Compilation préliminaire des décisions rendues au Canada en 2001 en matière de droit d’auteur/A Compilation of the Decisions Rendered in Canada with Respect to Copyright in 2001



COMPILATIONPRÉLIMINAIREDESDÉCISIONSRENDUESAUCANADAEN2001EN
MATIÈREDEDROITD’AUTEUR
ACOMPILATIONOFTHEDECISIONSRENDEREDINCANADAWITHRESPECTTO
COPYRIGHTIN2001

by
LaurentCarrière*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers,
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
info@robic.com–www.robic.ca
1.2946-1993Québecinc.c.SysbyteTelecominc.(2001-05-02),J.E.2001-1143,R.E.J.B.2001-
24940(Coursupérieure)JugePaulG.Chaput
2.AdvancedLaserandFusionTechnologyInc.v.GuardianInsuranceCo.ofCanada
(2001-08-07),[2001]O.T.C.TBEd.AU.044,[2001]CarswellOnt2900,[2001]I.L.R.I-3985,31
C.C.L.I.(3d)307(CourtofOntario,SuperiorCourtofJustice)Chadwick,J.
3.ApplicationtovaryNRCCTariff1.C(CBC-Radio)for2001(2001-11-23),[2001]C.B.D.8,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/m23112001-b.pdf(CopyrightBoard)
4.Beaver,Canada’sHistoryMagazine(ReThe)(2001-01-12),[2001]CBD3(CopyrightBoard
-UnlocatableOwner)
5.BritishColumbiaAutomobileAssn.v.O.P.E.I.U.,Local378(2001-01-26),10C.P.R.(4th)423,
[2001]CarswellBC229,2001BCSC156,85B.C.L.R.(3d)302,[2001]3W.W.R.95,[2001]
B.C.J.151,2001BCSC156,http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-
txt/sc/01/01/2001bcsc0156.htm,
http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcsc/2001/2001bcsc156.html(BritishColumbiaSupreme
Court)SigurdsonJ.
6.Blok-LokLtd.v.HelifixLtd.(2001-03-01),[2001]CarswellOnt734,2001OTCUned630
(OntarioSuperiorCourtofJustice)CampbellJ.
7.B&SPublicationsInc.v.Max-ContactsInc.(2001-01-16),287A.R.201,[2001]CarswellAlta
69,[2001]A.R.TBEd.FE.052,[2001]A.J.143(AlbertaCourtofQueen’sBench)HutchinsonJ.





























































LaurentCarrière,2002.
*Avocatetagentdemarquesdecommerce,LaurentCarrièreestl’undesassociés
principauxdescabinetsd’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
LEGERROBICRICHARD.Lesgrassesindiquentlerecueilduquellesnotesdel’arrêtistesontété
tirées.Lawyerandtrademarkagent,LaurentCarrièreisoneoftheseniorpartnersofthe
lawfirmandofthepatentandtrademarkagencyfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD.Thebold
characterindicatesinwhichcaseseriestheheadnoteshavebeentaken.Publication285.



8.ConstructeursI&Sinc.c.Camiré(2001-04-19),J.E.2001-124,[2001]CarswellQue1637,
R.E.J.B.2001-25222,[2001]J.Q.2697(CoursupérieureduQuébec)JugeHélènePoulin
9.CorelCorp.v.GuardianInsuranceCo.ofCanada(2001-02-05),[2001]O.T.C.70,[2001]
O.T.C.TBEd.FE.052,[2001]CarswellOnt308,26C.C.L.I.(3d)39,[2001]I.L.R.I-3948,[2001]
O.J.368(CourtofOntario,SuperiorCourtofJustice)Backhouse,J.
10.DeMarchiv.ReelRecords&TapesLtd.(2001-03-12,amended2001-03-16),[2001]
CarswellOnt807,[2001]O.J.846,2001OACUned30,
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2001/2001onca121.html(OntarioCourtofAppeal)
11.Desputeauxc.ÉditionsChouette(1987)inc.(2001-04-18),[2001]R.J.Q.945,J.E.2001-920,
R.E.J.B.2001-23667,[2001]J.Q.1510,[2001]CarswellQue299,
http://www.jugements.qc.ca/ca/200104fr.html(Courd’appelduQuébec);requêtepour
autorisationdepourvoiàlaCoursuprêmeaccueillie,2001-11-08),[2001]CarswellQue
2452[English],[2001]CarswellQue2453,[2001]C.S.C.R.309[French](Coursuprêmedu
Canada).
12.Editors’Assn.ofCanadaCertificationApplication(Re)(2001-02-28),12C.P.R.(4th)62,
http://capprt-
tcrpap.ic.gc.ca/decisions/decisionstribunal/decisionstribunal30/decision_33.html[English],
http://capprt-
tcrpap.ic.gc.ca/decisions/decisionstribunal/decisionstribunal30/decision_33_f.html
[French],2001CAPPRT033(CanadianArtistsandProducersProfessionalRelationsTribunal
-Interim);(2001-09-27),15C.P.R.(4th)339,http://capprt-
tcrpap.ic.gc.ca/decisions/decisionstribunal/decisionstribunal30/decision_36.html[English],
http://capprt-
tcrpap.ic.gc.ca/decisions/decisionstribunal/decisionstribunal30/decision_36_f.html
[French],2001CAPPRT036(CanadianArtistsandProducersProfessionalRelationsTribunal
–Final).
13.FWSJointSportsClaimantsv.Border(2001-11-06),[2001]N.R.TBEd.NO.048,[2001]F.C.J.
1657,2001FCA336(FederalCourtofAppeal)
14.Guillotv.IstekCorp(2001-07-17),14C.P.R.(4th)67,[2001]FTRUned510,[2001]F.C.J.1165,
2001FCT799(FederalCourt,TrialDivision)HugessenJ.[NoticeofappealwasfiledonJuly
27,2001(CourtFileNo.A-445-01).]
15.MasterfileCorp.v.WorldInternettCorp.(2001-12-20),[2001]F.C.J.1928,2001FCT1416
(FederalCourtofCanada-TrialDivision)SimpsonJ.
16.MicrosoftCorp.v.1222010OntarioInc.(2001-04-05),[2001]F.T.R.Uned.145,[2001]F.C.J.
509,2001FCT299(FederalCourtofCanada,TrialDivision)Giles,AssociateSenior
Prothonotary
17.NorthwestTerritoriesv.SiriusDiamondsLtd.(2001-06-26),13C.P.R.(4th)486,[2001]F.T.R.
TBEd.JL.030,[2001]F.C.J.1042,2001FCT702,summaryat
http://www.fja.gc.ca/fc/2001/fic/v4/2001fc29052.html[English]
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/cf/2001/fic/v4/2001cf29052.html[French](FederalCourt,Trial
Division)HansenJ.
18.OakleyInc.v.ShoppersDrugMartInc.(2001-03-22),[2001]F.T.R.TBEd.AP.032;[2001]
F.C.J.415,[2001]A.C.F.415,2001FCT226,



http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fc/2001/2001fct223.html(subnomineTimeWarner
EntertainmentCo.v.Doe,2001FCT223)(FederalCourtofCanada,TrialDivision)
Blanchard,J.
19.PierrotConcerts(Re)(2001-01-25),[2001]CBD5(CopyrightBoard-UnlocatableOwner)
20.PrivateCopying2001-2002,TariffofLeviestobeCollectedbyCPCC(Re)(2001-01-22),10
C.P.R.(4th)289,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/c22012001reasons-b.pdf(Copyright
Board)
21.ProgrammationGagnoninc.c.Formulesd’affairesC.C.L.inc.(2001-05-14),[2001]R.J.Q.
1509,J.E.2001-1323,[2001]CarswellQue1773,R.E.J.B.2001-25399,[2001]J.Q.2468(Cour
supérieureduQuébec)JugeJacquesViens;appelC.A.Q.200-09-003664-015.
22.Richardson(ReAbigail)(2001-02-05),[2001]CBD6(CopyrightBoard-Unlocatable
Owner)
23.Richardson(ReAbigail)(2001-01-15),[2001]CBD4(CopyrightBoard-Unlocatable
Owner)
24.Robertsonv.ThomsonCorp.(2001-10-03),15C.P.R.(4
th)147,[2001]O.T.C.TBEd.OC.012,
[2001]CarswellOnt3467,[2001]O.J.3868(CourtofOntario,SuperiorCourtofJustice)
Cumming,J.
25.Roycroft(ReEileen)(2001-01-12),[2001]CBD2(CopyrightBoard-UnlocatableOwner)
26.SetymInternationalinc.c.Belout(2001-08-23),[2001]CarswellQue2657,[2001]J.Q.3819,
D.T.E.2001T-980(CoursupérieureduQuébec)jugeAndréWery;J.C.S.
27.SharelineSystemsLtd.v.N.B.(2001-03-07),235N.B.R.(2d)162,35R.N.-B.(2e)162;607A.P.R.
162,[2001]N.B.R.(2d)TBEd.AP.002,[2001]CarswellNB109,11C.P.C.(5th)38,[2001]N.B.J.
106,2001NBCA29(NewBrunswickCourtofAppeal)

28.SOCANTariff17.A(Pay,SpecialtyandOtherServicesbyBroadcastingDistribution
Undertakings-Television)fortheyears1996to2000(2001-02-16),15C.P.R.(4th)370,
[2001]C.B.D.1,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/m16022001-b.pdf(CopyrightBoard)
29.SOCANStatementsofRoyalties,1998-2002(Tariffs4.A,4.B.1,4.B.3,5.B–Concerts)(Re)
(2001-06-15),13C.P.R.(4th)45,[2001]C.B.D.7,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/m15062001-b.pdf(CopyrightBoard)
30.SociétédesLoteriesduQuébecv.ClubLottoInternationalC.L.I.Inc.(2001-01-25),13
C.P.R.(4th)315,[2001]F.T.R.TBEd.FE.081,[2001]F.C.J.94,[2001]A.C.F.94,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/cf/2001/ori/2001cf28116.html,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cf/2001/2001cf28116.html(FederalCourt,TrialDivision)Blais
J.
31.SociétéRadio-Canadac.AmberolaLesdisques,s.e.n.c.(2001-08-09),J.E.2001-1737,REJB
2001-26392(CoursupérieureduQuébec)JugeCarolCohen
32.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav.CanadianAssn.Of
InternetProviders(2001-02-05),10C.P.R.(4th)417,267N.R.82,[2001]N.R.TBEd.FE.054,



[2001]F.C.J.166,[2001]CarswellNat206,2001FCA4,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fc/2001/2001fc28204.html(FederalCourtofAppeal)
33.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav.LandmarkCinemasof
CanadaLtd.(2001-05-30),[2001]F.C.J.843,[2001]F.T.R.Uned.352,2001FCT534,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cf/2001/2001cfpi534.html[French](FederalCourtof
Canada,TrialDivision)Hugessen,J.
34.VolkswagenCanadaInc.v.AccessInternationalAutomotiveLtd.(2001-03-21),[2001]
N.R.TBEd.AP.053,[2001]3F.C.311,[2001]F.C.J.446,2001FCA79,
http://www.fja.gc.ca/fc/2001/pub/v3/2001fc28480.htmlEnglish],
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/cf/2001/pub/v3/2001cf28480.html[French](FederalCourtof
Appeal)
35.WaltDisneyCo.v.JaneDoe(2001-01-11),11C.P.R.(4th)69,[2001]F.C.J.26(subnomine
NikeCanadaLtd.v.JaneDoe),199F.T.R.55,[2001]F.T.R.TBEd.FE.020(subnomine
ViacomHa!HoldingCo.v.Doe)http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fc/2001/2001fc28048.html
(FederalCourt,TrialDivision)PelletierJ.
36.Weetman(c.o.b.BetaDigitalMapping)v.Baldwin(2001-10-03),[2001]B.C.J.2358,[2001]
CarswellBC2499,2001BCPC292(BritishColumbiaProvincialCourt-SmallClaimsDivision)
RomillyProv.Ct.J.
37.Yeagerv.Canada(CorrectionalService)(2001-05-30),[2001]F.C.J.687,[2001]
CarswellNat856,2001FCT434,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fc/2001/2001fct434.html
(FederalCourtofCanada-TrialDivision)SimpsonJ.
2946-1993Québecinc.c.SysbyteTelecominc.
(2001-05-02),J.E.2001-1143,R.E.J.B.2001-24940(Coursupérieure)JugePaulG.Chaput
Résumé
Requêteenannulationd’unesaisieavantjugement.Accueillie.
Lademanderesseproduitetmetenmarchédeslogiciels.L’undesdéfendeurstravaillaitpour
elleàtitredeprogrammeuretsoncontratdetravailcontenaitdesclausesdeconfidentialité.
Lesdéfendeurssontlesadministrateursdelacompagniedéfenderesse,quiannonce
maintenantsurInternetunlogicielreprenantdesdonnéesetdesfonctionsidentiquesàcelles
deslogicielsdelademanderesseetcontenantvraisemblablementlesmêmescodessources
quisontlesformulessecrètesdeseslogiciels.Afindeprotégersesdroits,lademanderessea
obtenuuneinjonctionprovisoireetunbrefdesaisieavantjugementdesordinateursetde
l’équipementinformatiquedesdéfendeursainsiquedeleurscomptesbancairesetde
documentsfinanciers.Lesdéfendeursdemandentl’annulationdelasaisieauxmotifsqu’iln’y
auraitpasdedetteliquideetquelasaisienevisequelapréservationdelapreuve.
Décision
Enl’espèce,lacréancedontilfautassurerlerecouvrement,c’estledroitàlacessationdela
violationdudroitd’auteurdelademanderesseet,lecaséchéant,lesdommages-intérêts
causésparcetteviolation.Cequiestrequisparl’article735duCodedeprocédurecivile
(C.P.C.),c’estqu’ilexisteunecréance;celle-cin’apasàêtreliquideaumomentdelasaisie.
Unecréancedontlaquotitéseraultérieurementdéterminéesuffit.Comptetenudes
dispositionsdelaLoisurledroitd’auteur,lademanderessesembleavoirledroitdesaisir



avantjugementlescodessourcesenvertudel’article734C.P.C.Ilestimpossibledesaisirun
programmeinformatiquesansenmêmetempsprendrepossessiondessupportssurlesquels
ceprogrammeousescopiessontinstallés,imprimés,gravésoureproduitsdequelque
manière.Ainsi,ledisquerigided’unordinateur,lesdisquettes,lesdisquescompactsouautres
supportsinformatiquesdestinésàlaconfection,àlacopie,àlatransmissionouàla
reproductiond’unproduitinformatiquepeuventêtresaisis,maispasl’ordinateurlui-même,qui
n’estquelamachineoul’instrumentquiutiliselessupportsduproduitinformatique.Deplus,
pourpratiquerlasaisiedeproduitsinformatiquessurlessupportsoùilssetrouvent,ilfaut
obteniruneautorisationd’unjugequifixelesmodalitésetconditionsdel’exécutiondela
saisie.Enl’espèce,l’autorisationdesaisirnefaitpasétatdetellesmodalités.Lasaisienedoit
pasêtreannuléepourautant,maissonétenduedoitêtrerévisée.Commecesontsescodes
sourcesquelademanderesseentendsaisir,untechnicienouunexperteninformatiqueest
désignépourleschercherdanslesordinateursetautresaccessoires,lesreproduiresurun
autresupportinformatiqueetleseffacerensuitedesordinateurs.
AdvancedLaserandFusionTechnologyInc.v.GuardianInsuranceCo.ofCanada
(2001-08-07),[2001]O.T.C.TBEd.AU.044,[2001]CarswellOnt2900,[2001]I.L.R.I-3985,31C.C.L.I.
(3d)307(CourtofOntario,SuperiorCourtofJustice)Chadwick,J.
Plaintiffwasresearchanddevelopmenttechnologycompany–Plaintiffsponsored
publicationofscientificjournal–Defendantinsurersoldplaintiffinsurancepolicythat
includedadvertisinginjuryliability–Individualbroughtactionagainstplaintiff,journaland
publisherforcopyrightinfringement,unfaircompetitionandunjustenrichment–Plaintiff
broughtactionagainstdefendanttoenforcedutytodefend–Defendantmademotionfor
summaryjudgmentanddismissal–Motiondismissed–Plaintiffwascoveredbyadvertising
liabilityclausebecausepurposeofsponsoringjournalwastoimproveitsprofileinindustry–
Exclusionclausenottriggered,eventhoughplaintiffwasnotinbusinessofpublishing.
[28]InCanadianUniversitiesReciprocalInsuranceExchangev.GanCanadaInsuranceCo.
12C.C.L.I.(3d)18,CampbellJ.interpretingwhethertheapplicanthadadutytodefendan
actioninvolvingmisappropriationofpatentinvention,CampbellJ.followedadecisionofthe
BritishColumbiaCourtofAppealandconcludedadvertisinginjurywouldincludecopyright
infringement.Atpage26hequotesasfollows:
Iacceptthepropositionthatanactionforcopyrightinfringementmaybecoveredbya
commercialliabilitypolicyasanadvertisinginjury.
BasedonareviewoftheStatementofClaimandStatementofDefenseintheunderlying
actioninthiscaseIamunabletofindany »advertisement,publicityarticle,broadcastor
telecast »arisingoutoftheuniversitiesadvertisingactivitiesinwhichtheallegedinfringement
ormisappropriationscouldbesaidtohavetakenplace.
[29]Inconclusion,IamsatisfiedthecopyrightinfringementallegedbySantilliintheFlorida
actionoccurred »Inthecourseofadvertising »andassuchiscoveredbyEndorsement1inthe
Guardianpolicy.
ApplicationtovaryNRCCTariff1.C(CBC-Radio)for2001
(2001-11-23),[2001]C.B.D.8,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/m23112001-b.pdf
(CopyrightBoard)



Pursuanttosection66.52oftheCopyrightAct(theAct),theBoardmay,onapplication,vary
adecisionif,intheBoard’sopinion,therehasbeenamaterialchangeincircumstancessince
thedecisionwasmade.TheActdoesnotdictatehowtheBoardshouldproceedinthese
matters.Onewayofdoingso,whichtheBoardadoptsinthiscase,istofirstexaminewhether
anychangethatmayhaveoccurredissufficiently »important »(toquotetheFrenchversionof
therelevantprovision)tojustifyrevisitingtheissue.
[…]
Lastly,thefinalityofdecisionshasintrinsicvalue.Reopeningthismatterwouldgenerate
uncertaintynotonlyforCBCandNRCC,butalsoforallownersandusersofcopyrights.
Underthecircumstances,theotherwisesignificantsumof$112,000isnotsufficiently »material »
tojustifyreopeningthefile.IntheBoard’sview,participantswillbebetterservedby
concentratingtheirresourcesondevelopingthenecessarydatatotesttheBoard’s
assumptionsinthenextproceedings.
Beaver,Canada’sHistoryMagazine(ReThe)
(2001-01-12),[2001]CBD3(CopyrightBoard-UnlocatableOwner)
Thereproductionofanimagefromacatalogue(1988)ofapaintingGirlIroning,innomore
than45,000copies.
BritishColumbiaAutomobileAssn.v.O.P.E.I.U.,Local378
(2001-01-26),10C.P.R.(4th)423,[2001]CarswellBC229,85B.C.L.R.(3d)302,[2001]3W.W.R.
95,[2001]B.C.J.151,2001BCSC156,http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-
txt/sc/01/01/2001bcsc0156.htm,http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcsc/2001/2001bcsc156.html
(BritishColumbiaSupremeCourt)SigurdsonJ.
Theplaintiffnationalassociationprovidedservicestothemotoringpublicandtoitsmember
organizationsincludingtheplaintiffregionalassociation.Theplaintiffsownedcertain
registeredtrade-marksandcertificationmarksincludingthemarksBCAA,CAAandCAA
Logo.Thenationalassociationlicensedtheregionalassociationtouseitstrade-marks.The
defendantunionwastheunionrepresentingcertainoftheregionalassociation’semployees
which,inJanuary1999,beganalawfulstrikeagainsttheregionalassociation.
In1997theregionalassociationdevelopedaWebsite,accessedunderitsdomainnames
,and,whichallowedpeopleto,interalia,applyfor
membershipandsubscribefortravelservices.InMarch1999thedefendantestablisheda
Website,accessedunderitsdomainnamesand.The
defendanthadthreedifferentWebsitedesigns.Thefirstdesign,usedfromMarch1999to
April1999,includedthestructure,colourschemeandlayoutoftheregionalassociation’s
Website,theplacementoftheCAALogo,althoughinverted,theplacementofthewords
BCAAON-RAMP(althoughtheword »on »wasreplacedwith »off »),theformat,layoutand
colourschemeofthematerialswithintheframesoftheWebsite,metatagswhichreferredto
theregionalassociationbynameandtrade-mark,andthetitle »Greetings,BCAAisonstrike ».
Theseconddesign,usedfromApril1999toOctober1999,differedfromthefirstdesigninthat
theCAALogowasremoved,thetrade-markBCAAwasplacedinlowercaseandthetitle
wasrepositionedsothatitwasnotseenonastandardscreen.Thethirddesigncontinuedto
reproduceasubstantialpartoftheregionalassociation’smetatagsandcouldbeaccessed
underthesamedomainnamesasthefirsttwodesignsinadditiontothedomainname
.Otherwisethethirddesigndifferedfromtheprevioustwodesigns
andfromtheregionalassociation’sWebsite.



Theplaintiffscommencedanactionforpassingoffanddepreciationofthevalueofgoodwill
intheplaintiffs’registeredtrade-markswithrespecttoeachofthedefendant’sthreeWebsite
designs,andcopyrightinfringementwithrespecttothedefendant’sfirsttwoWebsitedesigns.
Thedefendantclaimedlegitimatereasontorefertotheregionalassociationinitsdomain
namesandmetatags,andfairdealingasadefencetothecopyrightclaim.Theparties
furnishedexpertevidencerelatingtothesimilaritiesbetweentheWebsitesandtheextentto
whichtheelementsoftheWebsiteswerecommontoothersites.
Held,judgmentshouldbegrantedtotheplaintiffswithrespecttotheirclaimofcopyright
infringementforthedefendant’sfirsttwoWebsitedesigns,andwithrespecttotheirclaimof
passingoffforthedefendant’sfirstWebsitedesign;otherwisetheplaintiffs’claimsshouldbe
dismissed.
PassingOff–TheDefendant’sThirdWebsiteDesign
Therearetwobroadcategoriesofpassingoff,oneinwhichthepartiesarecompetitors
engagedinacommonfieldofactivity,theotherinwhichthedefendantcreatesafalse
impressionthatinsomewayitsproductorbusinessisapproved,[page425]authorizedor
endorsedbytheplaintiff.Thenecessarycomponentsofanactionforpassingoffarethe
existenceofgoodwill,deceptionofthepublicduetoamisrepresentation,andactualor
potentialdamage.Thestandardtomeasurepassingoffisthatoftheordinaryaverage
customer.
ThecommonlawmustbeinterpretedinamannerconsistentwiththeCanadianCharterof
RightsandFreedoms.Areasonablebalancemustthereforebestruckbetweenthelegitimate
protectionofaparty’sintellectualpropertyandacitizen’sorunion’srightofexpressionwhen
aWebsiteisusedforexpressioninalabourrelationsdispute.
Withrespecttothedefendant’sthirdWebsitedesign,theplaintiffs’claimwasrestrictedtothe
useofthedomainnamesandmetatags.Thedefendant’sWebsitedidnotmisrepresentthat
itwasasiteoftheplaintiffsorwasendorsedby,affiliatedwithorconnectedtotheplaintiffs.
ThefactthattheWebsitewasnotassociatedwiththeplaintiffswasreadilyapparentfrom
lookingatthesite.Thedomainnamesusedbythedefendantwerenotidenticaltothe
plaintiffs’trade-marks.Similarly,thedefendant’smetatagswerenotidenticaltothoseofthe
plaintiffs.Itwassignificantthatthedefendant’sWebsitedidnotcompetecommerciallywith
thatoftheregionalassociation.ThesimilarityofthedomainnamesandWebsitesisofless
significanceinalabourrelationsorconsumercriticismsituation,partlybecausethereisfar
lesslikelihoodofconfusion.Thedefendant’suseofthemetatagswasnota
misrepresentation.Itwasentitledtousethemetatagsduringitslawfulstriketoenableitto
reachpeopleattemptingtofindtheregionalassociation’ssite.
DepreciationoftheValueofGoodwill
Theclaimfordepreciatingthevalueofthegoodwillintheplaintiffs’registeredtrade-marks
relatestos.22oftheTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13,andthedefendant’suseofthe
marksBCAA,CAAandCAALogoinitsWebsitedesignsandmetatagsandintheuseofthe
markBCAAaspartofthedefendant’sdomainnames.Tosucceedinitsclaimtheplaintiffs
hadtoestablishvalidregisteredtrade-marks, »use »oftheregisteredtrade-marksbythe
defendantasdefinedintheAct,andthatsuchusewouldlikelydepreciatethegoodwill
attachedtothetrade-marks.
Fortheretobeanoffendinguseunders.22theremustbeacommercialuseinassociation
withwaresorservices.Thedefendantdidnotsousetheplaintiffs’trade-marksinrelationtoits

Website.Theabsenceofanapparentcommercialaspecttothedefendant’sWebsiteshows
thatthedefendantwasnotusingthetrade-marksinassociationwithservices.Thenon-
commercialprovisionofinformationisnotaservicecontemplatedbys.4oftheTrade-marks
Act.
Thedefendantwasnotattemptingtopersuadethepublicthatanypositivefeelingtowards
theregionalassociationshouldapplytoit,butinsteadwasattemptingtopersuadethe
publicnottodobusinesswiththeassociation.Anydepreciationofgoodwillresultednotfrom
theuseofthemarksbythedefendantbutfromthesupportofthepublicforthedefendant’s
strikingmembers.Thedefendant’suseoftheplaintiffs’trade-marksdidnottherefore
depreciatethevalueofthegoodwillinthemarks.[page426]
CopyrightInfringement
Inordertoestablishthecopyrightclaimtheplaintiffshadtoestablishthattheregional
association’sWebsitewasanoriginalwork,thatthedefendanthadcopiedfromthework
andthatasubstantialportionoftheworkhadbeencopied.
Itwasnotseriouslydisputedthatthegraphicdesignoftheregionalassociation’sWebsitewas
notanoriginalartisticwork.Thesitewastheresultofaprojectdevelopedoverseveral
months.Whethertherewassubstantialcopyingwasaquestionofqualitymorethanamatter
ofquantity.Inconsideringwhethertherewassubstantialcopying,portionsoftheworknotthe
subjectofcopyrightmustbeexcluded.
Thedefendant’sfirstWebsitedesignlookedverysimilartotheregionalassociation’sWebsite.
Eachhadawhitebody,blackheaderandbluemarginontheleft.ThelettersBCAAwerein
redundertheCAALogo,whichwasupsidedownonthedefendant’sWebsite.The
defendantintendeditsWebsitetolooksimilar,andthefilenamesforthefilesresponsiblefor
thelook,feelandartisticdesignofbothsiteswereidenticalsuggestingthatthedefendant
copiedtheregionalassociation’sHTMLcode.Ontheevidence,thedefendanthadcopieda
substantialpartoftheregionalassociation’sWebsiteincreatingitsfirstWebsitedesign.
AlthoughinitssecondWebsitedesignthedefendantremovedtheCAALogoandplaced
themarkBCAAinlowercase,thecolourscheme,pagelayoutandotheraspectsofthe
seconddesignstillshowedsubstantialcopying.
Withrespecttofairdealing,thedefendantclaimedthatthecopiedelementswereinpart
criticismandtoalimitedextentparody.Thedefendant’sWebsitecontainednocriticismof
theregionalassociation’sWebsiteanddidnot,asrequiredbys.29.1oftheCopyrightAct,
R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,mentionthesourceandauthoroftheregionalassociation’sWebsite.The
fairdealingdefencedidnotapplyandthefirsttwodesignsofthedefendant’sWebsite
infringedcopyright.
PassingOff–TheDefendant’sFirstandSecondWebsiteDesigns
Theplaintiffs’claimofpassingoffwithrespecttothedefendant’sfirsttwoWebsitedesigns
relatedtoallaspectsofthesitesincludingthelookofthesites,thedomainnamesandthe
metatags.Certainaspectsofthefirstdesigndemonstratedanintentiontomisleadthepublic
lookingfortheregionalassociation’ssite.Thetitle »GreetingsBCAAisonStrike »wasinherently
confusing.Thefirstdesignwasamisrepresentationandconstitutedpassingoff.Thesecond
designreducedthepossibilityofconfusionthroughtheremovaloftheCAALogo,the
changeinthemarkBCAAtolowercaseandthechangeinthelocationofthe »Greetings »
title.Theseconddesignofthedefendant’sWebsitedidnotthereforeconstitutepassingoff.
Remedies

Theplaintiffsdidnotprove,andthecircumstancesdidnotsuggest,substantialdamage.The
plaintiffshadnotshownthattherewasloss.Damagesforpassingoff,however,are
presumed.
Theplaintiffswereentitledtonominaldamagesforinfringementofcopyrightandpassingoff
whichwasfixedat$2500.[page427]
Sincethefirstandseconddesignsofthedefendant’sWebsitewerenolongerused,an
injunctionandadeclarationofinfringementwouldnotbeappropriate.Adeclarationwould
nothaveanypracticaleffect.
Blok-LokLtd.v.HelifixLtd.
(2001-03-01),[2001]CarswellOnt734,2001OTCUned630(Court:OntarioSuperiorCourtof
Justice)CampbellJ.
[413]Sofarasthebrochuresareconcernedthe1996brochurewasheavilycollaborativeand
thereseemedinanyeventtobeapracticeoffreelycopyingmaterialfromothersinthe
preparationofsuchliterature,suchasthedrillpicturescopiedfromcataloguesandthe
warrantylanguagecopiedfromtheDurawallbrochure.Blok-LokfreelyusedHelifixmaterial
andHelifixfreelyusedBlok-Lokmaterial.Evenifthereisarguablysomebreachofcopyright
theequitiesandthebalanceofconveniencedonotfavourinjunctivereliefhavingregardto
thehistoryofthedealingbetweentheparties.
B&SPublicationsInc.v.Max-ContactsInc.
(2001-01-16),287A.R.201,[2001]CarswellAlta69,[2001]A.R.TBEd.FE.052,[2001]A.J.143
(AlbertaCourtofQueen’sBench)HutchinsonJ.
Summary:
Theplaintiffsuedthedefendantallegingthatthedefendantinfringedontheplaintiff’s
copyrightinthepublications:theOil&GasIndexandOilandGasFieldGuidebyentering
datatakenfromtheIndexandtheFieldGuidewithouttheplaintiff’sverbalorwritten
permissionintoaretrievalsystemandpublishingitinbothelectronicandprintedformatfor
profit.
TheAlbertaCourtofQueen’sBenchallowedtheactionandawardedtheplaintiff,interalia,
apermanentinjunction,$20,000forgeneraldamagesand$25,000forexemplarydamages.
Theplaintiffsuedthedefendantallegingthatthedefendantinfringedontheplaintiff’s
copyrightinthepublications:theOil&GasIndexandOilandGasFieldGuide-TheIndex
listedexplorersandproducersengagedintheoilandgasindustryinalphabeticalorder,in
lineformatandincludedsuchinformationasprivateorpubliccompany,operatorornon-
operator,numberofemployees,associations,phonenumber,emailaddress,streetaddress,
postalcode,websiteaddressandfaxnumber-TheGuidelistedcompanydistrictfieldand
gasplantofficeswithaddressesincludingpostalcode,phonenumbers,faxnumbersandthe
namesandoccupationsofvariouskeypersonnelineachoffice-TheAlbertaCourtof
Queen’sBenchheldthatacopyrightsubsistedinthepublications-Theyweretheproductof
thediscretion,skillandlabouroftheauthororauthorsinvolvedinthecreationofeachofthe
publicationsthroughtheselectionandorganizationofthedataincorporatedintoeach
publicationresultinginanoriginalcreation.


Theplaintiffsuedthedefendantallegingthatthedefendantinfringedontheplaintiff’s
copyrightinthepublications:theOil&GasIndexandOilandGasFieldGuide-TheAlberta
CourtofQueen’sBenchallowedtheaction,findingthatasubstantialportionoftheplaintiff’s
uniquedatamaterialwastakenandusedbythedefendantwithouttheplaintiff’sconsent-
Theinfringementwasacalculateddeliberateinfringement-Thecourtawardedtheplaintiff,
interalia,apermanentinjunctionrestrainingthedefendantfromusingpast,presentand
futureissuesoftheIndexandGuideordataobtainedtherefromthroughthirdparties,$20,000
forgeneraldamages,$25,000forexemplarydamagesandsolicitorandclientcosts.
ConstructeursI&Sinc.c.Camiré
(2001-04-19),J.E.2001-124,[2001]CarswellQue1637,R.E.J.B.2001-25222,[2001]J.Q.2697
(CoursupérieureduQuébec)JugeHélènePoulin
Résumé
Actionenréclamationdedommages-intérêts.Accueillieenpartie(25000$)
Lademanderesse,quiexploiteuneentreprisedeconstructionetdevented’immeubles
résidentiels,afaitproduiredesplansdemaisonparunarchitecte.Danslecadredeson
mandat,celui-ciaégalementpréparéundocumentpublicitaireregroupantlescroquisde
quelquesmodèles,dontlemodèle«Michel-Ange».Leprototypedecettemaisonaété
construiten1995etaservidemaisontémoinainsiquedebureaudeventejusqu’au9juin
1997.En1995,lesdéfendeursontvisitécettemaisontémoinàaumoinstroisreprises.Ilsont
égalementobtenulalistedesprixdeconstructionsetledépliantpublicitaire.La
demanderesseprétendquelamaisonqu’ilsontfaitconstruireen1997estidentiqueau
modèleMichel-Ange.Commeilsn’ontjamaisobtenusonautorisationpréalable,la
demanderesseleurréclame25000$àtitredepertedeprofitsrésultantdecette
contrefaçon,38658$pourl’avantagequ’ilsonttirédelaviolationdesondroitd’auteuret
5000$àtitred’indemnitépourdommagesexemplaires.Lesdéfendeursallèguent
notammentqu’ilsn’ontpascopiélesplansnireproduitlemodèleMichel-Ange,lequel,au
surplus,nebénéficieraitpasdelaprotectiondelaloi.
Décision
SelonladéfinitionàlaLoisurledroitd’auteur,lesplanssontune«oeuvreartistique»alorsque
lesbâtimentsoulesédificesconstituentune«oeuvrearchitecturale».Enl’espèce,la
demanderessereprocheauxdéfendeursd’avoircopiéautantlebâtimentquelesplansqui
luiontdonnéforme.L’originalitéd’uneoeuvrerésulted’unprocessusdecréationet
s’apprécieenfonctiondesesélémentsdistinctifsainsiquedesesdimensions,quiproduisent
uneimageunique.Lapreuvearévéléquelademanderesseavaitrequisdesonarchitecte
qu’ilpréparedesplanspermettantdecréerunstylederésidencedontl’aspectuniqueserait
lerefletdelasignaturedupromoteur.L’architecteaexprimésapenséeetainvestison
tempsetsaréflexiondanslacréationdesplans,dontilamûrilaconceptionpendant
quelquesmois.Lesplansontlecaractèreinnovateurrequisparlaloietsontlefruitd’un
labeuretd’uneffortpersonnels.Lesdéfendeursn’ontpasréussiàrepousserlaprésomption
crééeparlaloietàdémontrerquel’élaborationdesplansn’avaitexigéaucunehabileté
particulière,aucuneréflexionetaucuneffortdecréativité.Parailleurs,lademanderesseest
titulairedesdroitsd’auteurdel’oeuvreartistique(lesplans)ainsiquedel’oeuvre
architecturale(lareproductionvolumétrique)envertuducontratdecessiondesdroits
d’auteursignéendécembre1997etquireprenaituneententeverbalede1994.Mêmesila
loiprévoitquelacessionn’estvalablequesielleestécrite,latransmissionpeutêtre
confirméeparunécritultérieur(BradaleDistributionEnterprisesInc.c.SafetyFirstInc.).La
résidencedesdéfendeursn’estqu’uneréplique,avecdesvariationsnonsignificatives,du
conceptarchitecturaldumodèleMichel-Ange.Lesdéfendeursontaccaparédeséléments
dutravailpersonneldel’architecteetlefruitdesarecherchetoutententantdemasquercet


empruntillicite.Letitulairedudroitd’auteuraledroitd’êtredédommagédèsquela
contrefaçonestprouvée.Enl’espèce,unesommede25000$seraaccordéeàla
demanderesseàcetégard.Iln’yatoutefoispaslieudefairedroitàlaréclamation
concernantl’avantagepécuniairequelesdéfendeursauraientretiréenconstruisantune
répliquedelamaisontémoinpuisqu’onaccorderaitainsiunedoubleindemnité.Enl’absence
depreuverelativementàlamauvaisefoidesdéfendeurs,laréclamationpourdommages
exemplairesseraégalementrejetée.
CorelCorp.v.GuardianInsuranceCo.ofCanada
(2001-02-05),[2001]O.T.C.70,[2001]O.T.C.TBEd.FE.052,[2001]CarswellOnt308,26C.C.L.I.
(3d)39,[2001]I.L.R.I-3948,[2001]O.J.368(CourtofOntario,SuperiorCourtofJustice)
Backhouse,J.
[17]ThepivotalissueiswhetherthefactualallegationsmadebyBerklainhisComplaint,
beingproperlyconstrued,couldpossiblyleadtoadeterminationthatthecopyright
infringementaroseoutofandinthecourseofadvertisingCorel’sgood,productsorservices.
BerklamakesfactualallegationsthathehassuffereddamagesasaresultofCorel’s »
marketing »ofand »displayingpublicly »CorelDraw8,onacontinuousbasis.
[19]ItisallegedbyBerklathatCorel’smarketinganddisplayingofCorelDraw8contributed
tooraddedtoBerkla’scopyrightinjuries.Assuch,theallegationsinvolvealegalclaimof
copyrightinfringementarisingoutofandinthecourseofmarketing(i.e.advertising)Corel’s
goods,productsorservices.Theseallegations,inmyview,createasufficientconnection
betweenCorel’sallegedadvertisingconductandBerkla’sdamagestomeetthetestofa
merepossibilityofcoveragecreatingadutytodefend.
[22]ItissubmittedonbehalfofGuardianthatcoverageisexcludedundertheendorsement
excluding »advertisinginjury »arisingoutofbreachofcontract.Berkladidclaimabreachofa
nondisclosureagreementinadditiontocopyrightinfringement.However,inmyview,
copyrightinfringementdoesnotariseoutofabreachofcontract.Copyrightbyitsnatureisin
thepublicdomain.Thenon-disclosureagreementspecificallyexcludedinformationinthe
publicdomain.Accordingly,Ifindthatthebreachofcontractexclusiondoesnotapplyto
theclaimofcopyrightinfringement.
DeMarchiv.ReelRecords&TapesLtd.
(2001-03-12,amended2001-03-16),[2001]CarswellOnt807,[2001]O.J.846,2001OACUned
30,http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2001/2001onca121.html(OntarioCourtofAppeal)
Intellectualproperty—CopyrightRemedies–Accountingofprofits—Rockbandentered
intopublishingagreementwithRLtd.–Rockbandperformedandreleasedsongonalbum–
Rockbandsubsequentlybrokeup–RLtd.assignedrightsinagreementtoBLtd.–Songwas
subsequently »discovered »inUnitedStatesandreachednumberoneonbillboardcharts–
Increasedradioplayofsongresultedinnewalbumsales,andrequeststoreproducesongon
otherrecordsandhaveotherartistsrecordit–TwobandmembersbroughtactionandBLtd.
broughtapplicationfordeclaratoryreliefandaccountingandpaymentofpublishing
royalties–Trialjudgefoundthatrockbandmemberswereentitledto
1/5shareofroyalties
underpublishingagreement,orderedaccounting,anddirectedreferencefortakingof
accounts–Trialjudgereceivedreferencereportandvariedjudgment–Trialjudgefound
thatmechanicalroyaltiesweretobeincludedandpublicperformanceroyaltiesweretobe
excludedfromcalculationofco-publishingrevenues–BLtd.appealedinclusionof
mechanicalroyaltiesandrockbandmemberscross-appealedexclusionofpublic


performancerevenues–Appealdismissedandcrossappealallowed–Bothmechanical
andpublicperformanceroyaltiesweretobeincluded–Incontextofentirepublishing
agreement,nothinginconsistentaboutinclusionofpublicperformanceroyaltiesforpurposes
ofcalculatingnetincome–Interpretationwhichviewedpublishingagreementasincluding
performancerevenueswasconsistentwithpriorconductofRLtd..
Corporations—Contractsbycorporations–Generalprinciples–Personalliabilityofagent–
Oncontracts—RockbandenteredintopublishingagreementwithRLtd.–Rockband
performedandreleasedsongonalbum–Rockbandsubsequentlybrokeup–RLtd.
assignedrightsinagreementtoBLtd.–Songwassubsequently »discovered »inUnitedStates
andreachednumberoneonbillboardcharts–Increasedradioplayofsongresultedinnew
albumsales,andrequeststoreproducesongonotherrecordsandhaveotherartistsrecordit
–TwobandmembersbroughtactionandBLtd.broughtapplicationfordeclaratoryrelief
andaccountingandpaymentofpublishingroyalties–Trialjudgefoundthatcompanyand
itsdirectorpersonallywerejointlyandseverallyliableforamountofjudgmentandcostsof
proceedings–Directorappealed–Appealallowed–Nobasisforjudgmentofpersonal
liabilityagainstdirector–PublishingagreementwasownedbyBLtd.andnotbydirector
personally–PublishingagreementspecifiedobligationsofBLtd.andnotofdirector
personally–DirectorwasdirectingmindofBLtd.,atallmaterialtimeactedonbehalfof
companynotonownbehalfandtherewasnotsufficientjustificationtopiercecorporateveil
Desputeauxc.ÉditionsChouette(1987)inc.
(2001-04-18),[2001]R.J.Q.945,J.E.2001-920,R.E.J.B.2001-23667,[2001]J.Q.1510,[2001]
CarswellQue299,http://www.jugements.qc.ca/ca/200104fr.html(Courd’appelduQuébec);
requêtepourautorisationdepourvoiàlaCoursuprêmeaccueillie,2001-11-08),[2001]
CarswellQue2452[English],[2001]CarswellQue2453,[2001]C.S.C.R.309[French](Cour
suprêmeduCanada).
Résumé
Appeld’unjugementdelaCoursupérieureayantrejetéunerequêteenannulationd’une
sentencearbitrale.Accueilli.
En1988,l’appelantes’estassociéeàl’intiméeL’Heureuxpourlacréationdelivrespourenfants
ayantcommepersonnageprincipalungarçonnetnomméCaillou.L’appelanteillustraitles
livrestandisqueL’Heureuxécrivaitlestextes.Enoctobre1996,lacoïntiméeÉditionsChouette
(1987)inc.aprésentéunerequêtepourjugementdéclaratoirevisantàfairedéclarerles
droitsluirésultantdelaconventiondelicenced’exploitationquel’appelanteetL’Heureuxlui
avaientaccordéeàtitredecoauteuresle1erseptembre1993.Invoquantlesdispositionsde
l’article37delaLoisurlestatutprofessionneldesartistesdesartsvisuels,desmétiersd’artet
delalittératureetsurleurscontratsaveclesdiffuseurs(laloi),l’appelantearéclaméquele
litigesoitsoumisàl’arbitrage.L’arbitreaétéd’avisquelescontratsd’éditionconclus
antérieurementàlalicenced’exploitationnetraduisaientpaslaréalitépuisquel’appelantey
étaitdésignéecommeauteureetL’Heureuxcommeéditeurealorsqu’ellesavaienttoutesles
deuxparticipéàlacréationdupersonnagedeCailloudemanièreindissociable.L’arbitrea
concluquelalicenced’exploitationcomportaittouslesdroitsnécessairesàl’exploitation
commercialedeCailloudanslemondeentieretqu’ilnesubsistaitplusd’autresdroits
patrimoniaux.Enl’absencedestipulationquantàsadurée,ilaestiméqu’ellearriveraità
échéance50ansaprèsledécèsduderniercoauteur.L’appelanteaprétenduquel’arbitre
avaitexcédésespouvoirsenseprononçantsurlapropriétéetlerespectdesdroitsd’auteur
alorsqueseulslestribunauxjudiciairespossèdentcettecompétence(art.37delaloi).Au
surplus,ilauraitviolélesprincipesdejusticenaturelleentranchantlaquestionrelativeau
statutdecoauteuredeL’Heureuxenl’absencedetoutepreuveàcetégardetilaurait


commisuneerreurdedroitmanifestementdéraisonnableenomettantd’appliquercertaines
dispositionsimpérativesdelaloi.Lejugedepremièreinstancearejetétoutescesprétentions,
d’oùleprésentappel.
Décision
Lademanded’annulationdelasentencearbitraleestleseulrecoursdisponibleà
l’appelante.Lesmotifsd’interventionsontlimitésàceuxquisonténoncésauxarticles946.4et
946.5duCodedeprocédurecivile(C.P.C.).Entenantcomptedesfaitsexposésàl’arbitre
parl’appelante,onpeutdifficilementconclurequelasentencearbitraleportesurun
différendquin’étaitpasprévudemanièreexpressedanslaconventiond’arbitrage.Toutefois,
ladécisiondel’arbitrevaau-delàdelastricteinterprétationdesconventionsdesparties.En
décidantdustatutjuridiquedel’appelanteetdeL’Heureuxàl’égarddupersonnagede
Caillou,l’arbitres’estarrogéunecompétencequ’iln’avaitpas.Eneffet,onnepeutsoumettre
àl’arbitrageundifférendportantsurl’étatetlacapacitédespersonnesousurlesautres
questionsquiintéressentl’ordrepublic(art.946.5C.P.C.et2639duCodecivilduQuébec).Le
droitd’auteurtientdudroitdelapersonnalitéenplusd’avoirdesaspectspécuniaires.Le
chapitredelaLoisurledroitd’auteurtraitantdesdroitsmoraux(art.14.1et14.2)protège
l’aspectéminemmentpersonneldudroitd’auteuretilnereconnaîtàcetitrequeledroità
l’intégritédel’oeuvreetledroitàsapaternité.Enl’espèce,iln’estpasnécessairededécider
silaconsidérationdudroitàlapaternitédel’oeuvrepourraitsuffireàexclurelacompétence
del’arbitreétantdonnéquelasentencedoitêtredéclaréenulleenraisondel’article37de
laloi.Eneffet,lapaternitédudroitd’auteur,toutcommeleslitigesportantsurl’étendueetla
validitédecedroit,doitêtresoumisexclusivementauxtribunauxjudiciairesparcequeles
décisionsquiendécoulentsontopposablesàtousetsontdel’essencemêmedesdécisions
judiciaires.Lefaitquel’appelanteetL’Heureuxsesoientreconnuescommedescoauteures
dansdesconventionsécritespermettaitàl’arbitredetenircomptedecetélément.Toutefois,
ilnepouvait,sansoutrepassersacompétence,s’enservirpourdéclarerqu’ellesétaient
assurémentcoauteuresd’uneoeuvrecrééeencollaborationausensdelaLoisurledroit
d’auteur.Commeaucunepreuven’aétéfaitedevantl’arbitrequantàl’oeuvreenlitigeetà
laparticipationrespectivedesparties,ilnepouvaitrattacherlaquestiondelaqualification
del’oeuvreaucadrerestreintdel’interprétationdescontratsfaisantl’objetdelaconvention
d’arbitrage.Ausurplus,iln’apasreconnuquecertainesmentionsimposéesparlaloine
figuraientpasàlaconventiondelicenced’exploitation,notammentencequiconcerne
l’étenduedesconcessionsdesdroitsexclusifs,laduréedescontratsetlafréquencedes
redditionsdecompte.Parconséquent,lasentencearbitraleauraitégalementpuêtre
annuléeenvertudesarticles31et34delaloi.
Editors’Assn.ofCanadaCertificationApplication(Re)
Editors’Assn.ofCanadaCertificationApplication(Re)(2001-02-28),12C.P.R.(4th)62,
http://capprt-
tcrpap.ic.gc.ca/decisions/decisionstribunal/decisionstribunal30/decision_33.html[English],
http://capprt-
tcrpap.ic.gc.ca/decisions/decisionstribunal/decisionstribunal30/decision_33_f.html[French]
(CanadianArtistsandProducersProfessionalRelationsTribunal).
Anassociationofeditorsappliedtothetribunalpursuanttos.25oftheStatusoftheArtistAct,
S.C.1992,c.33,forcertificationtorepresentasectorcomposedofeditors.Afteramendment
theassociationdefinedthesectorasbeingcomposedofprofessionalfreelanceeditorswho
preparecompilationsorcollectiveworksandworksofjointauthorshipbutexcludingauthors
coveredbycertificationsgrantedbythetribunaltofourartists’associations.


Thefourartists’associationsandanewspaperassociationintervenedintheeditors’
association’sapplication.Theeditors’associationfurnishedevidenceofdifferenttypesof
editingwhicharedividedintothefollowinggroups:(1)developmentalediting(writerand
editorjointlyevolvingaconceptorstoryidea);(2)structuralandsubstantiveediting(includes
reorganizing,rewriting,writingtransitionsandsummaries,andsuggestingstructuralchanges);
(3)lineediting(line-by-lineeditingincludingmakingcomments,queriesandsuggestionsto
thewriter);and(4)copyediting(reviewingamanuscriptforspelling,grammar,consistency
andformat).[page63]
Theeditors’associationwascomposedofvotingandassociatemembersandprovided
variousservicestoitsmembersincludingavarietyofseminars.
Theapplicationraisedthefollowingfourissues:(1)whethereditorsareartistswithinthe
meaningoftheStatusoftheArtistAct;(2)thesuitabilityofthesectorproposedbytheeditors’
association;(3)whethertheeditors’associationwasrepresentativeofartistsinthatsector;
and(4)whetherthebylawsoftheassociationcompliedwiths.23oftheAct.
Held,editorswhoareauthorsoforiginalcompilationsorcollectiveworksorwhoareauthors
ofworksofjointauthorshipshouldbedeclaredartistswithinthemeaningoftheStatusofthe
ArtistAct,andtheapplicationshouldotherwisebestayedtopermittheeditors’associationto
amenditsbylaws.
Withrespecttothefirstissue,foreditorstofallwithinthecategoryofartistsreferredtoins.
6(2)(b)(i)oftheAct,theymustbe »authors »withinthemeaningoftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.
1985,c.C-42.Themeaningof »author »intheCopyrightActrequiresoriginality.The
preparationofindexes,glossaries,tablesofcontent,bibliographiesandcompilationsofworks
ofothersmayfallwithinthemeaningofcompilationiftheymeetthetestoforiginality.With
theexceptionofcompilationsofdata,originalitymerelyrequirestheexpenditureoflabour,
skillandjudgment.Somebutnotalloftheworkofeditorswillmeetthetestforauthorshipofa
compilationorcollectivework.Developmentaleditingandsubstantiveandstructuralediting
involveasignificantcontributionoforiginalexpression,whereascopyeditingdoesnot.Line
editingfallsonthespectrumbetweencopyeditingandsubstantiveediting.Accordingly,
editorswhocollaboratewithotherauthorsandmakesignificantandoriginalcontributions
arejointauthorsandtherefore »artists »withinthemeaningofs.6(2)(b)(i)oftheStatusofthe
ArtistAct.
Withrespecttothesecondandthirdissues,astherewerecommoninterestsamong
freelanceeditorsandastheywerenotrepresentedbyanyotherartists’associations,they
wereasectorsuitableforbargainingandtheeditors’associationwastheorganizationmost
representativeofthem.
Withrespecttothefourthissue,asthebylawsoftheeditors’associationdidnotprovidefora
ratificationvoteonscaleagreementsorarighttoaccesscopiesofitsfinancialstatements,
thebylawsdidnotmeettherequirementsofs.23(1)oftheAct.Theeditors’association
undertooktoamenditsbylaws.Theapplicationwasthereforestayedpendingreceiptof
proofthattherequiredchangeshadbeenmadetothebylaws.
Editors’Assn.ofCanadaCertificationApplication(Re)
(2001-09-27),15C.P.R.(4th)339,http://capprt-
tcrpap.ic.gc.ca/decisions/decisionstribunal/decisionstribunal30/decision_36.html[English],
http://capprt-


tcrpap.ic.gc.ca/decisions/decisionstribunal/decisionstribunal30/decision_36_f.html[French],
2001CAPPRT036(CanadianArtistsandProducersProfessionalRelationsTribunal–Final).
Thetribunalhadissuedaninterimdecisiononanapplicationforcertificationoftheeditors’
associationundertheStatusoftheArtistAct,S.C.1992,c.33.Initsinterimdecision(« the
Order »),thetribunalhadconcludedthatfreelanceeditorswereartistswithinthemeaningof
theAct,suitableforbargaining,andthattheeditors’associationwastheorganizationmost
representativeoftheartists.Thetribunalhaddefinedthesectorforbargaininginawaythat
excludedotherauthorscoveredbycertificationsgrantedtootherorganizations.Thetribunal
hadstayedtheapplicationbecausethebylawsoftheeditors’associationdidnotmeetthe
requirementsoftheAct.
[page340]
Theeditors’associationsubsequentlyappliedtoinformthetribunalthatithadamendedits
bylawstoaccordwiththerequirementsoftheAct.Priortobeingsoinformed,three
organizationshadfiledanapplicationforreconsiderationoftheOrder.Thereconsideration
applicationswereseizedbyadifferentpanelofthetribunal.Thatpaneldecidedtoadjourn
theproceedingspendingissuancebytheoriginalpanelofitsfinaldecisionintheeditors’
associationapplication.
TheoriginalpanelmovedtoamendtheOrderonitsownmotiontoexcludefromtheOrder
authorscoveredbycertificationsgrantedtotwooftheorganizationsthatsought
reconsiderationoftheOrder.
Held,theeditors’association’sapplicationforcertificationshouldnolongerbestayedand
theOrdershouldbeamended.
Section20oftheActprovidesthatthetribunalmayamendanyordermadebyitandmay
rehearanyapplicationbeforemakingadecision.Thetribunalmayexercisesuchpoweronits
ownmotion.
Thebylawsoftheeditors’associationcompliedwiththerequirementsoftheActand
thereforeitsapplicationforcertificationwasnolongerstayed.TheOrderwasamendedin
accordancewiththetribunal’smotion.
FWSJointSportsClaimantsv.Border
(2001-11-06),[2001]N.R.TBEd.NO.048,[2001]F.C.J.1657,2001FCA336(FederalCourtof
Appeal)
[1]FWSSportsClaimantsInc.(« FWS »)isthecollectivesocietythatrepresentsfourprofessional
sportsleagues,theNFL,CFL,NHLandNBA,andadministerstheircopyrightinthelive
broadcastingoftheirgames.FWSisdissatisfiedwiththeshareoftheroyaltiespayableforthe
retransmissionofdistantbroadcastsignals,typicallybycabletelevisioncompanies,thatthe
CopyrightBoardhasallocatedtoFWS’members.
[2]FWSarguesthatthebasisonwhichtheBoardallocatedtheroyaltiessignificantly
underestimatedthevalueofsportstothecablecompanies’abilitytoattractandretain
subscribers.
[5]Wehavenodifficultywiththelegalpropositionthatviewingcopyrightmaterialisnotan
infringingactivity,butthatretransmissionis.However,FWS’argumentisbasedonan
erroneouspremise,namely,thatwhentheBoardstatedthat »…itisthesubscriberswho`use’


thecableservices… »,itmeantthatthesubscriberswereusingthecopyrightmaterialin
breachofFWS’copyright.
[6]Itseemstousunlikelythat,giventheexperiencewithcopyrightlawthattheBoardhas
acquiredinthecontextofsettingandallocatingroyalties,itwouldhavemadesuchan
elementarylegalblunder.Inouropinion,thepassagefromtheBoard’sreasonsquoted
aboveisbetterunderstoodasmeaningthat,sincesubscribersaretheultimateconsumersof
theprogrammes,theirviewingpreferences,asmeasuredbythenumberofhoursthatthey
spendwatchingprogrammesbelongingtothevariouscollectives,aretheappropriate
criterionofthevalueofthoseprogrammestocablecompanies.
[7]Inavariationofthe »userargument »,FWSalsosubmittedthattheBoard’sreasons
indicatedthatithadallocatedroyaltiesoncumulativeviewingdatabecauseithadtaken
thepositionthattheallocationshouldreflectthevalueofprogrammestosubscribers,notto
thecablecompanies.This »stunningreversal »ofthepositionthattheBoardhadtakeninits
1990decisiononthesamesubjectwasanerroroflaw,bothbecausetheActdidnotpermit
it,and,ifitdid,theBoardwasunderalegalobligationtoprovideafullerjustificationforitsU-
turnthanitsreasonscontained.
[8]Wecannotacceptthisargument.WeagreewiththerespondentsthattheBoarddidnot
departfromits1990position,namelythattheultimatebasisoftheallocationofroyaltieswas
thevalueofprogrammestothecablecompanies.Inthedecisionunderreview,theBoard
wassimplymakingitclearthat,intheabsenceofafreemarketinretransmissionrights,the
numberofhoursthatsubscribersspentwatchingparticularkindsofprogrammingwasthe
mostreliablecriterionfordeterminingtheirvaluetocablecompanies’abilitytoattractand
retaincustomers.
[10]Inouropinion,thekeytowhattheBoardmeanthereistobefoundlaterinthesame
paragraphwhenitsetoutthethreeprinciplesonwhichtheBoardhadproceeded;taken
together,theseprinciplesconstitutetheBoard’sconclusionthatthevalueofsports
programmestobroadcastersisnotagoodproxyforthevalueofthecablecompanies’
retransmissionrightsinthoseparticularprogrammes.Thus,whilebroadcastersmaybewilling
topaycopyrightownersahighpriceforpermissiontobroadcastprofessionalsportsevents,
becauseoftheamountofadvertisingrevenuethattheycouldgenerate,itdoesnotfollow
thattheinclusionofsportsprogrammesasonecomponentofabroadcastsignalcarriedby
acablecompanyisasimilarlypowerfulinducementtosubscriberstopurchaseapackageof
programmes.TheBoarddidnotrejectFWS’evidence,butitsapproachtoascertainingthe
valuetothecablecompaniesofprogrammesownedbyparticularcollectives.
[12]WearenotpersuadedthattheBoard’sallocationoftheroyaltiesamongthevarious
claimantsshouldbereviewedonadifferentstandardfromthatappliedtosettingroyalties.
Bothinvolvetheexerciseofabroadstatutorydiscretion,policyelements,theuseof
economicandstatisticaldata,andanunderstandingofthecableindustryandtherelated
technology.Further,whilecopyrightownersmayhaveasimilarinterestvis-à-visretransmitters,
theyhavecompetinginterestswhenitcomestotheallocationamongthemofthetotal
awardofroyalties.Hence,inassessingtherelativemeritsofthevariouscopyrightowners,the
Boardisengagedinapolycentricexerciseinthat,sincetheshareoftheroyaltiesallocated
tooneownerhasanimpactontheshareavailabletoothers,theBoard’sassessmentsinvolve
weighingtheclaimants’relativemerits.
Guillotv.IstekCorp


(2001-07-17),14C.P.R.(4th)67,[2001]FTRUned510,[2001]F.C.J.1165,2001FCT799(Federal
Court,TrialDivision)HugessenJ.
[NoticeofappealwasfiledonJuly27,2001(CourtFileNo.A-445-01).]
Theplaintiff,aUStrade-marklawyer,hadwrittenandpublishedarticlesontrade-marklaw
andcreatedanInternetsitecontainingacompilationoflinkstoothersitesrelatingtotrade-
marks.ThedefendantcreatedanInternetsitethatcontainedtwooftheplaintiff’sarticles
andalinktoothersites.Theplaintiffcommencedanactionforcopyrightinfringement
claimingthatthedefendant’ssitecontainedaninvitationtoapersonvisitingthesiteto
obtainunauthorizedaccessto,andcopiesof,thearticlesandthatthedefendant’ssite
reproducedasubstantialpartoftheplaintiff’scompilationoflinks.Theplaintiffmovedfor
summaryjudgment.
Held,themotionshouldbedismissed.
Therewasatleastapossiblecontradictionintheplaintiff’sevidenceregardingconsentgiven
tothedefendanttousetheplaintiff’scompilationoflinks.
Acompilationofpubliclyavailablematerialsisboundtohaveahighdegreeofidentitywith
anyothercompilationofthesamematerial.Therewashowevernoexpertevidenceshowing
thatthedefendant’scompilationwasnecessarilybasedontheplaintiff’scompilation,that
theplaintiff’scompilationwasoriginalorthatthedefendanthadcopiedtheoriginality.
TheplaintiffconcededthatforeverydocumentpublishedontheInternetthereisanimplied
licencetoreproduceorcopytotheextentnecessarytotakecommunicationandmake
personaluse.Therewashowevernoevidencethatthedefendanteverdidmorethanwhatit
wasimpliedlyauthorizedtodo.
Themotionwasthereforedismissed.
MasterfileCorp.v.WorldInternettCorp.
(2001-12-20),[2001]F.C.J.1928,2001FCT1416(FederalCourtofCanada-TrialDivision)
SimpsonJ.
[1]Thisapplicationisforsummaryjudgmentagainst17respondentsandfordefaultjudgment
againstfourdefendantsfortheirallegedbreachoftheApplicant’scopyrightinonehundred
forty-nineimagescopiedinthedesignoftherespondents’websites.
[40]Issue1.Basedonthisprovision[ofthecontract],IacceptRespondents’Counsel’s
submissionthatMasterfile’sdeemedassignmentsarenotvalidunderCanadianlaw.
Althoughsection13(4)oftheActgivescopyrightownersconsiderableflexibilityinthe
assignmentoftheirrights,itdoesnotcontemplateassignmentsthatmaytakeeffectata
futuredate.Assignmentscanbelimitedinavarietyofwaysbut,inmyview,somecertaintyis
required.Ataminimum,anassignmentmustactuallyexistandmustbesigned.
[41]Finally,Ishouldnotethatbothprovision3.05(d)oftheFourthContractandprovision4.5
oftheFifthContractspecificallyrefertothepossibilityofanexpresswrittenassignmentinthe
eventoffuturelitigation.Nosuchassignmentshavebeentakenfromanyoftheartistsinthis
case.
[42]HavingconcludedthatMasterfilehasneitheranexclusivelicencenoranassignmentof
copyrightfortheimagesatissueinthiscase,itismyfurtherconclusionthatMasterfilehasno


standingtoprosecutethisaction.Accordingly,thismotionforsummaryjudgmentwillbe
dismissed.
[45]Issue2.Withregardtotheapplicabilityofthepresumptionofcopyrightundersection
34.1(2)oftheAct,IwouldhaveconcludedthattheCopyrightNoticefoundonMasterfile’s
CD-ROMdidnotentitleittothebenefitofthepresumptionbecausetheartists’nameswere
notshown.Further,Iwouldhavedisagreedwiththeapplicant’ssubmissionthatsection
34.1(1)(a)oftheActapplies.Inmyview,oncecopyrightischallengedintheabsenceof
registration,aswasthecasehere,therequirementsofsection34.1(2)oftheActmustbe
satisfied.
[47]Issue4.Inmyview,therespondentsusedMasterfile’simagesinaformatdifferentfrom
theoneinwhichtheywereofferedforsale.Masterfileandtheartistsitrepresentedwere
offeringtosellonlyhighqualitydistinctiveimages.Theyshouldnotbepenalizedbecausethe
respondentsillegallyusedversionsoflesserquality.Aswell,therespondentswouldhave
beenorderedtoreimburseMasterfileaccordingtoitstariff.Inviewoftheirinfringement,the
respondentsarenotnowentitledtothebenefitofnegotiatedpricesthattheymighthave
obtainedhadtheysoughtlicencestousetheimages.
MicrosoftCorp.v.1222010OntarioInc.
(2001-04-05),[2001]F.T.R.Uned.145,[2001]F.C.J.509,2001FCT299(FederalCourtofCanada,
TrialDivision)Giles,AssociateSeniorProthonotary
Themotionbeforemeseeksanswerstoquestionsrefusedondiscovery.[…]Theactiondeals
withallegedcopyrightinfringementbycopyingtheplaintiff’scopyrightmaterialinto
computerswhichwerethensold.
[12]Thedefendanthavingindicatedthatacomputerwouldpossiblyhavebeenloaded
withplaintiff’ssoftwarebyanemployeeotherthanatechnicalpersonwasunabletotellthe
dateofmanufactureofoneofthecomputersinquestion.Itfollowsthatanyemployeemight
beawitnessastoloading.Theplaintiffaskedforthenamesandaddressesanddatesof
employmentofallemployeesofSystems.Suchemployeesbeingpotentialwitnessesthe
namesshouldbegiven.Question490isorderedanswered.
[15]Question677seekthenamesofcompetitorswhohavecomplainedofthedefendant’s
pricingorcopyingpractices.Suchcomplainantsmightbeinapositiontogiveevidenceof
furtherinstancesofthetypeofactdescribedintheamendedstatementofclaim.The
defendantwouldhavemeclassifysuchaquestionasthecommencementofafishing
expedition.Afishingexpeditionisoneinwhichapartyseeksevidenceoffactsofwhichit
hadnopreviousknowledge.Heretheplaintiffhasknowledgeofcertaininstancesofsellingof
computerswiththeplaintiff’sunlicensedsoftwareinstalledontheirhardware.
[16]Itismyviewthatseekingfurtherinstancesofthattypeofinfringementisnotafishing
expedition.Seekingothertypesofinfringementwouldbefishing.Itismyviewthatquestion
677istoobroadandseeksevidencewaybeyondotherinstancesofthesametypeof
infringement.Itisthereforethefirststepinafishingexpeditionanddoesnothavetobe
answered.
NorthwestTerritoriesv.SiriusDiamondsLtd.
(2001-06-26),13C.P.R.(4th)486,[2001]F.T.R.TBEd.JL.030,[2001]F.C.J.1042,2001FCT702,
summaryathttp://www.fja.gc.ca/fc/2001/fic/v4/2001fc29052.html[English]



http://www.cmf.gc.ca/cf/2001/fic/v4/2001cf29052.html[French](FederalCourt,TrialDivision)
HansenJ.
In1991significantdiamondreserveswerediscoveredintheterritories.Theterritorial
governmentviewedthediscoveryasanopportunitytoprovideaneconomicstimulustothe
territorialeconomyindiamondcuttingandpolishingindustries.Oneoftheinitiatives
undertakenbythegovernmentwasadiamondmonitoringandcertificationprogramin
whichitsoughttodifferentiateterritorialdiamondsfromdiamondsfromothercountriessold
tofundviolentwars.
Theterritorialgovernmentadoptedvariousdepictionsofpolarbearsinassociationwithits
governmentservices,touristpromotionsanddiamonds.Thegovernmentregisteredcopyright
inthesedepictions,registeredthedepictionsastrade-marksandsoughttoprotectsuch
depictionsasofficialmarkspursuanttos.9(1)(n)(iii)oftheTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-
13,andascommonlawtrade-marks.TheofficialmarksincludedthemarkNORTHWEST
TERRITORIES&PolarBearDesignforwhichpublicnoticewasgiveninAugust1991.
In1998thedefendantsenteredintonegotiationswiththeterritorialgovernmentto
participateinitsdiamondcertificationprogram.Whileinnegotiationsthedefendants
developedtheirowndiamondauthenticationprogramandadoptedtrade-marksdepicting
arepresentationofapolarbear.Oneofthedefendantsfiledapplicationsforregistrationof
suchtrade-marks.Theterritorialgovernmentobjectedtothedefendants’programand
trade-marks,andtherelationsbetweenthepartiesdeteriorated,althoughthenegotiations
didnotbreakoffuntilJuly2000.Afterthegovernment’sinitialobjection,thedefendants
discontinueduseofoneoftheirmarks.
Theterritorialgovernmentmovedforaninterlocutoryinjunctioninanactionforcopyright,
trade-markandofficialmarkinfringementandpassingoffwithrespecttothedefendants’use
ofarepresentationofapolarbearinassociationwithdiamonds.Initsapplicationforan
interlocutoryinjunctiontheterritorialgovernmentallegedthatitdidnotneedtoestablish
irreparableharmorafavourablebalanceofconvenienceifitestablishedaprimafaciecase
ofblatantcopyingofthegovernment’scopyrightworks,aprimafaciecaseoftrade-mark
infringement,oratall,inrelationtoitsofficialmarks.Thedefendantsallegedthatthe
government’sapplicationwouldbedeterminativeofitsactionandthat,therefore,the
governmenthadtoestablishastrongprimafaciecase,asanexceptiontoaseriousissueto
betried,irreparableharmandafavourablebalanceofconvenience.
Held,themotionshouldbedismissed.
Asthedefendantshadfailedtoadduceevidenceshowingthatthegrantofaninterlocutory
injunctionwouldhavetheeffectofdecidingthemainaction,theexceptiontotheplaintiff
merelyestablishingaseriousissuetobetrieddidnotapply.
Insupportofitsallegationthatitneednotestablishirreparableharminitscaseforcopyright
andtrade-markinfringement,theterritorialgovernmentreliedonjurisprudencewhich
precededthedecisionoftheSupremeCourtofCanadaintheRJR-MacDonaldcaseand
theFederalCourtofAppealintheCentreIcecase.[page488]
Althoughsubsequentjurisprudenceleftopenthepossibilityofgrantinganinterlocutory
injunctionintheabsenceofirreparableharmincertaincircumstances,therewasnothingin
theevidenceinthiscasetowarrantsuchanapproach.


Withrespecttothegovernment’sofficialmarks,theonlyofficialmarkwhichpredatedthe
defendants’adoptionanduseoftheirmarkswasthemarkNORTHWESTTERRITORIES&Polar
BearDesign.Thetestforinfringementofanofficialmarkisnotoneofconfusionbutof
resemblance.Themarksdifferedsignificantlyinimportantfeaturessuchthatthedefendants’
markscouldnotbesaidtoresemblethegovernment’sofficialmark.Accordingly,itwas
necessarytoconsiderthegovernment’sclaimsunders.9oftheTrade-marksActpursuantto
theRJR-MacDonaldtripartitetest.
Underthetripartitetest,theterritorialgovernmenthadraisedaseriousissueinrespectofallof
itsclaims.
Withrespecttoirreparableharm,theterritorialgovernmenthadtheburdenofproofof
showingthatitwouldsufferirreparableharmwithevidencethatwasclearandnot
speculative.Thegovernmentallegedharmtotheinterestofthepublicinthedevelopmentof
asecondarydiamondindustryandtothegoodwillandreputationassociatedwiththe
governmentanditsmarks.Thepotentialharmtothepublicinterestwasclaimedtobe
irreparableinnature.Thegovernmenthadnot,however,providedevidencethatharmto
thepublicinterestwouldoccuriftherequestedinjunctionwasdeclined.Withrespectto
goodwillandreputation,thegovernment’sclaimofafalsegovernmentalauthentication
describedwrongfulactallegedlycommitted,notconductsupportingirreparableharm.
Regardinglossofcredibility,therewasnoclearevidenceofconsumers,retailers,distributors
orthediamondindustrygenerally.Astolossofcontrolovergoodwillandexclusiveuseofthe
government’smarks,thegovernmentaskedthatirreparableharmbeinferred.Suchan
inferencewas,however,animproperlogicalleap.
Concerningthebalanceofconvenience,thesignificantpublicinterestinthesuccessofthe
diamondindustrycausedthebalanceofconveniencetoweighinthegovernment’sfavour.
Astheterritorialgovernmentfailedtoestablishirreparableharm,themotionforan
interlocutoryinjunctionwasdismissed.
OakleyInc.v.ShoppersDrugMartInc.
(2001-03-22),[2001]F.T.R.TBEd.AP.032;[2001]F.C.J.415,[2001]A.C.F.415,2001FCT226,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fc/2001/2001fct223.html(subnomineTimeWarner
EntertainmentCo.v.Doe,2001FCT223)(FederalCourtofCanada,TrialDivision)Blanchard,
J.
[T]hedefendantpresentedamotionforanordertostrikeportionsoftheamended
statementofclaimorinthealternativeanorderforparticularsofvariousportionsofthe
amendedstatementofclaim.Further,thedefendantrequestedanextensionoftimeto
deliveritsstatementofdefence.
[17]Hence,theCopyrightActdoesprovideforanaccountingofprofitsasaremedy,but
notforanaccountingofincome.TheAct,pursuanttosubsection35(2)clearlyestablishesthe
processthatgovernsaccountingofprofits.
[32]OnthematterofownershipofCopyright,counselforthedefendantarguesthatthis
Courtshouldorderthattheplaintiffsprovideparticularsofhowtitlemovedfromtheoriginal
authortotheplaintiffs,produceanyassignmentdocumentsinrespectofthecopyrightand
provideparticularsofthedateonwhichtheallegedartisticworkwascreated.


[33]Theproductionofacertificateofcopyrightregistration[seefootnote12]createsa
rebuttablepresumptionoftitleandownership.Absentanyevidencetothecontrary,the
chainoftitlemaywellbeirrelevant.
PierrotConcerts(Re)
(2001-01-25),[2001]CBD5(CopyrightBoard-UnlocatableOwner)
TheuseandmechanicalreproductionofapoemABunchofRowan(1948),innomorethan
1,200copies.
PrivateCopying2001-2002,TariffofLeviestobeCollectedbyCPCC(Re)
(2001-01-22),10C.P.R.(4th)289,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/c22012001reasons-b.pdf
(CopyrightBoard)
Thecollectivesocietyfiledaproposedprivatecopyingtariffpursuanttos.83oftheCopyright
Act,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,fortheyears2001and2002.Thetariffsetouttheproposedlevyfor
manufacturersandimportersofblankaudiorecordingmediatobepaidforthebenefitof
eligibleauthors,performersandproducersinrespectofsoundsrecordingsofmusicalworks.
Theobjectorobjectedtotheproposedtariffandparticipatedinproceedingsbeforethe
board.
Thecollectivesocietysoughtanincreaseintheprivatecopyingtariffoverthetariffcertified
bytheboardinitsfirstdecisiondealingwithprivatecopying.Theobjectorobjectedtothe
increasesought.Thecollectivesocietysubmittedthatazero-ratingschemeadoptedbythe
societyforaudiocassettesacquiredforprofessionalorinstitutionalpurposesshouldbetaken
intoaccountinfixingtheamountofthelevyforsuchcassettes.
Held,atariffshouldbecertifiedinaccordancewiththetermsandconditionsfixedbythe
board.
Theprivatecopyingregimeisuniversalinthatallimportersandmanufacturersofblankaudio
recordingmediapaythelevy.Thefactthatcertainofthemediaarenotexclusivelyusedto
copysoundrecordingsofmusicalworksistakenintoaccountinfixingtheamountofthelevy.
Twoprincipleswhichunderlietheregimeare,first,thattheregimelegalizescopyingforthe
privateuseofthepersonmakingthecopy.Itdoesnotlegalizecopyingforathirdparty.
Secondly,itisnotarequirementthatthesourceortargetmediumbelawfullyowned.
Theevidenceshowedthatsincetheboard’sfirstdecisiontherehadbeenanevolutioninthe
marketandpracticewithrespecttoprivatecopyingofsoundrecordingsofmusicalworks.
Theevolvingmarketforrecordingmediaineffectrequiredthefixingoftheamountofthe
levyasamatterofguesswork.DataavailableonthedownloadingofmusicfromtheInternet
wastoouncertaintobe[page290]consideredinfixingtheamountofthelevy,althoughit
couldbecomeofcentralconcerninfuturetariffapplications.
Thecurrenttariffstructurewasadoptedwithaproxyfortheamountofthetariffbeingthe
typicalremunerationreceivedbyeligiblerights-holdersinrespectofpre-recordedCDs.This
amountwasadjustedbyvariousfactors,includingafactorreflectingthatprivatecopying
wasasecondarymarketforsoundrecordingsofmusicalworks.
Withrespecttoaudiocassettes,itwaspermissibletotakethezero-ratingschemeinto
accountbyexcludingzero-ratedcassettesforthecalculationofthelevy.Takingthescheme


intoaccountreflectedamarketrealityanddidnotinitselfcreateanexceptiontothe
privatecopyingregime.Furthermore,atariffthatfailedtotaketheschemeintoaccount
wouldnothavebeenfair.Finally,excludingthezero-ratedmediawouldhaveensuredthat
thetarifftargetedthosemorelikelytoengageinprivatecopying.
Thelevywasfixedat$0.29foraudiocassettes,$0.21forCD-RsandCD-RWs,and$0.77forCD-
RAudio,CD-RWAudioandMiniDiscs.Thelevywasthereforeanticipatedtoraise
approximately$26.9millionfor2001.
ProgrammationGagnoninc.c.Formulesd’affairesC.C.L.inc.
(2001-05-14),[2001]R.J.Q.1509,J.E.2001-1323,[2001]CarswellQue1773,R.E.J.B.2001-25399,
[2001]J.Q.2468(CoursupérieureduQuébec)JugeJacquesViens
Appel(C.A.Q.200-09-003664-015).
Résumé
Actioneninjonctionpermanenteetenréclamationdedommages-intérêts.Rejetée.
Lademanderesseexploiteuneentreprisedeconceptiondelogicielsetde
commercialisationdesolutionsinformatiquesintégréesauxmunicipalitésalorsquela
défenderesse,uneentreprised’imprimerie,estsurtoutspécialiséedansl’impressionde
formulairesetdedocumentsmunicipaux.Commelademanderessenefaisaitpasimprimer
deformulairescontenantlesdonnéesinséréesparlesmunicipalitésdanssonlogiciel,celles-ci
ontdemandéàd’autresentreprisesdeconcevoirdesformulairescompatiblesavecle
logiciel.Aidéedesonéquiped’infographistes,ladéfenderesseaconçu,impriméetvendu
desformulairescommel’«Avisd’évaluationfoncièreetcomptedetaxes»àpartird’unesortie
d’imprimantequeluiontremisesesclientes.Or,enfévrier1997,lademanderesseaenregistré
undroitd’auteursurcet«Avisd’évaluationfoncièreetcomptedetaxes»,dontlapremière
publicationremonteau21novembre1994.Ellereprocheàladéfenderessed’avoircontrefait
pendantplusieursannéescetteoeuvrelittéraireetdel’avoirofferteenvente.Elleréclame
desdommages-intérêtsde1211056$demêmequ’uneordonnanced’injonction
permanentepourfairecessercettecontrefaçon.Ladéfenderesseallèguequ’ilnes’agitpas
d’oeuvresprotégéesparlaloiet,subsidiairement,qu’iln’yapaseucontrefaçon.
Décision
Leformulaire«Avisd’évaluationfoncièreetcomptedetaxes»conçu,produitetdistribuépar
lademanderesseestuneoeuvrelittéraireprotégéeausensdelaLoisurledroitd’auteur.Le
droitd’auteurquiyestrattachécomporteledroitexclusifdeproduireetdereproduirela
totalitéouunepartieimportantedel’oeuvredemêmequeledroitexclusifd’enautoriserla
reproduction.Parailleurs,l’oeuvreenquestionestuneoeuvreoriginaleausensdelaloi,
mêmesipresquetouteslesinformationscontenuesauxformulairesproviennentdes
dispositionslégislativesapplicables,etplusparticulièrementduRèglementsurlaformeoule
contenuminimaldediversdocumentsrelatifsàlafiscalitémunicipaleetsesamendements,
etsontlargementinspiréesdesmodèlesproposésparleministèredesAffairesmunicipales.
Toutefois,uneffortcréateurestrequislorsqu’ils’agitd’agencerdansleformulairelescases,les
colonnesetlestableauxquidoivents’ytrouver.Enl’espèce,cequeledroitd’auteurprotège,
cen’estpasl’idéemaislaprésentationdel’idée,lafaçondontl’informationestdisposéesur
leformulaire.Laconceptiond’untelformulairenécessitelaconnaissancedesinformations
qu’ildoitcontenirenvertudelaloietdesrèglementspertinents,maisaussicelledes
exigencesparticulièresdesmunicipalitésafind’enfaireunoutilquiatteintlesobjectifsvisés.
Lacréationd’untelformulairenécessitedesconnaissances,desefforts,del’habileté,du
temps,delaréflexion,dujugementetdel’imagination.Parcontre,lesformulaires«Avis
d’évaluationfoncièreetcomptedetaxes»conçusparladéfenderesseneconstituentpas


descontrefaçonsdesformulairesdelademanderesseausensdelaloi.Eneffet,lasimple
apparencedesimilitudedesproduitsnepermetpasdeconclurequeladéfenderessea
plagiélesformulairesconçusetréalisésparlademanderesse.Eneffet,uneinfographistede
ladéfenderesseayantunevasteexpériencedanslaproductiondeformulairespourle
domainemunicipaladémontréqu’ellepouvait,àpartird’unesortied’imprimante,produire
unformulairecompatibleaveclelogicieldistribuéparlademanderessesansselivreràune
simplecopiedesesformulairescomptetenudetouteslesautresdonnéesaccumuléesaufil
desannéesetdesprescriptionsqu’ellepeutretrouverdanslesloismunicipalesetles
règlementsyafférents.Ilyadonclieuderejeterl’action.
Richardson(ReAbigail)
(2001-02-05),[2001]CBD6(CopyrightBoard-UnlocatableOwner)
Communicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationofthemusicaladaptationforchoirof
KathrynMunro’spoemsNowWintercomes,Noel,AtChristmaside(1938)andthemusical
adaptationfortenorandpianoofKathrynMunro’spoemsGhosts,TheDesertedHouseand
Dusk(1930)aswellasthepublicperformanceandthereprographyofcopiestosupportsuch
performance.
Richardson(ReAbigail)
(2001-01-15),[2001]CBD4(CopyrightBoard-UnlocatableOwner)
ThemusicaladaptationforchoirofKathrynMunro’spoemsNowWintercomes,Noel,At
Christmaside(1938)andthemusicaladaptationfortenorandpianoofKathrynMunro’s
poemsGhosts,TheDesertedHouseandDusk(1930)aswellasthepublicperformanceand
thereprographyofcopiestosupportsuchperformance.
Robertsonv.ThomsonCorp.
(2001-10-03),15C.P.R.(4
th)147,[2001]O.T.C.TBEd.OC.012,[2001]CarswellOnt3467,[2001]
O.J.3868(CourtofOntario,SuperiorCourtofJustice)Cumming,J.
Inaclassproceedingtheplaintiff,afreelancewriter,claimedinfringementofcopyrightin
literaryworkspublishedbythedefendantsinanationalnewspaper.Theplaintiffallegedthat
thedefendantsinfringedhercopyrightbymakingtheworksavailabletothepublicthrough
variouselectronicmedia.
ThedefendantsandtheirpredecessorspublishedthenewspaperinCanadasince1844.
Commencingin1945thenewspaperwasmadeavailableinotherformsofmedia,firstin
microfilmandsubsequentlyinmicrofiche,inon-lineelectronicdatabasesandonCD-ROMs.
Theplaintiffcontributedtwoworkswhichwerepublishedinthenewspaperin1995.Thefirst
workwasanexcerptfromabookwrittenbytheplaintiffinrespectofwhichherpublisher,by
writtenagreement,authorizedthepublicationoftheexcerpt »foronetimeusage ».The
agreementmadenoreferencetoelectronicrights.Thesecondworkwasabookreviewin
respectofwhichtheplaintiffpermittedpublicationinthenewspaperbyoralarrangement,
theusualarrangementforfreelancertransactionsatthetime.Theplaintiffalsoasserteda
claimtocopyrightinfringementonbehalfofanemployeeofthedefendantsfortheinclusion
ofhisnewspaperarticlesinthedefendants’electronicdatabases.In1996thefreelancers
wererequiredtoenterintowrittenagreementswhichprovidedfortheperpetualinclusionof
theirarticlesinthedefendants’databaseandotherelectronicproducts.


Thedefendantsclaimedownershipofcopyrightinthenewsprinteditionsofthenewspaperas
acollectivework,thattheoriginalityinherentinthecollectiveworkremainedinthe
electronicdatabase,thattherewasaone-timeuseofanarticlebecauseanelectronic
searchretrievedthearticlefromthesinglenewsprintpublicationencodedintheelectronic
database,andthatthereforetherewasnoinfringementofcopyrightinthearticle.The
defendantsalsoreliedondefencesof,interalia,impliedtermsinitscontractswiththeplaintiff
andanimpliedlicence.Inthealternative,thedefendantsreliedondefencesof,interalia,
consent,acquiescenceandwaiver.[page149]
Theplaintiffconcededthatmicrofichestoragewasapermissibleexploitationofthe
defendants’copyrightinthecollectiveworkandmovedforsummaryjudgment.
Held,themotionshouldbedismissed.
Theplaintiff’sclaimonbehalfoftheemployeeofthedefendantswasbasedonthe
reservationins.13(3)oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,toemployeesoftherightto
restrainthepublicationoftheirnewspaperarticlesotherwisethanaspartofanewspaper,
magazineorsimilarperiodical.Iftheemployeesseektorestrainthedefendants’from
includingtheirworksintheelectronicdatabase,theymustdosopersonally.Theplaintiffhad
nostandingtoassertclaimsonbehalfoftheemployee.
Theentireeditionofthenewspaperwasreproducedonmicrofilmandmicrofiche.The
defendantswereentitledtoputtheentireeditiononmicrofilmandmicrofichebecauseof
theirownershipofcopyrightinthenewspaperasacollectivework.Theelectronicdatabase
ofthenewspaperdidnot,however,containtheentiretyofeachday’snewsprinteditionin
thatadvertisementsandotherinformationfromthenewsprinteditionwerenotincluded.
Thedefendants’righttoreproducethenewspaperinanymaterialformincludedtherightto
archivetheworkelectronicallyandtomakethearchiveavailableelectronicallysolongasit
wasthefullelectroniceditionthatwasmadeavailable.Theon-linedatabaseandCD-ROMs
weresystemsofretrievingindividual,stand-alonearticles.Thereproductionoftheplaintiff’s
worksthroughsuchelectronicmediaconstitutedareproductionofherindividualworksin
whichshealoneheldcopyright.Thearticleswerereproducedbeyondthecontextofany
collectiveworkofthedefendants.
Anestablishedtradeorbusinessusageorcustommaybeincorporatedintoacontract.The
custommusthoweverbewell-knownandacquiescedtobythoseinthetradesuchthatit
maybepresumedtoformatermofthecontract.Inaddition,alicencecanbeimpliedto
useacopyrightedwork.Thedefendants’allegedalicenceforacontinuingrightinperpetuity
toreproducetheplaintiff’sarticlesthroughelectronicon-linedatabases.
Thecourtmaygrantsummaryjudgmentunderrule20.04(2)oftheRulesofCivilProcedure,
R.R.O.1990,Reg.194,onlywherethereisnogenuineissuefortrial.Themotionsjudgemust
notresolveissuesofcredibilityordrawinferencesfromconflictingevidence.Thedefendants’
asserteddefencesofimpliedterms,impliedlicence,consentandacquiescenceandwaiver
werebaseduponclaimedfactsonwhichtherewasconflictingevidence.Therewasdispute
overthecustomandpracticegoverningagreementswiththedefendantsandfreelancers.
Althoughtheplaintiffknewoftheexistenceofthevariousdatabases,shewasnotawarethat
herarticleswereincludedinthedatabaseuntil1996.Thisfactalonedidnot,however,
provideacompleteanswertowhethertherehadbeenconsentoracquiescence.Therewas
thereforeagenuineissuefortrialwithrespecttothedefendants’asserteddefences.
[page150]


Roycroft(ReEileen)
(2001-01-12),[2001]CBD2(CopyrightBoard-UnlocatableOwner)
ThereproductiononCD-ROMSsofmusicalworksTheStorm(1935),LaughingWater(1904),
EdelweissGlide(s.d.),RoyalMarch(s.d.),TheWhip-Poor-Will’sSong(s.d.),innomorethan500
copies.
SetymInternationalinc.c.Belout
(2001-08-23),[2001]CarswellQue2657,[2001]J.Q.3819,D.T.E.2001T-980(Coursupérieuredu
Québec)jugeAndréWery;J.C.S.
99Ledroitd’auteurestundroitdepropriétédansune«oeuvre».
100Pourqu’unepersonnepuisseprétendredétenirundroitd’auteur,ilfaut,d’abordetavant
tout,une«oeuvre».
101Cenesontpaslesidéesquipeuventfairel’objetd’undroitd’auteur,maisseulement
l’expressionoriginaledecelles-ci.
102L’originalitédontilesticiquestionn’arienàvoiravecl’innovationouladécouverte,il
suffitquel’oeuvresedistinguesubstantiellementd’uneoeuvrepréexistante.Celaestfacileà
comprendre:onnepeutvéritablementseprétendrel’auteurd’uneoeuvresionnefaitque
s’approprierletravaild’unautre.«L’auteur[…]c’estceluiquifournitl’effortpersonnel,celuiqui
s’exprime»
103Enmatièrededroitd’auteur,oeuvreneveutpasdirechefd’oeuvre.Néanmoins,quels
quesoientsaforme,soncontenuousaqualité,seuleuneoeuvrequileméritepourrafaire
l’objetd’undroitd’auteur.Ilfautdoncunminimumdetravail,dejugement,d’effort
intellectuel,unecertainehabiletéetunecertaineoriginalitédelapartd’unepersonnepour
quelerésultatdecetravailsoitprotégéparlaLoi.Enbref,undesbutsdelaLoiestde«
protégeretderécompenserleseffortsintellectuelsdesauteurspendantuncertaintemps».
106C’estainsiquelajurisprudenceareconnucomme«oeuvreslittéraires»ausensdelaLoi,
desformulaires,desmanuelsd’opérationsetdesformulesdecontrat,deslettres,des
questionnairesd’examenetdesschémas.
107Ainsi,bienquepouruneoeuvreàcaractèrelittéraire,onn’exigerapasquelemérite
littérairesoitd’unhautdegré,ilfaudranéanmoinsquel’oeuvresoitlerésultatdutempsetdes
effortsdesonauteuretqueleproduitfinalprésenteunecertaineoriginalité.Unauteurne
peut,eneffet,prétendres’approprierla«peinturedeschosesvécues».
108LaLoinedéfinitpascequ’estl’originalité.Parconséquent,conclureàl’originalitéd’un
documentestunequestiondefaitlaisséeàladiscrétionduTribunal.
109Lajurisprudenceatoutefoisidentifiécertainscritèresquifacilitentl’appréciationdece
quiestoriginal.Ainsis’agit-ildutravailpersonneldel’auteur.Letravaildecréationa-t-ilexigé
un«certaineffortintellectuel»etpersonnel.L’auteura-t-ilfaitpreuvedegoût,dejugement,
d’imagination,d’ingéniosité,d’habileté.A-t-ilutilisésesconnaissances,a-t-ilmisuncertain
tempsàlaréflexionetlacréationdudocument.Sommetoute,l’auteurqueprotègelaLoi«
estceluiquiconsacredesénergiesintellectuellesàlamesuredelanatureetducontenude


l’oeuvre».«[A]ucunequalitéesthétique,artistiqueoulittérairen’estrequise».«Iln’yapaslieu
desedemandersilepublicbénéficiedel’apportdel’auteur,nisil’oeuvrecontientdes
informationsquinesontpasencoredisponiblesaupublic».
110C’estessentiellementpourtoutescesraisonsqueplusunauteurs’inspireradesourceset
d’idéescommunesàunsecteurd’activités,plusilrisquedenepasfairepreuved’originalitéet
moinsilpourraprétendreàlaprotectiondelaLoipourlefruitdesontravail.
111Lorsqu’ilyauneoeuvreausensdelaLoi,celuiquis’enprétendl’auteurbénéficiealors
d’uneprésomptiondepropriétédudroitd’auteurqu’ilrevendique
.
112Leprincipalattributdudroitd’auteurestledroitexclusifdepublier,reproduireoucopier
uneoeuvreouunepartiedecelle-cioudepermettreàuneautrepersonnedelefaire.
160Selonlajurisprudence,pourqu’ilyaitcontrefaçon,«ilfautunrapportentrel’oeuvre
originaleetlacopie,encesensqu’ondoitpouvoirétablirquel’oeuvreoriginaleestlasource
mêmedelacopie[…]»
161L’avocatdeBeloutplaidequelesressemblancesquel’onconstateentrelematériel
promotionneldeSetymetceluiutiliséparGestionMDSpoursonséminairededécembre1997
nesontquelefruitd’unhasardnormalpourdespersonnesquioeuvrentdanslemême
domainespécialiséetquiutilisentlemêmejargontechnique.Lechampsdelaprotection
accordéeparlaLoidevraitdoncêtreforcémentlimité.
162LeTribunalestime,àl’instardelajugeDuval-Hesleraumomentdel’interlocutoire,que
l’explicationduhasardàl’égarddesressemblancesetdessimilitudesn’estpasprobabledans
lescirconstances.D’abord,parcequelesélémentssemblablessonttropvariésettrop
nombreux.Eneffet,cen’estpasseulementlevocabulairequiestsouventlemême,mais
aussilesidées,lafactureetl’ordredeleurprésentation.Ensuite,parcequemêmesion
retenaitquetoutessessimilitudesdanslesdocumentsn’étaientquepurescoïncidencesentre
elles,celles-ciseseraientproduitesdansuncontextefactuelquilesrendentplus
qu’improbables.
173Maisvoilà,ilestclairquecen’estpascequiestarrivé.Ilestévidentquepourdetels
spécialistes,undépliantpublicitairedécrivantquelquescoursn’avaitquepeudevaleur.Ce
n’estévidemmentpasl’équivalentd’untextedecours,d’unarticleouencored’unouvrage.
C’estpeut-êtrepourcetteraison,queleprofesseurBeloutn’apascruoun’apassuqu’ilne
pouvaits’inspirerautantdesdocumentsdeSetym.Letempspressait,onétaitrenduen
septembre,lapériodedel’annéelaplusintenseàl’Université,etilfallaitposterauplustôtle
matérielauxclientssionvoulaitpouvoirtenirunséminaireendécembre.Onapensépouvoir
prendreceraccourciavecdumatérielnonacadémiquedepeudevaleurauxyeuxdu
professeurBelout.Mais,leTribunalestimequelaLoinelepermettaitpas.
174Eneffet,«[l]ecaractèreoriginald’uneoeuvrenes’étudiepas[…]pasàlalumièred’un
critèreuniqueetobjectif.Plusglobalement,lecaractèreoriginald’uneoeuvres’apprécieen
prenantenconsidérationletyped’oeuvreetleprocessusayantconduitàsacréation».Or,
commel’ontreconnunostribunaux,uneoeuvreestoriginale«lorsqu’elleestnotammentle
fruitd’untravaildeconceptionpardesmodificationsapportéesàl’oeuvreaufildesans»
SharelineSystemsLtd.v.N.B.


(2001-03-07),235N.B.R.(2d)162,35R.N.-B.(2e)162;607A.P.R.162,[2001]N.B.R.(2d)TBEd.
AP.002,[2001]CarswellNB109,11C.P.C.(5th)38,[2001]N.B.J.106,2001NBCA29(New
BrunswickCourtofAppeal)
Theplaintiffcomputercompanycontractedwiththeprovincetodevelopandinstalla
computersystemforadivisionoftheprovince’sdepartmentofeducation,includinga
softwareprogram.Relationsbetweenthepartiesdeteriorated.Thecomputercompany
claimedthattheprovincecontinuedtousethesoftwarewithoutexecutinganagreementas
toterms,andthattheprovinceallowedunauthorizeduseofthesoftware.Thecomputer
companybroughtanactionfordamagesforinfringementofcopyrightTheprovincebrought
amotionforsummaryjudgmentdismissingtheaction,pursuanttoR.22.02(3)oftheRulesof
Court,whichwasgranted,inpart,basedonaffidavitevidence.Thesecondparagraphof
themotionsjudge’sorderallowedthecomputercompanytoexaminetheprovinceandto
applyforleavetoamendthestatementofclaimafterwards.Thecomputercompany
appealed.
Held:Theappealwasallowedinpart.
PerDrapeauJ.A.(RobertsonJ.A.concurring):Theprovince’smaindefencetotheclaimof
copyrightinfringementwasthatithadceasedtousethesoftwareprograminAugust1999.
Theprovincerelieduponanaffidavitoftheexecutivedirectoroftheeducationaldivisionin
question.Themotionsjudgereachedhisdecisionbasedonadmissibleevidence,specifically,
theuncontradictedstatementsoffactintheaffidavit.Theaffidavitsubmittedbythe
computercompanydidnotcontradicttheprovince’sevidence.Thecomputercompany
couldnotreasonablyhopetosuccessfullyresisttheprovince’smotionbyrelyingexclusively
onthecontestedandunsubstantiatedallegationsoffactcontainedinthestatementof
claim.Thecomputercompanydidnotimpugntheexecutivedirector’scredibilityatthe
hearing.Therewasnogenuineissuefortrialinrespectoftheclaimofcopyrightinfringement.
Thesecondparagraphofthemotionsjudge’sorderwasincompatiblewithsummary
judgmentandwasstruckout.
PerRiceJ.A.(dissenting):Theaffidavitrelieduponbytheprovinceassertedthatareportby
anindependentauditorconfirmedthatnoinfringementhadoccurred.Theauthorofthe
reportdidnotfileanaffidavit.Thecontentofthereportwasnotadmissible.Themotions
judgeerredinlawindecidingthattheconclusionreachedinthereportwasproperlybefore
thecourtasbeinginthepersonalknowledgeoftheexecutivedirector.Ingrantingthe
computercompanytherighttoapplytoreintroducetheclaim,itwasapparentthatthe
motionsjudgewasnotsatisfiedthattheclaimwaswithoutmerit.Theproceedingsshouldnot
bereducedtoatrialbyaffidavits.Thecomputercompanywasdeniedtheopportunityto
directlychallengethefindingsoftheauthoroftheinvestigationreferredtointheexecutive
director’saffidavit.Theappealshouldbeallowedandthesummaryjudgmentshouldbeset
aside.
SOCANTariff17.A(Pay,SpecialtyandOtherServicesbyBroadcastingDistribution
Undertakings-Television)fortheyears1996to2000
(2001-02-16),15C.P.R.(4th)370,[2001]C.B.D.1,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/m16022001-b.pdf(CopyrightBoard)
Thecollectivesocietyappliedforthecertificationoftariff17.Aforthecommunicationtothe
publicbytelecommunicationofmusicalworksbyspecialtyandpaytelevisionservices.The
tariffappliedtotheyears1996through2000inclusive.Severalpartiesobjectedtothe
proposedtariff.Thepartiesreachedanagreementonanumberoftheissuesraisedbythe


tariff.Onlypaytelevisionservices,cabletelevisioninterests,directbroadcastingsatellite
(« DBS »)operatorsandcertainspecialtytelevisionservicestookactivepartintheproceedings.
In1996theboardissueditsfirstdecisionregardingspecialtyandpaytelevisionservicesforthe
years1990to1995inclusive.Thedecisionprovidedforaroyaltytobepaidbythetransmitter
equalto2.1percentofsubscriptionrevenuesfornon-portfolioservices(paytelevisionand
Americanspecialty).Subsequentto1996thepartiesreachedagreementonthecollectionof
theroyaltiesandtheirapportionmentamongtransmittersandservices.Theconsiderationof
theproposedtarifffortheyears1996to2000inclusivewasputonholdpendingthe
negotiationswhichresultedintheagreement.Intheinterim,thesituationasitstoodatthe
timeofthe1996decisionhadchangeddramatically.Thenumberofsignalscoveredbythe
tariffandtherevenuesgeneratedhadmorethandoubled,theaudiencesharehad
increasedbymorethanhalf,theboardhadreducedtheroyaltyratedfortariff2.Apayable
in1997bycommercialtelevisionstationsfrom2.1percentto1.8percent,andthenumberof
DBSsubscribershadincreasedfromafewthousandtooveronemillion.
ThepartieshadagreedtomaintainthecurrentformulaforCanadianspecialtyservices,to
maintaintheroyaltypayablein1996fornon-portfolioservicesandthattheboardneedonly
addresstheamountofroyaltiespayablefornon-portfolio[page371]servicesfortheyears
1997to2000inclusive.Theissuethatremainedwaswhetherthereductionwhich
conventionalstationsenjoyedpursuanttothedecisionintariff2.Ashouldbereflectedintariff
17.A.
Thepartiesagreedthattherewasnochangeintheuseofmusicbynon-portfolioservices.
Held,thetariffshouldbecertifiedinaccordancewiththetermsfixedbytheboard.
Thecertifiedtariffreflectedthetermsoftheagreementreachedbythepartieswithrespect
totheservicesthatformedpartoftheportfolio.Inviewofthereasonsunderlyingthedecision
regardingnon-portfolioservices,theparticipantsmightconsideradoptingovertheshortor
mediumtermatariffforportfolioservicesbasedonthetariffapplicabletonon-portfolio
services.
Thetariffforconventionaltelevisionbroadcastersandspecialtyservicesshouldnotcreatea
competitiveimbalancebetweenthetwoplayers.Thebestwaytoachievecompetitive
balancewastoensurethatasinglepriceappliedequallytotheentirecommercialtelevision
industry–conventionalorother.Thebestwaytopromoteconsistencywouldbetomerge
thetariffs.Thedecisionwasastepinthatdirection.
Althoughdifferencesexistedbetweenconventionaltelevisionandspecialtyandpay
televisionservices,convergencefactorswereclearlypredominant.Allprogramming
undertakingsoperatedinthesameenvironment.Settingadifferentpriceforanyspecific
sectorwouldnecessarilyleadtoamarketimbalance.
Atariffwascertifiedatthenegotiatedrateof2.1percentfor1996andat1.8percentfor
theyears1997to2000inclusive.
SOCANStatementsofRoyalties,1998-2002(Tariffs4.A,4.B.1,4.B.3,5.B–Concerts)(Re)
(2001-06-15),13C.P.R.(4th)45,[2001]C.B.D.7,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/m15062001-b.pdf(CopyrightBoard)
Thecollectivesocietyfiledaproposedstatementofroyaltiesforthepublicperformanceof
musicalworksatconcertsfortheyears1998to2002.Theassociationobjectedtocertain



paragraphsintheproposedstatementrelatingtoanincreaseinthetariff.Thecollective
societysoughtanincreaseinthetariffof20percentover5yearsforpopularandclassical
musicandforpresenterswhoselicencesappliedtoanentireseason.
Held,thetariffshouldbecertifiedinaccordancewiththetermsfixedbytheboard.
Theproceedingshighlightedaconfusionbetweentheaestheticvalueofthemusic
performedandtheeconomiccontributionofthemusictoaconcertasaproduct.The
aestheticvaluewasonlyasecondaryfactorindeterminingtheamountthatapresenteris
preparedtopay.Certainofthefactorstendedtojustifyanincreaseinthetariffwhereas
otherstendedtopromoteadegreeofstability.Thefactthatthemarkethadabsorbeda
largeincreaseinticketpriceshowedthatdemandforconcertticketswassomewhat
inelastic.
Therecordintheproceedingsandacomparisonwiththecollectivesociety’sothertariffs
justifiedtheincreaserequestedto3percentofboxofficereceiptsforpopularconcerts,to
1.56percentofboxofficereceiptsforclassicalconcertsandto.96percentofaseason’s
receiptsforaseasonlicence.
Theboardalsooutlinedthekindofevidencethatitwouldlikeaddressed,andwhichmight
influence,itsnextdecision.[page46]
SociétédesLoteriesduQuébecv.ClubLottoInternationalC.L.I.Inc.
(2001-01-25),13C.P.R.(4th)315,[2001]F.T.R.TBEd.FE.081,[2001]F.C.J.94,[2001]A.C.F.94,
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/cf/2001/ori/2001cf28116.html,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cf/2001/2001cf28116.html(FederalCourt,TrialDivision)BlaisJ.
TheplaintifffirstintroducedthelotteryLOTTO6/49inJune1992.Ithasbeenhighlysuccessful
withcumulativesalesofoversevenandahalfbilliondollars.Theplaintiffownedthreeofficial
marks,themark6/49andtwodesignmarksincludingtheexpression »LOTTO6/49″.Theplaintiff
allegedthatitstickets,groupagreementsandcombinationtableswerethesubjectof
copyrights.
Thedefendantisacustomeroftheplaintiff.Itbuysfromanauthorizeddealeroftheplaintiff
combinationticketswhichproduce84combinationsofsixnumbers.Itusestheseticketsin
promotingbuyersclubs,whichitsuggestsasawayofmaximizingchancesofwinning.The
plaintiffconsideredsuchastatementtobeonetendingtosuggestthatthewinningnumbers
couldbemanipulatedandregardedsuchstatementsasfalseandmisleading,tendingto
discredittheplaintiff’sproductsandbusiness.
Initsadvertisingandpackagingoftickets,thedefendantusedthewords »6/49″and »Lotto
6/49″incombinationwiththeword »Canadian »andreproducedinitsadvertising,without
permission,allorasubstantialpartoftheplaintiff’sticket.Italsoreproducedtheplaintiff’s
combinationtableandasubstantialpartofitsgroupagreements,allwithoutauthorization.
Theplaintiffbroughtanactionforapermanentinjunctiontopreventfurtheruseofitsmarksin
advertisingorothermaterialandthewithdrawalfromuseofany[page316]advertisingor
documentarymaterialreproducingtheplaintiff’smaterialsoritstrade-marks.
Held,apermanentinjunctionshouldbegrantedagainstthedefendant.
OfficialMarks


Itwasclearlyshownthattheplaintiff’sofficialmarkswereusedordisplayedinthe
performanceoradvertisingofthedefendant’sserviceseitherastrade-marksorotherwise.The
defendanthadadopted,astrade-marksorotherwise,markssonearlyresemblingtheofficial
marksastobelikelytobemistakenforthosemarks.
Section7Claims
Whilethedefendantsuggestedtopossiblecustomersthatbyuseofitsstatisticalsoftware,
theywouldhaveagreaterchanceofwinningwithselectedfutureticketsbearingnumbers
whichhadcomeupmostfrequentlyinthepast,thisdidnotamounttoafalseormisleading
statement,unders.7(a)oftheAct,tendingtodiscreditthebusinessoftheplaintiff.
Theevidencedidnotclearlyestablishthatthedefendant’sconductoffendedeithers.7(b)or
7(d)(i)oftheAct.
Copyright
Itwasadmittedbythedefendantthatinitsadvertising,itcopiedtheLOTTO6/49ticketsof
theplaintiffandthatitreproduced,almostinfull,apartofthetableappearingonthe
plaintiff’scombinationticket.Thedefendantalsoadmittedthattheplaintiffwasownerof
copyrightinbothsubjectmatters.Thedefendant’sgroupagreementwasonlyadisguised
imitationoftheplaintiff’sgroupagreement.Thecopyingwasdonewithoutrightor
authorization.Eachoftheseactsinfringedtheplaintiff’scopyrights.
SociétéRadio-Canadac.AmberolaLesdisques,s.e.n.c.
(2001-08-09),J.E.2001-1737,REJB2001-26392(CoursupérieureduQuébec)JugeCarolCohen
Résumé
Requêteeninjonctioninterlocutoireetactioneninjonctionpermanenteetendommages
exemplaires(25000$).Accueillies.
De1995à1998,l’intiméDuchesneaeuaccèsauxarchivesdelarequéranteenvuede
produireunesériededisques.Ilaoccupéunbureaudansleslocauxdecelle-ci,et,grâceà
larelationdeconfiancequ’ilsavaientdéveloppée,ilapuemprunterdesarchivescinq
rubanssonorescomprenantdumatérielsurlachanteuseÉdithPiaf(Piaf).Ladescriptiondu
matérielfiguresurlesfichesd’empruntqueDuchesneasignées.Lerubanno631011-2
contientl’émissionLebelâgediffuséeenoctobre1963lorsdudécèsdePiafainsiqu’une
entrevueréaliséele7septembre1948,lorsdelavisitedePiafàMontréalpourunconcertau
Monumentnational.Ilestadmisquecettedernièren’estvenueàMontréalqu’àcetteseule
occasionaveclesCompagnonsdelachanson.Enjanvier1999,l’intiméeAmberola,dont
Duchesneestl’undesassociés,aproduitundisquedePiafquicontientengrandepartiele
contenudesrubansempruntés,maissanslesrenseignementsrelatifsàlarequérante.
L’entrevueestcréditéeaupostederadioCKAC.Invoquantlaviolationdesondroitd’auteur
etdesondroitdepropriétésurlesrubansprêtés,larequéranteréclamedesinjonctions
interlocutoireetpermanenteainsiquedesdommagesexemplaires.Lesintiméssoutiennent
qu’iln’existepasdepreuvesuffisantepourconclurequelecontenududisqueprovientdes
bandesmaîtressesdelarequérante.Ilsnientlacontraventionaudroitd’auteurpuisquele
contenuproviendraitd’unconcertdonnéen1948quiaétédiffuséetdontlecontenufait
partiedudomainepublic.Duchesneprétendavoirutilisédesrubansobtenusd’undénommé
Mainville.
Décision
L’écoutedel’acétateoriginaldel’entrevueetdudisqueenlitigepermetdeconstaterqu’il
s’agitdelamêmeentrevuesanslesmentionsdunomdelarequérante,laissantcroirequ’ilne


s’agitpasd’uneentrevuedecelle-ci.Lamêmeconclusions’imposequantauxchansons.Elles
sontissuesduconcertde1948enregistréparlarequérante.LeCatalogue1998deFonovox,
quipréciselecontenududisque,faitréférenceauxarchivesdelarequérante.Ilsepeutque
Mainvilleait,luiaussi,captésurrubanslesémissionsde1948oude1963,maiscelane
changerienaufaitqueDuchesneaeulapossessiondesrubansdelarequéranteet
qu’aprèslarupturedeleurrelationd’affairesilaproduitundisqueenpartieidentiqueau
contenudecesrubans,qu’iln’ad’ailleursjamaisremisàlarequérante.Laproduction,la
confectionetlareproductiondudisqueenlitigeontétéfaitesenpartieillégalementàl’aide
d’enregistrementsappartenantàlarequérante.
Lesdroitsd’auteurssubsistentdansdesoeuvrespréparéesetproduitesen1963parla
requérante.Or,ledisqueenlitigeestenpartieunecopiedel’émissionde1963,etce,sans
l’autorisationdel’auteur,cequicontrevientauxdispositionsdesarticles2et27delaLoisurle
droitd’auteur.Laprotectiondecesdroitsexpireseulementàlafindelacinquantième
annéequisuitleurfixation.Larequérantedétienttoujoursdesdroitsd’auteursurl’émissionde
1963etnonseulementsurlesrubans.Laproduction,laconfectionetlareproductiondu
disqueconstituentuneviolationdesdroitsd’auteurdecelle-ci.Larequéranteestpropriétaire
detoutexemplairedudisqueainsiquedetoutmatérielayantserviouétantdestinéàla
confectiond’exemplairesdudisque.Lesintimésdevrontdonccesserdeproduire,
confectionneroureproduireledisque,s’abstenirdesedépartiroudedétruirelematériel
relatifàcetteproduction,s’abstenirdefairedelapublicitéausujetdudisqueainsiquedesa
miseenmarché.Deplus,ilsdevrontremettreàlarequérantetoutexemplairedudisqueet
toutlematérielayantserviàsaconfectionetàsaproduction.Comptetenudelagravitédu
geste,soitlacontrefaçonetl’utilisationdelapropriétédelarequérante,etdufaitqu’aucune
indemnitécompensatoiren’aétédemandée,ilestappropriédecondamnersolidairement
lessociétésAmberolaetDuchesneàdesdommagesexemplairesde25000$.
SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav.CanadianAssn.OfInternet
Providers
(2001-02-05),10C.P.R.(4th)417,[2001]F.C.J.166,[2001]CarswellNat206,2001FCA4,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fc/2001/2001fc28204.html(FederalCourtofAppeal)
TheapplicantappliedforjudicialreviewofadecisionoftheCopyrightBoardrelatingtoa
statementofproposedroyaltieswithrespecttothecommunicationofmusicalworksoverthe
Internet.Theapplicantnamedasrespondentsthemovingparties,entitieswhocouldbe
liableforsuchroyalties,andtwoentitieswhohadbeengrantedleavetointerveneinthe
proceedingsbeforetheboard(the »interveners »).
EachoftheintervenersfiledanoticeofappearancepursuanttoRule305oftheFederal
CourtRules,1998,SOR/98-106,statingitsintentiontoopposetheapplicationforjudicial
reviewandfiledarecordinwhichitsupportedtheapplicant’sposition.Themovingparties
broughtamotiontostriketherecordofeachintervener.
Held,themotionshouldbegranted.
OneofthepurposesoftheFederalCourtRules,1998wastocodifytherulesthatgovern
applicationsforjudicialreview.Rule305wasintendedtoplayapivotalroleinajudicial
reviewapplicationinallowingthecourtandthepartiestoknowatanearlystagewhichof
thenamedrespondentswouldtrulyopposetheapplication.
Theintervenersdonottrulyopposetheapplicant’sapplication.Instead,theyadvance
differentargumentswithaviewtopersuadingthecourttoallowtheapplicationbutfor


differentreasons.Therecordsoftheintervenerswerethereforenotproperlyfiledandshould
bestruck,butwithoutprejudicetotherightsofeitheroftheintervenerstoseekleaveto
interveneintheapplicant’sjudicialreviewapplication.
SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav.CanadianAssn.OfInternet
Providers
(2001),10C.P.R.(4th)417,267N.R.82,[2001]N.R.TBEd.FE.054,2001FCA4,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fc/2001/2001fc28204.html(FederalCourtofAppeal)
TheapplicantappliedforjudicialreviewofadecisionoftheCopyrightBoardrelatingtoa
statementofproposedroyaltieswithrespecttothecommunicationofmusicalworksoverthe
Internet.Theapplicantnamedasrespondentsthemovingparties,entitieswhocouldbe
liableforsuchroyalties,andtwoentitieswhohadbeengrantedleavetointerveneinthe
proceedingsbeforetheboard(the »interveners »).
EachoftheintervenersfiledanoticeofappearancepursuanttoRule305oftheFederal
CourtRules,1998,SOR/98-106,statingitsintentiontoopposetheapplicationforjudicial
reviewandfiledarecordinwhichitsupportedtheapplicant’sposition.Themovingparties
broughtamotiontostriketherecordofeachintervener.
Held,themotionshouldbegranted.
OneofthepurposesoftheFederalCourtRules,1998wastocodifytherulesthatgovern
applicationsforjudicialreview.Rule305wasintendedtoplayapivotalroleinajudicial
reviewapplicationinallowingthecourtandthepartiestoknowatanearlystagewhichof
thenamedrespondentswouldtrulyopposetheapplication.
Theintervenersdonottrulyopposetheapplicant’sapplication.Instead,theyadvance
differentargumentswithaviewtopersuadingthecourttoallowtheapplicationbutfor
differentreasons.Therecordsoftheintervenerswerethereforenotproperlyfiledandshould
bestruck,butwithoutprejudicetotherightsofeitheroftheintervenerstoseekleaveto
interveneintheapplicant’sjudicialreviewapplication.
SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav.LandmarkCinemasof
CanadaLtd.
(2001-05-30),[2001]F.C.J.843,[2001]F.T.R.Uned.352,2001FCT534,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cf/2001/2001cfpi534.html[French](FederalCourtofCanada,
TrialDivision)Hugessen,J.
[1]ThisisamotionforsummaryjudgmentbroughtbythedefendantLandmarkCinemas
seekingthedismissaloftheactionbroughtagainstitbytheplaintiff,commonlyknownas
SOCANwhichisaperformingrightsociety.Theactionallegescopyrightinfringementin
certainmusicalworksinwhichSOCANholdstherights,musicalworkscopyrightinwhichis
allegedtohavebeeninfringedduringtheperformancebythedefendantofcertainmotion
picturesintheatersinWesternCanada.
[5]Now,itmaybethatwhenthisactiongoestotrial,thetrieroffactwilldecidethatthe
factsasmentionedinMr.McIntosh’saffidavitinsupportofthismotionareindeedtrue.But
thatisaseriousissuefortrialandIamunable,sittingonamotionforsummaryjudgmentto
makeanysuchfindingontheaffidavitofMr.McIntoshwhoistheonlywitnesswhohas
affirmedinsupportofthemotionandwhosecredibilityis,asIsay,verymuchindoubt.


VolkswagenCanadaInc.v.AccessInternationalAutomotiveLtd.
(2001-03-21),[2001]N.R.TBEd.AP.053,[2001]3F.C.311,[2001]F.C.J.446,2001FCA79,
http://www.fja.gc.ca/fc/2001/pub/v3/2001fc28480.htmlEnglish],
http://www.cmf.gc.ca/cf/2001/pub/v3/2001cf28480.html[French](FederalCourtofAppeal)
VolkswagenCanadaInc.suedAccessInternationalAutomotiveLtd.,claimingcopyright
infringement.VolkswagenCanadamovedtostrikeoutcertainparagraphsofthestatement
ofdefenceandcounterclaimfiledbyAccessInternational.AProthonotaryoftheFederal
CourtofCanada,TrialDivision,inadecisionreportedat174F.T.R.161,allowedthemotion.
AccessInternationalappealed.TheFederalCourtofCanada,TrialDivision,inadecision
reportedat171F.T.R.311,dismissedtheappeal.AccessInternationalappealed.TheFederal
CourtofAppealdismissedtheappeal.
Aplaintiffinacopyrightinfringementactionmovedtostrikeparagraphsfromthestatement
ofdefenceandcounterclaimthatrelatedtos.32oftheCompetitionAct-Section32
authorizedtheFederalCourttograntaremedyforcertainusesofacopyrightifthatuse
undulylessenedorpreventedcompetition-TheFederalCourtofAppealaffirmedthatthe
paragraphsshouldbestruckfromthecounterclaimwherethedefendanthadnotsatisfied
thestatutorypreconditionsforclaimingaremedyforas.32breach-However,thecourt
refusedtostriketheparagraphsfromthestatementofdefence-Theplaintiffhadclaimed
equitablereliefandthefailuretosatisfythestatutorypreconditionsdidnotbarthedefence
ofuncleanhands-Thedefendantsoughttoarguethattheassignmentofthecopyrightsin
questiontotheplaintiffcamewithins.32(1)becauseitundulylimitedorprevented
competition-Itwasarguablethatasufficientrelationshipexistedbetweenthecopyrightand
theuncleanhandsdefencetodenyanequitableremedy.
WaltDisneyCo.v.JaneDoe
(2001-01-11),11C.P.R.(4th)69,[2001]F.C.J.26(subnomineNikeCanadaLtd.v.JaneDoe),
199F.T.R.55,[2001]F.T.R.TBEd.FE.020(subnomineViacomHa!HoldingCo.v.Doe)
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fc/2001/2001fc28048.html(FederalCourt,TrialDivision)Pelletier
J.
Inseparateactionsrelatingtotheallegeddistributionandsaleofcounterfeitgoods,the
plaintiffsobtaineda »rolling »AntonPillerorderandexecutedtheorderagainstthe
defendants.Onamotiontoreviewtheorder,thedefendantsraisedobjectionsrelatingto
theconditionsfortheissuanceoftheorder,whethertherewasevidencesufficienttojustify
theexecutionoftheorder,themannerinwhichtheorderhadbeenexecutedandwhether
theorderoffendedtheCanadianCharterofRightsandFreedoms.Themotionsjudge
dismissedtheobjectionsandgrantedtherevieworder.Thedefendantsthenfiledstatements
ofdefenceandcounterclaims.Inthecounterclaims,theysoughtdamagesfromtheplaintiffs
allegingthattheirgoodshadbeenwronglyseizedandtakingissuewiththemannerinwhich
theseizureshadbeenconducted.Theplaintiffsbroughtamotiontostrikethecounterclaims
onthegroundsthattheywerefrivolousandvexatiousorthattheywereanabuseofprocess,
astheissuesraisedhadbeenpreviouslydecidedonthereviewmotion.Theplaintiffsreliedon
thedoctrinesofresjudicataandissueestoppel.
Held,themotionshouldbeallowed.
Itwasnotamatterofresjudicataorissueestoppelbutratherthejurisdictionofthecourt.The
courthadjurisdictiontoissuetheAntonPillerorderandtoassessdamagesuponproofof


counterfeitingpursuanttos.53.2oftheTrade-marksAct,[page70]R.S.C.1985,c.T-13.
However,therewasnolegislationallowingthecourttoadjudicateonaclaimofwrongfulor
improperseizureandawarddamagesonsuchaclaimeventhoughitaroseinthecontextof
aclaimwhichwaswithinthecourt’sjurisdiction.Iftheseizureswerefoundtobewrongfulafter
trial,thedefendantscouldcallupontheplaintiffs’undertakingastodamagesgivenasa
conditionofobtainingtheAntonPillerorder.
Weetman(c.o.b.BetaDigitalMapping)v.Baldwin
(2001-10-03),[2001]B.C.J.2358,[2001]CarswellBC2499,2001BCPC292(BritishColumbia
ProvincialCourt-SmallClaimsDivision)RomillyProv.Ct.J.
[44]CanadianlawsetsoutintheCopyrightActthat »maps »areincludedinthedefinitionof
« artisticwork »andisthereforecopyrightable.Itstrikesmethatitsmereinclusionsuggeststhat
anyonewhopreparesamapwhichisnotcopiedfromanothermap,evenifidenticalto
anothermap,hasaprimafacierighttoacopyrightforthatmap,andthesolerightto
produceorreproducethatmaporanysubstantialpartofitinanymaterialformwhatever.It
followsthatitisaninfringementofthatcopyrightforanypersontoproduceorreproduce
thatmaporanysubstantialpartofitinanymaterialformwithouttheconsentoftheownerof
thatcopyright.
[45]ThestateofCanadianlawonthesubjectisthatitisnotopenforsomeonetoarguethat
trails,roadsandotherfeaturesdetailedwithaprecisionandanaccuracynotpreviously
attainedbyothermapmakersoftheregioninquestion,whichwasfacilitatedbyaparticular
processpioneeredbyamapmaker,becomeacompilationoffactstowhicheveryonecan
copyandor/usewithouttheconsentofthemapmakerbecauseithassomehowbeen
placedinthe »publicdomain »ortoenunciatetheAmericanpositionsetoutbyP.Goldstein
(supra)that »itisacentralprincipleofcopyrightlawthatfactsshouldbefreeforalltouse,
andthusshouldnotbeconstrainedbycopyright;togivecopyrighttooneauthor’sdisclosure
offactswouldrequireotherauthorstorediscoverthosefactsontheirown,awastefuleffort
thatwillproduceneithernewknowledgenornewart. »
[46]WiththegreatestrespecttoP.Goldstein[Copyright-PrinciplesLawandPractice(Little
BrownandCo,1989)].,itstrikesmethattheCanadianpositionremainsthatanauthor’s
disclosureoffactswhichcontainacertainlevelofcreativitycancertainlybeusedby
anotherprovidingtheconsentofthatauthorisobtained.
[47]Furtherontheevidence,IfindthattheClaimanthasevendemonstratedthathismap
metthecriteriasetoutintheAmericancaseofMasonv.MontgomeryDataInc.[967F.2d135
(5thCir.1992)],acasewithfactsverysimilartothecaseatbar,inthathismapcontained
differenceswhichwere »thenaturalresultof(his)selectionofsources,interpretationofthose
sources,andskillandjudgmentindepictingtheinformation. »Furtheraswassetoutinthat
caseIfindthattheClaimanthasdemonstratedinpreparinghismapthat »thechoiceshe
madeinselectingsourcesandhistransformationofthosechoicesintolinesonamap
demonstratedsufficientoriginalitytopasstherequirementofFeist. »,andfurtherthatthe
Claimant’smapalsodeservedcopyrightprotectionas »pictorialandgraphicworksof
authorship. »
[48]IfindthattheClaimantpioneeredaprocesswherebyhecombinedaerialphotos
digitallywithtrimdatasetsobtainedfromtheBritishColumbiagovernmentbyemploying
speciallycreatedsoftwareandachievinganaccuracyoflocationandmeasurementonhis
mapwhichhadnotbeenachievedbypreviouslyexistingmapsofthearea.Ifindthatitisthis
originalityandcreativitythattheDefendantsoughttocopyandthattheevidencesuggests


thathecopiedatleastsixfeaturesfromtheClaimant’smap,eventotheextentofcopyinga
deliberatelymislabelednamedeliberatelyplacedonthemaptotrapinfringers,andthathe
employedthesefeaturesinhisownmapwithouttheconsentoftheownerofthecopyright
andtothedetrimentofthecopyrightowner’sinterests.
[49]IaccepttheClaimant’stestimonythatitwasimpossiblefortheDefendanttomapthe
trailswithanyprecisiononhismapbecausehedidnotpossesstheorthophotoswhichwere
obtainedasaresultofthespecializedmapsoftwareemployedbytheClaimant,andfurther
thattheonlyviablesourcefortheDefendant’smapwasamapwithasimilarscaleasthe
Claimant’s,andtherewerenoneinexistence.
[50]ThereisnodoubtthattheDefendantemployedothersourcestocreatehismapbuton
hisownadmissionhereferredtotheClaimant’smapwhenproducingallofthedisputed
featuresandcouldnothavemappedthosefeaturesaccuratelyifhehadnotreferredtothe
Claimant’smap.Hedeniedtracingfromthemapbutadmittedthathewouldlookatthe
Claimant’smap »withhiseyeandthendrawit(thefeature)in »whichinmyopinionmayfall
shortoftracing,butcertainlyamountstocopying.Asamatteroffact,theDefendant’s
responsetotheClaimant’squestionwhyhedidnotrequesthispermissionwasthathedidnot
thinkitwasnecessarytogetpermissionforinformationtakenfrommaps-whichhefeelswas
theAmericanpositionthathewasentitled
[53]IthereforefindthattheDefendanthasinfringedtheClaimant’scopyrighttohismapand
isentitledtodamagescalculatedinaccordancewiththeguidelinessetoutintheSlumber-
Magiccase(supra).TheevidencesuggeststhattheDefendantearned$11,631.25profitafter
expensesweredeductedduringtheperiodoftimeheplacedtheillegallycopiedmapon
themarketincompetitionwiththeClaimant’smapandtothedetrimentoftheClaimant’s
interests.TheClaimanthasabandonedtheexcessover$10,000.00tobringthematterwithin
thejurisdictionofthisCourt.NeedlesstosaytheClaimantcontinuestosufferlossaslongas
theDefendant’smapremainsonthemarket.Howeveritisnotwithinthejurisdictionofthis
Courttograntinjunctionsinthisregard.
Yeagerv.Canada(CorrectionalService)
(2001-05-30),[2001]F.C.J.687,[2001]CarswellNat856,2001FCT434,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fc/2001/2001fct434.html(FederalCourtofCanada-Trial
Division)SimpsonJ.
ThisapplicationisforjudicialreviewofadecisionoftheCorrectionalServiceofCanada
(CSC)foundinalettertotheApplicantdatedApril10,1997inwhichitdeniedhisrequestsfor
accesstoinformation[interalia,acopyoftheOffenderIntakeAssessmentsoftware(current
versioninoperation),whichincludesthe:CustodyRatingScale(CRS),theGSIR,andthe
CommunityRisk/NeedsManagementScale,amongotherfeatures.Theseitemswillbe
describedcollectivelyasthe »Software »].
[18]wasreferredtonocaseswhichdirectlyaddresstheissueofwhethersoftwareis
producibleinresponsetoarequestundersection4oftheAct.However,itseemstomethat
twoquestionsmustbeansweredinordertodecidetheissue.Thethresholdquestionis
whetherthesoftwareexistsandifnotwhetheritmustbecreated,giventheparametersset
outinsection4(3)oftheActandsection3oftheRegulations.IftheSoftwareexistsormust
becreated,itmustthenbedecidedwhetheritisarecordundertheAct.
[24]BasedonMr.Motiuk’sevidence,IampersuadedthattheSoftwaredoesnotexistina
formatwhichhecoulduseonhispersonalcomputer.Aswell,theevidenceisclearthatMr.


Motiukisnotnormallyengagedwritingsoftware.Thisworkisnormallydonebyoutside
consultants.Further,thereisnosuggestioninthematerialthattheworkneededtobreakup
theOMSsoftwareintodistinctmodulessuitableforuseonapersonalcomputerasrequested
bytheApplicant,iswithinthenormalexpertiseoftheCSC.Accordingly,itismyviewthat,
eveniftheSoftwarewasarecord,itwouldnotbeproducibleundersection4(3)oftheAct.
[25]Ihavealsoconcludedthatsoftwareisnotarecord.[…]
[26]Thequestion,basedonthisdefinition,iswhethersoftwareshouldbeincludedinthe
catch-allphrase »anyotherdocumentarymaterial ».[…]
[28]Inmyview,softwareisnotanalogoustoanyoftheitemsinthedefinitionandtherefore
fallsoutsidethedefinition.ThedefinitionofrecordintheActinthecomputercontextis
limitedtothedataandthedisk.Thus,inpropercases,dataonadiskmustbesuppliedunder
theAct.However,Parliamenthasnot,inmyview,saidthatsoftwaremustbesuppliedand,
giventhecomplexcopyrightissueswhichwouldariseiftheActcoveredsoftware,Iwould
expectsoftwareexpresslytobelistedifithadbeenParliament’sintentiontohaveit
accessibleundertheAct.Ihaveconcludedthatitisthepartywhorequestsaccesstodata
inmachinereadableformwhomustsecurethesoftwareandhardwareneededtoviewand
analysethedata.Accordingly,noorderwillbemadewithrespecttotheSoftware.



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
YLAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENT
CARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRE
LAURENTCARRIÈRE
OURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD