Compilation préliminaire des décisions rendues au Canada en 2004 en matière de droit d’auteur / A Compilation of the Decisions Rendered In Canada with Respect to Copyright in 2004

1
COMPILATIONPRÉLIMINAIREDESDÉCISIONSRENDUESAUCANADAEN2004EN
MATIÈREDEDROITD’AUTEUR
ACOMPILATIONOFTHEDECISIONSRENDEREDINCANADAWITHRESPECTTO
COPYRIGHTIN2004

LaurentCarrière*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com
1.334154AlbertaLimitedforthereproductionofarchitecturalplansfortheproperty
locatedat3515,17thAvenueSWinCalgary[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File
No.2003-UO/TI-26;availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/129-e.pdf
(CopBd;2004-01-15)
2.AdjeleianAllenRubeliLimitedforthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthe
propertylocatedat205RichmondRoadinOttawa[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissued
to]FileNo.2004-UO/TI-06;availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/133-
e.pdf(CopBd;2004-02-18)
3.APCMusic&VideoInc.v.theVancouverPoliceDepartmentandSergeantDougFisher,[
2004]
CarswellBC3065
,
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2004/03/p04_0365.htm
(BCPCt;
2004-04-260)revd[2004]CarswellBC2950,2004BCSC1657,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/04/16/2004bcsc1657.htmand
http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcsc/2004/2004bcsc1657.html(BCSC;2004-12-14)
Koenigsberg.
4.Ass.desproducteursdefilmsetdetélévisionduQuébecc.Associationdes
réalisateursetdesréalisatricesduQuébec,2004IIJCan490,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2004/2004qccs11094.html(QueSupCt;2004-02-20)
ChaputJ

5.B&AConstructionltéevBétaplexincREJB2004-60176,[2004]CarswellQue773,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2004/2004qccs17016.html,
http://www.jugements.qc.ca(QueSupCt;2004-03-20)Normand,J.[inappeal500-09-
014493-043]


















































©LaurentCarrière,2005.*Avocatetagentdemarquesdecommerce,LaurentCarrièreestl’undesassociés
principauxducabinetd’avocatsLEGERROBICRICHARD,s.e.n.c.etducabinetd’agentsde
brevetsetdemarquesdecommerceROBIC,s.e.n.c.Lesgrassesindiquentlerecueilduquel
lesnotesdel’arrêtistesontététirées.Lawyerandtrademarkagent,LaurentCarrièreisoneof
theseniorpartnersinthelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andinthepatentand
trademarkagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.Theboldcharactersindicatesinwhichcaseseriesthe
headnoteshavebeentaken.Publication329.

2
6.BMGCanadaIncvJohnDoe[2004]CarswellNat835,2004FC488,[2004]3FCR241,
32CPR(4th)64,239DLR(4th)726,[2004]FTRTBE.AP010,250FTR267,
http://reports.fja.gc.ca/fc/src/shtml/2004/pub/v3/2004fc34396.shtml,inFrenchat
REJB2004-60025,[2004]CarswellNat2774,2004CF488,2004FC488,
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc488.shtmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf488.shtmland
http://recueil.cmf.gc.ca/cf/src/shtml/2004/pub/v3/2004cf34396.shtml(FC;2004-03-31)
vonFinckensteinJ.;[inappeal]
7.Brant(Richard)forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthepropertylocatedat
126-128BaselineRoadinOttawa[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]FileNo.2004-
UO/TI-21;availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/139-e.pdf(CopBd;
2004-06-23)
8.CabinSafetyInc.vMarshCanadaLtd[2004]CarswellNat194,2004FC74,30CPR
(4th)335,[2004]FTRUned39,http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc74.shtml,in
Frenchat[2004]CarswellNat620,2004CF74,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf74.shtml(FC;2004-01-20)RouleauJ.
9.CanadianCopyrightLicensingAgency(« AccessCopyright »)vChen[2004]FCJ1448
(FC;2004-08-05)O »KeefeJ.
10.CanadianPrivateCopyingCollectivevAmicoImagingServicesInc[2004]
CarswellNat846.2004FC469,249FTR312,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc469.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc469.shtml,inFrench
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf469.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf469.shtml[2004]CarswellNat3832(FC;2004-03-26)BlaisJ.
11.CanadianPrivateCopyingCollectivev.CanadianStorageMediaAlliance[2004]
CarswellNat4681,2004FCAhttp://decisions.fca-
caf.gc.ca/fca/2004/2004fca424.shtml(FCA;2004-12-14)NoëlJ.
12.CarletonCondominiumCorporationNo.281forthereproductionofelectricalplans
forthepropertylocatedat100StratasCourtinOttawa[ReNon-exclusivelicence
issuedto]FileNo.2004-UO/TI-04;availableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/132-e.pdf(CopBd;2004-02-05)
13.CCC446forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthepropertylocatedat
99HollandAvenueinOttawa[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]FileNo.2004-UO/TI-
16;availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/137-e.pdf(CopBd;2004-04-
05)
14.CCHCanadianLimitedvTheLawSocietyofUpperCanada[2000]2FC451&[2000]3
FCii,(FCTD;1999-11-09);revd(2002),[2002]CarswellNat1000,[]http://decisionsfct-
cfgcca/fct/2002/2002fca187.html[2000]FCA187(FCA);revd(2002),18CPR(4th)161
(FCA-Merits;2002-05-14);revd[2004]1SCR339,2004CarswellNat4462004SCC13,
236DLR(4th)395,317NR107,30CPR(4th)1,[2004]FSR44,JE2004-602,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/2004/2004scc13.htmland
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc013.wpd.html;in
Frenchathttp://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/csc/2004/2004csc14.htmland
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/fr/rec/html/2004csc013.wpd.html(SCC;
2004-03-04);[2004]CarswellNat2929,2004FCA278,34CPR(4th)1,243DLR(4th)759,
2004CAF278,34CPR(4th)1,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fca/2004/2004fca278.html,
inFrenchat[2004]CarswellNat4352,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/caf/2004/2004caf278.html(FCA-Costs;2004-08-25)

3
15.Charron(EricA.),forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthepropertylocated
at27MonkStreetinOttawa(ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto)FileNo.2004-UO/TI-
28;availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/142-e.pdf(CopBd;2004-09-
22)
16.CheesecakeFactoryInc[The]v9092-1651QuébecInc2004CF628,[2004]
CarswellNat1251,http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf628.html,
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf628.shtml(FC;2004-04-28)Morneau,a.s.p.
17.ChristopherSimmondsArchitectforthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthe
propertylocatedat154BillingsAvenueinOttawa[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]
FileNo.2004-UO/TI-02;availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/130-e.pdf
(CopBd;2004-01-27)
18.CollinsvAbrams*[2004]CarswellBC403,2004BCCA96,195BCAC.47,319WAC47,
http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcca/2004/2004bcca96.htmland
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/04/00/2004bcca0096.htm(BCCA;2004-02-
13)FinchJ.
19.ColumbiaPicturesIndustriesIncvFrankl[2004]CarswellNat3727,2004FC1454,[2004]
FTRUned903,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc1454.htmland
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc1454.shtml(FC;2004-10-21]Tremblay-
LamerJ.
20.CorporationCinégroupe,Re[2004]CarswellQue9021(QueSupCt;2004-10-15)Tingley
J
21.Cossette-Trudelc.Carle[2004]CarswellQue2316,2004IIJCan29912,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2004/2004qccs15590.html(QueSuptCt;2004-09-23)
CrôteauJ.
22.Dauphinaisc.ClubautosportdéfiInc.,2004IIJCan15307,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccq/2004/2004qccq10841.html(QueCtCivDivSmall
Claims;2004-1-26)
23.DisneyEnterprisesInc.v2631-5374QuebecInc2004FC1360,[2004]CarswellNat3522,
[2004]FTRTNEDOCO30http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc1360.shtml,in
Frenchathttp://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf1360.shtml(FC;2004-10-04)
HarringtonJ.
24.EntreprisesBigknowledgeinc.c.SkuraCorp.REJB2004-60340,[2004]CarswellQue783
(QueSupCt;2004-04-02)Bishop,J
25.EROS–Équipederechercheopérationnelleensantéinc.vConseillersengestion
informatiqueCGIinc.[2004]CarswellNat3885,35CPR(4th)105,;2004CF178,[2004]
FTRTNEdFe033,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc178.htmland
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc178.shtml,inFrenchat[2004]CarswellNat
429,http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf178.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf178.shtml(FC;2004-02-03)Tremblay-LamerJ.
26.FabrikantvSwamy[2004]CarswellNat2669,2004IIJCan43458
,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2004/2004qccs16156.html(QueSupCt;2004-10-13)
St-PierreJ.
27.Garcia-GutierrezvMeubleVillageoisinc.[2004]CarswellQue2497;REJB2004-71151
(QueCA;2004-10-01]

4
28.Ghanotakisc.ExpertisesdidactiquesLyonsinc.[2004]CarswellQue8832,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2004/2004qccs15984.html(QueSupCt;2004-10-01)
LévesqueJ.
29.GRISimulationsInc.v.Pro-DiveOceaneeringCo.[2004]CarswellNfld366,2004NLCA
74,[2004]Nfld&PEIRTBEdDE005,
http://www.canlii.org/nl/cas/nlca/2004/2004nlca74.html(NLCA2004-12-03)MercerJ.
30.HabitationsPMAInc.v.Simard[2004-12-20]11-13cTélémarque
http://www.marquedor.com/telemarque/annee2004/vol11no13c_fr.html(QueSupCt
540-05-003963-984;2004-11-22)FournierJ.
31.HarrisvCanada(AttorneyGeneral)2004FC1051,[2004]CarswellNat2662,34CPR
(4th)367,[2004]FTRUned622,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc1051.html
andhttp://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc1051.shtml,inFrenchat
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf1051.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf1051.shtml(FC;2004-07-30)Hargrave,a.s.p.
32.Houriham(Sarah)forthereproductionofarchitecturalplans
fortheproperty
locatedat522MariposaCrescent(Rockcliffe)
[ReNon-exclusivelicence
issuedto]http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/143-e.pdfCopBd;2004-10-26)
33.Import-ExportRenéDerhy(Canada)inc.c.MagasinsGreenbergltée[2004]
CarswellQue566,2004JQ2705,REJB2004-55468,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qcca/2004/2004qcca10303.html(QueCA;2004-03-15)
ForgetJ.
34.InterboxPromotionCorp.c.9012-4314QuébecInc.34CPR(4th)356[2004]
CarswellNat187;2004FC144,245FTR80,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc144.shtmland
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2003/2003fc1254.html,inFrenchat
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf144.shtmland
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2003/2003cf1254.html[2004]CarswellNat1268,2004
CF144(FC;2004-01-29)HarringtonJ.
35.InterimtariffofleviestobecollectedbyCPCCin2005onthesaleofblankaudio
recordingmediainCanadahttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/c14122004-b.pdf
(CopBd;2004-12-14)
36.Jackson(Paul)forthereproductioninabookofacartoonbyStewartCameron[Re
Non-exclusivelicenceissuedto]FileNo.2004-UO/TI-12;availableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/138-e.pdf(CopBd;2004-05-10)
37.KraftCanadaInc.vEuroExcellenceInc.[2004]CarswellNat1371;2004FC652,33CPR
(4th)246,252FTR50,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc652.htmland
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc652.shtml,inFrenchat
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf652.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf652.shtml(FC;2004-05-03);[2004]CarswellNat1793,2004FC
832,33CPR(4th)242,http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc832.shtml(FC-
Reconsideration;2004-06-09),[2004]CarswellNat3018,2004FC1215,35CPR4th193,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc1215.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc1215.shtml,inFrenchat
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf1215.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf1215.shtml(FC–Pratice;2004-09-03)
38.Marquis(Dominique)fortheReproductionofExcerptsfromtheNewspaperl’Action
Catholique(ReLicenceapplicationby)[2004]CarswellNat2903,inFrench[2004]

5
CarswellNat2904,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/other/2-b.pdf(CopBd;
2004-07-29)
39.MicrocellSolutionsinc.c.TelusCommunicationsinc.REJB2004-66328,[2004]
CarswellNat1649,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2004/2004qccs13720.html
(QueSupCt;2004-06-21)ChaputJ.;affd500-09-014762-041(QueCA;2004-10-22)
40.MorrisonHershfieldLimitedforthereproductionofarchitecturalplansfortheproperty
locatedat2716RichmondRoadinOttawa[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File
No.2004-UO/TI-22;availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/142-e.pdf
(CopBd;2004-09-02)
41.Muschiv.LeclubMaainc.
http://www.canlii.org/qc/cas/qccq/2004/2004qccq10166.html(QueCt-CivDiv-Small
Claimsl2004-01-09)DumaisJ.
42.OakleyIncvShoppersDrugMartInc(2001),[2001]FCJ415,201FTR258(FCTD);[2004]
CarswellNat577;2004FC307,[2004]CarswellNat1293;2004CF307,2004FC307,31
CPR(4th)127,http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc307.shtmland
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc307.htmlinFrenchat
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf307.shtmland
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf307.html(FC;2004-03-02)O’KeefeJ.
affd[2004]CarswellNat4393,2004FCA404(FCA;2004-10-30)
43.OntarioOfficeoftheWorkerAdviserforthedigitalreproductionandthe
communicationtothepublicofadetailofPaulRand’spaintingCoalDiggers[Re
Non-exclusivelicenceissuedtothe]FileNo.2004-UO/TI-05;availableat
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/134-e.pdf(CopBd;2004-03-29)
44.Payne(Don-Pedro)forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansfortheproperty
locatedat91and93ArlingtonAvenueinOttawa[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]
FileNo.2004-UO/TI-17;availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/136-e.pdf
(CopBd;2004-04-26)
45.Pointe-à-Callière,MontrealMuseumofArcheologyandHistoryfortheReproduction
ofQuotations(ReLicenceApplicationby)[2004]CarswellNat2373,33CPR(4
th)426,
[2004]CBD4
,inFrench[2004]CarswellNat2372,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/other/1-b.pdf(CopBr;2004-03-29)
46.PositiveAttitudeSafetySystemsInc.vAlbianSandsEnergyInc.[2004]FCJ1253,[2004]
CarswellNat2299,2004FC1022,33CPR(4th)460,[2004]FTRTBEdAU018,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc1022.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc1022.shtml(FC;2004-07-23)NoëlJ.
47.PrivateCopyingTariffEnforcement(Re)[2004]CarswellNat2365;32CPR(4th)271,
[2004]CBD1,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/c19012004-b.pdf,inFrenchat
[2004]CarswellNAt2366(CopBd;2004-01-19)
48.PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks1998to2004,(Re)[2004]CarswellNat2369,32
CPR(4th)403,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/c19012004-b.pdf,inFrenchat
[2004]CarswellNat2370(CopBd;2004-03-19)
49.PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks1998to2007,(Re)[2004]CarswellNat2367,33
CPR(4
th)503,[2004]CBD5,inFrenchat[2004]CarswellNat2368(CopBd;2004-06-18)
50.PyrrhaDesignIncv623735SaskatchewanLtd30CPR(4th)310,[2004]CarswellNat
792,2004FC423,249FTR89,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc423.html
andhttp://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc423.shtml,inFrenchat

6
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf423.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf423.shtml[2004]CarswellNat1712,2004CF423(FC;2004-03-
23)RouleauJ.;revdhttp://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fca/2004/2004fca423.html(FCA;
2004-12-13)LindenJ.
51.RcThériault*[2004]CarswellQue3201,(subnomineRvD’Argy)[2004]JQ11142
(QueCt;2004-10-28)CôtéJ.
52.R.vAFCSoccer22CPR(4th)369(ManitobaProvincialCourt);revd2004CarswellMan
212,2004MBCA73,32CPR(4th)53,240DLR(3d)178,185CCC(3d)45,184ManR
(2d)241,318WAC241,http://www.canlii.org/mb/cas/mbca/2004/2004mbca73.html
(ManCA;2004-05-19)SteelJ.
53.R.v.Chen[2004]CarswellBC2199,2004BCPC;
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2004/03/p04_0365.htm(2004-10-01)
BruceJ.
54.Ritchiev.SawmillCreekGolf&CountryClubLtd27CPR(4
th)220(OntSupCt;2003-05-
16);affd[2004]CarswellOnt352535CPR(4th)165,189OAC282(OntCA2004-08-24)
McKinnonJ.
55.RobertsonvThomsonCorp(1999),85CPR(3d)1(OntCt–GenDiv);15CPR(4
th)147,
(OntSupCt;2001-10-03);affd[2004]CarswellOnt4015,243D.L.R.(4th)257,34CPR(4th)
161,190OAC231,
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2004/october/C38148.pdfand
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2004/2004onca11384.html(OntCA;2004-10-06)
WeilerJ.
56.SalonsMarcelPelchatincvBretonREJB2004-54180,[2004]CarswellQue291,JE2004-
603,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2004/2004qccs10534.html(QueSuptCt;2004-
02-03)BlanchetJ.
57.Sociétécanadiennedesauteurscompositeursetéditeursdemusiquev.Les
productionsFogelSabourinInc
http://www.canlii.org/qc/cas/qccs/2004/2004qccs17776.html(QueSupCt;2004-12-23)
TingleyJ.
58.SOCANStatementofRoyalties,1998-2004(Tariff2.A)and2001-2004(Tariff17)(Re)]32
CPR(4
th)403,[2004]CBD2,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/m19032004-b.pdf
(CopBd;2004-03-19)
59.SOCANStatementofRoyalties,1998-2007,PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks(Tariffs
1.A,1.B,2.B,2.C,3,4.B.2,5.A,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,18,20and21)33CPR(4
th)
503,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/mm18062004-b.pdf(CopBd;2004-03-19)
60.SOCANStatementofRoyalties,Concerts,2003(Tariff4)(Re)[2004]CarswellNat2371,33
CPR(4th)430,[2004]CBD3,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/m26032004-b.pdf,
in
Frenchat2004CarswellNat2372(CopBd;2004-03-26)
61.SOCANStatementofRoyalties,PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks1996,1997,1998
(Tariff22,Internet)(Re)1CPR(4
th)417(CopBd;1999-10-27);vardsubnomineSociety
ofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadavCanadianAssociationof
InternetProviders19CPR(4th)289,(FCA;2002-05-01);revdinpart2004SCC45,32
CPR(4th)1,240DLR(4th)193,322NR306,[2004]CarswellNat1919,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/2004/2004scc45.htmland
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc045.wpd.html,in
Frenchathttp://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/csc/2004/2004csc45.htmland

7
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/fr/rec/html/2004csc045.wpd.html(SCC;
2004-06-30)BinnieJ.
62.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadavLandmarkCinemas
ofCanadaLtd[2002]CarswellNat4443(FCTD-Proto.;2002-07-11);affd25CPR(4
th)496
(FCTDPracticeAmendment;2003-04-10);affd[2004]CarswellNat314,2004FCA57,
316NR387,30CPR(4th)257,247FTR315(note)inFrench[2004]CarswellNat4292
(FCAPracticeAmendment;2004-02-05)LétourneauJ.;(FCProtonothary–Affidavitof
documents;2003-10-280revd2004FC824,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc824.shtml,inFrenchathttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc824.shtml(FC;2004-06-09)O’KeefeJ.
63.SoftwareGuyBrokersLtd.v.Hardy32CPR(4th)88,[2004]CarswellBC97,2004BCSC82,
[2004]BCTC82,[2004]BCTCTBEdFE052,
http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcsc/2004/2004bcsc82.htmland
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/04/00/2004bcsc0082
(BCSC;2004-01-22)
AllanJ.
64.SolowayJewishCommunityCentre-GanonPreschool,Ottawa,Ontario,forthe
mechanicalreproductionof21songs[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedtothe]FileNo.
2003-UO/TI-19;availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/135-e.pdf(CpBd;
2004-03-10)
65.TommyHilfigerLicencingInc.v.InternationalClothiersInc.[2003]CarswellNat2907
(FC;2003-09-19);revd32CPR(4th)289,2004FCA252,[2004]FCJ1143,[2004]
CarswellNat4005,2004FCA252,241DLR(4th)559,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fca/2004/2004fca252.htmlandhttp://decisions.fca-
caf.gc.ca/fca/2004/2004fca252.shtml,inFrench[2004]CarswellNat2103,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/caf/2004/2004caf252.htmlandhttp://decisions.fca-
caf.gc.ca/caf/2004/2004caf252.shtml(FCA;2004-06-30)NadonJ.
66.UlextraIncvProntoLuceInc[2004]CarswellNat1137,31CPR(4th)339,2004FC590,
[2004]FTRUned363http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc590.htmland
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc590.shtmlinFrenchat2004CarswellNat
2779,2004CF590,http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf590.htmland
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf590.shtml(FC;2004-04-21)Layden-
StevensonJ.
67.UniversityofBritishColumbiaFacultyAssnvUniversityofBritishColumbia[2004]
CarswellBC1622,125LAC(4th)1(BCArbitrationBd;2004-02-18)memberDorsey
68.UniversityofBritishColumbiaMusicLibraryforthereproduction,thepublic
performanceandthecommunicationtothepublicofsheetmusicontheirWebsite
[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedtothe]FileNo.2003-UO/TI-23;availableat
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/131-e.pdf(CopBd;2004-01-30)
69.VideoBoxEnterprisesInc.v.Peng[2004]CarswellNat1082,2004FC482,250FTR
101http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc482.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc482.shtml,inFrenchat[2004]CarswellNat2777,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf482.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf482.shtml(FC;2004-03-30)Layden-StevensonJ.
70.Villardc.PubliquipInc.,2004IIJCan40844
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccq/2004/2004qccq46481.html(QueCtCivDivSmall
Claims;2004-09-24)DumaisJ.

8
334154AlbertaLimitedforthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthepropertylocatedat
3515,17thAvenueSWinCalgary[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]FileNo.2003-UO/TI-26;
availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/129-e.pdf(CopBd;2004-01-15)
Forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthepropertylocatedat3515,17thAvenueSW
inCalgaryinonecopy-Repairpurposes
AdjeleianAllenRubeliLimitedforthereproductionofarchitecturalplansfortheproperty
locatedat205RichmondRoadinOttawa[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]FileNo.2004-
UO/TI-06;availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/133-e.pdf(CopBd;2004-02-18)
Forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthepropertylocatedat205RichmondRoadin
Ottawainonecopy-Renovationpurposes
APCMusic&VideoInc.v.theVancouverPoliceDepartmentandSergeantDougFisher,[
2004]CarswellBC
3065
,http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2004/03/p04_0365.htm(BCPCt;2004-
04-260)revd[2004]CarswellBC2950,2004BCSC1657,http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-
txt/sc/04/16/2004bcsc1657.htmand
http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcsc/2004/2004bcsc1657.html(BCSC;2004-12-14)Koenigsberg
[1]Thecentralissueraisedbythisappealinvolvesthescopeorlimitationsofthejurisdictionof
theProvincialCourtunders.490(9)oftheCriminalCode.Sincethismatterwasfirstdecided
bytheProvincialCourtinAprilof2004,theSupremeCourtofCanadareleasedadecision,R.
v.Raponi,2004SCC50,providingguidanceandclarificationinregardtotheProvincial
Court’sjurisdictionunders.490(2)and(9).
[2]IntheCourtbelow,theAppellant/Petitioner,APCMusic&VideoInc.broughtan
applicationpursuanttos.490(9)forthereturnof11boxesofgoodsseizedanddetainedby
theVancouverPoliceDepartment(“VPD”).WhetherthelearnedProvincialCourtjudgehad
jurisdictionwasneitherraisednorarguedbelow.Afterconsideringevidenceandsubmissions,
thecourtfocussedonwhetherthesearchandseizurebytheVPDwaslawfulandfoundit
was.Shefurtherfoundthattheevidencerelieduponbythepolice,althoughsubstantially
hearsayandunqualified“expert”opinion,–wassufficienttosatisfythetestins.490(9).Thus,
sheorderedthatthegoodswerenotlawfullyinthepossessionofthePetitionerandshe
orderedtheboxesforfeittobedestroyedbytheAttorneyGeneral.
[3]TheAppellantseeksreturnofthegoodsonthebasisthattheProvincialCourtjudgehad
nojurisdictiontoorderforfeitureoralternativelythattherewasinsufficientevidencetosatisfy
thetestins.490(9).
[42]Fisher[TheonlyevidencethattheProvincialCourtjudgereliedonwasintheformofthe
affidavitofSgt.Fisher]isapparentlyunawarethatthereisamensreaelementtosection42.
“Knowingly”mustbeproven.
[43]WhetherornottheAppellant’sknowledgecouldbeproven,whatistroublingaboutthe
opinionisthatFishernotonlymadeadeterminationofaninfringementoftheCopyrightAct
inrelationtothisparticularshipment,buthealsodeliberatelydidnotsubmithisevidenceand
conclusiontoajudgeasrequiredundertheCriminalCode.Fisher’sconductdemonstrates

9
thedangerofpoliceofficers,howeverbonafides,seizingproperty,andmakinga
determinationastowhetherithasbeenobtainedfororwillbepartofthecommissionofan
offencewithoutintendingtobringthematterforwardtoajudgeasrequiredunderthe
CriminalCode.
Ass.desproducteursdefilmsetdetélévisionduQuébecc.Associationdesréalisateurset
desréalisatricesduQuébec,2004IIJCan490,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2004/2004qccs11094.html(QueSupCt;2004-02-20)
ChaputJ.
[29]APFTQasoutenuqu’ilyavaituneindicationprécisedansladécisiondel’arbitrequ’il
avaitdéjàdécidéd’unequestiondedroitd’auteur.Enparticulier,enraisondupassage
suivantdeladécision:
«Ondoitaussiconclurequel’imbricationdesartistesdufilmetdelatélévisionetlefait
quelaLoisurledroitd’auteurporteàlafoissurdesdroitsmorauxmaissurtoutdedroits
économiquesfontensortequeletribunalpeutprévoirdanssasentenceàtoutlemoins
lesconditionsd’exercicedesdroitsd’auteurdanslescasoùilyauneoeuvreausensde
laLoisurlesdroitsd’auteur.»
[30]L’arbitreannonceparlànonpasqu’ildécided’unequestionrelativeauxdroitsd’auteur,
maisqu’ilestpossiblequelasentencequ’ilrendrapuissecomprendredesélémentsqui
portentsurlesconditionsd’exercicedesdroitsd’auteur.
[31]Certes,cettepositiondel’arbitrelaisseentendrequiestcompétentpourtraiterdes
conditionsdesdroitsd’auteurdanslecadredesonprocessusdécisionneldevantmenerà
l’ententecollectivequ’ilalemandatd’établir.
[32]Mais,ilnefautpasperdedevuequelestlemandatdel’arbitre:établiruneconvention
collective(art.32LSA),«laquelledoitprévoiruncontrat-typepourlaprestationdeservices
desartistes»(art.24.7°LSA).
[33]APFTQproposeque,auxtermesdel’article27LSA,ildoits’agitd’une«ententecollective
fixantlesconditionsminimalespourl’engagementdesartistes».Pourelle,ondoitexclurede
cesconditionsminimalestouteréférenceauxdroitsd’auteur.
[34]C’estlàuneinterprétationtropétroitedumandatdel’arbitre.Cedernierestautoriséà
considérerdesélémentspertinentsàl’établissementdelaprestationdeservicesdesartistes,y
inclus,lecaséchéant,certainsélémentsrelatifsauxdroitsd’auteur.
[35]Saisid’undifférendenmatièredeconditionsdetravail,unarbitrepeutavoiràdécider
dequestionsquinerelèventpasexclusivementdesacompétence,commel’écriventles
jugesRousseau-HouleetBirondansl’arrêtIsidoreGaronLtéec.Jean-PierreTremblay[AZ-
50210481]
[36]Danslaprésenteaffaire,pourétablirlesconditionsdeprestationdeservicesdesartistes,
l’onnepeutexclurequel’arbitreauravraisemblablementàconsidérerlesdroitséconomiques
rattachésauxdroitsd’auteurseloncequiseraétabliàpartirdelapreuvedescontratset
conventionsdéjànégociésdanslemilieu.

10
[37]Aprèslapreuve,illuiresteraàdéciders’ilintègredanssasentencedesconditions
relativesauxdroitsd’auteur.Ainsi,paraîtbienfondéeladécisiondel’arbitredu5juin2003de
renvoyercettedéterminationsurlefond.
B&AConstructionltéevBétaplexincREJB2004-60176,[2004]CarswellQue773,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2004/2004qccs17016.html,http://www.jugements.qc.ca
(QueSupCt;2004-03-20)Normand,J.[inappeal500-09-014493-043]
Lamaison«NormandieN»,dontlesplansontétécréésparlademanderesse,estunproduit
destinéàunmarchéhautementcompétitifquiviseuneclientèleàrevenumoyen.Commeil
s’agitd’unemaison«milieudegamme»,lamargedemanoeuvreduconcepteurest
forcémentlimitée.Façonnéeenfonctiondestendancesgénéralesquiprévalentaujourd’hui
dansledomaine,ellenepeutqueprésenterdesressemblancesaveclesproduitscrééspar
sescompétiteurs.Dansuncontexteoùlesconcepteurssonttenusderespecterunensemble
decritèresprécis—lestendancesgénéralesdumoment,lesbudgets,lescadresphysiques
etréglementaires—sedémarquerdesesconcurrentsestrarementunexerciceflamboyant.
Biensouvent,cen’estqu’àlasuited’unexercicedesubtilitésqu’unconcepteurréussiraà
créeruneoeuvreoriginale.Or,lapreuveaclairementdémontréqueleconceptdemaison
«NormandieN»étaitlefruitd’unerechercheetd’uneréflexionquis’estnourried’informations
obtenuessurleterrainetdecommentairesobtenusdesreprésentantsenventedela
demanderesse.Lapreuvedémontreaussiquecettemaisonsesingularisepardesformeset
desvolumesagencésetconjuguésdefaçondistinctive.Ilfautparconséquentconclureque
tantlesplansdelamaison«NormandieN»quelamaisonconstruiteenexécutionphysique
decesplansconstituentdesoeuvresprotégéesparlaLoisurledroitd’auteur.
Lademanderesseplaidequelamaisonconstruitepourlecoupledéfendeurparla
défenderesse(Bétaplex)estunecontrefaçondesamaison »NormandieN ».Letribunallui
donneraison.Vucequiaétéexpliquéauparavant,iln’estcertespasimpossiblequedes
élémentsidentiquespuissentseretrouverdanslesdeuxmaisons.Lapreuvedémontre
toutefoisquec’estbeaucoupplusque«quelqueséléments»quisonticiidentiques.Enfait,les
deuxmaisonsprésententpresqueexactementlemêmeagencementetlesmêmes
caractéristiques,dontplusieurssonttrèsdistinctives.Commelapreuverévèlequelamaison
construiteparBétaplexaétéconstruiteàpartirdel’undesesplans«standard»quiaété
largementpersonnaliséafindetenircomptedesexigencesd’uncouplequivenaitdevisiter
lamaison«NormandieN»etquiavaitenmainlesplansdétaillésdecettemaison,ilsemble
trèspeuprobablequelehasardsoiticiencause.Ilressortdel’ensembledelapreuveque,
saufpourquelquesdétailsmineurs,lapersonnalisationdelamaisonducoupledéfendeura
constituéenlareproduction,àl’intérieurd’unmodèledebasecrééparBétaplex,du
contenudistinctifdelamaison«NormandieN»crééeparlademanderesse.Ils’agitd’une
imitationdéguiséedel’oeuvredelademanderesse.Cettedernièreadoncledroitd’être
dédommagéepourlesprofitsqu’elleauraitréalisésn’eûtétédelacontrefaçon.
Selonlademanderesse,lesagissementsdesdéfendeursluiauraientfaitperdreunprofitde
27933$,soit17,19%duprixdeventedelamaison.Elleomettoutefoisdetenircomptedes
fraisdecommissionetdepublicité.Sil’ontientcomptedecesfrais,sonprofitnetauraitplutôt
étéde22896$.Cettesommeluiseraaccordée.Commecemontantreprésentelaperte
intégralequ’elleasubie,iln’yapaslieudeluiattribuerenplusunepartdesprofitsréaliséspar
Bétaplex.Lademanderesseaégalementdroitaux7000$réclamésàtitrededommages
exemplaires.Ellevenaittoutjustedemettresurlemarchésonmodèle«NormandieN»lorsque
sonprincipalcompétiteurleluiavolé.Bétaplexconstruisaitdesmaisonsdansle
développement«Lessentiersduruisseau»depuisplusd’unan.Lademanderesse,poursa

11
part,venaitjusted’êtreaccréditéeparlepromoteur.Ellen’avaitmêmepasencorevendude
maisonsdanscedéveloppement.Ainsi,encopiantsonoeuvre,nonseulementBétaplexlui
coupaitl’herbesouslepied,mais,enusantd’unemanoeuvredéloyale,elletrouvaitune
occasionfaciledes’implanter.Toutçaaveclaparticipationducoupledéfendeur.Vules
circonstances,tantBétaplexquelesdeuxdéfendeursserontsolidairementcondamnésà
payeràlademanderesseunesommede29896$.
BMGCanadaIncvJohnDoe[2004]CarswellNat835,2004FC488,[2004]3FCR241,32CPR
(4th)64,239DLR(4th)726,[2004]FTRTBE.AP010,250FTR267,
http://reports.fja.gc.ca/fc/src/shtml/2004/pub/v3/2004fc34396.shtml,inFrenchatREJB2004-
60025,[2004]CarswellNat2774,2004CF488,2004FC488,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc488.shtmlandhttp://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf488.shtml
andhttp://recueil.cmf.gc.ca/cf/src/shtml/2004/pub/v3/2004cf34396.shtml(FC;2004-03-31)
vonFinckensteinJ.;[inappeal]
Ils’agitd’unerequêtedéposéeparun
certainnombredesociétésmembresde
l’industriedel’enregistrementpourobtenir
decertainsprestatairesdeserviceInternet
(lesPSI)ladivulgationdel’identitéde
certainsclientsqu’ilssoutiennentavoir
violélalégislationsurlesdroitsd’auteuren
échangeantdesoeuvresmusicales
télédéchargéesd’Internet.Les
demandeursnepeuventidentifier
lesutilisateursd’Internetenquestion,
puisqu’ilsontadoptédespseudonymes
associésaulogicielqu’ilsutilisent.Les
demandeurssollicitentuneordonnance
envertudesrègles233et238desRègles
delaCourfédérale(1998).Les
demandeurssoutiennentqueles
défendeursontchacuntélédéchargésur
leurordinateurpersonnelplusde
1000chansons.Onaprétenduqueles
défendeursutilisentleslogicielsde
partagedefichiersKaZaAetiMeshquileur
permettentdepartagerdesfichiersavec
d’autresutilisateursreliésàunréseau
d’homologues.Ilspossèdentdeslogiciels
quileurpermettentdefaireune
recherchedansleréservoirdefichiers
partagésenutilisantuntitreouunnom
d’artiste.L’ordinateurd’unutilisateurpeut
servirsimultanémentàdestransferts
multiplesversd’autresutilisateurs.
T
hiswasamotionbroughtbyanumber
ofcorporationsintherecordingindustry
businessseekingdisclosurebycertain
internetserviceproviders(ISPs)ofthe
identityofcustomerssaidtobeguiltyof
copyrightinfringementbytradingin
musicdownloadedfromtheinternet.
Plaintiffscouldnotidentifytheseinternet
usersbecausetheyoperateunder
pseudonymsrelatedtosoftware.Relief
wassoughtunderFederalCourtRules,
1998rules233and238.Plaintiffssaidthat
eachoftheseunidentifieddefendants
hasdownloadedinexcessof1000songs
ontohomecomputers.Itwassaidthat
defendantsutilizetheKaZaAandiMesh
file-sharingprograms,whichallowsthem
tosharecomputerfileswithothers
connectedtoapeer-to-peernetwork.
Theypossesssoftwarebywhichthey
cansearchthepoolofsharedfilessuch
asbytitleorartist.Multipletransfersto
otherusersmaytakeplace
simultaneouslyfromauser’scomputer.
Touteslespartiesontconvenuqueles
clientsdesPSIontuneattente
d’anonymat.Cetteattentedurespectde
leurvieprivéesefondeàlafoissurleursI
twasagreedbyallpartiesthatinternet
serviceprovideraccountholdersexpect
thattheiridentitieswillbekept
confidential.Thisexpectationisbased

12
contratsaveclesPSIetsurlesarticles3et
5delaLoisurlaprotectiondes
renseignementspersonnelsetles
documentsélectroniques(LPRPDE).
Cependant,l’alinéa7(3)c)delaLPRPDE
portequelesPSIpeuventcommuniquer
desrenseignementspersonnelssansle
consentementdesintéresséslorsqueces
renseignementssontexigéspar
ordonnanced’untribunal.
o
nbothsections3and5ofthePersonal
InformationProtectionandElectronic
DocumentsAct(PIPEDA)andontheir
ISPaccountagreements.But,under
PIPEDA,paragraph7(3)(c),anISPmay
disclosepersonalinformationifso
requiredbycourtorder.
Lorsqu’undemandeurpotentielrecherche
uninterrogatoirepréalableafinde
connaîtrel’identitéd’undéfendeur,ilpeut
avoirrecoursàl’interrogatoirepréalable
prévuenequity,maispaslorsqu’une
actionadéjàétéintroduite–mêmesiles
défendeursnesontcitésquesouslesnoms
deJohnetJaneDoe–ledemandeurdoit
s’enremettreàl’applicationdesrègles233
et238.Lesmêmesprincipesdevraient
s’appliqueràunedemandeenvertudela
règle238etàuninterrogatoirepréalable
enequity:1)ledemandeurdoit
démontrerqu’ilexisteàpremièrevue
quelquechoseàreprocheràl’auteur
inconnudupréjudice;2)lapersonne
devantfairel’objetd’uninterrogatoire
préalabledoitêtreplusqu’unsimple
spectateur;3)lapersonnedoitêtrela
seulesourcepratiquederenseignements;
4)lapersonnedoitrecevoirune
compensationraisonnablepourles
déboursoccasionnésparsonrespectde
l’ordonnanceportantinterrogatoire
préalable;5)l’intérêtpublicàla
divulgationdoitl’emportersurl’attente
légitimederespectdelavieprivée.
W
hileapotentialplaintiffmayseekpre-
actiondiscovery,bywayofan
equitablebillofdiscovery,toascertaina
defendant’sidentity,onceanactionhas
beencommenced–evenbynamingas
defendantsJohnandJaneDoe–plaintiff
musthaverecoursetorule233or238.
Butthesameprinciplesshouldapplyto
arule238applicationastoanequitable
billofdiscovery:(1)applicantmust
establishaprimafaciecaseagainstthe
unknownallegedwrongdoer;(2)person
fromwhomdiscoveryissoughtmustbe
morethananinnocentbystander;(3)
thatpersonmustbeonlypractical
informationsource;(4)saidpersonmust
bereasonablycompensatedfor
expensesofcompliancewiththe
discoveryorder;and(5)thepublic
interestsfavouringdisclosuremust
outweighlegitimateprivacyconcerns.
Lesdemandeursfondentaussileur
requêtesurlarègle233,maiscette
dispositionapourobjectifd’ordonnerla
productiondedocumentsetnonleur
création.Enl’espèce,iln’existepasde
documentsfaisantlelienentreune
adresseIPetunclientdonnéd’unPSI.
P
laintiffsalsoattemptedtorelyonrule
233,butthatrulecompelsthedisclosure
ofdocuments,nottheirverycreation.In
theinstantcase,therewerenopre-
existingdocumentslinkinganIPaddress
toanISPcustomer.
Jugement:larequêteestrejetée.
H
eld,themotionshouldbedenied.
1)Encequiconcernelaprétentiondes
demandeursqu’ilexisteàpremièrevue
quelquechoseàreprocheràquelqu’un,
lecontenudesaffidavitsdesdemandeurs(
1)Astoaprimafaciecase,thecontent
ofplaintiffs’affidavitswasdeficient.
DeposedtobythePresidentofan
onlineanti-privacyprotectioncompany,

13
estinsuffisant.Déposésparleprésident
d’unesociétéquioffreuneprotection
contrelepiratageenligne,ilssontfondés
surdesrenseignementsqu’ilaobtenusde
sesemployésetconstituentdoncen
grandepartieduouï-dire.Envertudu
paragraphe81(1)desRèglesleouï-direest
admissibleàconditionquelesmotifsà
l’appuisoienténoncés,oraucunmotif
n’esténoncéenl’espèce.Ildevaityavoir
d’autresemployésdeMediaSentryqui
étaientmieuxplacéspoursouscrireles
affidavitsencauseetpourrépondreaux
questionsdesdéfendeursencontre-
interrogatoire.Aucuneexplicationn’aété
donnéeconcernantlenon-respectdela
règledelameilleurepreuve.Deplus,
l’auteurdesaffidavitsatémoignéqu’il
n’avaitécoutéaucundesfichierscopiés
parlesviolateursprésuméset,par
conséquent,laCourn’aétésaisie
d’aucunepreuvequelesfichiersrendus
disponiblespourletéléchargementsont
descontrefaçonsdesfichiersdes
demandeurs.
t
heywerebaseduponinformation
gainedfromhisemployeesand
accordinglyconsistedoflargely
hearsay.Whilehearsayisadmissible
undersubsection81(1)oftheRulesifthe
groundsforthebeliefaresetforth,these
wereinsufficientlystatedherein.There
musthavebeenotherMediaSentry
employeeswhowouldhavebeenina
betterpositiontosweartheaffidavits
andundergocross-examination
thereon.Noexplanationwasgivenfor
non-compliancewiththebest-evidence
rule.Furthermore,theaffiant
acknowledgedthathehadnotlistened
toanyofthefilescopiedfromthe
allegedinfringersandtherewas
accordinglynoevidencebeforethe
Courtastowhetherthefilesofferedfor
uploadingwereinfringedfilesof
plaintiffs.
Ledeuxièmeproblèmec’estqu’iln’ya
aucunepreuvedelienentreles
pseudonymesetlesadressesIP.Toutefois,
nilesaffidavits,nilecontre-interrogatoire
n’apportentunepreuveclaireetdétaillée
decommentonaétabliunlienentreles
pseudonymesdesutilisateursdeKaZaAou
iMeshetlesadressesIPidentifiéespar
MediaSentry.Malgréquel’affidavit
mentionnaitquel’adresseIPde
Geekboy@KaZaAétait24.84.179.98et
que,selonlabanquededonnées
publiquesdel’AmericanRegistryfor
InternetNumbers,l’adresseaétéassignée
àShawCommunications(l’undesPSI
duquelonchercheàobtenirdivulgation),
aucunepreuven’indiquecomment,au
départ,lepseudonyme
«Geekboy@KaZaA»aétéliéàl’adresseIP
24.84.179.98.Danscescirconstances,la
Couragiraitdefaçonirresponsableen
ordonnantladivulgationdunomduclient
correspondantàl’adresseIP24.84.179.98,
l’exposantainsiàunepoursuite.
A
secondproblemwasthattherewas
noevidenceofconnectionbetween
thepseudonymsandtheIPaddresses.
Neithertheaffidavitsnorthecross-
examinationthereonprovidedclear
evidenceastohowthepseudonymsof
theKaZaAoriMeshuserswerelinkedto
theIPaddressesidentifiedby
MediaSentry.Whiletheaffidavit
indicatedthatGeekboy@KaZaA’sIPwas
24.84.179.98andthat,accordingtothe
AmericanRegistryforInternetNumbers’
publicdatabase,thataddresshad
beenassignedtoShaw
Communications(oneoftheISPsfrom
whichdisclosureissought),noevidence
explainedhowthepseudonym
« Geekboy@KaZaA »waslinkedtotheIP
address24.84.179.98inthefirstplace.It
wouldbeirresponsibleinthese
circumstancesfortheCourttoorder
disclosureofthenameoftheaccount
holderofIPaddress24.84.179.98thereby
exposingthatpersontolitigation.
Laquestionsuivanteconsisteàsavoirs’ily
apreuvedeviolationdudroitd’auteur.T
henextquestionwaswhetherthere
wasevidencethatcopyrighthadbeen

14
Lesdemandeursaffirmentqueles
violateursprésumésontinstalléunlogiciel
departagedesfichiersentrehomologues
surleursordinateurs,copiédesfichierssur
des«répertoirespartagés»,utiliséles
servicesdesPSIpourrelierleursordinateurs
àInternet,faitfonctionnerlelogicielde
partagedesfichiersentrehomologuessur
leursordinateursalorsqu’ilsétaient
connectésàInternetetontrendules
fichiersdesrépertoirespartagés
disponiblespourleurcopie,transmissionet
distributionàn’importelequeldesmillions
d’utilisateursduservicedepartagedes
fichiersentrehomologues.Les
demandeursprétendentquelaLoisurle
droitd’auteuraétévioléeparla
reproduction,l’autorisationdereproduire
etlamiseencirculationdecopiesnon
autoriséesdesenregistrementssonores.De
plus,ilyalapossessiondecopiesnon
autoriséesquelesviolateursprésumés
savaient,oudevaientsavoir,êtredes
contrefaçons,danslebutdelesmettreen
circulation.
i
nfringed.Plaintiffssaythatthealleged
infringers:installedthepeer-to-peer
applicationontheircomputers;copied
filesto »shareddirectories »;usedISP
servicestoconnecttheircomputersto
theinternet;ranthepeer-to-peer
applicationwhileontheinternetand
madefilesintheshareddirectories
availableforcopying,transmissionand
distributiontoanyoneofmillionsofusers
ofthepeer-to-peerservice.Itwas
arguedthattheCopyrightActwasthus
infringedbythisreproduction,
authorizationofreproductionand
distributionofunauthorizedcopiesof
soundrecordings.Further,therewasthe
possession,forthepurposeof
distribution,ofunauthorizedcopies
whichtheinfringerseitherknewor
shouldhaveknownwereinfringing.
Laloiconcernantledroitd’auteurtireson
originedelaloietiln’estpasutile,auxfins
del’interprétationlégislative,d’introduire
lesprincipesdelaresponsabilité
délictuelle.Selonleparagraphe80(1)de
laLoisurledroitd’auteur,lefaitde
télédéchargerunechansonpourusage
privéneconstituepasuneviolationdu
droitd’auteur.Onn’adéposéaucune
preuvequelesviolateursprésumés
auraientdistribuédesenregistrements
sonoresouautoriséleurreproduction.Ils
ontsimplementplacéleursproprescopies
danslesrépertoirespartagésaccessiblesà
d’autresutilisateurs.L’arrêtdelaCour
suprêmeduCanadaCCHCanadienne
Ltéec.BarreauduHaut-Canadaappuie
lathèseselonlaquellelefaitdemettresur
placedesappareilsquipermettentde
fairedescopiesnecorrespondpasà
autoriserlaviolationdudroitd’auteur.
Quelleréelledifférenceexiste-t-ilentrece
quiaétéfaitetunebibliothèquequi
placeunephotocopieusedansunepièce
rempliededocumentsvisésparledroit
d’auteur?Danslesdeuxcasilmanque
l’autorisation.LajugeenchefMcLachlinaC
opyrightlawisacreatureofstatute
anditdoesnotassisttheinterpretive
analysistoimporttortconcepts.Under
Act,subsection80(1),thedownloading
ofasongforaperson’sprivateusedoes
notconstituteinfringement.Therewas
herenoevidencethatthealleged
infringerseitherdistributedorauthorized
thereproductionofsoundrecordings.All
theydidwasplacepersonalcopiesinto
shareddirectoriesaccessiblebyother
computerusers.Thejudgmentofthe
SupremeCourtofCanadainCCH
CanadianLtd.v.LawSocietyofUpper
Canadaisauthorityfortheproposition
thattheprovisionoffacilitiesthatallow
copyingdoesnotamounttoauthorizing
infringement.Howiswhatwasdone
heredifferentfromalibraryplacinga
photocopierinaroomfullof
copyrightedmaterial?Ineithercasethe
elementofauthorizationismissing.
McLachlinC.J.wroteinherCCHopinion
thatcourts »shouldpresumethata
personwhoauthorizesanactivitydoes
notonlysofarasitisinaccordancewith
thelaw ».

15
écritdansl’arrêtCCHquelestribunaux
«doiventprésumerqueceluiquiautorise
uneactiviténel’autorisequedansles
limitesdelalégalité».
Iln’yapasdedistributionsansunacte
positifdelapartdupropriétairedu
répertoirepartagé,commel’envoide
copiesoulefaitd’annoncerqu’ellessont
disponiblespourquiveutlescopier.
Malgréqueledroitexclusifdemettreà
dispositionsoitprévudansleTraitéde
l’Organisationmondialedelapropriété
intellectuellesurlesinterprétationset
exécutionsetlesphonogrammesde1996,
cetraitén’apasencoreétératifiéparle
Canadaetilnefaitdoncpaspartiedela
législationcanadiennesurledroit
d’auteur.Finalement,lesdemandeurs
soutiennentqu’ilyaeuviolationàune
étapeultérieure,contrairementau
paragraphe27(2)delaLoisurledroit
d’auteur,maisilsn’ontprésentéaucune
preuvequeleviolateurenavait
connaissance.
N
oristheredistributionabsentapositive
actbytheowneroftheshared
directory,suchassendingcopiesor
advertisingthematerial’savailabilityfor
copying.Whiletheexclusiverightof
makingavailableiscoveredbythe
WorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization
PerformancesandPhonogramsTreaty
of1996,itremainstobeimplemented
byCanadaandsoformsnopartofour
lawofcopyright.Again,secondary
infringementhadnotbeenmadeout
sinceknowledgeontheinfringer’spart,
anecessaryconditionundersubsection
27(2)oftheCopyrightAct,wasnot
demonstrated.
2)Cetteexigenceaétésatisfaiteence
quelesfournisseursd’accèsnesontpasde
simplesspectateursetquec’estparleur
entremisequelespersonnesquifontdu
télédéchargementetdutéléchargement
accèdentàInternetetentrenten
contact.
(
2)Thisrequirementwasmetinthatthe
internetaccessproviderswerenotmere
bystandersbutratherthemeansby
whichdownloadersanduploaders
accesstheinternetandcontactone
another.
3)Lesaffidavitsdéposésàl’appuidela
présenterequêtenedonnentpasles
renseignementsquipermettraientàla
CourdedéterminersilesPSIsontlaseule
sourcepratiquesusceptibledefournirles
nomsquicorrespondentaux
pseudonymes.
(
3)Theaffidavitsfiledinsupportofthis
motionfailedtoprovidetheinformation
whichwouldallowtheCourttomakea
determinationastowhethertheISPs
weretheonlypracticalsourceofthe
namesbehindthepseudonyms.
4)Pourcequiestdelacompensation
raisonnablepourlesdébours,iln’estpas
faciledetrouverlenometl’adressedu
clientquiautiliséuneadresseIPàun
momentprécis.Telusafaitremarquer,
dansunaffidavitqu’elleadéposé,que,
bienqu’ellepuissedirequiaouvertun
compte,ellen’estpascapabledesavoir
quellepersonneétaitàl’ordinateurau
momentdelaprétendueviolation.Par
exemple,leclientpeutêtreuneinstitution(
4)Astoreasonablecompensationfor
expenses,itwouldnotbeeasyto
providethenameandaddressofan
accountholderwhousedaspecificIP
addressatagiventime.Thepointwas
madeinanaffidavitfiledbyTelusthat,
whileitcanidentifywhoopenedan
account,itwouldbeincapableof
identifyingwhowasusingthecomputer
atthetimeoftheallegedinfringement.
Forexample,theaccountholdercould

16
ouunréseaulocalaccessibleàplusieurs
utilisateurs.b
eaninstitutionortherecouldbea
localareanetworkhavingnumerous
users.

5)Encequiconcernelaquestiondes
intérêtsopposés,l’importancedela
protectiondelavieprivéepourlasociété
canadienneaétésoulignéeparlejuge
Lamerdansl’arrêtdelaCoursuprêmeR.
c.Dyment:lanotiondevieprivée
«mériteraituneprotection
constitutionnelle,maisellerevêtaussiune
importancecapitalesurleplandel’ordre
public».Dansunecauseontarienne,Irwin
ToyLtd.c.Doe,lejugeWilkinsaécritqu’«il
estentenduqu’onnedivulguepas
l’adresseIPd’unclient»etaajoutéqu’«ily
aunesécuritéimportanterattachéeà
unecertainegarantiedeconfidentialité»
etque«cetteréalitérespecteaussiceque
l’onpeutconcevoircommeunebonne
politiqued’intérêtpublic».Celadit,ledroit
dechacunàlavieprivéenepeutêtre
invoquéparunepersonnepouréchapper
àsaresponsabilité,civileoucriminelle.La
loietlajurisprudenceexigentquelaCour
rechercheunéquilibreentreledroitàla
vieprivée,lesdroitsdestiersetl’intérêt
public.Oncitecertainesdécisions
canadiennesdanslesquelslescoursde
justiceontordonnéàdestiersde
communiquerdesdocumentscontenant
lesnometadressed’undéfendeurdont
onneconnaissaitquel’adressedu
protocoled’Internet.
(
5)Turningtoaconsiderationof
competinginterests,theimportanceof
privacyprotectiontoCanadiansociety
wasunderlinedintheopinionofLamer
J.intheSupremeCourtcaseR.v.
Dyment:privacy »isworthyof
constitutionalprotection,butitalsohas
profoundsignificanceforthepublic
order ».InanOntariocase,IrwinToyLtd.
v.Doe,WilkinsJ.wrotethat »itis
understoodthataperson’sinternet
protocoladdresswillnotbedisclosed »
andaddedthat »somedegreeof
privacyorconfidentiality »was »in
keepingwithwhatshouldbeperceived
asbeinggoodpublicpolicy ».Thatbeing
said,privacycannotbeusedasashield
againstcivilorcriminalliability.Both
statuteandcaselawrequiretheCourt
tobalanceprivacyrightsagainstthe
rightsofotherindividualsandthepublic
interest.Referencewasmadetoa
numberofCanadiancasesinwhich
courtshaveorderedthirdpartiesto
disclosedocumentsidentifyingthe
nameandaddressofadefendant
previouslyidentifiedonlybyaninternet
protocoladdress.
Lesdemandeursontundroitd’auteur
légitimesurleursoeuvresetilsontledroit
d’êtreprotégésdetouteviolation.
Toutefois,avantd’ordonnerla
communication,laCourdoitêtre
convaincuedefaçonévidentequeles
renseignementsquiseraientdivulguéssont
fiablesettouteordonnancedecette
naturedevraitaussiêtreassortiedes
restrictionsetmesuresdeconfidentialité
appropriées.Enl’espèce,lapreuveaété
collectéeentreoctobreet
décembre2003,maisl’avisderequêten’a
étédéposéquele11février2004.Ce
retardaeupourconséquencequeles
renseignementsencausesontplus
difficilesàobteniretqueleurfiabilitéestP
laintiffshavealegitimatecopyrightin
theirworksandareentitledtoprotectit
againstinfringement.But,priorto
orderingdisclosure,theCourtwould
havetobesatisfiedthattheinformation
tobedisclosedwasreliableandany
ordermadeshouldincludeappropriate
restrictionsandprovisionsfor
confidentiality.Theevidencehereinhad
beengatheredfromOctoberto
December,2003butthenoticeof
motionwasfiledonlyinFebruary,2004.
Thisdelaynotonlyrenderedthe
requestedinformationmoredifficultto
obtainbutalsodecreaseditsreliability.
Therewasaseriouspossibilitythatan
innocentaccountholdermightbe

17
réduite.Ilexistaitunepossibilitésérieuse
quel’oncommuniquel’identitéd’unclient
innocent.Parconséquent,lerespectdela
vieprivéeprimel’intérêtpublicàla
divulgation.
i
dentified.Intheresult,theprivacy
interestoutweighedthepublicinterest
favouringdisclosure.
Sil’ordonnancedemandéeavaitété
délivrée,ilauraitfalluimposercertaines
restrictionsafindeprotégerledroitàlavie
privéedesdéfendeursnonencore
identifiés.L’empiétementsurlavieprivée
doitêtrecirconscritaumaximum.
L’ordonnanceauraitpréciséqueseulsles
pseudonymespouvaientêtreutilisésdans
ladéclaration.Uneannexeprotégéepar
uneordonnancedeconfidentialitéaurait
étéplacéeavecladéclaration,donnant
lesnomsetadressesdesclientsdesPSIqui
correspondentauxpseudonymes.
Finalement,l’ordonnancen’auraitpas
exigéquelesPSIsouscriventunaffidavità
l’appuidesrenseignementstrouvés.H
adanorderbeengrantedasaskedby
plaintiffs,itwouldhavebeensubjectto
restrictionsinordertosafeguardthe
privacyinterestsoftheasyetunnamed
defendants.Aninvasionofprivacy
shouldalwaysbeaslimitedaspossible.
Itwouldalsohaveprovidedthatonly
theinternetpseudonymsappearas
defendantsinthestatementofclaim.A
confidentialannexwouldhavebeen
addedtothestatementofclaim
relatingeachpseudonymtothename
andaddressofanISPaccountholder.
Finally,theISPswouldnothavebeen
requiredtoprovideaffidavitsinsupport
oftheirfindings.
Brant(Richard)forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthepropertylocatedat126-128
BaselineRoadinOttawa[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]FileNo.2004-UO/TI-21;
availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/139-e.pdf(CopBd;2004-06-23)
Forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthepropertylocatedat126-128BaselineRoad
inOttawainonecopy-Renovationpurposes
Burnett(Aaron)forthemechanicalreproductionofsonglyricswrittenbyDougMoore[Re
Non-exclusivelicenceissuedto]FileNo.2004-UO/TI-09;availableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/140-e.pdf(CopBd;2004-06-23)
ForthemechanicalreproductionofsonglyricswrittenbyDougMooreinnomorethan1000
copie-Commercialpurposes
[3]Thelicenceisnon-exclusiveandvalifonlyinCanada.Forother
countries,itisthelawofthatcountriesthatapplies.
[4]ThesoleuseofthelyricswillbethemechanicalreproductiononCDand
theywillnotbereproducedinanyderivativeformorotherwise.
CabinSafetyInc.vMarshCanadaLtd[2004]CarswellNat194,2004FC74,30CPR(4th)335,
[2004]FTRUned39,http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc74.shtml,inFrenchat[2004]
CarswellNat620,2004CF74,http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf74.shtml(FC;2004-
01-20)RouleauJ.

18
Anearlieractionforcopyrightinfringementbythesameplaintiffsagainstthesame
defendantandothershadbeendismissedfollowingastatusreview.Theplaintiffs
commencedasecondactionforcopyrightinfringement.Anoticeofstatusreviewwasissued
inthesecondaction.Theplaintiffsanddefendanthadfiledrepresentationsinresponsetothe
noticeofstatusreview.Theprothonotaryrequestedfurthersubmissionsontwoissues.Thefirst
issuewaswhetherthedelayinproceedinghadbeenjustified.Thesecondissuewasifthe
plaintiffscouldproposereasonablemeasurestomovetheactionforward.Theplaintiffshad
requestedtheopportunitytomakeoralsubmissionsbywayoftelephoneconferenceifthe
courthadquestionsorconcernsregardingtheconductoftheaction,particularlyifthecourt
wasoftheviewthattheactionshouldbedismissedfordelay.Thecourtdidnotconvenea
teleconference.Thecourtconcludedthattheproposedschedulefellshortofwhatwas
expectedonastatusreview;thematterwasnotcomplex;theplaintiffscouldhaveproposed
atighterschedule;andthewillingnessoftheplaintiffstoabidebyatighterschedulewasnot
sufficienttocounterbalancetheeffectivecumulativeunjustifieddelay.Theactionwas
dismissedfordelay.Theplaintiffappealed,seekingtosetasidetheorderandtoallowthe
actiontocontinueasaspeciallymanagedproceeding.
Held,theappealshouldbeallowed.
Theplaintiffsfiledanaffidavitthatcontainedadditionalinformationthatwasnotincludedin
thesubmissionsfiledonthestatusreview.Theevidenceshowedthatifanyonehadcaused
thedelaysandwasuncooperativethroughout,itwasdefendant’scounsel.Thecourtshould
notsetasidediscretionaryordersofaprothonotaryandtheyshouldnotbedisturbedon
appeal.However,inthiscase,theprothonotary’sexerciseofdiscretionwasbasedclearlyon
amisapprehensionofthefactsthatraisedquestionsvitaltothefinalissueinthecase.
Thedefendantraisedtwootherargumentswhytheactionshouldbedismissed.Thefirstwasa
limitationargumentwhichwasrejectedbecauselimitationsareamatterthatshouldbe
decidedbythetrialjudge.Thesecondwasthatthecorporateofficerofthedefendantwho
wasprimarilyinvolvedinthemattersatissuewasnolongeremployedbythedefendant.This
argumentwasalsorejectedbecauseifthedefendanthadbeeninfringingcopyrightas
alleged,itsbooksofaccountcouldbedisclosed,readandattestedtobyotherofficersof
thedefendantcorporation.
CanadianPrivateCopyingCollectivevAmicoImagingServicesInc[2004]CarswellNat846.
2004FC469,249FTR312,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc469.htmland
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc469.shtml,inFrench
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf469.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf469.shtml[2004]CarswellNat3832(FC;2004-03-26)BlaisJ.
[2]TheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42(Act),wasamendedin1997toallowprivate
copying;theamendmentalsosetuparegimewherebyeligibleauthors,performersand
makersofsoundrecordingswouldbeentitledtoequitableremunerationforthemakingof
privatecopiesbyindividualconsumers.Thisremunerationwastobefurnishedthroughalevy
imposedonCanadianmanufacturersandimportersofblankaudiorecordingmedia.The
CopyrightBoardsetsupatariffeachyearapplicabletoaudiocassettesandblankCDs.It
hasdesignatedtheCanadianPrivateCopyingCollective(CPCC,theplaintiff)asthe
CollectingBodyforthetariffs.Itsmandateistocollectthelevyfrommanufacturersand
importers,andtodistributetheproceedstotheeligiblerightsholders.

19
[3]Undersection88oftheAct,theplaintiffisentitledtoinstituteanactiontorecoverunpaid
leviesandobtainthecomplianceofcontraveningpartiestotheirotherobligationssetoutin
PartVIIIoftheAct.
[19]ThereisnoquestionthatCPCCisentitledtoreceivetheleviesdueonallblankaudio
recordingmediasoldinCanada,whetherimportedormanufacturedinthiscountry.CPCC
arguesthatbynotobtainingtheAntonPillerorder,itwillbedeprivedoftheopportunityto
makeitscaseandrecoverthesumsduetotheartists,performersandcopyrightholders.Thus
thepotentialdamageisreal.Justasclearevidenceoftitleandinfringementwouldsufficeto
establishbothastrongprimafaciecaseandseriousdamage,Ithinkthatclearevidenceof
therighttotheleviesandclearevidencethatthesearenotbeingpaidissufficienttomeet
thefirsttwoconditionsoftheAntonPillerorder.Thedebateusuallycentersonthethird
condition,whetherthefearofdestructionofevidencetrulywarrantsgivingrightsofsearch
andseizureonanexpartemotion.
[20]ThedefendantAmicoarguesthattherewasnoreasontofeardestructionofevidence;
thedefendantisawell-establishedbusiness,respectfulofthelaw,whowouldhavecomplied
withwhateverrequirementshaditbeendulyinformedbyCPCCbyway,forexample,ofa
demandletter.However,giventheelaboratedeceptionthatwasorganizedtoavoidpaying
thelevyowed,therewasreasontofearthatevidencemightbedestroyedifthedefendants
(bothAmicoandCDD)werewarnedaheadoftimethatCPCCintendedtoclaimthelevy;
withthedestructionofevidence,itwouldbemoredifficultforCPCCtoestablishthepast
amountsdue.Thus,bothharmandfearofdestructionhadbeenestablished.
[31]Thereisnodoubtthattheco-ownersofAmicosoughttoavoidthelevy,and,perhaps
moreimportantly,madenoefforttoensurethattheCDssoldbyAmicohadbeenlawfully
imported,withduepaymentofthelevy.WhethertheliabilitylieswithAmico,CDDorbothwill
bedecidedinanotherproceeding.Butfornow,Ibelievethatthereisampleevidenceto
showastrongprimafaciecase,theharmdonetotheplaintiff,andthedangerofdestruction
ofevidence.
CanadianCopyrightLicensingAgency(« AccessCopyright »)vChen[2004]FCJ1448(FC;
2004-08-05)O »KeefeJ.
¶2UPONREADINGtheconsentoftheDefendant;
¶3UPONREADINGthewrittenrepresentationsofthePlaintiff;
¶4THISCOURTORDERSANDADJUDGES:
1.
T
heDefendant,hisemployees,partners,agentsandallthoseunderhis
controlareherebyorderedtoimmediatelyceasethemaking,
distributing,selling,exposingorofferingforsale,renting,exhibitingin
publicorpartingwithpossessionofunauthorizedcopies,inwholeor
substantialpart,of:
(a)
a
nyworkinwhichtheplaintiffpossessesaninterestinthe
copyrightbygrantinwritingandanyworkinrespecttowhich
theplaintiffhasenteredintoanaffiliationagreementwithan
entitytoexercise,manageandenforcetherighttoreproduceits
publicationsthroughcollectivelicences,includingallworkslisted
inSchedule »A »hereto;and
(b)
a
nyworkpublishedbyaforeignpublisherwhofailsoutsidethe
categoryofentitiesreferredtoabovebutinrespecttowhomthe

20
plaintiffhasbeengranted,throughbilateralagreementswith
otherReprographicRightsOrganizations,therighttoexercise,
manageandenforcethereprographicrightsofsuchforeign
publishers,includingtheworkslistedinSchedule »B »hereto.
2.
T
heDefendant,hisemployees,partners,agents,andallthoseunder
theircontrolareherebyordered,pursuanttosection39.1ofthe
CopyrightAct,toimmediatelyceasethemaking,distributing,selling,
exposingorofferingforsale,renting,exhibitinginpublicorpartingwith
possessionofunauthorizedcopies,inwholeorsubstantialpart,of;
(a)
o
therworksorsubjectmatterinwhichtheplaintiffortheentities
referredtoaboveowncopyrightoraninterestincopyright
grantedbylicense;
(b)
o
therworksorsubjectmatterinwhichtheplaintiffortheentities
referredtoabovewerenot,atthetimeproceedingswere
commenced,theownerofthecopyrightorapersontowhom
aninterestinthecopyrighthasbeengrantedbylicense;and
(c)
o
therworksorsubjectmatterinwhichtheplaintifforsuchentities
wouldowncopyrightoraninterestincopyrightgrantedby
licensebutwhichdidnotexistatthetimetheseproceedings
werecommenced.
CanadianPrivateCopyingCollectivev.CanadianStorageMediaAlliance[2004]CarswellNat
4681,2004FCAhttp://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca/2004/2004fca424.shtml(FCA;2004-12-14)
NoëlJ.
[1]ThesearethreeapplicationsforjudicialreviewofadecisionoftheCopyrightBoardof
Canada(Board)whichestablishedtheprivatecopyingleviestobecollectedbythe
CanadianPrivateCopyingCollective(CPCC)fortheyears2003and2004.Theapplications
werejoinedandheardtogetherbyorderoftheCourt.
[18]TheretailersarguethatPartVIIIoftheActisnot,inpithandsubstance,copyrightlaw.In
thealternative,theyassertthatthelevyschemeestablishedbyPartVIIIgivesrisetoatax
and,assuch,isunconstitutionalbyvirtueofsection53oftheConstitutionAct,1867(U.K.),30
&31Vict.,c.3,s.53,asamended(theConstitutionAct,1867).
CarletonCondominiumCorporationNo.281forthereproductionofelectricalplansforthe
propertylocatedat100StratasCourtinOttawa[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]FileNo.
2004-UO/TI-04;availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/132-e.pdf(CopBd;2004-
02-05)
Forthereproductionofelectricalplansforthepropertylocatedat100StratasCourtin
Ottawainonecopy-Recordpurposes

21
CCC446forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthepropertylocatedat99Holland
AvenueinOttawa[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]FileNo.2004-UO/TI-16;availableat
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/137-e.pdf(CopBd;2004-04-05)
Forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthepropertylocatedat99HollandAvenuein
Ottawainonecopy-Insuranceevaluationandon-goingrepair/maintenancepurposes
CCHCanadianLimitedvTheLawSocietyofUpperCanada[2000]2FC451&[2000]3FCii,
(FCTD;1999-11-09);revd(2002),[2002]CarswellNat1000,[]http://decisionsfct-
cfgcca/fct/2002/2002fca187.html[2000]FCA187(FCA);revd(2002),18CPR(4th)161(FCA-
Merits;2002-05-14);revd[2004]1SCR339,2004CarswellNat4462004SCC13,236DLR(4th)
395,317NR107,30CPR(4th)1,[2004]FSR44,JE2004-602,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/2004/2004scc13.htmland
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc013.wpd.html;inFrenchat
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/csc/2004/2004csc14.htmland
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/fr/rec/html/2004csc013.wpd.html(SCC;2004-03-04);
[2004]CarswellNat2929,2004FCA278,34CPR(4th)1,243DLR(4th)759,2004CAF278,34
CPR(4th)1,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fca/2004/2004fca278.html,inFrenchat[2004]
CarswellNat4352,http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/caf/2004/2004caf278.html(FCA-Costs;2004-
08-25)
LeBarreauappelantassurele
fonctionnementdelaGrande
bibliothèqued’OsgoodeHall,àToronto,
unebibliothèquedeconsultationetde
recherchedotéed’unedesplusvastes
collectionsd’ouvragesjuridiquesau
Canada.LaGrandebibliothèqueoffre
unservicedephotocopiesurdemande
auxmembresduBarreauetdela
magistrature,etauxautreschercheurs
autorisés.Danslecadredeceservicede
photocopie,lesmembresdupersonnel
delaGrandebibliothèquepréparentet
remettentsurplaceoutransmettentpar
laposteoupartélécopieurdescopies
d’ouvragesjuridiquesauxpersonnesqui
enfontlademande.LeBarreaumetaussi
desphotocopieuseslibre-serviceàla
dispositiondesusagersdelaGrande
bibliothèque.En1993,leséditeursintimés
ontintentédesactionscontreleBarreau
pourviolationdudroitd’auteurafin
d’obtenirunjugementconfirmant
l’existenceetlapropriétédudroit
d’auteursurdesoeuvrespréciseset
déclarantqueleBarreauavaitvioléle
droitd’auteurlorsquelaGrande
bibliothèqueavaitproduitunecopiede
chacunedecesoeuvres.Leséditeursont
enoutredemandéuneinjonctionT
heappellantLawSocietymaintainsand
operatestheGreatLibraryatOsgoode
HallinToronto,areferenceandresearch
librarywithoneofthelargestcollectionsof
legalmaterialsinCanada.TheGreat
Libraryprovidesarequest-based
photocopyserviceforLawSociety
members,thejudiciaryandother
authorizedresearchers.Underthis »custom
photocopyservice »,legalmaterialsare
reproducedbyGreatLibrarystaffand
deliveredinperson,bymailorbyfacsimile
transmissiontorequesters.TheLawSociety
alsomaintainsself-servicephotocopiersin
theGreatLibraryforusebyitspatrons.In
1993,therespondentpublishers
commencedcopyrightinfringement
actionsagainsttheLawSociety,seekinga
declarationofsubsistenceandownership
ofcopyrightinspecificworksanda
declarationthattheLawSocietyhad
infringedcopyrightwhentheGreatLibrary
reproducedacopyofeachoftheworks.
Thepublishersalsosoughtapermanent
injunctionprohibitingtheLawSocietyfrom
reproducingtheseworksaswellasany
otherworksthattheypublished.TheLaw
Societydeniedliabilityand
counterclaimedforadeclarationthat
copyrightisnotinfringedwhenasingle

22
permanenteinterdisantauBarreaude
reproduirecesoeuvresoutouteautre
oeuvrequ’ilspublient.LeBarreauanié
touteresponsabilitéetdemandéàson
tourunjugementdéclarantqu’iln’yapas
deviolationdudroitd’auteurlorsqu’une
seulecopied’unedécisionpubliée,d’un
résuméjurisprudentiel,d’uneloi,d’un
règlementoud’unextraitlimitéd’untraité
estimpriméeparunmembredu
personneldelaGrandebibliothèqueou
parunusageraumoyend’une
photocopieuselibre-service,auxfinsde
recherche.LaSectiondepremière
instancedelaCourfédéraleaaccueilli
enpartiel’actiondeséditeurs,concluant
queleBarreauavaitvioléledroit
d’auteursurcertainesoeuvres;ellea
rejetélademandereconventionnelledu
Barreau.LaCourd’appelfédéralea
accueillienpartiel’appeldeséditeurs,
statuantquelesoeuvresencause
étaienttoutesoriginalesetprotégéespar
ledoitd’auteur.Ellearejetél’appel
incidentduBarreau.
c
opyofareporteddecision,case
summary,statute,regulationoralimited
selectionoftextfromatreatiseismadeby
theGreatLibrarystaff,oroneofitspatrons
onaself-servicecopier,forthepurposeof
research.TheFederalCourt,TrialDivision
allowedthepublishers’actioninpart,
findingthattheLawSocietyhadinfringed
copyrightincertainworks;itdismissedthe
LawSociety’scounterclaim.TheFederal
CourtofAppealallowedthepublishers’
appealinpart,holdingthatallofthe
workswereoriginalandthereforecovered
bycopyright.ItdismissedtheLawSociety’s
cross-appeal.

Arrêt:Lepourvoiestaccueillietle
pourvoiincidentestrejeté.LeBarreaune
violepasledroitd’auteurlorsquela
Grandebibliothèquefournituneseule
copied’unedécisionpubliée,d’un
résuméjurisprudentiel,d’uneloi,d’un
règlementoud’unepartierestreinted’un
texteprovenantd’untraité
conformémentàsapolitiqued’accès.
Parailleurs,leBarreaun’autorisepasla
violationdudroitd’auteurenplaçantune
photocopieusedanslaGrande
bibliothèqueetenaffichantunavisoùil
déclinetouteresponsabilitérelativement
auxcopiesproduitesenviolationdudroit
d’auteur.
H
eld:Theappealshouldbeallowedand
thecross-appealdismissed.TheLaw
Societydoesnotinfringecopyrightwhena
singlecopyofareporteddecision,case
summary,statute,regulationorlimited
selectionoftextfromatreatiseismadeby
theGreatLibraryinaccordancewithits
accesspolicy.Moreover,theLawSociety
doesnotauthorizecopyrightinfringement
bymaintainingaphotocopierintheGreat
Libraryandpostinganoticewarningthat
itwillnotberesponsibleforanycopies
madeininfringementofcopyright.
Lessommaires,lerésuméjurisprudentiel,
l’indexanalytiqueetlacompilationde
décisionsjudiciairespubliéessonttous
desoeuvres«originales»conférantun
droitd’auteur.Uneoeuvre«originale»au
sensdelaLoisurledroitd’auteurestune
oeuvrequiémaned’unauteuretqui
n’estpasunecopied’uneautreoeuvre.
Elledoitenoutreêtreleproduitde
l’exercicedutalentetdujugementd’unT
heheadnotes,casesummary,topical
indexandcompilationofreportedjudicial
decisionsarealloriginalworksinwhich
copyrightsubsists.An »original »workunder
theCopyrightActisonethatoriginates
fromanauthorandisnotcopiedfrom
anotherwork.Inaddition,anoriginalwork
mustbetheproductofanauthor’s
exerciseofskillandjudgment.Theexercise
ofskillandjudgmentrequiredtoproduce

23
auteur.Cetexercicenedoitpasêtre
négligeableaupointqu’onpuissele
qualifierd’entreprisepurement
mécanique.Bienqu’uneoeuvrecréative
soitpardéfinition«originale»etprotégée
parledroitd’auteur,lacréativitén’est
pasessentielleàl’originalité.Cette
conclusions’appuiesurlesensordinaire
dumot«originale»,l’historiquedudroit
d’auteur,lajurisprudencerécente,l’objet
delaLoisurledroitd’auteuretle
caractèreàlafoisfonctionnelet
équitabledececritère.Bienqueles
décisionsjudiciairespubliées,considérées
àjustetitrecommeunecompilationdu
sommaireetdesmotifsjudiciairesrévisés
quil’accompagnent,soientdesoeuvres
«originales»protégéesparledroit
d’auteur,lesmotifsdeladécisioneneux-
mêmes,sanslessommaires,ne
constituentpasdesoeuvresoriginalessur
lesquellesleséditeurspeuvent
revendiquerundroitd’auteur.
t
heworkmustnotbesotrivialthatitcould
becharacterizedasapurelymechanical
exercise.Whilecreativeworkswillby
definitionbe »original »andcoveredby
copyright,creativityisnotrequiredto
makeawork »original ».Thisconclusionis
supportedbytheplainmeaningof
« original »,thehistoryofcopyrightlaw,
recentjurisprudence,thepurposeofthe
CopyrightActandthefactthatthis
constitutesaworkableyetfairstandard.
Whilethereportedjudicialdecisions,when
properlyunderstoodasacompilationof
theheadnoteandtheaccompanying
editedjudicialreasons,are »original »works
coveredbycopyright,thejudicialreasons
inandofthemselves,withoutthe
headnotes,arenotoriginalworksinwhich
thepublisherscouldclaimcopyright.

L’article29delaLoisurledroitd’auteur
prévoitquel’utilisationéquitabled’une
oeuvreauxfinsderechercheoud’étude
privéeneviolepasledroitd’auteur.Ilfaut
interpréterlemot«recherche»de
manièrelargeafinquelesdroitsdes
utilisateursnesoientpasindûment
restreints,etlarechercheneselimitepas
àcelleeffectuéedansuncontextenon
commercialouprivé.L’avocatquiexerce
ledroitdansunbutlucratifeffectuedela
rechercheausensdel’art.29.Les
facteurssuivantsaidentàdéterminersi
uneutilisationestéquitable:lebutde
l’utilisation,lanaturedel’utilisation,
l’ampleurdel’utilisation,lanaturede
l’oeuvre,lessolutionsderechangeà
l’utilisationetl’effetdel’utilisationsur
l’oeuvre.Enl’espèce,l’utilisationdes
oeuvresdeséditeursparleBarreau,dans
lecadreduservicedephotocopie,était
axéesurlarechercheetéquitable.La
politiqued’accèscirconscrit
adéquatementlescopiesqueleBarreau
effectuera.Lorsquelafinpoursuiviene
semblerapasêtrelarecherche,la
critique,lecompterenduoul’étude
privée,lademandedephotocopiesera
refusée.EncasdedoutequantàlaU
nders.29oftheCopyrightAct,fair
dealingforthepurposeofresearchor
privatestudydoesnotinfringecopyright.
« Research »mustbegivenalargeand
liberalinterpretationinordertoensurethat
users’rightsarenotundulyconstrained,
andisnotlimitedtonon-commercialor
privatecontexts.Lawyerscarryingonthe
businessoflawforprofitareconducting
researchwithinthemeaningofs.29.The
followingfactorshelpdeterminewhether
adealingisfair:thepurposeofthe
dealing,thecharacterofthedealing,the
amountofthedealing,thenatureofthe
work,availablealternativestothedealing,
andtheeffectofthedealingonthework.
Here,theLawSociety’sdealingswiththe
publishers’worksthroughitscustom
photocopyservicewereresearch-based
andfair.Theaccesspolicyplaces
appropriatelimitsonthetypeofcopying
thattheLawSocietywilldo.Ifarequest
doesnotappeartobeforthepurposeof
research,criticism,revieworprivatestudy,
thecopywillnotbemade.Ifaquestion
arisesastowhetherthestatedpurposeis
legitimate,thereferencelibrarianwill
reviewthematter.Theaccesspolicylimits
theamountofworkthatwillbecopied,

24
légitimitédelafinpoursuivie,il
appartiendraauxbibliothécairesde
référencedetrancher.Lapolitique
d’accèslimitel’ampleurdel’extrait
pouvantêtrereproduit,etles
bibliothécairesderéférenceontledroit
derefuserunedemandedontlaportée
excèdecequiesthabituellementjugé
raisonnable.
a
ndthereferencelibrarianreviews
requeststhatexceedwhatmighttypically
beconsideredreasonableandhasthe
righttorefusetofulfillarequest.
LeBarreaun’autorisepaslaviolationdu
droitd’auteurenmettantdes
photocopieusesàladispositiondes
usagersdelaGrandebibliothèque.Bien
quel’autorisationpuisses’inférer
d’agissementsquinesontpasdesactes
directsetpositifs,cen’estpasautoriserla
violationdudroitd’auteurquede
permettrelasimpleutilisationd’un
appareilsusceptibled’êtreutiliséàcette
fin.Lestribunauxdoiventprésumerque
celuiquiautoriseuneactiviténel’autorise
quedansleslimitesdelalégalité.Cette
présomptionpeutêtreréfutéeparla
preuvequ’ilexistaitunecertainerelation
ouuncertaindegrédecontrôleentre
l’auteuralléguédel’autorisationetles
personnesquiontvioléledroitd’auteur.
Enl’espèce,aucunepreuven’établissait
quelesphotocopieusesavaientété
utiliséesd’unemanièreincompatible
aveclesdispositionssurledroitd’auteur.
Deplus,leBarreau,enaffichantunavis
oùildéclinetouteresponsabilité
relativementauxcopiesproduitesen
violationdudroitd’auteur,n’apas
reconnuexpressémentqueles
photocopieusesseraientutiliséesde
façonillicite.Enfin,mêmesilapreuve
établissaitquelesphotocopieusesont
étéutiliséespourviolerledroitd’auteur,le
Barreaun’apasuncontrôlesuffisantsur
lesusagersdelaGrandebibliothèque
pourquel’onpuisseconclurequ’ila
sanctionné,appuyéousoutenula
violationdudroitd’auteur.
T
heLawSocietydidnotauthorize
copyrightinfringementbyprovidingself-
servicephotocopiersforusebyitspatrons
intheGreatLibrary.Whileauthorization
canbeinferredfromactsthatareless
thandirectandpositive,apersondoes
notauthorizeinfringementbyauthorizing
themereuseofequipmentthatcouldbe
usedtoinfringecopyright.Courtsshould
presumethatapersonwhoauthorizesan
activitydoessoonlysofarasitisin
accordancewiththelaw.This
presumptionmayberebuttedifitisshown
thatacertainrelationshipordegreeof
controlexistedbetweenthealleged
authorizerandthepersonswho
committedthecopyrightinfringement.
Here,therewasnoevidencethatthe
copiershadbeenusedinamannerthat
wasnotconsistentwithcopyrightlaw.
Moreover,theLawSociety’spostingofa
noticewarningthatitwillnotbe
responsibleforanycopiesmadein
infringementofcopyrightdoesnot
constituteanexpressacknowledgement
thatthecopierswillbeusedinanillegal
manner.Finally,eveniftherewere
evidenceofthecopiershavingbeenused
toinfringecopyright,theLawSocietylacks
sufficientcontrolovertheGreatLibrary’s
patronstopermittheconclusionthatit
sanctioned,approvedorcountenanced
theinfringement.
Iln’yapaseuviolationdudroitd’auteurà
uneétapeultérieuredelapartdu
Barreau.Entransmettantdescopiesdes
oeuvresdeséditeursàdesavocatsde
l’Ontario,leBarreaunelesapas
communiquéesaupublic.LatransmissionT
herewasnosecondaryinfringementby
theLawSociety.TheLawSociety’sfax
transmissionsofcopiesoftherespondent
publishers’workstolawyersinOntariowere
notcommunicationstothepublic.Whilea
seriesofrepeatedfaxtransmissionsofthe

25
répétéed’unecopied’unemêmeoeuvre
àdenombreuxdestinatairespourrait
constituerunecommunicationaupublic
etviolerledroitd’auteur,maisaucune
preuven’aétabliquecegenrede
transmissionauraiteulieuenl’espèce.Le
Barreaun’apasnonplusvioléledroit
d’auteurenvendantdescopiesdes
oeuvresdeséditeurs.Enl’absencede
violationinitialedudroitd’auteur,ilne
peutyavoirdeviolationàuneétape
ultérieure.Enfin,bienqu’ilnesoitpas
nécessairedetranchercettequestion,la
Grandebibliothèqueestviséepar
l’exceptionprévuepourlesbibliothèques.s
ameworktonumerousdifferent
recipientsmightconstitute
communicationtothepublicin
infringementofcopyright,therewasno
evidenceofthistypeoftransmission
havingoccurredinthiscase.Nordidthe
LawSocietyinfringecopyrightbyselling
copiesofthepublishers’works.Absent
primaryinfringement,therecanbeno
secondaryinfringement.Finally,whileitis
notnecessarytodecidethepoint,the
GreatLibraryqualifiesforthelibrary
exemption.
RothsteinJ.2004-08-25
Inanactionforcopyrightinfringementthetrialjudgehadfoundthatcopyrightsubsistedin
certainoftheplaintiffs’worksatissueandthatthedefendanthadinfringedthatcopyright.
Onappeal,theFederalCourtofAppealhadfoundthatcopyrightsubsistedinallofthe
plaintiffs’worksatissueandthatthedefendanthadinfringedthatcopyright.Thecourtinvited
thepartiestomakesubmissionsastocosts.Thedefendantrequestedcostsatthemaximum
endofColumnIVoftariffBbutthecourtorderedthateachpartywastobearitsowncosts.
Onfurtherappeal,theSupremeCourtofCanadahadfoundthatthedefendanthadnot
infringedtheplaintiffs’copyrightandawardedthedefendantcoststhroughout.
ThedefendantbroughtamotionbeforetheFederalCourtofAppealforanorderfor
increasedcostsintheamountof$251,000forfeesand$37,000fordisbursementsforatotalof
$288,000.Thedefendant’ssolicitor-and-clientfeesanddisbursementstotalled$414,000and
thedefendantcalculatedfeesanddisbursementsunderColumnIIIandVoftariffBtototal
$51,000and$60,000respectively.
Held,themotionshouldbegrantedinpart.
AnawardofcoststhroughoutbytheSupremeCourtofCanadaremitstotherespective
lowercourtsthedeterminationofcostsinthosecourtsaccordingtotherulesofthelower
courts.Thecourtwasentitledtoexerciseitsdiscretionintheawardofcostsbutnotina
mannerinconsistentwiththeSupremeCourt’sawardofcosts.TheSupremeCourt’saward
wasneutralwithrespecttothecourt’sdiscretion,withtherebeingnointenttofetterthe
court’sdiscretiontoawardincreasedcosts.
Theactionwasanimportantoneofahighdegreeofcomplexityandtheappealhearing
tookthreedays.Boththerecordandthejudgmentweremuchlongerthanmostappeals
beforethecourtandthedefendantwasultimatelyentirelysuccessful.Thesefactorsjustified
anawardofincreasedcosts.Thesubmissionsastocostscouldnothoweverbeoverlooked.
Thedefendantwasthereforeentitledtoincreasedcostsatalumpsumtemperedbyits
earlierrepresentationsseekingincreasedcostsonlyatthehigherendofColumnIV.
Withrespecttodisbursements,wherethedisbursementsarechallengedthepartyclaiming
thedisbursementshasanobligationtoprovidesomeevidencetoshowthatthe
disbursementswerejustified.Thelargestitemofdisbursementswasphotocopyingandfrom
theextensiveappealbooksandbooksofauthorities,significantphotocopyingexpenses

26
wereinferred.Thedefendantwasthereforesubstantiallyentitledtoitsdisbursements,butin
viewofthepaucityofitsevidence,somereductionwasmade.
ThepartiesagreedthattherateofinterestwasfourpercentandthatOntariolawrelatingto
interestforjudgmentswasapplicable.Section129(1)oftheCourtsofJusticeAct,R.S.O.1990,
c.C.43,providesthatmoneyowingunderanorderbearsinterestfromthedateoftheorder.
Thepreferredinterpretationofs.129(1)wasthattheinterestwouldrunfromthedateofthe
court’soriginaljudgmentratherthanfromthedateofthetaxationofcosts.
Thedefendantwasawardedparty-and-partycostsof$80,000includingfees,disbursements
andGSTwithinterestatfourpercentfromJuly8,2002,thedateofjudgmentoftheFederal
CourtofAppeal.Assuccessonthemotionwasdividednocostswereawardedonthe
motion.
Charron(EricA.),forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthepropertylocatedat
27MonkStreetinOttawa(ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto)FileNo.2004-UO/TI-28;
availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/142-e.pdf(CopBd;2004-09-22)
Forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthepropertylocatedat27MonkStreetin
Ottawa-Referencepurposes
CheesecakeFactoryInc[The]v9092-1651QuébecInc2004CF628,[2004]CarswellNat1251,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf628.html,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf628.shtml(FC;2004-04-28)Morneau,a.s.p.

[1]Quantàlademandededétailsformuléeparladéfenderesseàl’encontredes
paragraphes6(a)et(b)deladéclarationd’actiondesdemanderesses,ilyalieuderejeter
cettedemandepuisquejeconsidèrequel’exercicedecomparaisonquiestcontenuàla
pièce »C »del’affidavitdeM.Greathousedatédu21avril2004enliaisonavecles
photographiesquel’onretrouveàlapièce »B »del’affidavitdeMmePaulhusdatédu23avril
2004informeplusquesuffisammentladéfenderessedesélémentsqu’onluireproched’avoir
copiéspourquecettedernièrepuissemaintenantproduiredefaçonintelligenteune
défense.

ChristopherSimmondsArchitectforthereproductionofarchitecturalplansfortheproperty
locatedat154BillingsAvenueinOttawa[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]FileNo.2004-
UO/TI-02;availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/130-e.pdf(CopBd;2004-01-27)
Forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthepropertylocatedat154BillingsAvenuein
Ottawainonecopy-Renovationpurposes

CollinsvAbrams*[2004]CarswellBC403,2004BCCA96,195BCAC.47,319WAC47,
http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcca/2004/2004bcca96.htmland
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/04/00/2004bcca0096.htm(BCCA;2004-02-13)Finch
J.

27
TribunalfoundthatarticlesbywriterpublishedincommunitynewspapercontravenedHuman
RightsCode–Tribunalorderedwriterandnewspapertoceasepublicationandfinedthem–
Writerappliedforjudicialreviewofdecision,includingnoticeofconstitutionalquestion–
ConstitutionalissueswereremittedtoTribunal–Tribunalreceivedwrittensubmissionsand
writerthendied–TribunalupheldsectionsofCode–Applicationforjudicialreview
continuedonbasisthatwriter’swifehadappliedforstanding–AttorneyGeneralappliedto
dismissapplicationongroundsthatmatterwasmoot–Applicationgranted–Wifeappealed
–Appealdismissed–Chambersjudgedidnoterrinconcludingthatwife’sconstitutional
challengewasrenderedmootfollowingwriter’sdeath–Wife’sinheritanceofwriter’s
intellectualpropertyrightsdidnothaveeffectofmakingwifeindistinguishablefromwriterfor
purposesofconstitutionalchallenge–Chambersjudgedidnoterrinconcludingthatwife
lackedpublicintereststanding–Chambersjudgewascorrectinholdingthatconsiderations
ofjudicialeconomyweighedagainstcontinuationofproceedings–Chambersjudgeheld
correctlythatexerciseofcourt’sjurisdictiontodecideconstitutionalissuewouldbe
inappropriatewhenitwasunnecessarytodoso.

Humanrights—Practiceandprocedure–Judicialreview–Availability–General

TribunalfoundthatarticlesbywriterpublishedincommunitynewspapercontravenedHuman
RightsCode–Tribunalorderedwriterandnewspapertoceasepublicationandfinedthem–
Writerappliedforjudicialreviewofdecision,includingnoticeofconstitutionalquestion–
ConstitutionalissueswereremittedtoTribunal–Tribunalreceivedwrittensubmissionsand
writerthendied–TribunalupheldsectionsofCode–Applicationforjudicialreview
continuedonbasisthatwriter’swifehadappliedforstanding–AttorneyGeneralappliedto
dismissapplicationongroundsthatmatterwasmoot–Applicationgranted–Wifeappealed
–Appealdismissed–Chambersjudgedidnoterrinconcludingthatwife’sconstitutional
challengewasrenderedmootfollowingwriter’sdeath–Wife’sinheritanceofwriter’s
intellectualpropertyrightsdidnothaveeffectofmakingwifeindistinguishablefromwriterfor
purposesofconstitutionalchallenge–Chambersjudgedidnoterrinconcludingthatwife
lackedpublicintereststanding–Chambersjudgewascorrectinholdingthatconsiderations
ofjudicialeconomyweighedagainstcontinuationofproceedings–Chambersjudgeheld
correctlythatexerciseofcourt’sjurisdictiontodecideconstitutionalissuewouldbe
inappropriatewhenitwasunnecessarytodoso.
[1]Theissueonthisappealiswhetherthelearnedchambersjudgeerredinconcludingthat
thepetitioner,Mr.Collins’challengetotheconstitutionalvalidityofs.7(1)(b)oftheHuman
RightsCode,R.S.B.C.1979,c.210,wasrenderedmootfollowinghisdeath.Mr.Collinswasthe
subjectofacomplaintunders.7(1)(b)oftheCodewhenhewrote,andhisthenemployer,
theNorthShoreNewspublished,aseriesofcolumnsconcerningJewishpersonsandthe
holocaust.Thosecolumns,orsomeofthem,becamethesubjectoftwocomplaints,oneby
theCanadianJewishCongress,andonebyMr.HarryAbrams.Theyallegedthatthe
publicationsviolateds.7(1)(b)oftheCodeonthegroundsthattheywerelikelytoexpose
Jewishpersonstohatredandcontempt.ThecomplaintbytheCongresswithregardtoone
articlewasdismissed.However,Mr.Abrams’complaintinrespectoffourarticles,wasupheld
onthebasisthatthearticles,takentogether,hadtheeffectof“reinforcingsomeofthemost
virulentformsofanti-semitism”.
[2]Uponfindingaviolationofs.7(1)(b),theTribunalissuedvariousorders,includinga
compensationorderandaceaseanddesistorder.
[4]Inhislifetime,Mr.Collinscouldnothavere-publishedthefourarticles,orothersimilar
articles,withoutbreachingthisceaseanddesistorder.Hesoughttochallengethevalidityof

28
theorderbyattackingtheconstitutionalvalidityofs.7(1)(b)oftheCode,theprovisionunder
whichtheorderwasmade.
[5]Mr.Collinsdiedon29September2001.TheAttorneyGeneralthenappliedforanorder
declaringhisconstitutionalchallengetobemoot.Mrs.Collins,whoinheritedcopyrighttothe
fourarticlesatissueintheAbramscomplaint,soughttocontinueMr.Collins’challengeonthe
groundsthatastheowneroftheintellectualpropertyinMr.Collins’writings,shestoodinthe
shoesofMr.Collinsforthepurposesofhisconstitutionalchallenge.
[6]ThelearnedchambersjudgefoundthatMrs.Collinsownedtheintellectualpropertyinthe
columns,butshedidnotaccepttheargumentthatthisconferreduponhertherightto
proceedwithachallengebasedontheallegedviolationofMr.Collins’constitutionalrights.
ThechambersjudgealsoheldthatMrs.Collinscouldnotmeetthetestforpublicinterest
standing,whichwastheonlybasisonwhichshecouldhaveproceededwiththechallenge
oftheimpugnedprovisionoftheCode.
[15]Onthisappeal,counselfortheappellantmaintainsthatthechambersjudgeerredin
findingthatMr.Collins’petitionwasmootgiventhatMrs.CollinsinheritedMr.Collins’
intellectualpropertyrightsandthereforehadaninterestinpossiblyre-publishingthose
columns.Theappellantalsosubmitsthatasthenewownerofthepropertyatissueinthe
Abramscomplaint,Mrs.CollinsmustbeseenasindistinguishablefromMr.Collinsforthe
purposesoftheconstitutionalchallengeinrelationtothatproperty.
[16]Iamunabletoacceptthesesubmissions.Theceaseanddesistordergrantedbythe
HumanRightsTribunalboundonlyMr.CollinsandtheNorthShoreNews.Asastatutorybody,
ithadnojurisdictiontomakeanorderbindingonanypersonnotlawfullybeforeit.
[17]TheorderoftheTribunal,includingtheceaseanddesistprovision,didnotbindMrs.
Collinsafterherhusband’sdeathanymorethatitboundherbeforehisdeath.Thefactthat
Mrs.Collinsinheritedherhusband’sintellectualpropertydoesnotaltertheeffectoftheorder.
IfMrs.CollinsoranyoneelseweretohavepurchasedcopyrightfromMr.Collinsbeforehis
death,itwouldnotfollowthattheceaseanddesistorderwouldrunwiththeintellectual
property.Theorderisaninpersonamremedyattachingtothepersonorbodyagainstwhom
itwasmade.TheTribunalcouldnotbindMrs.Collinsbyvirtueofherinheritance.NorcanMrs.
Collinsacquirearighttocommenceortocontinueaconstitutionalchallengebasedonthe
violationofCharterrightsbelongingtosomeoneotherthanherself.Atbest,inorderto
participateinacivilchallengeinrelationtoaninfringementoftheconstitutionalrightsofa
thirdperson,itisnecessarytomeetthetestforpublicintereststanding.
ColumbiaPicturesIndustriesIncvFrankl[2004]CarswellNat3727,2004FC1454,[2004]FTR
Uned903,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc1454.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc1454.shtml(FC;2004-10-21]Tremblay-LamerJ.
[25]ToestablishcopyrightinfringementpursuanttotheprovisionsoftheCopyrightAct,the
plaintiffsmustshowthatthedefendant,byhisactions,authorizedotherstoreproduce,
distributeand/orpubliclyperformtheircopyrightedworks.
[26]Authorizationislargelyafact-driveninquiry.[…]
[27]Inthecaseatbar,theaffidavitevidence,whichisuncontradicted,demonstratesthat
thedefendantimported,manufactured,distributed,modified,programmed,reprogrammed,

29
leased,offeredforlease,soldandofferedforsale,equipmentspecificallydesignedtodefeat
DirecTV’sencryptionofSecuredBroadcastSignals,therebyenablingtheunauthorizedreceipt
andclearviewingoftheSecuredBroadcastSignals,contrarytotheplaintiffs’rightsinthe
copyrightedworks.
[28]Consequently,Ifindthatthedefendantauthorizedotherstoreproducetheplaintiffs’
copyrightedworks.Thereisnogenuineissuefortrialinrelationtocopyrightinfringement
undertheCopyrightAct.

CorporationCinégroupe,Re[2004]CarswellQue9021(QueSupCt;2004-10-15)TingleyJ

[13]AreviewoftheAgreementsrevealsthatwhateverdistributionrightshavebeenpromised
toLionsGatethereunder,theyarenotexclusiverights,saveasregards«U.S.homevideo
rights»fortheseries«TrippingtheRift».Moreover,therightsconferredintheLetter
Agreementrelatingto«TrippingtheRift»areconditionalupontheoccurrenceoffutureand
uncertainevents.Thustodeclareatthistimethat«LionsGateistherightfulholderofthe
distributionrights»inPinocchioandTrippingtheRiftwouldbebothincorrectandpremature.

[14]Arguably,theexpression«holderofthedistributionrights»inafilmmeans«alldistribution
rights«or«exclusivedistributionrights».TheAgreementsdonotprovideforthis,saveas
notedabove.Thisreasonaloneissufficienttodismisstheapplicationfordeclaratoryrelief.
WhatissoughtisnotwhatwaseitherrequestedorgrantedbytheAgreements.Moreover,
oneoftheAgreementshasyettotakeeffectandmaynevercomeintoforce.

[15]ItfollowsfromthisthattheMonitorisfreetograntdistributionrightsinthesetwofilmsto
anyoneonconditionsacceptabletohim.Theonlythinghecannotdoistorescindtherights
alreadygrantedtoLionsGate,absentadefaultonitspartintheexerciseofsuchrightsora
failuretoreorderwhen,ifever,thatoptioncomesintoexistence.

Cossette-Trudelc.Carle[2004]CarswellQue2316,2004IIJCan29912,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2004/2004qccs15590.html(QueSuptCt;2004-09-23)
CrôteauJ
[1]Parsarequête,lerequérantrechercheunjugementdéclaratoireàl’effetqu’ilestleseul
auteurdesscénariosdelasérietélévisée«Unerévolutiontranquille,unehistoirepopulairedu
Québec».Enconséquence,ilsoutientqu’ilestleseulàavoirdroitauxredevancesdétenues
parlamiseencause,laSociétéciviledesauteursmultimédia,ci-aprèslaSCAM.
[97]Enl’espèce,lerequérantveutsefairereconnaîtredesdroitsd’auteursuruneœuvre
audiovisuelle.Sesdroitsseraientfondésnonseulementsuruncontrat,maissurlaLoisurle
droitd’auteur;uneloiquis’appliqueauCanada.D’autrepart,l’intimé,tented’inscrireau
répertoiredelaSCAMuneœuvreenprétendantqu’ilenestl’auteur.
Dauphinaisc.ClubautosportdéfiInc.,2004IIJCan15307,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccq/2004/2004qccq10841.html(QueCtCivDivSmallClaims;
2004-1-26)MassolJ.

30
[18]Ainsi,letitulairepeutconférerdesrestrictionsparticulièreslorsqu’ilcèdesondroit.C’estce
queledemandeursembleavoirfaitenl’espècelorsqu’ilindiquedanssoncourriel[PièceD-2
etP-4]dejuin2002qu’ilautorisel’utilisationdesesphotographiespourdesbrochuresou
affiches,cequienrestreintdoncl’usageauxfinsdemagasines.Commeladéfenderessen’a
présentéaucunepreuveducontraire,laCourdoitconclurequel’utilisationdes
photographiesétaitcontraireàl’ententeintervenueentrelespartiesetdecefait,qu’ilyeut
violationdudroitd’auteur.Cetteconclusionestd’autantplusrenforcéeparlalecturede
l’article27,paragraphe(2)c)quispécifieque«lamiseencirculation…dansunbut
commercial…d’uneoeuvreconstitueuneviolationdudroitd’auteur».Enl’espèce,l’utilisation
delaphotographieseretrouvantenpage8delarevuePolePosition,bienqu’ayantune
finalitépromotionnelle,ad’abordserviàdesfinscommerciales.
[19]Danslescasdeviolationdudroitd’auteur,letitulaireléséadroitàdesdommages-
intérêtsprévusauxarticles35etsuivantsdelaloi.Lesdommages-intérêtsdoivent
correspondreauxprofitsdontlavictimeaétéprivéetdesprofitsréalisésparlapersonnequi
enabénéficié.Lapreuve,incomplèteetinsatisfaisanteàceschapitres,amènentletribunal
àprendreenconsidérationlabonneoumauvaisefoidudéfendeur,conformémentàl’article
38.1,paragraphe(5)delaloi,etqu’enl’occurrence,ladéfenderessepouvait
raisonnablementcroirequ’illuiétaitpermisdefairetelleutilisationdesphotographies.Dans
untelcas,letribunalalepouvoirdecondamnerlapartiedéfenderesseàdesdommages-
intérêtsdéjàétablisparl’article38.1delaloietquidoiventsesituerentre500$et20000$,
saufsielledémontresabonnefoi,auquelcasellepeutêtrecondamnéeàdesdommages-
intérêtsde200$,envertuduparagraphe(2)del’articleprécité.C’estlecasenl’espèce,etle
tribunalcroitjustedel’appliquerici.
DisneyEnterprisesInc.v2631-5374QuebecInc2004FC1360,[2004]CarswellNat3522,[2004]
FTRTNEDOCO30http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc1360.shtml,inFrenchat
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf1360.shtml(FC;2004-10-04)HarringtonJ.

Plaintiffswerecopyrightownersofmotionpicturesdistributedtogeneralpublicvia
videocassetterecordings,DVDrecordingsandtelevisionandsatellitetransmissionbroadcasts
–DefendantswereQuebeccompanyanditsprincipalR–Defendantspleadedguiltyto
videopiracychargesunderCopyrightAct–Plaintiffsbroughtactionagainstdefendantsfor
copyrightinfringement–Plaintiffsmovedforsummaryjudgment–Motiondismissed–While
plaintiffshavemadeoutgoodprimafaciecaseagainstcompanydefendant,defendants
shouldnotbedeprivedofdayincourtasthereweregenuineissueswithrespecttodefence-
-Guiltypleawasresultofpleabargainandmotionscourthadnoevidenceofmotiveand
circumstancespertainingtopleabargain–DegreeofR’sparticipationwithrespecttoAct
violationswasjusticiableissue.
[1]Theplaintiffsarewell-knownAmericanmotionpicturecompanies.Afteramovieisshown
intheatres,itoftenisdistributedinonefashionoranothertothepay-per-viewtelevision
marketandthentothegeneralpublicbywayofvideocassetterecordings,DVDrecordings
andVCDrecordings.Theplaintiffs’intellectualpropertyintheirworksareprotectedbylaw,
includingcopyrightandtrade-mark.
[2]Theyaccusethedefendantsof »videopiracy ».Theyaresaidtohavereproducedor
duplicatedtheplaintiffs’moviesandtohaverentedandsoldthesecounterfeitstothe
generalpublicwithoutauthorizationandwithoutlicence.

31
[3]Theplaintiffssubmitthatitisnotnecessarytogototrial.Theysaytheoutcomeofafull-
blowntrialisaforegoneconclusion.Theyseeksummaryjudgmentonthebasisthatthe
corporatedefendant,Multividéo,pleadedguiltytothreerelatedcriminalchargeslaid
againstitundertheCopyrightAct.Thisguiltypleashouldnotonlyserveasanadmission
againstitbutalsoagainstClaudeRivard,itspresident,directorandmajorityshareholder.
[5]Thedefendantsdonotinanywaycontestthevalidityoftheplaintiffs’intellectualproperty
claims.Multividéosaysthatallitdidwasrepairvideotapesoffivemovieswhichithadbought
fromanauthorizeddistributor.However,itdidpleadguiltytothreeoffivechargesaspartof
apleabargainwhichresultedinafineof$3,000.Mr.Rivarddeniesthathehimselfwas
personallyinvolved.Noguiltypleawaseverenteredonhisbehalfandthecriminalcharges
againsthimliefallow.Headdsthatinanyeventtheactionasagainsthimistimebarred.
[16]Sincethereisnodisputeastoplaintiffs’intellectualpropertyinterestsinallthemovies
identifiedinthestatementofclaim,Iampreparedtosodeclarebywayofsummary
judgment.However,thefactscurrentlybeforetheCourtarenotsufficientlycleartoallowme
torenderasummaryjudgmentonliabilityanddamages.Inaddition,therearerealcredibility
issues.ThemosttheplaintiffscansayisthatMultividéopleadedguiltytoofferingforsaleor
leaseonecounterfeitcopyofthreemovies.Wedonotknowwhichmoviestheyare,other
thantheyarethreeoutofapossiblefive,TheBluesBrothers,U.S.Marshals,Mr.Magoo,Hush,
andTheHorseWhisperer.
[20]AlthoughtheplaintiffshavemadeoutagoodprimafaciecaseagainstMultividéo,Ido
notthinkitshouldbedeprivedofitsdayinCourtastherearegenuineissueswithrespectto
thedefence.Therecouldalsobeastrainontheadministrationofjustice.Oneisnotlikely,as
partofapleabargain,topleadguiltyagainstafineof$3,000ifitmeanspayingtheplaintiffs
thedamagestheyseekinthisaction,some$225,000,plusinterestandcosts.
[21]Apartfromthefactthattheformoftheguiltypleaandtheidentityofthethreemoviesis
notyetinevidencebeforethisCourt,butshouldandcouldbeputinevidence,Multividéo’s
positionthatitwasfarcheapertopaya$3,000finethantoproceedtoafull-blowntrialisnot
far-fetched;afterall,thestigmaofasummaryconvictiononacorporationisnotthesameas
onanindividual.
EntreprisesBigknowledgeinc.c.SkuraCorp.REJB2004-60340,[2004]CarswellQue783
(QueSupCt;2004-04-02)Bishop,J
LaCourd’appeladécidéquele«bienmeuble»quelepropriétairepeutsaisiravant
jugementenvertudel’article734(1)C.p.c.nepeutcomprendrelesinformations
confidentielles.Ils’ensuitqueladescriptiondesélémentsàsaisircontenuedanslaréquisition
delarequérante(BK)doitêtrelimitéeauxmeublesphysiquesoucorporelsquilui
appartiennent.Touteautorisationdevantêtreaccordéeconcernantlesconclusionsquisont
accessoiresàlasaisiedevraaussiêtrelimitéeauxmeublesphysiques.Cesbiensphysiques
devrontégalementêtreprécisémentdécrits.Ledroitdesaisiravantjugementqu’accorde
l’article734C.p.c.nepeutcependantautoriserensoiunefouilledesordinateursdes
défendeurs.Commelementionnelajurisprudence,l’article734nepermetpasdesaisirle
contenud’unordinateur.Unordinateurnepeutfairel’objetd’unefouillesanslapermission
d’unjuge.
Celadit,ilconvientmaintenantdesedemandersiBKpeutobteniruneordonnancedela
Courquis’apparenteàuneordonnancedetypeAntonPiller.Lajurisprudenceapréciséles

32
troisconditionsessentiellesrequisespourqu’uneordonnancedecetypesoitprononcée.Tout
d’abord,ilfautuncommencementdepreuvetrèssolide.Ensuite,lepréjudiceréelou
possibledoitêtretrèsgravepourlerequérant.Finalement,ilfautunepreuvemanifesteque
lesdéfendeursontenleurpossessiondesdocumentsoudesobjetspouvantservirdepièces
àconvictionetqu’ilestréellementpossiblequelesdéfendeursdétruisentcespiècesavant
quepuisseêtreintroduiteunedemandeinterpartes.Lapremièreconditionesticiremplie.La
preuvedémontrequelesdéfendeursHainsetJoannetteavaientconvenudansleurs
contratsd’emploidenepasutiliser,aprèslafindeleuremploi,lesinformationsconfidentielles
appartenantàBK,denepascopiercesinformationsetdenepaslesemporter.Or,l’affidavit
signéparlereprésentantdeBKallèguequelesdéfendeursontcontrevenuàleurs
obligations,etcesallégationsconstituentunepreuveprimafaciesuffisammentfortepour
satisfaireàlapremièrecondition.Ladeuxièmeconditionestégalementremplie.Parcontre,
onnepeutendireautantdelatroisièmecondition.Étantdonnélescirconstances,les
conclusionsdelarequêtequis’apparententàcellesd’uneordonnancedetypeAntonPiller
nepeuventêtreaccueillies.
BKinvoqueaussil’article734(5)C.p.c.,lequelpermetdesaisiravantjugementlebienmeuble
qu’unedispositiondelaloipermetdesaisir.IlallèguedanssonaffidavitquelaLoisurledroit
d’auteurluiaccordecertainsdroitsparrapportauxélémentsénumérésdanssaréquisitionet
quelesdéfendeursontcontrevenuàcesdroits.Aprèsanalyse,letribunalestimecependant
queledroitdesaisiravantjugementqueprocurel’article38(1)delaLoisurledroitd’auteurà
BKestlimitéauxcopiesetauxreproductionsmatériellesoucorporellesdesoeuvressur
lesquellesilpossèdeundroitd’auteur.L’autorisationnepeutdoncinclureleslogiciels,codes
etfichiersinformatisésdécritsdanslaréquisition.Toutcequ’ellepeutviser,cesontles
manuelsetautresdocumentscorporelsrelatifsàlaformationquedonneBKauxclients
décritsdanslaréquisition,pluslesautresmanuelsetdocumentsidentifiéscommelui
appartenant.
EROS–Équipederechercheopérationnelleensantéinc.vConseillersengestion
informatiqueCGIinc.[2004]CarswellNat3885,35CPR(4th)105,;2004CF178,[2004]FTRTNEd
Fe033,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc178.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc178.shtml,inFrenchat[2004]CarswellNat429,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf178.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf178.shtml(FC;2004-02-03)Tremblay-LamerJ.
OnAugust8,1984theplaintiffassignedaprovincialministerofhealthcertainexclusiverights
intheCTMSPincludingtherightstoreproduceanddistributetheCTMSPforminpaperformat.
Theplaintiffreservedallrightsfortheelectronicexploitationofthework.
InAugust1984theprovincialministerimposedonregionalhealthboardstheresponsibilityof
preparingandco-ordinatingaregionalsystemforadmittingandtransferringpatientsto
healthinstitutionsintheirregions.InOctober1984theministerdistributedaministerialcircular
totheregionalhealthboardssettingoutnewpoliciesforassessmentanddirectionofpatients
andadvisedtheboardsthattheministerhadselectedtheCTMSPastheassessmenttool.The
ministermadetheCTMSPtoolsavailabletotheboardsinpaperformfreeofchargeand
advisedtherecipientsofthelimitsonthecopyrightintheformsacquiredbytheminister.
In1986theprovincialministerprovidedagranttothedefendantregionalhealthboardfor
Quebec(the »RégiedeQuebec »)todevelopsoftwaretofacilitatethecontrolandadmission
ofpatientstohealthcareinstitutionsintheQuebecregion.Aconditionofthegrantwasthat
theRégiedeQuebecmakethesoftwareavailablethroughouttheprovincialhealthand

33
socialservicesnetwork.TheRégiedeQuebecretainedthepredecessorofthecorporate
defendant(collectively »CGI »)todevelopthesoftwareforit.CGIdevelopedthesoftware
(the »SIBPA »),whichrequiredthecompletionofaCTMSPformcontainedinthesoftware.The
outputoftheSIBPAwasaformwhichsetouttheresultsofcalculationsmadeusingtheSIBPA.
Inearly1986theRégiedeQuebecmadetheSIBPAavailabletotheregionalhealthboards
freeofcharge.InordertoacquiretheSIBPAaregionalhealthboardhadtoobtainadiskette
containingtheSIBPAwhichtheboardcouldusetoinstalltheSIBPAonitsserver’sharddisk.
ThedefendantregionalhealthboardMontérégie(« Montérégie »)usedSIBPAinaccordance
withtheprovincialminister’srequest.MontérégieinstalledtheSIBPAonitsserver’sharddisk
andduringtheuseofthesoftwaredisplayedtheCTMSPformonitscomputerscreens.
In1988theplaintiffcommencedanactionforcopyrightinfringementclaimingdamagesasa
resultoflostincomefortheelectronicexploitationoftheCTMSPandlossofincomeasaresult
ofreducedsalesforitsPLAISIRsystem,themarketforwhichhadbeenlargelytakenoverby
theSIBPAsoftware.TheRégiedeQuebecclaimedCrownimmunity.Montérégieclaimed
thatputtingtheCTMSPformonitscomputerscreendidnotamounttoareproductionina
materialformandthereforedidnotamounttoaninfringementofcopyright.CGIclaimedan
appealinwarrantyagainsttheRégiedeQuebecforfailuretoperformitsdutyofinformation
inthecontractforthedesignofSIBPAcontrarytoart.1024oftheCivilCodeofLower
Canada(the »CCLC »).
Held,judgmentshouldbegrantedtotheplaintiff.
CrownImmunity
TheRégiedeQuebecactingunderamandatefromtheprovincialministerwasactingasan
agentoftheCrowninrightoftheprovince.Section17oftheInterpretationAct,R.S.C.1985,
c.I-21,providesthatnoenactmentisbindingonHerMajestyexceptasmentionedor
referredtointhestatute.ThissectionappliesbothtotheCrowninrightofCanadaandtothe
Crowninrightofaprovince.ThecopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,doesnotstatethatthe
ActappliestotheCrownandthereforeitwasnecessarytoanalyzetheprovisionsoftheAct
todeterminewhethertheActappliedtotheCrownbyimplication.Section12oftheAct
providesforthesubsistenceofCrowncopyrightbutthesectionmakesitclearthatthe
sectionapplieswithoutprejudicetotherightsandprivilegesoftheCrown.TheCrowncan
thereforeexerciseitsrightunders.12withouteliminatingitsimmunity.
ItisestablishedthatgenerallytheCrowncannotbenefitfromlegislationwithoutbeing
subjecttotheresultingburdens.Thistheoryofwaiverrequiresaclosenexusbetweenthe
benefitreceivedbytheCrownandtheburdenitismadetoassume.
TheprovincialministermadeuseoftheprovisionsoftheCopyrightActthroughits
negotiationswiththeplaintifffortheassignmentoftheexclusivelicenceinrespectofthe
CTMSP.Theprovincialministercouldnotthereforetakethebenefitoftheassignmentwithout
beingcoveredbythesystemofresponsibilityforinfringementoftherightswhichtheplaintiff
hadchosennottoassign.Theprovincialministeranditsagentswerethereforeboundbythe
CopyrightActandcouldnotrelyonCrownimmunity.
EveniftheRégiedeQuebeccouldhavereliedonCrownimmunity,itcouldonlyhavedone
soaslongasitdidnotstepoutsidetheambitofCrownpurposes.Astheprovincialminister
informedtheRégiedeQuebecofthescopeofitsrightsandasthescopeoftheminister’s
requirementorauthorizationoftheuseoftheCTMSPdidnotextendtocomputerizationof
theforms,theRégiedeQuebecexceededthelimitationofitsinstructions.Forthatreasonas
well,theRégiedeQuebeccouldnotrelyonCrownimmunity.

34
InfringementofcopyrightbyReproduction
ThesourcecodefortheSIBPAreproducedsubstantialpartsoftheCTMSPform.Thesource
codewasthentranslatedintoobjectcode.Whethertransposingaworkintoelectronic
languageconstitutesareproductionoratranslationundertheCopyrightActhasyettobe
resolved.Itwasnot,however,necessarytodeterminewhethertheincorporationofthe
CTMSPformsinSIBPAwasareproductionortranslationbecauseitwasclearthattheforms
werecontainedinthesoftwarewordforwordforwhichtherewasinfringementunderss.
3(1)(a)and27(1)oftheAct.
AstheRégiedeQuebechadcompletecontroloverthecreationoftheSIBPAandplaced
theCTMSPformsatthedisposalofCGI,theRégiedeQuebecauthorizedtheinfringingacts
ofCGIandwasthereforejointlyandseverallyliableforthoseacts.
MontérégieclaimedthatitsmereuseoftheSIBPAdidnotamounttocopyrightinfringement
becauseputtingtheCTMSPworkonitscomputerscreendidnotconstituteareproductionin
amaterialform.Copyrightincludestherighttoreproduceaworkinanymaterialform.A
materialformisapalpable,tangible,perceptibleform.PostingasubstantialpartofaCTMSP
formonacomputerscreenwasnotephemeral.Theimageappearedonthescreenfor
interactiveusebytheuserofthecomputer.Thereisnoreasontoexcludematerializationon
atelevisionscreenfromthemeaningofreproductioninamaterialformandthesame
appliesinthecaseofpostingstoacomputerscreen.ThereproductionoftheCTMSPformon
theRégiedeQuebecandtheMontérégiecomputerscreensthereforeconstitutedan
infringementofcopyright.
Inaddition,theprintedreportsgeneratedfromtheSIBPAalsoreproducedsubstantialpartsof
theCTMSPformandwasanotherinstanceofinfringement.
InfringementofCopyrightbyDistribution
BoththeRégiedeQuebecandCGIdistributedtheSIBPA.CGIclaimedthatitcouldavoidan
orderfordamagesongroundsofs.39oftheCopyrightActasitexistedbeforethe1997
copyrightamendmentsonthebasisthatitdidnotknow,andhadnoreasonablegroundsto
suspect,thatcopyrightsubsistedintheCTMSPforms.AsthecopyrightwasregisteredCGIhad
torefutethepresumptionithadreasonablegrounds.Theburdenofproofwasaheavyone.
ThedocumentthatCGIincorporatedintheSIBPAincludedacopyrightnoticeinfavourof
theplaintiff.AlthoughtheCGIemployeesactedingoodfaith,thatwasinsufficienttorebut
thepresumptioncreatedbys.39especiallyinviewofthecopyrightregistrationsandthe
reproductionoftheplaintiff’scopyrightnoticeintheSIBPA.
TheevidenceestablishedthatthearrivaloftheSIBPAcausedtheplaintiff’sbusinesstodrop
significantlyfromwhichitneverrecovered.BoththeRégiedeQuebecandCGItherefore
infringedtheplaintiff’scopyrightinitsCTMSPformunders.27(2)(c)oftheActbydistributing
infringingcopiesinsuchawayastoprejudiciallyaffecttheplaintiff.
Remedies
TheplaintiffwasawardeddamagesrelatingtotheelectronicexploitationoftheCTMSPinthe
amountof$312,729calculatedastheamountthatitwouldhavecosttheprovincialminister
topurchasetheplaintiff’sinterestsrelatingtotheelectronicadaptationoftheCTMSPplusthe
amountof$53,164asthelostprofitontheannualmaintenanceofitselectronicCTMSP
software.

35
Theplaintiff’sCTMSPsoftwareproductwouldhavecompetedwiththeplaintiff’sPLAISIR
product.Toavoidduplicatingthedamageaward,theplaintiffcouldnotclaimdamages
relatingbothtotheuseofthePLAISIRproductandtocomputerizationoftheCTMSP.
Thereisapresumptionofdamageonafindingofcopyrightinfringement.Whereaplaintiffis
unabletoproveactualdamagesforinfringement,nominaldamagesmaybeawarded.
Montérégiewasnottheinfringingagentanddidnotactivelyparticipateinthereproduction
oftheplaintiff’sworkoritsdistribution.Inthecircumstances,Montérégiewasonlyliablefor
$10,000.00asnominaldamages.
Withrespecttopunitivedamages,aplaintiffmustproveanelementoffraud,anintentionto
deceiveormaliciousconductthatclearlydepartsfromtheordinarystandardofgood
conduct.TheRégiedeQuebecandMontérégiehonestlybelievedthatasettlementwould
havebeenreachedbetweentheplaintiffandtheprovincialminister.CGIunderstoodthat
therewerenegotiationsbetweentheplaintiffandtheprovincialministerandthattheRégie
deQuebecortheministerwouldberesponsibleforthematter.Therewasnoevidenceof
maliciousorfraudulentintentorintenttoinjureandthereforeitwasnotappropriatetoaward
punitivedamages.
Interestwasawardedatthelegalrateof5percentunderart.1056coftheCCLC.
AppealinWarranty
CGImadeaclaiminwarrantyagainsttheRégiedeQuebecbasedonitsfailuretoperform
itsdutyofinformationinitscontractwithCGIforthedesignofSIBPA.Article1024oftheCCLC
imposesanimplicitdutyofgoodfaithwhichincludesanobligationonacontrollingpartyto
provideinformationtoacontractorinacontractofservice.CGIhadgoodreasontobelieve
thattheRégiedeQuebecwouldhaveknowledgeofanylimitationonthecopyrightin
CTMSP.TheCTMSPformsprovidedtoCGIboretheabbreviationoftheprovincial
governmentlogoonthefirstpage.Inthecircumstances,theRégiedeQuebecwasin
breachofitsdutytodisclosetoCGIdecisiveinformationrelatingtoitscontractwithCGI.The
RégiedeQuebecwasthereforeorderedtocompensateCGIforanyamountthatitis
obligedtopaytotheplaintiffwithcostsasagainsttheRégiedeQuebec.
FabrikantvSwamy[2004]CarswellNat2669,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2004/2004qccs16156.html(QueSupCt;2004-10-13)St-
PierreJ.
[44]LesprocéduresdeFabrikantnefontétatd’aucunacteposéaprèsle8juin1988et
mentionnéàl’article3delaLoi.
[45]Lestextesscientifiquesàl’originedurecoursexercéparFabrikant,touspubliésavant
1988,nepeuventdoncdonnerlieuàlapanopliederéparationsmentionnéesàl’article34
delaLoi.
[46]Lesréparationspossiblesrestentcellesqu’autorisaitl’article12(7)delaLoi,telqu’ilselisait
aumomentdespublications(de1981à1986):desréparationsdenaturedéclaratoireet
injonctiveexclusivement.
«Résumédesdispositionstransitoires
21(1):Lesdroitsmorauxdel’article14.1existentsurlesoeuvrescrééestantavant
qu’aprèsle8juin1988,tantavantqu’aprèsle11juin1931.

36
21(3):Lesdroitsmorauxdel’article14.1nesonttoutefoispasopposables,àla
hauteurdesonintérêt,àquidétenait,au8juin1988,licenceouintérêtdansle
droitd’auteur.
Toutefois,lesdroitsmorauxdel’ancienarticle14(4)/12(7)luirestentopposables.
21(2):Les«nouveaux»recoursenviolationqueprévoitl’article34(1.1)nesont
ouvertsquepourlesviolationssurvenuesaprèsle8juin1988etce,
indépendammentdeladatedelacréationdel’oeuvre.
Pourlesviolationsantérieures,ilfautrecourirauxdispositionsquienrégissaientlasanction
souslesarticles14(4)/12(7).»[CARRIÈRELaurent,Développementsrécentsendroitdela
propriétéintellectuelle,Droitd’auteuretdroitmoral:quelquesréflexionspréliminaires,1991,
ServicedelaformationpermanenteduBarreauduQuébec,p.247]
[47]Jusqu’en1988,l’article41netraitequedeprescriptionderecourspourviolationdudroit
d’auteur.Àcompterde1988,ils’appliqueaussiauxrecourspourviolationdedroitsmoraux:le
nouveautexteprévoit,sansdistinction,que«lesactionspourviolationseprescriventpartrois
ansàcompterdelaviolation.».
[48]Cettemodificationdel’article41nepeutcependantavoirpoureffetlapertededroits
dontl’exercicen’étaitpassujet,jusqu’alors,àunelimitationdansletemps.Uneinterprétation
restrictives’impose:
«Incasesofambiguity,section41,asaprovisionrestrictingtherighttotake
action,shouldbeinterpretedrestrictively:seeCÔTÉ(Pierre-André),The
InterpretationofLegislationinCanada,2
nded.(Cowansville,Blais,1992),atp.392;
DRIEDGER(ElmerA.),ConstructionofStatutes,2nded.(Toronto,Butterworths,
1983),atp.185.Insupportofastrictconstructiontobegiventolimitationstatutes,
referenceshouldbemadetoBerardinelliv.OntarioHousingCorp.(1978),[1979]1
S.C.R.275,EsteyJ.atp.280:
[Alimitationsstatute]beingarestrictiveprovisionwhereintherightsofactionof
thecitizenarenecessarilycircumscribedbyitsterms,attractsastrictinterpretation
andanyambiguityfoundupontheapplicationoftheproperprinciplesof
statutoryinterpretationshouldberesolvedinfavourofthepersonwhoserightof
actionisbeingtruncated.»[RobicetLéger,CanadianCopyrightActAnnotated,
Ontario,Carswell,2002,p.41-8]
[49]Lesviolationsalléguéesauprésentdossiersontsurvenuesavantlesamendementsde
1988etalorsquelaLoinecontenaitaucunedispositionlimitantl’exercicedurecoursen
revendicationdepaternitédansletemps.[RobicetLéger,CanadianCopyrightAct
Annotated,Ontario,Carswell,2002,p.41-2,41-3]
[50]Lesamendementsde1988etde1997,bienqu’ilsaientchangéetclarifiélesrèglesdujeu
enmatièredeprescriptionquantàtouteviolationdedroitsmorauxsurvenueaprèsle8juin
1988,quellequesoitladatedecréationdel’oeuvre,nes’appliquentpasàuneviolation
survenueavantcettedate.Àdéfautdedispositionspécifiquelimitantdansletemps
l’exercicedudroitderevendiquerlapaternitédel’oeuvre(créationde1981à1986),
Fabrikantpouvaittoujourslefaireaumomentoùilaobtenulapermissiond’amenderses
procédurespouryjoindreHoaetXistris.Ausurplus,personnen’aalorsplaidéprescription.
[51]Laconclusionendommagesestirrecevable,maisl’inscriptionendroitpartiellen’existe
pas.[Druker&Associatesinc.c.Rubinovitch,A.E./P.C.2001-1213(C.A.);B.E.2001BE-15(C.A.);
Weissglasc.Régiedel’assurance-maladieduQuébec,(1996)R.D.J.375(C.A.);Petrifond
FondationCompagnieLimitéec.ConstructionCancoinc.,(1989)R.D.J.555(C.A.);
CommissiondesdroitsdelapersonneduQuébecc.Sociétéd’électrolyseetdechimieAlcan

37
ltée,(1987)R.L.277(C.A.);(1987)D.L.Q.340(C.A.)(j.Tyndale);DialTextileltéec.Ste-Foy(Ville
de),(1982)C.A.220(j.Owen)]
Garcia-GutierrezvMeubleVillageoisinc.[2004]CarswellQue2497;REJB2004-71151(QueCA;
2004-10-01]
Typed’action
APPELd’unjugementdelaCoursupérieure(jugeA.Gervais)ayantaccueillipartiellement
l’actiondel’appelantetcondamnél’intiméeàluipayer40000$surlabasede
l’enrichissementinjustifié.REJETÉ.APPELincident.REJETÉ.
Indexation
OBLIGATIONS;CONTRAT;FORMATION;premierjugeayantconcluquelespartiesn’étaient
liéesparaucuncontrat;absenced’erreurdujuge;conclusionreposantsurl’ensembledela
preuve;PROPRIÉTÉINTELLECTUELLE;DROITD’AUTEUR;OEUVRESSUSCEPTIBLESDEFAIREL’OBJET
D’UNDROITD’AUTEUR;OEUVRESARTISTIQUES;APPLICATIONDELALOISURLESDESSINS
INDUSTRIELS;refusdutribunald’intervenirdanslesconclusionsdujugedepremièreinstance;
impossibilitédefairedroitauxmoyensdel’appelantfondéssurlaLoisurledroitd’auteuret
surlaLoisurlesdessinsindustriels;ENRICHISSEMENTINJUSTIFIÉ;rejetdel’appelincident;bien-
fondédelaconclusiondujugequ’ilyaeuenrichissementinjustifié

Ghanotakisc.ExpertisesdidactiquesLyonsinc.[2004]CarswellQue8832,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2004/2004qccs15984.html(QueSupCt;2004-10-01)
LévesqueJ.

[1]Parleurrequêterespective,lesdéfenderesses,DuPhareÉditeur(DuPhare)etLesÉditions
delaChenelièreInc.(LaChenelière)demandentlerejetdel’actionintentéeparles
demandeursaumotifqu’elleestfrivoleoumanifestementmalfondéesuiteàun
interrogatoiretenuenvertudel’article75.1duCodedeprocédurecivile

[17]IlestvraiquelejugementdujugeFourniern’apasl’autoritédelachosejugéeetque
l’objetducontentieuxestdifférentencesensqu’iln’étaitpasquestiond’unedéclarationde
droitsd’auteursurleslivres-jeuxousurunecontestationd’iceux.Cependant,pourlesfinsdes
contentieuxquiétaientdevantlui,dontplusieurssontalléguésdansladéclarationamendée
re-préciséeenl’instance,onpeutàcestade-cidesprocédurestirerdesconclusionsdela
naturedel’autoritéduprécédent.

[18]Encombinantl’enregistrementdudroitd’auteuraveclesconstatsetlesmotifsdu
jugementprécité,ilexisteuneapparencededroitsuffisantepourdirequ’àl’endroitdes
défendeursLyonsetlesExpertisesdidactiquesLyons,ledemandeurn’apasintentéun
recoursfrivoleetmanifestementmalfondésurtoutsil’onseplacesurleterraindesdroits
moraux[Voirart.2,3et14.1delaLoisurlesdroitsd’auteur.]quisontdifférentsdesdroits
patrimoniauxd’auteur(copyrights).

[19]Cesdroitsmorauxpeuventêtresanctionnésparunjugementdéclaratoire.Deplus,s’ily
alieu,danslemêmejugementilpeutêtreaccordédesdommagesmorauxet,lecas
échéant,desdommagespunitifsouexemplairesenvertudesarticles1,4,5et49dela
Chartedesdroitsetlibertés(L.R.Q.c.C-12)[Loisurlesdroitsd’auteur,L.R.C.1985c.C-42et
amendements,art.34.1et37;Snowv.EatonCentreLtd.&al,(1982)70C.P.R.(2d)105(Ont.

38
H.C.);Gendreau,Ysolde,MoralRights,(1994)inG.F.Henderson,ed.Copyrightand
ConfidentialInformationLawofCanada,(Toronto:Carswell,1994)p.161à168;Gouletc.
Marchand,J.E.85-964(C.S.);Prud’Hommec.EnseignesNormandRusselInc.,J.E.96-174(C.S.);
Vaillancourtc.Carbonne14,[1999]R.J.Q.490(C.S.).]

[20]Bienquelelibellédelaconclusionrelativeauxdommagesnefasseétatquedes
dommagesexemplaires,lacompréhensionduTribunalestqu’ellevisedesdommages
morauxetexemplaires.

[21]Cesjalonsétantposés,restelaquestiondesavoirsilesdéfenderessesDuPhareetLa
Chenelièresontviséesoupeuventêtreviséesparledemandeurd’unefaçonquinesoitpas
frivole,manifestementmalfondéeouvouéeàl’échec.

[22]LaChenelièresoutientqueledossiertelqueconstituéàcejournefaitpasvoirenquoiil
existeunliendedroitentreelleetledemandeur.Ellen’apasderelationcontractuelleavec
ledemandeur.LescontratsquisontintervenusentreelleetlesauteursLyonsrévèlentque
ceux-cisontlesseulsauteursdeslivres-jeux.Parailleurs,jusqu’àl’auditiondesrequêtes,elle
ignoraitqueledemandeurpouvaitêtrel’auteurdeslivres-jeuxetqueceux-cipouvaient
constitueruneoeuvreautonomed’autantplusquec’estlenomdesLyonsquiapparaîtsurles
livres-jeux.

[23]LaChenelièreajoutequ’elleestdétentricedetouslesdroitsd’auteuretd’éditiondes
livres-jeuxenvertudescontratsdecessiondedroitsdeLEIàMondiaetdeMondiaàLa
Chenelièrepuisquelesdroitsrevendiquésn’ontpasl’autonomienécessairepourcréerun
droitd’auteurenfaveurdudemandeur.

[24]Ledemandeurprétendqu’ilaledroitd’obtenirunedéclarationdepaternitédel’oeuvre,
étantdonnéquelesdéfendeurs,ycomprisLaChenelièreetDuPhare,nientcettepaternité.
Siledemandeurveutobtenirunjugementquiaitl’autoritédelachosejugéerelativementà
ladéclarationd’undroitd’auteur,lesdéfendeursdoiventtousêtreenpartieencause.Pour
prononcersurladéclarationdedroitd’auteur,iln’estpasnécessairederecouriràlafaute
extra-contractuelleàl’endroitdetousetchacundesdéfendeurs.Cescommentairessuffisent
àdisposerdelapremièreconclusioncitéeauparagraphe8ci-dessusafinqu’ellesoit
opposableàtouslesdéfendeurssignatairesdescontratsP-3A,P-3BetP-3C.

[25]Ilsuffitqu’enconnaissancedecauseaumomentdel’argumentationladéfenderesseLa
Chenelièrenereconnaissepasdedroitsmorauxaudemandeuràl’occasiondesesrelations
contractuellesaveclesfrèresLyonspourqu’ellepuisseêtreconsidéréecommeunepartiequi
peutcommettreunefautegénératricederesponsabilitépersonnellequandellemeten
marcheouannoncelamiseenmarchédeslivres-jeuxcréésparledemandeur[Baudouinet
Deslauriers,Laresponsabilitécivile,6eéd.no159,p.120;BaudouinetJobin,5eéd.nos468et
469p.382et383etBanquedeMontréalc.BailLtée,[1992]2R.C.S.554.].

[26]LesinterrogatoirespratiquésparlesdéfenderessesLaChenelièreetDuPhare
n’envisagentpaslesdroitsmorauxdudemandeurmaisplutôtlesdroitsd’exploitationdeLEIet
empêchentdoncdeconclurequelerecoursindividueldudemandeurestmanifestement
malfondépuisqu’ilsuffitquelesdroitsmorauxsoientlésésauchefdesdommagesmorauxou
desdommagesexemplairespourunseuldollarpourquel’actionendommages-intérêtsdu
demandeursoitaccueillie.

[27]DanslecasdeDuPhareÉditeur,lefaitdeseportercautiondetouteslesobligations
décritesdanslecontratP-3B(clause8)apoureffetnonseulementdecréeruneobligation
dedonnermaisaussidecréerdesobligationsdefaireoudenepasfaire.Enétantd’accord

39
aveclapositiondesdéfendeursLyonsetEDL,ladéfenderesseMondiaetparlasuiteson
successeurLaChenelièredansP-3A,P-3BetP-3Cdeviennentpartieàunefautecivilequi
constitueàl’endroitdesdroitsmorauxdudemandeur.

[28]Lesviolationsalléguéesausujetdesfautesprésumémentcommisesparlesautres
défendeursfontencouriràDuPhareuneresponsabilitéextra-contractuelleentantque
mandantedeMondia[BanquedeMontréalc.BailLtée,[1992]2R.C.S.554,sp.581etss.;
Prévost-Massonc.TrustgénéralduCanada,[2001]3R.C.S.883;GillesNéronCommunications
MarketingInc.c.ChambredesnotairesduQuébec,[2004]C.S.C.53,sp.par.75etss.]

GRISimulationsInc.v.Pro-DiveOceaneeringCo.[2004]CarswellNfld366,2004NLCA74,
[2004]Nfld&PEIRTBEdDE005,http://www.canlii.org/nl/cas/nlca/2004/2004nlca74.html(NL
CA2004-12-03)MercerJ.
[1]Theappellantissuedastatementofclaimagainstthefivedefendantsforinfringementof
copyright,misappropriationofconfidentialinformation,passingoff,andbreachof
confidence.Therespondentwassuccessfulinhavingthestatementofclaimagainstitself
struckoutonthegroundthatitdisclosednoreasonablecauseofaction.Thisappealensued.

[17]Nevertheless,dispositionoftheapplicationtostrikeisnotgovernedsolelybythefinding
ofseriousdeficienciesinthestatementofclaim.Thecourtmustnextexaminethestatement
ofclaimtodetermine,asstatedinMontrealTrust[MontrealTrustCo.ofCanadav.Hickman
(2001),204Nfld.&P.E.I.R.58(NLCA)],whetheritdisclosesanintentiontoassertaskeletonofa
claimknowntolaw.Barringirreparableprejudicetotheopposingsideinsuchcircumstance
amendmentsshouldbepermittedorparticularsordered.

[18]Thestatementofclaimdoesstateinpara.3thatPro-Diveiscorporatelyrelatedto
Oceaneeringandfurtherallegesthatit »wasformedforthepurposeofbringingdeepwater
ratedremotelyoperatedvehiclesandunderwatertechnologytoclientsoperatingintheoil
andgasindustryofftheCanadianEastCoast. »Inasmuchasthedisputebetweentheparties
centersuponROVtechnologytheallegationsinpara.3showalogicalbasisforPro-Dive’s
possibleinvolvementintheimpugnedconduct.Readwithparas.35,41-44andtheheading
thereof)and45-58,(andtheheadingthereof)itleadsmetotheconclusionthatthe
statementofclaimdisclosesanintentiontoasserta’skeleton’ofaclaimagainstPro-Dive–
seeMontrealTrust,para.13above.Itisclearthatthecausesofactionassertedinthe
statementofclaimwhichmaybeapplicabletoPro-Diveareknowntothelaw[i.e.copyright
infringement].FurthermorethereisnoassertionofirreparableharmtoPro-Diveifamendments
tothestatementofclaimarepermittedorparticularsordered.

[19]Therefore,andwithgreatrespecttothechambersjudge,Iconcludethatheerredin
strikingthestatementofclaimagainstPro-Dive.Thepropercoursewouldhavebeento
permitamendmentstothestatementofclaimortoorderparticulars.Iwouldgrantthe
appealas,inmyopinion,afailuretointerferewiththetrialjudge’sdispositionwouldcausea
manifestinjustice–Langorv.Spurrell(1997),157Nfld.&P.E.I.R.301(Nfld.C.A.)atpara.33.
Accordinglytheorderofthechambersjudgeshouldbesetaisde,andGRIgrantedleaveto
amendthestatementofclaimand/orprovideparticularsinconformitywithRules14.03and
14.11.

40
HabitationsPMAInc.v.Simard[2004-12-20]11-13cTélémarque
http://www.marquedor.com/telemarque/annee2004/vol11no13c_fr.html(QueSupCt540-05-
003963-984;2004-11-22)FournierJ.
Plaintiff,LesHabitationsPMAInc.(«PMA»)isaresidentialconstructioncompanysince1987.In
1997,PMAbecameinvolvedinaresidentialprojectinBlainville,the »Fontainebleau ».PMA
orderedfromadesigner,MarioArdonetto,sixdrawingsofhouses,oneofwhichitcalled
« Chenonceau ».PMAobtainedanassignmentofArdonetto’scopyrightinthedrawings.
InJune1998,ColetteSimardmetwithPMA’ssalesrepresentatives.Shewasinterestedinthe
« Chenonceau »butwantedvariousmodifications.MartinCarrier,anarchitectemployedby
PMA,graphicallyreproducedsomemodificationsandmadeadrawing.However,theparties
couldnotagreeontheprice.
Afewdayslater,SimardmetwithNomax’srepresentatives,showedthemthedrawingsmade
byArdonettoandCarrier.Onthebasisofthesedocuments,shemadeapurchaseoffer.
Nomaxaccepted,hadtheplansmadebyAndréGosselinandstartedtheconstructionof
thehouse.
Duringavisittothe«Fontainebleau»project,PMA’presidentsawthatahouseverysimilarto
the«Chenonceau»wasunderconstruction.PMAthenfiledproceedingsforinfringementof
copyright.
TheCourtindicatesthat,beforeanythingelse,itmustdetermineifthedrawingsconstituteda
workprotectedundertheCopyrightAct.
TheCourtindicatesthatPMAdidnotprovetheoriginalanddistinctivecharacterofthe
«Chenonceau»model.Moreover,whenSimardobtainedthedrawings,thearchitectural
planswerenotavailable.Thedrawingscannotbeusedtoobtainabuildingpermit.They
cannotbeusedeitherforthebuildingprocessitself.Also,whentheconstructionofthehouse
started,no »Chenonceau »wasbuiltorintheprocessofbeingbuilt.
Theclaimisdismissed.
HarrisvCanada(AttorneyGeneral)2004FC1051,[2004]CarswellNat2662,34CPR(4th)367,
[2004]FTRUned622,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc1051.htmland
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc1051.shtml,inFrenchat
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf1051.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf1051.shtml(FC;2004-07-30)Hargrave,a.s.p.
Theplaintiffhadcommencedanactionagainst,interalia,thedefendantS.allegingtheftof
copyrightandintellectualproperty,fraud,defamationofcharacterandlibel.Theaction
appearedtoberelatedtoS.,alawyer,havingsuccessfullydefendedanactionbroughtby
theplaintiffagainstaclient.Althoughhehadfiledastatementofdefence,S.broughta
motiontostrikeouttheclaimagainsthim.
Held,theclaimasagainstthedefendantS.shouldbestruckoutwithoutleavetoamend.
ThefactthatS.hadfiledastatementofdefencedidnotpresentabartothemotion
becausethedefencehadallegedthatthestatementofclaimdisclosednoreasonable
causeofaction,wasscandalous,frivolous,vexatiousandanabuseofprocess,andthatthe
claimwasbeyondthejurisdictionofthecourt.

41
Lackofparticulars
Itisessentialthatalitigantpleadingaclaimgobeyondthebareallegationofarightoran
obligationandmustsetoutthefactsgivingrisetotherightorobligation.Thestatementof
claimcontainedsolittlebywayofmaterialfactsthatadefendantwouldhavedifficulty
understandingtheapproachoftheplaintiffandacourtwouldhaveanearimpossibletaskin
regulatingthematterattrial.Thestatementofclaimhadtobestruckoutasitwassobereft
ofparticularsastobefundamentallyvexatious.
Reasonablecauseofaction
Theportionofthestatementofclaimallegingtheftofcopyrightandintellectualpropertydid
notconstituteacauseofaction.Suchanallegationhasneverbeenacivilcauseofactionin
Canada.Similarly,thepleaoffraud,defamationofcharacterandlibelwassoincomplete
andbereftofparticularsthatitdidnotconstituteareasonablecauseofaction.Itwasplainly
obviousandbeyondadoubtthatthepleacouldnotsucceed.
Frivolousandvexatious
Apleamaybefrivolousandvexatiousinitsownrightifitisobviouslyunsustainableandso
palpablybadthatitrequiresnorealargumenttoconvinceacourtthatitwillnotleadtoa
practicalresult.Itwasclearfromthestatementofclaimthattheplaintiffwasnotactingina
bonafidemanner.Theplaintiff’sbadfaithwasfurtherindicatedbythescurrility,vulgarityand
maliciousnesscontainedinthematerialsbeforethecourt,intheplaintiff’swritten
representationsandinhissubmissionsbeforethecourt.Theplaintiff’spleamisusedand
pervertedtheprocedureofthecourttotheextentthatitcouldnothaveledtoapossible
goodorbenefit.
Jurisdiction
TheFederalCourtisastatutorycourt.Itsjurisdictionistobedeterminedbyathree-parttest:
(1)theremustbeastatutorygrantofjurisdictionbythefederalParliament;(2)theremustbe
anexistingbodyoffederallawwhichisessentialtothedispositionofthecaseandwhich
nourishesthestatutorygrantofjurisdiction;and(3)thelawonwhichthecaseisbasedmust
be »alawofCanada »asthephraseisusedins.101oftheConstitutionAct,1867.
Theplaintiff’sclaimdidnotmeetthefirstbranchofthetest.Althoughitappearedthatthe
plaintiffhadattemptedtodisguisetheproceedingasacopyrightmatter,theftwasnota
partofanycopyrightjurisdictionoftheFederalCourt.Further,withrespecttotheallegations
offraud,defamationandlibel,theFederalCourtdidnothaveastatutorygrantofjurisdiction
todealwithclaimsbetweensubjectandsubjectinvolvingtort.
TheactionagainstS.shouldneverhavebeencommencedandthemotionshouldnever
havebeenrequired.ThecourtorderedcoststoS.inthelumpsumof$1,500,payable
forthwith.
Houriham(Sarah)forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthepropertylocatedat
522MariposaCrescent(Rockcliffe)[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/143-e.pdfCopBd;2004-10-26)
Forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthepropertylocatedat522MariposaCrescent
(Rockcliffe)-Constructionpurposes

42
Import-ExportRenéDerhy(Canada)inc.c.MagasinsGreenbergltée[2004]CarswellQue566,
2004JQ2705,REJB2004-55468,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qcca/2004/2004qcca10303.html(QueCA;2004-03-15)ForgetJ.
APPELd’unjugementdelaCoursupérieure(jugeL.S.Tannenbaum)ayantaccueilliune
actionendommages-intérêtsfondéesurlacontrefaçon.ACCUEILLIenpartie.
LesjugesForget,BeauregardetRothman.Poursacollectionautomne-hiver1993-1994,René
DerhyS.A.(DerhyFrance)afabriquéunevestematelasséeappelée«Barbital».Aucoursde
cettepériode,Import-ExportRenéDerhy(Canada)inc.(DerhyCanada)aimportéetvendu
environ300decesvestesauCanada.DerhyCanadas’estvucéderlesdroitsetintérêtsde
DerhyFrancedanslavesteBarbital.Ainsi,lavesteaétéenregistréeauprèsduBureaudu
droitd’auteursansqu’ellelesoittoutefoisenvertudelaLoisurlesdessinsindustriels.Cobros
Importltée(Cobros)afaitfabriquerenAsieetimporterauCanada6600vestessemblables
aumodèleBarbitalqu’elleavenduesàMagasinsGreenbergLimitée(Greenberg)etSaan
StoresLtd(Saan).Cesdernièresontparlasuiterevendulesvestessousleurpropremarque
decommerceàunprixinférieuràceluidelavesteoriginaleBarbital.
Lesconditionsessentiellesàuneactionenpassing-offnesontpasrempliesenl’espèce.En
effet,iln’yaaucuneallégationqu’uneclientedesmagasinsGreenbergouSaanauraitcru
acheterlavesteBarbitalvenduedanslesboutiquesdesserviesparDerhyCanada.Ainsi,la
conclusionàlaquelleenestarrivélejugedepremièreinstanceàceteffetn’étaitpasutile
pourlasolutiondulitigedontilétaitsaisi.
LedesigndumodèleBarbitalconstitueunecombinaisondecaractéristiquesvisuellesd’un
objetfini,encequitouchesaconfiguration,sesmotifsetsesélémentsdécoratifs.Ilestdonc
directementviséparladéfinitionde«dessin»prévueauparagraphe64(1)delaLoisurledroit
d’auteur(laLoi).Également,lavesteBarbitalestunobjetutilitairedontlemodèleaété
reproduitauCanadaetàl’étrangeràplusde50exemplairesavecl’autorisationdutitulaire
dudroitd’auteur.Cesfaitsdonnentdoncouvertureàl’applicationduparagraphe64(2)de
laLoietrendentlégitimes,àpremièrevue,lareproductiondelavesteoriginaleetlavente
desvestesreproduitesorchestréesparCobros,SaanetGreenberg.Toutefois,commecesont
lesbroderiesquiconstituaientlacaractéristiqueparticulièredelavesteBarbital,le
paragraphe64(3)delaLoi,quiestuneexceptionàlarègleédictéeauparagraphe64(2),
doitrecevoirapplication.Leparagraphe64(3)visenotammentàprotégerledessinreproduit
surunobjetutilitaire.Parexemple,siunartistepermetl’utilisationd’undesesdessinssurdest-
shirts,cedessinnepourraêtrereproduitsurd’autresobjetsutilitaires,mêmesilest-shirtsqui
portentledessinnesontpasnécessairementprotégésparledroitd’auteur.Àl’époqueoùles
faitsdonnantlieuauprésentlitigesesontdéroulés,leparagraphe34(3)delaLoicréaitdeux
présomptionsenfaveurdutitulaired’undroitd’auteur.Ainsi,ilrevenaitàCobros,Saanet
GreenbergdeprouverqueledessindesbroderiesdelavesteBarbitaln’étaitpasprotégé
parledroitd’auteur,fardeaudontellesnesesontpasacquittées.Commec’estsurleurs
épaulesquereposaitlefardeaudelapreuve,cesdernièresnepouvaientsecontenter
d’alléguerqueDerhyCanadan’avaitpasprouvéqu’elleavaitcrééledessindesbroderies.Il
fautconclure,àl’instardujugedepremièreinstance,queCobros,SaanetGreenbergnese
sontjamaissouciéesdudroitd’auteurdeDerhyCanada.Lefaitquelacontrefaçonpuisse
êtreunepratiquecommercialegénéraliséedansledomainedutextileetdelamodene
sauraitlégitimerlaviolationdudroitd’auteurcommiseenl’espèce.
LepremierjugeaerréencondamnantCobros,SaanetGreenbergàindemniserDerhy
Canadapourlapertedeprofitsqu’auraitsubiecettedernière.D’unepart,cedommages’est
avérépurementhypothétiqueetiln’afaitl’objetd’aucunepreuveconcrète.D’autrepart,s’il

43
yavaiteffectivementeupertedeprofits,cesderniersauraitétécalculéssurlabasedes
redevancesqueCobros,SaanetGreenbergauraientverséesàDerhyCanadaenvertu
d’unelicencequecettedernièreleurauraitdélivrée.Or,laréclamationpourpertedeprofits
deDerhyCanadan’estpasfondéesurlapertedecesredevances,maisbiensurlesprofits
gagnésparCobros,SaanetGreenberg.Parailleurs,lepremierjugeaexercéladiscrétion
queluiconfèrelaLoiencondamnantcesdernièresàpayeràDerhyCanadaunesomme
correspondantauxprofitsqu’ellesontréalisésenvendantlesvestesreproduites.Lapreuvene
révèlepasque,cefaisant,lejugedepremièreinstanceauraitcommisuneerreurjustifiant
l’interventiondelaprésenteCour.LaconduitedeCobros,SaanetGreenbergestpeut-être
désinvolte.Toutefois,lafautequirésultedeleurnégligenceneconstituepasuneatteinte
intentionnelleetmalicieuseaudroitdeDerhyCanada.Ilconvientdoncd’annulerles
dommagesexemplairesoctroyésparlejugedepremièreinstance.
InterboxPromotionCorp.c.9012-4314QuébecInc.34CPR(4th)356[2004]CarswellNat187;
2004FC144,245FTR80,http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc144.shtmland
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2003/2003fc1254.html,inFrenchathttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf144.shtmland
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2003/2003cf1254.html[2004]CarswellNat1268,2004CF144
(FC;2004-01-29)HarringtonJ.
Therewerefourboxingmatchesinissueandtheplaintiffcommencedfourseparateactions
forcopyrightinfringementagainstavarietyofdefendants.Theplaintiffpursuedthefirst
actiondiligentlyanditproceededtotrial.Intheotherthreeactions,theplaintifftooknosteps
afteritfiledrepliestothestatementsofdefence,nordidanyofthedefendantstakeany
steps.Anoticeofstatusreviewwasissuedineachofthethreeactions.Inresponsetothe
noticestheplaintiffsubmitted,amongotherthings,thatithadleftthethreeactionsin
abeyancewhilethefirstactionproceededtotrial,theactionswereidenticalwiththe
exceptionofafewminordetailsandtheidentityofthedefendants,andasaresult,the
decisioninthefirstactionwouldlikelydeterminethelegalissuesindispute.Some,butnotall,
ofthedefendantsalsomadesubmissions.Theprothonotaryhaddismissedtheactionsagainst
thosedefendantsthathadmadesubmissionsonthestatusreview.Theplaintiffappealed.In
addition,certaindefendantsthatdidnotmakesubmissionsinresponsetothenoticeofstatus
review,broughtmotionsseekingleavetofilelaterepliestothenoticeofstatusreview.
Held,theappealshouldbeallowed,andthemotionsseekingleavetofilelaterepliesshould
bedismissed.
Appealoftheorderdismissingtheactions
Onanappealofadiscretionaryorderofaprothonotarytoajudge,thetestiswhetherthe
questionsraisedarevitaltothefinalissueofthecase,andifnot,whethertheorderisclearly
wrong,inthesensethattheexerciseofdiscretionbytheprothonotarywasbasedupona
wrongprincipleoruponamisapprehensionofthe]facts.Nothingcanbemorefinalthanthe
dismissalofanactionandtherefore,thejudgeonappealisentitledtoexercisediscretionde
novo.
Eachofthefourcasesraisedthesamelegalissues.Sincethefirstactionwasproceedingto
trial,hadtheplaintiffappliedforashortstayoftheotherthreeactions,therewasa
reasonableprospectthattheplaintiffwouldhaveobtainedsuchastay.Althoughitwould
havebeenbetterfortheplaintifftoconsultwithdefendants’counselandthecourt,the
reasonsforthedelaywereacceptable,butonlyjust.

44
Motionsforleavetofilelaterepliestothenoticeofstatusreview
Thedefendantswereundernoobligationtomakesubmissionsinresponsetothenoticeof
statusreview,butcouldhavedoneso.Iftheywereunhappywiththeprothonotary’sorder,
theyshouldhaveappealedit,butdidnotdoso.Inanyevent,theissuewasmootinthatthe
actionswerepermittedtocontinueasagainstthosedefendantsthatdidmakesubmissionsin
responsetothenoticeofstatusreview.
InterimtariffofleviestobecollectedbyCPCCin2005onthesaleofblankaudiorecording
mediainCanadahttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/c14122004-b.pdf(CopBd;2004-12-14)

Jackson(Paul)forthereproductioninabookofacartoonbyStewartCameron[ReNon-
exclusivelicenceissuedto]FileNo.2004-UO/TI-12;availableathttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/138-e.pdf(CopBd;2004-05-10)
ForthereproductioninabookofacartoonbyStewartCameroninnomorethan800books–
Commercialpurposes
KraftCanadaInc.vEuroExcellenceInc.[2004]CarswellNat1371;2004FC652,33CPR(4th)
246,252FTR50,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc652.htmland
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc652.shtml,inFrenchat
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf652.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf652.shtml(FC;2004-05-03);[2004]CarswellNat1793,2004FC832,33
CPR(4th)242,http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc832.shtml(FC-Reconsideration;
2004-06-09),[2004]CarswellNat3018,2004FC1215,35CPR4th193,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc1215.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc1215.shtml,inFrenchat
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf1215.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf1215.shtml(FC–Pratice;2004-09-03)HarringtonJ.

45
HarringtonJ.2004-05-03:
TheBelgianapplicantmanufacturedchocolatebarsinEuropeunderthenameCôted’Or.
TheSwissapplicantmanufacturedchocolatebarsinEuropeunderthenameToblerone.In
1993theBelgianapplicantauthorizedtherespondenttodistributeCôted’Orproductsin
Canada.TheBelgianapplicantdidnotrenewthatdistributionarrangement.In2001the
CanadianapplicantbegantodistributetheseproductswiththeauthorizationoftheBelgian
applicant.
TheCanadianapplicanthadalsodistributedtheTobleroneproductsinCanadasince1990.
In2001therespondentpurchasedCôted’OrandTobleroneproductsfromanunnamed
sourceinEuropeandimportedanddistributedtheminCanadaintheirEuropeanwrappers
withalabelaffixedinanattempttoconformtoCanadianpackagingregulations.
InOctober2002theBelgianapplicantregisteredcopyrightinCanadainthreeartisticworks
coveringitsCôted’Orproducts,namely,alogocontainingarepresentationofanelephant,
astyleofscriptusedtospellthewords »Côted’Or »,andaredshieldwhichservedasthe
backgroundtoboththeelephantandscript.Onthesameday,theSwissapplicant
registeredcopyrightinCanadainanartisticwork,namelyalogocomprisingarepresentation
ofabearonamountain.TheBelgianandSwissapplicantsgrantedtheCanadianapplicant
theexclusiverighttoreproducetheCôted’OrandTobleroneworksinassociationwiththe
manufacture,distributionandsaleinCanadaofconfectioneryproducts.Theapplicantsthen
gavetherespondentwrittennoticeofthecopyrightsandlicencesanddemandedthatit
ceasepromoting,offeringforsaleandsellingCôted’OrandTobleroneproductsinCanada
thepackagingofwhichdisplayedanyofthecopyrightedworks.
Therespondentrefusedtocomplywiththeapplicants’demandandtheapplicantsthen
appliedtoenjointherespondentpursuanttos.27(2)oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-
42,fromdistributingthecopyrightedworksfortheCôted’OrandTobleroneproducts.They
didnotseektorestrainthedistributionoftheproductsperse.
Therespondentdeniedthatcopyrightsubsistedintheworksandthattheapplicantsowned
anycopyrightwhichmightsubsistintheCôted’Orworks,andcontendedthats.27(2)(e)
shouldbeinterpretedrestrictivelytakingintoaccountprovincialjurisdictionwithrespectto
propertyandcivilrightsmatters,amongotherdefences.
Held,theapplicationshouldbegranted.
AuthorshipandOwnershipofCopyright
Section13(3)oftheActprovidesaworkplacepresumptionthattheemployer,notthe
employee,istheauthorandownerofthecopyrightedwork.Theapplicantsspecifiedthat
thecreativedirectorofathirdpartyresponsibleforthedesignofthevisualidentityofCôte
d’OrpackagingwastheauthoroftheCôted’Orworksandadducedevidencetoshowthe
policyofthethirdpartythatanyrightsthatarosebythecreativeeffortsofitsemployeeswere
ownedbythethirdparty.Therespondentfurnishedevidencethattherelationshipbetween
theapplicantsandthethirdpartywasgovernedbyFrenchlawandthatthepresumption
thattheemployerownscopyrightinaworkcreatedbyanemployeedidnotexistinFrance.
EveniftheFrenchlawapplied,thelawwasrebuttableandhadbeenrebuttedbythe
applicant.Theapplicants’chainoftitletocopyrightworkshadthereforebeenestablished.
Therespondent’sclaimthatthecreativedirectorofthethirdpartywasnottheauthorwas
mereconjectureandwasnotsupportedbytheevidence.

46
Originality
Copyrightsubsistedintheartisticworksatissueiftheworkswereoriginal.Originalmeansthat
theworkismorethanamerecopy.Althoughtheworkneednotbecreative,theexpression
oftheunderlyingideamustdevelopfromanexerciseofskillandjudgmentbringingintoplay
one’sknowledge,developedattitudeorpractisedabilityandtheexerciseofdiscernmentor
abilitytoformanopinionorevaluationbycomparingoptionsinproducingthework.
TheCôted’Orbrandwentbackto1883andhadanelephantprominentlydisplayedonthe
brandpackagingsinceatleast1906.Therewasanexerciseofskillandjudgmentinthenew
elephantlogowhichupdatedthedesignamongdifferentoptionswhilemaintainingthe
goodwillemanatingfromtheoldlook.Thiswasnot,however,thecasewiththescriptorshield
works.Thechangeofscriptalonewasamerechangeoffontwhichdidnotenjoythebenefit
ofcopyright,andtheshieldmerelyaddedaredstreakandwasnotdeservingofcopyright
protection.
TheTobleronework,arepresentationofabearandamountain,wasalsooriginal,
notwithstandingthatamountainhadfiguredinTobleronewrappingforsometime.
CopyrightthereforesubsistedintheCôted’OrelephantworkandtheTobleronework.
Section27(2)(e)
Section27(2)(e)makesitaninfringementofcopyrighttoimportintoCanadaforthepurpose
ofdoingtheactsreferredtos.27(2)(a)to(c)acopyofawork,subjecttoaknowledge
requirement.Therespondentwasimportingthecopyrightedworksagainsttheapplicants’
will.ThatwasaninfractionoftheCopyrightActanddidnotimpingeuponpropertyandcivil
rightswithinaprovince.
Remedies
Therewasnoreasontodenyinjunctiverelieftorestraintherespondentfromunauthorized
distributionofthecopyrightedworks.Nothingprohibitedtherespondentfromrecallingthe
wrappersorcoveringupthecopyrightedmaterial.Therespondentwasnotrequiredtorecall
productsthathadleftitscontrolortodeliverupitsinventory.
Profitswereassessedat$300,000,beingapercentageoftherespondent’sgrosssales.
Harrington(2004-06-09)
Inanapplicationforcopyrightinfringementtherespondenthadbeenenjoinedfromselling,
distributing,exposingorofferingforsalecopiesofpackagingdesignelementsforCôted’Or
andTobleronechocolatebars.
TheCanadianapplicantmovedforreconsiderationoftheorderrestrainingtherespondent
onthegroundsthatamatterwhichshouldhavebeendealtwithhadbeenoverlookedor
accidentallyomittedandfordirectionsastothemannerinwhichthepackagingcouldbe
renderednon-infringing.
TheCanadianapplicantclaimedthat,ass.27(2)oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,
declaresthatitisaninfringementofcopyrighttopossessorimportintoCanadacopyrighted
worksforcertainpurposes,thecourthadinadvertentlyomittedtoincludepossessingand
importationinitsorder.
Held,themotionforreconsiderationshouldbedismissedanddirectionshouldbeissuedwith
respecttothealterationoftherespondent’spackaging.

47
Theorderunderreconsiderationprohibitedthedistributionofthecopyrightedartworkinthe
chocolatebarwrappers.Thereasonsfortheordermadeitclearthattherewasnothingto
prohibitreplacingthewrappersorotherwisecoveringthecopyrightedmaterial.Therewasno
reasontobelievethattherespondentwouldnotabidebythecourtorder.Itwouldnotbean
infringementofcopyrighttomerelyimportintoCanadaorpossessthechocolatebarsin
wrappersthatdisplayedthecopyrightedworks.Aslongastherespondentrendersthe
wrappersnon-infringingeitherinEuropeorinCanadabeforeitsells,distributes,exposesor
offersforsalethechocolatebars,itwillnotbeinviolationofs.27(2)oftheAct.
Therespondentproposedtocoverupthecopyrightmaterialwithaself-stickingplasticfilm.
Thealteredwrappingforthefourbarswouldnotinfringe.Thefourthincludedadepictionof
oneoftheworksvisibleincertainlightbecauseitwasslightlyembossedandadepictionon
thewrapperofapieceofthechocolatebarinwhichtheworkwasembedded.These
depictionshadtobecoveredover.
HarringtonJ.(2004-09-03)
Inanactionforcopyrightinfringementofartworkinchocolatebarwrappersthetrialjudge
hadfoundfortheplaintiffsandhadenjoinedthedefendantfrommarketingitschocolate
barsintheiroriginalwrappersunlesstheywererenderednon-infringing.Thedefendant
alteredtheoriginalwrappersbyapplyingovertheinfringingartworkanopaqueself-sticking
plasticfilm.Thepartiessoughtdirectionsfromthetrialjudgewhetherthedefendanthad
sufficientlyandsuccessfullyalteredtheoriginalwrappers.Theplaintiffsclaimedthatthe
plasticfilmcouldberemovedwithoutdamagingtheoriginalwrappers.
Held,directionsshouldbeissuedthatthedefendanthadsuccessfullyrendereditsoriginal
wrappersnon-infringing.
Thedefendant’smeansofalteringitsoriginalwrappersraisedconcernthatamotivated
merchantmightremovetheplasticfilmtoshowitscustomersthatheorshewassellingthe
genuineproduct.Therewasnoconcernastowhattheultimateconsumermightdowiththe
wrapper.
Thestepstakenbythedefendantcompliedwiththetrialjudge’searlierorders.Theplasticfilm
couldnotbeeasilyremovedwithoutdamagingthedefendant’schocolatebarorits
wrapper.
Marquis(Dominique)fortheReproductionofExcerptsfromtheNewspaperl’Action
Catholique(ReLicenceapplicationby)[2004]CarswellNat2903,inFrench[2004]CarswellNat
2904,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/other/2-b.pdf(CopBd;2004-07-29)

[1]Le18mai2004,DominiqueMarquis,
historiennedomiciliéeàMontréal(«la
requérante»)adéposéunedemandede
licencepourlareproductionde«unes»et
d’extraitsd’articlesparusdansL’Action
catholiqueentre1910et1938.Pourlesfins
delaprésentedécision,laCommission
tientpouracquis,sanspourautantse
[1]OnMay18,2004,Ms.Dominique
Marquis,historianresidinginMontreal(« the
applicant »)filedalicenceapplicationto
reproduceheadlinesandexcerptsfrom
articlespublishedintheL’Actioncatholique
between1910and1938.Forthepurposes
ofthisdecision,theBoardassumes,without
deciding,thatwhattheapplicantseeksto

48
prononcer,quecequ’onentend
reproduiresontdesoeuvresausensoù
l’entendlaLoisurledroitd’auteur.On
pourraiteneffetmettreendoutecette
propositiondanslecasdes«unes»de
journaux,puisqu’ilestrarequelestatut
d’oeuvresoitaccordéàuntitre.

reproduceare »works »withinthemeaning
oftheCopyrightAct.Thatpropositionis
opentochallengewithrespectto
newspaperheadlines,giventhatatitle
rarelyisconsideredsuchawork.

[2]Ensefondantsurlapreuveverséeau
dossier,laCommissionenvientàla
conclusionquel’identitédel’auteurdece
quelarequérantedésirereproduiren’est
pasconnue.Or,l’article6.1delaLoisurle
droitd’auteurprévoitcequisuit:

[2]Basedontherecordofthese
proceedings,theBoardconcludesthatthe
identityofthosewhoauthoredwhatthe
applicantseekstoreproduceisnotknown.
Section6.1oftheCopyrightActreadsas
follows:

6.1Sousréservedel’article6.2,[non
pertinentenl’espèce]lorsquel’identitéde
l’auteurd’uneoeuvren’estpasconnue,le
droitd’auteursubsistejusqu’àcelledeces
deuxdatesquisurvientenpremier:

a)soitlafindelacinquantièmeannée
suivantcelledelapremièrepublicationde
l’oeuvre;

b)soitlafindelasoixante-quinzième
annéesuivantcelledelacréationde
l’oeuvre.

Toutefois,lorsque,durantcettepériode,
l’identitédel’auteurdevientgénéralement
connue,c’estl’article6quis’applique.

6.1Exceptasprovidedinsection6.2,[which
isnotrelevantforthesepurposes]wherethe
identityoftheauthorofaworkisunknown,
copyrightintheworkshallsubsistfor
whicheverofthefollowingtermsends
earlier:

(a)atermconsistingoftheremainderofthe
calendaryearofthefirstpublicationofthe
workandaperiodoffiftyyearsfollowing
theendofthatcalendaryear,and

(b)atermconsistingoftheremainderofthe
calendaryearofthemakingofthework
andaperiodofseventy-fiveyearsfollowing
theendofthatcalendaryear,

butwhere,duringthatterm,theauthor’s
identitybecomescommonlyknown,the
termprovidedinsection6applies.

[3]Cequel’onchercheàreproduiresont
desoeuvresanonymespubliéesilyaplus
decinquanteans;parconséquent,ilne
faitaucundoute,commeleprévoitl’alinéa
6.1a),queces«oeuvres»appartiennent
audomainepublic.Lareproductiond’une
oeuvreappartenantaudomainepublic
n’apasàêtreautorisée.Pourcemotif,la
demandeestrejetée.

[3]Sincewhattheapplicantintendsto
reproduceareanonymousworkspublished
morethanfiftyyearsago,thereisnodoubt,
pursuanttoparagraph6.1(a),thatthese
« works »areinthepublicdomain.No
authorizationisneededtoreproducewhat
isinthepublicdomain.Forthisreason,the
applicationisdismissed.

49
MicrocellSolutionsinc.c.TelusCommunicationsinc.REJB2004-66328,[2004]CarswellNat
1649,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2004/2004qccs13720.html(QueSupCt;2004-06-21)
ChaputJ.;affd500-09-014762-041(QueCA;2004-10-22)
Typed’action
REQUÊTESenexceptiondéclinatoireàl’encontred’unerequêteeninjonctionpermanenteet
interlocutoire.REJETÉES.REQUÊTESendisjonctionderecours.ACCUEILLIES.
Indexation
COMMUNICATIONS;TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS;pratiquescommercialesillégalesdansle
marchédestélécommunications;PROPRIÉTÉINTELLECTUELLE;MARQUESDECOMMERCE;
usageillégaldemarquesdecommerce;CONCURRENCE;CONCURRENCEDÉLOYALE;offres
cibles(targetedoffers);passing-off;DROITD’AUTEUR;VIOLATIONDESDROITSDUTITULAIRE;
RECOURSCIVILS;INJONCTION;PROCÉDURECIVILE;MOYENSPRÉLIMINAIRES;MOYENS
DÉCLINATOIRES;COMPÉTENCEDESTRIBUNAUX;COMPÉTENCERATIONEMATERIAE;rejetde
l’exceptiondéclinatoiresoulevéeparlesintimés;refusdelaCoursupérieuredesedessaisirdu
dossierauprofitduConseildelaradiodiffusionetdestélécommunicationscanadiennes;
CRTCnoncompétentsurplusieursaspectsdulitige;Coursupérieurecompétentesur
l’ensembledulitige;MOYENSDILATOIRES;disjonctionderecours;pluralitéd’intimés;
allégationsparticularisées;absenced’allégationstendantàétablirunecollusionouune
connivenceentrelesintimées
Résumé
Larequérante(Microcell)demandeautribunaldeprononceruneinjonctioncontreles
intimées,TelusCommunicationsetSociétéTélé-Mobile(Telus),BellMobility(Bell)etRogers
WirelessCommunicationsetRogersWireless(Rogers).Elleallèguequelesintiméesont,àson
endroit,despratiquescommercialesillégales.Elleleurreprocheplusspécifiquementdefaire
unusageillégaldesamarquedecommerceFidoetdecertainsélémentsdistinctifsdela
miseenmarchédesesproduits.Ellesoutientaussiquelesintiméesfontdesoffresquiciblent
sesclients(targetedoffers)envuedelesameneràchangerleursproduitsFidopourlesleurs.
TelusetRogersdemandenttoutesdeuxlerejetdecetterequête.Ellesplaidentquela
juridictioncompétenteenlamatièreestleConseildelaradiodiffusionetdes
télécommunicationscanadiennes(CRTC),etnonlaCoursupérieure.Parailleurs,tantTelus
queRogersetBelldemandentladisjonctiondurecours.
SelonRogers,larequêtedeMicrocellauraitdûêtreportéedevantleCRTC,parcequ’il
s’agiraitessentiellementd’uneaffairedecompétitionenmatièredetélédiffusion.Ilnefait
aucundoutequeleCRTCalacompétenceetl’expertisenécessairespourentendreet
disposerdeslitigesenmatièredetélécommunications.Dansleprésentcas,cependant,on
nepeutrestreindrelademandedeMicrocellauxseulesinterventionscompétitivesdes
intiméesdanslemarchédestélécommunications.Lademandeviseaussiàfaireinterdire
l’usagenonautorisédesmarquesdecommercedeMicrocell.Or,commel’indiquel’article52
delaLoisurlesmarquesdecommerce,letribunalcompétentpourrendreunetelle
ordonnanceestlaCourfédéraleouunecoursupérieured’uneprovince.Lademandevise
égalementàfairecesserlepassing-offdanslapublicitédesintimées,etlacompétencede
laCoursupérieureencettematièrenefaitaucundoute.Letribunalconstateaussiqu’ilaura
àdécidersi,enincitantlesclientsdeMicrocellàsedépartirdeleursappareils,lesintimées
interviennentindûmentouillégalementdanslesrapportscontractuelsentreMicrocelletses
clients.Or,ils’agitlàd’unequestiondedélitsurlaquelleleCRTCn’aaucunecompétence.La
Coursupérieureaégalementcompétenceenmatièred’atteinteauxdroitsd’auteur.Il
s’ensuitque,fairedroitàlademandedeTelusetRogersauraitpoureffetderenvoyerle
recoursdevantuntribunalquin’estpascompétentsurplusieursaspectsdulitigealorsquela
Coursupérieureestcompétentepourdisposerdel’ensembledulitigeetaccordertoutesles

50
conclusionsrecherchées.Vulescirconstances,iln’yapaslieupourlaprésenteCourdese
dessaisirdudossierauprofitduCRTC.
Larequêtedesintiméesvisantladisjonctiondurecoursdoitcependantêtreaccueillie.Pour
soutenirsadécisionderéunirlescausesd’actiondansunseuldossier,Microcellrenvoiele
tribunalàl’arrêtGestionfinancièredelaSeigneurieCanada,renduparlaCourd’appelen
1991.Ilyatoutefoisunedifférenceimportanteentrecetteaffaireetleprésentdossier.
Microcellneproposepasdeconclusionssubsidiaires;ellerecherchelesmêmesconclusions
contretouteslesintimées.Enoutre,lesfaitssurlesquelsellefondesademandesont
particuliersàchaqueintimée.Finalement,iln’yarien,danslesallégationsdelarequête,qui
tendentàétablirundesseinouunprojetcommundesintiméesou,encore,unecollusionou
uneconnivenceentreellesenvued’orchestreruneconcurrencecontreMicrocell.

MorrisonHershfieldLimitedforthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthepropertylocated
at2716RichmondRoadinOttawa[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]FileNo.2004-UO/TI-22;
availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/142-e.pdf(CopBd;2004-09-02)
Forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthepropertylocatedat2716RichmondRoad
inOttawainonecopy-Constructionpuposes
Muschiv.LeclubMaainc.http://www.canlii.org/qc/cas/qccq/2004/2004qccq10166.html
(QueCt-CivDiv-SmallClaims;2004-01-09)DumaisJ.
[4]SaidphotocamefromasetcommissionedbytheNationalPost,takenattheOlympic
swimmingpoolofMontréal,andpaidforbysaidnewspaper.
[5]PetitionerhasfiledwiththisCourtaletterfromtheNationalPosttotheeffectthatshe
remainedowneroftheoriginals.
[6]ThelawapplicableistheCopyrightsAct,L.R.C.ChapterC-42,whereSection13,Subsection
1,statesthat:
13.(1)SubjecttothisAct,theauthorofaworkshallbethefirstownerofthecopyright
therein.
[7]Inthiscase,wehaveadocumentstatingthatpetitionerremainsowneroftherightstosaid
photograph.
[8]Itisapubliclaw,andrespondentshouldhavebeenwaryofsaiduseofaphotofrom
petitioner.
[9]Ms.Rollandstatedthatshereceivedthephotographofherselfasagiftfrompetitioner,but
didnotnoticeorseethenameofpetitioneronthephoto.Shewasunawareofthecopyrights
andfreelygaveittorespondenttobeusedinthead.
[10]Butthelawapplies:thephotowasusedinacommercialprojectbyrespondent,andthe
rightofpetitionermustbeupheld,bywayofdamages(Sec.34(1))oftheaforementionedAct.
[11]ProofwasmadebeforethisCourtofthevalueofsaidinfringement,byspecialwitnessAllen
McInnis,totheamountof1500,00$claimed.

51
OakleyIncvShoppersDrugMartInc(2001),[2001]FCJ415,201FTR258(FCTD);[2004]
CarswellNat577;2004FC307,[2004]CarswellNat1293;2004CF307,2004FC307,31CPR(4th)
127,http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc307.shtmland
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc307.htmlinFrenchathttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf307.shtmland
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf307.html(FC;2004-03-02)O’KeefeJ.affd[2004]
CarswellNat4393,2004FCA404(FCA;2004-10-30)
Theplaintiffwastheregisteredownerofcopyrightintheartisticwork »OakleyEllipse »whichit
usedasastylized »O »inthewordOakley.Thedefendanthadusedthetrade-markOPTIMUM
&Designinassociationwithacustomerloyaltyprogram.Theplaintiffshadcommencedan
actionfortrade-markandcopyrightinfringementandbroughtamotionforsummary
judgmentforcopyrightinfringement.
Held,themotionshouldbedismissed.
Summaryjudgmentshouldnotissuewherethereareseriousfactualorlegalissuestobe
resolvedorwherethereareissuesofcredibility.Thedefendant’sOPTIMUM&Designworkhad
beencreatedbyanemployeeofthedefendant’sadvertisingagencywhohadswornthat
hehadnoknowledgeoftheOakleyEllipseatthetimehecreatedthework.Hesworefurther
thatthesuggestionthathehadcopiedtheOakleyEllipsewassimplyuntrue.Accordingly,
therewasaseriousissueastocredibilityoftheauthor’stestimonywhichwasbesttestedat
trial.
Therewerealsocomplicatedlegalissueswithrespecttotheapplicationofs.39ofthe
CopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,whichshouldalsobedealtwithattrial.Accordingly,
summaryjudgmentwasnotgranted.
OntarioOfficeoftheWorkerAdviserforthedigitalreproductionandthecommunicationto
thepublicofadetailofPaulRand’spaintingCoalDiggers[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto
the]FileNo.2004-UO/TI-05;availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/134-e.pdf
(CopBd;2004-03-29)
ForthedigitalreproductionandthecommunicationtothepublicofadetailofPaulRand’s
paintingCoalDiggersontheWebSiteofapplicant–Educationalpurpose
Payne(Don-Pedro)forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthepropertylocatedat
91and93ArlingtonAvenueinOttawa[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]FileNo.2004-
UO/TI-17;availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/136-e.pdf(CopBd;2004-04-26)
Forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthepropertylocatedat91and93Arlington
AvenueinOttawainonecopy-Renovationpurposes
Pointe-à-Callière,MontrealMuseumofArcheologyandHistoryfortheReproductionof
Quotations(ReLicenceApplicationby)[2004]CarswellNat2373,33CPR(4
th)426,[2004]CBD

52
4,inFrench[2004]CarswellNat2372,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/other/1-b.pdf
(CopBr;2004-03-29)
Amuseumappliedtotheboardpursuanttos.77oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,
foralicencetoreproduceanddisplayinthecontextofamuseumexhibition12quotations
fromtwopublishedbooks.Thequotationswerefromstatementsmadebypersons
interviewedbytheauthorsofthebooks.Themuseumalsosoughttotranslate10ofthe
quotations.
Held,theapplicationshouldbedismissed.
Section77grantstotheboardthepowertoissuealicencetodoanactmentionedins.3of
theActinrespectofapublishedworkwheretheboardissatisfiedthattheapplicanthas
madereasonableeffortstolocatethecopyrightownerandtheownercannotbelocated.
Althoughthemuseumhadestablishedthatthroughreasonableeffortsmade,thecopyright
ownerscouldnotbelocated,itwasstillnecessarytoestablishthatthelicencesoughtwasfor
anactmentionedins.3oftheAct.Section3onlyprotects,intheinstanceofreproductionor
translation,aworkorasubstantialpartofawork.
Thequotationstakenseparatelyorasawholedidnotconstituteasubstantialpartofawork.
Substantiallyistobeassessedbothquantitativelyandqualitatively.Thequotationsamounted
to400words,lessthanonepercentoftherelevantbooks.Asforquality,theinterview
statementsdidnotconstitutethecentralelementsoftheworks,theusecontemplatedbythe
museumwasdifferentfromthatcontemplatedbytheauthor,theresultingmaterialwould
nothavesubstitutedfortheoriginalandthequotationswerenotessentialcharactersofthe
works.Althoughneitherofthesefactorsalonewasdeterminative,takenasawholethe
quotationsdidnotconstituteasubstantialpartoftheworksfromwhichtheyweretaken.
PositiveAttitudeSafetySystemsInc.vAlbianSandsEnergyInc.[2004]FCJ1253,[2004]
CarswellNat2299,2004FC1022,33CPR(4th)460,[2004]FTRTBEdAU018,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc1022.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc1022.shtml(FC;2004-07-23)NoëlJ.
Theplaintiffhaddevelopedasafetyprogramforuseintheheavyindustries(the »PASS
System »).Theplaintiffhaddescribeditsprograminahandbookandothermaterialswhichit
licensedtousersofthePASSSystemandhadregisteredcopyrightinthePASSSystem.BHP
DiamondsInc.(« BHP »)hadbeenlicensedtousethePASSSystemandhadenteredintoajoint
venturewith,interalia,thedefendanttoextractoilfromtarsands.FollowingBHP’swithdrawal
fromthejointventure,thedefendantcontinuedtousethePASSSystemunderamodified
nameforaperiodoftwomonths.Thedefendantthendevelopedandimplementeditsown
safetysystem(the »ASESSSystem »).Theplaintiffcommencedanactionforcopyright
infringementandpassingoff.Thedefendantbroughtamotionforsummaryjudgment.
Held,thedefendant’smotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedinpart.
Themainpurposeofsummaryjudgmentisthatthemotionshouldbegrantedinclearcases
whereallthefactsandthelawareknownandpresentedbytheparties.
Passingoff

53
ThedefendanthadarguedthatastheASESSSystemhadonlybeenusedinternallyinthejoint
venture,itdidnot »trade »insafetysystemsandthereforesuchusecouldnotcreateconfusion
inthemarketplace.Thisinternalusehadtobeassessedinlightofthefactthattherewerea
limitednumberofparticipantsintheminingindustry,whichregularlyinteractedwitheach
other.Theinternaluseargumentdeservedtobeheardanddeterminedbythetrialjudge.
Copyrightinfringement
Thevalidityoftheplaintiff’scopyrighthadnotbeenputintoissue.Therewasevidenceof
prejudicialreproductionanddistributionalongwithexpositionandexhibitioninpublicofthe
PASSSystemforatleasttwomonths.Atissuewaswhetherthedefendant’sASESSSystemhad
takenasubstantialportionofthePASSSystem.TheevidenceshowedthattheASESSSystem
hadnotbeencreatedindependentlybuthadbeenpreparedusingthePASSSystemcharts,
formsandboardsasanimportantsource.Acomparisonofthecomponentsoftherespective
systemsshowedthatthereweresomesimilarities.WhentheASESSSystemwasconsideredas
awhole,itboreacertainresemblancetothePASSSystemintermsofquantityandqualityof
methodology.
Thereweregenuineissuesrelatedtotheallegationsofcopyrightinfringement.TheCourt
foundonthebasisoftheevidencebeforeit,however:
(1)thatthedefendantshadprejudiciallyreproducedanddistributedthePASSSystemand
exhibiteditinpublicatleastduringatwo-monthperiodin1999.Whatremainedtobe
decidedattrialwaswhetherthelicenceagreementbetweentheplaintiffandBHPlawfully
permittedthedefendantstousethePASSSystemastheydid;
(2)thattherewasnoinfringementofsaleorrentingout,orofferingforsaleorrentalbythe
defendants;
(3)thattherewasnoevidencethatthedefendantshadperformedorcausedemployeesto
performsubstantialportionsofthePASSSystem;and
(4)thattherewasnotsufficientevidencetodecideiftheASESSSystemwasasubstantial
copyofthePASSSystem.
Therewerealsoissuesrelatedtoinfringementofmoralrights,thegrantingofanpermanent
injunctionanddamagestobedecidedbythetrialjudge.
PrivateCopyingTariffEnforcement(Re)[2004]CarswellNat2365;32CPR(4th)271,[2004]CBD
1,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/c19012004-b.pdf,inFrenchat[2004]CarswellNAt2366
(CopBd;2004-01-19)
TheCopyrightBoardhadcertifiedaprivatecopyingtarifffor2001-2002andestablishedan
interimtarifffor2003.Thecollectivesocietyappliedtotheboardforanorderagainst
importersofblankaudiorecordingmediarequiringthemtopayoutstandingleviesand
otherwisecomplywiththerequirementsunderthetariff.Thecollectivesocietycontended
thattheboardhadthepowertoorderapersontocomplywithobligationssetoutina
certifiedtariffandtoholdthatpersonincontemptifthepersonrefusedtodoso.The
collectivesocietyreliedons.66.7oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,tosupportits
contention.

54
Theboardraisedtheissueofitsjurisdictiontoissuetheorderappliedforandtheimporters
wereprovidedanopportunitytofileargumentsconcerningtheboard’sjurisdiction.
Held,theapplicationshouldbedismissed.
Administrativelawvaluesandprinciplesrestrictatribunal’spowerstothoseexpresslygranted
bystatuteorimpliedlynecessarytotheproperexerciseofitscorecompetence.Thewordsof
s.66.7(1)providetheboardwiththetoolsrequiredtocarryoutitscorecompetence,namely
thecertificationoftariffs.Thepowertoenforceisnotnecessaryinordertocertifythem.Inthe
contextofprivatecopying,theboard’sroleislimitedtosettingleviesandtheirrelatedterms
andconditions.Thecourtshaveprovenaneffectiveforumtoenforcetheboard’stariffs.Itis
notnecessaryfortheboardtogetinvolvedintheenforcementofthetariffsthatitcertifies.
Theboardthereforehadnojurisdictiontoissuetheorderappliedfor.
PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks1998to2004,(Re)[2004]CarswellNat2369,32CPR(4th)
403,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/c19012004-b.pdf,inFrenchat[2004]CarswellNat
2370(CopBd;2004-03-19)
Thecollectivesocietythatadministeredtherightsforthepublicperformanceofmusical
worksfiledproposedtariffsovertheyears1998to2004,twoofwhichrelatedtothe
communicationofmusicalworksoversignalsofcommercialbroadcasttelevisionstations
(tariff2A)andnon-broadcasttelevisionstations(tariff17).Thetariffswereobjectedtobyan
associationofbroadcasters,programmingundertakingsthatproducedordistributed
commercialbroadcastsignals,acabletelevisionassociationandbroadcastdistribution
undertakings.
Theboardhadlastcertifiedtariff2Afor1997andtariff17for2000.Theissuebeforetheboard
relatedtotariff2Afor1998to2004andtariff17for2001to2004.Tariff2Ahadsince1959been
setasapercentageofatelevisionstation’srevenue.Initsmostrecentdecisiontheboard
hadsettherateat1.8percentandestablishedamodifiedblanketlicence(« MBL »)allowing
stationstooptoutofthetraditionallicenceforcertainprograms.Tariff17hadbeendesigned
in1996forthepaymentofroyaltiesbytheretransmitterratherthanthespecialtyservicesset
atanumberofcentspersubscriberfortheentireportfolioofCanadianspecialtyservices
andatapercentageofsubscriptionrevenuefornon-portfolioservices(paytelevisionand
Americanspecialty).Theratefortariff17hadlastbeensetat15.5centspersubscriberper
monthfortheportfolioservicesand1.8percentfornon-portfolioservicessubjecttovarious
discountsandtiering.
Thepartiesagreedthatthereshouldbeonlyoneratefortariff2Atocontinuetoapplytoa
station’sgrossincome,thatthereshouldbeastrongcorrelationbetweentariffs2Aand17
andthattariff17shouldbesetasaper-servicerateatapercentageofabaserateforall
services.Thepartiesdisagreed,however,overcertaintermsofthetariffsincludingthe
amountatwhichthetariffsshouldbeset.

Held,thetariffsshouldbecertifiedinaccordancewiththeboard’sdecision.
Thesituationrelatingtocabletelevisionwasradicallydifferentthanin1996whentheboard
adoptedtheportfolioapproachtosettingtheamountofthetarifffornon-broadcast
services.Therewasnolongerarationaleformaintainingtheportfolioapproachfortariff17
andthereforetheratestructureadoptedforthattariffwasaper-servicerate.

55
Thebroadcastandnon-broadcastindustrywerepartofasingleindustryandallplayersinthe
industryshouldpaythesameamountformusicperformingrightssubjecttoanyjustified
adjustment.
Tariff2A
Therewasinsufficientevidencetogaugewhatthevalueofmusicwastothetelevision
industry.Therateoftheincreasesuggestedbythecollectivesocietywasthereforelimited.
Theratefortariff2Awassetat1.8percentupto2001andat1.9percentfor2002,2003and
2004.ThecomparableU.S.ratecouldnotbeusedasthesolebasisforsettingtheCanadian
rates,howeverthefactthattheU.S.ratewaslowerthantheCanadianratecouldtendto
limittheextenttowhichtheCanadianratecouldbeincreasedwithoutactingunfairly
towardsthetelevisionindustry.
Tariff17
Therevenueofthespecialtyserviceswastheappropriatebaseratefortariff17.
Non-broadcastservicestendedtousethesameamountofmusicasconventional
broadcasters.Tieringthetariffbygenrewasimpracticalandcouldhaveresultedininequities
betweenservices.Exceptwithrespecttoalow-musicuseratefornon-broadcastservices,it
wouldalsoaddunnecessarycomplexityandcosttotheadministrationofthetariff.Atiered
tariffwasthereforerejectedwiththeexceptionofalowerrateof0.8percentsetforservices
thatrequirealicencefromthecollectivesocietyforlessthan20percentoftheirbroadcast
time.
Withthechangetoaper-servicerate,thecontinuedrelevanceofdiscountsattributableto
marketfactorswasquestioned.Ifthemarketfortheservices’affiliationpaymentswas
functioningproperly,itwouldtakeintoaccounttheimpactoftheamounttobepaidbythe
services.Allportfoliorelateddiscountswerethereforeabandoned.
ThecourtshadpreviouslyruledthattheboardhadthepowertoadopttheMBL.Theissueof
thecongruenceoftheMBLwiththeunderlyingpurposesoftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.
C-42,wasthereforesettled.Musicperformerswerenotrequiredbylawtojointhecollective
society.TheMBLwasnotintendedtoimposeaparticularbusinessmodelbuttomake
availableanoptiontopermitindividualtransactionsbetweenacomposerandaproviderof
programming.TherehadasyetbeenrelativelylittlepracticalexperiencewiththeMBLandit
wasthereforeprematuretoendorchangeitwithtwoexceptions.Theexceptionswerethat
theMBLwasmadeavailableonlytoabroadcaster’sin-houseproductionsandthefulltariff
foranyprogrammingwithoutcreditwasrequiredfortransmitterswhomadewrongfulclaims
fortheMBL.
Thefactthattransmitterspaidtheroyaltiesundertariff17mostofthetimeratherthanthe
specialtyservicesraisedtheissueastohowtoaccountforthetariff.Thesolutiontothatissue
wasinensuringtheflowofinformationbetweenthespecialtyservicesandtransmitters.The
transmitterswerethereforeallowedonemonthtoinformeachspecialtyserviceofthe
numberofsubscriberstotheserviceandoftheamountitowedtheserviceforcarryingits
signal.Serviceswerethenallowedonemonthtosupplyeachofitstransmitterswiththedata
requiredtocalculatethetariff.Thetransmitterswouldthenbepermittedafurthermonthto
calculateandmakethetariffpaymenttothecollectivesociety.
Tariff17wassetat1.9percentper-service,14centspermonthpersubscriberforcommunity
andalphanumericservicesandaflatrateof$10.00peryearforsmallcabletransmission
systemspayablebytheoperatorofthesystem.

56
PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks1998to2007,(Re)[2004]CarswellNat2367,33CPR(4
th)
503,[2004]CBD5,
inFrenchat[2004]CarswellNat2368(CopBd;2004-06-18)
Thecollectivesocietyhadfiledwiththeboardaseriesofproposedtariffsforthepublic
performanceorcommunicationtothepublicofmusicalworksfortheyears1998to2007.
Numerouspartiesobjectedtoormadecomplaintsabouttheproposedtariffs.Ingeneral,the
objectionsandcomplaintsrelatedtotheunfairnessofhavingtopayroyaltiesunderseveral
distincttariffsformusicuseinthesamepremisesandthefinancialburdenofcumulative
minimumfeesforseveraleventsortariffs.Thecomplaintsaroseprincipallyfromsmallrural
communitiesandraisedthreethemes:thefairnessofminimumtariffs,theburdenofmultiple
licencesandthestructureoftariff8(receptions,conventions,assembliesandfashionshows).
Theseobjectionsandcomplaintsgaverisetowhatwascommonlyknownas »multiple
licensing »issues,issuesthatappliedtosomebutnotalloftheproposedtariffs.
Theboardconductedaprocesstotakeintoaccountthecomplaintsandheldahearingto
addresstheobjections.
Held,thetariffsshouldbecertifiedinaccordancewiththeboard’sdecision.
MinimumFees
Theboardhadinpreviousdecisionsexpressedconcernaboutthesettingofminimumfees.
Forsomeoftheproposedtariffs,theproportionsoflicencesissuedattheminimumratewas
particularlyhigh.Nevertheless,theimportanceofminimumfeeswasrecognizedtoavoid
makingthecollectionoffeesfromsmallusersunprofitable.Itwasreasonablethatthe
collectivesociety’sadministrativecostwasoneofthefactorstobetakenintoaccountin
establishingminimumfees.
Threeprincipleswereidentifiedasbeingrelevanttoestablishingthelevelofaminimumfee.
First,aminimumfeeforatariffshouldreflectthestructureofthetariffandthecharacteristics
andnumberoftheuserstowhichitapplied.Thenumberofuserswhopayaminimumfee
shouldnotbeproportionallytoohighnortoolow.Itwouldbeamatterofconcernifmore
thanhalfoftheuserscoveredbyatariffpaidtheminimumfee.Second,theminimumfees
shouldreflecttheintrinsicvalueofmusicforusersaswellasthecollectivesociety’s
administrativecosts.Thereshouldthereforebeharmonizationofminimumfeesamong
differenttariffs.Third,annuallicencescomprisingaminimumfeeshouldalsobeavailableto
limittheimpactonsmallusersofminimumpereventfees.
Inflation
Inapriordecisiontheboardhadestablishedaruleofusingtheconsumerpriceindex(« CPI »)
lesstwopercenttotakeinflationintoaccount.Thatrulenolongerserveditspurpose.The
overallCPIwasthepreferableindextoconsiderbutithadtobeadjustedtoensurea
balancebetweenmusicusersandcopyrightowners.TheadjustmenttotheCPItotakeinto
accountinflationwasadeductionofonepercent.Thecalculationwastobemadefromthe
dataforthecalendaryearprecedingtheyearoftheproposedtariffbytwoyearsandan
adjustmentforamultipleyeartariffshouldtakeintoaccounttheinflationovereachofthe
yearsofthetariff.
Theinflationratewassetat1.7percentfor2002and2.8192percentforthecombinedyears
2003and2004.
MultipleLicences

57
Theevidenceshowedthatonlyaminorityofusershadtoacquiremorethanonelicence
fromthecollectivesocietyandthatinthecaseofthoselicences,thelicenseeswerenot
facedwithmajorproblems.Thepartieswere,however,encouragedtoproposeanew
multifunctionaltariffforseveraldifferentusersofmusicinthesamehalltoreducethe
overlappingthatwouldresultfromtheacquisitionofmorethanonelicencebythesame
user.Tariff21(RecreationalFacilities)wascertifiedasproposedbythecollectivesocietyfor
2000to2002,theobjectorshavingwithdrawntheirobjections,namelyanannualfeefor2000
and2002intheamountcertifiedfor1999,andwascertifiedfor2002atanannualfee
increasingto$180withtheallowablemaximumforgrossadmissionreceiptsbeingreducedto
$12,500.For2003and2004thetariffwascertifiedasproposedwithanadjustmentfor
inflation.
Tariff8(Receptions,Conventions,AssembliesandFashionShows)
Tariff8wascertifiedataratewhichtookintoaccountthecapacityofthehallinwhichmusic
wasperformed.Thetariffwascertifiedfor1999to2001asproposedbythecollectivesociety
subjecttoquarterlypaymentprovisionsfor1999.Thetariffwascertifiedfor2002and2003with
anewstructuregearedtoreflectthecapacityofthehallinwhichmusicisperformedand
witharatiooftwo-to-onewherethemusiciswithandwithoutdancing.For2004,thetariff
wascertifiedwithanadjustmenttoreflectinflation.
Tariff18(RecordedMusicforDancing)
Tariff18wascertifiedatanincreasedamountcomparedtoTariff3.C(AdultEntertainment
Clubs)andatanamountmorecommensuratewiththevalueofthemusicused.The
progressionoftheincreasesasproposedbythecollectivesocietyovertheperiodbetween
1998and2002werereducedandfor2004wereadjustedforinflation.Theretroactive
amountsweretobepaidannuallywithoutinterestoverfiveyearsfrom2003to2007.
Tariff20(KaraokeBarsandSimilarEstablishments)
Karaokehadbecomeaclearlydefinedtypeofmusicuse.Thevalueofthemusicusedhad
alsobecomecomparabletotheuseofmusicunderothertariffs.Theincreasesinthistarifffor
1998to2003werecertifiedasproposedbythecollectivesocietyexceptfor2004wherethe
tariffwasadjustedforinflation.
RemainingTariffs
Otherremainingtariffswerecertifiedinaccordancewiththeboard’sdecision.
PyrrhaDesignIncv623735SaskatchewanLtd30CPR(4th)310,[2004]CarswellNat792,2004
FC423,249FTR89,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc423.htmland
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc423.shtml,inFrenchat
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf423.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf423.shtml[2004]CarswellNat1712,2004CF423(FC;2004-03-23)
RouleauJ.;revdhttp://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fca/2004/2004fca423.html(FCA;2004-12-13)
LinenJ.
FederalCourt:
Theplaintiffsweredesignersofjewellery.Theybroughtanactionforinfringementofcopyright
indesignsforwhichtheyadmittedtohavingproducedjewelleryinquantitiesofmorethan
50.
Thedefendantbroughtamotionforsummaryjudgmentongroundsthatthestatementof
claimdisclosednoreasonablecauseofaction.Thedefendantallegedthats.64ofthe

58
CopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,appliedandthatitwasnotaninfringementofcopyright
toreproducethedesignsinmakingjewellery.
Held,themotionshouldbegranted.
Section64providesthatwherecopyrightsubsistsinadesignforausefularticleandthearticle
hasbeenreproducedinmorethanaquantityof50,itisnotaninfringementofcopyrightto
reproducethedesignforthearticlebymakingthearticle.
Jewellerydesignsare »designs »withinthemeaningofthattermins.64.Theyarefeaturesof
shape,configuration,patternorornamentthat,inafinishedarticle,appealtoorarejudged
solelybytheeye.
Thejewellerywasalsoa »usefularticle »asdefinedins.64.Jewellery,beingthree-dimensional,
isnotboughtpurelyandsimplyforitsartisticpropertiesbutbecauseoftheutilityofthearticle
apartfromthedesign.
Theexceptionins.64applied,andastherewerenorelevantissuestobedecidedon
evidence,summaryjudgmentwasgranteddismissingtheaction.
FederalCourtofAppeal
[8]Thislegislationprovides,therefore,thatcopyrightmayexistinadesignofausefularticle,
butifthatusefularticleisproducedinaquantityofmorethan50,itisnotaninfringementof
thecopyrightforotherstoreproducesimilararticles.Inotherwords,wherecopyrightexistsin
sucharticlesproducedinwhatmightbeconsideredcommercialquantities,anactionfor
copyrightinfringementmaynotlie,buttheremedy,ifany,mustdependupontheregistration
systemundertheIndustrialDesignAct,R.S.C.I-9.
[9]Inthiscase,itwasadmitted,forpurposesofthesummaryjudgmentmotion,thatthere
wascopyrightinthedesignofthejewelleryandthatmorethan50copieswereproducedby
theappellant.Thesoledisputedmatteriswhethertheseitemsaredeniedtheprotectionof
theCopyrightActbecausethejewellerywasa »usefularticle »,whichisdefinedas »anarticle
thathasautilitarianfunction »,whichinturnisdefinedasa »functionotherthanmerelyserving
asasubstrateorcarrierforartisticorliterarymatter ».(Seesection64(1),CopyrightAct,supra.)
[10]TheMotionsJudgewaspersuadedthatthejewelleryinissuewasa »usefularticle ».The
primaryargumentadvancedbytherespondenttosupporttheJudge’sconclusionisthat,as
jewelleryis »tobeworn »,itis »functional ».Ringsarewornonfingers,earringsarewornonears
andnecklacesarewornaroundtheneck »togiveavisualeffect ».Hence,itisargued,they
haveafunction »otherthanmerelyactingasasubstrateorcarrierforadesign ».Alljewellery
thatiscapableofbeingworn,itisurged,isfunctional,and,hence,deniedtheprotectionof
theCopyrightAct,ifproducedinaquantityofmorethanfifty.
[11]Theappellants,ontheotherhand,contendthatthewearingofjewellerydoesnotby
itselfmakeituseful,anymorethanthehangingofapaintingonawallmakesituseful.
Jewelleryisunlikeclothinginthatitdoesnotprovidewarmthorprotection.Itiswornmainly
becauseofthewayitlooks,itsattractiveappearance.Iftherespondentisright,suggeststhe
appellants,anysculptureadorningalobbyorapaintingdecoratingawallwouldalsobe
consideredusefulandwouldlosetheircopyrightprotectionifmorethan50copieswere
made.

59
[12]Inthiscase,itwasagreedthatthetesttodecidewhethersummaryjudgmentshouldbe
issuedisthattheremustbea »lackofgenuineissue »tobetried.(SeeTremblay-LamerJin
GranvilleShippingCo.v.PegasusLinesLtd.[1996]2F.C.853(F.C.T.D.).)
[13]Inmyview,itisnotclearthattherewasnogenuineissuetobetriedinthiscase.Theissue
ofwhetherarticlesofthekindinvolvedhereareusefulincopyrightlawhasnotbeenlitigated
beforeinCanada.Significantconsequencesflowfromsuchadecision.Itisnecessary,in
decidingsuchaquestion,tohavemoreevidenceaboutthejewellery’susefulnessorlack
thereof,includingevidencefromtheartisticandculturalmilieu.Thisdifficultissueshouldnot
havebeendecidedinasummaryway.TheappellantsdeserveadayinCourttofullydefend
theirrightstocopyrightintheirjewellery.
R.vAFCSoccer22CPR(4th)369(ManitobaProvincialCourt);revd2004CarswellMan212,
2004MBCA73,32CPR(4th)53,240DLR(3d)178,185CCC(3d)45,184ManR(2d)241,318
WAC241,http://www.canlii.org/mb/cas/mbca/2004/2004mbca73.html(ManCA;2004-05-
19)SteelJ.
Theaccused,AFCSocceranditssoleproprietorwerechargedbyindictmentwithan
offenceunders.42(1)(a)oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42.AFCSoccerentereda
guiltypleaandthechargesagainsttheindividualproprietorwerestayed.AFCSoccerinitially
appealedastothesentence.Onthehearingoftheappealthecourtraisedtheissueof
whetherAFCSoccer,simplyabusinessname,couldbechargedorconvictedofanoffence
undertheCopyrightAct.
AFCSoccersoughttoamenditsappealtoincludeanappealastoconvictionongrounds
thattheaccusedwasnotalegalentityandthatthereforetheconvictionandsentence
werenullities.
Held,theconvictionshouldbequashed.
AFCSoccerwasmerelyabusinessname.Abusinessnameisnotalegalentityatcommon
law.Section42oftheCopyrightActcreatedanoffencefor »[e]veryperson »whoengagesin
theactsspecified.Theterm »person »isnotdefinedintheCopyrightActbutisdefinedins.35
oftheInterpretationAct,R.S.C.1985,c.I-21,toincludenaturalaswellaslegalpersons.The
definitiondoesnotincludeorrefertoamerebusinessname.AFCSoccerwasnottherefore
capableinlawofbeingsubjecttoprosecutionunders.42oftheCopyrightAct.
Theindictmentwasinerrorinthatitallegedthat »thecompanydid »theactscomplainedof.
Therewasnocompanyandnolegalentity.Thereforetheaccuseddidnotexist.
Thenameorasufficientdescriptionoftheaccusedisanessentialpartoftheinformation.
Althoughthemodernapproachtodefectiveindictmentsistoallowamendmentwhenever
thereissubstantialcompliance,amaterialdefectintheindictmentmaystillresultinanullity.
Charginganaccusedwhodoesnotexistisamaterialdefectthatgoestotheheartofthe
matter.Theindictmentwasthereforeanabsolutenullityandcouldnotbeamended.In
exceptionalcases,suchasafindingofnullity,theproperremedyisaquashing.The
convictionwasquashedonthebasisthattheindictmentwasanullity.

60
R.v.Chen[2004]CarswellBC2199,2004BCPC;
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2004/03/p04_0365.htm(2004-10-01)BruceJ.
[1]Thedefendantenteredaguiltypleatosellingandofferingforsaleclothingand
accessoriesknowingthatsuchproductsinfringedthecopyrightbelongingtovariousbrand
namemanufacturerscontrarytoSection42(1)(b)oftheCopyrightAct.Theoffencetook
placebetweenFebruary2,2002andApril21,2002
[14]ThefirstissuebeforetheCourtiswhetherthejointsubmissionwithrespecttoafineanda
jailtermtobeservedinthecommunityrepresentstheappropriatedisposition.Therearefew
reportedjudgementsdealingwithsentencesimposedunderSection42(1)(g)ofthe
CopyrightActandtheonedecisioncitedbytheCrownthatcontainsareferencetoa
ConditionalSentenceOrderwasbywayofajointsubmissionwithalmostnoreasoning
providedbythecourtforacceptingit(See,Etheridgeatp.8and10[TheQueenv.Etheridge
Unreported(July28,2000)Reg.No.30569(OntarioCourtofJustice)].).
[15]Clearlyafineisappropriatewheretheobjectofthesentenceistotaketheaccused’s
illegalprofitsaway.Afinealsomeetstheprinciplesofsentencingwhererestitutiontothe
victimsisimpracticable.Thecircumstancesofthecaseathandmeetboththesecriteria.The
onlyrealdisputeisthequantityofthefine.
[16]Whatisnotsocleariswhetheritisnecessarytoimposebothafineandajailterminthe
particularcircumstancesofthiscase.Consistentwiththefundamentalprinciplesof
sentencingthepunishmentmustbeproportionatetothegravityoftheoffenceandthe
degreeofresponsibilityoftheoffender.
[17]Thedefendant’scircumstancespresentsubstantialmitigatingfactors.Sheisasingle
parentwithtwochildrentosupport.Shehasnopriorcriminalhistoryandisdeeplyregretfulof
heractions.Thedefendantwasnotlivingthehighlifeontheprofitsmadefromthesaleofthe
counterfeitclothingand,althoughtheexactamountofherillegalgainsisunknown,itis
apparentthatsuchprofitswerenotsubstantial.Thelikelihoodofherre-offendingisextremely
low.
[18]Itisalsoapparentthat,althoughfairlyunsophisticated,thebusinessoperatedbythe
defendanthadthepotentialtocausealosstothebrandnamemanufacturerswhose
productwassoldincounterfeitform.However,Iagreethatthepotentiallossissomewhatless
thanintheauthoritiescitedbytheCrown.InEtheridgeandAFCSoccer[note:BruceJis
makingherereferencetoUnreported(September4,2002)(ManitobaProv.Ct.),whichwas
quashed2004CarswellMan212,2004MBCA73,32CPR(4th)53,240DLR(3d)178,185CCC
(3d)45,184ManR(2d)241,318WAC241,
http://www.canlii.org/mb/cas/mbca/2004/2004mbca73.html(ManCA;2004-05-19)]the
productssoldreplacedthosemanufacturedbythebrandnamecompaniesandinthisway
tookbusinessawayfromthemdirectly.Bysellingcounterfeitclothingtoknowingbuyersthe
defendantwasservingamarketforreplicaproductsnotstealingpotentialcustomersby
replacingthegenuinearticleswithproductspurportingtobegenuine.Further,unlikethe
factsinAFCSoccer,thedefendantdidnotholdoutthecounterfeititemsasgenuine.
[19]Ialsoaccept,inpart,thedefendant’ssubmissionthathercustomerswouldnotlikely
havepurchasedtheexpensivebrandnameclothingandaccessoriesabsentherreplicas.
ClothingandaccessoriesbysuchmanufacturersasGucciandLouisVuittonarenotoriously
expensiveandthemarketfortheseitemsislimitedtowealthyindividuals.Thesamecannot
besaidofproductsmanufacturedbyNike,Adidas,Fila,andTommyHilfigerwhichareless
expensiveandthusavailabletoalargermarket.

61
[20]Ontheotherhand,theoffencecommittedbythedefendantisstillaseriousone.Both
thepotentialfinancialharmtothemanufacturersandthedifficultyindetectingand
investigatingtheseoffencesdemandsthatthepenaltyimposeddenouncethemisconduct
andactasageneralandspecificdeterrenttothedefendantaswellastootherswhomay
betemptedtoengageinthistypeofillegalactivity.Itisclearthatcounterfeitclothingis
becomingalargeproblemforretailersandmanufacturersandifnotcheckedwillbecomea
financialimpedimenttotheircontinuedexistence.
[21]Afterweighingthesefactors,andapplyingthefundamentalprinciplesofsentence,Ifind
thatwhilethejointsubmissionforatwelvemonthConditionalSentenceOrderisatthehigher
endoftherange,itisnotobviouslyunfitorunreasonable.Thedefendantalsoclearlymeets
thepreconditionstoaConditionalSentenceOrdergiventhemitigatingcircumstances
describedabove.
[22]ThusIimposeatwelvemonthConditionalSentenceOrderonthefollowingterms:
1.keepthepeaceandbeofgoodbehaviour.’
2.appearbeforetheCourtwhenrequiredbytheCourt.
3.reporttoyoursupervisorpriorto4:00pmMonday,October4,2004and
thereafterasandwhendirected.
4.remainwithinthejurisdictionoftheCourtunlesswrittenpermissionfromthe
CourtoryourSupervisorisobtained.
5.notifytheCourtoryourSupervisorinadvanceofanychangeofnameor
addressandpromptlynotifyyourSupervisorofanychangeofoccupationor
employment.
6.youshallnotsell,tradeorrentorofferforsale,tradeorrentanyproductthat
infringesacopyrightnorwillyouhaveinyourpossessionanyproductthatyou
knoworoughttoknowinfringesacopyright.
7.youshallperform100hoursofcommunityworkserviceatthedirectionof
andtothesatisfactionofyoursupervisorandshallcompletethosehoursonor
beforeMay30,2005.
[23]Turningtothequantityofthefine,theCourtmustfirstmeasurethefineagainstthegravity
oftheoffence.Oncethisisdeterminedthedefendant’smeansmustbeexaminedto
establishwhethershehastheabilitytopaythefine.Byfollowingthisprocedurethefinewill
beofsufficientmagnitudetomakeituneconomicalforthedefendanttocarryonher
unlawfulactivityandpreventthefinebecomingamerelicencefee.
[24]Themagnitudeofthefinemusttakeintoaccountthegravityoftheoffence,allofthe
principlesofsentencingincludinggeneralandspecificdeterrence,andtheamountofprofit
realizedbythedefendant.InAFCSoccerthecourtimposedafineequalto25%ofthegross
revenuerealizedbytheaccusedinthesaleoftheinfringingproduct.Inmyview,however,
thismethodofcalculatingafinefailstogivesufficientweighttotherestorativeobjectivesin
sentencingandplacestoomuchemphasisonremovingtheoffender’sprofits.Inotethat
AFCSoccerappealedthesentencebuttheappealwasgrantedondifferentgrounds.
[25]TheCrownhasproducedlittlecogentevidenceastotheprofitsmadebythedefendant
duringthecourseofherillegaltradeincounterfeitclothing.Theonlyexpertopinionavailable
totheCourtiswithrespecttothevalueoftheitemsseizediftheyweresoldasgenuinebrand
nameproducts.ThisgivestheCourtminimalguidanceinestimatingthedefendant’sprofits.
Thedefendant,ontheotherhand,maintainsheraverageprofitfromthesaleoftheclothing
andaccessorieswas$1800permonth.TheCrownisunabletodisputethisfigurebasedon
theevidencebeforetheCourt.Whilethereisnoclearindicationastowhenthedefendant

62
begansellingthecounterfeitproducts,itisconcededthatthebusinesswasoperating
betweenJanuaryandApril2002.Thetotalgrossrevenueforthisperiodisestimatedat$7200
($1800x4months).
[26]Imposingafineof$7200wouldremovealltheknownprofitsandmoreasthisfiguredoes
nottakeintoaccountthecostsoftheclothingtothedefendant.Afineofthismagnitude,
however,doesnotreflectthemitigatingcircumstancesofthiscase,andinparticular,the
defendant’sguiltypleaandthefactthatsheisafirstoffender.Italsofailstotakeinto
accountthefactthattheaccusedwillbeservingalengthyconditionalsentenceduring
whichshewillperform100hoursofcommunityworkserviceinreparationforhercrime.
BearinginmindthesemitigatingcircumstancesIhaveconcludedthatafineof$5000isthe
appropriateamount.
[27]Thefinalissueiswhetherthedefendanthastheabilitytopaythisfine.Thedefendantisa
singleparentwithtwodependentchildren.SheisanimmigranttoCanadaandpossesses
neithertheeducationnortheskillsnecessarytoearnmorethanaminimalincome.Hergross
wageseachmonthareapproximately$1500.Inmyviewthedefendant’scircumstances
makeithighlyunlikelythatshecouldpaya$5000fineevengiventimetopay.Afineshould
imposesomehardshipbutnotsoastocreateanimpossibleburdenonthedefendantorone
thathangsoverherforalengthyperiod,(seeSentencing5
thEd.Ruby(Butterworthsatp.382).
[28]Accordingly,thefinemustbereducedtobringitwithinthedefendant’sabilitytopay.
Givenherincomeandcorrespondingfinancialresponsibilities,Ifinditisreasonabletoexpect
thedefendanttobeabletopayoffineintheamountof$2500providedsheisgiven
considerabletimetopay.InthisregardIcalculateeighteenmonthsasreasonableinthe
circumstances(approximately$138permonth).
[29]Afineintheamountof$2500willbeimposedwith18monthstopay.Thefineispayable
totheClerkoftheCourt.
[30]TherewillbeanorderforforfeitureoftheitemsnotedontheCrown’sflowchartmarked
asExhibit4intheseproceedings.

RcThériault*[2004]CarswellQue3201,(subnomineRvD’Argy)[2004]JQ11142(QueCt;
2004-10-28)CôtéJ.

[459]Àlalumièredel’analysecontextuelle,ilappertquelesgroupesquelegouvernement
entendaitprotégerparl’interdictiongénéralededécodersont:lesradiodiffuseursdétenteurs
d’unelicencecanadiennedemêmequelestitulairesdedroitsd’auteur.Lebutdela
prohibitiondedécoderétantdeprotégerlesintérêtséconomiquesdecesdeuxgroupeset
ce,pourassurerlemaintiendel’intégritédusystèmecanadienderadiodiffusion.
Ritchiev.SawmillCreekGolf&CountryClubLtd27CPR(4
th)220(OntSupCt;2003-05-16);affd
[2004]CarswellOnt352535CPR(4th)165,189OAC282(OntCA2004-08-24)McKinnonJ.
Theplaintiff,aphotographer,hadwithoutinvitation,takenanumberofphotographsofthe
corporatedefendant’sgolfcourseandfacilities.InJuneorJuly,1999heapproachedthe
individualdefendant,theCEOofthecorporatedefendant,withaproposaltooverhaul

63
significantlythecorporatedefendant’sbrochuresandWebsite.Atthattimetheplaintiff
gavetotheindividualdefendantanalbumofthephotographsthathehadtaken.
Theindividualdefendanthadrejectedtheplaintiff’sproposalbuttheplaintiffwasretainedby
thedefendanttophotographaweddingatthegolfcourseandtoupdatethecorporate
defendant’sWebsite.DuringtheperiodJulytoOctober,1999theplaintifftooknumerous
additionalphotographsofthegolfcourseandupdatedtheWebsitetoincludeanumberof
theseadditionalphotographs.Ontheplaintiff’swrittenproposalfortheseWebsiteupdates
andinreferencetothematerialsonthesite,theindividualdefendanthadwritten »weown
copyright. »
Thecorporatedefendanthadusedsomeoftheplaintiff’sphotographsinadditional
promotionaladvertisingforitsgolfcoursewithoutspecificauthorizationfromtheplaintiff.The
plaintiffhadcommencedanactionforcopyrightinfringementandthetrialjudgehad
dismissedtheplaintiff’saction.Theplaintiffappealed.
Held,subjecttoonefindingofthetrialjudge,theappealshouldbedismissed.
Thecorporatedefendant’spromotionalmaterialsmadeitobviousthatthephotographsused
inthosematerialscamefromthreesources,thealbumofphotographsgiftedbytheplaintiff
inJuneorJuly,1999,thephotographstakenbetweenJulyandOctober,1999andthe
weddingphotographs.
Thetrialjudgehadconcludedthatinmakingthegiftofthealbumofphotographs,the
plaintiffhadsaidnothingaboutownershipofcopyrightandhadimposednoconditionsupon
thegiftandthatthegiftconstitutedanirrevocablelicencefromwhichtheplaintiffcouldnot
resile.Inmakinghisfinding,thetrialjudgepreferredtheevidenceoftheindividualdefendant
tothatoftheplaintiff.
Acopyrightlicencethatisamerepermissiontodoathingdoesnotgiveanownership
interestinthecopyright.Thisistobecontrastedwithanexclusivelicencewhichcangranta
propertyinterest.Asaresult,alicencewhichisamerepermissiontodoathingdoesnotfall
withintherequirementofs.13(4)oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,thatitbein
writing.Theorallicencegrantedtothecorporatedefendantwassuchalicenceand
thereforedidnotneedtobeinwriting.
Thepermissiontousetheplaintiff’sphotographsarisingfromtheredesignofthecorporate
defendant’sWebsitedidnotconstituteagrantofanexclusivelicence.Theuseoftheterm
« weowncopyright »wasinsufficienttoconstitutesuchagrant.
Withrespecttotheweddingphotographs,whichthecorporatedefendantcommissioned,
byreasonofs.13(2)oftheActthecorporatedefendantwastheownerofcopyrightand
entitledtopossessionofallthenegativesinthepossessionoftheplaintiff.
Subjecttovacatingthetrialjudge’sorderthatthedefendantsownedcopyrightintheJulyto
Octoberphotographs,theappealwasdismissed.
RobertsonvThomsonCorp(1999),85CPR(3d)1(OntCt–GenDiv);15CPR(4
th)147,
(OntSupCt;2001-10-03);affd[2004]CarswellOnt4015,243D.L.R.(4th)257,34CPR(4th)161,
190OAC231,http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2004/october/C38148.pdfand
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2004/2004onca11384.html(OntCA;2004-10-06)WeilerJ.

64
Theplaintiff,afreelancewriter,wrotetwoarticleswhichwerepublishedinthedefendants’
newspaper.Subsequentlythedefendantsreproducedtheplaintiff’sarticlesinthree
databasesincludingadatabaserecordedonCD-ROM.
Theplaintiffhadcommencedaclassactionforcopyrightinfringementinrespectofthe
reproductionofafreelancewriter’sworkinthedefendants’electronicdatabaseandsought
anordertorestrainthedefendantsfromplacingtheworksofitsemployeesinthose
databases.
Thedefendants’databasescontainedtextfilesfromitsnewspaper.Acomputerprogram
assignedeachnewspaperarticlewithanidentifyingcodeandotheridentifyingfeaturesto
enableausertolocatespecificarticlesinthedatabasebyakeywordsearch.Theuserwas
thenpermittedtomakeonecopyofthearticleandtostoreanelectroniccopyfor90days.
Thedatabasesdidnotincludeadvertisements,photographs,mastheadandotherfeaturesof
thenewspaper.TheCD-ROMdifferedfromthedefendants’otherdatabasesinthateachCD-
ROMcontainedafiniteamountofinformation.Thedefendants’databaseswere
distinguishedfromanelectroniceditionofthenewspaperwhichcontainedtheday’snews
andwasfinite.

Theplaintiffacknowledgedthatthedefendantshadtherighttoprintherarticlesinany
editionofthenewspaperonthedayinquestionincludinginanelectronicorInternetedition.
Thedefendantsclaimedentitlementtoreproducetheplaintiff’sarticlesinitsdatabaseby
reasonofimpliedlicence.Theplaintiffhadbroughtamotionforsummaryjudgmentclaiming
thatthepermissiongrantedtothedefendantstopublishherarticleswasagrantofa
proprietaryinterestandtobevalidshouldhavebeeninwriting.Thedefendantshadbrought
across-motionforsummaryjudgmentongroundsthatthereproductionoftheplaintiff’s
articlesintheirdatabaseswaswithintheircollectivecopyrightinthenewspaperandthatthe
plaintiffhadnostandingtosuefortherestrainingorderonbehalfofthenewspapers’
employees.
Themotionsjudgehaddismissedthemotionandcross-motion,findingthattheplaintiff’sgrant
ofpermissiondidnotneedtobeinwriting,thatthereproductionoftheplaintiff’sarticleswas
notwithinthedefendants’collectivecopyrightandthattheplaintiffhadnostandingtosue
onbehalfoftheemployeewritersofthedefendants.Theplaintiffappealedandthe
defendantscross-appealed.
Held,theappealandcross-appealshouldbothbedismissed.
PerWeilerJ.A.(GilleseJ.A.concurring):
Theplaintiff,afreelancewriter,wrotetwoarticleswhichwerepublishedinthedefendants’
newspaper.Subsequentlythedefendantsreproducedtheplaintiff’sarticlesinthree
databasesincludingadatabaserecordedonCD-ROM.
Theplaintiffhadcommencedaclassactionforcopyrightinfringementinrespectofthe
reproductionofafreelancewriter’sworkinthedefendants’electronicdatabaseandsought
anordertorestrainthedefendantsfromplacingtheworksofitsemployeesinthose
databases.
Thedefendants’databasescontainedtextfilesfromitsnewspaper.Acomputerprogram
assignedeachnewspaperarticlewithanidentifyingcodeandotheridentifyingfeaturesto
enableausertolocatespecificarticlesinthedatabasebyakeywordsearch.Theuserwas
thenpermittedtomakeonecopyofthearticleandtostoreanelectroniccopyfor90days.

65
Thedatabasesdidnotincludeadvertisements,photographs,mastheadandotherfeaturesof
thenewspaper.TheCD-ROMdifferedfromthedefendants’otherdatabasesinthateachCD-
ROMcontainedafiniteamountofinformation.Thedefendants’databaseswere
distinguishedfromanelectroniceditionofthenewspaperwhichcontainedtheday’snews
andwasfinite.

Theplaintiffacknowledgedthatthedefendantshadtherighttoprintherarticlesinany
editionofthenewspaperonthedayinquestionincludinginanelectronicorInternetedition.
Thedefendantsclaimedentitlementtoreproducetheplaintiff’sarticlesinitsdatabaseby
reasonofimpliedlicence.Theplaintiffhadbroughtamotionforsummaryjudgmentclaiming
thatthepermissiongrantedtothedefendantstopublishherarticleswasagrantofa
proprietaryinterestandtobevalidshouldhavebeeninwriting.Thedefendantshadbrought
across-motionforsummaryjudgmentongroundsthatthereproductionoftheplaintiff’s
articlesintheirdatabaseswaswithintheircollectivecopyrightinthenewspaperandthatthe
plaintiffhadnostandingtosuefortherestrainingorderonbehalfofthenewspapers’
employees.
Themotionsjudgehaddismissedthemotionandcross-motion,findingthattheplaintiff’sgrant
ofpermissiondidnotneedtobeinwriting,thatthereproductionoftheplaintiff’sarticleswas
notwithinthedefendants’collectivecopyrightandthattheplaintiffhadnostandingtosue
onbehalfoftheemployeewritersofthedefendants.Theplaintiffappealedandthe
defendantscross-appealed.
Held,theappealandcross-appealshouldbothbedismissed.
GeneralCopyrightConcepts
Thedefendants’newspaperwasacollectiveworkasdefinedins.2oftheCopyrightAct,
R.S.C.1985,c.C-42.Pursuanttos.13(3)whenanemployeeofanewspapercreatesawork
aspartofhisorheremployment,theemployerisdeemedtobetheownerofcopyright
subjecttoagreementtothecontrary,withtheemployeeretainingarighttorestrain
publicationofhisorherworkotherthanaspartofanewspaperorsimilarperiodical.
Theterms »compilation »and »collectivework »canbeusedinterchangeablyundertheAct.
TheActismedianeutralwiththedefinitionsofrightsemphasizingmedianeutrality.
TheActhastwoobjectives:theprovisionofaccesstoworksandtherecognitionofthe
creatortocontroltheuseandtoreceivepaymentforhisorherwork.IninterpretingtheAct,
thecourtsmuststrivetomaintainanappropriatebalancebetweenthesetwoobjectives.

TobeprotectedundertheActaworkmustbeoriginal.Originalityrequiresthataworkbea
productofanon-mechanicalexerciseofbothskillandjudgmentthatismorethantrivial.
ThelimitationsandexceptionsintheActareaimedatstrikinganappropriatebalance
betweenanauthor’srighttocontrolhisworkwiththesocialbenefitofprovidingaccesstothe
worksinschools,libraries,communities,businesses,governments,andinthecaseof
electronicworks,theworldatlarge.
StandardofReview
TheissuesintheappealwhichrequiredthecourttointerprettheActweretobereviewedon
thestandardofcorrectness.TheinterpretationoftheActrequired,however,an
understandingandanalysisofcertainquestionsoffact.Onquestionsoffactanappellate
courtshouldnotinterferewithatrialjudge’sreasonsabsentpalpableandoverridingerror.

66
TheCross-Appeal
ThereareseveralkeydivergencesbetweenthecopyrightlawsofCanadaandtheUnited
States.ThemotionsjudgewasinerrorinoverlookingtheimportantdistinctionbetweenU.S.
andCanadianlawregardingthenotionofthecollectivecopyrightinterest.Thejudge
thereforetiltedthecopyrightbalancetowardtheindividualinterestasopposedto
acknowledgingamorelayeredapproach.
Thedefendants’righttoreproducetheirnewspaperinanymaterialformincludedtherightto
archivetheworkelectronicallyandtomaketheelectronicversionavailabletothepublic
providedthatthefullelectroniceditionofthenewsandarticleswasareproductionofa
substantialpartofthecollectivework.Asearchofthedefendants’databasesdidnot,
however,displaythefullcompilationofthenewspaper.Theessenceofthesearchresultwas
theindividualfreelancer’swork.Ineffect,thedefendantsweresellingaccesstostand-alone
freelancearticles.Althoughthemotionjudge’sconstructionfortheActdidnottakefull
accountofmedianeutralityofacopyrightholder’srights,theindividualarticlesdisentangled
byasearchofthedefendants’databasewerenotcoveredbythedefendants’copyright
becausethearrangementofthearticleswithinthecollectiveworkwaslost.Furthermore,
althoughfromaquantitativerespect,asubstantialpartofthenewspaperwasreproducedin
thedatabases,fromaqualitativerespect,thecollectivecontextofthenewspaperwaslostin
thereproductionofthearticlesinthedatabases.Asubstantialpartofthenewspaperwasnot
thereforereproducedinthedatabases.
AlthoughtheCD-ROMcontainedafinitedatabase,themotionsjudgefoundthatitdidnot
havethefunction,formorcontentofanewspaper.Thejudgedidnotmakeapalpableand
overridingerrorinmakingthatfinding.
Themotionsjudgedidnoterrinfindingthatasubstantialpartofthenewspaperwasnot
reproducedinthedatabases.
TheAppeal
Section13(4)requiresthatthegrantofaninterestincopyright,tobevalid,mustbeinwriting.
Section13(7)providesthatagrantofanexclusivelicenceisagrantofaninterest.
Themotionsjudgewasnotinerrorinconcludingthat,ifParliamenthadintendeds.13(4)to
covernon-exclusivelicences,s.13(7)wouldhavesostated.Theorallicencegrantedtothe
defendantsdidnotthereforeconveyproprietaryrightsandwasnotthereforerequiredtobe
inwriting.
TheStatusoftheRepresentativePlaintiff
Therighttorestrainpursuanttos.13(3)isapersonalrightoftheemployee.Thatrightcould
notbeinvokedbytheplaintiffastherewasnoemployeewriterswhosoughttoassertthat
right.
PerBlairJ.A.(dissentinginpart):Theoriginalityinherentinthecollectiveworkofthe
newspaperremainedintheelectronicdatabasefromwhichonearticlewasdrawnwitha
keywordsearch.Itwasnotpropertofocusonthenarrowdisplayordifferentformseenon
theoutput.Theabilitytoseeonlyonearticlealonewassimplyanincidentofthetechnology.
Theissuewasnotwhethertheelectronicarchivewasareproductionofthecollectivework
butwhethertheelectronicversionofthenewspaperasfoundinthedatabasearchivewasa
reproductionofthecollectivework.

67
Thedatabaseversionofthenewspapercontainedallthenews,stories,writtenarticlesand
editorialcomponentsofthenewspaper.Theselectionofthestories,articlesandeditorialsby
theeditorswaspreservedinthedatabase,aswasatleastpartofthearrangementcreated
bytheeditorialstaff.
Thedefendantshadtherighttoreproducetheirnewspaperinanymaterialformincluding
therighttoarchivethenewspaperelectronicallyandmakethearchiveavailabletothe
public,providedthatthefullelectroniceditionwasbeingmadeavailable.Theelectronic
versiondidnotceasetobeanewspaper,orasubstantialpartofitsimplybecausemodern
technologypermittedasearchandretrievalexercisethattargetedanarticleinastand-
alonefashionforviewingonacomputerscreen.Thedefendantsdidnotthereforeinfringe
theplaintiff’scopyrightbymakingitscollectiveworkavailableonanelectronicdatabase
andprovidingthepublicwiththemeanstoviewanarticlefromtheworkonacomputer
screen.
SalonsMarcelPelchatincvBretonREJB2004-54180,[2004]CarswellQue291,JE2004-603,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2004/2004qccs10534.html(QueSuptCt;2004-02-03)
BlanchetJ.
Typed’action
ACTIONendommages-intérêtspourcontraventionàlaLoisurledroitd’auteur.ACCUEILLIE
enpartieàl’encontredesdéfendeursM.-A.Bretonet9059-5893Québecinc.maisREJETÉEà
l’encontredeladéfenderesse9007-9765Québecinc.DEMANDEreconventionnelleen
dommages-intérêts.REJETÉE.ACTIONSengarantie.REJETÉEàl’encontredudéfendeurmais
ACCUEILLIEenpartieàl’encontredeladéfenderesseengarantie.
Indexation
PROPRIÉTÉINTELLECTUELLE;DROITD’AUTEUR;OEUVRESSUSCEPTIBLESDEFAIREL’OBJETD’UN
DROITD’AUTEUR;OEUVRESARTISTIQUES;PHOTOGRAPHIES;photographiecommandée
expressémentparlademanderessepourfairesapromotionetsapublicité;marque
distinctivepourunsalondecoiffurepourdamesderéputationinternationale;jeune
mannequins’étantparlasuiteretrouvéeàl’emploidudéfendeur;VIOLATIONDESDROITSDU
TITULAIRE;VIOLATIONDIRECTE;PUBLICATION;utilisationsansdroitdelaphotographieàdes
finspublicitairesparunconcurrent;IGNORANCED’UNDROITD’AUTEUR;omissiondu
mannequinderévélerl’originedelaphotographie;omissiondudéfendeurdeprendredes
précautionsraisonnablespouréviterdes’approprierl’oeuvred’untiers;manquedecrédibilité
dudéfendeur;DROITDEPROPRIÉTÉ;GRAVURE,PHOTOGRAPHIEOUPORTRAIT;interprétation
desdispositionsdelaLoisurledroitd’auteur(LDA)relativesauxoeuvresphotographiques;
mention«avec(…)droitd’utilisation»apparaissantsurl’étatdecompte;intentiondela
photographedesedépartirdesondroitd’auteurauprofitdelademanderesse;PREMIER
TITULAIRE;EXCEPTION;portéedel’exceptionénoncéeàl’article13(2)LDA;butdulégislateur
étantdeprivilégier«l’auteurdelacommande»plutôtque«l’auteurdel’oeuvre»;mannequin
croyantdebonnefoiêtretitulairedudroitd’auteur;RECOURSCIVILS;responsabilitédes
défendeursretenuedansuneproportionde40%respectivement;responsabilitédela
défenderesseengarantieretenuedansuneproportionde20%;DOMMAGES-INTÉRÊTS;
violations’avérantfinalementpeuprofitableetpeudommageable;indemnitéaccordée
correspondantàuneinfimepartiedescoûtsdeproductiondel’oeuvre;indemnitépour
troubles,ennuisetinconvénients;remboursementdeshonorairesetdéboursextrajudiciaires;
DOMMAGESEXEMPLAIRES;non-octroidedommagesexemplaires;simplenégligenceet
manquedediligence

68
Sociétécanadiennedesauteurscompositeursetéditeursdemusiquev.Lesproductions
FogelSabourinInchttp://www.canlii.org/qc/cas/qccs/2004/2004qccs17776.html(QueSupCt;
2004-12-23)TingleyJ
[15]Asageneralrule,corporationsaredistinctfromtheirshareholdersandtheiractsbind
nonebutthemselves.[Article309C.C.Q.provides:309.Legalpersonsaredistinctfromtheir
members.Theiractsbindnonebutthemselves,exceptasprovidedbylaw.]However,article
317C.C.Q.makesanexceptioninsituationswhere »fraud,abuseofrightorcontraventionof
aruleofpublicorder »arepresent.Thus,ProductionsR-Fcouldnotsetupits »juridical
personality »againstSocan(assumingittobeingoodfaithintheseproceedings)tohide
behindafraudulentactorthebreachofaruleofpublicorder.
[16]Isfraudorthebreachofaruleofpublicorderpresentinthiscase?CounselforSocan
concedesthereisnoevidenceoffraudulentbehaviouronthepartofanyoftheDefendants.
Perversely,theremayhavebeena »fraudulentpreference »[Inthesenseofsection95ofthe
BankruptcyandInsolvencyAct,R.S.C.,1985,c.B-3,asamended]hadProductionsF-Spaid
Socan’sroyaltyclaiminprioritytoallitsotherdebtsamountingtosome$400,000.!
[17]However,CounselforSocansubmitsthatthefailuretopayroyaltiesconstitutesabreach
ofaruleofpublicorder.[RelyingonthedictaofMadameJusticeRousseau-Houlein
Desputeauxc.LesÉditionsChouette(1987)Inc.etal,C.A.M.500-09-006389-985;2001-04-18,at
paragraphs35,40and49wheresheopinedthat:35.Ledroitd’auteurestreconnucommebi-
frontal,droitdelapersonnalitéetdroitpécuniaire.L’oeuvreprotégéeparledroitd’auteurest,
eneffet,àlafoisuneémanationdelapersonnalitédel’auteuretunesourced’intérêts
économiques.Uneoeuvren’estpasseulementunproduitquel’onpeutvendre,c’estle
résultatd’unactedecréationpersonnelle.L’auteurcommuniquesapensée,sesémotionsde
sortequel’oeuvrefaitpartiedelapersonnalitédel’auteuretluidemeureattachéetoutesa
vie.40.Danslaprésenteaffaire,lapaternitédudroitd’auteurdel’appelanteestunedes
questionsenlitige.Bienqu’ellesoitsusceptibled’êtreenvisagéesousl’angledelaprotection
del’intérêtpatrimonialdel’appelante,laquestionserattacheégalementàlapersonnalité
decettedernière.Enparlantdudroitàlapaternité,ClaudeColombetmentionnequ’ils’agit«
d’unrapportdeparentéetdefiliationentrel’êtrehumainetlaproductiondesonesprit».Le
droitdesevoirjustementattribuerlapaternitéd’uneoeuvretoutcommeledroitaurespect
dunomrevêtentuneconnotationpurementmoraletenantàladignitéetàl’honneurdu
créateurdel’oeuvre.Souscesaspectslaquestiondelapaternitédudroitd’auteurneserait
pasarbitrale.49.[…]Lorsqu’unarbitreestappelé,danslecadredesonmandat,àappliquer
lesrèglesd’ordrepublic,ildoitlesappliquercorrectement,c’est-à-diredelamêmefaçon
quelestribunaux.Lasentencepourraitdoncêtreégalementannuléeparcequel’arbitren’a
pasappliquéoumalappliquélesdispositionsdesarticles31et34.]Inreversingadecisionof
ourCourtofAppeal,theSupremeCourtofCanadaseemstohavedecidedotherwise,
particularlyasregards »conflictsrelatingtothe[…]applicationofcontractsthatgovernthe
exerciseof[copyright]asbetweenartistsandpromoters ».[Desputeauxc.ÉditionsChouette,
(2003)1S.C.R.178,atpage215]Thiscaseinvolvesalikecontract,ormoreaccuratelyits
breach,entailingliabilitytopayroyaltiesanddamages.
[18]Withrespect,theCourtconsidersthatthedisputeinthiscaseisnotamatterofpublic
order.Damageclaimsflowingfromthebreachofacontractarenotmattersofpublicorder.
Generally,thelegislatoralertsusastowhatmattersitconsidersareofpublicorder.[See
articles8,9,541,1373,1411,1413,2632and2639C.C.Q.andthedefinitionof »publicorder »in
PrivateLawDictionary,1991,2
nded.,Cowansville,atpages348and349]Accordingly,article
317C.C.Q.hasnoapplication,absentfraudorbreachofaruleofpublicorder.

69
[21]ProductionsF-Sisnotabankrupt,althoughitbecameinsolventandhassinceclosedits
doors.Itmightyetopenthemagainastheclaimsofitscreditors,savethoseofSocan,are
nowprescribed.TheCourtwillthereforegranttheissueofapermanentinjunctionagainstthis
Defendant.
[22]However,noproofwasadducedtoestablishthatMr.FogelorProductionsR-Fhaveever
breachedwhateverobligationstheyhavetowardsSocanbeforeorsincetheeventsleading
tothislitigation.Accordingly,Socanisnotentitledtoinjunctiverelieffrompartieswhohaveso
farrespectedtheirobligationstowardsit
[24]FORTHESEREASONS,THECOURT:[…]
[27]ISSUESinfavourofPlaintiffapermanentinjunctionprohibitingDefendant,LesProductions
Fogel-SabourinInc.,fromusingorauthorizingtheuseinpublicofmusicalworksonwhich
Plaintiffholdscopyright,unlesssuchDefendantpossessesapermitfromPlaintifftothiseffect,
ascontemplatedbytheCopyrightActanditsregulations;
SOCANStatementofRoyalties,PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks1996,1997,1998(Tariff
22,Internet)(Re)1CPR(4
th)417(CopBd;1999-10-27);vardsubnomineSocietyofComposers,
AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadavCanadianAssociationofInternetProviders19CPR
(4th)289,(FCA;2002-05-01);revdinpart2004SCC45,32CPR(4th)1,240DLR(4th)193,322
NR306,[2004]CarswellNat1919,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/2004/2004scc45.htmland
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc045.wpd.html,inFrenchat
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/csc/2004/2004csc45.htmland
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/fr/rec/html/2004csc045.wpd.html(SCC;2004-06-30)
BinnieJ.
Leprésentpourvoisoulèvelaquestionde
savoirquidoitverserdesredevancesaux
artistesetauxcompositeurstitulairesdu
droitd’auteurcanadiensurlesoeuvres
musicalestéléchargéesauCanadaà
partird’unautrepaysaumoyende
l’Internet.
T
hisappealraisesthequestionofwho
shouldcompensatemusicalcomposers
andartistsfortheirCanadiancopyright
inmusicdownloadedinCanadafrom
aforeigncountryviatheInternet.

L’intiméeestunesociétédegestionqui
gèreauCanadalesdroitsd’auteursurles
oeuvresmusicalesdesesmembres
canadiensetdesmembresétrangersde
sociétéshomologues.Elleveutpercevoir
desredevancesauprèsdesfournisseursde
servicesInternetsituésauCanadaparce
que,selonelle,ilsvioleraientledroit
exclusifconféréparlaloiautitulairedu
droitd’auteurdecommuniquer
l’oeuvre
aupublicpartélécommunicationet
d’autoriser
unetellecommunication.Les
appelantesreprésententunevaste
coalitiondefournisseurscanadiensdeT
herespondentisacollectivesociety
whichadministersinCanadathe
copyrightinmusicofCanadian
membersandforeignmembersof
counterpartsocieties.Therespondent
wantstocollectroyaltiesfromInternet
ServiceProviderslocatedinCanada
because,itargues,theyinfringethe
copyrightowner’sexclusivestatutory
righttocommunicate
theworktothe
publicbytelecommunicationandto
authorize
suchcommunication.The
appellantsrepresentabroadcoalition

70
servicesInternet.Ellesfontvaloirqu’ellesne
«communiquent»pasd’oeuvres
musicalesnin’«autorisent»leur
communicationpuisqu’ellesnesontque
desagentsetneréglemententpasle
contenudescommunicationsInternet
qu’ellestransmettent.
o
fCanadianInternetServiceProviders.
Theyarguethattheyneither
« communicate »nor »authorize »anyone
tocommunicatemusicalworks
becausetheyaremerelyaconduit
anddonotregulatethecontentofthe
Internetcommunicationswhichthey
transmit.

En1988,leParlementaajoutéàlaLoisur
ledroitd’auteurladispositionantérieureà
l’actuelal.2.4(1)b)prévoyantquela
personnequinefaitquefournir«àuntiers
lesmoyensdetélécommunication
nécessairespourquecelui-cieffectue
[unecommunication]»n’estpaselle-
mêmepartieàunecommunicationillicite.
I
n1988Parliamentaddedwhatisnow
knownass.2.4(1)(b)totheCopyright
Actwhichprovidesthatpersonswho
onlysupply »themeansof
telecommunicationnecessaryfor
anotherpersontosocommunicate »
arenotthemselvestobeconsidered
partiestoaninfringingcommunication.
En1995,l’intiméeademandéàla
Commissiondudroitd’auteur
d’homologuerletarif22proposantle
paiementd’uneredevanced’uncertain
montant.LaCommissionatenudes
audiencespourdéterminerquelles
activitésInternetemportaientl’obligation
depayerlaredevanceprévueparletarif.
LaCommissionastatuéquelefournisseur
decontenupouvaitêtrecontraintau
versementd’uneredevance,maisqueles
activitéshabituellesd’unfournisseurde
servicesInternetautrequ’unfournisseurde
contenuneconstituaientpasune
«communication»ausensdelaLoisurle
droitd’auteuret,parconséquent,
jouissaientdelaprotectiondel’al.2.4(1)b).
Mêmelorsquel’intermédiaireest
davantagequ’unsimpleagent,la
Commissionaconcluàl’absencede
violationdudroitd’auteurauCanadaà
moinsquelacommunicationne
provienned’unserveursituéauCanada
(saufpeut-êtresilefournisseurducontenu
a«l’intentiondelecommuniquer
précisémentàdesdestinatairesau
Canada»).
I
n1995,respondentappliedtothe
CopyrightBoardforapprovalofTariff
22whichproposedtheamountand
allocationoftheroyalty.TheBoard
convenedahearingtodetermine
whichactivitiesontheInternetattract
liabilityunderthetariff.TheBoardheld
thatcopyrightliabilityattachesto
contentprovidersbutthatthenormal
activitiesofinternetserviceproviders
otherthanthecontentprovidersdid
notconstitute »acommunication »for
thepurposeoftheCopyrightActand
thusfallwithintheprotectionof
s.2.4(1)(b).Evenwherethe
intermediarydoesmorethanactasa
conduit,theBoardheldthatno
copyrightliabilityisincurredinCanada
unlessthecommunicationoriginates
fromaserverlocatedinCanada
(exceptperhapsifthecontentprovider
has »theintentiontocommunicateit
specificallytorecipientsinCanada »).
LaCourd’appelfédéraleaestiméqu’une
redevancepeutêtreexigéechaquefois
qu’unetélécommunicationaunlienréel
etimportantavecleCanadaetnon
seulementlorsqu’unecommunicationT
heFederalCourtofAppealfoundthat
copyrightmaybeimposedinrespect
ofanytelecommunicationthathasa
realandsubstantialconnectionwith
Canada,andisnotrestrictedonlyto

71
Internetprovientd’unserveurhôtese
trouvantauCanada.Elleaconfirméla
décisiondelaCommissionselonlaquelle
lesappelantesneviolaientpasledroit
d’auteurlorsqu’ellesagissaientuniquement
àtitred’intermédiaires.Lesjuges
majoritairesontcependantstatuéquele
fournisseurdeservicesInternetauCanada
quicréeune«antémémoire»,mêmepour
desraisonspurementtechniques,n’est
plusunsimpleintermédiaire,mais
participeàlaviolationdudroitd’auteuret
estassujettiàcetégardautarif22.Lajuge
dissidenteaconvenuaveclaCommission
quelamiseenantémémoiredanslebut
d’améliorerl’efficacitédes
communicationsInternetetd’enréduirele
coûtneconstituepasuneviolationdu
droitd’auteur.
a
nInternetcommunicationfromahost
serverlocatedinCanada.TheBoard’s
exclusionoftheappellantsfrom
copyrightliabilitywheretheyperforma
pureintermediaryfunctionwasupheld.
However,themajorityheldthatwhere
anInternetServiceProviderinCanada
createsa »cache »ofInternetmaterial,
evenforpurelytechnicalreasons,they
nolongeractasamereintermediary
andthusbecomeaparticipantinthe
copyrightinfringementandareliable
tothatextentunderTariff22.The
dissentingjudgeagreedwiththeBoard
thattocacheforthepurposeof
enhancingInterneteconomyand
efficiencydidnotconstitute
infringement.
Arrêt:Lepourvoiestaccueillienpartie;le
pourvoiincidentestrejeté.
H
eld:Theappealshouldbeallowedin
part;thecross-appealshouldbe
dismissed.

LajugeenchefMcLachlinetlesjuges
Iacobucci,Major,Bastarache,Binnie,
Arbour,DeschampsetFish:Lapossibilité
dediffuserdes«oeuvresartistiqueset
intellectuelles»grâceàl’Internetestl’une
desgrandesinnovationsdel’èrede
l’information.Lerecoursàl’Internetdoit
êtrefacilité,etnondécouragé,maispas
demanièreinjuste,audétrimentdes
créateurs.L’Internetreprésenteun
véritabledéfipourlesloisnationalessurle
droitd’auteurqui,deparleurnature
même,s’appliquenthabituellementdans
desterritoiresdonnés.
P
erMcLachlinC.J.andIacobucci,
Major,Bastarache,Binnie,Arbour,
DeschampsandFishJJ.:Thecapacityof
theInternettodisseminateworksofthe
artsandintellectisoneofthegreat
innovationsoftheinformationage.Its
useshouldbefacilitatedratherthan
discouraged,butthisshouldnotbe
doneunfairlyattheexpenseofthe
creatoroftheworks.TheInternet,
presentsaparticularchallengeto
nationalcopyrightlaws,whichare
typicallyterritorialinnature.

Enadoptantl’al.2.4(1)b)delaLoisurle
droitd’auteur,lelégislateurafaitune
distinctiondeprincipeentreceuxqui
utilisentl’Internetpourfournirouse
procurerducontenu,notammentdela
musiqueàpeudefrais,etceuxquifont
partiedel’infrastructureInternetcomme
telle.Lelégislateuradécidéqu’ilestdans
l’intérêtdupublicd’encouragerles
intermédiaires,quirendentles
télécommunicationspossibles,àétendre
etàdévelopperleursactivitéssans
s’exposeraurisquedeviolerledroit
d’auteur.L’alinéa2.4(1)b)indiqueque,deB
yenactings.2.4(1)(b)ofthe
CopyrightAct,Parliamentmadea
policydistinctionbetweenthosewho
usetheInternettosupplyorobtain
contentsuchas »cheapmusic »and
thosewhoarepartoftheinfrastructure
oftheInternetitself.Parliament
decidedthatthereisapublicinterestin
encouragingintermediariesthatmake
telecommunicationspossibleto
expandandimprovetheiroperations
withoutthethreatofcopyright
infringement.Section2.4(1)(b)
indicatesthatinParliament’sview,

72
l’avisdulégislateur,lesintermédiaires
Internetnesontpasdutoutdes
«utilisateurs»,àtoutlemoinspour
l’applicationdelaLoisurledroitd’auteur.
I
nternetintermediariesarenot »users »at
all,atleastforpurposesofthe
CopyrightAct.
Ilyatélécommunicationlorsdela
transmissiondel’oeuvremusicaledu
serveurhôteàl’utilisateurfinal.La
communicationInternetquifranchitune
ouplusieursfrontièresnationales«se
produit»dansplusd’unpays,soitàtoutle
moinsdanslepaysdetransmissionetdans
lepaysderéception.Pointn’estbesoin
qu’unecommunicationprovienned’un
serveursituéauCanadapourqu’ellese
produiseauCanada.LaCommissionaeu
tortdeconclurequ’unecommunication
quineprovientpasduCanadanese
produitpasauCanada.Conclureensens
contraireiraitnonseulementàl’encontre
dusensordinairedesmots,maisauraitde
gravesconséquencesdansd’autres
domainesdel’applicationdelaloià
l’Internet.
A
telecommunicationoccurswhen
musicistransmittedfromthehostserver
totheenduser.AnInternet
communicationthatcrossesoneor
morenationalboundaries »occurs »in
morethanonecountry,ataminimum,
thecountryoftransmissionandthe
countryofreception.Tooccurin
Canada,acommunicationneednot
originatefromaserverlocatedin
Canada.TotheextentthattheBoard
concludedthatacommunicationthat
doesnotoriginateinCanadacannot
besaidtooccurinCanada,iterred.To
holdotherwisewouldnotonlyflyinthe
faceoftheordinaryuseoflanguage,
butwouldhaveseriousconsequences
inotherareasoflawrelevanttothe
Internet.
L’applicabilitédelaLoisurledroitd’auteur
àunecommunicationàlaquelle
participentdesressortissantsd’autrespays
dépenddel’existenceentreleCanadaet
lacommunicationd’unliensuffisantpour
queleCanadaappliquesesdispositions
conformémentauxprincipesd’ordreet
d’équité.L’existenced’unlienréelet
importantavecleCanadasuffitpourque
notreLoisurledroitd’auteurs’applique
auxtransmissionsInternetinternationales
conformémentauprincipedela
courtoisieinternationale.
T
heapplicabilityoftheCopyrightAct
tocommunicationsthathave
internationalparticipantswilldepend
onwhetherthereisasufficient
connectionbetweenthiscountryand
thecommunicationinquestionfor
Canadatoapplyitslawsconsistently
withtheprinciplesoforderandfairness.
Arealandsubstantialconnectionto
Canadaissufficienttosupportthe
applicationofourCopyrightActto
internationalInternettransmissionsina
waythatwillaccordwithinternational
comity.

Encequiconcernel’Internet,lefacteurde
rattachementpertinentestlesitusdu
fournisseurdecontenu,duserveurhôte,
desintermédiairesetdel’utilisateurfinal.
L’importanceàaccorderàl’und’euxen
particuliervarieselonlescirconstancesde
l’affaireetlanaturedulitige.Laconclusion
selonlaquelleleCanadapourraitexercer
sacompétenceenmatièrededroits
d’auteuràl’égardtantdestransmissions
effectuéesaupaysquedecelles
provenantdel’étrangerestconformenon
seulementànotredroitgénéral,maisaussiI
ntermsoftheInternet,relevant
connectingfactorswouldincludethe
situsofthecontentprovider,thehost
server,theintermediariesandtheend
user.Theweighttobegiventoany
particularfactorwillvarywiththe
circumstancesandthenatureofthe
dispute.TheconclusionthatCanada
couldexercisecopyrightjurisdictionin
respectbothoftransmissionsoriginating
here,andtransmissionsoriginating
abroadbutreceivedhere,isnotonly
consistentwithourgenerallawbutwith

73
auxpratiquesnationalesetinternationales
enlamatière.
b
othnationalandinternational
copyrightpractice.
C’estuneautrequestion,toutefois,que
celledesavoirsil’intentiondulégislateur
canadienétaitd’exercersacompétence
enmatièrededroitsd’auteurdefaçonà
contraindreauversementderedevances
toutparticipantàunecommunication
Internetayant«unlienréeletimportant»
avecleCanada.Lerèglementdecette
deuxièmequestionexigel’interprétation
desdispositionsdelaLoisurledroit
d’auteur.
I
tisadifferentissue,however,whether
Canadaintendedtoexerciseits
copyrightjurisdictiontoimpose
copyrightliabilityoneveryparticipant
inanInternetcommunicationwith »a
realandsubstantialconnection »to
Canada.Thislatterissueraises
questionsofstatutoryinterpretationof
theCopyrightAct.
L’alinéa2.4(1)b)delaLoisurledroit
d’auteurdisposequeleparticipantàune
télécommunicationquinefaitquefournir
«lesmoyensdetélécommunication
nécessaires»n’estpas
réputéenêtre
l’auteur.Cettedispositionn’estpasune
échappatoire,maisunélémentimportant
del’équilibreétabliparlerégimelégislatif
encause.Ilfautinterpréterlestermes
qu’elleemploiedansleursensordinaireet
grammatical,selonlecontexte.Dansle
contexteconsidéré,unmoyenest
«nécessaire»s’ilestraisonnablementutile
etappropriépourl’obtentiondes
avantagesquesontuneéconomieetune
efficacitéaccrues.Les«moyens»
englobenttousleslogicielsdeconnexion,
lesservicesassurantlaconnectivité,les
installationsetservicesoffrant
l’hébergementsanslesquelsla
communicationn’auraitpaslieu.
L’intermédiaireInternetquineselivrepas
àuneactivitétouchantaucontenudela
communication,maisquisecontente
d’être«unagent»permettantàautruide
communiquer,bénéficiedel’application
del’al.2.4(1)b).Cequicaractériseentre
autresuntel«agent»c’estl’ignorancedu
contenuattentatoireetl’impossibilité(tant
surleplantechniquequefinancier)de
surveillerlaquantitéénormedefichiers
circulantsurl’Internet.Toutefois,la
protectionprévueàl’al.2.4(1)b)
s’appliqueàunefonctionprotégée,et
nonàtouteactivitépossibled’un
fournisseurdeservicesInternet.
S
ection2.4(1)(b)oftheCopyrightAct
providesthatparticipantsina
telecommunicationwhoonlyprovide
« themeansoftelecommunication
necessary »aredeemednottobe
communicators.Theprovisionisnota
loopholebutisanimportantelementof
thebalancestruckbythestatutory
copyrightscheme.Thewordsof
s.2.4(1)(b)mustbereadintheir
ordinaryandgrammaticalsenseinthe
propercontext.Inthiscontext,the
word »necessary »issatisfiedifthe
meansarereasonablyusefuland
propertoachievethebenefitsof
enhancedeconomyandefficiency.
« Themeans »includeallsoftware
connectionequipment,connectivity
services,hostingandotherfacilitiesand
serviceswithoutwhichsuch
communicationwouldnotoccur.So
longasanInternetintermediarydoes
notitselfengageinactsthatrelateto
thecontentofthecommunication,but
confinesitselftoproviding »aconduit »
forinformationcommunicatedby
others,thenitwillfallwithins.2.4(1)(b).
Theattributesofsucha »conduit »
includealackofactualknowledgeof
theinfringingcontents,andthe
impracticality(bothtechnicaland
economic)ofmonitoringthevast
amountofmaterialmovingthroughthe
Internet.However,theprotection
providedbys.2.4(1)(b)relatesto
protectedfunctions,nottoallofthe
potentialactivitiesofanInternet
ServiceProvider.

74

Lefournisseurdecontenun’échappepas
àl’applicationdesdispositionssurledroit
d’auteurduseulfaitqu’ilutiliseunserveur
hôtesituéàl’étranger.Àl’inverse,un
serveurhôten’estpasassujettiàces
dispositionsseulementparcequ’ilestsitué
auCanada.Laresponsabilitéduserveur
hôtedoitêtredéterminéeparlefaitqu’il
selimiteounonaurôled’«agent»(oun’a
aucuneincidencesurlecontenu);dans
l’affirmative,ilbénéficiedelaprotection
prévueàl’al.2.4(1)b).
A
contentproviderisnotimmunefrom
copyrightliabilitybyvirtueonlyofthe
factthatitemploysahostserver
outsidethecountry.Conversely,ahost
serverdoesnotattractliabilityjust
becauseitislocatedinCanada.The
liabilityofahostservershouldbe
determinedbywhetherornotthehost
serverlimitsitselfto »aconduit »(or
content-neutral)functionandthereby
qualifiesforprotectionunder
s.2.4(1)(b).
L’antémémoireestunebelleinvention
issueduprogrèsdelatechnologie
Internet,ellen’aaucuneincidencesurle
contenuet,auvudel’al.2.4(1)b)delaLoi,
ellenedevraitavoiraucuneffetjuridique
surlacommunicationintervenantentrele
fournisseurdecontenuetl’utilisateurfinal.
La«miseenantémémoire»estdictéepar
lanécessitéd’offrirunserviceplusrapide
etpluséconomique.Ellenedevraitpas
emporterlaviolationdudroitd’auteur
lorsqu’ellealieuuniquementpourdetelles
raisonstechniquesetbénéficiedoncdela
protectionprévueàl’al.2.4(1)b).La
Commissionavaitraisonsurcepoint,etsa
décisiondoitêtrerétablieàcetégard.
T
hecreationofa »cache »copyisa
serendipitousconsequenceof
improvementsinInternettechnology,is
contentneutral,andinlightof
s.2.4(1)(b)oftheActoughtnottohave
anylegalbearingonthe
communicationbetweenthecontent
providerandtheenduser. »Caching »is
dictatedbytheneedtodeliverfaster
andmoreeconomicservice,and
shouldnot,whenundertakenonlyfor
suchtechnicalreasons,attract
copyrightliabilityandthereforecomes
withintheshelterofs.2.4(1)(b).The
Board’sviewiscorrectandits’decision
inthatregardshouldberestored.
Lefaitqu’unfournisseurdeservices
Internetsachequequelqu’unpourrait
violerledroitd’auteurgrâceàune
technologiesansincidencesurlecontenu
n’équivautpasnécessairementàautoriser
cetteviolation,carilfautdémontrerque
l’intéresséaapprouvé,sanctionné,permis,
favoriséouencouragélecomportement
illicite.L’omissionderetireruncontenu
illiciteaprèsavoirétéavisédesaprésence
peut,danscertainscas,êtreconsidérée
commeune«autorisation».Celle-cipeut
parfoisêtreinférée,maistoutdépenddes
faits.
A
ninternetserviceprovider’s
knowledgethatsomeonemightbe
usingcontent-neutraltechnologyto
violatecopyrightisnotnecessarily
sufficienttoconstituteauthorization,
whichrequiresademonstrationthat
thedefendantdidgiveapprovalto,
sanction,permit,favour,orencourage
theinfringingconduct.Noticeof
infringingcontent,andafailureto
respondby »takingitdown »mayin
somecircumstancesleadtoafinding
of »authorization ».Therefore,
authorizationcouldbeinferredina
propercase,butallwoulddependon
thefacts.

OnditsouventdelaLoisurledroit
d’auteurqu’elleétablit«unéquilibre»
entrelesdroitsdeceuxquicréentdes
oeuvresartistiquesetintellectuelleset
ceuxdespersonnesdésireusesd’utilisercesT
heCopyrightActisoftenpresentedas
« abalance »betweentherightsofthose
whocreateworksoftheartsandthe
intellectandthosewhowishtouse
suchworks.However,thebalanceis

75
oeuvres.Leprésentpourvoinetouche
qu’accessoirementàcetéquilibre,le
législateurayantindiquéàl’al.2.4(1)b)
queceuxquifournissentl’infrastructure
Internetnedoiventpasêtreconsidérés
commedes«utilisateurs»pour
l’applicationdelaLoi.
o
nlytangentiallyatissueherebecause
Parliamenthasexpressedtheviewin
s.2.4(1)(b)thatthosewhoprovide
internetinfrastructurearenotproperly
tobeconsidered »users »ofsuchworks
forpurposesoftheAct.
LejugeLeBel:Saufl’analyserelativeau
critèrequ’ilconvientd’appliquerpour
localiserd’unecommunicationInternetau
regarddelaLoisurledroitd’auteur,le
jugementdesjugesmajoritairesetle
règlementdupourvoiqu’ilsproposentsont
acceptés.LepouvoirduParlement
d’adopterdesloisayantuneportée
extraterritorialeestbienétabliendroit
canadien.Encommonlaw,leParlement
estprésuménepasavoireul’intentionde
conféreràuneloiuneportée
extraterritoriale.Cetteprésomptionpeut
êtreréfutéeparl’intentioncontraire
expriméeexpressémentouimplicitement
danslaloi.AucunedispositiondelaLoisur
ledroitd’auteurneconfèreimplicitement
uneportéeextraterritorialeàl’al.3(1)f),
comptetenu,toutparticulièrement,du
principedeterritorialitédudroitd’auteur.
PuisqueleParlementn’apasvouluquela
Lois’appliqueàl’extérieurduCanada,
unecommunicationInternetadonclieu
auCanadauniquementlorsqu’elle
provientd’unserveurhôtesituéau
Canada.Delasorte,lesoeuvres
protégéesparledroitd’auteurexistent
physiquementsurleterritoirecanadienet
bénéficientdoncdelaprotectionde
l’al.3(1)f).Cecritèredelocalisationdela
communication,fondésurl’emplacement
duserveurhôte,alemérited’êtresimple;il
respectelemieuxleprincipedela
territorialitéetilharmonisenotredroit
d’auteuraveclesprincipesformulésdans
lestraitésinternationaux.Enplusde
réduirelerisqued’atteinteàlavieprivée,il
estvalablesurleplanpratique,iloffrela
prévisibilitévoulueetilestleplus
compatibleaveclaportéeetl’objetdela
Loi.

PerLeBelJ.:Exceptfortheanalysisof
theappropriatetestfordeterminingthe
locationofanInternetcommunication
undertheCopyrightAct,thejudgment
ofthemajorityandthedispositionof
theappealisagreedto.Parliament’s
powertolegislatewithextraterritorial
effectiswell-settledasamatterof
Canadianlaw.However,itisa
commonlawpresumptionthat
Parliamentdoesnotintendlegislation
toapplyextraterritorially.The
presumptionisrebuttablewherethe
contraryintentionisexpresslystatedor
impliedbythelegislation.Nothingin
theCopyrightActimpliedlygives
s.3(1)(f)extraterritorialeffect,
particularlygiventheprincipleof
territorialityofcopyrightlaw.Therefore,
giventhatParliamentdidnotintend
theActtohaveeffectoutside
Canada,anInternetcommunication
onlyoccurswithinCanadawhereit
originatesfromahostserverlocatedin
Canada.Inthisway,thecopyright
worksphysicallyexistwithinCanadian
territoryandthusattracttheprotection
ofs.3(1)(f).Thistestfordeterminingthe
situsofacommunication,whichisthe
locationofthehostserverhasthevirtue
ofsimplicity,itbestaccordswiththe
principleofterritorialityandharmonizes
ourcopyrightlawwithinternational
treatyprinciples,anditdiminishes
privacyconcerns.Itisalsosoundfrom
anoperationalperspectiveandit
providestherequisitepredictabilityand
bestaccordswiththemeaningand
purposeoftheAct.
Enrevanche,ilestinopportund’appliquer
lecritèredulienréeletimportant,quiavu
lejourdansuncontextetrèsdifférent,pourB
ycontrast,importingtherealand
substantialconnectiontestthatwas
developedinaverydifferentcontextis

76
déterminersiunecommunicationaeulieu
auCanada.Cecritèreaétéformuléen
fonctiondesexigencesdelafédération
canadienneetnesauraitêtretransformé
àlalégèreenrègled’interprétation
législative.Cen’estpasunprincipede
compétencelégislative;ils’applique
uniquementauxtribunaux.Deplus,il
cadremalavecleprincipedela
territorialitéetnedevraitpasêtre
interprétécommelimitantlepouvoirdu
Parlementd’adopterdesloisayantune
portéeextraterritoriale.Lerecoursàce
critèrecomporteégalementlerisque
d’unesuperpositiondesredevances
exigiblesdanslesdifférentsÉtats.
i
nappropriatetodeterminewhethera
communicationoccurredwithin
Canada.Therealandsubstantial
connectiontestwasdevelopedtodeal
withtheexigenciesoftheCanadian
federationandshouldnotbelightly
transposedasaruleofstatutory
construction.Therealandsubstantial
connectiontestisnotaprincipleof
legislativejurisdiction;itappliesonlyto
courts.Furthermore,itisinconsistent
withtheterritorialityprincipleanditsuse
shouldnotbeunderstoodasalimiton
Parliament’spowertolegislatewith
extraterritorialeffect.Thereisalsoa
dangerthatthisapproachcouldalso
resultinalayeringofroyaltyobligations
betweenstates.

NotreCourdoitopterpourl’interprétation
del’al.3(1)f)quirespecteledroitàlavie
privéedel’utilisateurfinaletécartertoute
interprétationquifavoriseraitlecontrôle
oulacollectededonnéespersonnelles
lorsd’uneutilisationdel’Internetà
domicile.Localiserlacommunicationen
fonctionduserveurhôtepermetd’assurer
laprotectiondesrenseignements
personnels:lerisqued’atteinteàlavie
privéeestréduitparcequec’estle
fournisseurdecontenuquiarendu
l’informationpubliqueenlarendant
disponiblesurleserveur.Parcontre,dans
lamesureoùiltoucheauxpratiques
d’extractiondesutilisateursfinaux,le
critèredulienréeletimportantfavorisele
contrôledesactivitésindividuellesde
téléchargementetdenavigation.Ledroit
aurespectdelavieprivéesera
directementtouchélorsqu’untitulairedu
droitd’auteurouunesociétédegestion
tenterad’obtenird’unfournisseurde
servicesInternetdesdonnéessurles
oeuvresprotégéesquetéléchargeun
utilisateurfinal.T
hisCourtshouldadoptan
interpretationofs.3(1)(f)thatrespects
endusers’privacyinterests,andshould
eschewaninterpretationthatwould
encouragethemonitoringorcollection
ofpersonaldatagleanedfrom
Internet-relatedactivitywithinthe
home.Locatingthecommunicationat
theplaceofthehostserveraddresses
privacyconcerns,assuchconcernsare
diminishedbecauseitisthecontent
providerwhohasmadetheinformation
publicbypostingitontheserver.By
contrast,therealandsubstantial
connectiontest,insofarasitlooksat
theretrievalpracticeofendusers,
encouragesthemonitoringofan
individual’ssurfinganddownloading
activities.Privacyinterestsofindividuals
willbedirectlyimplicatedwhere
ownersofcopyrightedworksortheir
collectivesocietiesattempttoretrieve
datafromInternetServiceProviders
aboutanenduser’sdownloadingof
copyrightedworks.
SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadavLandmarkCinemasof
CanadaLtd[2002]CarswellNat4443(FCTD-Proto.;2002-07-11);affd25CPR(4
th)496(FCTD
PracticeAmendment;2003-04-10);affd[2004]CarswellNat314,2004FCA57,316NR387,30
CPR(4th)257,247FTR315(note)inFrench[2004]CarswellNat4292(FCAPractice
Amendment;2004-02-05)LétourneauJ.;(FCProtonothary–Affidavitofdocuments;2003-10-

77
280revd2004FC824,http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc824.shtml,inFrenchat
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc824.shtml(FC;2004-06-09)O’KeefeJ.

(FCAPracticeAmendment;2004-02-05)LétourneauJ.
Theplaintiffbroughtanactionin1992againstthedefendantL,allegingcopyright
infringementbyallowingunauthorizedperformancesofmusicalworksinmotionpictures
showninthedefendant’stheatres.Initially,thedefendantconfirmedthatitoperatedtheatres
andexhibitedmotionpictures.However,in1999,thedefendantreverseditspositionalleging
thattheinfringingactswerecarriedoutbyothers.Afterdiscoveryexaminations,theplaintiff
servedanoticeofmotionseekingtoaddanumberofotherpartiesasnewdefendantsand
toamenditsstatementofclaim.
Theprothonotaryissuedanordersettingouttimelimitsforthefilingandserviceofmaterials
relevanttotheplaintiff’smotionandfortheserviceofmotionrecordsoftheresponding
parties.Atthedateofthehearing,theprothonotarywasnotsatisfiedwiththeevidence
tenderedbyeitherofthepartiesandshedeniedamotionforreconsiderationsoughtbythe
respondingparties.Sheofferedthepartiesanadjournmentbuttheydeclineditandinsisted
thatthematterproceed.
Notwithstanding,theprothonotary,afterhearings,grantedtheplaintiff’smotionforjoinderof
thenewdefendantsandtheamendmentoftheplaintiff’sstatementofclaim.
Thenewdefendantsappealedtheprothonotary’sorder.Thejudgeonappealheldthatthe
amendmentsdidnotraiseaquestionvitaltothefinaldispositionofthecaseandtherefore
thejudgecouldnotexercisetheprothonotary’sdiscretiondenovo.
However,thejudgeapprovedtheprothonotary’srelianceonRule104oftheFederalCourt
Rules,1998,SOR/98-106,enablingtheprothonotarytoaddthenecessarypartiesandpermit
theplaintifftoamenditspleading.Thejudgewasnotpersuadedthattheprothonotary’s
decisionwasbasedonanywrongprinciplenoruponanymisapprehensionoffactorlawand
itdidnotamounttoamisuseofjudicialdiscretion.Theappealwasdismissed.
Thenewdefendantsfurtherappealed.
Held,theappealshouldbedismissed.
StandardofReviewbytheJudge
Thejudgeerredinfindingthatthejoinderofpartiesandamendmentofpleadingsdidnot
raiseaquestionvitaltothefinaldispositionofthecase.Thejudgeshouldhavelookedatthe
amendmentsthemselvesandnotmerelyatthedecisionororderoftheprothonotaryin
refusingorgrantingtheorder.Thejudgewaswronginrulingthatshecouldnotexerciseher
discretiondenovo.Theappealjudgethenhadthedutytoexercisethatdiscretion.
AllowanceoftheAmendments
a)theplaintiff’selection
Thedefendantsarguedthattheamendmentsshouldhavebeenrefusedbecausethe
plaintiffknewoftheliabilityofthenewdefendantswhencommencingtheactionand
electedtobringitsactionagainstLonly.Thisargumentwasrejected.Thelegaldoctrineof
electionrequiredapersontomakeachoicebetweentwomutuallyexclusiverightswhich
wereavailable.Inthiscase,therightstosuetheplaintiffandnewdefendantswerenot
mutuallyexclusiverightssincealldefendantscouldbesuedfortheirinfringingactivities,either
individuallyorjointlyonaccountofajointliability.Thelegaldoctrineofelectionhadno
application.

78
b)theplaintiff’sdelay
Thedefendantsarguedthattheamendmentsshouldberefusedinviewofthedelayoften
yearssincefilingthestatementofclaimandthelimitationperiodofthreeyearsappliedto
suitsforinfringement.Whileitwasopentothedefendantstopleadalimitationdefence,the
applicabilityofsuchadefencedependedupontheevidenceadduced.Suchapleashould
beconsideredinthecontextofthewholeactionafterthetestingoftheevidenceattrial.
Further,oneofthepartiessoughttobeaddedwasanindividualwhowasthepersondirectly
responsiblefordenyingresponsibilityonthepartofLandimplicatingthenewdefendants.
Thedelayshouldnotjustifyrefusingtheamendmentsif,asitappeared,someorallofthenew
respondentswerenecessaryforeffectiveandcompletedeterminationofthematter.
c)theprothonotary’sbehaviour
Thedefendantsattackedtheprocessfollowedandimposedbytheprothonotaryasbeing
suspectofpartiality.Notwithstandingthatthepartieshadwantedtoproceedonthebasisof
thematerialfiled,theprothonotaryimposedanadjournmenttoallowthemovingpartytofile
betterevidence.Shealsogavethepartiesopposingthemotionanopportunitytorespondto
thenewevidence.
Itwasunusualforajudgeoraprothonotarytoimposeanadjournmentonparties,who
wantedtoproceedonthebasisofmaterialfiled,forthepurposeofallowingthemoving
partytofilebetterevidence.Normallyafailureofthemovingpartytoprovideappropriate
andadequateevidencewouldresultindismissalofthemotion.
Theplaintiffsupportedthedecisionoftheprothonotaryonthereasoningthatsheactedasa
casemanagerandthereforeenjoyedwidediscretionandoughttobeaccordedgreat
deference.Howeverabetterrationaleforupholdingtheprothonotary’sdecisiontoadjourn
andseekadditionalevidencewastherevelationthatothersmightberesponsibleforthe
infringement.Theprothonotaryrecognizedthatdismissalwouldnothavepreventedthe
plaintifffromcommencinginfringementactionsagainstthenewdefendantswithouthaving
toobtainleave.Atalaterdatetheactionswouldlikelyhaveledtoaconsolidationofthe
actions.Intermsofinterestofjusticeincludingcosts,efficienciesandexpeditiousness,itwas
bettertoaddthenewdefendantsasdonebytheprothonotary.
Theproposedamendmentsraisedquestionsvitaltothefinalissueorresolutionofthecase.
Theappealcourt,havingexercisedthediscretiondenovo,wassatisfiedthatthejoinderof
thenewdefendantswerenecessaryforacompleteandeffectivedeterminationoftheissues
bythecourt.
SOCANStatementofRoyalties,1998-2007,PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks(Tariffs1.A,
1.B,2.B,2.C,3,4.B.2,5.A,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,18,20and21)33CPR(4
th)503,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/mm18062004-b.pdf(CopBd;2004-03-19)
Thecollectivesocietyhadfiledwiththeboardaseriesofproposedtariffsforthepublic
performanceorcommunicationtothepublicofmusicalworksfortheyears1998to2007.
Numerouspartiesobjectedtoormadecomplaintsabouttheproposedtariffs.Ingeneral,the
objectionsandcomplaintsrelatedtotheunfairnessofhavingtopayroyaltiesunderseveral
distincttariffsformusicuseinthesamepremisesandthefinancialburdenofcumulative
minimumfeesforseveraleventsortariffs.Thecomplaintsaroseprincipallyfromsmallrural
communitiesandraisedthreethemes:thefairnessofminimumtariffs,theburdenofmultiple

79
licencesandthestructureoftariff8(receptions,conventions,assembliesandfashionshows).
Theseobjectionsandcomplaintsgaverisetowhatwascommonlyknownas »multiple
licensing »issues,issuesthatappliedtosomebutnotalloftheproposedtariffs.
Theboardconductedaprocesstotakeintoaccountthecomplaintsandheldahearingto
addresstheobjections.
Held,thetariffsshouldbecertifiedinaccordancewiththeboard’sdecision.
MinimumFees
Theboardhadinpreviousdecisionsexpressedconcernaboutthesettingofminimumfees.
Forsomeoftheproposedtariffs,theproportionsoflicencesissuedattheminimumratewas
particularlyhigh.Nevertheless,theimportanceofminimumfeeswasrecognizedtoavoid
makingthecollectionoffeesfromsmallusersunprofitable.Itwasreasonablethatthe
collectivesociety’sadministrativecostwasoneofthefactorstobetakenintoaccountin
establishingminimumfees.
Threeprincipleswereidentifiedasbeingrelevanttoestablishingthelevelofaminimumfee.
First,aminimumfeeforatariffshouldreflectthestructureofthetariffandthecharacteristics
andnumberoftheuserstowhichitapplied.Thenumberofuserswhopayaminimumfee
shouldnotbeproportionallytoohighnortoolow.Itwouldbeamatterofconcernifmore
thanhalfoftheuserscoveredbyatariffpaidtheminimumfee.Second,theminimumfees
shouldreflecttheintrinsicvalueofmusicforusersaswellasthecollectivesociety’s
administrativecosts.Thereshouldthereforebeharmonizationofminimumfeesamong
differenttariffs.Third,annuallicencescomprisingaminimumfeeshouldalsobeavailableto
limittheimpactonsmallusersofminimumpereventfees.
Inflation
Inapriordecisiontheboardhadestablishedaruleofusingtheconsumerpriceindex(« CPI »)
lesstwopercenttotakeinflationintoaccount.Thatrulenolongerserveditspurpose.The
overallCPIwasthepreferableindextoconsiderbutithadtobeadjustedtoensurea
balancebetweenmusicusersandcopyrightowners.TheadjustmenttotheCPItotakeinto
accountinflationwasadeductionofonepercent.Thecalculationwastobemadefromthe
dataforthecalendaryearprecedingtheyearoftheproposedtariffbytwoyearsandan
adjustmentforamultipleyeartariffshouldtakeintoaccounttheinflationovereachofthe
yearsofthetariff.
Theinflationratewassetat1.7percentfor2002and2.8192percentforthecombinedyears
2003and2004.
MultipleLicences
Theevidenceshowedthatonlyaminorityofusershadtoacquiremorethanonelicence
fromthecollectivesocietyandthatinthecaseofthoselicences,thelicenseeswerenot
facedwithmajorproblems.Thepartieswere,however,encouragedtoproposeanew
multifunctionaltariffforseveraldifferentusersofmusicinthesamehalltoreducethe
overlappingthatwouldresultfromtheacquisitionofmorethanonelicencebythesame
user.Tariff21(RecreationalFacilities)wascertifiedasproposedbythecollectivesocietyfor
2000to2002,theobjectorshavingwithdrawntheirobjections,namelyanannualfeefor2000
and2002intheamountcertifiedfor1999,andwascertifiedfor2002atanannualfee
increasingto$180withtheallowablemaximumforgrossadmissionreceiptsbeingreducedto
$12,500.For2003and2004thetariffwascertifiedasproposedwithanadjustmentfor
inflation.

80
Tariff8(Receptions,Conventions,AssembliesandFashionShows)
Tariff8wascertifiedataratewhichtookintoaccountthecapacityofthehallinwhichmusic
wasperformed.Thetariffwascertifiedfor1999to2001asproposedbythecollectivesociety
subjecttoquarterlypaymentprovisionsfor1999.Thetariffwascertifiedfor2002and2003with
anewstructuregearedtoreflectthecapacityofthehallinwhichmusicisperformedand
witharatiooftwo-to-onewherethemusiciswithandwithoutdancing.For2004,thetariff
wascertifiedwithanadjustmenttoreflectinflation.
Tariff18(RecordedMusicforDancing)
Tariff18wascertifiedatanincreasedamountcomparedtoTariff3.C(AdultEntertainment
Clubs)andatanamountmorecommensuratewiththevalueofthemusicused.The
progressionoftheincreasesasproposedbythecollectivesocietyovertheperiodbetween
1998and2002werereducedandfor2004wereadjustedforinflation.Theretroactive
amountsweretobepaidannuallywithoutinterestoverfiveyearsfrom2003to2007.
Tariff20(KaraokeBarsandSimilarEstablishments)
Karaokehadbecomeaclearlydefinedtypeofmusicuse.Thevalueofthemusicusedhad
alsobecomecomparabletotheuseofmusicunderothertariffs.Theincreasesinthistarifffor
1998to2003werecertifiedasproposedbythecollectivesocietyexceptfor2004wherethe
tariffwasadjustedforinflation.
RemainingTariffs
Otherremainingtariffswerecertifiedinaccordancewiththeboard’sdecision.
SOCANStatementofRoyalties,1998-2004(Tariff2.A)and2001-2004(Tariff17)(Re)]32CPR
(4
th)403,[2004]CBD2,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/m19032004-b.pdf(CopBd;2004-
03-19)
Thecollectivesocietythatadministeredtherightsforthepublicperformanceofmusical
worksfiledproposedtariffsovertheyears1998to2004,twoofwhichrelatedtothe
communicationofmusicalworksoversignalsofcommercialbroadcasttelevisionstations
(tariff2A)andnon-broadcasttelevisionstations(tariff17).Thetariffswereobjectedtobyan
associationofbroadcasters,programmingundertakingsthatproducedordistributed
commercialbroadcastsignals,acabletelevisionassociationandbroadcastdistribution
undertakings.
Theboardhadlastcertifiedtariff2Afor1997andtariff17for2000.Theissuebeforetheboard
relatedtotariff2Afor1998to2004andtariff17for2001to2004.Tariff2Ahadsince1959been
setasapercentageofatelevisionstation’srevenue.Initsmostrecentdecisiontheboard
hadsettherateat1.8percentandestablishedamodifiedblanketlicence(« MBL »)allowing
stationstooptoutofthetraditionallicenceforcertainprograms.Tariff17hadbeendesigned
in1996forthepaymentofroyaltiesbytheretransmitterratherthanthespecialtyservicesset
atanumberofcentspersubscriberfortheentireportfolioofCanadianspecialtyservices
andatapercentageofsubscriptionrevenuefornon-portfolioservices(paytelevisionand
Americanspecialty).Theratefortariff17hadlastbeensetat15.5centspersubscriberper
monthfortheportfolioservicesand1.8percentfornon-portfolioservicessubjecttovarious
discountsandtiering.
Thepartiesagreedthatthereshouldbeonlyoneratefortariff2Atocontinuetoapplytoa
station’sgrossincome,thatthereshouldbeastrongcorrelationbetweentariffs2Aand17
andthattariff17shouldbesetasaper-servicerateatapercentageofabaserateforall

81
services.Thepartiesdisagreed,however,overcertaintermsofthetariffsincludingthe
amountatwhichthetariffsshouldbeset.
Held,thetariffsshouldbecertifiedinaccordancewiththeboard’sdecision.
Thesituationrelatingtocabletelevisionwasradicallydifferentthanin1996whentheboard
adoptedtheportfolioapproachtosettingtheamountofthetarifffornon-broadcast
services.Therewasnolongerarationaleformaintainingtheportfolioapproachfortariff17
andthereforetheratestructureadoptedforthattariffwasaper-servicerate.
Thebroadcastandnon-broadcastindustrywerepartofasingleindustryandallplayersinthe
industryshouldpaythesameamountformusicperformingrightssubjecttoanyjustified
adjustment.
Tariff2A
Therewasinsufficientevidencetogaugewhatthevalueofmusicwastothetelevision
industry.Therateoftheincreasesuggestedbythecollectivesocietywasthereforelimited.
Theratefortariff2Awassetat1.8percentupto2001andat1.9percentfor2002,2003and
2004.ThecomparableU.S.ratecouldnotbeusedasthesolebasisforsettingtheCanadian
rates,howeverthefactthattheU.S.ratewaslowerthantheCanadianratecouldtendto
limittheextenttowhichtheCanadianratecouldbeincreasedwithoutactingunfairly
towardsthetelevisionindustry.
Tariff17
Therevenueofthespecialtyserviceswastheappropriatebaseratefortariff17.
Non-broadcastservicestendedtousethesameamountofmusicasconventional
broadcasters.Tieringthetariffbygenrewasimpracticalandcouldhaveresultedininequities
betweenservices.Exceptwithrespecttoalow-musicuseratefornon-broadcastservices,it
wouldalsoaddunnecessarycomplexityandcosttotheadministrationofthetariff.Atiered
tariffwasthereforerejectedwiththeexceptionofalowerrateof0.8percentsetforservices
thatrequirealicencefromthecollectivesocietyforlessthan20percentoftheirbroadcast
time.
Withthechangetoaper-servicerate,thecontinuedrelevanceofdiscountsattributableto
marketfactorswasquestioned.Ifthemarketfortheservices’affiliationpaymentswas
functioningproperly,itwouldtakeintoaccounttheimpactoftheamounttobepaidbythe
services.Allportfoliorelateddiscountswerethereforeabandoned.
ThecourtshadpreviouslyruledthattheboardhadthepowertoadopttheMBL.Theissueof
thecongruenceoftheMBLwiththeunderlyingpurposesoftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.
C-42,wasthereforesettled.Musicperformerswerenotrequiredbylawtojointhecollective
society.TheMBLwasnotintendedtoimposeaparticularbusinessmodelbuttomake
availableanoptiontopermitindividualtransactionsbetweenacomposerandaproviderof
programming.TherehadasyetbeenrelativelylittlepracticalexperiencewiththeMBLandit
wasthereforeprematuretoendorchangeitwithtwoexceptions.Theexceptionswerethat
theMBLwasmadeavailableonlytoabroadcaster’sin-houseproductionsandthefulltariff
foranyprogrammingwithoutcreditwasrequiredfortransmitterswhomadewrongfulclaims
fortheMBL.
Thefactthattransmitterspaidtheroyaltiesundertariff17mostofthetimeratherthanthe
specialtyservicesraisedtheissueastohowtoaccountforthetariff.Thesolutiontothatissue
wasinensuringtheflowofinformationbetweenthespecialtyservicesandtransmitters.The

82
transmitterswerethereforeallowedonemonthtoinformeachspecialtyserviceofthe
numberofsubscriberstotheserviceandoftheamountitowedtheserviceforcarryingits
signal.Serviceswerethenallowedonemonthtosupplyeachofitstransmitterswiththedata
requiredtocalculatethetariff.Thetransmitterswouldthenbepermittedafurthermonthto
calculateandmakethetariffpaymenttothecollectivesociety.
Tariff17wassetat1.9percentper-service,14centspermonthpersubscriberforcommunity
andalphanumericservicesandaflatrateof$10.00peryearforsmallcabletransmission
systemspayablebytheoperatorofthesystem.

SOCANStatementofRoyalties,Concerts,2003(Tariff4)(Re)[2004]CarswellNat2371,33CPR
(4th)430,[2004]CBD3,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/m26032004-b.pdf,
inFrenchat
2004CarswellNat2372(CopBd;2004-03-26)
Thecollectivesocietyfiledproposedtariff4foralicencefor2003withrespecttomusical
works,toperforminpublic,tocommunicatetothepublicbytelecommunicationorto
authorizetheperformanceinpublicorthecommunicationtothepublicby
telecommunicationatpopularorclassicalmusicconcerts.Theobjector,theoperatorofa
venuewhichwassometimesusedforconcerts,objectedtotheproposedtariffonvarious
groundsincludingongroundsthattheboardhadnojurisdictiontocertifythetariffasit
targetedtheauthorizationright.
Theboardconvenedahearingtodealwiththejurisdictionissueasapreliminarymatterin
advanceofafullhearingontheproposedtariff.
Held,thegroundsforobjectionastotheboard’sjurisdictionshouldberejected.
Therightsofcopyrightunders.3(1)oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,includingthe
publicperformanceright,thecommunicationrightandtheauthorizationright,areseparate
anddistinctrightswhichmaybeseparatelyassignedbyrightsholders.Theauthorizationright
is,however,differentinnaturefromtheotherrightsunders.3(1)becauseitisdirectlylinkedto
theactbeingauthorized.Forexample,theauthorizationrightexistsonlyiftheactbeing
authorizedisitselfprotectedbycopyrigh.
Sections67to68.2oftheActenvisagethecollectiveadministrationofthepublic
performanceandcommunicationrightsadministeredbythecollectivesocietywithrespect
tomusicalworks.Noneofthesectionsdo,however,specificallymentiontheauthorization
right.Thismaybecontrastedwiththeregimeestablishedbys.70.1etseq.whichgovernsthe
collectiveadministrationofcopyrightgenerally.
Thecorrectapproachtotheinterpretationofastatuteistoconstruethelegislationwith
reasonableregardtoitsobjectandpurposeandtogiveittheinterpretationthatbestobtains
theobjectandpurpose.Thepurposeofss.67to68.2oftheActistocreateameanswhereby
acollectivesocietyisallowedtocollectfromusersofworksprotectedbycopyrightforthe
benefitofthosewhoownrightsinthoseworksfeesfixedintariffscertifiedbytheboard.
TheinternallogicoftheActdictatesthattherighttoauthorizeanactsubjecttotheregimein
ss.67to68.2beitselfsubjecttotheregime.Thisisachievedbyreadingintoeverymentionof
therighttodotherighttoauthorizethedoing.Unlessthisreferenceweretobereadin,the
verypurposeoftheregimewouldbedefeated.

83
Althoughtheauthorizationrightisaseparateright,itwouldmakenosensetoimposeliability
onapersonwhosanctionsthatwhichisalreadydulyauthorized.Forexample,theperson
whohasobtainedtheauthorizationrightforaperformancethereforeshieldsfromliabilitythe
personwhoperforms.
Theboardhadjurisdictiontocertifytariff4for2003asproposedbythecollectivesociety.

SoftwareGuyBrokersLtd.v.Hardy32CPR(4th)88,[2004]CarswellBC97,2004BCSC82,[2004]
BCTC82,[2004]BCTCTBEdFE052,http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcsc/2004/2004bcsc82.html
andhttp://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/04/00/2004bcsc0082
(BCSC;2004-01-22)
AllanJ.
Theplaintiffwasanon-lineretailerofsoftwareoperatingunderthenameTheSoftwareGuy
BrokersLtd.attheWebsitelocatedat<>.
InAugust2003,oneoftheindividualdefendantsapproachedtheprincipaloftheplaintiffto
expressaninterestininvestingintheplaintiff.Thediscussionsdidnotproceed.InNovember
2003,thedefendantscommencedtooperateasanon-linesoftwareretailerunderthename
TheSoftwareKingattheWebsitelocatedat<>.
Theplaintiffcommencedanactionforpassing-off,copyrightinfringementandbreachof
confidenceandbroughtanapplicationforaninterlocutoryinjunction.Thedefendants
introducedintoevidencethefactthatin2000athirdpartyhaddevelopedon-linesoftware
andaWebsiteforacompanyassociatedwithoneoftheindividualdefendantsandthatthe
defendantshadobtainedalicencefromthethirdpartytouseitsgraphics,images,lookand
functionalityfortheiron-linesoftwarebusiness.Theplaintiff’sWebsitecloselyresembledthose
ofthethirdparty.
Held,themotionshouldbedismissed.
Thethree-parttestforaninjunctionrequiresthecourttoconsiderthestrengthoftheplaintiff’s
case,whethertherewouldbeirreparableharmiftheinjunctionisgrantedorrefusedandthe
balanceofconvenience.Inpassing-offcases,thecourtmustfullyweightherelativestrength
oftheparties’casesbecausesuchcasesareusuallydecidedattheinterlocutorystage.
Inapassing-offcaseaplaintiffmustestablishtheexistenceofgoodwill,deceptionofthe
publicduetoamisrepresentationandactualorpotentialdamagetotheplaintiff.The
plaintifffailedtoestablishaprimafaciecaseforpassing-off.Alltheelementsofthenames
andtheWebsitesofthepartiesweregenericexceptforthewords »king »and »guy »which
werenotsimilarinappearance,soundormeaning.Therewasaccordinglyno
misrepresentationordeception.
Inacopyrightinfringementactionaplaintiffmustestablishthatitsworkisoriginal,thatthere
hasbeencopyingfromthatwork,andiftherehasbeen,thecopyingwasofasubstantial
portionofthework.Althoughthedefendantshadcopiedvirtuallytheentiretextofthe
plaintiff’sWebsite,evenincludinganobviousgrammaticalerror,thedefendantshadraised
significantdoubtthattheplaintiffhadcreatedthetextandgraphicsforitsWebsite.There
wasnosatisfactoryexplanationastothegenesisofthetext.Theplaintiffthereforefailedto
establishaprimafaciecasethattheworkinwhichitclaimedcopyrightwasoriginal.In
addition,thebalanceofconveniencefavouredthedefendantsbecauseiftheinjunction
wasgranted,theywouldbeputoutofbusinessandsufferirreparableharm.

84
SolowayJewishCommunityCentre-GanonPreschool,Ottawa,Ontario,forthemechanical
reproductionof21songs[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedtothe]FileNo.2003-UO/TI-19;
availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/135-e.pdf(CpBd;2004-03-10)
Forthemechanicalreproductionof21songsinnomorethan500copiesinCDformat–
Educationalpurpose
TommyHilfigerLicencingInc.v.InternationalClothiersInc.[2003]CarswellNat2907(FC;2003-
09-19);revd32CPR(4th)289,2004FCA252,[2004]FCJ1143,[2004]CarswellNat4005,2004
FCA252,241DLR(4th)559,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fca/2004/2004fca252.htmland
http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca/2004/2004fca252.shtml,inFrench[2004]CarswellNat2103,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/caf/2004/2004caf252.htmlandhttp://decisions.fca-
caf.gc.ca/caf/2004/2004caf252.shtml(FCA;2004-06-30)NadonJ.
Thefirstplaintiffwastheownerofintellectualpropertyrightsincludingtherightsinthetrade-
markCrestDesignregisteredinassociationwithcertainarticlesofclothing.Thesecond
plaintiff,underlicencefromthefirstplaintiff,distributedandsoldarticlesofclothingin
Canadainassociationwiththattrade-mark.
Thedefendantoperatedretailclothingstoresthroughwhichitsoldarticlesofclothing
purchasedfromclothingmanufacturers.In1994thedefendantpurchasedastocklotofshirts
originallydestinedforanotherretailerbearingalabelmarkedwithatrade-markknowntothe
defendanttobeatrade-markoftheotherretailer.Thedefendanthadthelabelscutoutand
hadlabelsandhangtagsbearingitsowntrade-markaffixedtotheshirtswhichitsoldinits
retailstoresin1995.Inaddition,in1998,aftertheactionhadcommenced,thedefendant
purchasedfromasupplier,andsoldthroughitsretailstores,boys’shortssets.Acrestdesign
markappearedonbothofthedefendant’sshirtsandshortssets.
Theplaintiffhadcommencedanactionfortrade-markinfringement,passingoffcontrarytos.
7(b)oftheTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13,andcopyrightinfringement.Thetrialjudge
hadallowedtheclaimsforpassingoffandcopyrightinfringementbuthaddismissedthe
claimfortrade-markinfringement.Inreachinghisconclusionthetrialjudgehadfound:(1)
thatthedefendanthadnotuseditscrestdesignforthepurposeofdistinguishingitswares
fromthoseofothersandthatthereforethecrestdesignwasnotusedbythedefendantasa
trade-mark;(2)thatasof1994theplaintiffs’trade-markCrestDesignhadacquired
distinctiveness;(3)thatthedefendant’screstdesignwassimilartotheplaintiffs’trade-mark
CrestDesign;(4)thatthenatureofthewaresofthepartieswasverysimilar;and(5)thatthe
defendant’screstdesignwouldlikelycauseconfusioninthemindoftheconsumer.
Theplaintiffsappealedfromthetrialjudge’sdismissaloftheirclaimfortrade-mark
infringement.
Held,theappealshouldbeallowed.
Section2oftheActdefines »trade-mark »asamarkusedbyapersonÒforthepurposeof
distinguishingorsoastodistinguish »thewaresofthatpersonfromthosesoldbyothers.
Section19confersontheownerofaregisteredtrade-markcertainexclusiverightstousethe

85
trade-markinCanadaands.20deemssuchexclusiverightstobeinfringedwhereaperson
usesaconfusingtrade-mark.
Theissueontheappealwaswhetherthedefendanthaduseditscrestdesignasatrade-
mark,i.e.forthepurposeofdistinguishingitswaresfromthoseofothers.Indetermining
whetheramarkhasbeenusedasatrade-marktheuser’sintentionandpublicrecognition
arerelevantconsiderations.Oneortheothermaybesufficienttodemonstratethatthemark
wasusedasatrade-mark.Asthetrialjudgehadfoundthatthedefendantdidnotintendto
useitscrestdesignasatrade-mark,thequestionwaswhetherthedesignhadservedthe
purposeofindicatingorigin.
Therewasnodoubtthatthedefendant’screstdesignservedthepurposeofindicatingorigin.
First,theplaintiffs’trade-markhadacquireddistinctivenessandservedtoindicatethatthey
werethesourceororiginofwareswithwhichthemarkswereassociated.Second,themarks
ofthepartieswereverysimilarandasaffixedtotheirshirtswereplacedinthesameposition
onthebreastoftheshirts,acommonpracticeforaffixingalogoindependentofabrand
name.Third,thetrialjudge’sfindingofconfusionconstitutedafindingthatthedefendant’s
crestdesignwouldhavebeenrecognizedasanindicationthatitsgarmentswerethoseof
theplaintiffs.Consequently,thedefendant’screstdesignservedthepurposeofindicating
origin.
UlextraIncvProntoLuceInc[2004]CarswellNat1137,31CPR(4th)339,2004FC590,[2004]
FTRUned363http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc590.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc590.shtmlinFrenchat2004CarswellNat2779,2004CF590,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf590.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf590.shtml(FC;2004-04-21)Layden-StevensonJ.
Theplaintiffhadcommencedanactionforpassingoffandcopyrightinfringementof
photographsofitslightingfixtures,eachwithacode(combinationoflettersandnumbers
beneathit)andofthefixturesthemselves.Inanamendedstatementofclaim,theplaintiff
hadalsoallegedinfringementoftheindustrialdesignregistrationsforitslightfixturesthathad
issuedafterthecommencementoftheaction.Thedefendanthadconsentedtothe
plaintiff’smotiontoamendthestatementofclaimandbroughtamotionforsummary
judgment.
Held,thedefendant’smotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbegranted.
Onamotionforsummaryjudgment,thetestisnotwhethertheplaintiffcannotsucceedat
trial,butwhethertheconclusioninthecaseissodoubtfulthatitdoesnotdeserve
considerationbythetrieroffactatafuturetrial.
Anactionforpassingoffmustrelatetoatrade-mark.Therewasnoevidencethatthe
defendanthadmadeanyuseoftheplaintiff’strade-mark.
Thereisnoinfringementofcopyrightinaphotographwithoutreproductionofthat
photograph.Thedefendant’sphotographswereofthedefendant’sproducts.Further,the
plaintiffhadnotestablishedthatithadcopyrightinthefixturesthemselves.
Thereisnoindustrialdesignprotectionbeforeregistration.Theallegedinfringementwaswell
beforetheregistrationdatesoftheplaintiff’sindustrialdesigns.Further,althoughtheplaintiff’s
evidenceallegedthattheinfringementwascontinuing,suchevidencewasnotasubstitution

86
forpleadings.Theplaintiffwasexpectedtoadheretotherulesofpleadingsothatdefendant
wouldknowthecasetobemet.
Insummary,thestatementofclaimasitstoodwasclearlywithoutfoundationandshouldnot
takeupthetimeandincurthecostsoftrail.Thedefendant’smotionforsummaryjudgment
dismissingtheactionwasgranted.However,theplaintiffwasfreetobeginagain.
Theplaintiff’sconductincommencingtheactiondidnotjustifyanawardofcostsona
solicitor-and-clientbasis.
UniversityofBritishColumbiaFacultyAssnvUniversityofBritishColumbia[2004]CarswellBC
1622,125L.A.C.(4th)1(BCArbitrationBd;2004-02-18)memberDorsey
[11]Anauthorofaworkispresumptivelythefirstownerofthecopyrightinthework.Ifthe
workiscommissionedandpaidforbyanother,intheabsenceofanyagreementtothe
contrary,thatotherpersonwillbethefirstowner.Similarly,iftheworkisproducedinthe
courseofemployment,intheabsenceofanyagreementtothecontrary,theemployeristhe
firstownerofthecopyright.Section13(4)oftheCopyrightActRSC1985,c.C-42states,inpart:
Wheretheauthorofaworkwasintheemploymentofsomeotherpersonundera
contractofserviceorapprenticeshipandtheworkwasmadeinthecourseofhis
employmentbythatperson,thepersonbywhomtheauthorwasemployedshall,
intheabsenceofanyagreementtothecontrary,bethefirstownerofthe
copyright…
[12]Facultymembersareexpectedtoengageinscholarlyactivityandtoproduceand
disseminatetheirscholarlywork.Becauseofthisexpectationandtoprotecttheunfettered
pursuitofknowledgethatisnecessaryforscholarship,itisaccepted,inthecontextof
employmentatauniversity,thatacademicauthorshavecopyrightownershipoftheir
writings,unlesstheyagreetoassignthecopyrighttotheuniversity,apublisherorsomeone
else.Thiscanbecharacterizedastheacademicorteacherexceptiontothepresumptionof
firstownershipofcopyrightintheemployeroritmaybetreatedasanimpliedagreementto
thecontrarybasedoncustom,tradition,practiceoracommonandsharedunderstanding.
Whethergroundedinanexceptionorimpliedagreement,academicauthorsarethefirst
ownersofthecopyrightoftheirwork.(SeethereviewandanalysisinDolmagev.Erskine,
[2003]OJNo.161(OntarioSuperiorCourtofJustice-SmallClaimsCourt)).
[20]Thisgrievancedoesnotraiseintellectualpropertyissuesbeyondcopyright.The
grievancesraiseissuesaboutcopyrightinmaterialauthoredbyafacultymemberinthe
developmentofacreditcourseandthecoursedevelopmentasacreativeworkauthored
byoneormorefacultymembers.
[21]Traditionally,coursematerialsforteacherswhomeetface-to-facewithstudentshave
consistedoflecturenotes,printedreadings,assignments,examsandcriteriaforevaluation
andgrading.Today,manycoursesincludeseveralmedia,e.g.text,graphics,film,
computing.Thedevelopmentofacourseincludessequencing,theformsofinteractionand
teachingtechniques.Facultymemberownershipofthecopyrightincoursematerialsgives
facultymembersasignificantmeasureofcontroloverthecontentanddeliveryofuniversity
courses.
[22]Facultymembersdevelopcoursesandthevariedmaterialsthatareusedinteachingthe
courses.Theyusematerialstheydevelopedinothercourses,materialscolleagueshave

87
developed,other’soriginalworkandpublicknowledge.Theymayhavetoobtainpermission
fromacopyrightownertousesomeofthematerialstheywishtoincludeinacourse.
[23]Dr.Livingstontestifiedthat,becauseoftheroleofacademicfreedomandscholarshipin
theUniversity,Policy#88saysthatownershipandtheintellectualpropertyrightsto »literary
works »arevestedintheindividualsinvolvedratherthantheUniversity.
[224]Facultymembersfrequentlyassigntheircopyrightinaworktoapublisherandgivethe
publishertherighttocopyandpublishthematerialandoftenassignderivativerights,suchas
translation,tothepublisher.Insomesituations,facultymembersretainownershipandlicense
therighttopublish,butmostpublishersinsistonassignmentofcopyrighttothem.Theauthor
orcreatorretains,butcanwaiveinwholeorinpart,themoralrightstoclaimpaternityofthe
workandtoensuretheworkisusedinawaythatisnotdetrimentaltoitsintegrity(Copyright
ActRSC1985C-42,s.14.1).
[227]Intellectualpropertyrights,andspecificallycopyright,isnotanaspectofemployment
thatattractsattentionatthecollectivebargainingtableinmostemploymentcontexts.The
solefocusinthisgrievanceisoncopyright.Itisnotmoralrightswhichcanbebequeathed,
butnotcontractedaway,orotherintellectualproperty.
[228]Thequestionwhethertheemployeroremployeeownsthecopyrightforthecreative
workoftheemployeeisamatterofemploymentcontextandcontract.Thelegalcontextfor
negotiationsaboutcopyrightisthatParliamenthasdecidedthatauthors,notpublisherswill
bethefirstownersortheirwork.Andemployersofauthorswillbethefirstownersofthe
copyrightinworksmadeinthecourseofemployment, »intheabsenceofanyagreementto
thecontrary. »
[229]Whethertheemployerortheemployeeownscopyrightinworksproducedinthecourse
ofemploymentisnotuniquetouniversities.Itisanimportantsubjectinseveralemployment
contexts-journalism,entertainmentinitsmanyfacets,broadcasting,publishing,software
developmentandotherendeavours.Assubmittedbytheemployerandreviewedabove,a
uniqueaspectofemploymentinauniversityisthatthereisanimpliedtermineachcontract
ofemploymentthattheemployee,nottheemployer,ownsthecopyrightinworksproduced
inthecourseofemployment.Itisnotnecessarytoexploreherewhichemployeesorwhat
works.Thisemployeradoptedabroadapproachtorecognizingemployeesasfirstownersof
copyrightin »literaryworks »,whichincludescoursedevelopment,underitsPolicy#88.
[230]Anoutgrowthofthisuniquenessisthataunionrepresentingemployees,whoauthor
literaryworksincludingcoursedevelopment,doesnothavetonegotiatetohavethe
employeragreetogivefirstcopyrightownershiptotheemployees.Theemployerhasto
negotiatetoobtainfirstcopyrightownership.Theemployerhastonegotiatetoobtainthat
ownershipbothatlawandunderitsPolicy#88.
[231]Inotheremploymentcontexts,aunionclearlyhastherighttobargainthatthe
employeragreetoassigncopyrightownershiptoindividualauthorsorthattheemployee
authorsshareinthebenefitsofthecopyrighttheirworkhasproduced.Atfirstblush,itmay
appearmoreproblematictoconcludetheunioncouldnegotiateawaycopyrightownership
ofindividualbargainingunitmembers.However,itisequallyproblematictoconsiderthatthe
employercoulduseitspositiontonegotiatedirectlywithindividualemployeestodemand
assignmenttoitofcopyrightinallorspecificworks.Therangeofbargainingcloutindividual
employeeshavevarieswidelyfromjunior,un-establishedauthorstothosewhosereputation
givesthemstarorcelebritystatusintheirfieldofwork.

88
[232]Whetherthefirstcopyrightownershipofaworkproducedinthecourseofemployment
presumptivelyresideswithindividualemployeesortheemployerisnotdeterminativeof
whetheritcanbethesubjectofcollectivebargainingandprovisionsofacollective
agreement.Itissimplythestartingpointfordiscussionabouthowcopyrightownershipistobe
dealtwithintheemploymentrelationshipandacollectiveagreement.
[233]Acollectiveagreementregulatestherelationshipbetweentheunionandemployer
andtheemployeesandtheemployer.Itcannotaddressorremedycopyrightinfringement
bythirdparties.Bynegotiatingcollectiveagreementprovisionsaboutcopyright,asseveral
facultyunionsandemployershave,accesstocivilorstatutoryremediesundertheCopyright
Actagainstthirdpartiesarenotsupplanted.Theuniondoesnotbecometheexclusive
bargainingagentforeachemployeeoneachcopyrightasitdoesnotbecometheexclusive
bargainingagentforeachbargainingunitemployeeoneachworkers’compensationor
employmentinsuranceclaimorrightundertheEmploymentStandardsAct.
[236]Copyrightispersonaltotheauthorofawork,butitisnomorecomplexordifferentan
employmentrelatedissuethanthemanytalent,tax,benefitinsuranceandotherissuesin
collectiveagreementsinnumerousworkcontexts.This,likesomanyotherissuesinwork,can
challengeunionsandemployersandthelawtofindthebalancebetweencollectiveand
individualemploymentrightsandprocessesformeetingtheneedsofbothemployersand
creativeemployees.Characterizingtheissueasoneof »intellectualproperty »relatingtothe
« ownershipoftheexpressionofideas »clouds,ratherthanclarifies,thequestion.Similarly,the
issueisnotaboutoutputofworkorworkproduct.
[237]Foremployeeswho,inthecourseoftheiremployment,produceworkthatissubjectto
copyright,theidentityofthework,theownershipofthecopyrightinthework,anyexceptions
totheworksorownership,compensationfortransferofcopyrighttotheemployerorothers,
participationinfuturerevenueformthecopyright,reassignmentofthecopyright,
reversionaryrights,disputeresolutionprocesseswiththeemployerandnumerousotherissues
constitutepartofthetermsandconditionsofemploymentoftheemployees.Theydonot
supplant,butcomplementtheCopyrightActandifaconflictarisesbetweenstatutoryand
contractualrightsorprocessestheconflictcanberesolvedasmanyroutinelyare.
[238]Themanyissuesrelatedtocopyrightareallsusceptibletocollectivebargainingandin
someworkcontextsandforsomeemployees-perhapsemployeesengagedexclusivelyin
onlinecoursedevelopment-theycanbecentralandsignificanttermsandconditionsof
employment.Thiscollectiveagreementisbuiltonadetermination »nottointerferewith
academicfreedom. »Academicfreedomisessential »toinstructionandthepursuitof
knowledge. »Questionsofcopyrightareinimicaltoacademicfreedomandscholarlypursuits.
[239]Intheuniversityemploymentcontext,becauseoftheimportanceoftheexpressionof
ideastoacademicfreedomandthepresumptivefirstownershipofcopyrightinfaculty,issues
relatedtocopyrightarepartofthecoreoftherelationshipbetweenemployerand
employee.Theyarepartoftheconditionsofemployment.
[240]Iconcludethatthescopeoftheunion’sexclusivebargainingauthorityincludestheright
tonegotiateaboutmattersrelatedtothecopyrightownershipofbargainingunitemployees
inworksmadeinthecourseoftheiremployment.

89
UniversityofBritishColumbiaMusicLibraryforthereproduction,thepublicperformanceand
thecommunicationtothepublicofsheetmusicontheirWebsite[ReNon-exclusivelicence
issuedtothe]FileNo.2003-UO/TI-23;availableathttp://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/131-
e.pdf(CopBd;2004-01-30)
Libraryforthereproduction,thepublicperformanceandthecommunicationtothepublicof
sheetmusicontheirWebsite–Foreducationalpurpose

VideoBoxEnterprisesInc.v.Peng[2004]CarswellNat1082,2004FC482,250FTR
101http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc482.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc482.shtml,inFrenchat[2004]CarswellNat2777,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf482.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf482.shtml(FC;2004-03-30)Layden-StevensonJ.
Theplaintiff,TVBOProductionLtd.,wasthecopyrightownerofcertainAsian-language
televisionprograms.Theplaintiff,VideoBoxEnterprisesInc.,reproducedtheprogramsunder
licenceanddistributedtheminCanada.Theplaintiffssuedthedefendantforcopyright
infringementonthebasisthathecopiedtheprograms,orimportedinfringingcopiesofthe
programsintoCanada,andthenrentedouttheinfringingprograms.Thedefendant
admittedinfringement.Atissuewasdamages.
TheFederalCourtgrantedtheplaintiffsaninjunctionanddamagesof$13,850.
Infringementofcopyright-Remedies-Damages-Theplaintiff,TVBOProductionLtd.,wasthe
copyrightownerofcertainAsian-languagetelevisionprograms-Theplaintiff,VideoBox
Enterprises,reproducedtheprogramsunderlicenceanddistributedtheminCanada-The
plaintiffssuedthedefendantforcopyrightinfringementonthebasisthathecopiedthe
programs,orimportedinfringingcopiesoftheprogramsintoCanada,andthenrentedout
theinfringingprograms-Thedefendantadmittedinfringement-Indeterminingdamages,
theFederalCourtconsideredtheamountthatthedefendantwouldhavepaidtoVideoBox
foralicenceifhehadactedlegally-Toarriveatthatamount,thecourtconsideredthe
valueofanannuallicencewhichwasgrantedbyVideoBoxtoTheLeisurePalacebasedon
fivecopiesperprogram-However,sinceVideoBoxdidnotincurthecostsofreproducing
theprogramsforthedefendant,thereproductioncostsweredeductedfromthelicence
value-Thecourtalsoemployedapro-ratedapproachtoreflectactualusebythe
defendantwheretheperiodoftheinfringementwasfiveandonehalfmonthsandwhere
VideoBoxwouldhavereproducedfourcopiesofthetapesforthedefendant,ratherthan
five.

Villardc.PubliquipInc.,2004IIJCan40844
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccq/2004/2004qccq46481.html(QueCtCivDivSmallClaims;
2004-09-24)DumaisJ.
[1]Lademanderesseprendactioncontreladéfenderessepouravoirutilisédansune
publicationunegrandepartied’unmontage,photographieettextecomposéparladite
demanderesse,pourunepublicité.

90
[2]Lacompagniecommanditairedecettepublicitél’autilisée,puiscommuniquéeàune
autrepublicationprofessionnelle,celledeladéfenderesse,pouryêtreutiliséeàtitredetelle
publicité.
[3]Larequérantes’opposeàtelleutilisationoùellenereçoitpasunpourcentagede15%,le
toutsouslaLoiconcernantledroitd’auteur(chap.C-42,LoisduCanada).
[4]Or,àl’article13(2)decetteloi«celuiquiadonnélacommandeest,àmoinsde
stipulationcontraire,lepremiertitulairedudroitd’auteur».
[5]Danslapreuve,iln’existeaucunetellestipulation,et,parvoiedeconséquence,la
compagniequiaordonnéetachetélaplanchepublicitaireesttitulairedudroitd’auteursur
laditeplanche.
[6]Lademanderessen’adoncpasdedroitsàfairevaloircontretouteutilisationquefitle
commanditaire.
[7]RequêteREJETÉEavecfrais.

91

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

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