Memorandum of Fact and Law (National Post) Mar 7 13

7/29/2019 Memorandum of Fact and Law (National Post) Mar 7 13

1/36

BETWEEN:

Court F i l e No . A-394-12 and A-395-12FEDERALCOURTOF APPEAL

RICHARDWARMAN nd NATIONALPOSTCOMPANYA p p e l l a n t s

- and -

MARKFOURNIER nd CONSTANCE FOURNIERRespondents

MEMORANDUMOF FACTAND LAWOFTHE APPELLANT, NATIONALPOSTCOMPANY

CASSELSBROCK& LACKWELLLLP2100 S c o t i a Plaza40 i n g S t r e e t WestToronto, ON M5H3C2Casey M. h i s i c k LSUC : 46572RT e l : 416.869.5403Fax: 416.644.9326c c h i s i c [email protected] Beitchman LSUC : 564770T e l : 416.860.2988Fax: [email protected] o l i c i t o r s f o r the A p p e l l a n t ,N a t i o n a l Post Company


2/36

2

TO: BRAZEAUSELLER LLPB a r r i s t e r s and S o l i c i t o r s55 e t c a l f e S t r e e tS u i t e 750Ottawa ON K1P L5James KatzT e l : 613.237.4000 x t . 267Fax: 613.237.4001S o l i c i t o r s f o r the A p p l i c a n t ,Richard Warman

ANDTO: MARKFOURNIER2000 U n i t y RoadE l g i n b u r g ON KOH NOT e l : 613.929.9265Fax: 609.379.8793Respondent

ANDTO: CONSTANCEFOURNIER2000 U n i t y RoadE l g i n b u r g ON KOH NOT e l : 613.929.9265Fax: 609.379.8793Respondent


3/36

BETWEEN:

Court F i l e No. A-394-1 2 and A-395-12FEDERALCOURTOF APPEAL

RICHARDWARMAN nd NATIONALPOSTCOMPANY

- and -

MARK FOURNIER nd CONSTANCE FOURNIER

TABLEOFCONTENTS

A p p e l l a n t s

Respondents

Page No .O V E R V I E W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1PART - SUMMARYOFFACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1 . THE COPYRIGHTWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32. THE RESPONDENTS'INFRINGING CONDUCT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33. THE DECISION OF THE APPLICATION JUDGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

PARTII POINTS N ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

PARTIII - SUBMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 . STANDARD OF REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82. THE RESPONDENTS INFRINGED COPYRIGHT N THE KAY WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2 . 1 The u l l- t e x t r e p r o d u c t i o n of h e Kay Work n f r i n g e d c o p y r i g h t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 02 . 1 . 1 The s t a t u t o r y l i m i t a t i o n p e r i o d i s no b a r t o a i n d i n g o f i n f r i n g e m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1

2.2 The a p p l i c a t i o n judge e r r e d i n c o n c l u d i n g t h e e x c e r p t s were no t a " s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t "ofthe Kay Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3

2 . 2 . 1 The r e p r o d u c t i o n was u a n t i t a t i v e l y s u b s t a n t i a l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4


4/36

2 . 2 . 2 The e p r o d u c t i o n was u a l i t a t i v e l y s u b s t a n t i a l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 53. THE RESPONDENTS'USE OF THE KAY WORKWAS OT FAIR DEALING FOR THE PURPOSE

OF NEWS EPORTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 83 . 1 I t was an E r r o r t o Apply h e News eporting Exceptio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3 . 1 . 1 The source o f the Kay W o r k was o t mentioned n the r e p r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 03 . 1 . 2 There i s no evidence h a t t h e respondents' purpose was o r news e p o r t i n g . . . . 2 1

3 .2 The M i s a p p l i c a t i o n of h e Fair ness Facto rs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 . 2 . 1 Purpose o f the D e a l i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 . 2 . 2 Character f t h e D e a l i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 63 . 2 . 3 Am o un t f the D e a l i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 63 . 2 . 4 A l t e r n a t i v e s t o the D e a l i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7

3 . 3 Conclusion o n a i r Dealing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284. THE APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED TO TATUTORY DAMAGES FOR INFRINGEMENT

OFCOPYRIGHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9

PART V -ORDERSOUGHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9

PART V L I ST OFAUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1

FULLTEXTREPRODUCTION OFTHE KAYWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A P P E N D I X"A"

EXCERPTED REPRODUCTION OFTHE KAYWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A P P E N D I X "B"


5/36

Court F i l e No. A-394-12 and A-395-12FEDERALCOURTOF APPEAL

BETWEEN:

RICHARDWARMAN nd NATIONALPOSTCOMPANY

- and -

MARKFOURNIER nd CONSTANCE FOURNIER

MEMORANDUMOF FACTAND LAWOFTHE APPELLANT,NATIONALPOSTCOMPANY

OVERVIEW

A p p e l l a n t s

Respondents

1 . This appeal concerns the c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f what c o n s t i t u t e s a " s u b s t a n t i a lp a r t " o f a work, as d e f i n e d i n s u b s e c t i o n 3(1) f the Copyright c t , ' and what c o n s t i t u t e sf a i r d e a l i n g f o r the purpose o f news r e p o r t i n g as d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 29.2 o f the A c t .

2. T h e respondents operate a website message board o n which a f u l l - t e x tr e p r o d u c t i o n o f a newspaper a r t i c l e and i t s h e a d l i n e was p o s t e d . Copyright i n t h i s a r t i c l ei s owned b y the N a t i o n a l Post C o mpa n y. Subsequent t o d e l i v e r y o f a cease and d e s i s tl e t t e r from Richard Warman, the e x c l u s i v e l i c e n s e e o f c o p y r i g h t i n the work, therespondents removed the u l l - t e x t r e p r o d u c t i o n o f the work and r e p l a c e d i t w i t h s e l e c t e dexcerpts of the a r t i c l e . U l t i m a t e l y , an a p p l i c a t i o n was c ommenced i n the Federal Courta l l e g i n g i n f r i n g e m e n t o f c o p y r i g h t i n the work, and o t h e r works, and seeking damages.

R . S . C . , 1985, . C-42 C o p y r i g h t A c t ]


6/36

3. The a p p l i c a t i o n judge dismissed the a p p l i c a t i o n . I n s o d o i n g , he a i l e d t o c o n s i d e rwhether the u l l - t e x t r e p r o d u c t i o n o f the work i n f r i n g e d c o p y r i g h t . He u r t h e r determined,i n c o r r e c t l y , t h a t the excerpts o f the work posted on the respondent s' website were not a" s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t " o f the work an d t h e r e f o r e d i d n o t engage the e x c l u s i v e r i g h t s o f thec o p y r i g h t owner under s u b s e c t i o n 3(1) f the A c t . F i n a l l y , the a p p l i c a t i o n judge wronglyconcluded t h a t the respondents' r e p r o d u c t i o n o f the exc erpts was f a i r d e a l i n g f o r thepurpose o f news r e p o r t i n g , even though the evidence c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t therespondents' purpose i n d e a l i n g w i t h the work was n o t f o r news r e p o r t i n g an d t h a t they

d i d not mention the sourc e from which the excerp t o r i g i n a t e d , as r e q u i r e d b y subsection29.2(a) f the A c t . He l s o m i s a p p l i e d the a i r n e s s f a c t o r s set ou t i n CCH anada L t d . v .Law ociety of Upper Canada2 n f i n d i n g t h a t the d e a l i n g was a i r .

4. The N a t i o n a l Post Company r i n g s t h i s appeal o r the purpose o f c o r r e c t i n g e r r o r si n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the CopyrightAct an d the e f f e c t those r r o r s might have on broaderissues i n v o l v i n g the n a t u r e and s c ope o f c o p y r i g h t i n newspaper a r t i c l e s g e n e r a l l y . Whilethe u n d e r l y i n g f a c t s o f t h i s case d i s c l o s e a d i s p u t e between Mr. Warman an d therespondents, the N a t i o n a l Post Co m pa n y takes n o p o s i t i o n on t h a t d i s p u t e .

5. For l l these reasons, he d e c i s i o n o f the a p p l i c a t i o n judge was wrong i n law an d i nf a c t . The appeal should b e a l l o w e d an d a i n d i n g e n t e r e d t h a t the respondents i n f r i n g e dc o p y r i g h t i n the work owned b y the N a t i o n a l Post Com pan y .

Z 2004 SCC 3 CCH].


7/36

3

PART - SUMMARYOFFACTS1. The Copyright Work6. The work a t i s s u e i n t h i s appeal is a newspaper a r t i c l e authored by Jonathan Kay,a n employee o f the N a t i o n a l Post Company, n t i t l e d "Jonathan K ay on Richard Warmanand Canada's Phony- Ra cism I n d u s t r y " t h e " K a y Work" ) . 3

7. Postmedia Network I n c . , which i s the successor c o r p o r a t i o n t o the N a t i o n a l PostCompany c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o as the "National Post" ) , i s the s o l e owner o f thec o p y r i g h t i n the K a y Work. This work w a s i r s t p u b l i s h e d on the I n t e r n e t by the N a t i o n a lPost on the website www.nationalpost. com, on o r about February 18, 2008.4

8. Mr. Warman obtained an e x c l u s i v e l i c e n c e t o the c o p y r i g h t i n the K a y Workthrough a n agreement w i t h the N a t i o n a l Post on January 13, 2 0 1 0 . Mr. Warmanr e g i s t e r e d h i s c o p y r i g h t i n the K a y Work on M a r ch 10, 2011.5

2. The Respondents' n f r i n g i n g C o n d u c t9. The respondents, Constance and Mark F o u r n i e r , o wn and operate a n I n t e r n e twebsite l o c a t e d a t the URLs www.freedominion.com and www.freedominion.com.pa

3 Reasons f o r Judgment and Judgment o f The Honourable M r . J u s t i c e Rennie, d a t e d June 21, 2 0 1 2 t h e" Ju d gment" ) a t p a r s . 3 , Appeal Book, o l . 1 , Ta b 3 . Two d d i t i o n a l works were a t i s s u e i n t h e p r o c e e d i n gbelow. The C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s i n r e s p e c t o f those works a r e n o t c h a l l e n g e d i n t h i s a p p e a l .4 f f i d a v i t o f R i c h a r d Warman, worn June 6, 2 0 11(W a rm a n A f f i d a v i t" ) a t p a r a s . 7- 1 2 , Appeal Book, o l .1 , Ta b 7 , p . 79.5 Judgment t p a r s . 3 , Appeal Book, o l . 1 , Ta b 3 . A opy o f t h e e x c l u s i v e l i c e n c e appears n t h e r e c o r d a sE x h i b i t "B" o t h e W a rm a n A f f i d a v i t , Appeal Book, o l . 1 , Ta b 76, . 103.


8/36

0

(Free Dominion " ) . The respondents c o n t r o l a l l t h e c o n t e n t t h a t i s p u b l i s h e d on FreeDominion.6

10. On February 18, 2008 , h e same a y t h a t t h e Ka y Work was o r i g i n a l l y p o s t e d onthe N a t i o n a l Post w e b s i t e , t h e complete t e x t o f t h e Ka y Work wa s p o s t e d t o a m e s s a g eboard on the Free Dominion w e b s i t e . '

11. The Free Dominion p o s t i n g i d e n t i f i e d t h e work by i t l e and l i s t e d Jonathan Ka y a sthe a u t h o r . I t d i d n o t , however, d e n t i f y t h e N a t i o n a l Post r www.nationalpost.com a s h esource o f t h e work o r t h e p u b l i c a t i o n i n which t h e Ka y Work wa s p u b l i s h e d . $

12. On p r i l 16, 2010, M r . W a r m a n sent a cea se and d e s i s t l e t t e r t o t h e respondents,a s k i n g t h a t t h e Ka y Work b e removed from t h e Free Dominion w e b s i t e . The complete e x to f the work wa s removed from t h e w e b s i t e and r e p l a c e d w i t h e x c e r p t s o f t h e Ka y Work onA p r i l 18, 2010.9

13. The complete Ka y Work o n s i s t s o f a h e a d l i n e and 11 p a r a g r a p h s . 1 0 The e x c e r p t sreproduced on Free Dominion on A p r i l 18, 2 0 1 0 i n c l u d e d t h e h e a d l i n e , t h r e e complete

6Warman f f i d a v i t a t p a r a s . 1 9- 2 0 , Appeal Book, o l . 1 , Ta b 7 , p . 80.Supplementary A f f i d a v i t o f Connie F o u r n i e r , d a t e d October 4, 2 011 (Supplementary Fournier

A f f i d a v i t" ) a t p a r s . 14, App eal Book, o l . 4, Ta b 9 , p . 1271.8 W a r m a n A f f i d a v i t , E x h i b i t " E" , Appea l Book, o l . 1 , Ta b 7E, . 1 1 69Warman f f i d a v i t , E x h i b i t "F" , Appea l Book, o l . 1 , Ta b 7F, . 127; s e e a l s o Respondents' Memorandumo f Fact and Law, Appea l Book, o l . 4, Ta b 13, p . 1 3 9 6, p a r s . 37.

The u l l - t e x t o f t h e Ka y Work a s p o s t e d on t h e Free Dominion w e b s i t e i s reproduced a s Appendix "A" ot h i s memorand um.


9/36


10/36

n. ~

determined t h a t , because t h e amount reproduced wa s l e s s than h a l f o f t h e w o r k , " t h i swa s n o t q u a n t i t a t i v e l y a " s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t . " 1 4

18. Q u a l i t a t i v e l y , the a p p l i c a t i o n judge compa red t h e reproduced e x c e r p t s , which h ed e s c r i b e d as t h e "hook" o f t h e a r t i c l e an d t h e opening paragraphs, o the p o r t i o n s o f t h ea r t i c l e t h a t were n o t reproduced, an d determined t h a t t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n was n o ts u b s t a n t i a l s i n c e , n h i s v i e w , "most f t h e c o m m e n t a ry an d o r i g i n a l thought expressed bythe a u t h o r " wa s n o t r e p r o d u c e d . 1 5

19. I n making t h i s comparison an d a s s e s s i n g t h e q u a l i t y an d q u a n t i t y o f t h er e p r o d u c t i o n , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n judge f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f r e p r o d u c i n g t h eh e a d l i n e o f the a r t i c l e , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e f a c t t h a t , under t h e C o p y r i g h t A c t , a work" i n c l u d e s t h e t i t l e t h e r e o f where such i t l e i s o r i g i n a l an d d i s t i n c t i v e ." 1 6

20. Th e a p p l i c a t i o n judge f u r t h e r f a i l e d t o address t h e f a c t t h a t t h e respondents hada l s o reproduced the f u l l t e x t o f t h e Kay Work, which appeared on t h e i r w e b s i t e fromFebruary 18, 2 0 0 8 n t i l A p r i l 18, 201 0, a n d d i d n o t c o n s i d e r whether h i s r e p r o d u c t i o n o fthe u l l t e x t amounted t o c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t .

21 . Th e a p p l i c a t i o n judge went on t o c o n c l u d e , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t h a t , even i f t h ereproduced p o r t i o n s o f t h e work d i d amount t o a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t , t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n

' a Ju d g m e n t t p a r a . 25, Appe al Book, o l . 1 , Tab 3 , p . 28.1 5 I b i d .1 6 C o p y r i g h t A c t , s . 2, e f i n i t i o n o f "work" .


11/36

~ l

c o n s t i t u t e d f a i r d e a l i n g f o r the purpose o f news r e p o r t i n g and wer e thus exempted froml i a b i l i t y f o r c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t under s e c t i o n 29.2 o f the Copyright Act.'

22. The p p l i c a t i o n judge d i d not i n d i c a t e i n what way the s t a t u t o r y c o n d i t i o n s f o r f a i rd e a l i n g i n s e c t i o n 29.2 were s a t i s f i e d o r where i n the r e c o r d the source or author wasreferenced. I n f a c t , a review o f the r e c o r d suggests t h a t t h e r e was no r e f e r e n c e on theFree Dominion website t o e i t h e r the N a t i o n a l Post o r www.nationalpost.com as thesource of the Kay Work. At no time i n t h e i r evidence o r submissions d i d the respondentsi n d i c a t e where the N a t i o n a l Post was l l e g e dl y c r e d i t e d as the source o f the Kay Work.

23. F u r t h e r , n e i t h e r of the a f f i d a v i t s f i l e d b y the respondents i n response t o theA p p l i c a t i o n g a v e evidence t h a t the d e a l i n g was o r the purpose o f news r e p o r t i n g . $ Oncross-examination on her a f f i d a v i t , Ms. F o u r n i e r admitted t h a t her purpose i n p u b l i s h i n gMr . Warman's c o p y r i g h t works was o " c r i t i q u e " h i s a c t i v i t i e s . She i d not mention newsr e p o r t i n g . 1 9 The purpose o f the Free Dominion message board was o "discuss" o p i c s o fi n t e r e s t t o i t s anonymous mem b e r s , not o r e p o r t news.20

"Judgment t p a r a s . 2 9- 3 4 , Appeal Book, o l . 1 , Tab 3, p p . 2 9- 3 0 .1 8 Se e the Amended A f f i d a v i t o f Constance F o u r n i e r , sworn November 26, 2 011("Amended FournierA f f i d a v i t" ) , Appeal Book, o l . 1 , Tab ; and se e t h e Supplementary F o u r n i e r A f f i d a v i t , Appeal Book, o l . 4,Tab 9 .1 9 T r a n s c r i p t o f t h e Cross-examination o f Constance F o u r n i e r , dated D e ce mbe r 8, 2011, Appeal Book, o l .4, Tab 10 , p . 1342, Qs. 2 8- 3 0 .2 0 Amended F o u r n i e r A f f i d a v i t , Appeal Book, o l . 1 , Tab 8, p p . 192- 9 3 , a t p a r a s . 2 3 .


12/36

24. Nonetheless, t h e a p p l i c a t i o n judge concluded, d e s p i t e t h e l a c k o f an y s u p p o r t i n gevidenc e, t h a t the purpose o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' r e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e Kay Work was f o rn e w s r e p o r t i n g . 2 1

25. F i n a l l y , the a p p l i c a t i o n judge w r o n g l y c onc luded t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f the a i r n e s sf a c t o r s enu merated by t h e Sup r e m e Court o f C a n a d a i n CCH uggested t h a t t h er e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e e x c e r p t s o f t h e Kay Work e l l w i t h i n t h e a i r d e a l i n g e x c e p t i o n . 2 2

PART I - POINTS N ISSUES26. T her e ar e t h r e e i s s u e s i n t h i s a p p e a l :

(a) D i d the a p p l i c a t i o n judge e r r by i n d i n g t h a t t h e respondents d i d n o t i n f r i n g ec o p y r i g h t i n t h e Kay W o rk b o t h by r e p r o d u c i n g t h e u l l t e x t o f t h e work an dby r e p r o d u c i n g s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t s o f t h e work n t h e form o f excerpts?

(b) D i d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n judge e r r by i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' u s e o f t h e KayWork was a i r d e a l i n g f o r t h e purposes o f n ew s r e p o r t i n g ?

(c) D i d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n judge e r r by a i l i n g t o award d a m a g e s o r i n f r i n g e m e n t o fc o p y r i g h t i n t h e Kay Work?

PART I I - SUBMISSIONS1 . Standard o f R e v i e w27. T h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w o n a q u e s t i o n o f law i s c o r r e c t n e s s . 2 3 T h e s t a n d a r d o fr e v i e w f o r f i n d i n g s o f f a c t i s t h a t su c h f i n d i n g s a r e n o t t o be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s i t can bee s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e t r i a l judge m a d e a p a l p a b l e an d o v e r r i d i n g e r r o r ."2 4

21 Judgment t p a r a . 31, Appeal Book, o l . 1 , Tab 3 , p . 29.z z Judgment t p a r a s . 2 9- 3 4 , Appeal Book, o l . 1 , Tab 3 , p p . 2 9- 3 1 .


13/36

28. M a t t e r s o f mixed f a c t and law i e a l o n g a spectrum. Where, o r i n s t a n c e , an e r r o rc an be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f an i n c o r r e c t s t a n d a r d , a f a i l u r e t o c o n s i d e r ar e q u i r e d element o f a l e g a l t e s t , o r a s i m i l a r e r r o r i n p r i n c i p l e , s u ch an e r r o r can bec h a r a c t e r i z e d as an e r r o r o f l a w , s u b j e c t t o a s t a n d a r d o f c o r r e c t n e s s . Wh e r e t h e l e g a lp r i n c i p l e i s n o t r e a d i l y e x t r i c a b l e , t h e n t h e m a t t e r i s one o f "mixed law and f a c t " and i ss u b j e c t t o a more s t r i n g e n t s t a n d a r d . 2 5

29. The r r o r s r a i s e d i n t h i s appeal amount, e n e r a l l y speaking, o q u e s t i o n s o f mixedf a c t and l a w . However, n most ca se s t h e n a t u r e o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n j u d g e ' s e r r o r s c an ber e a d i l y e x t r i c a b l e as e r r o r s o f law i n t h a t he a p p l i e d an i n c o r r e c t s t a n d a r d o r f a i l e d t oc o n s i d e r a r e q u i r e d element o f a l e g a l t e s t . These a r e e r r o r s i n p r i n c i p l e t h a t a r e t o bereviewed on a s t a n d a r d o f c o r r e c t n e s s .

30. Each o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n j u d g e ' s e r r o r s a r e s e t o u t , and f u r t h e r d i s c u s s e d , b e l o w .

2. The R es p o n den t s I n f r i n g e d Copyright n the Kay W o r k31. The respondents i n f r i n g e d c o p y r i g h t i n t h e Ka y Work i n t w o ways. F i r s t , theyreproduced the u l l t e x t o f t h e Ka y Work on t h e Free D ominion w e b s i t e from February 18,2 0 0 8 n t i l A p r i l 18, 20 10. Second, hey reproduced s u b s t a n t i a l e x c e r p t s o f t h e Ka y Workon the Free Dominion w e b s i t e from A p r i l 18, 2 0 1 0 n t i l A p r i l 7, 0 1 1 . 2 6

23 Ho usen v . N i k o l a i s e n , 2 0 0 2 SCC 3 Housen] t p a r a . 8 .2 4 Housen, supra a t p a r s . 1 0 .2 5 Housen, upra a t p a r s . 36.26Supplementary F o u r n i e r A f f i d a v i t , Appeal Book, o l . 4, Ta b 9 , p . 1272, p a r a . 23


14/36

10

32. I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether h e r e has been c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t , t h e Court must i r s te s t a b l i s h whether c o p y r i g h t e x i s t s i n t h e work i n q u e s t i o n . I n t h i s case, t h e respondentsd i d n o t d i s p u t e t h a t c o p y r i g h t s u b s i s t s i n t h e Kay Wor k , an o r i g i n a l " l i t e r a r y work" o r t h epurposes o f t h e C o p y r i g h t A c t . 2 7

33. Subsection 3(1) o f t h e C o p y r i g h t Act p r o v i d e s t h a t " c o p y r i g h t" , i n r e l a t i o n t o al i t e r a r y , d r a m a t i c , m u s i c a l , o r a r t i s t i c work, i n c l u d e s " t h e s o l e r i g h t t o produce o rreproduce a work o r any s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t o f a work n any m a t e r i a l form." 2 8

34. Pursuant o s u b s e c t i o n 27(1) f t h e C o p y r i g h t A c t , t i s an i n f r i n g e m e n t o f c o p y r i g h tf o r any person t o do, i t h o u t t h e consent f t h e owner o f t h e c o p y r i g h t , a n y t h i n g t h a t o n l ythe c o p y r i g h t o w n e r h as t h e r i g h t t o d o . 2 9

35. T h e r e f o r e , c o p y i n g a work, o r a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t o f i t , w i t h o u t t h e consent o f t h ec o p y r i g h t o w n e r s an i n f r i n g e m e n t o f t h e r i g h t t o reproduce t h e work o r any s u b s t a n t i a lp a r t o f i t . 3 o

2 . 1 Th e u l l- t e x t reproduction o f the Kay W o r k i n f r i n g e d copyright36. Each d ay from Febru ary 18, 2008 n t i l A p r i l 1 8 , 2010, f u l l- t e x t r e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h eKay Work w a s p o s t e d o n t h e Free Dominion w e b s i t e . That c l e a r l y c o n s t i t u t e dr e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e work w i t h i n t h e meaning o f s u b s e c t i o n 3(1) f t h e C o p y r i g h t A c t .

27 J udgment, A ppeal Book, o l . 1 , Ta b 3 , p a r s . 22; C o p y r i g h t A c t , s . 5 ( 1 ) .2 8 C o p y r i g h t A c t , s . 3 ( 1 ) .291bid, . 2 7 ( 1 ) .3 o J ohn S. McK e o w n , F o x Canadian La w of C o p y r i g h t and n d u s t r i a l Designs, ' h ed. T o r o n t o : Th omps o n

Reuters C a n a da L i m i t e d , 2009) Fox] t page 21- 1 1 .


15/36

11

37. This r e p r o d u c t i o n was made w i t h o u t t h e consent o f e i t h e r t h e N a t i o n a l P o s t , t h eowner o f c o p y r i g h t i n t h e work, o r Mr. Warman, h e e x c l u s i v e l i c e n s e e o f c o p y r i g h t , an dt h e r e f o r e i n f r i n g e d c o p y r i g h t i n t h e Kay Work p u r s u a n t t o s u b s e c t i o n 27(1) o f t h eCopyright c t .

38. T h e a p p l i c a t i o n judge f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r whether t h i s conduct c o n s t i t u t e d ani n f r i n g e m e n t o f c o p y r i g h t i n t h e Kay Work, i n s t e a d l i m i t i n g h i s a n a l y s i s t o t h e e x c e r p t sreproduced a f t e r A p r i l 18, 2010.

39. T h e a i l u r e t o c o n s i d e r an d a p p l y t h e law t o t h e c l e a r r e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e KayWork c o n s t i t u t e s an e r r o r o f law an d g i v e s t h i s Court h e a b i l i t y t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e i s s u e o na standard o f c o r r e c t n e s s .

40. On he f a c t s o f t h i s case, h e r e s p o n d e n t s , q u i t e s i m p l y , have n o defence t o a v o i dl i a b i l i t y f o r c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t as a r e s u l t o f r e p r o d u c i n g a c o p y r i g h t work i n i t se n t i r e t y . T hey d i d n o t have t h e r e q u i s i t e consent t o reproduce the Kay Work an d thusv i o l a t e d s u b s e c t i o n 27(1) o f t h e Act by d o i n g so. F u r t h e r , t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e KayWork was v e r b a t i m , an d thus r e n d e r s moot an y p o s s i b l e q u e s t i o n as t o whether t h er e p r o d u c t i o n was f e x p r e s s i o n o r o f i d e a s .

2 . 1 . 1 T h e s t a t u t o r y l i m i t a t i o n p e r i o d i s n o b a r t o a i n d i n g o f i n f r i n g e m e n t41 . S e c t i o n 4 3 . 1 o f t h e C o p y r i g h t Act p r o v i d e s f o r athree- y e a r l i m i t a t i o n p e r i o d o nclaims f o r c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t , an d r e q u i r e s t h a t a p l a i n t i f f commence a p r o c e e d i n g


16/36

12

w i t h i n t h r e e years o f when t h e p l a i n t i f f knew o r c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y have been expected t oknow t h a t a breach o f t h e Ac t ha d o c c u r r e d . 3 1

42. This s e c t i o n o f t h e Ac t does n o t e x t i n g u i s h t h e c ause o f a c t i o n o r t h e c o p y r i g h t i nthe Ka y Work.32 t does n o t p r e c l u d e a f i n d i n g o f c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t i n a work, ev en ft h a t i n f r i n g e m e n t o c c u r r e d more t h a n t h r e e y e a r s p r i o r t o comm en c e m en t o f a c l a i m .R a t h e r , t h i s l i m i t a t i o n p e r i o d i s p u r e l y p r o c e d u r a l ; i t o n l y l i m i t s a c o p y r i g h t owner's b i l i t yt o r e c o v e r d a m a g e s o r atime-b a r r e d i n f r i n g e m e n t .

43 . Furthermore, h i l e s e c t i o n 4 3 . 1 ma y b a r r e c o v e r y f o r i n f r i n g e m e n t s t h a t a r e morethan t h r e e years o l d , t doe s n o t b a r r e c o v e r y f o r c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t committed on anongoing b a s i s o r f o r i n f r i n g e m e n t s t h a t occur subsequent t o a s t a t u t e- b a r r e di n f r i n g e m e n t . 3 3

44. T he respondents have a d m i t t e d t h a t a f u l l- t e x t r e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e Ka y W o r k wa sposted on t h e F r e e Dominion w e b s i t e e ach d ay from t h e date o f p u b l i c a t i o n u n t i l A p r i l 1 8 ,2 0 1 0 . 3 4 This c o n s t i t u t e s a n ongoing breac h and a c o n t i n u o u s i n f r i n g e m e n t o f c o p y r i g h t i nthe Ka y W o r k h r o u g h A p r i l 18 , 2010. T he respondents a r e l i a b l e f o r t h a t i n f r i n g e m e n t f o re a c h d a y t o c c u r r e d .

31 C o p y r i g h t A c t , s . 4 3 . 1 1 ) ( a ) .3 2 W a l l v . Horn Abbot t d . , 2007 NSSC 97 a t p a r a s . 454, 474.331bid. Se e a l s o S o c i e t y of Composers, Authors a nd Music P u b l i s h e r s v . B a r r y m o r e ' s I n c . , 2003 FCT 14;a nd s e e Dolmage v . E r s k i n e , 2003 C a n L l l 8 3 5 0 (ONSC): "As t o c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m en t t h e evidence i soverwhelming t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f ha s been awa r e o f t h e a l l e g e d i n f r i n g e m e n t s from t h e b e g i n n i n g .Consequently h i s remedies f o r a l l e g e d c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r a c t s o f c o p y r i g h ti n f r i n g e m e n t o c c u r r i n g o n l y a f t e r A p r i l 1 2 , 1 9 9 8 . "3 a Supplementary F o u r n i e r A f f i d a v i t , App eal Book, o l . 4, T a b 9 , p . 1271 a t p a r a s . 14 a nd 1 9 ; and s e e t h eA m e n d e d F o u r n i e r A f f i d a v i t a t p a r a . 4, Appeal Book, o l . 1 , T a b 8, p . 196.


17/36

13

45. The a p p l i c a t i o n u n d e r l y i n g t h i s appeal was commenced on Ma y 9, 2011.T h e r e f o r e , s e c t i o n 4 3 . 1 cannot b a r a remedy o r i n f r i n g i n g a c t s t h a t o c c u r r e d on o r a f t e rMay , 2008, n c l u d i n g t h e u l l - t e x t r e p r o d u c t i o n s o f t h e Ka y Work h a t were p o s t e d on h eFree Dominion w e b s i t e every da y between Ma y 9, 2008 a nd A p r i l 18, 2010.

2.2 The a p p l i c a t i o n judge erred i n concluding the excerpts were not a"substantial p a r t " of the Ka y Work

46. A f t e r r e c e i v i n g a cease and d e s i s t l e t t e r from M r . Warman, t h e respondentsremoved t h e u l l - t e x t r e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e Kay Work from t h e i r w e b s i t e a nd r e p l a c e d i t w i t h

e x c e r p t s o f t h a t work.

47. An i n f r i n g e r does n o t escape i a b i l i t y f o r c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t by r e p r o d u c i n g as u b s t a n t i a l p a r t o f t h e work a s opposed t o t h e whole o f i t . 3 5

48. I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether a r e p r o d u c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t , " the c o u r t i st o c o n s i d e r whether the r e p r o d u c t i o n ha s t h e " d i s t i n c t t r a i t s o f t h e o r i g i n a l work,"36whether h e r e i s " s u f f i c i e n t o b j e c t i v e s i m i l a r i t y " between t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n and t h e o r i g i n a lwork, 37 and whether t h e v e r y "essence" o r " p r i n c i p a l f e a t u r e s " o f a work a r ea p p r o p r i a t e d . 3 8

35 Theberge . G a l e r i e d ' A r t du e t i t Champlain i n c . , 2 0 0 2 SCC 4 Theberge] t p a r s . 51.36 Compagnie Generale des E t a b l i s s e m e n t s M i c h e l i n - - M i c h e l i n &Cie v . N a t i o n a l A u t o m o b i l e , Aerospace,T r a n s p o r t a t i o n a nd General Workers Union of Canada(CAW- Canada), 1996 CanLll 3920 FC), 1997]2F.C. 30 6 T . D . ) , a t p a r a . 50; a nd see Theberge, sup ra a t p a r a . 14 2 d i s s e n t ) .37 Prism H o s p i t a l S o f t w a r e I n c . v . H o s p i t a l M e d i c a l Records n s t i t u t e (1994),97BCLR 2d) 01(BCSC) tp a r s . 615.38 E d u t i / e I n c . v . Automobile r o t e c t i o n A s s n . ,(APA) 2000) 18 8 DLR 4th) 132, 2000]4FC19 4 E d u t i l e ] a tp a r a s . 17 and 23.


18/36

14

49. A e p r o d u c t i o n i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r t o the o r i g i n a l w h e n t "comes so near o theo r i g i n a l a s t o g i v e every pe rson seei ng t the idea c r e a t e d by the o r i g i n a l . " This l e v e l o fs i m i l a r i t y " c r e a t e s prima f a c i e evidence o f c o p y i n g ~ ~ . 3 9

50. T h e s t a n d a r d t o be a p p l i e d r e q u i r e s "more emphasis on t h e q u a l i t y o f what wa staken from t h e o r i g i n a l work r a t h e r t h a n t h e q u a n t i t y . " Th e r e ma y be a d d i t i o n a lc o n s i d e r a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g "whether t h e defendant i n t e n t i o n a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e d t h e p l a i n t i f f ' swork t o save time and f f o r t ." 4 o

51. T h e p p l i c a t i o n judge a i l e d t o a p p l y t h i s l e g a l s t a n d a r d wh en d e t e r m i n i n g whethera s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t o f t h e Ka y Work wa s r e p r o d u c e d . F a i l i n g t o d o so wa s an e x t r i c a b l el e g a l e r r o r and t h e r e f o r e ca n be r e v i e w e d on a t a n d a r d o f c o r r e c t n e s s .

2 . 2 . 1 T h e r e p r o d u c t i o n wa s u a n t i t a t i v e l y s u b s t a n t i a l52. T h e p p l i c a t i o n judge e r r e d by p p l y i n g an i n c o r r e c t q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s wh en h edetermined summarily t h a t " l e s s t h a n h a l f o f t h e work" wa s n o t a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t o f t h ework.

53. Court hav e h e l d t h a t " t o e n t e r upon a s i m p l e c a l c u l a t i o n o f percentages o rp r o p o r t i o n s i n o r d e r t o determine whether h e r e wa s an i n f r i n g e m e n t would be t o u n d u l yminimize t h e p r o t e c t i o n g i v e n t o c o p y r i g h t ." a '

3 s Atomic Energy of C an a d a L i m i t e d v . AREVA NP anada L t d . , 2 009 FC 80 t p a r a . 36.a o U&R ax S e r v i c e s L t d . v . H R l o c k C an a d a n c . , [1995] . C . J . No. 96 2 F . C . ) t p a r s . 35.4 1 France A n i m a t i o n , s . a . c . Robinson, 2011 QCCA 361 a t p a r a . 5 9-60 c i t i n g E d u t i l e I n c . v . AutomobileP r o t e c t i o n A s s n . ,(APA) 2000)188 DLR 4 t h ) 132, 2000]4FC 94 E d u t i l e ] a t p a r a . 22.


19/36

15

54 . Even t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n o f a m a l l number f words n a newspaper r t i c l e can be ani m p e r m i s s i b l e r e p r o d u c t i o n . I n t h e case o f I n f o p a q I n t ' 1 A/S v . Danske DagbladesF o r e n i n g , 4 2 the European Union Court f J u s t i c e concluded t h a t an 11-word e x c e r p t froma newspaper a r t i c l e can c o n s t i t u t e an i m p e r m i s s i b l e r e p r o d u c t i o n o f a c o p y r i g h t work i fthe e x c e r p t i s t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l c r e a t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l a u t h o r :

51. . . . ] [A]n a c t o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g a data c a p t u r e process, whichc o n s i s t s o f s t o r i n g an e x t r a c t o f a p r o t e c t e d work comprising 11words and p r i n t i n g out t h a t e x t r a c t , i s such as t o come i t h i n theconcept o f r e p r o d u c t i o n i n p a r t w i t h i n the meaning o f A r t i c l e 2 fD i r e c t i v e 2001 2 9 , i f t h e elements thus reproduced are theexpression o f the i n t e l l e c t u a l c r e a t i o n o f t h e i r a u t h o r ; i t i s f o r t h en a t i o n a l c o u r t t o make h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n .

55. Th e e x c e r p t o f the Kay Work reproduced by t h e respondents amounts t o morethan one t h i r d o f t h e work. Th e a p p l i c a t i o n judge i n c o r r e c t l y m i n i m i z e d t h i s as ani n s u b s t a n t i a l amount.

2 . 2 . 2 Th e r e p r o d u c t i o n was u a l i t a t i v e l y s u b s t a n t i a l56. Even i f a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l amount o f a work i s reproduced, t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n mayamount o i n f r i n g e m e n t f , q u a l i t a t i v e l y , t c o n s t i t u t e d an a p p r o p r i a t i o n by t h e r e p r o d u c i n gp a r t y o f t h e s k i l l and t i m e and t a l e n t o f t h e a u t h o r . 4 3

57. A p p l y i n g the c o r r e c t s t a n d a r d , as e t o u t n paragraphs48 o 50 , above, h e r e i s noq u e s t i o n t h a t t h e reproduced e x c e r p t s o f t h e Kay Work have t h e " d i s t i n c t t r a i t s " o f t h eo r i g i n a l p u b l i c a t i o n . Th e e x c e r p t s s t a n d on t h e i r own and a r e c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i a b l e as t h eo r i g i n a l work. Th e e x c e r p t s convey h e i d e a s advanced i n t h e o r i g i n a l work and r e a c h the4Z Case C- 5 / 0 8 , I n f o p a q I n t ' I A/S . Danske Dagblades o r e n i n g , 2009] ECR -6569 t p a r s . 5 1 .a3 Breen v Hancock House u b l i s h e r s L t d . 1 9 8 5 ) ,6 . I . P . . 129 F e d . T . . ) ; see a l s o F o x , u p r a , n o t e 5 tpage 21 - 1 6 . 3 .


20/36

16

same o n c l u s i o n s as the o r i g i n a l w o r k . A erson r e a d i n g t h e e x c e r p t s would u n d e r s t a n dan d a p p r e c i a t e b o t h t h e "essence" f t h e complete w o rk an d t s d i s t i n c t r a i t s .

58. Th e x c e r p t s from t h e Kay W o r k had a s u f f i c i e n t o b j e c t i v e s i m i l a r i t y " t o the r i g i n a lp u b l i c a t i o n . Th e essence" an d p r i n c i p a l f e a t u r e s " o f t h e Kay Work, hich are t o c r i t i c i z eMr. Wa r m a n an d t h e so -c a l l e d "phony-r a c i s m i n d u s t r y , " a r e reproduced e n t i r e l y ,n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the a c t t h a t n o t a l l o f t h e w o r d s o f t h e o r i g i n a l w o rk a r e reproduced.

59. F u r t h e r , t h e respondents i n t e n t i o n a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e d " t h e Kay W o r k t o save t i m ean d e f f o r t . " Th e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h e Kay W o r k w as such t h a t i t c o u l d have be e nsumma r ized by t h e respond e nts r a t h e r t h a n reproduced v e r b a t i m . Th e r e s p o n d e n t s ,i n s t e a d , s i m p l y c o p i e d an d reproduced b o t h t h e u l l - t e x t Kay W o r k an d t h e e x c e r p t s l a t e rposted t o t h e Free Dominion w e b s i t e .

60. Th e re produced e x c e r p t s c o n t a i n e d a l l o f t h e d i s t i n c t f e a t u r e s an d h a l l m a r k s o f t h eco m p l e t e Kay Work, an d t h e r e f o r e c o n s t i t u t e d a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t " o f t h e work. C o n t r a r y t othe a p p l i c a t i o n j u d g e ' s v i e w , whether a v e r b a t i m e x t r a c t from a w o rk c o n s t i t u t e s as u b s t a n t i a l p a r t h as n o t h i n g t o d o i t h whether t c o n t a i n s " m o r e " r l e s s " o r i g i n a l thoughto r c o m m e n t a ry than some t h e r h y p o t h e t ic a l p a r t o f t h e same ork.

61. R a t h e r , t h e c o r r e c t approach i s t o c o m pa r e t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n t o t h e w o rk as awhole, assess t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s between t h e tw o, an d determine q u a l i t a t i v e l y w h e t h e r t h ee x c e r p t d i s c l o s e s an e x e r c i s e o f t h e a u t h o r ' s s k i l l an d judgment. 4 That w as c l e a r l y t h ecase w i t h the e x c e r p t s a t i s s u e h e r e , which i n c l u d e d t h e v e r y "hook" f t h e a r t i c l e t h e

4a France A n i m a t i o n , s . . c . Robinson, 2011 QCCA 361 a t p a r a . 61.


21/36

17

words s e l e c t e d by t h e a u t h o r e x p r e s s l y t o grab t h e r e a d e r ' s a t t e n t i o n by p r e s e n t i n g t h es e l e c t e d t o p i c i n a n o r i g i n a l , thought- p r o v o k i n g manner.

62. Moreover, h e h e a d l i n e o f t h e a r t i c l e wa s a l s o a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t o f t h e work. Th ea p p l i c a t i o n judge e r r e d by a i l i n g t o c o n s i d e r t h e e f f e c t o f r e p r o d u c i n g t h e h e a d l i n e o f t h ea r t i c l e even though t h e C o p y r i g h t Act e f i n e s a "work" a s i n c l u d i n g t h e t i t l e o f t h a t work" w h e n such i t l e i s o r i g i n a l a nd d i s t i n c t i v e ." 45

63. Th e h e a d l i n e o f t h e a r t i c l e wa s b o t h o r i g i n a l a nd d i s t i n c ti v e . I n Canada, t h et h r e s h o l d f o r o r i g i n a l i t y i n a work s " r a t h e r l o w . " I n o r d e r f o r a work o r the i t l e o f a work)t o be o r i g i n a l" , a l l t h a t s r e q u i r e d i s a n e x e r c i s e o f k i l l and judgment by the a u t h o r , whichi n v o l v e s i n t e l l e c t u a l e f f o r t . Such e x e r c i s e must n o t be so t r i v i a l t h a t i t c o u l d bec h a r a c t e r i z e d a s a p u r e l y mechanical e x e r c i s e . 4 6 However, h e s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t o fo r i g i n a l i t y does n o t i m p l y i n v e n t i v e o r i g i n a l i t y . I t i s enough t h a t t h e work i s t h e p r o d u c t i o no f something i n a ne w form a s a r e s u l t o f t h e s k i l l , l a b o u r a nd judgment f t h e a u t h o r . 4 7

64. Something t h a t i s " d i s t i n c t i v e " i s " s e r v i n g t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e o r d i s t i n g u i s h ; p e c u l i a r t oone person o r t h i n g a s i s t i n c t from o t h e r s , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ; h a v i n g w e l l -marked p r o p e r t i e s ;e a s i l y r e c o g n i z e d ." 48 Something t h a t i s " d i s t i n c t " i s " d i s t i n g u i s h e d a s n o t b e i n g t h e s a m e ;n o t i d e n t i c a l ; s e p a r a t e ; d i f f e r e n t i n n a t u r e o r q u a l i t y ."49 Th e t i t l e o f t h e Ka y Work

a5 C o p y r i g h t A c t , s . 2, e f i n i t i o n o f "work"a 6 CCH, upra a t p a r s 1 6 .47 l l e n v . T o r o n t o S t a r Newspapers t d . ( 1 9 9 7 ) , 36 O.R. 3d) 01 O n t . D i v . Ct . ) A l l e n ] a t p a r s . 1648 New h o r t e r Oxford E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y , v o l . A, . v . " d i s t i n c t i v e " .as R a n d o m H ouse D i c t i o n a r y of h e E n g l i s h Language, 2nd e d . , s . v . " d i s t i n c t" .


22/36

possesses these q u a l i t i e s , d i s t i n g u i s h i n g t h e Kay Work from o t h e r newspaper a r t i c l e s ,and i n so d o i n g i s d i s t i n c t i v e .

65. Th e h e a d l i n e , "Jonathan Kay on R i c h a r d Warman and Canada's Phony- RacismI n d u s t r y" , c l e a r l y demonstrates c r e a t i v i t y , o ri g i n a l i t y and d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s , i n c l u d i n g t h ed i s t i n c t i v e and o r i g i n a l concept o f a "phony-r a c i s m i n d u s t r y . "

66. Even i f n o t a l e g a l l y e x t r i c a b l e e r r o r , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n judge made a p a l p a b l e an do v e r r i d i n g e r r o r wh en he concluded t h a t t h e e x c e r p t e d p o r t i o n s were n o t o r i g i n a l o rq u a l i t a t i v e l y s u b s t a n t i v e . Examining t h e e x c e r p t s demonstrates t h a t they c o n t a i n e dc o n s i d e r a b l e o r i g i n a l thought and a n a l y s i s , i n c l u d i n g d e s c r i p t i v e t e r m i n o l o g y t h a t c a r r i e dmeaning f a r beyond a mere r e c i t a t i o n o f f a c t s .

67. For a l l these reasons, i t i s s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e reproduced e x c e r p t s wereq u a l i t a t i v e l y a u b s t a n t i a l p a r t o f t h e Kay Work, and thus n f r i n g e d c o p y r i g h t i n v i o l a t i o n o fs u b s e c t i o n 27(1) f t h e C o p y r i g h t A c t .

3. Th e Respondents' Us e of the Kay Work was ot a i r Dealing for the Purposeof News eporting

68. As an a l t e r n a t i v e f i n d i n g , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n judge determined t h a t , even i f h e wasi n c o r r e c t and t h e e x c e r p t o f t h e Kay Work was a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t o f t h e work, t h erespondents' use o f the Kay Work was n e v e r t h e l e s s f a i r d e a l i n g f o r t h e purpose o f newsr e p o r t i n g .


23/36

19

69. Counsel o t h e N a t i o n a l Post has been unable t o i d e n t i f y any c o u r t d e c i s i o n i n anyj u r i s d i c t i o n i n Canada t h a t has c o n s i d e r e d t h e e x c e p t i o n t o c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t i ns e c t i o n 29.2 o f t h e C o p y r i g h t Act o r a i r d e a l i n g f o r t h e purpose o f news r e p o r t i n g . 5 o

70. G e n e r a l l y speaking, t h e concept o f f a i r d e a l i n g a l l o w s u s e r s t o en g a g e i n somea c t i v i t i e s t h a t might t h e r w i s e a m ount o c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t . 5 1 While t m a y be h a t t h ef a i r d e a l i n g p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e Act a r e n o t t o be i n t e r p r e t e d r e s t r i c t i v e l y ,52 t h e r e a r enonetheless a nu m b e r f s t a t u t o r y and common aw p r e r e q u i s i t e s t h a t a u s e r must a t i s f yb e f o r e i t may e l y on a a i r d e a l i n g e x c e p t i o n .

71. The news r e p o r t i n g e x c e p t i o n i n s e c t i o n 29.2 o f t h e Act p r o v i d e s t h a t f a i r d e a l i n gf o r the purpose o f news r e p o r t i n g does n o t i n f r i n g e c o p y r i g h t i f : (a) t h e source i smentioned; and (b) f g i v e n i n t h e s o u r c e , t h e n a m e f t h e a u t h o r , n t h e case o f a w o r k . 5 3

72. I t i s o n l y once these s t a t u t o r y p r e -c o n d i t i o n s a r e s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e two- s t e p f a i rd e a l i n g t e s t e s t a b l i s h e d i n CCH s t o be a p p l i e d . This two- s t e p t e s t a s k s : (1) whether h ed e a l i n g i s f o r an a l l o w a b l e purpose i n c l u d i n g news r e p o r t i n g ) ; and, f so, 2) whether h ed e a l i n g i s " f a i r " i n accordance w i t h t h e f a c t o r s s e t out n CCH. The onus f p r o o f i s on t h eperson i n v o k i n g " f a i r d e a l i n g " t o s a t i s f y b o t h aspects o f t h e e s t . 5 a

5o The case f A l l e n v . T o r o n t o S t a r Newspapers t d . 1 9 9 7 ) , 36 O.R. 3d) 01 (Ont. i v . C t . ) o n s i d e r e d t h ep r e v i o u s e x c e p t i o n f o r f a i r d e a l i n g f o r t h e purpose o f "newspaper summary."

S o c i e t y of Composers, Authors and Music u b l i s h e r s of Canada . B e l l Canada, 2012 SCC 6[SOCANB e l l ] a t p a r a . 1 1 .

521bid.53 C o p y r i g h t A c t , s . 2 9 . 2 .SOCAN B e l l , supra a t p a r s . 1 3 .


24/36

20

73. The a p p l i c a t i o n judge e r r e d i n h i s a p p l i c a t i o n o f the f a i r d e a l i n g e x c e p t i o n i n t h r e eways: 1) he wrongly concluded t h a t the s t a t u t o r y p r e - c o n d i t i o n t o mention t he source o fthe work w as met; 2) he wrongly conclud ed t h a t the respondents' purpose i n d e a l i n g w i t hthe work was o r news r e p o r t i n g ; and (3) he m i s a p p l i e d t h e CCH a c t o r s an d thus wronglyconcluded t h a t the d e a l i n g w i t h the work wa s a i r .

3 . 1 I t was n Error to Ap p ly the News eporting Exception3 . 1 . 1 The source o f the Kay Work wa s n o t mentioned i n the r e p r o d u c t i o n74. The a p p l i c a t i o n j u d g e ' s f i r s t e r r o r i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f the f a i r d e a l i n g e x c e p t i o nwas n concluding t h a t the respon dents had m et the s t a t u t o r y c o n d i t i o n s precedent i nsubsections 29.2(a) and (b) f the A c t .

75. The o n u s o f p r o o f t o demonstrate compliance w i t h the s t a t u t o r y p r e - c o n d i t i o n s i nsubsections 2 9 . 1 and 29.2 i e s o n the person i n v o k i n g the e x c e p t i o n . 5 5

76. The a p p l i c a t i o n judge d i d n o t d e s c r i b e where o r ho w the source o f the Kay Workwas entioned. t i s e n t i r e l y u n c l e a r from a r e v i e w o f the r e c o r d the b a s i s u p o n which thea p p l i c a t i o n judge reached t h i s c o n c l u s i o n .

77. Although i t appears t h a t the respond ents mentio ned the author o f the Kay Work,thus adequately s a t i s f y i n g the s t a t u t o r y p r e c o n d i t i o n i n paragraph 2 9 . 2 ( b ) ( i ) , t h e r e i s n o

reference t o the N a t i o n a l Post r www.nationalpost.com as the source o f the Kay Work nthe Free Domi nion t h r e a d i n which the work appeared, as r e q u i r e d by u b s e c t i o n 2 9 . 2 ( a ) .The respondents d i d n o t a t an y time i n t h e i r evidence, o r i n t h e i r w r i t t e n o r o r a l

55 M i c h e l i n , supra a t p a r s . 59 .


25/36

21

submissions, i n d i c a t e where the N a t i o n a l Post was c r e d i t e d as the source of the KayWork, or suggest h a t the N a t i o n a l Post was s o c r e d i t e d .

78. Given t h a t t h e r e i s no mention o f the N a t i o n a l Post as the source o f the Kay Work,t h e r e was n o e v i d e n t i a r y f o u n d a t i o n upon which the a p p l i c a t i o n judge c o u l d haveconcluded t h a t the respondents had mentioned the source o f the a r t i c l e as opposed t omerely i t s a u t h o r . I n t h a t way, the a p p l i c a t i o n judge e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t the s t a t u t o r yc o n d i t i o n precedent n subsection 2 9 . 2 ( a ) o f the Copyright Act was a t i s f i e d i n t h i s case.For t h a t reason a l o n e , the f a i r d e a l i n g f o r news r e p o r t i n g e x c e p t i o n i s i n a p p l i c a b l e , an dthe a p p l i c a t i o n judge e r r e d i n law by c o n c l u d i n g o t h e r w i s e .

3 . 1 . 2 There i s n o evidence t h a t the respondents' purpose was o r news r e p o r t i n g79. T he a p p l i c a t i o n judge u r t h e r e r r e d by a p p l y i n g the news e p o r t i n g e x c e p t i o n whent h e r e was imply n o evidence t h a t the purpose o f the respondents' e a l i n g w i t h the KayWork was o r news r e p o r t i n g .

80. I n d e t e r m i n i n g the purpose o f a d e a l i n g , " c o u r t s should attempt t o make ano b j e c t i v e assessment o f the user/ d e f e n d a n t ' s r e a l purpose o r motive i n u s i n g thec o p y r i g h t e d w o r k . '56

81. To s t a b l i s h the r e a l purpose o r motive i n u s i n g a work o n an o b j e c t i v e standardr e q u i r e s some a c t u a l evidence o f t h a t purpose, i t h e r d i r e c t l y o r by n f e r e n c e . 5 7 The o n u so f p r o o f t o e s t a b l i s h t h i s purpose i s o n the p a r t y c l a i m i n g the e x c e p t i o n . 5 8

5 6 CCH, upra a t p a r s . 54.5 7 P f i z e r Canada n c . v . Apotex I n c . , 2007 FC 71 a t p a r s . 109.


26/36

22

82. There i s no such evidence n t h i s case, a nd t h e r e f o r e no o b j e c t i v e b a s i s on whicht o conclude h a t t h e purpose o f t h e d e a l i n g w a s o r ne ws e p o r t i n g . N e i t h e r Ms. o u r n i e r ' sAmended A f f i d a v i t , sworn November 26, 2011, n o r h e r Supplementary A f f i d a v i t , swornOctober 4, 2 0 1 1 , 5 9 suggest h a t t h e Kay Work w a s reproduced f o r t h e purpose o f ne w sr e p o r t i n g . I n f a c t , n e i t h e r a f f i d a v i t suggests a ny reason w h y h e work w a s reproduced.

83. T he evidence t h a t does e x i s t c o n f i r m s t h a t t h e purpose o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s 'r e p r o d u c t i o n w a s o r something o t h e r t h a n ne ws r e p o r t i n g . On r o s s -examination on h e ra f f i d a v i t , Ms . F o u r n i e r a d m i t t e d t h a t h e r purpose i n p u b l i s h i n g M r . Warman's c o p y r i g h tworks w a s o " c r i t i q u e " Mr . Warman's c t i v i t i e s : 6 o

28. Q. Okay, h a n k s . W i l l you agree w i t h me h a t the purposebehind p u b l i s h i n g t h e Warman ork w a s o be a n l l i c i tc r i t i c i s m o f Mr . Warman e r s o n a l l y ?

A. Um, o . Um, r i t i q u e , I b e l i e v e , would be a b e t t e r w a y o fp u t t i n g i t .

29. Q. r i t i q u e then o f Mr . Warman's a c t i v i t i e s ?A. Yes.

30. Q. Okay.

A. t ' s a o l i t i c a l forum, h a t ' s the k i n d o f t h i n g we a l k a b o u t .

84. This c o n s t i t u t e s a n admission by h e respondents h a t they reproduced one o f Mr.Warman's c o p y r i g h t works f o r a purpose o t h e r t h a n ne w s r e p o r t i n g . I t i s f u r t h e r an

58 SOCAN . B e l l , supra a t p a r a . 1 3 .59Amended F o u r n i e r A f f i d a v i t , A p p e a l Book, o l . 1 , Tab ; S u p p l e m e n t a r y F o u r n i e r A f f i d a v i t , A p p e a l Book,V o l . 4 , Ta b 9 .6 o T r a n s c r i p t o f t h e Cross-e x a m i n a t i o n o f Constance F o u r n i e r , d a t e d December , 2011, p p e a l Book, o l .4 , Ta b 1 0 , p . 1 3 4 2 , Qs. 28- 3 0 .


27/36

23

admission t h a t i t wa s n o t the work i t s e l f t h a t wa s b e i n g discussed o n the Free Dominionw e b s i t e , b u t r a t h e r t h a t t h e c o n t e n t s o f the work were b e i n g u s ed f o r the a l t e r n a t e ,c o l l a t e r a l purpose o f c r i t i q u i n g Mr. Warman's a c t i v i t i e s . Although these admissionsconcerned o n e o f the o t h e r works a t i s s u e i n the a p p l i c a t i o n , i t can, and should, bei n f e r r e d t h a t the respondents' conduct wa s h e same n r e s p e c t o f the Ka y Work.

85. F u r t h e r , the purpose o f the Free Dominion website i s not news r e p o r t i n g . Asdescribed i n M s . F o u r n i e r ' s A m e n d e d A f f i d a v i t , the website i s a "m e s s a g e b o a r d . . . t h a t ]e n t i t l e s m e m b e r s t o post t h e i r own o p i n i o n d i r e c t l y t o the board o n c e they o p e n anaccount. Almost a l l people who o i n the board d o s o anonymously, p o s t i n g u n d erp s e u d o n y m s (em p h a s i s added)." Th e m e s s a g e board a l l o w s m e m b e r s t o " d i s c u s s "v a r i o u s issues o f i n t e r e s t t o t h e m . 6 1

86. Th e d e f i n i t i o n o f " d i s c u s s " s " t o c o n s i d e r o r e x a m i n e by argume nt, c o m m e n t , t c . ;t a l k over o r w r i t e about, esp. t o e x p l o r e s o l u t i o n s ; debate"62 an d " d i s c u s s i o n " i s "aconversation o r e x c h a n g e o f views" o n s p e c i f ic s u b j e c t s . 6 3 A m e s s a g e board t h a t p e r m i t sa n o n y m o u s users t o " d i s c u s s " issues o f importance t o t h e m i s n o t news r e p o r t i n g an ym o r e than a book c l u b , wher e m e m b e r s d i s c u s s a l i t e r a r y work, s n e w s r e p o r t i n g .

87. I n A l l e n v . Toronto Star Newspapers, which concerned the r e p r o d u c t i o n o f aphotograph o n the cover o f Saturday N i g h t magazine, o n e o f the defences r a i s e d t oc o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t wa s f a i r d e a l i n g f o r the purpose o f n e w s s u m m a ry , a s the

A m e n d e d F o u r n i e r A f f i d a v i t , App e al Book, o l . 1 , Ta b 8, p p . 192- 9 3 , a t p a r a s . 2- 3 .62Random Ho u s e D i c t i o n a r y of h e E n g l i s h L a n g u a g e , 2nd e d . , s . v . " d i s c u s s " .63 Canadian Oxford D i c t i o n a r y , s . v . " d i s c u s s i o n " .


28/36

25

the d e a l i n g ; (3) he amount f t h e d e a l i n g ; (4) l t e r n a t i v e s t o the d e a l i n g ; (5) he n a t u r e o fthe work; and (6) he e f f e c t o f the d e a l i n g on the w o r k . 6 6

92. F u r t h e r , w h i l e the q u e s t i o n o f whether a d e a l i n g i s " f a i r " i s a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t anddepends on the f a c t s o f each c a s e , 6 7 t h e r e can s t i l l be an e r r o r o f law i f the a p p l i c a t i o njudge m i s d i r e c t e d h i m s e l f i n r e s p e c t o f the a p p l i c a b l e l e g a l t e s t . 6 8

3 . 2 . 1 Purpose o f the D e a l i n g

93. Th e purpose o f a d e a l i n g w i l l be f a i r i f i t i s f o r one o f the a l l o w a b l e purposes under

the Copyright A c t . Courts should attempt t o make an o b j e c t i v e assessment o f t h euser/ d e f e n d a n t ' s r e a l purpose o r motive i n u s i n g the c o p y r i g h t e d w o r k . 6 9

94. As discussed i n paragraphs 79 t o 89, above , the a p p l i c a t i o n judge e r r e d i nconcluding t h a t the purpose o f the d e a l i n g w as f o r n e w s r e p o r t i n g . I n any event, thea p p l i c a t i o n judge engaged i n no a n a l y s i s a t a l l w h e n c o n s i d e r i n g t h i s f a c t o r and made noattempt t o o b j e c t i v e l y assess t h e respondents' r e a l purpose o r motive f o r u s i n g thec o p y r i g h t e d work. I n s t e a d , h e s i m p l y r e i t e r a t e d h i s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the purpose o f thed e a l i n g w as f o r ne ws r e p o r t i n g , and i n so d o i n g a p p l i e d the i n c o r r e c t l e g a l standard byf a i l i n g t o consider i m p o r t a n t evidence o f the competi ng purposes i n t h i s case, and byf a i l i n g t o determine which o f these purposes w as predominant.

s6 CCH, upra a t para 53. Th e Court notes t h a t , w h i l e t h i s l i s t o f f a c t o r s i s " u s e f u l " and o u t l i n e s what c o u l dbe considered" n assessing the a i r n e s s o f a d e a l i n g , these o n s i d e r a t i o n s w i l l n o t l l a r i s e i n every case o ff a i r d e a l i n g " and ought n o t be i g i d l y a p p l i e d i n governing d e t e r m i n a t i o n s o f f a i r n e s s .67SOCAN . B e l l , supra a t p a r s . 32.

Housen, supra a t p a r a . 36.69 CCH, upra a t p a r a . 54.


29/36

26

95. I t i s submitted t h a t the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s the predominant purpose o f t h i s d e a l i n gwas o r the purpose o f e i t h e r c r i t i q u i n g o r promoting d i s c u s s i o n about Mr. W a r m a n . i t h e rway, t was ot o r the purpose o f n e w s r e p o r t i n g .

3 . 2 . 2 Character o f the D e a l i n g

96. I n assessing the c h a r a c t e r o f a d e a l i n g , c o u r t s m u s t e x a m i n e h o w the work wa sd e a l t w i t h . I f m u l t i p l e copies o f a work are w i d e l y d i s t r i b u t e d , t h i s w i l l tend t o b e u n f a i r . 7 0

97. Th e a p p l i c a t i o n judge acknowledged t h a t " t h e c h a r a c t e r o f the d e a l i n g d o e s not

s t r o n g l y support a f i n d i n g o f f a i r d e a l i n g . Th e excerpts are w i d e l y d i s t r i b u t e d o n theI n t e r n e t a s o p p o s e d t o the making o f a p r i v a t e copy.

98. M s . F o u r n i e r a d m i t t e d o n cross-examination t h a t t h e r e were 35,770 views o f thed i s c u s s i o n t h r e a d i n which the Ka y Work wa s posted on the Free Dominion w e b s i t e . 7 2Rather than "not support" a i n d i n g o f f a i r n e s s , the c h a r a c t e r o f the respondents' e a l i n gf i r m l y supports a i n d i n g o f u n f a i r n e s s .

3 . 2 . 3 A m o u n t f the D e a l i n g99. CCH n s t r u c t s t h a t the q u a n t i t y o f the work taken w i l l n o t b e d e t e r m i n a t i v e o ff a i r n e s s , but h a t i t can h e l p i n the d e t e r m i n a t i o n , and t h a t the a m o u n t taken may l s o b em o r e or l e s s f a i r d e p e n d i n g o n the purpose o f the d e a l i n g . 7 3

7 0 CCH, upra a t p a r a . 55." J u d g m e n t , Appeal Book, o l . 1 , Ta b 3 t p a r a . 34.7 2 T r a n s c r i p t o f t h e Cross- e x a m i n a t i o n o f Constance F o u r n i e r , d a t e d D e c e m b e r , 2011, Appeal Book, o l .4, Ta b 1 0 , p . 1351, Qs . 82- 8 4 .7 3 CCH, upra a t p a r s . 56 .


30/36

27

100. The "amount" a c t o r i s n o t a q u a l i t a t i v e assessment f the amount o p i e d . R a t h e r ,i t i s a q u a n t i t a t i v e examination o f the p r o p o r t i o n between the excerpted c opy and thee n t i r e w o r k . 7 4

101. I n h i s a n a l y s i s o f t h i s f a c t o r , the a p p l i c a t i o n judge concluded " t h e amount o f thed e a l i n g was e r y l i m i t e d . The reproduced p o r t i o n o f t h e Kay Work c o n t a i n e d m o s t l y f a c t sand d i d n o t c o n t a i n most o f the o r i g i n a l commentary by the a u t h o r . " This i s a q u a l i t a t i v ea n a l y s i s , which i s n o t a r e l e v a n t f a c t o r i n c o n s i d e r i n g the amount f t h e d e a l i n g . F u r t h e r , ti s n o t a c o r r e c t assessment o f the amount o f the d e a l i n g when examined i n p r o p o r t i o nbetween the excerpted c opy and the e n t i r e work.

102. I n f a c t , the reproduced excerpt c o n s t i t u t e s a s i g n i f i c a n t amount o f the Kay Work:approximately one t h i r d o f the body o f the a r t i c l e , p l u s the h e a d l i n e , which holdss u b s t a n t i a l independent i g n i f i c a n c e i n and o f i t s e l f .

103. I t i s submitted t h a t , g i v e n the l a r g e amount f the work reproduced, the amount fthe respondents' e a l i n g w i t h the Kay Work p o i n t s t o a i n d i n g o f u n f a i r n e s s .

3 . 2 . 4 A l t e r n a t i v e s t o the D e a l i n g

104. CCH n s t r u c t s t h a t a c o u r t should attempt t o determine whether the d e a l i n g w as"reasonably necessary t o achieve the u l t i m a t e p u r p o s e . " S i m i l a r l y , i f a user c o u l d haveused anon-c o p y r i g h t e d e q u i v a l e n t o f the work i n s t e a d o f the c o p y r i g h t e d work, t h i ssuggests u n f a i r n e s s . 7 5

74 SOCAN . B e l l , supra a t p a r s . 41; see a l s o A l b e r t a ( E d u c a t i o n ) . Canadian C o p y r i g h t L i c e n s i n g Agency(Access C o p y r i g h t ) , 2012SCC 7 t p a r s . 29.75 CCH, upra a t p a r a . 57.


31/36

105. The a p p l i c a t i o n judge acknowledged t h a t " t h e r e w as arguably an a l t e r n a t i v e t o thed e a l i n g , namely p r o v i d i n g a summ a r y f the Ka y Wor k i n s t e a d o f r e p r o d u c i n g e x c e r p t s ."7 6I n h i s v i e w , t h i s f a c t o r weighed " l e s s s t r o n g l y i n favour o f a i n d i n g o f f a i r d e a l i n g . "

106. I n f a c t , t w as n t i r e l y open t o t h e respondents o summarize the Kay Wor k i n s t e a do f reproducing e x c e r p t s . Given t h a t t h e complete work w a s r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t , t would n o thave b een d i f f i c u l t o r time-consuming t o summarize. t w as u n f a i r o f the respondents t oreproduce s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n s o f the Kay Work w hen a summ a r y would have achievedthe same e s u l t .

3.3 Conclusion o n F a i r Dealing107. The a p p l i c a t i o n judge e r r e d i n h i s f a i r d e a l i n g a n a l y s i s on m u l t i p l e f r o n t s . F i r s t , therespondents never met h e i r burden o f demonstrating t h a t they mentioned the source o fthe work reproduced. Second, he e r r e d i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t the respond ents' purpose i nd e a l i n g w i t h the Kay Wor k w as o r news e p o r t i n g , when h e r e w as no evidence o supportt h i s c o n c l u s i o n . T h i r d , he m i s a p p l i e d the f a i r n e s s f a c t o r s i n CCH nd thus i n c o r r e c t l ydetermined t h a t the respondent s' e a l i n g w i t h the excerpts o f the Ka y Wor k w as a i r .

108. For these reasons, the e x c e p t i o n f o r f a i r d e a l i n g f o r the purpose o f news r e p o r t i n gi s i n a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s case and the Court ought n o t t o absolve the respondents o f t h e i ri n f r i n g i n g conduct.

76 Judgment t p a r s . 34, Appeal Book, o l . 1 , Ta b 3 .


32/36

29

4. The Appellants are E n t i t l e d to Statutory Damages or Infringement o fCopyright

109. I t i s submitted t h a t , f o r a l l the reasons s e t out above, the respondents i n f r i n g e dc o p y r i g h t i n the Ka y Work and t h e r e f o r e the N a t i o n a l Post i s e n t i t l e d t o d a m a ges f o rc o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t .

110. Where c o p y r i g h t ha s been i n f r i n g e d , the owner o f the c o p y r i g h t i s e n t i t l e d t od a m a ge s o r the i n f r i n g e m e n t o f a r i g h t . " Damages are based o n the d a m a g e t h a t theowner ha s s u f f e r e d d u e t o the i n f r i n g e m e n t and the p r o f i t s t h a t the i n f r i n g e r ha s madefrom the i n f r i n g e m e n t t h a t were n o t taken i n t o account n c a l c u l a t i n g the damages, eachas the c o u r t considers u s t . ' $ I n the a l t e r n a t i v e t o d a m a ges o r p r o f i t s , a c o p y r i g h t ownermay l e c t t o recover an award o f s t a t u t o r y damages.79

111. I t i s submitted t h a t the m a t t e r o f quantum o f d a m a ges should b e r e m i t t e d t o thea p p l i c a t i o n judge t o determine the a p p r o p r i a t e amount.

PART V -ORDER SOUGHT112. The a p p e l l a n t , N a t i o n a l Post C o m p a n y , requests an o r d e r a l l o w i n g the appeal andd e c l a r i n g t h a t :

(a) the respondents i n f r i n g e d c o p y r i g h t i n the Kay Work, o n t r a r y t o s u b s e c t i o n27(1) f the A c t , by r e p r o d u c i n g t h e f u l l t e x t o f t h e work between February18, 2 0 0 8 and A p r i l 18, 2010;

~ ~ Copyright A c t , s s . 3 4 ( 1 ) .7 8 I b i d . s s . 3 5 ( 1 ) .7 9 S e c t i o n 3 8 . 1 o f the Copyright c t , as t e x i s t e d p r i o r t o the coming - i n t o- f o r c e o f B i l l C- 1 1 on November ,2012, allowed f o r s t a t u t o r y d a ma ges n a sum f n o t l e s s than $500 and n o t m o re than $20,000 p e r worki n f r i n g e d .


33/36

30

(b) the respondents n f r i n g e d c o p y r i g h t i n the Kay Work, o n t r a r y t o s u b s e c t i o n27(1) o f the A c t , by r e p r o d u c i n g e x c e r p t s o f the work from A p r i l 18, 2010u n t i l A p r i l 7, 2011;

(c) the responde nts are n o t exemp t from l i a b i l i t y f o r c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t o fthe Kay Wo r k pursuant o s e c t i o n 29.2 o f the A c t ; and

(d) the a p p e l l a n t s ar e e n t i t l e d t o s t a t u t o r y damages f o r i n f r i n g e m e n t o fc o p y r i g h t i n the Kay Work,

113. An d an order r e q u i r i n g t h a t :

(a) the respondents re m ov e any p o s t i n g o f the Kay W o r k r any u b st a n t i a l p a r tt h e r e o f from the Free Dominion w e b s i t e ;

(b) the respondents be e n j o i n e d from f u r t h e r p u b l i s h i n g the Kay Wo r k o r anys u b s t a n t i a l p a r t t h e r e o f ;

(c) the respondents pay t o the N a t i o n a l Post the c o s t s o f t h i s appeal; and

(d) the a p p e l l a n t s be g r a n t e d such f u r t h e r and o t h e r r e l i e f as t h i s HonourableCourt deems u s t .

ALLOFWHICH S RESPECTFULLYSUBMITTED h i s 8 t h day o f March, 2013.

CASSELS BROCNC &iBLi94CKWELL LLPS o l i c i t o r s f o r the A p p e l l a n t ,N a t i o n a l Post C o m p a n y


34/36

31

PART V LIST OFAUTHORITIESStatutes1 . Copyright c t , R . S . C . , 1985, . C-4 2

Perodicals2. John S. McKeown, o x Canadian Law f opyright a nd n d u s t r i a l Designs, t h ed.

(Toronto: Th om p s o n Reuters C a na d a L i m i t e d , 2009)3. Canadian Oxford E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y , d e f i n i t i o n o f " d i s c u s s i o n " and d i s t i n c t i v e "4. New horter Oxford n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y , d e f i n i t i o n o f " d i s t i n c t i v e "5. Random Ho us e i c t i o n a r y o f h e E n g l i s h Language, e f i n i t i o n o f " d i s c u s s "

Jurisprudence

6. CCH a n a d a t d , v . Law ociety of Up per Cana da, 2004 SCC 37. Hou s e n . N i k o l a i s e n , 2002 SCC338. Wall . Horn Abbot t d . , 2007 NSSC 9 79. Society o f C ompos e rs , Authors a nd Music P u b l i s h e r s v . Barrymore's I n c . , 2003

FCT 1 410. D o l m a g e v . E r s k i n e , 2003 CanLll 8 350(ONSC)11. Theberge v . G a l e r i e d ' A r t d u e t i t Champlain n c . , 2002 SCC 412. C om p a gn i e Generale de s Etablissements M i c h e l i n - - M i c h e l i n &Cie . N a t i o n a l

Automobile, Aerospace, T r a n s p o r t a t i o n a nd General Workers Union of C a na d a(CAW- Canada), 1996 CanLll 39 20 FC), 1997]2 .C. 306 T . D . )

13. Prism H o s p i t a l Software I n c . v . H o s p i t a l Medical R e cords I n s t i t u t e (1994), 97BCLR 2d) 01 (BCSC)

14. E d u t i l e I n c . v . Automobile P r o t e c t i o n Assn. (APA) 2000), 188 DLR 4th) 132,[2000]4FC 95

15. Atomic E n e r g y of C a na d a L i m i t e d v . AREVA NP a na d a t d . , 2009 FC 8 0


35/36

32

16. U&R ax S e r v i c e s L t d . v . H&R lock Canada I n c . , [1995] . C . J . 9 6 2 F.C.)17. France A n i m a t i o n , s . . c . Robinson, 2011 QCCA 36118. I n f o p a q I n t ' 1 A/S . Danske Dagblades F o r e n i n g , [2009]ECR -656919. Breen v Hancock Hou se P u b l i s h e r s L t d . (1985),6 . I . P . R . 1 29 Fed. T.D.)20. A l l e n v . T o r o n t o S t a r Newspapers t d . (1997), 3 6 O.R. 3d) 201 (Ont. D i v . C t . )21 . S o c i e t y of Composers, Authors and Music P u b l i s h e r s of Canada v . B e l l Canada,2012SCC 622. P f i z e r Canada n c . v . Apotex n c . , 2007 FC 7 123. A l b e r t a (Education) . Canadian C o p y r i g h t L i c e n s i n g Agency Access C o p y r i g h t ) ,2012SCC 7


36/36

Court F i l e No. A-394-12 and A-395-12

FEDERALCOURTOFAPPEAL

BETWEEN:

RICHARDWARMAN ndNATIONALPOSTCOMPANY

A p p e l l a n t s-and-

MARKFOURNIER ndCONSTANCE FOURNIER

Respondents

MEMORANDUM OF FACTANDLAWOFTHE APPELLANT,NATIONALPOSTCOMPANY

(DATED: March 8, 2013)Cassels Brock &Blackwell LLP2100 S c o t i a Plaza40 ing S t r e e t WestToronto, ON M5H3C2Casey C h i s i c k LSUC : 46572RT e l : 416.869.5403Fax: 416.644.9326c c h i s i c [email protected]

Jason Beitchman LSUC : 564770T e l : 416.860.2988Fax: [email protected]

S o l i c i t o r s f o r the A p p e l l a n t ,N a t i o n a l Post C o m p a n y

Memorandum of Fact and Law (National Post) Mar 7 13

Documents

Transcript of Memorandum of Fact and Law (National Post) Mar 7 13