Compilation préliminaire des décisions rendues au Canada en 2005 en matière de droit d’auteur / A Compilation of the Decisions Rendered in Canada With Respect to Copyright in 2005

1
ACOMPILATIONOFTHEDECISIONSRENDEREDINCANADAWITHRESPECTTO
COPYRIGHTIN2005

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

1.1395047OntarioInc.(c.o.b.FPTV-FestivalPortugueseTelevision)vNewAtlanticoCafé
andRestauranteInc.[2005]FCJ1663,2005FC1358,2005CarswellNat3172,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc1358.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc1358.shtml(FC;2005-10-04)
2.3464920CanadaIncvStrother(2002),[2002]BCJ1982,[2002]BCCTBEdSE043,2002
BCSC1179,2002CarswellBC2026,26BLR(3d)235,2002DTC7327,[2003]1CTC87,
http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcsc/2002/2002bcsc1179.html,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/02/11/2002BCSC1179.htm(BCSC;2002-09-29);
vard(2005)38BCLR(4th)159,2005BCCA35,(2005),[2005]3CTC168,2005CarswellBC
83,2005DTC5059,1BLR(4th)302,28CCLT(3d)159,[2005]5WWR108,208BCAC39,
344WAC39,http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcca/2005/2005bcca35.html,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/05/00/2005bcca0035.htm(BCCA-Strother;
2005-01-21),assupplementedhttp://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-
txt/ca/05/03/2005bcca0384.htm,2005BCCA384(BCCA-Strother;2005-07-25);2005
BCCA385,2005CarswellBC1789,[2005]5CTC107,8BLR(4th)4,256DLR(4th)319,
[2005]BCWLD5949,[2005]BCWLD5950,[2005]BCWLD5944,44BCLR(4th)275,
http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcca/2005/2005bcca385.html,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/CA/05/03/2005BCCA0385.htm(BCCA-Davis;
2005-07-25)
3.AlastairGaleInc.forthereproductionofarchitecturalandstructuralplansdesignedby
J.MorrisWoolfson,architect,forthepropertylocatedat218MaclarenStreetinOttawa
[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-01,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/147-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-01-26)
4.AthénaÉditionsInc.vCruzHerrera[2005]CarswellQue5541,AZ-50325978,JE2005-1801,
[2005]JQ9968,REJB2005-93286,2005IIJCan26739,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccq/2005/2005qccq60874.html(QueCt-CivDiv;2005-07-
27)

©CIPS,2006.
*Lawyerandtrademarkagent,LaurentCarrièreisoneoftheseniorpartnersinLEGERROBIC
RICHARD
,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagencyfirm
ROBIC,g.p.Theboldcharactersindicatesinwhichcaseseriestheheadnoteshavebeen
taken.Publication344.

2
5.Bazinet(Lise),Ottawa,Ontario,forthereproductionofarchitecturalplanscreatedby
TrendSetterDevelopmentLimitedforthepropertylocatedat24MaryDriveinOttawa
[ReNon-exclusivelicencedeliveredto]FileNo.2005UO/TI37;also,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/167-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-09-26)
6.BétonprojetéMahInc.vLarivière*2005IIJCan23033,2005CarswellQue6026,REJB
2005-92135,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs58706.html(QueSupCt;
2005-06-10);motionforleavetoappealrefused2005CarswellQue9968(QueCA;2005-
08-11)
7.BMGCanadaIncvJohnDoe[2004]CarswellNat835,2004FC488,[2004]3FCR241,32
CPR(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);
revd[2005]CarswellNat1300,[2005]FCJ9858,2005FCA193,39CPR(4
th)97,252DLR
(4th)342,334NR268,http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca/2005/2005fca193.shtml(FCA;
2005-05-19)
8.BoardofGovernorsArchivesatExhibitionPlaceforthereproductionandpublic
performanceofthefilms:RailyardandGimmeaBreak[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissued
to]File2005-UO/TI-26,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/164-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-
09-01)
9.BonnettevEntrepriseDominionBlueLineInc.(2003),JE2003-584,SOQUIJAZ-50158890
[2003]CarswellQue49,[2003]JQ102,REJB2003-36898,2003IIJCan40842,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2003/2003qccs10185.html(QueSupCt;2003-01-22);
affd[2005]CarswellQue945,[2005]JQ2903,SOQUIJAZ-50306441,JE2005-817,2005
CarswellQue945,[2005]JQ2903,REJB2005-88514,2005QCCA342
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qcca/2005/2005qcca342.html,inEnglishtranslation41
CPR(4th)331(QueCA;2005-04-05);motionforleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtof
Canadadismissed[2005]SCCA288,2005CarswellQue10016,2005CarswellQue10017
(2005-11-17)
10.BreakthroughFilms&TelevisionIncfortheoff-cameranarrationofeightextractsfrom
thebookActionwithSeaforthswrittenbyCharlesMonroeJohnson.[ReNon-exclusive
licenceissuedto]File2004-UO/TI-03,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/156-e.pdf
(CopBd;2005-05-10)
11.BritishColumbiaInstituteofTechnology,forthedigitizationoftwosegmentsfromthefilm
entitled »LearningtoBuildWingsOverCanada:BrisbaneAviationCo.Ltd.[Re
Applicationbythe]FileNo.2005UO/TI36;2005CarswellNat4078,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/other/6-b.pdf,inFrenchat2005CarswellNat4079(Copyright
Board;2005-11-17)
12.British-Columbia(MinistryofEnvironment),Re,2005CanLII28522,
http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcipc/2005/2005bcipc10032.html,
http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/OrderF05-05.pdf(BCInformationandPrivacy
Commissioner;2005-08-11)

3
13.CanadaAlliedDieselCompanyLtd.vRTITurboinc.[2005]JQ15919,2005IIJCan39802,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs61510.html(QueSupCt;2005-10-25)
14.CanadianCentreforArchitectureforthereproductionofphotographs[ReApplication
byThe]2004-UO/TI-32,2005CarswellNat484,[2005]CBD6,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/other/3-b.pdf,inFrenchat2005CarswellNat485(CopBd;2005-
01-17)
15.CanadianCopyrightLicensingAgency(« AccessCopyright »)vU-Compute[2005]FCJ
2030,2005FC1644,2005CarswellNat4154,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc1644.shtml(FC;2005-12-07)
16.CanadianPrivateCopyingCollective(CPCC)vComputerWarehouseOutletInc.2005
FC770,2005CarswellNat1507,41CPR(4th)481,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc770.html,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc770.shtml(FC;2005-05-31)
17.CanadianPrivateCopyingCollectivevAmicoImagingServicesInc[2004]CarswellNat
846.2004FC469,249FTR312,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc469.html
andhttp://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);42CPR
(4th)426,2005CarswellNat2721,2005FC1228,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc1228.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc1228.shtml(FC;2005-09-07)
18.CanadianPrivateCopyingCollectivevFuzionTechnologyCorp.,2005FC1557,[2005]
FCJ1915,2005CarswellNat3804,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc1557.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc1557.shtml(FC;2005-11-17).
19.CanadianPrivateCopyingCollectivevCanadianStorageMediaAlliance[2005]2FCR
654,247DLR(4th)193,329NR101,2004CarswellNat4681,36CPR(4th)289,2004FCA
424[2004]CarswellNat4681,http://reports.fja.gc.ca/fc/2005/pub/v2/2005fc35956.html,
http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca/2004/2004fca424.shtml,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fca/2004/2004fca424.html,inFrenchat2004CarswellNat
5345,http://reports.fja.gc.ca/cf/2005/pub/v2/2005cf35956.html,http://decisions.fca-
caf.gc.ca/caf/2004/2004caf424.shtml,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/caf/2004/2004caf424.html(FCA;2004-12-14);ASI
ComputerTechnologiesInc.’smotiontointervenedismissedaspremature(SCC;2005-
04-22);CPCC’smotionforleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadadismissed
[2005]SCCA70(SCC;2005-07-28);CPRetailCouncil’s’smotionforleavetoappealtothe
SupremeCourtofCanadadismissed[2005]SCCA74,2005CarswellNat2075and2005
CarswellNat2077,inFrenchat2005CarswellNat2076and2005CarswellNat2078(SCC;
2005-07-28)
20.CanadianPrivateCopyingCollectivevFirstChoiceRecordingMediaInc.38CPR(4th)
65,[2005]2FCR654,[2005]CarswellNat366,[2005]FCJ241,2005FC187,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc187.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc187.shtml,
http://reports.fja.gc.ca/fc/2005/pub/v2/2005fc35956.html,inFrenchat2005
CarswellNat1460(FC;2005-02-07)

4
21.CBRAStatementofRoyalties,MediaMonitoring,2000-2005(Re)aulieudeMedia
Monitoring2000-2005,Re[2005]CarswellNat744,39CPR(4th)152,[2005]CBD4,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/mm29032005-b.pdf,inFrenchat[2005]
CarswellNat745,[2005]CBD4,(CopBd;2005-03-29)
22.ChayervCorporationSunMedia2005IIJCan33882,SOQUIJAZ-50334052,JE2005-1828,
[2005]JQ17554,2005CarswellQue9351,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccq/2005/2005qccq64172.html(QueCt-CivDivSmall
Claims;2005-08-30)
23.Coleman(ProfessorDaniel)forthereproductionofapostercreatedbyFrancisRobert
Hallidayentitled »NationalProgress »[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-
21,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/162-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-08-04)
24.ColumbiaPicturesIndustriesInc.vGaudreault2005CarswellNat654,2005FC338,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc338.html,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc338.shtml;inFrenchat2005CarswellNat1826,
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/cf/2005/2005cf338.shtml,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2005/2005cf338.html;(FC;2005-03-09)
25.CommissiondeslésionsprofessionnellesvGodbout2004IIJCan54463,2004
CarswellQue11968,REJB2004-94083,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2004/2004qccs20633.html(QueSupCt;2004-12-06);
[2005]JQ1321,SOQUIJAZ-50290378,JE2005-417,2005CarswellQue411,REJB2005-
82979,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs17985.html(QueSupCt;2005-
01-21);[2005]JQ9220,2005IIJCan24713,2005CarswellQue7473,REJB2005-92748,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs59105.html(QueSupCt;2005-07-12);
[2005]JQ16178,2005CarswellQue10586,2005IIJCan40858,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs61628.html(QueSupCt-Contempt;
2005-11-04)
26.ConexsysSystemsInc.vAimeStarMarketingInc.[2003]JE2003-1848,[2003]JQ11296,
[2003]CarswellNat2003,REJB2003-46933,2003IIJCan33339,also,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2003/2003qccs14163.html(QueSupCt;2003-09-02);
affd2005BE296,2005QCCA131,SOQUIJAZ-50296959,[2005]JQ658(QueCA;2005-01-
11).
27.ControlexCorporationforthereproductionofarchitecturalplanscommissionedby
MacdonaldDevelopmentsin1990forthepropertylocatedat4025InnesRoadin
Ottawa[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-03,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/149-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-02-03)
28.CourierCompleteInc.vFraidakis[2005]CarswellOnt1100,[2005]OJ1106,40CPR(4th)
50,2005CanLII13998,http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2005/2005onsc13564.html
(OntSupCt;2005-03-24),additionalreasons[2005]OJ1682,2005CarswellOnt1627,
[2005]OJ1682(OntSupCt;2005-04-28)
29.CRESAPartnersforthereproductionofelectricalandmechanicalplanscreatedby
HrudkoBustosEngineeringofCalgaryforthepropertylocatedat2905,12thStreetN.E.
inCalgary[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-02,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/148-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-02-03)

5
30.CummingsvGlobalTelevisionNetworkQuebec,Ltd.PartnershipSOQUIJAZ-50315115,
JE2005-1088,[2005]QJ6707,2005CarswellQue2806,REJB2005-90758,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/cas/qccs/2005/2005qccs20496.html(QueSupCt;2005-05-24);
motiontodismissappeal500-09-015770-050granted(QueCA;2005-06-30)
31.Dawn’sPlaceLtd.vCanada*[2005]TCJ556,2005TCC721,2005CarswellNat3661,2005
TCC721,[2005]GSTC177,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/tcc/2005/2005tcc721.htmland
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/en/2005/html/2005tcc721.html(TaxCourtofCanada;
2005-11-10)
32.DIRECTV,Inc.vZedMarketingInc[2005]OJ1045,[2005]CarswellOnt1033,
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2005/2005onsc13285.html(OntSupCt-CommList-
AntonPiller;2005-02-21);[2005]OJ3009,2005CarswellOnt3121(OntSupCt-CommList-
MotiontoStrike;2005-07-15)
33.DuffvQuébec(ProcureurGénéral),2003CarswellQue2408,REJB2003-46715,JE2003-
1923,2003IIJCan20247,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2003/2003qccs14045.html
(QueSupCt;2003-08-21);aff’d2005QCCA661,SOQUIJAZ-50322050,JE2005-1349,
[2005]JQ8855,2005CarswellQue4691,REJB2005-92309,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qcca/2005/2005qcca661.html(QueCA;2005-07-04)
34.EducationalRights2003-2006,Re[2005]CarswellNat488;http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/e14012005-b.pdfinFrenchat[2005]CarswellNat489(CopBd;
2005-01-14)
35.EnerflowIndustiesInc.forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansdesignedbyAPX
EngineeringServiceLtd.forthepropertylocatedat862568thStreetS.E.inCalgary[Re
Non-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-31,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/161-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-07-28)
36.EntralGroupInternationalInc.v1438762OntarioInc.[2005]OJ2140,40CPR(4th)410,
2005CanLII18316,2005CarswellOnt2141,
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2005/2005onsc13769.html,(OntSupCt;2005-05-20)
37.EurosportEventManagementLtd.v650621B.C.Ltd(Malone’sBarGrill),2005FC1359,
[2005]FCJ1664,2005CarswellNat3174,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc1359.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc1359.shtml(FC;2005-10-04)
38.Gagné(Lucie)forthereproductionoftheworkentitledTheDiaryofthe13thBattery
CanadianFieldArtillery1914-1919inabook[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File
2004-UO/TI-39,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/160-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-07-19)
39.GravlinvCanadianImperialBankofCommerce2005CarswellBC1443,[2005]BCWLD
4951,[2005]BCWLD4923,2005BCJ1334,2005BCSC839,
http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcsc/2005/2005bcsc839.html,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/05/08/2005bcsc0839err1.htm(BCSC;2005-06-
14);assupplemented[2005]BCJ1521,2005BCSC1006,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/05/10/2005bcsc1006.htm(BCSC;2005-07-06)
40.GroupeAldoInc.vGroupeYellowInc.,2005IIJCan24880,2005CarswellQue7499,REJB
2005-92799,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs59136.html(QueSupCt;
2005-07-12)

6
41.GroupeArchambaultinc.vCMRRA/SODRACinc.,2005CAF330,[2005]ACF1718,2005
CarswellNat3262,http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/caf/2005/2005caf330.htmland
http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/caf/2005/2005caf330.shtmlFCA;2005-10-14)
42.GuccioGucciS.P.A.vLevi42CPR(4th)423,2005FC1186,2005CarswellNat2691,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc1186.html,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc1186.shtml(FC;2005-08-30)
43.GuildedesmusiciensduQuébecvQuébec(Commissiondereconnaissancedes
associationsd’artistesetdesassociationsdeproducteurs),2005CarswellQue3324,
[2005]JQ6997,2005IIJCan19211,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs58083.html(QueSupCt;2005-05-31)
44.HarrisScientificProductsLtd.vAraujo,2005CarswellAlta1242,2005ABQB603,[2005]
AWLD3572,[2005]AWLD3574,[2005]AWLD.3568,[2005]AWLD3594,33CCLT(3d)228,
http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abqb/2005/2005abqb603.html,
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/qb/civil/2005/2005abqb0603.pdf(AltaQB;
2005-08-05)
45.Hourihamforthereproductionofarchitecturalplansforthepropertylocatedat
522MariposaCrescent(Rockcliffe),inOttawahttp://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/143-e.pdf,2004UO/TI31[ReNon-exclusivelicencedelivered
to](CopBd;2005-10-26)
46.Icotopinc.vFerrandSOQUIJAZ-50328610,JE2005-1736,[2005]RJQ2376,2005IIJCan
28462,[2005]JQ10659,2005CarswellQue5849,REJB2005-93633,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs59672.html(QueSupCt;2005-08-12)
47.IndexTéléphoniquedenotrelocalitéN.L.LtéevLeguidedeCowansvilleInc.2005
CarswellQue10911(QueSupCt;2005-11-16)
48.InterimtariffofleviestobecollectedbyCPCCin2006onthesaleofblankaudio
recordingmediainCanada2005CarswellNat4267,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/c21122005-b.pdf,inFrenchat2005CarswellNat4268(Copyright
Boad;2005-12-21)
49.Knith(Darrell),Calgary,Alberta,forthereproductionofthebookentitled »Historyofthe
Thirty-FirstBattalionvE.F. »producedbyH.C.SingerandA.A.Peebles[ReNon-exclusive
licencedeliveredto]FileNo.2005UO/TI41;also,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/171-e.pdf(CopyrightBoard;2005-12-08)
50.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://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc832.htmland
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc832.shtml,inFrench
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf832.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf832.shtml(FC-Reconsideration;2004-06-09);vard.2005CAF
427,[2005]ACF2082,2005CarswellOnt7672,

http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/caf/2005/2005caf427.htmlandhttp://decisions.fca-
caf.gc.ca/caf/2005/2005caf427.shtml(FCA;2005-12-19)

7
51.L.S.EntertainmentGroupInc.vFormosaVideo(Canada)[2005]FCJ1643,2005FC1347,
2005CarswellNat3157,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc1347.htmland
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc1347.shtml(FC;2005-09-30)
52.Langdon(Robin)forthemechanicalreproductionoffivemusicalworks(composers
andpublishersunknown)[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-12,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/151-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-03-21)
53.McGraw-HillRyersonforthereproductionofRitaSchindler’sletterpublishedinthe
TorontoStaronDecember30,1990[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-
17,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/159-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-07-19)
54.MichelRhéaume&AssociésLtéev9071-8131QuébecInc.(Pro-VieAssurances)2005
IIJCan24443,SOQUIJAZ-50322827,JE2005-1572,[2005]JQ9114,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs59015.html(QueSupCt;2005-07-08)
55.MichelRhéaume&AssociésLtéev9071-8131QuébecInc.,[2003]JQ5484,2003IIJCan
17591,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2003/2003qccs12315.html(QueSupCt;2003-
05-12)affd.2005QCCA99,SOQUIJAZ-50296124,2005BE-295,[2005]JQ1036(QueCA;
2005-01-11)
56.MichelRhéaume&AssociésLtéev9071-8131QuébecInc.,[2003]JQ6862,2003IIJCan
48440,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2003/2003qccs12829.html(QueSupCt;2003-
06-06)revdinpartsubnomineBeaulne&RhéaumeAssurancesltéevDubé[2005]JQ
1037(QueCA;2005-01-11),SOQUIJAZ-50296125,2005QCCA100,BE2005BE-339
57.MicrosoftCorp.v9038-3746QuebecInc.42CPR(4th)417,2005FC1144,2005
CarswellNat2426,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc1144.html,
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc1144.shtml,(FC;2005-08-23).
58.MountRoyalCollegeBookstoreforthereproductionoftwoarticleswrittenbyRobert
Severns[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-36,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/153-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-04-25)
59.NationalFilmBoardofCanadaforthereproductionandincorporationofeleven
transparenciesofEmilyCarr’sworksproducedbyphotographerMichaelNeillin1980
[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-29,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/166-f.pdf(CopBd;2005-09-02)
60.NationalFilmBoardofCanada,VilleSaint-Laurent,Quebec,tousepartofamusical
workwrittenbyGeorgySviridov[ReApplicationbythe][2005]CBD9,File2005UO/TI-34,
2005CarswellNat2992,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/other/5-b.pdf,inFrench
at2005CarswellNat2993(CopBd;2005-09-13)
61.NauticalDataInternational,Inc.InRetheBankruptcyandInsolvencyAct,2005
CarswellNfld180,2005NLTD110,11CBR(5th)144(Nfld&Labr.S.C.-;2005-06-24);2005
NLTD137,http://www.canlii.org/nl/cas/nlsctd/2005/2005nlsctd137.html(Nfld&Labr.
S.C.-ToLiftStay;2005-08-12);2005CarswellNfld228,2005NLTD141,13CBR(5th)223,
http://www.canlii.org/nl/cas/nlsctd/2005/2005nlsctd141.html(Nfld&Labr.S.C.-2005-08-
19)
62.Near-MissProductionsInc.,Montreal,Quebec,forthereproductionandincorporation
ofninephotographsinadocumentaryfilm[ReNon-exclusivelicencedeliveredto]File

8
No2005UO/TI22;also,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/170-f.pdf(Copyright
Board;2005-11-21)
63.NetboredInc.vAveryHoldingsInc.[2005]CarswellNat981,[2005]FCJ620,2005FC490,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc490.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc490.shtml,inFrench2005CarswellNat3142,
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/cf/2005/2005cf490.shtml,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2005/2005cf490.html,(FC;2005-04-12);42CPR(4th)
321,2005FC933,[2005]FCJ1168,2005CarswellNat1876,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc933.shtml,inFrenchat2005CarswellNat3727,
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/cf/2005/2005cf933.shtml(FC;2005-06-30);2005FC1405,
[2005]FCJ1723,2005CarswellNat3289,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc1405.html(FC;2005-10-14)
64.OfficeoftheLieutenantGovernorofQuébecforthereproductionofaphotograph[Re
ApplicationbyThe]File2004-UO/TI-37,2005CarswellNat1849,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/other/4-b.pdf,inFrenchat2005CarswellNat1850(CopBd;
2005-03-03)
65.Oppenheim(David)forthereproductionandincorporationofafilmclipfrom »ANew
WorldintheYukon »producedin1970byJerryFairbanksProductions,Hollywood,CAin
associationwithCanawestFilmProductionsLtd.ofVancouver,B.C.,AProductionof
AnvilMiningCorporationLtd.[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-10,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/122-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-04-12)
66.ParkervKeyPorterBooksLtd.40CPR(4th)80,2005CarswellOnt2098,[2005]OJ2093,
2005CanLII18294,http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2005/2005onsc13750.html
(OntSupCt;2005-05-26).
67.PearsonEducationCanadaforthereproductionofthearticleentitledGettingOff
Welfare(authorunknown)[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-05,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/155-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-05-04)
68.PositiveAttitudeSafetySystemsInc.vAlbianSandsEnergyInc.[2004]FCJ1253,258FTR
30,[2004]CarswellNat2299,2004FC1022,33CPR(4th)460
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc1022.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc1022.shtml(FC;2004-07-23);revd2005CarswellNat3575,[2005]
FCJ1731,2005FCA332,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fca/2005/2005fca332.htmland
http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca/2005/2005fca332.shtml(FCA;2005-10-17)
69.Production&StudioMiDoinc.,Métabetchouan-Lac-à-la-Croix,Quebec,forthe
mechanicalreproductionofthesong »LepèreNoëlc’t’unquébécois »writtenbyPierre
LaurendeauandRogerMagnan,publishedby »PopSuccess »and »ReliableMusic »[Re
Non-exclusivelicencedeliveredto]FileNo.2005UO/TI39;also,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/169-f.pd(CopyrightBoard;2005-10-17)
70.ProductionsLtd.ofVancouver,B.C.,AProductionofAnvilMiningCorporationLtd.[Re
Non-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-10,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/122-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-04-12)
71.PrudhommevShaddock,2005BCPC256,[2005]BCJ1604,2005CarswellBC1601,[2005]
BCWLD4500,[2005]BCWLD.4507,[2005]BCWLD4639,
http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcpc/2005/2005bcpc256.html,

9
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2005/02/p05_0256.htm(BCProvCt;
2005-06-16)
72.PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks2003-2007andPublicPerformanceofSound
Recordings2003-2007[Re][2005]CBD5,2005CarswellNat3359,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/m14102005-b.pdf(CopBd;2005-10-14)
73.PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,2003-2006,Re[2005]CarswellNat541,[2005]CBD
3;inFrenchat[2005]CarswellNat542,[2005]CBD3,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/m25022005-b.pdf,inFrenchat2005CarswellNat3360(CopBd;
2005-02-25)
74.PublicPerformanceofSoundRecordings2003-2005,Re;[2005]CarswellNat486,[2005]
CBD2and[2005]CBD2;inFrench[2005]CarswellNat487,[2005]CBD1,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/m14012005-b.pdf(CB;2005-01-14)
75.R.vWong2005CarswellOnt6434(OntSupCtJ;2005-08-15)
76.RvThériault*[2004]CarswellQue3201,(subnomineRvD’Argy)[2004]JQ11142,2004
IIJCan45941,2004CarswellQue3201,[2005]RJQ857,REJB2004-72244,JE2005-475,
SOQUIJAZ-50277166,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccq/2004/2004qccq49479.html
(QueCt;2004-10-28);revd(subnomineRvD’Argy)SOQUIJAZ-50304828,JE2005-1008,
[2005]R.J.Q.1520,[2005]JQ2499,2005CarswellQue931,REJB2005-87515,2005IIJCan
8977,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs19052.html(QueSupCt;2005-
03-31);motionforleavetoappealontheconstitutionalissuegranted2005CarswellQue
3570REJB2005-91519,JE2005-1178,SOQUIJAZ-50318085,2005QCCA604(QueCA;
2005-04-20)
77.R.vMénard*2005IIJCan24780,SOQUIJAZ-50323098,JE2005-1478,2005CarswellQue
6348,REJB2005-92816,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccq/2005/2005qccq60324.html
(QueCt-CrimDiv;2005-06-29);motionsforleavetoappealdeniedastothequestionof
factsSOQUIJAZ-50336748,2005CarswellQue9581,2005QCCA914andSOQUIJAZ-
50336814,2005CarswellQue9577,2005QCCA2005
78.R.vBenchmuel[2005]OJ1008(OntCt;2005-01-18)
79.R.vFerguson((2004)),2004CarswellOnt847,1MVR(5th)299(Ont.vJ.);revd.2005
CarswellOnt3733(OntSupCtJ;2005-08-12)
80.R.vKatebian[2005]OJ1009(OntCt;2005-01-27)
81.RenaudcGroupeVille-MarieLittératureInc2002IIJCan27783,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2002/2002qccs11752.html,[2002]JQ961,(Que
SupCt;2002-04-30);affd.subnomineHoricvRenaud,2005QCCA508,SOQUIJAZ-
50313961,JE2005-1045,[2005]JQ6390,2005CarswellQue2708,REJB2005-90482,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qcca/2005/2005qcca508.html(QueCA;2005-05-12)
82.ReproductionofMusicalWorks2004-2008[ReSODRACTariff5(Video-copies)]2005
CarswellNat1794,inFrenchat2005CarswellNat1795,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/i24062005-b.pdf(CopBd;2005-06-24)
83.RichardLindsethArchitectureforthereproductionofarchitecturalplansdesignedby
J.SerticHomes(J.Mossman,engineerandJ.Pasalic,draftsperson)fortheproperty

10
locatedat41WoodhavenViewS.W.inCalgary[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File
2005-UO/TI-23,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/158-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-07-18)
84.RussellvNyack,2005CarswellAlta1220,[2005]AWLD3464,[2005]AWLD3402,[2005]
AWLD3465,[2005]AWLD3434,2005ABPC227,
http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abpc/2005/2005abpc227.html,
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/pc/civil/2005/2005abpc0227.pdf(Alta
ProvCt;2005-06-29)
85.SanFranciscoGiftsLtd(Re)[2005]AJ131,2005AQBD91,2005CarswellAlta174,
http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abqb/2005/2005abqb91.html,
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/qb/civil/2005/2005abqb0091.pdf(AltaQB;
2005-02-09)
86.SanterrevLaReine*2005CarswellNat2892,2005DTC1324,[2005]ACI435,2005CCI
606,http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cci/2005/2005cci606.html,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cci/2005/2005cci606.html(CCI;2005-09-20)
87.Sazby&PokornyArchitectsforthereproductionofmechanicalandelectricalplans
designedbyLarryW.T.Tang,ContinentalDesignInc.in1981forthepropertylocatedat
800MacleodTrailS.E.inCalgary[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-30,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/165-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-09-01)
88.Sociétédudroitdereproductiondesauteurs,compositeursetéditeursauCanadaInc.
vAmalgame-CargocréativitéstratégiqueInc.,SOQUIJAZ-50328380,JE2005-1646,2005
CarswellQue5844,REJB2005-93578,2005IIJCan28333
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs59629.html(QueSupCt;2005-07-28)
89.SocietyofComposers,Authors&MusicPublishersofCanadavMapleLeafSports&
EntertainmentLtd.2005CarswellNat1409(FC-Prot.;2005-03-14);affd.40CPR(4th)28,
[2005]CarswellNat1368,2005FC640,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc640.shtml,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc640.html(FC;2005-05-06)
90.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadavKicksRoadhouseInc.
(c.o.b.How-Dee’s)[2005]CarswellNat1100,[2005]FCJ646,2005FC528,39CPR(4
th)
238,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc528.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc528.shtml,inFrenchat2005CarswellNat3327,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2005/2005cf528.html,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2005/2005cf528.shtml(FC;2005-04-19);2005FC1345,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc1346.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc1346.shtml(FC-Reconsideration;2005-09-30);appealA-227-05
91.SouthernAlbertaInstituteofTechnology(SAIT)Polytechnicforthereproductionoffive
setsofimagesanddiagramsforwhichthesourceisunknown[ReNon-exclusivelicence
issuedto]File2005-UO/TI-27,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/163-e.pdf(CopBd;
2005-08-19)
92.SpirosPizza&SpaghettiHouseLtd.vRivieraPizzaInc.39CPR(4th)527,[2005]
CarswellAlta337,[2005]AJ278,2005ABQB80,[2005]AWLD1967,[2005]AWLD1955,
[2005]AWLD1956,[2005]AWLD1892,
http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abqb/2005/2005abqb80.html,
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/qb/civil/2005/2005abqb0080.cor1.pdf

11
(AltaQB;2005-03-15).;affd.2005CarswellAlta1394,2005ABCA305,[2005]AWLD3494,
[2005]AWLD.3570,[2005]AWLD3571,[2005]AWLD3587,
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/ca/civil/2005/2005abca0305.pdf,
http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abca/2005/2005abca305.html(AltaCA2005-09-16)
supplementalreasonsat2005CarswellAlta1799,2005ABCA418,
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/ca/civil/2005/2005abca0418.pdf,
http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abca/2005/2005abca418.html(AltaCA-Costs;2005-12-06)
93.StandardLifeAssuranceCompanyofCanada/StandardLifeRealtyAdvisorsforthe
reproductionofmechanicalandelectricalplanscreatedbyB.Siebrand,P.Eng.in1987
forthepropertylocatedat5335CanotekRoadinOttawa[ReNon-exclusivelicence
issuedto]File2005-UO/TI-18,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/154-e.pdf(CopBd;
2005-05-04)
94.St-CyrMorin(Lyse)forthereproductionofarchitecturalplanscreatedbyChristine
Gieyfztorforthepropertylocatedat26ConcourseGateinOttawa[ReNon-exclusive
licenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-25,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/157-e.pdf
(CopBd;2005-06-30)
95.SteinhartvMoledina[2005]CarswellOnt550,[2005]OJ525,37CPR(4
th)443,
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2005/2005onsc10268.html(OntSupCt;2005-02-11)
96.Syndicatdesemployéesetemployésdel’UQAM,Sectionlocale1294vUniversitédu
QuébecàMontréal(UQAM)*2005IIJCan30712,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qcdag/2005/2005qcdag10126.html(QueArbitration;
2005-09-01)
97.TelewizjaPolsatS.A.vRadiopolInc.42CPR(4th)202,2005FC1179,2005CarswellNat
2414,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc1179.html,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc1179.shtml(FC;2005-08-29)
98.TeneyckevSawatzky*2005CarswellSask446,2005SKQB266,
http://www.canlii.org/sk/cas/skqb/2005/2005skqb266.html,
http://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/dbtw-
wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll?AC=GET_RECORD&XC=/dbtw-
wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll&BU=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawsociety.sk.ca%2Fnewlook%2FLibra
ry%2Ffulltextnew.htm&TN=fulltext&SN=AUTO17329&SE=508&RN=1&MR=20&RF=fullNew3P
&DF=fullLongNew2P&RL=0&DL=0&NP=3&ID=&MF=WPENGMSG.INI&MQ=&TI=0(Sask.QB;
2005-06-08)
99.TMMinardTruckingLtd.vRichard[2005]CarswellSask149,[2005]SJ151,2005SKQB113,
http://www.canlii.org/sk/cas/skqb/2005/2005skqb113.html,
http://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/dbtw-
wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll?AC=GET_RECORD&XC=/dbtw-
wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll&BU=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawsociety.sk.ca%2Fnewlook%2FLibra
ry%2Ffulltextnew.htm&TN=fulltext&SN=AUTO17744&SE=509&RN=0&MR=20&RF=fullNew3P
&DF=fullLongNew2P&RL=0&DL=0&NP=3&ID=&MF=WPENGMSG.INI&MQ=&TI=0(SasQB;
2005-03-02)
100.TowneCinemaTheatres(1975)Ltd.vSocietyofComposers,ArtistsandMusicPublishers
ofCanada38CPR(4th)391,[2005]CarswellAlta341,[2005]AJ282,2005AQBD186,
2005CarswellAlta569,[2005]AWLD1765,[2005]AWLD1772,[2005]AWLD1759,[2005]
AWLD1860,[2005]AWLD1859,

12
http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abqb/2005/2005abqb186.html,
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/qb/civil/2005/2005abqb0186.pdf(AltaQB;
2005-03-18);additionalreasonsat2005CarswellAlta569,[2005]AWLD1759,[2005]
AWLD1765,[2005]AWLD1772,[2005]AWLD1859,[2005]AWLD1860,2005ABQB315,
http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abqb/2005/2005abqb315.html,
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/qb/civil/2005/2005abqb0315.pdf(AltaQB-
costs;2005-04-24)
101.Trigenexinc.forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansdesignedbyAngeloA.Kolenc
in1977forthepropertylocatedat33BannerRoadinOttawa[ReNon-exclusivelicence
issuedto]File2005-UO/TI-04,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/150-f.pdf(CopBd;
2005-02-09)
102.UniversitédeMontréalvZompa*Unreported(2000-04-07)decisionoftheReview
CommitteeComitéonStudentsDisciplinaryDecisionsoftheUniversityofMontreal;
motionforjudicialreviewgranted[2002]JQ5277,[2003]R.J.Q.509,2002IIJCan41594,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2002/2002qccs16248.html(CSQ;2002-12-03);revd
[2005]JQ1010,2005QCCA250(IIJCan)
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qcca/2005/2005qcca250.html(QueCA;2005-02-16),
SOQUIJAZ-50298006,JE2005-536,[2005]RJQ704;motionforleavetoappealdismissed
[2005]SCCA183(SCC;2005-10-06)
103.UniversityofTorontoPress,Toronto,Ontario,forthereproductionofaworkcreatedby
FrancisRobertHallidayentitled »NationalProgress »[ReNon-exclusivelicencedelivered
to]FileNo.2005UO/TI40;also,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/168-e.pdf
(CopBd;2005-10-04)
104.VaillancourtvLagacé,JE2005-1793,2005IIJCan29333,2005CarswellQue9129,AZ-
50329444,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs59773.html#_ftnref6(Que
SupCt;2005-08-18)

©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©

1395047OntarioInc.(c.o.b.FPTV-FestivalPortugueseTelevision)vNewAtlanticoCaféand
RestauranteInc.[2005]FCJ1663,2005FC1358,2005CarswellNat3172,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc1358.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc1358.shtml(FC;2005-10-04)HughesJ.
[9]ThePlaintiffs,intheirmotionfordefaultjudgmentseekreliefinrespectof
twoclaimstorights(1)copyrightsand(2)broadcastrights.Thereisno
registrationofcopyrightevident.Section34.1(a)oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.
1985,vc-30,providesthatinanactionsuchasthis,unlessthecontraryis
proved,copyrightispresumedtosubsistintheworkorworksatissue.Thatis
thecasehere,copyrightsubsistsinsomething.However,proofasto
ownershipislacking,thereisnoevidenceastoownershipofcopyright
beforethiscourt.Section34.1(2)oftheActprovidesforcertainpresumptions
astoownershipwherenamesappearsinassociationwiththework.No
evidenceastowhatname,ifanything,appearsontheworkasbroadcast
hasbeenplacedintheRecord.

[11]WhatwehavehereisacontractbetweenthePlaintiffandaparty
whoserightsareunproven,purportingtogrant »rights »tothePlaintiffs.There

13
isnoproofastowhat »rights »ifanythisgrantorhad.Thechainoftitleputin
evidencebeforethisCourtdoesnotgobackfarenoughforagrantee(the
Plaintiffs)tohaverights,thegrantormusthavetheminthefirstplaceand
thepowertogivethemtothePlaintiffs.Thereisnoevidenceofthathere.

3464920CanadaIncvStrother(2002),[2002]BCJ1982,[2002]BCCTBEdSE043,2002BCSC
1179,2002CarswellBC2026,26BLR(3d)235,2002DTC7327,[2003]1CTC87,
http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcsc/2002/2002bcsc1179.html,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/02/11/2002BCSC1179.htm(BCSC;2002-09-29);vard
(2005)38BCLR(4th)159,2005BCCA35,(2005),[2005]3CTC168,2005CarswellBC83,2005
DTC5059,1BLR(4th)302,28CCLT(3d)159,[2005]5WWR108,208BCAC39,344WAC39,
http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcca/2005/2005bcca35.html,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/05/00/2005bcca0035.htm(BCCA-Strother;2005-01-
21),assupplementedhttp://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/05/03/2005bcca0384.htm,
2005BCCA384(BCCA-Strother;2005-07-25);2005BCCA385,2005CarswellBC1789,[2005]5
CTC107,8BLR(4th)4,256DLR(4th)319,[2005]BCWLD5949,[2005]BCWLD5950,[2005]
BCWLD5944,44BCLR(4th)275,http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcca/2005/2005bcca385.html,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/CA/05/03/2005BCCA0385.htm(BCCA-Davis;2005-07-25)
(BCCA-Strother;2005-07-25)
Plaintiffcorporationcarriedonbusinessintax-assistedproductionservices
financing(« TAPSF »)forfilmindustry–Corporationretaineddefendantsolicitor
Stoactasinteraliataxshelteradvisor–Writtenretaineragreementswere
executedbycorporationandSforconsecutiveone-yeartermsin1996and
1997–In1998,MinisterforNationalRevenueintroducedamendmentsto
IncomeTaxActtoendTAPSFtaxshelters–CorporationmadeinquiriesofS
astopossibilityofcontinuingtocarryonTAPSFbusiness,andSadvised
corporationthatnoremedieswereavailableandthattaxsheltered
financingwasatanend–Corporationthenceasedtocarryonbusinessof
TAPSFprovision–AfterexpiryofwrittenretaineragreementsbutwhileSand
defendantlawfirmwerestillengagedinperformanceoflegalworkfor
corporation,Sandformeremployeeofcorporationsoughtadvancetax
rulingonpotentialexceptiontoActamendmentswhichwouldpermit
resumptionofformofTAPSF–AtnotimepriortoreceiptofrulingdidS
advisecorporationofhisrelationshipwithformeremployeeorofapplication
foradvancetaxruling–Advancetaxrulingwasfavourableand,byprior
agreement,SobtainedsharesincompanywhichproceededtoexploitAct
exceptionandgeneratesubstantialrevenues–Corporationwasunableto
organizeintimetoexploitActexception–Corporationbroughtactionfor
damages,accountinganddisgorgementofprofitsforbreachofS’sfiduciary
dutyanddutyofconfidentiality–Actionwasdismissedandcorporation
appealed–Appealallowed–Solicitor’sfiduciarydutytoclientisnot
restrictedtoprecisetermsofanycontractualretainer–Dutyincludesinter
aliaongoingobligationtodiscloseanyconflictofinterestandtoobtain
client’sconsentpriortotakinganyactionsinpotentialconflict–Inpresent
case,S’songoingobligationstocorporationincludedtodisclosepersonal
conflict,attempttoreceiveadvancetaxruling,whichwouldadmitof
exceptionstoAct »closure »ofTAPSFshelterprovisions–Obligationswere
particularlyclearhavingregardtocorporation’srequestforadviceastoits
abilitytocontinuecarryingonTAPSFbusiness–DefendantSbreached
fiduciarydutytocorporationquaclientandwasliabletoaccountforand
disgorgeprofitsobtainedasconsequenceofbreach–Companywas
orderedtocomplywithallsuchaccountinganddisgorgement.

14

Barristersandsolicitors—Relationshipwithclient–Dutyofconfidentiality

Plaintiffcorporationcarriedonbusinessintax-assistedproductionservices
financing(« TAPSF »)forfilmindustry–Corporationretaineddefendantsolicitor
Stoactasinteraliataxshelteradvisor–Writtenretaineragreementswere
executedbycorporationandSforconsecutiveone-yeartermsin1996and
1997–In1998,MinisterforNationalRevenueintroducedamendmentsto
IncomeTaxActtoendTAPSFtaxshelters–CorporationmadeinquiriesofS
astopossibilityofcontinuingtocarryonTAPSFbusiness,andSadvised
corporationthatnoremedieswereavailableandthattaxsheltered
financingwasatanend–Corporationthenceasedtocarryonbusinessof
TAPSFprovision–Afterexpiryofwrittenretaineragreements,butwhileSand
defendantlawfirmwerestillengagedinperformanceoflegalworkfor
corporation,Sandformeremployeeofcorporationsoughtadvancetax
rulingonpotentialexceptiontoActamendmentswhichwouldpermit
resumptionofformofTAPSF–AtnotimepriortoreceiptofrulingdidS
advisecorporationofhisrelationshipwithformeremployeeorofapplication
foradvancetaxruling–Advancetaxrulingwasfavourableand,byprior
agreement,SobtainedsharesincompanywhichproceededtoexploitAct
exceptionandgeneratesubstantialrevenues–Corporationwasunableto
organizeintimetoexploitActexception–Corporationbroughtactionfor
damages,accountinganddisgorgementofprofitsforbreachofS’sfiduciary
dutyanddutyofconfidentiality–Actionwasdismissedandcorporation
appealed–Appealallowed–Solicitor’sfiduciarydutytoclientisnot
restrictedtoprecisetermsofanycontractualretainer–Dutyincludesinter
aliaongoingobligationtodiscloseanyconflictofinterestandtoobtain
client’sconsentpriortotakinganyactionsinpotentialconflict–Inpresent
case,S’songoingobligationstocorporationincludedtodisclosepersonal
conflict,attempttoreceiveadvancetaxruling,whichwouldadmitof
exceptionstoAct »closure »ofTAPSFshelterprovisions–Obligationswere
particularlyclearhavingregardtocorporation’srequestforadviceastoits
abilitytocontinuecarryingonTAPSFbusiness–DefendantSbreached
fiduciarydutytocorporationquaclientandwasliabletoaccountforand
disgorgeprofitsobtainedasconsequenceofbreach–Companywas
orderedtocomplywithallsuchaccountinganddisgorgement.

Barristersandsolicitors—Relationshipwithclient–Accountingand
refundingbysolicitor–General

Plaintiffcorporationcarriedonbusinessintax-assistedproductionservices
financing(« TAPSF »)forfilmindustry–Corporationretaineddefendantsolicitor
Stoactas,interalia,taxshelteradvisor–Writtenretaineragreementswere
executedbycorporationandSforconsecutiveone-yeartermsin1996and
1997–In1998,MinisterforNationalRevenueintroducedamendmentsto
IncomeTaxActtoendTAPSFtaxshelters–CorporationmadeinquiriesofS
astopossibilityofcontinuingtocarryonTAPSFbusiness,andSadvised
corporationthatnoremedieswereavailableandthattaxsheltered
financingwasatanend–Corporationthenceasedtocarryonbusinessof
TAPSFprovision–Afterexpiryofwrittenretaineragreements,butwhileSand
defendantlawfirmwerestillengagedinperformanceoflegalworkfor
corporation,Sandformeremployeeofcorporationsoughtadvancetax
rulingonpotentialexceptiontoActamendmentswhichwouldpermit

15
resumptionofformofTAPSF–AtnotimepriortoreceiptofrulingdidS
advisecorporationofhisrelationshipwithformeremployeeorofapplication
foradvancetaxruling–Advancetaxrulingwasfavourableand,byprior
agreement,SobtainedsharesincompanywhichproceededtoexploitAct
exceptionandgeneratesubstantialrevenues–Corporationwasunableto
organizeintimetoexploitActexception–Corporationbroughtactionfor
damages,accountinganddisgorgementofprofitsforbreachofS’sfiduciary
dutyanddutyofconfidentiality–Actionwasdismissedandcorporation
appealed–Appealallowed–Solicitor’sfiduciarydutytoclientisnot
restrictedtoprecisetermsofanycontractualretainer–Dutyincludesinter
aliaongoingobligationtodiscloseanyconflictofinterestandtoobtain
client’sconsentpriortotakinganyactionsinpotentialconflict–Inpresent
case,S’songoingobligationstocorporationincludedtodisclosepersonal
conflict,attempttoreceiveadvancetaxruling,whichwouldadmitof
exceptionstoAct »closure »ofTAPSFshelterprovisions–Obligationswere
particularlyclearhavingregardtocorporation’srequestforadviceastoits
abilitytocontinuecarryingonTAPSFbusiness–DefendantSbreached
fiduciarydutytocorporationquaclientandwasliabletoaccountforand
disgorgeprofitsobtainedasconsequenceofbreach–Companywas
orderedtocomplywithallsuchaccountinganddisgorgement.

Employmentlaw—Elementsofemploymentrelationship–Dutiesofparties-
-Dutiesofemployeetoemployer–Useofconfidentialinformation

Plaintiffcorporationcarriedonbusinessintax-assistedproductionservices
financing(« TAPSF »)forfilmindustry–PlaintiffemployeddefendantDaschief
operatingofficerandlateraschieffinancialofficer–DefendantDheldno
equityincorporation,didnotserveasdirectorandperformedadministrative
tasks–CorporationintendedtohaveDsignnon-competitionagreement,
butDdidnotsignagreement–In1998,MinisterforNationalRevenue
introducedamendmentstoIncomeTaxActtoendTAPSFtaxshelters–
CorporationreceivedadvicefromdefendantsolicitorS,andwasadvised
thatnoremedieswereavailableandthatTAPSFbusinesswasatanend–
CorporationterminatedD’semploymentwithnotice,andDservedout
noticeperiod–Subsequenttotermination,Dconceivedprocesswhereby
Actanti-TAPSFamendmentscouldpossiblybecircumvented–DefendantD
thenapproachedSwithprocessandultimatelybroughtadvancetaxruling
applicationtogetherwithS,whounknowntoDwasactinginconflictof
interesttowardcorporation–AdvancetaxrulingwasfavourableandD
formedvariousbusinesseswhichexploitedruling,therebyearningrevenue–
CorporationwasunabletoorganizeintimetoexploitActexceptionprocess
–Corporationbroughtactionfordamages,accountinganddisgorgement
ofprofitsforbreachofS’sfiduciarydutyanddutyofconfidentiality–Action
wasdismissedandcorporationappealed–AppealdismissedasagainstD–
DutyoffidelityowedtocorporationbyDwascommensuratewithscopeof
D’semployment,notwithD’stitles–DutiesofDtocorporationincludedduty
nottoexploitemergingbusinessopportunityavailabletocorporationforD’s
personalbenefit–« Process »createdbyDwasD’sownintellectualproperty
conceivedthroughD’sowneffortsandwasnotconceivedbyany
exploitationofconfidentialinformationobtainedfromcorporation–No
emergingbusinessopportunitywasavailabletocorporation,interaliaasD
wasinfactterminatedduetoActamendmentsclosingTAPSFshelterstatus-
-LikewiseDwasnotliableforS’sbreachoffiduciaryduty,asDwas

16
subjectivelyunawareofanysuchbreachandwasnotlegalexpertor
otherwisequalifiedtorenderopiniononS’sstatus–Appealwasallowedin
partonothergrounds.

Employmentlaw—Elementsofemploymentrelationship–Dutiesofparties-
-Dutiesofemployeetoemployer–Fiduciaryduties

Plaintiffcorporationcarriedonbusinessintax-assistedproductionservices
financing(« TAPSF »)forfilmindustry–PlaintiffemployeddefendantDaschief
operatingofficerandlateraschieffinancialofficer–DefendantDheldno
equityincorporation,didnotserveasdirectorandperformedadministrative
tasks–CorporationintendedtohaveDsignnon-competitionagreement,
butDdidnotsignagreement–In1998,MinisterforNationalRevenue
introducedamendmentstoIncomeTaxActtoendTAPSFtaxshelters–
CorporationreceivedadvicefromdefendantsolicitorS,andwasadvised
thatnoremedieswereavailableandthatTAPSFbusinesswasatanend–
CorporationterminatedD’semploymentwithnotice,andDservedout
noticeperiod–Subsequenttotermination,Dconceivedprocesswhereby
Actanti-TAPSFamendmentscouldpossiblybecircumvented–DefendantD
thenapproachedSwithprocessandultimatelybroughtadvancetaxruling
applicationtogetherwithS,whounknowntoDwasactinginconflictof
interesttowardcorporation–AdvancetaxrulingwasfavourableandD
formedvariousbusinesseswhichexploitedruling,therebyearningrevenue–
CorporationwasunabletoorganizeintimetoexploitActexceptionprocess
–Corporationbroughtactionfordamages,accountinganddisgorgement
ofprofitsforbreachofS’sfiduciarydutyanddutyofconfidentiality–Action
wasdismissedandcorporationappealed–AppealdismissedasagainstD–
DutyoffidelityowedtocorporationbyDwascommensuratewithscopeof
D’semployment,notwithD’stitles–DutiesofDtocorporationincludedduty
nottoexploitemergingbusinessopportunityavailabletocorporationforD’s
personalbenefit–« Process »createdbyDwasD’sownintellectualproperty
conceivedthroughD’sowneffortsandwasnotconceivedbyany
exploitationofconfidentialinformationobtainedfromcorporation–No
emergingbusinessopportunitywasavailabletocorporation,interaliaasD
wasinfactterminatedduetoActamendmentsclosingTAPSFshelterstatus-
-LikewiseDwasnotliableforS’sbreachoffiduciaryduty,asDwas
subjectivelyunawareofanysuchbreachandwasnotlegalexpertor
otherwisequalifiedtorenderopiniononS’sstatus–Appealwasallowedin
partonothergrounds.

(BCCA-Davis;2005-07-25)
Plaintiffcorporationcarriedonbusinessintax-assistedproductionservices
financing(« TAPSF »)forfilmindustry–Corporationretaineddefendantsolicitor
Stoactasinteraliataxshelteradvisor–Writtenretaineragreementswere
executedbycorporationandSforconsecutiveone-yeartermsin1996and
1997–In1998,MinisterforNationalRevenueintroducedamendmentsto
IncomeTaxActtoendTAPSFtaxshelters–CorporationmadeinquiriesofS
astopossibilityofcontinuingtocarryonTAPSFbusiness,andSadvised
corporationthatnoremedieswereavailableandthattaxsheltered
financingwasatanend–Corporationthenceasedtocarryonbusinessof
TAPSFprovision–Afterexpiryofwrittenretaineragreements,butwhileSand
defendantlawfirmwerestillengagedinperformanceoflegalworkfor
corporation,Sandformeremployeeofcorporationsoughtadvancetax

17
rulingonpotentialexceptiontoActamendmentswhichwouldpermit
resumptionofformofTAPSF–ManagingpartneroflawfirminstructedSto
avoidactinginconflictofinterestinrelationtocorporation–Atnotimeprior
toreceiptofrulingdidSadvisecorporationofhisrelationshipwithformer
employeeorofapplicationforadvancetaxruling–Advancetaxrulingwas
favourableand,byprioragreement,Sobtainedsharesincompanywhich
proceededtoexploitActexceptionandgeneratesubstantialrevenues–
CorporationwasunabletoorganizeintimetoexploitActexception–
Corporationbroughtactionagainst,interalia,lawfirmfordamages,
accountinganddisgorgementofprofitsforbreachofS’sfiduciarydutyand
dutyofconfidentiality–Actionasagainstlawfirmwasdismissedand
corporationappealed–Appealallowedinpart–Lawfirmanditspartners
werenotjointtortfeasorswithrespecttoS’sbreachesoffiduciaryduty,as
firmandpartnershipwerenotsubjectivelyawareof,recklessastoorwilfully
blindtoS’sactionsandasmanagingpartneronbehalfoffirmandpartners
cautionedSagainstbreaches–Likewise,firmandpartnerswerenot
vicariouslyliable,asS’stortiousactionswereoutsideofordinarybusiness
conductoffirmandasfirmreceivednoprofitsfrombreach–Lawfirmand
partnerswererequiredtorefundanyfeespaidbycorporationtofirmafterS
committedfirstbreachoffiduciaryduty,andtodisgorgeanyprofitsearned
bywayoffeesorrelatedfundsfromanypersonororganizationprofiting
fromS’sconduct.

Businessassociations—Powers,rightsandliabilities–Rightsandliabilitiesof
partners–Liabilityofpartners–Liabilitytothirdparties

Plaintiffcorporationcarriedonbusinessintax-assistedproductionservices
financing(« TAPSF »)forfilmindustry–Corporationretaineddefendantsolicitor
Stoactasinteraliataxshelteradvisor–Writtenretaineragreementswere
executedbycorporationandSforconsecutiveone-yeartermsin1996and
1997–In1998,MinisterforNationalRevenueintroducedamendmentsto
IncomeTaxActtoendTAPSFtaxshelters–CorporationmadeinquiriesofS
astopossibilityofcontinuingtocarryonTAPSFbusiness,andSadvised
corporationthatnoremedieswereavailableandthattaxsheltered
financingwasatanend–Corporationthenceasedtocarryonbusinessof
TAPSFprovision–Afterexpiryofwrittenretaineragreements,butwhileSand
defendantlawfirmwerestillengagedinperformanceoflegalworkfor
corporation,Sandformeremployeeofcorporationsoughtadvancetax
rulingonpotentialexceptiontoActamendmentswhichwouldpermit
resumptionofformofTAPSF–ManagingpartneroflawfirminstructedSto
avoidactinginconflictofinterestinrelationtocorporation–Atnotimeprior
toreceiptofrulingdidSadvisecorporationofhisrelationshipwithformer
employeeorofapplicationforadvancetaxruling–Advancetaxrulingwas
favourableand,byprioragreement,Sobtainedsharesincompanywhich
proceededtoexploitActexceptionandgeneratesubstantialrevenues–
CorporationwasunabletoorganizeintimetoexploitActexception–
Corporationbroughtactionagainst,interalia,lawfirmfordamages,
accountinganddisgorgementofprofitsforbreachofS’sfiduciarydutyand
dutyofconfidentiality–Actionasagainstlawfirmwasdismissedand
corporationappealed–Appealallowedinpart–Lawfirmanditspartners
werenotjointtortfeasorswithrespecttoS’sbreachesoffiduciaryduty,as
firmandpartnershipwerenotsubjectivelyawareof,recklessastoorwilfully
blindtoS’sactionsandasmanagingpartneronbehalfoffirmandpartners

18
cautionedSagainstbreaches–Likewise,firmandpartnerswerenot
vicariouslyliable,asS’stortiousactionswereoutsideofordinarybusiness
conductoffirmandasfirmreceivednoprofitsfrombreach–Lawfirmand
partnerswererequiredtorefundanyfeespaidbycorporationtofirmafterS
committedfirstbreachoffiduciaryduty,andtodisgorgeanyprofitsearned
bywayoffeesorrelatedfundsfromanypersonororganizationprofiting
fromS’sconduct.

Barristersandsolicitors—Relationshipwithclient–Accountingand
refundingbysolicitor–General

Plaintiffcorporationcarriedonbusinessintax-assistedproductionservices
financing(« TAPSF »)forfilmindustry–Corporationretaineddefendantsolicitor
Stoactasinteraliataxshelteradvisor–Writtenretaineragreementswere
executedbycorporationandSforconsecutiveone-yeartermsin1996and
1997–In1998,MinisterforNationalRevenueintroducedamendmentsto
IncomeTaxActtoendTAPSFtaxshelters–CorporationmadeinquiriesofS
astopossibilityofcontinuingtocarryonTAPSFbusiness,andSadvised
corporationthatnoremedieswereavailableandthattaxsheltered
financingwasatanend–Corporationthenceasedtocarryonbusinessof
TAPSFprovision–Afterexpiryofwrittenretaineragreements,butwhileSand
defendantlawfirmwerestillengagedinperformanceoflegalworkfor
corporation,Sandformeremployeeofcorporationsoughtadvancetax
rulingonpotentialexceptiontoActamendmentswhichwouldpermit
resumptionofformofTAPSF–ManagingpartneroflawfirminstructedSto
avoidactinginconflictofinterestinrelationtocorporation–Atnotimeprior
toreceiptofrulingdidSadvisecorporationofhisrelationshipwithformer
employeeorofapplicationforadvancetaxruling–Advancetaxrulingwas
favourableand,byprioragreement,Sobtainedsharesincompanywhich
proceededtoexploitActexceptionandgeneratesubstantialrevenues–
CorporationwasunabletoorganizeintimetoexploitActexception–
Corporationbroughtactionagainst,interalia,lawfirmfordamages,
accountinganddisgorgementofprofitsforbreachofS’sfiduciarydutyand
dutyofconfidentiality–Actionasagainstlawfirmwasdismissedand
corporationappealed–Appealallowedinpart–Lawfirmanditspartners
werenotjointtortfeasorswithrespecttoS’sbreachesoffiduciaryduty,as
firmandpartnershipwerenotsubjectivelyawareof,recklessastoorwilfully
blindtoS’sactionsandasmanagingpartneronbehalfoffirmandpartners
cautionedSagainstbreaches–Likewise,firmandpartnerswerenot
vicariouslyliable,asS’stortiousactionswereoutsideofordinarybusiness
conductoffirmandasfirmreceivednoprofitsfrombreach–Lawfirmand
partnerswererequiredtorefundanyfeespaidbycorporationtofirmafterS
committedfirstbreachoffiduciaryduty,andtodisgorgeanyprofitsearned
bywayoffeesorrelatedfundsfromanypersonororganizationprofiting
fromS’sconduct.

Continuationofappeal2005BCCA35,regardingliabilityof »Davis »,thelaw
firmofwhichlawyer’S’wasapartner.Here,theplaintiffsought
« disgorgement »fromDavisofallprofitsreceivedbySfromhisparticipationin
the’SentinelHill’business,aswellasallprofitsreceivedbyDavis(intheform
oflegalfees)fromSentinelHill,andreturnofalllegalfeespaidbythe
plaintifftoDavis.

19
Held:Claimsmustbeanalyzedintermsofdirectandvicariousliability.Claim
for »disgorgement »ofS’sprofitsfromSentinelHilldismissedonbothbranches.
Daviswasnotshowntohaveparticipatedinthebreachofdutywhich
resultedfromS’stakingapersonalinterestinSentinelHill;nortohavebeen
awareof,wilfullyblindto,orrecklesstowardsthisbreach.BarnesvAddy
(1874)L.R.9Ch.App.244andCansonEnterprisesvBoughton&Co.(1995)
11B.C.L.R.(3d)262(BCCA)applied.Davisfoundnottobevicariouslyliable,
sinceS’sactionintakinginterestdidnotoccurinordinarycourseofbusiness,
andDaviscouldnot »disgorge »whatithadnotreceived.

Withrespecttotheplaintiff’sclaimthatDavisdisgorge »profits »ithad
receivedfromSentinelHill,itwasunnecessarytoconsiderthedirectliability
branch,sincevicariousliabilitywasmadeout.Theseprofitswereearnedin
firm’scourseofbusiness,andregardlessoffirm’sstateofknowledge,firmwas
liableforitspartner’sbreachofdutyinpurportingtoactforboththeplaintiff
andSentinelHill.

Daviswasalsoorderedtorepaytotheplaintiffthefeesithadpaidfromand
afterJanuary1,1998,theapproximatedatewhenconflictarose.

DiscussionofclaimsregardingDavis’suseofprecedentssuppliedbythe
plaintiffandotherscreatedforusebytheplaintiff.

AlastairGaleInc.forthereproductionofarchitecturalandstructuralplansdesignedby
J.MorrisWoolfson,architect,forthepropertylocatedat218MaclarenStreetinOttawa[Re
Non-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-01,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/147-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-01-26)
AlastairGaleInc
(Re)
2005UO-TI-01forthereproductionof
architecturalandstructural
plansdesignedbyJ.Morris
Woolfson,architect,forthe
propertylocatedat218
MaclarenStreetinOttawa2005-01-26
2005-03-31Renovation
purposes$25None

AthénaÉditionsInc.vCruzHerrera[2005]CarswellQue5541,AZ-50325978,JE2005-1801,[2005]
JQ9968,REJB2005-93286,2005IIJCan26739,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccq/2005/2005qccq60874.html(QueCt-CivDiv;2005-07-27)
DorteliusJ.
Résumé
Actionenrésiliationdecontratetendommages-intérêts.Accueillieen
partie.

En2003,ladéfenderesseaétélarécipiendaireduprixAthéna,quiconsiste
enlapublicationd’unlivretirédesonmémoiredemaîtrise.La
demanderessedevaitsupporterlescoûtsdutravailéditorial,demiseen
pagesetdemaquettedelacouverturedel’ouvrage.Le20juillet,la
défenderessearemislesdocumentsmanquants.Dèslors,lamisesouspresse
étaitprévuepourlapremièresemained’aoûtetlelancementdulivre
devaitavoirlieule22septembresuivant.Parlasuite,ladéfenderessea
modifiéletexteencorrigeantdesnotesdebasdepageetenajoutantune

20
listed’acronymes.Lademanderesseaeffectuélesmodificationsqu’ilétait
encorepossibled’ajoutercomptetenudel’étapeoùlemanuscritétait
rendu.Ladéfenderesseafinalementapprisletitredulivreenréponseàson
courrielàcesujetle10septembre.Insatisfaitedutitrechoisiparla
demanderesse,ellel’amiseendemeuredesuspendrel’impressiondulivre.
Lelendemain,lademanderesseareçuleslivresdel’imprimeur.Le29
septembre,elleamisladéfenderesseendemeurederésilierlecontrat,lui
réclamantaussidesdommages-intérêtspourlespertessubies.Selonla
défenderesse,ilavaitétéconvenuqu’elleparticiperaitauchoixdutitre.Elle
prétendqueceluiimposéparlademanderesseporteatteinteàson
honneuretàsaréputation.

Décision
Lecontratd’éditionestuncontratinnommé.Aumomentoùla
défenderesseamislademanderesseendemeuredesuspendre
l’impression,ellen’étaitpasenmesurededéterminerquelelivrecontenait
deserreursimportantes.Dèsle30juillet,lademanderesses’étaitacquittée
desonobligationdeluitransmettrelesépreuvesfinales.Elleaeffectuéles
correctionsacceptablesavantlamisesouspresse.Ellen’étaitpasobligée
d’ajouterlesmodificationseffectuéesaprèscettedate.Rienn’indiqueque
lerefusd’ajoutercesmodificationsaiteupoureffetdedénaturerletextedu
mémoire.Lechoixdelademanderessen’étaitniabusifnicontraireaux
normesapplicablesenmatièred’édition.Parailleurs,lecontratn’indique
pasqueladéfenderesses’étaitréservéledroitdechoisirletitredulivreni
quelademanderessepouvaitlefaireunilatéralement.Selonlesexperts,
l’éditeurimposerarementuntitreàl’auteur.Or,lademanderesseachoisile
titredefaçonunilatéraleetn’enaaviséladéfenderessequeparlasuite.En
imposantuntitreàl’auteure,ellen’apasagiconformémentauxusages.
Mêmesiletitren’enlèverienàl’oeuvre,celanesuffitpasàl’exonérerdesa
responsabilitéenversladéfenderesse.Ayantomisd’exécuterunepartiede
sonobligationcontractuelle,elleaengagésaresponsabilitéenverscette
dernière.Étantdonnéqueleliendeconfianceestrompuentrelesparties,il
yalieuderésilierlecontrat.Fautedepreuved’unefautedelapartdela
défenderesse,lademanderessen’apasdroitàl’indemnitépourdommages
morauxqu’elleréclame.Lesdommages-intérêtsdoiventêtrelimitésàceux
quiétaientprévisiblesaumomentdelasignatureducontrat.Enl’espèce,le
butdelapublicationétantlaremised’unprixetnonleprofitdelavente,le
dommageestnul.Toutefois,lesfraisd’entreposageetdepilonnagedoivent
êtresupportésenpartségalesentrelesparties.

91Considérantquelecontratd’éditionliantlespartiesestuncontratintiutu
personaeetquel’exécutionforcéen’estpasapplicable,pouruntelcontrat.

[95]LeTribunaljugenonfondéelaréclamationd’Athénapourdes
dommagesmoraux,card’unepartlecontratnedonnepasouvertureà
l’octroidetelsdommages,d’autrepart,iln’yapasdepreuvequeMadame
CruzHerreraaitcommisunefautecontractuelleouextracontractuelle
pouvantengagersaresponsabilitépourdesdommagesmoraux.

[96]LeTribunaljugebienfondéelaprétentiondeladéfenderessevoulant
quelesdommagesdoiventselimiterauxrevenusd’exploitationdulivre.

21
[97]L’analyseducontratetdelapreuveamèneleTribunalàconclureque
lesdommagesetintérêtsprévisibleslorsdelasignatureducontratconsiste
enlapertederevenupourAthéna,surl’exploitationdulivre.

[98]LeTribunalretientdutémoignagedeMadameLaprisequ’Athénane
s’attendaitpasàfaireunprofitsurles500exemplairesdulivre.Lebutdela
publicationdulivreétaitderemettreunprixetnonpasdetirerunprofit.
Dansuntelcontexte,lesdommagesprévisiblessontnuls.

Bazinet(Lise),Ottawa,Ontario,forthereproductionofarchitecturalplanscreatedbyTrend
SetterDevelopmentLimitedforthepropertylocatedat24MaryDriveinOttawa[ReNon-
exclusivelicencedeliveredto]FileNo.2005UO/TI37;also,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/167-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-09-26)
Bazinet(Re)
2005-UO/TI-37forthereproductionof
architecturalplanscreated
byTrendSetterDevelopment
Limitedfortheproperty
locatedat24MaryDrivein
Ottawa2005-09-26
2005-12-31Construction$25None

BétonprojetéMahInc.vLarivière*2005IIJCan23033,2005CarswellQue6026,REJB2005-
92135,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs58706.html(QueSupCt;2005-06-10);
motionforleavetoappealrefused2005CarswellQue9968(QueCA;2005-08-11)
[2]LeCommissaireLarivièreaalorsdécidéquelestravauxayantfaitl’objet
delaréclamation30-109084sont,ausensdelaLoisurlesrelationsdetravail,
laformationprofessionnelleetlagestiondelamain-d’oeuvredansl’industrie
delaconstruction(L.R.Q.,vR-20),ci-aprèsidentifiéecommelaLoiR-20,des
travauxdeconstructiond’unbâtimentquiysontassujettis.

[3]Lestravauxenquestionconsistaientdanslaconfectiondefauxarbres,
defauxrochersetd’unefausseruineindonésienne;cestravauxontété
exécutésdanslaserreexotiqueauJardinzoologiquedeQuébec

[36]Cescommissaires,danslesdécisionsenquestion,sesonttoujoursréférés
àlanotion«d’usageauquelilledestine»pourdéterminercequ’ondoit
entendrepar«bâtiment».

[37]Iln’yariend’absurdeetd’insenséàdéciderqu’unbâtimentn’estpas
simplementunecoquillevidemaisqu’ildoitcomprendreaussicequiest
érigéàl’intérieur«pourlesfinsdel’usageauquelilestdestiné».

[38]IlimportedesoulignerqueleCommissaireLARIVIÈREécritdanssa
décisionquelestravauxd’érectiondubâtiment,entreautres,l’érectiondes
passerellesetl’aménagementintérieurdelaserre,étaientencourslorsdela
réalisationdestravauxsurlesquelsilaeuàseprononcer.Ceux-ci,en
l’occurrencedestravauxrelatifsauxfauxarbres,auxfauxrochersetàla
fausseruineindonésienneontétéexécutéssurleslieuxduchantierde
constructionafinquelebâtimentpuisseservieàl’usageauquelilétait
destiné,enl’occurrenceuneserreexotique.

22

BoardofGovernorsArchivesatExhibitionPlaceforthereproductionandpublicperformance
ofthefilms:RailyardandGimmeaBreak[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-
26,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/164-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-09-01)
Boardof
Governors
Archivesat
ExhibitionPlace
(Re)
2005-UO/TI-26forthereproductionand
publicperformanceofthe
films:RailyardandGimmea
Break2005-09-01
2005-09-07Commercial/
documentary$1None

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);
revd[2005]CarswellNat1300,[2005]FCJ9858,2005FCA193,39CPR(4
th)97,252DLR(4th)342,
334NR268,http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca/2005/2005fca193.shtml(FCA;2005-05-19)
SextonJ.
Theplaintiffswerethelargestmusicprovidersclaimingtocollectivelyown
morethan80percentofthesoundrecordingssoldtothepublicinCanada.
Theplaintiffsclaimedthat29Internetusersdownloadedmorethan1000
songsbymeansofapeer-to-peerfilesharingprogram,andthattheseusers
infringedtheplaintiffs’copyrightbyprovidingaccesstotheirfilesthereby
reproducingordistributingthesongstootherInternetusers.Theusersused29
distinctIPaddressestocarryouttheirinfringingactivities.Theplaintiffshad
commencedanactionforcopyrightinfringementagainstthe29users,but
beingunawareoftheiridentitiesapartfromtheirInternetpseudonyms,
namedtheusersasdefendantsinaJohnDoeaction.

Theplaintiffshadmoved,underRules233and238oftheFederalCourt
Rules,1998,SOR/98-106,foranorderrequiringtherespondentInternet
ServiceProviderswhoadministeredthe29IPaddressestodisclosethe
identitiesofthedefendants.Themotionwassupportedbyanaffidavitofthe
presidentofthecompanyretainedbytheplaintiffstoinvestigatethefile
sharingoftheplaintiffs’songs.

Themotionsjudgehaddismissedplaintiffs’motion.Themotionsjudgehad
heldthat:(1)Rule233wasnotapplicable;(2)thesupportingaffidavitwas
deficientbecauseitwasbasedoninformationthattheaffiantobtained
fromhiscompany’semployeesandtheaffiantgavenoreasonsforhisbelief;
(3)therewasnoclearevidenceofarelationshipbetweentheIPaddresses
andthepseudonyms;(4)Rule238wasapplicableandthetestfordiscovery
undertherulewasthesameasthatforgrantinganequitablebillof
discovery;(5)thetestforgrantinganequitablebillofdiscoveryincluded
thattheapplicantestablishaprimafaciecaseagainsttheunknownalleged
wrongdoer;and(6)theplaintiffshadfailedtoestablishaprimafaciecaseof
infringementofcopyright.Theplaintiffsappealed.

23
Held,theappealshouldbedismissedwithoutprejudicetotheplaintiffs’right
tocommenceafurtherapplicationfordisclosureoftheidentityofthe29
defendants.

StandardofReview
Thestandardofreviewofthecorrecttestforgrantingequitablebillsof
discoverywascorrectness.Thestandardofreviewofthemotionsjudge’s
findingsoffactwasapalpableandoverridingerror.

Rule233
Rule233providesforthegrantofanorderfortheproductionofany
documentinthepossessionofapersonwhoisnotapartytotheaction.
Sincenodocumentsinreadableformatexistedbutwouldhavehadto
havebeencreated,Rule233hadnoapplication.

AffidavitEvidence
Rule81providesthataffidavitsaretobeconfinedtofactswithinthe
personalknowledgeofthedeponentexceptoninterlocutorymotionsin
whichastatementastothedeponent’sbelief,withthegroundstherefor,
maybeincluded.Theplaintiff’saffidavitcontainedhearsayoncrucialfacts
withnogroundsprovidedforacceptingthehearsayevidence.Forthis
reasonalonetheappealwasdismissed.However,itwasnecessaryto
addressthecommentsofthemotionsjudgeastotheproceduretoobtain
theidentityofthe29defendants,thetesttobeappliedincompellingthe
disclosureoftheidentitiesandcopyrightinfringement.

Rule238
Rule238permitsthegrantingofanordertoexaminefordiscoveryany
personnotapartytotheactionwhomighthaveinformationonanissuein
theaction.Rule238wasbroadenoughtopermitdiscoveryincasessuchas
thatcommencedbytheplaintiffs.Thecourthasjurisdictiontolimitthe
discovertothesubmissionofwrittenquestionsandthefurnishingofwritten
answersandtolimitthescopeofthediscoverytorevealingtheidentityof
thepersonscomplainedof.

Thecriteriaforgrantinganequitablebillofdiscoveryareapplicabletoa
proceedingbroughtunderRule238forthedisclosureoftheidentityofa
personcomplainedof.Theplaintiffmustshowabonafideclaimandnota
primafaciecase.Theplaintiffscouldhaveestablishedabonafideclaimby
showingthattheyintendedtobringanactionforcopyrightinfringement
basedontheinformationsoughtandthattherewasnootherimproper
purposeforseekingtheinformation.Inaddition,theplaintiffmustshowthat
theinformationsoughtcouldnothavebeenobtainedfromanothersource
andconsiderationmustbegiventothecostsincurredbytherespondentin
assemblingtheinformation.Finally,thepublicinterestinfavourofdisclosure
mustoutweighthelegitimateprivacyconcernsofthepersonsoughttobe
identified.Privacyrightsaresignificantandmustbeprotected.Privacyrights
must,however,yieldtopublicconcernsfortheprotectionofintellectual
propertyrightswhereinfringementthreatenstoerodethem.Cautionmust
beexercisedinorderingdisclosureofidentitiestoensurethatprivacyrights
areinvadedinthemostminimalway.Ifadisclosureorderisgranted,
directionsshouldbegivenastothetypeofinformationdisclosedandthe
mannerinwhichitcanbeused.

24

CopyrightInfringement
Themotionsjudgeshouldnothavemadeconclusionsoncopyright
infringementattheverypreliminarystagesoftheaction.Suchconclusions
requiredconsiderationofevidenceaswellastheapplicablelaw.Ifthe
actionproceededfurther,itwouldbeonthebasisthatnofindingsonthe
issueofinfringementhadbeenmade.

BonnettevEntrepriseDominionBlueLineInc.(2003),JE2003-584,SOQUIJAZ-50158890
[2003]
CarswellQue49,[2003]JQ102,REJB2003-36898,2003IIJCan40842,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2003/2003qccs10185.html(QueSupCt;2003-01-22);affd
[2005]CarswellQue945,[2005]JQ2903,SOQUIJAZ-50306441,JE2005-817,2005CarswellQue
945,[2005]JQ2903,REJB2005-88514,2005QCCA342
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qcca/2005/2005qcca342.html,inEnglishtranslation41CPR(4th)
331(QueCA;2005-04-05);motionforleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanada
dismissed[2005]SCCA288,2005CarswellQue10016,2005CarswellQue10017(2005-11-17)
Thecorporateplaintiffprintedandsoldaccountingproductssuchaspayroll
booksandpayrollstatements.Theindividualplaintiffwasashareholderand
presidentofthecorporateplaintiff.Thedefendantswereacreatorofpayroll
booksandstatements,thevendorofsuchbooksandstatements,a
corporatedirectorandshareholderandemployeesofthecreator.The
defendantprintedanddistributedaccountingproducts,includingthe
plaintiffs’products.Thetwobusinessesnegotiatedunsuccessfullyforthe
defendantstobuythecorporateplaintiff’sbusinessandthecopyrightson
theaccountingmaterials,butnegotiationsbrokeoff.Thedefendantsthen
begansellingtheirownlineofpayrollbooksandpayrollstatements.

Theplaintiffssuedforcopyrightinfringementandunfaircompetition,andthe
defendantscountersuedfordefamationandunfaircompetition.Thetrial
judgecharacterizedthepayrollbooksandpayrollstatementsas
compilations,andconcludedthattheplaintiffs’accountingmaterialswere
notprotectedbycopyrightbecausetheywerenotoriginalworksunderthe
CopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,vC-42.Thetrialjudgealsoconcludedthatthere
wasnounfaircompetition.Thetrialjudgedismissedthedefendants’
counterclaim.

Held,theappealshouldbedismissedwithcosts.

Thepayrollbooksandpayrollstatementsaresubjectmatterthatiscovered
undertheCopyrightAct.However,theworkswerenotoriginal.Originality
requiresthattheworknotbecopiedandthattheauthorexerciseskilland
judgment.

Thepayrollbook’scontentwasgenerallyrequiredbylawandtheorderof
thatinformationwasimposedbypracticalconsiderations.Thetableformat
couldnotbecopyrightedbecauseitwasamethodofworking.Although
someportionsweretheresultoftheauthor’sexerciseofskillandjudgment
andsatisfiedthecriterionoforiginality,thosepartswerenotsubstantial,in
eitherqualitativeorquantitativeterms.Thepayrollbooksoverallwerenot
originalworksprotectedbycopyrighted.

Thecontentofthepayrollstatementslikewisecontainedessentiallythe
informationrequiredbylaw.Thelayoutoftheinformationwastheresultof

25
theauthor’sselectionandexperienceandrequiredasufficientdegreeof
judgmentandskill.Theindividualplaintiffwasthecopyrightownerforthe
payrollstatements.Theplaintiffshadcertificatesofcopyrightregistrationfor
thepayrollstatements.Thepresumptionofownershipins.53(2)ofthe
CopyrightActappliedandwasnotrebutted.

Thedefendantsdidnotinfringethecopyrightinthepayrollstatements.Even
ifthedefendantsconsultedtheplaintiffs’statements,thedefendantsdidnot
createcopiesordisguisedimitationsoftheplaintiffs’statements.The
defendantsexercisedskillandjudgmentincreatingtheirownandtherewas
nosimilaritybetweenthemexceptforelementsthatwerenotprotected.

Thetrialjudgecorrectlyruledthattherewasnounfaircompetitionbythe
defendants.Thedefendantsactedingoodfaithinthenegotiationsforthe
purchaseofthecorporateplaintiff’sbusinessandincompetingwiththe
corporateplaintiff.

Theactionwasdismissedwithrespecttothepayrollbooks,fordifferent
reasonsthanthetrialjudge;theplaintiffshadnorighttodamageswith
respecttothepayrollstatements;andthetrialjudge’sconclusionsonunfair
competitionareconfirmed.Theappealwasthereforedismissed.

Résumé

Appeld’unjugementdelaCoursupérieureayantrejetéunedemande
d’injonctionpermanenteetendommages-intérêtspourviolationdedroits
d’auteur.Rejeté.

L’appelante,uneentreprisequiimprimeetvenddesproduitscomptables,et
sonprésidentontintentéuneactioncontrelesintimés,uneentreprise
d’impressionetdedistributiondeproduitsdecomptabilité,sonunique
administrateuretcertainsemployés,soutenantqu’ilsavaientviolélesdroits
d’auteursurleurslivresetrelevésdepayeetqu’ilss’étaientlivrésàune
concurrencedéloyale.Lejugedepremièreinstanceaconcluqueleslivres
etrelevésdepayeétaientdesoeuvreslittérairesmaisque,n’étantpasdes
oeuvresoriginales,ilsnepouvaientfairel’objetdedroitsd’auteur.Ila
déclaréquelaprésentationdeslivresdepayesuivaituneméthodedictée
parleslois,règlementsetpratiquescomptables.Sonanalysen’apasfait
étatdesrelevésdepayeaumotifqu’ilsn’avaientpasétémisenpreuve.Ila
égalementconcluàl’absencedeconcurrencedéloyaledelapartdes
intimés.

Décision
LaCourestimequelesappelantsn’étaientpastitulairesdedroitsd’auteur
surleslivresdepaye,maispourdesmotifsdifférentsdeceuxénoncésparle
jugedepremièreinstance.Premièrement,ilyalieuderejeterlaprétention
voulantqueleslivresetrelevésdepayenesoientpassusceptiblesdefaire
l’objetdedroitsd’auteurparcequ’ilsneconstituentquedesméthodesde
travail.Mêmes’ilsprévoientuneméthodedetravail,certainsaspectsne
peuventêtreconsidéréscommeunélémentd’uneméthodeouune
méthodeensoi.Toutefois,cettequestionestthéoriquepuisqu’uneidéene
peutfairel’objetd’undroitd’auteur;seulesonexpressionlepeut.
Deuxièmement,laqualificationdeslivresetrelevésdepayede

26
compilationsn’estpascertaine.Bienquelesappelantsaientdûprocéderà
l’arrangementdecertainesdonnées,leurinterventionétaitlimitéepuisque
cellesréellementcompiléesneserontajoutéesqu’ultérieurementpar
l’utilisateur.Deplus,leslivresetrelevésdepayenesontconsidéréscomme
desoeuvreslittérairesques’ilsrespectentlesexigencesqu’énoncelaLoisur
ledroitd’auteur.D’unepart,l’oeuvredoitêtreoriginalepourbénéficierdela
protectiondudroitd’auteur,etilappartientàlapersonnequiprétend
détenirundroitdedémontrerqu’elleestoriginale.L’article53(2)delaloi
prévoituneprésomptiondecedroitlorsdelamiseenpreuved’uncertificat
d’enregistrement.Selonl’article34.1(1),ilyaalorsrenversementdufardeau
depreuveet,enl’espèce,c’estladéfenderessequidoitdémontrerqueles
livresetrelevésn’étaientpasprotégésparundroitd’auteur.Auxtermesde
l’arrêtdelaCoursuprêmeduCanadaCCHCanadienneltéevBarreaudu
Haut-Canada,(C.S.Can.,2004-03-04),2004CSC13,SOQUIJAZ-50223890,JE
2004-602,[2004]1R.C.S.339,pourqu’uneoeuvresoitoriginale,elledoitavoir
nécessitél’exercicedutalentetdujugementdesesauteurs.Enl’instance,
leslivresdepayenesontpasoriginaux.L’employeural’obligationlégalede
colligerdansunseulregistrecertainesdonnéessurlesgainsetdéductions
desemployés.Ainsi,laportionprincipaledeslivresestconstituéede
tableauxreflétantcesdonnéesobligatoires.Celles-cin’ontdoncpasété
sélectionnéesgrâceaujugementetautalentdeleurauteur,quin’avait
aucunchoixàfairequantàleurordred’inscriptionpuisqu’iln’existequ’une
seulefaçondeprocéder.Deplus,ladispositiondesinformationssousforme
detableauxconstitueuneméthodedetravailetn’estpasprotégée.Quant
àlaportiondeslivrescontenantdesrenseignementsnominatifssurles
employés,elleestégalementcommandéeparlesexigencesdela
réglementation.L’inscriptionderenseignementsnonrequisanécessitéun
exercicedejugement,maiscetapportaéténégligeable,carilneporte
quesurdesdétails.Or,l’article3(1)prévoitundroitd’auteurquivisela
totalitéouunepartieimportanted’uneoeuvre.Ilenvademêmedela
pagedeslivresdepayeindiquantdiverstotauxetl’étatdesremisesaux
gouvernements,quin’apasnécessitéunexercicesuffisantdutalentetdu
jugementpourconclureàsonoriginalité.

Quantauxrelevésdepaye,lejugedepremièreinstancenelesapas
considérés,ayantconcluqu’ilsn’avaientpasétéproduits.Or,ilaomisde
tenircomptedelaprésomptionprévueàl’article34.1(1).Cesrelevésayant
étéenregistrés,ilsdevenaientprotégésparlesdroitsd’auteur.Lesappelants
n’avaientd’autreobligationquedelesdéposer,carilappartenaitaux
intimésdemettreenpreuvelesélémentspermettantderenverserla
présomption,cequ’ilsn’ontpasfait.Ainsi,cesontlesintimésquidevaient
subirlesconséquencesdel’insuffisancedelapreuveetnonlesappelants.
Deplus,lecontenudesrelevésdepayeétantdéterminéparlaLoisurles
normesdutravailetaucunajoutsignificatifn’ayantétéfait,iln’yaeuaucun
exercicedujugementetdutalent.Parcontre,l’aspectgénéraldesrelevés
permetdeconclureàcetexercice,etlaprésomptionselonlaquelleles
relevéssontoriginauxsubsiste.Quantàl’identificationdutitulairedudroit
d’auteursurlesrelevésdepaye,lepremierjugen’yapasprocédé.Or,la
présomptionétablieàl’article53(2)delaLoisurledroitd’auteur,selon
laquellelapersonneinscriteesttitulairedudroitd’auteur,n’apasété
repoussée.Laprétentionvoulantqu’uneerreurquantàunedatede
publicationrendelecertificatinvalideestmalfondéepuisqu’ilestimpossible
defairedéclareruncertificatinvalidedansl’exerciced’uneprocédurepour

27
violationdevantlaCoursupérieure.Finalement,iln’yaeuaucuneviolation
dudroitd’auteurencequiconcernelesrelevésdepaye.Bienqueles
intimésaientconsultélesrelevésdepayedesappelants,ilsnelesontpas
copiés;ilslesontentièrementrepensés.Laconclusiondupremierjugeselon
laquellelesintimésnes’étaientpaslivrésàuneconcurrencedéloyalene
comporteaucuneerreurjustifiantl’interventiondelaCour.Eneffet,les
renseignementsobtenusparlesintiméslorsdenégociationsportantsur
l’achatdel’entrepriseappelanten’ontpasétéutiliséspourlesconcurrencer.

BreakthroughFilms&TelevisionIncfortheoff-cameranarrationofeightextractsfromthe
bookActionwithSeaforthswrittenbyCharlesMonroeJohnson.[ReNon-exclusivelicence
issuedto]File2004-UO/TI-03,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/156-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-
05-10)
Breaktrough
Films&
TelevisionInc
(Re)
2004-UO/TI-33fortheoff-cameranarration
ofeightextractsfromthe
bookActionwithSeaforths
writtenbyCharlesMonroe
Johnson2005-05-10
2009-12-31Commercial/
documentary$150Access
Copyrig
ht

BritishColumbiaInstituteofTechnology,forthedigitizationoftwosegmentsfromthefilm
entitled »LearningtoBuildWingsOverCanada:BrisbaneAviationCo.Ltd.[ReApplicationby
the]FileNo.2005UO/TI36;2005CarswellNat4078,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/other/6-b.pdf,inFrenchat2005CarswellNat4079(CopyrightBoard;
2005-11-17)
BritishColumbia
Instituteof
Technology(Re
Applicationby
the)
2005-UO/TI-36forthedigitizationoftwo
segmentsfromthefilm
entitled »LearningtoBuild
WingsOverCanada:
BrisbaneAviationCo.Ltd. »2005-11-17
REFUSED

Applicantwishedtoreproduce,indigitallibraryofaviationtrainingprograms
inBritishColumbiabetween1935and1985,excerptsfromsilentblackand
whitefilmentitled »LearningtoBuildWingsOverCanada:BrisbaneAviation
Co.Ltd »–Dateofcreationoffilmwasunknownbutwasbelievedtobe
circa1941–Filmdidnotcontaincreditsandnooneknewwhohadmade
film–Applicantwasunabletoconfirmifworkhadbeenpublished–
Applicantattemptedtolocatecopyrightownerbysearchingrecords,
varioussearchenginesandarchives,andbyrequestinginformationfrom
professionalassociations,fromnewspapersandfromemployeesand
instructorsofapplicant’scampus–ApplicantalsocontactedNationalFilm
BoardofCanada–Applicantappliedtoobtainlicencepursuanttos.77of
CopyrightAct–Applicationdismissed–Section77(1)allowsCopyright
Boardtoissuelicencetouseworkwhoserightsholdercouldnotbelocated
atcertainconditions–Oneconditionisthatworkbepublishedandanother
thatcopyrightsubsist–Filmwasanonymouswork–Section6.1ofAct
providesthatcopyrightinanonymousworksubsistsuntilearlieroffiftyyears
followingendofyearduringwhichworkwasfirstpublishedorseventy-five
yearsfollowingendofyearduringwhichworkwasmade–Iffilmwasnot
published,boardcouldnotissuelicenceeventhoughcopyrightinfilm

28
wouldsubsistuntilDecember31,2016–Iffilmwaspublished,copyrightin
filmnolongersubsisted–Boardcouldnotissuelicencerequestedbecause
itdidnothavepowertodoso

British-Columbia(MinistryofEnvironment),Re,2005CanLII28522,
http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcipc/2005/2005bcipc10032.html,
http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/OrderF05-05.pdf(BCInformationandPrivacyCommissioner;
2005-08-11)
LoukidelisIPC-BC
Summary:Theapplicantenvironmentalorganizationrequestedaccessto
informationinelectronicformatandtheMinistryprovidedpaperrecords
instead.Afterthenoticeofinquirywasissued,butbeforeinquirysubmissions,
theMinistryreleasedtherecordsintherequestedelectronicformat.The
matterismootandnootherfactorswarrantholdinganinquiryinthiscase.

[32]Asanotherpassingobservation,Iwouldhopethat—whateverthelimits
oftheirstatutoryobligationsmightbeunders.6[ofthe
Freedomof
InformationandProtectionofPrivacyAct,]
—publicbodieswillwherever
possibleprovideaccessapplicantssuchasRaincoastwithelectronic
recordswhererequested,astheMinistryultimatelydidhere.TheAct’s
explicitaccountabilitygoalsarewellservedbysuchaservice-oriented
approachtoaccesstoinformationrequests.[Fn12:NordoIsee,inthis
regard,countervailingconcernsarisingfromelectronicdisclosure.Concerns
aboutcopyright,certainly,areaddressedbytheCopyrightActwhetherthe
mediumoftherecordispaperorelectronic––anycopyrightinadisclosed
recordsurvivesdisclosureunderaccesstoinformation.Foronething,s.
32.1(1)oftheCopyrightAct(Canada)providesthat“itisnotan
infringementofcopyrightforanyperson”todisclosearecordundera
provincialaccesstoinformationstatute.Section32.1(2)confirmsthat
anyonetowhomarecordisdisclosedcannotdoanythingthatonlythe
copyrightownercando.]

CanadaAlliedDieselCompanyLtd.vRTITurboinc.[2005]JQ15919,2005IIJCan39802,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs61510.html(QueSupCt;2005-10-25)Langlois
J.
[40]Envertudecesdispositions[2,3and13oftheCopyrightAct],CADest
titulairedudroitd’auteursurlesphotographies.Cedroitcomporteledroit
exclusifdelesproduire,reproduireetcommuniquerpartélécommunication
oud’autoriseruntiersàlefaire.

[41]Lapublicationdesphotographiessurlesite[Internet]constitueunacte
decettenatureposésansl’assentimentdeCAD.

[42]Deplus,laLoiédictedefaçonplusspécifiquequelamiseencirculation
d’unexemplaired’uneœuvredansunbutcommercialconstitueune
violationdudroitd’auteur.

[48]LacontraventionàlaLoi,tellequeletribunalenconclutenl’espèce,
résultedelamiseencirculationd’œuvresappartenantàCADenl’absence
d’autorisationetdelaconnaissanceoudel’aveuglementvolontairede
ToyinetWallacequantàcetétatdefait.Celadépasselasimplefautecivile

29
etconstitueunecontraventionàlaloiquidonnedroitàCADàdes
dommagesexemplaires,l’objectifviséparl’attributiondetelsdommages
étantprincipalementdedécourageruneconduitereprochableenvertude
laloietdeprévenirtouterécidive.

CanadianCentreforArchitectureforthereproductionofphotographs[ReApplicationby
The]2004-UO/TI-32,2005CarswellNat484,[2005]CBD6,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/other/3-b.pdf,inFrenchat2005CarswellNat485(CopBd;2005-01-17)
Canadian
Centrefor
Architecture
(Re)
2004-UO/TI-32forthereproductionof
photographs2005-01-17
REFUSED

[2]Theapplicantwishestoreproduceanddisplay,inthecontextofan
exhibitionentitledLesannées60:Montréalvoitgrand,threephotographs
takenin1955,1957and1967andwhichareatthePublicArchivesof
Canada.Subsection77(1)oftheActprovidesthattheBoardcanlicence
theuseofworksprotectedbycopyrightwhoserightsholdercannotbe
locatedonlyiftheworkhasbeenpublished.TheBoardsometimesrelieson
indiciathatwouldnotmeetthecivilburdenofprooftoconcludethata
workprobablyhasbeenpublished.Inthisinstance,however,thereisa
completeabsenceofevidence:neithertheNationalArchivesofCanada
northeapplicantareabletoprovideanyhintwhatsoeverofpublication.

CanadianCopyrightLicensingAgency(« AccessCopyright »)vU-Compute[2005]FCJ2030,
2005FC1644,2005CarswellNat4154,http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc1644.shtml
(FC;2005-12-07)
[1]TheCanadianCopyrightLicencingAgency(« AccessCopyright »orthe
« plaintiff »)seeksasix-monthimprisonmentofRiazA.Lari(the »defendant »)in
contemptproceedingsbroughtinthisCourtpursuanttoRules466to472of
theFederalCourtsRules,1998,(the »Rules »).

[2]Thenuboftheplaintiff’sallegationsagainstthedefendantisthatMr.Lariis
guiltyofcontemptbecausehehasdisobeyedseveralordersofthisCourt
contrarytoparagraph466(b)oftheRules.

[85]Applyingtherelevantfactorstothecraftingofanappropriatepenalty,I
findthatallfactorsweighheavilyagainstMr.LariandIsaythisinthecontext
ofmyfindingofhislackofcredibility.Thecontemptoffencewasaserious
one.IaccepttheevidencegivenonbehalfofAccessCopyrightthatMr.
Lariwas,inSeptemberof2004,atatimewhendemandwasatoneofits
twohighestpeaksduringtheuniversityyear,intimatelyinvolvedinanillegal
highvolumeoperationofmakingandsellingillegallycopiedtextbooks.The
purposebehindAccessCopyrightisnotsimplyaprivatepurposebuta
publicone.(SeeCanada(CanadianPrivateCopyingCollective)v
CanadianStorageMediaAlliance,adecisionoftheFederalCourtof
Appealcited2004FCA424.

30
[86]Generaldeterrenceisanimportantfactor.Mr.Laritoldusheknewof
similarillegalphotocopyshopsnotonlyaroundConcordiaUniversitybut
aroundl’UniversitédeMontréal.

[87]TheCourthasnorealevidenceastotheprofitsmadefromtheillegal
operation.Mr.Larididnotrecordhissalesofcopiedtextbooksnordidhe
bringfinancialstatementsabouthisoperation.Intestimonybeforeme,he
intimatedhemadeprofitsbutthoseprofitsdisappearedbecausehehadto
payhisownlegalfees,thoseofAccessCopyrightinpreviousproceedings
andcertaininitialinstallmentsondamageswhichheagreedtopayin
respectoftheconsentjudgmentissuedbyMr.JusticeHarrington.

[88]Mr.Lari’spastconductspeaksforitself:twopreviouscontemptfindings
bythisCourtagainsthimandthegearingupoftheillegaloperation
immediatelyafterhehadconsentedtojudgmentinJulyof2004.

[89]IdoubtthesincerityofhisapologyandIhavenoevidenceof
substantialgoodfaith.

[90]Weighingalloftherelevantfactorspointstoasubstantialpenalty,
namely,incarcerationwhichiswhatAccessCopyrightseeksandwhat
AccessCopyrighttoldMr.Lariitwouldbeseekingshouldhefurtherbreach
thisCourt’sorders.

[91]Ifindattractive,withonemodification,thealternativesuggestionwhich
counselforAccessCopyrightputforwardandwhichcounselforMr.Lari
endorsed:theimpositionofaprisonsentencebutitsimmediatesuspension
subjecttoMr.Larimeetingspecificconditionswhich,ifanywerebreached,
onmotiontotheCourt,couldleadtohisimmediateincarceration.

[92]Onbalance,intheOrderIammakinghereunder,thefinancial
conditionsimposed,theconditionofcommunityservice,thenumberof
hourswhichIhaveincreasedfromtheamountsuggestedbycounsel,and
hisobligationtorespectthepermanentinjunctionsinplace,provideMr.Lari
anopportunitytomakereparationandtocontributetosociety.

Order[…]Asanappropriatepenalty,thisCourtorders:
(1)RIAZA.LARIisherebysentencedtoasix-monthtermofimprisonmentat
MontéeSt-FrançoisInstitution,600MontéeSt-François,Laval,Quebec,H7C
1S5;

(2)RIAZA.LARIisherebyorderedtopaythecostsofthesecontempt
proceedingstotheplaintiffonareasonablesolicitor-clientscaletobetaxed
forthwithbyataxingofficerinclusiveofdisbursementsandGST;suchcosts
shallbepaidbyMr.Larithirty(30)daysaftertaxation.

(3)Theimpositionoftheprisonsentenceinparagraph(1)ishereby
suspendedonthefollowingterms:

(a)RIAZA.LARIshallatalltimescomplywiththetermsofthepermanent
injunctionscontainedinparagraphs(1)and(2)ofJusticeHarrington’sJuly
19,2004judgment;

31
(b)RIAZA.LARIshall,withinthirteen(13)monthsofthedateofthisOrder
performfourhundred(400)hoursofcommunityserviceatahosteloperated
bytheSalvationArmyinMontrealoritssuburbsbyperformingsuchvolunteer
workasmaybedirectedbytheDirectorofsuchhostel(Director).The
DirectorshallinformtheCourtandcounselfortheplaintiffinwritingwhen
sucharrangementhasbeenputintoplace.Theperformanceofthe
communityserviceshallbeverifiedbytheDirectorforwardingacertificate
ofperformancewiththeCourtandwithcounselfortheplaintiffnolaterthan
January31,2007.

(4)IntheeventtheplaintiffwishestoprovethatMr.Larihasnotcomplied
withoneormoreofthetermssetoutinthisOrder,theplaintiffshallbeat
libertytoseekawarrantofcommittalfromanyFederalCourtjudge,onan
expartebasisorotherwise,asdirectedbysuchJudge,andRIAZA.LARI
shall,upontheCourtfindingabreachofoneormoreofsuchtermsbe
committedtojailforsixmonths.

CanadianPrivateCopyingCollective(CPCC)vComputerWarehouseOutletInc.2005FC
770,2005CarswellNat1507,41CPR(4th)481,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc770.html,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc770.shtml(FC;2005-05-31)MartineauJ
ApplicationbytheCanadianPrivateCopyingCollectiveforanorderto
requiretherespondentComputerWarehouseOutlettopayleviesowed
undertheprivatecopyingtariffscertifiedundertheCopyrightAct.TheAct
createdaprivatecopyingschemetoensurethatcopyrightholderswere
paidforprivatecopiesthatweremadeofmusicalworks,performancesand
soundrecordingstheycreated.TheCollectivewasthebodythatcollected
anddistributedprivatecopyingleviespayablebythemanufacturersand
importersofblankaudiorecordingmediatoeligibleauthors,performersand
makersofsoundrecordings.Outletwasallegedtohaveimportedandsold
blankaudiorecordingmediawithoutreportingitsactivitiestotheCollective.
ItwasinformedbytheCollectiveofitsobligationtofilereportsofitssales
andpayleviestoitbasedonthosereports.ThereportsindicatedthatOutlet
owed$79,884inlevies.Anauditindicatedthatthetotalamountowedwas
$87,769,whichincludedinterestontheunpaidamount.

HELD:Applicationallowed.Outletwasorderedtopayunpaidleviesof
$83,664andoutstandinginterestof$4,105.Itwasalsorequiredtocomply
withthereportingandpaymentrequirementsoftheActaslongasit
remainedamanufacturerorimporter.Outletwasanimporterandsellerof
blankaudiorecordingmediainCanada.Itwasrequiredfilereportsandto
paylevies.Itfailedtodoso.ThelevywasbasedonthefactthatOutlet
importedanddisposedof398,400recordableCDsduringtherelevant
period.Theapplicabletariffindicatedthatthelevyratewas21centsfor
eachrecordableCDimportedandsoldordisposedofinCanada.Outlet
alsohadtopayinterestpursuanttothetariff.Collectivewasentitledtoa
courtordertocompelOutlettocomplywithitsstatutoryobligations.It
furtherhadtopaycostsatthehighendofthetariffbecauseOutletwas
clearlyliabletomakethesepayments.Furthermore,Outletunnecessarily
lengthenedthedurationoftheproceedingsandforcedCollectiveto
expendconsiderableeffortsanddisbursementstorecoverthesmallamount
ofleviesandinterestthatwereoutstanding.

32

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);42CPR(4th)426,
2005CarswellNat2721,2005FC1228,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc1228.html
andhttp://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc1228.shtml(FC;2005-09-07)HugessenJ.
Inanactionatalatestagefortherecoveryofprivatecopyinglevies
imposedundertheprovisionsoftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,vC-42,the
plaintiffbroughtamotioncontemporaneouswiththebankruptcyof
defendantAtoaddtheprincipaldirectorsandofficersandtheformer
directorofsalesofAasnecessarypartiespursuanttoRule104oftheFederal
CourtsRules,1998,SOR/98-106.Theproposedamendmentstothestatement
ofclaimallegedthattheprincipaldirectorsandofficersactively
participatedinandapprovedanillegalschemedevisedbytheformer
directorofsalesbywhichtheimportationofcomputerdiscswastobe
effectedthroughdefendantCtoavoidthepaymentofthelevy.

Asapreliminarymatter,theformerdirectorofsaleswasnotservedwiththe
motion.Intheresult,themotionasagainsthimwasdismissedwithleaveto
theplaintifftoserveandreapply.

Held,themotionshouldbedismissed.

Amendmentsshouldbeallowedunlesstheywouldresultinaprejudiceto
theopposingpartythatcannotbecompensatedbyanawardofcosts.
However,amendmentstoaddpartiesshouldnotbeallowedifitappears
thattheclaimagainsttheproposednewpartyisspurious.

Themotionfailedonbothcounts.Theplaintiffrelieduponaffidavitevidence
producedatanearlierstageintheproceedinginsupportofitsmotion,and
thereforedidnotexposethedeponentsoftheaffidavitstocross-
examination.Ofmoreconsequencewasthefactthattheevidencedidnot
showactualknowledgeandparticipationbytheprincipaldirectorsand
officersintheillegalscheme.Inaddition,becausemuchoftheevidencein
thefilewentinatatimewhentheproposednewdefendantswerenot
parties,itwouldhavebeendifficultattrialtoseparateoutwhatwouldand
whatwouldnothavebeenadmissibleasevidenceagainstthem.
Furthermore,thecaseagainstthedirectorsandofficersinvolveddifferent
issuesoflawandfactfromthecaseagainsttheircompany.

Intheresult,itwasnotappropriateatalatestagetojointheprincipal
directorsandofficersasparties,buttheplaintiffwasatlibertytobringa
separateactionagainsttheproposeddefendants.

CanadianPrivateCopyingCollectivevFuzionTechnologyCorp.,2005FC1557,[2005]FCJ
1915,2005CarswellNat3804,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc1557.htmland
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc1557.shtml(FC;2005-11-17)HughesJ.
[5]isappropriatetoconsiderthatpartofthismotionrequestingconversion
ofthisproceedingfromanapplicationtoanaction,first.Priortothecoming

33
intoforceofsection34(4)oftheCopyrightActsupraasofOctober1,1999,
proceedingstodowithinfringementofcopyrightandrecoveryoftariff
monieshadtobeconductedbywayofanaction,whetherintheFederal
CourtoranotherCourtsuchasasuperiorcourtofaprovince.Section34(4)
gives,now,anoptiontoapersonwishingtocommencesuchproceedings,
inwhatevercourtisappropriate,bywayofactionorapplication.An
applicationallowsthepartyinstitutingtheproceedingtoputinitsevidence
atthebeginningbywayofaffidavitandrequirestheRespondenttodo
likewise.Neitherpartycanexaminetheotherfordiscovery.Intheoryatleast,
atrialcanbearrivedatmorequicklyanddirectlythaninanaction.

[6]Thedownsideofanapplicationisthatthepartyinstitutingthe
proceedingmustbereadywithitsevidenceattheoutset.Itcannotdepend
upongettingfurtherevidencefromtheotherpartybywayofdiscovery.The
otherpartymayadducenoevidenceasverylittleevidenceifitchooses.
Theinitiatingpartyessentiallymustdependonitsevidencealonewhenit
comestotrial.

[22]TheremaybeasuggestionthatthereisaninherentpowerintheCourt
tocontrolitsownprocess,thustoconvertanapplicationtoanaction
where,asRule3says,itmaybe »just,mostexpeditiousandleastexpensive ».
Ifthereis,thereisnomeritinsayingthatanactionismoreexpeditiousorless
expensivethananapplication.Isit »just »?HeretheApplicanthadachoice,
applicationoraction,itchoseapplication.Nostatuteorrulecompelledthat
choice,thereisnosuggestionthattheApplicantwascoercedordeceived
intomakingthatchoice.Itseemsnowthattheapplicantregretsthatchoice
becauseitmaynothaveputinitscaseasfullyasitmightornowseesmore
opportunitytogainfurtherevidenceinanaction.Theonlyevidencebefore
thisCourtthatmightbecompellinginthatregardisparagraph4ofthe
Geldbloomaffidavitwhichsays »CPCCwishestoconvertthepresent
applicationintoanactioninordertoadducenewevidence… ».Thisisnot
sufficientlycompellingtojustifyaconversionoftheApplicant’sownchoice
inproceedingbywasofapplication,toanaction.

[13]Insummary,section18.4(2)oftheFederalCourtActisnotapplicableto
proceedingscommencedundersection34(4)oftheCopyrightAct;Rule107
oftheFederalCourtsRulesisnotapplicable.Eveniftherewereinherent
jurisdiction,whichisbynomeanscertain,nocompellingreasonfor
conversionwherethechoicewasmadeinitiallybythepartynowseeking
conversion,hasbeenshown.Thatpartofthemotionisdismissed.

CanadianPrivateCopyingCollectivevFirstChoiceRecordingMediaInc.38CPR(4th)65,
[2005]2FCR654,[2005]CarswellNat366,[2005]FCJ241,2005FC187,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc187.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc187.shtml,http://reports.fja.gc.ca/fc/2005/pub/v2/2005fc35956.html,
inFrenchat2005CarswellNat1460(FC;2005-02-07)HargraveASP
Theplaintiffcollectivehadcommencedanactionagainstonecorporate
defendant(« FirstChoice »)forthecollectionofleviesduepursuanttos.82of
theCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,vC-42,onblankcompactdiscsithad
imported.Theplaintiffbroughtamotiontoaddasdefendantstwoother
corporations(« M3″and »AM/FMMarketing »)andtheindividual(« Cheung »)
whowasthepresident,directorandshareholderofFirstChoiceandM3.The

34
plaintiffallegedinitsproposedamendedstatementofclaim,amongother
things,that:CheunghaddeliberatelycertifiedreportsofFirstChoice’s
activitiesthatwereinaccurate;hefailedtodisclosedocumentsforauditas
requiredpursuanttotheapplicabletariff;and,thatCheung,bywilfuland
deliberateconductintheoperationofFirstChoiceandM3,togetherwith
AM/FM,hadcontrivedaschemefortheexpresspurposeofavoiding
paymentoftheimportlevyandfrustratingtheabilityoftheplaintiffto
collectthatlevy.Theplaintiffandtherespondingpartiesthatappearedon
themotionfiledaffidavitevidencewhichincludedevidenceonthemerits.

Held,theplaintiff’smotionshouldbegranted.

Aproposeddefendantshouldnotbeaddedasapartyunlessitisnecessary
thattheybeboundbytheoutcomeandthattheyareessential,asparties,
toeffectuallyandcompletelyresolvetheaction.Onamotiontoadda
partythecourtshouldnotdecideontheadequacyorthecredibilityofthe
evidencewhicheventuallymightbebeforethetrialjudge.Aslongasthe
additionoftheproposeddefendantdoesnotappearcompletelyspurious,
theyshouldbeadded.Theevidencefiledonthemotionwasexamined,not
inanefforttotrythecase,buttotestthesincerityandgenuinenessofthe
proposedamendments.

Inthecircumstancesofthiscase,theconceptofthecorporateveilandits
piercingshouldbeconsideredinordertotesttheproposedamendmentsfor
spuriousness.

Theproposedamendmentswerecorroboratedbytheaffidavitevidence.
Theadditionoftheproposeddefendantwasnotcompletelyspurious,was
completelyarguableandwasnotdoomedtofailure.

CBRAStatementofRoyalties,MediaMonitoring,2000-2005(Re)aulieudeMediaMonitoring
2000-2005,Re[2005]CarswellNat744,39CPR(4th)152,[2005]CBD4,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/mm29032005-b.pdf,inFrenchat[2005]CarswellNat745,[2005]CBD4,
(CopBd;2005-03-29)
In1999theCopyrightBoardpublishedthecollectivesociety’sstatementof
proposedroyaltiespursuanttos.70.13oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,vC-
42.Thestatementrelatedtotheuseofprivatebroadcasters’programsand
signalsbycommercialmediamonitors.In2000theboardpublishedthe
society’sstatementofproposedroyaltiestargetingtheuseofthesame
repertoirebynon-commercialmediamonitors.Theformerstatementas
supplementedcovered2000to2005andthelatterstatementas
supplementedcovered2001to2005.

Numerousmediamonitors,associations,governmentsandotherseither
opposedthestatementsofproposedroyaltiesorweregrantedleaveto
intervene.

Broadcastersholdcertaincopyrightintheirprogramsunders.3ofthe
CopyrightActandintheircommunicationsignalsunders.21oftheAct.The
collectivesocietywastheexclusiveagentofthevastmajorityofprivate
broadcastersinthemediamonitoringmarket.Commercialmediamonitors
systematicallymonitoredsourcesofinformationandprovidedclientswith

35
informationfromthesesourcesthatmightinterestthem.Theinformation
providedbycommercialmediamonitorstotheirclientsincludedproviding
excerptsfromradioandtelevisionprograms.Inordertoprovidethis
informationthemonitorsreproducedprogramsandfixedcommunication
signals,activitiesforwhichtheyrequiredcopyrightlicences.

Overtimethecollectivesocietysignedlicenceagreementswithnumerous
commercialandnon-commercialmonitors.Theagreementswiththe
commercialmonitorsrepresented95percentofthemarketinCanada.Asa
result,onlythecollectivesocietyparticipatedinthehearingbeforethe
board.Theproposedstatementsofroyaltiesaspublishedwerebasedon
certainassumptionsastohowmediamonitorsoperated.Manyofthose
assumptionsprovedtobeincorrect.Thetermsofthelicencesgrantedby
themediamonitorsdifferedsignificantlyfromthepublishedstatementsand
fromthestatementsthatthecollectivesocietyrequestedatthehearingbe
certified.

Held,atariffshouldbecertifiedinaccordancewiththetermsand
conditionsfixedbytheboard.

CommercialMediaMonitoringTariff
Thecollectivesocietywasgovernedbyss.70.1to70.6oftheCopyrightAct.
Thesesectionsgavethesocietytheoptionofnegotiatingindividuallicences
orseekingcertificationofatariffapplicabletoallusersotherthanthosewho
hadsignedlicenceagreements.

Theultrapetitaprincipleappliestoprohibitadecisionmakerfromgranting
morethanwhatwasaskedunlesstheclaimisamended.Theprinciple
appliestoproceedingsinwhichthepartiescontroltheissues,process,
evidence,argumentsandpotentialoutcomes.Astheboardhasthepower
tocertifytariffs,someofthemeasureofcontrolovertheproceedingsthat
wouldotherwisehavebeenexercisedbyrightsholdersandusershadbeen
transferredtotheboard.Toapplyultrapetitaandprohibittheboardfrom
certifyingthestatementofroyaltiesrequestedatthehearingwouldhave
defeatedthattransferofcontrol.Theboardwasthereforenotprohibited
fromcertifyingthestatementofroyaltiesproposedatthehearing.

Commentsofcertainoftheobjectorsandintervenersthattheproposed
tariffratewastoohighwasnotsupportedbytheevidenceorargument.The
recordshowedthatmediamonitorsrepresentingthelion’sshareofthe
markethadbeenabletopaythatrate.Theproposedtariffratewas
thereforefairinthecircumstances.
Certifiedtariffsshouldavoidimposingrestrictionsonusersauthorizedbythe
CopyrightAct.Thetariffascertifiedthereforeavoidedimposingrestrictions
upontheuseofnoteswhichwereprobablyindependentworkscreatedby
themediamonitors.
Atariffwasthereforecertifiedwhichreflectedthetermsofthelicences
grantedbythecollectivesocietyinallbutafewrespects.

Non-CommercialMediaMonitoringTariff
Someinstitutionsoutsourcedtheirmediamonitoringwhileothersdidnot.The
non-commercialtarifftargetedfederalandprovincialgovernment

36
departments,agencies,Crowncorporations,Parliamentandlegislative
assemblies,andfederalandprovincialpoliticalpartiesandorganizations.

Anon-commercialtariffwascertifiedmirroringthecommercialtariffas
muchascloselypossible.Themaindifferencesconcernedtheratebase,the
purposeofthemonitoringandtheadaptionoftermsandconditionstothe
particularcircumstancesofnon-commercialmonitors.

ChayervCorporationSunMedia2005IIJCan33882,SOQUIJAZ-50334052,JE2005-1828,[2005]
JQ17554,2005CarswellQue9351,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccq/2005/2005qccq64172.html(QueCt-CivDivSmallClaims;
2005-08-30)
Résumé
Requêteendommages-intérêtspourviolationdudroitd’auteur.Accueillie
enpartie(2200$).

Unephotographieappartenantaurequérantaétéutiliséesansautorisation
préalabledansdeuxjournauxdel’intimée.Lerequérantréclame5225$à
titrededommages-intérêts,soutenantquelaphotoétaitprotégéeparun
droitd’auteur.L’intiméeopposel’«utilisationéquitable»d’uneoeuvre
protégéeausensdel’article29delaLoisurledroitd’auteuretallègueque
laréclamationestexagérée.

Décision
Laphotoutiliséeparl’intiméeestprotégéeparundroitd’auteur.L’article29
delaloiprévoituneexceptionàl’interdictiond’utiliseruneoeuvreprotégée,
soitàdesfinsd’étude,derechercheoudecompterendu,oumêmepour
rendreunenouvellepubliquelorsquel’«utilisationestéquitable».Toutefois,
bienquel’événementrapportéparl’intiméeconstitueunenouvelled’intérêt
public,ilenvaautrementdelaphotoquil’accompagne.Lesarticles
invitentleslecteursàserendreuncertainjouretàuneheureprécisedans
unbarafindesevoiroffrirdesconsommationsparunevedettedepassage.
Cesarticlesconstituentdespublireportagesetnondesreportages.Leguide
dedéontologiedelaFédérationprofessionnelledesjournalistesduQuébec
prévoiteneffetquel’informationdoitêtreséparéedelapublicitéetqueles
publireportagesnesontpassignés.Enl’instance,lesarticlessontsignéspar
deuxjournalistesdifférents.L’exceptionàlaloirevendiquéeparl’intimée
n’estpasfondée,carl’utilisationàdesfinscommercialesd’unephotoquine
luiappartientpasneconstituepasune«utilisationéquitable»ausensdela
loi.Deplus,sadéfensevoulantque,lenomduphotographeétantinscrit,
elleaitremplisesobligationsestrejetée.Lesarticles29.1et29.2delaloi
exigentquelasourcedel’oeuvresoitrévélée—exigenceréitéréeparle
guidededéontologie—,cequin’apasétéfaitenl’instance.Quantau
quantum,lefaitquelerequérantsoitrédacteurd’unerevuediffuséedans
unautredistrictetvéhiculedesvaleursopposéesàcellespréconiséesdans
lepublireportagen’estpasretenu,cetélémentétanthypothétiqueetnon
appuyéparlapreuve.Lesindemnitéssuivantessontaccordées:600$àtitre
d’honorairespourlacréationetlapublicationdelaphoto,1000$pourune
utilisationnonautoriséeet600$pourlesdébours.

37
Coleman(ProfessorDaniel)forthereproductionofapostercreatedbyFrancisRobert
Hallidayentitled »NationalProgress »[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-21,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/162-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-08-04)
Coleman(Re)
2005-UO/TI-21forthereproductionofa
postercreatedbyFrancis
RobertHallidayentitled
« NationalProgress »Inno
morethan1000copies2005-09-04
2006-12-31Commercial$84CARCC

ColumbiaPicturesIndustriesInc.vGaudreault2005CarswellNat654,2005FC338,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc338.html,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc338.shtml;inFrenchat2005CarswellNat1826,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2005/2005cf338.shtml,http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2005/2005cf338.html;
(FC;2005-03-09)HugessenJ.
[2]Theysaythatthedefendanthassoldanddistributed »blackboxes »or
decoderswhichareusedforthepurposeofdecodingencryptedtelevision
signalsinbreachoftheircopyright.

[3]TheysuethedefendantforbreachesoftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.,1985,v
C-42,andtheRadiocommunicationAct,R.S.C.,1985,vR-2andtheynow
moveforsummaryjudgmentonthataction.

[4]Apartfromaffidavitevidenceofawhollygeneralnatureofthealleged
illegalactivitiesbythedefendantwhich,inmyview,isnotsufficiently
specifictoallowmetogivejudgmentinfavouroftheplaintiffsonamotion
suchasthis,theplaintiffsrely,assubsection18(3)ofthe
RadiocommunicationActallowsthemtodo,onapleaofguiltyenteredby
thedefendanttotwochargesundersections9and10ofthatAct.[…

[5]Thedefendant’saffidavitevidenceallegesandassertsthathisguiltyplea
wasenteredsolelyforthepurposeofavoidingthecostsandinconvenience
ofatrial.Hewasfined$5,000.00asaresultofthatplea.

[6]Theplaintiffsinvitemetogivelittlecredittothatallegationandinother
circumstancesImightbeinclinedtodoso,buttheplaintiffs,unfortunately
forthem,havefailedtocross-examinethedefendantonhisaffidavitasthey
hadtheopportunitytodoandastheRulespermit.Inmyview,onecannot
simplydiscreditswornevidenceoutofhandwhereonehasneglectedto
cross-examinethedeponentofthatevidence.

[7]Inthosecircumstances,whileIdonotnecessarilyfindthatthe
defendant’saffidavitevidenceistrueorcredible,neithercanIdiscreditit
entirely.Ifindittobe »evidencetothecontrary »withinthemeaningof
subsection18(3)andsincetheevidenceoftheguiltypleais,asIhave
alreadysaid,inmyview,theonlyevidenceofsufficientspecificitytojustify
theCourtinfindingthatthedefendanthasinfactcommittedtheactswith
whichtheplaintiffschargehim,Iamobligedtodismissthemotionfor
summaryjudgment.Ishalldoso,however,withoutcosts.

38
CommissiondeslésionsprofessionnellesvGodbout2004IIJCan54463,2004CarswellQue
11968,REJB2004-94083,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2004/2004qccs20633.html
(QueSupCt;2004-12-06);[2005]JQ1321,SOQUIJAZ-50290378,JE2005-417,2005CarswellQue
411,REJB2005-82979,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs17985.html
(QueSupCt;2005-01-21)ChampagneJ.;[2005]JQ9220,2005IIJCan24713,2005CarswellQue
7473,REJB2005-92748,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs59105.html
(QueSupCt;2005-07-12)TardifJ.;[2005]JQ16178,2005CarswellQue10586,2005IIJCan40858,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs61628.html(QueSupCt-Contempt;2005-11-
04)FréchetteJ.
Résumé(QueSupCt;2005-01-21);

Requêteeninjonctioninterlocutoire.Accueillieenpartie.

LedéfendeurGodboutadénoncé,surlesiteWeb«csst-queca.com»,les
déboiresqu’auraiententraînéspourluidesdécisionsrenduesparla
demanderesse,laCommissiondeslésionsprofessionnelles.Lenomde
domainequ’ilutiliseaétéenregistréaunomd’untiersdomiciliéenFloride,
maisilenexercelecontrôledepuissondomicile,auQuébec.Larequêteen
injonctioninterlocutoireprésentéeparlademanderessedemandequ’il
cessedediffuserdesproposdiffamantsetd’utilisersesmarquesde
commerceainsiquecellesdugouvernementduQuébec,protégéesparla
Loisurledroitd’auteuretlaLoisurlesmarquesdecommerce.Elledemande
aussiqueledéfendeurMorin,propriétaireetutilisateurdunomdedomaine
«clp-queca.com»,cessedereproduiresesmarquesdecommerceainsique
cellesdugouvernementduQuébecetd’utilisertoutnomcomportantle
sigle«CLP»etlesmots«Commissiondeslésionsprofessionnelles»,quiinduisent
lesinternautesenerreur.

Décision
Lademanderessen’apasdémontréqu’ellepouvaitagiraunomdu
gouvernementduQuébecpourforcerlesdéfendeursàcesserd’utiliserses
marquesdecommerce.Toutefois,elleestbienfondéeàexigerquela
présentationgraphiquedespagesd’accueildessitessoitmodifiée,carelle
créedelaconfusionchezlesutilisateursduréseauInternet.Parcontre,elle
nepeutobtenirqueGodboutcessedediffuserdesproposdiffamantsàson
endroit,carunetelleordonnanceestgénéraleetimpossibleàfaire
respecter.Cedernierayantéliminédesonsiteplusieursproposjugés
inacceptables,lademanderessen’apasdedroitapparentpourobtenirla
fermeturedesonsiteetl’empêcherderecommencer.Laliberté
d’expressionpermetàGodboutdecritiquer,mêmesévèrement,la
demanderesse.Sicettedernières’estimelésée,ellepourraexercerun
recoursenresponsabilitécivile.Iln’yapaslieunonplusd’interdirel’utilisation
dusigle«CLP»,cariln’estpasprimafacieexclusifàlademanderesse.Par
surcroît,letribunalnepeutinterdired’avanceauxdéfendeursl’utilisationde
cestermes,caruneinjonctionestlemoyendecorrigerunesituation
urgente,maisrarementd’enprévenirunequiesthypothétique.

[36]LeTribunalaccordetoutefoisàtitreinterlocutoireuneordonnance
interdisantauxDÉFENDEURSl’utilisationdelacompositiongraphiquedela
paged’accueildusitedeLAvL.P.àl’adressehttp://www.clp-gouv.qc.ca.

(QueSupCt;2005-07-12)

39
[6]IlestévidentquelavL.P.estpropriétairedudroitd’auteursursonsite
Internetetplusparticulièrementsurlapaged’accueil.Nulnepeutdonc
enfreindresondroitd’auteur.

(QueSupCt-Contempt;2005-11-04)
[24]Ilestévidentetmanifestequelaconclusionpertinentedel’injonction
rendueparmonsieurlejugeTardifvisaitàinterdirepourl’avenirla
reproductiondetextesdelanaturedeceuxquel’onretrouvaitalorsàla
pièceR-4.Or,nonseulementledéfendeurasciemmentetvolontairement
transgressécetteordonnancemaisilareproduitdestextesdontlanature
estdavantageoutrageanteetlibelleusequelespiècesoriginalesR-4.

[25]Ledéfendeur,atentédejouerd’astuceenplaidantqu’ils’était
conforméàl’ordonnanced’injonctionenretirantlesiteacilr-cdril.comdont
l’injonctionfaitétatetparlequelseréalisaientsesproductions.Comme
déjàindiquéils’agitlàd’uneastucequiest«tropgrosse»etquidéborde
largementlesimpleetlogiquesenscommundeschoses.Eneffet,cen’est
paslesite,quelqu’ilsoit,quienfreintlaloisurledroitd’auteurmaisbienle
contenudesdocumentsquienémanent.

ConexsysSystemsInc.vAimeStarMarketingInc.[2003]JE2003-1848,[2003]JQ11296,[2003]
CarswellNat2003,REJB2003-46933,2003IIJCan33339,also,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2003/2003qccs14163.html(QueSupCt;2003-09-02);affd
2005BE296,2005QCCA131,SOQUIJAZ-50296959,[2005]JQ658(QueCA;2005-01-11).
Résumé
Appeld’unjugementdelaCoursupérieureayantaccueillienpartieune
actioneninjonctionpermanenteetenréclamationdedommages-intérêts.
Rejeté.

Décision
Lesappelantsn’ontpasdémontréd’erreurmanifesteetdéterminantedela
premièrejugesurlaquestiondelaviolationdudroitd’auteur.Seulement
unepartiedelapreuvesurcepointayantétéreproduiteaudossier,lerôle
delaCourd’appelétaitlimité.Quantàlaquestiondeconcurrence
déloyale,iln’yapaslieud’intervenir,carlapreuveestaccablante.La
décisiondelapremièrejugeétaitégalementbienfondéeencequi
concernelesredevancesduesàl’intimée.Devantdesversions
contradictoire,elleabienmotivésonchoix.Elleamêmedemandéune
évaluationdessommesduesparunexpert-comptableindépendant.De
plus,laréclamationderedevancesn’étaitpasprescritepuisqueles
appelantsavaientfrauduleusementcachéetfalsifiélesdonnéesqui
auraientpermisàl’intiméed’établirsaréclamation.Iln’yapaslieude
modifierlesconclusionsdelapremièrejugequantàl’absencede
renonciationdel’intiméeetauchoixd’uneversionplutôtqu’uneautre
relativementaucontratverbal.

ControlexCorporationforthereproductionofarchitecturalplanscommissionedby
MacdonaldDevelopmentsin1990forthepropertylocatedat4025InnesRoadinOttawa[Re
Non-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-03,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/149-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-02-03)

40
Controlex
Corporation
(Re)
2005UO-TI-03forthepropertylocatedat
4025InnesRoadinOttawa2005-02-03
2005-03-31Operational
exercises$25None

CourierCompleteInc.vFraidakis[2005]CarswellOnt1100,[2005]OJ1106,40CPR(4th)50,
2005CanLII13998,http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2005/2005onsc13564.html(OntSupCt;
2005-03-24),additionalreasons[2005]OJ1682,2005CarswellOnt1627,[2005]OJ1682
(OntSupCt;2005-04-28)PittJ.
Thedefendant,wroteadynamiclibrarylink(DLL)programwhilehewasthe
employeeoftheplaintiff.ADLLisalibraryofexecutablefunctionsordata
whichotherprogramsorapplicationscanaccessbylinkingtotheDLL.The
DLLatissuewasanindependentcompilationofsourcecodefunctionsthat
transferredandreceiveddataregardingthestatusofshipmentsbycourier
shippers.TheDLLfunctionscouldbeaccessedbymailroomorcourier
shipmenttrackingsoftware.

Thedefendantwasabletointegratetheplaintiff’ssoftwarewiththemajor
couriers’systems.Thiswasagoalthattheplaintiff’spresidenthadtriedtodo
buthadbeenunabletoachieve.Thedefendantwasawareofthe
president’sinterestinsuchaproject.Thedefendantusedhisconnectionwith
theplaintifftoobtainconfidentialinformation,contacts,andcodesthat
wouldnototherwisehavebeenaccessibletohimexceptinhiscapacityas
employee.Thedefendantonotheroccasionshadusedtheplaintiff’s
resourcestodoworkforanothercompanywithouttheplaintiff’spermission.

Theonlycopyoftheprogramwasonthedefendant’shomecomputerand
itwasneverstoredontheplaintiff’scomputer.Thedefendantassertedhis
ownershipintheprogramimmediatelybeforeitwastobedemonstrated
anddemandedasubstantialbonuswhichtheplaintiffrefusedtopay.The
defendantsubsequentlydemonstratedthesoftwareandtoldsenior
managementhispositionwaswrong,buthelaterrenegedandmissedwork.
Theplaintifffiredthedefendant.

Beforethemotionwasheard,thedefendantobtainedacertificateof
registrationofcopyrighttotheDLL.Topreservethestatusquo,the
defendantwasorderedtodeliverallcopiesoftheDLLsoftware,including
thesourcecode,tohissolicitorandtorefrainfromdistributingit.Incross-
examination,thedefendantrefusedtogiveanundertakingtoprovide
supportingdocumentationfortheapplicationforthecertificate.

TheplaintiffssoughtanorderthattheDLLshouldbereturnedtotheplaintiff
pursuanttos.38oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,vC-42,or,inthe
alternative,aninterimorderprohibitingthedefendantfromusingtheDLL
andrequiringthedefendanttopreservetheDLLandrelatedmaterialsuntil
furtherorderofthecourtoragreementoftheparties.Theplaintifffurther
soughtadeclarationthattheemployerownedthecopyrightintheDLL
softwareandaninterlocutoryinjunctionprohibitingthedefendantfrom
solicitingtheplaintiff’scustomers.

Held,themotionshouldbeallowedinpart.

41

Section38oftheCopyrightActprovidesthattheownerofcopyrightmay
recoverpossessionofinfringingcopiesofthecopyrightedwork.

Unders.13oftheCopyrightAct,whereaworkisauthoredbyanemployee
inthecourseofemployment,theemployershallbethefirstownerofthe
copyrightoftheworkunlessthereisanagreementtothecontrary.

Thedefendantarguedthatanemployeeownsthecopyrighttoaworkifthe
employeedoesnotwritetheworkinthecourseofhisemployment.

Themotionsjudgeconcludedthattheplaintiffraisedastrongprimafacie
case.Inweighingthebalanceofconveniencefortheinjunction,the
balancefavouredtheplaintiff.Althoughthedefendantwouldlikelysuffer
irreparableharmiftheinjunctionwasgranted,thedefendantcouldfind
othersuitableemploymentuntiltheresolutionofthematterwhiletheplaintiff
wouldbedeprivedofthefruitsofanassettowhichheappearedtohavea
primafaciestatutoryright.

ThedefendantwasprohibitedfromusingtheDLLandanyrelated
informationuntilfurtherorderofthecourtandthedefendantwasrequired
topreservetheDLLandrelatedmaterials.

CRESAPartnersforthereproductionofelectricalandmechanicalplanscreatedbyHrudko
BustosEngineeringofCalgaryforthepropertylocatedat2905,12thStreetN.E.inCalgary[Re
Non-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-02,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/148-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-02-03)
CRESAPartners
(Re)
2005UO/TI-02forthereproductionof
electricalandmechanical
planscreatedbyHrudko
BustosEngineeringof
Calgaryfortheproperty
locatedat2905,12thStreet
N.E.inCalgary2005-02-03
2005-03-31Renovation
purposes$25None

CummingsvGlobalTelevisionNetworkQuebec,Ltd.PartnershipSOQUIJAZ-50315115,JE2005-
1088,[2005]QJ6707,2005CarswellQue2806,REJB2005-90758,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/cas/qccs/2005/2005qccs20496.html(QueSupCt;2005-05-24);motion
todismissappeal500-09-015770-050granted(QueCA;2005-06-30)
Résumé
Requêteenrejetd’action.Accueillie.

Enavril1997,ledemandeurafaitparvenirauprésidentdeGlobalTelevision
NetworkQuebec,LimitedPartnership(Global)unprojetd’émissionde
télévisionintituléDreamsComeTrue(Dreams),qu’ilpréparaitdepuis1992.
Auprintemps2001,Globalaproduitetdiffusédeuxsériestéléviséesintitulées
PopstarsetPopstarsBoysMeetGirls.Ledemandeuraintentéuneactionen
dommages-intérêtsde1250000$,invoquantlaviolationdesesdroits
d’auteuretréclamantquelesdéfendeurscessentdeproduirelasérie
Popstars.Àlasuitedel’interrogatoireaupréalabledudemandeur,les

42
défendeursontprésentéunerequêtepourrejetd’actionfondéesurl’article
75.1duCodedeprocédurecivileaumotifquesonactionétaitfrivoleet
sansfondement.

Décision
Ainsiquel’asoulignél’arrêtRamcoDéveloppementsinc.vFWWoolworth
Co.(C.A.,1998-10-09),SOQUIJAZ-98011783,JE98-2098,ilfautfairepreuve
deprudencequandonseprononcesurunerequêtepourrejetd’action.
Cetteprocédureestexceptionnelle,carellepermetlerejetdurecourssans
quetoutelapreuvesoitdisponible.Enl’instance,letribunaln’aenmainque
lesprocéduresjudiciaires,unguideexpliquantleprojetdudemandeur,
deuxcassettesdelasériePopstarsetl’interrogatoiredudemandeur.Le
guidedudemandeurneconstituepasuneoeuvreoriginalebénéficiantde
laprotectiondudroitd’auteur.Ils’agitplutôtd’unprojet(pre-concept)ne
contenantpassuffisammentdedétailsetneproposantpasd’élément
unique.Letribunalnepeutyvoirl’utilisationdeshabiletés,dujugementou
d’untravailoriginaldelapartdudemandeur.Bienplus,ilyadavantagede
différencesquederessemblancesentreleprojetDreamsetlesémissions
Popstars.Dreamss’adresseàdesmusiciens,chanteurs,compositeurs,
danseursetparolierssanségardàl’âge,àlalangueouàl’origineethnique.
Popstarsfaitappelàdesparticipantsmasculinsdanslajeunevingtaineet
exclutlesmusiciens,compositeursetparoliers.Dreamsinsistesurl’absence
degagnantsetdeperdants,alorsquePopstarsprivilégiel’aspect
compétitif.Dreamsveutencouragerlesartistes,alorsquePopstarsestun
«reality-show»valorisantcequisepasseencoulissesetmettantl’accentsur
lesactionsetréactionsquotidiennesdesparticipantsquiviventdansla
mêmemaison.Enl’absenced’indicationraisonnablequ’unepreuve
additionnellesubstantiellepourraitêtreapportée,ondoitconclureque
l’actiondudemandeurn’estpasfondéeetn’apasdechancedesuccès.

Dawn’sPlaceLtd.vCanada*[2005]TCJ556,2005TCC721,2005CarswellNat3661,2005TCC
721,[2005]GSTC177,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/tcc/2005/2005tcc721.htmland
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/en/2005/html/2005tcc721.html(TaxCourtofCanada;2005-11-
10)LittleJ.
CorporationresidentinCanadaoperatedadultcontentwebsite–
Corporationproduceddigitalimages,graphicsandtextandassembled
themintovariouswebpagescomprisingwebsite–Corporationreceived
feesof$344,963.34in2001fromindividualssubscribingasmemberstoaccess
website–Corporationestablishedtermsandconditionsgoverning
members’subscriptions–Termsandconditionsprovidedinpartthat
memberswouldbegrantedlimitedlicencetoaccesswebsite–
Corporation’sevidencesuggestedthatapproximately90percentof
personssubscribingtocorporation’swebsitewerenon-residentsofCanada-
-Ministerassessedcorporationfor2001onbasisthatrevenueof$344,963.34
frommembershipsubscriptionswasconsiderationforsupplyofintangible
personalproperlyinCanadathatwastaxableunders.165ofAct–
Corporationappealed–Appealallowed–Suppliesofmembershipfees
werezero-ratedassupplyofright,licenceorprivilegetousecopyright–
ContentsofwebsitewereintellectualpropertygovernedbySched.VI,Part
V,s.10ofAct–Originalordigitallyenhancedphotographs,drawingsor
logosthatwerepartofwebsitefellwithinscopeofartisticwork–Information
containedinwebsitewasintellectualpropertythatwassubjectofcopyright

43
ownedbycorporation–OfficialsofCanadaRevenueAgency(CRA)should
reviewcorporation’srecordstodeterminenumberofsubscriberswhowere
residentsofCanadaandhowmanywerenon-residentsofCanada–
OfficialsofCRAshouldfurtherreviewcorporation’srecordstodetermineif
anysubscriberswereGSTregistrants–Personswhopaidmembershipfeesto
corporationpaidfeesforlimiteduseofcorporation’scopyright–
CorporationcamewithinmeaningofrelevantprovisionofActandtherefore
supplybycorporationofintellectualpropertytonon-residentsofCanada
waszero-rated–CorporationwasnotrequiredtocollectGSTonfeespaid
bysubscribersasdeterminedbyCRAwhowerenotresidentsofCanadanor
registrantsforGSTpurposes–ExciseTaxAct,R.S.C.1985,vE-15,s.VI-V-10.

[3]TheAppellantproduceddigitalimages,graphicsandtextand
assembledthemintovariouswebpages.Thevariouswebpagesare
hereinafterreferredtoasthe »Website ».

[4]TheAppellantmaintainsthatitemployedsufficientskillandeffortin
producingtheoriginalimages,graphicsandtextsoastobeabletoclaim
copyrighttotheWebsite.

[15]Section123ofthe[ExciseTax]Actdefinesazero-ratedsupplytobea
supplyincludedinScheduleVI.

[16]Section10ofPartVofScheduleVIoftheActreads:
Asupplyofaninvention,patent,tradesecret,trade-mark,trade-name,
copyright,industrialdesignorotherintellectualpropertyoranyright,licence,
orprivilegetouseanysuchproperty,wheretherecipientisanon-resident
personwhoisnotregisteredunderSubdivisiondofDivisionVofPartIXofthe
Actatthetimethesupplyismade.

[34]FromananalysisoftheevidenceIhaveconcludedthattheinformation
containedintheAppellant’sWebsiteisintellectualpropertyandisthe
subjectofcopyrightthatisownedbytheAppellant.Iamthereforesatisfied
thattheAppellanthassatisfiedtheFirsttestcontainedinSection10.

DIRECTV,Inc.vZedMarketingInc[2005]OJ1045,[2005]CarswellOnt1033,
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2005/2005onsc13285.html(OntSupCt-CommList-
AntonPiller;2005-02-21)FarleyJ;[2005]OJ3009,2005CarswellOnt3121,(OntSupCt-CommList-
MotiontoStrike;2005-07-15)CameronJ.
(OntSupCt-CommList-AntonPiller;2005-02-21)
[1]ThisisarequestforanAntonPillerorderagainstthevariousdefendants.I
havereviewedthemotionrecordoftheplaintiffanditprovidesinthisexparte
applicationacompellingcaseofanextremelystrongprimafaciecaseof
piracyandconspiracytocommitpiracyagainsttheplaintiff’scommercial
interests.SeeBellExpressVuLimitedPartnershipvPomeroy,[2002]O.J.No.4064
andspecificallytheproblemofpiracyexploredfullybyNordheimerJ.inhis
decisionsinBellExpressVuLimitedPartnershipvTedmonds&Co.Inc.,[1999]
O.J.No.3679andDIRECTVvPaulTothetal.,unreportedMarch26,2002,Court
FileNo.02-CV-226455.

[2]Fromthematerialitisclearthatthedefendantshaveengagedinactions
contrarytotheRadiocommunicationActtoofferforsaleorsellanyequipment

44
ordevicewhichisintendedtobeusedforthepurposeofdecodingan
encryptedsubscriptionprogrammingsignalwithoutauthorization.Wehavethe
salesandthewebsitesinthatregard.Thenthereistheissueoffraudulent
misrepresentationtotheplaintiffthattheaccesscardswerebeingactivated
forusewithadditionaltelevisionsinthesamehouseholdasanexistingplaintiff
account,therebyentitlingthedefendantstopayalesserchargewheninfact
thedevicesweretobeusedfordifferenthouseholds.Lastlytheplaintiffhas
madeoutitsclaimsforcivilconspiracy,conversion,unlawfulinterferencewith
economicrelationsandunjustenrichmentagainstthedefendants.Therecord
disclosesthatthedefendantshavethedevicesonhandforsale.

DuffvQuébec(ProcureurGénéral),2003CarswellQue2408,REJB2003-46715,JE2003-1923,
2003IIJCan20247,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2003/2003qccs14045.html(QueSupCt;
2003-08-21);aff’d2005QCCA661,SOQUIJAZ-50322050,JE2005-1349,[2005]JQ8855,2005
CarswellQue4691,REJB2005-92309,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qcca/2005/2005qcca661.html(QueCA;2005-07-04)BrossardJ.
Résumé
Appeld’unjugementdelaCoursupérieureayantrejetéuneactionen
dommages-intérêtspourcontrefaçondudroitd’auteur.Rejeté.

En1984et1985,l’appelantapubliédansunerevuespécialiséedeuxarticles
surlarénovation,larevitalisationetlarestaurationd’immeublesancienset
leurintégrationdanslemilieuexistant.En1986,iladéposéunethèsede
maîtriseportantsurlemêmethème.Parallèlement,laCommissiondesbiens
culturelsaconfiéàl’intimélemandatderédigerundocumentdetravailsur
leproblèmedelarestaurationetdel’intégrationdenouvellesconstructions
àdesbâtimentsanciens.L’ouvrageaététerminéauprintemps1987et
publiéenavril1993.L’appelantaalorsdemandéàl’intiméd’ajoutersathèse
danslabibliographieoud’interromprelaventedulivre.Aprèsvérification
desprétentionsdel’appelant,l’intiméetleministèredelaCultureetdes
Communications,coïntimé,ontconstatéquelathèsedel’appelantn’avait
étéremiseàl’UniversitéLaval,àdesfinsdeconsultation,quele11février
1988.Ilsontdoncrejetélademandedel’appelantetreprisladistributiondu
livre.LaCoursupérieurearejetél’actiondel’appelant,quidemandaitde
déclarerquesondroitd’auteuravaitétéviolé,quesoitdétruittoutmoyen
dereproductiondel’oeuvredel’intiméetquelesintiméssoientcondamnés
àluiverserdesdommages-intérêtsde210000$.

Décision
M.lejugeBrossard:L’appelantdoitdémontreruneerreurmanifestedu
premierjugerelativementauxdeuxprémissesfactuellesimportantes:ses
deuxarticlesconstituaientunecréationoriginaleetavaientétérendus
publicsavantquel’intimén’aitrédigésonouvrage;etlestermeset
illustrationsdel’ouvragedel’intiméprésentaientsuffisammentdesimilitudes
aveclesienpourétabliruneprésomptiondeplagiat.Lesmoyensd’appel
visentprincipalementdesfaitsreliésàl’appréciationparlepremierjugede
lapreuvetestimonialeetdocumentaireetdelacrédibilitédestémoins.Par
ailleurs,l’appelantreprocheaupremierjugeuneerreurquantaufardeau
delapreuvequ’illuiaimposé.Lesconclusionsdecelui-cisurlesprémisses
factuellessontclaires:d’unepart,l’intimé,témoincrédible,n’apris
connaissancedesarticlesdel’appelantqu’en1993et,d’autrepart,son
rapportdéfinitifétaitterminéenjanvier1986,soitavantquel’appelantait

45
déposésathèse.Quantaudegrédepreuverequis,l’appelantpourraitavoir
partiellementraison.Eneffet,lajurisprudencereconnaîtqu’uneprésomption
decontrefaçonpeutrésulterd’unepreuvecirconstanciellefondéesurun
nombresubstantieldesimilitudes.Toutefois,bienquelestermesconceptuels
etlaterminologierésultantd’unecréationoriginalesoientprotégésparle
droitd’auteur,lesconceptsetlesidéesrelevantdesrèglesdel’artnelesont
pas.Lorsqu’unauteurs’inspiredesourcescommunesrelativesàundomaine
particulier,l’étendueduchampdeprotectiondudroitd’auteurestmoindre.
Enl’instance,lestermesquiseretrouventdanslesdeuxouvragessont
égalementutilisésdansbeaucoupd’écritsrelevantdumêmedomaineet
nepeuventêtrequalifiésdecréationoriginale.Parconséquent,la
conclusionquantàl’existenced’uneprésomptionn’estpasaussiévidente
quelesoutientl’appelant.Bienplus,cedébatestthéoriquedanslamesure
oùcederniern’apasdémontréd’erreurmanifestedupremierjugedansses
conclusionsdefaitsurlesprémissesfactuellesobligatoiresdonnant
ouvertureàl’appel.

14Danscecontexte,onpeutprésumerquel’intimén’étaitpasastreint
nécessairementàlamêmerigueurderechercheetdeforme,deréférences
oudebibliographies,quecellesquipeuventêtreopposéesàceluiqui
prépareunethèseàdesfinsdemaîtriseouàdesfinsdedoctorat.Cette
différenceentrelesdeuxouvrages,cependant,nesauraitenaucunefaçon
influeroudiminuerl’intégritédelaprotectionquelaloiconfèreauxdroits
d’auteurnijustifierdequelquefaçonquecesoitlacontrefaçonparl’unde
l’ouvragedel’autreetencoremoinsleplagiatpuretsimple.

40Avecégardspourl’opinioncontraire,jecroisquel’appelantpourraitavoir
partiellementraisonsurcetaspect:lajurisprudence,eneffet,reconnaîtque,
enl’absencedepreuvedirecteoucontraire,lapreuvecirconstancielle
résultantd’unnombresubstantieldesimilitudes,sinonmêmed’expressions,
formulesettermesidentiquesoud’erreurscommunesauxdeuxtextes,peut
effectivementcréeruneprésomptiondecontrefaçon(Cadieuxv
Bauchemin(1900)B.R.255,confirmépar(1901)31R.C.S.370]).La
présomptionrenversealorslefardeauquiincomberaaudéfendeurd’établir
qu’iln’apascontrefaitl’oeuvredudemandeuretquesonouvrageconstitue
unecréationindépendante(MotelSixInc.vNoSixMotelLtd[19821vF.638
Courfédérale,premièreinstance,jugeAddy.]).

43Enpremierlieu,eneffet,lesvolumineuxetméticuleuxrelevésdéposésau
dossierparl’appelantdémontrentdanssapropreanalyseuneconfusion
constanteentrecequiconstitue,d’unepart,uneidentitédeconceptset
d’idéeset,d’autrepart,uneutilisationdetermesconceptuelsoud’une
terminologierésultantd’unecréationoriginale.Sicesdernierssont
susceptiblesd’êtreprotégésparledroitd’auteuretqueleurutilisation
constitue,lecaséchéant,unplagiat,iln’enestcertespasdemêmedes
conceptsetidéesrelevantdesrèglesdel’art(CuisenairevSouthwest
ImportsLtd[1969R.C.S.208.])PrestonvTwentiethCenturyFoxCanadaLtd
[199033vP.R.(dddp.242confirmépar1993164N.R.p.304(Courd’appel
fédérale)).]).

44Ensecondlieu,plusunauteurcréeàpartirdesourcescommunesàun
secteur,moinsgrandeestl’étendueduchampsdeproductionquiluiest
réservéparlaloi(KilvingtonBrosLtdvGoldberg[195716FoxPatentCasesp.

46
164.])Ainsi,lorsquelespartiesutilisentuneméthodologieidentique,ilestfort
probablequelesrésultatsobtenusseronttrèssemblablesetletribunalsera
portéàrefuserdeconclureàlaviolationdedroitd’auteur(Visual
ConceptionVisuel(Vicovi)inc.vBellSygmainc.[1997R.J.Q.1948(CS).])Or,
c’estprécisémentcequi,dansl’avisdesexpertsquionttémoignéen
défense,s’estproduitenl’instance.Cesexperts,eneffet,toutenexprimant
beaucoupderéservessurl’originalitédecertainsdesexemplesinvoquéspar
l’appelant,tellel’expression«unevagueidéedemimétisme»,soulignent
quelamajoritédestermesetexpressions,quel’onretrouvedanslesdeux
ouvrages,seretrouventdéjàdansbeaucoupd’écritsconcernantle
domaineetnesauraientêtrequalifiésdecréationdel’appelant.

EducationalRights2003-2006,Re[2005]CarswellNat488;http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/e14012005-b.pdfinFrenchat[2005]CarswellNat489(CopBd;2005-01-
14)
[1]Pursuanttosubsection71(1)oftheCopyrightAct,theEducationalRights
CollectiveofCanada(ERCC)filedonMarch27,2002,itsstatementof
proposedroyaltiestobecollectedfromeducationalinstitutionsinCanada,
forthereproductionandperformanceofworksorothersubject-matters
communicatedtothepublicbytelecommunicationfortheyears2003to
2006.ThestatementwaspublishedintheCanadaGazetteonMay11,2002.

[5]Takingnoteoftheagreement,theBoardcertifiesfortheperiod2003-
2006,atariffidentical(exceptforthetitle)totheinterimtariff,andthus
identicalinsubstancetothepreviouscertifiedtariff.

EnerflowIndustiesInc.forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansdesignedbyAPX
EngineeringServiceLtd.forthepropertylocatedat862568thStreetS.E.inCalgary[ReNon-
exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-31,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/161-
e.pdf(CopBd;2005-07-28)
Enerflow
IndustriesInc
(Re)
2005-UO/TI-31forthereproductionof
architecturalplansdesigned
byAPXEngineeringService
Ltd.forthepropertylocated
at862568thStreetS.E.in
Calgary
2005-07-28
2005-12-31Renovation$25None

EntralGroupInternationalInc.v1438762OntarioInc.[2005]OJ2140,40CPR(4th)410,2005
CanLII18316,2005CarswellOnt2141,
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2005/2005onsc13769.html,(OntSupCt;2005-05-20)Master
Hawkins
TheplaintiffTCWwastheexclusivelicenseeforCanadaandtheUnited
Statesoftheownersofcopyrightinkaraokeversionsofmusicvideos.The
plaintiffEntralheldanexclusivesub-licencefromTCWinsuchvideosfor
Canada.Inanactionforinfringementofcopyrightinthemusicvideosthe
defendantsmovedforstayoftheactionongroundsthattheplaintiffshad
notjoinedthecopyrightownersaspartiestotheactionandforanorder

47
requiringtheplaintiffstofurnishtranslationsintoEnglishofsomeofthe
Cantonesesongtitleslistedinascheduletothestatementofclaim.

Held,themotionforastayshouldbegranted,andifthestaywerelifted,
thetranslationsofthesongtitlesshouldbefurnished.

Section36(1)oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,vC-42,givesaperson
holdingawrittenlicencefromthecopyrightownertherighttobringan
actionforcopyrightinfringement.Section36(2)oftheActprovidesthatthe
copyrightownermust,however,bemadeapartytotheaction,unlessone
oftheexceptionsunders.36(2)applies.Theplaintiffsclaimedthatthe
exceptionunders.36(2)(c)appliedasitwasnotinthepublicinteresttojoin
thecopyrightowners,companiesbasedinHongKong,becauseofthe
increaseinexpenseinthelitigationandtheresultantdelay.

Thedefendantsclaimedthatifthecopyrightownerswerenotaddedas
partiesthedefendantscouldbeexposedtofurtherlitigationforalleged
copyrightinfringementbroughtbyoneormoreoftheownerswhowould
notbebarredbyissueestoppel.Itwasonlyspeculativeattheearlystage
oftheactionastowhetherjudicialdiscretiontoapplyissueestoppelwould
beexercisedinanyfuturelitigationbroughtbythecopyrightowners.As
theevidencefailedtoshowthattheaddedexpenseanddelaywould
workahardshipupontheplaintiffs,thestaywasgrantedbutwasnotto
operatetopreventtheplaintiffsbringingamotiontoamendthestatement
ofclaimtoaddthecopyrightownersasparties.

Section125(2)(b)oftheCourtsofJusticeAct,R.S.O.1990,vv43,provides
thatdocumentsfiledincourtinalanguageotherthanEnglish,withthe
exceptionofdocumentsintheFrenchlanguage,mustbeaccompanied
byatranslationintotheEnglishcertifiedbyaaffidavitofthetranslator.The
difficultyintranslatingsongtitlesandthecostofthetranslationwasnot
sufficienttodisregardnon-compliancewiths.125(2)(b).Onconditionthat
thestayweretobelifted,theplaintiffswereorderedtoamendthe
schedulesothatallthesongtitleswereintheEnglishlanguageortoadda
translationcertifiedbyaffidavitofthetranslator.

EurosportEventManagementLtd.v650621B.C.Ltd(Malone’sBarGrill),2005FC1359,[2005]
FCJ1664,2005CarswellNat3174,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc1359.htmland
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc1359.shtml(FC;2005-10-04)HughesJ.
[1]ThePlaintiffbringsthismatterfordefaultjudgmentagainstcertainofthe
DefendantsinthisactionwhohavefailedtofileaDefenceorotherwise
participateintheaction.

[3]IntheFederalCourt,pleadingsthatarenotdefended,orifdefended,
nottraversedarenottakentobetrue.Aplaintiffseekingdefaultjudgmentis
requiredtoprovetheessentialelementsofitsclaimwhichitsaysentitlesitto
thereliefclaimed.Thus,onamotionfordefaultjudgment,aplaintiffmust
provethatitownsor,inanappropriatecase,islicensedinrespectof,aright
thathasbeentakenorinfringeduponbyadefendant.

[7]ThePlaintiff,initsmotionfordefaultjudgmentseekreliefinrespectoftwo
claimstorights(1)copyrightsand(2)broadcastrights.Thereisnoregistration

48
ofcopyrightevident.Section34.1(a)oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,vc-
30,providesthatinanactionsuchasthis,unlessthecontraryisproved,
copyrightispresumedtosubsistintheworkorworksatissue.Thatisthecase
here,copyrightsubsists.However,proofastoownershipislacking,thereisno
evidenceastoownershipofcopyrightbeforethiscourt.Section34.1(2)of
theActprovidesforcertainpresumptionsastoownershipwherenames
appearsinassociationwiththework.Noevidenceastowhat,ifanything,
appearsontheworkasbroadcast.

[8]AstotheRadiocommuncationsAct,R.S.C.1985,vR-2,section18(1)(b)
givesarightofactiontoa »lawfuldistributor »ofasignalwhichisdefinedin
section2tobe »apersonwhohasthelawfulrightinCanadatotransmitit
andauthorizeitsdecoding »

[9]WhatwehavehereisacontractbetweenthePlaintiffandaparty
whoserightsareunproven,purportingtogrant »rights »tothePlaintiff.Thereis
noproofastowhat »rights »ifanythisgrantorhad.Thechainoftitleputin
evidencebeforethisCourtdoesnotgobackfarenoughforagrantee(the
Plaintiff)tohaverights,thegrantormusthavetheminthefirstplaceandthe
powertogivethem.Thereisnoevidenceofthathere.

Gagné(Lucie)forthereproductionoftheworkentitledTheDiaryofthe13thBattery
CanadianFieldArtillery1914-1919inabook[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2004-
UO/TI-39,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/160-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-07-19)
Gagné(Re)
2004-UO/TI-39forthereproductionofthe
workentitledTheDiaryofthe
13thBatteryCanadianField
Artillery1914-1919inabook
innomorethan1000copies
2005-07-19
2007-12-31Commercial$225Access
Copyrig
ht

GravlinvCanadianImperialBankofCommerce2005CarswellBC1443,[2005]BCWLD4951,
[2005]BCWLD4923,2005BCJ1334,2005BCSC839,
http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcsc/2005/2005bcsc839.html,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/05/08/2005bcsc0839err1.htm(BCSC;2005-06-14)
GarsonJ.;assupplemented[2005]BCJ1521,2005BCSC1006,
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/05/10/2005bcsc1006.htm(BCSC;2005-07-06)Garson
J.
ApplicationbyCIBCandtheotherdefendantsforastayofGravlinandthe
otherplaintiffs’claimsuntiltheyappointedamemberingoodstandingofthe
LawSocietyofBritishColumbiatorepresentthem.Dempsey,whowasnot
licensedtopracticelaw,currentlyappearedasGravlinandtheotherplaintiffs’
agentintheirproposedclassactions.Theproposedclassactionswere
premisedontheassertionthatCIBCandtheotherdefendants’banking
practises,particularlytheirdebtcollectionproceedings,wereunlawfuland
fraudulent.GravlinandtheotherplaintiffssubmittedthatDempseywasthe
onlypersonwillingandabletoadvancetheircase.Dempseyhadbeen
declaredavexatiouslitigantinotherproceedings.Hehadcommenceda
similaractioninhisownname.Hedidnotconsiderhimselfboundbytheruleof
law.

49

HELD:Applicationallowedinpart.Thepleadingswereprolix,repetitiveand
unintelligible.Dempseywasnotcapableofdrawingproperpleadings.Hehad
demonstratedonlyatenuousgraspoftheprinciplesofcontract.Togrant
Dempseytheprivilegeofactingascounselwhenheassertedthathewould
notadheretostatutoryrules,lawsorcommonlaw,wastoinvitechaosintothe
courtandriskedbringingtheadministrationofjusticeintodisrepute.Itwasnot
properornecessaryforDempseytoactasagentforGravlinandtheother
plaintiffs.TheactionswerestayedpendingthehearingofCIBCandtheother
defendants’applicationtostrikethestatementsofclaim.

GroupeAldoInc.vGroupeYellowInc.,2005IIJCan24880,2005CarswellQue7499,REJB2005-
92799,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs59136.html(QueSupCt;2005-07-12)
LacoursièreJ.
[22]Ayantentendulesparties,lejugeCrépeauordonneàAldodeproduirela
cessiondedroitsd’auteuralléguée.Selonleprocès-verbald’audience,ilne
requiertpascopiedelaprétenduecessionavantdeprononcersonjugement.
IlendécoulequelejugementCrépeauviseniplusnimoinsqueledépôtdece
qu’Aldoallègueêtreunecessiondedroitsd’auteur.

[23]Deplus,AldoallèguelapièceP-7,commecessiondedroitsd’auteur,dès
larequêteintroductived’instanceoriginaledu24décembre2004,ausoutien
duparagraphe12.

[24]Yellowpouvaitdèslorsconstaterqu’ilnes’agissaitpasd’unecessionde
droitsd’auteuretrequérir,parmoyenspréliminairesouinterrogatoire,
communicationduConfirmatoryassignmentofcopyright.L’ententesurle
déroulementdel’instancesignéele4février2005prévoyaitd’ailleursces
moyensetinterrogatoire.Yellowachoisidenepass’enprévaloir.

[25]YellowauraitpudécouvrircettepreuveavantlejugementCrépeau.

[26]Enfin,laquestiondelanatureoudelavaliditédelaprétenduecession
relèvedavantagedujugedufondetlejugementCrépeauneprivepasYellow
desondroitdefairevaloirsesargumentsàcesujetentempsutile.

GroupeArchambaultinc.vCMRRA/SODRACinc.,2005CAF330,[2005]ACF1718,2005
CarswellNat3262,http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/caf/2005/2005caf330.htmland
http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/caf/2005/2005caf330.shtmlFCA;2005-10-14)PelletierJ.
Subject:IntellectualProperty;Public;CivilPracticeandProcedure

Intellectualproperty—Copyright–CopyrightBoard–Tariffhearings

Collectivewhichrepresentedauthorsofmusicalworkssubmittedproposed
tarifftoCopyrightBoard–Proposedtariffrequiredonlinemusicservicesto
remitroyaltiestocollectivefordistributiontoitsmembers–Applicantonline
musicservicewasopponentoftariff–Rulespermittedpartiestoproceedby
meansofinterrogatories–Answerstointerrogatorieswereforwardedtotheir
authorswithoutbeingdistributedtootherpartiesorfiledwithBoard–These
partiesexchangedinterrogatories,somequestionswereopposedand
compromisesreachedbutsomequestionsweresubmittedtoBoardfor

50
rulingaspartiescouldnotagree–Applicantsubmittedthatquestionswere
notrelevanttoissuebeforeBoard–Boardorderedthatbulkofquestionsbe
answeredbyapplicantandheldthatconfidentialityofinformationwasnot
viablereasontorefusetoproduceinformationgiventhatBoardcouldmake
confidentialityorders–Applicantbroughtapplicationforjudicialreviewof
decision–Applicantallegedorderconstitutedunreasonableseizure
contrarytos.8ofCanadianCharterofRightsandFreedoms–Applicant
broughtapplicationforstayofproceedingspendingdecisionon
applicationforjudicialreview–Applicationdismissed–Noexceptional
circumstancesexistedsoastojustifyinterventionofcourtanddelaymatter
beforeCopyrightBoard–Relevanceofquestionsposedininterrogatoriesis
oneofmostbanalquestionsraisedincourseofcivilproceedings–Trierof
fact,whetheradministrativeboardorcourt,hadpowertodetermine
relevanceofquestionsposedininterrogatories–Questionwasoneof
procedureandwasnottransformedintoconstitutionalquestiondespite
allegationsastobreachofs.8ofCharter.

Administrativelaw—Discretionoftribunalunderreview–Generalprinciples

Collectivewhichrepresentedauthorsofmusicalworkssubmittedproposed
tarifftoCopyrightBoard–Proposedtariffrequiredonlinemusicservicesto
remitroyaltiestocollectivefordistributiontoitsmembers–Applicantonline
musicservicewasopponentoftariff–Rulespermittedpartiestoproceedby
meansofinterrogatories–Answerstointerrogatorieswereforwardedtotheir
authorswithoutbeingdistributedtootherpartiesorfiledwithBoard–These
partiesexchangedinterrogatories,somequestionswereopposedand
compromisesreachedbutsomequestionsweresubmittedtoBoardfor
rulingaspartiescouldnotagree–Applicantsubmittedthatquestionswere
notrelevanttoissuebeforeBoard–Boardorderedthatbulkofquestionsbe
answeredbyapplicantandheldthatconfidentialityofinformationwasnot
viablereasontorefusetoproduceinformationgiventhatBoardcouldmake
confidentialityorders–Applicantbroughtapplicationforjudicialreviewof
decision–Applicantallegedorderconstitutedunreasonableseizure
contrarytos.8ofCanadianCharterofRightsandFreedoms–Applicant
broughtapplicationforstayofproceedingspendingdecisionon
applicationforjudicialreview–Applicationdismissed–Noexceptional
circumstancesexistedsoastojustifyinterventionofcourtanddelaymatter
beforeCopyrightBoard–Relevanceofquestionsposedininterrogatoriesis
oneofmostbanalquestionsraisedincourseofcivilproceedings–Trierof
factwhetheradministrativeboardorcourthadpowertodetermine
relevanceofquestionsposedininterrogatories–Questionwasoneof
procedureandwasnottransformedintoconstitutionalquestiondespite
allegationsastobreachofs.8ofCharter.

GuccioGucciS.P.A.vLevi42CPR(4th)423,2005FC1186,2005CarswellNat2691,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc1186.html,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc1186.shtml(FC;2005-08-30)HughesJ.
Inanactionthatbeganasa »JohnDoe »proceedingtoenforcetrade-mark
andcopyrightrightsinthewordGUCCI,aftertheplaintiffsobtainedan
AntonPillerorderandidentifiedthedefendant.Theplaintiffsbroughtan
unopposedmotionforsummaryjudgment.ThePlaintiffreliedonevidence
demonstratingthatthedefendantwassellingandofferingforsale

51
counterfeithandbagsandeyewearbearingthewordGUCCIasatrade-
mark.Attheendofthehearing,thejudgeindicatedthathewouldgrant
summaryjudgmentintheplaintiff’sfavour,andrequestedthatplaintiff’s
counselprepareadraftorder.

Held,thedraftordershouldnotbeissued.

Thedraftorderwasverylengthyandwentfarbeyondwhatcouldhave
beencontemplatedasareasonableorder.Asaresult,adifferentorder
issuedtogetherwithreasonstoexplainhowsuchanordershouldbemade.

Whereanorderismadepursuanttosummaryjudgmentoronconsent,a
properordermustbeguidedatleastbythefollowingprinciples:a)therelief
grantedislimitedtothatwhichiswithinthejurisdictionoftheFederalCourt;
b)thereliefgrantedislimitedtotherightspleadedandreliefclaimedinthe
statementofclaim;c)thereliefclaimedisfurtherlimitedtothatclaimedin
themotionforsummaryjudgment;andd)thereliefgrantedislimitedtothat
proveninamotionforsummaryjudgment.
¶3InthisactionanumberofCanadianregisteredtrade-marks,many
ofthemincludingorbeingthewordGUCCIwereassertedaswellasa
numberofcopyrightswhichwereregisteredinCanadabut,because
theregistrationsystemfailstodiscloseinanyrelevantmannerwhat
thesubjectmatterofthecopyrightis,thecopyrightisessentially
unidentified.Evidencewaspresentedatthereturnofthesummary
judgmentmotiondemonstratingthattheDefendantwassellingand
offeringforsalehandbagsandeyewearbearingthewordGUCCIas
atrade-mark.Thesegoodswerecounterfeit.ThePlaintiffsownone
CanadianRegisteredTrade-Markwhichcomprisesonlytheword
GUCCIasatrade-markforwaresincludinghandbagsandeyewear;it
isRegistrationNo.TMA202.555.ThePlaintiffsalsopresented
satisfactoryevidencethatthefactualbasisfortheCounteraction,
namely,thattheAntonPillerOrderwasexecutedattheDefendant’s
residence,wasuntrue.

GuildedesmusiciensduQuébecvQuébec(Commissiondereconnaissancedesassociations
d’artistesetdesassociationsdeproducteurs),2005CarswellQue3324,[2005]JQ6997,2005
IIJCan19211,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs58083.html(QueSupCt;2005-
05-31)LaroucheJ.
[47]LesmisencauseaffirmentquelaCommissionacorrectement
déterminé,auparagraphe47desadécision,quepourêtreconsidéré
commeunproducteurausensdelaLoisurlestatutdesartistes,
«ilnesuffitpasqu’unepersonneouunesociétéretiennelesservices
professionnelsd’artistes,maisencorefaut-ilqu’ellelefasseenvuede
produireoudereprésenterenpublicuneœuvreartistiquedansun
domaine.»

[48]Selonlesmisencause,laCommissionauraitdoncanalyséleconcept
d’«œuvreartistique»telquelerequiertladéfinitionde«producteur»ausens
del’article2delaLoisurlestatutdesartistes.

[49]LesmisencausenousréfèrentàladécisionProductionsFranceCorbeil
Inc.etAssociationdesprofessionnelsdelavidéoduQuébec[note3:[1999]

52
R.J.D.T.1754]danslaquellelaCommissionamentionnéquelanotion
d’«œuvreartistique»n’estpasdéfiniedanslaLoisurlestatutdesartisteset
elleadéterminéquecelle-cidevraitêtreinterprétéeselonlesenscourant
desmots:
«Conformémentauxrèglesd’interprétationqu’elles’estdéjàdonnées,la
Commissionestimequ’ilfautprêterauxmotslesensqu’ilsontdanslalangue
courante,danslecontextedelaLoi.Àcetégard,lePetitRoberttraitedu
qualificatif«artistique»delafaçonsuivante:
«adj.(1808;deartiste.)♦1
0Quiarapportàl’artisteouauxproductionsde
l’art…»
LaCommissionadéjàétéamenéeàdéterminercequ’ilfallaitentendrepar
lesmots«art»,«créateur»et«interprète»enprécisantlaportéedela
définitionduterme«artiste»ausensdelaLoi.Pourmémoire,àl’issuedeson
analyse,elleserésumaitainsi:
«LaCommissiondoitidentifierquelssontlespostesdontlestitulairesfontétat
d’untalentoud’unsavoirexceptionnelpourcréerouexprimeruneformede
beauté,àpartird’élémentsexistantsounon,quiestinédite.Cesontlàles
élémentsprincipauxdeladéfinitionquidistinguentlesartistesdesartisans.»
Paranalogieetàlalumièredesfaits,ilrevientàlaCommissionde
déterminer,cettefoissousl’angledeladéfinitionde«producteur»etdonc
delaproductionsoumiseàl’examen,sicelle-ciparticipedel’œuvre
artistiqueentantquemanifestationd’uneformedebeautéqui,àpartir
d’élémentsexistantsounon,estinédite.»

[50]ToujoursrelativementàladécisionProductionsFranceCorbeilInc.,la
Commissionauraitconcluqueleproducteurayantdémontréqu’ilne
produitninefaitlareprésentationenpublicd’une«œuvreartistique»ausens
delaLoisurlestatutdesartistesneseraitdoncpasviséparcettedernière:
«Suivantl’exposédutémoinetsurlafoidespiècesdéposées,ilressortde
manièreprépondérante,quelaproductiondanssonensembleconcernela
couvertured’événementssportifsrelatifsàlacourseautomobileouaux
quilles,dontlacaractéristiqueprincipaleestdemettreenvaleur,avec
commentairesetentrevueslecaséchéant,l’actionprincipale,selonles
exigencesimposéesparlatransmissionendirectoucequientientlieu.
Assimilablesaureportageetparfoismêmedestinéesaubulletinde
nouvelles,lesproductionsdelarequérantenefontappelàaucune
rechercheartistiqueouesthétiqueparticulière.»

[51]Lesréférencesci-dessusamènentlesmisencauseàindiquerquepour
définirenquoiconsisteune«œuvreartistique»,laCommissionautilisélesens
courantdesmotsetenestvenueàlaconclusionque«lanature
essentiellementtechniquedelareprésentationenpublicquiconsisteà
reproduiredessonsdanslecadreétroitdel’animationdupublicamateur
dehockeyn’apaspourfinalitél’interprétationenpublicd’uneœuvre
musicale.»

[52]Cequiamènelesmisencauseàsignalerquecetteconclusiondela
Commissionestclairementrationnelleetappuyéesurdesélémentsde
preuvenefaisantabstractionàaucunfondementjuridiqueetne
constituantdoncpasunexcèsdecompétencepuisqueriendanslapreuve
nepermetdeconclurequeletravaileffectuéparMmeBibaudapourbut
deprésenterune«œuvreartistique».

53
[53]Cequipermetauxmisencaused’alléguerqu’àsafacemême,la
décisiondelaCommissionn’estpasmanifestementdéraisonnablepuisqu’il
n’yaaucuneerreurdedroitoudefaitpermettantunerévisionjudiciaire.On
demandedoncquesoitrejetéeavecdépenslarequêteenrévision
judiciairedelademanderesse.

Analyse
[54]Ainsiqu’ilaétémentionnédanscejugement,laCommissionde
reconnaissancedesassociationsd’artistesetdesassociationsde
producteursestuntribunalhautementspécialiséjouissantd’uneexpertise
particulière.Celui-ciestprotégéparuneclauseprivativedontlesdécisions
sontfinalesetsansappel.Aucunrecoursextraordinairenepourraitêtre
exercécontreellesaufsurunequestiondecompétence.Lesarticles66
et68delaLoisurlestatutdesartistesétablissentclairementcesprincipes.

[55]Danslecassousétude,ilestreconnuparlespartiesquelanormede
contrôleapplicableàl’encontredeladécisiondelaCommissionestcelle
del’erreurmanifestementdéraisonnable.Ils’agitd’unenormesévère,voire
trèsstricte,àlaquelleiln’estpasaisédesatisfaire.

[56]Aprèsavoiranalysélapreuveprésentéedevantelle,entendulesparties
etévaluélesdispositionslégislativesetréglementairesapplicables,ellea
décidéquelesmisencausen’étaientpasunproducteurausensdelaLoi
surlestatutdesartistes.

[57]Ladécision,bienstructurée,estamplementmotivéeetcontientles
bonnesréférencesàlapreuvetellequ’elleaétéprésentéedevantles
commissaires.Entenantcomptedelanormedecontrôle,del’erreur
manifestementdéraisonnable,cettedécisionnousapparaîtinattaquable.
Enconséquence,larequêteenrévisionjudiciairedelapartie
demanderessenesauraitréussir.

HarrisScientificProductsLtd.vAraujo,2005CarswellAlta1242,2005ABQB603,[2005]AWLD
3572,[2005]AWLD3574,[2005]AWLD.3568,[2005]AWLD3594,33CCLT(3d)228,
http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abqb/2005/2005abqb603.html,
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/qb/civil/2005/2005abqb0603.pdf(AltaQB;2005-08-
05)VeitJ.
Labourandemploymentlaw—Employmentlaw–Elementsofemployment
relationship–Dutiesofemployeetoemployer–Fiduciaryduties

HLtd.wasone-mancompanyownedbySwhosebusinesswasdistributionto
operatorsinoilfieldindustryofdownholewireline,corrosion,andpotential
monitorsandotherequipment–HLtd.distributedtwoproductlines
developedandmanufacturedbytworelatedUKcompanies–Principalof
UKcompanieswasEA–In1997,plaintiffwashiredbyHLtd.toprovide
administrativeservicesandsupporttosaleseffort–Byfall1999,plaintiffhad
decidedtoleaveHLtd.overdissatisfactionwithS’sallegedlyunderhanded
businesspractices–EAwasdissatisfiedwithHLtd.’shandlingofproductlines
–OnJanuary31,2000,plaintiffwasfiredbyHLtd.,ostensiblyfor
insubordination–DuringFebruary,EAsentletterstoHLtd.terminating
distributorshiparrangement–EAsetupCanadiancompany,PRPCanada
Ltd.,whichwouldtakeoverdistributionofUKlineofproductsinNorth

54
America–PlaintiffwashiredasPRPCanadaLtd.’slocalemployee–Plaintiff
broughtactionagainstHLtd.forwrongfuldismissal–HLtd.counterclaimed
againstplaintiffforbreachoffiduciarydutyinsettingupemploymentwith
competitorwhilestillinemployofHLtd.–Actiondismissed–Counterclaim
dismissed–PlaintiffwasnotkeyemployeeofHLtd.–Althoughplaintiffwas
valuedemployeeofHLtd.,attimeofhisdismissalhedidnothavepowerto
putHLtd.atlegalorpracticalrisk–Plaintiffwasessentiallyofficemanager
forHLtd.,lookingafteraccountspayable,accountsreceivable,
bookkeeping,shippingandreceivingandlikematters–Plaintiffwasentitled
topreparehimselfforalternateemploymentwithcompetitorofHLtd.while
hewasemployedatHLtd.–Onlyrestrictionswerethatplaintiffcouldnot
discloseHLtd.tradesecretstohisnewemployerandhecouldnot
appropriateHLtd.property,includingintellectualproperty–Plaintiffdidnot
transgressthoselimitations.

Labourandemploymentlaw—Employmentlaw–Terminationanddismissal
–Terminationofemploymentbyemployer–Whatconstitutingjustcause–
Misconduct–Insubordination

HLtd.wasone-mancompanyownedbySwhosebusinesswasdistributionto
operatorsinoilfieldindustryofdownholewireline,corrosion,andpotential
monitorsandotherequipment–HLtd.distributedtwoproductlines
developedandmanufacturedbytworelatedUKcompanies–Principalof
UKcompanieswasEA–In1997,plaintiffwashiredbyHLtd.toprovide
administrativeservicesandsupporttosaleseffort–Byfall1999,plaintiffhad
decidedtoleaveHLtd.overdissatisfactionwithS’sallegedlyunderhanded
businesspractices–EAwasdissatisfiedwithHLtd.’shandlingofproductlines
–OnJanuary31,2000,plaintiffwasfiredbyHLtd.,ostensiblyfor
insubordination–DuringFebruary,EAsentletterstoHLtd.terminating
distributorshiparrangement–EAsetupCanadiancompany,PRPCanada
Ltd.,whichwouldtakeoverdistributionofUKlineofproductsinNorth
America–PlaintiffwashiredasPRPCanadaLtd.’slocalemployee–Plaintiff
broughtactionagainstHLtd.forwrongfuldismissal–Actiondismissed–H
Ltd.wasentitledtoterminateplaintiff’semploymentforgrossinsubordination
–TherewerefourincidentsofinsubordinationonwhichHLtd.wasentitledto
rely,cumulatively,toterminateplaintiff’semployment–OnDecember13,
1999,dayafterplaintiffreturnedtoworkafterhistriptoEngland,plaintiff
repliedwithharshexpletivewhenSrequestedthatsometaskbeundertaken
–SuchlanguagewasnotnorminHLtd.workplace–Secondincidentof
insubordinationwasplaintiff’sfailuretocompleteworkonsoilprobeby
December31,1999,aspreviouslyrequestedbySandasformallyrequiredby
latterinhisreprimandletterofDecember14–Thirdincidentof
insubordinationtookplacewhen,inpresenceofHLtd.’simportantUK
customers,plaintiffthrewontofloorHLtd.jacketofferedtohimbyS–Last
actofinsubordinationoccurredinmeetingwithUKcustomers,whenplaintiff
advisedSinprivatethatSwouldhaveto »comeclean »toUKcustomerswith
respecttoS’sallegedlyunderhandeddealingswithclients.

Injunctions—Availabilityofinjunctions–AntonPillerorders–General

Breachoforder–HLtd.wasone-mancompanyownedbySwhosebusiness
wasdistributiontooperatorsinoilfieldindustryofdownholewireline,
corrosion,andpotentialmonitorsandotherequipment–HLtd.distributed

55
twoproductlinesdevelopedandmanufacturedbytworelatedUK
companies–PrincipalofUKcompanieswasEA–In1997,plaintiffwashired
byHLtd.toprovideadministrativeservicesandsupporttosaleseffort–By
fall1999,plaintiffhaddecidedtoleaveHLtd.overdissatisfactionwithS’s
allegedlyunderhandedbusinesspractices–EAwasdissatisfiedwithHLtd.’s
handlingofproductlines–OnJanuary31,2000,plaintiffwasfiredbyHLtd.,
ostensiblyforinsubordination–DuringFebruary,EAsentletterstoHLtd.
terminatingdistributorshiparrangement–EAsetupCanadiancompany,
PRPCanadaLtd.,whichwouldtakeoverdistributionofUKlineofproductsin
NorthAmerica–PlaintiffwashiredasPRPCanadaLtd.’slocalemployee–H
Ltd.obtainedAntonPillerorderagainstplaintiff’sprivateresidence–Plaintiff
claimeddamagessufferedasresultofwrongfulAntonPillersearchand
seizure–Claimallowed–S’sswornaffidavitonwhichapplicationforAnton
Pillerorderwasbasedincludedmisrepresentationthatwaspresumably
crucialinjudge’sdecisiontograntorder–Sknowinglymisrepresentedin
affidavitthatHLtd.ownedcopyrightonproduct–HLtd.deliberatelyfailed
toreturnallmaterialsthathadbeenseizedanddeliberatelyusedthose
materialsinclearandknowingcontraventionoforder–HLtd.seized
materialsthatweremarkedashavingsolicitor-clientprivilege–HLtd.seized
audiocassettethatclearlyhadnothingtodowithproceedingsand
deliveredthatitemtopolicefortheir »investigation »–HLtd.usedtwopolice
officersratherthanonethatwasauthorized–HLtd.partiallyvideotaped
executionwhennoorderforvideotapinghadbeenincludedbycourt–H
Ltd.failedtosafeguardsomeofmaterialsseized.

Torts—Trespass–Trespasstogoods–General

DamagesforunlawfulexecutionofAntonPillerorder–Plaintiffwassole
employeeofPRPCanadaLtd.–HLtd.wasformeremployerofplaintiff–H
Ltd.believedthatplaintiffhadbreachedfiduciaryduties–HLtd.obtained
AntonPillerorderagainstplaintiff’sprivatepremises–Plaintiffsuccessfully
claimeddamagessufferedasresultofwrongfulAntonPillersearchand
seizure–Trespassandaggravatedorexemplarydamagesaretwomost
obviousheadsofdamagescalledintoactionwherevertarget’srightshave
beenbreachedduetowrongfulobtentionorexecutionofAntonPillerorder
–Where,asincaseatbar,therehasbeenseizureofitemsoutsidescopeof
orderormorepeopleexecutedorderthanorderallowed,damagescanbe
awardedintrespass–Incaseatbar,thereweredefectsinbothobtention
andexecutionoforder–Therefore,entryintoplaintiff’sresidencewasitself
trespassaswasremovalofmaterialsthatwereoutsidelimitsofsearch–No
actuallossneedbeprovenbytargetinordertorecoverdamages,
although,wherenodamageshavebeencaused,awardofdamagesmay
benominal–Appropriateawardtocompensateplaintifffor »affront »,largely
non-pecuniarylossarisingoutofobtentionandexecutionofAntonPiller
order,was$35,000–Plaintiffwasawarded$10,000inexemplaryorpunitive
damagesassanctionagainsthigh-handedwayinwhichcourtorderwas
ignoredbyHLtd.–Plaintiffwasentitledtoindemnityofcostsfor
proceedingsfromHLtd.

Icotopinc.vFerrandSOQUIJAZ-50328610,JE2005-1736,[2005]RJQ2376,2005IIJCan28462,
[2005]JQ10659,2005CarswellQue5849,REJB2005-93633,

56
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs59672.html(QueSupCt;2005-08-12)
LaroucheJ.
Résumé
Actionenjugementdéclaratoire,eninjonctionpermanenteeten
dommages-intérêts.Accueillie.

Lademanderesseaproduitundocumentaireintitulé«Entrepèreetfils»,qui
aétédiffusésurlesondesdeTélé-Québecenoctobre2002.Pourcefaire,
elleavaitretenulesservicesdudéfendeurFerrand,àtitrederecherchiste,
scénaristeetréalisateur.Aumoisdedécembresuivant,Ferrandapermisau
défendeurDallaired’imprimer,depublieretdevendresonlivrePapa,à
quoisers-tu?Lelivreaétémisenventeenjanvier2003.Lademanderesse
poursuitlesdéfendeurs,soutenantquel’ouvrageestprincipalement
constituéd’informationsrecueilliesaucoursdelarechercheetquesontexte
estquasiidentiqueaucontenudufilm.Elleprétendêtrelaseulepropriétaire
desdroitsd’auteuretinvoqueunecessiondesdroitsetunelicenceexclusive
contenuesdanslescontratsdeservicesconclusavecFerrand.Celui-cine
contestepaslerecours,maisledéfendeurDallaireopposeque,lestravaux
deFerrandneconstituantpasuneoeuvreausensdelaLoisurledroit
d’auteur,iln’avaitaucunconsentementàobtenirdelademanderesse.

Décision
Danssadéfense,Dallaire,bienqu’enprincipeilplaidepourautrui,peut
bénéficierdesprétentionsjuridiquesdesparties.D’unepart,lesfaitset
documentsn’ontpasétécontestésetlelitigerelèved’interprétations
juridiques,doncdequestionsdedroit.D’autrepart,lesdéfendeurssont
solidairesetDallairealedroitdeformulerdesprétentionsjuridiquesquisont
dansleurintérêtcommun.LescontratsentrelademanderesseetFerrand
sontdescontratsdeservices:recherche,écritureouscénarisationet
réalisation.Ilsconstituentlaloientrelesparties.Ainsi,Ferrandnepeutfairefi
desesobligationscontractuelles.Or,ilafaitcessiondesesdroitsenfaveur
delademanderesse.Bienquesestravauxderecherchisteneconstituent
pasuneoeuvreausensdelaLoisurledroitd’auteur,sesdroitsontété
cédésdefaçonexclusiveàlademanderesseetilnepouvaits’enservirpour
écriresonlivre.Lacomparaisonentrecelui-cietlatranscriptiondu
documentairedémontrequ’ils’agitd’unecontrefaçon.Dallairenes’estpas
préoccupédesavoirsiFerrandpossédaitlesdroitsavantd’éditerlelivre,se
fiantplutôtcandidementàladéclarationdecedernier.Bienplus,les
défendeurssesontservisdudocumentairepourpromouvoirlaventedulivre
auQuébecetàl’étranger.Commetousetchacundescontratsde
recherche,descénarisationetderéalisationcontiennentdescessionsde
droitsetdeslicencesenfaveurdelademanderesse,l’appropriationetla
violationdecesdroitsparlesdéfendeurssontévidentesetlesrecoursde
celle-cisontbienfondés.Parsurcroît,lademanderessedevaitdénoncerces
violationspuisque,afind’assurerdesententesdefinancement,elleavait
garantiqu’elledétenaittouslesdroitsnécessairesàlaproduction.Lesgestes
desdéfendeursrendentmaintenantpresqueimpossibletouterécupération
desinvestissementsetdessubventions.Ilestégalementvraisemblableque
laréputationdelademanderessesoitsérieusemententachéetantdansle
milieulittérairequedansceluiducinéma.Parconséquent,lesindemnités
suivantesluisontaccordées:20272$àtitred’honorairesetdébours
engagéspourassurerlasauvegardedesesdroits,10000$pourles
inconvénientssubis,10000$pouratteinteàlaréputationet10000$àtitre

57
dedommagesexemplairesvul’atteinteintentionnelleetillicite.Letribunal
renduneordonnanceeninjonctionpermanente,déclarequela
demanderesseestpropriétairedetouslesdroitsd’auteuretluiréservetous
sesautresrecours.

[116]L’auteur[Tamaroinhis6thEdition]traiteégalementdeladéfinitionde
contrefaçonprévueàl’article2delaLoi.Onsaitqu’enmatièrededroit
d’auteur,leterme«contrefaçon»désignegénéralementl’acteparlequelon
porteatteinteauxdroitsd’auteur.Ainsiquel’indiquel’auteuràlapage48,
uncontrefacteur,parimitationdéguisée,peuttenterdelaissercroireque
sonouvrageprésentelescaractéristiquesd’unenouvelleœuvre;maisen
réalité,ilnefaitquereprendreunepartiesubstantielledel’œuvreimitéeen
modifiantsaforme.Ilvadesoi,ajoute-t-il,quelasimpleimitationoucopie
estforcémentinterdite.

[138]D’ailleurs,ilsuffitdelireleLivreetdelecompareraudocumentaireet
àlatranscriptionquienaétéfaitepourréaliserquelatranspositionest
évidente.Qu’onappelleçacopiage,transposition,contrefaçonouplagiat,
c’estdupareilaumême,etmêmeledéfendeurYvonDallairen’apufaire
autrementquedeleconstateretdel’affirmerlorsqu’ilaétéentenduà
l’audience

[180]DÉCLAREconformémentàl’article38delaLoisurledroitd’auteur,
L.R.C.(1985)c.C-42,lademanderessepropriétairedetousoriginaux,
épreuves,copiesetexemplairesdulivreintitulé«Papa,àquoisers-tu?»et
parconséquent,AUTORISElademanderesseàdétruiretousetchacundes
originaux,épreuves,copiesetexemplairesduditlivre;

IndexTéléphoniquedenotrelocalitéN.L.LtéevLeguidedeCowansvilleInc.2005
CarswellQue10911(QueSupCt;2005-11-16)DaigleJ.
[1]SurlarequêtedelaDEMANDERESSEL’INDEXTÉLÉPHONIQUEDENOTRE
LOCALITÉN.L.LTÉEdu28septembre2005pourréouverturedel’enquête.

[9]LaDEMANDERESSEn’apasdémontréquelesfaitsqu’elledésiremettreen
preuvesontdenatureàapporterplusdelumièresurlaquestionenlitigequi
estcelledesavoirsilaDÉFENDERESSEaviolésesdroitsd’auteurenpubliant
unbottintéléphoniqueen2003:mêmesielleprouvaitqu’elleavendule
droitdeproduiresonbottindeGranby-Bromonten1996,cen’estpaselle
quiapubliéleséditions2001et2003etn’enpeuttirerunargumentà
l’encontredelaDÉFENDERESSE.

InterimtariffofleviestobecollectedbyCPCCin2006onthesaleofblankaudiorecording
mediainCanada2005CarswellNat4267,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/c21122005-
b.pdf,inFrenchat2005CarswellNat4268(CopBd;2005-12-21)
[2]OnDecember14,2004,theBoardissuedaninterimdecisionextending
indefinitelytheapplicationofthePrivateCopyingTariff,2003-2004.When
thatdecisionwasissued,theBoardonlyhadbeforeitaproposedtarifffor
2005.CPCChasexpresseditsconcernthatsomeonemightchallengethe
Board’spowertoissueaninterimdecisionthatwouldapplyforalonger
periodoftimethantheeffectiveperiodcontemplatedinthemain
application.Forthatreason,CPCChasasked,pursuanttosection66.51of

58
theCopyrightAct,thattheBoardissuefor2006afurtherinterimdecision
thatwouldbeidenticalinallbutonerespect.CPCCasksthatanyreference
tonon-removablememorypermanentlyembeddedinadigitalaudio
recorderbedeleted,sincetheFederalCourtofAppealruledinDecember
2004thatsuchadevicecouldnotbesubjecttoalevy:CanadianPrivate
CopyingCollectivev.CanadianStorageMediaAlliance(C.A.),[2005]F.C.R.
654.NoonehasobjectedtoCPCC’srequest.

[3]TheBoardgrantsCPCC’sapplicationandextendsfor2006,onaninterim
basis,theapplicationofthePrivateCopyingTariff,2003-2004,exceptforthe
definitionof »digitalaudiorecorder »,paragraph(a)(iv)ofthedefinitionof
« blankaudiorecordingmedium »andparagraph3(1)(d),whicharedeleted.
Thistariff(seetextattached)willremaininforce,unlessmodified,untilthe
finaltariffiscertifiedfortheperiodcommencingJanuary1,2005.

[4]ThisdecisionreplacestheinterimdecisionofDecember14,2004,tothe
extentthatitwouldotherwiseremainapplicable.

Knith(Darrell),Calgary,Alberta,forthereproductionofthebookentitled »HistoryoftheThirty-
FirstBattalionvE.F. »producedbyH.C.SingerandA.A.Peebles[ReNon-exclusivelicence
deliveredto]FileNo.2005UO/TI41;http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/171-e.pdf
(CopyrightBoard;2005-12-08)
Southern
AlbertaInstitute
ofTechnology
(Re)
2005-UO/TI-27forthereproductionoffive
setsofimagesanddiagrams
forwhichthesourceis
unknown,innomorethan
100copiesofeachset2005-09-19
2006-12-31Commercial/
Education$50Access
Copyrig
ht

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://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc832.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc832.shtml,inFrench
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2004/2004cf832.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2004/2004cf832.shtml(FC-Reconsideration;2004-06-09);vard.2005CAF427,
[2005]ACF2082,2005CarswellOnt7672,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/caf/2005/2005caf427.htmlandhttp://decisions.fca-
caf.gc.ca/caf/2005/2005caf427.shtml(FCA;2005-12-19)DesjardinsJ.
[22]Surleplanconstitutionnel,lepremierjugefutd’avisqu’ilfallaitdonner
pleineforceetpleineffetaulibellédelaLoi,quirelevaitdelacompétence
fédérale,etquel’infractionprévueauparagraphe27(2)delaLoineconstituait
pasunempiétementsurlacompétencedesprovincesenmatièrede
propriétéetdroitscivils.Ilrejetadepluslesallégationsd’EuroExcellence
relativesàl’atteinteàl’ordrepublic.

[43]Leparagraphe27(2)traitedelaviolationdudroitd’auteuràuneétape
ultérieure.Ilpeutarriver,eneffet,qu’undéfendeursoitréputécontreveniràun
droitd’auteurmêmes’iln’apasproduitoureproduitlui-mêmel’oeuvre
protégée.

59

[46]Ladernièrephrasedudernierparagraphedecettedéfinition[of
subsection27(2)indiqueclairementquelesexemplairesd’uneoeuvre
protégéeauCanadamiseencirculationàl’extérieurduCanadapeuventêtre
contrefaisantslorsqu’ilssontimportésauCanada.Laversionfrançaiseestmoins
clairepuisqu’elleutiliseleterme*reproduction+plutôtqu’importation,maisla
référenceàl’alinéa27(2)e),quinetraitequedel’importation,rendlemême
sensquelaversionanglaisedutexte.Laversionfrançaiseparailleursrendtrès
clairel’idéeque,hormislecasviséparl’alinéa27(2)e),iln’yapascontrefaçon
lorsquelareproductionestfaiteavecleconsentementdutitulairedudroit
d’auteurdanslepaysdeproduction.

[49]L’ajoutdesmots«parlapersonnequil’aproduit»[seethe1997
amendmentstotheCopyrightAct]constitueunchangementsignificatif.
[50]Avantl’ajoutdansletextedesmots«parlapersonnequil’aproduit»la
jurisprudencecanadiennelesavaitdéjàinclus.

[55]Danstoutescescauses[priorto1997],pourétablirlaviolationdeson
droitd’auteuràuneétapeultérieureconcernantunproduitimporté,les
demandeursontprouvéqu’ilsavaientledroitexclusifd’employerau
Canadaledroitd’auteurenquestionetquelesexemplairesimportéspar
lesdéfendeursn’avaientpasétéproduitsparlesdemandeurs.

[58]Dansl’affaireCCH,précitée,paragraphe81,laCoursuprêmeduCanada,
citantavecapprobationlejugeRothsteindenotreCour(2002FCA187
(CanLII),[2002]4F.C.213,paragraphe271),affirmaitquetroisélémentsétaient
engénéralrequispourprouverlaviolationàuneétapeultérieure:(1)qu’ilyait
d’aborduneviolationinitialedudroitd’auteur;(2)quel’auteurdelaviolationà
uneétapeultérieuresacheouauraitdûsavoirqu’ilutilisaitleproduitd’une
violationinitialedudroitd’auteur;(3)etquecetauteuraitposéundesactes
contenusdansl’énumérationduparagraphe27(2)delaLoi.LaCoursuprême
duCanadaajoutait,auparagraphe82:«Vul’absencedeviolationinitiale,il
nepeutyavoirdeviolationàuneétapeultérieure».

[59]Lapreuved’uneviolationinitialedudroitd’auteurn’estcependantpas
requisedanslecasdel’alinéa27(2)e)delaLoi.Danslecasd’unexemplaire
importédanslescirconstancesviséesparl’alinéa27(2)e),laLoireconnaîten
effet,audernierparagraphedeladéfinitionde«contrefaçon»(« infringing »)à
l’article2delaLoi,l’existencedelacontrefaçon:
Laprésentedéfinitionexclutla
reproductionBautrequecelle
viséeparl’alinéa27(2)e)…Thedefinitionincludesacopythatis
importedinthecircumstancessetout
inparagraph27(2)(e)…
[Jesouligne.][Emphasisismine.]

[60]Cecidit,deparlestermesmêmesduparagraphe27(2)delaLoi,dansle
casd’unproduitimportédanslesconditionsviséesàl’alinéa27(2)e),ilya
violationdudroitd’auteuràuneétapeultérieuredansl’accomplissementdes
actesénumérésauxalinéas27(2)a)àc),quandlaproductionoula
reproductiondel’oeuvreenquestionconstitueraituneviolationsielleavaitété
produiteauCanadaparlapersonnequil’aproduite.Ainsi,lesreproductions
desoeuvresprotégéesfaiteshorsduCanada,mêmeparlestitulairesdesdroits
d’auteurKFBetKFS,nepeuventêtreimportéesauCanadaparEuroExcellence
envuedel’unoul’autredesactesénumérésauxalinéas27(2)a)àc),sansqu’il

60
yaitviolationdudroitd’auteurdeKCIàuneétapeultérieure,puisqueKCI
détientundroitexclusifdereproductionpourleCanada,mêmeàl’égardde
KFBetdeKFS,etqu’EuroExcellenceconnaissaitl’enregistrementpourle
CanadadeslicencesexclusivesdeKCIsurlesdeuxoeuvres.

[70]KCIsolliciteuneordonnancedelaCourdéfendantàEuroExcellencede
posséderoud’importerlesproduitsencauseauCanadaenvuede
l’accomplissementdel’unoul’autredesactesprévusauxalinéas27(2)a)àc)
delaLoi.

[71]Lepremierjugenefitpaséchoàcesdemandesquiétaientpourtant
contenuesdanslademanded’injonction(C.A.,vol.I,p.37,àlap.39).Ilrejeta
unerequêteàceteffetprésentéeparKCIaprèsleprononcédujugement
(KraftCanadaInc.c.EuroExcellenceInc.2004FC832(CanLII),(2004),33
C.P.R.(4th)242,2004CF832,para.1à5).Ils’expliquaainsiauxparagraphes1
et4desesmotifs:
¶1[…]Étantdonnéqueleparagraphe27(2)delaLoisurledroitd’auteur
stipulequelapossessionoul’importationauCanadad’oeuvres
protégéesàcesfinsconstitueuneviolationdudroitd’auteur,Kraft
soutientquej’aiomisparinadvertanced’inclurepossessionetimportation
dansl’ordonnance.Cen’estpaslecas.J’aidélibérémentexclusles
termespossessionetimportationdansl’ordonnance.
¶4[…]Iln’estpascontraireàlaLoisurledroitd’auteurd’importerau
CanadaetdeposséderdestablettesdechocolatTobleroneetCôte
d’Ordansdesemballagesaffichantlesoeuvresprotégées.Cequi
importe,c’estdedéterminerdansquelbutellessontimportéeset
possédées.UnvoyageurquiapporteunetablettedechocolatToblerone
ouCôted’OrauCanada,laconsommeici,etjettel’emballagen’estpas
enviolationdelaloi.Jen’avaispasl’intentiond’interdireàEuro
Excellenced’importeretdeposséderlestablettesdechocolatdansleur
emballageoriginal.Jen’aicertainementpasmentionnéqu’ilfallait
corrigerleproblèmedelacontrefaçondesemballagesenEurope.
Pourvuqu’EuroExcellencefasseensortequelesemballagesne
constituentpasdescontrefaçons,quecesoitauCanadaouailleurs,
avantdevendre,mettreencirculation,exposerouoffrirenventele
produitenquestion,ellenesetrouverapasàviolerleparagraphe27(2)
delaLoisurledroitd’auteur.

[72]Lorsdel’auditiondevantnous,KCIaconcédéquel’ajoutdesinterdictions
contenuesauxalinéas27(2)d)ete)n’estpasnécessairevuquelepremierjuge
aprononcél’injonctionàl’égarddel’accomplissementdesactesprévusaux
alinéas27(2)a),b)etc).Ainsi,puisqu’EuroExcellencenepeutnivendre,ni
mettreencirculation,nioffrirenventelesproduitsprotégés,EuroExcellencene
peutnonpluslesposséderoulesimporterenvuedelesvendre,lesmettreen
circulation,oulesoffrirenvente

L.S.EntertainmentGroupInc.vFormosaVideo(Canada)[2005]FCJ1643,2005FC1347,2005
CarswellNat3157,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc1347.htmland
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc1347.shtml(FC;2005-09-30)GibsonJ.
PlaintiffsallegedtheywereindividuallyownersinCanadaofcopyrightof
158Asian-languagefilms–Plaintiffsallegeddefendantsrented,soldand
distributedsuchfilmsinviolationofplaintiffs’copyright–Plaintiffsbrought

61
actionfordamagesforbreachofcopyright,includingexemplarydamages
andseizureofanyrelevantmaterialsfromdefendant–Casemanagement
judgeruledthatwrittenanswersgivenbydefendantatdiscoverywere
insufficientandordereddefendantre-attendatdiscovery–Defendant
failedtoattendatdiscovery–Defendantfailedtoattendatdispute
resolutionhearing,citingvaguemedicalproblems–Defendantfailedto
paycostsorderformissingresolutionhearing–Plaintiffbroughtmotionfor
orderstrikingdefendant’sstatementofdefenceandenteringdefault
judgment–Motiongranted–Courtwaswillingtoexercisediscretionto
strikestatementofclaimduetodefendant’sarrogantbehaviour–
Defendanthadnoreasonableexcusesformissinghearings–Medicalnotes
putforthbydefendantasjustificationsformissinghearingswereentirely
inadequate–Defendanthadfailedtodemonstrateexistenceofserious
questionoflawtobearguedorfactsthatwereunclearandsubstantially
disputed.

Langdon(Robin)forthemechanicalreproductionoffivemusicalworks(composersand
publishersunknown)[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-12,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/151-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-03-21)
Langdon(Re)
2005-UO-TI12forthemechanical
reproductionoffivemusical
works(composersand
publishersunknown)inno
morethan500CD’s
2005-03-21
2005-12-31Commercial$212.
50CMRRA

McGraw-HillRyersonforthereproductionofRitaSchindler’sletterpublishedintheTorontoStar
onDecember30,1990[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-17,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/159-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-07-19)
McGraw-Hill
RyersonLimited
(Re)
2005-UO/TI-17forthereproductionofRita
Schindler’sletterpublishedin
theTorontoStaron
December30,1990inno
morethan15000copies2005-07-19
2006-12-31Commercial$200Access
Copyrig
ht

MichelRhéaume&AssociésLtéev9071-8131QuébecInc.(Pro-VieAssurances)2005IIJCan
24443,SOQUIJAZ-50322827,JE2005-1572,[2005]JQ9114,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs59015.html(QueSupCt;2005-07-08)
MatteauJ.
Résumé
Requêteenirrecevabilitéd’unedemanded’injonctionpourviolationdu
droitd’auteur.Rejetée.

Lademanderesseestuncourtierd’assurancedepersonnesquioffredes
produitsdestinésauxgroupesetassociationsd’entrepreneursetde
professionnels,tellel’Associationprovincialedesconstructeursd’habitation
duQuébec,dontlesmembrespeuventadhéreràd’autresassociations
commel’AssociationdelaconstructionduQuébec(ACQ).Ladéfenderesse

62
estégalementcourtierenassurancedepersonnesetoffresesproduitsàdes
groupesetassociationsdel’industriedelaconstruction.Enoctobre2001,
elleaconcluavecl’ACQuncontratpourlagestiond’unprogramme
d’assurancecollectivepourlesassociations.Parcetteentente,ellea
directementconcurrencélademanderesseet,danscecontexte,ellea
produitetdistribuéundépliantpublicitaireauxmembresdel’ACQ.En2002,
lademanderessearéclaméuneinjonctionpermanentecontrela
défenderesseetsondirecteurcommercial,quiavaitétécourtierchezelle,
afinqueladéfenderessecessed’utilisersondépliantpublicitaire.Enmai
2003,laCoursupérieurearejetésademandeaumotifqu’ilyavaitabsence
depreuvedeconfusion,jugementconfirméparlaCourd’appelenjanvier
2005.Enfévrier2005,lademanderesseaintentéleprésentrecoursvisantà
fairecesserlareproduction,ladistributionetl’utilisationdudépliantaumotif
qu’ilreproduisaitundépliantqu’elleavaitconçu,réalisé,misenpageetfait
imprimer,etquiconstitueuneoeuvrelittéraireprotégéeparlaLoisurledroit
d’auteur.Danssonrecours,elleréclameégalementdesdommages-intérêts
morauxetunecompensationéquivalantauxprofitsréalisésparla
défenderesse.Cettedernièreopposel’irrecevabilitédelademandeeten
requiertlerejetaumotifdechosejugée.

Décision
Selonl’article2848duCodecivilduQuébec(C.C.Q),ilyachosejugée
lorsqu’ilyaidentitédeparties,d’objetetdecause.Enl’instance,l’identité
despartiesestévidente,malgrélefaitqueladéfenderesseétait
codéfenderessedanslapremièreprocédure.Toutefois,ilyaabsence
d’identitéd’objetetdecause.L’identitéd’objetaétédéfinieparlaCour
suprêmeduCanadadansRobergevBolduc(C.S.Can.,1991-02-28),SOQUIJ
AZ-91111033,JE91-412,[1991]R.R.A.314(rés.),[1991]R.D.I.239,[1991]1
R.C.S.374,commelebénéficequ’unepartieseproposed’obteniren
formulantsademandeetellesedétermineenexaminantnonseulementla
formedelademande,maiségalementsasubstance.Lapremière
procéduredemandaitqueladéfenderessecessed’utiliserledépliant
publicitaire.Mêmesilesdeuxrecourstirentleuroriginedel’utilisationdu
dépliant,celuiexercéenl’instanceestplusprécisetvisedesactesquin’ont
pasfaitl’objetdedébat.Lademanderessedésirequeladéfenderesse
cesselareproduction,ladistributionetl’usagedudépliant,qu’elleluien
remettelesexemplairesetlesmatricesetqu’ellerendecomptedesprofits.
Deplus,lesdispositionsdelaLoisurledroitd’auteurautorisentunauteurqui
invoquelaviolationd’undroitàexercerdifférentsrecours,aucundeceux-ci
n’étantl’accessoiredel’autreetchacunpouvantexisterdefaçon
indépendante.Ladéfinitiondel’identitédecausedonnéedansRocois
ConstructionInc.vQuébecReadyMixInc.(C.S.Can.,1990-08-16),SOQUIJ
AZ-90111069,JE90-1199,[1990]2R.C.S.440,aétéreprisedansRoberge.
Seloncetarrêt,unensembledefaitsneconstituepasensoiunecause
d’action;c’estplutôtlaqualificationjuridiquequ’onluidonnequile
transformeenfaitcréateurd’obligations.Ainsi,unmêmeensembledefaits
peutsevoirattribuerplusieursqualifications,donnantouvertureàdes
causesdistinctes.Danslapremièreprocédure,larèglededroitapplicable
étaitcelleprévueàl’article1457vC.Q.,alorsqu’enl’espècecesontles
dispositionsdelaLoisurledroitd’auteurquisontpertinentespourdéterminer
siledépliantdelademanderesseconstitueuneoeuvrelittéraireprotégée
ets’ilyaeuviolationdesondroitd’auteur.

63
[39]Soitditavecégards,leTribunalestd’avisquelesdispositionspertinentes
delaLoiautoriseletitulaired’undroitd’auteurquienallèguelaviolation,
d’exercerunouplusieursdesdifférentsrecoursquiysontprévus.Aucun
d’entreeuxn’estl’accessoiredel’autreetchacunpeutexister
indépendammentdel’autre.

MichelRhéaume&AssociésLtéev9071-8131QuébecInc.,[2003]JQ5484,2003IIJCan17591,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2003/2003qccs12315.html(QueSupCt;2003-05-12,Crôteau
J.)affd.2005QCCA99,SOQUIJAZ-50296124,2005BE-295,[2005]JQ1036(QueCA;2005-01-
11)
Résumé
Appeld’unjugementdelaCoursupérieureayantaccueilliunerequêteen
injonctionpermanentevisantàfairecesserlasollicitationdeclientèleparun
ex-employé.Rejeté.

Décision
Enpremièreinstance,lesappelantesalléguaientqu’unex-employéavait
utilisédesconnaissancesacquisesdansl’exercicedesonemploipour
préparerundépliantpublicitairesimilaireausienauprofitdesonnouvel
employeur.Lepremierjugeaconcluquel’ex-employéavaitvioléune
clausedenon-concurrencemaisarefusédeluiordonnerdecesserd’utiliser
ledépliant.Dansleurpourvoi,lesappelantesinvoquentpourlapremièrefois
uneviolationdeleurdroitd’auteur.Or,mêmesiledépliantpublicitaire
devaitêtreconsidérécommeuneoeuvreprotégéeparledroitd’auteur,les
appelantesauraientdûl’allégueretenfairelapreuveenpremièreinstance.
Ellesnepeuventmodifierenappellefondementdeleurrecoursinitial.

MichelRhéaume&AssociésLtéev9071-8131QuébecInc.,[2003]JQ6862,2003IIJCan48440,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2003/2003qccs12829.html(QueSupCt;2003-06-06
MarcelinJ.)revdinpartsubnomineBeaulne&RhéaumeAssurancesltéevDubé[2005]JQ
1037(QueCA;2005-01-11),SOQUIJAZ-50296125,2005QCCA100,BE2005BE-339
Résumé
Appeld’unjugementdelaCoursupérieureayantrejetéunerequête
eninjonctionpermanente.Accueillienpartie.

Décision
Lesappelantesontreprochéauxintimésuneconcurrencedéloyaleet
uneviolationdesdispositionsdelaLoisurladistributiondeproduitset
servicesfinanciersetduCodededéontologiedelaChambredela
sécuritéfinancière.Ellesleurontégalementreprochédefairecroireaux
assurésquePro-VieAssurancesétaitinsolvableetquelesassureurs
qu’ellereprésentaitétaientréticentsàhonorerdesréclamations.Le
premierjugeaconcluquelelitigeportaitsuruneguerrecommerciale
entreconcurrents,qu’ilyavaitabsencedepreuveprépondérante
d’uneutilisationmalicieusededocumentsetquelesrecours
disciplinairesétaientinefficaces.Or,laremisedecertainsdocumentsà
desassurésconstitueunactecontraireauxarticles16,30,31et32du
CodededéontologiedelaChambredelasécuritéfinancièreetdela
concurrencedéloyale.Parailleurs,lesautresrecourspossibles
n’apportaientpasderemèdeefficaceetlapreuvedémontre

64
l’existenced’unliendedroitavecL’Excellence,compagnie
d’assurance-vie.

MicrosoftCorp.v9038-3746QuebecInc.42CPR(4th)417,2005FC1144,2005CarswellNat
2426,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc1144.html,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc1144.shtml,(FC;2005-08-23)KelenJ.
Theplaintiffhadcommencedanactionforcopyrightandtrade-mark
infringementrelatingtosoftwarewhichtheplaintiffassertedwascounterfeit.
Followingtheexaminationsfordiscoveryofthedefendants,theplaintiff
broughtamotionseekingtocompelthedefendantsto,amongotherthings,
answerquestionsrefused,toprovideanswerstoundertakingsgivenandto
deliveraffidavitsofdocuments.Theprothonotarygrantedthemotionhaving
foundthat:theplaintiffestablishedinameticulousfashionthatthegreat
majorityoftherefusalswereexcessive,unwarrantedandunreasonable;the
defendantshadfailedtodeliveraffidavitsofdocumentsandanswer
undertakingswithinthetimeprovidedbycourtorder;and,thedefendants
actedinanobstructivefashionandaddedsubstantiallytothelengthand
expenseoftheproceedings.Theprothonotaryawardedcostsofthemotion
totheplaintiff,fixedandpayableforthwithinanyeventofthecause.The
defendants’appealedcertainaspectsoftheorder,includingtherefusals
orderedansweredandtheawardofcosts.Thedefendants’motionrecord
ontheappealdidnotcontainanydetailswithrespecttothebasisforthe
appealanddidnotcontainanytranscriptsfromtheexaminationsfor
discovery.Atthehearingoftheappealanagentappearedfordefendants’
counselandrequestedanadjournment.Thereasonfortherequested
adjournmentwasthatdefendants’counselhadtravelledunexpectedlyto
theOrientandhadreturnedtoMontreal,butwasnotabletoattendin
Torontoforthehearingoftheappeal.Noadvancenoticewasgiventothe
courtoftherequestforanadjournmentandplaintiff’scounselhadonly
beennotifiedbytelephonethedaybefore.Theplaintiffopposedthe
adjournment.

Held,theappealshouldbedismissed.

Inviewofthefindingoftheprothonotarythatthedefendantsactedinan
obstructivefashionandaddedsubstantiallytothelengthandexpenseof
theproceedings,itwasunreasonabletograntthelastminuterequestforan
adjournment.Inaddition,thedefendantsdidnotdemonstrateintheir
writtenrepresentationsthatthemotionhadrealmerit.

Onanappealfromadecisionofaprothonotarythecourtshouldnot
intervenesimplybecauseitwouldhavecometoadifferentconclusion.If,
however,thedecisionisclearlywrongorthequestionsarevitaltothefinal
issuesofthecase,thenthecourtmustconsidertheissuesdenovo.Theissues
raisedontheappealwerenotvitaltothefinalissueofthecase.

Thetestofrelevancydeterminestheproprietyofdiscoveryquestions.The
testofrelevancyistobebroadlyinterpreted.Itisinthediscretionofthe
prothonotarytodecidewhetheraquestionfallswithinthebroaddefinition
ofrelevancy.

65
Itisnotproperforthedefendantstomakeargumentsnotraisedintheir
writtenrepresentations.Thedefendantsdidnotallegeordemonstratein
theirwrittenrepresentationsthatthequestionsinthe26categoriesofrefusals
orderedansweredwerenotrelevant.However,thedefendantswere
allowedtomaketheirstrongestarguments.

Theprothonotarywasnotclearlywronginhisconclusionthatthequestions
refusedshouldbeanswered.
Withrespecttocosts,thedefendantsdidnotdemonstratethatthe
prothonotarywasclearlywrongandtherefore,therewasnobasisforthe
courttointervene.

MountRoyalCollegeBookstoreforthereproductionoftwoarticleswrittenbyRobertSeverns
[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-36,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/153-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-04-25)
MountRoyal
College
Bookstore(Re)
2002-UO/TI-36forthereproductionoftwo
articleswrittenbyRobert
Severnsinnomorethan37
copies2005-04-25
2006-12-31Commercial/
formation30¢/p
age
[$444
]Access
Copyrig
ht

NationalFilmBoardofCanadaforthereproductionandincorporationofeleven
transparenciesofEmilyCarr’sworksproducedbyphotographerMichaelNeillin1980[ReNon-
exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-29,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/166-
f.pdfN(CopBd;2005-09-02)
Officenational
dufilmdu
Canada(Re)
2005-UO/TI-29forthereproductionand
incorporationofeleven
transparenciesofEmilyCarr’s
worksproducedby
photographerMichaelNeill
in19802005-09-02
2005-12-31Commercial$2497CARCC

NationalFilmBoardofCanada,VilleSaint-Laurent,Quebec,tousepartofamusicalwork
writtenbyGeorgySviridov[ReApplicationbythe][2005]CBD9,File2005UO/TI-34,2005
CarswellNat2992,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/other/5-b.pdf,inFrenchat2005
CarswellNat2993(CopBd;2005-09-13)
Officenational
dufilmdu
Canada(Re)
2005-UO/TI-34tousepartofamusicalwork
writtenbyGeorgySviridov2005-09-13
REFUSED
[3]Sviridovhavingdiedin1998,hisworksareprotectedbycopyrightin
Canada.Pursuanttosubsection77(1)oftheAct,theBoardmayissuea
licenceallowingtheuseinCanadaofaworkofSviridovifthepersonwho
ownsthecopyrightintheworkcannotbelocated.Inthisinstance,thisisnot
thecase.Admittedly,giventhatthecopyrightentitlementovertheworksof
Sviridovistheobjectoflitigation,itisnotpossibletodeterminepreciselywho
ownstherelevantrights.Thatbeingsaid,accordingtotherecord,allthose
who,rightlyorwrongly,claimtoownsomerightsintheworksofSviridovare
known.Whatevertheissueofthelitigation,theowneroftherightsinthe
relevantworkmayremainundetermined,butisnotunlocatable.

66

NauticalDataInternational,Inc.InRetheBankruptcyandInsolvencyAct,2005CarswellNfld
180,2005NLTD110,11CBR(5th)144(Nfld&Labr.S.C.-;2005-06-24)HallJ;2005NLTD137,
http://www.canlii.org/nl/cas/nlsctd/2005/2005nlsctd137.html(Nfld&Labr.S.C.-ToLiftStay;
2005-08-12)RusselJ.;2005CarswellNfld228,2005NLTD141,13CBR(5th)223,
http://www.canlii.org/nl/cas/nlsctd/2005/2005nlsctd141.html(Nfld&Labr.S.C.-2005-08-19)
HallJ.
HallJ.(1)
Bankruptcyandinsolvency—Effectofbankruptcyonotherproceedings–
Miscellaneousissues

Bankruptfilednoticeofintentiontofileproposal–Companyhadcontract
withbankruptandpurportedtoterminatecontractuponnoticetofile
proposal–Thirdpartycompetitorssentlawyerstowatchproceedings–
Bankrupthadbroughtcopyrightinfringementproceedingsagainstthird
parties–Bankruptsuccessfullybroughtordertosealcontentsofcontract
betweencompanyandbankrupttoprotectagainstimproperusebythird
partycompetitors–Thirdpartiesbroughtapplicationtovacateorder–
Applicationgranted–Contractwasnotprotectedfromthirdparties’view–
Bankrupt’slitigationwiththirdpartiescouldnotpreventthirdpartiesfrom
viewingrelevantinformationrelatedtosuchlitigation–Contractbetween
bankruptandcompanywasrelevantinformationthatdidnotqualifyas
confidential–Anydamagessoughtinthirdparties’actionbroughtintoplay
needforevidenceonfinancialpositionofbankruptinordertodemonstrate
purportedlosses.

HallJ.(2)
Bankruptcyandinsolvency—Proposal–Meetingofcreditorstoconsider

Debtorheldcontractwithgovernmentagencyforlicenseduseof
navigationdata–Governmentagencyclaimedthatdebtorwasinbreach
andpurportedtoterminatecontract–Governmentagencyalsoclaimed
thatdebtorwasindebtedtoitduetocertainunpaidroyalties–Debtoralso
indebtedtoACOA–DebtorandACOAagreeduponsubstantiallyreduced
repaymentamount–Debtorannouncedintentiontofileproposal–Order
issuedpreventingterminationofcontract,andlaterorderissuedstatingthat
noticeofterminationwasineffective–Proposalcalledforrepaymentof
ACOAdebtoverthreeyearperiod–ACOAclaimedthatdebtorbreached
paymentschedule,andthatitwasthereforeentitledtosubstantiallylarger
amount–ACOAannouncedintentiontovoteagainstproposal–Debtor
claimedthatACOAandgovernmentagencywereactingtogethertoforce
bankruptcyandterminatecontract–Ordergiventhatcreditorscastvotes
butthatvotesnotbecounted–Meetingadjourned–Trusteebrought
motionfordirectionsregardingamountofdebtwhichcreditorswereentitled
tovote–ACOAentitledtovoteonunpaiddebtof$433,333.36,government
agencyentitledtovote$64,758.50–ACOAhadconcededtoreduceits
debtto$500,000anddebtorhadrelieduponconcessionbyincurringnew
debtrequiredbyACOALtd.–Factthatdebtoracquirednewdebtand
newsecurityagreementdidnotconstitutematerialbreachof
circumstancesallowingforincreasedrateofinterest–Factthatno
objectiontoamountofgovernmentagency’sclaimhadbeenmadebefore
meetingadjournedwasmereformalityandwascapableofcorrection–

67
Governmentagency’sclaimreducedbyset-offof$16,639.07,representing
deferredroyaltypaymentincorrectlyrecordedassales.

Bankruptcyandinsolvency—Proposal–Practiceandprocedure

Debtorheldcontractwithgovernmentagencyforlicenseduseof
navigationdata–Governmentagencyclaimedthatdebtorwasinbreach
andpurportedtoterminatecontract–Governmentagencyalsoclaimed
thatdebtorwasindebtedtoitduetocertainunpaidroyalties–Debtorwas
alsoindebtedtoACOA–DebtorandACOAagreeduponsubstantially
reducedrepaymentamount–Debtorannouncedintentiontofileproposal-
-Orderissuedpreventingterminationofcontract,andlaterorderissued
statingthatnoticeofterminationwasineffective–Proposalcalledfor
repaymentofACOAdebtoverthreeyearperiod–ACOAclaimedthat
debtorbreachedpaymentschedule,andthatitwasthereforeentitledto
substantiallylargeramount–ACOAannouncedintentiontovoteagainst
proposal–DebtorclaimedthatACOAandgovernmentagencywere
actingtogethertoforcebankruptcyandterminatecontract–Ordergiven
thatcreditorscastvotesbutthatvotesnotbecounted–CreditorCCL’svote
notcounted,asletterdidnotindicatewhethercreditorwasinfavourof
proposal–Dayaftervotestaken,CCLcommunicatedsupportforproposal-
-Meetingadjourned–Trusteebroughtmotionfordirectionsregarding
amountofdebtwhichcreditorswereentitledtovoteandwhetherCCL
entitledtovote–CCL’svotetobetaken–CCL’svotecountedinfavourof
proposal–CCLintendedtovote–Meetinghadbeenadjourned,rather
thanended,indicatingproceedingswerenotfinal.

Near-MissProductionsInc.,Montreal,Quebec,forthereproductionandincorporationofnine
photographsinadocumentaryfilm[ReNon-exclusivelicencedeliveredto]FileNo
2005UO/TI22;also,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/170-f.pdf(CopyrightBoard;2005-
11-21)
Near-Miss
ProductionsInc
(Re)
2005-UO/TI-22forthereproductionand
incorporationofnine
photographsina
documentaryfilmforno
morethan101secondsout
of90minutemovie2005-11-21
2015-12-31Commercial$1215SODART

NetboredInc.vAveryHoldingsInc.[2005]CarswellNat981,[2005]FCJ620,2005FC490,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc490.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc490.shtml,inFrench2005CarswellNat3142,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2005/2005cf490.shtml,http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2005/2005cf490.html,
(FC;2005-04-12)GibsonJ;42CPR(4th)321,2005FC933,[2005]FCJ1168,2005CarswellNat
1876,http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc933.shtml,inFrenchat2005CarswellNat
3727,http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/cf/2005/2005cf933.shtml(FC;2005-06-30)HeneghanJ.;
2005FC1405,[2005]FCJ1723,2005CarswellNat3289,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc1405.html(FC;2005-10-14)HughesJ.
(FC;2005-04-12)
MotionbytheplaintiffNetboredInc.fromaProthontary’sorderstrikingout
severalparagraphsfromthestatementofclaim.Netboredhad

68
commencedanactionfordamagesandinjunctivereliefforcopyright
infringementandotherclaims.Theparagraphsstruckfromthestatementof
claimwereparagraphsintendingtosetoutthecopyrightinfringement
claim.Theexpressions »useoftheplaintiff’sconfidentialinformationand »the
enforcementoftheplaintiff’semploymentcontracts »werealsostruck.These
expressionshadalsobeenincludedinanAntonPillarorderthathadbeen
grantedtoNetbored.Therewerependingmotionstostrikeouttheorder
andamotiontoreview.
HELD:Motionallowedinpart.Theallegationsintheimpugnedparagraphs
relatingtobreachofcontractandbreachoffiduciarydutyandsimilar
claimswerenotadvancedforthepurposeofestablishingcopyright
infringement.Theywereadvancedforthepurposeofobtainingreliefin
respectofthosebreachesthemselves.Assuch,theCourthadnojurisdiction
toentertainthem.Theparagraphpleadingthenon-disclosureagreement
shouldnothavebeenstruck.Itrelateddirectlytotheprecedingparagraphs
thatwereallowedtostandassupportiveoftheaggravated,exemplaryand
punitivedamagesclaim.Theexpressions »enforcementoftheemployment
contract »and »useofconfidentialinformation »werereinstated.The
dispositionoftheseexpressionsshouldbelefttobedealtwithbythejudge
hearingthemotionstoreviewandtostrike.

(FC;2005-06-30)
Theplaintiffhadcommencedanactionforcopyrightinfringement,aswell
asothercausesofaction,andhadsoughtandobtainedanAntonPiller
order.Theinjunctiverelieforiginallysoughtbytheplaintiffinthestatementof
claimincludedaninterim,interlocutoryandpermanentinjunctionrestraining
oneofthepersonaldefendants,S.E.,fromcompetingwiththeplaintiffand
fromusingordisclosingconfidentialorproprietaryinformationoftheplaintiff.
Thedefendantshadbroughtamotiontostrikeoutcertainparagraphsofthe
statementofclaim,includingtherequestfortheaforementionedinjunctive
relief.Themotionwasgrantedandtheplaintiffhadappealed.Theappeal
asitrelatedtotheinjunctivereliefwasdismissed.Theplaintiffthenprovided
anamendedstatementofclaimandamendedtheinjunctivereliefbeing
soughtsothatitwouldrestrainS.E.fromcompetingwiththeplaintiffand
fromusingordisclosingconfidentialorproprietaryinformationoftheplaintiff,
inordertopreventhimfromfurtherinfringingtheplaintiff’scopyrights.The
defendantsthenbroughtamotionchallengingthoseamendments.The
casemanagementprothonotaryfoundtheallegationstobeimproper.The
plaintiffappealed.

Held,theappealshouldbedismissed.

Inanappealfromanorderofaprothonotary,thecourtshouldapplyade
novostandardifthequestionraisedisvitaltothefinaldispositionofthecase
orwheretheprothonotarywasclearlywronginhavingexerciseddiscretion
onthebasisofanerrorinprincipleoruponamisapprehensionofthefacts.
Thedenovostandardistobeappliedtoanappealfromaprothonotary
whichinvolvedthequestionofamendmentstothepleadings.The
paragraphsinissueraisedallegationsofbreachofcontractandbreachof
fiduciaryduty.Thecourt’sjurisdictioninrespectofcopyrightdidnot
encompasstheclaimsinissueandthecourtdidnothavethejurisdictionto
granttheinjunctivereliefinissue.Therewasnoerrorbytheprothonotaryin
effectivelystrikingouttheparagraphsinissue.

69

(FC;2005-10-14).
ApplicationforreviewoftheexecutionofanAntonPillerorder,toconvert
aninteriminjunctiongrantedexpartetoaninteriminjunction,andfora
showcauseorderrequiringSeanErentoanswercontemptallegationswith
respecttotheAntonPillerorder.NetboredandAverywereinthebusinessof
sellingtelevisionsandaudioequipmentovertheinternet.SusanErenand
CoryKatzwereprincipalsofAveryandSeanErenwasSusan’sbrother.Sean
ErenworkedforNetboredasanindependentcontractortobuildawebsite
toattractcustomerstoNetbored’sproducts.SeanErensignedanon-
disclosureagreementassigningcopyrightinthewebsitetoNetbored.
Copyrightwasnotregistered.SeanErensubsequentlybecameaNetbored
employee,thenresignedtoworkforhissister’scompany,Avery.Avery’s
websitewassubstantiallysimilartoNetbored’ssite.Netboreddemanded
changestotheAverysite.AverymoveditshostservertoCanadaso
NetboredcouldnotuseAmericanlegislationtoforceittotakecontentthat
infringedNetbored’scopyrightoffitssite.Netboredcommencedanaction
againstAvery,SeanandSusanEren,andKatzforcopyrightinfringement.
Thepleadingsdidnotstatetheidentityofthecopyrightedwork,nordidit
statethenationalityoftheauthorandplaceoffirstpublication.Avery
subsequentlywentoutofbusiness.NetboredobtainedanexparteAnton
Pillerorder,requiringSusanandSeanErenandKatztodeliverupmaterial
concerningtheinfringementallegations,andaninjunctionrestrainingthem
fromusingNetbored’sconfidentialinformation.SeanErenwaspresentwhen
Netbored’srepresentativecametohishometoexecutetheAntonPiller
order,butdidnotrevealhimself.Hisfifteen-year-olddaughteransweredthe
door.SeanErendidnotdisclosehehadacomputerwhichlikelycontained
relevantfiles,andlaterclaimedthecomputercrashedandallinformation
waslost.SusanErendelivereduphercomputer.Itcontainedcopiesof
materialsusedinNetbored’swebsiteandotherinformationuniqueto
Netbored.

HELD:TheAntonPillerorderwasvacated.Damageresultingfromany
potentialcopyrightinfringementbyAverywasnotprovenbyNetbored.
TherewereproblemswithNetbored’sclaimtocopyright,inthatthe
pleadingsdidnotcontainenoughinformationandcopyrighthadnever
beenregistered.AlthoughtherewasarealpossibilitySeanErenwould
destroyevidence,Netbored’scasedidnotrestuponevidencehemight
destroy.Realharmwasdonetothedignityofthelawbyexecutingthe
AntonPillerorderattheresidenceofSeanEren,wherehisdaughterhadto
dealwithNetbored’srepresentatives.Theinjunctionwasvacated.AsAvery
wasoutofbusiness,itwasunlikelytocontinuetouseanythingclaimedas
proprietarybyNetbored.AnypotentialharmtoNetboredcouldbe
compensatedindamages.Ashowcauseorderwasissued,requiringSean
Erentoanswerallegationsofcontempt.Hisconductinfailingtoturnoverhis
computer,withfullknowledgeoftheorderrequiringhimtodoso,wasnot
appropriate.Thefacttheorderwaslatervacateddidnotremovethe
contempt,butcouldbeconsideredbythejudgeinthepossibleimposition
ofpenaltiesandfines.

OfficeoftheLieutenantGovernorofQuébecforthereproductionofaphotograph[Re
ApplicationbyThe]File2004-UO/TI-37,2005CarswellNat1849,http://www.cb-

70
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/other/4-b.pdf,inFrenchat2005CarswellNat1850(CopBd;2005-03-
03)
Lieutenant
Governorof
Quebec(Re)
2004-UO-TI-37forthereproductionofa
photograph2005-03-03
REFUSED
[3]Subsection77(1)oftheActprovidesthattheBoardcanlicencetheuse
ofworksprotectedbycopyrightwhoserightsholdercannotbelocatedonly
iftheworkhasbeenpublished.TheBoardhas,fromtimetotime,reliedon
indiciathatwouldnotmeetthecivilburdenofproofincircumstanceswhere
therewasatleastsomeevidenceallowingittoconcludethataworkhad
beenpublishedandgrantalicense.Inthiscasethereisacomplete
absenceofevidencethatthephotographhasbeenpublishedandthe
Boardcannotconcludeinthesecircumstancesthattheworkmeetsthe
publicationrequirementsetoutinsection77oftheAct.

Oppenheim(David)forthereproductionandincorporationofafilmclipfrom »ANewWorldin
theYukon »producedin1970byJerryFairbanksProductions,Hollywood,CAinassociationwith
CanawestFilmProductionsLtd.ofVancouver,B.C.,AProductionofAnvilMiningCorporation
Ltd.[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-10,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/122-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-04-12)
Oppenheim
(Re)
2005-UO/TI-10forthereproductionand
incorporationofafilmclip
from »ANewWorldinthe
Yukon »producedin1970by
JerryFairbanksProductions,
Hollywood,CAinassociation
withCanawestFilm
ProductionsLtd.of
Vancouver,B.C.,
AProductionofAnvilMining
CorporationLtd.2005-04-12
2020-12-31Commercial/
documentary$180PACC

ProductionsLtd.ofVancouver,B.C.,AProductionofAnvilMiningCorporationLtd.[ReNon-
exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-10,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/122-
e.pdf(CopBd;2005-04-12)

ParkervKeyPorterBooksLtd.40CPR(4th)80,2005CarswellOnt2098,[2005]OJ2093,2005
CanLII18294,http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2005/2005onsc13750.html(OntSupCt;2005-
05-26)MacMahonJ.
TheplaintiffMaracle,afirstnationsartist,createdartisitcworksdescribedas
dreamcatchers.Thedefendant,aprofessionalpublisher,published
photographsof21oftheplaintiffartist’sworkswithoutpermissioninabook.
Thephotographshadadominantroleinthebook,includingoneofthe
photographsbeingfeaturedonthefrontcoverofthebookandeachofthe
21photographstakingupafullorone-halfpageofthepublication.The
bookalsoincludedtwopagesofdetailedinstructionsonhowtocreatethe
dreamcatchers.Thepublisherpublished9,550copiesofthebook.The
plaintiffartisthadbeenwillingtohavephotographsofherworksincludedin

71
abookasproposedbythepublisherontheconditionthatthebookwasa
children’sbookandthattheplaintiff’sbusinesswasgivencredit.The
publisherdidnotcomplywiththeseconditions.

Theplaintiffscommencedanactionforcopyrightinfringementagainstthe
publisherandretaillerswhosoldcopiesofthebook.Thecaseproceededas
asimplifiedrulestrial.Theplaintiffselectedtoseekcompensatorydamages.
Inanoraljudgment,thetrialjudgeconcludedthatthepublisherhad
infringedtheplaintiffs’copyrightbypublishingthephotographsofthe
plaintiffartistsworkwithoutpermission.Thetrialjudgefurtherheldthatthe
plaintiffs’claimforbreachofaboriginalrightsandofmoralrightswasnot
provenonthebalanceofprobabilitiesanddismissedthoseclaims.Theclaim
forsecondaryinfringementwasalsodismissed.

Theplaintiffsclaimeddamagesof$241,106.31includingprofitsfrom
booksellersforsecondaryinfringement,thepublisher’sprofitsand,
reasonableroyalty,lossofbusiness,intangiblelosses,punitivedamagesand
interest.

Held,theplaintiffsshouldbeentitledtoanawardofdamagesforcopyright
infringementintheamountof$40,000.

Theplaintiffswerenotentitledtodamagesfromthedefendantretailers
becausetheyfailedtoproveonabalanceofprobabilitiesthatasecondary
infringementofcopyrightoccurred.

Thepublisherpublishedthebookasatradebook,whichcreatedgoodwill
forit.Afairandreasonableamountforthegoodwillgeneratedfromthis
publicationwas$5,000.Additionally,theplaintiffwasentitledto$5,000for
profitsgeneratedonthebook,pursuanttos.35(1)oftheCopyrightAct,
R.S.C.1985,vC-42.

Theclaimforreasonableroyaltieswasdismissedbecausetheonlyevidence
onthispointwassecond-handhearsaywhichdidnotsatisfythebalanceof
probabilitiesstandard.

Theplaintiffs’affidavitindicatedthatsalesoftheworksstartedtodecreasein
2000whenthepublisherpublisheditsbook,whiletheplaintiffs’salesoverall
increased.Theplaintiffs’businesslostover$36,011.68inthesalesoftheworks
between2000and2002.Theplaintiffswerethereforeentitledto$25,000for
thelossofbusinesscausedbythepublisherscopyrightinfringement.

Theplaintiffsfailedtoprovethatthepublisher’sincorrectportrayalofthe
dreamcatchersasOjibwayartisticworksratherthantheircorrect
identificationasMohawkartisticworkswasabreachofmoralrights.

Theplaintiffswereentitledtobecompensatedintheamountof$5,000for
thepublisher’sfailuretogivecredittotheirbusinessandmistakenlygiving
credittoanothercompany,becauseoftheplaintiffslostopportunity.

Theplaintiffswerenotentitledtopunitivedamagesbecausethe
defendant’sconductwasneitherdeliberatenormalicious.

72
Finally,theplaintiffswereentitledtopre-andpost-judgmentinterest
pursuanttotheCourtsofJusticeAct,R.S.O.1990,vv43.

Thetotalawardofdamagesforwhichtheplaintiffswereentitledagainstthe
publisherwas$40,000.Theplaintiffartistwasnotentitledtoanyfurtheraward
ofdamages.

PearsonEducationCanadaforthereproductionofthearticleentitledGettingOffWelfare
(authorunknown)[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-05,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/155-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-05-04)
Pearson
Education
canda(Re)
2005-UO/TI-05forthereproductionofthe
articleentitledGettingOff
Welfare(authorunknown)in
nomorethan10800copies2005-05-04
2010-12-31Commercial$150Access
Copyrig
ht

PositiveAttitudeSafetySystemsInc.vAlbianSandsEnergyInc.[2004]FCJ1253,258FTR30,
[2004]CarswellNat2299,2004FC1022,33CPR(4th)460
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc1022.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc1022.shtml(FC;2004-07-23);revd2005CarswellNat3575,[2005]FCJ
1731,2005FCA332,http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fca/2005/2005fca332.htmland
http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca/2005/2005fca332.shtml(FCA;2005-10-17)PelletierJ.
[47]Themotionjudgedecidedthatasafetyhuddlewasnotaperformance
withinthemeaningoftheCopyrightActandthereforethesafetyhuddlecould
notconstituteaninfringementoftherespondents’copyright.Themotion
judge’sconclusionappearstohavebeenbasedonhisunderstandingthat
whilethequestionsaskedatasafetyhuddlemayhavebeen »scripted »,the
answerswerenotsothatthehuddle,takenasawhole,wassomethingother
thantheworkinwhichcopyrightsubsists.Theauthoritiestowhichwewere
directedintherespondents’MemorandumofFactandLawdealwiththe
publicperformanceofunpublishedlectures,whichdoesnotassistinthe
resolutionofthisissue.

Production&StudioMiDoinc.,Métabetchouan-Lac-à-la-Croix,Quebec,forthemechanical
reproductionofthesong »LepèreNoëlc’t’unquébécois »writtenbyPierreLaurendeauand
RogerMagnan,publishedby »PopSuccess »and »ReliableMusic »[ReNon-exclusivelicence
deliveredto]FileNo.2005UO/TI39;also,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/169-f.pd
(CopyrightBoard;2005-10-17)
Production&
StudioMiDoinc.
(Re)
2005-UO/TI-39forthemechanical
reproductionofthesong »Le
pèreNoëlc’t’unquébécois »
writtenbyPierreLaurendeau
andRogerMagnan,
publishedby »PopSuccess »
and »ReliableMusic »forno
morethan2000CDs2005-10-17
2006-11-31Commercial$50SODRA
C

PrudhommevShaddock,2005BCPC256,[2005]BCJ1604,2005CarswellBC1601,[2005]
BCWLD4500,[2005]BCWLD.4507,[2005]BCWLD4639,

73
http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcpc/2005/2005bcpc256.html,
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2005/02/p05_0256.htm(BCProvCt;2005-06-
16)HoganJ.
[9]AstothecomputerIdismissherclaim.Duringhercrossexaminationof
thedefendant,itbecameclearthatNinaPrudhommewasawarethat
whenshepurchasedthecomputer,itwasoperatingwithpiratedsoftware.
Thecourtwillnotprovidereliefwheretheclaimantknowinglyviolated
copyrightlaws.Itisironicthatboththedefendantandclaimant,whoboth
accusetheotherofstealingeachother’screativework,aremorethan
willingtotrafficinpiratedsoftware,wherethedesignerwillneverreceivea
financialreward.

PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks2003-2007andPublicPerformanceofSoundRecordings
2003-2007[Re][2005]CBD5,2005CarswellNat3359,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/m14102005-b.pdf(CopBd;2005-10-14)
[85]TheBoardhasstatedinthepastthat »rightsholdersareentitledtoreceive
additionalbenefitsfromnewusesoftherepertoire. »[Board’sdecisionofMarch
15,2002ontheSOCAN-NRCCPayAudioServicesTarifffortheyears1997-2002,
page16andBoard’sdecisionofMarch28,2003onCMRRA/SODRACInc.(CSI)
CommercialRadioTarifffortheyears2001-2004,page25.]Thesameistrueof
increaseduses.IntheBoard’sview,radio’sincreaseduseofmusichashelpedit
tocreatesignificantefficiencies,ashareofwhichshouldgotorightsholders.
90[…]Onceagain,theBoardconcludesthatthecommunicationofamusical
workshouldtriggerthesameremunerationasthecommunicationofasound
recording,subjecttorepertoireadjustments.

PublicPerformanceofMusicalWorks,2003-2006,Re[2005]CarswellNat541,[2005]CBD3;in
Frenchat[2005]CarswellNat542,[2005]CBD3,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/m25022005-b.pdf,inFrenchat2005CarswellNat3360(CopBd;2005-02-
25)
[8]ThetarifftheBoardcertifiesfortheperiod2003to2006isinaccordance
withtheagreementandthusidenticaltotheoneproposedfor2005and
2006.Thecertifiedratesareasfollows:
12.35percentand5.85percentofaffiliationpaymentsforSOCAN
andNRCCrespectively,and

6.175percentand2.925percentofaffiliationpaymentsforSOCAN
andNRCCrespectively,forsmallsystems.

[9]Thetariffincludesthefollowingchangescomparedtotheonecertified
for1997-2002:
1.The1997-2002certifiedtariffmodifiedthewordingoftheDefinition
of »SmallCableTransmissionSystem »Regulations(SOR/94-755)totake
intoaccounttheExemptionOrderforSmallCableUndertakings
(Appendix1,PublicNoticeCRTC2001-121,December7,2001).Asthe
BoardexplainedinitsdecisionofMarch19,2004withrespectto
SOCAN’sTariffs2.Aand17,thisapproachcreateslegaldifficulties.The
tarifftheBoardnowcertifiesadoptstheapproachusedforSOCAN’s
Tariff17(CanadaGazette,March20,2004,section

74
2):section3ensuresthatsystemswhichmayhavelosttheirstatusas
smallcabletransmissionsystemsasaresultoftheCRTCexemption
orderwillcontinuetopaythesameamountofroyaltiesassmallcable
transmissionsystems.Thisistheapproachproposedbythecollectives
for2005and2006.

2.AspecificreferencetoNRCC’sTariff3,whichhadnotyetbeen
proposedatthetimeofthelastcertification,hasbeenaddedto
subsection4(2)whichenumeratesusescoveredbyothertariffsand
thusnotcoveredbythistariff.

3.Paragraph10(2)(iii)ofthetariffprovidesthatacollectivesociety
wishingtoshareconfidentialinformationinconnectionwith
proceedingsbeforetheBoardmustfirstaffordtheundertakingthat
providedtheinformationtheopportunitytorequestthatitbetreated
confidentially.Partieshaveagreedtotheadditionofthisnew
condition.Asthisisconsistentwithitspastpractices,theBoardagrees
toincludeitinthistariff.TheBoardtakesnotehoweverthatthisisa
newwordingofaparagraphincludedinmanyothertariffs.When
appropriate,theBoardwillexaminethepossibilityofmodifyingthe
othertariffsinordertoensureconsistency.

4.Thetransitionalprovisionsarenolongerrelevantandaredeleted.

PublicPerformanceofSoundRecordings2003-2005,Re;[2005]CarswellNat486,[2005]CBD2
and[2005]CBD2;inFrench[2005]CarswellNat487,[2005]CBD1,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/m14012005-b.pdf(CopBd;2005-01-14)
[1]Pursuanttosubsection67.1(1)oftheCopyrightAct(theAct),the
NeighbouringRightsCollectiveofCanada(NRCC)filedonApril2,2002[Fn
1March31,2002wasaSunday,andApril1,2002,aholiday.],itsstatement
ofproposedroyaltiesforthepublicperformanceorthecommunicationto
thepublicbytelecommunication,inCanada,ofpublishedsound
recordingsembodyingmusicalworksandperformer’sperformancesof
suchworksfortheyears2003to2007.Thestatementwaspublishedinthe
CanadaGazetteonMay11,2002.

[4]TheBoardtakesnoteoftheagreement[betweenNRCCandCBC]and
certifiesfortheperiod2003-2005atariffidenticaltotheonecertifiedfor
1998-2002,exceptasfollows:
1.Thetitleofthe1998-2002tariffreferredto »publishedsound
recordingsembodyingmusicalworksandperformer’sperformances
ofsuchworks »,whereassection1referredto »publishedsound
recordingsofmusicalworks ».Thewordingofsection1ismodifiedto
beconsistentwiththetitleofthetariff.

2.Section2referredtothetransitionalroyaltyratessetoutintheAct.
Thoseratesarespent.Consequently,section2isdeleted.

3.Section7,whichcontainstransitionalprovisionsthatarenolonger
relevant,isdeleted.

75

RvThériault*[2004]CarswellQue3201,(subnomineRvD’Argy)[2004]JQ11142,2004IIJCan
45941,2004CarswellQue3201,[2005]RJQ857,REJB2004-72244,JE2005-475,SOQUIJAZ-
50277166,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccq/2004/2004qccq49479.html(QueCt;2004-10-28);
revd(subnomineRvD’Argy)SOQUIJAZ-50304828,JE2005-1008,[2005]R.J.Q.1520,[2005]JQ
2499,2005CarswellQue931,REJB2005-87515,2005IIJCan8977,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs19052.html(QueSupCt;2005-03-31);motion
forleavetoappealontheconstitutionalissuegranted2005CarswellQue3570REJB2005-
91519,JE2005-1178,SOQUIJAZ-50318085,2005QCCA604(QueCA;2005-04-20)
(QueSupCt;2005-03-31)
Résumé
Appeld’unedécisiondelaCourduQuébecayantprononcéun
acquittementrelativementàdesinfractionsàlaLoisurla
radiocommunication.Accueilli.

Lesintimésavaientinstalléunsystèmequileurpermettaitdedécoder,pour
leurusagepersonneletsansautorisationpréalable,lessignauxémisparun
distributeuraméricain,DirecTV,quin’estpasundistributeurlégitimeau
Canada.Ilsontétéaccusésd’avoirillégalementpossédéetmisenventeun
dispositifpermettantdedécoderdessignauxdetélévisionpayantetransmis
parsatelliteenviolationdesarticles9et10(1)delaLoisurla
radiocommunication.LaCourduQuébecaconcluqu’ilavaitétédémontré
horsdetoutdouteraisonnablequelesintimésavaientviolélaloi.Elles’est
ensuitepenchéesurlaquestiondesavoirsilesdispositionsdelaloiviolaient
lalibertéd’expressiondesintimés.Elleaconcluquelesactivitésdesintimés
relevaientdumarchénoiretqueceux-cinepouvaientinvoquerla
protectiondelaChartecanadiennedesdroitsetlibertéspourjustifier
l’appropriationillégaleetlaventedubiend’autrui.Cependant,elleaffirme
qu’ilenvaautrementdu«marchégris»,oùlesauditeurscanadiens
acquittentlesdroitsrequismaisfontdefaussesdéclarationsquantàleurlieu
derésidenceafind’obtenirlesignald’abonnement.Lapremièrejugea
concluquecesfaussesdéclarationssontcauséesparlapolitique
canadiennedeprohibitiontotalededécodercesignal,laquelleviolela
libertéd’expressiongarantieparlachartecanadienne.Nejugeantpas
cetteatteinteraisonnableetjustifiéedansunesociétélibreet
démocratique,elleadéclaréquelesdispositionsdelaloicréantles
infractionsportaientatteinteàlalibertéd’expressiongarantieparl’article2
b)delachartecanadienneetétaientinopérantes.Lesintimésontété
acquittés.Lesquestionsenlitigesont:1)Lapremièrejugea-t-elleerréense
prononçantsurlaconstitutionnalitédesdispositionsattaquéesenl’absence
decontextefactuel?2)A-t-ellecommisuneerreurmanifesteet
déterminantedansl’appréciationdelapreuveenconcluantqueles
déclarationsfrauduleusesdesauditeurscanadiensquiontrecoursau
marchégrissontdirectementliéesàlapolitiquecanadienneenmatièrede
radiodiffusion?

Décision
LaCourduQuébecaconcluquelesélémentsessentielsdesinfractions
reprochéesavaientétéprouvéshorsdetoutdouteraisonnableetson
analyseauraitdûs’arrêterlà.Ayantdécidéquelesintimésnepouvaient
invoquerlaprotectiondelacharte,lasolutiondulitigenecommandaitpas
detrancherundébatconstitutionneletlapremièrejugeauraitdûfaire
preuvederetenue.Enprocédantàl’analysedelavaliditéconstitutionnelle

76
desdispositionsattaquéesenrapportaveclemarchégrisalorsqu’aucune
preuveneluipermettaitdelefaire,elleaerréendroit.Parailleurs,ellea
commisuneerreurmanifesteetdéterminantedansl’appréciationdela
preuve.Saconclusionvoulantquelesfaussesdéclarationsdesauditeurs
canadiensayantrecoursaumarchégrisnedécoulentpasd’uneintention
detrompermaisdelapolitiquecanadiennederadiodiffusioninterdisantà
toutepersonnen’étantpasundistributeurlégitimededécoderlessignaux
d’abonnementparsatelliten’estquespéculation,conjectureethypothèse.
Lapreuved’uneviolationdelalibertéd’expressionnepermettaitpasde
concluredanscesens.Ilaétéétabliquec’estuniquementparcequ’ila
déclaréfrauduleusementrésiderauxÉtats-Unisquel’auditeurcanadiena
réussiàsouscrireauservicedeDirecTV,sansquoilademande
d’abonnementn’auraitpasétéaccueillie.Enconcluantcommeellel’afait,
lapremièrejugeaécartétoutelapreuverelativeauxcessionsdedroits
d’auteursconsentisàDirecTVetévacuétoutelaquestiondudroitd’auteur.
EnplusdeconstituerunefraudecontreDirecTV,lemarchégriss’enprend
auxdistributeurscanadiensquiontpayélestitulairesdesdroitsd’auteurs
danslebutd’obtenirlesdroitsdediffusionpourleterritoirecanadien.
DirecTVnesouhaitepasquesonsignald’abonnementsoitaccessibleàdes
personnesautresquecellesqu’elleaccepteetelleluttevigoureusement
contrelemarchégris.Elleaaffirméque,mêmesilesarticles9et10delaloi
étaientdéclarésinconstitutionnels,ellenerendraitpassonsignaldisponible
auCanada,fauted’avoirobtenulesdroitsd’auteurnécessaires.Le
gouvernementcanadiennes’estjamaisimmiscédanslaréceptiondirecte
dessignauxétrangersparleconsommateurenclairetgratuitement.Iln’a
pasnonplusréclamél’encodage.Celui-cirésultedelaseulevolontédes
distributeursderendreleursémissionsaccessiblesauxseulespersonnesqu’ils
autorisent.Parconséquent,l’appelestaccueilli.Ilyalieudeprononcerun
verdictdeculpabilitéetderenvoyerledossieràlajugedelaCourdu
Québecafinqu’elledéterminelapeineàimposer.

(QueCA;2005-04-20)
Résumé
Requêtepourautorisationd’interjeterappeld’unjugementdelaCour
supérieure.Accueillie.

Décision
Le27mai2002,laCourarenvoyéledossierenpremièreinstance,
conscientequelesrequérantsentendaientyinvoquerunargument
constitutionnel.AprèsquelaCourduQuébecsefutprononcéedefaçon
exhaustive,laCoursupérieureaestiméqu’iln’étaitpasnécessairedestatuer
surl’incompatibilitéconstitutionnelledesdispositionsdelaLoisurla
radiocommunicationavecl’article2b)delaChartecanadiennedesdroits
etlibertés.Mêmesil’argumentdesrequérantssemblefaible,ledéroulement
particulierdel’affairefondeàaccorderlapermissiond’interjeterappel,mais
uniquementpourdébattredel’argumentd’inconstitutionnalité.

R.vMénard*2005IIJCan24780,SOQUIJAZ-50323098,JE2005-1478,2005CarswellQue6348,
REJB2005-92816,http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccq/2005/2005qccq60324.html(QueCt-Crim
Div;2005-06-29)RoyJ.;motionsforleavetoappealdeniedastothequestionoffactsSOQUIJ
AZ-50336748,2005CarswellQue9581,2005QCCA914andSOQUIJAZ-50336814,2005
CarswellQue9577,2005QCCA2005

77
(QueCt-CrimDiv;2005-06-29
Résumé
AccusationssousquatrechefsdevoletdefraudeenvertuduCode
criminel.Arrêtconditionnelsouslepremierchef.Déclarationdeculpabilité
sousledeuxième.Acquittementsouslesdeuxdernierschefs.Accusation
sousneufchefsd’infractionsàlaLoisurlafailliteetl’insolvabilité.Déclaration
deculpabilitésousleschefsnos3,4,6,7et8.Acquittementsousleschefs
nos1,5et9.Arrêtconditionnelrelativementauchefd’accusationno2.

L’accuséMénardestleseuladministrateurdelacompagnieMicrovel
Technologiesinc.Cettedernièreafaitunepropositionconcordataire,que
sescréanciersontacceptéeetqueletribunalahomologuéeenmai1999.
Malgrécertainsmanquementsdansl’exécutiondelaproposition,la
compagniearéussiàs’entendreavecsescréanciersafindemodifierla
proposition.Enavril2000,Ménardaavisélesyndicquelacompagnieavait
reçu317772$encréditsd’impôtetquel’argentavaitétédéposéenlieu
sûr.Àlafindejuin,lacompagnieafaitcessiondesesbiensetaremis
environ30000$ausyndic.Àcemoment,sonactifs’élevaità276000$et
sonpassif,à640452$.Lebilannecontientaucunementiondescrédits
d’impôtreçusnidesbanquesaveclesquelleslacompagniefaisaitaffaire.
Uneenquêtedusyndicapermisd’établirquelacompagnieavaitencaissé
lechèquedescréditsd’impôtetqu’undénomméAïssiavaitagiàtitre
d’intermédiairepourplacerl’argent.Lesyndicatentéenvainderécupérer
celui-ci.Parlasuite,ilaréclaméàunecaissepopulaireleremboursement
des16425$queMicrovelluiavaitversésavantsafailliteenremboursement
d’unprêthypothécairequeMénardavaitcautionné.Dansundossierpénal,
cedernierafaitl’objetdequatrechefsd’accusationportantsurlevoletla
fraudedesommestotalisant400000$.Dansledossierdefaillite,ilfaitl’objet
deneufchefsd’accusationpourdesinfractionscommises,àtitre
d’administrateur,envertudelaLoisurlafailliteetl’insolvabilité.

Décision
Dansunpremiertemps,ils’agitdedéterminersil’utilisationduchèquede
317772$constitueuneinfractioncriminelledevoloudefraude.Ménardest
unhommed’affairesexpérimentéetilsavaitquel’argentdevaitêtre
déposéaucomptebancairedelacompagnie.Or,dèslaréceptiondu
chèque,iladécidéderetirercettesommeducompteetd’enconserverla
gestion.Ilautilisédesstratégiespourdissimulersesintentionsvéritableset
pourdétournerdesfondsquidevaientserviràpayerlescréanciers.Ses
démarchesenvuedelacessiondesbiensdelacompagnienevisaient
qu’àgagnerdutempsenattendantderecevoirtouslescréditsd’impôt
auxquelsilpensaitavoirdroit.Àtitredecautiond’unedettede100000$,il
avaitunintérêtpersonneldanschacunedecesmanigancesetses
décisionsconstituaientautantdemoyensdolosifsafind’éviterdepayer.
C’estdoncdélibérémentetentouteconnaissancedecausequ’ila,
frauduleusementetsansapparencededroit,utilisél’argentdela
compagnieavecl’intentiond’enprivercettedernièreainsiqueles
créanciers.Ilestdoncreconnucoupabledefraudesousledeuxièmechef
d’accusation.L’arrêtconditionneldesprocéduresestordonnéquantau
premierchefportantsurlevolpuisqu’ils’agitd’uneinfractionmoindre
commisedanslesmêmescirconstancesquelafraude.Encequiatraità
soncomportementpourobteniruninvestissementde100000$delapart
d’undénomméBourkas,iln’existepasdepreuvedevolnidefraude.Il

78
semblequecedernierabiencomprislanaturedesoninvestissementet
qu’iln’étaitpasintéresséàconnaîtrelesdétailsdelagestiondecette
somme.

Lessixpremierschefsd’accusationrelatifsauxinfractionsàlaLoisurlafaillite
etl’insolvabilitéconstituentdesinfractionsdenatureadministrative,pour
lesquelleslapreuvedel’intentioncoupablen’estpasrequise.Ilsuffitde
prouverl’accomplissementdel’acte.Lestroisautreschefsd’accusation
portantsurdesinfractionsdenaturecriminelleenvertudecetteloi,chaque
élémentdel’infractiondoitêtreprouvéhorsdetoutdouteraisonnable.En
outre,envertudel’article204delaloi,l’administrateurquiaordonnéou
autorisél’infractionestconsidérécommecoauteurdecelle-ci.Ménarda
omisderemettreausyndictouslesbiensqu’ilavaitensapossessionousous
soncontrôle,notammentles75000$provenantd’actionsvendues(premier
chefd’accusation).Aucunepreuven’indiquequ’ilauraitreçudel’argent
d’investisseursaprèsladatedelafaillite.Deplus,lesyndicàlaproposition
concordataireneluiajamaisdemandédeleteniraucourantdesaffaires
delacompagnie.Ilnes’intéressaitqu’auxcréditsd’impôtetvoulaits’assurer
quecessommesserviraientàpayerlescréanciers.Ménardpouvaitdonc
raisonnablementcroirequelesentréesdefondsautresquelescrédits
d’impôtrestaientsoussonadministration.Parconséquent,ilestacquittéde
cetteinfraction.D’autrepart,ilamanquéàsonobligationderemettreau
syndicdeuxprototypesdevéhicule,deuxchargeursdepilesetune
génératricequisontlesfruitsdutravailetdesinvestissementseffectuésdans
lacompagnie.Mêmes’iln’avaitcédéàcelle-ciquel’usagedesesdroits
d’auteur,ildevait,dèslafaillite,révélercettesituationausyndicpourlui
permettred’apprécierlavaleurdecedroit.Ildevaitaussiluiremettreune
preuvedesondroitdepropriétéainsiquelalistedesbiensluiappartenant
personnellement.Iln’ajamaisremplicetengagement.Ilestdoncreconnu
coupablesousletroisièmechefd’accusation.Toutefois,puisquerien
n’indiquequ’iladéplacélesbiensdanslebutdelescacheretdepriverles
créanciers,ilestacquittésouslechefno9.Parailleurs,ilestreconnu
coupabled’avoiromisderemettreausyndictousleslivresetregistresse
rattachantdequelquefaçonauxbiensouauxaffairesdelacompagnie
(chefno4).Eneffet,iln’adonnéaucuneexplicationraisonnableàcesujet.
D’autrepart,ilestacquittésousl’accusationd’avoiromisdedresserun
inventairecompletdel’actifdelacompagnie(chefno5)étantdonnéque
lesyndicalui-mêmemanquéàcetteobligation.Ilestdéclarécoupable
d’avoiromisd’aiderlesyndicàlaréalisationdesbiensetaupartageentre
lescréanciers(chefno6).Iln’apascollaboréàlaliquidationdel’entreprise.
Deplus,iladélibérémentfavorisél’undesescréanciersenluiremettantun
chèquede16425$le8mai2000àmêmelescréditsd’impôtreçus,privant
ainsilamassedescréanciersdecettesomme.Ilestdoncreconnu
coupablesouslechefno7.Ilestégalementcoupabled’avoirremis
frauduleusementunesommede8000$àArnoldChevroletpour
l’automobiledesaconjointe(chefno8).Iln’apasdonnéd’explication
suffisantesurcetteutilisationpersonnelledel’argentdelacompagnie.

[338]L’accusél’aclairementmentionné,leseulactifvéritabledeMICROVEL
estlavaleurdesrechercheseffectuéesaveclescapitauxrecueillispar
l’émissiond’actionsoud’optionssoutenantsondéveloppement.

79
[339]L’accusénepeutêtrel’actionnairemajoritairedel’entrepriseeten
mêmetempsresterpropriétaireetacquériraufuretàmesurelesdroits
d’auteurdéveloppésparl’entitécommerciale.

[341]Àpartirtoutefoisdumomentoùl’entreprisefaitcessiondesesbiens,il
nepeut,telqu’ill’atenté,ennégociertouslesaspectstelunbailetdevient
alorssoumisàlaLoisurlafailliteetl’insolvabilitéquil’obligeàdéclareretà
remettrelesbiensdel’entreprise.

[342]Ilamanquéàsesobligationsàl’égarddelagénératriceetde
l’automobileprototypedestylecamionblancincluantles2chargeursàpile
quirésultentdutravailetdesinvestissementseffectuésdansMICROVEL.

[343]Mêmes’iln’avaitcédéquel’usagedesesdroitsd’auteur,ildevait
révélercettesituationausyndicpourluipermettred’apprécierlavaleurde
cedroit.

R.vBenchmuel[2005]OJ1008(OntCt;2005-01-18)FavretJ.
SentencingofthedefendantBenchmuelandhiscompanyfollowingtheir
guiltypleastoseveralcopyrightoffences.Benchmuelsoldunauthorized
clothingthatheadvertisedasofficialgarments.Thepartiesofferedajoint
sentenceofa$1,000finepercountandaconditionalsentenceofsix
months.Benchmuelsought24monthstopaythefinesbecauseofhis
diminishedfinancialcapacity.Hehadnopreviousrecord.

HELD:Benchmuelwassentencedtosixmonths,tobeservedinthe
community.Heandthecompanywereeachfined$1,000oneachoffence.
Thejointsubmissionwasfitandappropriate.Generalandspecific
deterrencewereimportantconsiderations.Thefinesweretobepaidwithin
oneyear.

R.vFerguson((2004)),2004CarswellOnt847,1MVR(5th)299(Ont.vJ.);revd.2005
CarswellOnt3733(OntSupCtJ;2005-08-12)DurnoJ.
Criminallaw—CharterofRightsandFreedoms–Righttobetriedwithin
reasonabletime–General

OnDecember17,2001,accusedwaschargedwithimpairedoperationand
operatingmotorvehiclehavingconsumedexcessalcohol–OnMarch2,
2004,over26monthsfollowingarrest,aftertwo »trialdays »occupiedwith
disclosuremotions,twotrialdelayapplicationsandevidenceheardover
sevendays,trialjudgefoundaccusedguiltyonbothcounts–Trialjudge
stayedchargesbecauseaccusedhadnothadtrialwithinreasonabletime,
contrarytos.11(b)ofCanadianCharterofRightsandFreedoms–Crown
appealed–Appealallowed–Thereweretwoprinciplereasonswhytrial
tooksolongtocomplete:disclosurerequestsandapplications;and
underestimationsoftrialtime–Inbothareas,trialjudge’sfindingswere
contrarytobindings.11(b)jurisprudence–AsregardsappearanceonMay
30,2003,dateseconddisclosureapplicationwasheard,trialjudge
misapprehendedfacts,proceedingonbasisthattrialevidencehadstarted
onthatdateandcasehadtobeadjournedtoanotherdateforcompletion

80
–TrialevidencedidnotstartuntilSeptember15,2003–Accordingly,onkey
timeintrialjudge’sjudgment,periodbetweenMay30andSeptember15,
2003,trialjudgemisapprehendedevidence–Asregardssecondsignificant
factor,counsel’sunderestimationoftime,trialjudgemadedamningfindings
againstaccused’scounsel,includingthatcounselappearedtohavesetout
tocreatedelayforlateruse–Thesefindingswereinconsistentwithperson
seekingtohavetrialwithinreasonabletime–Instayingcharges,trialjudge
reliedheavilyoninabilityofjudgesofOntariocourttocontinuecasesuntil
theircompletiononconsecutivedays,regardlessoftimeestimates–Trial
judgeerredinsoholding–Trialjudgeerredinapplyinghybridoffence
disclosureguidelinestosummaryconvictionoffence–Trialjudgeerredin
apportioningtimebetweenarrestandsettingfirsttrialdate,andbetween
thatdateandstartoftrial–Allofthattimewaseitherneutralintaketime,
delaycausedbyaccused,orpartofinherenttimerequirementsofcasewith
twominorexceptions–Actionsofaccusedandhiscounselweresignificant
causeofdelayinthiscase–Whiletherewassomeevidenceofspecific
prejudicetoaccusedcausedbydelay,itwasnotsignificant.

29AsregardstheIntoxilyzermanualcopyrightissue,thetrialjudgefoundthe
onuswasontheCrowntoprovetheexistenceofacopyright.TheCrown
hadfailedtodoso.Heagreedwiththerespondentthats.7oftheCharter
couldnotbetrumpedbyanyallegedcopyright.Whenthemanufacturerof
theIntoxilyzeragreedtosupplytheirinstrumentsas »approvedinstruments »it
shouldhaveexpectedthattheaccuracyandrecommendedprocedures
wouldbesubjecttoscrutiny.

39TheCrownhadadviseddefencecounselthattheywerenotinpossession
oftheoperationalmanual.Whilethepolicewere,itcouldnotbeprovided
becauseitwascopyrightprotected.Theyofferedtoallowdefencecounsel
toreviewacopyofthemanualatthepolicestation.However,noonewas
permittedtotakecopies.HisHonourorderedthedisclosureofthemanual
only.

R.vKatebian[2005]OJ1009(OntCt;2005-01-27)BradleyJ.
SentencingoftheaccusedKatebianandMissaghiforsellinginfringing
copiesofanartist’scopyrightedwork.Thecom-plainantownedthe
copyrightforthelabelofacarbonatedyogurtdrinkthathesold.The
accusedsoldaninferiorversionofthisdrinkunderafraudulentversionofthe
complanant’slabel.Asearchoftheaccuseds’businessfoundhundredsof
counterfeitlabelsand$70,000worthoftheyogurtbeveragethathadbeen
importedfromIran.Thecomplainantadvisedthathisbusinesshadbeen
eliminatedbytheactivitiesoftheaccused.Therewasajointsubmissionfora
$10,000fineforKatebianandan$8,000fineforMissaghi.Neitheraccused
hadcriminalrecords.

HELD:Theaccusedweresentencedpursuanttothetermsofthejoint
submission.Theyeachhadsixmonthstopaytheirfinesbutwererequiredto
paythefirsthalfwith45days.Mitigatingfactorsweretheearlyguiltypleas
andthefactthattheaccusedwerefirstoffenders.

R.vWong2005CarswellOnt6434(OntSupCtJ;2005-08-15)TraffordJ.

81
Preliminaryinquiryjusticedischargedaccusedchargedwithninecountsof
passingoffcounterfeititemsand10countsoffraudinrelatedtransactions–
Crownappliedforprerogativereliefonbasisthatjusticefailedtoconsider
wholeofevidence–Applicationdismissed–Itisjurisdictionalerrorforjudge
actingunders.548(1)(b)ofCriminalCodetofailtoconsiderwholeof
evidence–Ifafterconsideringwholeofevidencejudgeerroneously
dischargesdefendant,erroroflawisnotjurisdictionalerror–Justice
consideredwholeofevidencebeforedischargingaccused,withpossible
exceptionofinferencethatcouldbedrawnofadverseeffectoncomplaint
firms’goodwillarisingfromsalesofcounterfeitproductsbyaccused–He
analysedallofevidencewithcorrectunderstandingofimportofterm
« detriment »includingnotonlyactuallossbutalsoplacingsomeone’s
pecuniaryinterestatrisk–Justiceshouldhaveconsideredwhether
inferenceconcerningadverseeffectontheirgoodwillarisingfrom
accused’sdishonesttransactionswasreasonablyopentotrieroffactin
contextofrestofevidence,buthadjurisdictiontodeterminewhethersuch
inferencewasreasonableinthiscase–Itmayhavebeenerroroflawto
proceedinthismanner,butatmost,thiswaserrorastosufficiencyof
evidence–AsgrantingofreliefsoughtbyCrownwasdiscretionary,itwas
declined.

[theissueiswhethertherewasanyevidenceofdetrimentcalledatthe
preliminaryhearingthatthelearnedjusticefailedtoconsiderindischarging
therespondent.]
[3]ThepositionoftheCrownonthisapplicationisthatJusticeRobertson
failedtoconsiderthewholeoftheevidenceincludingtheevidenceof:
First,thefailureofMr.Wongtopayanyofthecomplainantfirms’
appropriateroyaltiesorcommissionsfortheirdesignorcopyrightsrelatingto
thecounterfeitproducts.Therewasnoevidencethatanyofthemrequired
orwouldhaverequiredanysuchroyaltiesorpermissionbyMr.Wong.

Second,thecostgenerallyincurredbythecomplainantfirmstocombat
counterfeitersgenerally,suchasMr.Wong,throughinvestigationandcivil
litigation.Therewasnoevidenceofanycostsincurredbyanyofthe
complainantfirmsinconnectionwithMr.Wong’sdishonestsalesoftheir
counterfeitproducts.

Third,theadverseeffectthatthesaleofcounterfeitproductshasonthe
goodwillofthecomplainantfirmsarisingfromtheuniquenessandrarityof
theirproducts.Thelearnedjusticeheldthatthiswasnotproperlythesubject
ofjudicialnotice.

Inmyview,JusticeRobertsonconsideredthewholeoftheevidencebefore
dischargingMr.Wongwiththepossibleexceptionoftheinferencethat
couldbedrawnofanadverseeffectonthecomplaintfirms’goodwill
arisingfromMr.Wong’ssalesofcounterfeitproducts.Heanalysedallofthe
evidencewithacorrectunderstandingoftheimportoftheterm »detriment »
includingnotonlyactuallossbutalsoplacingsomeone’specuniaryinterest
atrisk.SeeR.vThéroux(1993),79vC.C.(3d)449(S.C.C.).JusticeRobertson
shouldhaveconsideredwhetheraninferenceconcerninganadverse
effectontheirgoodwillarisingfromMr.Wong’sdishonesttransactionswas
reasonablyopentothetrieroffactinthecontextoftherestofthe
evidence.However,hehadjurisdictiontodeterminewhethersuchan

82
inferencewasareasonableoneinthiscase.Itmayhavebeenanerrorof
lawtoproceedinthismanner,thatis,ashedid.This,atthemost,wasan
errormadeastosufficiencyofevidence.However,ifIamincorrectonthat
pointanditismoreaptlydescribedasanerrorofajurisdictionalnature,in
myviewtheinference,ifdrawn,wouldnotaddsignificantlytothecasefor
theCrownbecauseitdoesnotrelatetoMr.Wong’sbusinessitself.Itismerely
agenerallyapplicableinferencethathaslittleornospecificregardforMr.
Wong’sdishonestsalesofcounterfeitproductsforcomplainantfirmsof
internationalreputationsand,onemayinfer,financialprosperity.

RenaudcGroupeVille-MarieLittératureInc2002IIJCan27783,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2002/2002qccs11752.html,[2002]JQ961,(QueSupCt;
2002-04-30);affd.subnomineHoricvRenaud,2005QCCA508,SOQUIJAZ-50313961,JE2005-
1045,[2005]JQ6390,2005CarswellQue2708,REJB2005-90482,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qcca/2005/2005qcca508.html(QueCA;2005-05-12)
PROPRIÉTÉINTELLECTUELLE—droitd’auteur—oeuvreslittéraire—manuscrit
—publicationd’uneversionremaniée—interprétationd’uncontrat
d’édition—effetentrelesparties—dommages-intérêts.
CONTRAT—interprétation—effetpratique—contratd’édition—clause
d’arbitrage—renonciation.
CONTRAT—effetsentrelesparties—contratd’édition—publicationd’une
versionremaniéed’unmanuscrit—étenduedesobligationscontractuelles
—claused’arbitrage—contravention—dommages-intérêts.
[
11]Enparticulier,ilnepeutêtrequestionicid’uneatteinteaudroitmoralde
l’auteuroud’unecontraventionàlaLoisurledroitd’auteur,L.R.C.c.C-42,
puisquelejugedepremièreinstanceaconclu,etils’agitd’unfait,que
l’oeuvrepubliéeétaitbiencellequel’appelantincidentavaitlui-même
remisàl’intiméincident;

ReproductionofMusicalWorks2004-2008[ReSODRACTariff5(Video-copies)]2005
CarswellNat1794,inFrenchat2005CarswellNat1795,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/decisions/i24062005-b.pdf(CopBd;2005-06-24)
[14]TheBoardsoughttounderstandhowanauthorbringsacommissioned
worktotherepertoireofSODRACoritsforeignsistersocieties.Itappearsthat
thishappensautomatically,pursuanttothetermsonwhichtheauthor
assignshisfutureworkstothecollectivesociety.

[15]TheBoardalsosoughttodiscovertowhatdegreeSODRACholdsthe
rightsinworksinthecatalogueofpublisherswhoarenotSODRACmembers.
IntheBoard’sview,onceanauthorhasassignedhisfutureworksexclusively
toSODRAC,heissimplyunabletoassignanythingtohispublisherotherthan
therighttoaskSODRACtopayhimtheroyalties.Yet,SODRACsaysit
administersonlytheso-calledcomposer’sshareasprovidedinthepublishing
contractwhenthepublisherisnotaSODRACmember.Itseemsthatuntil
quiterecently,SODRACwasindeedcollectingthepublisher’sshareand
thenpassingitontothepublisher.Itseemsaswellthatthearticlesof
SODRAC2003Inc.,whichistotaketheplaceofSODRAC,providethatan
assignmentisnowmadewithoutprejudicetothepublisher’srighttocontrol
theuseoftheworkoncethepublisherisnot(orisnolonger)amemberof

83
thesociety.Thiscouldinvolveamajorchangeinthelegalrelationsbetween
thecollectivesociety,theauthorandhispublisher.

[28]SODRACadministersonlytherightofreproduction.Nevertheless,it
maintainsthatitcancontrolsalesorrentalsbyrelyingonsubsection13(4)of
theAct,whichallowstheuseofcopyrighttobebrokendownintermsof
marketsector,forexample.Italsocitesparagraph70.1(a)andsection70.12
oftheAct,whichallowtheuseofacollectivesociety’srepertoiretobe
allocatedaccordingto »classesofuses ».Itnotes,moreover,thattheBoard
haspreviouslydecidedthatalicensemayimposeconditionsonwhatauser
doeswiththecopiesitmakes.Itstates,finally,thattheprovisioncorresponds
totheusualcustomsofthetrade.

[29]Thetermsandconditionsofalicenseortariffmayprovidethatacopy
madeinaccordancewithitsprovisionsmaybeusedforcertainpurposes
andnotothers.ButthatdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatSODRACisina
positiontoauthorizetheseuses.Rather,itmeansprovidingthatthetariff
authorizesonlyreproductionofmusicalworksembodiedinvideo-copies
intendedforsaleorrentaltoconsumersfortheirprivateuse.Thetextofthe
certifiedtariffhasbeenadjustedaccordingly.

[33]Ontheotherhand,onecoulddoubtthattheBoard,inatariff,can
authorizethecopiesmadebeforethistariffcomesintoforce.Inpractice
however,auserwhohasnotobtainedalicensehasaninterestinbeing
abletoregularizeitssituation.Initsproposedtariffwording,SODRACshows
itswillingnesstoauthorizereproductionsmadebeforebutexploitedafterthe
comingintoforceofthetariff.ThereisthereforenoneedfortheBoardto
analyzefurtherthecourseofactionproposedbySODRAC.Consequently,
thetarifftheBoardcertifiesofferstheoptionfordistributorstoavail
themselvesofthetariffforcopiessoldafteritscomingintoforce,regardless
ofwhentheyweremade.

[37]Section8.2oftheproposedtariffrequiresthatadistributorwhose
licensehasbeenterminatedshallseetotheimmediatewithdrawalfromthe
marketofallvideo-copiessubjecttothetariff.TheBoardwonderedwhether
thisprovisionmightimposethewithdrawalofcopiesthatarenolongerthe
propertyofthedistributororinregardtowhichroyaltieshadalreadybeen
paid.

[38]SODRACarguesthatthisprovisionisessentialandisoneoftheprovisions
thatCAFDEhasalreadyagreedtohaveadded.Onceagain,themeasureis
commoninthesoundrecordingmarket.SODRACdoesagreethatitmay
notdemandthereturnofcopiesthathavebeensoldandforwhichithas
receivedtheapplicableroyalties.

[39]Thisreplyisunsatisfactory.Apossibleexplanationforthefactthatthe
provisionappliestorelationsbetweenSODRACandtherecording
companiesisthatthelatterremaintheownersoftherecordsdeliveredto
theretaileruntiltheyaresoldtoconsumers.Thereisnoindicationthatthisis
thecaseinthevideo-copymarket.

[40]Furthermore,theBoardfailstoseehowSODRACcouldrequestthe
withdrawalofvideo-copiesthathavebecomethepropertyoftheretailer

84
or,afortiori,theconsumer,evenifroyaltieshavenotbeenpaid.This
scenarioisallthemorelikelyinthatthefirstpaymentofroyaltiesonanew
titlemaynotoccuruntilayearafteritisputonthemarket.Absentanyother
justification,SODRACwillhavetobecontentwiththestatusofanunsecured
creditor.However,SODRACwillbeentitledtorequirethewithdrawalof
copiesstillownedbythedistributor.

RichardLindsethArchitectureforthereproductionofarchitecturalplansdesignedbyJ.Sertic
Homes(J.Mossman,engineerandJ.Pasalic,draftsperson)forthepropertylocatedat
41WoodhavenViewS.W.inCalgary[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-23,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/158-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-07-18)
RichardLindseth
Architecture
(Re)
2005-UO/TI-23forthereproductionof
architecturalplansdesigned
byJ.SerticHomes
(J.Mossman,engineerand
J.Pasalic,draftsperson)for
thepropertylocatedat
41WoodhavenViewS.W.in
Calgary2005-07-18
2005-12-31Renovation$25None

RussellvNyack,2005CarswellAlta1220,[2005]AWLD3464,[2005]AWLD3402,[2005]AWLD
3465,[2005]AWLD3434,2005ABPC227,2005CarswellAlta1220,
http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abpc/2005/2005abpc227.html,
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/pc/civil/2005/2005abpc0227.pdf(AltaProvCt;
2005-06-29)MandaminJ.
Intellectualproperty—Copyright–Materialinwhichcopyrightmaysubsist–
Architectural,constructionorbuildingplans
Customersengagedcustomhomedesignertodesigntheirresidence–After
initialmeetingbetweenparties,designerprovidedletterwhichsetout
proposedtermsofengagement,whichcustomersagreedtoandpaid
retainer–Designerprovidedworkingdrawingsofhomeandcustomers
providedfeedback–Customersbecamedissatisfiedwithdesigner,ashe
failedtomakerequestedchangestodrawings–Customersdidnotadvise
designeroftheirdissatisfaction,buthiredanotherdesigncompanyto
completedrawingsandcontractedwithbuildertoconstructhome–
Customersdidnotpaylastinvoiceof$1,656.03,includingG.S.T.–Designer
broughtactionagainstcustomersandbuilderforinfringementofcopyright-
-Actiondismissed–Houseplansmaybesubjecttocopyrightprotection,
pursuanttoCopyrightAct–Designerspecializedincustomdesignbuildings
andworkwasoriginal–Designerwasindependentcontractorandnot
employeeofcustomers,thereforecustomersdidnotowncopyright–
Designerheldcopyrightindesignofcustomer’shome–Customersentitled
toone-timeuseofdesign,thereforenoinfringementexisted.

Contracts—Constructionandinterpretation–Impliedterms–Term–Other
terms

Customersengagedcustomhomedesignertodesigntheirresidence–After
initialmeetingbetweenparties,designerprovidedletterwhichsetout
proposedtermsofengagement,whichcustomersagreedtoandpaid

85
retainer–Designerprovidedworkingdrawingsofhomeandcustomers
providedfeedback–Customersbecamedissatisfiedwithdesigner,ashe
failedtomakerequestedchangestodrawings–Customersdidnotadvise
designeroftheirdissatisfaction,buthiredanotherdesigncompanyto
completedrawingsandcontractedwithbuildertoconstructhome–
Customersdidnotpaylastinvoiceof$1,656.03,includingG.S.T.–Designer
broughtactionagainstcustomersandbuilderforbreachofcontract–
Actionallowed–Writtentermsofcontractdidnotdescribeprocessby
whichfinaldesignandworkingdrawingsweretobeachieved,nordidterms
specifycompletionstageofcontractorhowcontractcouldbeterminated-
-Contractcontemplateddesignerbeingengageduntilworkingplans
finishedaspaymentscheduleindicatedfinalpaymentdueonhand-overof
workingdrawings–Impliedtermsofcontractincludedthatwhilecopyright
remainedwithdesigner,customerswereentitledtoone-timeuseofdesign,
thatprocessofproductionofworkingdrawingsrequiredthatdesigner
consultwithcustomers,andthatcontractcompletedwhenfinalworking
drawingshandedovertocustomers–Customerswereinbreachofcontract
astheydidnotgivedesigneropportunitytofinalizeworkingdrawings.

Judgesandcourts—Jurisdiction–SmallClaimsorotherinferiorcourts–
Provincialcourts

Nojurisdictiontoheardefamationclaim.

Damages—Exemplary,punitiveandaggravateddamages–Groundsfor
awardingexemplary,punitiveandaggravateddamages–Breachof
contract

Customersengagedcustomhomedesignertodesigntheirresidence–After
initialmeetingbetweenparties,designerprovidedletterwhichsetout
proposedtermsofengagement,whichcustomersagreedtoandpaid
retainer–Designerprovidedworkingdrawingsofhomeandcustomers
providedfeedback–Customersbecamedissatisfiedwithdesigner,ashe
failedtomakerequestedchangestodrawings–Customersdidnotadvise
designeroftheirdissatisfaction,buthiredanotherdesigncompanyto
completedrawingsandcontractedwithbuildertoconstructhome–
Customersdidnotpaylastinvoiceof$1,656.03,includingG.S.T.–Designer
broughtactionagainstcustomersandbuilderforbreachofcontract,
includingclaimforexemplarydamages–Actionallowed;claimfor
exemplarydamagesdismissed–Customersfoundtobeinbreachof
contractasimpliedtermofcontractcontemplateddesignerbeing
engageduntilworkingdrawingshandedover–Quantumofdamages
awardedwasforunpaidinvoicedcosts,lessretainerandcosts–Claimfor
exemplarydamagesdismissed,ascustomersdidnotdenythatdesignerhad
designedtheirhome

SanFranciscoGiftsLtd(Re)[2005]AJ131,2005AQBD91,2005CarswellAlta174,
http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abqb/2005/2005abqb91.html,
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/qb/civil/2005/2005abqb0091.pdf(AltaQB;2005-02-
09)TopolniskiJ.
Applicationbythedebtorcorporation,SanFranciscoGiftsLtd.,forafourth
extensionofthestayofproceedingsoriginallygrantedwhenitobtained

86
protectionundertheCompanies’CreditorsArrangementActonJanuary7,
2000.Agroupoflandlords,however,opposedthedebtor’smostrecent
requestforanextensionbasedonitsearlierpleaofguiltytovarious
CopyrightActoffences,includingwillfulcopyrightinfringement,andthe
sentencingjudge’sdescriptionofitsconductinsodoingasfraudulentand
reprehensible.Thedebtor’sinfringingactivitiesincludedapplying
counterfeitsafetystandardlabelstoelectricalproducts.Atleastoneofthe
falselylabeledproductshadcausedafire.Accordingtothelandlords,this
precludedanypossibilitythatthedebtorhadmetthestatutorygoodfaith
prerequisitetoanextension.Theyalsocontendedthatextendingthestay
underthecircumstanceswouldhavebroughttheadministrationofjustice
intodisrepute,despitethefactthatthedebtorhadbeenfined$150,000for
itsinfringingactivities.Furthermore,itwasworkingwithduediligenceandin
goodfaithtowardspresentingaplanofarrangementtoitscreditors.

HELD:Applicationallowed.Thetermgoodfaithcontainedins.11(6)ofthe
Companies’CreditorsArrangementActgenerallyfocusedonthedebtor’s
dealingswithstakeholders,suchasinvestors,creditorsandemployees,and
whilethisdidnotmeanthatacorporatedebtor’sbusinesspracticescould
notbefoundtohavebeensooffensiveastowarrantrefusalofastayof
extensiononpublicpolicygrounds,thiswasnotsuchacase.Whilethe
debtor’sconductwasbothillegalandoffensive,ithadalreadybeen
condemnedintheappropriateforumandpunishmentlevied.Denyingthe
stayextensionapplicationwouldhavebeenanadditionalformof
punishment.Thecourtwasalsoconcernedaboutthedebtor’sother
creditors,especiallyitsunsecuredcreditors,whowouldhavebeendenied
theirrighttovoteontheplaniftherequestedextensionweredenied.
Thosecreditorswouldalsohavelostanyhopeoffinancialrecovery.Given
thedebtor’scontinuinggoodfaitheffortstopresentitsplanof
arrangement,therefore,andinlightofthebroadandliberalinterpretation
tobeappliedtoremediallegislationsuchastheAct,extendingthestayof
proceedingswasappropriateinthiscase.

SanterrevReine*2005CarswellNat2892,2005DTC1324,[2005]ACI435
,2005CCI606,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cci/2005/2005cci606.html,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cci/2005/2005cci606.html(CCI;2005-09-20)DussaultJ.
Incometax—Otherincome–Researchgrants
Taxpayerwasuniversityprofessor–Taxpayercontributedtobooksfor
internaluniversitystudentuse–Taxpayerwasnotpaidroyaltiesforbooks–
Taxpayerbroughtemploymentgrievancesinrespectofbookroyaltyissues–
Taxpayeranduniversityresolvedgrievancesbywayof$10,000supplement
totaxpayer’suniversityresearchgrant–Taxpayerdeclaredresearchgrant
supplementanddeductedresearchexpensesfromgrosssupplement–
Ministerassessedtaxpayer,disallowingdeductionofresearchexpensesfrom
supplementintaxpayer’sincome–Taxpayerappealed–Appealdismissed-
-Clearnexusexistedbetweentaxpayer’scontributiontobooks,employment
grievances,andpaymentofsupplement–Supplementwaspaidto
taxpayerasdirectresultofintellectualpropertydispute–Accordingly,
supplementwaspaidonaccountofroyaltiesnotwithstandingclassification
ofsupplementasresearchgrant–Current-accountresearchexpensesnot

87
incurreddirectlyinordertoproducebooksfoundinggrievanceswere
accordinglynotproperlydeductedfromsupplement.

Incometax—Employmentincome–Salaryandwages–Commissions

Intellectualpropertyroyalties–Taxpayerwasuniversityprofessor–Taxpayer
contributedtobooksforinternaluniversitystudentuse–Taxpayerwasnot
paidroyaltiesforbooks–Taxpayerbroughtemploymentgrievancesin
respectofbookroyaltyissues–Taxpayeranduniversityresolvedgrievances
bywayof$10,000supplementtotaxpayer’suniversityresearchgrant–
Taxpayerdeclaredresearchgrantsupplementanddeductedresearch
expensesfromgrosssupplement–Ministerassessedtaxpayer,disallowing
deductionofresearchexpensesfromsupplementintaxpayer’sincome–
Taxpayerappealed–Appealdismissed–Clearnexusexistedbetween
taxpayer’scontributiontobooks,employmentgrievancesandpaymentof
supplement–Supplementwaspaidtotaxpayerasdirectresultof
intellectualpropertydispute–Accordingly,supplementwaspaidon
accountofroyaltiesnotwithstandingclassificationofsupplementas
researchgrant–Current-accountresearchexpensesnotincurreddirectlyin
ordertoproducebooksfoundinggrievanceswereaccordinglynotproperly
deductedfromsupplement.

[24]Ilmeparaîtévidentqu’unesommeuniquereçueenrèglementd’une
réclamationpourdesdroitsd’auteuràl’égardd’unouvrageprécis,en
l’occurrenceunguidepédagogique,neconstituepas,àproprementparler,
unesubventionderecherche,malgrél’ententeentrelespartiesselon
laquellelasommede10000$devaitêtreverséesouscetteforme.
L’appelantadoncreçucettesommede10000$enrèglementfinaldesa
réclamationdedroitsd’auteurconcernantleguidepédagogiqueconçu
plusieursannéesauparavantetnoncommeunesubventionderecherche.

Sazby&PokornyArchitectsforthereproductionofmechanicalandelectricalplansdesigned
byLarryW.T.Tang,ContinentalDesignInc.in1981forthepropertylocatedat800Macleod
TrailS.E.inCalgary[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File2005-UO/TI-30,http://www.cb-
cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/165-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-09-01)
Sazby&Pokorny
Architects(Re)
2005-UO-TI-30Architectsforthe
reproductionofmechanical
andelectricalplans
designedbyLarryW.T.Tang,
ContinentalDesignInc.in
1981forthepropertylocated
at800MacleodTrailS.E.in
Calgary2005-09-01
2005-12-31Renovation$25
per
copyNone

Sociétédudroitdereproductiondesauteurs,compositeursetéditeursauCanadaInc.v
Amalgame-CargocréativitéstratégiqueInc.,SOQUIJAZ-50328380,JE2005-1646,2005
CarswellQue5844,REJB2005-93578,2005IIJCan28333
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs59629.html(QueSupCt;2005-07-28)Picard
J.
Résumé

88
Actionendommages-intérêtspourviolationdudroitd’auteur.Accueillie(69
015$).

LepeintreMagritte,décédéen1967,aléguétoussesbiens,dontsesdroits
d’auteur,àsaveuve,Berger.Cettedernière,décédéeen1986,aléguéses
droitsdesuiteetdereproductionsurl’oeuvredesonépouxàHerscovici.En
juillet1991,cedernierafaitapportdesesdroitsetaconfiéàlaSociétédes
auteursdanslesartsgraphiquesetplastiques(ADAGP)lemandatd’assurer
l’applicationetlagestiondeceux-cipourtouslespays.Envertudecet
accord,l’ADAGPpouvaitsefaireremplacersurcertainsterritoirespar
d’autressociétésafind’assurerlabonnegestiondesdroits.Enaoût1998,elle
aconféréparcontratàlaSociétédudroitdereproductiondesauteurs,
compositeursetéditeursauCanadainc.(SODRAC)lemandatexclusifdela
représenterauCanada.Enoctobre2001,laSODRACaprisconnaissance
d’unecampagnedepublicitédePlacementsQuébecconçueparla
défenderesseAmalgame-cargoCréativitéstratégiqueinc.etutilisantune
reproductionnonautoriséed’uneoeuvredeMagritte.Dèsréceptiond’une
miseendemeuredelaSODRAC,Amalgame-cargoacesséladiffusionde
cettepublicité.LaSODRACréclameàAmalgame-cargoetauprocureur
généralduQuébecdesdommages-intérêtsde69015$.Amalgame-cargo
aprisfaitetcausepourleprocureurgénéral.Elleinvoquel’absenced’intérêt
pouresterenjusticedelaSODRACainsiquelecaractèreexagérédes
dommages-intérêtsréclamés.

Décision
Conformémentàl’article13delaLoisurledroitd’auteur,lepremiertitulaire
del’oeuvreestMagritte.Sondroitaétéléguécontractuellementàsa
veuve,quil’aléguéàHerscovici.Danslesstatutsenvertudesquels
Herscovicil’aconfiéàl’ADAGP,Herscovicireconnaissaitquel’ADAGP
pouvaitsefaireremplacerpard’autressociétés,quidevenaientalors
titulairesdel’entièretéoud’unepartiedesdroitspatrimoniauxsurl’oeuvre.Le
rapportd’uneavocateendroitfrançaisconfirmequelesdroitspatrimoniaux
comprennentceluid’autoriseroud’interdirelareproductiond’uneoeuvre.
Ainsi,l’ADAGPétaittitulairedudroitd’autoriseroud’interdirelareproduction
del’oeuvredeMagritte.LecontrattransférantlesdroitsàlaSODRAC
précisequecettedernièreesthabilitéeàautoriseretàinterdirelesdroits
patrimoniauxsousréservedel’accordpréalabledel’ADAGP,quiaété
obtenuenjanvier2002.Deplus,l’article13delaloiprévoitqueletitulairedu
droitd’auteurpeutconcéderunelicencemaisquelacessionn’estvalable
quesielleestécriteetsignéeparletitulairedudroitousonagentautorisé.
Sonarticle36indiqueégalementquetoutepartiequiaacquisparcession
ouconcessionundroitdutitulairedudroitd’auteurpeutexercerlesrecours
prévusparlaloipourfairevaloirlesdroitsqu’ildétient.LaSODRACadoncla
qualitéetl’intérêtpourexercerlerecoursendommages-intérêtsprévuà
l’article34delaloi.Lebarèmed’évaluationdesdommagesproposéparla
SODRAC,quis’appuiesurletypedepublicité,letirage,leformatetladurée
etquicomprendunepénalitéde20%,permetdebienquantifierceux-ci.
Laprétentionvoulantquelebarèmedoiveêtreécartéparcequ’iln’apas
étéhomologuéestrejetée.Letribunalnepeuttenircomptedufaitquela
défenderessen’atiréqu’unprofitde3600$,carcelaseraitinéquitablepour
lesusagersquirespectentlesdroitsd’auteuretbriseraitl’équilibreentreles
artistesetlesutilisateurs.Laréclamationpourhonorairesextrajudiciairesest
rejetéepuisquelesdéfendeursontcollaborédèslamiseendemeure.

89

SocietyofComposers,Authors&MusicPublishersofCanadavMapleLeafSports&
EntertainmentLtd.2005CarswellNat1409(FC-Prot.;2005-03-14);affd.40CPR(4th)28,[2005]
CarswellNat1368,2005FC640,http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc640.shtml,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc640.html(FC;2005-05-06)PinardJ.
Theplaintiffcollectivesocietyhadcommencedanactionforunpaidtariff
royaltiesowinginrelationtomusicconcertsthatitallegedthedefendant
authorizedatitsconcertvenue.Initsdefenceandcounterclaimthe
defendantallegedthatthetariffinquestionwasunenforceabletothe
extentthatittargetedthecopyrightrightofauthorizationbecausethe
CopyrightBoardlackedjurisdictiontocertifyatariffwhichtargetedthe
authorizationright.

Theplaintiffhadbroughtamotiontostrikethecounterclaimandextracts
fromthedefencewhichclaimedthatthetariffwasofnoforceoreffect.The
prothonotaryhadgrantedthemotion.Thedefendantappealedthe
prothonotary’sdecisionbutonlyinsofarasitrelatedtostrikingextractsfrom
thedefence.

Held,theappealshouldbedismissed.

Thestandardofreviewontheappealwascorrectness.
Asaresultofthecombinedeffectofss.18(1)and(3),18.1(3)and(4)and
28(1),(2)and(3)oftheFederalCourtsAct,R.S.C.1985,vF-7,theFederal
CourtofAppealhasjurisdictiontoreviewtheCopyrightBoard’sjurisdictionto
certifyatariff.Accordingly,theFederalCourthadnojurisdictiontoentertain
aproceedinginrespectofsuchamatter.Inviewofs.26oftheAct,the
matterwasallocatedspecificallytotheFederalCourtofAppeal.

SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadavKicksRoadhouseInc.(c.o.b.
How-Dee’s)[2005]CarswellNat1100,[2005]FCJ646,2005FC528,39CPR(4
th)238,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc528.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc528.shtml,inFrenchat2005CarswellNat3327,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/jug/cfpi/2005/2005cf528.html,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/cf/2005/2005cf528.shtml(FC;2005-04-19);2005FC1345,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc1346.htmlandhttp://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc1346.shtml(FC-Reconsideration;2005-09-30);appealA-227-05
O’KeefeJ.
Theplaintiffwasacollectivesocietyentitledtocollectroyaltiesinits
approvedstatementofroyaltiesinrespectofthepublicperformanceand
theauthorizationofsuchperformanceofmusicalworks.Theplaintiffwas
alsotheproprietorofthecauseofactionforcopyrightinfringementforthe
violationofsuchrights.

Thecorporatedefendantcarriedonthebusinessofarestaurant,baror
nightclubwherein,from1997to2001,itpresentedperformancesofmusical
worksbymeansofrecordedmusicfordancing.Therecordedmusicwas
playedbydiscjockeyshiredbyandpaidby,oremployedandpaidby,the
corporatedefendant.

90
Theindividualdefendantwasthepresidentandadirectorandofficerofthe
corporatedefendant.Theindividualdefendantoperatedandmanagedor
directedtheoperationandmanagementofthecorporatedefendant.The
individualdefendantdidnot,however,playaroleintheday-to-day
managementofthecorporatedefendant’sbusiness.Differentmanagers
wereresponsiblefortheday-to-daybusiness.

Theplaintiffcommencedanactionforcopyrightinfringementclaiming
damages,anaccountofprofitsandaninjunction.Inthealternative,the
plaintiffsoughtroyaltiesfortheperformancespursuanttos.68.2ofthe
CopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,vC-42,astheplaintiffmightelect.Theplaintiff
claimedthattheindividualdefendantwasliableforauthorizingthe
performanceoftherecordedmusic,andasthedirectingmindofthe
corporatedefendant,wasliableforitsinfringingacts.

Held,judgmentshouldbegrantedfortheplaintiff.

Theplaintiff’smusicalworkswereperformedatthepremisesofthecorporate
defendantwithouttheplaintiff’sconsent.Thecorporatedefendantthereby
infringedtheplaintiff’scopyrightbyplayingtherecordedmusicand
authorizingtheplayingoftherecordedmusicinpublicwithoutalicenseto
doso.

Thecorporatedefendantwasalsoliableforcopyrightinfringementfor
permittingaplaceofentertainmenttobeusedforthepublicperformance
ofmusicalworksforprofitcontrarytos.27(5)oftheCopyrightAct.The
individualdefendantbelievedtheplaintiff’sfeeswerebeingdealtwithbyhis
generalmanager.Theindividualdefendanthadnotthereforeauthorized
thepublicperformancescontrarytoss.3(1)and27(1)oftheCopyrightAct.
Furthermore,thecorporatedefendantcarriedonthebusinessofmaking
moneyasadanceclubandbar.Itwasnotsetuptoembarkonacourseof
conductthatwouldcauseinfringementoftheplaintiff’scopyrights.The
individualdefendantwasnotthereforepersonallyliablefortheinfringing
conductofthecorporatedefendant.

Theplaintiffwasentitledtoadeclarationofinfringementbythecorporate
defendant.Itwasgranteddamagesandanaccountofprofitsforcopyright
infringement,andaninjunction.Inthealternative,andastheplaintiffmight
elect,theplaintiffwasentitledtotheroyaltiesunders.68.2oftheActin
respectoftheperformances.

SouthernAlbertaInstituteofTechnology(SAIT)Polytechnicforthereproductionoffivesetsof
imagesanddiagramsforwhichthesourceisunknown[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]
File2005-UO/TI-27,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/163-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-08-19)
Knight(Re)
2005-UO/TI-41forthereproductionofthe
bookentitled »Historyofthe
Thirty-FirstBattalionC.E.F. »
producedbyH.C.Singerand
A.A.Peeblesinnomorethan
1000copiesofthebook2005-12-08
2007-12-31Commercial$650Access
Copyrig
ht

91

SpirosPizza&SpaghettiHouseLtd.vRivieraPizzaInc.39CPR(4th)527,[2005]CarswellAlta337,
[2005]AJ278,2005ABQB80,[2005]AWLD1967,[2005]AWLD1955,[2005]AWLD1956,[2005]
AWLD1892,http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abqb/2005/2005abqb80.html,
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/qb/civil/2005/2005abqb0080.cor1.pdf(AltaQB;
2005-03-15)PowerJ.;affd.2005CarswellAlta1394,2005ABCA305,[2005]AWLD3494,[2005]
AWLD.3570,[2005]AWLD3571,[2005]AWLD3587,http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-
/ca/civil/2005/2005abca0305.pdf,
http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abca/2005/2005abca305.html(AltaCA2005-09-16)
supplementalreasonsat2005CarswellAlta1799,2005ABCA418,
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/ca/civil/2005/2005abca0418.pdf,
http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abca/2005/2005abca418.html(AltaCA-Costs;2005-12-06)
(AltaQB;2005-03-15)
Theplaintiff,JamesSpiropoulos(JimmySpiros)incorporatedtheplaintiff
company,SpirosPizza&SpaghettiHouseLtd.,in1970.In1973,plaintiff
companyopenedarestaurantunderthetradename »SpirosPizza »in
Calgary.Fromthetimeoftherestaurant’sopening,theplaintiffcompany
usedthetradenames »SpirosPizza »and »Spiros »andatrade-mark,which
wasadesignofthetradename »SpirosPizza »overamapleleafandeagle,
topromotethenameandreputationoftherestaurant. »Spiros »wasan
abbreviationoftheplaintiff’ssurname.Theplaintiffhadusedthetrade
names »SpirosPizza »and »Spiros »forhisrestaurantbusinessinCalgarysince
the1950sonexteriorsigns,inmenusthatwereusedintherestaurantand
deliveredtoresidents,andinadvertisements.

In1989,thedefendants,MinasandEvaPapoutsakis,andtheplaintiff
companyexecutedanoffertopurchasetherestaurant.TheOfferto
Purchasedidnotaddressthetradenames.Afterthepartiesretainedlegal
counsel,theoffertopurchasewasamendedandadditionalagreements
wereexecuted,includingaleaseoftherestaurantpremises.Undertheterms
ofthefive-yeartermfirstlease,defendant410461AlbertaLtd.(laterRiviera
Pizza)wasauthorizedtousethename »SpirosPizza »onlyatthelocationof
theleasedpremises,onlyasrequiredforrestaurantoperations,andonly
duringthetermoftheleaseandanyrenewalsofthelease.Thelease
containedanentireagreementclause.Thedefendants’sonJohnwasthe
managerandemployeeofRivieraandactedonapowerofattorney
grantedtohimbyMinasandEvaPapoutsakis.

In1991,thedefendantMinasPapoutsakisincorporatedanewcompany
called »UncleSpirosPizza&SteakHouseLtd »andopenedarestaurantin
anotherlocationinCalgarycalled »UncleSpirosPizza. »Theplaintiffsobjected
totheuseofthename »SpirosPizza, »andadviseddefendantsitwasatrade
namewhoseusewassubjecttothetermsofthelease.The »UncleSpiros
Pizza »restaurantstoppedoperationslessthanayearlater.

In1994and1999respectively,thepartiesenteredintoasecondleaseand
thirdlease,bothwithsimilartermsasthefirstlease.ThedefendantsMinas
andEvaPapoutsakiswerepersonalguarantorstothethirdlease.

InDecember1998,thedefendantMinasPapoutsakisretainedlegalcounsel
totrade-markthename »Spiros »andthemapleleafandeagleart,which
theplaintiffhadcreatedin1973andusedsincethattime.Thetrade-mark
applicationfailedtodisclosetheleaserestrictionsagainstthedefendant

92
tenantusingthename »SpirosPizza »atotherrestaurantlocationsandthat
therighttousethename »SpirosPizza »wouldterminateattheleaseendin
1999.DefendantRivieraPizza’sregistrationforthetrade-markwas
completedinJanuary2001.InApril2001,themarkwastransferredto919013
AlbertaLtd.,ofwhichthedefendants’sonJohnwasthesoleshareholder
anddirector.Inthesameyear,defendantJohnPapoutsakisusedthetrade
name »SpirosPizza »inthedesignofaWebpage.Anothercompany,the
SpirosGroup,ownedbydefendantJohnPapoutsakisregisteredthetrade
name »SpirosTakeOutandDelivery »in2003.In2002and2003,theparties
negotiatedtoselltheleasedrestaurantpropertyand/orthetradename
« SpirosPizza, »and/ortorenewthethirdleaseearly,butnoagreementwas
reached.In2004,919013AlbertaLtd.filedanapplicationundertheTrade-
marksAct,R.S.C.1985,vT-13,toregisterthename »Spiros »and »Spiroswitha
pizzadesign »astrade-marks.

InJanuary2004,plaintiffJamesSpiropoulossawanadvertisementfora
« Spiros »restaurantopeninginCalgary.Theadvertisementstatedthe
restaurantwouldhavethe »SameGreatPizza–SamePhoneNumber »asthe
leasedrestaurant.Theplaintiffs’counselwrotethedefendanttocomplain
abouttheuseofthe »Spiros »nameforanewrestaurant.Thedefendants
advertisedthenewSpirosrestaurantthroughthreedropsof15,000leaflets
eachinthesurroundingarea.InMarch2004,thenewrestaurantnamed
« Spiros »openedatastripmallinalocationclosetotheoriginalrestaurant.
ThedefendantadvertisedthattheSpirosrestauranthadtwoCalgary
locations.ThedefendantalsosetupaWebsite,<>,to
conductasurveytohelpthedefendantdecidewheretoestablishanother
Spirosrestaurant.

Plaintiffsappliedforaninjunctiontopreventthedefendantsfromusingthe
Spirostradenames,trade-marks,andtelephonenumber.Thatorderwas
grantedinJune2004.Thedefendantschangedthenewrestaurant’sname
to »Sophie’s »inJune2004andnotifiedcustomersofthenamechange.In
September2004,thedefendantscirculatedanewsreleasetothepublic
statingthatMr.SpiropoulosforcedthePapoutsakisfamilytofindanew
locationandleftthelatter »outonthestreet. »InOctober2004,thethird
leaseontheoriginalrestaurantexpiredandthedefendantsvacatedthe
premises.ThedefendantsweregrantedanorderinNovember2004
directingtheplaintiffstoadvertisetheirrestaurantas »UnderNew
Management »andtoremoveasignthatitwas »reopeningsoon. »

TheplaintiffsinitiatedanactiontodeclarethattheSpirostrade-mark,trade
nameanditsvariationsweretheexclusivepropertyoftheplaintiffs,thatthe
defendants’registrationandtransferofthetrade-markundertheTrade-
marksActwasinvalid,thatthedefendantsbreachedthetermsofthelease,
andtopermanentlyenjointhedefendantsfromusingtheSpirostrade-marks,
tradenames,registeredtrade-mark,andtherestauranttelephonenumber.

Held,theactionshouldbeallowedinpartgrantingadeclaration,a
permanentinjunctionanddamages.

Trade-markrightscanbeacquiredbyuseindependentlyofregistration
undertheTrade-marksActandtheserightscanbeprotectedthroughthe
commonlawactionforpassingoff.Apassing-offactionrequiresthe

93
existenceofgoodwill,thedeceptionofthepublicduetoa
misrepresentationandactualorpotentialdamagetotheplaintiff.

Therewasgoodwillinthetradenames »Spiros » »SpirosPizza »and »SpirosPizza
&SpaghettiHouseLtd. »Proofofgoodwillwasevidencedbythefactthat
thedefendantstriedtotrade-markthenameandfromtheexpertevidence
ofarestaurantcriticthattherestauranthadasubstantialreputationin1989
whichwasmaintainedthroughto2004.TheplaintiffJamesSpiropouloshad
establishedcommonlawtrade-marksinhisname »Spiros, » »SpirosPizza »and
themapleleafandeagledesign.

Theremustbealikelihoodofdeceptioninthemindofasubstantialnumber
ofordinarypurchaserspurchasingwithordinarycaution.Thedefendants
adoptedanamethatwasidenticaltothatinwhichtheplaintiffsestablished
goodwill.Goodwillwasestablished,misrepresentationwasproved,andthus
confusionwaspresumed.Thedefendantsdeprivedtheplaintiffoftheright
tocontrolthereputationandgoodwillassociatedwiththename »Spiros
Pizza »inCalgarywhichwassufficientdamagetofoundthepassing-off
action.

The1989purchaseagreementwasaletterofintentthatwasreplacedby
andmergedintothesubsequentformalagreements,includingthefirst
lease.Thelanguageinthefirstleasewithrespecttothetradenamewas
unambiguousanddidnotrequirereferencetoextrinsicevidencesuchas
thepurchaseagreement.Theleaseappliedstrictconditionsonwhere,how,
andwhenthetenantcouldusethetradenameandclearlystatedthe
tradenamewastobeusedforaperiodoftimeandnotsold.Theclausein
thefirstlease,andthesubsequentleases,wasavalidwrittenlicence.The
plaintifflandlordretainedcontrolandownershipoverthetradename.The
plaintiffsthus »used »thetradenameaccordingtos.50oftheTrade-marks
Act,throughthelicence,andcanseekprotectionthroughthepassingoff
action.

ThedefendantRivierabreachedallthelicencesbytransferringthetrade-
mark(« Spiros »withthemapleleafandeaglewhichtheplaintiffdesigned)to
apartythatwasnotsubjecttotheleasesandwithoutthecontractuallease
restrictions.DefendantRivieraalsoaidedandabettedathirdpartyinthe
misuseofthetradename »Spiros »anditsconductbreachedthe
conductionsofuseintheleases.Themisusewasdeliberate,deceptiveand
donewithoutregardtotheplaintiffs’rights.

Thevalidityandexpungementofthetrade-markiswithintheexclusive
jurisdictionoftheFederalCourt.

Thetelephonenumbersweresoldtothedefendantsandthedefendants
wereentitledtousethemattheirnewrestaurantlocation.
TheplaintiffSpiropoulosalsohadcopyrightandmoralrightsinthedesignof
themapleleafandeagle.Defendantsinfringedthecopyrightandmoral
rightsinthatlogodesign.

TheplaintiffswereawardeddamagesagainstMinasandEvaPapoutsakis
andRivieraPizzaInc.intheamountof$50,000forbreachofleaseand
aidingandabettingthepassingoffoftheSpirostradename.Theplaintiffs

94
wereawardeddamagesagainstdefendants919013AlbertaLtd.,Spiros
GroupInc.andJohnPapoutsakisintheamountof$50,000forpassingoffthe
tradename »Spiros. »Thedefendantswerepermanentlyenjoinedfromusing
anyofthetradenamesandtrade-marks »Spiros »and »SpirosPizza »inany
sign,advertisement,website,domainname,restaurantorotherproperty.
Thedefendantswereenjoinedfromusingthewebsitewww.spirospizza.ca,
butthedefendants’conductdidnotjustifyimposingpunitivedamagesfor
defamation.

ThedefendantsissuedathirdpartynoticetoGeorgeKapoyannis,thereal
estateagentinvolvedwiththerestaurant’slistingandtheoffertopurchase.
TherewasnoevidencethatKapoyanniswasnegligentandhewasactingat
allmaterialtimesasanagentfortheplaintiffs.Further,theactionwastime
barredbecausethelimitationsperiodexpiredfiveyearsbeforethethird
partynoticewasissuedandthereforetheactionwasdismissedwithcosts.

StandardLifeAssuranceCompanyofCanada/StandardLifeRealtyAdvisorsforthe
reproductionofmechanicalandelectricalplanscreatedbyB.Siebrand,P.Eng.in1987forthe
propertylocatedat5335CanotekRoadinOttawa[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File
2005-UO/TI-18,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/154-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-05-04)
StandardLife
Insurance
Companyof
Canada(Re)
2005-UO/TI-18forthereproductionof
mechanicalandelectrical
planscreatedbyB.Siebrand,
P.Eng.in1987forthe
propertylocatedat5335
CanotekRoadinOttawa2005-05-04
2005-08-31Operation,
maintenance
and
renovations$25None

St-CyrMorin(Lyse)forthereproductionofarchitecturalplanscreatedbyChristineGieyfztor
forthepropertylocatedat26ConcourseGateinOttawa[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]
File2005-UO/TI-25,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/157-e.pdf(CopBd;2005-06-30)
St-CyrMorin
(Re)
2005-UO/TI-25forthereproductionof
architecturalplanscreated
byChristineGieyfztorforthe
propertylocatedat
26ConcourseGatein
Ottawa
2005-06-30
2005-12-31Sale
transaction$25None

SteinhartvMoledina[2005]CarswellOnt550,[2005]OJ525,37CPR(4
th)443,
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2005/2005onsc10268.html(OntSupCt;2005-02-11)Ground
J.
Theplaintiffclaimedhewasthephotographerandownerofphotographs
thatwerepostedontheWebsiteofthecorporatedefendantwithout
permission.Theplaintiffallegedthattheindividualdefendantwasanofficer,
directorandshareholderofthecorporatedefendantandpersonally
authorizedtheinfringementofthecopyrightandmoralrightsofplaintiff’s
photographsbyauthorizingthereproduction,distribution,selling,and
rentingoutofplaintiff’sphotographs.

95
Theindividualdefendantbroughtamotionpursuanttorule21.01(1)(b)of
theRulesofCivilProcedure,R.R.O.1990,Reg.194,thatthestatementof
claimdisclosednoreasonablecauseofactionagainsthiminhispersonal
capacityandpursuanttorule25.11thatthestatementofclaimwas
scandalous,frivolousorvexatiousoranabuseofprocessofthecourt.

Held,themotiontostrikethecauseofactionagainsttheindividual
defendantshouldbegrantedandotherwisethemotionshouldbe
dismissed.

Therewasareasonablecauseofactionforpurposesofrule25.11.

Thetesttostrikeapleadingunderrule21.01(1)(b)iswhetheritisplain,
obviousandbeyonddoubtthatthecauseofactioncannotsucceedbased
onthejurisprudenceandonthefactspleadedinthestatementofclaim.
Theplaintiffclaimedthattheindividualdefendantwaspersonallyliableasa
director,officerand »directingmind »ofthecorporatedefendant,basedon
eithercopyrightlaworcommonlawprinciples,forwilfullyauthorizingthe
posting,sellinganddistributionofplaintiff’sphotographsontheinternet.

Accordingtocaselaw,individualswhoareofficersanddirectorsof
corporationsarenotpersonallyresponsiblemerelybecauseoftheirstatusas
officersanddirectorsforthecopyrightinfringementallegedlycommittedby
thecorporation.Astatementofclaimmustcontainparticularsstating
specificallyinwhatwaytheofficerordirectorwasindifferenttoor
deliberatelyrecklesswithrespecttothecopyrightowner’srightsordirected
themannerinwhichtheinfringingactivitiesweretobecarriedoutbythe
corporation.Theplaintifffailedtopleadthesespecificacts,andthe
statementofclaimdidnotstateareasonablecauseofactionagainstthe
individualdefendant.

Theindividualdefendant’smotionpursuanttorule21.01(1)(b)wasgranted
andthecauseofactionagainsttheindividualdefendantwasstruckfrom
thestatementofclaim.

Syndicatdesemployéesetemployésdel’UQAM,Sectionlocale1294vUniversitéduQuébec
àMontréal(UQAM)*2005IIJCan30712,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qcdag/2005/2005qcdag10126.html(QueArbitration;2005-09-
01)Sabourinarbitrator
[38]ComptetenudurécentarrêtParrySound[2003CSC42],j’estimeavoir
nonseulementlepouvoir«d’interpréteretd’appliquer»laditeLoisurle
droitd’auteur,maiségalement«lepouvoirdemettreenapplicationetde
fairerespecterlesdroitsetobligationssubstantiels»quisontprévusdans
laditelégislationfédérale[…]

[39]Entoutedéférencepourl’opinioncontraireexpriméeparla
procureurepatronaleaudossier,lefaitqu’iln’yaitpasdedispositionsurle
droitd’auteurdanslaConventioncollectiveenlitige,demêmequelefait
qu’aucuneréférenceàlaPolitiquen
o36n’ysoitfaite,nechangerienau
faitquele1ergriefdemeurearbitrable[EDITOR’SNOTE:thefirstgrievance
wasfor:Exposédugrief:Danslejournal«L’UQAM»,numéro8,datéle12
janvier2004,àlapage12(pièceR-3),l’employeuraenfreintlesrèglesdela

96
Politiquesurlareconnaissanceetlaprotectiondelapropriétéintellectuelle
(Politique36)(pièceR-11)encosignantunarticlequineluiappartenait
pas.].

TelewizjaPolsatS.A.vRadiopolInc.42CPR(4th)202,2005FC1179,2005CarswellNat2414,
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc1179.html,http://decisions.fct-
cf.gc.ca/fct/2005/2005fc1179.shtml(FC;2005-08-29)KelenJ.
Theplaintiffwastheownerofcertaintelevisionprogrammingwhichit
transmittedthroughitsencryptedtelevisionsignalviasatellite.Withoutthe
authorizationoftheplaintiffs,thedefendantsoperatedaWebsitethrough
whichtheymadetheplaintiff’sprogramepisodesavailabletothepublicfor
afee.Theplaintiff’strade-markappearedontherighthandcornerofthe
screenwhiletheepisodeswereplaying.Theplaintiffscommencedanaction
forcontraventionoftheRadiocommunicationAct,R.S.C.1985,vR-2,
copyrightinfringementandtrade-markinfringementandbroughtamotion
foraninterlocutoryinjunction.Astheplaintiffshadbeenunabletoeffect
personalserviceonthedefendants,theplaintiffsalsosoughtanorderfor
substitutedservice.

Held,themotionforsubstitutedserviceandaninterlocutoryinjunction
shouldbegranted.

Substitutedservice
TheplaintiffshadarrangedtohavetheStatementofClaimandmotion
materialsdeliveredtotheaddressshowninthedefendants’corporate
records.However,thepremiseshadbeenvacated.Itthensentthematerials
toapostofficeboxinAlbertaidentifiedbytheR.C.M.P.butthematerials
hadnotyetbeenpickedup.Theyalsosentcopiestothedefendants’twoe-
mailaddresses.Tracesshowedthatthee-mailshadbeendelivered

Rule147oftheFederalCourtsRules,1998,SOR/98-106,permitsthecourtto
validateserviceifitissatisfiedthatthedocumentshadcometothe
attentionofthepersonstobeserved.Thecourtwassatisfiedthatservice
hadbeeneffectedbye-mail.

Interlocutoryinjunction
Theplaintiffshadshownpossibleinfringementunderthe
RadiocommunicationAct,theCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,vC-42,andthe
Trade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,vT-13.Accordingly,theplaintiffshad
establishedthattherewasaseriousissuetobetried.Infact,astrongprima
faciecaseofinfringementhadbeenmadeout.

Thedefendants’activitieswereinterferingwiththeplaintiffs’abilitytoenter
intodistributionagreementsinCanada.Inadditiontolosingpotential
customers,theplaintiffswerealsolosingcredibilityinthemarketplace.As
thislossofindustryopportunitycouldnotbequantified,theplaintiffshad
establishedthattheywouldsufferirreparableharmifthedefendantswere
permittedtocontinuetheiractivities.

Theplaintiffshadestablishedastrongprimafaciecaseanddemonstrated
thattheywouldsufferirreparableharm.Further,giventhedifficultiesthe
plaintiffshadencounteredinattemptingtocontactthedefendants,there

97
wereseriousgroundstobelievethattheplaintiffswouldhavehaddifficulties
collectingdamagesfromthedefendantsifawardedattrial.Thebalanceof
conveniencefavouredtheplaintiffs.

TeneyckevSawatzky*2005CarswellSask446,2005SKQB266,
http://www.canlii.org/sk/cas/skqb/2005/2005skqb266.html,
http://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll?AC=GET_RECORD&XC=/dbtw-
wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll&BU=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawsociety.sk.ca%2Fnewlook%2FLibrary%2Ff
ulltextnew.htm&TN=fulltext&SN=AUTO17329&SE=508&RN=1&MR=20&RF=fullNew3P&DF=fullLong
New2P&RL=0&DL=0&NP=3&ID=&MF=WPENGMSG.INI&MQ=&TI=0(Sask.QB;2005-06-08)FoleyJ.
[12]Ifeverynon-filing,everyunpaiddebtandeachcopyrightinfringement
gaverisetoapplicationsforoppressionreliefandattemptstoremove
directorsandchangemanagement,therewouldbecontinualunnecessary
corporateturmoil.Itmustbedemonstratedthattheactionscomplainedof
are »unfairlyprejudicial »totheminority.Theevidenceinthiscasefallsfar
shortofthatstandard.

TMMinardTruckingLtd.vRichard[2005]CarswellSask149,[2005]SJ151,2005SKQB113,
http://www.canlii.org/sk/cas/skqb/2005/2005skqb113.html,
http://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll?AC=GET_RECORD&XC=/dbtw-
wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll&BU=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawsociety.sk.ca%2Fnewlook%2FLibrary%2Ff
ulltextnew.htm&TN=fulltext&SN=AUTO17744&SE=509&RN=0&MR=20&RF=fullNew3P&DF=fullLong
New2P&RL=0&DL=0&NP=3&ID=&MF=WPENGMSG.INI&MQ=&TI=0(SasQB;2005-03-02)
MathesonJ.
ApplicationbyTMMinardTruckingforanordertocontinueanAntonPiller
order.ItalsosoughtaninterimordertoprohibitthedefendantsRichard
andPrielfromtalkingtoMinard’semployees,leaseoperatorsorcustomers.
TheAntonPillarorderwasobtainedagainsttheformerdefendantTriton
Transport.RichardandPrielwereformeremployeesofMinardandworked
asdispatchers.Adispatcherwasakeyemployeeinthetruckingbusiness
ashecontactedcustomersandprospectivecustomerstoquotetrucking
ratesandtobookandassignloans.Thetruckingindustrywasvery
competitiveandthetruckingratesofeachfirmwerekeptconfidential
fromcompetitors.RichardandPrieldidnotsignnon-competition
agreementswithMinard.TheyleftMinardandcommencedemployment
withTriton.Minardclaimedthattheytookconfidentialinformationwith
themwhentheydeparted.TheAntonPillerorderallowedforentryinto
Triton’spremisesandtherighttosearchandremovepropertythatcouldbe
identifiedasbelongingtoMinard.Certaindocumentswereremovedbut
nonewereofsignificancetothisaction.

HELD:Applicationdismissed.Minardfailedtoestablishanextremelystrong
primafaciecasethatwouldentitleittothecontinuationoftheAntonPiller
order.Noparticularswerepro-videdofanylossesincurredbyMinardasa
resultofthedepar-tureofRichardandPriel.Therewasnoclearevidence
thatthesedefendantspossessedincriminatingdocuments.Regardingthe
requestfortheinjunction,intheabsenceofnon-competitionagreements
therewasnolawwhichprohibitedformeremployeesfromcompetingwith
theirformeremployer.Furthermore,itwasnotclearifthedefendantswere
employeesorindependentcontractors.

98

TowneCinemaTheatres(1975)Ltd.vSocietyofComposers,ArtistsandMusicPublishersof
Canada38CPR(4th)391,[2005]CarswellAlta341,[2005]AJ282,2005AQBD186,[2005]AWLD
1765,[2005]AWLD1772,[2005]AWLD1759,[2005]AWLD1860,[2005]AWLD1859,
http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abqb/2005/2005abqb186.html,
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/qb/civil/2005/2005abqb0186.pdf(AltaQB;2005-03-
18)LeeJ.;additionalreasonsat2005CarswellAlta569,[2005]AWLD1759,[2005]AWLD1765,
[2005]AWLD1772,[2005]AWLD1859,[2005]AWLD1860,2005ABQB315,
http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abqb/2005/2005abqb315.html,
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/qb/civil/2005/2005abqb0315.pdf(AltaQB-costs;
2005-04-24)
(AltaQB;2005-03-18)
Theplaintiffsoperatedmotionpicturetheatres.Thedefendantlawfirm
representedthedefendantsocietyinFederalCourtproceedingsfor
copyrightinfringementbroughtagainsttheplaintiffs.Theindividual
defendantwasthememberofthelawfirmresponsibleforthesocietyin
thoseproceedings.

TheplaintiffscausedthelawyersrepresentingthemintheFederalCourt
actiontodelivertotheindividualdefendantchequesrepresentingthe
amountscalculatedtobeowingpursuanttoroyaltylicenseesfor1999
through2003.Thecoveringletterssetoutthespecificpurposeforwhichthe
chequeswereprovided.Theindividualdefendantrepliedtotheletters
indicatingthatthedefendantsocietywaspreparedtoacceptthe
chequesaspaymenttowardsdamagesintheFederalCourtproceedings.
Thelawyersfortheplaintiffsrespondedindicatingthatthechequeswere
furnishedforthepurposessetoutintheirlettersfornootherpurposes.The
societycashedthechequesandappliedtheamountonaccountof
damages.

Theplaintiffscommencedanactioninthesuperiorcourtofaprovince
claimingthatthelettersfromtheirlawyersandthecashingoftheircheques
constitutedanagreementwithrespecttotheroyaltylicensesfor1999
through2003,andbroughtamotionforsummaryjudgment.

Held,theplaintiffs’motionshouldbedismissedandthesuperiorcourt
actionshouldbestayed.

Summaryjudgmentcannotbegrantedifthereisagenuineissuefortrial.
Theonusofshowingnogenuineissueisonthethirdpartybringingthe
motion.

Theissueinthemotionforsummaryjudgmentwasdirectlyrelatedto,or
identicalto,theissueraisedintheFederalCourtaction.Asaresult,the
orderforsummaryjudgmentwasrefused.Furthermore,summaryjudgment
wasnotgrantedbecausetherewasnoconclusiveevidenceofameeting
ofthemindsonthecreationofaperformingrightslicenceandthe
grantingofsummaryjudgmentwouldinterferewiththeFederalCourt
litigation.Thesuperiorcourtactionwasthereforestayed.

99
Trigenexinc.forthereproductionofarchitecturalplansdesignedbyAngeloA.Kolencin1977
forthepropertylocatedat33BannerRoadinOttawa[ReNon-exclusivelicenceissuedto]File
2005-UO/TI-04,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/150-f.pdf(CopBd;2005-02-09)
Trigenexinc.
(Re)
2005UO-TI-04forthereproductionof
architecturalplansdesigned
byAngeloA.Kolencin1977
forthepropertylocatedat
33BannerRoadinOttawa2005-02-09
2005-03-31Consultation
andanalysis$25None

UniversitédeMontréalvZompa*Unreported(2000-04-07)decisionoftheReviewCommittee
ComitéonStudentsDisciplinaryDecisionsoftheUniversityofMontreal;motionforjudicial
reviewgranted[2002]JQ5277,[2003]R.J.Q.509,2002IIJCan41594,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2002/2002qccs16248.html(CSQ;2002-12-03);revd[2005]
JQ1010,2005QCCA250(IIJCan)http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qcca/2005/2005qcca250.html
(QueCA;2005-02-16),SOQUIJAZ-50298006,JE2005-536,[2005]RJQ704;motionforleaveto
appealdismissed[2005]SCCA183(SCC;2005-10-06)
Résumé
Appeld’unjugementdelaCoursupérieureayantcasséunedécisiondumis
encause,leComitéderévisiondesdécisionsdisciplinairesconcernantles
étudiantsdelaFacultédesétudessupérieuresdel’UniversitédeMontréal.
Accueilli.

InscriteauprogrammededoctoratensciencesneurologiquesdelaFaculté
desétudessupérieuresdel’UniversitédeMontréal(FES),l’intiméeapublié
destextessansl’autorisationdesondirecteurdethèseetenindiquant
faussementquecedernierétaitcoauteur.LecomitéexécutifdelaFESa
concluqu’elleavaitcommisunefraudeausensduRèglementdisciplinaire
surleplagiatoulafraudeconcernantlesétudiantsetluiaimposéune
suspensiondel’Universitépendantunanetaexigélareprisedesathèsesi
elledécidaitdepoursuivresonprogramme.Saisid’unedemandede
révision,lemisencauseamodifiéàlahausselasanctionetaexclul’intimée
desprogrammesdudépartementdephysiologie,maislaCoursupérieurea
concluquelemisencauseavaitmanquéauxrèglesdel’équité
procéduraleentenantcomptedefaitspostérieursàladécisionducomité
exécutifetellearétablilasanctionimposéeparcedernier,d’oùleprésent
appel.

Décision
M.lejugeRochon:LeComitéderévisionn’apasmanquéàsondevoir
d’agiréquitablement.L’intiméeconnaissaittrèsbienlapreuvequ’entendait
utiliserl’Université,elleaétéaviséeentempsopportundesonintentionde
réclamerunesanctionpluslourdeetelleaeul’occasiondefairesacontre-
preuve.Lanormedecontrôleapplicableàunedécisionadministrative
s’établitàlasuited’uneanalysepragmatiqueetfonctionnelleportantsur
quatrefacteurs(présenced’uneclauseprivative,expertisedutribunalpar
rapportàcelledujugederévision,objetdelaloietnaturedelaquestion
soumise).Enl’espèce,l’article27.13h)desStatutsdel’UniversitédeMontréal
prévoitqueladécisionduComitéderévisionest«finaleetexécutoire».
Cetteclause«definalité»militeenfaveurd’uneretenuejudiciaire.Le
Comitéderévision,quiestuncomitépermanentforméd’universitaireset
d’étudiantsetquiestappeléàdéciderendernierressortdesdifférends

100
disciplinairespourtouteslesfacultésdel’Université,possèdeuneexpertise
quen’apaslaCoursupérieure,cequisuggèreégalementuneretenue
judiciaire.LaChartedel’UniversitédeMontréaletsesstatutsreflètent
l’importanceaccordéeàladisciplineuniversitaire,etlemécanisme
d’examenetdesanctionexclusivementinternetémoignedelavolontéde
l’assurerendehorsdetouteingérenceexterne.Lesquestionssoumisesen
l’espèceportentsurlemodedefonctionnementduComitéderévisionet
sursacompétencepouraccroîtrelasanctionimposée.Ils’agitd’une
questionmixteet,comptetenudestroispremiersfacteurs,lanormede
contrôleapplicableestcelledel’erreurdéraisonnable.L’article27.13des
statutssuggèrefortementunmécanismederévisiondetypedenovo.Ilne
s’agitpasd’undroitd’appel,maisbiend’undroitdedemanderlarévision.
Règlegénérale,ledroitadministratifpermetauxorganismeschargésde
rendreunedécisiondenovodenepasselimiterauxseulsfaitsprésentésà
l’origine.Danscecas,ledécideurpeutprendreconnaissancedefaits
postérieursàlapremièredécisiondanslamesureoùilssontpertinentsetliés
àladécisionoriginale.Enl’espèce,leComitéderévisionn’apasutiliséla
preuvedefaitssubséquentspourprouverl’infraction,maisuniquementpour
déterminerlasanctionappropriée.Cettepreuvedémontraitquel’intimée
persistaitdanssaconduitemalhonnêteetnemanifestaitaucunremords.Le
Comitéderévisionpouvaitaccroîtrelasanctionpuisquel’article27.13f)des
statutsprévoitqu’ilalacompétencepour«rendreladécisionquiauraitdû
êtrerendue».Sadécisionn’étaitpasdéraisonnableetparaîtbienfondée.

[105]Enl’espèce,leComitéderévisionamotivésadécisionderevoiràla
hausselasanctionimposée:

OutrelesdifficultésdemiseenapplicationdeladécisionduComité
exécutifdelaFES(témoignageduprofesseurCastelluci)notes
sténographiquesdu28janvier2000,p.70-71),leComitéderévisionest
d’avisquecettesanction,quoiqu’ellenesoitpasdéraisonnableensoi,
estinappropriéeeuégardàl’ensembledescirconstancesmisesen
preuvelorsdesaudiencesportantsurlarévisiondecettedécision.

Lesfaitssuivantssontautantd’élémentsqueleComitéaprisen
considérationpourdéciderdelasanctionquidevraitêtreimposée:

lefaitquemadameZompaasoumispourpublicationàlarevueBrain
Researchdesarticlesportantsurlefruitdesesrechercheseffectuées
sousladirectionduprofesseurDubucsanseninformercedernieret
alorsqu’ilavaitétéconvenuentreeuxquelesarticlesenpréparation
seraientsoumisàlarevueJournalofNeuroscience;

lefaitquemadameZompas’estreprésentéefaussementauprèsdes
éditeursdelarevueBrainResearchcommeayantcorédigéavecle
professeurDubuclestroisarticlesqu’elleleurasoumispour
publication;

lefaitquemadameZompaacontinuédeparticiperàlamédiation
duprofesseurDrewalorsqu’ilestmanifestequeletravaileffectuépar
leprofesseurDubucsurlesarticlesétaitinutilepuisquelesarticles
avaientdéjàétésoumispourpublication;

101
lefaitquemadameZompaadéposéunethèsededoctoratdontla
partiecentraleestcomposéedesarticleslitigieuxqu’elleprésente
commeayantétécorédigésparleprofesseurDubucetelle-même;

lefaitquemadameZompacontinuedeseprésenterdevantla
communautéscientifiquecommeayantcorédigéavecleprofesseur
DubuclesdeuxarticlespubliésdanslarevueBrainResearch;

lefaitqu’ellecontinued’indiqueràsoncurriculumvitaeletroisième
articleégalementsoumisàlarevueBrainResearch(etquinesera
jamaispubliévulenon-consentemntduprofesseurDubuc);

lefaitqu’ellelaisseentendredansdescommunicationsvisantà
obtenirdeslettresderecommandationsqu’elleestenattentede
documentsattestantl’obtentiondesondoctorat.

LeComitéconclutcequisuit:
ilseraitinacceptablequemadameZompapuissefaireévaluer,aux
finsdel’obtentiond’undoctorat,untravailentachédetelles
irrégularitésquitiennentdelafraudescientique;

ilseraitimpensablededemanderàunoudesmembresdu
Départementdephysiologied’encadrermadameZompaauxfinsde
larédactiond’unethèseclassique;

ilseraitdéraisonnablequel’UniversitédeMontréaldemandeàun
scientifiquedel’extérieurd’assumerunetelletâche.

Euégardàl’ensembledelapreuveprésentée,ilestmanifestequela
sanctionlamoinssévèrequipuisseêtreimposéesoitl’exclusiondes
programmesduDépartementdephysiologie.

Cettesanctionestlaseulequisoitadéquateeuégardàlagravitédesfaits
reprochésàlarequéranteetàl’absencederegretspourlesconséquences
desongeste,qu’ellepersisteàconsidérercommeleseulmoyendontelle
disposaitpouratteindresesfins.

[106]Nonseulementcettedécisionn’estpasdéraisonnable,ellem’apparaît
bienfondéeparticulièrementàlalumièredesévénementsquiontconduità
laplaintedisciplinaire

(SCC;2005-10-06)
CaseSummary:
TheapplicantwasfoundguiltyoffraudundertherespondentUniversity’s
Règlementdisciplinairesurleplagiatoulafraudeconcernantlesétudiants
andwassuspendedforayear.BeforetheComitéderévisiondesdécisions
disciplinairesconcernantlesétudiants,theapplicantsoughttointroduce
newevidenceobtainedduringtherevisionprocessinordertojustifyher
actions,buttheUniversityhadtheevidencewithdrawnonthegroundthatit
constitutedhearsay.TheUniversitythenintroducedtheevidencetoshow
thattheapplicantwasstillactinginappropriatelyandaskedthatthe
sanctionbeincreased.TheComitéderévisionconfirmedtheexistenceof

102
fraudandexpelledtheapplicantfromthedepartmentofphysiology.An
applicationforjudicialreviewwasgrantedbytheSuperiorCourtonthe
groundsthattheComitéhadexceededitsjurisdictionandviolatedrulesof
proceduraljustice,butthedecisionwasoverturnedbytheCourtofAppeal.

UniversityofTorontoPress,Toronto,Ontario,forthereproductionofaworkcreatedbyFrancis
RobertHallidayentitled »NationalProgress »[ReNon-exclusivelicencedeliveredto]FileNo.
2005UO/TI40;also,http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/168-e.pdf(CopyrightBoard;2005-
10-04)
Universityof
TorontoPress
(Re)
2005-UO/TI-40forthereproductionofa
workcreatedbyFrancis
RobertHallidayentitled
« NationalProgressinnomore
than1000copies2005-10-04
2006-12-31
Commerci
al$159.
50CARCC

VaillancourtvLagacé,JE2005-1793,2005IIJCan29333,2005CarswellQue9129,AZ-50329444,
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccs/2005/2005qccs59773.html#_ftnref6(QueSupCt;2005-08-
18)
Résumé
Requêtevisantàobteniruneordonnancedesauvegarde.Rejetée.

En2003,lesdemandeursVaillancourtetThibodeauontfondéleCentre
aviaireJohanneVaillancourt,s.e.n.c.(CAJV),codemandeur,danslebutde
diffuserdel’informationsurlescomportements,lessoinsetl’éducationdes
perroquetsdomestiques.Enseptembre2004,uncontratintervenuentre
VaillancourtetladéfenderesseLagacéautorisaitcettedernièreàdonner
descoursdeformationpourleCAJV.Vaillancourt,deplusenplusoccupée,
adécidédediffuserl’informationcontenuedanssescourssursonsite
Internet.Enjanvier2005,unenouvelleententeapermisàLagacédese
serviravecdéférenceetrespectdunomdeVaillancourtainsiquedeson
matérieldidactiqueàdesfinspromotionnellesetprofessionnelles.Aumois
defévriersuivant,lesmembresduCAJVontétéavisésquelescoursseraient
donnésparLagacéparl’intermédiaireduClubd’étudedecomportement
aviaire(CECA).CedernieracréésonpropresiteInternet,dontledéfendeur
Rochseraitl’administrateur.LadéfenderesseChoquetteestlaconjointede
Roch.LesrelationsentreLagacéetVaillancourts’étantenvenimées,cette
dernièreaunilatéralementrésiliéleurentente.Enmai2005,unblogue
accessibleaumoyend’unhyperliendanslesitedeCECAaétéouvertsur
Internet.Lesdemandeursréclamentqu’uneordonnancedesauvegardesoit
rendue,soutenantquecebloguecontientdesproposmensongerset
diffamatoiresàleurégard.Ilsinvoquentégalementuneviolationdeleurs
droitsd’auteur.

Décision
L’ordonnancedesauvegardequeveulentobtenirlesdemandeursvise
l’interdictiondepubliertoutcommentairedenaturediffamatoireàleur
égard,unretraitimmédiatdetouteslespagesdubloguecontenantdetels
proposetuneinterdictiontotaledecommenterlelitige.Pourquece
remèdesoitaccordé,lajurisprudenceexigelapreuved’uneapparencede
droitclair.Or,enl’instance,lesconclusionstellesqu’ellessontrédigées

103
entraînentdesproblèmes.Certainesimpliquentquelesdéfendeurs
décidentquelcommentaireestdiffamatoire.Ceux-ciprétendentqu’aucun
proposdiffamatoiren’estdiffusésurleursite.Cettequestionfaitdoncpartie
dudébataufond.Quantàl’interdictiondecommenterlelitige,iln’existe
aucunepreuvequelesdéfendeursaientuncontrôlesurcequiestpublié
dansleblogueniqu’ilsaientlacapacitétechniquedesupprimercertains
commentaires.Iln’yadoncpasd’apparencededroitquantàcette
questiondeladiffamation.Lesdemandeursréclamentégalementqu’ilsoit
interditàLagacédedonnerdescoursauxmembresdeCAJVetd’utiliserles
coursetlematérieldeVaillancourt.Ilsdoiventdémontrerl’urgence
d’intervenirafind’éviterqu’unpréjudiceirréparablenesoitcauséavantque
lerecourseninjonctioninterlocutoiresoitentendu.Or,riendansles
procéduresn’indiquequeLagacés’apprêteàlesutiliser.L’information
contenuedanslescoursdeVaillancourtétantdiffuséesurlesiteInternetdu
CAJV,elleestdevenuepublique.Parsurcroît,l’ententeentreVaillancourtet
Lagacéindiqueàpremièrevuequecettedernièreestautoriséeàutiliserle
matérieldeVaillancourt.Ainsi,larequêtenedémontreniapparencede
droitniurgenceàcetégard.Invoquantuneviolationdudroitd’auteur,les
demandeursréclamentqu’ilsoitordonnéauxdéfendeursdecesserd’utiliser
lestextes,lesphotographiesettoutautrematérieldeVaillancourt,tanten
leurnomquesouslecouvertdepseudonymes.Toutefois,larequêtene
permetpasdedéterminersilesdéfendeursutilisentcespseudonymesni
quelstextesetphotographiessontprotégésparledroitd’auteur.Cette
incertitudefaitéchecàladémonstrationd’uneapparencededroitet
d’uneurgence.

104
ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdela
propriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielset
modèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationet
appellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsde
commerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsde
technologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademark
agentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofall
fieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;
trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,
softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplant
breeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,
franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusiness
law;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.

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