Indirect Infringement and Section 27 of the Canadian Copyright Act

1
INDIRECTINFRINGEMENTANDSECTION27OFTHECANADIANCOPYRIGHTACT

LaurentCarrière*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarksAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria–BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal(Quebec)H2Z2B7
Tel:514-987-6242-Fax:514-845-7874
info@robic.com–www.robic.ca
TextoftheSection

INFRINGEMENTOFCOPYRIGHTVIOLATIONDUDROITD’AUTEUR
GeneralRèglegénérale
InfringementgenerallyRèglegénérale
27.(1)Itisaninfringementofcopyrightfor
anypersontodo,withouttheconsentof
theownerofthecopyright,anythingthat
bythisActonlytheownerofthecopyright
hastherighttodo.2
7.(1)Constitueuneviolationdudroit
d’auteurl’accomplissement,sansle
consentementdutitulairedecedroit,d’un
actequ’envertudelaprésenteloiseulce
titulairealafacultéd’accomplir.

SecondaryinfringementViolationàuneétapeultérieure
(2)Itisaninfringementofcopyrightforany
personto(
2)Constitueuneviolationdudroit
d’auteurl’accomplissementdetoutacte
ci-aprèsencequiatraitàl’exemplaire
d’uneoeuvre,d’unefixationd’une
prestation,d’unenregistrementsonoreou
d’unefixationd’unsignalde
communicationalorsquelapersonnequi
accomplitl’actesaitoudevraitsavoirque
laproductiondel’exemplaireconstitue
uneviolationdecedroit,ouen
constitueraitunesil’exemplaireavaitété
produitauCanadaparlapersonnequil’a
produit:
(a)sellorrentout,a)laventeoulalocation;
(b)distributetosuchanextentastoaffect
prejudiciallytheownerofthecopyright,b
)lamiseencirculationdefaçonàporter
préjudiceautitulairedudroitd’auteur;
(c)bywayoftradedistribute,exposeor
offerforsaleorrental,orexhibitinpublic,c
)lamiseencirculation,lamiseoul’offre
enventeouenlocation,oul’expositionen





























































LaurentCarrière,2003.
*Lawyerandtrademarkagent,LaurentCarrièreisoneoftheseniorpartnerswiththelawfirm
LEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andwiththepatentandtrademarkagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.This
materialwasdesignedforthepurposeofageneralpresentationonCanadianLegislation
madeattheUnderstandingtheBusinessofCopyrightcoursesponsoredbytheIntellectual
PropertyInstituteofCanadaandMcGillUniversityfrom2002-08-26to2002-08-30.Publication
288.

2
public,dansunbutcommercial;
(d)possessforthepurposeofdoing
anythingreferredtoinparagraphs(a)to
(c),ord
)lapossessionenvuedel’unoul’autre
desactesvisésauxalinéasa)àc);
(e)importintoCanadaforthepurposeof
doinganythingreferredtoinparagraphs
(a)to(c),e
)l’importationauCanadaenvuedel’un
oul’autredesactesvisésauxalinéasa)à
c).
acopyofawork,soundrecordingor
fixationofaperformer’sperformanceorof
acommunicationsignalthattheperson
knowsorshouldhaveknowninfringes
copyrightorwouldinfringecopyrightifit
hadbeenmadeinCanadabytheperson
whomadeit.

KnowledgeofimporterPrécision
(3)Indeterminingwhetherthereisan
infringementundersubsection(2)inthe
caseofanactivityreferredtoinanyof
paragraphs(2)(a)to(d)inrelationtoa
copythatwasimportedinthe
circumstancesreferredtoinparagraph
(2)(e),itisirrelevantwhethertheimporter
kneworshouldhaveknownthatthe
importationofthecopyinfringedcopyright.
(
3)Lorsqu’ils’agitdedécidersilesactes
visésauxalinéas(2)a)àd),danslescasoù
ilsserapportentàunexemplaireimporté
danslesconditionsviséesàl’alinéa(2)e),
constituentdesviolationsdudroitd’auteur,
lefaitquel’importateursavaitouauraitdû
savoirquel’importationdel’exemplaire
constituaituneviolationn’estpas
pertinent.
PlatesPlanches
(4)Itisaninfringementofcopyrightforany
persontomakeorpossessaplatethathas
beenspecificallydesignedoradaptedfor
thepurposeofmakinginfringingcopiesof
aworkorothersubject-matter.(
4)Constitueuneviolationdudroit
d’auteurlaconfectiond’uneplanche
conçueouadaptéeprécisémentpourla
contrefaçond’uneoeuvreoudetout
autreobjetdudroitd’auteur,oulefaitde
l’avoirensapossession.

PublicperformanceforprofitReprésentationdansunbutdeprofit
(5)Itisaninfringementofcopyrightforany
person,forprofit,topermitatheatreor
otherplaceofentertainmenttobeusedfor
theperformanceinpublicofaworkor
othersubject-matterwithouttheconsentof
theownerofthecopyrightunlessthat
personwasnotaware,andhadno
reasonablegroundforsuspecting,thatthe
performancewouldbeaninfringementof
copyright.(
5)Constitueuneviolationdudroit
d’auteurlefait,dansunbutdeprofit,de
permettrel’utilisationd’unthéâtreoud’un
autrelieudedivertissementpour
l’exécutionenpublicd’uneoeuvreoude
toutautreobjetdudroitd’auteursansle
consentementdutitulairedudroit
d’auteur,àmoinsquelapersonnequi
permetcetteutilisationn’aitignoréetn’ait
euaucunmotifraisonnablede
soupçonnerquel’exécutionconstituerait
uneviolationdudroitd’auteur.

R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,s.27;R.S.C.1985(3rdSupp.),c.1,s.13;
R.S.C.1985(4thSupp.),c.10,s.5;S.C.1993,c.44,c.64;S.C.1997,c.24,s.15.

3
§1.0RelatedSections
Section2-Definitionsof: »copyright », »infringement », »plate »;section3-
Copyrightinworks,section13-Ownershipofcopyright;section15-
Copyrightinperformer’sperformance;section18-Copyrightinsound
recordings;section21-Copyrightincommunicationsignals;section24-
Ownershipofcopyright;section27.1-Importationofbooks;section34-
Copyright[civilremedies];section39-Injunctiononlyremedywhen
defendantnotawareofcopyright.
§2.0RelatedRegulations
None
§3.0PriorLegislation
§3.1CorrespondingSectioninPriorLegislation
Section16from1924-01-01to1928-01-31;section17from1928-02-01to1988-
12-11;section27from1988-12-12topresent.
§3.2LegislativeHistory
S.C.1921,c.24,s.16;C.I.F.1924-01-01;R.S.C.1927,c.32,s.17;C.I.F.1928-02-
01;S.C.1952,c.55,s.17;C.I.F.1953-09-15;R.S.C.1970,c.C-30,s.17;C.I.F.
1971-07-15;R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,s.27;C.I.F.1988-12-12;S.C.1997,c.24,s.15;
C.I.F.1997-09-01.
§4.0Purpose
Thissectiondescribeswhatconstitutesinfringementofcopyright.
§5.0Commentary
§5.1General
Althoughsection27makesnosuchdistinction,infringementofcopyrightmay
becategorizedasdirectorprimaryinfringement,inwhichanowner’s
exclusive,legislatedrightsareviolated,andindirectorsecondary

4
infringement,consistingofcertaindealingswithrespecttoinfringingworks.A
distinguishingfeaturebetweenthetwoisknowledgeonthepartofthe
infringerthatcopyrightisbeinginfringed.Suchknowledgeisrequiredinthe
caseofindirectinfringement,whereasdirectinfringementmayoccur
whetherornotknowledgeispresent.Acommonfeatureofanyinfringement
istheabsenceofconsentonthepartofthecopyrightowner.
Inaccordancewithsubsection5(1),infringementofcopyrightpresupposesa
workinwhichcopyrightsubsists:seeCanadianAdmiralCorporationv.
Rediffusion,Inc.,(1954),[1954]Ex.C.R.382(Ex.Ct.)CameronJ.,atp.390,i.e.
aliterary,dramatic,artisticormusicalwork,aperformer’sperformance,a
soundrecordingoracommunicationsignal.
SeealsothediscussiononcopyrightprotectioninunlawfulworksinLADDIE
(Hugh)etal.,TheModernLawofCopyright,2
nded.(London,Butterworths,
1995),atnos.2.143-2.146.Becausecopyrightdoesnotexistotherthanunder
andinaccordancewiththeCopyrightActoranyotherstatutoryenactment
inforce(section89),directinfringingactivitiesarelimitedtoviolationsofa
copyrightowner’srightsasenumeratedinsection3(works),section15
(performer’sperformances),section18(soundrecordings)andsection21
(communicationsignals).Indirectinfringementmayonlytakeplacewith
respecttoworksorothersubject-mattersfoundtoinfringeavalidlysubsisting
copyrightorworksorothersubject-matterswhichwouldinfringecopyrightif
theyhadbeenmadewithinCanada:seesubsection27(2)infine.
Notethatsection14.1createsmoralrightsinfavouroftheauthorofawork
whichissusceptibletoinfringement,asdefinedinsections28.1and28.2;
thereisnoprovisionsintheCopyrightActdealingwiththeinfringementof
moralrightsinperformer’sperformances,soundrecordingsorcommunication
signals.
§5.1.1Categorization
Undersection27,copyrightisinfringed:
(i)whenanypersonwho,withoutthecopyrightowner’sconsent,does
anythingthattheCopyrightActgivestheownerthesolerighttodo:
subsection27(1);
(ii)bytheaccomplishementofcertainactswithrespecttoinfringingworks
orsubject-matters:subsection27(2);
(iii)bythepublicperformanceofaworkorothersubject-matterforprofit
withouttheowner’sconsent:subsection27(5).

5
Section29(researchandprivatestudy),29.1(criticismorreview),29.2(news
reporting),29.4(reproductionforinstruction),29.5(performances),29.6(news
andcommentary),29.7(reproductionofbroadcast),30(literarycollections),
30.1(managementandmaintenanceofcollection),30.2(researchorprivate
study),30.21(copyingworksdepositedinarchive),30.5(copiesforarchival
purposesbytheNationalArchivesofCanada),30.6(permittedacts-
omputerprograms),30.7(incidentaluse),30.8(ephemeralrecordings),30.9
(pre-recordedrecordings),31(retransmission),32.1(statutoryobligations)and
32.2(miscellaneousexceptions)provideforseveralexceptionstothe
infringementofcopyright.
§5.1.2Consent
Infringementofcopyrightrequiresanabsenceofconsentbythecopyright
owner,whoistheonlyperson,undersubsection3(1)infine,whocan
authorizeactswhichwouldotherwiseconstituteinfringement.
Intransferringthepossessionorpropertyofaphysicalwork,acopyrightowner
doesnottherebyassigntheincorporalrightsinthework:seeUnderwriters’
SurveyBureauLimitedv.Massie&RenwickLimited(1940),[1940]S.C.R.218
(S.C.C.)DuffJ.,atp.229;Sociétéd’informatiqueR.D.G.Inc.v.DynabecLtée
(1985),6C.P.R.(3d)322,(Que.C.A.)JacquesJ.,atp.329;LifestyleHomesLtd.
v.RandallHomesLtd.(1990),30C.P.R..(3d)76(ManQ.B.)HirschfieldJ.,atp.
92.Consentmustemanatefromtheowneroftheparticularrightconsidered,
beingtheownerhimselforhislegalrepresentative:seeBishopv.Stevens
(1984),4C.P.R.(3d)349(F.C.T.D.)StrayerJ.,atpp.361-362;CompoCompany
Limitedv.BlueCrestMusicInc.(1974),17C.P.R.(2d)149,(F.C.T.D.)CollierJ.,at
p.162.
Licences,whichcouldbecharacterizedasbeingthepermissionforthe
accomplishingofanactthatwouldotherwisebeaninfringementof
copyright,areeithergivenvoluntarilyorcompulsorily.Compulsorylicences
wereprovidedforinsections8,15,16and22oftheCopyrightAct[now
repealed]and,undercertaincircumstancesmaybeprovidedfor,under
sections32and61oftheCompetitionAct(R.S.C.1985,c.C-34).Voluntary
licencesmaybeexpressedorimplied,verballyorinwriting,withorwithout
consideration.However,onlythoselicencesthattransferaninterestinthe
copyrightoughttobeinwriting:seesubsections13(4)and57(1);Amusements
WiltronInc.v.Mainville(1991),[1991]R.J.Q.1930(Que.Sup.Ct.)MarcerolaJ.,
atpp.1937-1938.
Consentmaybepresumedfromthecircumstancesortheconductofthe
parties,buttheinferenceofconsentmustbeclearandtheonustoestablishit

6
liesontheonewhoisrelyingonthelicence:seeWarnerBrothers-SevenArts
Inc.v.CESM-TVLtd.(1971),65C.P.R.215(Ex.Ct.)CattanachJ.,atp.235;
Slumber-MagicAdjustableBedCo.Ltd.v.Sleep-KingAdjustableBedCo.
(1984),3C.P.R.(3d)81(B.C.S.C.)McLaughlinJ.,atp.87.Forinstance,ithas
beenheldthattheacquisitionofplanscarriesanimplicitcopyrightlicence
andthatalterationsmadetotheplanswithsuchimplicitconsentofthe
copyrightownerdonotconstituteinfringement,althoughtheextenttowhich
thecopyrightmaterialmaybealteredislimited:seeNetupskyv.Dominion
BridgeCo.(1971),[1972]S.C.R.368(S.C.C.)JudsonJ.,atpp.377-378.Asto
impliedlicences,seealsoADILtd.v.Destein(1982),68C.P.R..(2d)262
(N.B.Q.B.);JohnMaryonInternationalLtd.v.NewBrunswickTelephoneCo.
(1982),141D.L.R.(3d)193(N.B.C.A.)LaForestJ.A.,atpp.246-249;Katzv.
Cytrynbaum(1983),76C.P.R.(2d)276(B.C.C.A.).However,theconsentmust
emanatefromtheowneroftheparticularrightconsidered:Kaffkav.
MountainSideDevelopmentsLtd.(1982),62C.P.R.(2d)157(B.C.S.C.)EssonJ.,
atp.161;Bishopv.Stevens(1990),[1990]2S.C.R.467(S.C.C.)McLachlinJ.,at
pp.485-487.
Itisnoteworthythataconsentgrantedgratuitouslymayberevokedatwill,
eventhoughexpenseshavebeenincurredbythelicenseeonthefaithofthe
consent:seeHartv.Hyman(1916),[1911-16]MacG.Cop.Cas.301,NevilleJ.
(Ch.D.),atpp.304-305andKatzv.Cytrynbaum(1983),76C.P.R.(2d)276
(B.C.C.A.);seealsoFOX(HaroldGeorge),TheCanadianLawofCopyright
andIndustrialDesigns,2
nded.(Toronto,Carswell,1967),atpp.339-340and
298andMcKEOWN(JohnS.),FoxCanadianLawofCopyrightandIndustrial
Designs,3
rded.(Toronto,Carswell,2001),atpp.392-393.
§5.2DirectInfringement:Subsection27(1)

27.(1)Itisaninfringementofcopyright
foranypersontodo,withoutthe
consentoftheownerofthecopyright,
anythingthatbythisActonlytheowner
ofthecopyrighthastherighttodo.2
7.(1)Constitueuneviolationdudroitd’auteur
l’accomplissement,sansleconsentementdu
titulairedecedroit,d’unactequ’envertudela
présenteloiseulcetitulairealafaculté
d’accomplir.
§5.2.1General
Infringementofcopyrightinaworkorothersubject-matterofcopyright
occurswhenanyperson,withoutconsentfromtheownerofthecopyright,
doesanythingwhichtheCopyrightActconsidersastheowner’sexclusive
right.Toinfringeistoappropriatetheprotectedwork(orperformer’s
performance,soundrecordingsorcommunicationsignals)ofanotherperson
andwithoutauthorizationdealwithitasonlytheownerofthecopyrighthas

7
therighttodo.Conversely,anydealingnotcoveredbytheCopyrightActwill
constitutelawfuluse.
Infringement,withrespecttoanoriginalworkoranysubstantialpartthereof
consistsofproducingorreproducingtheworkinanymaterialformwhatever,
ofperformingor(inthecaseofalecture)deliveringitinpublic,orof
publishingthework.Ineachcasetheseinfringingactsaredonewithoutthe
copyrightowner’sconsent.Copyrightalsocarriesrightsoftranslation,
conversion,recordingthroughaudio,audiovisualorcinematographicmedia,
andrightsofadaptation,radiobroadcastingandexhibition,allofwhich
belongexclusivelytothecopyrightowner:seesubsection3(1).
Infringement,withrespecttoaperformer’sperformanceoranysubstantial
partthereof,consistsofcommunicatingittothepublicby
telecommunication,performingitinpublic,fixingitinanymaterialform,
reproducinganyunauthorizedfixation,reproducingareproductionthereofor
rentingoutasoundrecordingofit.Ineachcase,theseinfringingactsare
donewithoutthecopyrightowner’sconsent.Seesubsection15(1).
Infringement,withrespecttoasoundrecordingoranysubstantialpart
thereof,consistsinpublishingit,reproducingitinanymaterialformorrentingit
out.Ineachcase,theseinfringingactsaredonewithoutthecopyright
owner’sconsent.Seesubsection18(1).
Infringement,withrespecttoacommunicationsignaloranysubstantialpart
thereof,consistsoffixingit,reproducinganyfixationofit,authorizinganother
broadcastertoretransmitittothepublicorperformingitinaplaceopento
thepublicforafee.Ineachcase,theseinfringingactsaredonewithoutthe
copyrightowner’sconsent.Seesubsection21(1).
Inaddition,subsections3(1),15(1),18(10and21(1)infinegivethecopyright
ownertheexclusiverighttoauthorizeanyoftheactsenumeratedinthese
subsections.Infringementmaythereforeconsistofauthorizing,without
permissionofthecopyrightholder,thedoingofsuchacts:seeCompoCo.v.
BlueCrestMusicInc.(1979),[1980]1S.C.R.357(S.C.C.)EsteyJ.,atpp.364,375
and378-379.
Itwouldnotappearthatinfringementthroughauthorizationappliesto
indirectinfringementundersubsection27(2),sincetheactslistedunderthe
saidsubsectiondonotformpartofthoseenumeratedinsubsections3(1),
15(1),18(1)and21(1)oftheCopyrightAct,towhichsubsections3(1),15(10,
18(1)and21(1)infinerespectivelyapply:seealsoGARNETT(Kevin)etal.,
CopingerandSkoneJamesonCopyright,14
thed.(London,Sweet&Maxwell,

8
1999),atno.7-149and91439CanadaLtéev.ÉditionsJCLInc.(1992),41
C.P.R.(3d)245(F.C.T.D.)PinardJ.,atpp.252-253.
Itistobenotedthat »innocentintentionaffordsnodefence,andignorance
oftheexistenceofcopyrightisnoexcuseforinfringement.Copyrightbeinga
proprietaryright,itdoesnotavailthedefendanttopleadmotiveorintent »:
seeFOX(HaroldGeorge),TheCanadianLawofCopyrightandIndustrial
Designs,2
nded.(Toronto,Carswell,1967),atp.331and298andMcKEOWN
(JohnS.),FoxCanadianLawofCopyrightandIndustrialDesigns,3
rded.
(Toronto,Carswell,2001),atpp.414-415.However,ifsuchaproposalistrue
withrespecttosubsection27(1),itshouldbenuancedthatignorancemay
constituteavaliddefenceundersubsection27(2),whereknowledgeisan
essentialelementofinfringement.AsexpressedinSKONEJAMES(EdmundP.)
etal.,CopingerandSkoneJamesonCopyright,12
thed.(London,Sweet&
Maxwell,1980),atno.654,atp.280: »Inasmuchascopyrightisaproprietary
right,itisusuallynodefencetoprovethatthedefendantactedinnocently,
though,inthecaseoftheindirectinfringementsbysale,importationandso
on,itisnecessarytoprovethatthedefendantwasawareofthe
infringement »;seealsoGARNETT(Kevin)etal.,CopingerandSkoneJameson
Copyright,14
thed.(London,Sweet&Maxwell,1999),atno.22-33: »Plainly
‘ignorance’isadefenceforsecondaryinfringement »andZamacoïsv.
Douville(1943),[1944]Ex.C.R.21(Ex.Ct.)AngersJ.,atpp.32-35.
§5.2.2″Deemed »infringement
Sincetheintroductionofsubsections27(1)and27(2)intheCopyrightActof
1921[thensubsections16(1)and16(2)]uptoAnActtoamendtheCopyright
Actof1997,theactsreferredtointhesesubsectionswerequalifiedbythe
words »shallbedeemed ».Theuseoftheword »deemed »raisedapresumption
ofinfringementwhenthecircumstancesoutlinedinsubsection27(1)were
foundtoexist,subjectofcoursetothestatedexceptions. »Thepurposeofany
‘deeming’clauseistoimposeameaning,tocausesomethingtobetakento
bedifferentfromthatwhichitmighthavebeenintheabsenceoftheclause »:
seeR.v.Sutherland(1980),[1980]2S.C.R.451(S.C.C.)DicksonJ.,atp.456.
« Deemed »isanambiguousterm,andwhetherthepresumptionthusraisedis
conclusiveorrebuttablemustbedeterminedinthecontextoftheentire
statute.Ingeneral, »whereadeemingclausestatesthelegalconsequences
thataretoflowfromdescribedcircumstances,itisprimafacieconclusive;
butwhereitmerelystatesafactthatistobepresumedindescribed
circumstances,itisprimafacierebuttable »:seeDRIEDGER(ElmerA.),
ConstructionofStatutes,2
nded.(Toronto,Butterworths,1983),atp.25.

9
Sinceinfringementcanbeconsideredalegalconsequenceflowingfroma
givensituation,thepresumptionisconclusiveinthesensethatthe
reproachedacts,ifproven,constituteinfringement.Ontheeffectoflegal
andfactualpresumptions,seealsoROYER(Jean-Claude),Lapreuvecivile,
2
nded.(Cowansville,Blais,1995),atnos.839-845andSOPINKA(John)etal.,
TheLawofEvidenceinCanada,2
nded.(Toronto,Butterworths,1999),atch.4.
Therefore,onemayhaverightlyarguedthat,inviewofthedescriptionofthe
prohibitedacts,theuseofthese«deeming»qualificationswereuselessand
theyweredeletedinthestrideofthe1997amendments.
§5.2.3Infringement »byanyperson »
Section35oftheInterpretationAct(R.S.C.1985,c.I-21)providesthata »
‘person’,oranywordorexpressiondescriptiveofaperson,includesa
corporation. »
Adefendantmaybefoundliableforinfringementcommittedbyan
employeeactingwithinthescopeofhisdutiesandunderthecontrolofthe
defendant:seeCanadianPerformingRightSocietyLimitedv.Canadian
NationalExhibitionAssociation[1934]O.R.610(Ont.H.C.J.)RoseJ.,atp.616;
CanadianPerformingRightSocietyLtd.v.Yee(1943),3C.P.R.64(Alta.Dist.
Ct.)FordJ.,atpp.67-68;Cardwellv.Leduc(1962),[1963]Ex.C.R.207(Ex.Ct.)
KearneyJ.,atp.220.
§5.2.4Copying
Subsection3(1)givesthecopyrightowner,interalia, »thesolerighttoproduce
orreproducetheworkoranysubstantialpartthereofinanymaterialform
whatever ».Asimilarrightisgivenbysubsections15(1)regardingperformer’s
performances,bysubsection18(1)regardingsoundrecordingsandby
subsection21(1)regardingcommunicationsignals.Subsection27(1)prohibits
thedoingof »anythingthat[…]onlytheownerofthecopyrighthastheright
todo. »Althoughtheterm »copying »isnotdirectlystatedinthesesections,
« [T]hecase-lawhasinterpretedthestatutoryprovisionsinsuchawaythat
« copying »isanessentialingredientofinfringement »,asstatedinBritish
Columbiav.Mihaljevic(1989),26C.P.R.(3d)184(B.C.S.C.)MacDonnellJ.,at
p.189.
Theliteralreproductionofaworkinitsentirety,orofasubstantialpartthereof,
asforinstanceinphotocopying,constitutestheprimaryformofinfringement.
Similarly,quotation,evenacknowledged,mayconstituteinfringement
(subjecttothesubstantialityrequirement).However,copyinggoesbeyond

10
literalreproduction;thecopyingneednotbeslavishbutsimilaritiesbetween
thetwoworksmustbesuchthatthefirstworkcanbesaidtobereproduced
inthesecondone:seeBeaucheminv.Cadieux(1900),10B.R.255,(Que.
C.A.)LacosteJ.,atp.270.
AninterestingtestofcopyingwassuggestedinSKONEJAMES(F.E.),Copinger
andSkoneJamesontheLawofCopyright,8
thed.(London,Sweet&Maxwell,
1948),focusingonthesubstantialusemadeofanowner’swork,ratherthan
ontheresemblancebetweenthetwoworks,atp.123:
Ifthisviewiscorrect,itfollowsthatthedegreeofresemblance
betweenthetwoworksisnotinitselfthetestofinfringement
butisonlyonefactorindeterminingwhetheranunlawfuluse
oftheplaintiff’sworkhasbeenmade.Forexample,assume
twocasesinwhichadvertisingpostersresembletheplaintiff’s
originalandthat,intheonecaseinwhichtheresemblanceis
lessclose,itisprovedaliundethatthedefendant’sartisthad
theplaintiff’sworkinfrontofhimandslavishlyimitatedcertain
specificfeaturesofthedesign,but,intheother,thoughthe
generalappearanceiscloser,theartistisabletoestablishthat,
thoughhemadeuseoftheplaintiff’sbasicidea,hisexecution
wasquiteindependent;itissubmittedthattheformerandnot
thelatterwouldbeaninfringement.
Ithasbeenheldthat »[T]heword’copying’,initsordinaryusage,connotesa
conscious,intended,ordeliberateact »:seeGondosv.Hardy(1982),64C.P.R.
(2d)145(Ont.H.C.J.),CarruthersJ.,atp.160.Improvementstotheworkdo
notobliteratetheinfringement:seeBeaucheminv.Cadieux(1900),10B.R.
255(Que.C.A.)LacosteJ.,atpp.272-273;B.C.JockeyClubv.Standen
(WinbarPublications)(1983),73C.P.R.(2d)164(B.C.S.C.)LeggJ.,atpp.173
and175,nordoestheadditionoforiginalmaterial:seeC.P.KochLtd.v.
ContinentalSteelLtd.(1984),82C.P.R.(2d)156(B.C.S.C.)ParisJ,atp.164.
§5.2.5Accesstocopiedworkorothersubject-matter
Astrikingsimilaritybetweentwoworks,alone,isinsufficienttoprove
plagiarism.Whileitisrecognizedthatinfringementmayresultfrom
unconsciouscopying,theremustbeevidenceofaccesstothecopiedwork
oraconnectionbetweenthetwoworksforacourttofindthatinfringement
hasoccurred:seesection2,definitionof »infringing”andVINCKE(Christian)et
al.,Problèmesdedroitsd©auteurdanslemondedel©éducation(Quebec,
Éditeurofficiel,1974),atpp.32-45.

11
Evidenceofaccessalonewillnotsufficeforacourttofindinfringement.
Evidenceofcopyingofasubstantialpartofaprotectedworkwouldalso
havetobeproven:Caronv.AssociationdesPompiersdeMontréal(1992),42
C.P.R.(3d)292(F.C.T.D.).
Whenacommonsourcecanbeshownandtheallegedlyinfringingworkis
theresultofindependentcreation,thereisnoinfringement.Plagiarismisa
questionoffactandcanbeprovenbyanymeans:directevidence,
resemblanceestablishedbycomparison,presumptions.Thecourtswillclosely
scrutinizeandcomparetheworkssubmittedtothem.Sinceresemblance
betweentwoworkscanresultfromthelimitedrangeofexpressionparticular
toafieldofendeavour[seeKilvingtonBrothersLtd.v.Goldberg(1957),16Fox
Pat.C.164(Ont.H.C.J.)JudsonJ.,atpp.168-169,ortouseofcommon
sources:seeGemmillv.Garland(1887),14S.C.R.321(S.C.C.)GwynneJ.,atp.
327],acourtmustbeconvincedthatadefendanthasactuallyusedthe
plaintiff’sworktoproducehisown,beforefindingthedefendantliablefor
infringement.Thus,evidenceofindependentworkanduseofcommon
sourcesorideaswillservetoestablishnon-infringement.Ontheotherhand,
reproductionofmistakestakenfromtheoriginalworkmayconstituteproofof
copying:seeBeaucheminv.Cadieux(1900),10B.R.255,(Que.C.A.),Lacoste
J.,atp.273andBlanchetJ.,atp.287.
Thefactofcopyingfromanunauthorizedcopyofthework(orothersubject-
matter),ratherthanfromtheoriginal,isnodefencetoinfringement:see
Underwriters©SurveyBureauLtd.v.AmericanHomeFireAssuranceCo.(1939),
[1939]Ex.C.R.296(Ex.Ct.)MacLeanJ.,atp.306.
Inordertorelyonadefenceofindependentcreation,adefendantmust
provideparticularsofthesourceorsourcesofthatindependentlycreated
work:seeforinstance,Garlandv.Gemmill(1887),14S.C.R.321(S.C.C.)
GwynneJ.,UnderwritersSurveyBureauLtd.v.AmericanHomeFire(1939),
[1939]ExCR296(Ex.Ct.)MacleanJ.,ÉditionsHurtubiseHMHltéec.Cégep
André-Laurendeau(1989),[1989]R.J.Q.1003(QueSupCt)TessierJ.,at1018
andW.I.VillagerLtd.v.GiantTigerStoresLtd.(1994),[1994]CarswellNat2254
(F.C.T.D.-Practice)ReedJ.,atp.2.
§5.2.6Colourableimitation
Infringementmayalsoconsistinthemakingofacolourableimitationofa
workorpartofawork:seeCardwellv.Leduc(1962),[1963]Ex.C.R.207(Ex.
Ct.)KearneyJ.,atp.220,i.e.animitationmeanttodeceive, »acopyso
alteredthatitmayplausiblyappearnottobeacopy »:seeFrancis,Day&
Hunterv.B.Feldman&Co.[1914]2Ch.728(C.A.)NevilleJ.,atp.732.

12
§5.2.7Substantialreproduction
Thereisnoinfringementunlessthematterproducedorreproduced
constitutesasubstantialpartoftheinfringedwork,performer’sperformance,
soundrecordingorcommunicationsignal.Whatconstitutesa »substantial »
partisaquestionoffact.Inthisrespect,thecourtshaveconsideredthat
quantitymatterslessthanquality:seeÉditionsHurtubiseHMHLtéev.Cégep
André-Laurendeau(1989),[1989]R.J.Q.1003(Que.Sup.Ct.)TessierJ.,atp.
1017.Therelativeimportanceandvalueoftheplagiarizedelementstothe
wholeworkortotheothersubject-mattermustbetakenintoaccount.
§5.2.8Parody
Itisnodefencetoanactionforinfringementtoclaimthatthereproduction
formsaparodyofthework,uponwhichadefendantmayhaveemployed
labourandproducedanoriginalwork:seeSchweppesLtd.v.WellingtonsLtd.
(1983),[1984]F.S.R.210(Ch.D.)FalconerJ.,atp.212.SeealsoWilliamson
MusicLtd.v.PearsonPartnershipLtd.(1986),[1987]13F.S.R.97(Ch.D.)Baker
J.,atp.106andProductionsAvantiCiné-VidéoIncv.Favreau(1999),[1999]
RJQ1939(Que.C.A.).Asinfringementofcopyrightmaybeconstruedasan
invasionofproperty,themotiveoftheinfringerisirrelevant:seeBishopv.
Stevens(1990),[1990]2S.C.R.467(S.C.C.)McLachlinJ.,atp.479.As
expressedbyDWORKIN(Gerald),UnitedKingdom,inSTEWART(StephenM.)et
al.,InternationalCopyrightandNeighbouringRights,2
nded.(London,
Butterworths,1989),atNo.18.40:
[…]ithasbeenarguedthatbecauseparodyandsatireare
deservingofsubstantialfreedom,bothasentertainmentand
asaformofsocialandliterarycriticism;andasaparody
necessarilymustuse,oratleastconjureup,theearlierworkto
achieveitsobjection,morelenientrulesrelatingtocopyright
infringementthanisordinarilythecaseshouldapply.This
argumenthasbeenrejected.Theparodistmaycertainlytake
theideaofaworkandcreatesomethingnew;hemayalso
parodywithinthetermsof’fairdealingforthepurposesof
criticismorreview’.Nevertheless,thegeneraltestwhetherthe
defendant’sparodyreproducesasubstantialpartofthe
plaintiff’sworkstillapplies.
Therefore,thecorrecttestindecidingwhetheraparodyconstitutes
infringementisifasubstantialpartoftheinfringedmaterialhasbeenused:
seeBRAITHWAITE(WilliamJ.),FromRevolutiontoConstitution:Copyright,

13
CompulsoryLicencesandtheParodiedSong(1984)18UniversityofBritish
ColumbiaLawJournal35.
§5.2.9Infringementastheftofproperty
Infringementbycopyingdoesnotconstitutetheftundersubsection322(1)of
theCriminalCode(R.S.C.1985,c.C-46):seeR.v.Stewart,(1988),[1988]1SCR
963(S.C.C.)LamerJ.,atp.982.
§5.2.10Otheractsofdirectinfringement
Aspreviouslyindicated(§5.2.1,supra),directinfringementmayconsistofthe
exercisebyanunauthorizedpersonofanyoftherightsgrantedtothe
copyrightownerbysubsections3(1),15(1),18(1)and21(1)oftheCopyright
Act.Foradiscussionoftheserightsandoftheexpression »anymaterialform
whatever »:seeCommentaryunderthesesections.
§5.3IndirectInfringement:subsection27(2)

(2)Itisaninfringementofcopyrightfor
anypersonto(
2)Constitueuneviolationdudroitd’auteur
l’accomplissementdetoutacteci-après
§5.3.1General
Subsection27(2)considerscertaincommercialdealingsasinfringement.
Theseare:
Sellingorrentingout:paragraph27(2)(a);
Distributinginamannerprejudicialtothecopyrightowner:paragraph
27(2)(b)
Distributing,exposing,offeringforsaleorrental,exhibitinginpublicby
wayoftrade:paragraph27(2)(c)
Possessingforthepurposeofselling,rentingordistributingasabove:
paragraph27(2)(d);
ImportingintoCanadaforthepurposeofselling,rentingordistributing
asabove:paragraph27(2)(e);
acopyofawork,soundrecordingorfixationofaperformer’sperformanceor
ofacommunicationsignal.Thesedealingsmayalsoconstitutecriminal
offences,asprovidedforinsubsection42(1).

14
Section2providesthattheterm »infringing »,whenappliedtoawork,means
« anycopy,includinganycolourableimitation,madeordealtwithin
contraventionofthis[Copyright]Act. »,whenappliedtoaperformer’s
performance,means »anyfixationorcopyofafixationofitmadeordealt
withincontraventionofthis[Copyright]Act »,whenappliedtoasound
recording,means »anycopyofitmadeordealtwithincontraventionofthis
[Copyright]Act »,andwhenappliedtoacommunicationsignal,means »any
fixationorcopyofafixationofitmadeordealtwithincontraventionwiththis
[Copyright]Act.Ofcourse,copyrightmustsubsistintheworksorothersubject
matters.
§5.3.2″knowledge »

[…]thatthepersonknowsorshould
haveknowninfringescopyrightor
wouldinfringecopyrightifithadbeen
madeinCanadabythepersonwho
madeit.[
…]alorsquelapersonnequiaccomplit
l’actesaitoudevraitsavoirquela
productiondel’exemplaireconstitueune
violationdecedroit,ouenconstitueraitune
sil’exemplaireavaitétéproduitauCanada
parlapersonnequil’aproduit:
Subsection27(2)requiresknowledgeonthepartoftheallegedinfringerwho
dealswithaninfringingcopyofawork,soundrecordingorfixationofa
performer’sperformanceorofacommunicationsignalinanyoftheways
describedinthissubsection,thatthepersonknowsorshouldhaveknown
infringescopyrightorwouldinfringecopyrightifithadbeenmadeinCanada
bythepersonwhomade.Knowledgeisanessentialelementofthe
infringementundersubsection27(2).Therequirementofknowledgeapplies
notonlytotheinfringementinparagraph(e)butalsotoparagraphs(a),(b),
(c)and(d).
Theburdenofprovingsuchknowledgerestsupontheplaintiff.However,
subsection27(2)mustbereadwithsection39,whichstatesthatifatthedate
oftheinfringementthecopyrightwasdulyregisteredundertheCopyright
Act,adefendantwillbedeemedtohavehadreasonablegroundfor
suspectingthatcopyrightsubsistedinthework.
Theterm »knowledge »shouldbegiventhesenseofnoticeoffactsthatwould
suggesttoareasonablemanthatabreachofcopyrightwasbeing
committed:seeClarke,Irwin&Co.v.Cole&Co.(1959),33C.P.R.173(Ont.
H.C.J.)SpenceJ.,atp.181.Forinstance,abookdealershould,beforeselling
animportedbook,makeinquiriesastowherecopyrightliesandwhatrightof
resaleexists.Obviousindicationsshouldnotbeoverlooked.SeeSimon&
SchusterInc.v.ColesBookStoresLtd.(1975),23C.P.R.(2d)43(Ont.H.C.J.)
WeatherstonJ.,atp.45.

15
Knowledgecanbeprovedbycircumstantialevidenceand,inproper
circumstances,onecanrelyupontheprinciplesofwillfulblindness:seeR.v.
Jorgensen(1995),129D.L.R.(4
th)510(S.C.C.)SopinkaJ.,atpp.547-549.
Furthermore,subsection27(3)makesitclearthatindeterminingwhether
thereisaninfringementundersubsection(2)inthecaseofanactivity
referredtoinanyofparagraphs(2)(a)to(d)inrelationtoacopythatwas
importedinthecircumstancesreferredtoinparagraph(2)(e),itisirrelevant
whethertheimporterkneworshouldhaveknownthattheimportationofthe
copyinfringedcopyright.
AsputbyTremblay-LamerJ.inMilliken&Companyv.InterfaceFlooring
Systems(Canada)Inc.(1998),[1998]3F.C.103(F.C.T.D.),atparagraphs60-61,
aprincipalisdeemedtohaveknowledgeifapersonwhowasdelegatedto
dothetaskhasthisknowledge.
§5.4SaleorRenting:Paragraph27(2)(a)

(a)sellorrentout,
[…]acopyofawork,soundrecording
orfixationofaperformer’sperformance
orofacommunicationsignal[…]a
)laventeoulalocation;
[encequiatraitàl’exemplaired’une
oeuvre,d’unefixationd’uneprestation,
d’unenregistrementsonoreoud’une
fixationd’unsignaldecommunication]
Copyrightisinfringedunderparagraph27(2)(a)byanypersonwhosellsor
rentsoutacopyofaworkorothersubjectmatterofcopyrightthattothe
knowledgeofthatpersoninfringescopyrightorwouldinfringecopyrightifit
hadbeenmadeinCanada.Forinstance,thehiringandsellingoffilmsand
videotapeswhicharecopiesofprotectedfilmsandvideotapeswould
constituteinfringementunderthissubsection.Iftheworkswerereproduced
bythesamepersonwithoutauthority,subsection27(1)providesanadditional
groundforinfringement:seeAldrichv.OneStopVideoLtd.(1987),17C.P.R.
(3d)27(B.C.S.C.)DaviesJ.,atp.35.
§5.5DistributiontoPrejudicetheCopyrightOwner:Paragraph27(2)(b)

(b)distributetosuchanextentasto
affectprejudiciallytheownerofthe
copyright,
[…]acopyofawork,soundrecording
orfixationofaperformer’sperformance
orofacommunicationsignal[…]b
)lamiseencirculationdefaçonàporter
préjudiceautitulairedudroitd’auteur;
[encequiatraitàl’exemplaired’une
oeuvre,d’unefixationd’uneprestation,d’un
enregistrementsonoreoud’unefixationd’un
signaldecommunication]

16
Copyrightisinfringedunderparagraph27(2)(b)byanypersonwhodistributes
aworkorothersubjectmatterofcopyrighttosuchanextentasto
prejudiciallyaffecttheownerofthecopyright,thattotheknowledgeofthat
personinfringescopyrightorwouldinfringecopyrightifithadbeenmadein
Canada
Thus,liabilityforthedistributionofaninfringingcopyissubjecttoaprejudice
beingcausedtothecopyrightowner.
Forinstance,thegivingawayofinfringingcopiesnotcoveredunder
paragraph27(2)(a)mightconstituteinfringementunderparagraph27(2)(b),
inasmuchasitisdoneinamannertoprejudiciallyaffecttheownerofthe
copyright.
Theprejudicetothecopyrightownerisapparentlynotrestrictedtoprejudice
flowingforthelossofsalesinlawfulcopiesbutcouldalsocover,itis
submitted,anydamagesflowingdirectlyfromtheinfringement:forinstance,
lossofgoodwillordisruptioninitssalesorganization.
Theprejudicetothecopyrightownerisnotrestrictedtoeconomiclosses,but
couldalsoencompasshismoralrightsinasmuchastheauthorisalsothe
ownerofthecopyright:seesections28(1)and28(2).Howeversuchprejudice
mustbeprovedbythecopyrightowner/author:Compagniegénéraledes
établissementsMichelin
¾Michelin&Ciev.NationalAutomobile,Aerospace,
TransportationandGeneralWorkersUnionofCanada(CAW
¾Canada)
(1996),71C.P.R.(3d)348(F.C.T.D.)TeitelbaumJ.,atp.386.
Itistobenotedhoweverthatthisparagraphcoverstherightofthecopyright
ownerratherthantherightoftheauthor.
§5.6ExhibitioninPublicbywayofTrade:Paragraph27(2)(c)

(c)bywayoftradedistribute,exposeor
offerforsaleorrental,orexhibitin
public,
[…]acopyofawork,soundrecording
orfixationofaperformer’sperformance
orofacommunicationsignal[…]c
)lamiseencirculation,lamiseoul’offre
enventeouenlocation,oul’expositionen
public,dansunbutcommercial;
[encequiatraitàl’exemplaired’une
oeuvre,d’unefixationd’uneprestation,
d’unenregistrementsonoreoud’une
fixationd’unsignaldecommunication]
Underparagraph27(2)(c),copyrightisinfringedbyanypersonwho,byway
oftrade,
exposesforsale
exposesforrental

17
exhibitsinpublic
acopyofawork,soundrecordingorfixationofaperformer’sperformanceor
ofacommunicationsignalthattotheknowledgeofthatpersoninfringes
copyrightorwouldinfringecopyrightifithadbeenmadewithinCanada.
Theoperationofthisparagraphcoversallkindsofworks,whethercreated
beforeorafterJune8,1988.Thisparagraphcouldbecontrastedwith
paragraph3(1)(g),whichdealswiththepublicexhibitionofartisticworksonly,
createdafterJune8,1988,andexhibitedfornon-tradepurposes,i.e. »other
thansaleandhire ».
Referencemaybemadetothe1998fourtheditionoftheCollinsEnglish
Dictionary,inwhichtheword »trade »isdefinedas »theactoraninstanceof
buyingandsellinggoodsandserviceseitheronthedomestic(wholesaleand
retail)marketsorontheinternational(import,exportandentrepôt)markets »
orthe »exchangeofonethingforsomethingelse. »
§5.7PossessionofInfringingMaterial:Paragraph27(2)(d)

(d)possessforthepurposeofdoing
anythingreferredtoinparagraphs(a)
to(c),
[…]acopyofawork,soundrecording
orfixationofaperformer’sperformance
orofacommunicationsignal[…]d
)lapossessionenvuedel’unoul’autredes
actesvisésauxalinéasa)àc);
[encequiatraitàl’exemplaired’une
oeuvre,d’unefixationd’uneprestation,d’un
enregistrementsonoreoud’unefixationd’un
signaldecommunication]
Paragraphalso27(2)(d))createsinfringementgiventhemerepossessionof
aninfringingacopyofawork,soundrecordingorfixationofaperformer’s
performanceorofacommunicationsignalinasmuchasthispossessionisfor
thepurposeof
sellingorrentingout:paragraph27(2)(a);
distributinginamannerprejudicialtothecopyrightowner:paragraph
27(2)(b)
distributing,exposing,offeringforsaleorrental,exhibitinginpublicby
wayoftrade:paragraph27(2)(c).
Knowledgeisanessentialingredientoftheinfringement.
Possessionisdefinedatparagraph4(3)oftheCriminalCode(R.S.C.1985,c.
C-34)as:

(3)ForthepurposesofthisAct[Criminal
Code],
(a)apersonhasanythinginpossession(
3)Pourl’applicationdelaprésenteloi[code
ciminel]:
a)unepersonneestenpossessiond’unechose

18
whenhehasitinhispersonalpossession
orknowinglyl
orsqu’ellel’aensapossessionpersonnelleou
que,sciemment:

(i)hasitintheactualpossessionor
custodyofanotherperson,or(
i)oubienellel’aenlapossessionougarde
réelled’uneautrepersonne,
(ii)hasitinanyplace,whetherornot
thatplacebelongstoorisoccupiedby
him,fortheuseorbenefitofhimselfor
ofanotherperson;and(
ii)oubienellel’aenunlieuquiluiappartient
ounonouqu’elleoccupeounon,pourson
propreusageouavantageouceluid’une
autrepersonne;
(b)whereoneoftwoormorepersons,
withtheknowledgeandconsentofthe
rest,hasanythinginhiscustodyor
possession,itshallbedeemedtobein
thecustodyandpossessionofeach
andallofthem.b
)lorsqu’unededeuxouplusieurspersonnes,
ausuetavecleconsentementdel’autreou
desautres,aunechoseensagardeou
possession,cettechoseestcenséeenlagarde
etpossessiondetoutescespersonnesetde
chacuned’elles.
Asseen, »possession »maybeactualorattributedbytheoperationofthelaw:
seeWATT(David)etal.,The2002AnnotatedTremeear’sCriminalCode
(Toronto,Carswell,2001),at§4.However,asputbytheSupremeCourtof
CanadainBeaverv.R(1957),[1957]S.C.R.531(S.C.C.)CartwrightJ.,atparas
24and37,thereisnopossessionofathingwithoutknowledgeofwhatthis
thingisaspossessionandknowledgemustco-existwithsomeactofcontrol.
Theinfringementbypossessionofinfringingmaterialcouldbecontrastedwith
theoffenceofpossessionprovidedbyparagraph42(2)(a)oftheCopyright
Actwhichstatesthat »Everypersonwhoknowingly[…]makesorpossesses
anyplatethatisspecificallydesignedoradaptedforthepurposeofmaking
infringingcopiesofanyworkorothersubject-matterinwhichcopyright
subsists »isguiltyofanoffence.
§5.8Importation:Paragraph27(2)(e)

(e)importintoCanadaforthe
purposeofdoinganythingreferred
toinparagraphs(a)to(c),
acopyofawork,soundrecordingor
fixationofaperformer’sperformance
orofacommunicationsignal[…].e
)l’importationauCanadaenvuedel’unou
l’autredesactesvisésauxalinéasa)àc)
[encequiatraitàl’exemplaired’uneoeuvre,
d’unefixationd’uneprestation,d’un
enregistrementsonoreoud’unefixationd’un
signaldecommunication]
§5.8.1General
Thoughbooks,records,videotapesoranyothertypeofwork,sound
recordingorfixationmaylawfullybemanufacturedandsoldinanother
country,itisaninfringementtoimportforsaleorhireintoCanadasuchworks,

19
soundrecordingsorfixations,withoutauthorityoftheCanadiancopyright
ownertodoso:seeFlybyNiteMusicCo.v.RecordWherehouseLtd.(1975),
[1975]F.C.386(F.C.T.D.)MahoneyJ.,atpp.394-395.
§5.8.2TerritorialLimitation
Ascopyrightcanbeassignedterritoriallyundersubsection13(4),the
copyrightownerinCanadacouldbeapersondifferentfromthecopyright
ownerelsewhereintheworld.Thus,theCanadianownercouldpreventthe
importationofworksotherwiselawfullymadeorpurchasedoutsideCanada:
seeDictionnairesRobertCanadaSCCv.LibrairieduNomadeInc.(1987),16
C.P.R.(3d)319(F.C.T.D.)DenaultJ.
ItwasthusheldthatbooksacquiredontheopenUnitedStatesmarketfroma
licenseeofthecopyrightownerwereinfringingworkswhenimportedforsale
intoCanada:seeClarke,Irwin&Co.v.ColesBookStoresLtd.(1975),23C.P.R.
(2d)43(Ont.H.C.J.)WeatherstonJ.
§5.8.3Conditionsofapplication
Foraninfringementtobefoundunderparagraph27(3)(e),theinfringing
copiesmustbeimportedintoCanadaforthepurposeof
sellingorrentingout:paragraph27(2)(a);
distributinginamannerprejudicialtothecopyrightowner:paragraph
27(2)(b)
distributing,exposing,offeringforsaleorrental,exhibitinginpublicby
wayoftrade:paragraph27(2)(c).
§5.8.4″imports »
Theword »import »isnotdefinedintheCopyrightAct.IntheCustomsAct
(R.S.C.1985(2
ndSupp.),c.1,s.2(2);c.C-52.6,s.2(2)),itisstatedthatforthe
purposeofsuchAct, »importmeansimportintoCanada ».Thisdefinitionisnot
veryhelpful.Therefore,theexpression »toimport »shouldbeconstruedinits
ordinarymeaning,namelytobringin,tointroducefromabroad:seeFlavellv.
Canada(DeputyMinisterofNationalRevenueforCustomsandExcise)(1996),
137D.L.R.(4
th)45(F.C.T.D.),CampbellJ.GoodsbroughtintoCanadaintransit
onlywouldnotappeartocontravenetheprohibitionsetforthbyparagraph
27(4)(d)unlessthesegoodsareimportedforsaleandhireintoCanada:see,
forinstance,GramophoneCo.ofIndiav.Pandey(1984),[1985]11F.S.R.136
(S.C.Calcutta)ReddyJ.,atp.154.

20
Paragraph27(2)(e)couldbecomparedwithsection44.1whichdealsalso
withinfringementbyimportation.However,thejudicialremediesflowingfrom
acontraventiontoparagraph27(2)(e)areonlyavailablewhenthe
importationintoCanadaismadeforoneofthepurposesstatedin
paragraphs27(2)(a),27(2)(b)or27(2)(c)whiletheadministrativeremedies
providedforbysection44.1areavailableirrespectiveofthepurposeofthe
importation.
Itistobenotedhoweverthattheimportationofbooksisfurtherdealtwith
specificallyatsections27.1and44.2oftheCopyrightAct.
§5.8.5″intoCanada »
Subsection35(1)oftheInterpretationAct(R.S.C.1985),c.I-21,asamended
byS.C.1996,c.31)providesforthefollowingdefinitionofCanada:

« Canadianwaters »includesthe
territorialseaofCanadaandthe
internalwatersofCanada;«
Canada»Ilestentenduqueleseaux
intérieuresetlamerterritorialeduCanada
fontpartieduterritoiredecelui-ci.
Sections4to7oftheOceansAct(S.C.1996,c.31;R.S.C.O-2.4)delimitthe
territorialseasofCanadaanditsinternalwaters.
Itisworthwhiletonotethatsubsection20(2)oftheaforesaidOceansAct
providesthatfederallaws(ofwhichistheCopyrightAct.)applyalsotothe
continentalshelfinstallationsasifthoseplacesformpartoftheterritoryof
Canada.Furthermore,undersubsection22(1)oftheOceansActacourtthat
wouldhavejurisdictioninrespectofanymatterhadthematterarisenina
provincehasjurisdictioninrespectofanysuchmatterinvolvingafederallaw
thatappliespursuanttotheOceansActtotheextentthatthematterarisesin
wholeorinpartinanyareaoftheseathatisnotwithinanyprovinceand(a)
thatareaoftheseaisnearertothecoastofthatprovincethantothecoast
ofanyotherprovince;or(b)thatprovinceisprescribedbytheregulations.
TherequirementforhavingthegoodsbroughtintoCanadaunderparagraph
27(2)(e)shouldbecontrastedwiththeabsenceofsucharequirementunder
paragraph27(2)(a),whereitcouldbearguedthatapersonwithinCanada
couldbuyandsellinfringingworkslocatedoutsideCanadaandbeheldin
contraventionofparagraph27(2)(a),withouttheseinfringingworksactually
beingbroughtintoCanada.

21
§5.8.6ImportationandKnowledge
Asseenabove,subsection27(2)requiresknowledge,onthepartofthe
allegedinfringerwhodealswithaninfringingcopyofawork,soundrecording
orfixationofaperformer’sperformanceorofacommunicationsignalinany
ofthewaysdescribedinthissubsection,thatthepersonknowsorshouldhave
knownthatthecopyofthework,soundrecordingorfixationofaperformer’s
performanceorofacommunicationsignalinfringescopyrightorwould
infringecopyrightifithadbeenmadeinCanadabythepersonwhomade.
Knowledgeisanessentialelementoftheinfringementundersubsection27(2).
Therequirementofknowledgeappliesnotonlytotheinfringementin
paragraph(e)butalsotoparagraphs(a),(b),(c)and(d).
However,subsection27(3)providesthatindeterminingwhetherthereisan
infringementundersubsection27(2)inrelationtoacopythatwasimportedin
thecircumstancesreferredtoinparagraph27(2)(e),itisirrelevantwhether
theimporterkneworshouldhaveknownthattheimportationofthecopy
infringedcopyright.
§5.9PermittingUseofTheatreforPerformanceofWork:Subsection27(5)

(5)Itisaninfringementofcopyrightfor
anyperson,forprofit,topermita
theatreorotherplaceof
entertainmenttobeusedforthe
performanceinpublicofaworkor
othersubject-matterwithoutthe
consentoftheownerofthecopyright
unlessthatpersonwasnotaware,and
hadnoreasonablegroundfor
suspecting,thattheperformance
wouldbeaninfringementof
copyright.(
5)Constitueuneviolationdudroitd’auteur
lefait,dansunbutdeprofit,depermettre
l’utilisationd’unthéâtreoud’unautrelieude
divertissementpourl’exécutionenpublic
d’uneoeuvreoudetoutautreobjetdudroit
d’auteursansleconsentementdutitulaire
dudroitd’auteur,àmoinsquelapersonne
quipermetcetteutilisationn’aitignoréet
n’aiteuaucunmotifraisonnablede
soupçonnerquel’exécutionconstituerait
uneviolationdudroitd’auteur.
§5.9.1History
Saveforthe1997amendmenttoincludeinfringementinrelationtoother
subject-matterofcopyright,subsection27(5)hasremainedunchangedsince
itsintroductionintheCopyrightAct,1921,reproducingsubsection2(3)ofthe
UnitedKingdomCopyrightAct,1911.Thissubsectioncreatesaninfringement
ofcopyrightoutofpermitting,withoutauthorizationfromthecopyright
owner,atheatreorotherplaceofentertainmenttobeusedforthe
performanceinpublicofaworkorothersubject-matterofcopyright,for
profit,unlessthepersonwhopermitssuchperformancewasunawareand

22
hadnoreasonablegroundforsuspectingthattheperformancewouldbean
infringementofcopyright.Thepresumptionestablishedbysection39may
servetodefeatadefendant’sclaimofabsenceofsuchreasonableground.
§5.9.2Conditionsofapplication
Subsection27(5)willcomeintooperationifthefollowingconditionsaremet,
namely,
aperson
permits
forprofit
atheaterorotherplaceofentertainementtobeused
fortheperformanceinpublic
ofaworkorothersubject-matterofcopyright
withouttheconsentoftheownerofcopyright.
Theseconditionsarecumulative.
§5.9.3″performance »
Thissectionappliesonlytoprotectedworksperformedinpublic.Theterm
« performance »isdefinedatsection2oftheCopyrightActasmeaning »any
acousticorvisualrepresentationofawork,performer’sperformance,sound
recordingorcommunicationsignal,includingarepresentationmadeby
meansofanymechanicalinstrument,radioreceivingsetortelevision
receivingset. »
§5.9.4″inpublic »
Theexpression »inpublic »isnotdefinedintheCopyrightAct,buthasbeen
interpretedasbeingtheantithesisof »inprivate »:seeCanadianAdmiral
Corporationv.Rediffusion,Inc.,(1954),[1954]Ex.C.R.382(Ex.Ct.)Cameron
J.,atp.404which,however,wasstronglycriticizedandoverturnedin
CanadianCableTelevisionAssn.v.Canada(CopyrightBoard)(1993),46
C.P.R.(3d)359(F.C.A.),LétourneauJ.,atpp.368-371.Whethera
performanceisgiveninprivateorinpublicdependssolelyonthecharacter
oftheaudienceand,ifnotdomesticorquasi-domestic,itisthena
performancegiveninpublic.Inthisregard,itmaybesaidthatthewords »in
public »aretobegiventheirplainandusualmeaning,thatistosayopenly,
withoutconcealmentandtotheknowledgeofall.

23
§5.9.5″withouttheconsentoftheowner »
Theconsentrequiredundersubsection27(5)mustcomefromtheownerof
theperformingrightsintheexecutedwork(orothersubject-matterof
copyright)anddoesnothavetobegiveninwriting,asopposedtothe
consentinwritingrequiredbysection43,whichdealswithcriminalremedies.
Theconsentcouldbeexpressedorimplied,writtenorgivenorally.The
consentoftheauthororoftheownerofrightsotherthantheperforming
rightswillnotsufficealthoughitmayconstituteamitigatingfactorinthe
assessmentofpunitivedamages.
§5.9.6″theatreorotherplaceofentertainment »
Theexpression »placeofpublicentertainment »isnotdefinedintheCopyright
Act.TheUnitedKingdomCopyrightAct,1956states,however,thatit »includes
anypremiseswhichareoccupiedmainlyforotherpurposes,butarefrom
timetotimemadeavailableforhiretosuchpersonsasmaydesiretohire
themforpurposesofpublicentertainment »(seealsosubsection25(2)ofthe
UnitedKingdomCopyrightAct,1988).AstheseUnitedKingdomCopyrightAct
definitionsextendtheordinarymeaningofwhatisnormallyunderstoodasa
« publicplaceofentertainment »,theyshouldonlybereferredtoinCanada
withcaution.
Thewordingofsubsection27(5)shouldbecomparedwiththewordingof
section69,whichrefersto »theatresthatareordinarilyandregularlyusedfor
entertainmentandforwhichanadmissionfeeischarged. »Itcanalsobe
contrastedwiththeexclusiverightsofbroadcastersunderparagraph21(1)(d)
whichreferstotheperformanceofatelevisioncommunicationsignalina
placeopentothepubliconpaymentofanentrancefee.
§5.9.7″permits »
Thepermissionundersubsection27(5)relatestoaspecificwork(or
performer’sperformanceorcommunicationsignal)thatshouldbeknownto
thepersongivingthepermission.Apersoncannotbesaidtohavegiven
permissiontothepublicperformanceofaworkifitcannotbeestablished
thatthepersonknewthattheworkwastobeperformed.Theownerofa
buildingwherea »placeofpublicentertainment »islocatedcannotbesaidto
havepermittedthepublicperformanceoftheworkinwhichcopyright
subsistsbythemerefactofhavingrentedthesaidplace.Supportforthis
viewpointcanalsobefoundthroughtheuse,intheEnglishtextofsubsection

24
27(5),ofthewords »thework »,asopposedto »awork »or »anywork »:see
PerformingRightSocietyLtd.v.CirylTheatricalSyndicateLtd.(1923),[1924]1
K.B.1(C.A.)ScruttonJ.,atpp.12-13;AustralasiaPerformingRightAssociation
Ltd.v.CorporationoftheCityofAdelaide(1928),40C.L.R.481(C.A.Aust.)
IsaacsJ.,atpp.490-491;CanadianPerformingRightSocietyv.Canadian
NationalExhibitionAssociation,(1934),[1934]O.R.610(Ont.H.C.J.)RoseJ.,at
pp.615-617.
AsexpressedbyGARNETT(Kevin)etal.,CopingerandSkoneJameson
Copyright,14
thed.(London,Sweet&Maxwell,1999),atno.8-21:
Undertheequivalentprovisionsofthe1911Actitwassaidthat
apersondoesnotpermitwhathecannotcontrol,anddoes
notpermittheuseofaplacefortheperformanceofaworkif
hedoesnotknowthattheworkisgoingtobeperformed.Thus
whereapersonpermitsapremisestobeusedknowingwhich
workswillbeperformed,thiswillbesufficienttoestablish
« permission »,butnotifthemusictobeperformedislefttothe
performersandthedefendanthasnoknowledgeofwhatin
factwillbeperformed.Permissionmaybeinferredfromacts
whichfallshortofbeingdirectandpositive,andmaybe
inferredfromindifference,butpermissionwillnotbeinferred
fromameregeneralauthorizationtouseatheatrefora
performanceofmusicalordramaticworks.[Footnotes
omitted.]
InCanadianPerformingRightSocietyLtd.v.FordHotelCo.ofMontreal
(1935),73C.S.18(Que.Sup.Ct.)McKinnonJ.,atp.27,itwasheldthatthe
performanceinahote,ofamusicalworkinwhichcopyrightsubsisted
amountedtopublicperformanceforprivateprofitthereofandtherefore
infringementundersubsection27(5).Similarly,theunauthorizedperformance
inacabaretofsongsinwhichcopyrightsubsistsmayconstituteinfringement
undersubsection27(5).Insuchasituation,anindividualdefendantwhoisthe
directororthecorporateownerofthecabaretresponsibleforoperationsat
thetimeofinfringementandforthemusicplayedonthepremisesmaynot
escapeliability:seePerformingRightsOrganizationofCanadaLimitedv.Lion
d©Or(1981)Ltée(1987),17C.P.R.(3d)542(F.C.T.D.)StrayerJ.,atp.545.
However,seePerformingRightsSocietyLtd.v.CirylTheatricalSyndicateLtd.
(1923),[1924]1K.B.1(C.A.)atpp.12-13,inwhichitwasheldthat »aman
doesnotpermitwhocannotcontrol,andsecondly,amandoesnotpermit
theuseofaplacefortheperformanceofaworkifhedoesnotknowthe
workisbeingperformed. »
Theterm »permit »undersubsection27(5)wouldappearbroadenoughtolift
thecorporateveilsoastorenderliabletheindividualswhohavepermitted

25
theworktobesoperformed:seePerformingRightsSocietyLtd.v.Ciryl
TheatricalSyndicateLtd.(1923),[1924]1K.B.1(C.A.)AtkinJ.,atp.15.
Section43oftheCopyrightActalsocreatesacriminaloffencecreatedout
ofaninfringementsimilartothatofsubsection27(5).

Infringementincaseofdramatic,operatic
ormusicalworkP
ublicperformanceforprofit
43.(1)Anypersonwho,withoutthewritten
consentoftheownerofthecopyrightorof
thelegalrepresentativeoftheowner,
knowinglyperformsorcausestobe
performedinpublicandforprivateprofit
thewholeoranypart,constitutingan
infringement,ofanydramaticoroperatic
workormusicalcompositioninwhich
copyrightsubsistsinCanadaisguiltyofan
offence[…]2
7.(5)Itisaninfringementofcopyrightfor
anyperson,forprofit,topermitatheatreor
otherplaceofentertainmenttobeusedfor
theperformanceinpublicofaworkor
othersubject-matterwithouttheconsentof
theownerofthecopyrightunlessthat
personwasnotaware,andhadno
reasonablegroundforsuspecting,thatthe
performancewouldbeaninfringementof
copyright.
§5.9.8″forprofit »
Priorto1997,subsection27(5)wasreferringtothe“privateprofit”ofthe
personpermittingtheuseofthepremises.Asitreadsnow,subsection27(5)
refersto »profit »withoutqualifyingthatprofittobe »private »ortobeforthe
benefitoftheownerofthepremises.
Priorto1997,subsection27(5)wasreferringtotheprofitwhichtheperson
permittinguseofthepremisesintendstomakeandnottheprofitthatmight
derivefromtheperformanceitself:seeAustralianPerformingRightAssociation
v.Turner&Son(1927),27S.R.N.S.W.344(NS.W.S.C.)DavidsonJ.,atp.348.
Takenalone,thewords »privateprofit »intheEnglishtextcouldbeinterpreted
asincludingnon-pecuniaryadvantagesorbenefitswhilethewords »lucre
personnel »intheFrenchtextputtheemphasisonapecuniaryconsideration:
seePerformingRightSocietyLtd.v.BradfordCorporation(1921),[1917-23]
MacG.Cop.Cas.308(K.B.D.)RoacheJ.,atp.316;PerformingRightSociety,
Ltd.v.BrayUrbanDistrictCouncil,[1930]A.C.377(J.C.P.C.-Ireland)Stankey
J.,atp.390.
However,since1997,itappearsthatsubsection27(5)referstoprofitinalarger
senseandcouldencompassmonetarygainaswellasnon-monetarygain,or
anyadvantageorbenefit.Furthermore,absentthequalication »hisprofit »,
thisprofitcouldenuretotheownerofthepremisesaswellasanythirdparty.
ItisnoteworthythattheCopyrightActreferssometimesto »privateprofit »
(paragraph42(2)(b)andsubsections43(1)and(2)),“motiveofgain »
(subsections2.5(1)and2.5(2),subsections29.3(1)and(2)andsubsection

26
32.2(2))and »profit »and »non-profit »(section2:definitionof »educational
institution »andof »library,museumandarchive »)andsections29.5and32.
§5.9.9Excuses
Foradefendanttoescapeliabilityundersubsection27(5),heneedsto
establishthat:
a)hewasnotawarethattheperformancewasaninfringement
b)hehadnoreasonablegroundtosuspectthatitwasaninfringement:
seesection39.
§6.0CaseLaw
§6.1Canada
§6.1.1General
1.Garlandv.Gemmill(1887),14S.C.R.321(S.C.C.)GwynnJ.

Inworksofthisnature,wheresomuchmaybetakenfromcommonsourcesandwheremuch
oftheinformationgiven,ifgivencorrectly,mustbegiveninthesamewordswemustbe
carefulnottorestricttherightofthedefendanttopublishaworksimilarinitsnaturetothatof
theplaintiffif,intruth,heobtainstheinformationfromcommon,independentsourcesopen
toallanddoesnot,tosavehimselflabor,merelycopyfromtheplaintiff’sbookthatwhichhas
beentheresultofhisskill,diligenceandliteraryattainments.Wemustbecarefulnottoput
manaclesuponindustry,intelligenceandskillincompilingworksofthisnature.
ThepartswhichthelearnedChancellorhasfound,andasIthinkcorectlyfoundtohave
beencopiedbythedefendantfromtheplaintiff’s »CanadianParliamentaryCompanionof
1883, »consistofshortbiographicalsketchesofsomeofthemembersoftheParliamentof
Canada.Itmust,Ithink,beadmitted,thatthedefendantsetaboutthecompilinghisworkin
aperfectlylegitimatemannerbyaddressingcircularstoeachmemberofParliament,
requestinghimtofurnishashortsketchofhislifeforpublicationinthedefendant’swork.Ifall
thegentlemenwhoreceivedthesecircularshadansweredthembywritingintheirown
language,shortsketchesoftheirlives,andhadsentthemtothedefendantforpublicationin
hisbook,hewouldhavehadasmuchrighttohavepublishedthesesketchesinthelanguage
inwhichtheyweresenttohim,orinanabridgmentthereofpreparedbyhimself,asthe
plaintiffhadtopublishlikesketchesfurnishedtohim,althoughthelanguageinwhichboth
sketchesmightbeexpressedshouldbeverysimilar;butunfortunatelyforthedefendant,it
appearsthatseveralofthegentlementwhohadreceivedthedefendant’scircular,instead
offurnishinghimwiththebiographicalsketcheshehadaskedfor,repliedtotheeffectthat
theyhadalreadysuppliedsuchasketchtotheplaintiffforpublicationandwhichwas
publishedinhisbook.Thedefendantconceivingthissufficientauthoritytoentitlehimtotake
fromtheplaintiff’sbookthebiographicalsketchesofsuchgentlemenassoreferredhimto

27
theplaintiff’swork,didcopythemfromtheplaintiff’sbook,andthus,ignorantlyperhapsbut
notthelessactually,wasguiltyofthepiracyofwhichtheplaintiffhasaccusedhim.Tothe
extentofthemattersocopiedtheplaintiffhasestablishedhisrighttohaveaninjunction.[at
pp.327-328]
2.Beaucheminv.Cadieux(1900),[1901]10B.R.255(Que.C.A.)Lacosteand
BlanchetJJ.

C’estletravailoriginaldel’auteurquiestprotégéetnoncequ’ilapuisédansledomaine
public.Ainsidansunalmanachd’adresses(directory),lesnoms,occupations,adresses,sont
dansledomainepublic,maislacompilationdecesnomsaccompagnésd’autres
renseignements,présupposeuntravailderecherches,d’informationsprisesaudomicilede
chacun,etceluiqui,aulieudes’imposercetravail,copieraitlepremieralmanach,serait
coupabledecontrefaçon.
Dansundictionnairedelalangue,lanomenclatureestdansledomainepublic,ellepeut
êtrecopiéed’undictionnairedéjàpublié;letravaildel’auteurestdanslaformeintrinsèque
qu’ildonneàsondictionnaire,danslesdéfinitions,danslesexemples,danslechoix,le
groupementdesfaitssouschaquenom.
Afindediscerners’ilyacontrefaçon,ilfautbienserendrecomptedel’étenduedudroit
d’auteuretbiendistinguercequiformaitpartiedudomainepublicàl’époquedela
publication.
Lacontrefaçonconsisteàcopierl’ouvrageprotégéparlaloi,às’emparerdutravailde
l’auteuretàlereproduirepourluifaireuneconcurrencedéloyale.Iln’estpasnécessaire
pourqu’ilyaitfautequelacopiesoitservile,maislesdeuxouvragesdoiventseressembler
assezpourqu’onpuissedirequel’œuvredupremierestreproduitedanslesecond.Copier
unepartiesubstantielle,notabled’unouvragesuffitpourdonneràlareproductionle
caractèred’undélit.Dèsquelareproductionestsuffisantepourcauserunpréjudice,ilya
contrefaçondélictuelle.
Lefaitmatérieldelacontrefaçonseprouvepartousgenresdepreuve.Laressemblanceest
unélémentdepreuvequiserencontredanstouteslescauses.Danscertainscas,ellepeut
êtresuffisante,àelleseule,pourconvaincrelejuge,commeparexempledansla
reproductiond’unpoèmed’unroman,d’uneœuvrelittéraireoriginale;dansd’autrescas,
ellen’estqu’uneprésomptionplusoumoinsfortesuivantlescirconstances.Oncomprend,
parexemple,quedeuxcompilationsdefaits,destatistiques,etc.,puiséesauxmêmes
sources,doiventseressemblerbeaucoup.
Maislaressemblancen’estpasleseulélémentdepreuve.Lacontrefaçonpeutêtreprouvée
directement,ouencore,ilpeutêtreprouvédesfaitsoudescirconstancesqui,ensoi,
n’établissentpaslacontrefaçon,maislafontprésumerplusfacilement.L’animusfurandique
l’ondécouvrechezl’accusécréeunedecesprésomptions;unefoisprouvé,ilconstitue
l’auteurdemauvaisefoietdonneàsacauseunecouleurdéfavorable.
Danstouslescas,ilfautquelejugesoitconvaincuqueledéfendeurs’estemparéde
l’ouvragedudemandeur,l’acopiéaulieudepuiserauxsourcescommunes.[LacosteJ.,at
pp.270-271]

28
Sansdoute,commelefaitremarquerlesavantjugequiarendulejugementdelacour
supérieure,lasimplereproductiondelignesdissiminéesoudepassagesépars,résultatdela
similitudedessujetstraitéssurtoutdansdesouvragesabrégés,neconstituepasensoiundélit
decontrefaçon,maislamultiplicitédecesreproductions,uneidentitéaussiprononcéede
mots,defaitsetdetournuresdephrasesnousfaitcroirequ’ilexisteuneparentébien
rapprochéeentrelesdeuxdictionnairesetquelesecondprocèdedupremier.
Sansdoutequelesecondestdansunsensuneaméliorationsurlepremiercommeune
secondeéditiond’unouvrageestuneaméliorationsurlepremiercommeuneseconde
éditiond’unouvrageestuneaméliorationsurlapremière,maiscesaméliorationsn’effacent
pasledélit.Dansunsens,ellesl’aggraventenrendantlesecondouvrageplusutile,plus
completetplusattrayant,etparconséquentplusnuisibleàl’ouvragedesappelants.
Maisilyaplus,noustrouvonslapreuveconvaincantedel’intentiondecopierdansla
reproductiondeserreursetdesrenvoisquisetrouventdansl’ouvragedesappelants.
[LacosteJ.,atpp.272-273]
[…]pourconstituerlacontrefaçon,iln’estpasnécessairequelesecondauteuraitcopié
textuellementetenentierletravailoriginaldupremier,maisqu’ilsuffitquelesemprunts
soientasseznombreuxetassezimportantspourétablirqu’ilyaeuappropriation
intentionnelleetrépétéedutravaild’autrui,etquesilanatureidentiquedessujetstraités
peutdonnerlieuàdesressemblancesdanslesdeuxtextes,cesressemblances,quipeuvent
s’expliquerfacilementlorsqu’ellessontpeunombreusesetlimitéesàdesnomsdepersonnes
etdelieux,àdesdatesetstatistiques,ouàdesrenseignementsordinairementrédigésd’une
manièresuccincte,deviennentaucontrairelapreuveirrésistibled’unecontrefaçon
évidente,lorsqu’ellessontrépétéesassezsouventpourfairedisparaîtretouteidéed’accident
oudehasard.[BlanchetJ.atp.284]
Ilestfaciledecomprendrequelesnomsd’hommesetdelieux,ladescriptiond’unterritoire,
sapopulation,sesindustries,sarichesse,sesproduits,etautresstatistiquesdumêmegenre
peuventquelquefoisêtreexpriméspardesécrivainsdifférentsdansdestermesplusoumoins
ressemblants,etilestpossiblequecesressemblancesneseraientpastoujourssuffisantes,par
elles-mêmes,pourétablirlacontrefaçon.Maisilnoussembleaussiraisonnabledeconclure
quesi,dansunouvragecommeceluidesintimés,composédeplusde3,000sujetsdifférents,
ontrouvedescentainesd’articlescontenantparfoisplusieurslignesreproduisant
textuellementlarédactiondesarticlescorrespondantsdeceluidesappelants,descentaines
d’autresquin’endiffèrentqueparuneinversionparl’omissionoul’additiondequelques
mots,descentainesd’autresparsemésd’exraitstextuelsquinepeuventavoirétépuisésque
dansl’ouvragedesappelants,ildevientévidentquelehasardoul’identitédesujetsne
suffisentplusàexpliqueruneressemblanceaussiphénoménaleetquinepeutavoirqu’une
cause:l’appropriationsystématiquedetravaildesappelants.[BlanchetJ.,atp.286]
S’ilpouvaitencoresubsisterundoute,deuxraisonsadditionnellesleferaientdisparaître.En
effet,leserreursoulesinexactitudesquel’ontrouveennombreassezconsidérabledansle
dictionnairedesappelants,ontététextuellementreproduitesdansceluidesintimés,etilen
estdemêmequantauxrenvoisd’unsujetàunautre,quiontaussiétéfidèlementcopiés,au
nombred’environcent-cinquante.
Cesdeuxfaits,évidentsetindéniables,sontconsidérésparlesauteursetlestribunaux,
commeunedespreuveslesplusconvaincantesdelacontrefaçon.
llestinutiled’ajouterquelesintimésnepeuventpasinvoquericil’excusedessources
communes,carnoussommesenfacedel’appropriationévidented’unepartiedel’ouvrage

29
desappelantsquinepeutêtreattribuéeàd’autresqu’àeux-mêmesetquileurappartient
aussiexclusivementqueleurrédaction.
Danstouslescas,lapreuvefaiteparlesappelantssuffisaitpourmettrelesintimésdans
l’obligationd’expliquercommentleurouvrageaétéfait,soitparlaproductiondeleur
manuscrit,soitparletémoignagedeceluiquil’aécritetquiétaitprésentauprocès.
[BlanchetJ.,atp.287]
3.Deeksv.Wells(1931),[1931]4D.L.R.533(J.C.P.C.-Canada),OrdeJ.

Therecanbenocopyrightinthefactsofhistoryorintheirchronologicalsequence.Had »The
Web »beenpublished,thedefendantWellswasasfreetoconsultanduseitinthe
preparationofhisworkastheplaintiffwastoconsultanduse »TheEncyclopaediaBritannica »
oranyotherpublicationasasourceofinformation.Infringementofcopyrightinsuchcases
must,asageneralrule,consistofthecopyingofthewordsofanotherintheorderinwhich
hehasusedthem.Theuseofthesamehistoricalfactsorofthesameideasisnotenough.
Astothesecond,theplaintifffailedtoprovebyanydirectevidencethatthedefendant
Wellshadeverseenormadeuseofhermanuscripteitherdirectlyorindirectly.Shewas
forcedtotrytoestablishhercasebytheinternalevidenceaffordedbyacomparisonofthe
manuscriptofthedefendantWellswithherown.
Nowitisconceivablethathercasemighthavebeenestablishedinthisway.Ifitwerefound
thatcertainpassagesinthetwoworkswerecouchedinthesamelanguage,orthatthere
wereunexplainederrorsinboth,thesefacts,coupledwiththecoincidencesintimeand
othercircumstancesastothepossessionoftheplaintiff’smanuscriptbyoneofthedefendant
companies,mighthaveconstitutedevidencesoconvincingastojustifyafindingthatthe
defendantWellshadusedtheplaintiff’swork,notwithstandinghisowndenial.Itwasupon
evidenceofthissortthattheplaintiffrelied,butwhenthecomparisonswhichshemadeinthe
courseofherableandforcibleargumentareexamined,theyfallfarshortofwhatis
necessary,inmyjudgment,toconstituteevidencesufficientlyoverwhelmingandconvincing
tooffsetthepositivedenialsofthedefendants’witnesses.Theplaintifffailsonthisgroundalso,
andherappealshouldbedismissed.[atpp.547-548]
4.UnderwritersSurveyBureauLtd.v.AmericanHomeFireAssuranceCo.,
[1939]Ex.C.R.296(Ex.Ct.),MacLeanJ.

Idonotthinkitmatterswhethertheunauthorizedcopiesweremadedirectlyfromthe
plaintiffs’workorfromotherunauthorizedcopiesofthesamework.Idonotthinkinfringement
canbeavoidedbycopyingfromanunauthorizedcopyofaworkinwhichcopyrightsubsists.
[atp.306]
5.Moreauv.St.Vincent,[1950]Ex.C.R.198(Ex.Ct.),ThorsonJ..

[…]Itwasinthesetwodocumentsthattheplaintiffexpressedanddescribedhisarrangement
andsystemforconductinghiscompetition.Iseenoreasonwhythisidentificationofthe
literaryworkinwhichtheplaintiffhashiscopyrightshouldnotbeaccepted.Itisonlyforthis

30
work,andnotforanyideasoranyarrangementorsystemforconductingacompetition
expressedordescribedinit,thattheplaintiffhasanyprotection.Ifheistosucceedinan
actionforinfringementofcopyrighthemustshowthathisliteraryworkhasbeencopied.Itwill
notbeenoughtoprovethathisideashavebeenadoptedorthathisarrangementorsystem
hasbeenused.[atp.205]
[…]Obviously,theremustbesimilaritiesbetweenthedefendant’s »Quizzgénéraldela
publicationLoisirFavoriEnrg. »andtheplaintiff’s »Concours:Recrutementd’Abonnés »tothe
extentthatbotharebasedonanarrangementofelementsandasystemforconductinga
competitionthatareessentiallythesamebutacomparisonofthetwoliteraryworksshow
thattheformerisnotacopyofthelatter.Thelistsoftheclubsaredifferentandtheresultsof
thesportscontestsaresetoutdifferently;thetextsoftheconditionsandrulesforthetwo
competitionsarenotthesame;thequestionsintheplaintiff’squestionnairerelatetosports,
whereasthoseinthedefendant’squizzareofageneralnature.Thereceiptslikewise,
althoughnecessarilysimilarinthatbotharereceipts,aredifferentintext,typeand
appearance.Norcanthefactthatinoneissueoftheplaintiff’spapertheword
« engagement »wasusederroneouslyfor »agencement »andasimilarerrorappearsonthe
backofthedefendant’sleafletintheformof »engensement »outweightheotherevidenceof
difference.AndwhileIhavenotoverlookedthefactthatcopyingneednotbewordfor
wordifthereiscolourableimitation,Iamalsooftheviewthatthereshouldbenoanxietyto
findcopyinginacasesuchasthisandtherebyindirectlygiveprotectiontoasystemof
competitionsuchasthatconductedbytheplaintiffwhenthelawdoesnotgiveitdirectly.[at
pp.206-207]
6.KilvingtonBrothersLtd.v.Goldberg(1957),16FoxPat.C.164(Ont.S.C.),
JudsonJ..

TherearemanysimilaritiesbetweenGoldberg’sworkandtheplaintiff’sdesign,butoncethe
customerdecidesonacertaintypeoftombstonetheseareinevitable.Thetop,thetwo
raisedpanels,thesunkenpanelwiththelampandflameandthesymbolismare
conventional.Theheightofthestoneisgovernedbytheregulationsofthecemetery.This,to
acertainextent,determinestheproportionsofthework.Therearealsodifferences,andin
myopinionsignificantdifferences–particularlyintheflameandthelamp.Goldbergsays
thathedrewthesefreehandanddidnotcopythemfromtheplaintiff’swork.Hisevidenceis
supportedbythephysicalresult,andIacceptitasIdotherestofhisevidenceindenialof
copying.Thesimilaritiesareplaintobeseenbuttheydonotenablemetodrawaninference
ofcopying.Tombstoneworkersworkingonataskofthiskindareworkingwithcommonideas
andwithonlyalimitedfieldfortheexpressionoftheseideas.Itisnotsurprisingthattheresults
aresimilar.Theplaintiffcannot,bymakingadesignembodyingconventionalideas,obtaina
monopolyoftheuseoftheseideas.Othersareentitledtousetheseideasprovidedtheydo
sobygoingtothecommonsourceanddonotcopytheplaintiff’sexpression.Thereis,
therefore,noinfringementofcopyrightandtheactionfailsatthispoint.[atpp.168-169]
7.Cardwellv.Leduc(1962),[1963]Ex.C.R.207(Ex.Ct.)KearneyJ..
Inconclusion,Iwishtomakesomeshortobservationsinrespectofinfringementandits
necessaryconstituents.

31
AsOrdeJ.A.saidinDeeksv.Wells,[1931]O.R.818at840,inordertoconstituteinfringement
theremustbeidentityorsimilarityoflanguage,phraseologyorliterarystyleorform.Likewise,it
wassaidinKantelv.Grant,Nisbet&AuldLtd.,[1933]Ex.C.R.84at96,thatthereisno
infringementunlessasubstantialpartofaworkiscopied.
Overacenturyago,Shadwell,V-C.,madethefollowingobservationsinSweetv.Cater
[(1841),11Sim.572]:
Uponthequestionofwhethertherehasbeenapiracyitisnotaquestionofone
smallpassagehereandanotherthere,butwhensuchapointisraisedastothe
quantityofthemattercopied,Ihavealwaysunderstoodthatthecourtatthe
timeoftrial,istolookatthetwoworksandsatisfyitself,aswellasitcan,whether
therehasbeensuchanabstractionasformsafairsubjectofcomplaint.[atp.
219]
Imightaddthatitiswellrecognizedthataworkmaybeinfringedbyacolourableimitation
ofthewholeoranypartofit,and,inmyopinion,thedefendantshavebeenguiltyof
infringementbymakingacolourableimitationoftheplaintiff’scopyrightedwork,bothinthe
literalandfigurativesenseoftheterm.[atp.220]
8.Webb&Knapp(Canada)Ltd.v.Edmonton(City),[1970]S.C.R.588(S.C.C.)
HallJ.
Whatwasthesituationintheinstantcase?Webb&Knappwerenecessarilytakingagamble
inagreeingtospendanestimated$100,000ontheprospectthatthecitywouldadoptits
plan.IfthecitydidadopttheplanWebb&Knappstoodtoreapsubstantialfinancial
benefits.IftheplanwasnotadoptedWebb&Knappstoodtolosethesumof$138,484.90it
actuallyexpendedinthepreparationoftheplan.Hadthecitymerelyexercisedtherightit
hadunderthecontractnottoadopttheplanthatwouldhavebeentheendofthematter.
Theplanandtheplanmaterialwould,underclause4,havebecomethepropertyofthecity.
Itwouldthenhavehadthepropertyrightsbutnotthecopyrightintheplan.
Butthecitydidnotjustelectnottoadopttheplan.itinstructeditscommissionersatthe
meetingonMarch22,1962toevaluatetheplan.Thecommissionersproceededtodoso,but
theydidnotmerelyevaluatetheplan,andinsteadofreportingbacktocouncil
recommendingeitheradoptionorrejection,theycametothemeetingonJune25,1962with
aplanoftheirownwhichwassubstantiallytheWebb&Knappplaninamodifiedform.This
useoftheWebb&Knappplanandplanmaterialsoccurredpriorintimetothecity’selection
nottoadopttheWebb&Knappplan,and,asstated,thiswasclearlyabreachoftheWebb
&Knappcopyright.Thecity,inacceptingandactingupontherecommendationsofits
commissioners,waspurportingtoacceptwithoutcompensationtheentirebenefitofthe
expendituremadebyWebb&KnappandeliminatingWebb&Knappfromthepictureby
notadoptingtheplanbutstillutilizingtheideasandoverallschemeofdevelopmentwhich
theplanenvisaged.
Webb&Knappare,therefore,entitledtodamagesforthisbreachofcopyright.[atpp.598-
599]

9.Netupskyv.DominionBridgeCo.(1971),[1972]S.C.R.368(S.C.C.),JudsonJ.

32
NetupskyagreedwithHamiltontoprovidetheplansforthestructuraldesignoftheOttawa
CivicCentre.Hamilton,thearchitectfortheproject,wasactingfortheowner,theCityof
Ottawa,inhisdealingswithNetupsky.TheplansSK-1andSK-2andS1toS5becamethe
propertyoftheownertouseforthepurposeoferectingtheintendedstructureinsubstantial
accordancewiththoseplans.DominionBridge,thesuccessfulbidderforthesteelwork,used
theplansforthispurpose,andtheirauthoritywasderivedfromtheCityofOttawa,whichheld
animpliedlicencetothecopyright.
Theextenttowhichthecopyrightmaterialmaybealteredisnotunfettered,however.The
courtmayimplytermslimitingthatright,orthecontractmayexpresslyorimpliedlyforbidany
alterations:Frisbyv.BritishBroadcastingCorpn.,[1967]1Ch.932,[1967]2AllE.R.106.There
wasnorefusalbyDominionBridgetogivecredittoNetupskyforthestructuraldesign.The
finalplans,thoughmodified,describedastructurewhich,tothelayman,wouldbeidentical
inappearancetoastructurebuiltinaccordancewithNetupsky’splans.Netupskyhimself
hadmadevariouschangestohisSK-1andSK-2drawingstopreparetheplansS1toS5.These
changeswereatleastapartialcauseoffurtherchangesbeingrequiredtodecreasethe
costinvolved,andallchangeswereauthorizedbytheCityofOttawa.Inmyopinion,the
alterationsmadebyDominionBridgewerewithinthelimitswhichshouldbeconsidered
acceptable.[atpp.378-379]
10.T.J.MooreCo.v.AccessoiresdeBureauduQuébecInc.(1973),14C.P.R.
(2d)113(F.C.T.D.),LacroixJ.
Wefinditdifficulttoacceptthedefence’ssuggestionstotheeffectthatdefendantacted
completelyingoodfaithinproceedingsastheevidencehasshown,fortwomainreasons.
First,itdidnotobtainthepermissionoftheMooreCompanytoreproduceitscataloguein
wholeorinpartinitsowncatalogue.
Secondly,itcouldnothavebeenunawarethatwhatiswasextractingfromtheMoore
catalogue(P-3)toplagiarizeandincorporateinitsowncatalogue(P-6),wastheexclusive
propertyofplaintiff,theMooreCompany,andthisappearedatthebeginningoftheMoore
catalogueontheinsidecoverwhereitwasclearlyindicatedthatsaidcatalogueP-3–
catalogueNo.64–existedunder »rightsreserved1964″.[atpp.121-122(translation)]
11.Fetherlingv.Boughner(1978),40C.P.R.(2d)253(Ont.H.C.J.),SoutheyJ.
Iamquitepreparedtodrawtheinferencethatthesubjectsofthephotographsgavethe
plaintifftheirconsenttotheuseofthephotographsinthearticleinquestion,butIdonotthink
theplaintiffhasestablishedintheextraordinaryfactsofthiscasethathehadacopyrightin
thephotographs.Thephotographs,ofcourse,weretakenbyamachinewithoutthe
interventionoftheplaintiffasaphotographer.Inthetextofhisarticle,theplaintiffreferred
severaltimestothesubjectsthemselvesbeingtheartists.
Iftheplaintiffhadacopyright,whichisenforceableasagainstthedefendant,thenhemust
haveacopyrightintheuseofthestripsthatisenforceableasagainstthesubjectsofthestrip
photographs.Iamquitesatisfiedthathehasnotestablishedinthematerialthathehassuch
acopyrightandIwouldnotbesatisfiedinthatregardeveniftheportionsoftheaffidavit,
referredtoabove,weretakenintoconsiderationbyme.

33
Thesecondquestioniswhetherthetransferprocessconstitutescopying.Myconclusion,after
listeningtotheargumentofcounsel,butwithouthearinganyevidence,isthatsuchprocess
doesnotconstitutecopying,becauseitinvolvesthetransferphysicallyofthepictureonthe
copyofTheCanadianfromwhichthedefendant’sproductismade.Aftersuchtransferthere
wasnopictureonthepageofTheCanadian.Iamsatisfiedthatthedefendantwouldhave
beenentitledtopurchaseacopyofTheCanadian;cutoutoneofthestripphotographs;
pasteitonapieceofpaper;putaborderaroundit;frameit;andsellit,withoutinfringing
copyright,justasshewouldhavebeenentitledtoselltheissueofTheCanadianitselfandjust
asanyperson,whopurchasestheworkofanartist,isentitledtoresellthatwork,orapieceof
it.Inmyviewthatisessentiallywhatwasdonebythedefendantinthiscase.
Althoughtheplaintiff’scasethatthedefendant’sprocessinvolvedcopyingisnotsuchthatI
wouldeverdescribeitasfrivolous,Idonotthinkitissufficientlystrongtojustifythegrantingof
aninterlocutoryinjunction.[atpp.255-256]
12.Silversonv.NeonProductsLtd.(1978),39C.P.R.(2d.)234(B.C.S.C.),LeggJ.

Althoughtheproprietorsofthemotelwhoorderedthesignfromthedefendantandthe
presentproprietorsofthemotelarenotpartiestothisaction,Ithinktheplaintiff’simplied
consenttotheuseofthesilhouetteforadvertisingtheDaveyCrockettMotelwouldprevent
theplaintifffromsucceedingagainstthoseproprietorsforinfringementofcopyright.The
plaintiffbyhisconducthasthusprecludedhimselffromexercisinghisstatutoryrightsagainst
themotelproprietors.Inmyviewheisalsoprecludedfromexercisingthoserightsagainstthe
defendantbecausethedefendantmanufacturedthefaciasignwiththeauthorityofthe
motelproprietors.[atp.241]
13.ATVMusicPublishingofCanadaLtd.v.RogersRadioBroadcastingLtd.
(1982),35O.R.(2d)417(Ont.H.C.J.),VanCampJ.
Thedefendantsadmitthatthemusicusedintherecordingof »Constitution »isthemusictothe
song »Revolution »byLennonandMcCartney.Thedefendantsadmitthatthewordstothe
song »Revolution »were »authoredbyLennonandMcCartney ».Thereisnoevidencebefore
meofanyseparatecopyrightofthewordsorofthemusic.Thereisnoevidencebeforeme
thatonewastheauthorofthewordsandtheothertheauthorofthemusic.Theevidence
beforemeindicatesonlyonecopyrightofthemusicwiththewords.Sincethenamesofthe
twoauthorswouldindicatethatthereweretwopersonsthenitseemstomethatthework
hereinfallswithinthedefinition »workofjointauthorship »forwhichtherewouldbeone
copyrightofwhichtheplaintiffistheownerinCanada.
Theprimafaciecasethenisthatthedefendantisproposingtousesomethingthatbelongsto
theplaintiffwithoutthepermissionoftheplaintiff.[atpp.421-422]
14.Gondosv.Hardy(1982),64C.P.R.(2d)145(Ont.H.C.J.),CarruthersJ.
Someoftheauthorities,andparticularlytheAmerican,indiscussingcopying,refertoitas
beingeitherconsciousorunconscious.Whetheritbefoundtobeoneortheother,noneof

34
theauthoritiessuggestthattherecanbeaninfringementwithoutacausalconnection
betweentheworkinwhichcopyrightisclaimedtosubsistandtheallegedinfringingworkor
works.Atpage28oftheFrancisDaycase,Diplock,L.J.says:
Iftheexistenceofthecopyrightworkhasnocausalconnexionwiththe
productionoftheallegedinfringingwork,eventhoughthelatterbeidenticalwith
theformer,thereisnoinfringementofcopyright.[Francis,Day&HunterLtd.v.
Bron,[1963]2AllE.R.16(C.A.)].
Ifthereisfoundtobenocausalconnectionand,therefore,nocopying,eitherconsciousor
unconscious,then,anysimilarities,howeverstrong,whicharefoundtoexistbetweenthe
worksmustbedeemedacoincidence.Theword »copying »,initsordinaryusage,connotesa
conscious,intended,ordeliberateact.Unconsciouscopyingoccurs,then,intheabsenceof
anyoftheseelements,but,ofnecessity,withtherequiredevidenceofdefactofamiliarity
withtheworkallegedtobecopied.AsisstatedbyDiplock,L.J.onp.27,afterreferringto
subconsciouscopying:
Weknownotwhetheritisrareorcommon,generaloridiosyncratic,norindeedwhetheritis
possibletoremember,notamereisolatedphrase,buta’substantialpartof’theremembered
workwithoutrememberingthatoneisremembering.[atpp.159-160]
Thelawisclearthatinordertosubstantiateafindingofinfringementonthebasisof
unconsciouscopying,theremustbeevidenceofaccessoracausalconnectionbetween
theworks.Counselfortheplaintiffaskedmetoconsiderthatthisisnotthelaw,and
maintainedthatitisthatastrongorstrikingsimilarity,asinthepresentcase,alone,issufficient
tosupportaconclusionofinfringement.Inthisrespect,heisabletorefermetooneauthority
only,andthatisa1972paperpreparedbyJeffreyG.Shermanentitled: »MusicalCopyright
Infringement:TheRequirementofSubstantialSimilarity ».Frommyreadingofthatpaper,Imust
concludethatthelearnedauthor,althoughmakingthissuggestion,doesnotrefertoany
authorityinsupport.Counselfortheplaintiffreferredmetoonecase;butareadingofit
disclosesittobeajudgmentreachedondefaultofadefenceand,consequently,notof
muchpersuasiveauthority,inanyevent,tooffsetwhatotherwiseappearstobeawell-
entrenchedprincipleoflaw.Tosupportunconsciouscopyingonthepartofthedefendants
HardyandToth,plaintiff’scounselreferredmetothefactthatthey,liketheplaintiff,worked
extensivelyinandaboutTorontoandthat,accordingly,Ishouldinferthatatsometime,at
someplace,theyheardtheplaintiff’swork.ThisIwillnotdointhiscase.[atp.167]
15.B.C.JockeyClubv.Standen(WindbarPublications)(1983),73C.P.R.(2d)
164(B.C.S.C.)LeggJ.
InFootballLeagueLtd.v.LittlewoodsPoolsLtd.,[1959]Ch.637at651,[1959]2AllE.R.546,
UpjohnJ.saidthatitisclearlysettledlawthattherecanbenocopyrightininformationorin
anopinionperseandthatcopyrightcanonlybeclaimedinthecompositionorlanguage
whichischosentoexpresstheinformationortheopinion.
Butinmyopinionthedefendantinthecaseatbarhasdonemorethancopyinformation
fromOvernight.HehasappropriatedtheresultsofthelabourandskillsoftheClubwhichhas
goneintothecompilationoftheinformationwhichtheClubhasdevelopedandpublished.
ThemeritofthecompilationofinformationinOvernightresidesinthepainstakingtaskswhich
havebeenperformedbytheClubinassemblingthatinformation.

35
Itisadmittedintheadmissionoffactsthattheperformanceofthosetasksisanecessary
prerequisitetothepublicationofOvernight.
Copyrightmaybeinfringedbyappropriatingasubstantialamountofthematerialpublished
bytheoriginalauthor,althoughthelanguageemployedbytheinfringerbedifferentandthe
materialbealtered(seeTheModernLawofCopyright,Laddie,Prescott&Vitoria,p.41,para.
2.65).
InScottv.Stanford(1867),L.R.3Eq.718at724,WoodV.-C.said:
Nomanisentitledtoavailhimselfofthepreviouslaboursofanotherforthepurposeof
conveyingtothepublicthesameinformation,althoughhemayappendadditional
informationtothatalreadypublished.[atp.173]
16.C.P.KochLtd.v.ContinentalSteelLtd.(1984),82C.P.R.(2d)156(B.C.S.C.)
ParisJ.
InmyviewitisclearthatKochwastheauthorofandowneroftherightofcopyrightinthe
OakallaandMatsquiplanswhichheproduced.Therewasneveranyagreementbetween
himandLloydeitherexpressorimplied,andmostcertainlynotinwriting,ofassignmentor
grantoftherighttoLloydorhiscompany.Thefactthatforthemostparttheplanswereleftin
thepossessionofthedefendantsdoesnotalterthat.Evenifitcouldbearguedthatitwas
contemplatedthatContinentalSteelshouldbecomeownersoftheplansperse,thelawis
clearthattheauthorretainstheownershipinthecopyrightintheplansunlessthereisan
expressagreementtothecontrary,Meikleetal.v.Maufeetal.,[1941]3AllE.R.144atp.152.
Weretheplanscopiedorreproducedinsomesubstantialwayorcantheybesaidtobea
« colourableimitation »?Whethercopyofsomesubstantialparthasorhasnotoccurredisa
factwhichmustbedeterminedinthelightofallthecircumstances.However,itisnodefence
thatadefendantmayhaveaddedoriginalmaterialofhisowntoanoriginalworkcopied
SchauenburgIndustriesetal.v.Borowskietal.,supra.[(1979),50C.P.R.(2d)69].[atpp.163-
164]
InSeptember,1981,LloydapproachedKochwiththefinalAggasizplansthatKochhad
producedin1978.HeaskedKochforsomeinformationaboutthem,whichKochgavetohim.
However,Kochfoundtheincidentcurious.Afewdayslater,duringacasualconversation
overdrinks,LloydtoldKochthathehadinfactreceivedanothercontractforasetof »sally
port »gatesatanotherinstitutionintheAggasizarea.HesaidthatPaulsen,hisdraughtsman,
wasusingKoch’splansandtryingtodrawthemupinmorecompleteformforthenewjob.
Kochtestifiedthathesaid: »O.K.–butIgetaroyalty »,andLloydreplied: »O.K. ».Lloyd’s
accountofthiscrucialconversationwassomewhatdifferent.ButIamsatisfiedinallthe
circumstancesthatKoch’saccountistheaccurateone.Infact,PaulsenusedKoch’soriginal
plansandsimplychangedthedateonthemandaddedafewveryminordetailsandthen
producedfiveplansofhisown(ex.26)bycopyingKoch’splansingoodpart.
TheresultthereforeisthatKochdidgivepermissiontoLloydtocopyhisplansbutitwas
conditionaluponreceivingareasonableroyalty.Inanyevent,thispermissioncouldnot
constituteavalidassignmentofcopyrightbecauseitwasnotinwriting,asrequiredbys.12(4)
[nows.13(4)]oftheCopyrightAct.Imustthereforefindthattherehasbeenaninfringement
ofKoch’scopyrightandassessdamagesaccordingly.[atp.167]

36
17.R.v.RedHotVideoLimited(1984),6C.C.C.(3d.)331(B.C.Prov.Ct.),
MelvinJ.
[19]Theessenceoftheoffencestheappellantfacedwaspossession,whichisdefinedbys.
3(4)[now4(3)]oftheCriminalCode.Topossess,onemusthaveknowledge:Beaverv.R.,
[1957]S.C.R.531,26C.R.193,118C.C.C.129.Consequently,therecanbenoconvictionfor
possessionforthepurposeofdistributionofanyobscenematterwithoutknowledgeonthe
partoftheaccusedthathe »possesses ».Bysubs.(6)Parliament,inmyview,hasdrawna
distinctionbetweenpossessionofanitemandpossessionofthatitemwithknowledgethatit
isobscene.Thatis,oncetheCrownhasprovedbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthe
accusedpossessedtheitem,itisnodefenceforanaccusedtosaythat,althoughheknew
hehadtheitem,hedidnotknowthatitwasobscene.
18.Boulianev.ServicedemusiqueBonanzaInc.(1986),18C.I.P.R.214(Que.
C.A.)percuriam.

CONSIDÉRANTégalementqu’enapplicationdel’art.17.(1)[now »art. »27(1)]delaLoil’action
deBoulianepouvaitréussirsansquecelui-cisoitobligédeprouverquel’appelantesavait
queBonanzan’étaitpasautoriséeàluicéderledroitd’auteuràl’égarddel’enregistrement
encause[atp.218]
19.ÉcoledeconduiteTecnicAubéInc.v.15098858QuébecInc.(1986),12
C.I.P.R.284(Que.Sup.Ct.),HalperinJ.
AcomparisonofProvost’smanual,(Ex.P-3)withthatofCan-Americ(Ex.D-6)suggestscertain
interestingconclusions.Evenacursoryexaminationofpagesdealingwiththesamesubject,
clearlyrevealsthatthelatterisareproductionoftheformer.Thesequenceoftreatmentof
thematerial,thejuxtapositionofphotographs,chartsandsketches,thetechniquesusedin
thepresentationofthematerial,allleadtotheconclusionthatexceptforminorvariations,
theCan-Americmanualwascopied,perhapsevenslavishly,fromProvost’smanual.[atpp.
296-297]
HavingarrivedattheconclusionthatonthefactstheCan-Americmanualhaslargelybeen
copiedfromProvost’smanual,thereremainsforconsiderationthequestionoflawastothe
validityofProvost’scopyrightinthework,consideringthesubstantialportionswhichhavetheir
origininthirdpartysources.[atp.297]
Provost’smanualclearlyqualifiesasatextbookandassuch,inthewordofFoxcitedabove
[p.423],is:
…adevelopmentinthewayofprogress,and,toacertainextentbycommon
consent,includingtheimpliedconsentofthefirstpublisher,othersinterestedin
advancingthesameartorsciencemaycommencewherethepriorauthorstopped.
Thelatitudesuggestedinthisruleseemsallthemorejustifiedinthepresentcasesincethe
vastmajorityoftheborrowedsourcematerialhasitsoriginingovernmentalandquasi-
governmentalpublications.ThedefencewasgenerallycontenttorelyonProvost’snegative

37
responseeachtimehewasaskedwhetherhehadobtainedtherequisiteconsentofthe
apparentauthorsofthesourcematerials.Itstrikesmethatthisapproachsuffersfromperhaps
atechnicalflawinthatitdoesnotallowforthepossibilitythatcopyrightinthematerialsin
questionmayhavebeenabandoned…
IamthereforeoftheopinionthatProvost’smanualqualifiesasacompilation;secondly,that
theamountoflabour,skill,judgmentandingenuitywhichProvostbroughttobearuponhis
compilationwassufficienttosupportaclaimforcopyrightinhiswork;andthirdly,thatgiven
thenatureofthesourcematerialemployedbyProvostandthefactthatweareheredealing
withatextbookassuch,Provostwasthebeneficiaryoftheimpliedconsentofthefirst
publishersofhissourcematerial,ifthatconsentwasrequired.
TheCourtthereforefindsthatProvostisentitledtocopyrightinhismanualandthatthework
ofComeau »CoursdeconduiteautomobileCan-Améric,manuelderéférence »hasinfringed
Provost’scopyright.[atp.694]

20.AppleComputerInc.v.MackintoshComputersLtd.(1987),[1988]1F.C.
673(F.C.A.)HugessenJ.
Thedifficultywhichthisraisesinthepresentcaseisobvious.Therespondents’copyrightisin
theassemblycodeversionoftheprograms.Clearlythatversionisexpressedinprintorwriting.
Whentheprogramisreproducedineitherbinaryorhexadecimalnotation,theresultbeingin
figuresandlettersisalsoinprintorwritingandhencealiterarywork.When,however,the
binarycodeversionistransposedintoopen-and-closedelectricalcircuitsembodiedina
siliconchip,thelattercontainsnoprintorwritingandhencecannotbesaidtobealiterary
work.
Doesthismeanthattheproductionofthechipembodyingprogramsdoesnotconstitutean
infringementofthecopyright?Ithinknot.Wehavealreadyseenthatthestatutedefines
copyrightasbeing,amongstotherthings,thesolerighttoproduceorreproduceinany
materialform.Itis,inmyopinion,possibletoreadthosewordsasincludingbynecessary
implicationthesolerighttoproducethemeansofreproductionoftheworkor,toputthe
matteranotherway,thesolerighttoproduceanythingusedorintendedtobeusedto
reproducethework.Whentheopeningwordsofsubs.3(1)arereadinthecontextofthe
remainderofthatsubsectionandofothersectionsoftheCopyrightAct,itismyviewthat
suchinterpretationisnotonlypossiblebutisrequired.[atp.694]
21.SelectionTestingConsultantsInternationalLtd.v.HumanexInternational
Inc.(1987),15C.P.R.(3d)13(F.C.T.D.–Interlocutory),StrayerJ.
Bys.20[nows.34]oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1970,c.C-30,thereisarightofactionfor
damagesandaninjunctionwhichmaybebroughtintheFederalCourtforbreachof
copyright.Thisisarightgrantedbystatuteindependentofanycontract.Itistruethatbefore
thefinalterminationofthismatteritmaybenecessaryforthisCourttoconsiderthe
continuingvalidityofthelicence,andthatmayinvolvecontractualquestions.Section17
[nows.27]oftheCopyrightActdefines »infringement »astheactofdoinganything »without
theconsentoftheowner »thattheownerofthecopyrighthastherighttodo.Subsection
12(4)[nows.13(4)]oftheActprovidesforthegrantingofalicenceinwriting.Thereforewhen
theplaintiffbringsthisactionforinfringementpursuanttotheCopyrightActitisopentothe

38
defendanttoraiseadefenseofconsentbasedonitssublicencefromtheplaintiff’slicensee.
ThisCourtmayhavetodeterminewhetherthatdefenceissustainableandtodosoitmay
havetoconsiderwhetherthelicencecontractstillexists.Indealingwithasimilarargumentin
atrademarkcase,AddyJ.saidinFruitoftheLoomInc.v.ChâteauLingerieManfacturing
Co.(1982),63C.P.R.(2d)51at53(Fed.T.D.)[affirmed(1983),78C.P.R.194(Fed.C.A.)]:
…itwouldbenothingshortofludicrousif,whereveralicenceistobeterminated,
sincethelicenceisalwaysgrantedcontractually,thattheownerofthemarkwould
firsthavetohavethecontractdeclaredatendorrescindedbyaprovincialcourt
beforeapplyingtotheFederalCourtofCanadaforreliefregardingthemark.Ithas
beenstatedonmanyanoccasionthatthemerefactthatanissueconcernsproperty
andcivilrightsinsomeway,doesnotautomaticallyremoveitfromfederaljurisdiction
orfromthejurisdictionoftheFederalCourtofCanada,asitisdifficulttoconceiveof
anycourtjudgmentwhichdoesnotinsomewayaffectpropertyincivilrights.
Therefore,theexistenceornon-existenceofacontinuingconsentbytheplaintifftotheuse
byHuma-ResInc.ofitscopyrightisoneoftheimportantissueswhichthisCourtwillhaveto
decide.AtthispointIneednotmakeafinaldeterminationofthatissue.Ibelievethisisacase
wherethethresholdtestforaninterlocutoryinjunctionisthatonlyoftherebeinga »serious
question »tobetried,aslaiddowninAmericanCyanamidCo.v.EthiconLtd.,[1975]A.C.396,
[1975]1AllE.R.504(H.L.).Theplaintiffneednotsatisfymeonthebalanceofprobabilitiesat
thistimethatcontracthasbeenrepudiated.Itissufficientifitshowsmethatthereisevidence
ofseriousbreachesofthecontractofakindwhichmightwellbeconsideredtoamountto
repudiation.[atpp.18-19]

22.Vergev.ImperialOilLtd.(1987),15C.P.R.(3d)187(F.C.T.D.),MuldoonJ.
Dr.Moreycomparedthemusicalscoresoftheplaintiff’sandthedefendant’srespective
songs,andheheardandlistenedtothemasperformedonthetape,Ex.19.Hetestifiedthat:
theplaintiff’sandthedefendant’sworksarenotmusicallysimilar;themelodyorharmonyare
« notremotelysimilar »;themusicalphrasesforthewords »it’sabrandnewworld »are »distinctly
different »;thoseforthewords »dowhatyouwanttodo »are »quitedissimilarwithnothingin
common »;and,astopossibleobjectivesimilaritybetweenExs.2and27,itis »notinmyears ».
Dr.Morey’stestimony,unshakenoncross-examination,isconclusiveoftheissueof
infringementoftheplaintiff’scopyrightinhissong.Thedefendant’smusicisnotacopyand
therehasthereforebeennoinfringementbymeansofit.
Thewordsofthedefendant’ssongs,despitetheearliernotedidenticalphrases,arenomore
copiesoftheplaintiff’swordsthantheyarecopiesofthelyricsshowninExs.20,21and22,
above-mentioned.Theplaintiffhasutterlyfailedtodemonstrateonabalanceof
probabilities,anddespitethoseidenticalphrases,thathislyricswerethesource,orthesine
quanonofthedefendant’slyrics,orthatthelatterareeitheraconsciousorunconscious
reproductionoradaptationoftheplaintiff’slyrics.Theidenticalphrasesdonotreplicatea
substantialorconsiderablepartoftheplaintiff’swork.Again,Mr.Benderothtestifiedthathe
neverheardoftheplaintifforhissong,orofMr.Karen,atthematerialtimesandtherewasno
evidenceeithertoproveortoraisetheslightestinferencethathehad.Norwasitshownatall
thatMr.Benderothhadanyaccesstotheplaintiff’slyricsbeforeorwhencomposinghisown.
Theplaintiffhassufferednoinfringementofcopyrightnoranycopyingofthewordsofhis
song »It’saBrandNewWorld ».[atpp.193-194]

39
Theappearanceofwhatareessentiallyonlytwoidentical,butrathercommon,clichésinthe
respectivelyricsisnotshowntobeanythingotherthansheer,andfarfromunique,
coincidences.Accordingly,theplaintiff’sactionmustbedismissedwithcosts.[atp.195]
23.R.v.Stewart,[1988]1S.C.R.963(S.C.C.)LamerJ.

Copyrightisdefinedastheexclusiverighttoproduceorreproduceaworkinitsmaterialform
(s.3).Amerecopierofdocuments,betheyconfidentialornot,doesnotacquirethe
copyrightnordepriveitsownerofanypartthereof.Nomatterhowmanycopiesaremadeof
awork,thecopyrightownerstillpossessesthesolerighttoreproduceorauthorizethe
reproductionofhiswork.Suchcopyingconstitutesaninfringementofthecopyrightunders.
17[nows.27]oftheAct,butitcannotinanywaybetheftunderthecriminallaw.Whileone
can,incertaincircumstances,stealachoseinaction,therightsprovidedintheCopyright
Actcannotbetakenorconvertedastheirownerwouldneversufferdeprivation.Therefore,
whetherornotcopyrightisproperty,itcannot,inmyopinion,betheobjectoftheftunders.
283(1)[nows.322(1)]oftheCode.[atp.782]
24.ConstructionsNouvelleDimensionInc.v.Berthiaume,[1989]R.J.Q.767
(Que.Civ.Div.),CloutierJ.
Considérantqueledéfendeurautilisésansautorisationpréalablelesplansfaisantl’objetdu
droitd’auteurdétenuparlademanderesse;laressemblanceentrelesmaisonsconstruitespar
lademanderessesuivantsesplansetcelleconstruiteparledéfendeurestfrappanteetne
peutêtrelerésultatdusimplehasard.Cecis’expliquedufaitque,suivantlapreuvequele
Tribunaltientpourprépondérante,ledéfendeurareproduitoufaitreproduirelesplansdela
demanderesse.Lesquelqueschangementscosmétiqueseffectuésparledéfendeur,serait-
ceparl’ajouted’uneporte,nesuffisentpasàeffacercequiconstitue,fondamentalement
unplagiat[atp.769]
25.BritishColumbiav.Mihaljevic(1989),26C.P.R.(3d)184(B.C.S.C.),
MacdonellJ.
TheCopyrightActstatesthatinfringementofcopyrightoccurswhen »anyperson…without
theconsentoftheownerofthecopyright,doesanythingthat,bythisAct,onlytheowner…
hastherighttodo »(s.17(1))[nows.27(1)].Pursuanttos.3oftheAct,theownerhasthe »sole
rightto…reproducetheworkoranysubstantialpartthereof ».Thecaselawhasinterpreted
thestatutoryprovisionsinsuchawaythat »copying »isanessentialingredientofinfringement.
Inotherwords,theallegedlyinfringingworkmustbederivedfromorhaveacausal
connectiontothecopyrightedmaterial.See:FrancisDay&HunterLtd.v.Bron,[1963]2All
E.R.16atpp.23-24and27(C.A.),andGondosv.Hardy(1982),64C.P.R.(2d)145atpp.159-
60,38O.R.(2d)555atpp.568-9,(Ont.H.C.J.).
ThedefendantMihaljevic
hasfailedtoestablishsuchacausalconnectionbetweenthe
plaintiff’sdesignsandthecopyrighteddesigns.Evenifthedefendantwereabletoprovethe
necessaryconnection,hewouldstillbeunabletoestablishinfringementbecausethe
allegedlyinfringingdesignsdonotreproducea »substantialpart »ofthedefendant’sdesigns.

40
Thecommonelementinthedesignsoftheplaintiffandofthedefendantis »Expo »or »Expo
86″.Thoughaprominentpartofthedefendant’sdesigns,thesemarksalonedonotconstitute
a »substantialpart »ofthedesigns.Furthermore,noneoftheplaintiff’sdesignsreproducethe
defendant’sgraphicrepresentationsofthemarks;theplaintiff’sstylizedmarksarequite
distinctandunique.Inorderforthedefendanttosucceedinhisclaimofinfringement,he
wouldhavetopersuadetheCourtthatheheldcopyrightinthename »Expo »or »Expo86″.
Apersoncannothavecopyrightinasingleword,nameortitle,because »apartfromthelaw
astotrade-marks,noonecanclaimmonopolyrightsintheuseofawordorname »(see:
Burberrysv.J.C.Cording&Co.Ltd.(1909),100L.T.985,26R.P.C.693atp.701(Ch.Div.).On
thispoint,seealso:ExxonCorp.v.ExxonInsuranceConsultantsInternationalLtd.,[1981]3All
E.R.241at247,[1982]Ch.119,[1982]R.P.C.69(C.A.),andTavenerRutledgeLtd.v.Trexapalm
Ltd.,[1977]R.P.C.275at278-279(Ch.Div.).Inordertogainexclusiveuseofawordorname,
onemustturntothelawoftrademarks.[atpp.189-190]
26.EuclidIndustriesCanadaLtd.v.RegHollowaySalesInc.(1989),25C.I.P.R.
290(F.C.T.D.),MacKayJ.
Itwassubmittedonbehalfoftheplaintiffsthatbycopyingasubstantialportionofthe
plaintiffs’copyrightworks,withoutauthorization,thedefendantsinfringedtherightsofthe
plaintiffsintheseworks.Whileitistruethattheinformationintheplaintiffs’worksappearsina
somewhatdifferentformatfromthatinthepricelistsissuedbythecorporatedefendant,it
seemstomethatakeyelementinbothpublicationsisthenumberingsystemofpartsby
whichcustomerswouldplacetheirorders,onthebasisofbusinessoperationsoftheplaintiff
Transitandofthecorporatedefendant.Thosecodeswerecompiledthroughconsiderable
skill,ingenuityandoriginalityoftheplaintiffsortheirpredecessorsintitletothecopyrights.The
alpha-numericcodessodevisedarevariedinthedefendants’pricelistonlybychangeinthe
firstletterfrom »T »to »H »inasixorsevenletterandnumbercodedevisedforeachoftheparts
sold.OnthebasisofCardwellv.Leduc(1962),[1963]Ex.C.R.207at219,23FoxPat.C.99,
B.C.JockeyClubv.Standen(WinbarPublications),[1983]4W.W.R.537,146D.L.R.(3d)693,73
C.P.R.(2d)164at173(B.C.S.C.),upheldonappeal,[1985]6W.W.R.683,66B.C.L.R.245,22
D.L.R.(4th)467,8C.P.R.(3d)283(C.A.),andSlumber-MagicAdjustableBedCo.v.Sleep-King
AdjustableBedCo.(1984),[1985]1W.W.R.112,3C.P.R.(3d)81at84(B.C.S.C.),Iamsatisfied
thattheplaintiffspresentaseriousclaimthatitsrightshavebeeninfringedbythedefendants’
unauthorizeduseofasubstantialkeyelementoftheircataloguesandrelatedpricelists,the
formerofwhicharenowsubjecttoregisteredcopyrights.[atpp.295-296]
27.Bishopv.Stevens,[1990]2S.C.R.467(S.C.C.),McLachlinJ.
Thisdistinctionbetweentherighttoperformandtherighttorecordaworkisunsurprisingin
lightoftheobjectandpurposeoftheAct.AsnotedbyMaughamJ.,inPerformingRight
Society,Ltd.v.Hammond©sBradfordBreweryCo.,[1934]1Ch.121,atp.127, »theCopyright
Act,1911,waspassedwithasingleobject,namely,thebenefitofauthorsofallkinds,whether
theworkswereliterary,dramaticormusical ».SeealsoArticle1oftheRevisedBerne
Convention,citedabove.Aperformanceisbyitsverynaturefleeting,transient,
impermanent.Whenitisover,onlythememoryremains.A
composerwhoauthorizes
performanceofhisworkforaperiodoftimehasnotirrevocablygivenupcontroloverhow
theworkispresentedtothepublic.Hemaychooseatafuturetimetowithdrawhis
authorization,andbethesoleinterpreterofhisownwork,orhemayplaceconditionsonhis

41
authorization.Hemaycontrolthefrequencyofperformance,andchoosetheaudiences
whicharetohearhiswork.Otherperformersmightcopyhisperformanceswithout
authorization,butthepublicnatureofperformanceissuchthatthiswilllikelycometohis
attention.Furthermore,noimitationofaperformancecanbeaprecisecopy.Arecording,
ontheotherhand,ispermanent.Itmaybecopiedeasily,privately,andprecisely.Oncea
workhasbeenrecorded,therecordingtakesonalifeofitsown.Thisiswhy,froma
composer’spointofview,therighttocontrolthecircumstancesunderwhichthefirst
recordingismadeiscrucial.Oncethecomposerhasmadeorauthorizedarecordingofhis
work,hehasirrevocablygivenupmuchofhiscontroloveritspresentationtothepublic.
Thesearethereasonswhytherightstoperformandtorecordarerecognizedasdistinctin
theAct,andwhyinpracticeacomposermaywishtoauthorizeperformancesbutnot
recordingsofhiswork.[atpp.478-479]
Furthermore,animpliedexemptiontotheliteralmeaningofs.3(1)(d)isallthemoreunlikely,
inmyopinion,inlightofthedetailedandexplicitexemptionsins.17(2)(nows.27(2))ofthe
Act,providingformattersasdiverseasprivatestudy,researchorcriticalreview,educational
use,disclosureofinformationpursuanttovariousfederalActs,andperformanceofamusical
workwithoutmotiveofgainatanagriculturalfair.[atp.480-481]

28.EnergyAbsorptionSystemsInc.v.YBoissoneault&FilsInc.(1990),30C.P.R.
(3d)420(F.C.T.D.),PinardJ.
Copyrightisinfringedbymakingcopiesorreproductionsofworksinwhichcopyrightexists.
Thecase-lawhasinterpretedthestatutoryprovisionsoftheActinsuchawaythat »copying »is
anessentialingredientofinfringement.Copyingcomprisesthetakingofthewholeor
substantialpartofthework:seeBradaleDistributionEnterprisesv.SafetyFirstInc.(1987)18
C.I.P.R.71atpp.90-94;andHornAbbotLtdv.W.B.CoulterSalesLtd(1984),77C.P.R.(2d)145
at153,1C.I.P.R.97.
Wherethereissubstantialsimilaritybetweentheworksanditisestablishedthattheauthorof
thecopyhadaccesstotheoriginalwork,asitisthecasehere,theCourtmayinferthatone
workisacopyofanotherwork(seeKingFeaturesSyndicateInc.v.BenjaminH.Lechter,
(1950),12C.P.R.60,297atpp.305-6,FoxPat.C.144;andL.B.(Plastics)Limitedv.Swish
ProductsLtd.,[1979]R.P.C.551(H.L.),619).Theexistenceintwoworksofcommonerrorsand
arbitrarydetailsfurthersupportsapresumptionofcopying(seeCoralIndexLimitedv.Regent
IndexLtd.,[1970]R.P.C.147,at145-150;L.B.(Plastics)Limitedv.SwishProductsLtd.,supra,at
pp.627-38;andHornAbbotLtd.v.W.B.CoulterSalesLtd.,supra,atpp.157-9.[atp.465]
29.PizzaPizzaLtd.v.Gillespie(1990),33C.P.R.(3d)515(OntGen.Div.),Henry
J.
InanyeventifinfactRaymanmadeuseofsomeoralloftheplaintiff’ssoftwareand
programming,heand/orhisfirmwouldbeentitledtodosobecauseastheauthorofthe
plaintiff’sprogramandsoftwaretheyownthecopyrightinthatwork.Noevidenceis
submittedbytheplaintifftoshowthatthecopyrightwasassignedtoPizzaPizzabythe
author;thusbys.3oftheCopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,Rayman’sConsultingisfreeto
reproduceandsellthePizzaPizzasoftwarewithorwithouttheplaintiff’sconsent.

42
Tosummarize,theevidenceofJohnGillespieandFredRaymanthatthecomputersoftware
systemdevelopedbyRaymanforChickenChickenisauniquesystemandmaterially
differentfromthesystemdevelopedbyRaymanforPizzaPizzaisnotrebuttedbyspecific
factsadducedbyPizzaPizzainaffidavitorotherevidence.TheaffidavitofPierreMichaud
whichisbasedonafunctionalcomparisonofthetitlesofthereportsproducedbythetwo
systems,merelyestablishesthatthereisasimilarityinsomebutnotallofthetitlesandreports
producedbythetwosystems.Itdoesnotestablishtheuseofconfidentialinformationbythe
defendantGillespieinthedevelopmentofChickenChicken’scomputersystem.Itisnota
matterofconflictingevidenceorcredibilityofthewitnesses.[atp.541]
30.Grignonv.Roussel(1991),44F.T.R.121(F.C.T.D.),DenaultJ.
AstheCourthasfoundthattheplaintiffownsacopyrighttoanoriginalmusicalwork,it
remainstodetermine(1)whetherthedefendant’swork,whichhealsoregardsasoriginal,
bearssufficientobjectivesimilaritytothatoftheplaintifftobethesubjectofanorderbythe
Court,and(2)whetheritcanbeshownthattheplaintiff’sworkwasthebasisforthatofthe
defendant.Thatisthetestappliedbythecourtsindeterminingwhetheraplaintiffcanobtain
compensationfortheinfringementofhiscopyright.[atp.135]
31.Homelife/Realty(Victoria)Ltd.(Receiver-Managerof)v.Canada(Minister
ofNationalRevenue,Taxation–CustomsandExcise–M.N.R.)(1993),[1993]
B.C.J.2922(B.C.S.C.)HutchisonJ.

[39]IthinkIneedgonofurtherinalludingtohowthatwouldaffectthetrustthanrefertothe
textofProfessorDonovanWaters,TheLawofTrustsinCanada.Ithinkthisisfromthefirst
edition,atTab22inthebookofauthoritiespresentedtomebythepetitioner,(perhapsin
violationofhisexprofessor’scopyright)[…]
32.MosportParkLtd.v.Clarington(Municipality)(1994),116D.L.R.(4
th)763
(Ont.Gen.Div.),SoutheyJ.
Thesedictionarymeaningssuggestthatfairsincludethesaleordisplayofgoodsorlivestock.
Suchactivitiesdonotoccuratanoutdoormusicfestivalorconcert.Ontheotherhand,the
dictionarymeaningssuggestthatfairsincludeshowsandentertainments.Anoutdoormusic
festivalorconcertisashoworentertainment.
Onemightaskhowmanyoftheactivitiesthatnormallyoccuratfairsmustoccurduringany
particulareventbeforetheeventcanqualifyasafairgrounduse.Wouldtheinclusionofa
showofsomefarmlivestock,orthesaleofhome-bakedgoodsorhandicrafts,ortheprovision
ofmidway-typeridesinconjunctionwitharockfestivalresultinqualifyingthecombineduse
asafairgrounduse?Someonewitharuralorequestrianbackgroundmightwonderwhether
itisessentialthathorsesbepresentforaneventtobeafair,and,ifso,howmanyhorses?
Itisapparentthatfairscanincludeawidevarietyofactivities,andthatthereisconsiderable
diversitybetweentherangeofactivitiesatdifferentfairs.Inmyjudgment,apresentationof
anyactivitythatisrecognizedasformingpartoftheactivitiesatfairsconstitutesafairground
use,andispermissibleunderBy-lawNo.84-63.Showsandentertainmentsaresorecognized.

43
Accordingly,therewillbeadeclarationthattheuseofMosportParkforoutdoormusic
festivalsorconcertsconstitutesapermitteduseunderBy-lawNo.84-63.[atpp.765-766]
§6.1.2IndirectInfringement
1.Clarke,Irwin&Co.v.Cole&Co.(1959),33C.P.R.173(Ont.H.C.J.),Spence
J.
Therefore,thereportoftheCommissionisinaccordancewiththeplaintiff’ssubmissiontothis
CourtthattheimporterhereCole,wasaninfringerwhentheimportedforsaleorhireand
knewtheworkwouldinfringecopyrightifithadbeenmadeinCanada.InthiscaseIamof
theopinionthatthewords »wouldinfringecopyrightifithadbeenmadeinCanada »mean
whenappliedtothepresentsituation,thattheworkwouldinfringecopyrightifithadbeen
madewithinCanadabyothersthantheplaintiffincludingHenryHolt&Company
Incorporated.[atp.180]
2.R.v.Fraser(1966),[1967]S.C.R.38(S.C.C.),RichieJ.
IagreewiththeviewexpressedbyMaclean,J.A.,onbehalfofthemajorityofthecourtof
appeal,thattheword »distribution »asusedinsec.150(1)(a) »isobviouslyawordofwider
connotationthan’sale,’…assaleisonlyoneofanumberofmeansofdistribution. »The
appellantsubmittedthatthisconstructionwouldmeanthateveryonewho »sells »withinthe
meaningofsec.150(2)(a)wouldalsobeguiltyoftheoffencedefinedinsec.150(1)(a),and
thattheprovisionsoftheformersectionwouldthusbe »reducedtoafutility, »toemploythe
languageusedinthefactumfiledonbehalfoftheappellants.LikeMaclean,J.A.,however,I
canenvisagecasesofindividualsaleswhichwouldconstituteanoffenceundersec.150(2)
(a)andyetwouldnotbea »distribution »withinthemeaningofsec.150(1)(a),andIthinkalso
thattheremaywellbecasesofabooksellerwhohasinhisshopascatteredfewofthese
publicationsamongstamassofinoffensivebooks,whereachargeofpossessionforthe
purposeofsalecontrarytosec.150(2)(a)wouldbemoreappropriatethanonerelatingto
« distribution »undersec.150(1)(a).[atp.44]
3.R.v.Rioux,[1968]B.R.942(Que.C.A.),PratteJ.andHydeJ.
Selonlesensordinairedesmots,mettreunechoseencirculationc’estlafairepasserdemain
enmain,cequiévoquel’idéededessaisissement,temporaireoudéfinitif:cequel’ongarde
poursoin’estpasencirculation.Maisl’oninvoqueunedécisiondelaCourd’Appeldela
Nouvelle-Écosse(Reginav.Berringer,122C.C.C.,350)pourrétendrequel’article150viseà
prévenirtoutecommunicationd’imagesouautreschosesobscènes,etqueparconséquent,
lesmots »mettreencirculation »doiventêtreentendusdemanièreàcomprendremêmele
seulfaitdemontrerprivémentuneimageobscène.Or,dit-on,projeterunfilm,c’estenfaire
voirlesimages,donclesmettreencirculation.
Sauftoutlerespectdûauxtenantsdecetteopinion,jenesuispasd’accord;etcelapourles
raisonsquevoici.

44
D’abord,s’agissantdematièrepénale,lestermesemployésparlelégislateurdoiventêtrepris
dansleursensordinaire:c’estunerèglefondamentaled’interprétation.[PratteJ.,atp.942]
Iseenointentbytheuseoftheword »circulates »or »circulation »tobroadentheoffence.
Disseminationbycirculationmustbeofapublicnature.Ithinkofcirculationasusedin
referencetoacirculatinglibraryoranewspaperorperiodical.TheShorterOxfordDictionary,
forexample,gives »Topassfromplacetoplace,fromhandtohand,orfrommouthtomouth;
topassintothehandsofreaders,asanewspaper ».TherecentlypublishedRandomHouse
Dictionaryequatesitwithdistribution,thus: »Tobedistributedorsold,especiallyoverawide
area ».
BeforeIampreparedtoholdthatprivateuseofwrittenmatterorpictureswithinan
individual’sresidencemayconstituteacriminaloffence,Irequireamuchmorespecifictext
oflawthanwearenowdealingwith.Itwouldhavebeenverysimpleforparliamenttohave
includedtheword »exhibit »inthissectionifithadwishedtocoverthissituation.[HydeJ.,at
pp.942-943]
4.WarnerBros-SevenArtsInc.v.CESM-TVInc.(1971),65C.P.R.215(Ex.Ct.),
CattanachJ.
Inordertoconstituteaninfringementofcopyrighttheactoractscomplainedofmustbe
done »withouttheconsentoftheownerofthecopyright ».(Sees.17(1)[nows.27(1)]ofthe
CopyrightAct).
Mr.Chaplin,vice-presidentofthesecondnamedplaintifftestifiedthatnoauthorizationwas
givenbyeitherplaintifftothedefendanttoshowthesixfilmsmentionedinthestatementof
claim,nordidthedefendantcontendthatithad.
However,suchaconsentmaybepresumedfromthecircumstancesbuttheinferenceof
consentmustbeclearbeforeitwilloperateasadefenceandtheconsentmustcomefrom
theowneroftherightallegedtobeinfringed.[atp.235]
Iamoftheopinionthatthedefendanthasinfringedtheplaintiffs’copyrightrightsbymaking
thevideotapewhichwasincontraventionoftheplaintiffs' »soleright »byvirtueofs.3(1)(d)of
theCopyrightAct,whichIrepeathereforconvenience:
3(d)inthecaseofaliterary,dramatic,ormusicalwork,tomakeanyrecord,
perforatedroll,cinematographfilm,orothercontrivancebymeansofwhichthework
maybemechanicallyperformedordelivered;
Inmyviewthevideotapeisacontrivancebymeansofwhichtheworkmaybemechanically
performed.Whenthevideotapeisinsertedinanappropriatemachinebythebroadcaster,it
reproducesthesoundandimagesrecordedthereonontheviewers’televisiontube
automaticallywithoutinterveningmeans.Inordertodeterminewhatismeantbyawork
being »mechanically »performedordelivered,resortmustbehadtothecommon
understandingofsuchword.IntheShorterOxfordDictionary,3rded. »mechanically »is
definedas »acting,workedorproducedbyamachineormechanism »andthatisprecisely
whatisdonehere.Atapeismade,whichwheninsertedinamachinecausestheimages
andsoundtobeseenandheardbythevieweronhisreceivingset.Itisthemachineworking
onthetapeandinmyviewthatiswhatismeantbytheword »mechanically »inthiscontext.

45
Theword,initscommonparlance,isnottobecontrastedwithactivationbyelectromagnetic
principles.[atpp.241-242]

[…]underthedefinitionwherethereisanacousticorvisualrepresentationincludinga
representationmadebymeansofanymechanicalinstrumentthereisaperformance.
Herethedefendantbyitsrecordingsystemcapturedonvideotapetheimpulsesbroadcast
byCJAYandCBWTandbytheuseofthattapethoseimpulseswerecapableofbeing
transmittedsothatimagesandsoundscouldbeseenandheardwithproperequipment,
innumerabletimesandafterthepassageoftime.
Ifinditimpossibletoescapefromtheconclusionthatthevideotapecouldbeusedbythe
defendantsoastoeffectaperformanceoftheplaintiffs’work.
Itfollows,therefore,thatthepreparationofvideotapesbythedefendantinthemanneritdid
constitutesaninfringementoftheplaintiffs’solerighttomakeacontrivancebywhichthe
workmaybemechanicallyperformedordelivered.[atpp.243-244]
5.Godfrey,MacSkimming&BacqueLtd.v.ColesBookStoresLtd.(1973),
[1974]1O.R.(2d)362(Ont.H.C.J.),CallonJ.
Counselforthedefendantsubmitsthat,sincetheAmericanorFolletteditionoftheworkswas
madeinCanada,itisnotaninfringementofthecopyrightunders.17(4)[nows.27(4)]ofthe
Act.Hefurthersubmitsthatthedefendantcouldnotanddidnothaveactualnoticeofthe
restrictionofthesaleordistributionoftheAmericanorFolletteditionoftheworksinCanada
andthatthereforethedefendantshouldnotbeaffectedbysuchrestriction.

Dealingwiththelattersubmissionfirst,itismyviewthatthedefendanthadnoticeoffacts
thatwouldsuggesttoareasonablepersonthatNewPresshasnotconsentedtothesaleor
distributionoftheAmericanorFolletteditioninCanadaincompetitiontothesaleand
distributioninCanadaoftheCanadianedition–seeClarke,Irwin&Co.v.C.Cole&Co.Ltd.,
33C.P.R.173.Thedefendanthadpurchasedalimitednumberofcopiesofthreeoftheworks
inquestionand,nodoubt,fullyconsidereditspositionbeforeimportingtheworksinto
Canada.Inaddition,byletterdatedOctober19,1972,thesolicitorsfortheplaintiff,New
Press,gavenoticetothedefendantofitsallegedinfringementofitscopyrightwithrespectto
theworksRumorsofWarandNorthernRealities.
Icannotagreewiththedefendant’ssubmissionthatthemereprintingoftheAmericanor
FolletteditionoftheworksinCanadaentitlesthedefendanttoimportforsaleorhireinto
Canadathoseworkswhenthedefendantisseizedwiththeknowledgethatsuchimportation
iswithouttheconsentofNewPress.Bys.3oftheCopyrightAct,thesolerighttopublish,to
produceortoreproduceaworkisintheownerofthecopyrightandheistheonlyperson
whocanauthorizeotherstodothethingsthattheActgivestohimthesolerighttodo.
Where,asinthiscase,thedefendantisimpressedwiththeknowledgethatthesaleor
distributionoftheAmericanorFolletteditionhasnotbeenauthorizedbytheownerofthe
copyright,theimportationforsaleintoCanadaoftheworkthattohisknowledgeinfringes
copyrightiswithinthescopeofs.17(4)oftheCopyrightAct.[atp.364]

46
6.FlybyNiteMusicCo.Ltd.v.RecordWherehouseltd.,(1975),[1975]F.C.
386(F.C.T.D.),MahoneyJ.
Finally,thefactthatthealbumswerelawfullymadeandpurchasedoutsideCanadaisno
defensetoanactionforinfringementbasedonsection17(4)[nows.27(4)].Thisprecisepoint,
inverysimilarcircumstances,wasdealtwithintheAustraliancaseofAlbertv.S.Hoffnung&
CompanyLimited.Inthatinstance,recordslawfullymanufacturedandpurchasedin
EnglandwereimportedandsoldinAustralia.TheapplicablelegislationwastheBritish
CopyrightActof1911,whichhadbeenadoptedinAustralia.
IfindnomaterialdifferencebetweentheapplicableprovisionsofthepresentCanadianAct
andtheBritishActtheninforceinAustralia.Thelearnedjudgeatpage80,held:
ThemakingoftheserecordsinAustraliawould,inmyopinion,beaninfringement
unlessnoticehadbeengiventotheplaintiffandroyaltiespaidtohim.Iseeno
indicationintheActwhateverofanyintentionthatprovidedrecordsarelawfully
madeinanypartoftheBritishEmpiretheycanbesoldinthewayoftradeor
importedforsaleintoeverypartoftheEmpirewhichhasadoptedthecopyright
Act.Althoughthedefendantcompanymightquitelawfullypurchasethese
recordsinEngland…itbynomeansfollowsthattheycanbringtheminto
Australia;anymorethanitwouldfollowthatbecausetheymightlegallyacquire
recordsmadeinaforeigncountrytheycouldimportthemintoAustralia.
Theplaintiffs,otherthanH.P.&Bell,areentitledtothedeclaratoryandinjunctivereliefsought
intheirstatementofclaim.[atpp.394-395]
7.Simon&SchusterInc.v.ColesBookStoresLtd.(1975),9O.R.(2d)718(Ont.
H.C.J.),WeatherstonJ.
IntheMcClellandandStewartcase[McLellandandStewartLtd.v.ColesBookStoresLtd.
(1974),7O.R.(2d)426,55D.L.R.(3d)362][atp.720],IthinkIfeltthatiftheworkswerelawfully
importedintoCanada,thatimpliedtherighttodisposeoftheminthenormalwaydespite
theliterallanguageofthatsubsection.Itwouldberatherridiculousthatworkscouldbe
lawfullyimportedintoCanadaforresaleandthattheimportercouldnotinfactresellwithout
infringings.17(4)(a)[nows.27(4)(a)].
Inthepresentcase,itwasplainforeveryonetoseethatsomeonehadcopyrightinthiswork
andtherewassufficientnoticegiveninthebooktoputanyknowledgeablebookdealeron
inquiriestoascertainwherethatcopyrightlayandwhatrightsofresaleexisted.Itisnot
sufficientforsuchapersontoclosehiseyestofactswhichwouldhavebeenobviousifhe
kepthiseyesopen.ltisquitetruethatonthebackofthebook,ontheoutsidecover,thesale
priceisshownandincludes »Canada$2.50″.Idonotthinkthatanytraderinthebusinessis
entitledtoinferfromthat,thatthebooksaretherebyautomaticallyavailableforresalein
Canada.
Therefore,Idonotthinkitcanbesaidthatatthetimethedefendantimportedtheworkinto
Canadaforresale,itwasnottoitsknowledgeinfringingcopyright.[atp.720]
8.CompoCov.BlueCrestMusicInc.(1979),[1980]1S.C.R.357(S.C.C.),Estey
J.

47
AspointedoutintheAshcase[Ashv.Hutchison&Co.(Publishers)Ltd.,[1936]2AllE.R.1496
(C.A.)],supra,theactofauthorizingandtheactofmakingareseparatetortandthecourts
haveheld,bothintheUnitedKingdomandtheUnitedStates,thatpersonscommittingthese
separatetortsarenotofcoursejointtortfeasors.ThusCanusamaybeaninfringereitherby
reasonofitsauthorizationoftheactionsofCompo,orperhapsbecauseitmaybefound
(butIdonotfinditnecessarytosodecidehere)thatCanusa »made »theoffendingrecords.
Thejudgmentthencontinued:
however,theimmediatetortfeasorisnotexoneratedfromliabilitybyreasonof
theliabilityofthevicarioustortfeasor.
Itakethistobeareferencebacktothedistinctionmadeearlierinthejudgmentbetween
theinfringementbyauthorizationcommittedbyCanusa,andtheinfringementbythemaking
oftherecordscommittedbyCompo.However,theseareseparateanddistinctviolationsof
thestatuteandhenceseparateanddistinctinfringementsrenderingeachwrongdoerliable
totheholderofthecopyrightwithoutreferencetotheactionsandresponsibilitiesoftheother
wrongdoer.[atp.373]
Nounauthorizedexerciseoftheowner’smechanicalrightsinaworkcanproduceinthe
wrongdoeracopyrightintheresultantrecord.Thesimplequestionis,didCompo,bytaking
themasteracetatefromCanusaandmakingtherefromthemouldsandstampers,infringe
thecopyrightinthemusicalworkoftherespondentsbythereafter »makingrecords »withinthe
meaningofs.3ands.17[nows.27]oftheAct?
Someassistancecanbeobtainedfromotherprovisionsinthestatute.Bys.17(4)[nows.
27(4)],knowledgeonthepartoftheallegedinfringerisrequiredinordertoestablish
infringementwheretheallegedinfringementconsistsof’selling,distributing,importingor
exhibitinginpublic’awork.’Making’ofrecordsisnotincludedinthelistofactionswithrespect
towhichknowledgeonthepartoftheallegedinfringerisaprerequisitetoinfringement.
Section25establishesasanoffencetheactofmakingforsaleanyinfringingcopyofawork
inwhichcopyrightsubsists.Againtheconditionof »knowingly »mustbeestablishedbeforethe
offenceiscompleted.
Sections3and17(1)[nows.27(1)],however,admitofnoprerequisiteofknowledgeofthe
existenceoftheviolatedcopyrightorthattheactioninquestionamountstoinfringement.
Infringementisthesingleactofdoingsomethingwhich »onlytheownerofthecopyrighthas
therighttodo ».[atpp.374-375]
9.R.v.Bell,[1983]2S.C.R.471(S.C.C.),DicksonJ.

ToimportintoCanadameanstobringingoodsfromanywhereoutsideCanadatoanywhere
insideCanada.Iseenoreasoninprincipleorprecedenttorestricttherelevantlocation
withinCanadatotheactualpointofbordercrossing.Theword »import »shouldnotbe
stultifiedbynarrowinterpretation.Importingisaprocesswhich,althoughitnecessarily
includestheactofcrossingtheborder,extendstothepointofintendedfinaldestination.In
myviewthetestiswhetherthereisadirectlinkbetweentheplaceoforiginoutsideCanada
andthedestinationinsideCanada.[atp.477]

48
10.CooperCanadaLtdv.AmerSportInternationalInc.(1986),9C.I.P.R.93.
(F.C.T.D.),MuldoonJ.

Thus,ifthedrawingsandsketchesinwhichcopyrightisallegedwerekeptsecret,confidential
orotherwiseunpublishedbytheplaintiff,thedefendantmightwellhavesold,distributedor
exhibiteditswareswhich,toitsknowledge,didnotinfringeanycopyright,iftheydidinthe
circumstances.Subsection17(4)[nows.27(4)]oftheActispertinentinthisregard.Ifthe
defendantcanproperlyallegethatitwasnotawareoftheexistenceofthealleged
copyrightintheworksordrawings,thenitmustsoallegeinitsstatementofdefence.Section
22oftheCopyrightActispertinentinthisregard.[atp.95]
11.DictionnairesRobertCanadaSCCv.LibrairieduNomadeInc.(1987),16
C.P.R.(3d)319(F.C.T.D.),DenaultJ.
Section3oftheCopyrightActdefinesthisexpressionandstatesthat »‘copyright’…includes
thesoleright…toauthorizeanysuchactsasaforesaid ».Itnecessarilyfollowsthatanyone
whoauthorizestheperformanceofanactwhichistheexclusiverightoftheownerofthe
copyrightinfringesit:seeRogerT.Hughes,HughesOnCopyrightandIndustrialDesign
(Toronto,Butteworths,1984),p.545.Aswesawearlier,theevidenceestablishedthatthe
defendantLibrairieNomadeimported,distributed,exhibitedinpublicbywayoftradeand
soldtheworksprotectedbythecopyrightandderivedacertainprofitfromsodoing.It
remainstobeseenwhetheritspresident-generalmanagercanbesuedpersonally.Intheory,
themeretitleofpresidentorseniorofficerofacompanyisnotsufficientmaketheindividual
personallyliable.InMentmoreMfg.Co.,Ltd.etal.v.NationalMerchandiseMfg.Co.Inc.
(1978),40C.P.R.(2d)164,89D.L.R.(3d)195,22N.R.161,LeDainJ.statedtherulesetforthin
Halsbury’sLawsofEngland:
Liabilityofdirectorsforinfringement.Thedirectorsofacompanyarenotpersonallyliablefor
infringementsbythecompany,eveniftheyaremanagingdirectorsorthesoledirectorsand
shareholders,unlesseither(1)theyhaveformedthecompanyforthepurposeofinfringing;or
(2)theyhavedirectlyorderedorauthorizedtheactscomplainedof;or(3)theyhaveso
authorizedororderedbyimplication.
Itisaquestionoffactwhetheranindividualwhoisactingforacompanyactedwithfull
knowledgeandinavoluntaryanddeliberatemannerwhichmakeshimpersonallyliable.In
thisregard,theprovisionshouldnotbeappliedmorestrictlytoasmallcompanywithoneor
twoshareholdersthantoalargecorporation(seeMentmore,supra,atp.172);though
ultimatelyinthecasementionedtheofficersofthecompanywerenotheldliable,such
liabilitywasfoundtoexistinseveralothercases.[seecasescitedinHughes,opcitp.545-3
andPerformingRightSociety,Ltd.v.CirylTheatricalSyndicate,Ltd.,[1924]1K.B.1][atpp.
335-336]
Inconclusion,theevidenceamplydemonstratedthat,eitheraloneorwithothers,the
defendantparticipatedinconstructingthisillegalimportationoperation,devisedabilling
systembywhichhetriedtoavoidanyinquiry,andalsobyusingapunchcopiedthemethod
usedbytheplaintiffsasameansofprotectingtheirmarket.Hemustbeheldpersonally
responsiblewithLibrairieduNomadeIncfortheinfringementoftheplaintiffs’copyrights.[ay
p.337]

49
12.ÉditionsHurtubiseHMHLtéev.CégepAndré-Laurendeau,[1989]R.J.Q.
1003(Que.Sup.Ct.),TessierJ.
L’article3.1delaLoiénoncequeledroitd’auteurs’entenddudroitexclusifdereproduireune
partieimportanted’uneoeuvre.Celasignifiequetoutepersonneadroitd’enreproduireune
partienonimportante.Lacopiedoitêtresubstantielle.Cequiestsubstantielestcependant
unequestiondefaitetdedegré[Ladbroke(Football)Ltd.c.WilliamHill(Football)Ltd.(1964)
1AllE.R.465].Ledegréd’importancedépenddavantagedelaqualitéquedelaquantité
delaportionreproduitedel’œuvre[Id.,481]:
Parailleurs,ledegrédesimilitudeexigévarieraenfonctiondelanaturedel’oeuvre.Ainsi
pourdesoeuvresoùlecontenuestobjectifoun’estpassusceptibledeformulations
fondamentalementdifférentes,ilseraexigéunfortdegrédesimilitude.C’estlecas,par
exemple,descompilations,desdictionnaires,destableauxdedonnées,decartes
géographiquesetc….[Vincke,Christian,Problèmesdedroitd©auteurenéducation,(Québec:
ÉditeurofficielduQuébec,1977)àlap.40,quiseréfèreàBeaucheminc.Cadieux(1901)10
B.R.255;précité,Deeksc.Wells(1933)1D.L.R.353,Garlandc.Gemmil(1884-88),14R.C.S.
321,2Can.Com.292,etEmmettc.Mergs,(1921)1W.W.R.35,16Alta.L.R.132,56D.L.R.63
(C.A.)]

Dansleprésentcas,unfortdegrédesimilitudeexisteentrelesdeuxoeuvres,puisquela
secondeestunecopiefacilementidentifiabledelapremière[atp.1017]
Lesintiméesn’ontpasétabliquelaportionsimilairedeleuroeuvreprovenaitd’unecréation
indépendantedeleurpart.Ellespeuventcertesproduireuneoeuvredumêmegenreen
utilisanttoutesourced’informationoutoutmatériellégitimementaccessible;elledoivent
cependantexécuterletravaildéjàeffectuéparlepremierauteur.Lestableauxdesintimées
devraientrefléterlefruitdeleurtravailpersonnel.Cestableauxdevraientdifférerdeceuxde
larequérante,parleurcontenu,leurformulationetleurprésentation.S’ilssontidentiques,il
incombeauxintiméesdedémontrer-cequ’ellesn’ontpasétabli–qu’ilnes’agitpasd’une
copieintégraleoud’uneimitationdéguisée[…]
Laprésomptiondecontrefaçonprovenantdufortdegrédesimilitudeentrelesdeuxoeuvres
serarepousséesilesintiméesétablissent,commeilsleprétendent,qu’ilsétaientautorisésà
reproduirel’oeuvredelarequérante.[atp.1018]
L’absencedeconnaissancen’empêchepasl’émissiond’uneinjonction.Lecontrefacteurde
bonnefoinepeutvalablementplaiderabsencedeconnaissancepuisqueledroitd’auteur
étaitdûmentenregistré.Cetenregistrementétablitsaconnaissanceprésuméedudroit
d’auteur.Ils’agitd’uneprésomptionlégaleabsolue.[atp.1020]
13.Fletcherv.PolkaDotFabricsLtd.(1993),51C.P.R.(3d)241(Ont.Gen.Div.),
SmithJ..
Itispossibleforthistypeofindirectinfringertopleadthathedidnotknowthattheworkhe
soldinfringedonanyone’scopyright.However,inthiscasetherewasacopyrightnoticeon
theSnappyNappypatternenvelopeandonthepatternsheets,whichshouldhave
indicatedthatcopyrightprobablyexistedinthework.Also,PolkaDotFabricsLtd.,whichsold
theinfringingwork,hasthesamepresidentasDesignsbyLydia,whichproducedthe

50
infringingwork.Therefore,thedefenceofignoranceisnotavailabletoPolkaDotFabricsLtd.
inthiscase.[atp.254]
14.AmusementsWiltronInc.v.Mainville,[1991]R.J.Q.1930.(Que.Sup.Ct.),
MacerolaJ.
Lelégislateurtraitededeuxformesd’autorisationpossibles,soitleconsentementet
l’acquiescement.Envertudel’article13(4),unécritestnécessairepourqu’ilyaittransfertde
droitd’auteur.L’acquiescementseraitunaccordimpliciteouverbaldonnépréalablement
auconsentement[Op.cit.supra,note6,pp.183-184].Toutefois,commel’exigenced’un
écritestuneconditiondefondetnonunerègledepreuve,unécritestrequispourqu’ilyait
transfertdedroitd’auteur[Motel6Inc.c.N
o.6MotelLtd.,(1982),1C.F.638(1ièreinst.),647;
BradaleDistributionEnterprisesInc.,supra,note10,88,jugeFrappier].
Anassignmentorgrantofaninterestmustbeinwritingandmustbesignedbytheownerof
therightinrespectofwhichtheassignmentorgrantismadeorbyhisdulyauthorizedagent.
Butnotwithstandingtheprovisionsofs.12(4)[13(4)]theownerofthecopyrightmaybe
contracteithermadeorallyortobeimpliedfromtheconductofthepartiesprecludehimself
fromexercisinghisstatutoryrightsasagainsttheotherpartytothecontract.Areceiptin
writingforthepriceofthecopyrightwilloperateasanofficialassignment.
[…]
Itispossiblethatareceiptforpuchasemoneymayamounttoanassignmentofcopyright,if
itisclearthattheintentionofthepartieswastoassignaninterest
(15).
Enl’espèce,ilyaeuacquiescementdelapartdeMarkKramlàl’utilisationdeson
programmedanslebutdelepublierdelerendreaccessibleaupublicparlalocation;
d’ailleurs,c’estcedernierquiétaittitulairedudroitdepublier.
L’écrit,nonnécessairemaisquiconfirmeparailleurscetacquiescementtrèsprécisàla
publicationauxfinsdelocationduprogrammedesonjeudepoker,seretrouvedansles
bonsdecommandedemodificationsdeprogrammesignésparMarkKramletdéposésen
preuvesouslacoteP.-3.
Eneffet,mêmes’iln’yestpasfaitprécisémentmentionqueM.Kramlyautorisaitla
publicationpourfinsdelocation,enpratique,ilconnaissaitl’usagequ’enfaisaitWiltronet
l’autorisait.Ils’agiticid’uneconditionimpliciteinvestissantlacompagnied’undroitde
pubicationparvoiedelocationdecelogiciel.
Deplus,ennelivrantpasàlacompagniele«secret»pourrendrelejeuautonome,donc
commercialisablepourlavente,ilestd’autantplusclairqu’iln’enautorisaitquelalocation.
[atpp.1937-1938]

15.R.v.M.(J.P.)(1996),67C.P.R.(3d)152(N.S.C.A.),RoscoeJ.
SincecomputerprogramsareexpresslyprotectedbytheActasliteraryworks,andthe
ownersofthecopyrightshavethesolerighttocommunicatetheworktothepublicby
telecommunication,therecanbenodoubtthattheappellantcreatedinfringingcopiesof

51
thesoftwarebyplacingthemonthebulletinboardinsuchawaythattheywereavailableto
beusedandcopiedbythe16″special »users.
Itisalsoclearthatwhenheaccessedhiscomputerbymodemfromhisfriends’homesand
downloadedtheprogramsontotheircomputers,hewas »distributing »theinfringingcopies.
Furthermore,bycontrollingthemeansandmannerbywhichtheusersofthebulletinboard
accessedarea20,andprovidingthesoftwaretoassistinthedownloadingbymodemby
thoseusers,theappellantwasalsodistributing,thatisgivingout,orsharingtheinfringing
copies.Althoughitissuggestedthattheprogramswere »scrambled »sothattheycouldnot
becopiedordownloadedbythecallers,theevidenceacceptedbythetrialjudgewasthat
theywere »packaged »or »compressed »forefficientstorageand »easeoftransmission ».[atp.
156]
16.Milliken&Companyv.InterfaceFlooringSystems(Canada)Inc.
(1998),[1998]3F.C.103(F.C.T.D.)Tremblay-LamerJ.
[60]However,thequestionremainswhetherMs.Madsen’sknowledgeofthecopyright
infringementcanbeequatedtotheknowledgeofthecorporatedefendantitself.Ithas
beenrecognizedthattheactsofcertainemployeesdeemedtobethe »directingminds »ofa
corporationcanbetreatedasthoseofthecompanyitself.Anemployeeisconsideredtobe
thecompany’s »directingmind »whenthecorporationhasgivenhimtheactualauthorityto
decidemattersrelatedtoaspecificarea.AsstatedbyEsteyJ.inCanadianDredge&Dock
Co.etal.v.TheQueen:[1985]1S.C.R.662,atpp.684-685:.
Thelearnedtrialjudge,indirectingthejury,expresseditmore
accurately: »…solongashewasactingwithinthescopeofthearea
oftheworkassignedtohim. »….Theessenceofthetestisthatthe
identityofthedirectingmindandthecompanycoincidesolongas
theactionsoftheformerareperformedbythemanagerwithinthe
sectorofcorporationoperationassignedtohimbythecorporation.
Thesectormaybefunctional,orgeographic,ormayembracethe
entireundertakingofthecorporation.
[61]Ms.Madsenwasdelegatedthetaskofdesigningapatternforcarpettiletobeinstalled
attheCalgaryInternationalAirport.Assuch,itisreasonabletoinferthatshewasgiven
permissiontomakedecisionsrelatedtothedevelopmentofthedesign.Despiteher
knowledgeoftheinfringementoftheplaintiffs’copyright,shewentaheadanddeveloped
theinfringingcarpettile.Shemadethisdecisionwithinherassignedareaofresponsibility.As
aresult,herknowledgecanbeattributedtothecorporatedefendant.Thus,wereitnotfor
mypreviousfindingregardingtheapplicationoftheCopyrightAct,Iamsatisfiedthatthe
defendantwouldbeliableforsecondaryinfringementoftheplaintiffs’copyright.
6.1.3PublicPerformance
1.CanadianPerformingRightSocietyLimitedv.Lombardo,(1939),[1939]O.R.
262(Ont.C.A.),KellyJ..
So,inthepresentaction,anadmissionthatTheCanadianNationalExhibitionAssociationis
notrunfrommotivesofgainwillnothelpverygreatlyindeterminingwhetherthedance
pavilionwasoperatedand,moreparticularly,whetherthedefendantwasengagedandthe

52
performancescomplainedofauthorizedbythedirectorswithorwithoutmotivesofpecuniary
gaintotheexhibitionorassociation.Thatquestionmustdependontheevidenceofthe
motivesinducingthedirectorswithrelationtothedefendant’sengagement.
Oneimportantdistinctionmustbemade.Apersonororganizationmaydoathingformoney,
orevenforprofit,andyetthemotiveinducinghimtodothatthingmaynotbepecuniary
gain.Anexamplemaymakethisimportantdistinctionmoreclear.Supposeahost,inorderto
entertainsomeguests,suggeststhattheyplaycards.Theguestssaythattheyneverenjoy
cardsunlessplayedformoneystakes.Thehostmayfindplayingformoneymostdistasteful,
buttoentertainhisguestsmayconsentandthegameproceeds.Now,inthegame,thehost
isclearlyplayingformoneyand,iffortunateorskilful,maymakeaprofit.Itwouldremain
undeniablytruethathisonlymotiveinplayingwastopleasehisguestsandthatalthoughhe
playedcardsforgain,hedidsowithoutmotiveofgain.Thisdistinctionistomymindof
paramountimportanceinthiscase.[atp.268]
Itisnotformetosuggestwhatsortofperformancewouldbeonewithmotiveofgain.The
questionwillalwaysdependonevidenceandmaybeexceedinglydifficulttodetermine.If,
tomentiononeexample,inthiscasetheevidenceshowedthatthedefendantwas
engagedforthepurposeofmakingaprofittobolsterupotherwisefallingrevenues,this
wouldthenbeacase,inmyopinion,ofaperformancewithmotiveofgain.[atp.271]

2.Francis,Day&HunterLtd.v.TwentiethCenturyFoxCorp.,[1939]4D.L.R.353
(J.C.P.C.–Canada),WrightJ.
Therecannotbeaninfringementofperformingrightinamusicalcomposition(assumingitto
exist)unlesstherehasbeenapublicperformanceofthemusicalcompositionbythe
defendant.Butitisidletosuggestherethatbyanythingtherespondentshavedonethey
haveperformedthesonginanysense.Themotionpictureitistrue,iswhatiscalledatalkie
film.Butnotawordofthesongisrepeatedinanyformexceptthatthetitleisthrownonthe
filmattheoutset.Itwillbeconsideredlaterifthatconstitutedaninfringementoftheliterary
copyrightinthefilm.Buttosaythatthisbarefactwasapublicperformanceofamusical
compositionisabhorenttocommonsense.Amusicalcompositionisperformedbyaudible
reproduction,bythevoiceorbymusicalinstrumentsorbymechanicalmethodsof
reproduction.Nothingofthesortcanbepredicatedhere.[atpp.356-357]

3.Composers’,Authors’&PublishersAssociation(Canada)v.WesternFair
Association,[1951]S.C.R.596(S.C.C.)KerwinandKellockJJ.
Commencingwiththebasicpropositionthattheappellantisentitledtocopyrightinthe
musicalworksmentionedunlesstherespondentisable,onafairreadingoftheexceptionsin
s.17,tobringitselfwithinoneofthem,andbearinginmindthehistoryoftheenactment,and
particularlythefactthatin1936specialprovisionwasmadewithrespecttofeespaidtothe
individualperformersortheiragents,Iconcludethattherespondenthasnotsucceededin
bringingitselfwithinexception(vii)andthattheappealshouldbeallowed[…][KerwinJ.,at
p.601]
Whetheritwasorwasnotaperformancewithoutmotiveofgainonthepartofthe
defendants,itwasnotaperformancewithoutmotiveofgaintothebandconcerned,
whethertheperformancewasbeforethegrandstandtowhichaseparateentryfeewas
chargedorwhetheritwasinthebandstandwithintheexhibitiongroundsoutsidethe

53
grandstandandIcannotfindanyjustificationforreadingtheparagraphasmeaningthatso
longastheperformanceiswithoutmotiveofgaintothepersonsholdingtheexhibition,itis
protectedeveniftheactualperformerisderivingprivateprofit.Theobjectiontosucha
constructionisperhapsmoreclearlyevidentwhentheactionisbroughtagainsttheperson
whowaspaidforhisperformancethanwhenitisbroughtagainstthepersonswhoheldthe
exhibition.Itseemstometobeequallyclearthatinordertomakethesubsectionprotectthe
personwhoperformstheworkforhisownprivateprofit,thatis,withamotiveofgain,words
mustbeinterpolatedandtheparagraphmustbereadasaprovisoexcludingfromthe
generallawasestablishedbytheActtheperformance(towhichtheActbutfortheproviso
wouldextend)ofamusicalworkatanexhibitionorfair(ofthekinddescribedintheproviso)
solongassuchperformanceiswithoutmotiveofgaintothepersonsholdingtheexhibitionor
fair.Ithinkthatthesubsectioncouldnotinanactionbroughtagainstthepaidperformerbe
readinthewaysuggested;andifIamrightastothat,Idonotseehowitispossiblesoto
readitinanactionbroughtagainstotherpersons.Thereadingofthesection,Ithink,mustbe
thesamenomatterwhomaybethedefendantintheactioninwhichthebenefitofthe
provisoisinvoked.
[…]
WhileitisevidentthatParliamenthasintendedtogivesomemeasureoffreedomfrom
liabilitytopayroyaltiesinconnectionwiththeuseofcopyrightmaterialattheseexhibitions,it
isequallyplain,fromthepresenceinparagraph(vii)ofqualifyinglanguage,thatcomplete
immunitywasnotintended.ThedifficultyarisesfromthefailureonthepartofParliamentto
definewithoutambiguitythemeasureofimmunityintendedinparagraph(vii).[KellockJ.,at
p.605-606]
4.Composers’,Authors’&Publishers’Association(Canada)v.KiwanisClubof
WestToronto,[1953]2S.C.R.111(S.C.C.),RandJ.
Itisthe »publicperformance »thatistofurthertheobject.Nowundoubtedlytherecanbean
immediatecharitableobjectinconnectionwithandaspartofwhichaperformancecanbe
given.Singingorperformingmusicinandaspartofachurchserviceisdirectlyfurtheringthat
service,itselfacharitableobject;aneducationalmeetingwithmusicalinterpolationsis
carriedoninacharitablesenseandisitselfsuchanobject;andintherelieforameliorationof
poverty,theaccompanimentofthemusicofanorchestraataChristmasdinnergiventothe
poorthroughthemeansofvoluntarycontributionsisequallyso.Since,then,theprovisocan
besatisfiedbyaperformanceinthefurtheranceofacharitableactivityofwhichitfurnishes
oneofthefunctions,arewejustifiedinattributingtotheprovisotheintentiontoembracealso
anultimate,possibleandremoteresultfollowingaseriesofdisjoinedbusinesstransactions?
[…]
Theperformance,tobe »infurtheranceof »,must,Ishouldsay,beaparticipatingfactorinthe
charitableobjectitselforinanactivityincidentaltoit,forthepurposeofwhichtheobject
mayconsistofcomponentpartsofcognatecharacter;butitcouldnotbesaidtobeso
associatedwiththeobjectsherebyitsroleintheordinarybusinessentertainmentofadance:
thereisneitheraparticipationintheobjectnorinanythingincidentaltoit.[atpp.114-115]

54
5.MuzakCorporationv.Composers’,Authors’&Publishers’Association
(Canada),[1953]2S.C.R.182(S.C.C.),RandJ.andKellockJ.
Ontheargument,Mr.Manninggaveusaveryfullstatementofthescopeofcopyrightin
musicalcompositions.Itisdistributedintoanumberofinterestsboth »vertical »and »horizontal ».
Bysec.3ofthestatutethecopyrightholderhasthesoleright »toproduce,reproduce »,say,a
songinsheetformforordinarysale;toperformitinpublic;tomakearecordofitbymeans
enablingittobeperformedmechanically;toadaptandpresentitpubliclyby
cinematographyorradiocommunication.Theserights,again,maybelimitedtosaleor
productionorperformanceinspecifiedareasofspecifiedcountriesandtheymaybe
exclusivetoonepersonoropentothemarket.[RandJ.,atpp.188-189]
Unlesswhatisdonebyadefendantistosanction,approveorcountenanceactual
performance,itcannotbesaid,inmyopinion,thatithas »authorized »performance.Whileitis
truethattoperformbymeansofsuchamechanicalcontrivanceasishereinquestion
involvestheuseofrecordings,andwhiletheappellant,ontheevidence,hasauthorizedthe
useoftherecordingsinperforming,ithasnotauthorizedtheperformanceitselfandhas,
therefore,notinvadedanyrightoftherespondent.[KellockJ.,atp.193]
6.CanadianAdmiralCorp.v.Rediffusion,Inc.,(1954),[1954]Ex.C.R.382(Ex.
Ct.),CameronJ.
Thens.3defines »copyright »asthesolerighttodoortoauthorizetheactstherespecifiedin
relationtothe »work ».S.17(1)[nows.27]providesthatcopyrightinaworkshallbedeemedto
beinfringedbyanypersonwhowithouttheconsentoftheownerofthecopyrightdoes
anythingthesolerighttowhichisbytheActconferredontheownerofthecopyright.Subss.
(2)and(3)ofs.17constitutecertainotheractsasinfringementsofcopyright,butarenothere
ofimportance.Itfollows,therefore,thatnomatterhow »piratical »thetakingbyonepersonof
theworkofanothermayappeartobe,suchtakingcannotbeaninfringementoftherights
ofthelatterunlesscopyrightexistsinthat »work »undertheprovisionsofs.3.Copyrightis,in
factonlyanegativerighttopreventtheappropriationofthelaboursofanauthorby
another.[atp.390]
[…]
That,however,doesnotconcludethematter;mereperformanceisnotenough;inorderto
findthatthedefendantinfringedtheplaintiff’sright,Imustfindthattheperformancewas »in
public ».TheActdoesnotdefine »inpublic »anditwouldbeundesirableformetoattemptto
dosoexcepttostatethatIregarditastheantithesisof »inprivate ».Eachcasemustdepend
onitsownparticularfacts.
Ihavereadthecasesreferredtobycounselanditseemstomethatthetesttobeappliedis,
« Whatisthecharacteroftheaudience?[atp.404]
Astothecharacteroftheaudienceinhomesandapartmentstowhichthetelecastsofthe
livefilmswere »rediffused »bythedefendant,thereisnoevidencewhateverexceptthatthey
wereseenbythedefendant’ssubscribers,presumablyonlythehouseholders.Thecharacter
oftheaudiencewasthereforeapurelydomesticoneandtheperformanceineachcase
wasnotaperformanceinpublic.

55
[…]
Thesituation,however,isquitedifferentinregardtothedefendant’sBerriStreetshowroom.
Theevidenceisthattheshowroomwasoperatedbythedefendantforthepurposeof
demonstratingandsellingitsserviceswhichincludedtheleasingofitsterminalunits.The
showroomwasopentothepublic,andmembersofthepublicthereonvariousoccasions
sawthefilmtelecastsoftheplaintiffbroadcastonStationCBFT.Therewasnothingthereofa
domesticorquasi-domesticnatureandinmyopinionitwasaperformanceinpublicandan
infringementofthecopyrightoftheplaintiffinthecinematographfilms.Itwassuggestedby
counselforthedefendantthatafindingtothateffectmightseriouslyinterferewiththe
operationsofstoresalesmenofanytypeoftelevisionreceivingsets,andthatmaybeso.If,
however,theplaintiffhasestablisheditsrighttocopyright,itisentitledtotheprotection
affordedbytheActforsuchrightandtorestrainthedefendantfrominfringingthatrightno
matterwhattheconsequencestoothersmightbe.[atp.408-409]
7.PerformingRightsOrganizationofCanadaLtd.v.Liond’or(1981)Ltée
(1987),17C.P.R.(3d)542(F.C.T.D.),StrayerJ.
Counselforthedefendantscontendsthattherewasnoproofthattheindividualdefendant
GeraldBastarachewasresponsibleforthemanagementofthecabaretandthereforefor
themusicwhichmaybeplayedthere.Itistruethatthereisnodirectevidenceonthispoint
butIthinkImayreasonablyconcludeonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatGeraldBastarache
wasinapositiontocontrolthemusicplayedatthiscabaret.Hemaythereforebetreatedas
a »personwhoforhisprivateprofitpermitsatheatreorotherplaceofentertainmenttobe
usedfortheperformanceinpublicoftheworkwithouttheconsentoftheownerofthe
copyright… »;andthusbysubs.17(5)[nowsubsection27(5)]maybedeemedresponsiblefor
anyinfringementofcopyrightwhichmayhaveoccurred.Icometothisconclusionbecause
GeraldBastarachewasadirectorofthedefendantcorporationasshownintheannual
returnfor1985andinthereturnfiledwiththeDepartmentofJustice,CorporateandTrust
AffairsBranch,GovernmentofNewBrunswick,onJanuary30,1987.Hewasagainshownasa
directorinanannualreturnfiledwiththesamebranchonJuly7,1987.Whenhewas
contactedpersonallyaboutthismatteronSeptember19,1985,hereferredtheplaintiff’s
representativetohislawyerLampertandheengagedinameetingonthesubjectwith
LampertandAlbertonOctober31,1985.Alberttestifiedthathesawthedefendant
Bastaracheatthecabaretonatleasttwoofthethreenightswhenhewasthereas
describedabove.Attheexaminationfordiscoveryofthedefendants,Bastarachewas
authorizedtoanswerforthedefendantcorporationinrespectofthemattersinissue.Allof
thesefactsleadtotheconclusionthatBastarachewassufficientlyinvolvedwiththe
managementofthecabarettobeinapositiontohavewithdrawnpermissionforthe
performanceofanysongsthatmightinfringecopyright.Theremayhavebeenotherpersons
whohavenotbeenaddedasdefendantswhomightequallyhavebeeninsuchaposition
butthatdoesnoteliminatehisresponsibility.ItisalsosignificantthatneitherBastarachenor
anyoneelseappearedonhisbehalfasawitnesstoexplainawaytheforegoingfactswhich
implyhisresponsibilityinthematter.[atp.545]
8.TitanSportsInc.v.MansionHouse(Toronto)Ltd.(1989),26C.I.P.R.105
(F.C.T.D.),MacKayJ.

56
Unauthorizedvenuesapparentlyhaveaccesstothetelevisionsignalcarryingtheapplicants’
performancebysatellitetransmissionthroughtheacquisition,fromanunauthorizedsupplier
ofelectronicequipment,ofanunscramblerboxwhichhasbeenwiredtocontainan
unauthorizedsiliconechipspeciallyprogrammed,withoutauthorityoftheowners,toprovide
accesstothesignal.WhiletheVideoCipherIItechnologyseemshighlysophisticatedand
effectiveforthepurposesofscramblinganddescramblingtelevisionsignals,itsfunctioncan
apparentlybeduplicatedrelativelyeasilybyso-called »pirates ».
Itseemsclearthatiftherebeunauthorizedshowingofthetelevisionprogramtowhichthe
applicantshavecopyright,thiswouldconstituteaninfringementunderss.27(1)and27(5),
thatisthedoingofsomethingthatonlytheownerofcopyrightmaydoorauthorize,or
permittingtheperformanceinpublicofaworkwithouttheconsentoftheownerofthe
copyrightforprivateprofit.[atp.110]

9.deTervagnev.Beloeil(Town)(1993),50C.P.R.(3d)419(F.C.T.D.)JoyalJ.,at
p.437:
BasedonthecaselawIhaveexamined,Icannotfindthatthedefendantshaveanyliability
forthecopyrightinfringementcommitted.Thedefendantsdidnotauthorizethe
performancesoftheplayPique-NiqueenVillewithinthemeaningofsubsection3(1)ofthe
Act.Thequestionofauthorizationisaquestionoffactineachcase.Inthiscase,theproducer
oftheplay,Mr.Bossac,alonehadcontrolovertheplay.Theotherdefendantswerenotin
suchapositionaswouldhaveenabledthemtoauthorizetheinfringement.Themerefact
thatthetownofBeloeilandLesProductionsdelaCoulisseInc.rentedthehalltoMr.Bossac,
eventhoughthisinawaymadepossibleorfacilitatedtheinfringement,doesnotsupporta
findingthattheyauthorizedtheperformanceofaplaywhichinfringedcopyright.The
defendantscouldreasonablyhaveassumedthatthepurposeofrentingthehallwasto
presentaplayinalawfulmanner.
10.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav.1041977
OntarioInc.[1996-10-04]http://www.fja.gc.ca/cf/1996/ori/1996cf19480.html
(FCTD-Pleadings)ProthonotaryGiles
Thestandardpracticewithregardtograntingleavetoamend,istorefuseleavewhenthe
proposedamendedpleadingwouldbestruckoutunderRule419(1)(a).Heretheproposed
defence,thatthecorporatedefendantdidnotauthorizeorcausetheperformanceorany
liveorrecordedmusic,doesnotprovideadefencetoclaimunders.27(5)thatthe
defendantpermittedaplaceofentertainmenttobeusedfortheperformanceinpublicof
thework.[atp.2]

§7.0ListofCases
§7.1Canada
§7.1.1Directinfringementgeneral
1.Gemmillv.Garland(1886),12O.R.139(Ont.Ch.D.);rev’d(1887),14
S.C.R.321.

57
2.Beaucheminv.Cadieux(1899),10B.R.255(Que.Sup.Ct.);rev’d(1900),
10B.R.255(Que.C.A.);aff’d(1901),31S.C.R.370(Que.Sup.Ct.-
Damages).
3.Cartwrightv.Wharton(1912),1D.L.R.392(Ont.H.C.J.).
4.Deeksv.Wells,[1930]4D.L.R.513(Ont.H.C.J.);aff’d[1931]4D.L.R.533
(Ont.C.A.);aff’d(1932),[1933]1D.L.R.353,[1928,35]MacG.Cop.Cas.
353(J.C.P.C.-Canada).
5.Gribblev.ManitobaFreePressCo.,[1931]3D.L.R.648(Man.Q.B.);rev’d
[1932]1D.L.R.169(C.A.).
6.Kantelv.Grant,[1933]Ex.C.R.84(Ex.Ct.).
7.CanadianPerformingRightSocietyLtd.v.CanadianNationalExhibition
Assn.,[1934]4D.L.R.154(Ont.H.C.J.).
8.UnderwritersSurveyBureauLimitedv.Massie&RenwickLimited,[1936]
2D.L.R.341(Ex.Ct.-Interlocutory);[1937]Ex.C.R.15(Ex.Ct.);rev’d
[1937]2D.L.R.213(Quash);[1938]2D.L.R.31(Ex.Ct.);rev’dinpart
[1940]1D.L.R.625;leavetoappealrefused[1940]S.C.R.ix(P.C.);
(1941),1C.P.R.207(Ex.Ct.–Referee);reportvar’d(1941),1C.P.R.224
(Ex.Ct.-Reference).
9.CanadianPerformingRightSocietyLtd.v.CanadianNationalExhibition
Ass’n,[1938]2D.L.R.621(Ont.H.C.J.).
10.FrancisDay&HunterLtd.v.TwentiethCenturyFoxCorp.,[1937]4D.L.R.
700(Ont.H.C.J.);rev’d[1938]3D.L.R.375(Ont.C.A.);(1939),8F.L.J.163
(J.C.P.C.-motionforleave);aff’d[1939]4AllE.R.192(J.C.P.C.-Canada).
11.InternationalPressLtd.v.Tunnell(1937),[1938]1D.L.R.393(Ont.C.A.).
12.Underwriters’SurveyBureauLtd.v.AmericanHomeFireAssuranceCo.
[1939]4D.L.R.89(Ex.Ct.).
13.CanadianPerformingRightSocietyLtd.v.Vigneux(1942),2C.P.R.59
(Ex.Ct.);var’d(1943),2C.P.R.259;rev’d(1945),4C.P.R.65(J.C.P.C.).
14.Zamacoïsv.Douville(1943),inEnglishtranslationat[1944]Ex.C.R.208,2
C.P.R.270,inFrenchtextat[1945]R.L.155(Ex.Ct.).
15.KingFeaturesSyndicateInc.vLechter(1950),12C.P.R.60(Ex.Ct.).
16.Moreauv.St.Vincent(1950),12C.P.R.32(Exc.Ct.).
9.MapleLeafBroadcastingCo.v.Composers’,Authors’&Publishers’
Assn.(Canada)(1953),18C.P.R.1(Ex.Ct.);Aff’d(1954),21C.P.R.45
(S.C.C.).

58
17.Muzakcorporationv.Composers’,Authors’&Publishers’Assn.
(Canada)(1953),19C.P.R.1(S.C.C.).
18.CanadianAdmiralCorp.v.Rediffusion,Inc.(1954),20C.P.R.75(Ex.Ct.).
19.StandardIndustriesInc.v.Rosen(1954),24C.P.R.41(Ont.H.C.J.).
20.KilvingtonBros.Ltd.v.Goldberg(1957),28C.P.R.13(Ont.S.C.).
21.Hayv.Saunders(1958),30C.P.R.81(Ont.H.C.J.).
22.Cardwellv.Leduc(1962),41C.P.R.167(Ex.Ct.).
23.CTVTelevisionNetworkLtd.v.Composers’Authors’&Publishers’Assn.
(Canada)(1966),48C.P.R.246(Exc.Ct.);aff’d(1968),55C.P.R.132
(S.C.C.).
24.Hrycykv.Smichure(1966),53C.P.R.177(Alta.S.C.).
25.LudlowMusicInc.v.CanintMusicCorp.(1967),51C.P.R.278(Ex.Ct.).
26.WarnerBrothersSevenArtsInc.v.CESM-TVLtd.(1969),58C.P.R.97(Ex.
Ct.-Pleadings);rev’d(1971),65C.P.R.215(Ex.Ct.).
27.Webb&Knapp(Canada)Ltd.v.Edmonton(City)(1969),3D.L.R.(3d)
(Alta.C.A.);rev’dinpart(1970),63C.P.R.21(S.C.C.).
28.Goldnerv.CanadianBroadcastingCorporation(1972),7C.P.R.(2d)
158(F.C.T.D.);applicationforleavetoadduceadditionalevidence
refused(1974),13C.P.R.(2d)230(F.C.A.–Evidence);appealA-200-72
dismissedonthemerit1980.04.09(F.C.A.).
29.T.J.MooreCo.v.AccessoiresdebureaudeQuébecInc.,[1973]F.C.D-
1413,Englishtranslationat14C.P.R.(2d)113(F.C.T.D.)
30.Collinsv.Rosenthal(1974),14C.P.R.(2d)143(F.C.T.D.).
31.CompoCo.v.BlueCrestMusicInc.(1975),17C.P.R.(2d)149(F.C.T.D.);
rev’d17C.P.R.(2d)149(F.C.T.D.);(1976),30C.P.R.(2d)14(F.C.A.);
(1980),45C.P.R.(2d)1(S.C.C.).
32.FlybyNiteMusicco.v.RecordWherehouseLtd.(1975),20C.P.R.(2d)
263(F.C.T.D.).
33.Fetherlingv.Boughner(1978),40C.P.R.(2d)253(Ont.H.C.J.).
34.LeNordetInc.c.82558CanadaLtée,[1978]C.S.904(Que.Sup.Ct.-
Interlocutory);judgmentbyconsentonthemerit1979.10.25(Que.Sup.
Ct.).

59
35.ProArtsInc.v.CampusCraftsHoldingsLtd.(1980),50C.P.R.(2d)230
(Ont.H.C.J.).
36.ATVMusicPublishingofCanadaLtd.v.RogersRadioBroadcastingLtd.
(1982),65C.P.R.(2d)109(Ont.H.C.J.).
37.Gondosv.Hardy(1982),38O.R.(2d)555,64C.P.R.(2d)145(Ont.
H.C.J.).
38.R.v.Stewart(1982),74C.P.R.(2d)1(Ont.H.C.);rev’d(1983),74C.P.R.
(2d)1(Ont.C.A.);rev’d(1988),21C.P.R.(3d)289(S.C.C.).
39.Boulianec.ServicedeMusiqueBonanzaInc.[1983]Que.Sup.Ct.1190;
aff’dinpart(1986),18C.I.P.R.214(Que.C.A.).
40.B.C.JockeyClubv.Standen(WinbarPublications)(1983),73C.P.R.(2d)
164(B.C.S.C.);aff’d(1985),8C.P.R.(3d)283(B.C.C.A.).
41.Bishopv.Stevens(1984),[1985]1F.C.755,(sub.NomBishopv.Télé-
MetropoleInc.)4C.P.R.(3d)349(F.C.T.D.);rev’dinpart(1987),18C.P.R.
(3d)257(F.C.A.);aff’d(1990),31C.P.R.(3d)394(S.C.C.).
42.C.P.KochLtd.v.ContinentalSteelLtd.(1984),82C.P.R.(2d)156
(B.C.S.C.);aff’d(1985),4C.P.R.(3d)395(B.C.C.A.).
43.R.v.JamesLorimer&Co.(1984),77C.P.R.(2d)262(F.C.A.).
44.Sociétéd’informatiqueR.D.G.Inc.c.DynabecLtée.(1984),6C.P.R.
(3d)299(Que.Sup.Ct.-Interlocutory);aff’d(1985),6C.P.R.(3d)322
(Que.C.A.-Interlocutory);declarationofsettlementoutofcourtfiled
1986.09.16.
45.Hopkins(Tom)InternationalInc.v.Wall&RedekopRealityLtd.(1984),1
C.P.R.(3d)348(B.C.S.C.);var’d(1985),6C.P.R.(3d)475(B.C.C.A.).
46.BaylinerMarineCorp.v.DoralBoatsLtd.(1985),5C.P.R.(3d)289
(F.C.T.D.);rev’d(1986),10C.P.R.(3d)289(F.C.A.);leavetoappeal
refused(1986),14C.P.R.(3d)446(note)(S.C.C.).
47.CanadianTireCorporationv.R.C.V.,Local1518ofU.F.C.W.(1985),7
C.P.R.(3d)415(F.C.T.D.).
48.AppleComputerInc.v.MackintoshComputersLtd.(1985),3C.P.R.(3d)
34(F.C.T.D.-Interlocutory);(1986),10C.P.R.(3d)1(F.C.T.D.);additional
reasonsat(1987),14C.I.P.R.315(F.C.T.D.-Supplementary);var’d(1987),
18C.P.R.(3d)129(C.A.);aff’d(1990),30C.P.R.(3d)257(S.C.C.)
49.CooperCanadaLtd.v.AmerSportInternationalInc.(1986),9C.P.R.
(3d)549(F.C.T.D.).

60
50.ÉcoledeConduiteTecnicAubéInc.v.15098858QuébecInc.(1986),
12C.I.P.R.284(Que.Sup.Ct.);appeal500-09-000807-867and500-09-
000775-866.
51.GemologistsInternationalInc.v.GemScanInternationalInc.(1986),9
C.P.R.(3d)253(Ont.H.C.J.).
52.SelectionTestingConsultantsInternationalLtd.v.HumanexInternational
Inc.(1986),10C.P.R.(3d)277(F.C.T.D.-Pleadings;(1986),11C.P.R.(3d)
574(F.C.T.D.-Evidence);(1986),9C.I.P.R.178(F.C.T.D.-Interim);(1987),14
C.P.R.(3d)234(F.C.T.D.-Contempt);(1987),15C.P.R.(3d)13(F.C.T.D.-
Interlocutory).
53.Tele-Direct(Pulications)Inc.v.IntraCanadaTelecommunicationsLtd.
(1986),13C.P.R.(3d)529(Que.Sup.Ct.).
54.MontourLtéev.Jolicoeur,[1987]R.J.Q.2482(Que.Sup.Ct.).
55.Aldrichv.OneStopVideoLtd.(1987),17C.P.R.(3d)27(B.C.S.C.);
(1987),6A.C.W.S.(3d)102(B.C.C.A.-Leavetoappealgranted).
56.DictionnairesRobertCanadaSCCv.LibrairieduNomadeInc.(1987),16
C.P.R.(3d)319(F.C.T.D.);aff’d(1990),37F.T.R.240(note)(F.C.A.).
57.Geremiav.Maric(1987),17C.P.R.(3d)433(F.C.T.D.).
58.NewEraPublicationsInternational,SpAv.Key-PorterBooksLtd.(1987),
18C.P.R.(3d)t562(F.C.T.D.).
59.PrismHospitalSoftwareInc.v.HospitalMedicalRecordsInstitute(1987),
18C.P.R.(3d)398(B.C.S.C.);leavetoappealrefused(1987),18C.P.R.
(3d)401(B.C.C.A.).
60.R.v.MilesofMusicLtd.(1987),14C.P.R.(3d)181(Ont.Prov.Ct.);aff’d
(1987),18C.P.R.(3d)77(Ont.H.C.J.);rev’d(1989),24C.P.R.(3d)301
(Ont.C.A.).
61.RôtisseriesSt-HubertLtéec.Syndicatdestravailleurs(euses)dela
rôtisserieSt-HubertdeDrummondville(CSN)(1987),17C.P.R.(3d)461
(Que.Sup.Ct.);appeal500-09-000068-874withdrawn1987.02.20(Que.
C.A.).
62.Vergev.ImperialOilLtd.(1987),15C.P.R.(3d)187(F.C.T.D.);aff’d
(1988),23C.P.R.(3d)159(F.C.A.).
63.Habitationsduboiséd’enhautInc.v.YvesBilodeauDessinateurInc.
(1988),20C.I.P.R.168(Que.Sup.Ct.);appeal599-09-001209-881
withdrawn1988.11.14.

61
64.SystèmeinformatisésSolartronixc.C.E.G.E.P.deJonquière(1988),22
C.I.P.R.101(Que.Sup.Ct.-Interlocutory);[1990]R.J.Q.1071,38C.P.R.
(3d)143(Que.Sup.Ct.);appeal200-09-000495-903.
65.Milionisv.Petropoulos(1988),23C.P.R.(3d)52(Ont.H.C.J.)
66.MLWSystemsinEducationLtd.v.HartsSystemsLtd.(1988),22C.P.R.
(3d)90(B.C.S.C.).
67.BritishColumbiav.Mihaljevic(1986),2B.C.L.R.(2d)190(B.C.S.C.-
Interlocutory);(1989),26C.P.R.(3d)184(B.C.S.C.);aff’d(1991),36C.P.R.
(3d)445(B.C.C.A.);leavetoappealrefused(1992),39C.P.R.(3d)v
(S.C.C.).
68.CandourgroupEnterprisesInc.v.ArgonFinancialConsultantsInc.
(1989),25C.P.R.(3d)555(B.C.S.C.).
69.ConstructionsNouvelleDimensionInc.c.Berthiaume(1989),24C.I.P.R.
312(Que.Civ.Div.).
70.ÉditionsHurtubiseHMHLtéev.CégepAndré-Laurendeau,[1989]R.J.Q.
1003(Que.Sup.Ct.);partialsettlementoutofcourtfiled1991.01.10
(Que.Sup.Ct.).
71.EuclidIndustriesCanadaLtd.v.RegHollowaySalesInc.(1989),27
C.P.R.(3d)281(F.C.T.D.).
72.FourgonsTransitInc.v.FourgonsRamcoInc.(1989),26C.P.R.(3d)565
(F.C.T.D.).
73.HuttonandDenailMusicv.CanadianBroadcastingCorp.(1989),29
C.P.R.(3d)398(Alta.Q.B.);aff’d(1992),41C.P.R.(3d)45(Alta.C.A.).
74.NorthAmericanSystemshopsLtd.v.King(1989),27C.P.R.(3d)367(Alta.
Q.B.).
75.TitanSportsInc.v.MansionHouse(Toronto)Ltd.(1989),28C.P.R.(3d)
199(F.C.T.D.).
76.EnergyAbsorptionSystemsInc.v.Y.Boissonneault&FilsInc.(1990),30
C.P.R.(3d)420(F.C.T.D.).
77.OverseasEnterpisesLtd.v.FeathersPublishing&MarketingInc.(1990),
34C.P.R.(3d)78(F.C.T.D.-Interlocutory).
78.ParamountPicturesCorp.v.Howley(1991),39C.P.R.(3d)419(Ont.
Gen.Div.).
79.Sklar-PepplerSalesv.Decor-RestFurnitureLtd.(1990),36C.P.R.(3d)12
(F.C.T.D.).

62
80.Cartes-en-cielInc.v.BoutiqueElfeInc.(1991),43C.P.R.(3d)416(Que.
Prov.Ct.).
81.Grigronv.Roussel(1991),38C.P.R.(3d)4(F.C.T.D.);appealwithdrawn.
82.91439CanadaLtéev.ÉditionsJCLInc.(1992),41C.P.R.(3d)245
(F.C.T.D.);rev’dinpart(1994),58C.P.R.(3d)38(F.C.A.).
83.Caronv.Assn.DesPompiersdeMontréal(1992),42C.P.R.(3d)292
(F.C.T.D.);inappealA-450-92.
84.CanadianCableTelevisionAssn.-AssociationCanadiennedeTélévision
parCablev.Canada(CopyrightBoard)(1991),34C.P.R.(3d)521
(F.C.T.D.);aff’d(1993),46C.P.R.(3d)359(F.C.A.);applicationforleave
toappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadarefused(1993),51C.P.R.
(3d)v(S.C.C.).
85.DeTervagnev.Beloeil(Ville)(1993),50C.P.R.(3d)419(F.C.T.D.).
86.HumeurDesignInc.v.Ohayon(1993),94L.P.J.1935(Que.Sup.Ct.-
Interlocutory);(1994),L.P.J.S.1967(Que.Sup.Ct.-Contempt).
87.W.I.VillagerLtd.v.GiantTigerStoresLtd.(unreported),(Fed.T.D.).Doc.
No.T-147-94,ReedJ.,March19,1994(unreported)(F.C.T.D.-Practice);
(unreported)(Fed.T.D.),Doc.No.T-147-94DubéJ.,March19,1994
(F.C.T.D.-Practice).
88.SystèmesFortune1000Ltéev.St-Pierre(1995),J.E.95-1132(Que.Sup.
Ct.).
89.Lewickiv.DixieElectricLtd.(1995),61C.P.R.(3d)75(F.C.T.D.-
InterlocutoryInjunction).
90.Bernaquezv.Poirier(1996),[1996]A.Q.3430(Que.Sup.Ct.).
91.ProductionsAvantiCiné-VidéoInc.v.Favreau(1997),[1997]R.J.Q.1918
(Que.Sup.Ct.);rev’d(1999),[1999]R.J.Q.1939(Que.C.A.).
92.LomingerLimitedInc.v.Raymond,Chabot,Martin,Paré(1999),[1999]
F.C.J.62(F.C.T.D.Pron.-Strike).
93.CCHCanadianLimitedv.TheLawsocietyofUpperCanada(1999),
[1999]F.C.J.1647(T.D.).
94.Candowv.Savory(2000),[2000]N.J.228(Nfld.T.D.).
§7.1.2Directinfringement:consentofowner

63
1.MuzakCorporationv.Composers©,Authors©&Publishers©Assn.(Canada)
(1953),19C.P.R.1(S.C.C.).
2.Netupskyv.DominionBridgeCo.(1968),56C.P.R.134(B.C.S.C.);rev’d
(1969),58C.P.R.7(B.C.C.A.);(1969),61C.P.R.150(B.C.C.A.);rev’d
(1971),3C.P.R.(2d)1(S.C.C.).
3.WarnerBrothersSevenArtsInc.v.CESM-TVLtd.(1969),58C.P.R.97(Ex.
Ct–Pleadings);rev’d(1971),65C.P.R.215(Ex.Ct.).
4.Webb&Knapp(Canada)Ltd.v.Edmonton(City)(1969),3D.L.R.(3d)
123(Alta.C.A.);rev’dinpart(1970),63C.P.R.21(S.C.C.).
5.CompoCo.v.BlueCrestMusicInc.(1974),17C.P.R.(2d)149(F.C.T.D.);
rev’d(1976),30C.P.R.(2d)14(F.C.A.);aff’d(1979),45C.P.R.(2d)1
(S.C.C.).
6.Fetherlingv.Boughner(1978),40C.P.R.(2d)253(Ont.H.C.J.).
7.Silversonv.NeonProductsLtd.(1978),39C.P.R.(2d)234(B.C.S.C.).
8.JohnMaryonInternationalLtd.v.NewBrunswickTelephoneCo.Ltd.
(1981),33N.B.R.(2d)543,80A.P.R.543(Q.B.);var’d(1982),43N.B.R.(2d)
469,113A.P.R.469,24C.C.L.T.146(C.A.);leavetoappealtoS.C.C.
refused[1982]2S.C.R.viii(S.C.C.).
9.ADILtd.v.Destein(1982),68C.P.R.(2d)262(N.B.Q.B.).
10.Kaffkav.MountainSideDevelopmentsLtd.(1982),62C.P.R.(2d)157
(B.C.S.C.).
11.Bishopv.Stevens(1984),[1985]1F.C.755,(subnomBishopv.Télé-
MetropoleInc.)4C.P.R.(3d)349(F.C.T.D.);rev’dinpart(1987),18C.P.R.
(3d)257(F.C.A.);aff’d[1990]2S.C.R.467(S.C.C.).
12.C.P.KochLtd.v.ContinentalSteelLtd.(1984),82C.P.R.(2d)156
(B.C.S.C.);aff’d(1985),4C.P.R.(3d)395(B.C.C.A.).
13.Katzv.Cytrynbaum(1983),76C.P.R.(2d)276(B.C.C.A.).
14.Slumber-MagicAdjustableBedCo.v.Sleep-KingAdjustableBedCo.
(1984),3C.P.R.(3d)81(B.C.S.C.).
15.PaulCouvrettePhotographsInc.v.TheOttawaCitizen(1985),7C.P.R.
(3d)552(Ont.Prov.ct.).
16.Hétuv.Sabourin(1986),17C.P.R.(3d)204(Que.Prov.Ct.).
17.SelectionTestingConsultantsInternationalLtd.v.HumanexInternational
Inc.(1986),10C.P.R.(3d)277(F.C.T.D.–Pleadings;(1986),11C.P.R.(3d)

64
574(F.C.T.D.–Evidence);[1986]3F.C.D-15(F.C.T.D.–Interim);(1987),
14C.P.R.(3d)234(F.C.T.D.–Contempt);(1987),15C.P.R.(3d)13
(F.C.T.D.–Interlocutory).
18.ÉditionsHurtubiseHMHLtéev.CégepAndré-Laurendeau,[1989]R.J.Q.
1003(Que.Sup.Ct.);partialsettlementoutofcourtfiled1991.01.10
(Que.Sup.Ct.).
19.LifestyleHomesLtd.v.RandallHomesLtd.(1990),30C.P.R.(3d)76
(Q.B.);aff’d(1991),34C.P.R.(3d)505(C.A.).
20.PizzaPizzaLtd.v.Gillespie(1990),33C.P.R.(3d)515(Ont.Gen.Div.).
21.AmusementsWiltronInc.c.Mainville,[1991]R.J.Q.1930,(subnom.
AmusementsWiltronInc.v.Mainville)40C.P.R.(3d)521(Que.Sub.Ct.).
22.Cartes-en-cielInc.v.BoutiqueElfeInc.,[1991]R.J.Q.1775(Que.Prov.
Ct.).
23.Sedgewickv.AtlanticMediaworksLtd.(1991),38C.P.R.(3d)526
(N.B.Q.B.);aff’d(1991),29A.C.W.S.(3d)983(N.B.C.A.).
24.CselkoAssociatesInc.v.ZellersInc.(1992),44C.P.R.(3d)56(Ont.Gen.
Div.);appealC12800.
25.955105OntarioInc.v.Video99(1993),48C.P.R.(3d)204(Ont.Gen.
Div.).
26.Fletcherv.PolkaDotFabricsLtd.(1993),51C.P.R.(3d)241(Ont.Gen.
Div.).
§7.1.3Directinfringement:parody
1.LudlowMusicInc.v.CanintMusicCorp.(1967),51C.P.R.278(Ex.Ct.).
2.ATVMusicPublishingofCanadaLtd.v.RogersRadioBroadcastingLtd.
(1982),65C.P.R.(2d)109(Ont.H.C.J.).
3.ProductionsLance&CompteInc.c.Corp.desConcessionnaires
GeneralMotorsduMontréalmétropolitain(1988),18C.I.P.R.54(Que.
Sup.Ct.–Interim);(1988),18C.I.P.R.45(Que.Sup.Ct.–Interlocutory);
declarationsofsettlementoutofcourtfiled1989.01.11(Que.Sup.Ct.).
4.ProductionsO.P.Inc.c.GroupeMorrowInc.(1988),26C.P.R.(3d)223
(Que.Sup.Ct.–Interlocutory);declarationofsettlementoutofcourt
filed1990.02.06(Que.Sup.Ct.).

65
§7.1.4IndirectInfringement:General
1.Clarke,Irvin&Co.v.Cole&Co.(1959),33C.P.R.173(Ont.H.C.J.).
2.EldonIndustriesInc.v.ReliableToyCo.(1964),28FoxPat.C.163(Ont.
H.C.J.);aff’d(1965),48C.P.R.109(Ont.C.A.).
3.R.v.Fraser(1965),51D.L.R.(2d)408(B.C.C.A.);rev.d(1966),59D.L.R.
(2d)240(S.C.C.).
4.R.v.Rioux,[1968]B.R.942n(C.A.);aff’d[1969]S.C.R.599,[1970]3C.C.C.
149(S.C.C.).
5.Godfrey,MacSkimming&BacqueLtd.v.ColesBookStoresLtd.(1973),
13C.P.R.(2d)89(Ont.H.C.J.).
6.R.v.Small(1973),12C.C.C.(2d)145(B.C.C.A.).
7.FlybyNiteMusicCo.v.RecordWherehouseLtd.(1975),20C.P.R.(2d)
263(F.C.T.D.).
8.Simon&SchusterInc.v.ColesBookStoresLtd.(1975),23C.P.R.(2d)43
(Ont.H.C.J.).
9.R.v.SudburyNewsServiceLimited(1977),37C.C.C.(3d)40(Ont.
H.C.J.);var’d(1978),39C.C.C.(2d)1(Ont.C.A.).
10.Therrienv.ScholaInc.(1981),[1982]1F.C.D-864(F.C.T.D.).
11.AppleComputerInc.v.ComputermatInc.(1983),75C.P.R.(2d)26
(Ont.H.C.J.–Interlocutory);(1985),3C.P.R.(3d)407(Ont.H.C.J.–
Interlocutory).
12.B.C.JockeyClubv.Standen(WinbarPublications)(1983),73C.P.R.(2d)
164(B.C.S.C.);aff’d(1985),8C.P.R.(3d)283(B.C.C.A.).
13.A&MRecordsofCanadaLtd.v.MillbankMusicCorp.Ltd.(1984),1
C.P.R.(3d)354(F.C.T.D.).
14.DuomoInc.v.GiftcraftLtd.(1984),1C.P.R.(3d)395(F.C.T.D.–Practice);
(1984),1C.P.R.(3d)165(F.C.T.D.–Interlocutory).
15.AppleComputerInc.v.MackintoshComputersLtd.(1985),3C.P.R.(3d)
34(F.C.T.D.–Interlocutory);(1986),10C.P.R.(3d)1(F.C.T.D.);additional
reasonsat(1987),43D.L.R.(4
th)184(F.C.T.D.–Supplementary);var’d
(1987),18C.P.R.(3d)129F.C.A.);aff’d(1990),30C.P.R.(3d)257.
16.Breenv.HancockHousePublishersLtd.(1985),6C.P.R.(3d)433
(F.C.T.D.).
17.R.v.Germain(1985),21D.L.R.(4
th)296(S.C.C.).

66
18.CooperCanadaLtd.v.AmerSportInternationalInc.(1986),9C.P.R.
(3d)549(F.C.T.D.).
19.GemologistsInternationalInc.v.GemScanInternationalInc.(1986),9
C.P.R.(3d)253(Ont.H.C.J.).
20.R.v.Harris(1987),35C.C.C.(3d)1(Ont.C.A.).
21.Milionisv.Petropoulos(1988),23C.P.R.(3d)52(Ont.H.C.J.).
22.R.v.Ghnaim(1988),28C.P.R.(3d)463(Prov.Ct.);rev’dinpart(1989),32
C.P.R.(3d)487(Alta.C.A.).
23.ÉditionHurtubiseHMHLtéev.CégepAndré-Laurendeau,[1989]R.J.Q.
1003(Que.Sup.Ct.);partialsettlementoutofcourtfiled1991.01.10
(Que.Sup.Ct.).
24.EuclidIndustriesCanadaLtd.v.RegHollowaySalesInc.(1989),27
C.P.R.(3d)281(F.C.T.D.).
25.Fletcherv.PolkaDotFabricsLtd.(1993),51C.P.R.(3d)241(Ont.Gen.
Div.).
26.R.v.Jorgensen(1995),129D.L.R.(4
th)510(S.C.C.).
27.R.v.M.(J.P.)(1996),67C.P.R.(3d)152(N.S.C.A.).
28.B.W.InternationalInc.v.ThomsonCanadaLtd.(1996),68C.P.R.(3d)
289(Ont.Gen.Div.).
29.SocietyofComposers,AuthorsandMusicPublishersofCanadav.
1041977OntarioInc.(unreported)1996.10.04,ProthonotaryGiles,Doc.
T-363-96(F.C.T.D.-Pleadings).
30.CompagniegénéraledesétablissementsMichelin–Michelin&Ciev.
NationalAutomobile,Aerospace,TransportationandGeneralWorkers
UnionofCanada(CAW–Canada)(1996),71C.P.R.(3d)348,71C.P.R.
(3d)vi(F.C.T.D.);appealA-38-97discontinuedon1997-11-10.
31.NFLEnterprisesL.P.v.1019491OntarioLtd.(1997),72C.P.R.(3d)1
(F.C.T.D.–SummaryJudgment);rev’d(1998),85C.P.R.(3d)328(F.C.A.).
32.Wallv.VanBrunell(1997),75C.P.R.(3d)429,(F.C.T.D.-Summary
Judgment);affd(2000),7CPR(4
th)321,(F.C.A.)
33.Milliken&Companyv.InterfaceFlooringSystems(Canada)inc.(1998),
[1998]3F.C.103(FCTD-Merits);affd(2000),5C.P.R.(4
th)209(F.C.A.).
§7.1.5Indirectinfringement:importation

67
1.Anglo-CanadianMusicPublishers©Assn.v.J.Suckling&Sons(1889),17
O.R.239(Ont.H.C.J.).
2.MaisondulivrefrançaisdeMontréalInc.v.InstitutLittéraireduQuébec
Ltée(1957),31C.P.R.69(Que.Sup.Ct.).
3.Clarke,Irwin&Co.v.Cole&Co.(1959),33C.P.R.173(Ont.H.C.J.).
4.LibrairieLarousse(Canada)Limitéev.Ollu,(unreported),Que.Sup.Ct.,
Doc.No.500-05-738633,LamarreJ.,February5,1968.
5.Godfrey,MacSkimming&BacqueLtd.v.ColesBookStoresLtd.(1973),
13C.P.R.(2d)89(Ont.H.C.J.).
6.RoyExportCo.Extablishmentv.Gauthier(1973),10C.P.R.(2d)11
(F.C.T.D.).
7.McClelland&StewartLtd.v.ColesBookStoresLtd.(1974),21C.P.R.(2d)
270(F.C.T.D.).
8.FlybyNiteMusicCo.v.RecordWherehouseLtd.,[1975]F.C.386,20
C.P.R.(2d)263(F.C.T.D.).
9.Simon&SchusterInc.v.ColesBookStoresLtd.(1975),23C.P.R.(2d)43
(Ont.H.C.J.).
10.DictionnairesRobertCanadaSCCv.PressesMétropolitainesInc.,
(unreported),Que.Sup.Ct.–Interlocutory,Doc.No.500-05-000608-800,
DeslongchampsJ.,February21,1980;appeal500-09-000232-801onthe
interlocutorywithdrawnFebruary15,1982(Que.C.A);consent
judgmentonthemeritFebruary15,1982(Que.Sup.Ct.).
11.DictionnairesRobertCanadaS.C.C.v.LibrairieLeméacInc.
(unreported)(Que.S.C.),Doc.No.500-05-000606-804,Deslongchamps
J.,February21,1980(Qyue.Sup.Ct.-Interlocutory).
12.BenjaminDistributionLtd.v.ÉditionsFlammarionLtée,(unreported),
Que.Sup.Ct.–Interlocutory,Doc.No.500-05-016867-812FlynnJ.,
December22,1981;(1982),68C.P.R.(2d)251(Que.C.A.–
Interlocutory);consentjudgmentonthemeritMay30,1983(Que.Sup.
Ct.).
13.R.v.Bell(1982),66C.C.C.(2d)317(Que.C.A.);rev’d[1983]1S.C.R.471
(S.C.C.).
14.A&M.RecordsofCanadaLtd.v.MillbankMusicCorp.,[1984]2F.C.D-
1040,1C.P.R.(3d)354(F.C.T.D.).

68
15.DictionnairesRobertCanadaSCCv.LibrairieduNomadeInc.(1987),16
C.P.R.(3d)319(F.C.T.D.);(1990),37F.T.R.240(note)(F.C.A.).
16.955195OntarioInc.v.Video99(1993),48C.P.R.(3d)204(Ont.Gen.
Div.).
17.Flavellv.Canada(DeputyMinisterofNationalRevenueforCustoms
andExcise)(1996),137D.L.R.(4th)45(F.C.T.D.).
§7.1.6Indirectinfringement:useoftheatre
1.CanadianPerformingRightSocietyLtd.v.FordHotelCo.ofMontreal,
[1935]2D.L.R.391;withdrawalofappealfiled1936.10.18(Que.C.A.).
2.CanadianPerformingRightSocietyLtd.v.MingYee(1943),3C.P.R.64
(Alta.Dist.Ct.).
3.TitanSportsInc.v.MansionHouse(Toronto)Ltd.(1989),28C.P.R.(3d)
199(F.C.T.D.).
4.PerformingRightsOrganizationofCanadaLtd.v.Liond’Or(1981)Ltée
(1987),17C.P.R.(3d)542(F.C.T.D.).
§7.1.7Exceptions:general
1.SmithKline&FrenchCanadaLtd.v.FrankW.HornerInc.(1982),68
C.P.R.(2d)42(F.C.T.D.-Interlocutory);(1982),70C.P.R.(2d)128(F.C.T.D.-
Evidence).
2.Bishopv.Stevens,[1985]1F.C.755,(subnom.Bishopv.Télé-Metropole
Inc.)4C.P.R.(3d)349(F.C.T.D.);rev’dinpart(1987),18C.P.R.(3d)257
(F.C.A.);aff’d(1990),31C.P.R.(3d)394(S.C.C.).
3.CanavestHouseLtd.v.Lett(1984),2C.P.R.(3d)386(Ont.H.C.J.).
4.PerformingRightsOrganizationofCanadaLimitedv.Canadian
BroadcastingCorporation(1986),7C.P.R.(3d)433(F.C.A.).
5.RôtisseriesSt-HubertLtéec.Syndicatdestravailleurs(euses)dela
rôtisserieSt-HubertdeDrummondville(CSN)(1986),17C.P.R.(3d)461
(Que.Sup.Ct.);appeal50-09-000068-874withdrawnFebruary20,1987
(Que.C.A.).
§7.1.8Exceptions:fairdealing

69
1.Gribblev.ManitobaFreePressCo.,[1931]3D.L.R.648(Man.Q.B.);rev’d
[1932]1D.L.R.169(man.C.A.).
2.Fieldv.Lemaire,[1940]Ex.C.R.21(Ex.Ct).
3.Zamacoïsv.Douville(1943),inEnglishtranslationat[1944]Ex.C.R.208,
inFrenchtextat[1945]R.L.155(Ex.Ct.).
4.CanavestHouseLtd.v.Lett(1984),2C.P.R.(3d)386(Ont.H.C.J.).
5.R.v.JamesLorimer&Co.(1984),77C.P.R.(2d)262(F.C.A.).
6.Hopkins(Tom)InternationalInc.v.Wall&RedekopRealtyLtd.(1984),1
C.P.R.(3d)348(B.C.S.C.);var’d(1985),6C.P.R.(3d)475(B.C.C.A.).
7.Breenv.HancockHousePublishersLtd.(1985),6C.P.R.(3d)433
(F.C.T.D.).
8.NewEraPublicationsInternational,SpAv.Key-PorterBooksLtd.(1987),
18C.P.R.(3d)562(F.C.T.D.).
9.CompagniegénéraledesétablissementsMichelin–Michelin&Ciev.
NationalAutomobile,Aerospace,TransportationandGeneralWorkers
UnionofCanada(CAW-Canada)(1996),71C.P.R.(3d)348,71C.P.R.
(3d)vi(F.C.T.D.);appealA-38-97discontinuedon1997—11-10.
§7.1.9Exceptions:performanceatexhibitions
1.CanadianPerformingRightSocietyLtd.v.CanadianNationalExhibition
Assn.,[1934]O.R.610(Ont.H.C.J.).
2.CanadianPerformingRightsocietyv.CanadianNationalExhibition
Assn.(1937),[1938]O.R.476(Ont.H.C.J.).
3.CanadianPerformingRightSocietyLtd.v.Lombardo,[1939]O.R.262
(Ont.C.A.).
4.CanadianPerformingRightSocietyLtd.v.MingYee(1943),3C.P.R.64
(Alta.Dist.Ct.).
5.Composers’,Authors’&Publishers’Assn.(Canada)v.WesternFairAssn.
(1949),13C.P.R.26(H.C.);aff’d(1950),13C.P.R.26(C.A.);rev’d(1951),
15C.P.R.45(S.C.C.).
6.MosportParkLtd.andClarington(Municipality)(1994),116D.L.R.(4
th)
763(Ont.Gen.Div.).

70
§7.1.10Publicperformanceofmusicalworksforcharitablepurposes
1.Composers’,Authors’&Publishers’Assn.(Canada)Limitedv.Kiwanis
ClubofWestToronto(1952),15C.P.R.149(Exc.Ct.);rev’d(1953),19
C.P.R.20(S.C.C.).
2.Assn.descompositeurs,auteurs&éditeursduCanadav.Installation
RadiophoniqueCRKL-MS,campusLavalFMInc.(1986),17C.P.R.(3d)
242(Que.Sup.Ct.).
3.PerformingRightsOrganizationofCanadaLimitedv.Canadian
BroadcastingCorporation(1986),7C.P.R.(3d)433(F.C.A.).
§7.1.11Varia
1.R.v.«EvgeniaChandris»(The)(1974),19C.C.C.(2d)8(N.B.C.A.);rev’d
onothergrounds(1976),27C.C.C.(2d)241(S.C.C.).
2.R.v.Sutherland[1979]2W.W.R.552(Man.C.A.);aff’dinpart[1980]2
S.C.R.451(S.C.C.).
§8.0Authors
§8.1Canada
1ACharterofRightsForCreators,THESUBCOMMITTEEONTHEREVISIONOF
COPYRIGHT(Ottawa,CCAC,1985),atpp.63-83.
2BLOOM(GlenA.)etal.,ResearchontheInternet:IsAccessCopyright
Infringement?(1996)12CanadianIntellectualPropertyReview337.
3BONCOMPAIN(Jacques),Ledroitd©auteurauCanada:étudecritique
(Montréal,CercledulivredeFrance,1971),atpp.216-228.
4BRAITHWAITE(WilliamJ.),DerivativeWorksinCanadianCopyrightLaw
(1982),20OsgoodeHallLawJournal191.
5BRAITHWAITE(WilliamJ.),FromRevolutiontoConstitution:Copyright,
CompulsoryLicencesandtheParodiedSong(1984),18Universityof
BritishColumbiaLawJournal35.
6BROWN(RaymondE.),TheLawofDefamationinCanada,2nded.
(Toronto,Carswell,1994),2Vol.atpp.410-414,583-589,657-660,709-710.

71
7BRUNET(Claude),Leloidudroitd©auteurcanadienne-L©impossible
révision(Partie3)[1981]1Revuecanadiennedudroitd’auteur33.
8BURSHTEIN(Sheldon),SurfingtheInternet:CanadianIntellectualProperty
Issues,inMeredithLectures1996(Montreal,McGillUniversity,1996),atno.
3.
9CAMERON(DonaldM.)etal.,IPontheI-Way(1997),13Canadian
IntellectualPropertyReview311.
10CANADIANRECORDINGINDUSTRYASSOCIATION,ParallelImportsIndirect
InfringementofCopyrightPhaseIIAmendments(TorontoCRIA,1994).
11CARD(DuncanC.),ParallelImportationofCopyrightProperty:A
proposaltoAmendtheCanadianCopyrightAct(1990),6Intellectual
PropertyJournal97.
12CARRIÈRE(Laurent),Hypertextesethyperliensauregarddudroit
d©auteur-Quelquesélémentsderéflexions,inPertinencedel’inforoute-
Larencontredel’informatiqueetdudroit(Montréal,AQDIJ,1996);
(1997),9Lescahiersdepropriétéintellectuelle175.
13COLBORNE(DavidA.)etal.,DownloadingMedecineRecordstoIndexa
PersonalReprintCollection:IsitUseful,isitfeasible,isitlegal?(1993)14
BibliothecaMedicaCanadiana175.
14CONFORTI(Joe),CopyrightandFreedomofExpression:APrivilegefor
NewReports(1989),5IntellectualPropertyJournal103.
15COONEY(Jane),CopyrightandCanadianLibraries(1990),11
BibliothecaMedicaCanadiana127.
16CÔTÉ(Pierre-André),TheInterpretationofLegislationinCanada,2nded.
(Cowansville,Blais,1992),atpp.415-417.
17CÔTÉ(Pierre-André),Interprétationdeslois,3
rded.(Montreal,Thémis,
1999),atpp.237and251.
18CROWE(Carolyn),ThesongYouWriteMayNotBeYourOwn!Proving
MusicalCopyrightInfringement:AReviewofGondosv.Hardy;Gondosv.
Thot(1984),5IntellectualPropertyJournal29.
19DANIEL(Johanne),ImplicationsofProposedChangestotheCopyright
ActforHealthLibraries(1987),9BibliothecaMedicaCanadiana93.
20DEKINDER(Viviane),Deslégendesetdesimages-Àproposdel©affaire
Lambertc.WardairCanadaInc.(1991),3Lescahiersdepropriété
intellectuelle365.

72
21DEKINDER(Viviane),Licencesimpliciteslorsdecommandesd©œuvreset
violationsdedroitsd©auteurs,inJournéesd’étudedu24novembre1995
del’ALAI-Canada:Publicitéetdroitd’auteur(Montréal,ALAI,1995),pp.
34-36.
22DEKINDER(Viviane),Jurisprudence-ÉcoledeconduiteTecnicAubé
Inc.etal.c.ÉcoledeconduiteLauzonCanadaLtéeetal.(1998),1Les
cahiersdepropriétéintellectuelle87.
23DRIEDGER(ElmerA.),ConstructionofStatutes,2nded.(Toronto,
Butterworths,1983)atpp.22-28.
24EISEN(MarkB.),CopyrightandtheWorldWideWeb,(1996),12Canadian
IntellectualPropertyReview405.
25ELRIFI(Ivor),What©DAT-AmstradRevisited:CanadianCopyrightLaw
andDigitalAudioTapePlayers(1988),13CanadianBusinessLawJournal
221.
26FOX(HaroldGeorge),TheCanadianLawofCopyrightandIndustrial
Designs,2nded.(Toronto,Carswell,1967),atpp.326-432.
27FRANÇON(André),Ledroitd©auteur-aspectsinternationauxet
comparatifs(Cowansville,Blais,1992),atpp.213-214and217.
28GAMACHE(Barry),Union©sUseofEmployer©sSymbolNotProtectedby
FederalCharter(1997),11WorldIntellectualPropertyReport119.
29GILKER(Stéphane),Laprotectiondesœuvresarchitecturalesparledroit
d©auteurauCanada(1991),4Lescahiersdelapropriétéintellectuelle7,
atpp.32-38.
30GOUDREAU(Mistrale),Introductionaudroitd©auteur(1991),22Revue
généralededroit273.
31GOWLING(E.Gordon),IndustrialProperty-Copyright-Section17ofthe
CopyrightAct-PublicPerformanceofMusicalWork »inFurtheranceof
a…CharitableObject »(1954),32CanadianBarReview81.
32GINSBURG(JaneC.),Droitd©auteursansfrontières?Compétence
judiciaireetlégislativeenmatièredecontrefaçoninternationale(1997),
9Lescahiersdepropriétéintelectuelle381.
33GRANT(Catherine),TheProposedU.S.AudioHomeRecordingAct;An
AnswertoHouseCopying©sChallengetoCopyrightLawintheUnited
StatesandinCanada?(1993),47CanadianPatentReporter(3d)129.

73
34GUILBAULT(Lucie)etal.,Lesdroitséconomiquesconcernés-rapport
canadien,inCopyrightinCyberspaceALAIStudyDays(Amsterdam,
Cramwinckel,1997),pp.71-95.
35GUILBAULT(Lucie),Lesprogrammesd©ordinateuretledroitd©innovation
technologique(1997),9Lescahiersdepropriétéintelectuelle171.
36HARRIS(LesleyEllen),CanadianCopyrightLaw,2nded.(Toronto,
McGraw-HillRyerson,1995),atch.9.
37HAYHURST(WilliamL.),AnnualSurveyofCanadianLaw-Industrial
Property(1979),11OttawaLawReview481,atpp.491-495.
38HAYHURST(WilliamL.),CopyrightandtheCopyingMachine(1984),9
CanadianBusinellLawJournal129.
39HAYHURST(WilliamL.),CopyrightandtheCopyingMachine:TheAmstrad
Case(1986),11CanadianBusinellLawJournal331.
40HAYHURST(WilliamL.),IntellectualPropertyasaNon-TariffBarrierin
Canada,WithParticularReferenceto »GreyGoods »and »Parellel
Imports »(1991),31CanadianPatentReporter(3d)289.
41HENRY(NicholasL.),Copyright,PublicPolicyandInformationTechnology
(1974),15CanadianPatentReporter(2d)260.
42HITCHCOCK(P.Dan),HomeCopyingandAuthorization(1983),67C.P.R.
(2d)17.
43HOWELL(RobertG.),IntellectualProperty,PrivateInternationalLaw,and
IssuesofTerritoriality(1997),13CanadianIntellectualPropertyReview
209.
44HUGHES(RogerT.),HughesonCopyright(Toronto,Butterworths,1984),at
pp.541-579.
45JOLLIFFE(R.Scott),CopyrightLitigationandRemediesforInfringement,in
DeveloppingMultimediaProductsLegalandBusinessIssues(Toronto,
Insight,1994),ch.XI,atpp.219-221.
46KERN(Tania),ReprographyissuesinFrance,inCanadaandintheUnited
StatesinWIPLA:CopyrightCanadaStudy
1.
47KEYES(AndrewA.)etal.,CopyrightinCanada-ProposalsforaRevision
oftheLaw(Ottawa,CCAC,1977),atpp.144-177.

74
48KILGOUR(D.G),CanadianCopyrightLaw-RoyalCommissionReport-
FundamentalChangesRecommended(1958),36CanadianBarReview
568.
49KNOPF(Howard),WhatisInfringement?,inIntellectualProperty:
CopyrightLaw(Ottawa,NationalJudicialInstitute,1993),ch.8,atpp.30-
36.
50KRATZ(MartinP.J.),Shrinkwrapsoftwarelicences:NorthAmerican
SystemshopsLtd.v.KingandCompany(1989),6ComputerLawReporter
127.
51LEDUC-CAMPBELL(Diane),DisplayofEmployer©sSymbolByUnion
InfringedCopyright(1997),11WorldIntellectualPropertyReport80.
52LEVENTHAL(JessicaA.),DerivativeWorksandCopyrightInfringement:A
CaseforCopyrightingIdeas(1985),1IntellectualPropertyJournal271.
53LOWN(Peter),HomeTapinginProtectingCreativeEffortsThrough
Copyright(Toronto,Insight,1989),atch.3.
54MANNING(H.E.),PerformanceofCopyrightedMusicalWorks(1954),32
CanadianBarReview236;.
55MARTIN(Stefan),Lacopieprivée(1989),2Lescahiersdepropriété
Intelectuelle27.
56McANANAMA(JudithC.),CopyrightLaw:LibrariesandTheirUsesHave
SpecialNeeds(1991),6IntellectualPropertyJournal225.
57McKEOWN(JohnS.)etal.,Copyright,inCanadianEncyclopedicDigest,
3rdWesternEdition,(Toronto,Carswell,1991),ch.35,atnos.143-177.
58McKEOWN(JohnS.),FoxCanadianLawofCopyrightandIndustrial
Designs,3rded.(TorontoCarswell,2001)
59MESSIER(Hélène),Lespubliciaires,descréateursinspirés…,inJournées
d’étudedu24novembre1995del’ALAI-Canada:Publicitéetdroit
d’auteur(Montréal,ALAI,1995),pp.37-52.
60MORSE(Charles),Copyright-Infringement-UnauthorizedProductionof
MusicalPlayatClub-« InPublic »-Interpretation(1927),5CanadianBar
Review65.
61NABHAN(Victor),LasituationdelareprographieauCanada,in
Journéesd’étudedeBerne1986(Paris,ALAI,1986),atp.249.

75
62NABHAN(Victor),Lestatutdesreprésentationsd©œuvresaudio-visuelles
pourfinsd©enseignementauregarddudroitd©auteur:Uneopinion
juridique(1986),2IntellectualPropertyJournal381.
63NABHAN(Victor),Quelquesaspectsdesproblèmesjuridiquesposéspar
lavidéoreproduction:l©affaireBetamaxetsesrépercussionsauCanada
(1980),1Revuecanadiennedudroitd’auteur7.
64NABHAN(Victor),Reprographieetéducation(1982)3Revue
Canadiennedudroitd’auteur5.
65NOEL(Wanda),TheImportationProvisionsoftheCanadianCopyright
Act(1977),9OttawaLawReview156.
66PEARSE(Richard),LibraryOpen-distributionSystemsandCopyright
InfringementinCanadaandtheUnitedStates(1994),86LawLibrary
Journal399.
67PEPIN(René),Lesappareilsvidéoetledroitd©auteur;l©affaireBetamax
devantlaCourtofAppeals(1983),14Revuegénéralededroit449.
68PERRY(Rose-Marie),CopyrightinMotionPicturesandOtherMechanical
Contrivances(1972),5CanadianPatentReporter(2d)256,(1972),7-30
PatentandTrademarkInstituteofCanadaBulletin194;(1971),3
CanadianCommunicationsLawReview98.
69PRABHU(MohanA.),TheAnnotedCustomsAct1996(Toronto,Carswell,
1995).
70PracticalPoints:Copyright-Manuscriptorchestrations-Popularpieces-
Performance(1942),11FortnightlyLawJournal172.
71RACICOT(Michel),Laprotectiondeslogicielsendroitcanadien(1990),2
Lescahiersdepropriétéintelectuelle147.
72RACICOT(Michel),Laréformedudroitd©auteurauCanada-Projetde
loiC-60-Lesprogrammesd©ordinateurs-Comparaisonavecledroit
américain(1998),1Lescahiersdepropriétéintelectuelle49.
73RACICOT(Michel),Jusqu©oùvalaprotectionducybergicielparledroit
d©auteur?,inMeredithLectures1996(Montreal,McGillUniversity,1996),
atno.7.
74RACICOT(Michel),etal.,InternetContent-RelatedLiabilityStudy
(Ottawa,IndustryCanada1997);.
75RAMSAY(JohnT.),PiratesBewareofCopyrightActAmendments(1987),
22-3LesNouvelles;reprintedinBELL(PaulB.)etal.,ed.TheLawBusiness

76
ofLicensing-Licensinginthe1990s(NewYork,ClarkBoardman
Callaghan,1992),Vol1,pp.33-45.
76RAMSAY(JohnT.)etal.,ComputerProgramsandtheCopyrightAct
Amendments(1992),13BibliothecaMedicaCanadiana165.
77RICHARD(HughesG.),ConceptofInfringementundertheCopyrightAct,
inCopyrightLawofCanada(Toronto,Carswell,1994),ch.6;reprinted
fromWhatisInfringement?,inIntellectualProperty:CopyrightLaw
(Ottawa,NationalJudicialInstitute,1993),ch.7.
78RICHARD(HughesG.),Violationdudroitd©auteursurlesprogrammes
d©ordinateur,inUneapprochepratiqueaudroitdel’informatique
(Montréal,InstitutWilson&Lafleur,1995),ch.7.
79ROYER(Jean-Claude),Lapreuvecivile(Cowansville,Blais,1987),atNos.
732-806.
80SANDERSON(Paul),MusiciansandtheLawinCanada,2nded.(Toronto,
Carswell,1992),atpp.109-111and119-123.
81SHARP(RoyC.),Copyright-ShieldorShroud(1975),21CanadianPatent
Reporter(2d)108.
82SHARP(RoyC.),Droitd©auteur:armureouprison?(1975),99LeDroit
d’Auteur112.
83SOLOMON(BernandH.),ACurrentViewoftheCanadianCopyrightAct
asitRelatestotheEntertainmentIndustry,inComparativeStudyof
CopyrightRegulationsintheMainCountriesoftheWorldwithEmphasis
onPracticalLegalProblemsArisingintheShowBusiness(Cannes,
Midem-IAEL,1978),atpp.7-8.
84SOOKMAN(BarryB.),ComputerLaw(Toronto,Carswell,1989),atpp.3-
133to3-198.
85SOOKMAN(BarryB.),Intellectualpropertyrightsandsoftwarereuse:A
CanadianandU.S.perspective(1990),7CanadianComputerLaw
Reporter1;(1990),7CanadianComputerLawReporter25.
86SOPINKA(John)etal.,TheLawofEvidenceinCanad,2
nded.(Toronto,
Butterworths,1999),atch.4.
87SULLIVAN(Ruth),DriedgerontheConstructionofStatutes,3rded.
(Toronto,Butterworths,1994),atpp.369-370.
88TAMARO(Normand),TheannotatedCopyrightAct2002(Toronto,
Carswell,2001),undersection27.

77
89TAMARO(Normand),Ledroitd©auteuretlesinstitutionsd©enseignement,
inDéveloppementsrécentsendroitdel’éducation(1996)(Cowansville,
Blais,1996),pp.133-153.
90VANDYCK(ChristianD.),Fast-Forward:ACanadianPerspectiveonthe
BetamaxControversy(1984),16OttawaLawReview506.
91VAVER(David),CopyrightPhase2:TheNewHorizon(1990),6Intellectual
PropertyJournal238.
92VAVER(David),DramaticandMusicalReproductionsandPerfomances:
CopyrightandPerformer©sRightsandTheirImplicationforEducators
(1991),6IntellectualPropertyJournal238.
93VINCKE(Christian)etal.,Problèmesdedroitsd©auteurdanslemondede
l©éducation(Québec,Éditeurofficiel,1974).
94YOUNG(Alain),FromElvis©sPelvistoAsNastyAsTheyWannaBe:
FreedomofExpressionandContemporaryPopularMusic(1991),1Media
&CommunicationsLawReview155.
§9.1ExceptionsforEducationalInstitutions
CircularNo.12dated1999-10-01issuedbytheCanadianIntellectualProperty
Office
Anexceptionpermitstheuseofaworkprotectedbycopyrightwithouttheconsentofthe
copyrightownerandwithoutthepaymentofroyalties.Copyrightlawsallovertheworldaim
forabalancebetweena)therightsofcreatorstobepaidforandtocontroltheuseoftheir
works;andb)theneedsofuserswhowantaccesstomaterialprotectedbycopyright.This
balanceiscreatedbyprovidingcreatorswithlegal »rights »andthenlimitingthoserights
through »exceptions »forthebenefitofcertainusers.Educationalinstitutionsareoneofthose
usergroups.Subsections27(3),29.4,29.5,29.6,29.7and30provideeducationalinstitutions
withexceptionsdefiningcertainactivitieswhichmaybeundertakenwithoutinfringing
copyright.
An »educationalinstitution »isdefinedinsection2.Toqualifyfortheexceptionsan
educationalinstitutionmustbenon-profit.
Subsection27(3)providesthataneducationalinstitutionisnotrequiredtopayanyroyalties
forthepublicperformanceofanymusicalwork »infurtheranceofaneducationalobject ».For
example,performanceofmusicinclassforthepurposeofgivingmusicinstructionfallswithin
thisexception.However,theexceptionexcludestheuseofmusicfornon-educational
objectssuchasdances,schoolconcerts,orasbackgroundmusic.Thismeansthatmusic
usedatschoolconcerts,assemblies,orschooldancesmustbepaidforthroughtariffs
administeredbyaperformingrightssocietycalledSOCAN,becausethoseeventsarenot »in
furtheranceofaneducationalobject ».

78
Subsection29.4isanexceptiontotherightofreproduction.Thisexceptionallowscopying
ontoablackboard,aflipchartorothersimilardisplaydevicesintheclassroom.Educational
institutionsarealsopermittedtocopymaterialsontotransparencies.Copyingworks
protectedbycopyrightfortestsorexaminationsisanotherpermitteduse.Theseexceptions
applyunlesstheworkis »commerciallyavailable »inaformwhichmeetstheeducator’sneeds.
« Commerciallyavailable »isdefined(insection2)asmeaningavailableontheCanadian
marketwithinareasonabletime,forareasonablepriceandwithreasonableeffortoris
availablethroughalicencefromacollectivesociety.
Subsections29.5,29.6and29.7provideexceptionstoacopyrightowner’sexclusiverightof
publicperformance.Subsection29.5permitsnon-profiteducationalinstitutionstohavelive
performancesonschoolpremisesandtoplaysoundrecordings,radiosandtelevisionson
schoolpremises.Subsection29.6permitsnon-profiteducationalinstitutionstoreproduceand
perform,ontheirpremises,newsandcommentaryfromradioandtelevisionprogramsfor
educationalpurposes.However,theproposedexceptionissubjecttocertainconditions.A
copymaybemadeandshown,withoutauthorizationorpayment,anunlimitednumberof
timesforaperiodofuptooneyearfromthedateofthetaping.Aftertheyearisover,
copiedmaterials,musteitherbeerasedorthecopyrightownernotified.TheCopyrightBoard,
aspecializedtribunalundertheCopyrightAct,wouldthensetaroyaltyorfeeforthe
reproductionandeachsubsequentperformanceofthecopiedmaterialforeducational
purposes.Subsection29.7permitsallothertypesofbroadcastprogramstobereproduced
withoutpermissionandexaminedforupto30daysinordertodecidewhetherthecopywill
beusedonschoolpremises,foreducationalpurposes.Iftheseothertypesofbroadcast
programsareused,thenaroyalty,setbytheCopyrightBoardforthereproductionandeach
subsequentuseofthecopy,mustbepaidbynon-profiteducationalinstitutions.
IftheunpublishedworkwasdepositedinanarchivebeforeSeptember1,1999,thendifferent
rulesapply.First,anarchivemustobtainthepermissionofthecopyrightownerbefore
copying.Ifthecopyrightownercannotbelocatedacopycanstillbemade,butarecordof
makingthatcopymustbekeptbythearchive.Theserecordsmustbekeptavailablefor
publicinspection.Thisappliestoallunpublishedworksdepositedinanarchivebefore
September1,1999,exceptwheretheauthoroftheunpublishedworkdiedbeforeSeptember
1,1949.
Section30permitspublicationofshortpassagesfromliteraryworksforschools.Thisexception
hasmanyconditionsthatmustbemetbeforeitapplies.Forexample,thepublicationmustbe
composedprimarilyofnon-copyrightmatter,thecollectionmustbeintendedfortheuseof
schools,whatisreproducedmustbefromshortpassagesofpublishedliteraryworks,those
shortpassagesmustnothavebeenpublishedforusebyschools,anda)notmorethantwo
passagesfromworksbythesameauthorcanbereproducedbythesamepublisherwithin
fiveyears;b)thesourcefromwhichthepassagesaretakenisacknowledged;andc)the
nameoftheauthor,ifgiveninthesource,ismentioned.
InformationabouttheCopyrightActcanbeobtainedfrom:
CanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice
IndustryCanada
PlaceduPortageI
50VictoriaStreet
Hull,Quebec
K1A0C9
Tel.:(819)997-1936
Fax:(819)953-7620

79
Internet:http://cipo.gc.ca
E-mail:cipo.contact@ic.gc.ca
Thisinformationistobeconsideredsolelyasaguideandshouldnotbequotedas,or
consideredtobe,alegalauthority.Itmaybecomeobsoletewithoutnotice.Authoritymust
befoundintheCopyrightAct,theCopyrightRegulationsandinthedecisionsoftheCourts
interpretingthem.

80
LAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENT
CARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRE
LAURENTCARRIÈRE
ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedes
intangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslivehere.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD

LAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENT
CARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRE
LAURENTCARRIÈRE