New in this Edition

Updated statutes include:

• Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, as amended by 2018, c. 27, ss. 243-246, 280-297
• Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, as amended by 2018, c. 27, ss. 265 (Fr.), 266-268 [To come into force November 1, 2019.] ; 2019, c. 29, ss. 133-135, 160, 161 [ss. 133-135 to come into force November 1, 2019.]

New case law includes:

• Dhillon v. Bernier, 2019 FC 573, 2019 CF 573, 2019 CarswellNat 1518 - There are special rules for subject matter other than works as defined in the Copyright Act. With regard to communication signals, only a "broadcaster" may have a copyright in a communication signal. Section 21 gives a broadcaster copyright in its communication signals including the compilation of all the programs, advertisements and other content that make up the signal transmitted by the broadcaster: Interbox Promotion Corp. c. 9012-4314 Québec Inc, 2003 FC 1254 (F.C.) at paragraph 18. The term "broadcaster" is defined at section 2 as "a body that, in the course of operating a broadcasting undertaking, broadcasts a communication signal in accordance with the law of the country in which the broadcasting undertaking is carried on, but excludes a body whose primary activity in relation to communication signals is their retransmission." The Plaintiffs submit that Mr. Dhillon, by electronically sharing the Times of Canada article which mentions the words "People's Party of Canada", acted as a broadcaster. On the basis of the record before me, I am not satisfied that Mr. Dhillon is a broadcaster within the meaning of section 2 of the Copyright Act or that the work claimed in the certificate of registration is even a communication signal. The entire premise of the Plaintiffs' claim of copyright is nonsensical.
• Glasz c. Choko, 2018 QCCS 5020, 2018 CarswellQue 10770 - Absent an employment contract or a written assignment, the Court held that the author and copyright holder of a movie production is the cameraman who filmed the movie and did the editing of his footage, not the person who suggested the production: "[51] Section 13(1) of the Act states that subject to the Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein. The term "author" is not defined in the Act. Commentators and courts recognize that the author is the person who exercised his skill and judgment to express an idea or to fix it in material form. In this case, the evidence is clear that Plaintiff Fraser Munden is the author of the work. Defendant provided Plaintiffs with access to the events to be filmed but Fraser Munden had carte blanche to use their skill, judgment and creativity in the filming and editing of the events without any input or direction from the Defendant. [52] As author of the work, the Plaintiff is also presumed to be the owner of the copyright except where the work was made in the course of employment or where there is a written assignment of copyright signed by him or his duly authorized representative."
• Young v. Thakur, 2019 FC 835, 2019 CarswellNat 2971 ñ "The Applicants point to Attorney General of Canada v. Rundle, 2014 ONSC 2136, 119 CPR (4th) 225 [Rundle] and Microsoft Corporation to support their submission that the maximum amount of $20,000 within the statutory range should be awarded because the Respondents did not cease after receipt of a cease and desist letter. The Applicants did not offer any analysis of the cases cited or point to other jurisprudence to guide the assessment of statutory damages. In the two cases cited by the Applicants, the Court did not award the maximum. In Rundle, the Court awarded $7,500 for some works infringed and $15,000 for other works infringed.