Copyright litigation decision
(Press release issued by CCH Canadian Limited; Thomson Canada Limited c.o.b. as Carswell Thomson Professional Publishing; and Canada Law Book Inc.)
Toronto/November 10, 1999 - The Federal Court of Canada delivered reasons and judgment today in a copyright case launched against the Law Society of Upper Canada by three of Canada's major legal publishers (CCH Canadian Limited, Canada Law Book Inc., and Carswell Thomson Professional Publishing).
CCH, Carswell, and Canada Law Book commenced legal action in 1993 against the Law Society of Upper Canada, the professional legal body governing all lawyers in Ontario, claiming copyright violation by the Law Society of legal- and tax-related information published by the three plaintiffs. The Law Society operates a photocopying service that copies portions of the three plaintiffs' published materials on request for a fee. The service includes the delivery of print and facsimile copies, to its customers, who are generally lawyers and law firms in Ontario.
The copies made by the Law Society in its copy shop operation included reproductions from textbooks, digest services, annotated statutes, topical indices of case reporters, and reported judicial decisions which are published by the three plaintiffs.
Mr. Justice Gibson of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, ruled that the Law Society of Upper Canada had infringed copyright by distributing copies of portions of textbooks published by the plaintiffs. He also found that copyright subsisted in Martin's Ontario Criminal Practice 1999, an annotated statute published by Canada Law Book. He declined to find copyright infringement of three specific reported judicial decisions on the basis of a lack of sufficient originality in those works. The three publishers are considering whether to appeal this part of the Court's Judgment.
The Law Society attempted to defend its copying practices on a number of grounds, including: fair dealing for the purposes of research, private study, criticism, or review; implied licences granted by the plaintiffs; public policy; and on what the Law Society claimed were its constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of expression, life, liberty and security of the person, and equality under the law. These defences were rejected by the Court.
The Law Society also brought a counterclaim for a declaration to prevent the plaintiffs from interfering with the Law Society's copying activities. Such declaration was, according to Mr. Justice Gibson, a "paradigm of overreaching," and was consequently dismissed by the Court.
For further information, contact Ron Dimock at Dimock Stratton Clarizio,
(416) 971-7202 or e-mail: rdimock@dimock.com.
