentapproachtobetaken.Inthe
circumstanceshere,wearesatisfiedthatpublicationofthe
withdrawalnoticeonboththeCollective’sandtheBoard’s
websiteconstitutesadequatepublicnoticeoftheproposed
withdrawal.[Fn3WhileArtisticlaimsthatithasdirectlyorindirectly
notifiedcurrentorformerparticipantsintheproceedings,thefactthat
itmaynothavedirectlyorindirectlycontactedallsuchparticipantsvia
counselwouldnotinvalidatethepublicnoticeintheformof
publicationsonArtisti’sandCB’swebsites.]

[18]Wealsonotethatthenoticeofintenttowithdrawwasposted
onlineformorethan30days.Webelievethattheabovereasoning
maybeappliedtothedurationofaproposedtariffwithdrawalnotice,
aswell:if30days(or60daysbeforeApril2019)isadequatetimefor
objectingtoatariffproposalundersubsection68.3(2),thesame
minimumnoticeperiodisadequateandsufficientfornotifyingan
intentiontowithdrawit.Thatminimumismorethanmethere.

Section69.1─ApprovalbyBoard─Tariffsaretobefairandequitable─
TheBoarddoesnothavetoactascounselfortheabsents─Thecollective
societiesshallnotbearaheavierburdenbecausethereisnocontestation.
ReprographicReproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsrepertoire(Re),2019
CarswellNat9042(Cop.Bd.;2019-12-06),theBoard.
[184]Here,thelackofparticipationbyinstitutionalobjectorshasleft
uswithoutthebenefitofanopposingparty’sevidence,analysisand
argumentstocounterbalancethoseofAccessanditsevidence.[FN82
WedonotsuggestthatMr.Maguire’sparticipationwasnothelpful;
however,itisnotasubstituteforinstitutionalinput]Becauseweare
requiredtoapproveatariffthatisfairandequitable,[Fn83The
Board’sdutytocertifyafairandequitabletariffhasbeendealtwithin
numerousdecisions;seeforexampleSocietyofComposers,Authors
andMusicPublishersofCanadavBellCanadaInc,2010FCA139at
paras32-34.]andbecausewealsoconsideredthepublicinterest,
wewererequiredtoexaminetherecordwithutmostcare,and
eventoaskquestionstosupplementitwhereappropriate.This
wehavedone.However,thatiswhereourroleends.Froma
proceduralstandpoint,Accessshouldnothavetobearaheavier
burdenthanitnormallywouldhave,hadtheeducational
institutionsdecidedtoparticipate,norshouldtheBoardhaveto
assumethemantelofcounselfortheeducationalinstitutions.In
theend,itistheinstitutionalusersthatchosenottotakepart.

149

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section69.1─ApprovalbyBoard─Tariffsareofgeneralapplication─The
boardcouldconsiderthird-partyrepresentationsaftertheclosingofthe
hearing.
ReprographicReproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsrepertoire(Re),2019
CarswellNat9042(Cop.Bd.;2019-12-06),theBoard.
[288]Asaproceduralmatter,wecouldhavedecidednottoconsider
theuniversities’lettersofcommentgiventhattheyweresentafterthe
hearinghadended.Wehavechosentoconsiderthemnonetheless,
giventheparticularcircumstancesoftheseproceedings.

[289]Sincetherearenoinstitutionalobjectorsinthisinstanceand
becausethesetariffsareofgeneralapplication,thelettersof
commentassistusinconsideringthepublicinterestbypermittingus
totakeintoaccounttheviewsofthosewhoarenotbeforeusbutwho
willbeaffectedbyourdecision.

Section69.1─ApprovalbyBoard─Alicensecouldbemodifiedbythe
Board.
ReprographicReproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsrepertoire(Re),2019
CarswellNat9042(Cop.Bd.;2019-12-06),theBoard.
[231]Fourth,itmaybearguedthatextendingthecopyinglimitto20
percentofaworkhasaconsiderableamountofvaluetothelicensee
andweshouldaccountforthisinsomeway.Ingeneral,weagree.
Wheneveralicence[sic]isusedasaproxyforatariff,theterms
oftheproxyneedtobecomparedtothoseofthetariff.Where
theydifferinamaterialway,theBoardhastwooptions.Itcanmake
modification[sic]totheproxytoaccountfordifferencesbetweenthe
proxyandthetariff.Oritcanrejecttheproxyaltogether.Weadoptthe
firstoptionhere.

Section69.1─ApprovalbyBoard─Afairdealingpolicyshouldbebacked
upbyevidenceofenforcement.
ReprographicReproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsrepertoire(Re),2019
CarswellNat9042(Cop.Bd.;2019-12-06),theBoard[footnotesomitted].
[255]Initsresponses,Accessmadethefollowingpoints.First,
publicationofafairdealingpolicywithouttenderingevidence
thatthepolicyisenforcedisinsufficienttofindthatcopiesmade
pursuanttothepolicyarefair.Second,theratesproposedby
Accessincludeafair-dealingdiscount.AsAccessexplains:
AccessCopyrighthasproposedtotheBoardatariffratethat
incorporatesadiscountforfairdealingforeducationalpurposes,
aswellasotherexceptionsundertheCopyrightAct.The
BenchmarkLicencesaretheresultofarms’[sic]length
negotiatedlicencesforthebundleofrightslicensedbythe

150

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

ProposedTariff,includingallexceptionsavailabletotheusersof
thetariff.

[256]Weagree.[…]

Section69.1─ApprovalbyBoard─Foraproposedtarifftobewithdrawn
certainconditionsaretobemet.
CollectiveAdministrationinRelationtoRightsunderSections15and19CopyrightAct
(Re),2019CarswellNat8151(Cop.Bd.;2019-12-11),theBoard.
[2]InApril2019,newprovisionsgoverningthecollective
administrationofcopyrightcameintoforce.Amongthese,section
69.1oftheCopyrightAct(the »Act »)mandatesthattheBoardgrant
anapplicationfortariffwithdrawalmadeundersection69ofthe
Actifcertainconditionsaremet[…]

[6]OnJuly10,2019,ArtistirequestedthattheBoardpostonits
websiteanoticethatwouldservethepurposeofmeetingthe
requirementsetoutins.69.1(1)(a)oftheAct.

[7]Ingrantingthisrequest,theBoardissuedNotice[CB-CDA2019-
052]onJuly26,2019,whichreadasfollows:[…]

Section70─Approval─ReferencetotheFederalCourtisnotwarrantedif
thequestionisnotonebeforetheBoard.
ReprographicReproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsrepertoire(Re),2019
CarswellNat9042(Cop.Bd.;2019-12-06),theBoard.
[28]TheBoardhadreceived,andonDecember9,2013,dismissed
anapplicationbyProfessorKatzinwhichheaskedtheBoardtorefer
aquestionoflawtotheFederalCourtofAppeal,inaccordancewith
subsections18.3(1)and28(2)oftheFederalCourtsAct.Professor
Katz’proposedquestionrelatedtowhetherasinglecopyingeventby
aneducationalinstitutionwouldbesufficienttotriggerthetariff,or
“trigger”liabilityunderit.TheBoarddismissedhisapplication,
holding,amongotherthings,thattheissueraisedwasnota
propermatterforareferencebecauseitwasnotaquestionthat
theBoardwasrequiredtoanswerinordertoexerciseits
jurisdictionandcertifytheproposedtariffs.

Section70─Approval─TheBoardwillnotincluderequirementsfor
additionalinformationiftheirrelevanceisnotestablished.
ReprographicReproduction,inCanada,ofWorksinitsrepertoire(Re),2019
CarswellNat9042(Cop.Bd.;2019-12-06),theBoard.
[337]AsurveyofpreviousdecisionsoftheBoardshowsthat–in
general–for-profitentitieswhosemainactivitiesrelatedirectlytothe

151

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

copyrightedsubjectmatteratquestiontypicallyhavemoreextensive
reportingrequirementsthannon-commercialentities,orcommercial
entitieswhosemainactivitiesarenotsodirectlyrelatedtothe
copyrightedsubjectmatter.Themorecentralthesubjectmatterwas
toanentity’sactivity,andthegreateritscapacitytocarryoutthat
reporting(eitherfinancial,technical,orotherwise)themoreextensive
suchrequirementstendtobe.However,whereacollectivesociety
couldnotdemonstratehowcertainusageinformationwastobe
usedfordistribution,theBoardhasdeclinedtoincludereporting
forthatinformationintheapprovedtariff.

Section71─Filingofproposedtariffs─ATariffmustbefiledasleastnine
monthsbeforeitseffectivedate.
RetransmissionofDistantTelevisionSignals,Re,2019CarswellNat4088(Cop.Bd.;
2019-08-02)(Cop.Bd.;2019-08-02),theBoard.
[237]Thereisarelatedconsiderationaswell[nottopermita
significantamendmenttoaproposedtariff].Undersubsection71(2)
oftheAct,atariffproposalmustbefiledatleastninemonths
beforeitseffectivedate.Inpractice,thisresultsinanoticeperiodto
potentialusersofatariffofninemonthsfromtheproposedtariff’s
filing,andapproximately7monthsfromtheproposedtariff’s
publicationintheCanadaGazette.Oneofthefunctionsofthisnotice
periodistopermitpotentialusers(whethertheysubmitobjectionsor
not)toarrangetheiraffairsinordertoprotectthemselveswithrespect
totheaccruedliabilitiesassociatedwithpotentialretroactivetariffs.
Generallytheydosobycollectingadditionalamountsfromtheir
customersorotherwisesettingasidenecessaryfunds,orbyaltering
theirbusinessactivitiesorpricingstructures.

Section73─Certification─TheBoardshalltakeintoaccountthe
prescribedgeneralcriteriawhenapprovingatariff.
RetransmissionofDistantTelevisionSignals,Re,2019CarswellNat4088(Cop.Bd.;
2019-08-02)(Cop.Bd.;2019-08-02),theBoard.
[176]In1997,section70.63oftheActwasrepealedaspartoftheBill
C-32reformoftheAct.Itsfunctionalreplacement,s.73,doesnot
requirethattheBoard“haveregard”toanyparticularprescribed
criteriawhenestablishing“amannerofdeterminingtheroyaltiestobe
paid[…]byretransmitterswithinthemeaningofsubsection31(1).”At
thesametime,however,the1997amendmentsalsoenacteds.66.91,
asubstitutedregulatory-makingpowerfortheGovernorinCouncil,
whichcontinuedtheGovernorinCouncil’sauthoritytoestablish
generalcriteriatowhichtheBoardmusthaveregard.[…]

152

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Section73─Certification─TheBoardcanmodifyaproposedtariff─A
tariffisprospectivebutmayhaveretroactiveeffects─Filingof
substantiallyrevisedtariffbycollectivesocietiesshouldbefrownedupon.
RetransmissionofDistantTelevisionSignals,Re,2019CarswellNat4088(Cop.Bd.;
2019-08-02),theBoard.
[234]TheBoardhastheauthorityundersection73oftheActto
modifyorvaryaproposedtariffandimposetermsand
conditionsasitconsidersappropriate.Thatsectionempowersthe
Boardto“establish[…]suchtermsandconditionsrelatedtothose
royaltiesastheBoardconsidersappropriate[…and]varythe
[proposed]tariffsaccordingly.”Whilethisisnotanunlimitedpower,
andmustbeexercisedcarefully,therearecircumstancesin
whichsuchamodificationorvariation–an“amendment”–will
becalledfor.Indeed,inmanyinstancestheBoardvariestariffsthat
areproposedinsomefashion.Indoingso,andindeterminingwhether
itshouldapproveratesotherthanthoseoriginallyproposedand
publishedintheCanadaGazette,however,theBoardmustattempt
toensurethatdoingsowouldnotunfairlyprejudiceinterested
oraffectedpersonsorgiverisetosomeotherproceduralor
substantiveunfairnessorviolationoftheprinciplesofnatural
justice.

[236]Asnoted,therevisedratesaresignificantlyhigherthanthose
containedintheinitialproposedtariff.Althoughatariffcanhavea
retroactiveeffectwhenitisapprovedbytheBoard,aproposed
tariffalwaysoperatesprospectivelyfromthestartofitseffective
date,whichrunsnoearlierthanfromJanuary1stfollowingitsproper
filing.ThereisnomechanismintheActwherebyatariffproposalmay
takeeffectpriortosucheffectivedate,andcertainlynotpriortoits
filingwiththeBoard.PermittingtheCollectivestofilesignificantly
“revisedrates”inthefashiontheyhaveinthepresentcasewould
enablethemtobenefitretroactivelyasiftheamendmentweremade
attheoriginalfilingdatemorethantwoyearsearlier,onceapproved
–anadvantagetowhichtheywouldnototherwisebeentitled.
Generallyspeaking,wedonotthinktheBoard’sbroadpowerto
amendshouldbeinterpretedinamannerthatwouldpermita
party,ineffect,tosubstituteforaninitialproposedtariffanother
substantiallydifferentproposedtariff,intheguiseofan
“amendment”,afterconsiderationoftheinitiallyproposedtariff
isalreadysubstantiallyunderway.TheBoardmusthaveregardto
thepotentialimpactofsuchaninitiativeonthepartiesandother
interestedoraffectedpersons.

Section77─CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbytheBoard
─Mechanicalreproductionlicensedforalimitedtime.

153

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Kuch,Re,2019CarswellNat773(Cop.Bd.;2019-02-07),theBoard.
[1]Thelicenceauthorizestherecordingandmechanicalreproduction
ofthemusicalworkentitledFourStringPolkabyGrahamTownsend.
Nomorethan1000copiesoftheworkwillbereproducedonCD.The
issuanceofthelicencedoesnotreleasetheapplicantfromthe
obligationtoobtainpermissionforanyotherusenotcoveredbythis
licence.

[2]ThelicenceisvalidasofJanuary1,2018,andexpiresJanuary1,
2023.Theauthorizedusesmustthereforebecompletedbythat
date.

Section77─CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbytheBoard
─Nolicencerequiredwhentheworkisinthepublicdomain.
GroupeInnovamberInc,Re,2019CarswellNat631(Cop.Bd.;2019-02-18),the
Board.
REFUS
[1]LaCommissionaanalysévotredemandedelicencedéposéele
26juillet2018etconclu,pourlesmotifsquisuivent,qu’aucune
licencen’estrequisepourl’utilisationdel’œuvrelittérairefaisant
l’objetdevotredemande:1.L’œuvre«AusdenletztenJahrender
KaiserinElisabeth»delaComtesseIrmaSztarayaétépubliéeen
1909;2.LaLoisurledroitd’auteurprévoitqueledroitd’auteurpour
uneœuvrelittérairesubsistependantlaviedel’auteur,puisjusqu’à
lafindelacinquantièmeannéesuivantcelledesondécès(art.6LR
(1985),ch.C-42);3.L’auteurestdécédéeen1940,soitilyaplus
de78ans;4.L’œuvreestdoncdudomainepublicdepuisle1er
janvier1991.

Section77─CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbytheBoard
─TheBoardcannotdeliveralicenceforaworkinthepublicdomain.
BibliothèquequébécoiseInc,Re,2019CarswellNat160(Cop.Bd.;2019-01-07),the
Board.
REFUS
[2]Àlalumièredecequiprécède,laCommissionnepeutdonnersuite
àvotredemandedelicence.Ilnes’agitpasd’unequestiondepouvoir
discrétionnaire:laCommissionn’apascompétencepourdélivrer
unelicenceenl’espèce,puisqu’ellenepeutdélivrerdelicences
pourl’utilisationd’œuvresdudomainepublic.

Section77─CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbytheBoard
─Mechanicalreproductionlicensedforalimitedtime.
Kuch,Re,2019CarswellNat773(Cop.Bd.;2019-02-07),theBoard.
[1](1)Thelicenceauthorizestherecordingandmechanical
reproductionofthemusicalworkentitledFourStringPolkaby
GrahamTownsend.Nomorethan1000copiesoftheworkwillbe

154

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

reproducedonCD.Theissuanceofthelicencedoesnotreleasethe
applicantfromtheobligationtoobtainpermissionforanyotheruse
notcoveredbythislicence.
(2)ThelicenceisvalidasofJanuary1,2018,andexpires
January1,2023.Theauthorizedusesmustthereforebe
completedbythatdate.

Section77─CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbytheBoard
─Anapplicantmustprovethattheworkwaspublished.
Pointe-à-Callière,citéd’archéologieetd’histoiredeMontréal,Re,2019CarswellNat
5891(Cop.Bd.;2019-08-23),theBoard.
[5]Enl’espèce,laCommissionadéterminéqu’iln’yapas
suffisammentdepreuvesquelaphotographiequevousdésirez
reproduireetexposerafaitl’objetd’unepublication.La
disponibilitédelaphotographiedanslefondd’archivesdeClaude
MeunieràlaBAnQ,bienqu’accessibleparlepublicenligne,ne
constituepasunepublicationdel’œuvreausensdelaLoi.Deplus,
vousn’avezpasétéenmesurededémontrerquedescopiesdela
photoavaientétéfaitesavecleconsentementdutitulairededroit
d’auteuretmisesàladispositiondupublic.

Section77─CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbytheBoard
─Foralicencetobegranted,theworkmustbeapublishedone.
Lawrence,Re,2019CarswellNat5890(Cop.Bd.;2019-09-16),theBoard.
[4]Giventhatthe12[old-timeradiodrama]scriptsyouwishto
reproducehavenotbeenpublishedwithinthemeaningof
section2.2oftheAct,theCopyrightBoardcannotissuea
licence.ThefactthattheBoardcannotissuealicenceshouldnot
beinterpretedasmeaningthatthereproductionsyouwishto
makeare,orarenot,aninfringementofcopyright.

Section77─CircumstancesinwhichlicencemaybeissuedbytheBoard
─AcopyrightownercanterminatealicencegrantedbytheBoard.
Koch,Re,2019CarswellNat5889(Cop.Bd.;2019-10-10),theBoard.
[1](1)Thelicenceauthorizesthereproduction(onCDsanddigital),
thedistribution(onCDs)bysellingorothertransferofownership,the
makingavailableandthecommunicationtothepublicby
telecommunicationofmusicalworksconsistingoftwopsalmrefrain
melodies(refrains#143byWilliamG.Smithand#148byIrene
Brustle)publishedintheCatholicBookofWorshipII(CBWII)bythe
CanadianConferenceofCatholicBishops’Publicationsofficein
1980.Theissuanceofthelicencedoesnotreleasetheapplicantfrom
theobligationtoobtainpermissionforanyotherusenotcoveredby
thislicence.
(2)ThelicenceexpiresOctober31,2024.Theauthorizedusesmust
thereforebecompletedbythatdate.

155

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

(4)Theapplicantundertakestopaythesumof$10.00foreachwork
toanybodywhoestablishes,beforeOctober31,2029,ownershipof
thecopyrightintheworkcoveredinthislicence.
(5)Thecopyrightownercanterminatethelicencebypresenting
awrittennoticetothiseffecttotheapplicant.Theapplicantwill
ceaseusingtheworkfortheusesgrantedinthislicence,nolaterthan
30daysafterthereceiptofthenotice.Thecopyrightownerwho
terminatesthelicenceisstillentitledtotheroyaltiesdescribedin
paragraph(4).

Section79─Definitions[Privatecopying]─Onlyan“audiorecording
medium”canbesubjecttoalevy.
CopyingforPrivateUse(Re),2019CarswellNat9041(Cop.Bd.;2019-12-13),the
Board.
[24]Notalltypesofmediausedtocopymusiccanattractalevy.
PursuanttotheAct,onlyan“audiorecordingmedium”canbesubject
toalevy.Section79oftheActdefinesan“audiorecordingmedium”
asarecordingmediumontowhichasoundrecordingmaybe
reproducedandthatisofakindordinarilyusedbyindividual
consumersforthatpurpose.

Section79–Definitions[Privatecopying]─Onlythosemediaclearlynot
beingusedtocopymusicwouldnotbesubjecttoalevy.
CopyingforPrivateUse(Re),2019CarswellNat9041(Cop.Bd.;2019-12-13),the
Board.
[28]Afterhavingrevieweddictionariesandcourtdecisionsandtaken
intoconsiderationprinciplesofstatutoryinterpretation,includingthe
purposeoftheregime,theBoardconcludedthat“ordinarily”bore
aconnotationofconsistencyandregularityratherthanquantity
orfrequency.Assuch,foranactivitytobeordinary,itdidnothave
tobeaperson’smainactivity,aslongitwasanactivitythatwasnot
rare,abnormalorminimal.[Fn22PrivateCopying1999-2000(18
December1999)CopyrightBoardatp.29]

[29]ApplyingthisbroadinterpretationtothecontextoftheAct,the
Boardconcludedthatordinaryuse,asreferredtointhe
definitionofaudiorecordingmedium,meantthatonlythose
mediaclearlynotbeingusedtocopymusicwouldnotbesubject
toalevy;consequently,thenotionofordinariness,asusedin
thedefinitionofaudiorecordingmedium,hadtobeinterpreted
asincludingallnon-negligibleuses.[Fn23PrivateCopying1999-
2000(18December1999)CopyrightBoardatp.30]

[30]TheBoardaddedthatsincethedefinitionofaudiorecording
mediumreferredtoordinaryusebyindividualconsumers,theanalysis

156

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

hadtofocusonthosewhousethemediumratherthanonthosewho
useothermediatocopymusic.[Fn24PrivateCopying1999-2000(18
December1999)CopyrightBoardatp.31]

[46]Asmentionedearlier,itistheusagebyindividualconsumersthat
mustbeordinary,nottheuseoftheproductgenerally.

Section80─Wherenoinfringementofcopyright─Reproducingforprivate
useasoundrecordingonanaudiorecordingdeviceisnotaninfringement.
CopyingforPrivateUse(Re),2019CarswellNat9041(Cop.Bd.;2019-12-13),the
Board.
[22]Theprivatecopyingregimecameintoforcein1998.PartVIIIof
theActsetsforthitslegislativescheme.Itprovidesthatitisnotan
infringementofcopyrighttoreproduceasoundrecordingonto
an“audiorecordingmedium”fortheprivateuseoftheperson
whomakesthecopy.[Fn17CopyrightAct,s.80]

Section81─Rightofremuneration─Manufacturersandimportersofblank
audiorecordingmediaaresubjecttoalevy.
CopyingforPrivateUse(Re),2019CarswellNat9041(Cop.Bd.;2019-12-13),the
Board.
[23]Inreturn,theregimeprovidesthateligibleauthors,performers
andmakersofsoundrecordingshavearighttoreceive
remunerationfrommanufacturersandimportersofblankaudio
recordingmediainrespectofthereproductionontoan“audio
recordingmedium”,forprivateuse,ofsoundrecordingsandthe
musicalworksandperformers’performancesembodiedtherein.
[Fn18CopyrightAct,s.81]Thiscompensationtakestheformofalevy
setbytheBoardfollowingthefilingofaproposedtariffbyCPCC,to
bepaidinrespectofeachblankaudiorecordingmediumdisposedof
inCanada.[Fn19CopyrightAct,s.82]

Section82─Liabilitytopaylevy─Eligiblecopyrightholdersare
compensatedbyalevyfixedbytheBoard.
CopyingforPrivateUse(Re),2019CarswellNat9041(Cop.Bd.;2019-12-13),the
Board.
[23]Inreturn,theregimeprovidesthateligibleauthors,performers
andmakersofsoundrecordingshavearighttoreceiveremuneration
frommanufacturersandimportersofblankaudiorecordingmediain
respectofthereproductionontoan“audiorecordingmedium”,for
privateuse,ofsoundrecordingsandthemusicalworksand
performers’performancesembodiedtherein.[Fn18CopyrightAct,s.
81]ThiscompensationtakestheformofalevysetbytheBoard

157

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

followingthefilingofaproposedtariffbyCPCC,tobepaidin
respectofeachblankaudiorecordingmediumdisposedofin
Canada.[Fn19CopyrightAct,s.82]

Section84–Distributionbycollectingbody–Levymustbeapportioned
bytheBoardamongauthors,performersandmakers.
CopyingforPrivateUse(Re),2019CarswellNat9041(Cop.Bd.;2019-12-13),the
Board.
[52]Section84oftheActrequiresthatweapportionthelevy
amongauthors,performersandmakers.Thepercentage
applicabletoeachcollegeofrightsholderscorrespondstothat
college’sshareofallprivatecopiesofthequalifyingrepertoire.

Section89─Nocopyright,etc.,exceptbystatute─Copyrightisacreature
ofstatute.
PyrrhaDesignInc.v.PlumandPoseyInc.,2019CarswellNat210(F.C.;2019-01-30)
PhelanJ.[appealA-98-19].
[89]AsheldinThébergevGaleried’ArtduPetitChamplainInc,2002
SCC34(CanLII)atpara5,[2002]2SCR336,andBishopvStevens,
1990CanLII75(SCC),[1990]2SCR467at477,22ACWS(3d)568,
copyrightlawinCanadaisacreatureofstatutewithexhaustive
rightsandremediesprovidedforintheAct.

Section89─Nocopyright,etc.,exceptbystatute─Therightsand
remediesundertheCopyrightActareexhaustive.
Albov.TheWinnipegFreePress,163C.P.R.(4th)126(Man.Q.B.;2019-02-22)Saull
J.
[63]Counselprovidedmewithnumerousauthoritiesrespecting
principlesofcopyrightlawthatarerelevanttothismatter.Asynthesis
oftheseauthoritiesisprovidedbelow:[…]
a)…“copyrightisacreatureofstatuteandtherightsand
remediesprovidedbytheCopyrightActareexhaustive”
(CCHCanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC
13(CanLII)(“CCH”)atpara.9).

Section89─Nocopyright,etc.,exceptbystatute─Therightsand
remediesundertheCopyrightActareexhaustive.
KeatleySurveyingLtdv.TeranetInc,2019CarswellOnt15110(S.C.C;2019-09-26)
AbellaJ.(majority)[affirming2016CarswellOnt7233(Ont.C.A.;2017-09-08),which
wasaffirming2017CarswellOnt14961(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2016-02-19)].
[40]CopyrightinCanadaisacreatureofstatuteandtherights
andremediesaffordedbytheCopyrightActareexhaustive
(Thébergev.Galeried’ArtduPetitChamplaininc.,2002SCC34
(CanLII),[2002]2S.C.R.336,atpara.5;CCHCanadianLtd.v.Law

158

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

SocietyofUpperCanada,2004SCC13(CanLII),[2004]1S.C.R.339,
atpara.9).

Section89─Nocopyright,etc.,exceptbystatute─Therightsand
remediesundertheCopyrightActareexhaustive.
VoltagePictures,LLCv.Salna,2019FC1412(F.C.;2019-11-12)BoswellJ.[appeal
A-439-19].
[81]IagreewithCIPPICthatVoltagehasnotpleadedthenecessary
factsforits »advertisingtheworkfordownload »claim.Withoutany
materialfactspleadedonalegalfoundationundertheCopyright
Act,itisplainandobviousthattheclaimofadvertisingthefilms
fordownloadmustfail.Voltage’sclaim–thateachmemberofthe
proposedclassadvertisedbywayoftheBitTorrentprotocolthatafilm
wasavailablefordownload–isnotarecognizedcauseofaction
undertheCopyrightAct.

83BIA─Section83oftheBankruptcyandInsolvencyActshouldbegiven
aliberalinterpretation.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.
[245]D’abord,l’auteureLouiseLalondedansleJurisclasseurQuébec
–Faillite,insolvabilitéetrestructurationnousrappellequ’ilyalieude
donneruneinterprétationlarge,libéraleetpratiqueetnon
excessivementformalisteàcetarticle,afind’éviterunrésultat
absurdeetderemédier,del’opiniondecertains,àsadésuétude
[Fn219LouiseLalonde,«Biensdufaillietdessaisissementenfaveur
dusyndic»,dansJurisClasseurQuébec,coll.«Droitdesaffaires»,
Faillite,insolvabilitéetrestructuration,fasc.4,Montréal,LexisNexis
Canada,feuillesmobiles,no168,àjourau30mai2014;Syndicde
DEPDistributionexclusiveltée,2017QCCS1186(CanLII),par.31].
Ainsi,lesœuvresreconnuesparlejugement,soitleDNCF(tome
3)etlesgénéalogiesfamilialesparGabrielDrouin,sequalifient
aisémentdemanuscrits[Fn220DéfinitiondeMANUSCRIT:
«Ouvrageécritàlamainavantladécouvertedel’imprimerie.Original
(oucopie)d’unouvragedestinéàêtreimprimé(qu’ilsoitécritàlamain
oudactylographié).»DictionnaireLarousse,enligne].

83BIA─Section83oftheBankruptcyandInsolvencyActreferstoan
authorasaphysicalperson.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.
[248]Enréalité,l’«auteur»nepeutêtrequ’unepersonnephysique
qui,suivantlelibellémêmedel’article83LFI,estvouéeàlamort,
suscitel’ouvertured’unesuccessionparsondécèsetletransfert
desdroitsàseshéritiers[Fn222Art.5(1),6,7,9,13(1),13(3)et

159

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

14.2(2)LDA;PiscinesNautikainc.c.FibreDesigninc.,2018QCCS
3875(CanLII),par.29].Del’analysedesdispositionsdelaLDA[Fn
223Art.5(1),6,7,9,13(1),13(3)et14.2(2)LDA;PiscinesNautika
inc.c.FibreDesigninc.,2018QCCS3875(CanLII),par.29.],dela
doctrineetdelajurisprudenceenmatièrededroitd’auteur[Fn224
Notamment:Pierre-YvesGautier,Propriétélittéraireetartistique,
préc.,note93,no.34;CCHCanadienneltéec.BarreauduHaut-
Canada2004CSC134,par.16etss.;Robertsonc.ThomsonCorp.,
2006CSC43(CanLII),[2006]2R.C.S.363,par.30etss.;Florence,
Lucas,«Propriétéintellectuelleettitularité»,
dansJurisclasseurQuébec,coll.«Propriétéintellectuelle»,Droits
intellectuels,fasc.2.Montréal,LexisNexisCanada,feuillesmobiles,
nos.2etss.,àjourau18novembre2014.],leTribunalretientetréitère
quel’«auteur»d’uneœuvres’avèreêtrelapersonnephysique«qui
donnel’empreintedesapersonnalitéàuneœuvre,quiexerceson
talentetsonjugementpourcréeruneœuvreoriginale[Fn225Florence,
Lucas,«Propriétéintellectuelleettitularité»,
dansJurisclasseurQuébec,coll.«Propriétéintellectuelle»,Droits
intellectuels,fasc.2.Montréal,LexisNexisCanada,feuillesmobiles,
no.2,àjourau18novembre2014]».

83BIA─Section83oftheBankruptcyandInsolvencyActappliestothe
authorandhisheirs.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.
[250]Enl’espèce,àl’issuedel’analyseduprésentjugement,les
manuscritsencausesontleDNCF(tome3)etlesgénéalogies
familialesproduitesparGabrielDrouin,recueilsdontcedernierest
personnellementl’auteur[Fn227Sections3.4.6et3.4.7duprésent
jugement].Àcetitre,l’article83LFIs’appliqueàluietàses
héritierspourcesœuvres[Fn228Acontrario,mêmesilesautres
collectionsduFondsDrouinavaientbénéficiédelaprotectiondela
LDA,lapreuverévèlequeGabrielDrouinn’enétaitpas
personnellementl’auteur(fichesdemariages,Kardexnoir,fiches
d’index,étiquettes,microfilms).Ellessontplutôtlefruitdutravaildes
généalogistesetemployésdel’IGD,etcommeemployeur,
l’entrepriseétaitlepremiertitulairedesdroitsd’auteur,etnon
GabrielDrouin.Ainsi,lecaséchéant,l’article83(2)LFIn’auraitpas
permisàlaSuccessionderevendiquerdesdroitsd’auteurdansle
présentrecours.].

83BIA─Section83oftheBankruptcyandInsolvencyAct─Whenawork
ispublished,atrusteeisnotentitledtotransferagrantofinterestinthe
copyrightwithouttheconsentoftheheirs.
Drouin(SuccessiondeCôté-Drouin)v.Pepin,2019CarswellQue1922(Que.Sup.Ct.;
2019-03-13)LucasJ.[Referencestoevidenceomitted.]

160

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[254]Parconséquent,c’estl’alinéa2del’article83quis’applique
enl’espèce.Ainsi,lesrecueilsetlesdroitsd’auteurdoivent
retourneràl’auteurGabrielDrouin,etdanslescirconstancesde
sondécès,àlaSuccessionetauxhéritiersdûmentreprésentéspar
ledemandeurdansleprésentrecours.

[255]Eneffet,ilyalieudereconnaîtrequelasuccessiondesdroits
d’auteursurlesœuvresestd’aborddévolueàJeanne-Côté-Drouin
(toujoursvivanteaumomentdelafailliteen1987)envertudulegs
universelstipulédansletestamentdeGabrielDrouin.Depuisson
décès,ilsfontpartiedelaSuccessiondecelle-ci.

Aside:othercasesofinterest–trademarknotices.

Betrayedbyacopyrightnotice.
CharteredProfessionalAccountantsofOntariovCharteredInstituteofManagement
Accountants*,2019CarswellNat7315(T.M.Opp.Bd.;2019-10-01)J.Carrière,
Member.
[143]TheOpponent’smainargumentunderthisgroundofopposition
isthefactthatthereareclearinconsistenciesintheApplicant’s
evidenceconcerningtheclaimeddateoffirstuseoftheMark.Mr.
RatnayakeclaimsthattheApplicantlaunched »anaccounting
toolcalledCIMASTRATEGICSCORECARDinFebruary2004″
whileMr.Harding,inhisaffidavit,statesthatitwasin2005that
CIMAintroducedthe »CIMASTRATEGICSCORECARDproduct »
andheattachedareportfiledasExhibitI-1tohisaffidavitthat
waspublishedin2005[seecopyrightnoticeattheendofthe
report]whichdescribedtheCIMAStrategicScorecardinthefollowing
terms:
(…)isatoolthatisbeingdevelopedbyCIMA.Atrialofthe
concepthasbeenundertakenwithinCIMAandpilotsarebeing
initiatedinasmallnumberofmajororganisations.Theaimof
thispreliminarypaperistoprovideanoverviewofthescorecard
conceptanditscurrentstateofdevelopment(…)

[152]GiventhattheOpponenthasmetitsinitialburden,theApplicant
hadtheburdentoprovideevidencethatitfirstusedtheMarkin
CanadaasearlyasFebruary29,2004inassociationwitheachofthe
GoodsandServices.Itfailedtodoso.

Savedbyacopyrightnotice.
McMillanLLPv.Forbes*,2019CarswellNat5965(T.M.Registrar;2019-10-18)A.
Bene,Member.

161

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[9]Mr.Forbesatteststhat,since1999,hehasoperatedawebsiteat
cannibal.com.authroughwhichcustomers,includingCanadian
customers,orderitemsfromtheOwner.AttachedasExhibitAtohis
affidavitare17pagesofscreenshotsfromthiswebsite,showingfor
salevariousclothingitemsandcyclingaccessoriesdisplayingthe
Mark.Inotethatthecopyrightnoticeonsomeofthepagesis
dated2016,andMr.ForbesatteststhatExhibitAincludesa
screenshotofthewebsiteasitappearedonApril10,2016.

Acopyrightnoticeonlyindicatesthedateofcreationofawork,notthe
datesofcirculation.
MillerThomsonv.GroupeModuloInc,2020CarswellNat341(Registrar;2019-10-31)
O.Osadchuk,Member
[31]TheRequestingPartyalsonotesthatthecopyrightnoticesfor
“MANUEL-CAHIER1”and“MANUEL-CAHIER2”datefrom2005and
2006respectively.However,thesenoticesmerelyindicatetheyear
fromwhichcopyrightisclaimedandarenotnecessarilyinconsistent
withdistributionoftheworksinlateryears.Indeed,theinvoiceentries
fromtherelevantperiodincludeISBNsmatchingthoseofthe
publicationsatExhibitP-1.Moreover,theprintoutsatExhibitP-2,
datedFebruary27,2017,showtheMarkdisplayedonpublications’
coverpagesinthesamemanner,suggestingcontinuityinthemanner
ofdisplay.Indeed,Mr.Lutzy’sdeclarationconfirmsthattheMarkwas
displayedinthesamemannerduringtherelevantperiod.

Betrayedbyacopyrightnotice.
StrassburgerHoldingsLimitedvXCGConsultantsLtd,2019CarswellOnt18751(Ont.
Sup.Ct.;2019-11-14)TaylorJ.
[Applicationbyplaintifftoaddanotherdefendantinanactionfordamages-Granted.]
[4]Thethrustoftheplaintiffs’positiononthismotionisthatduringthe
currencyofthisproceeding,NewXCGwasincorporatedandthe
businessandassetsofOldXCGweretransferredtoitforthepurpose
ofdefeatingtheplaintiffs’claims.

[7]AreviewofthewebsiteofOldXCGfrom2013andthewebsite
ofNewXCGfromFebruary2019disclosessignificant
similarities.BothrefertoXCG(withoutdisclosingthatitwasOld
XCG)beingfoundedin1990.Atthetopofbothwebsites,inbold
letters,aretheletters »XCG »withsmallerscriptbelowstating
« EnvironmentalEngineers&Scientists ».Insmallscriptatthe
bottomofthewebpageofOldXCGarethewords »Copyright
2011XCGConsultantsLtd. ».Insmallscriptatthebottomofthe
webpageofNewXCGarethewords »Copyright2019XCG
ConsultingLimited ».

162

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

[8]TheproposedamendedStatementofClaimallegesthatNewXCG
wasincorporatedforthepurposeofacquiringandcontinuingthe
businessofOldXCG.ItisfurtherallegedthatNewXCGacquiredthe
assetsofOldXCGforthepurposeofavoiding,defeating,hindering,
ordelayingthepaymentofdamagestowhichtheplaintiffsareentitled.

Section69oftheBankruptcyandInsolvencyActprovidesforastayof
proceedingsagainstacreditorhavingarecoveryclaim;itdoesnotapply
tostaycontemptproceedings.
BellCanadav.RedRhinoEntertainmentInc,2019CarswellNat7834(F.C.-
Contempt;2019-11-19)NorrisJ.[fromT-759-16Canadav1326030OntarioInc.
(iTVBox.net),2016CarswellNat4944(F.C.;2016-06-01);affd2017CarswellNat850
(F.C.A.;2017-03-20)subnomineWesley(Mtlfreetv.com)vBellCanada].
[26]Section69oftheBIAisfoundundertheheading“Stayof
Proceedings.”Paragraph69(1)(a)inparticularprovidesthat,uponthe
filingofanoticeofintentionundersection50.4byaninsolventperson,
“nocreditorhasanyremedyagainsttheinsolventpersonorthe
insolventperson’sproperty,orshallcommenceorcontinueany
action,executionorotherproceedings,fortherecoveryofaclaim
provableinbankruptcy.”

[27]UndertheBIA,“creditor”means“apersonhavingaclaim
provableasaclaimunderthisAct”(BIA,s2).Theassertionthatthe
plaintiffsarecurrently“creditors”ofRedRhinoandMr.Adwokatasa
resultoftheunderlyingactionisspurious.Moretothepoint,whether
ornottheyareormightonedaybecomecreditorswithrespecttoRed
RhinoEntertainmentInc.orMr.Adwokat,thisisnotthecapacityin
whichtheplaintiffshavebroughtthepresentmotion.Theyhave
broughtthismotionsothattheCourtmaydeterminewhetherRed
RhinoorMr.Adwokatwereincontemptoftheinterlocutoryinjunction.
Thepresentproceedingisnot,inanyway,shapeorform,a
proceeding“fortherecoveryofaclaimprovableinbankruptcy,”
asparagraph69(1)(a)oftheBIAcontemplates(seeRecyclingWorx
SolutionsIncvHunter,2018ABQB395atparas136-37andthe
casescitedtherein).Itisaproceedingbroughttosafeguardthe
administrationofjustice.Paragraph69(1)(a)oftheBIAsimplydoes
notapply.Itthereforedoesnotposeanyimpedimenttothepresent
matterproceeding.

Andothers:

Firinganemployeeforillegaldownloadingmaybeadisproportionate
measure.

163

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

Menardv.TheCentreforInternationalGovernanceInnovation,2019CarswellOnt
1437(Ont.Sup.Ct.;2019-02-04)GrayJ.
[Firinganofficerforillegaldownloadingofcopyrightmaterial,withoutwarningorother
formofprogressivediscipline,isdisproportionateandconstitutesadismissalwithout
cause.]
[26]Mr.Menardacknowledgedthathedidnotsecureauthorization
fromartists,creators,and/orcopyrightholderstoviewanddownload
thematerial,buthetestifiedthathewasunawareastowhetherany
ofthismaterialhadcopyright.Heacknowledgedthatonecan
purchasethismaterial,andhedidnotpayforanyofthedownloaded
material.

[32]Mr.Medhora[employer’spresident]believedthatdownloading
unauthorizedcopiesofcopyrightmaterialwasprobablyunlawful.
Furthermore,thisactivitymightharmCIGI’sreputationandgoodwillif
itweretobediscovered.Thiswouldincludepotentiallyoffending
CopyrightCollectiveofCanadawhichhadprovidedtheresearchgrant
referredtoearlier[$300,000].

[86]Withrespecttotheuseofpeer-to-peersoftwareanddownloading
material,attheendofthedaythisdoesnotconstitutecausefor
dismissalwithoutnotice.

[89]However,itiswellknownthatthissortofsoftwareisubiquitous,
andindeedMr.Milleracknowledgedthathehadusedithimselfonhis
homecomputer.

[90]Evenincasesofdishonesty,itisnecessarytodeterminewhether
themisconductiscompatiblewithacontinuationoftheemployment
relationship[…]

[92]IagreewithMr.MonkhousethatifMr.Menardhadbeen
spokentoaboutusingpeer-to-peersoftwareonhiscomputer
andkeepingcorporatedocumentsathome,thereislittledoubt
thatMr.Menardwouldhavecomplied.Iamnotpersuadedthat
Mr.Menard’sdelinquencieswereincompatiblewitha
continuationoftheemploymentrelationship.

[93]Whilenotdeterminative,itisalsorelevanttonotethattheinterests
oftheemployerwerenot,infact,affected.Thereisnoevidenceof
anyfinancialloss.CIGI’sreputationhasnotbeenaffected.The
relationshipwithCopyrightCollectiveofCanadahasnotbeen
harmed.

Non-respectoftheConsumersProtectionActcouldnotbethesubject
matterofacross-demandtoacopyrightinfringementclaim.

164

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

9157-4335Québecinc.v.9180-3577Québecinc.,2019CarswellQue1180(Que.
C.A.;2019-02-20)HamiltonJ.
[14]Enl’espèce,lademandeprincipaleapourobjetlaconcurrence
déloyaledesrequérantsparl’utilisationdenomssimilairesàceuxdes
intimésetleplagiatd’unoudeplusieursmanuelsdeformation.La
demandereconventionnelleporte,quantàelle,surl’absencede
permisdel’intimée9180-3577Québecinc.pourexercerdesactivités
decommerçantitinérantausensdelaLoisurlaprotectiondu
consommateur.Lesdeuxrecoursn’ontcertainementpaslamême
source.Parailleurs,cessourcesnesontpasconnexes,oulesont
defaçontrèsténue,encequiconcernelemouvementdelaclientèle
pardespratiquesalléguéesdéloyales.

[15]Deplus,lejugeconclutquepermettreledépôtd’unetelle
demandereconventionnelleàlaveilledel’inscriptiondudossier
n’auraquepoureffetderetarderindûmentl’inscriptiondelademande
principale.Jesuisd’avisquecefacteurestpertinentdansl’application
duprincipedirecteurdeproportionnalitéetjustifielerejetdela
demandereconventionnelle.

Copyrightinfringementisagroundfortrademarkopposition.
PabloEnterprisepte.Ltd.v.Tang*,2019CarswellNat3229(T.M.Opp.Bd.;2019-06-
13)C.R.Folz,Member.
[17]Indeterminingwhetheranopponenthasmetitsinitialevidential
burdenforagroundofoppositionbasedonsection30(i)oftheActin
conjunctionwithnon-compliancewithafederalstatute,thisBoardin
thepasthasconsideredwhethertheopponenthasmadeoutaprima
faciecaseofcontraventionofthefederalstatute,asopposedto
determiningthattherehasactuallybeencontravention.Forexample,
section30(i)groundsofoppositionweresuccessfulinERemy
Martin&CoSAvMagnetTradingCorp(HK)Ltd(1988),23CPR(3d)
242(TMOB)(« ERemyMartin »)andAceCafeLondonLtdvAceCafe
TorontoLtd,[2012]T.M.O.B.No.219,107CPR(4th)427aftera
primafaciecaseofcopyrightinfringementundertheCopyright
Actwasfound.OppositionsbyCanadaPostCorporationhave
succeededundersection30(i)afterafindingofprimafacie
contraventionoftheCanadaPostCorporationAct[seeforexample,
CanadaPostCorpvMetromailCorp(1997),84CPR(3d)511
(TMOB)].Inaddition,primafaciecontraventionoftheFoodandDrugs
Actsupportedthesuccessofasection30(i)groundofoppositionin
InstitutNationaldesAppellationsd’OriginevBrickBrewingCo(1995),
66CPR(3d)351(TMOB).

[18]Thus,inthepresentcasewiththeOpponent’ssection30(i)
groundofopposition,thefirstissueiswhethertheOpponenthasmet
itsinitialevidentialburdenofdemonstratingaprimafaciecaseof

165

©CIPS2020-02-27Release2020-0Compilation2019-RCC

copyrightinfringement.Inordertodoso,anopponentmust
establish(i)copyrightinthework,and(ii)thatthetrade-mark
appliedforisasubstantialcopyingofthework[seeJonesv
DragonTalesProductionInc(2002),27CPR(4th)369atpara13
(TMOB)].

Loosingplaintiffcannotsueformerlawyerfornotprevailing.
Tremblayv.Fondsd’assuranceresponsabilitéprofessionnelleduBarreauduQuébec,
2019CarswellQue11270(Que.Sup.Ct.;2019-09-06)DallaireJ.
[280]SinouspouvonscomprendreladéceptiondeTremblay
[TremblayvOrioCanadaInc,2013CarswellNat1145(F.C.;2013-01-
31);affd2013CarswellNat3483(F.C.A.;2013-09-25)]àl’issuede
toutceprocessusjudiciaire,notresympathiepourletravailacharné
qu’ilaaccomplietlesentimentd’injusticequ’iladen’avoirpaspu
récupérercequiauraitdûluirevenirpourlefruitdesontravail,[cela]
nejustifiepasderendrel’avocatquis’estdémenépourl’aider
responsabledesaléaspropre[sic]àtouteprocédurejudiciaire,en
l’absencedenégligencedelapartdecetavocatdansl’exécutiondu
mandataccompli.