Compilation préliminaire des décisions rendues au Canada en 2000 en matière de droit d’auteur / A Compilation of the Decisions Rendered In Canada with Respect to Copyright in 2000

1

C
OMPILATIONPRÉLIMINAIREDESDÉCISIONSRENDUESAUCANADAEN
2000ENMATIÈREDEDROITD’AUTEUR
ACOMPILATIONOFTHEDECISIONSRENDEREDINCANADAWITHRESPECTTO
COPYRIGHTIN2000

by
LaurentCarrière*
LEGERROBICRICHARD
Lawyers,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
www.robic.ca*info@robic.com

1.1246798OntarioInc.v.Sterling
(2000),51OR(3d)220,139OAC27,[2000]OJ4261(OntCt-DivCt)HeeneyJ.
2.ACCPACInternationalInc.vSoftrakSystemsInc.
(2000),8CPR(4
th)189,186FTR279,[2000]CarwellNat1610,[2000]FCJ1240,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27124.o.en.html(FCTD-Costs)Lafrenière
Prothonotary
3.AlexisJewellery&AccessoriesInc.v.SuzyShier
(2000),[2000]REJB2000-21238,[2000]JQ5189,[2000-11-22]
http://www.jugements.qc.ca/ca/200011fr.html(QueCA)
4.AndersonPreecevDominionAppraisal
(2000),264AR177,[2000]AJ459,[2000]ARTBEdAP146,2000ABQB254(AltaQB)VeitJ.
5.AnneofGreenGablesLicensingAuthorityInc.v.AvonleaTraditionsInc
(2000),4CPR(4
th)289&5CPR(4th)iii,[2000]OJ740,[2000]LWD1944-023,[2000]CarswellOnt
731,[2000]OTC133(OntSC);(2000),6CPR(4th)57(OntCA-Stay);appealabandonned
(2000),5CPR(4th)iii(OntCA)

6.AsherConsultantsLtdvWalter
(2000),[2000]SJ107,[2000]SKQB30,[2000]SaskRUned39,[2000]CarswellSask101,2000
SKBD30,
http://www.canlii.org/sk/cas/skqb/2000/2000skqb30.html(SaskQB)KlebucJ.
7.AVSTechnologiesInc.v.CanadianMechanicalReproductionRightsAgency


















































©LaurentCarrière,2001.*Avocatetagentdemarquesdecommerce,LaurentCarrièreestl’undesassociés
principauxdescabinetsd’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
LEGERROBICRICHARD.Lesgrassesindiquentlerecueilduquellesnotesdel’arrêtistesontété
tirées.Lawyerandtrademarkagent,LaurentCarrièreisoneoftheseniorpartnersofthe
lawfirmandofthepatentandtrademarkagencyfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD.Thebold
characterindicatesinwhichcaseseriestheheadnoteshavebeentaken.Publication266.

2

(1999),[1999]CBD8(CB),4CPR(4th)15(CB)subnominePrivateCopying1999-2000,
TariffofLeviestobeCollectedbyCPCC(Re);affd(2000),7CPR(4th)68,257NR283,
[2000]FCJ960,[2000]CarswellNat1304,[2000]4FCD-10,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26945.o.en.html(FCA)LindenJ.
8.BergeronvSogidèsLtée
(1998),[1998]AQ2384(QueSupCt);revd(2000),[2000]JQ3088,REJB2000-20192,[2000-09-20]
http://www.jugements.qc.ca/ca/200009fr.html(QueCA)RobertJ.
9.BioteauvCommunicationsQuebecorInc
(2000),[2000]JQ1753,BE2000-1098,REJB2000-18596(QueCt)MarengoJ.
10.BirshteinvRoyz
(2000),[2000]OJ957,[2000]OTCUned144(OntSupCt)PittJ.
11.BlazikvBrown
(2000),[2000]CarswellNat303,[2000]FCJ225,[2000]ACF225,[2000]FTRUned199,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26068.o.en.html,enfrançaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26068.o.fr.html(FCTD)DubéJ.
12.BlondeauvCroisièresAMLInc
(2000),[2000]BE2000-559;REJB2000-17734,[2000]JQ1267(QueCt)LamoureuxJ.
13.BrissonvUnibroueInc
(2000),[2000]JQ1118(QueSupCt-Venue)MorneauJ.;(2000),[2000]JQ1118,JE2000-2159,
REJB2000-21353(QueSupCt-Option)MayrandJ.
14.CanadianInstituteforHistoricalMicroreproductions(Re)
(2000),[2000]CBD4,DCDA4(CB)
15.CanadianInstituteforHistoricalMicroreproductions(Re)
(2000),[2000]CBD23(CopyrightBoard)
16.CandowvSavory
(2000),8CPR(4
th)219,[2000]CarswellNat232[2000]NJ228,[2000]Nfld&PEIRUned69(Nfld
SC-TD)
17.CCHCanadianLimitedvTheLawSocietyofUpperCanada
(1999),REJB99-15185,[1999]FCJ1647,[1999]ACF1647,[1999]FTRTNEdNO060,2CPR(4
th)
129,179DLR(4th)609,169FTR1,[2000]2FC451&[2000]3FCii,[1999]CarswellNat2163,72
CRR(2d)139,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/vol2/html/2000fca25519.p.en.html(FCTD);
(2000),4CPR(4th)129,[2000]FTRUned46,[2000]FCJ92,[2000]ACF92,184DLR(4th)186,en
françaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/1999/orig/html/1999fca25911.o.fr.html;(2000),(FCTD-
Costs);(2000),6CPR(4th)500,[2000]FCJ949,[2000]ACF949,189DLR(4th)125,258NR241,
[2000]CarswellNat1468,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26934.o.fr.html
(FCTD-Leavetointerveneinappeal)SharlowJ.A.
18.Cengigc.Québec(Sous-ministreduRevenu
(2000),[2000]CarswellNat2587(C.Q.),lejugeBossé
19.ConstructionRMRLeblancIncvRobert
(2000),JE2000-1114,REJB2000-19037,[2000]CarswellQue1307(QueCt),j.Boyer

3

20.DessinsDrummondinc.c.PublicitésBrigilinc.
(2000),REJB2000-22272(QueSupCt)IsabelleJ.
21.DevonStudiosLtdvScarponi
(2000),[2000]OJ2559(OntSupCt);(2000),[2000]OJ2562(OntSupCt-Costs)BoutetJ.;motion
forleavetoappealdismissed(2000),[2000]OJ2015(OntSupCt-DivCt)O’Leary
22.D&GEnviro-groupInc.vBouchard*
(2000),JE2000-1352,REJB2000-18862,[2000]JQ2048,[2000-06-21]
http://www.jugements.qc.ca/ca/200006fr.html(QueCA)BeauregardJ.
23.Drapeauc.Carbone14
(2000),[2000]RJQ.1525,[2000]JQ1171,REJB2000-1776,JE2000-1115(QueSupCt)GuthrieJ.;
inappeal500-09-009594-003
24.Dueck(ReHildaM.)
(2000),[2000]CBD19(CopyrightBoard)
25.Dueck(ReJudy)
(2000),[2000]CBD22(CopyrightBoard)
26.ÉditionsduVermillion(Re)
(2000),[2000]DCDA8(CB)
27.ÉditionsTriptyque(Re)
(2000),[2000]DCDA9(CB)
28.ÉdutileIncvAssociationpourlaprotectiondesautomobilistes(APA)
Anunreportedjudgmentrendered19960522byMrJusticeDubé,courtdocketT-1151-96
(FCTD-interlocutoyinjunction);anunreportedjudgmentrendered19960619byprothonotary
Morneau(FCTD-Proth-Evidence);[1996]FCJ1203(FCTD-InterlocutoryInjunction);(1997),143
FTR210,81CPR(3d)338,[1998]2FCD-24,[1997]FCJ1788(FCTD–Merits);revd(2000),6CPR
(4th)211,[2000]FCJ513,[2000]ACF513,188DLR(4
th)132,255NR1476CPR(4th)211,[2000]4
FC195(FCA);motionforleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadadismissedon
2001-01-25[2000]CSCR302,[2000]SCCA302(SCC)
29.FitzgeraldvR.
(2000),[2000]CarswellNat554,[2000]3CTC2011,[2000]GTC2078(TaxCt)BowmanJ.
30.FoxvVonHuene
(2000),[2000]JQ3023,[2000]CarswellQue1836,JE2000-1813,REJB2000-20174(QueSupCt)
LangloisJ.
31.GrinshpunvUniversityofBritishColumbia
(2000),[2000]FCJ1446,[2000]CarswellNat1942,[2000]FTRTBEdSE024(FCTD)Aronovitch,
Prothonotary
32.GuérinÉditeurLtéevHarcourtBrace&Co.
(2000),JE2000-905,REJB2000-17500,[2000]JQ1058(QueSupCt)JolinJ.;inappeal500-09-
009515-008).
33.HarcourtBrace&Co.(Re)
(2000),[2000]CBD7(CB)

4

34.HarcourtCanadaLtd.(Re)
(2000),[2000]CBD25(CopyrightBoard)
35.HauptvEco-NovaMulti-Media
(2000),[2000]NSJ414,[2000]CarswellNS406,[2001]NSR(2d)TBEdJA008(NSSC)DavisonJ.
36.HornAbbottLtd.vReeves
(2000),182NSR(2d)357,45CPC(4
th)353,[2000]NSJ34.[2000]CarswellNS35,563PEIR357,
[2000]NSR(2d)TBEdFE021(NSSC)HoodJ.
37.ImaxCorp.vShowmax,Inc.
(1999),[1999]FCJ1275(FCTD-Amendment);(1999),FCJ1733(FCTD-Practice);(2000),[2000]
FCJ69,5CPR(4
th)81,182FTR180,[2000]CarswellNat135,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca25888.o.en.html(FCTD-Interlocutory
Injunction)TeitelbaumJ.[JusticeRouleaugrantedapermanentinjunctionagainstthe
ShowmaxdefendantsonMay16,2000.]
38.InfinitecMarketingGroupIncv[YoursIndustriesCorp
(1999),[1999]Man.R.(2d)Uned.51(ManQB)Schulman;J.;(1999),[1999]Man.R.(2d)Uned.
161,[1999]ManR(2d)TBEdSE029[1999]MJ164,[2000]5WWR283,41CPC(4
th)342(ManQB)
KennedyJ;eachaffd(2000),[2000]CarswellMan220,[2000]ManRUned45,2000MBCA25,
[2000]7WWR297(ManCA)HubandJ.
39.InhesionIndustrialCoLtdvAngloCanadianMercantileCoLtd
(2000),6CPR(4th)362,[2000]CarswellNat687,[2000]FCJ491,[2000]ACF491,[2000]FTR
Uned354,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26359.o.en.html,enfrançais
à
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26359.o.fr.html(FCTD-Summary
Judgment)
40.IslandViewBeachEstatesCorp.v.J.E.Anderson&Associates
(2000),[2000]BCJ1553,[2000]CarswellBC1560,[2000]BCSC1121,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/00/11/s00-1121.htm(BCSC)QuijanoJ.
41.JolianInvestmentsLtd.vGatien
(2000),[2000]CarswellOnt3484,[2000]OJ3719,[2000]OTCTBEdSE016(OntSupCt)JurianszJ.
42.KeddyMotorInnsLtd(Bankrupt)Re
(2000),[2000]CarswellNS286,[2000]NSJ307[2000]NSRUned33(NBSC)NunnJ.
43.LepagevLitalien
(2000),REJB2000-18050,[2000]JQ1520,BE2000-830(QueCt-SmallClaims)BécuJ.
44.Levasseurc.Pelmorexcommunicationsinc.
(2000),[2000]JQ2945(QueSupCt)GomeryJ.
45.LongShongPictures(HK)LtdvNTCEntertainmentLtd
(2000),[2000]FCJ625(FCTD-AntonPiller)ReedJ.;(2000),[2000]FCJ557,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26414.o.en.html(FCTD-Contempt
Norasia2000-05-01);(2000),6CPR(4th)509,[2000]FCJ1813,[2000]CarswellNat818,[2000]
FTRTBEdMY099,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26451.o.en.html,en
françaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26451.o.fr.html(FCTD-
ContemptMelodyMinLu2000-05-05)

5

46.L.S.EntertainmentGroupInc.v.37DegreesEnterpriseInc.
(2000),[2000]FCJ624,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26492.o.en.html,
enfrançaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26492.o.fr.htm(FCTD)Reed
J.
47.L.S.EntertainmentGroupInc.v.552436B.C.Ltd.
(2000),
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26491.o.en.html,enfrançaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26491.o.fr.html(FCTD)ReedJ.
48.L.S.EntertainmentGroupInc.v.Sixty-sixInternationalTradingInc.
(2000),
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26493.o.en.html(FCTD)ReedJ.
49.LSEntertainmentGroupv.Wong
(2000),BCJ2518,[2000]BCTCTBEdJA020,2000BCSC1789,[2000]FCJ625,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/00/17/s00-1789.htm(BCSC-Disqualification)Bennett
J.
50.LyonsPartnershipvMacGregor
(2000),5CPR(4
th)157,186FTR241,[2000]FCJ341,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26207.o.en.html,enfrançaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26207.o.fr.html(FCTD-Contempt)Lemieux
J.
51.Maloc.Laoun
(2000),[2000]RJQ458,[2000]RRA204(rés.),JE2000-273,[2000]JQ7,REJB2000-15944
(Que.Sup.Ct.),CourteauJ.;inappeal500-09-009227-000
52.Milliken&CompanyvInterfaceFlooringSystems(Canada)inc
(1998),[1998]3FC103,143FTR106,[1998]FCJ135,83CPR(3d)470(FCTD-Merits);affd.(2000),
5CPR(4
th)209,[2000]FCJ129,[2000]ACF129,[2000]2FCD-22,[2000]CarswellNat1777,251
NR358,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca25960.o.en.html,enfrançaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca25960.o.fr.html(FCA)
53.M.M.InternationalBusinessDirectoriesLtd.v.InternationalBusinessIndex
(2000),8CPR(4
th)515,[2000]FTRUned394,[2000]FCJ1338,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27455.o.en.html,enfrançaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27455.o.fr.html(FCTD)RothsteinJ.
54.ModernHousewareImportsIncvInternationalSourcesLtd
(2000),4CPR(4th)155,180FTR253,[2000]FCJ45,[2000]ACF45,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca25834.o.en.html,enfrançaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca25834.o.fr.html(FCTD)Hargrave,
Prothonotary
55.Multi-LevelTechnologiesInc.PreviseInc.
(2000),[2000]CarswellOnt2395,[2000]OTCUned596(SC)(OntSupCt)CameronJ.
56.NationalArchivesofCanada(Re)
(2000),[2000]CBD24(CopyrightBoard)
57.NationalLibraryofCanada(Re)
(2000),[2000]CBD10(CB)

6

58.NationalLibraryofCanada(Re)
(2000),[2000]CBD17(CopyrightBoard)
59.NaturalWatersofViti,LtdvCEOInternationalHoldingsInc.
(2000),5CPR(4
th)321,[2000]ACF452,[2000]FCJ452,[2000]FTRTBEdMY020,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26319.o.en.html,enfrançaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26319.o.fr.html(FCTDProt.-Motionto
Strike)Lafrenière,Prothonotary
60.NeudorfvNettwerkProductionsLtd
(1998),[1998]BCJ2690(BCSC–ExpertEvidenceofplaintiff);(1998),[1999]BCJ2904(BCSC–
ExpertEvidenceofDefendant);(1999),[1999]BCJ2832(BCSC–AmendmentstoDefence);
(1999),[1999]BCJ2831,3CPR(4
th)129,[2000]3WWR522,71BCLR(3d)290,[1999]
CarswellBC2774(BCSC–Merits);appealCA026717;(2000),8CPR(4th)154,48CPC(4th)140,
[2000]CarswellBC1711,[2000]BCJ1705,[2000]BCTCTBEdAU065,2000BCSC1257,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/00/12/s00-1257.htm(BCSC-Costs)CohenJ.
61.Nuri’sWatercolourDesignsCo.v.FifthAvenueCollectionLtd
(2000),[2000]CarswellNat1771,[2000]FCJ.1330,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27179.o.en.html,enfrançaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27179.o.fr.html(FCTD-Costs)Pilon,
AssessingOfficer
62.Oakley,IncvJaneDoe
(2000),8CPR(4
th)506,[2000]CarswellNat1995,[2000]FCJ1388,[2000]TBEdSE095,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27256.o.en.html(FCTD)PelletierJ.
63.OfficenationaldufilmduCanada(Re)
(2000),[2000]DCDA5(CB)
64.ProgrammationGagnonIncvLemay
(2000),REJB2000-17795,JE2000-738(QueSupCt-InterlocutoryInjunction)HardyLemieuxJ.
65.RetransmissionofDistantRadioandTelevisionSignalsDuring2001
(2000-12-08),
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/tocretrans-e.html(CB-Interim)
66.RetransmissionofDistantRadioandTelevisionSignals,inCanada,in1998,1999,and2000
(Re)]
(2000),5CPR(4th)440,[2000]CBA3,,[2000-02-25]
http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/tocretrans-e.html(CopyrightBoard)
67.RvBonamy
(2000),6CPR(4th)1,137BCAC298,223WAC298,[2000]BCJ960,[2000]CarswellBC992,
2000BCCA308,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/00/03/c00-0308.htm(BCCA);
applicationforleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadadismissed(2000),[2000]
SCCA345
68.R.vKazemian
(2000),[2000]CarswellOnt5166(OntCt)GorewichJ.
69.RotheryvGrinnel

7

(2000),81AltaLR(3d)270,47CPC(4th)94,262AR182,[2000]AJ162,[2000]CarswellAlta
148,[2000]ARTBEdMR029(AltaQB)LoVecchio,J.
70.Rutherford(ReDonald)
(2000),[2000]CBD6(CB)
71.Rutherford(ReDonald)
(2000),[2000]CBD26(CopyrightBoard)
72.SaxonvCommunicationsMont-RoyalInc.
(2000)[2000]JQ5634(QueSupCt)DenisJ.
73.SeawardKayaksLtd.v.Ree
(2000),[2000]CarswellBC2596,[2000]BCSC1742,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-
txt/sc/00/17/s00-1742.htm(BCSC)ShabbitsJ.
74.SharelineSystemsLtd.vN.B.
(2000),[2000]NBJN350,[2000]CarswellNB342,[2000]NBR(2d)TNEdSE014(NBQB)RideoutJ.
75.SheridanGymnasiumEquipmentLtd.vGymnasium&HeathEquipmentLtd.
(2000),9CPR(4
th)26,[2000]FCJ1583,[2000]FTRTBEdOC177,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27476.o.en.html,enfrançaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27476.o.fr.html(FCTD)O’Keefe
76.SOCANStatementofRoyalties,Tariff9(Sportsevents),1998-2001(Re)
(2000),9C.P.R.(4th)36,[2000]CBD12,[2000]DCDA12,[2000-09-15]
http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/tocmusic-f.html(CB)
77.SociétédudroitdereproductiondesauteurscompositeursetéditeursduCanada
(SODRAC)vL’Associationquébécoisedel’industriedudisque,duspectacleetdelavidéo
(ADISQ)
(1999),2CPR(4
th)341(CB-Interim);(2000),[2000]CBD1,[2000]CBDA1,4CPR(4th)287,[2000-
01-19]
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/tocarbit-e.html(CB–Applicationtoreassessthe
Interim);(2000),[2000]CBD2,[2000]CBDA2,[2000-12-24]
http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/tocarbit-e.html(CB-ApplicationtomodifytheInterim)
78.SociétédudroitdereproductiondesauteurscompositeursetéditeursduCanada
(SODRACv.MusiquePlusinc
(2000),[2000]CBD14,[2000]DCDA14,[2000-11-16]
http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/tocarbit-e.html(CB)
79.Sociétédesauteurs,recherchistes,documentalistesetcompositeurs(SARDEC)(Re
Applicationby)
(1999),87CPR(3d)481,[1999]CBD1(CB);applicationforjudicialreviewdismissed(2000),9
CPR(4
th)415,[2000]FCJ1351,[2000]ACF1351,[2000]ACF1259,[2000]CarswellNat1859,
[2000]NRUned146,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27242.o.en.html,en
françaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27242.o.fr.html(FCA)sub
nomineCanadianRetransmissionRightAssociationvSociétédesauteurs,recherchistes,
documentalistesetcompositeurs,LétourneauJ.
80.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav728859AlbertaLtd
(2000),6CPR(4th)354,[2000]FCJ590,[2000]ACF590,[2000]CarswellNat834,6CPR(4
th)354,
[2000]3FCD-37,[2000]FTRTBEdMY099,

8

http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26471.o.en.html,enfrançaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26471.o.fr.html(FCTD-Reference)
Hargrave,Prothonotary
81.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav1007442OntarioLtd
(2000),[2000]FCJ191,[2000]ACF191,[2000]CarswellNat176,[2000]FTRUned128,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca25995.o.fr.html(FCTD-Practice)CullenJ.
82.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadavLandmarkCinemasof
CanadaLtd.
(2000),9CPR(4
th)353,[2000]FCJ1626,[2000]FTRTBEdOC180,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27511.o.en.html(FCTD-Disqualification)
AronovitchJ.
83.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadavRunway66Enterprises
Ltd.
(2000),[2000]CarswellNat845,[2000]FTRUned624,[2000]FCJ556,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26416.o.en.html,enfrançaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26416.o.fr.html(FCTD)-Practice)Hugessen
J.
84.StatementofroyaltiestobecollectedbyNRCCforthepublicperformanceorthe
communicationtothepublicbytelecommunication,inCanada,ofpublishedsound
recordingsembodyingmusicalworksandperformer©sperformancesofsuchworksin1998to
2002forTariff1.C
(2000),[2000]CBD13,[2000]DCDA13,[2000-09-29]
http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/tocmusic-e.html(CB)
85.StatementofRoyaltiestobeCollectedfortheRetransmissionofDistantRadioand
TelevisionSignalsDuring1998,1999and2000
(2000),[2000]CBA3,[2000]DCDA3,[2000-02-25]
http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/tocretrans-e.html(CB)
86.SullivanEntertainmentInc.vAnneoftheGreenGablesLicensingAuthorityInc
(2000),7CPR(4
th)532,[2000]CarswellNat1098,[2000]FCJ822,[2000]FTRTBEdJN185,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26693.o.en.html(FCTD-Pleadings)Giles,
Prothonotary;affd(2000),[2001]1FCD-31,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27555.o.en.html,enfrançaisà[2001]1
CFF39
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27555.o.fr.html(FCTD)MuldoonJ.
87.SupremeCourtofCanada(Re)
(2000),[2000]CBD11(CB)
88.TariffofLeviestobeCollectedbyCPCC(Re)
(2000),7CPR(4
th)68,[2000]CarswellNat1304,[2000]CBD16,[2000]DCDA16,[2000-12-08]
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/toccopy-e.html(FCA)
89.TagHeuerS.A.v.JohnDoe
(2000),4CPR(4
th)177,[2000]CarswellNat1132,[2000]FCJ21,[2000]FTRUned27,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27226.o.en.html(FCTD)PelletierJ.
90.Télé-Vision84IncvCorporationdescélébrationsdu350
ièmeanniversairedeMontréal
(1642-1992)

9

(2000),REJB2000-17589,[2000]JQ845,[2000]CarswellQue455,JE2000-925(QueSupCt)
TingleyJ.
91.ThébergecGaleried’artduPetitChamplain
(1999),JE99-1991REJB99-14552,[1999]JQ4472(QueSupCt);revd(2000),JE2000-531,REJB
2000-16584,[2000]JQ412,[2000]CarswellQue133,9CPR(4
th)259,[2000-02-22]
http://www.jugements.qc.ca/ca/200002fr.html(QueCA);motionforleavetoappealtothe
SupremeCourtofCanadagranted[2000]CSCR198(CSC)
92.TommyHilfigerLicensing,Inc.etal.v.JaneDoe
(2000),8CPR(4
th)194,[2000]CarswellNat1719,188FTR68,[2000]FTRTBEdAU141,[2000]FCJ
1267(FCTD)PelletierJ.
93.Toronto.comvSinclair
(2000),6CPR(4th)487,[2000]FCJ795,[2000]CarsellNat1105,[2000]FTRTBEdAU146,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26656.o.en.html,enfrançaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26656.o.fr.html(FCTD-Interlocutory
Injunction)HeneghanJ.
94.ViacomHa!HoldingCo.v.JaneDoe
(2000),6CPR(4
th)36,187FTR305,[2000]CarswellNat689,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26355.o.en.html(FCTD)Tremblay-Lamer
J.;noticeofappealwasfiledbyMr.TejanionApril20,2000(CourtFileNo.A-254-00);(2000),
[2000]FCJ2095,[2000]CarswellNat3081,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27974.o.en.html(FCTD-Default)Pelletier
J.
95.WallvVanBrunell
(1996),[1996]FCJ1149(FCTDProthonotary-Practice);(1997),75CPR(3d)429,[1997]FTR
Uned237,[1997]FCJ608,71ACWS(3d)552(FCTD-SummaryJudgment);affd(2000),7CPR
(4
th)321,[2000]FCJ841,[2000]CarswellNat1184,[2000]NRUned118,184FTR313n
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26736.o.en.html,enfrançaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26736.o.fr.html(FCA)MaloneJ.
96.WicPremiumTelevisionLtdvLevin
(1999),[1999]FCJ652,[1999]ACF652,[1999]FTRUned295,1CPR(4
th)467(FCTD);(2000),
[2000]FTRUned131,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26060.o.en.html
(FCTD-TimeTable)PelletierJ.;(2000),[2000]FCJ1259,[2000]FTRTBEdAU141,99ACWS(3d)
145,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27134.o.en.html(FCTD-Interlocutory
Injunction)O’KeefeJ.
97.WICPremiumTelevisionv.GeneralInstrumentCorporation
(1999),[1999]AJ639,[1999]CarswellAlta452,1CPR(4
th)467,243AR329,73AltaLR(3d)365,
[2000]2WWR417(AltaQB-Exjurisservice];(1999),[1999]AJ696(AltaQB-Exjurisservice
Supplemental);affd.(2000),8CPR(4
th)1,266AR98,[2000]AJ977,[2000]CarswellAlta878,
2000ABCA233(AltaCA)subnomineUnitedStatesSatelliteBroadcastingco.v.WICPremium
TelevisionLtd.;(1999),[1999]AJ1251(AltaQB-MotiontoStrike);(1999),[1999]AJ1254(Alta
QB-SummaryJudgment);(2000),8CPR(4
th)308,[2000]AJ1063,272AR201,[2000]
CarswellAlta969,2000AQBD628(AltaQB-InterlocutoryInjunction)
98.Wilson&LafleurLtéevLasociétéquébécoised’informationjuridique

10

(1998),REJB98-8110,[1998]AQ2762(QueSupCt);revd(2000),JE2000-856,REJB2000-
17728,[2000]12-10Lemondejuridique13,[2000]RJQ1086,[2000]JQ1215,[2000-04-20]
http://www.jugements.qc.ca/ca/200004fr.html(QueCA)
99.WingvVanVelthuizen
(2000),[2000]CarswellNat2873,[2000]FCJ1940,[2000]FTRTBEdNO120,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27801.o.en.html(FCTD)NadonJ
100.WolanskivRhombusMediaInc
(2000),[2000]CarswellNat2308,[2000]FCJ1582,[2000]FTRUned128,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27452.o.en.html,enfrançaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27452.o.fr.html(FCTD)NadonJ.

11

1
246798OntarioInc.v.Sterling
(2000),51OR(3d)220,139OAC27,[2000]OJ4261(OntCt-DivCt)
HeeneyJ.
In1998,therespondents(the »owner »)retainedSterlingFinlaysonArchitects(the »architects »)
todesignabuildingforlandintheCityofKitchener,Ontario.Thearchitectsprepareda
CanadianStandardFormofAgreement,whichtheyallegedwasorallyacceptedbythe
owner.ThearchitectspreparedplansanddrawingsandsubmittedthemtotheCityforsite
planapprovalunderthePlanningAct,R.S.O.1990,c.P.13.TheCitygrantedapprovalsubject
totheownersigningadevelopmentagreementandsubjecttoaconditionthatifabuilding
permitwasnotissuedbyOctober22,1998,changestotheapprovedsiteplanmightbe
requiredasaresultofnewCitypoliciesorchangestozoningby-lawsorstandardconditions.
OnMay28,1999,theownerterminatedthearchitects’retainer.Thearchitectsrespondedby
withdrawingthebuildingpermitapplicationandbyadvisingtheCitythattheyhadcopyright
inthedrawings,whichwerenottobeusedwithouttheirpermission.OnJuly9,1999,the
architectsregisteredaclaimforlien.Theownerthenmovedunders.47(1)ofthe
ConstructionLienActforanordervacatingtheregistrationofthelien.Themotionscourt
judgeheldthatthearchitectsdidnothavelienrightsbecausetheservicestheyhad
rendereddidnotinthemselvesenhancethevalueoftheowner’sinterestintheland,and
thereforetheirserviceswerenota »supplyofservices »asdefinedins.1(1)oftheConstruction
LienAct.Thearchitectsappealed.
Held,theappealshouldbeallowed.
Amotionunders.47(1)isanalogoustoamotionforsummaryjudgmentunderRule20ofthe
RulesofCivilProcedure,andthereweregenuineissuesoffactthatshouldhavebeenleftto
beresolvedbythetrialjudge.Themotionsjudgemisapprehendedtheevidenceand
exceededhisjurisdictioninconcluding(1)thatthepartiesdidnotenterintoaCanadian
tandardFormofAgreementoranywrittencontract;(2)thatthesiteplanapprovalwould
necessarilylapseonOctober22,1999;and(3)thatthearchitectsownedcopyrightinthe
plans.Thesefactualerrorsweresignificantbecausethetermsofthecontractbetweenthe
partiesdefinedtherightsofthepartiesconcerningownershipandtheuseoftheplans
pendingpayment,andtheerrorsplayedaroleinthecrucialfindingthattheservices
renderedbythearchitectsdidnotenhancethevalueoftheowner’sinterestintheland.In
anyevent,copyrightwasnotanissueandtherealissuewasownershipofthedrawingsand
relateddocuments.Further,themotionsjudgeerredinfindingthatthearchitects’servicesin
obtainingthesiteplanwerefullypaidfor.Obtainingsiteplanapprovaldoesenhancethe
valueoftheowner’sinterestintheland,atleasttosomedegree.Tomeetthedefinitionof
« supplyofservices »,itisnotnecessarythattheenhancementoftheowner’sinterestbe
proportionatetothepricebeingchargedbythearchitectfortheservices.Alienwillarisefor
obtainingsiteplanapprovalandforthecostofpreparingthedocumentationthatsupports
theapplication.
Theforegoingwassufficienttodisposeoftheappeal,butfortheguidanceofthetrialjudge,
itwasappropriatetoresolvetwoadditionalquestionsraisedbytheappeal.Thefirstissuewas
whetherservicesrenderedbythearchitectsotherthan »designs,plans,drawingsor
specifications »werelienable,wheretheplannedprojectdoesnotproceed.Thesecondissue
waswhatpointintimeshouldbeusedfordetermining »enhancement ».Asforthefirstissue,
evenifnothingphysicalisbuilt,ifthepreparationandapprovaloftheplansincreasesthe
valueoftheland,thenthelandhasbeenimproved.Workenhancingthevalueofthelandis
deemedtobeanimprovement.Therefore,thegeneralruleisthatservicesrenderedin

12

connectionwithaplannedimprovementthatdoesnotproceedarenotlienable;
however,thereisanexceptionforthepreparationofdesigns,plans,drawingsor
specificationsthat,inthemselves,enhancethevalueoftheowner’sinterestintheland.Asfor
thesecondissue,thewordingoftheActrequiresthattheissueofwhetherthearchitects’
serviceshaveorhavenotenhancedtheowner’sinterestoflandmustbeassessedasatthe
precisepointintimewhenservicesarerendered.

13

A
CCPACInternationalInc.vSoftrakSystemsInc.
(2000),8CPR(4
th)189,186FTR279,[2000]CarwellNat1610,[2000]FCJ
1240,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27124.o.en.html
(FCTD-Costs)LafrenièreProthonotary
Theplaintiffhadmovedforaninterlocutoryinjunctionforinfringementofcopyrightinits
computerprogram.TheplaintiffbroughtthemotioninTorontoagainsttheVancouverbased
defendantonsixdays’noticeandrefusedtoadjournthemotion.Thecourthadadjourned
themotionandprovidedforascheduleforthedeliveryofaffidavitsandforcross-
examinations.Approximatelyoneweekbeforethehearingoftheadjournedmotion,the
plaintiffwhollyabandonedthemotion.
Thedefendantmovedforitscostspayableforthwithonasolicitorandclientbasis.
Held,themotionshouldbeallowedinpartwithcostsfixedonasolicitor-clientbasispayable
forthwith.
Rule402oftheFederalCourtRules,1998,SOR/98-106,providesthatcostsarepayable
forthwithagainstapartyabandoningamotionunlessotherwiseorderedbythecourt.
Theinitialbringingofthemotionwasonrelativelyshortnoticeinviewofthecomplexissuesof
factandlawinvolved.ThebringingofthemotioninTorontoalsosubstantiallyincreasedthe
costsforthedefendanttohireTorontocounselandhavewitnessestraveltoToronto.
Theissuesonaninterlocutoryinjunctionaredifferentthanthoseattrial.Theplaintifffailedto
displacethepresumptionofRule402.Asaninjunctionisanextraordinaryrelieftobeused
sparingly,thedefendantshouldnotbeobligedtowaittorecoveritsreasonablecosts.
Reasonablecostswerefixedonasolicitorandclientbasispayableforthwith.

14

A
lexisJewellery&AccessoriesInc.v.SuzyShier
(2000),[2000]REJB2000-21238,[2000]JQ5189,[2000-11-22]
http://www.jugements.qc.ca/ca/200011fr.html(QueCA)
LesjugesRochonetBeauregard.L’absenced’affidavitausoutiendelarequêtepourmesures
additionnellescontrevientàl’article88C.p.c.etestensoifatal.Deplus,unesaisieenmain
tiercesedoitd’êtreconformeauxarticles625et641C.p.c.Cen’estpaslecasenl’espèce.
Nonseulementiln’yavaitniréquisition,niaffidavit,nibrefautorisantlasaisiechezdestiers,
maisaucunavisdecomparaîtren’aétéremisautiers-saisi.L’endroitoùseronteffectuéesles
saisiesetlanatureexactedesbiensàsaisirnesontpasnonplusdéterminés.Lasimple
mentionquelesbiensàsaisirsontceuxquelademanderessealedroitderevendiqueràtitre
depropriétaireneconstituepasunedescriptionsuffisantedesbiens.
L’autorisationdonnéeàl’huissierdefouiller,avecl’assistancededeuxreprésentantsde
l’intimée,touslesdocumentsdesdéfenderessesn’aaucunappuijuridique.Lasaisieavant
jugement,àtitredemesureprovisionnelleexceptionnelle,doits’exercerdansuncadrestrict.
Ellenepeutêtreutiliséepourrechercherunepreuve.Tellequ’autorisée,laperquisitionest
abusive.
Lajugedepremièreinstanceaerréenpermettantàl’huissierd’interrogerunnombre
indéterminédepersonnesetenobligeantcesdernièresàrépondreàsesquestions.Untel
interrogatoiren’aaucunfondementjuridique.L’huissieral’obligationdes’acquitterdeses
tâchesdefaçonimpartiale.L’ordonnanceattaquéeenfaitunenquêteuragissantpourle
compted’uneseulepartie.Deplus,l’interventiondesreprésentantsdel’intiméedanslasaisie
contrevientàlaLoisurleshuissiersdejustice,quiinterditàtoutepersonned’accomplirun
acteréservéàcetteprofession.Ledroitdetoutepersonnedegarderlesilenceàmoins
d’unedispositionlégislativecontraires’appliqueaussiendroitcivil.L’ordonnance,enayant
poureffetderendrelespersonnesinterrogéespassiblesd’outrageautribunalsiellesse
prévalentdecedroit,contrevientauxdroitsprotégésparl’article1delaChartedesdroitset
libertésdelapersonne.Ellenieégalementledroitàl’assistanced’unavocat.L’ordonnance
estégalementsusceptibledeporteratteinteauprincipedel’inviolabilitédelademeure,en
cequ’elleneprécisepasleslieuxoùseraeffectuéelasaisie.S’iln’estpasnécessairequela
saisieavantjugementeffectuéeconformémentàl’article38.1delaLoisurledroitd’auteur
respectelesconditionspropresàl’injonctiondetypeAntonPiller,ilimportenéanmoinsqu’elle
s’exercesouscontrôlejudiciaireetqu’elleneportepasatteinteauxdroitsfondamentauxdes
parties.Ilyalieud’annulerlessaisiespratiquées.
LajugeRousseau-Houle,dissidente.L’ordonnancenepeutêtrequalifiéed’injonctiondetype
AntonPiller.Suivantl’article735C.p.c.,l’affidavitsurlequels’appuielasaisiedoitaffirmer
l’existencedelacréanceetlesfaitsdonnantouvertureàlasaisie.Enl’espèce,l’affidavit
indiquequel’intiméeestpropriétairedesdroitsd’auteurrelatifsauxoeuvresartistiquesqui
auraientétéreproduitessansdroitparlesdéfenderessessurdesvêtements.Denombreuses
photosillustrantlesdessinsenlitigeysontégalementjointes.Ilestdoncfauxdeprétendre
quel’affidavitdéposéausoutiendelasaisieestinsuffisant.Lajugedepremièreinstancen’a
paserréendécidantquelesdescriptionsetlespiècesfourniesparl’affiantpermettaient
d’identifierd’unefaçonsuffisantelesbiensàsaisir.Deplus,ilestpossiblequedesmesures
particulièresd’assistanceàl’huissiersoientrequisesdanslescasd’unesaisieavantjugement
parletitulaireprésuméd’undroitd’auteuroud’unesaisierelativeàdesdonnées
informatiquesetélectroniques.L’article38.1delaLoisurledroitd’auteurpermet,dansla
mesureautoriséeparleCodedeprocédurecivile,d’engagerdesprocéduresdesaisieavant
jugementafinderecouvrerlapossessiondesexemplairescontrefaitsetdesplanchesquiont
serviousontdestinéesàserviràlaconfectiondecesexemplaires.Or,lapermissiondonnéeà

15

l’huissierd’interrogerlesreprésentantsetlesemployésdesdéfenderessesafinde
connaîtrelesnomsetadressesdestiersquipourraientêtreenpossessiondesdessinset
desplanchesd’impressionn’entrepasdanslecadrelégislatifetprocéduraldelasaisieavant
jugement.Eneffet,cettedernièreneconstituepasunmoyend’obtenirdespreuves.De
même,l’autorisationdesaisirdesbienschezcestierscontrevientauxdispositionsrégissantla
saisieenmaintierceetn’estpasappuyéeparl’affidavit.Ilyauraitlieudebiffercesdeux
autorisationsdel’ordonnance.

16

A
ndersonPreecevDominionAppraisal
(2000),264AR177,[2000]AJ459,[2000]ARTBEdAP146,2000ABQB254
(AltaQB)VeitJ.
Theindividualdefendantslefttheiremploymentwiththeplaintiffrealestateappraisalfirm
andsetupacompetingfirm.Theytookamultitudeoftheplaintiff’sdocuments.Theplaintiff
suedthedefendants,allegingtheftoftradesecretsandconfidentialbusinessinformation,
breachoffiduciaryduty,thetortofconspiracy,trespasstogoods,conversion,abreachof
thedutyoffidelityandgoodfaith,infringementofcopyright,breachofemployment
contract,unjustenrichmentand,inrelationtothedefendantWeidman,thetortof
negligence.Theplaintiffsoughtfurtherandbetterdocumentdisclosure.
21]Howarethesegeneralrulestobeappliedinthiscase?Thedefendantsallegethatthe
propertyremovedfromtheplaintiffwasnotveryvaluable,andwasnotasvaluableas,for
example,therecipeforCoca-Cola.Theyalsoarguethattherewasnoformalcopyrightin
thedocumentsandthatsomeofthedocumentswhichtheyconvertedwerenot
sophisticated.Theyarguethat,becausethedocumentsthatwerestolenweretheplaintiff’s
documents,theplaintiffknowsexactlywhatdocumentsweretaken,andnofurtherdiscovery
isrequired.
[22]Itistrue,ofcourse,thatthemeretheftbytherespondentsoftheplaintiff’spaper,and
evenofitscomputerdisks,doesnotentitletheplaintifftomuchinthewayofmoney
damages.Butitwouldbedisingenuousforthedefendantstoignorethatinformationcanbe
valuableandthatthevalueofinformationthatcanbetakenon$10worthofcomputerdisks
canexponentiallyexceedthatamount.Itwouldbeequallyinappropriatetoignorethatthe
defendantemployeesessentiallycopiedtheiremployer’s »intellectualcapital ».
[24]Thedefendantswouldlikethecourttodeterminetheirlegalobligationsbeforetheyare
requiredtoproducetheirdocuments.Withrespect,theyareattemptingtoputthecart
beforethehorse.Theissuesoffiduciaryduty,tradesecret,confidentialbusinessinformation,
dutyoffidelityandgoodfaith,copyright,employmentcontractandunjustenrichmentareall
intertwinedinthiscase.Itisnotpossibletocarveoutcertainissuesandtodecidethem.At
thisstageoftheproceedings,itisnotpossibletosaythattheplaintiffhasnocauseofaction.
Theplaintiffisentitledtodiscoveryofdocuments.Indeed,oneofthepurposesofdiscoveryis
toadvancetheadverseparty’sposition;itwouldbewronginprincipletomakeanydefinitive
findingaboutthestrengthoftheplaintiff’spositionuntildiscoveryiscomplete.

17

A
nneofGreenGablesLicensingAuthorityInc.v.AvonleaTraditionsInc
(2000),4CPR(4th)289&5CPR(4th)iii,[2000]OJ740,[2000]LWD1944-023,[2000]
CarswellOnt731,[2000]OTC133(OntSC)WilsonJ.;(2000),6CPR(4th)57(OntCA-Stay);
appealabandonned(2000),5CPR(4th)iii(OntCA)
Merits
TheliteraryworkAnneofGreenGableswaspublishedin1908.Inthesameyear,the
publisher,asassigneeoftheauthor,registeredcopyrightintheworkatStationer’sHallunder
theCopyrightAct,1842(U.K.),5&6Vict.,c.45.Thework[page290]focusedonthe
characterAnneShirleywhowasdescribedas »theoutspokenmorselofneglectedhumanity »,
withalittlepointedchin,freckles,carrotredhairandunquenchablespirit.
Theauthordiedin1942and,inthemid-1980s,theplaintiffheirsoftheauthorfirstbecame
awareof,andasserted,areversionarycopyrightinterestinthework.
In1988theheirsenteredintoacopyrightandtrade-marklicenceagreementwiththe
predecessorofthedefendant(« theTallShipsAgreement »)whichwasassignedtothe
defendantin1989.TheTallShipsAgreementgrantedtothedefendanttheexclusiverightto
manufacture,distributeandsellmerchandiseandservicesbasedontheworkandthe
characterAnneShirley,includingtherighttosublicencesuchrighttoothers.Theexclusive
rightwaslimitedbytherightofcraftspeopleofaprovincetomanufactureandsellsuch
merchandise.Intheagreementtheheirswarrantedthattheywerethesoleownersof
copyrightintheworkandthatthattheyhadthefullandunrestrictedrighttograntthe
licencetosellthemerchandiseunderthenameANNEOFGREENGABLES.Theagreement
providedforarightoftheheirstoterminatetheagreementforcause,includingforfailureto
payroyalties.
Commencingin1989,thedefendantcarriedonthebusinessofmanufacturing,distributing
andsellingdolls,articlesofclothingandotherwareswhichincorporatedreferencestothe
workandthenameandcharacterofAnneShirley.
In1990theheirsfiledapplicationstoregisterthetrade-marksANNEOFGREENGABLESand
ANNEOFGREENGABLES&DesignandanapplicationtoregisterthecertificationmarkTHIS
PRODUCTISOFFICIALLYLICENSEDBYTHEHEIRSOFL.M.MONTGOMERY.
In1992copyrightintheauthor’sliteraryworkexpiredinCanadaandinNovember1992a
provincialgovernmentcausedsixnoticestobepublishedunders.9(1)(n)(iii)oftheTrade-
marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13.FiveofthesenoticeswereforthemarkANNEOFGREEN
GABLESinrespectofservicesandthesixthnoticewasforthemarkANNEOFTHEISLAND&
Designinrespectofwaresandservices.
ThedefendantfailedtopayroyaltiespursuanttotheTallShipsAgreement.InApril1994,the
heirsterminatedtheagreementbutgrantedthedefendantatemporarylicenceforafurther
sixmonthstoenableanorderlytransition.Asofthedateoftermination,thedefendantowed
$255,042.66foroutstandingroyalties.Afterterminationoftheagreement,thedefendant
continueditsbusinessactivities,exceptin1998itdiscontinueduseofthecertificationmark.
InAugust1995,theplaintiffscommencedanactionagainstthedefendantforbreachof
contractinrespectoffailuretopayroyaltiesandforpassingoffatcommonlaw,and
pursuanttoss.7(b)and(c)oftheTrade-marksAct,inrespectofthedefendant’scontinued
useoftheplaintiffs’marksandindiciaofthecharacterAnneShirley.Thedefendant
acknowledgedtheamountowingundertheTallShipsAgreementinrespectofroyaltiesbut

18

subjecttothedefendant’sdefences.Thesedefenceswerebasedonallegationsthat
theheirsbreachedtheirwarrantyofownershipofcopyrightinthework,thatifthe
plaintiffsownedthecopyrightitdidnot[page291]extendtothree-dimensionalreproductions
oftheauthor’sliterarywork,thatthepublicationofthes.9noticesoftheprovincefrustrated
theagreement,thattheclaimtopassingoffcouldnotsucceedasthemarksatissuewere
notdistinctive,andthattheheirsterminatedtheagreementinbadfaith.Bywayof
counterclaim,thedefendantsoughttooffsetexpensesincurredagainsttheamountof
royaltiesowing.Theseexpenseswereallegedtobethecostofthetimespentbythe
principalofthedefendantinseekingtopoliceandenforcethemarksoftheheirs.Attrial,the
defendantconsentedtoaninjunctionwithrespecttothecertificationmark.
In1996theheirssecuredregistrationofthecertificationmarkandsubsequentlyenteredinto
anagreementwiththeprovincepermittingtheplaintiffauthoritytomarketmerchandise
relatingtotheworkandinassociationwiththemarks.Theheirsassignedthetrade-marksand
certificationmarktotheauthorityin1998andin1998theauthoritysecuredregistrationofthe
trade-marks.
Held,judgmentshouldbegrantedtotheplaintiffsandthedefendant’scounterclaimshould
bedismissed.
Alicenseeisestoppedfromcontestingthevalidityofatrade-marklicensedtoitduringthe
termofthelicenceagreement.Thisdisabilitydoesnotaffectthelicenseeafterthe
agreementisterminated.Unlesstherewasanothervalidcontractualdefence,thedefendant
was,therefore,estoppedfromcontestingthevalidityofcopyrightinthetrade-marksand
certificationmarkoftheheirstoexcusepaymentofroyalties.
Whethertheplaintiffsheldareversionaryinterestofcopyrightintheworkwasdependenton
whetherpropernoticewasgivenbytheassigneeoftheauthororitssuccessorpursuanttos.
60(2)oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42.Astheauthorhadassignedhercopyrightin
theworkbeforethecomingintoforceoftheCopyrightAct,1921,S.C.1921,c.24,theowner
ofthecopyrightasofthedatethattheoriginalcopyrightwouldhaveexpiredwouldonly
haveretainedsubstitutedcopyrightundertheActifithadgivennoticetotheauthorin
accordancewiths.60(2).Therewasnoevidencethatsuchnoticewasgivenand,therefore,
inviewofthepresumptionofsubsistenceandownershipofcopyrightestablishedbys.34.1(1)
oftheAct,thedefendantfailedinitsdefenceofdenyingtheownershipbytheheirsof
reversionarycopyright.
Copyrightinaliteraryworkextendstoprotectnotonlytheliteraryworkitselfbutalsothe
charactersfromtheworkwhosedescriptionsaredistinctive,thoroughandcomplete.The
characterAnneShirleywasclearlydelineated,distinctive,thoroughandcompleteinthe
workandwasthereforeprotectedbycopyright.Suchcopyrightextendedtotwo-and
three-dimensionalimagesbasedonthedescriptionsofthecharacterandsituationsfoundin
thework.
Aftercopyrightintheworkexpiredanduntilthetrade-marksandcertificationmarkwere
registered,theplaintiffsreliedonunregisteredtrade-marksandthecommonlawprinciplesof
passingoff.Initsdefence,thedefendantattackedthedistinctivenessoftheunregistered
trade-marks.Thedistinctivenessofthemarkswasdeterminedasofthedatethatthe
defendantchallengedthemarksintheaction.The[page292]defendantembarkedona
tenaciouslicensingandenforcementprogrampursuanttotheTallShipsAgreement.The
defendantdidnotpresentanycredibleevidencethatthemarkswerenotdistinctivefrom
marksfromothersources.Althoughtheheirswouldhavehaddifficultyinestablishing

19

distinctivenessintheirmarksinthemid-1980s,throughtheassistanceofthedefendant,
theheirshadbysuchdateestablishedcommonlawtrade-marks.
Astheplaintiffshadvalidtrade-marks,theissueofpassingoffarosebothatcommonlawand
underss.7(b)and(c)oftheTrade-marksAct.Passingoffextendstothewrongfulassociation
ofwareswithanimagebelongingtoanotherperson.Thereisnoreasontolimitpassingoffto
thosewhomarketorsellthepertinentwaresthemselves.Theplaintiffshadestablishedthat
thetrade-markshadacquiredgoodwillorapublicrecognitionandhadmettheother
requirementstoprovepassingoffatcommonlawandpursuanttos.7oftheAct.
Whethertheplaintiffauthorityisapublicauthoritywithinthemeaningofs.9(1)(n)(iii)ofthe
Trade-marksAct,andwhethertheassignmentofthes.9noticesfromtheprovincetothe
plaintiffauthoritywasnotdeterminativebecausetheheirsandtheprovincehadassignedall
theirtrade-markrightstoit.Nevertheless,astheprovincehadsignificantinfluenceand
controlovertheplaintiffauthorityandanobjectivesharedwiththeplaintiffauthorityof
protectingthelocalcraftindustry,theplaintiffauthoritywasapublicauthorityunders.9(1)(n)
(iii).
Thepublicationoftheprovince’ss.9noticeshadtheeffectorpreventingtheheirsandthe
defendantfrompursingregistrationoftheheirs’trade-marksforservices.Forthepublication
ofthenoticestohavefrustratedtheTallShipsAgreement,thepublicationmusthavegoneto
therootoftheagreementsuchthatperformanceoftheagreementoughttohavebeen
excused.Althoughthepublicationofthenoticeswasunexpected,thepublicationdidnot
haveasignificantpracticaleffect.Therewasnoevidencethatthepublicationaffectedthe
salesofthedefendant.Thepublicationdidnotfrustratetheagreementbecause(1)the
agreementcontemplatedaremedyofrenegotiationintheeventthatthecopyrightexpired
beforethetrade-markswereregistered;(2)theregistrationofthemarkswasnotguaranteed
andthepartieshadbeenadvisedthatregistrationwasnotcertain;and(3)thesubsequent
conductofthedefendantinacknowledgingtheamountoftheroyaltiesowingaffirmedthe
agreement.
InthealternativetoitsclaimthattheTallShipsAgreementwasfrustrated,thedefendant
allegedthatthes.9noticescausedtheplaintiffstobreachtheirwarrantythattheyheldthe
exclusiverightsgrantedtothedefendantundertheAgreement.Anybreachofexclusivity
wasconfinedtothes.9noticeforthemarkANNEOFTHEISLAND,theonlynoticethat
extendedtowares.ThenoticeforthemarkANNEOFTHEISLANDdidnotoffendthewarranty
becauseofthedistinctionbetweenmarketingthewaresandserviceunderthemarkANNE
OFGREENGABLESandthewaresandservicesunderthemarkANNEOFTHEISLAND,and
becausethemarkANNEOFTHEISLANDwasspecificallyexcludedfromtheTallShips
Agreementinrespectofwaresoftheprovince’scraftspeople.
Therewasnoevidencetosupportthedefendant’sclaimthattheplaintiffs’terminationofthe
TallShipsAgreementwasinbadfaith.[page293]
Theownerofanintellectualpropertyrightwillordinarilybeentitledtoaninjunctiontoprotect
suchrights.Acourtmayalsoissueaninjunctiontoenforcecontractualtermsrelatingtothe
useofapropertyright.Theplaintiffswereentitledtotheinjunctionrequested,includingthe
injunctiononconsentrelatingtotheplaintiffs’certificationmark.
TheplaintiffswereentitledtoenforcetheroyaltyobligationsundertheTallShipsAgreementin
respectofthe$255,042.66royaltiesowing.Astodamagesforthecontinuedsalesafter
terminationoftheTallShipsAgreement,thepropermeasurewaswhatthedefendantwould
havepaidbasedonevidenceofactuallicencefeesacceptedbytheplaintiffs.The

20

defendantcontinuedtoproduceitswaresasifithadimplicitlyandunilaterallyextended
thetermsoftheTallShipsAgreement.Themeasureofdamageswasthereforebasedon
theroyaltytermsofthe
agreement.
Thedefendant’scounterclaimforexpensesfortimespentpursinginfringementswas
dismissed.Thedefendantcouldonlyclaimasanexpenseanamountactuallypaidtoathird
party.
Stay
Thetrialjudgehadissuedjudgmenttotheplaintiffsrestrainingthedefendantfrom,interalia,
selling,offeringforsaleanddistributinggoodsbearingthename[page58]AnneofGreen
Gables.Thedefendantfiledanoticeofappealfromthedecisionandmovedforastayof
theinjunctionpendingthehearingoftheappeal.
Held,themotionshouldbedismissed.
Thetestforastaypendingappealiswhether(1)theappealpresentsaseriousissuefor
adjudication,(2)theappellantwouldsufferirreparableharmifthestayisnotgranted,and
(3)thebalanceofconveniencefavourstheappellant.
Attrialtheissueswerefullycanvassedandmanyofthedefendant’sargumentswererejected
asnotsustainableontheevidence.Totheextentthattheappealreiteratesthosesame
arguments,itdoesnotpresentaseriousissuetobedetermined.However,assomeofthe
legalissuesappearedtobearguable,thecourtwaspreparedtoacceptthattheappeal
raisedsufficientmerittowarrantconsiderationofthebalanceofthetest.
Thedefendantallegedthatwithoutastaythecontinuedinjunctionwouldforcethe
defendantoutofbusiness.Thedefendant’sfinancialdifficultieswere,however,notrecent.
Evenifsuccessfulontheappeal,thechancesofanyfinancialrecoveryappearedtobe
slight.Theirreparableharmenvisagedwasnotonethatcouldbeavoidedbygrantingthe
stay.
Thebalanceofconveniencefavouredtheplaintiffs.Astaywouldcausetheplaintiffs
irreparableharmbecausetheongoingfailureofthedefendanttopayroyaltieswouldimpair
theabilityoftheplaintiffs’licenseestofairlycompete,andunderminetheplaintiffs’licensing
program.

21

A
sherConsultantsLtdvWalter
(2000),[2000]SJ107,[2000]SKQB30,[2000]SaskRUned39,[2000]
CarswellSask101,2000SKBD30,
http://www.canlii.org/sk/cas/skqb/2000/2000skqb30.html(SaskQB)KlebucJ.

[2]Theissuesarisingoutofthepositionstakenbytherespectivepartiesare:[…]
(2)Mayapartnershipcreateandownacopyrightundertheprovisionsofthe
CopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.
(3)Mayalicenseemaintainanactionforcopyrightinfringementwithout
pleadingtheparticularsofitslicenceofthecopyrightuponwhichitsclaimis
founded,includingwhetheritslicenceisinwriting?
(4)Aretheapplicantsentitledtofurtherandbetterparticularswithrespecttothe
factspleadedinparagraphs9,10and16concerning:(a)thepartsofthe
plaintiffs’workthattheapplicantsimproperlycopied;(b)thepartsofthework
allegedlycopiedbytheapplicantswhichconstituteoriginalartisticworksofthe
plaintiffs;(c)thedatesuponwhichtheallegedartisticworkswereauthored,
publishedanddistributed?
[8]Inmyview,theapplicantshavefailedtomeettherequisitethreshold.TheCopyrightAct
containsnoprovisionspecificallyprohibitingpartnershipsfromcreatingorowningacopyright
nordoanyoftheauthoritiescitedstatethatpartnershipsatcommonlawaredeniedsuch
right.TheissueisacomplexonewhichwillrequiretheprovisionsoftheCopyrightActtobe
consideredinthecontextofThePartnershipAct,R.S.S.1978,c.P-3,thecommonlaw,and
Queen’sBenchRule51(a)whichprovidesthatpartnershipsmaycommenceactionsintheir
partnershipname.Suchanalysisisbestconductedinafactualcontextfollowingfull
argument.Ithereforeconcludethattheissueshouldbeleftforthetrialjudge,particularly
sincestrikingoutparagraph10wouldnotbringtheactiontoanend.
[9]Notwithstandingmyconclusionregardingtheultimatedispositionoftheissue,a
partnershipisnotalegalpersondistinctfromitspartnersbutratheranassociationcomposed
ofindividualsorcorporations,orboth,carryingonbusinessincommonwiththeobjectiveof
earningaprofit.[…]
[12]Intheinstantcase,Asherclaimsanexclusivelicencewithoutprovidingparticularsofthe
licenceincludingwhetherthelicenceisevidencedinwriting.Inmyviewsuchpleadingis
inadequateandwouldrequireparagraph10tobestruckoutunlessthedeficiencyis
remediedbyAsherwithin21daysofthedatehereof.
[14]Inordertodeterminewhethertheymaylegitimatelychallengethevalidityofthe
copyrightclaimedtheapplicants,thedefendantsrequirecopiesoftheallegedartisticworks
andfurtherparticularsconcerningwhensuchworkswereauthored,publishedand
distributed.Accordinglyanorderwillissuerequiringtheplaintiffstodeliversuchinformation
within21daysofsuchorderissuing.

22

A
VSTechnologiesInc.v.CanadianMechanicalReproductionRights
Agency
(1999),[1999]CBD8(CB),4CPR(4
th)15(CB)subnominePrivateCopying
1999-2000,TariffofLeviestobeCollectedbyCPCC(Re);affd(2000),7CPR
(4th)68,257NR283,[2000]FCJ960,[2000]CarswellNat1304,[2000]4FCD-10,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26945.o.en.html(FCA)
LindenJ.
TheapplicantsappliedforjudicialreviewofadecisionoftheCopyrightBoardrelatingtoPart
VIIIoftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,concerningthelevyimposedonablankaudio
recordingmedium.Theboardhadinterpretedtheterm »ordinarilyused »inthedefinitionof
« audiorecordingmedium »asincludingallnon-negligibleuses.Theboardhadconcluded
thataCDwasordinarilyusedtoreproducesoundrecordingsandwasthereforeleviableasa
blankaudiorecordingmedium.Theapplicantsallegedthattheterm »ordinarilyused »should
beinterpretedbylookingattheproductsgenerallyandnottheusageoftheproductsby
individualconsumers.Theapplicantscontestedthattheterm »ordinarily »shouldbeconstrued
asmeaning »chiefly »or »mainly ».
Held,theapplicationshouldbedismissed.
Theissueraisedbytheapplicantswasmainlyaquestionoflawinterpretingthelegislation
administeredbytheboard.ThepurposeofPartVIIIoftheCopyrightActismainlyan
economiconewithintheexpertiseoftheboardtodecide.Theproperstandardofreviewon
theissuewas,therefore,patentunreasonableness.
Itistheusageoftheproductsbyindividualconsumersthatmustbeordinaryfortheproducts
tofallwithinthedefinitionof »audiorecordingmedium ».PartVIIIof[page69]theActprovides
forasystemtoestimatethevalueofcopyrightinfringedbyindividualswhoordinarilycopied
musiconthoseproducts.Theinterpretationassertedbytheapplicantswouldnotbe
consistentwiththeobjectoftheAct.Theapplicantshadfailedtodemonstratethatthe
board’sapproachwasobviouslyorclearlywrong.Theboard’sdecisionwasnot,therefore,
patentlyunreasonable.

23

B
ergeronvSogidèsLtée
(1998),[1998]AQ2384(QueSupCt);revd(2000),[2000]JQ3088,REJB
2000-20192,[2000-09-20]
http://www.jugements.qc.ca/ca/200009fr.html
(QueCA)RobertJ.
LesjugesRobert,ChamberlandetThibeault.L’auteurappelantaremplitouteslesconditions
del’article1003C.p.c.nécessairesàl’autorisationdurecourscollectif.Eneffet,ilétait
prématurépourlejugedepremièreinstancedeconclurequelesquestionsdedroitoude
faitsoulevéesnesontpasidentiques,similairesouconnexes.Lapreuveprésentéeparl’auteur
austadedel’autorisationauraitpuêtreplusconvaincantemais,àcetteétape,ilfauttenir
lesfaitsalléguéspouravérés.Cesdernierssupportentlathèseducontratd’adhésionetdu
caractèreabusifdelaclausededroitdepasse.Lapreuvedel’existenced’uncontrat
d’adhésionnedemandepasnécessairementunepreuveindividuellepourchaqueauteur,
commeleprétendlejugedepremièreinstance.Ilestpossibledefairecettepreuveen
démontrantquel’éditeuraadoptéunepratiquegénérale.
Lejugedepremièreinstanceaconcluquelerecoursdel’auteurestprescrit.Celui-cine
pouvaitconcluredelasortesansavoirentenduunepreuvecomplète.L’éditeurdoitrendre
compteàsesauteursannuellementpourchaquecontratsigné.Laprescriptiondes
paiementsdusàl’auteurcourtàchaqueéchéance.Ilestprobablequecertainsrecours
soientprescrits,maisseuleuneenquêtepermettrad’enjuger.Unseulcontratetuneseule
applicationdececontratsuffisentpoursouleverlesquestionsproposées.
Lapossibilitédeprocéderparlesdispositionsdesarticles59ou67C.p.c.n’exclutpasledroit
d’exercerunrecourscollectif.Lenombrepotentieldepersonnesetlecaractèremodestede
laréclamationdechacunrendentlerecourssousl’article59C.p.c.difficileetpeupratique,
toutcommel’exigel’article1003C.p.c.L’auteur,quiafaituneenquêtepartiellepour
prétendreàlasimilitudedescontratsetdespaiementsderedevances,quiareçul’appuide
l’UniondesécrivainesetécrivainsduQuébecetduFondsd’aideauxrecourscollectifs,
sembleavoirlacapacitédedirigerledossieretd’assurerunereprésentationadéquatedu
groupevisé.

24

B
ioteauvCommunicationsQuebecorInc
(2000),[2000]JQ1753,BE2000-1098,REJB2000-18596(QueCt)MarengoJ.
Ledemandeurestphotographeprofessionnel.Enfévrier1994,uncontratdeproductionet
delicenceestintervenuentrecedernieretlesÉditionsStanképourlaproductiond’une
photographiedevantservirpourlacouverturedulivre »GillesProulx,Portraitd’untirailleur
tiraillé ».Uneséancedephotoss’estensuivieet,enmars1994,ledemandeuraremisle
résultatdesontravailàStanké.Quelquesjoursplustard,ledéfendeurProulxademandéau
demandeur,poursonusagepersonnel,unereproductiondesphotospriseslorsdelaséance
dephotos.Proulxaparlasuiteremisunedecesreproductionsaumagazine »LeLundi »,
publiéparladéfenderesse,CommunicationsQuebecor,afinderemplacerlaphotographie
utiliséedanssachronique.Proulxn’aalorsmentionnéàQuebecornilenomduphotographe,
nilaprovenancedelaphoto.Enfévrier1996,ledemandeuradécouvertqu’unedesphotos
prisesenmars1994avaitétépubliéedanslemagazine,sanstoutefoisfairementiondeson
nom.Or,laphotoseraitparuedanslemagazineàaumoins31reprisesentrele14avril1995
etle16mars1996.
Ledemandeurallèguequelesdéfendeursont,ainsi,violédefaçonrépétéesondroit
d’auteursurlaphotographieprise.Illeurréclamedonclasommede3000$endommages-
intérêts,ventiléecommesuit:30$derevenusperdusparpublication,soit930$;279$àtitre
d’intérêtssurcettedernièresomme;1262$àtitrededommagesetinconvénientsdivers,soit
750$pourlesfraisderechercheet512$pourleshonorairesextrajudiciaires;et,finalement,
529$àtitrededommagesmoraux.
L’actionestaccueillieenpartie.Ilappertdelapreuvequeledemandeurestbienl’auteurde
laphotographieenquestion.IlappertégalementqueniProulxniQuebecornesontles
premierstitulairesdudroitd’auteurdecettephotographie.Deplus,ledemandeurn’apas
cédésondroitd’auteursursonoeuvreàunoul’autredesdéfendeurs.Enl’espèce,ilfaut
considérerqueledemandeurestlepremiertitulairedudroitd’auteursurlaphotographie,et
ce,mêmesisonnomn’apparaissaitpasaudosdecelle-cietqu’iln’yavaitaucunemention
d’interdictiondereproduction.Quebecorn’avaitdoncpasledroitd’utiliserl’oeuvredu
demandeuràsoninsuetsanssonautorisation.Parconséquent,enutilisantlaphotographieà
desfinscommercialesetenlafaisantpublieretcirculersansl’autorisationdudemandeur,les
défendeursontviolésondroitd’auteur.Parailleurs,danslescontratssoumisparQuebecor
danssadéfense,cettedernièreétaitautoriséeparlesauteursàutiliserlesphotographies,ce
quin’estpaslecasenl’espèce.Eneffet,seuleStankéétaitautoriséeàutiliserla
photographieenquestion.Ledemandeuradoncledroitd’êtreindemnisépourles
dommagessubis,lesquelssontévaluéscommesuit:1000$pourlapertederevenussubie;
750$pourlestroublesetlesinconvénientssubis;379,52$pourleshonorairesextrajudiciaires,
lesquels,ayantétéengagésdanslebutdesauvegarderledroitd’auteurdudemandeur,
sontdesconséquencesdirectesetimmédiatesdelafautedesdéfendeurs;et,finalement,
1,55$pourlesfraisdephotocopies.Iln’yacependantpaslieudefairedroitàlaréclamation
pourdommagesmoraux,étantdonnéqu’iln’yapaseudepreuved’uneatteinteàces
droits.

25

B
irshteinvRoyz
(2000),[2000]OJ957,[2000]OTCUned144(OntSupCt)PittJ.
[4]Theissueforimmediatedeterminationiswhetherthemanuscriptwhichwaswrittenbythe
defendantintheRussianlanguageoughttobetranslatedimmediatelyatthePlaintiffs’
expense.
[5]ThePlaintiffs’positionisthatsuchanexpenditureatthisstageoftheproceedingsis
unwarranted,andinanyeventthedefendantbeingthewriter,oughttodothetranslation
himself.
[6]Thedefendant’spositionisthatthePlaintiffshavemadethemanuscriptanissueinthe
litigationandthatthecourtandthedefendantareentitledbypracticeandprincipleto
haveanEnglishtranslationattheirdisposal.

26

B
lazikvBrown
(2000),[2000]CarswellNat303,[2000]FCJ225,[2000]ACF225,[2000]FTR
Uned199,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26068.o.en.html,en
françaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26068.o.fr.html
(FCTD)DubéJ.

[1]ThisappealisfromtheReportofRefereePeterA.K.Giles,AssociateSeniorProthonotary
datedJuly16,1998,bywhichheassessedthedamagesoftheplaintiffs(« TravelTraining »)
againstthreeoftheOntarionumbereddefendants.
[22]Acomparativemethodcanthereforenotbeused ».ThisCourtheldinWellcome
Foundationv.Apotex[(1997),82C.P.R.(3d)466at480-482(F.C.T.D.)],aratherrecent
decision,thatthedifferentialcostaccountingapproachandnotthecomparativemethodis
nowtheproperapproach.Consequently,IcannotfindthattheRefereeerredinlawwhen
heruledinaccordancewithaveryrecentdecisionofthisCourtanddidnotfollowanold
Englishcasedatingbacktothetimeoftheindustrialrevolution.Notreviewable.
[27]Finding(h)-ItwasnecessarytofindtheexpensesoftheDefendantswhichwereproperly
deductiblebyreferringtooriginalinvoices,and,withoutsuchinvoices,expenseswerenot
properlydeductible.
[para28]Decision-TheRefereestatesinhisparagraph9thattheplaintiffshaveretainedtheir
owncharteredaccountantwhoinvestigatedthebackgroundmaterialsprovidedbythe
defendants.Theaccountantgaveevidencethat »hewasunabletojustifythefiguresshown
inthedefendantToronto’saccountsbecausehedidnothavethebackgroundmaterial ».In
somecasesthebackgroundmaterialcouldnotbefound.Inaddition,thereweresome62
adjustingentrieswhichwerenotexplained.Clearly,theonusofestablishingexpenseison
thedefendants.Underthecircumstances,theRefereewasjustifiedinarrivingatthat
conclusion.Notreviewable.
[37]Finding(m)-Theestimatedretailvalueof$50perbookisthepropervaluetoplaceon
theinfringingbooks,indeterminingdamagesforconversion.
[38]Decision-Inhisparagraph16,theRefereedealswithdamagesforconversionandfinds
thatthe25booksnotreturnedtotheplaintiffshavebeenconvertedandtheplaintiffsare
entitledto »theirvalue ».Heacceptsthattheactualcostsofeachbookwassomethingless
than$7abook,althoughtheretailvalueofsomesimilartextswereshowntobeinthe$50
dollarrange.Henotesthattheplaintiffshadnointentionofsellingtheinfringedmaterialand
yethefindsthatthepropervaluetoputonthesebooksis$50.00foreachbook.Inmyview,
thatisanerror.Ifneitherofthepartiesintendedtosellthebooks,theretailvalueisnottobe
takeninconsideration.Theactualcostof$7abookshouldhavebeenassessedforthe25
booksnotdeliveredtotheplaintiffs.Reviewable.
[43]Theprofitsattributabletoinfringementaretherevenuesgeneratedbystudentfeesfor
thecourseinquestion,lesstheexpenses.Therelevantexpensesmustincludethefractionsof
thetotalexpensesoftheschoolasapportionedbytheRefereefortheparticularcourse.But
studentfeesforthatcoursewerenotpaidexclusivelyfortheTravelCourseMaterials,they
werepaidforthecourseitselfwhichincludesteachingbyaqualifiedinstructor,other
materialsandclassroomfacilities.Consequently,theprofitsmustbeapportioned
accordingly.Itisnoteasytodetermineapreciseapportionment.Inmyview,fairnesswould

27

dictatethatthepercentageofprofitsattributabletotheTravelCourseMaterialsbeno
morethan50%.Thus,thefindingsoftheRefereeonprofitsattributabletotheinfringing
materialarereviewable.

28

B
londeauvCroisièresAMLInc
(2000),[2000]BE2000-559;REJB2000-17734,[2000]JQ1267(QueCt)
LamoureuxJ.
[14]Pourréclamerdesdommagesaumotifquesondroitàl’imageaétéviolé,Blondeau
devaitétablirqu’elleétaitreconnaissablesurlaphotographieutiliséeparInfo-Croisières1.
[15]Or,Blondeaun’estpasreconnaissablesurlaphotographieet,danslescirconstances,
Hameln’apascommisdefauteenutilisantlaphotographietrouvéeparmilesactifsachetés
enaoût1995.
[16]Deplus,silaphotographieutiliséeparInfo-Croisièresestuneillustrationproduitepar
infographieàpartirdelaphotographieappartenantàNovergianCruiseLine,c’estcette
dernièrequi,entantquetitulairedudroitd’auteur,auraitpossiblementunrecoursen
dommagesenvertudelaLoisurledroitd’auteur(L.R.C.1985ch.C-42art.13(2)34).

29

B
rissonvUnibroueInc
(2000),[2000]JQ1118(QueSupCt-Venue)MorneauJ.;(2000),[2000]JQ
1118,JE2000-2159,REJB2000-21353(QueSupCt-Option)MayrandJ.
Venue
[7]Invoquantl’article68(1)C.p.c.,UnibrouefaitvaloirqueBrissonauraitdûintenterson
actiondansledistrictdeLongueuiloùsetrouvesondomicileréel,savoir,sonsiègesocial.Elle
plaidequel’article68(1)constitueleprincipe,l’article68(2)C.p.c.relatifautribunaldulieuoù
toutelacaused’actionaprisnaissanceconstituantlaseuleexceptiondisponiblepourla
demande,àlaconditiontoutefoisques’yretrouventlestroiséléments,savoir,lafaute,le
dommageetleliendecausalité.Unibroueajoutequemêmesilesbières »U »ou »Donde
Dieu »sontdistribuéesàMontréal,celanejustifiepasledemandeurd’intentersonactiondans
cedistrict.
[9]Insistantsurlefaitquesonactionestfondéesurlaresponsabilitéextracontractuelle
d’UnibroueenvertuduCodecivilduQuébecetdelaLoisurlesdroitsd’auteurs,vu
l’appropriationillégaledesesproductionsoucréations,Brissonsoulignequeplusieursfautes
sontalléguéesdanssonaction,ledroitd’auteurétantsujetàdémembrement.Ilajouteque
lesdommagesmorauxqu’ilréclameontétésubisparlui,àsondomicile,dansledistrictde
Montréal.L’argumentfondésurlesdommagesmorauxetl’endroitoùprétendlesavoirsubis
lademandedoitêtrerejetéimmédiatementpuisqu’ilauraitévidemmentpoureffetde
rendreinopérantesplusieursdispositionsduchapitrerelatifaulieudel’introductionde
l’action.
[10]Bref,onpeutrésumerlesprétentionsdeBrissondelafaçonsuivante:
[11]MêmesilamajoritédesfautessontcommisesdansledistrictdeLongueuil,ilsuffitquela
distributiondesbièresencausesoitfaitedansdiversdistricts,dontceluideMontréal,pourlui
permettred’intentersonactiondansledistrictdesonchoix,ici,Montréal.[…]
[12]L’onserappellequesuivantlajurisprudencelacaused’actiondélictuelleouquasi-
délictuelle(extracontractuelle)comportetroiséléments:lafaute,ledommageetleliende
causalité.Poursatisfaireauxexigencesdel’article68(2)C.p.c.,chacundestroiséléments
doitavoirprisnaissancedansledistrictjudiciairedonnantcompétenceautribunal.Dansle
cascontraire,etc’estmalheureusementlecasdelaprésenteaction,elledevrasepoursuivre
conformémentl’article68(1)C.p.c.,dansledistrictdudomiciledeladéfenderesse,c’est-à-
direledistrictdeLongueuil.
Requêtepouroptionderecours.Rejetée.
Ledemandeur,unartisteconcepteuretidéateur,poursuitladéfenderesse,quiauraitutilisé,
àsoninsu,l’étiquetteetleprojetdecampagnepublicitairequ’illuiavaitsoumisdansle
cadred’unedemanded’emploi.Àlademandeexpressedeladéfenderesse,etaprèsavoir
obtenul’assurancequesespropositionsneseraientpasutiliséess’ilnedécrochaitpasl’emploi
sollicité,ledemandeurauraitcrééunconceptpublicitairesansqu’aucunerémunérationlui
soitversée.Ladéfenderessen’apasretenulacandidaturedudemandeurmais,selonlui,elle
auraitcommercialisédeuxdesesbièresenutilisantlesillustrationsqu’illuiavaitsoumises.Le
demandeurrequiertqu’ilsoitenjointàladéfenderessedecesserl’utilisationdesonoeuvresur
sesbouteillesdebièreetdanssapublicité.Ilréclameégalementdesdommages-intérêtsde
400000$etuneredditiondecompteconcernantlesrevenusetlesprofitsquela
défenderesseauraittirésdel’utilisationillégaledesontravail.Ladéfenderesseprétendque
lesconclusionsrecherchéesparledemandeursontincompatibleset,parconséquent,elle

30

demandequ’ilopteentrelesdifférentsrecourscontradictoiresqu’ilaréunisdansla
présenteaffaire.
Décision
Ladéfenderessesefondesurl’article13delaLoisurledroitd’auteurpourprétendrequele
demandeurnepeuts’opposeràl’utilisationdesonoeuvreenmêmetempsqu’ilréclameune
rémunérationpoursontravail.Cettepositionpourraitêtrevalablesiunmandat,même
tacite,liaitlespartiesousilescirconstancespermettaientdecroirequ’ilyaeucessiondes
droitsdudemandeurenfaveurdeladéfenderesse.Or,entenantpouravéréesles
allégationsdeladéclaration,onnepeutenveniràunetelleconclusion.Touslesrecoursdu
demandeurviennentdelamêmesourced’action,soitl’utilisationillégale,voirefrauduleuse,
desonoeuvre.Laréclamationendommages-intérêtspourlaréalisationdel’oeuvrede
mêmequepoursonutilisationillégalen’estpasincompatibleavecledésirdudemandeurde
fairecessercetteutilisation.Ilappartiendraaujugequitrancheralelitigeaufonddevoirà
nepasaccorderunedoubleindemnitépourlemêmepréjudice.Enl’espèce,iln’yapasde
contradictionentrelesconclusionsrecherchéesparledemandeuretcelui-ciaundroitprima
facieàl’injonction.Ilfautégalementtenircomptedel’affaireRobinsonc.FilmsCinarinc.,où
l’onadécidéquelaréclamationendommages-intérêtsetlademandededestructiondes
élémentsquiavaientserviàlaréalisationd’exemplairescontrefaitsn’étaientpas
incompatibles.Ausurplus,lespartiesnesubirontaucunpréjudicedel’auditioncommunede
toutel’affaire,etilsemblequel’intérêtdelajusticeseramieuxserviparlerejetdelaprésente
requête.

31

C
anadianInstituteforHistoricalMicroreproductions(Re)
(2000),[2000]CBD4,DCDA4(CB)
Pursuanttotheprovisionsofsubsection77(1)oftheCopyrightAct,theCopyrightBoardissues
thefollowinglicencetotheCanadianInstituteforHistoricalMicroreproductions:
(1)Thelicenceauthorizesthereproduction,inprintform,microfichesorCD-ROMs,
oftheworkslistedintheappendicestotheJanuary17,2000application(of
which28titleshavebeenremovedbytheapplicantonJanuary21,2000).The
totalnumberofcopiesofeachworkshallnotexceed75.

32

C
anadianInstituteforHistoricalMicroreproductions(Re)
(2000),[2000]CBD23(CopyrightBoard)

Pursuanttotheprovisionsofsubsection77(1)oftheCopyrightAct,theCopyrightBoardissues
thefollowinglicencetotheCanadianInstituteforHistoricalMicroreproductions:

(1)Thelicenceauthorizesthereproduction,inprintform,microfichesorCD-ROMs,
oftheworkslistedintheappendicestotheOctober24,2000application(of
which6workshavebeenremovedbytheapplicantonNovember10,2000).The
totalnumberofcopiesofeachworkshallnotexceed75.

33

C
andowvSavory
(2000),8CPR(4
th)219,[2000]CarswellNat232[2000]NJ228,[2000]Nfld&
PEIRUned69(NfldSC-TD)
Theplaintiffcomposedthemusicalwork »SomeShockin’Good ».In1986theplaintiffrecorded
thesongand,attheplaintiff’srequest,thedefendantsmadeamasterrecordingand
producedtherecordingasa45record.Theplaintiffalsoaskedthedefendantstoincludehis
songinanalbumwhichthedefendantswereplanningtorelease.Thesongwasrecordedon
thealbumtogetherwithworksofothersongwriters.Thealbumwasreleasedin1987,
containinganacknowledgementofthe[page220]plaintiffascomposerofthesong.The
plaintiffwaspaidroyaltiesforthepublicperformanceofthesongonthealbum.
In1996thedefendantsproducedacompactdiscversionofthe1987album.Theplaintiff
broughtanactionclaimingthatthealbumandcompactdiscinfringedcopyrightinhissong.
Held,theactionshouldbedismissed.
Thealbumwasrecordedattheplaintiff’srequestandwithhisknowledgeandconsent.The
initialrecordingmadebythedefendantsdidnotthereforeinfringecopyright.Thecompact
discwasmerelyadifferentformatofthe1987albumrecordedwithconsentand,therefore,
wasalsonotaninfringementofcopyright.
Inanyevent,theplaintiff’sactionwasbarredbythelimitationperiodundertheCopyright
Act,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42.

34

C
CHCanadianLimitedvTheLawSocietyofUpperCanada
(1999),REJB99-15185,[1999]FCJ1647,[1999]ACF1647,[1999]FTRTNEd
NO060,2CPR(4
th)129,179DLR(4th)609,169FTR1,[2000]2FC451&[2000]3
FCii,[1999]CarswellNat2163,72CRR(2d)139,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/vol2/html/2000fca25519.p.en.html(FCTD);
(2000),4CPR(4
th)129,[2000]FTRUned46,[2000]FCJ92,[2000]ACF92,184
DLR(4
th)186,enfrançaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/1999/orig/html/1999fca25911.o.fr.html;(2000),
(FCTD-Costs);(2000),6CPR(4th)500
,[2000]FCJ949,[2000]ACF949,189DLR
(4
th)125,258NR241,[2000]CarswellNat1468,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26934.o.fr.html(FCTD-
Leavetointerveneinappeal)SharlowJ.A.
Trial-Costs
Ineachofthreeactionsforcopyrightinfringement,theplaintiffsachievedlimitedsuccess
andthedefendantwaswhollyunsuccessfulinitscounterclaims.Inhisjudgment,thetrial
judgeinvitedthepartiestomakewrittensubmissionsastocosts.
Held,asupplementaryjudgmentshouldissueineachactionprovidingthattherewouldbe
noorderastocosts.
Rule400oftheFederalCourtRules,1998,SOR/98-106,givesthecourtfulldiscretionoverthe
determinationandallocationofcosts,havingregardtothenon-exclusivefactorslistedinthe
rule.Asageneralrule,costsshouldfollowtheevent.Wheresuccessisfairlyevenlydivided,
normallythereshouldbenoorderastocosts.
Intheactions,thedefendantwasmoresuccessfulthantheplaintiffs,althoughnoneofthe
partieswasfullysuccessful.Theissuesraisedintheactionswereofgeneralimportanceand
significantcomplexity,withasubstantialpublicinterestbothinpolicyandatlaw.
Havingregardtothedividedresult,thecomplexityofthelegalissues,thelackofCanadian
jurisprudentialguidanceandthepublicinterestinhavingtheactionslitigated,itwas
appropriateforeachofthepartiestobearitsowncosts.
Appeal-LeavetoIntervene
Thecollectivesocietymovedforleavetointerveneinappealsinthreeactionsfor
infringementofcopyrightinlegalmaterialspublishedbytheplaintiffs.Theplaintiffsalleged
thatthedefendantlawsocietyinfringedtheircopyrightintheoperationofitscustom
photocopyingservice.Intheactionsthedefendantcounterclaimedfordeclarationsthatits
activitiesconstitutedfairdealingandwereexemptfrominfringementbyreasonofpublic
policy.Thedefendantalsobaseditscounterclaimonconstitutionalandotherlegal
principles.Thetrialjudgefoundthatcopyrightsubsistedintheplaintiffs’textsandother
referencematerialsbutthattherewasnocopyrightinreportedjudicialdecisions.Aftertrial
thelibraryexceptionsintheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,wereproclaimedintoforce.
[page501]
Thecollectivesocietyrepresentedauthorsandpublishersincludingtheplaintiffs.The
evidenceattrialshowedthatthecollectivesocietyhadofferedalicencetothedefendant
inrespectoftheplaintiffs’works.

35

Beforethetrialoftheaction,thedefendanthadcommencedanactionintheOntario
courtsagainsttheplaintiffsandthecollectivesocietyseekingadeclarationofnon-
infringementsimilartothedeclarationsubsequentlyenteredintheFederalCourtaction.The
Ontarioactionwasstayedbyconsent.
Thecollectivesocietysoughtleavetointerveneonissuesconfinedtothefairdealing,library
exceptions,publicpolicyandconstitutionalissuesraisedbythedefendant.
Held,themotionshouldbedismissed.
Thequestionstobeconsideredwhereapartyseeksleavetointerveneincludewhetherthe
proposedintervenerwillbedirectlyaffectedbytheactionandwhetherthemeritsofthe
casecanbedecidedwithoutitsparticipation.
ThestatusofthecollectivesocietyintheOntarioactionwasnotsufficienttojustifyits
interventionintheappeals.ItsinterestintheOntarioactionwasmerelyasagentforthe
plaintiffs.Furthermore,thecollectivesociety’sinterestintheissuesintheappealswasnothing
morethanajurisprudentialinterest.Therewasnodoubtthattheplaintiffswerefullycapable
ofaddressingtheissuesraisedbythecollectivesocietyinthehearingoftheappeals.

36

Cengigc.Québec(Sous-ministreduRevenu)
(2000),[2000]CarswellNat2587(C.Q.),lejugeBossé
[Relativementàl’article726.26delaLoisurlesimpôts]
4L’appelantsoumetqu’ilaundroitd’auteursurlaplaquequicontientl’oeuvrequ’ila
conçueetqu’ilyagravéeetquinefaitpasl’objetdevente.
5Ilplaidequ’ilfaitunrevenuparl’usagequ’ilfaitdesondroitd’auteur.
6L’appelantajoutequelaconception,lagravureetl’impressiondes«estampes»constituent
desactivitésquisonteffectuéesd’unefaçondistinctedelaventedes«estampes»qu’ilfait
fairepardespréposés.
7Enfin,l’appelantsoumetquel’expression«revenuprovenantdedroitsd’auteur»n’estpas
définiedanslaLoisurlesimpôtsetque,partant,l’intiménepeutbasersonargumentationsur
laLoisurledroitd’auteur2.
8Deuxprincipesd’interprétationmefontconclureàl’opposé:celuidelacohérenceentreles
loisetceluidel’usageinterprétatifconstant.
10Dansl’espèce,l’expression«droitd’auteur»setrouvedansuneloiconnexefédéralequi
reprendd’ailleursdesprincipesutilisésinternationalement.Silelégislateurquébécoisavait
vouludivergerdeladéfinitionsetrouvantdanslaLoisurledroitd’auteur,ilaurait,dans
l’espèce,adoptéunedéfinitiondivergente.
11Parailleurs,«c’estunprincipelargementadmisquelorsquedeuxinterprétationsd’untexte
sontsusceptiblesd’êtreretenues,lestribunauxhésiterontàrejetercellequiaétéconsacrée
parl’usage»4.OrladéfinitioncontenuedanslaLoisurledroitd’auteuretl’objetmêmedela
loicorrespondent,jel’aidéjàmentionné,àl’usageinternational.
12Le«droitd’auteur»s’entend«dudroitexclusifdeproduireoudereproduireuneoeuvre»,
selonl’article3delaLoisurledroitd’auteur.
13L’auteurd’uneoeuvreestgénéralement,selonl’article13decetteloi,quitrouve
applicationauQuébec,lepremiertitulairedudroitd’auteursurcetteoeuvre.Dansle
présentcas,l’appelantréalisantsesplaquespourlui-même,ilestenprincipetitulairedudroit
d’auteur.
14Toutefois,cedroitneconstituepourluiqu’undroitexclusifpersonneldeproduireetde
reproduireuneoeuvrequelestiersdoiventrespecterdanslecadredesprescriptionsdelaLoi
surledroitd’auteur.
15Iln’entireaucunrevenuàmoinsdelecédermoyennantrémunérationoud’autoriserla
productionoulareproductiond’uneoeuvremoyennantpaiement.L’appelanttireson
revenudelavented’uneoeuvreprovenantdesontravaildeconceptionetd’édition
protégéparundroitexclusif.
16S’agirait-ild’uneoeuvreconçueetréaliséedansdesconditionsfaisantqu’aucundroit
d’auteurnes’yrattacherait,quel’appelantauraitfaitexactementlemêmerevenu
provenantdelaventeduproduitfinal.

37

C
onstructionRMRLeblancIncvRobert
(2000),JE2000-1114,REJB2000-19037,[2000]CarswellQue1307(QueCt),j.
Boyer
Résumé
Actionenréclamationdedommages-intérêts.Accueillie(20000$).
Lademanderesseconstruitdesimmeublesrésidentielsselondesesquissespréparéesparson
représentantetdontlesplansdéfinitifssontréalisésparunefirmespécialisée.Aprèsavoir
apportéplusieursmodificationsàl’intérieurdumodèleLaTourmalinequeleuravaitproposé
lademanderesse,lesdéfendeursRobertontsignéunepromessed’achatpréliminaire,dontils
sesonttoutefoisdéditsquelquesjoursplustard.Danslessemainesquiontsuivi,le
représentantdelademanderesseaconstatéquelamaisonquecesdernierssefaisaient
construireparladéfenderesseLesConstructionsDeCastelinc.ressemblaitaumodèlequ’il
leuravaitproposé.Invoquantlacontrefaçondesonesquisse,lademanderesseleurréclame
lapertedeprofitqueceplagiatluiafaitsubir(10000$)ainsiqu’uneindemnitéàtitrede
dommagesmoraux(10000$).Reconnaissantqu’ilexistecertainessimilitudesentrelesdeux
maisons,lesdéfendeursnienttoutefoislecaractèreexclusifdel’esquissedela
demanderesse,quicomporteraitdenombreuxélémentscommunsàlaplupartdesmaisons
québécoisescontemporaines.
Décision
Iln’estpasnécessaired’atteindreleniveaud’originalitédesgrandesoeuvresarchitecturales
pourprétendreàundroitd’auteur.Eneffet,laLoisurledroitd’auteuraccordeunteldroitde
propriétéintellectuellesurl’expressiondetouteoeuvreartistiqueoriginale.Lesmodifications
législativesde1988etde1993ontfaitdisparaîtrel’exigenced’unaspectartistiquedela
définitiondel’oeuvred’artarchitecturale.Enl’espèce,lestyleextérieurdel’esquissedela
demanderessereprenddesconceptstrèscommuns,desortequ’ilnepeutêtrequalifié
d’original.L’aménagementintérieurdelamaisondesRobertesttoutefoisspéculaireàcelui
del’esquissedelademanderesse.Sanspouvoirprétendreàunehautevaleurarchitecturale,
cetteesquisseestnéanmoinslefruitdelaréflexion,desconnaissances,deseffortspersonnels
etdel’habiletédureprésentantdelademanderesse.Ilnes’agitpasd’unsimplecollagede
morceauxépars,maisplutôtd’uneoeuvrenouvelleetoriginale.Or,laréalisationspéculaire
decetteesquisseparlesdéfendeursnecomportepasdedifférencefondamentalesurle
plandelareproduction.Eneffet,lessimilitudesconcernentnonseulementladisposition
généraledespièces,laformedel’intérieur,lesescaliers,lesanglesdecorridormaisaussiles
armoires,lesplacardsetlescommodes.Commelesdéfendeursnesesontpasdéchargésdu
fardeauquileurincombaitdeprouverl’absencededroitd’auteurdelademanderesseet
qu’ilsontreproduitunepartiesubstantielleduplandel’intérieurdemaisonquecelle-cia
conçu,ilfautconclureàunecontrefaçon.DeCasteldevraassumerseulelapertedeprofit
subieparlademanderesse(10000$)tandisqu’ellesupporteraàpartségalesaveclesRobert
l’indemnitépourdommagesmoraux(10000$).

38

D
essinsDrummondinc.c.PublicitésBrigilinc.
(2000),REJB2000-22272(QueSupCt)IsabelleJ.
Malgrécequeprétendladéfenderesse(Brigil),lademanderesse(Drummond)n’apasviolé
laLoisurlesarchitectes.Ilsembleeneffetprobablequelamaisonapparaissantsurleplan
no2442pourraêtreconstruitepourunmontantinférieurà100000$.Leplann’avaitdoncpas
àêtresignéetscelléparunmembredel’Ordredesarchitectes.
Leplandemaisonno2442préparéparDrummonddoitêtreconsidérécommeuneoeuvre
artistiqueausensdelaLoisurledroitd’auteur.Ceplanprovientd’uneidéedesemployésde
Drummond.Bienquel’auteurdeceplansesoitinspirédecequisefaisaitàl’époquedansle
domainedelaconstruction,ilrestequel’oeuvreémanedel’auteurlui-même.Celle-cia
nécessitédesconnaissancesdansledomainedelaconstructionetdel’architecture.Ellea
égalementnécessitédesheuresdepréparationetdeconception.Enfin,l’oeuvrejouitde
certainescaractéristiquesdistinctespermettantdelarattacheràunauteurenparticulier.
Celaenfaitdoncuneoeuvreoriginale,quibénéficieparconséquentdelaprotection
accordéeparlaLoisurledroitd’auteur.
LapreuverévèlecependantqueBrigiln’aaucunementviolélesdroitsquedétient
Drummondsurceplan,puisque,avantdel’utiliser,elleaobtenudumandatairede
Drummonduneautorisationexpressepourcefaire.C’esteneffetunedessuccursalesde
DrummondquiavenduàBrigilleplanenlitige.Cettesuccursaleadepluselle-même
modifiéleplanselonlesexigencesdeBrigil.Or,lemandantesttenuenverslestierspourles
actesaccomplisparsonmandatairedansl’exécutionetleslimitesdesonmandat.Au
surplus,lorsquel’oeuvrefaitpartieducontratintervenuentrelesparties,commec’estlecas
enl’espèce,ilexisteuneautorisationimplicitedel’auteuràlareproductiondesonoeuvre.
Parl’entremisedesasuccursale,DrummondadoncautoriséBrigilàutiliserleplandemaison
no2442.
Ilexistecertesunedistinctionentrelacessiond’undroitd’auteuretlasimplepermission
d’utiliseruneoeuvreappartenantàl’auteur.LapreuvedémontretoutefoisiciqueBrigiln’a
pasoutrepassél’autorisationreçue,nicommisd’abusquelconqueàcetégard.Iln’yadonc
paslieudefairedroitàlademandedeDrummond.

39

D
evonStudiosLtdvScarponi
(2000),[2000]OJ2559(OntSupCt);(2000),[2000]OJ2562(OntSupCt-
Costs)BoutetJ.;motionforleavetoappealdismissed(2000),[2000]OJ2015
(OntSupCt-DivCt)O’Leary
Trial
[1]TheplaintiffclaimsagainstthedefendantMr.Scarponidamagesandpunitivedamages
forcopyrightinfringementforimagesproducedandownedbytheplaintiffwhichwereused
bythedefendantScarponiandBlockbusterforpromotionalmaterialwithouttheplaintiff’s
permission.Theplaintiff’sotherclaimssuchasanaccountingandaninjunctionareoutside
thejurisdictionofThisCourt,beingofanequitablenature.
[28]Imakethefollowingfindingoffactswithouthesitation:thedefendantknewthatthe
priceofeachtransparencywas$15.00,heauthorizedtheplaintifftokeeptaking
photographsevenifthedefendantwasremindedofthehighpriceofthisexercise,the
plaintiffownsthecopyrightofthetransparenciesuntiltheaccounthasbeensatisfiedinfull,
thedefendanthasonlypaidafractionoftheaccountbydepositof$100.00,thedefendant
mandatedMs.Dimontopickupsomeofthetransparencies,Ms.Dimonwasinformedofthe
copyrightonthesaidtransparenciesandwastoldtoaskthedefendanttocontactthe
plaintiffontheissue,Ms.Dimonnotifiedthedefendantofthecopyright,thedefendant
willinglyignoredthecopyrightandauthorizedBlockbuster,amongothers,toillegally
reproducethetransparencyinpromotionalmaterials,andtheplaintiffsuffereddamagesfor
copyrightinfringementasaresult.
[31]Assessingdamagessufferedbytheplaintiffisadifficulttaskanditisevenmoresointhis
casebecausetherewasnoprofittomeasure.Iassesstheplaintiffdamagesat$3,200.00.This
amountcomprisesofpaymentoftheoutstandinginvoiceintheamountof$1,604.88andthe
balanceingeneralandpunitivedamages.Itookintoconsiderationthefactthattheplaintiff
alreadyreceived$2,800.00fromBlockbuster.IorderpunitivedamagesasIbelievethe
defendantactedrecklesslyinusingthetransparenciesknowingtheplaintiffhadretained
copyrightoverthem.IamfirminthisbeliefwhichissupportedbytheevidenceofMr.Ellis,the
swornstatementofMs.Dimon,whohasnopecuniaryinterestinthislitigation,andbythefact
thatthedefendantisanexperiencedbusinessmaninthefieldofentertainmentandheknew
oftheimportanceofcopyrightinthefieldofentertainment.

40

D
&GEnviro-groupInc.vBouchard*
(2000),JE2000-1352,REJB2000-18862,[2000]JQ2048,[2000-06-21]
http://www.jugements.qc.ca/ca/200006fr.html(QueCA)BeauregardJ.
Appeld’unjugementdelaCoursupérieureayantannulétroissaisiesavantjugement.Rejeté.
Ex-employeurdesintimés,etprétendantquecesdernierssontenpossessiondedocuments
oud’informationsluiappartenant,l’appelante,s’autorisantdel’article734duCodede
procédurecivile(C.P.C.),estentréechezlesintimésetafouillédansleursordinateurs.Les
intimésétaientabsentsetlesportesdeleursrésidencesontétéouvertesparunserrurier.Le
premierjugeaannulélessaisiesauxmotifsquelesbienssaisisétaientinsuffisammentdécrits,
quelesprocès-verbauxnementionnentpasquel’interventiond’unserruriers’estfaiteen
présencededeuxtémoins,quel’exécutiondessaisiesétaitirrégulièrepuisqu’onnes’estpas
limitéàsaisirdesbiensprécismaisqu’onafaitunevéritablerecherchedechosesàsaisiret,
finalement,qu’ilestimpossiblederecouriràl’article734C.P.C.pourfouillerlesordinateurs.
Décision
M.lejugeBeauregard:Lesbiensphysiquesàsaisirn’étaientpassuffisammentdécrits.Deplus,
lebrefdesaisiecommandeàunhuissierdesaisirunbienphysique:ilnes’agitpasd’une
autorisationdonnéeaucréanciersaisissantd’entrerchezlesaisipourvuqu’ilsoit
accompagnéd’unhuissieretdefouillerlui-mêmeparmilesbiensquisetrouventsurleslieux.
Enfin,l’article734C.P.C.nepermetpasdesaisirlecontenud’unordinateur.Unetelle
machinenepeutfairel’objetd’unefouillesanslapermissiond’unjuge.

41

D
rapeauc.Carbone14
(2000),[2000]RJQ.1525,[2000]JQ1171,REJB2000-1776,JE2000-1115
(QueSupCt)GuthrieJ.;inappeal500-09-009594-003
Résumé
Actioneninjonctionpermanente,redditiondecompteetréclamationdedommages-
intérêts,etinterventionvolontaire.Rejetées.
En1988,ladéfenderesseCarbone14,unecompagniethéâtralefondéeen1980parle
défendeurMaheu,acréésurscènelespectacleLeDortoir.Cetteoeuvrescéniquedetype
multimédiaaétéinspiréedesannéespendantlesquellesMaheuétaitpensionnaire.Celui-ci
aimaginéetécritlescénarioqu’ilamisenscène.Ilestégalementintervenudansla
scénographieetlesnombreuseschorégraphiesquifontpartieintégranteduspectacle.
Maheuaeurecoursauxservicesdeplusieursartistes,aunombredesquelssetrouvele
demandeur,unauteur-compositeurquiacréélamusiqueoriginaledecertainesscènesdu
spectacle.Latramemusicaledudemandeuraétéutiliséeconformémentauxtermesdela
conventiond’utilisationdedroitsd’auteurrédigéeàsademandeparsonavocat.Enjuillet
1990,ilacédésesdroitsd’auteuràl’intervenante,unesociétédegestionausensdel’article
70.1delaLoisurledroitd’auteur.Aucoursdumêmeété,Carbone14,Maheuetla
défenderesseRhombusMediainc.ontconvenudeproduireuneadaptation
cinématographiqueduDortoir,dontlaréalisationaétéconfiéeaudéfendeurGirard,quia
insistépourquelatramemusicalesoitmodifiée.Lacompositiondelamusiquedufilmaété
confiéeaudéfendeurGravel.LedemandeurprétendqueLeDortoirestuneoeuvrequ’ila
crééeencollaborationavecMaheuetquel’adaptationcinématographiquequienaété
faitesanssonconsentementconstitueunecontrefaçon.Ilsoutientdeplusquesesdroits
morauxontétéviolésparlasubstitutiondelatramemusicaledufilm.Ledemandeurexige
desdommages-intérêtsainsiqu’uneredditiondecomptedetouteslesredevancesperçues
parlesdéfendeurs.Ilréclameégalementladélivranced’uneordonnanceinterdisantaux
défendeursdepermettreladiffusiondufilmLeDortoir.Lesdéfendeursallèguentqueles
droitsd’auteurdudemandeurportentuniquementsurlamusiquequ’ilacomposéeetqui
constitueuntravailautonomeetdistinctdeceluideMaheu.
Décision
Laconventiond’utilisationdesdroitsd’auteurdudemandeurdémontrequesacontribution
selimitaitexclusivementàlacompositiond’unepartiedelatramemusicaleduspectacle.
Cettemusiqueconstitueuneoeuvreautonome,dissociabledesautrescomposantesdu
spectacle.Ledemandeurl’ad’ailleursconfirméparl’enregistrementdesesdroitsauprèsde
l’intervenante,enregistrementquiviseuniquementlamusique.Lesfaitsentourantlapaternité
del’oeuvreontcrééuneprésomptionlégalequeseulMaheuestl’auteurduspectaclesur
scène(art.34(4)a)delaloi).Ledemandeurn’apasréussiàrepoussercetteprésomption
(art.2847duCodecivilduQuébec).Mêmesil’onn’avaitpasconcluquetouscesfaits
constituentunefindenon-recevoiràl’actiondudemandeur,ilfaudraitrejetersaprétention
voulantqueLeDortoirconstitueuneoeuvrecrééeencollaboration(art.2delaloi).Eneffet,
lamusiquedudemandeurestautonomeetdistinctedetouteslesautrespartiesdu
spectacle.Ellead’ailleursétéfacilementremplacéepourl’adaptationcinématographique
duspectacle.Enoutre,l’enregistrementvidéoduspectaclemontrequelelangagecorporel
desesinterprètesnedépendpasdelamusiquequiaccompagnelesdifférentes
chorégraphies,quiontd’ailleursétécrééesplustôt.L’originalitéduspectaclerésultedu
travaildumetteurenscèneetdeschoixqu’ilafaitsconcernantlesacteurs,lesdécors,les
costumes,l’époque,leslieuxettouslesélémentsquiontcréésonatmosphèreparticulière.Le
demandeurn’apasparticipéàlacréationdecesautresélémentsartistiquesnonplusqu’à
leurassemblage.Maheu,quis’étaitréservéledroitd’accepterouderefuserlamusiquedu

42

demandeur,n’ajamaiseul’intentiondecréeruneoeuvreencollaborationaveccelui-
ci.Ilestleseuletuniqueauteurduspectacle,quiaétéinspiréparsajeunesseetau
traversduquelilaexprimésesidées,sontalentetsavisiondumonde.L’interventiondela
SODRACestégalementvouéeàl’échecpuisquelefilmestuneadaptationduspectacleet
nonunesimplereproduction.CommelaSODRACnedétientqueledroitd’autoriserou
d’interdirelareproductiondesoeuvresdudemandeur,ellen’aaucunintérêtjuridiquedans
laprésenteprocédure.

43

D
ueck(ReHildaM.)
(2000),[2000]CBD19(CopyrightBoard)
Pursuanttotheprovisionsofsection77(1)oftheCopyrightAct,theCopyrightBoardgrantsa
licencetoHildaM.Dueckasfollows:
(1)ThelicenceauthorizesthereproductionofprintsofElwin(orEdwin)Edwards’paintings »A
JuneMorning »and »SeptemberEve »publishedbyTheArtisticPublishingCompany(yearof
publicationunknown).
Asinglecopyofeachoftheworksshallbereproduced.

44

D
ueck(ReJudy)
(2000),[2000]CBD22(CopyrightBoard)
Pursuanttotheprovisionsofsection77(1)oftheCopyrightAct,theCopyrightBoardgrantsa
licencetoJudyDueckasfollows:
(1)ThelicenceauthorizesthereproductionofaprintofElwin(orEdwin)Edwards’painting
« SeptemberEve »publishedbyTheArtisticPublishingCompany(yearofpublicationunknown).
Asinglecopyoftheworkshallbereproduced.

45

É
ditionsduVermillion(Re)
(2000),[2000]DCDA8(CB)
Conformémentauxdispositionsduparagraphe77(1)delaLoisurledroitd’auteur,la
Commissiondudroitd’auteuraccordeunelicenceauxÉditionsduVermilloncommesuit:
1)Lalicenceautoriselareproductiond’unextraitd’unarticledeRogerCyrintitulé
JeanDuceppedénonceles
sociétéssecrètesparudansLaPatrie(« LaPatentesemeurt »)enmai1964,dans
unromandeJeanTailleferintitulé »Ottawa,P.Q. ».
Letiragenedevrapasdépasser500copies.

46

É
ditionsTriptyque(Re)
(2000),[2000]DCDA9(CB)
Conformémentauxdispositionsduparagraphe77(1)delaLoisurledroitd’auteur,la
Commissiondudroitd’auteuraccordeunelicenceauxÉditionsTriptyquecommesuit:
1)Lalicenceautoriselaproductionetlapublicationd’unetraductiondel’oeuvre
deJuanButlerintituléeCabbagetownDiary:ADocumentarypubliéeparPeter
MartinAssociatesLimiteden1970.
Letiragenedevrapasdépasser800copies.

47

E
dutileIncvAssociationpourlaprotectiondesautomobilistes(APA)
Anunreportedjudgmentrendered19960522byMrJusticeDubé,court
docketT-1151-96(FCTD-interlocutoyinjunction);anunreportedjudgment
rendered19960619byprothonotaryMorneau(FCTD-Proth-Evidence);[1996]
FCJ1203(FCTD-InterlocutoryInjunction);(1997),143FTR210,81CPR(3d)338,
[1998]2FCD-24,[1997]FCJ1788(FCTD–Merits);revd(2000),6CPR(4th)211,
[2000]FCJ513,[2000]ACF513,188DLR(4
th)132,255NR1476CPR(4th)211,
[2000]4FC195(FCA);motionforleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtof
Canadadismissedon2001-01-25[2000]CSCR302,[2000]SCCA302(SCC)
Theplaintiffpreparedandpublishedapriceguideforautomobilestargetedatconsumers.
Foritsguidetheplaintiffselectedthreetypesoftransactionsnamely,trade-in,privatesale
andretailsale.Itsetoutthevalueforeachofthesetransactions[page212]inthreecolumns.
Theprivatesalecolumnwasinthemiddle,thetrade-incolumnwasontheleftandtheretail
columnwasontheright.Atthetimetheplaintiffpublisheditsguide,otherguideswere
availablebutweretargetedmoreatdealersofautomobiles.Afterpublishingitsguide,the
plaintiffarrangedforthedefendanttoverifythepricesdeterminedbytheplaintiffand
enteredinitsguide.
Thedefendantpublishedapriceguideforautomobileswhichcontainedthreecolumns,two
ofwhich,includingprivatesale,thedefendantadoptedfromtheplaintiff.Thepricesentered
inthedefendant’sguidedifferedfromthepricesenteredintheplaintiff’sguideandwerethe
resultofthedefendant’sindependentlabour.
Theplaintiffcommencedanactionclaimingthatthedefendant’sguideinfringedthe
plaintiff’scopyright.Attrialthedefendant’spresidenttestifiedthattheplaintiff’sselectionofa
privatesalecolumninitsguidewasaninnovativeideaandthattheassemblingofthedata
intheplaintiff’sguideinthreecolumnswasoriginal.
Thetrialjudgefoundthattheplaintiff’sguidesdidnothavethenecessarycreativitytoattract
copyrightandthat,evenifcopyrightsubsistedintheplaintiff’sguide,thedefendant’sguide
didnotinfringetheplaintiff’scopyright.Theplaintiffappealed.
Held,theappealshouldbeallowed.
Theplaintiffclaimedcopyrightinasubcompilationoftheguidebeingtheselectionand
presentationofthethreecolumnswhichwerepreviouslyunavailableinotherguides.
Itisnoteasytodrawalinebetweenaminimaldegreeofskill,judgmentandlabourandno
creativeelement.Asaresultofthetestimonyofthepresidentofthedefendant,thecourt
hadnochoicebuttofindinfavouroftheplaintiff.Copyrightsubsistedintheplaintiff’sguide,
notforthethree-columnlayoutnortheselectionordesignationofthethreemarketsusedby
theplaintiff,butfromtheselectionandlayoutoftwoofthecolumns,onedealingwithprivate
saleandtheotherdealingwiththeretailmarket.
Copyrightisinfringedbyreproducingacopyrightworkoranysubstantialpartofthework.
Whatissubstantialdependsmoreonthequalityandnatureofwhatisreproducedthanthe
quantityofwhatisreproduced.Theessenceoftheplaintiff’sworkwasthethree-column
layout,whichwaspreciselywhatwastakenbythedefendant.

48

F
itzgeraldvR.
(2000),[2000]CarswellNat554,[2000]3CTC2011,[2000]GTC2078(Tax
Ct)BowmanJ.
5Wherewasthismoneytocomefrom?Itwasallegedlytocomefromanothermysterious
offshorecompanyanditwassaidthismoneywasborrowedandinterestwaspaid.Idonot
suggestthatMr.Fitzgeraldwasnotactingingoodfaith,butIdothinkthathewassold,ifI
mayputitcolloquially,abill-of-goods.IthinkMr.Thillwasacon-artistandIthinktheschemes
thathewaspromotingwentbeyondmereaggressivetaxplanning.Ithinkthepartnerships,
thoughtheymayhavehadapatinaorafaçadeofcommerciality–apparentlysome
magazineswereproduced–theirrealobjectwastoobtainataxwrite-off.Theprintingof,
say,100,000copiesofamagazine,wheninfactmillionsandmillionsofcopiesweresupposed
tobeprintedandsold,seemstometobesoinsubstantialasevidenceofacommercial
intentastobevirtuallyworthless.TheMinisterofNationalRevenueandcounselforthe
AttorneyGeneralusedtheterm »sham »and,Imustsay,Ithinkthetermisappropriateinthese
circumstances.Idonotthinkthatitwaseverintendedtocarryonabusinesswithanyviewof
creatingaprofit.Therealobjectseemstometohavebeentogetataxwrite-off.
6Myreasonsfordismissingtheseappealsare:first,Ithinkthepartnershipswereshams;
secondly,Idonotthinkthepartnershipscarriedonabusinessoreverintendedtocarryona
business;thirdly,Idonotthinkthattheamountsclaimedbythepartnershipasadvance
royalties,interest,insurance,andmanyotherexpenses,wereever,infact,incurredorspent
orwasanymoneyeverchangedhands.Idonotthinkthatanymoneywasborrowedfrom
thismysteriousoffshorebankinginstitutionorlender.Therewasnocommercialpurpose
behindthesevariouspartnershipsbeyondgettingataxwrite-offandthatiswhatMr.Thillwas
selling.Therewasnosubstance,inmyopinion,tothepartnershipsandthepublicationwas
merelyavehiclearoundwhichthepartnershipwasstructuredinordertocreatethe
impressionofcommerciality.Itissignificantthattherewasnoevidenceofanymoneybeing
setasidetocarryonproduction,eventhoughitwassaidthatsome10million-oddissuesof
themagazineweresupposedtobeproducedinthesecondyear.

49

F
oxvVonHuene
(2000),[2000]JQ3023,[2000]CarswellQue1836,JE2000-1813,REJB2000-
20174(QueSupCt)LangloisJ.
Requêteeninjonctioninterlocutoirevisantlacessationdel’utilisationd’unsiteInternet.
Accueillie.
L’intiméadéveloppél’idéedecréerunsiteInternetvisantàpermettrelescontactsentre
ancienscamaradesdeclasse.Ilestentréencommunicationaveclerequérant,quiest
consultantdansledomainedesordinateursetconcepteurdesitesInternet.Ilssesontadjoint
lesservicesd’uninformaticien.Pourlasommede3000$,lerequérantetl’informaticienont
procédéàlaprogrammationdesdonnéesdebaseainsiqu’àlaprésentationetaumontage
dusite,dontl’intiméestlepropriétaireenregistré.Pendantunpeuplusd’unan,des
discussionsonteulieuentrelespartiesquantàlanatureetàl’étenduedeleursrelations
d’affaires.Finalement,l’intiméamisfinàcelles-ciainterrompul’accèsausite,craignantque
lerequérantneledémantèle.IlacommuniquéavecunautreconcepteurdesitesInternet
etluiademandéderecréerunsitesemblablesurleserveurutiliséàl’origine.Lerequéranta
obtenuladélivranced’uneinjonctionprovisoireordonnantàl’intimédeluitransmettrele
coded’identificationdusite,lemotdepasseydonnantaccèsetdifférentesdonnées.Le
requérantsoutientnepasavoirreçutouteslescopiesdel’oeuvrequeconstituelesiteetne
plusyavoiraccès.Parlebiaisdesademanded’injonctioninterlocutoire,ilréclameles
mêmesconclusionsquelorsdesademanded’injonctionprovisoire,etplusparticulièrement
l’accèsausitedesserviparunserveurdifférent.L’intiméallègueessentiellementquelesite
qu’ilexploiteestdifférentdeceluicrééparlerequérantetletiersinformaticien.
Décision
Ladéfinitiondel’expression«oeuvrelittéraire»qu’ontrouveàl’article2delaLoisurledroit
d’auteurédictequelesprogrammesd’ordinateursontcouvertsparcettedéfinition.L’auteur
d’uneoeuvreoriginaleviséeparlaloibénéficiedesdroitsaccordésparcelle-ci.Enl’espèce,
leconceptdusitefaisantl’objetdulitigeprovientdel’intimé,maisl’expressionduconceptest
lefruitdutravaildurequérantetd’untiersinformaticien,quiluiacédésesdroits.Ilsensont
donclesauteurs.Lefaitqu’ilssesoientengagésenversl’intiméàcréerlesitemoyennant
rémunérationneleurapasfaitperdrelesdroitsquis’yrattachent.Deplus,onn’apasétabli
l’existenced’unecessiondedroitoudelicenceenfaveurdel’intimé.Conformémentà
l’article27(1)delaloi,nulnepeuts’emparerdutravaild’autrui,c’est-à-diredutitulairedu
droitd’auteur,sanssonautorisation.Envertudel’article34.1delaloi,ilyaprésomptionque
l’oeuvreestprotégéeparledroitd’auteuretquelerequérantesttitulairedecedroit.L’intimé
devaitdoncdémontrerquelesiteconçuparlenouvelinformaticienqu’ilaembauchéest
différent.Or,lapreuvenepermetpasdeconclureàl’originalitédecetteoeuvreparrapport
àcelledurequérant.Laprésomptionn’estdoncpasrepoussée.L’utilisationparl’intiméd’une
oeuvrequicomprendplusieurscaractéristiquespropresàcelledurequérantconstitueune
violationdudroitdecelui-ciàtitred’auteur.Larequêteestenconséquenceaccueillie.Le
tribunalfixelacautionquel’intimédevrafournirà5000$etordonnel’exécutionprovisoiredu
présentjugementnonobstantappel.

50

G
rinshpunvUniversityofBritishColumbia
(2000),[2000]FCJ1446,[2000]CarswellNat1942,[2000]FTRTBEdSE024
(FCTD)Aronovitch,Prothonotary
[2]ThisisasimplifiedactioninwhichMr.Grinshpunclaimsgeneralandpunitivedamagesfor
theinfringementorconversionbythedefendantofhiscopyrightincertainprogramsbeinga
BoxerciseandBoxingProgram.
[12]AsIfindnoevidenceofcopying,emulation,orconversionbythedefendanteitherasit
relatestothedescriptionsortheprograms,ImustconcludethatMr.Grinshpunhasnotmet
hisburdenofmakingoutaprimafaciecaseofinfringement.Ithereforeneednotgoonto
considertheproprietaryrightsofMr.Grinshpun,ifany,inhisBoxingandBoxercisePrograms
includingspecificallytheregimendescribedinthe7-pagehandwrittennotes.
[14]Moreimportantly,itisimpossibletoascertainwhetherasdescribeditfallswithintheambit
orscopeofthecopyrightcertificate.Ofhisownadmission,Mr.Grinshpundidnotattachany
documentationtohisapplicationforregistrationwiththeCanadianIntellectualProperty
Office.Thecopyrightcertificateissuedtohimhasthetitleandnatureoftheworkinprecisely
thetermssubmittedbyMr.Grinshpuninhisapplication.Thetitleoftheworkis »Recreational
BoxingandFitness. »Thenatureoftheworkisdescribedas »artistic(uniquesportsprogram) ».It
isfurtherindicatedtobeunpublished.Thereisnotenoughspecificitytoconcludewhat
artisticworkisinfactcoveredbythecertificate.
[15]IamthereforesatisfiedthatMr.Grinshpunhasneithersuccessfullyproventheentitlement
orrightsheclaimswithrespecttohisprograms,orthedescriptions,noranyviolationofthose
rightsbyUBC.AccordinglyIherebydismissMr.Grinshpun’sactionwithcosts.

51

G
uérinÉditeurLtéevHarcourtBrace&Co.*
(2000),JE2000-905,REJB2000-17500,[2000]JQ1058(QueSupCt)JolinJ.;
inappeal500-09-009515-008).
Actionendommages-intérêts.Rejetée.Demandereconventionnelleendommages-intérêts.
Rejetée.
Enseptembre1991,lespartiesontsignéuncontratenvertuduquellademanderesses’est
engagéeàtraduireunouvragederéférenceenmatièredecomptabilitésurlequella
défenderessedétenaittouslesdroitsd’éditionetdevente.Enmai1993,estimantquela
demanderessen’avaitpasrespectésesobligations,ladéfenderesseamisfinaucontrat.La
demanderesseluiréclamedesdommages-intérêtsde259474$pourcetterésiliation.La
défenderessesoutientque,contrairementàcequiavaitétéconvenu,lademanderesses’est
permisdefaireuneadaptationdel’ouvrage,etce,malgrélefaitqu’elleluiaitrappeléà
plusieursreprisesqu’elledevaits’enteniràlatraduction.Lademanderesseprétendquele
contratainsiquelesusagesdanslemilieudel’éditionluipermettaientd’effectuercertaines
adaptations.Elleajoutequeladéfenderessenepouvaitrésilierlecontratsansunemiseen
demeurepréalabled’aumoins30jours.
Décision
Ilnefaitaucundoutequelademanderesseaprocédéàcertainesmisesàjouret
adaptationsdel’ouvrage,avecdesajoutsetdesretraitsautexteoriginal.Selonl’opiniond’un
expertentraduction,letravaildelademanderesseneconstituepasunetraductionfidèlede
l’oeuvreoriginale.Danscertainscas,lapreuvedel’usageoudelapratiquecommerciale
peutêtreadmise,parexemplelorsquelecontratestsilencieuxsurunaspectparticulierou
qu’ilestincompletouambigu.Danslecasprésent,lecontratestsuffisammentclairetiln’est
pasnécessairederecouriràdessourcesextérieurespourl’interpréter.Quandils’agitd’une
oeuvrelittéraire,letraducteurpeutbénéficierd’unecertainelatitudepourtraduireuntexte
original,maiscen’estpaslecaspourlatraductiond’unouvragescientifiqueoud’untraitéde
comptabilité.D’autrepart,ils’agiticid’uncontratcivilet,parconséquent,iln’yapaslieude
recourirauxdispositionsdelaLoisurledroitd’auteurpourconnaîtrelaportéedumot
«traduction».Lademanderessenes’estpasconforméeàsesobligations.Elleaapportédes
modificationsimportantesàl’ouvrage.Siellecroyaitnepaspouvoirtraduireletextetelquel,
elledevaitéviterdes’engageràlefaire.Deplus,dèsqu’elleacomprisqueladéfenderesse
n’accordaitpaslamêmeportéeaucontrat,elledevaitensuspendrel’exécutionpour
clarifierlasituationavantdecontinuer.Elledevaittraduirel’ouvrageetnonlemettreàjour.
Silecontratpouvaitlaissersubsisterundoutesurlemandatconfiéàlademanderesse,la
défenderesseluiapréciséàplusieursrepriseslaportéedumandatqu’elleluiavaitconfié.
Mêmesiladéfenderessenel’apasmiseendemeure,ellesavaitdepuisplusieursmoisquela
défenderessenepartageaitpassoninterprétationdelanaturedecemandatetqu’elle
s’opposaitàl’adaptationdel’ouvrage.Plusieurssemaines,sinonplusieursmois,avantquela
défenderessedécidedemettrefinaucontrat,lademanderessesavaitcequecelle-ci
exigeaitetelleaeuamplementletempsdes’yconformer.Or,elleestrestéesursespositions.
Ellen’apasdroitauxsommesqu’elleréclame.

52

H
arcourtBrace&Co.(Re)
(2000),[2000]CBD7(CB)
Pursuanttotheprovisionsofsection77(1)oftheCopyrightAct,theCopyrightBoardgrantsa
licencetoHarcourtBrace&Company,Canadaasfollows:
(1)Thelicenceauthorizesthereprintofthefollowingworks:
-BarneywrittenbyWillStanton,originallypublishedin »FiftyShortScienceFiction
Tales »in1951byMacMillanPublishing;
-TheInheritorwrittenbyFrankRoberts,originallypublishedintheAustralian
magazine »Man »in1963;
-TheCurlew’sCry,writtenbyJ.LeslieBell,originallypublishedin »AlbertaBound:
ThirtyStoriesbyAlbertaWriters »,editedbyFredStensonandpublishedin1986by
NeWestPressasoriginallypublished.
Thenumberofcopiesprintedforeachworkshallnotexceed25,000.
(2)Theauthorizedreproductionoftheaboveworksisforinclusioninatextbookanthologyof
shortstoriesforhighschoolEnglishclassesbyHarcourtBraceentitledInsideStoriesI(2nd
edition)andInsideStoriesII(2ndedition).

53

H
arcourtCanadaLtd.(Re)
(2000),[2000]CBD25(CopyrightBoard)

Pursuanttotheprovisionsofsection77(1)oftheCopyrightAct,theCopyrightBoardgrantsa
licencetoHarcourtBrace&Company,Canadaasfollows:
(1)ThelicenceauthorizesthereprintoftheworkentitledRacistStereotypinginthe
EnglishLanguagewrittenbyRobertB.Moore,reprintedin1976bytheCouncilon
InterracialBooksforChildrenfromthebookRacismintheEnglishLanguageby
RobertB.Moore.
Thenumberofcopiesprintedshallnotexceed17,000.
Theissuanceofthelicencedoesnotreleasetheapplicantfromtheobligationtoobtain
permissionforanyotherusenotcoveredbythislicence.

54

H
auptvEco-NovaMulti-Media
(2000),[2000]NSJ414,[2000]CarswellNS406,[2001]NSR(2d)TBEdJA008
(NSSC)DavisonJ.
[1]Thisapplicationwasinitiatedbyanoriginatingnotice(applicationinterpartes)whereby
theplaintiffsought »deliveryofpossession…ofthestockfootageforthetelevisionseries
‘OceansofMystery’. »
[17]Fortheforegoingreasonstheapplicationshouldbedismissed.Iwouldaddtheclausein
thescheduletotheagreement,towhichcounselfortheplaintiffanddefendantsrefer,
cannotbeinterpretedbyanyruleofconstructionbecauseitisincomplete.Itiswritten »the
partiestohavejointaccessandcontrolofthefootageasthepartiesshallagree. »(emphasis
added)Thisisanagreementtomakeanagreement.Thepartieshaveagreedtonegotiate.
AsstatedbyChitteyonContracts28thEditionatp.145:
Afurtherpossibilityisthatthepartieshavesimplyagreedtonegotiate.Inspiteof
dictatothecontrary,ithasbeenheldthatamereagreementtonegotiateisnot
acontract »becauseitistoouncertaintohaveanybindingforce. »Ittherefore
doesnotimposeanyobligationstonegotiate,ortousebestendeavourstoreach
agreementortoacceptproposalsthat »withhindsightappeartobereasonable. »
Nor,whereanagreementfailstosatisfytherequirementofcertainty,canthis
defectbecuredbyimplyingintoitatermtotheeffectthatthepartiesmust
continuetonegotiateingoodfaith.
[18]Theapplicationhasbeendecidedonissuesraisedinthehearingbythecourt.Both
counselfortheplaintiffanddefendantsexpressedtheviewthecourtshouldadjudicatea
solutiontothedifferencesbetweentheparties.Inmyrespectfulview,thiswouldconstitutea
mediationunsupportedbyanyruleoflaw.

55

H
ornAbbottLtd.vReeves
(2000),182NSR(2d)357,45CPC(4
th)353,[2000]NSJ34.[2000]CarswellNS
35,563PEIR357,[2000]NSR(2d)TBEdFE021(NSSC)HoodJ.
Adefendantappliedtohaveanactionbroughtagainsthimbytheplaintiffsstruckorstayed
pendingadecisioninanothercase.[ThesubjectmatteroftheReevesmatterisfraudand
conspiracy;theWallactionhasanumberofothercausesofaction,includingabreachof
copyrightclaim.]
TheNovaScotiaSupremeCourtdismissedtheapplication,butaskedforfurthersubmissions
regardingwhetherthecourtcould,onitsownmotion,orderthatthetwoactionsshouldbe
triedtogetheroroneaftertheotherunderCivilProcedureRule39.02.Thecourtruledthatit
hadtheauthoritytomakesuchanorderbutdeclinedtodosoontheevidenceinthiscase.
Judges-Powers-Authoritytoactexmeromotu(onownmotion)-Adefendantappliedto
haveanactionbroughtagainsthimbytheplaintiffsstruckorstayedpendingadecisionin
anothercase-TheNovaScotiaSupremeCourtdismissedtheapplication,butaskedfor
furthersubmissionsregardingwhetherthecourtcould,onitsownmotion,orderthatthetwo
actionsshouldbetriedtogetheroroneaftertheotherunderCivilProcedureRule39.02-The
courtruledthatithadauthoritytomakesuchanorderbutdeclinedtodosoonthe
evidenceinthiscase.
Judges-Powers-Authoritytoactexmeromotu(onownmotion)-TheNovaScotiaSupreme
Court,perHood,J.,discussedwhenitcouldactonitsownmotiontoorderthattwomatters
betriedatthesametimeoroneimmediatelyaftertheotherunderCivilProcedureRule39.02
-Thecourtstatedthat »thecircumstancesunderwhichthecourtcouldconsiderdoingso
include:a)wheretheapplicationbeforethecourtisforasimilarremedy;b)wherethe
partieshavehadanopportunitytoaddresstheissue;andc)wherethecourtissatisfiedthat
clause(a),(b)or(c)ofCivilProcedureRule39.02ismet.Undertheselimitedcircumstances,it
ismyviewthatthecourtisnotentering’thearena’ofalitigation.Undertheselimited
circumstances,thecourtissimplytryingtoachievethejust,speedyandinexpensive
determinationoftheproceedingswhicharecontemplatedbyCivilProcedureRule1.03. »-

56

I
maxCorp.vShowmax,Inc.
(1999),[1999]FCJ1275(FCTD-Amendment);(1999),FCJ1733(FCTD-
Practice);(2000),[2000]FCJ69,5CPR(4
th)81,182FTR180,[2000]CarswellNat
135,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca25888.o.en.html
(FCTD-InterlocutoryInjunction)TeitelbaumJ.[JusticeRouleaugranteda
permanentinjunctionagainsttheShowmaxdefendantsonMay16,2000.]
Theplaintiffownedanumberoftrade-markscomprisingtheword »IMAX »,includingthe
registeredtrade-markIMAXusedinassociationwithavarietyofmotionpicturesandrelated
waresandservicesincludingmotionpicturetheatreservices.Theplaintiffhadinventedand
developedthelarge-formatcinemaindustryandhadengagedinarangeofactivitiesinthat
fieldforover30years.Itoperated28large-formatcinemasinCanada.
Thedefendantannounceditsintentiontooperatelarge-formattheatresinTorontoand
Vancouver,allinassociationwiththetrade-markSHOWMAX.Ithadusedthetrade-mark
SHOWMAXonbannersandmagazinesadvertisingtheMontrealtheatreandonitswebsite.It
alsoexhibitedanimageofanImaxtheatreinitspromotionalmaterials.Finally,the
defendant’sShowmaxwebsitehadofferedalink,framedbyapageoftheShowmaxsite,
whichledviewerstotheOldPortofMontrealwebsitewhichcontainedinformationabout
andanimageoftheplaintiff’sImaxcinema.
Theplaintiffhadcommencedanactionfortrade-markinfringement,passingoff,
depreciationofgoodwillcontrarytos.22(1)oftheTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13,
makingfalseandmisleadingstatementscontrarytos.7(a)oftheTrade-marksAct,and
infringementoftheplaintiff’scopyrightinitswebsite.Itbroughtamotionforaninterimand
interlocutoryinjunctiontorestrainthedefendantfromusingtheword »Showmax »asthename
ofthelarge-formatmotionpicturetheatreitproposedopeninginMontreal.Insupportofits
motion,theplaintifffiledan[page82]affidavitevidencingtheresultsofasurveyshowingthat
abouthalfthepeoplesurveyedbelievedthatShowmaxtheatreswouldbeowned,operated
byorhavesomeconnectionwiththecompanythatownedtheImaxtheatres.Inresponse,
thedefendantfiledanaffidavitthatcriticizedthemethodologyoftheplaintiff’ssurvey
evidence,butdidnotprovideevidencethattheresultswouldhavebeenanydifferenthada
moreappropriatemethodbeenused.Theplaintiffalsofiledanaffidavitfromanassociate
deanofabusinessschoolwhoconcludedthat,ifthedefendantusedthenameSHOWMAX
withalarge-formattheatreinMontreal,confusionwouldresultnotonlyinlostsalesbutcause
damagetothegoodwillandvalueofthemarkIMAX,andthatthislattertypeofdamage
couldnotbecalculatedinmonetaryterms.Thedefendantdidnotfileanyevidenceto
contradicttheexpertopinionastoirreparableharm.
Held,themotionshouldbegrantedwithcosts.
Theplaintiffmustestablishthatthereisaseriousissuetobetried,thatitwillsufferirreparable
harmiftheinjunctionisnotgrantedandthatthebalanceofconveniencefavoursthegrant
oftheinjunction.
Seriousissue
Therearenospecificrequirementswhichmustbeshowntosatisfythistest:thethresholdisa
lowone.Theplaintiff’ssurveyevidenceshowedthatanarguablecaseexistedontheissueof
inCanada.
BalanceofConvenience

57

AsthedefendanthadnotcommenceddoingbusinessinCanadaandhadincurred
onlyrelativelyinsignificantcostsinpromotingtheproposedopeningofitslarge-format
theatre,thebalanceofconveniencefavouredthegrantoftheinjunction.

58

I
nfinitecMarketingGroupIncv[YoursIndustriesCorp
(1999),[1999]Man.R.(2d)Uned.51(ManQB)Schulman;J.;(1999),[1999]
Man.R.(2d)Uned.161,[1999]ManR(2d)TBEdSE029[1999]MJ164,[2000]5
WWR283,41CPC(4
th)342(ManQB)KennedyJ;eachaffd(2000),[2000]
CarswellMan220,[2000]ManRUned45,2000MBCA25,[2000]7WWR297
(ManCA)HubandJ.
Therearetwoseparateappealsinthesetworelatedactions.Inthefirst,Schulman,J.,denied
anapplication
forinteriminjunctiverelieftoInfinitecMarketingGroupInc.(Infinitec),andinthesecond,
Kennedy,J.,grantedaninteriminjunctiontoEssentiallyYoursIndustriesCorp.

59

I
nhesionIndustrialCoLtdvAngloCanadianMercantileCoLtd
(2000),6CPR(4th)362,[2000]CarswellNat687,[2000]FCJ491,[2000]ACF
491,[2000]FTRUned354,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26359.o.en.html,en
françaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26359.o.fr.html
(FCTD-SummaryJudgment)
InDecember1990anemployeeoftheplaintiff’ssubsidiarycreatedapoinsettiadesignfor
tableware.Theplaintiffallegedthatthecopyrightinthedesignasanartisticworkwas
assignedtotheplaintiffinAugust1998.
In1993theplaintiffcommencedexportingandsellingtablewarefeaturingthepoinsettia
designtoaCanadianretailer.In1998theretailerrequestedthattheplaintiffsupplythe
tablewareforareducedprice.Theplaintiffrefusedtodecreaseitspriceandtheretailer
advisedtheplaintiffthatitwouldsourceanewpatternoftablewarefromanother
manufacturer.
InMay1998theplaintifflearnedthattablewarebearingthepoinsettiadesignwasbeing
manufacturedinChinaattherequestofthedefendantforresaletotheCanadianretailer.
Thedesignofthetablewarewasdeliberatelycopiedfromtheplaintiff’stableware.InAugust
1998theplaintiffforwardedaceaseanddesistlettertothedefendant.Thedefendant
refusedtocomplywiththetermsoftheletter,importedthetablewareintoCanadaandsold
thetablewaretotheretailerforthe1998Christmasseason.
InJanuary1999thepartiesandtheretailermetandattemptedtosettlethedispute.
Inanactionforinfringementofcopyrightinthepoinsettiadesignthepartiesmovedfor
summaryjudgment.Inseekingsummaryjudgmentthedefendantclaimedthatthedispute
betweenthepartieswassettled.Theplaintifffiledtwoaffidavitsofanindividualwhohadno
actualknowledgeoftheallegedassignmentofthecopyright.Theassignmentdocument
wasmerelyattachedtooneoftheaffidavitsasanexhibit.Theaffidavitswerebasedonthe
affiant’spersonalknowledgeandbusinessrecordsoftheplaintiff.
Held,themotionsshouldbedismissed.
Inamotionforsummaryjudgmentboththemovingandrespondingpartiesmustfiletheir
bestevidence.Theonusisonthemovingpartytoestablishthefactsnecessarytoobtainthe
summaryjudgmentsought.
Thecourtwasunabletodeterminefromtheplaintiff’saffidavitsfromwhichrecordsorpersons
theaffiantreceivedthe
informationforthestatementintheaffidavitregardingtheassignmentofthecopyrighttothe
plaintiff.Documentsmustbeproventobeadmittedintoevidence.Adocumentisnot
admissiblemerelybecauseitisattachedtoanaffidavit.Thepresumptionssetoutins.34.1of
theCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,didnotassisttheplaintiff.Bys.34.1copyrightwas
presumedtosubsistinthepoinsettiadesignandtheburdenthenshiftedtothedefendantto
showthattheworkwasnotthepropersubjectofcopyright.However,[page364]therewas
nopresumptionthatthecopyrightwasownedbytheplaintiff.Thecourtwasnottherefore
abletofindthefactsnecessarytodecidethatcopyrightinthepoinsettiadesignwasowned
bytheplaintiff.Therewasagenuineissuefortrialontheownershipofthecopyright.

60

Withrespecttotheallegedsettlement,therewasconflictingtestimonyconcerningwhat
tookplaceduringthesettlementnegotiations.Credibilityofthewitnesseswastherefore
anissuewhichwouldbebetterdeterminedbythejudgeattrial.

61

I
slandViewBeachEstatesCorp.v.J.E.Anderson&Associates
(2000),[2000]BCJ1553,[2000]CarswellBC1560,[2000]BCSC1121,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/00/11/s00-1121.htm(BCSC)QuijanoJ.
[1]Theplaintiffseeksanorderofreplevinpursuanttos.57oftheLawandEquityAct,R.S.B.C.
1996,c.253andRule46(4)oftheRulesofCourt,torecoverfromthedefendantcertain
surveyplans.
[18]AsIhavesaid,thereisnoquestionthatthedefendanthascopyrightintheplansand
thatitimpliedlyconsentedtotheplaintiff’suseoftheplanswhentheywerefirstdeliveredin
JuneorJulyor1998.Theplanswerereturnedbytheplaintifftothedefendantearlierthisyear
witharequestthatthedefendantcorrecttheplansinordertosatisfytherequirementsofthe
LandTitleOffice.Tothattimethereisnoevidencethatthedefendantgavenoticetothe
plaintiffofanywithdrawalofconsenttotheuseoftheplans.Thedefendantsaysthatithas
therighttowithdrawitsconsenttotheuseoftheplans,andthatthewithdrawalofconsentis
implicitintheirrefusaltoreturntheplanstotheplaintiff.
[19]AccordingtothecaseofKochv.Lloyd,[1985]B.C.J.No.2112,(22April1985),
VancouverRegistryCA002093(B.C.C.A.)theconsentcanbewithdrawnonlyiftherehas
beennoconsiderationfortheconsentgiveninthefirstplace.
[20]Whentheplanswerereturnedtothedefendantforthecorrectionservicesan
agreementwasreachedwherebythedefendantwouldcorrecttheplanstothesatisfaction
oftheLandTitleOfficeprovidedthecostfordoingsowaspaidinadvance.Thatcostwas
paidinadvanceandIconcludethatitwasalogicalinferencefromthosearrangementsthat
oncetheplanswerecorrectedtheplaintiffwouldbeentitledtofilethemwiththeLandTitle
Office,withtheconsentofthedefendant.

62

J
olianInvestmentsLtd.vGatien
(2000),[2000]CarswellOnt3484,[2000]OJ3719,[2000]OTCTBEdSE016
(OntSupCt)JurianszJ.
[1]Thiscaseraisesthequestionofwhetherthecostsofanabandonedsummaryjudgment
motionaretobedeterminedbyreferencetorule20.06(1)orrule37.09(3).
[15]Inthiscaseitisunnecessarytoreviewallthefacetsofthelitigationandthesummary
judgmentmotions.Itissufficienttonotethattheplaintiffclaimedcopyrightinfringementinits
action.Thesummarymotionswerefiledonthebasisoftheplaintiff’sresponsestoRequeststo
ProduceDocuments.Theplaintiff,initsrespondingmaterialtothemotions,producednunc
protuncassignmentsofcopyrighttotheplaintiffwhichwerepreparedandexecutedafter
themotionswerefiled.Inmyviewitwasnotunreasonableforthedefendantstoassume
theywouldobtainreliefatleastonthisissueonthereturnofthesummaryjudgmentmotions.
Therewasnoevidencethatthemotionswerebroughtforanyoftheimproperpurposes
identifiedbyBelleghemJ.inInnovativeAutomationInc.Therefore,Irefusetheplaintiff’s
requestforanorderofcostsinitsfavouronasolicitorclientscale.

63

K
eddyMotorInnsLtd(Bankrupt)Re
(2000),[2000]CarswellNS286,[2000]NSJ307[2000]NSRUned33(NBSC)
NunnJ.
[1]ThisisanappealbytheSocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanada
(« SOCAN »)fromthedisallowancebytheTrusteeofaclaimagainstthebankruptestateby
SOCAN.
[17]Itisnotunreasonabletoconcludethattheacceptanceofthepost-datedchequesand
achequeforcostswould,inthesecircumstances,amounttoacompletesatisfactionofthat
partofthesettlementagreement.Theresult,ofcourse,isthatthebankruptisentitledtoa
satisfactionpiecereleasingthewholeofthejudgmentandnoclaimforprofitsunderthe
judgmentsurvives.
[18]IfIamwronginmyinterpretationofthecontractIwouldstillfindagainstSOCANonthe
basisofestoppel.SOCAN’sconductthroughouttheperiodinvolvedherewithregardtothe
agreement,alreadydiscussed,anditsfailuretoinvokeanyoftheprovisionsforthetimely
resolutionofanyproblemsrelatingtopastamountswithwhichitwasconcernedtogether
withtheacceptanceofthevariouspost-datedchequesandthechequeforpaymentof
costs,itsfailuretosubmittotheReferencedirectedinthejudgment,anditsfailuretoeven
mentionanyintentiontopursueaclaimforprofitsunderthejudgmentdirectlyuntilverylate
intherelationshipalloperatetocreateanestoppel.ItwouldnotbejusttopermitSOCANto
claimthisverylargesumofmoneyundertheaegisthataclaimforprofitsunderthe
judgmentstillexits.InmyviewSOCANisestoppelfromassertingthisclaim.
[23]InmyviewitwouldbemostunfairtosimplyassesstheamountclaimedbySOCANasthe
amountofdamagesundertheprofitsaspectofthejudgment.Itwouldbeunfairtothe
bankruptwhenotherevidencemightverywellbeproducedbytheTrusteebutalsoitwould
beunfairtotheothercreditors.
[24]Therefore,toconclude,ratherthanassessthisdamageclaimIwouldorder,ifmy
dismissaloftheclaimweresetaside,thattherebeanassessmentofdamagesinthe
SupremeCourtofNovaScotiatodeterminetheactualprofitsearnedwhichareattributable
totheprofitsaspectofthejudgmentfortheperioditrelatedto.

64

L
epagevLitalien
(2000),REJB2000-18050,[2000]JQ1520,BE2000-830(QueCt-SmallClaims)
BécuJ.
[9]Àl’analyse,ilestmanifestequelarequêtes’appuiesurl’inexécutiond’uneobligationimposée
parlaLoisurledroitd’auteurprécitée;elleconstitueuneréclamationdécoulantdelaloiseule
etpartant,n’estpasunepetitecréanceausensdel’article953duCodedeprocédurecivile.
ElleestrecouvrableuniquementàlaDivisionrégulièredelaCourduQuébec.
[10]LeTribunalserallieàladécisiondemonsieurlejugeMarcelBlaissuruneréclamationde
mêmenaturedansl’affaireGuillemettec.CentrecoopératifdeloisirsetdesportsduMont-
Orignal[C.P.Beauce(Saint-JosephdeBeauce),350-32-000484-859,le18septembre1985],et,
paranalogie,àcelledemonsieurlejugeDenisLavergnedansl’affaire3120589Canadainc.c.
Belzile[C.Q.Abitibi(Val-D’Or),615-32-000512-960,le7avril1997,B.E.97BE-451]serapportantà
uneréclamationendommages-intérêtsfondéesurlaLoisurlesbrevets.[S.R.C.1970,C.P-4
(maintenantL.R.C.(1985),c.P-4)]
[11]LaCourduQuébec,divisiondespetitescréances,n’apascompétencepourentendreune
tellerequête.Ilyalieutoutefoisderéserverlesrecoursdelarequérante.

65

L
evasseurc.Pelmorexcommunicationsinc.
(2000),[2000]JQ2945(QueSupCt)GomeryJ.

[1]Lapartiedéfenderesse,quiareçusignificationd’unavisdecommunicationd’unrapport
d’expertselonl’article402.1C.p.c.,réclamelerejetdudossierduditrapport.Elleprétendqu’il
constituetoutsimplementuneopinionjuridiquequantaubien-fondédelacause,etqu’ilne
metenlumièreaucunedonnéetechniqueouscientifiquedépassantlesconnaissanceset
l’expériencedujugequiauraàstatuersurlefonddulitige.
[6]LeprocureurdudemandeurplaidequelerapportdeMeTamarodémontresa
connaissanceprofondedecertainsaspectstechniquesreliésàl’enregistrementd’une
émissionpourlatélévision,etqu’ondevraitl’admettreàtémoigneratitred’expertsurledroit
d’auteurtelqu’ils’appliqueàcetteindustrie.Ilplaideaussiquetoutequestionde
l’admissibilitédesonexpertiseseraitmieuxlaisséeàladiscrétiondujugequisera
éventuellementsaisidelacauseaufond,etqu’ilseraitprématurédeladécidermaintenant.
[7]Surlepremiermoyen,aprèsavoirlulerapportenquestion,leTribunaln’estpaspersuadé
queMeTamarol’aécritpourdesfinsautresquejuridiques.Nilerapportnil’avisdesa
productionneledécritcommeexpertsurdesquestionstechniques.Sondomained’expertise
n’estqueledroit,unematièreréservéeexclusivementaujuge.
[8]Quantaudeuxièmemoyen,ilestvraiqu’encasdedoute,ilesttoujourspréférablede
laisserl’appréciationdesqualificationsdel’expertetlaquestiondel’utilitédesonexpertise
aujugeduprocès[…]Toutefoisilyalieud’intervenirimmédiatementoùl’inadmissibilitéde
l’expertiseestévidente[…]

66

L
ongShongPictures(HK)LtdvNTCEntertainmentLtd
(2000),[2000]FCJ625(FCTD-AntonPiller)ReedJ.;(2000),[2000]FCJ557,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26414.o.en.html(FCTD-
ContemptNorasia2000-05-01);(2000),6CPR(4th)509,[2000]FCJ1813,[2000]
CarswellNat818,[2000]FTRTBEdMY099,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26451.o.en.html,en
françaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26451.o.fr.html
(FCTD-ContemptMelodyMinLu2000-05-05)

Inanactionforcopyrightinfringement,thecourtgrantedaninjunctionenjoiningthe
defendantsfromdealingwithfilmswhichinfringedtheplaintiff’scopyright.Basedon
evidencethatthedefendantoperatorofavideoretailstorecontinuedtoofferforsale
infringingcopiesofthefilms,theplaintiffsuccessfullymovedforahearingrequiringan
individualwhowasthedirector/managerofthedefendanttoappeartoshowcausewhy
sheshouldnotbefoundincontemptofcourt.Theindividualtestifiedthatshehadinstructed
thestore’ssalespersontosellnofurthercopiesoftheprohibitedfilms.
Held,theindividualshouldnotbefoundguiltyofcontempt.
Theindividualwasboundbytheinjunctioneventhoughitwasnotdirectedtoherpersonally.
Afindingofcontemptmustbebasedonproofbeyondareasonabledoubtandtheburden
toproveallelementsofthecontemptisonthepartyallegingit.Thestandardofintention
requiredforbreachofacourtorderisknowledgeofthereasonsfororderandcontravention
oftheorder.Ifitisclearthatadirectororofficerofanenjoinedcorporationdidallheorshe
couldtoensurethattheinjunctionwouldbeabidedby,andthebreachoccurredwithout
faultonthepartofthedirectorofofficer,thatdirectororofficerisnotguiltyofcontempt.The
lawofcontemptdoesnotrequireadirectororofficertobeaninsurerortostandoverthe
shoulderofeveryemployeeandsuperviseanemployeewhoisinchargeofthebusiness.
Here,thebreachoftheorderoccurredbecausethesalespersondisobeyedtheindividual’s
instructions.Theindividualhadclearlyexplainedtheordertothesalespersonandthe
importanceofadheringtoit.Therewasnoevidencetosatisfythecourtbeyonda
reasonabledoubtthattheindividualwasincontemptofcourt.[page510]

67

L
.S.EntertainmentGroupInc.v.37DegreesEnterpriseInc.
(2000),[2000]FCJ624,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26492.o.en.html,en
françaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26492.o.fr.htm
(FCTD)ReedJ.
[1]IhavenotbeenpersuadedthatgroundsexistforgrantinganAntonPillerOrder.The
appropriatecourseofactionisfortheplaintiffstoproceedbywayofamotionforan
interlocutoryinjunction,onnoticetothedefendants,onthebasisoftheevidence(affidavit
andphysical)thattheplaintiffsalreadypossess.
[2]Thiswillallowforanexaminationoftherightstheplaintiffsassert,inacontested
proceeding,inopenCourt,ratherthantheissuingofanorder(AntonPillerOrder)thatcan
doextensivedamagetothedefendants’business,perhapsevenclosingitdown,withoutan
assessmentofthemeritsoftheplaintiffs’claimeverhavingbeenmade.
[3]Iftheplaintiffsaresuccessfulinobtaininganinterlocutoryinjunction,theycanofcourse,
thereafter,proceedbywayofcontemptproceedings,shouldanycontinuedinfringement
occur.

68

L
.S.EntertainmentGroupInc.v.552436B.C.Ltd.
(2000),
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26491.o.en.html,en
françaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26491.o.fr.html
(FCTD)ReedJ.

[1]IhavenotbeenpersuadedthatgroundsexistforgrantinganAntonPillerOrder.The
appropriatecourseofactionisfortheplaintiffstoproceedbywayofamotionforan
interlocutoryinjunction,onnoticetothedefendants,onthebasisoftheevidence(affidavit
andphysical)thattheplaintiffsalreadypossess.
[2]Thiswillallowforanexaminationoftherightstheplaintiffsassert,inacontested
proceeding,inopenCourt,ratherthantheissuingofanorder(AntonPillerOrder)thatcan
doextensivedamagetothedefendants’business,perhapsevenclosingitdown,withoutan
assessmentofthemeritsoftheplaintiffs’claimeverhavingbeenmade.
[3]Iftheplaintiffsaresuccessfulinobtaininganinterlocutoryinjunction,theycanofcourse,
thereafter,proceedbywayofcontemptproceedings,shouldanycontinuedinfringement
occur.

69

L
.S.EntertainmentGroupInc.v.Sixty-sixInternationalTradingInc.
(2000),
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26493.o.en.html(FCTD)
ReedJ.

[1]IhavenotbeenpersuadedthatgroundsexistforgrantinganAntonPillerOrder.The
appropriatecourseofactionisfortheplaintiffstoproceedbywayofamotionforan
interlocutoryinjunction,onnoticetothedefendants,onthebasisoftheevidence(affidavit
andphysical)thattheplaintiffsalreadypossess.
[2]Thiswillallowforanexaminationoftherightstheplaintiffsassert,inacontested
proceeding,inopenCourt,ratherthantheissuingofanorder(AntonPillerOrder)thatcan
doextensivedamagetothedefendants’business,perhapsevenclosingitdown,withoutan
assessmentofthemeritsoftheplaintiffs’claimeverhavingbeenmade.
[3]Iftheplaintiffsaresuccessfulinobtaininganinterlocutoryinjunction,theycanofcourse,
thereafter,proceedbywayofcontemptproceedings,shouldanycontinuedinfringement
occur.

70

L
SEntertainmentGroupv.Wong
(2000),BCJ2518,[2000]BCTCTBEdJA020,2000BCSC1789,[2000]FCJ625,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/00/17/s00-1789.htm(BCSC-
Disqualification)BennettJ.
[24]Theconflictoftheevidenceinrelationtothepresentapplicationtohavethe
respondentsremovedfromascounselfortheDefendants,isastotherelevancyofthe
informationreceived.Onmyreadingoftheaffidavits,itdoesnotappearthatMr.Pederson
conclusivelydeniesthathereceivedinformationregardingLSEntertainment,ratherhe
disputesthat,oftheinformationhecanrecallreceivingfromMr.Leung,itisnotrelevantto
thepresentcopyrightinfringementactionofthePlaintiffs.Theotherconflictsintheevidence,
suchastheconflictaswhethertheC&HVideoproceedingsweresettledornot,isnotstrictly
relevanttothedeterminationoftheapplicants’petition.
[56]Thesolicitors,LawrenceWong&Associates,weredefendingMr.Leung’scompany,
RichmondDreamsLaser&Video.Duringthecourseofconductingthatdefence,Mr.Leung
discussedsomeoftheoperationsoftheplaintiff’scompanies.Mr.Leungisashareholderof
onlyoneoftheplaintiffs.BothactionsrelatetocopyrightinfringementinrelationtotheAsian
movieindustry.IcannotconcludethatthepreviousrelationshipwithMr.LeungandtheFirm
issufficientlyrelatedtotheFirm’spresentretainer,thatisrepresentingthedefendantsinthis
action.
[72]TheinformationMr.LeungsayspassedbetweenhimselfandMr.Pedersonoccurredinan
unrelatedcopyrightaction.Theinformationcouldnotberelevanttothepresentaction.The
informationreliedonbyMr.Leungisofanaturewhichissubstantiallydifferentfromtheissues
enjoinedinthepresentlawsuit.WhilebothinvolvecopyrightsofAsianmovies,thesimilarity
endsthere.

71

L
yonsPartnershipvMacGregor
(2000),5CPR(4
th)157,186FTR241,[2000]FCJ341,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26207.o.en.html,en
françaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26207.o.fr.html
(FCTD-Contempt)LemieuxJ.

Theplaintiffheldproprietaryrightstothechildren’stelevisioncharacter »Barney »,apurple
dinosaur.Thedefendantwasachildren’sentertainer,againstwhomaninterlocutory
injunctionhadbeengranted,restraininghimfromfurtherunauthorizeduseofthe »Barney »
character,therelatedtrade-marksandnames,thepassingoffofhisservicesasthoseofthe
plaintiffandviolationofs.7(b)oftheTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13.
Aprivateinvestigator,retainedbytheplaintiff,testifiedthatheattendedaperformance
advertisedasfeaturing »afamouspurplemysteryguest ».Hemetthedefendantbackstage
andobservedhimdressinginapurpledinosaurcostume,followingwhich,hewatchedthe
costumedfigureperformasonganddanceroutine.Balloonsbearingarepresentationof
« Barney »andtheplaintiff’snameweresoldattheperformance.
Thedefendantdidnottestify.Hiscounselinformedthecourtthatinearliernegotiations,the
defendanthadbeenunwillingtopayalicencefeeproposedbytheplaintiff,ontheground
thatthefeewasexcessiveinamount.
Held,thedefendantshouldbefoundguiltyofcontempt.[page158]Itwasprovenbeyonda
reasonabledoubtthatthedefendantperformedincostumeas »Barney »onthisoccasion,in
breachofseveralparagraphsoftheoutstandinginjunction.Hehadknowinglybreachedthe
injunction.Therewerenostrongmitigatingfactorsinthedefendant’sfavour.Afinewas
appropriate.Takingintoaccounttheamountofrevenueearnedbythedefendantfromthe
performanceandconsideringthatthiswashisfirstcontemptoffence,afineof$3,000.00was
assessed,withanawardofsolicitor-clientcoststoamaximumof$2,000.00.Theseamounts
wereintendedtodeprivethedefendantofanyprofitfromtheperformanceandtobean
incentivenottorepeattheunauthorizedpractice.

72

M
aloc.Laoun
(2000),[2000]RJQ458,[2000]RRA204(rés.),JE2000-273,[2000]JQ7,REJB
2000-15944(Que.Sup.Ct.),CourteauJ.;inappeal500-09-009227-000
Résumé
Actionendommages-intérêts.Accueillie(30000$).
Lademanderesseestunecomédiennequébécoisebienconnuequiétaitmannequin
auparavant.En1990,ledéfendeur,unopticien,autilisédanssoncommercelematériel
promotionneldelamarquedemonturesdeluxeSilhouette,dontuneaffichedanslavitrine
desoncommerce.Enjanvier1996,ilaconsenti,àcertainesconditions,àcequele
promoteurd’unannuairecommercialutiliselematérieldeSilhouette,principalementla
photodelademanderesse,pourcréersonannoncedanscetannuaire.Lepromoteurest
allédel’avantetaimprimél’annuairesansrequérird’autorisationdequiquecesoit,mêmesi
ledéfendeurluiavaitditdecommuniqueravecl’agentdelademanderesse.Cettedernière
réclame45000$sousdifférentschefsdedommages-intérêtset5000$àtitrededommages
exemplaires.L’Uniondesartistesveutinterveniràl’action.Ledéfendeur,rejetanttoutela
responsabilitésurlepromoteur,quiaoutrepassésesinstructions,s’opposeenoutreàce
qu’oninterrogelademanderessesurlescirconstancesentourantlecontratdephotopour
Silhouetteparcequ’ilcontreditlafacturequiconstatececontrat.
Décision
L’Uniondesartistes,dontestmembrelademanderesse,aunintérêtsuffisantpourparticiper
audébatafindefairevaloirsonpointdevueconcernantl’utilisationdel’imagedesartistesà
desfinspublicitaires.C’estunsyndicatprofessionnelqui,selonsesstatutsetrèglements,«a
pourobjetl’identification,l’étude,ladéfenseetledéveloppementdesintérêtséconomiques,
sociauxetmorauxdesesmembres».LaLoisurlestatutprofessionneletlesconditions
d’engagementdesartistesdelascène,dudisqueetducinémaprévoitlapossibilitépour
uneassociationd’artistesreconnuede«représenterlesartisteschaquefoisqu’ilestdel’intérêt
généraldelefaire».Parailleurs,l’objectionàlapreuveestrejetée.Lademanderessen’est
paspartieàlafactureetlaprohibitionédictéeàl’article2863duCodecivilduQuébec
(C.C.Q.)nes’appliquequ’àl’écritinstrumentairequiconstateunactejuridique.Lafacture,
ici,estunécritpuretsimplequipeutêtrecontreditpartoutmoyen,dontletémoignage
(art.2836C.C.Q.).Enfin,laprohibitionneviseraitqu’àéviterlapreuved’uncontratdifférent,
cequin’estpaslecasenl’espècepuisqueletémoignagedelademanderessenefait
qu’informerletribunaldesdétailsducontratqu’elleaconcluàl’époqueavecSilhouetteet
ducachetqu’elleavaitalorsreçu.
Onnepeutretenirlaprétentiondudéfendeurvoulantque,selonl’article13delaLoisurle
droitd’auteur,seuleSilhouettedétiennequelquedroitquecesoitsurlaphoto.Cetteloi
reçoitapplicationdansuncontextebienprécisquin’estpasceluiduprésentlitige.Deplus,
ellenetraitepasdudroitdepropriétérelatifàlaphotographieelle-mêmenidudroitd’un
individuàsonimagedanslecasoùlaphotographieaétécommandéecontre
rémunération.D’autrepart,ledroitd’auteurexisteetilpourraitapparteniràSilhouette,qui
cependantn’exerceaucunrecours.Cedroitn’atoutefoispaspoureffetd’interdireàla
demanderessedefairevaloirsonrecourseuégardàlaprotectiondesonimage(art.3
C.C.Q.),quiestundroitincessible.Enl’espèce,l’imagedelademanderesseaétéutilisée
sanssonconsentement,impriméesurlacouverturearrièred’unannuaire,etsesdroitsontété
lésés.Parailleurs,ledéfendeuracommisunefauteenpermettantaupromoteurde
reproduirelaphotodelademanderesseàdesfinspublicitaires.Lefaitqu’ilaitvoulufaireune
publicitépourSilhouette,qu’ilaitdemandéàapprouverlapagepublicitaireavantquele
promoteurprocèdeàl’impression,quecedernieraitdénaturésesinstructionsououtrepassé

73

àl’autorisationn’ychangerien.Ledéfendeurétaitledétenteurdelaphotographieetil
nepouvaitlaréutilisersansleconsentementexplicitedelademanderesse.Laphoto
étaitdestinéeàlacampagnedepromotion1990deSilhouette;sonutilisationétaitlimitéeet
iln’étaitpasautoriséàlareproduiredanslesmédiasàd’autresfins.Enoutre,ledéfendeura
tortdeprétendrequelademanderesse,parchoixprofessionnel,aconsentiàcequeson
imagesoitdiffuséeenpublicetquelarediffusiond’unephotographiedéjàpubliéeetdéjà
connuedupublicnepeutconstitueruneintrusiondanssavieprivée.Ilexisteundroit
autonomeàl’image,jouissantd’unstatutjuridiquepropre,etl’artisteconnujouitd’une
protectionparticulièreàcetégard.Eneffet,endroitfrançais,ladistinctionentreledroità
l’imageetledroitàlavieprivéeestbienétablieetlesprincipesquisous-tendentceprincipe
s’appliquentendroitquébécois.Ledroitàl’imageserattacheaussibienàl’article5qu’à
l’article1delaChartedesdroitsetlibertésdelapersonne,cedernierprotégeantlaliberté
delapersonne.Lorsqu’onutiliselaphotographied’unartisteconnu,l’atteintetouche
directementledroitàl’imagesansnécessairementtoucherledroitàlavieprivée.Toutefois,
lapersonnalitépubliquebénéficieaussidelaprotectiondesonimage,soitafind’en
empêcherladiffusiondansuncontextequineluiconvientpasouencoreafind’exigerune
compensationfinancièrepourlebénéficecommercialrattachéàsanotoriétéetàsa
réputation.
Auchapitredesdommages,lademanderesseadroità10000$pourutilisationsans
autorisationdesaphotodansl’annuairecomptetenudufaitqu’aumomentoùledéfendeur
aprêtélaphotoellen’étaitpaslavedettequ’elleestaujourd’huietqu’onneconnaîtpasla
diffusionexactedel’annuaire.Unesommede15000$estaccordéeauchapitrede
l’usurpationdel’identitéartistique.Enassociantunartisteàunecampagnepublicitaire
contresongré,onluinieledroitdemenersacarrièrecommeill’entendetonluiimposedes
choixquines’inscriventpasdanssoncheminementartistique.Lademanderesseaaussi,
comptetenudusoinméticuleuxqu’elleporteàsacarrière,droità5000$àtitrede
dommagesmorauxvul’anxiétévécueàlasuitedelapublication.Enfin,iln’yapaslieu
d’accorderd’indemnitépourdommagesexemplaires,ledéfendeurn’ayantpaseul’intention
denuire.S’ils’estcomportédefaçoninsoucianteetsansconsidérationpourles
conséquencesdesongeste,ilcroyaitavoirledroitdereproduiredansunautremédiaune
photodéjàexposéeaupublic.

74

M
illiken&CompanyvInterfaceFlooringSystems(Canada)inc
(1998),[1998]3FC103,143FTR106,[1998]FCJ135,83CPR(3d)470(FCTD-
Merits);affd.(2000),5CPR(4
th)209,[2000]FCJ129,[2000]ACF129,[2000]2FC
D-22,[2000]CarswellNat1777,251NR358,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca25960.o.en.html,en
françaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca25960.o.fr.html
(FCA)
AdesignercreatedatextiledesignandexhibitedthedesignatanexhibitioninJanuary1989,
wherethedesignermetarepresentativeoftheplaintiff.Theplaintiffthereafterpurchasedthe
designforitscommercialcarpetbusiness.Thedefendantcopiedtheplaintiff’sdesignfor
carpettilesthatitinstalledattheCalgaryairport.
Theplaintiffcommencedanactionforcopyrightinfringementandatthetrialtheplaintiff
failedtocallthedesignertotestifyastothedateofcreationofthedesign.Thetrialjudge
foundthatthedesignwascreatedpriortoJune8,1988,thats.64(1)oftheCopyrightAct,
R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,inforcepriortoJune8,1988,appliedandthatbyreasonofthatsection
thedesigncouldnotbeprotectedbycopyright.Theplaintiffappealed.
Held,theappealshouldbedismissed.
PerRothsteinJ.A.,McDonaldJ.A.concurring:Theissuewaswhetherthedesignwascreated
priortoJune8,1988ands.64oftheCopyrightActasitexistedpriortothatdateappliedto
thedesign.Ifthedesignwascreatedpriortothatdateands.64asitsoexistedapplied,
copyrightprotectionwasnotavailableandtheappealcouldnotsucceed.
Thepresumptionthatcopyrightsubsistsdidnotapplybecausetheissueforthepurposesofs.
64waswhenthedesignwascreated,notwhethercopyrightsubsisted.Evenifthe
presumptionhadapplied,theplaintiff’sfailuretocallthedesignertotestifyastothedateof
creationofthedesign,ledtotheinferencethat,ifcalled,thedesignerwouldhavetestified
tofactsunfavourabletotheplaintiff.Thetrialjudgewasentitledtodrawanadverse
inferencefromthefailureoftheplaintifftocallthedesignerandtoconcludethatthedesign
wascreatedpriortoJune8,1988.
Whetherthetextiledesignwasadesignforthepurposeofs.64oftheCopyrightAct
dependedontheapplicationoftherelevantlaw.Asthetextiledesignwascreatedpriorto
June8,1988,theplaintiffwasnotentitledtoresorttotheprovisionsofnews.64.Theplaintiff’s
argumentontheapplicationofnews.64wasdirectedsolelyatavoidingtheclearintentof
ParliamentthatthelawpriortoJune8,1988continuedtoapplytodesignscreatedpriorto
thatdate.
PerIsaacJ.A.:Thetrialjudgewascorrectinherconclusionsassetoutinherreasonsfor
judgment.

75

M
.M.InternationalBusinessDirectoriesLtd.v.InternationalBusinessIndex
(2000),8CPR(4
th)515,[2000]FTRUned394,[2000]FCJ1338,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27455.o.en.html,en
françaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27455.o.fr.html
(FCTD)RothsteinJ.
Theplaintiffs,publishersofabusinessdirectory,hadsecuredandexecutedanAntonPiller
orderinanactionfortrade-markandcopyrightinfringement.Theplaintiffsallegedthatone
oftheindividualdefendantstookproprietarydatafromtheplaintiffswhichwassuedbythe
co-defendantstocompileacompetingdirectory.TheplaintiffsmovedtocontinuetheAnton
Pillerorderandtoconverttheinteriminjunctionintoaninterlocutoryinjunction.
Held,themotionshouldbedismissed.
ThecontinuationofanAntonPillerorderrequiresthataplaintiffshowanextremelystrong
primafaciecaseandveryseriousdamages.Therewasdoubtthattheevidence
demonstratedanextremelystrongprimafaciecaseandtherewasnoevidenceofthe
extentofharmsufferedbytheplaintiffs.Aninferenceoflostrevenuecouldnotbeinferred
fromevidenceofthedefendant’srevenuefigures.TheAntonPillerorderwastherefore
vacated.
Withrespecttotheinterlocutoryinjunctionrequested,theonlyirreparableharmallegedwas
thatthedefendantswouldnotbeabletopaydamagesawardedtotheplaintiffsattrial.As
therewasnoevidencefromtheplaintiffsofactualorpotential[page516]damages,itwas
notpossibletodeterminewhetherthedefendantswerecapableofpayingsuchdamages.

76

M
odernHousewareImportsIncvInternationalSourcesLtd
(2000),4CPR(4th)155
,180FTR253,[2000]FCJ45,[2000]ACF45,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca25834.o.en.html,en
françaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca25834.o.fr.html
(FCTD)Hargrave,Prothonotary
Inanactionforcopyrightandtrade-markinfringementrelatingtopackagingforpot-
scrubbers,theplaintiffclaimedthatthedefendantshadinfringedandthreatenedto
continuetheiractivitiesunlessrestrainedbythecourt.Twodaysafterthestatementofclaim
wasissued,counselforthedefendantswrotecounselfortheplaintiffswithprejudiceadvising
thatthedefendantshadtakenstepstoimmediatelystopthesaleofthepot-scrubbers,had
takenstepstoretrievetheimpugnedpackagingfromthedistributionchainandwouldnot
usesuchpackaginginthefuture.Theletteralsoofferedawrittenundertakingtorefrainfrom
suchuse.
Intheirstatementofdefence,thedefendantsallegedinparagraph29thattheplaintiffhad
notgiventhedefendantsnoticeoftheirclaim,andinparagraph30referredtotheircounsel’s
withprejudiceletterandallegedthat,iftheplaintiffproceededwiththeaction,the
defendantswoulddrawthecourt’sattentiontotheletterontheissuesofliabilityand
remedies.Thedefendantsalsoallegedthattheplaintiffhadfailedtotakereasonablesteps
tomitigateitsdamages.
Theplaintiffmovedtostrikeoutparagraphs29and30ofthestatementofdefence,andfor
particularsoftheplearegardingmitigationandthemeredenialsthatthepackaging
constitutedoriginalartisticandliteraryworksprotectedbycopyrightofwhichtheplaintiffwas
theowner.Withrespecttoparagraph30,theplaintiffallegedthattheletterfromcounselfor
thedefendantswaswrittenaspartofsettlementnegotiationsandwasprivilegedfrom
productioninlitigation.
Held,themotiontostrikeoutshouldbedismissed;particularsshouldbeorderedoftheplea
regardingmitigation,butwithin30daysafterdiscovery,andparticularsshouldbeorderedof
theallegationsregardingthesubsistenceandownershipofcopyright.
Paragraph29presentsacontrastingviewofthefacts,andanswerssomeoftheremedies
soughtbytheplaintiff.
Generally,communicationsattemptingtoeffectsettlementoflitigationareprivileged,
whetherornottheyaremarkedwithoutprivilege.Theautomaticclaimforprivilegein
settlementnegotiationdoesnotextendtocorrespondenceclearlymarkedasbeingwith
privilege.Theletterofcounselforthedefendantshadnoneof[page157]thehallmarksof
negotiation.Bothparagraphs29and30werepermittedtoremaininthestatementof
defence.
Thedefendantshadnoparticularsoftheallegationregardingmitigation.Iftheactionwere
toproceedtotrial,the
defendantsmightbythattimehaveviewsonwhattheplaintifffailedtodotoavoidloss.A
deferralofparticularscanbereasonableanduseful.Thedefendantswereorderedto
provideparticulars30daysafterdiscovery.
Ameredenialasatraverseofanopposingparty’sallegationinapleadingdoesnotgiveriseto
arighttoparticulars.If,however,thedenialraisesquestionsoflawwithoutsupportofanyfacts,
particularsoughttobeordered.Inviewofthepresumptionsastothesubsistenceandownership

77

ofcopyrightinsection34.1oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,thedefendants’mere
denialsofthesubsistenceandownershipofcopyrightwereinadequate.

78

M
ulti-LevelTechnologiesInc.PreviseInc.
(2000),[2000]CarswellOnt2395,[2000]OTCUned596(SC)(OntSupCt)
CameronJ.
[1]TheApplicantseeks:(1)todetermineitsrightsundertheJointVentureAgreement
respectinganownershipinterestinandtherighttomarkettheOPsConsoftware;(2)a
declarationthatitisa50%owneroftheOPsConsoftware;and(3)anorderthatthe
RespondentdeliveracopyoftheintellectualpropertysufficienttoreproducetheOPsCon
software.
[4]WhethertheJointVentureAgreementsubsistsoristerminated,Article7providesthat
Article5respectingownershipofpropertysurvivesthetermination.
[5]Article5providesthattheownershipofintellectualpropertydevelopedbyPreviseand
thatdevelopedbyMLTIshallvestwithandbeownedbythatparty.
[6]Article5(b)furtherprovides: »Notwithstandingthisclause,atnotimeshallanyportionof
theintellectualpropertyoftheOPsConproduct,noranycomponentnoraccompanying
elementthereof,wheresuchwasNOTproducedentirelyatMTLI,beconsideredtobeowned
byMTLI,unlessspecificpriorprovisionforsuchownershipisjointlymadeinwriting. »
[7]Whilecontainedinparagraph5(b)whichdealswiththepropertyentitlementofMTLI,it
effectivelycreatesanexclusionfromMTLIownershipofOPsConproductsunlessthe
conditionsaremet.Thereisnorealdisputeontheevidence.Therehasbeennowritten
provisionforownership.TheOPsConsoftwarewasnotproducedentirelyatMTLI.TheOPsCon
softwarewasdevelopedsubstantiallybyPrevisewithsomerecommendationsand
suggestionsandadviceontechnicalspecificationsbyMTLI.
9]Thisinterpretationisconfirmedbythenegativecovenantinparagraph(p)onpage6of
theDistributionAgreementwhichthepartiessignedbuthavesinceterminated.Underthat
agreementMTLIagreedto:
« (p)Notclaimanyrightsortitlein,orownershipofanyPreviseProduct… »
[10]InterpretingthefirstrecitalintheDistributionAgreementanditsreferencetoScheduleA,
PreviseProductincludesOPsConversions1.4and1.6.Thereisnoevidencewhetherlater
versionswereaddedtoScheduleA.

79

N
ationalArchivesofCanada(Re)
(2000),[2000]CBD24(CopyrightBoard)
Pursuanttotheprovisionsofsection77(1)oftheCopyrightAct,theCopyrightBoardgrantsa
licencetotheNationalArchivesofCanadaasfollows:

(1)Thelicenceauthorizesthedigitalreproductionandthecommunicationtothe
publicofexcerptsofthefollowingworksontheNationalArchivesofCanada’s
Internetsiteat:
www.archives.caintheexhibitionentitled »TheCanadianMemory »:
TheCanadianGirlWhoHasWonWorld-WideFamebyCarolLawrence,as
publishedin1916bytheNationalCouncilofWomenofCanadainWomen’s
Century,Volume4,No.1,page8;
TwopagesfromJohnT.Winterich’sbookMademoisellefromArmentières,
publishedbyPeterPauperPressofMountVernon,NewYork,in1953.

Issuanceofthislicencedoesnotreleasetheapplicantfromtheobligationtoobtain
permissionforanyotherusenotcoveredbythislicence.

80

N
ationalLibraryofCanada(Re)
(2000),[2000]CBD10(CB)
Pursuanttotheprovisionsofsection77(1)oftheCopyrightAct,theCopyrightBoardgrantsa
licencetotheNationalLibraryofCanadaasfollows:
(1)Thelicenceauthorizestheuse,thereproductionandthecommunicationtothepublic
viatheInternetofthefollowingworks:

-PhotographofOscarPetersonpublishedinSoundMagazineinNovember1974
inanarticlewrittenbyTedO’Reilly;
-AdvertisementofOscarPeterson’sconcertatTheBlueNote,November30to
December20(yearunknown);
-FrontcoverofModernKeyboardReview,March/April1971;
-FrontcoverofMetronomeMagazine,October1954.
(2)Theauthorizedone-timeuse,reproductionandcommunicationtothepublicviathe
InternetoftheaboveworksisforanexhibitiononOscarPetersonontheWebsiteofthe
NationalLibraryofCanada.

81

N
ationalLibraryofCanada(Re)
(2000),[2000]CBD17(CopyrightBoard)
Pursuanttotheprovisionsofsection77(1)oftheCopyrightAct,theCopyrightBoardgrantsa
licencetotheNationalLibraryofCanadaasfollows:
(1)Thelicenceauthorizesthedigitalreproductionandthecommunicationtothepublicof
thebookcoverillustrationsofthefollowingworksontheNationalLibraryofCanada’s
InternetWebsiteat:www.nlc-bnc.caintheexhibitionentitledTheSecretSelf:AnExploration
ofCanadianChildren’sLiterature:
LeLoupdeNoëlbyClaudeAubry,illustratedbyEdouardPerretandpublishedby
theCentredepsychologieetdepédagogiein1962(copyrightinbookcover
ownedbyEdouardPerret);
TheGuardianofIsisbyMonicaHughes,illustratedbyAndrewRhodesand
publishedbyAtheneumin1981(copyrightinbookcoverownedbyAndrew
Rhodes);
TheIsisPedlarbyMonicaHughes,illustratorunknownandpublishedbyMethuen
Booksin1983(copyrightinbookcoverunknown);
TheKeeperoftheIsisLightbyMonicaHughes,illustratedbyTerryOakesand
publishedbyMethuenBooksin1981(copyrightinbookcoverownedbyTerry
Oakes);
CrisisonConshelfTenbyMonicaHughes,illustratedbyGrahamHumphreysand
publishedbyCoppClarkin1975(copyrightinbookcoverownedbyGraham
Humphreys);
PleaseMichael,That’sMyDaddy’sChairbySusanElizabethMarkandillustrated
byWinnieMertensandpublishedbyBeforeWeareSixin1976(copyrightinbook
coverownedbyWinnieMertens);
TheDruid’sTunebyO.R.MellingandillustratedbySiobhanMcCooeyand
publishedbyPuffinBooksin1983(copyrightinbookcoverownedbySiobhan
McCooey);
FreshFish…AndChipsbyJanAndrews,illustratedbyLindaDonnellyandpublished
byCanadianWomen’sEducationalPressin1973(copyrightinbookcover
ownedbyLindaDonnelly).

IssuanceofthislicencedoesnotreleasetheNationalLibraryofCanadafromtheobligationto
obtainpermissionforanyotherusenotcoveredbythelicence.

82

N
aturalWatersofViti,LtdvCEOInternationalHoldingsInc.
(2000),5CPR(4
th)321,[2000]ACF452,[2000]FCJ452,[2000]FTRTBEd
MY020,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26319.o.en.html,
enfrançaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26319.o.fr.html(FCTDProt.
-MotiontoStrike)Lafrenière,Prothonotary

Theplaintiffscommencedanactionforpassingoffofthetrade-markFIJI,usedinassociation
withbottledwater,andinfringementofcopyrightinlabeldesigns.Theforeignmanufacturer
andtheexclusiveCanadiandistributorwerenamedasco-plaintiffs.Thedefendantsbrought
amotiontostriketheCanadiandistributorasaco-plaintiffforlackofstanding,tostrikethe
copyrightclaimforfailuretopleadanassignmentinwritingpursuanttos.13(4)ofthe
CopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,andtostrikeaclaimbasedons.7(d)oftheTrade-marks
Act,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13,asabareallegationofabreachofthestatute.
Held,theexclusivedistributorshouldbestruckasaco-plaintiff,andthemotionshould
otherwisebedismissed.
Amereexclusivedistributorcannotsueforinfringementoftrade-markrightsintheabsence
ofsomegoodwillownedbyit,orofthetrade-markatissuebeingdistinctiveofitatleastin
part.Apersondealingwiththegoodsofanothermayhavegoodwillinthebusinessin
dealingwiththem,butsuchgoodwillmustbedistinctfromthatoftheownertofounda
causeofaction.Generally,atrade-markisthatofamanufacturerandnotthatofthe
Canadiandistributor.Onlyanownerofthegoodwillassociatedwithatrade-markcanbring
astatutorypassingoffaction.Thefactsaspleadedinthestatementofclaimdidnotestablish
thattheexclusivedistributorhadasharedreputationandgoodwillwiththemanufacturer,
northatthedistributorhadbeenlicensedbyorwiththeauthorityofthemanufactureras
providedunders.50oftheTrade-marksAct.
Thecopyrightclaimwasnotstruckforfailuretopleadanassignmentinwriting.Thestatement
ofclaimallegedownershipofcopyrightintheplaintiffmanufacturerandthefactsona
motiontostrikemustbetakenasproven.
Theclaimbasedons.7(d)disclosedareasonablecauseofactionasitcontainedsufficient
detailthatthedefendantsintentionallycreatedaproductlookwhichwouldleadthe
customertothefalseconclusionthatthedefendant’sproductwasthesameororiginatedat
thesameplaceasthatoftheplaintiffmanufacturer.

83

N
eudorfvNettwerkProductionsLtd
(1998),[1998]BCJ2690(BCSC–ExpertEvidenceofplaintiff);(1998),[1999]
BCJ2904(BCSC–ExpertEvidenceofDefendant);(1999),[1999]BCJ2832
(BCSC–AmendmentstoDefence);(1999),[1999]BCJ2831,3CPR(4
th)129,
[2000]3WWR522,71BCLR(3d)290,[1999]CarswellBC2774(BCSC–Merits);
appealCA026717;(2000),8CPR(4
th)154,48CPC(4th)140,[2000]CarswellBC
1711,[2000]BCJ1705,[2000]BCTCTBEdAU065,2000BCSC1257,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/00/12/s00-1257.htm(BCSC-Costs)
CohenJ.
Thedefendantshadsuccessfullydefendedanactionforcopyrightinfringementinmusical
worksaftera39-daytrial.Priortothetrial,thedefendantshadmadeanoffertosettlewhich
wouldhaveprovidedtheplaintiffwithincreasedcompensation[page155]inrespectofthe
musicalworkspluscostsoftheaction.AfterthetrialinJanuary2000,thedefendantsfurnished
theplaintiffwithadraftbillofcostsandinMarch2000furnishedmotionmaterialswithrespect
tothemotionforcosts.InApril2000theplaintifffiledanassignmentinbankruptcy.
Thedefendantssubsequentlymovedforspecialcosts,orinthealternativeincreasedcosts,or
inthefurtheralternativecostsonscale5plusdoublecosts.Thedefendantsalsomovedforan
orderthats.69.3oftheBankruptcyandInsolvencyAct,R.S.C.1985,c.B-3,didnotpreclude
thedefendantsfromproceedingwiththeirmotiontotaxcosts.
Thedefendants’actualcostswereapproximately$518,000,theirspecialcosts(formerly
solicitor-clientcosts)calculatedat80%wereapproximately$415,000andtheirordinarycosts
atscale5wereapproximately$94,000.
Held,themotionsshouldbegrantedandcostsshouldbeassessedasincreasedcosts.
Section69.3prohibitsacreditorfromcommencingorcontinuinganactionfortherecovery
ofaclaimprovableinbankruptcyuntilafterthetrusteeinbankruptcyhasbeendischarged.
Section69.3didnotapplybecause,first,thesectionstaysanactionandnoteachstepinthe
action,secondly,itisquestionablewhetheranunquantifiedclaimforcostsisaclaim
provableinbankruptcy,andthirdly,taxationofcostsismerelyasteptoquantifyaclaimthat
hadbeenpreviouslyestablished.
Specialcostswillonlybeorderedifthereisanunusualfeatureintheactionormisconductin
additiontosignificantdisparitypartoftheplaintiffthatjustifiedrebukebyanawardofspecial
costs.
Alargediscrepancybetweenordinaryandspecialcostsisamajorfactorindetermining
whetherincreasedcostsshouldbeawarded.Wheresuchadiscrepancyexists,acourtmust
inquireintotheextentofthedisparityanddeterminethebasisforit.
Severalfactorssupportedanawardofincreasedcosts.Theplaintiffrejectedtheofferto
settlewhichresultedinthe39-daytrial.Attheendofthetrial,thecourtfoundforthe
defendantslargelyontheplaintiff’stestimony.Therewasnoevidencetosupportthe
allegationsoftheplaintiffthatoneormoreofthedefendantswerelyingormisledthecourt.
Asaresult,itwouldhavebeenunjustifcostswerenotawardedasincreasedcosts.Increased
costswereawardedat60%ofspecialcosts.

84

85

N
uri’sWatercolourDesignsCo.v.FifthAvenueCollectionLtd
(2000),[2000]CarswellNat1771,[2000]FCJ.1330,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27179.o.en.html,en
françaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27179.o.fr.html
(FCTD-Costs)Pilon,AssessingOfficer
[Taxationupondiscontinuanceofacopyrightaction]
[6]Anamountof$320.85isclaimedforcorporatesearchcharges.Mr.Greenarguesthe
invoicefromCrease&Companyliststhenameoftencompaniesandonthatbasisonlyone-
tenthofthisaccountshouldbeallowed.Mr.Brettrepliesthedefendantswereobligedto
searchNuri’sWatercolourDesignsCo.Inc.andanyrelatednamesincludingAbraxas
ContemporaryJewelleryLtd.oneofNuri’soperatingcorporationswhichwasdisclosedinthe
courseoftheplaintiffs’productionofdocuments.Headdsthatalthoughtheaccountof
Crease&Companyreferstotencorporations,thisonlyarisesbyvirtueoftheirreportingonall
companieswithsimilarnameswhichweredisclosed,whichisacommonphenomenonwhen
conductingcorporatesearches.IagreewithMr.Brett’sexplanationandwillallowthis
disbursementinfull.

86

O
akley,IncvJaneDoe
(2000),8CPR(4
th)506,[2000]CarswellNat1995,[2000]FCJ1388,[2000]
TBEdSE095,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27256.o.en.html(FCTD)
PelletierJ.
Theplaintiffsinnineactionsfortrade-markandcopyrightinfringementhadsecuredrolling
AntonPillerordersandhadco-operatedinexecutingtheordersonadefendantatthe
sametimewiththesameteamoflawyersandinvestigators.Theplaintiffsseizedasignificant
portionofthedefendant’sinventory.
ThedefendantdidnotappearonthemotionforthereviewoftheexecutionoftheAnton
Pillerorderandallowedthestatementsofclaimtobenotedindefault.Onmotionsbythe
plaintiffsfortheassessmentofdamagesandcosts,theplaintiffsineachactionclaimed$3000
fornominaldamagesand$1750forcosts,exposing[page507]thedefendanttoatotal
awardinthenineactionsof$42,750.Thedefendantdidnotappearonthemotions.
Held,themotionsshouldbegranted.
Proofofdamagesinanactioninrespectofcounterfeitmerchandisesoldatfleamarkets
maybedifficult.Itmaynotbepossibletoshowdamagesforlostsalesbecauseapersonwho
buysthecounterfeitmerchandisemaybereluctanttospendthemoneyrequiredto
purchasethegenuinearticle.Itismorelikelythatthedamageistothegoodwillofthe
plaintiffduetotheinferiorqualityofthecounterfeitarticle.Afurtherdifficultyinthe
assessmentofdamagescouldariseduetothelackofsalesrecordsofthedefendant.In
suchcircumstances,wherethedefendantdefaults,itdoesnotseemunfairorunreasonable
toawardafixedamounttorepresentdamages.Byconventionthecourthasassessed
damagesat$3000perplaintiffincasesinwhichthedefendantsoperatefromtemporary
premisessuchasfleamarkets.
Awardsof$3000asnominaldamagesineachoftheactionswasfairandwasnotmadeless
fairbythefactthattheplaintiffsadvancedtheirclaimsatthesametime.
MultipleplaintiffsexecutingAntonPillerordersis,however,relevantintheassessmentofcosts.
ThecostsoftheexecutionandreviewoftheAntonPillerorderswasassessedat$500per
order,andcostsfortheentryofdefaultjudgmentwasassessedat$250perorderhaving
regardtoColumnsIandIIofTariffBoftheFederalCourtRules,1998,SOR/98-106.
Thecourtobservedthatfixednominaldamageswouldnotrelieveaplaintifffromproving
damagesifadefendantincomparableactionsputdamagesinissue.Infuture,itwouldbe
appropriateforplaintiffstobringtotheattentionofdefendantsthepossibilityofjudgment
beingissuedandtheamountofthejudgmentinactionsinwhichrollingAntonPillerorders
aresecured.ThiscouldbedoneaspartoftheprocessofexplainingtheAntonPillerorders
andtheassociatedlegalprocessatthetimeofexecutionoftheorders.

87

O
fficenationaldufilmduCanada(Re)
(2000),[2000]DCDA5(CB)

Conformémentauxdispositionsduparagraphe77(1)delaLoisurledroitd’auteur,la
Commissiondudroitd’auteuraccordeunelicenceàl’OfficenationaldufilmduCanada
commesuit:
1)Lalicenceautoriselareproductionetl’incorporationd’unephotographie
paruedansleSoleildeQuébecdu21juin1969,dansundocumentaire
provisoirementintitulé »Maiendécembre ».
Laphotographie,dontlephotographeestinconnu,représenteunmanifestant
(identifiécommeM.Dudemaineparlaréalisatricedudocumentaire).
L’imagecinématographiquedelaphotographiedureraauplus3secondesdans
lefilmdocumentairede25minutes.
Lalicenceautoriseaussil’exécutionenpublicoulacommunicationaupublicpar
télécommunicationdelaphotographieainsiincorporéeainsiquesa
reproductionsurtoutsupportàdesfinsdedistributionpourdelareprésentation
privée,commepartiedel’exploitationdufilmdocumentaire.

88

P
rogrammationGagnonIncvLemay
(2000),REJB2000-17795,JE2000-738(QueSupCt-InterlocutoryInjunction)
HardyLemieuxJ.
Résumé
Requêteeninjonctioninterlocutoire.Rejetée.
Enaoût1989,ladéfenderesseTremblayavenduàlademanderesseunlogicieldegestion
informatiquedesrôlesd’évaluationfoncièrefonctionnantsuruneplate-formeUnixpourdes
ordinateursdelagénérationTandy6000,386ou486.Enplusdeluicédertouslesdroits
d’auteurrelatifsàcelogiciel,TremblayetledéfendeurLemaysesontengagésànepasfaire
concurrenceàlademanderessependantunepériodedecinqans.Depuis,cesderniers
auraientmisaupointunnouveaulogicielpourlagestioninformatiquedesrôlesd’évaluation
quifonctionnesuruneplate-formeSEF+etWindows.Lademanderesseprétendquece
nouveaulogicielconstitueunecontrefaçondeceluiqu’elleaacquisen1989.Elleréclamela
délivranced’uneinjonctioninterlocutoirepourobligerTremblayetLemayàluiremettretous
leslogicielsdelaversion1989etsesdérivés,ycomprislanouvelleversion,àneluifaire
aucuneconcurrencependantlescinqprochainesannéesetàrompretouslescontrats
conclusenvuedelaventedeleurnouveaulogiciel.Enplusdenierlacontrefaçon,Tremblay
etLemayontinvoquél’expirationdeleurengagementdenon-concurrence.
Décision
LaLoisurledroitd’auteuraccordelestatutd’oeuvrelittéraireaulogicielquipeutêtreutilisé
directementdansunordinateur(art.2delaloi).Deplus,l’article34.1(1)a)créeune
présomptiondeprotectiondel’oeuvresurlaquelleportelacontestation.Enl’espèce,l’expert
desdéfendeursaseméundoutesurl’apparencededroitdelademanderesse.Selonce
dernier,lecontenudeslogicielsestbasésurlesexigencesdesguidesduministèredes
Affairesmunicipales,quienpossèdedonctouslesdroitsd’auteur.D’autrepart,cetexpert
conclutquelelogicielSEF+,quipossèdedescaractéristiquesquiluisontpropres,neconstitue
pasundérivéniunecontrefaçondeceluivenduàlademanderesse.Enoutre,les
dommages-intérêtsréclamésenplusdeladélivranced’uneinjonctioninterlocutoire
pourraientadéquatementcompenserlepréjudicesubiparlademanderesse.Lelongdélaià
engagerlaprésenteprocédurepeutlaissercroirequelepréjudicen’estpeut-êtrepasaussi
sérieuxetirréparablequeleprétendlademanderesse.Enfin,laprépondérancedes
inconvénientspencheenfaveurdesdéfendeurs,dontledroitautravailseraitsérieusement
restreintsilaprésenterequêteétaitaccueillie.Ilsneseraientplusenmesured’exploiterla
miseencauseServicesmicro-informatiquenidemettreaupointdenouveauxlogiciels
d’évaluationmunicipale.Ilsdevraientrenonceràleurclientèleauprofitdelademanderesse
etquitterledomainedel’informatiquepourunepériodedecinqans,faisantainsirenaître
leurengagementdenon-concurrence,quiestéteintdepuisoctobre1994.Larequêtesera
doncrejetée.

89

R
etransmissionofDistantRadioandTelevisionSignalsDuring2001
(2000-12-08),http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/tocretrans-e.html(CB-
Interim)
Theobjectionof2000051OntarioInc.(JumpTV)toanyinterimtelevisionretransmissiontariff
“thatdoesnotadequatelyaddressInternet-basedretransmission”isnoted.JumpTVhas
requestedthatboththeinterimandfinaltariffdealwiththeofferingofover-the-airsignalson
theInternet.Theanswertoitsconcernsdoesnotlieindenyingretransmittersandcollectives
thebenefitsofastablebusinessenvironment,butindealingswiftlywithitsrequests.The
matterwillbeaddressedshortly.

90

R
etransmissionofDistantRadioandTelevisionSignals,inCanada,in1998,
1999,and2000(Re)]
(2000),5CPR(4th)440,[2000]CBA3,,[2000-02-25]
http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/tocretrans-e.html(CopyrightBoard)
Eightcollectivesocietiesfiledjointstatementsofproposedroyaltiesfortheretransmissionof
distantradioandtelevisionsignalsfor1998,1999and2000.Thestatementsincludedoneset
ofratesidenticaltothe1995-1997certifiedtariffsandanothersetofhigherratestakinginto
accountthevalueofcompilationsclaimedbycertainofthesocieties.Thestatementswere
opposedbyobjectorsrepresentingcableoperatorsanddirect-to-homesystems.
InFebruary1999,theCanadianRadio-televisionandTelecommunicationsCommission
requiredallCanadianretransmitterstocarrytheFrenchlanguagenetworkTVA.Theprincipal
issuesraisedbytheproposedroyaltieswere(1)whetherthedirect-to-homesystemsshouldbe
entitledtoaFrancophonemarketdiscount,(2)whetherthebroadcastdaycompilations
shouldbeentitledtoanincreaseinrates,(3)whethersportsprogrammingshouldattracta
highervaluationthanotherprogramming,and(4)whetherretransmitterswhocarrytheTVA
serviceastheonlydistantserviceshouldbeexcusedfrompayingroyalties.
Held,atariffshouldbecertifiedatratescomparabletothe1995-1997certifiedtariffsin
accordancewiththetermsandconditionsfixedbytheboard.
AFrancophonemarketdiscountfordirect-to-homewasinappropriatebecausethetariff
alreadyensuredthatsystemsthatcarriedonlydistantsignalssuchasdirect-to-home
benefittedgreatlyfromthetariffstructureanddirect-to-homesubscriberssubscribedtomore
limitedpackagesthancablesubscriberswhichcontainedoptionalsignalsofvaluetothem.
TwoofthecollectivesocietiesclaimedthattheamendmentoftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.
1985,c.C-42,toprovideins.21forbroadcasters’rightsdeprivedbroadcastersfromalso
claimingretransmissionroyalties.Broadcasters’rightsintheirsignalsins.21were,however,
distinctfromrightsintheirworkssuchasprogramcompilations.Broadcastcompilationswere,
therefore,protectedworksentitledtoremunerationundertheretransmissionregime.
[page441]
Certainofthecollectivesocietiesallegedthattheprevioustariffformulafailedtorecognize
thetruevalueofbroadcastcompilations.Thesesocietiesclaimedthatthecompilations
resultedin »inheritance »,thecontributionoflead-inviewerstotheratingsofthenextprogram
intheschedule,andthatanappropriateproxyforthevalueofthecompilationwasthe
promotion.Thisclaimdidnottakeintoaccounttheeffectoninheritanceofthepracticeof
simultaneoussubstitution.Theon-airpromotioninasubstitutedprogramwasnotseenbythe
viewerandcouldnot,therefore,affecttheratingsofthepromotedprogram.Thefailureof
promotiontotakeintoaccountsimultaneoussubstitutionwassufficienttorejectitasaproxy.
Thecollectivesocietiesrepresentingsportsprogrammingclaimedthatthe »hybridapproach »
adoptedbytheboardintheprevioustariffstodeterminetheallocationofroyaltiesdidnot
takeintoaccountthepremiumvalueofsportsprograms.Thesesocietiesproposedthatthe
royaltiesbedividedintopoolsrepresentingeachprogramgenreandthatsports
programmingbeallocatedahighervalueinaccordancewitharecentUnitedStates
CopyrightArbitrationRoyaltyPaneldecision.TheUnitedStatesdecisionwasoflittleuse
becauseofthedifferencesintheUnitedStatesandCanadianretransmissionregimes.The
societies’proposalwasrejectedbecauseofpotentialinaccuraciesofmeasuringcable
operators’subjectivevaluationofprogramsandbecausesubscribervaluationthrough

91

viewingwasthemostappropriatemeasureofvalue.Theprevioushybridapproachwas
endorsed.
TheTVAserviceconstitutedasignalwithinthemeaningofs.31oftheCopyrightAct.The
CanadianRadio-televisionandTelecommunicationsCommission’sorderforthecarriageof
theTVAsignalwasfavourabletoTVA.Withouttheorder,TVAcouldnothaveestablisheda
nationalnetworkastheexistingnetworkshaddone.ThediscountforcarriageofTVAasthe
soledistantsignalshouldsignificantlyexceedtheFrancophonemarketdiscountandwasset
at95%.

92

R
vBonamy
(2000),6CPR(4th)1,137BCAC298,223WAC298,[2000]BCJ960,[2000]
CarswellBC992,2000BCCA308,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-
txt/ca/00/03/c00-0308.htm(BCCA);applicationforleavetoappealtothe
SupremeCourtofCanadadismissed(2000),[2000]SCCA345
Theaccusedappealedconvictionsatajurytrialoftwocountsforhavingknowinglymadefor
saleorhireinfringingcopiesofcopyrightedcomputersoftwarecontrarytos.42(1)(a)ofthe
CopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,andtwocountsoffraudcontrarytos.380(1)ofthe
CriminalCode,R.S.C.1985,c.C-46.
WithrespecttothefirstcountundertheCopyrightAct,theCrownadducedevidencethat
theaccusedhadpurchasedfoursoftwarepackageshavingdifferentserialnumbersand
installedforcustomerscopiesofthesoftwarehavingthesameornon-existentserialnumbers.
WithrespecttothesecondcountundertheCopyrightAct,theaccused’scompanyhad
enteredintonegotiationswithaUSsoftware[page2]companytobecomethesuppliedthe
accusedwithcopiesofthesoftware,codesandmanuals,butnoagreementwasreached.
Thetwocountsoffraudrelatedtothesupplybytheaccusedofcopiesofthesoftware
company’ssoftwaretohiscustomers.
Theaccusedbasedhisdefenceon,interalia,thelimitationperiodunders.41ofthe
CopyrightAct,andthefailureoftheCrowntoprovethepreciseownershipofcopyright(with
respecttothefirstandsecondcountsundertheCopyrightAct),andresjudicatainviewof
multipleconvictions(withrespecttothecountsundertheCriminalCode).
Held,theappealshouldbedismissed.
Thelimitationperiodcontainedins.41oftheCopyrightActappliesinrespectofcivil
remediesforcopyrightinfringementandnotthesummaryremediescontainedins.42and43
oftheAct.Theheadingof »SummaryRemedies »forss.42and43wasusedinaidofsuchan
interpretation.TheoffencesundertheCopyrightActwerenot,therefore,barredbya
limitationperiod.
ThecircumstantialevidenceofcopyingintroducedbytheCrownwithrespecttothesecond
countundertheCopyrightActwasevidencefromwhichaproperlyinstructedjury,acting
judicially,couldconvict,inabsenceofanyexplanationfortheduplicationofthesoftware.
Multipleconvictionscanberecordedforthesameactivity,providedthereareadditional
anddistinguishingelementsbetweentheoffences.Theelementsoftheoffencesunderthe
CopyrightActforknowinglymakinginfringingcopiesforsaleorhirewerequitedifferentfrom
frauduponthosetowhomthecopiesaredistributed.Theriskofdeprivationoftheaccused’s
customerswastheriskofactionbythecopyrightownertoenjoinuseofthesoftwareorfor
destructionofthesoftware.Thecustomers,therefore,receivedlessthanwhatwas
representedtothem.

93

R
.vKazemian
(2000),[2000]CarswellOnt5166(OntCt)GorewichJ.
1ThisisanapplicationbroughtbytheaccusedpersonsManoucherKazemianandShahrokh
Reyhaniwhoareeachchargedwith30countsofcontraveningsection42(2)(a)ofthe
CopyrightAct,R.S.C.,1985c.C-42,asamended,aswellasonecountoffraudover$5000.00
contrarytosection380(1)(a)oftheCriminalCode.
2ThemotionbroughtbytheApplicantsrequestsanordergrantingleavetocross-examine
theInformant,ConstableCarolynBlais,withrespecttoanInformationswornbyheronMay
25/99,insupportofanapplicationforasearchwarrant.TheorderpermittingConstableBlais
tobecross-examinedonherInformationwasmadeonAugust28/00.
3TheApplicantsalsorequestanorderthatthesearchwarrantissuedonMay25/99be
quashed.
4TheApplicantsfurtherrequestanorderthatanyevidenceseizedpursuanttotheexecution
ofthesearchissuedonMay25/99beexcludedatthetrialoftheApplicants.
89TheInformationpresentedtotheJusticeofthePeacecontainedseveralinaccuraciesand
materialnondisclosures.Ifindthenon-disclosureshadtheeffectofnotprovidingtheJustice
ofthePeacewithaninaccuratepicture,suchaswouldnotallowthatjudicialofficertomake
aproperdeterminationastowhetheranoffencehadbeencommitted.Thebasisforthis
findingiscontainedintheevidenceofP.C.Blaisoutlinedabove.Instancesofsuchmaterial
non-disclosureshavebeenoutlinedintheanalysisoftheevidenceandtheInformation.
90Ifind,withoutrepeatingtheabovetext,withrespecttotheparagraphsintheInformation
analyzedabovetherewerematerialnon-disclosures,inaccuraciesandomissions.Iagree
withtheApplicants’view,thejudicialofficerwasmisled.
91Inthiscase,findIamunabletoacceptthesubmissionoftheRespondent.Itisunfortunate
thattheofficerinthiscasedeliberatelytooktherouteofleastresistanceandshoweda
deliberatedisregardfortheprinciplesoflaw,anddidnotdischargetheinvestigational
mandaterequiredinthesecircumstances.ShefurtherincludedintheInformationpresented
totheJusticeofthePeacemisstatements,settingoutfactsinseveralkeyareas,already
referredto,ascategoricalfactsderivedasaresultofpoliceinvestigation,whensuchfacts
weretakendirectlyfromcorrespondenceandunattributablesourcesandsworntoasbeing
establishedfindings.
92Throughoutthisapplication,thereisanattemptbytheRespondenttoweaveathreadto
illustratetheinvestigationofthecomplainants,andtheoffencesallegedhavebeen
satisfactory,oratleastadequateenough.TheRespondentsubmitsitssourceswerereliable
andtrustworthy.TheInformationwasdraftedinsuchawaytocausethereadertobelieve
thematerialthereinandthesourcesofinformationwerehadbeenthoroughlyinvestigated.I
findsuchnottobethecase.Therewasinadequateinvestigationbythepolice,notonlyinto
theallegedoffences,butaswell,intothesolesourceoftheirinformation,thecomplainants
themselves
95Inadditiontothedeficienciesalludedtothusfar,thereisthematerialnon-disclosureofthe
participationoftheciviliancomplainantsandaMr.Sweeny.Asnotedabovetherewasno
referencetothesepeoplewhatsoeverinthematerialpresentedtotheJusticeofthePeace.
Thepolicedidnotincludetheparticipationofthecivilianassistants,eventhoughP.C.Blais

94

testifiedtheywerenecessaryasthepolicewouldnotknowwhattolookfor;andfurther
thecivilianassistantscouldreadFarsi,thelanguageofmostofthecovers.Theevidence
alsorevealsP.C.BlaisknewthisinformationpriortothepreparingoftheInformation
presentedtotheJusticeofthePeace.

95

R
otheryvGrinnel
(2000),81AltaLR(3d)270,47CPC(4
th)94,262AR182,[2000]AJ162,
[2000]CarswellAlta148,[2000]ARTBEdMR029(AltaQB)LoVecchio,J.
Adefendantappliedtostrikeoutastatementofclaimasanabuseofprocessunderrule
129(1)(d).
AMasteroftheAlbertaCourtofQueen’sBench,inadecisionnotreportedinthisseriesof

reports,dismissedtheapplication.Thedefendantappealed.
TheAlbertaCourtofQueen’sBenchdismissedtheappeal.
Practice-Jurisdiction-General-Theplaintiffprofessorsfiledformalcomplaintswiththe
universityagainstthedefendantprofessor-Theyallegedthatthedefendantviolatedthe
university’sIntegrityandScholarlyActivityPolicybecausehereproducedcertainoftheir
worksinhistextbookwithouttheirpermissionandwithoutgivingthemcredit-Auniversity
investigatorycommitteedismissedthecomplaints-Theplaintiffssuedthedefendantclaiming
thathisreproductionoftheirworksinfringedtheirmoralrightsandbreachedcopyrightlaw-
Theysoughtdamagesandaninjunction-Thedefendantappliedtostrikeoutthestatement
ofclaimasanabuseofprocess-TheAlbertaCourtofQueen’sBenchaffirmedaMaster’s
decisiondismissingtheapplication-Thedecisionoftheuniversity’sinvestigatorycommittee
didnotoustthecourt’sjurisdiction.

96

R
utherford(ReDonald)
(2000),[2000]CBD.6(CB)
Pursuanttotheprovisionsofsubsection77(1)oftheCopyrightAct,theCopyrightBoardissues
thefollowinglicencetoDonaldRutherford:
(1)Thelicenceauthorizesthereproductionofvariousarticlespublishedinthe
WainwrightStarnewspaperduringtheyears1908to1918.
Thetotalnumberofcopiesofeacharticleshallnotexceed75.

97

R
utherford(ReDonald)
(2000),[2000]CBD26(CopyrightBoard)

Pursuanttotheprovisionsofsubsection77(1)oftheCopyrightAct,theCopyrightBoardissues
thefollowinglicencetoDonaldRutherford:
(1)Thelicenceauthorizesthereproductionofvariousarticlespublishedinthe
WainwrightStarnewspaperduringtheyears1908to1918inabookentitled
« WainwrightHistory »writtenbytheapplicant.
Thetotalnumberofcopiesofeacharticleshallnotexceed300.

Issuanceofthislicencedoesnotreleasetheapplicantfromtheobligationtoobtain
permissionforanyotherusenotcoveredbythislicence.

98

S
axonvCommunicationsMont-RoyalInc.
(2000)[2000]JQ5634(QueSupCt)DenisJ.
[72]LapreuvemontrequeSaxonestl’auteurdes »TrueStories ».L’article34.1(1)delaLoicrée
une
présomptiondedroitd’auteur.
[73]Randsoumetquel’adaptationqu’ilfaitdeshistoriettesécritesparSaxonfaitperdreà
celles-cileurcaractèreoriginal.L’affirmationestcontrediteparlapreuveprésentée.
[74]LestextesdeSaxonsontlefondementdelaportiondedeuxoutroisminutesde
l’émissionconsacréeaux »TrueStories ».IlestvraiqueRandcorrigequelquesexpressionsou
supprimeunephrasequ’iljugeinadéquate.IlestaussivraiqueluietTasso(leco-animateur)
ajoutentdescommentairespouragrémenterl’histoire,maisfondamentalement,cette
adaptationestbienaccessoireautextequiestl’assisedecetteportiond’émissioncommele
démontrelapreuveetl’écoutedelacassetteP-9.
[75]Bref,letextedeshistoriettesdemeureuneoeuvreoriginalecrééeparSaxondontRand
nepeuts’attribuerlapaterniténiletitredeco-auteurausensdel’article2delaLoi.
[81]Onavuquel’auteurestlibredeprévoirunestipulationparlaquellel’auteur,même
employéparuntiers,peutconserversondroitd’auteur.Unetellestipulationexisteen
l’instance.
[82]OnavuquelapièceP-2,unefacturedeSaxonadresséeàRandréserveàl’auteurla
propriétéintellectuellesurles »TrueStories ».Lastipulationestcontenueauparagraphe31du
présentjugement.
[83]Demême,danslecontratP-3,Saxonréitèresaréservededroitd’auteur(paragraphe44
duprésentjugement).
[84]Defaçonclaire,Saxonatoujoursvouluconserverapropriétéintellectuelle.
[85]Demême,lesquatrecritèrespermettantd’établirlarelationemployeur-employé
commentéeparlejugeMaceroladansl’affaireWiltrannesontcertespasévidentsen
l’instance.
[86]Lapropriétédesoutils:Saxonécritleshistorietteschezluiinitialementsurunevieille
machineàécrirepuissurunordinateurusagéqueRandluidonnera.
[87]Lecontrôleouliendesubordination:Saxonécritaugrédesoninspiration.Iln’accepte
aucunedirectiondeRandetlesnotesmanuscritesadresséesàcedernieretaccompagnant
lestextesmontrentàl’évidencel’absencedetoutliendesubordination.Onliraavecintérêt
àcesujetlanoteaccompagnantl’historietteP-13.
[88]Lerisquedepertesouprofits:SaxonécritquandRandabesoindelui.Sil’historietten’est
paslueenondes,Saxonn’estpaspayé.
[89]L’intégrationdutravailleuràl’entreprise:leshistoiresdeSaxonsontl’undesmultiples
segmentsdel’émissionmatinaledeRand.Cedernieridentifieunecentained’élémentsàson
émissiondontles »TrueStories »n’enseraientqu’un.

99

[90]L’ensembledecesélémentsliésauxstipulationsclairesetnonambiguesdeSaxon
seréservantlapropriétéintellectuelledeseshistoriettesmontrentquelesdéfendeursne
peuventavecsuccèsseprévaloirdel’exceptiondel’article13(3)delaLoi.
[91]Larèglegénérales’appliqueetenconséquence,Saxonesttoujoursdemeurétitulairedu
droitd’auteursurles »TrueStories ».

100

S
eawardKayaksLtd.v.Ree
(2000),[2000]CarswellBC2596,[2000]BCSC1742,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/00/17/s00-1742.htm(BCSC)Shabbits
J.
[2]Theplaintiffclaimsthatithasauniquerudder,whichitmarketsunderthetrademark
« SmartRudder. »Itclaimsthatitscurrentrudderdesignwasformalizedin1996incopyright
protectedschematics.
[8]Thedefendantsubmitsthatsincetheplaintiffhasproducedmorethan50rudders,itisnot
aninfringementofTheCopyrightActforhimtoreproducethedesignoftheplaintiff’srudder.
[26]Ihaveconsideredtherelativestrengthsofthecaseasthematterappearsfromthe
affidavits.Thedefendant’sargumentthattheplaintiffmaynolongerclaimcopyright
protection,havingfailedtoobtainprotectionundertheIndustrialDesignAct,mayprevailat
trial.However,theplaintiff’sallegationthatthedefendantwrongfullyusedtheplaintiff’s
confidentialinformation,andthathebreachedtheconfidentialityrequiredbythetermsof
hisemployment,cannotbelightlycastaside.
[27]Iamoftheopinionthattheinterlocutoryinjunctionsoughtbytheplaintiffoughttoissue.

101

S
harelineSystemsLtd.vN.B.
(2000),[2000]NBJN350,[2000]CarswellNB342,[2000]NBR(2d)TNEd
SE014(NBQB)RideoutJ.
[Onmotionforsummaryjudgmentstrikingoutforthestatementofclaimsallegationsrelating
tocopyrightinfringement]
[1]TheDefendantProvinceofNewBrunswickissuedacallforproposalstodevelopandinstall
acomputersystemfortheotherDefendant,NewBrunswickDistanceEducationNetworkInc.
ThePlaintiffrespondedsuccessfullytothecallforproposalsandasoftwareprogramwas
developedandinstalledcalled »shareknowledge »whichprovidedanonlinecourse
databasesystem.
[2]TherelationshipbetweenthePlaintiffandtheDefendantsdeterioratedandalawsuitwas
commenced.Thereareanumberofareasofdisputeincludingaclaimformoneydueand
owingtothePlaintiffaswellasacounterclaimforoverpayment.However,theareaof
disputegivingrisetothismotionisanallegationthattheDefendantsareinfringingonthe
Plaintiff’scopyright.
[14]Itismyview,basedonthepleadingsandtheaffidavitevidence,theDefendant
ProvincehasprovedthatitisnotinfringingthePlaintiff’scopyright.Thereisnoevidencefrom
thePlaintifftothecontraryonlytheclaimforcopyrightinfringement.Iamsatisfiedthatshould
thismatterproceedtotrail,thePlaintiffwouldnotbesuccessfulontheissueofcopyright
infringement.InlightoftheguidanceprovidedbyCannonv.Lange,Igrantthesummary
judgmentrequestedbytheDefendantProvinceofNewBrunswick.

102

S
heridanGymnasiumEquipmentLtd.vGymnasium&HeathEquipment
Ltd.
(2000),9CPR(4
th)26,[2000]FCJ1583,[2000]FTRTBEdOC177,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27476.o.en.html,en
françaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27476.o.fr.html
(FCTD)O’Keefe
Inanactionrelatedto,interalia,theallegedinfringementofcopyrightindrawingsfora
retractablestageassembly,theplaintiffsoughttoamenditsstatementofclaimby
withdrawingaparagraphwhichstatedthattheauthorofthedrawingswasemployedbya
thirdpartyandthatthethirdpartyhadassignedthecopyrightin[page27]thedrawingsto
« SHERIDAN »,andbyaddingaparagraphwhichallegedthattheplaintiffwastheownerof
thecopyrightinthedrawingsandthatthecopyrighthadbeenregistered.Thedefendants
contestedtheproposedamendmentsonthebasisthattheamendedallegationdidnot
discloseapropercauseofaction,andthattheamendmentwouldconstituteawithdrawal
ofanadmissionthattheauthorwasemployedbyathirdpartyatthetimeofhisauthorship.
Theplaintiffintroducedaconfirmatoryassignmentofcopyrightfromtheauthortoathird
partyandaconfirmatoryassignmentfromthethirdpartytotheplaintiff.
Thedefendantssoughtsummaryjudgmentdismissingtheplaintiff’sclaimofcopyright
infringement.Thedefendantsallegedthattherewasnowrittenassignmenttotheplaintiffof
thecopyrightinthedrawingsanditthereforedidnotownthecopyrightatthematerialtime.
Held,theplaintiff’smotionshouldbeallowedandthedefendants’motionshouldbe
dismissed.
Foranamendmenttobeallowable,itmustraiseatriableissuewhich,intheinterestsof
justice,oughttobetried.Theamendmentmustnotresultinaninjusticetotheotherpartynot
capableofbeingcompensatedbyanawardofcosts.Inviewoftheallegedassignment
fromtheauthortothethirdparty,andtheassignmentfromthethirdpartytotheplaintiff,the
plaintiffwasentitledtoclaimforcopyrightinfringementandthiswasatriableissue.Any
injusticewhichmayhavearisenasaresultoftheamendmentcouldhavebeen
compensatedforbyanawardofcosts.
Onthemotionforsummaryjudgment,theevidenceavailabledidnotsatisfythecourtthat
theauthorwasemployedbyanyoneatthetimehecreatedthedrawingsandthe
defendants’argumentthattherewasnoassignmentinwritingofthecopyrightwasthereby
answered.Theissueofwhetherinfringementofcopyrightoccurredwasanissuefortrial.

103

S
OCANStatementofRoyalties,Tariff9(Sportsevents),1998-2001(Re)
(2000),9C.P.R.(4th)36,[2000]CBD12,[2000]DCDA12,[2000-09-15]
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/tocmusic-f.html(CB)
ThecollectivesocietyfiledwiththeboardastatementofproposedroyaltiesincludingTariff9
targetingthepublicperformanceofmusicalworksatsportingevents.Thecollectivesociety
soughttohavetheroyaltyratesdoubledfromtheratescertifiedfor1997foreachyearfrom
1998through2001.Anassociationrepresentingsixmajorleagueteamsand/ortheirarenas
objectedtothetariff.Theassociationsubmittedthattheproposedchangeinratesbe
evaluatedincomparisonwithrateincreasesinothertariffs.
Thecollectivesocietyfiledlimitedevidenceandtheobjectorfilednoevidence.Noattempt
wasmadetorationalizetheamountofthetariffamongthethreelevelsofsports,namely,
amateur,professionalandmajor.Since1992thetariffforsportingeventshadbeenbasedon
thenumberofticketsfortheeventwithbothaminimumandmaximumamount.
Held,atariffshouldbecertifiedinaccordancewiththetermsandconditionsfixedbythe
board.
Tariff9grosslyundervaluedmusicincomparisonwithothertariffsdealingwithsimilaruses,
includingthecircustariff.
Othertariffsrevealedrates32,64andhighertimestheeffectiveratesofTariff9.Themaximum
100percentincreaseproposedbythecollectivesocietywasthereforewarranted.
Thetariffwasfixedasapercentageofticketpriceseffectiveasofthe2001tariff.Therates
proposedbythecollectivesocietyweredividedbythecorrespondingaverageticketprices
andasingleweightedroyaltyrateof.05percentwasfixedapplicabletoallthreelevelsof
sports.
Theminimumfeewaseliminatedwhichresultedincertainlicenseespayinglessunderthe
newtariff.Onehalfofthevalueofcomplementaryticketswasincludedintheratebase.

104

S
ociétédudroitdereproductiondesauteurscompositeursetéditeursdu
Canada(SODRAC)vL’Associationquébécoisedel’industriedudisque,
duspectacleetdelavidéo(ADISQ)
(1999),2CPR(4
th)341(CB-Interim);(2000),[2000]CBD1,[2000]CBDA1,4CPR
(4
th)287,[2000-01-19]http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/tocarbit-e.html
(CB–ApplicationtoreassesstheInterim);(2000),[2000]CBD2,[2000]CBDA2,
[2000-12-24]
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/tocarbit-e.html(CB-
ApplicationtomodifytheInterim)

CPR
TheCopyrightBoardhadissuedaninterimlicenceontheapplicationofacollectivesociety.
Thecollectivesocietysubsequentlyappliedtotheboardforaninterimdecisiontoreassess
theinterimlicencefeepreviouslyfixedbytheboard.
Held,theapplicationshouldbedenied.
Theboarddeclinedtoissuemorethanoneinterimdecision.Toissuemorethanoneinterim
decisionwouldencouragethepartiestobelessdiligentinthepresentationoftheircase
beforetheboard.
CBD2
AttherequestoftheSociétédudroitdereproductiondesauteurs,compositeursetéditeurs
duCanada(SODRAC)andl’Associationquébécoisedel’industriedudisque,duspectacleet
delavidéo(ADISQ),theBoardgrantstherequestjointlyfiledbybothpartiesonFebruary10,
2000asfollows:
1)TheproceedingsaresuspendeduntilAugust11,2000.
2)ThetermsoftheagreementreferredtointheBoard’sinterimdecisionofAugust
31,1999,aswellasthetermsofSODRAC’sbasiclicence,aremodifiedasperthe
attacheddocument.
3)ShouldthepartiesbeunabletoreachanagreementbeforeAugust11,2000,
theyshalljointlyfilewiththeBoardanewscheduleofproceedings,startingwith
thedeadlineofAugust25,2000forfilingresponsestointerrogatories.

105

S
ociétédudroitdereproductiondesauteurscompositeursetéditeursdu
Canada(SODRACv.MusiquePlusinc
(2000),[2000]CBD14,[2000]DCDA14,[2000-11-16]
http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/tocarbit-e.html(CB)
Thereremainstheissueoffairdealing.Sections29.1and29.2oftheActprovide,among
otherthings,thatfairdealingforthepurposeofcriticism,reviewornewsreportingdoesnot
infringecopyrightifthesourceand,ifprovided,thenameoftheauthor,arementioned.
MusiquePlusinc.arguesthatfourofitsprograms,representingsevenpercentoftheairtime
ofMusiquePlus,constitutefairdealing.
Theprogramsconcernedarefocussedoncriticism,reviewandnewsreporting.Itistherefore
probablethattheyinvolveinstancesoffairdealing.Nevertheless,thereshouldbeno
reductionofthemagnituderequestedforthefollowingreasons.
First,evenifitisacceptedthattheprogramsmentionedfilltheairtimeindicated,the
instancesoffairdealinginvolvednecessarilyrepresentmuchlessthanthesevenpercent
shareofairtime.Tobeginwith,nothingshowsthatalloftheusesthatcouldbetermedfair
dealingareactuallyso.Afterviewingtheprograms,theBoardnotesthatthenameofthe
authorisseldommentioned;thismustbedoneiftheinformationhasbeenprovided,asone
maypresumeoccurs.Further,theseprogramsinvolveusesofworksthatdonotqualifyasfair
dealing,sincetheworksinquestion(productionmusic,forexample)arenotbeingcriticized,
reviewedorreportedupon.Finally,althoughmusicusuallyaccountsfor90percentofthe
services’airtime,thenotionoffairdealingimpliesalowerrateofmusicuseduringthe
programconcerned,preciselytomakeroomforcriticism,revieworreporting.
Second,itmaybeassumedthatTVAandTQSalsopracticefairdealingwiththeSODRAC
repertoire,butsuchuseshavenotbeendiscountedwhencalculatingtheuseofthe
repertoirebythesetwonetworks.
Asweshallseelater,theBoardwilladjusttheformulaitappliestocalculatetheratesoasto
takeintoaccounttheinstancesoffairdealingthatactuallyoccur.Thisroundingoffresultsin
arebateofonefifthofonepercent.

106

S
ociétédesauteurs,recherchistes,documentalistesetcompositeurs
(SARDEC)(ReApplicationby)
(1999),87CPR(3d)481,[1999]CBD1(CB);applicationforjudicialreview
dismissed(2000),9CPR(4
th)415,[2000]FCJ1351,[2000]ACF1351,[2000]ACF
1259,[2000]CarswellNat1859,[2000]NRUned146,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27242.o.en.html,en
françaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27242.o.fr.html
(FCA)subnomineCanadianRetransmissionRightAssociationvSociétédes
auteurs,recherchistes,documentalistesetcompositeurs,LétourneauJ.
[1]WearesatisfiedthatthesoleissuethattheCopyrightBoard(Board)decidedinthese
proceedingsisthedesignationoftheCanadianRetransmissionRightAssociationasthe
collectivesocietyfromwhichownersofcopyrightsintextsusedintheproductionoftelevision
programsproducedbytheCanadianBroadcastingCorporation(CBC)orbytheSociétéde
télédiffusionduQuébec(STQ)couldmakeaclaimforashareofroyaltiespaidforthe
retransmissionofdistantsignals[reported86C.P.R.(3d)481].AlthoughtheBoardnotedthatit
wasnotrequiredtoproceedwithadesignationthatisbasedonclaimsthatarepatently
unfounded,itdidnotmakeanyfindingswithrespecttothevalidityoftheclaimsadvanced
bytherespondentonbehalfofcopyrightownerspursuanttosubsection76(1)ofthe
CopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,asamendedbyS.C.1997,c.24,s.50.Weareoftheview
that,incomingtoitsconclusion,theBoardmadenoerrorwhichwarrantsourintervention.

107

S
ocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav728859
AlbertaLtd
(2000),6CPR(4th)354,[2000]FCJ590,[2000]ACF590,[2000]CarswellNat834,
6CPR(4
th)354,[2000]3FCD-37,[2000]FTRTBEdMY099,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26471.o.en.html,en
françaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26471.o.fr.html
(FCTD-Reference)Hargrave,Prothonotary
TheplaintiffcollectivesocietyhadfiledtariffswiththeCopyrightBoardfortheperformance
ofliveandrecordedmusic.Theboardhadapprovedthetariffsfor1998andapprovalwas
pendingfor1999and2000.Thedefendantoperatedtwoloungesatitsinn,inwhichliveand
recordedmusicwasperformed.Thedefendantmadeapplicationtotheplaintifffora
licenceunderthetariffin1998andpaidalicencefee.Thedefendantignoredsubsequent
requestsforpaymentanddidnotsubmitapplicationsforsubsequentyearsdespitethe
continuedperformanceofmusicinitslounges.
Theplaintiffhadcommencedanactiontorecoverthetarifflicencefeesasdamagesfor
1998andsubsequentyearsandforpunitivedamages.Theplaintiffhadsecureddefault
judgmentandanorderforareference.Theorderhadbeenservedonthedefendantand
thereferencetookplacewithnooneattendingonbehalfofthedefendant.
Held,theplaintiffshouldbeawardedlicencefees,interest,punitivedamagesandcosts.
Intheabsenceofthedefendant,therefereeshouldassessdamagesasbestheorshecan.
Damagesaretobeassessedinaroughandreadyfashionandinacommonsenseway.
Bys.68.2(b)oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,althoughtariffsarefiledyearly,the
collectivesocietymaycontinuetocollectlicencefeesinaccordance[page355]withthe
mostrecentlyapprovedtariff.Therefereeassessedtheamountofthetariffowingfor1998,
1999and2000,lesstheamountpaidin1998basedonthe1998approvedtariff.
Punitivedamagesmaybeawardedwhereadefendantactedinahigh-handedor
contemptuousmannerinordertopunishthedefendantandmakeanexampletodeter
others.Giventheongoingbreach,theignoringoflettersrequestingpaymentofthelicence
feeandtheignoringoftheaction,itwouldhavebeenremissnottoorderthedefendantto
payexemplarydamages.Exemplarydamagesintheamountof$10,000wereordered.

108

S
ocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav1007442
OntarioLtd
(2000),[2000]FCJ191,[2000]ACF191,[2000]CarswellNat176,[2000]FTR
Uned128,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca25995.o.fr.html
(FCTD-Practice)CullenJ.
[para20]Accordingtotherecentjurisprudence,arelevantdocumentoughttobeone
thatmightreasonablybesupposedtocontaininformationwhichmaydirectlyorindirectly
enablethepartyseekingtheproductiontoadvancehisowncaseordamagethecaseof
hisadversary.
[23]Thedefendantsarguedthatnoprofitwasmadeasaconsequenceofthealleged
infringement.Imustdisagreewiththisargument.Thedefendantspresentexoticdancing,and
assuch,musicispartoftheentertainmentperformance,andthatperformancegenerates
revenuestothenightclub.InSocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanada
v.348803AlbertaLtd.etal.[(1997),79C.P.R.(3d)449(F.C.T.D.)],Itwasheldthat:
Itmattersnotthatthedefendantshadnospecificcharge,forexampleacover
chargeatthedoor,forthemusicattheirestablishment.Musicaddsambianceto
suchestablishments.Themusicaddedavaluetothedefendants’operation,
otherwisetheywouldhavegivenupplayingmusic.Justwhatthevalueofmusic
mightbeImustnowarriveatinaroughandreadymanner.
[24]Sincethismotionarisesinthecontextofanactionfordamagesforcopyright
infringement,thefinancialstatementsofthedefendantsfor1994to1999arecertainly
requiredforthepurposeofcalculatingthepossibledamagesandprofits.

109

S
ocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav
LandmarkCinemasofCanadaLtd.
(2000),9CPR(4
th)353,[2000]FCJ1626,[2000]FTRTBEdOC180,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27511.o.en.html(FCTD-
Disqualification)AronovitchJ.
Theplaintiff,aperformingrightssocietywhichgrantslicencesfortheperformanceofmusical
works,commencedanactionforcopyrightinfringementallegingthatthedefendant,an
operatorofmotionpicturetheatres,performedtheplaintiff’sworkswithoutlicenceor
paymentofperformancerightsfees.Duringexaminationfordiscovery,thepresidentofthe
defendantrefusedtoanswerquestionsconcerningtheoperatingrelationshipthatthe
defendanthadwithcertainmotionpicturetheatres.Thesolicitorsfortheplaintiffthen
instructedastudent-at-lawtomakeinquiriesintotherelationshipbetweenthedefendant
andthetheatres,suggestingthatsherelyonpubliclyavailableinformationfromlicensing
bodies.Withouthavingreadthefileandbelievingthatshewaslookingforpotential
defendants,thestudentmadeadirecttelephonecalltothedefendant.Thecallwas
answeredbyareceptionistwhoprovidedlittleinformation.Thestudentthenplacedafollow-
upcalltothedefendantwhichthepresidentreturned.Thestudentidentifiedherselfandher
lawfirmandwascandidindescribingthereasonforherinquiry.Realizingthattheinquiry
mightrelatetothelitigation,thepresidentdeclinedtoprovideanswerstothequestions.The
defendantbroughtamotiontoremovethelawfirmassolicitorsofrecord.
Held,themotionshouldbedismissed.
Therighttocounselofone’schoiceoughtnottobesupplantedwithoutregardtothe
character,gravityandconsequencesoftheimpugnedconduct.Someintimationofmischief
orthepotentialforinjusticehastobedemonstrated.Evenincasesofconflictofinterest,
whilethereisapresumptionthatconfidentialinformationisimpartedinthecaseofcertain
retainers,thepresumptionmayberebuttedifthesolicitorcansatisfythecourtthatnonewas
infactimparted.
Whileclearlyinerror,thestudent’sconductwasunwittingandnotdeceitfulorpartofa
deliberateschemedesignedtocircumventthecourt’sprocessbyimpropermeans.The
studentdidnotobtainanyinformationrelevanttothelitigationandthedefendantdidnot
makeoutanyrealorapprehendedmischief,injusticeorharmto[page354]therightsofthe
parties.Inthecircumstances,itcouldnotbeconcludedthatafair-mindedmemberofthe
public,inpossessionofallthefactswouldconcludethatthefairadministrationofjustice
requiredtheinterventionofthecourtinfavourofthedefendant.

110

S
ocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadavRunway
66EnterprisesLtd.
(2000),[2000]CarswellNat845,[2000]FTRUned624,[2000]FCJ556,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26416.o.en.html,en
françaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26416.o.fr.html
(FCTD)-Practice)HugessenJ.
[9]Finally,thelastgroundwhichIunderstoodcounselfortheplaintifftoadvanceforspecial
orderstocosts,wastheflagrancyofthebreachofcopyrightwhichunderliesthepresent
action.I,again,donotthinkthatthatisagroundformakingaspecialorderastocosts.
Therewillbeareferencetodeterminedamagesandifitisappropriatetoawardexemplary
damages,thensuchanawardcanbemadeatthattime.Idonotthinkitproperforme,
hereandnow,tomakeaspecialawardastocosts.

111

S
tatementofroyaltiestobecollectedbyNRCCforthepublic
performanceorthecommunicationtothepublicbytelecommunication,
inCanada,ofpublishedsoundrecordingsembodyingmusicalworksand
performer©sperformancesofsuchworksin1998to2002forTariff1.C
(2000),[2000]CBD13,[2000]DCDA13,[2000-09-29]
http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/tocmusic-e.html(CB)

Subparagraph68(2)(a)(ii)oftheActstatesthatthetariffmaynot, »becauseoflinguisticand
contentrequirementsofCanada’sbroadcastingpolicysetoutinsection3ofthe
BroadcastingAct,placesomeusersthataresubjecttothatActatagreaterfinancial
disadvantagethanothers ».CBC’scontentrequirementsmaycauseittousetheeligible
repertoiremorethanitwouldifsuchrequirementsdidnotexist.However,theBoardwillnot
reducetheamountofroyaltiesonthisground.
First,CBCreceivessubsidiesthatreflectitscontentrequirements.TheamountsthatCBC
investsperlistenergofarbeyondwhatcommercialstationscanafford.Aremedyisthus
alreadyprovidedforanydisadvantagestemmingfromcontentrequirements.
Second,asnotedinthecommercialradiodecision,theActdoesnotrequirethatthe
regulatoryframework’simpactonusepatternsbedisregarded.Rather,itrequiresthat
Canada’sbroadcastingpolicynotplacesomeusersatagreaterdisadvantagethanothers.
Rightsholdersarenotrequiredtosubsidizeusersonthegroundthatusersarerequiredto
meetregulatoryrequirements.

Third,CRTCpolicydoesnothavethesamepurposeascopyright.Copyrightdealswith
compensationfortheuseofalleligiblerecordings.CRTCpolicymeetstheaimsofthe
BroadcastingActandfocusesmainlyonthecreationofCanadianworksandrecordings.To
reducecompensationforrightsholders,basedonCRTCpolicy,wouldbebothinappropriate
andunfair.

112

S
tatementofRoyaltiestobeCollectedfortheRetransmissionofDistant
RadioandTelevisionSignalsDuring1998,1999and2000
(2000),[2000]CBA3,[2000]DCDA3,[2000-02-25]
http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/tocretrans-e.html(CB)
OnMarch31,1997,theeightcollectivesocietieswhofiledtariffproposalsintheprevious
retransmissionproceedings(for1995-1997)filed,forthefirsttime,jointstatementsofproposed
royaltiesfortheretransmissionofdistantradioandtelevisionsignalsfortheyears1998,1999
and2000.Aninthsociety,theSociétédesauteursetcompositeursdramatiques(SACD),filed
astatementfordistanttelevisionsignalsbutwithdrewituponreachinganagreementwith
theCanadianRetransmissionCollective(CRC)fortherepresentationofSACD’sworks.
CCC,CBRA,BBCandCRRArelyontheBoard’searlierdecisiondealingwiththestatusof
superstationsunderSOCAN’sTariff17,toarguethattheTVAservicebeingofferedtothe
affectedretransmittersisindeeda »signal ».[SeeTariff17Decision,SOCANStatementof
Royalties,1990-1995(Tariff17),(1996)70C.P.R.(3d),501,529-31.]Inthatdecision,theBoard
ruledonfouraspectsoftheretransmissionregimethatarerelevanthere.
Firstly,adistantsignalmustbeavailableforfreereceptionbythepublicinitslocalmarket.
Secondly,asignaldoesnotceasetobeasignalbecauseitisalsoprovidedoutsidethat
marketusingdifferenttechnologies;infact,asignalneverceasestobeasignal.Itisirrelevant
thatthesignalmaybeprovidedbyathirdparty,thatthethirdpartymayobtainthesignal
fromtheterrestrialbroadcaster,orthatviewersmayberequiredtopayasubscriptionfeeto
receiveit.
Thirdly,itisalsoirrelevantthatthesignalretransmittedoutsidethelocalmarketisnotidentical
tothesignaltransmittedbytheterrestrialstation.
Fourthly,theconditionsspecifiedintheretransmissionregimerelatetotheretransmissionof
thesignalbythecableoperatorandnottotheconditionofthesignalatthetimewhenitis
receivedbythecableoperator.
Despiteargumentstothecontrary,theBoardstillbelievesthatitsearlieranalysisofthe
retransmissionregimeiscorrect.Thereisnoneedtorepeatherewhatwassaidthen.
Terrestrialstationsofferedasdistantsignalsare »signals »forthepurposesoftheretransmission
regime,whetherornotanyalterationsaremadebyanyone(includingthebroadcaster)to
thosesignals,andwhetherornotthesignalisreceivedbytheretransmitteratthesametime
astheoriginalbroadcastoccurs.
CCTAandSOCANraiseanumberofotherargumentsinfavouroftheirposition,arguments
thattheBoardfindsunconvincing.Forexample,theyrefertothepolicyobjectivesofthe
retransmissionregime,whichtheyviewasfacilitatingcopyrightclearancewherethesignalis
beingofferedwithouttheconsentofthebroadcaster.TheBoardagreeswiththereasons
givenbyCCCandCBRAastowhythisargumentisirrelevant.Undertheregime,allworks
carriedonadistantsignalareentitledtocompensation,whetherornotthebroadcaster
holdstheretransmissionrightsorisabletoacquirethem.
CCTAalsoarguesthattheretransmissionoftheTVAservicebyacableoperatorisnotan
infringementofcopyrightbecauseitismandatedbytheCRTC.TheBoardagreeswithCCC
thatneithertheBroadcastingActnortheCopyrightActcanbeinterpretedtogiverisetoan
exemptionfromliabilityinsuchacase.Thisiseventruernowthatparagraphs32.1(1)(d)ofthe

113

Actprovidescertainexemptionsforreproductionsmadeinordertocomplywiththe
BroadcastingActoranyrule,regulationorotherinstrumentmadeunderit.Theprovision
clearlydoesnotextendtotheretransmissionofadistantsignal.
CCTAfinallyasksthattheBoardhaveregardtothecriteriaadoptedbyCabinetin
interpretingtheAct.Thosecriteria,includingtheoneregardingCanadianbroadcasting
policy,maybeusefulindetermininghowmuchretransmittersshouldpayfortheTVAsignal.
However,beingregulationsmadeundertheAct,theycanbeoflittleuseininterpretingit.
Consequently,theTVAEastandTVAWestservicesare »signals »forthepurposeofthe
retransmissionregime.

114

S
ullivanEntertainmentInc.vAnneoftheGreenGablesLicensing
AuthorityInc
(2000),7CPR(4
th)532,[2000]CarswellNat1098,[2000]FCJ822,[2000]FTRTBEd
JN185,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26693.o.en.html
(FCTD-Pleadings)Giles,Prothonotary;affd(2000),[2001]1FCD-31,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27555.o.en.html,en
françaisà[2001]1CFF39
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27555.o.fr.html(FCTD)
MuldoonJ.

Thedefendantmovedtostrikeparagraphsofastatementofclaiminwhichtheplaintiff
claimedadeclarationinrespectofs.9oftheTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13,anda
declarationthattherewerenoenforceablerightsinCanadainthename,personality,
character,orimageoffictionalcharactersinaliterarywork.Thedefendantallegedthatthe
courthadnojurisdictiontograntdeclarationsconcernings.9,andthatwithrespecttothe
fictionalcharacters,theplaintiffwasaskingthecourttoexceeditsjurisdiction.
Held,themotioninrespectofs.9shouldbedismissed,andinrespectofthefictional
charactersshouldbegranted.
Section55oftheTrade-marksActgivesthecourtjurisdictiontoenforcerightsunders.9ofthe
Act.Wherethecourthasjurisdictionwithrespecttoasubject[page533]matter,thecourt
cangivedeclaratoryreliefinrespectofsuchamatter.Thecourt,therefore,hadjurisdictionto
grantadeclaratoryjudgmentinrespectofs.9.
Withrespecttothedeclarationconcerningrightsinthefictionalcharacters,therights
referredtointheplaintiff’sclaimwerenotlimitedtointellectualpropertyrights.Theclaim
extendedbeyondthejurisdictionofthecourtandwasthereforestruckwithleavetoamend
within30days.

115

S
upremeCourtofCanada(Re)
(2000),[2000]CBD11(CB)
Pursuanttotheprovisionsofsection77(1)oftheCopyrightAct,theCopyrightBoardgrantsa
licencetotheSupremeCourtofCanadaasfollows:
(1)ThelicenceauthorizestheuseandreproductionofaphotographofJustice
J.W.Estey,publishedintheOttawaCitizenonJanuary23,1956,ina
commemorativebookmarkingthe125thanniversaryofthecreationofthe
SupremeCourtofCanada.
Nomorethan4,000copiesoftheworkshallbereproduced.
Issuanceofthislicencedoesnotreleasetheapplicantfromtheobligationto
obtainpermissionforanyotherusenotcoveredbythislicence.

116

T
ariffofLeviestobeCollectedbyCPCC(Re)
(2000),7CPR(4
th)68,[2000]CarswellNat1304,[2000]CBD16,[2000]
DCDA16,[2000-12-08]
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/toccopy-e.html
(FCA)
TheapplicantsappliedforjudicialreviewofadecisionoftheCopyrightBoardrelatingtoPart
VIIIoftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,concerningthelevyimposedonablankaudio
recordingmedium.Theboardhadinterpretedtheterm »ordinarilyused »inthedefinitionof
« audiorecordingmedium »asincludingallnon-negligibleuses.Theboardhadconcluded
thataCDwasordinarilyusedtoreproducesoundrecordingsandwasthereforeleviableasa
blankaudiorecordingmedium.Theapplicantsallegedthattheterm »ordinarilyused »should
beinterpretedbylookingattheproductsgenerallyandnottheusageoftheproductsby
individualconsumers.Theapplicantscontestedthattheterm »ordinarily »shouldbeconstrued
asmeaning »chiefly »or »mainly ».
Held,theapplicationshouldbedismissed.
Theissueraisedbytheapplicantswasmainlyaquestionoflawinterpretingthelegislation
administeredbytheboard.ThepurposeofPartVIIIoftheCopyrightActismainlyan
economiconewithintheexpertiseoftheboardtodecide.Theproperstandardofreviewon
theissuewas,therefore,patentunreasonableness.
Itistheusageoftheproductsbyindividualconsumersthatmustbeordinaryfortheproducts
tofallwithinthedefinitionof »audiorecordingmedium ».PartVIIIof[page69]theActprovides
forasystemtoestimatethevalueofcopyrightinfringedbyindividualswhoordinarilycopied
musiconthoseproducts.Theinterpretationassertedbytheapplicantswouldnotbe
consistentwiththeobjectoftheAct.Theapplicantshadfailedtodemonstratethatthe
board’sapproachwasobviouslyorclearlywrong.Theboard’sdecisionwasnot,therefore,
patentlyunreasonable.

117

T
agHeuerS.A.v.JohnDoe
(2000),4CPR(4
th)177,[2000]CarswellNat1132,[2000]FCJ21,[2000]FTR
Uned27,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27226.o.en.html(FCTD)
PelletierJ.

TheplaintiffhadsecuredanAntonPillerorderandhadexecutedtheorderonfour
defendants.Theplaintiffthenmovedfordefaultjudgmentagainsteachofthefour
defendants.Theplaintiffclaimedaspartofthedefaultjudgmenttherighttobeatlibertyto
disposeofgoodsseizedfromthedefendantspursuanttotheAntonPillerorder.
Thestatementofclaimdidnotincludeaclaimfortherighttodisposeofinfringing
merchandise.TheAntonPillerorderprovidedthatthecounterfeitgoodsseized[page178]
wouldbeusedsolelyforthepurposeofcivilproceedings.Theorderdidnotspecifythatthe
goodsseizedmightbedestroyed.
Held,themotionshouldbegrantedanddefaultjudgmentshouldbeissued.
Thebasisformakinganordertopermittheplaintifftobeatlibertytodisposeoftheseized
goodswasuncertainbecausetherewasnosuchclaiminthestatementofclaimandno
noticewasgiventothedefendantatthetimeofseizurethatthegoodsseizedmightbe
destroyed.
Asthepracticehadbeentograntsuchorders,itwasunfairtorefusetogranttheorder
requestedatthistimewithoutnoticeofachangeinpractice.Infuture,withoutaspecific
claimforthedispositionofinfringinggoodsinthestatementofclaim,suchanordermaynot
beissuedparticularlywherethegoodshavesomenon-infringingvalue.

118

T
élé-Vision84IncvCorporationdescélébrationsdu350ièmeanniversaire
deMontréal(1642-1992)
(2000),REJB2000-17589,[2000]JQ845,[2000]CarswellQue455,JE2000-925
(QueSupCt)TingleyJ.
Résumé
Actionenréclamationdedommages-intérêts(250000$).Rejetée.
Ladéfenderesseavaitétémandatéepourorganiseretcoordonnerlescélébrationsdu350e
anniversairedelafondationdelaVilledeMontréal.Répondantàl’invitationlancéeenjuin
1990parladéfenderesse,quidésiraitobtenirdesidéesdeprojet,lesdemanderessesluiont
proposéunsynopsisd’unambitieuxspectaclemusicaldontlesdevispréliminaires
prévoyaientunbudgetde3,7millionsdedollars.CespectacledevaitsetenirauStade
olympiqueetréunirunecinquantainedevedettesmusicalesaméricainespuisqueses
idéateursentendaientlierl’événementau500eanniversairedeladécouvertedel’Amérique.
Lesdemanderessesavaientégalementimaginédiffuseràlatélévisionlesmeilleursmoments
decegrandévénement.Bienqu’audépartellesesoitmontréeintéresséeauprojetdes
demanderesses,ladéfenderesseafinalementdécidé,enmai1991,denepasydonner
suite.Unanplustard,elleaconfiéàunautreproducteurl’élaborationetlacréationde
l’événement«AurythmedesAmériques»,quis’esttenuenaoût1992auparcdesÎles.Ce
spectacle,d’uneduréede11heures,regroupaitplusieursartistesmusicauxvenantdetoutle
continent.Invoquantlacontrefaçondeleuridéeoriginaleetduconceptdespectacle
qu’ellesavaientproposé,lesdemanderessesréclamentleshonorairesde250000$dontelles
auraientétéprivéesàtitredeproductrices.Ladéfenderesseprétendquel’idéede
spectacledesdemanderessesnejouitd’aucuneprotectionenvertudelaLoisurledroit
d’auteuretqu’ausurplusellen’auraitpasreprisnisuivilesynopsisqu’ellesluiavaientproposé.
Décision
Mêmesil’idéedeproduireunspectacletraitantdelamusiqued’originedesAmériquesn’est
passusceptibledefairel’objetd’undroitd’auteur,ilenvaautrementdelafaçond’exprimer
cetteidée.Enl’espèce,lesynopsisjouitdelaprotectionaccordéeparl’article34.1delaloi
puisqu’ilconstituel’expressiond’unconceptoud’unthème.Lasubstancedececonceptse
trouvedanslacélébrationen1992dedeuxévénementshistoriques(ladécouvertede
l’Amérique,en1492,etlafondationdeMontréal,en1642)parlamiseenscèned’un
spectacledemusiqueetdecinémadespaysaméricainsdansuneatmosphèreolympienne.
Or,lespectacle«AurythmedesAmériques»nes’estjamaisapprochédelasubstancede
l’événementenvisagéparlesdemanderesses.Iln’apaseulieuauStadeolympiqueet
aucunementionn’yaétéfaitedeladécouvertedel’Amérique.Enoutre,laportée,lethème
etlecadredeprésentationdifféraientgrandement.Lespectacle«Aurythmedes
Amériques»,dontlebudgetreprésentaitletiersdeceluiproposéparlesdemanderesses,ne
constituaitpasunepartieimportantedel’oeuvrelittérairedecesdernières.Leseulélément
similaireexistantentrecesdeuxspectaclesconcernaitlesparticipantsdelapartiemusicale,
notammentlegroupemusicalautochtoneKashtin.Ilnes’agitpasd’unélémentnouveauni
original.Lesgensquiontpayépourassisterauspectacledumoisd’août1992n’ontjamaisvu
celuiquelesdemanderessesavaientexposédansleursynopsis.

119

T
hébergecGaleried’artduPetitChamplain
(1999),JE99-1991REJB99-14552,[1999]JQ4472(QueSupCt);revd(2000),
JE2000-531,REJB2000-16584,[2000]JQ412,[2000]CarswellQue133,9CPR
(4
th)259,[2000-02-22]http://www.jugements.qc.ca/ca/200002fr.html(Que
CA);motionforleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadagranted
[2000]CSCR198(CSC)
Résumé
Appeld’unjugementdelaCoursupérieureayantannuléunesaisieavantjugement.
Accueilli.
L’appelantestunartistepeintrederenomméeinternationale.Depuisl’été1998,ilconstate
qu’unequantitéconsidérabledereproductionsnonautoriséesdesestableauxsetrouvent
danslesgaleriesd’artdesintimés.Eneffet,certainesdecesreproductionsontétéfaitessur
destoilesplutôtquesurpapieret,comptetenudelatechniquedel’auteur,ellesdonnent
l’impressiond’uneoeuvreoriginaleplutôtqued’unereproduction.Latechniqueutilisée
consisteàtransférersurtoilelesencresd’uneafficheimprimée.Lorsdel’«entoilage»,ilarrive
mêmequelasignaturedel’auteurdisparaisse,desortequecertainesdecesreproductions
n’indiquentplusnilenomdel’auteurniceluidel’éditeurautorisé.L’appelantafaitsaisiravant
jugementcequ’ilconsidèrecommedesreproductionsnonautoriséesdesesoeuvres,dont
lesentoilages.Lepremierjugeaannulélasaisieaumotifdefaussetédesallégationsde
l’appelant.Invoquantlesarticles34(1)et38(1)delaLoisurledroitd’auteur,cedernier
soutientquel’entoilageconstitueuneviolationdesesdroitsd’auteur.
Décision
M.lejugeMichaud:L’appelantaconsentiàcequedesreproductionssurpapierfinde
certainsdesestableauxsoientédités,maisiln’apasautorisélareproductionsurtoiledeces
mêmestableaux.Unereproductiond’untableausurpapierfinnecessepasd’êtreune
reproductionsurpapierfindufaitqu’elleestcolléesurunsupportquelconqueouqu’elleest
encadréeou«laminée».Toutefois,lareproductionsurtoiled’untableauconstitueune
reproductiondutableaumêmesilatechniquepouryarriverestl’entoilaged’une
reproductionsurpapier.L’entoilageneviolepeut-êtrepasledroitdeceluiquiestautoriséà
reproduireletableausurpapier,maisilviolel’undesdroitsdel’auteurdutableau.Lavaleur
d’unereproductionsurpapiern’estpasdifférente,qu’ellesoitencadréeou«laminée».Dans
untelcas,l’acquéreurpaielavaleurdelareproductionetlecoûtdel’encadrementoudu
«laminage».Enrevanche,l’entoilagepermetauvendeurd’obtenirunprixsupérieuràla
valeurdelareproductionsurpapieretaucoûtd’entoilage.
M.lejugeDelisle:Letitulairedudroitd’auteurpeutsaisiravantjugementlesexemplaires
contrefaitsdesesoeuvressilaloidelaprovinceoùsontengagéeslesprocédureslepermet
(art.38delaLoisurledroitd’auteur).L’article734duCodedeprocédurecivilepermetà
l’appelantdefairesaisiravantjugementlebienmeublequ’ilestendroitderevendiquer.Ily
acontrefaçond’uneoeuvreàl’égarddelaquelleexisteundroitd’auteurlorsquela
reproduction,ycomprisl’imitationdéguisée,estfaitecontrairementàlaloioulorsqu’ellefait
l’objetd’unactecontraireàlaloi(art.2delaloi).Ledroitd’auteurcomporteledroitexclusif
dereproduction(art.3delaloi).Constitueuneviolationdudroitd’auteurl’accomplissement,
sansleconsentementdutitulairedecedroit,d’unactequeseulcetitulairealafaculté
d’accomplirenvertudelaloi(art.27delaloi).Ainsi,lorsqu’ilsontreproduitdesoeuvresde
l’appelantsanssonconsentement,sousuneformematérielledifférentedecelledes
reproductionsautorisées,lesintimésontcommisunecontrefaçon,dumoinspourcequi
justifielasaisieavantjugement.

120

121

T
ommyHilfigerLicensing,Inc.etal.v.JaneDoe
(2000),8CPR(4
th)194,[2000]CarswellNat1719,188FTR68,[2000]FTR
TBEdAU141,[2000]FCJ1267(FCTD)PelletierJ.
TheplaintiffshadsecuredarollingAntonPillerorderinanactionfortrade-markand
copyrightinfringement.Theplaintiffshadexecutedtheorderbyservingitupononeofthe
defendantsandseizingfromthedefendantcertainarticlesofclothing.Theplaintiffsthen
broughtamotiontoreviewtheexecutionoftheAntonPillerorderandforaninterlocutory
injunctionpendingtrial.Insupportofthemotion,theplaintiffsfurnishedanaffidavitofthe
solicitorwhosupervisedtheexecutionoftheAntonPillerorder.Intheaffidavitthesolicitorset
outhisexperienceandtrainingintheidentificationofcounterfeitmerchandisebearing
reproductionsoftheplaintiffs’intellectualpropertyandstatingthattheclothingseizedwas
counterfeitbecausetheplaintiffsdidnotmanufacturetheparticularproducts,theproducts
didnothavevalidlabels,hangtagsandpackagingandtheproductswereofinferiorquality.
Theaffidavitdidnotrefertothespecificintellectualpropertiesnortospecificgoodsseized
fromthedefendant.
Onthehearingofthemotion,theplaintiffsadvancedtheirsolicitor’saffidavitasanexpert
affidavitandsoughttorelyupontheopinionofthesolicitorthattheseizedclothingwas
counterfeit.
Held,themotionforaninterlocutoryinjunctionshouldberefusedandtheseizedclothing
returnedtothedefendant.
Thestandardofproofonthemeritstoobtainaninterlocutoryinjunctionisaseriousissuetobe
triedunlessthedecisionwouldeffectivelyputanendtothecase.Withrespecttorolling
AntonPillerorders,mostdefendantsdonotattendonthemotiontoreviewtheexecutionof
theorderandthechancesofadefendantdefendingtheclaimtotrialisremote.Itis
thereforeincumbentonthecourttogofurtherthanalimitedreviewofthemerits.
Theadmissibilityofexpertopinionevidenceisdependentuponthesubjectmatterbeforethe
court.Tobeadmissible,theevidencemustbeoutsidetheexperienceorknowledgeofthe
judge.Totheextentthattheissueisthereproductionofaplaintiffs’intellectualpropertyor
theplaintiffs’businesspractices,expertevidenceisnotrequired.Theaffidavitoftheplaintiffs’
solicitorwasthereforenotreceivableasopinionevidence.
Itwasnotpossibleforthecourttodeterminefromtheaffidavitoftheplaintiffs’solicitorwhich
intellectualpropertieswereallegedtobeinfringedandwhichofthe[page196]defendant’s
clothingborereproductionsoftheintellectualproperties.Theevidencewasinsufficientto
establishthattherewasaseriousissuetobetried.Themotionforaninterlocutoryinjunction
wasrefusedandtheseizedgoodswerereturnedtothedefendant.

122

T
oronto.comvSinclair
(2000),6CPR(4th)487,[2000]FCJ795,[2000]CarsellNat1105,[2000]FTR
TBEdAU146,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26656.o.en.html,en
françaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26656.o.fr.html
(FCTD-InterlocutoryInjunction)HeneghanJ.
SinceMarch1998,theplaintiffhadoperatedaWebsiteunderthedomainname
toronto.com.CommencinginApril1999,thedefendantalsooperatedaWebsiteunderthe
domainnametoronto2.com.ThedefendantshadframedseveralWebpagesorportionsof
Webpagespublishedontheplaintiff’sWebsite.Theplaintiffcommencedanactionfor
passingoffandforcopyrightinfringement.Theplaintiffalsobroughtamotionforan
interlocutoryinjunctiontorestrainthedefendantsfromusingthedomainnameandtrade-
markTORONTO2.COMandcopying,publishing,framingorlinkingcontentoftheplaintiff’s
Website.Atthetimethemotionwasbrought,thedefendants’Websitenolongerframed
contentoftheplaintiff’sWebsite.
Held,themotionshouldbedismissed.
Atripartitetestistobeappliedtodeterminewhetheraninterlocutoryinjunctionshouldbe
granted.Thetestconsistsofwhetherthereisaseriousissuetobetried,whethertheapplicant
willsufferirreparableharmifthereliefisnotgrantedandfinally,thebalanceofconvenience
isexaminedinassessingwhethertograntaninterlocutoryinjunction.
Theplaintiffmustshowclearevidencethatitwillinfactsufferirreparableharm.Theevidence
cannotbespeculative.Irreparableharmisharmwhichcannotbequantifiedinmonetary
termsandhence,referstothenatureoftheharmandnotitsmagnitude.Insituationswhere
thevalidityofthetrade-markisinissue,infringementoftheveryproprietaryrightsatissuewill
notconstituteirreparableharm.Further,thecourtcannotinfertheexistenceofalossof
goodwillfromafindingofconfusion.Theplaintiffmustproduceconcreteevidenceof
irreparableharm.
Inthepresentmotionitwasunnecessarytoaddressthequestionofwhethertheplaintiffhad
demonstratedaseriousissuetobetriedandthequestionofthebalance[page488]of
convenience,astheplaintiffhadfailedtoshowthatitwouldsufferirreparableharm.Thecourt
wasunabletolocateintheplaintiff’smaterialsanyclearevidencewhichwasnotspeculativein
nature.Theevidencedidnotprovethattheplaintiffhadlostorwouldlosereputation,brand
nameawareness,consumerloyalty,ortheabilitytoattractadvertisers.Likewise,therewasno
proofthatitsgoodwillhadbeendiminished.Althoughthedefendants’inabilitytopaydamages
couldconstituteirreparableharm,itwasimpossibleforthecourttoconcludethattheplaintiff
wouldsufferirreparableharmonthebasisthatthedefendantsmightbeimpecunious.

123

V
iacomHa!HoldingCo.v.JaneDoe
(2000),6CPR(4
th)36,187FTR305,[2000]CarswellNat689,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26355.o.en.html(FCTD)
Tremblay-LamerJ.;noticeofappealwasfiledbyMr.TejanionApril20,2000
(CourtFileNo.A-254-00);(2000),[2000]FCJ2095,[2000]CarswellNat3081,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27974.o.en.html(FCTD-
Default)PelletierJ.
AntonPiller
Theplaintiffsinfouractionsforinfringementofintellectualpropertyrightsmovedtoreviewthe
executionofAntonPillerordersandtoadddefendants.Theproposeddefendantsmovedto
setasidetheAntonPillerorders.[page37]
Theplaintiffswererespectivelytheownersoftheintellectualpropertyrightsofthecharacters
intheSouthParktelevisionseries,thePokémoncomputerprograms,theDisneyanimated
charactersandmotionpicturesandtheLooneyTunescharacters.Byreasonofextensive
sales,licensingandadvertising,theplaintiffshadacquiredvaluablereputationandgoodwill
inwaresbearingtheirintellectualproperties.
TheplaintiffsexecutedtheAntonPillerordersontheproposeddefendantswhooperatedas
aretailer.TheevidenceobtainedontheexecutionoftheAntonPillerordershowedthatthe
proposeddefendantswereofferingforsalecounterfeitmerchandise.Theproposed
defendantsadmittedthattheyintendedtosendthecounterfeitmerchandisebacktotheir
suppliersinChinaforcredit.
IntheirmotiontosetasidetheAntonPillerorders,theproposeddefendantsallegedthatthe
orderswerecontrarytos.8oftheCanadianCharterofRightsandFreedomsandthatthe
plaintiffsfailedtoproperlyexecutetheAntonPillerorders.
Held,theplaintiffs’motiontoreviewtheexecutionoftheAntonPillerorderandtoadd
defendantsshouldbegranted;theproposeddefendants’motiontosetasidetheorder
shouldbedismissed.
Theevidenceestablishedthattheplaintiffsweretheownersoftheintellectualpropertyrights
atissueandthattheplaintiffshadastrongprimafaciecaseofinfringement.Thereviewofan
AntonPillerorderisareviewdenovo.Thecourtwasentitledtoconsidertheevidenceof
infringementbythedefendantsobtainedthroughtheexecutionoftheorders.
Theplaintiffshadestablishedthatpurchasersofcounterfeitwaresbearingtheplaintiffs’
intellectualpropertywouldbelesslikelytopurchasetheplaintiffs’wares,andthatthesaleof
theinferiorqualityandinexpensivecounterfeitwareswoulddamagetheplaintiffs’reputation
forhighqualitywaresanddiminishthevalueofthegoodwillassociatedwiththeirintellectual
property.Theplaintiffshadthereforeestablishedthatdamagescausedbythedefendants’
activitieswouldbeserious.
Withrespecttolikelihoodthatanallegedinfringerwoulddestroyinfringingwares,inferences
canbedrawnfromtheinfringer’sdishonestcharactertoconcludethattheinfringerwould
disposeoftheevidence.Nodistinctioncanbedrawnfromthefactthatanallegedinfringer
operatesasaretailerasopposedtoafleamarketvendor.WithoutanAntonPillerorder,the
defendantswouldlikelycontinuetooperatesellingmorecounterfeitwares.Evidencewould

124

thereforevanish.Thiswasreinforcedbythefactthatthedefendantsintendedtoreturn
thecounterfeitwarestotheirsuppliers.
Section8oftheChartercontainstheguaranteeagainstunreasonablesearchandseizure.By
s.32theCharterappliestogovernment.Itdoesnotapplytoprivatelitigation.Thegrantingof
acourtinjunctionisnotagovernmentactiontowhichtheCharterapplies.Theexecutionof
anAntonPillerorderisinthecontextofaprivatedisputebetweenprivateparties.The
defendantscouldnotthereforeinvoketheChartertosetasidetheorder.[page38]
Therewereinconsistenciesinthedefendants’evidencewhichhadanegativeimpacton
theircredibility.TheevidenceshowedthattheAntonPillerorderswereproperlyexecuted.
DefaultJudgment
[8]Thelegislativeschemewhichprotectstheplaintiffs’intellectualpropertiescontemplates
jointandseveralliability[HisLordshipreferstosection38.1oftheCopyrightAct.]
[para11]Inthecircumstancesofcasessuchasthesewhereanumberofpersonsarefound
tobeengagedinabusinesswhichissellingcounterfeitgoods,andwhereitisnotpossibleto
distinguishtheindividualcontributiontotheharmcaused,andintheabsenceofany
exculpatorypleaonthepartofanyofthem,itdoesnotseemunfairtoassessliabilityona
jointandseveralbasis.Inanyevent,itseemsfairerthanfindingeachdefendantindividually
liableforthefullamountoftheconventionalawardfornominaldamages,whenitappears
thatthereisonlyoneundertakingorbusinesswhichiscausingthedamage.

125

W
allvVanBrunell
(1996),[1996]FCJ1149(FCTDProthonotary-Practice);(1997),75CPR(3d)
429,[1997]FTRUned237,[1997]FCJ608,71ACWS(3d)552(FCTD-Summary
Judgment);affd(2000),7CPR(4
th)321,[2000]FCJ841,[2000]CarswellNat
1184,[2000]NRUned118,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26736.o.en.html,en
françaisà
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/fr/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26736.o.fr.html
(FCA)MaloneJ.
Inanactionforcopyrightinfringement,thedefendantshadbroughtamotionforsummary
judgmentfordismissaloftheaction.Theplaintifffilednoevidenceonthemotion.The
motionsjudgeheldthattheplaintiffhadfailedtoestablishthattherewasagenuineissuefor
trialandgrantedthemotion.Theplaintiffappealedthedecisionofthemotionsjudge.
Held,theappealshouldbedismissed.
Themotionjudgewascorrectinholdingthataplaintiffonamotionforsummaryjudgment
maynotrestonitspleadingsbutmustprovideevidencethat[page322]thereisagenuine
issuefortrial.Astheplaintifffailedtofileanaffidavitinresponsetothemotionforsummary
judgment,thecourtwasentitledtoinferthatshewasunabletoattesttofactsrequiredto
makeoutherclaim.

126

W
icPremiumTelevisionLtdvLevin
(1999),[1999]FCJ652,[1999]ACF652,[1999]FTRUned295,1CPR(4
th)467
(FCTD);(2000),[2000]FTRUned131,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca26060.o.en.html(FCTD-
TimeTable)PelletierJ.;(2000),[2000]FCJ1259,[2000]FTRTBEdAU141,99
ACWS(3d)145,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27134.o.en.html(FCTD-
InterlocutoryInjunction)O’KeefeJ.
InterlocutoryInjunction
[1Thisisamotionbytheapplicantintheabove-entitledaction,WICPremiumTelevisionLtd.
(« WIC »)foraninterlocutoryinjunctionprohibitingthedefendantsfromdirectlyorindirectly
manufacturing,importing,distributing,leasing,selling,installing,oroperatingequipmentor
devicesusedtodecodeencryptedsubscriptionprogrammingsignalsthatarenot
transmittedorbroadcastbyalawfuldistributor;andaninterlocutoryinjunctionprohibitingthe
defendantsfromencouraging,assisting,aidingorabettingothersindoingthesame.
15]InExpressVuv.NIINorsatInternationalInc.[1998]1F.C.245,JusticeGibsonheldthattobe
alawfuldistributor,inadditiontoholdingcopyrightoralicencefromthecopyrightownerin
respectoftheprogramming,onehadtobetheholderofaCRTClicence.Iftherewasno
CRTClicenceinrespectoftheprogrammingdecoded,therewasnolawfuldistributorof
thatsignal,andparagraph9(1)(c)wasviolatedbydecodingsuchsignals.TheCourtof
Appealaffirmedthisinterpretationofparagraph9(1)(c)inExpressVu,supra,unreported,
November20,1997,DocketA-541-97.ExpressVuconcernedaCRTClicencedsatelliteservice
providercomplainingofactssimilartothosethatthedefendantsinthecaseatbar,are
allegedtobeengagedin.
[17]Giventheinterpretationofthemeaningof »lawfuldistributor »thatwasadoptedby
JusticeGibsonandapprovedofbytheCourtofAppeal,theplaintiffhasdemonstrateda
strongcasewithrespecttotheactivitiesofthedefendantsbeingunlawfulunderparagraph
9(1)(c),suchthatthecivilcauseofactionundersection18oftheActisopentoWIC.
However,thesecondconsideration,proofofdamageorloss,ismuchlessstrong.Itmustbe
borneinmindthatthedefendantsarenotallegedtobedecodingWIC’sownsignals.Itis
possible,however,thattheplaintiffcouldleadevidencethatitwasgiventhesolerightto
transmitaparticularmovieinCanada,andifsuchamovieisalsobeingtransmittedbyHBO
orSHOWTIME,WICcouldconceivablyshowdamageorloss.
[20]Inthecaseatbar,Iamnotsatisfiedthattheplaintiffislikelytosufferirreparableharmif
theinterlocutoryinjunctionisrefused.Anydamagessufferedasaresultofpurportedviolation
ofparagraph9(1)(c)oftheActareeasilyquantifiableinmonetaryterms.Damagesasa
resultoflossofmarketshareorlossofcustomers,actualorpotential,arealsoquantifiablein
monetaryterms.
[21]AlthoughitisnotnecessaryinlightofmyfindingIwilldiscusstheremainingtestsfor
grantinganinjunctioninthiscase.Thesecondaspectoftheirreparableharmtestwillnowbe
considered-irreparableharmtothedefendants.Withrespecttothedefendants,Ibelieve
thattheplaintiff’sundertakingastodamageswouldnotadequatelycompensatethe
defendantsforanyloss.Thelossofsalesandprofitsasaresultoftheinjunctionare
quantifiablebutthedefendantswouldeffectivelybeoutofbusiness.Theimpactonthe
defendantsisgreatandIdonotbelievejustified.

127

[18]Giventhis,andrecognizingthatthemeritsofthecaseoughtnotbeexaminedtoo
closelyatthispreliminarystage,Ibelievethattheplaintiffhasshownaseriousissuetobe
tried.

128

W
ICPremiumTelevisionv.GeneralInstrumentCorporation
(1999),[1999]AJ639,[1999]CarswellAlta452,1CPR(4
th)467,243AR329,
73AltaLR(3d)365,[2000]2WWR417(AltaQB-Exjurisservice];(1999),[1999]
AJ696(AltaQB-ExjurisserviceSupplemental);affd.(2000),8CPR(4
th)1,266
AR98,[2000]AJ977,[2000]CarswellAlta878,2000ABCA233(AltaCA)sub
nomineUnitedStatesSatelliteBroadcastingco.v.WICPremiumTelevision
Ltd.;(1999),[1999]AJ1251(AltaQB-MotiontoStrike);(1999),[1999]AJ1254
(AltaQB-SummaryJudgment);(2000),8CPR(4
th)308,[2000]AJ1063,272AR
201,[2000]CarswellAlta969,2000AQBD628(AltaQB-Interlocutory
Injunction)
Appeal-Jurisdiction
PursuanttoalicenceissuedbytheCanadianRadioTelevisionCommissionandagreements
andlicencesgrantedbycopyrightholders,theplaintiffhadtheexclusiverighttodistribute
andexhibitcertaintelevisionprogramminginWesternCanada.Theprogramswere
encrypted,beameduptoasatelliteandthenbeamedbacktoreceiverswhichcustomers
purchasedforthepurposeofwatchingtheprograms.Certainofthedefendants,including
theEchostardefendantsandtheUnitedStatesSatelliteBroadcastingCo.(« USSB »)defendant,
providedsimilarservicesintheUnitedStateswherebytheirencryptedsignalswere
transmittedviasatellitetoabroadareawhichincludedtheUnitedStatesandacertain
portionofsouthernCanada.ThesedefendantsprovideddecoderstoCanadiansand
activatedthedecodersinreturnforpayment.
TheplaintiffshadcommencedanactionagainstsomeofthedefendantsinCalifornia.The
courtinCaliforniaconcludedthatalltheallegedinjuriesandimpactsofthedefendants’
allegedwrongdoingswerefeltinCanadaandthatCanadianlawshouldapply.Accordingly,
itwasmoreappropriatefortheclaimstobebroughtinaCanadiancourt.Theplaintiff’s
actioninCaliforniawasdismissedontheconditionthatthedefendantsintheCalifornia
actionwouldsubmittothejurisdictionoftheCanadiancourt.
TheplaintiffcommenceditsactioninCanadabasedonconspiracy,unjustenrichment,
unlawfulinterferencewitheconomicinterest,andclaimsundertheBroadcastingAct,S.C.
1991,c.11,theCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,andtheCompetitionAct,R.S.C.1985,c.
C-34,andobtainedanexparteorderforserviceexjuris.TheEchostardefendants,theUSSB
defendantandtheWarrendefendants,whohadnotbeenpartiestotheCaliforniaaction
butwhoresidedintheUnitedStates,movedtohavetheorderforserviceexjurissetaside
andthosedefendantsstruckfromtheproceedings.Themotionwasdismissedexceptin
respectofindividualWarrendefendants.
TheEchostardefendants,theUSSBdefendantandtheWarrendefendantsappealedtothe
AlbertaCourtofAppeal.TheplaintiffappealedtheorderstrikingtheindividualWarren
defendantsandsoughtleavetointroducefreshevidencetotheeffectthatUSSBhad
mergedwithDirecTV,which,atthetimeoftheappeal,wasnotapartytotheaction,and
thatprogrammingtowhichtheplaintiffheldexclusiveCanadianrightscouldbeobtainedby
callingDirecTV’stollfreetelephonenumberfromCanada.
Held,theappealsandthemotiontoadducenewevidenceshouldbedismissed.
IndeterminingwhethertheAlbertacourtsmayassumejurisdictionoverthedefendants,the
plaintiffmustestablishthatthereisarealandsubstantialconnectionbetweenthe

129

defendantsandtheterritoryandthatthereisagoodandarguablecase.Havingregard
totheearlystageoftheproceedingsatwhichtheapplicationforanorderauthorizing
serviceexjurismustbemade,thereisafairlylaxstandardofproof.First-handinformation,a
positivefactualconclusionorevidenceexcludingpossibledefencesisnotrequired.
Thechambersjudgehadarticulatedandappliedtheappropriatetestindecidingtheissue
ofjurisdictionandhadcommittednopalpableerrorinhisassessmentofthefactsorthe
applicationofthelawtothefacts.[page3]
USSBdefendants
USSBcarriedonthebusinessintheUnitedStatesasaproviderofsatellitedelivered
subscriptionprogramming.ThechambersjudgefoundthattheUSSBsatellitesignalsentered
intoaterritoryinwhichtheplaintiffhadexclusiveright,thatUSSBactivateddecodersallowing
Canadiansaccesstoitssignals,andthatitreceivedfeesfromCanadianresidentsfor
providingservicesintheplaintiff’sterritory.Accordingly,theplaintiffsuffereddamagein
Alberta.Thiswassufficienttoestablishbotharealandsubstantialconnectionwiththe
jurisdictionandagoodarguablecase,onthelaxstandardapplicableatthisstageofthe
proceeding.ThefactthatUSSBmaybeabletoestablishthatithaddoneeverythingitcould
toensurethatitdidnotinterferewiththeplaintiff’srightandmighthaveadefencewasa
matterfortrial.
Echostardefendants
Thedefendant,EchostarCommunications,wasaholdingcompanyanddidnotcarryonany
business.Itswhollyownedsubsidiaries,however,providedDBSsubscriptionprogrammingand
decoderequipmentnecessarytoaccesstheprogramming.Echostarsignalsweresentinto
Canada.EchostardecodersweresoldtoresidentsinBritishColumbiaandManitobawho,
afterthedecoderswereactivated,receivedprogrammingthatoriginatedwithEchostar.
Echostardefendants,orsomeofthem,receivedpaymentforservicesprovidedintheterritory
wheretheplaintiffhadexclusiverights.Theplaintiff’sheadofficewasinAlbertaandarguably
itsuffereddamagesinAlberta,althoughtherewasnoevidencetoestablishEchostarsalesin
Alberta.Thecourtagreedwiththechambersjudgethatthisfactorconstitutedasufficient
connectionwiththejurisdiction,atleastatthisstageoftheproceeding.
WarrenDefendants
ThechambersjudgefoundthattheWarrendefendantshadsoldsystemsanddecodersto
CanadiandealerswhichhadnopurposeotherthantopermitthereceptionofUS
programming,originatingwithUSSBorDirecTV,inCanada,andhadarrangedtohavethe
systemsanddecoderssoldinCanadaactivatedbyDirecTVorUSSB.Whiletherewasa
conflictintheevidenceastothemagnitudeofthesalesandtheroleplayedbyWarren,and
whilethesubmittingoforderstoDirecTVonbehalfofCanadianresidentsmayhavebeen
contrarytocompanypolicy,therewasevidenceonwhichthechambersjudgecouldhave
foundthatWarrenhadparticipatedinaleastsomeofthesalesofsystemsanddecodersto
dealersinCanadaandobtainedandtransmittedorderstoDirecTVandUSSBonbehalfofits
customers.ThechambersjudgewasnotpalpablywronginconcludingthattheWarren
defendantswereinvolvedinatleastpartoftheoperationwhichresultedintheinterference
inCanadawiththerightsoftheplaintiff.
IndividualWarrendefendants
ThechambersjudgefoundnothinginthepleadingsthattooktheindividualWarren
defendantsoutsidetheroleofthedirectingmindsofthecorporations.Furthertheevidence
pointedtothefactthattheroleplayedbythetwoindividualsrelatedtotheirpositionas
directorsofthecorporations.Totheextentthatevidencewasavailabletoconnectthe
corporationstothesubjectmatteroftheaction,those[page4]actswereactsofemployees

130

andnottheindividualactsofthetwodirectors.Thechambersjudgehadnoterredinhis
assessmentofthepleadingsandoftheevidencerelatingtotheroleplayedbythese
individuals.
Leavetofilenewevidence
Althoughtheplaintiffmayhavebeenentitledtoapplytoadducefreshevidenceon
appeal,theplaintiffwouldstillhavehadtocomplywiththeusualrulesrelatingtothe
admissionoffreshevidence.TheevidenceofthecompletionoftheDirecTV/USSBmergerwas
notconclusiveastoUSSB’sinvolvement.Furthermore,theevidencerelatingtotheabilityto
purchaseprogrammingservicesfromUSsupplierscouldhavebeendiscoveredwithdue
diligencepriortothehearing.
TrialInterlocutoryInjunction
Theplaintiffsweresuccessorcompaniestotheoriginalplaintiffswhohadbeenlicensedby
theCanadianRadio-televisionandTelecommunicationsCommission(CRTC)tobroadcast
motionpicturestosubscribersinWesternCanadaonapayorpay-for-viewbasis.Subscribers
usedauthorizeddecoderstoviewtheplaintiffs’encryptedsignals.
Thedefendantswereinvolvedinachainofprogramsupplywhichtheplaintiffsalleged
createdandexploitedagreymarket.Greymarketreceptionoccurredwhenadecoderthat
wasauthorizedtodecodeasignalinaprogrammingservices’legitimatemarketterritory,for
exampleintheUnitedStates,wasusedtodecodesignalsinCanada.Thedefendants
includedproducersandsuppliersofprogramming,whichwerenotauthorizedtobroadcast
ordistributeprogramminginCanada,anddecodermanufacturersanddealers.Together,
thedefendantssuppliedconsumerswithencryptedprogrammingservicesnotlicensedfor
receptioninCanada,alongwiththedecodersnecessarytoreceivesuchservices.
InanactionforbreachoftheRadiocommunicationAct,R.S.C.1985,c.R-2,theplaintiffs
broughtamotionforaninterimmandatoryinjunctiontorestrainthedefendants’greymarket
receptionactivities.
Held,themotionshouldbedismissed.
Atripartitetestistobeappliedonanapplicationforamandatoryinjunction.
Strongprimafaciecase
Section9(1)(c)oftheRadiocommunicationActprovidesthatnopersonshalldecodean
encryptedsubscriptionprogrammingsignalwithouttheauthorizationofthelawfuldistributor
ofthesignal.Accordingly,thereisanabsoluteprohibitionagainstthedecodingofencrypted
subscriptionprogramsignalsunlessthesignalsemanatefromalawfuldistributorinCanada
whoauthorizestheirdecoding.Whiletheterm »decoding »isnotdefinedinthe
RadiocommunicationAct,thereisastrongcaseforabroaddefinitionthatwouldencompass
theprovisionofconsumerinformationtotheprogrammerorprogramdistributor,the
compilationofthatinformation[page310]anditsintegrationwiththeprogrammingsignal,
theprovisionofequipmenttopermitreceptionandunencryptedviewing,andthe
transmissionoftheprogrammingsignaltopersonsintheplaintiffs’territory.Allthedefendants
playedanintegralpartinallowingcustomersinplaintiffs’territorytoreceiveprogrammingnot
intendedforviewingbythosecustomers.Theplaintiffshavemadeoutastrongprimafacie
case.
Theplaintiffs’strongprimafaciecasewasnotweakenedbythecontentionthatthe
interpretationgiventos.9(1)(c)oftheRadiocommunicationActwouldundulylimitfreedom

131

ofexpressionasguaranteedunders.2(b)oftheCanadianCharterofRightsand
Freedoms.NopartyassertedanyprohibitionontheabilityofCanadianconsumersto
receiveunencryptedUSprogrammingwheretheprogrammerpossessedthenecessary
commercialandcopyrightrights.TheCharterargumentwasusedprimarilytoprotect
commercialinterests.
Irreparableharm
Theplaintiffswererequiredtoprovideevidenceofirreparableharmthatwasclearandnot
speculative.Irreparableharmisharmwhicheithercannotbequantifiedinmonetarytermsor
cannotbecured,usuallybecauseonepartycannotcollectdamagesfromtheother.There
wasnosuggestionthattheplaintiffswouldnotbeabletorecoverdamageseventually
awardedattrialfromthedefendants.
Thereappearedtobeameansofidentifyingthenumberofpersonsintheplaintiffs’territory
receivingunencryptedprogrammingandthesubscriptionfeestheywouldbepaying.The
recentsaleofoneoftheplaintiffswithoutanyreferencetoitsvaluebeingaffectedbythe
greymarketlentfurthercredencetoaconclusionthatharmwasreparablebyadamage
award.Accordingly,theplaintiffshadfailedtoshowirreparableharm.
Balanceofconvenience
Thethirdbranchofthetripartitetestrequiresthecourttodeterminewhichofthepartieswill
suffergreaterharmfromthegrantingorrefusalofaninterlocutoryinjunction.Wherethe
factorsappeartobeevenlybalanced,itisprudenttopreservethestatusquo.Thebalance
ofconveniencefavouredthegrantingoftheinjunction.Thedefendantsshouldnotbe
allowedtoassertapositionobtainedasaresultoftheirinfringingbehaviour.

132

W
ilson&LafleurLtéevLasociétéquébécoised’informationjuridique
(1998),REJB98-8110,[1998]AQ2762(QueSupCt);revd(2000),JE2000-
856,REJB2000-17728,[2000]12-10Lemondejuridique13,[2000]RJQ1086,
[2000]JQ1215,[2000-04-20]
http://www.jugements.qc.ca/ca/200004fr.html
(QueCA)
Appeld’unjugementdelaCoursupérieureayantrejetéunerequêtepourjugement
déclaratoire.Accueillienpartie.
L’appelante,Wilson&Lafleur,estéditeurdepublicationsjuridiques.Afindepoursuivreses
activités,elleveutavoiraccèsàl’ensembledesdécisionsmotivéesprovenantdestribunaux
québécois.Lescoûtsprohibitifsqu’entraînel’obtentiondelajurisprudenceetcertaines
difficultésrelevantdufonctionnementdugreffesontdesobstaclesdetaillepourl’appelante.
SelonleTarifdesfraisjudiciairesenmatièrecivileetdesdroitsdegreffeetleTarifjudiciaireen
matièrepénale,lesdroitsde2$lapagesontexigiblespourquiconquesouhaiteobtenir
copied’unjugementaugreffe.Deplus,ladirectiveA-1,émanantdelaDirectiongénérale
desservicesjudiciairesduministèredelaJusticeduQuébec,faitdoubleemploiavecles
tarifsetprescritlemêmemontant.L’appelantereçoitenvracl’ensembledesdécisionsdela
Courd’appelduQuébec,autarifde1750$l’an,etreçoitdel’intiméeSOQUIJ,aucoûtde
0,34$lapage,lesjugementstouchantleCodecivilduQuébec.L’appelantes’estadressée
auministèredelaJusticepourobtenirgratuitementlesautresjugementsdelaCour
supérieureetdelaCourduQuébec.LeministrearefuséetadirigéWilson&Lafleurvers
SOQUIJ,quirefuseégalement.L’appelantedemandededéclarerillégaleset
inconstitutionnelleslesmesureslégislativesetréglementairesquifontobstacleàl’obtention
del’ensembledesdécisionsdestribunauxjudiciaires.Ils’agitdeladirectiveA-1,del’article
224delaLoisurlestribunauxjudiciaires,desarticles367paragraphe2et367paragraphe4
duCodedeprocédurepénale,del’article23duTarifsurlesfraisjudiciairesenmatièrecivile
etdesdroitsdegreffe,del’article3paragraphe1duTarifjudiciaireenmatièrepénale,de
l’article21alinéa2delaLoisurlaSociétéquébécoised’informationjuridiqueetdesarticles1
à3duRèglementsurlacueilletteetlasélectiondesdécisionsjudiciaires.Elledemandeaussi
quesoientdéclaréesinconstitutionnelles,enraisondeleureffet,lesdécisionsprisesparle
ministredelaJusticeetSOQUIJ.Ellesoutientquelejugedepremièreinstanceafaiterreuren
concluantàlalégalitédeladirectiveA-1etqu’ilaerréendécidantquelesmesures
attaquéesnelimitentpassalibertéd’expression.Deplus,elleallèguequeSOQUIJestune
mandatairedelaCouronnecrééeessentiellementpourremplirundevoirgouvernemental
d’intérêtpublic,celuidediffuserlesdécisionsdestribunauxjudiciaires.SOQUIJconstitueraitle
«guichet»parlequelelledevraitavoiraccèsàl’ensembledelajurisprudence.
Décision
L’appelanteadroitàunaccèsnonentravéàl’ensembledesdécisionsjudiciaires
québécoises.Cedroitestreconnuparlelégislateur,quiaconfiéàSOQUIJ,samandataire,la
missiondefavoriseruntelaccès.DansunÉtatdedroit,ilestessentielquelescitoyenssoient
enmesured’échangeretdecritiquerlibrementl’ensembledecesrègles.Ilsdoiventpouvoir
s’exprimeretcritiquerlibrementlesinstitutionsquilesrégissent.Ceséchangesetcritiques
doiventégalementviserlesfruitsdecesinstitutions,lesdécisionsjudiciairesenl’espèce.
L’accèsdescitoyensauxdécisionsdestribunauxs’imposedelui-mêmeetdoitêtreréel.En
adoptantlaLoisurlaSociétéquébécoised’informationjuridique,l’Assembléenationalea
reconnusonobligationfondamentaleetd’intérêtpublicd’assurerladiffusiondela
jurisprudenced’ici.Lalégislationcréedeuxvoiesquepeuventemprunterlesjusticiablesafin
d’avoiraccèsàlajurisprudencequébécoise:lesgreffesdescoursdejusticeetSOQUIJ.Ces
deuxguichetsn’ontcependantpaslamêmefonction.Ladistributionenvracdel’ensemble
delajurisprudencedestribunauxquébécoisdoitêtreeffectuéeparlebiaisdu«guichet»

133

SOQUIJ.Ladifficultéestquel’accèsàl’ensembledelajurisprudenceestplusthéorique
queréel.D’unepart,SOQUIJn’acquiescepasàlademandedel’appelante.D’autre
part,parlebiaisdelasélectionqu’elleeffectue,ellemetàladispositiondesjusticiablesune
fractiondel’ensembledesdécisionsrendues.SOQUIJpeutsélectionneretorganiser
l’informationpourfacilitersadiffusion,sacompréhensionet,ultimement,ladiscussionetla
critique.Cependant,lefaitqu’ellenemettepasàladispositiondesautreséditeurslatotalité
desjugementsreçusrestreintl’accèsàlamatièrepremière.SOQUIJdoitdoncdonnerà
Wilson&LafleuraccèsàtouslesjugementsrendusparlestribunauxjudiciairesduQuébec
auxquelselleaelle-mêmeaccès,qu’ilssoientsursupportinformatiqueoupapier.Quantàla
questiondescoûts,iln’appartientpasàlaCourdefixerlasommeprécisequedevrait
débourserWilson&Lafleur.IlfaitpartiedelamissiondeSOQUIJderendredisponiblesles
décisionsaucoûtréeldereproduction.Cecoûtpourraitcependantêtremajorédefrais
d’entreposageoudelivraison.Finalement,envertudel’article224delaLoisurlestribunaux
judiciaires,ilappartientaugouvernementdefixerlesdroitsdegrefferelatifsàl’obtentiondes
jugementsoud’exempterdesindividusoudesorganismesdupaiementdecesdroits.La
directiveA-1ayantétéédictéeparlaDirectiongénéraledesservicesjudiciairesduministère
delaJustice,elledoitêtredéclaréeillégale.

134

W
ingvVanVelthuizen
(2000),[2000]CarswellNat2873,[2000]FCJ1940,[2000]FTRTBEdNO120,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca27801.o.en.html(FCTD)
NadonJ
[1]Thisisanapplicationbroughtunderthesummaryproceedingsprovisionsinsection34(4)
oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42(theAct)andpursuanttoRule300(b)oftheFederal
CourtRules,1998,inrespectofinfringementofcopyrightinaliterarywork.[…]
[45]TheDiarywascreatedintheUnitedStates.SincetheUnitedStatesbecameamemberof
theWTOin1995,itisatreatycountryforthepurposesoftheAct,accordingtothedefinition
of »treatycountry »insection2oftheAct.Inaddition,pursuanttosubsection5(1.01)ofthe
Act,theUnitedStatesisdeemedtohavebeenatreatycountryatthetimetheDiarywas
created.SinceMs.WilsonwasacitizenoftheUnitedStatesatthetimeofthemakingofthe
work,IagreewiththeApplicants’contentionthatcopyrightintheDiarysubsistsinCanada.
[46]Asforthetermofsubsistenceofthecopyright,section7oftheActdealswithworks
unpublishedatthedateofthedeathoftheauthor.IagreewiththeApplicants’argument
thatpursuanttosubsection2.2(3)oftheAct,sinceheDiarywaspublishedbythe
Respondentwithouttheconsentofthecopyrightowners,itremainsanunpublishedworkfor
thepurposesoftheAct.Therefore,inaccordancewithsubsection7(3)oftheAct,which
appliesinthiscasesincetheDiaryhadnotbeenpublishedbeforethecomingintoforceof
section7(December31,1998)andsincethedeathofLoisWilsonoccurredduringtheperiod
offiftyyearsimmediatelybeforethecomingintoforceofsection7,theunpublishedDiary
benefitsfroma50-yearprotectionfollowingtheendoftheyear1998.TheDiaryistherefore
protectedbytheActsincethetermforcopyrighthasnotyetexpired.
[48]Inanyevent,whetherornotitcantechnicallybesaidthattheRespondentisputtingin
issuetheexistenceofthecopyright,theresultisthesame.Ifoneconsidersthather
statementsinhercorrespondencecanbeconsideredasputtinginissuetheexistenceofthe
copyright,thepresumptionapplies,andtheRespondentmustsubmitevidencetoreversethe
presumption.Sincenothingwasfiled,theRespondenthasnotmetherburden,thereforethe
copyrightispresumedtosubsistintheDiary.IftheRespondenthasnotputinissuethe
existenceofthecopyright,thentheApplicantsdonothavetodemonstratethatthe
copyrightsubsists,sinceitisnotdisputedbytheRespondent.Eitherway,theresultisthesame:
forthepurposesofthiscase,thecopyrightsubsistsinCanadaandtheDiaryisprotectedby
theAct.
[49]Thenextissueisthatofownershipofcopyright.Pursuanttosubsection13(1)oftheAct,
LoisWilsonwasthefirstownerofthecopyright,since,asdiscussedpreviously,sheistheauthor
oftheDiary.Accordingtosection13(4)oftheAct,theownerofthecopyrightinaworkcan
assignthatright.Inaddition,aspointedoutbytheApplicants,thewords »otherwisethanby
will »insection14(1)oftheActacknowledgethatacopyrightcanbeassignedbywill.Iagree
withtheApplicants’claimthatbasedonsections13(4)and14(1),LoisWilsonwasentitledto
transferthecopyrightinherDiarybyawrittenandsignedwill.
[50]TheApplicantsalsoclaimthatcopyrightcanpassunderawilltoresiduarylegateeseven
ifthewillmakesnoexpressmentionofcopyright.InUnderwriters’SurveyBureauLtd.v.Massie
&RenwickLtd.,supra,thelateCharlesEdwardGoaddevisedandbequeathedinhiswillall
his »propertyrealandpersonalofeverynatureandkindwhatsoeverintheDominionof
Canada »totheTorontoGeneralCorporation.Hemadenospecificmentionofhiscopyrights

135

inthewill.ThequestionwaswhetherMr.Goad’scopyrightspassedtotheexecutoras
partofthe »propertyrealandpersonalofeverynatureandkindwhatsoever ».[…]
[51]Therefore,sinceIwasunabletofindanycaselawtothecontrary,itappearsthata
copyrightwhichisnotmentionedinthewillpassesunderthegiftofresiduetotheresiduary
legatees.Consequently,ImustagreewiththeApplicantsthatasaresiduarybeneficiaryof
LoisWilson’sestate,theApplicantNellWingisavalidco-ownerofthecopyright.
[73]Accordingtosubsection38.1(5),inexercisingitsdiscretiontoawardstatutorydamages,
theCourtshouldconsiderallrelevantfactors,includingthegoodfaithorbadfaithofthe
defendant,theconductofthepartiesbeforeandduringtheproceedings,andtheneedto
deterother
infringementsofthecopyrightinquestion.
[74]Inmyopinion,statutorydamagesshouldbegranted.Theinfringementinthiscasewas
blatant;theRespondentreproducedtheDiaryinitsentirety.AlthoughtheRespondentwas
notpublishingtheDiaryinbadfaithfromthestart,shewaswarnedseveraltimesthather
conductwasinfringingtheApplicants’copyright.Sherefusedrepeatedlytoceaseinfringing
thecopyright,andattemptedtosell »her »copyrighttotheApplicantsforthesumof
US$125,000.Inmyopinion,asofthemomentshereceivednoticeofher
infringement,herconductwasreprehensible.Inaddition,withregardtothethirdcriteria,and
consideringtheRespondent’sbehaviour,thereisadefiniteneedtodeterfurther
infringementofthecopyrightinquestion.Consequently,inmyview,theApplicantsare
entitledtoasumof$10,000onthiscount.

136

W
olanskivRhombusMediaInc
(2000),[2000]CarswellNat2308,[2000]FCJ1582,[2000]FTRUned128
(FCTD)NadonJ.
[OnmotionforsummaryjudgmentseekingthedismissalofPlaintiff’saction.]
[2]ThePlaintiffallegesthatsheistheauthorofanunpublishedmanuscriptentitled »Coreof
Time »andthatthemovie »TheRedViolin »infringeshercopyrightinthe »CoreofTime ».
[4][…]InArbiquec.Gabriele,[1998]A.Q.no3794,JE99-352,TrahanJ.oftheQuebec
SuperiorCourt,atpage3,setsoutthefactswhichaPlaintiffmustprovetosucceedina
copyrightinfringementaction:
Pourdéterminers’ilyaeuviolationdudroitd’auteurenl’instance,leTribunaldoit
d’aborddéterminersil’oeuvredesdemanderessesestuneoeuvreantérieureet
originalequibénéficiedelaprotectiondelaLoisurledroitd’auteur.LeTribunal
doitensuitedéterminersilesdéfendeursonteuaccèsàl’oeuvreprotégéeet,le
caséchéant,s’ilsenontcopiéunepartieessentielleousil’oeuvredesdéfendeurs
estlerésultatd’untravailindépendant.

[5]Ontheevidencebeforeme,Iamsatisfiedthatthereisnogenuineissueofatrial.Inmy
view,the
Plaintiffcannotpossiblysucceedonheraction.IagreewithcounselfortheDefendantsthat
thePlaintiffhasnoevidencewhatsoevertoofferinregardtothoseelementswhichshemust
proveinordertosucceed.

137


ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedes
intangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslivehere.

COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD

LAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENT
CARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRE
LAURENTCARRIÈRE