Date: 20030120
Docket: T-1821-02
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 46
Montréal, Quebec, January 20, 2003
Before: Richard Morneau, prothonotary
IN THE MATTER of Sections 27(2), 34(1), (3), (4), (5), 35, 38, 38.1 and 39.1 of the Copyright Act and Rule 300(b) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998
BETWEEN:
KRAFT CANADA INC.
KRAFT FOODS SCHWEIZ AG
and
KRAFT FOODS BELGIUM SA
Plaintiffs
and
EURO EXCELLENCE INC.
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is a written motion by the defendant seeking:
1. an order dismissing the action filed by the plaintiffs pursuant to Rules 300 et seq. of the Federal Court Rules (1998) ("the Rules");
2. an order requiring the plaintiffs to submit the matter to this Court in accordance with the usual rules for the filing of an action contained in Rules 169 et seq.;
3. an order providing that any hearing in this Court will be heard in the Montréal section of the Federal Court Trial Division, or alternatively, that the Montréal section will hear all motions and other pleadings filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant;
4. each party shall pay its own costs;
5. any other order or directive that the Court may deem necessary, including relieving the plaintiff from application of the Rules.
Background
[2] The plaintiffs, by application pursuant to Rules 300 et seq., filed an action for copyright infringement against the defendant.
[3] The application was filed in accordance with the joint effect of Rules 300 et seq. and s. 34(4)(a) of the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42 ("the Act"), which provides that a civil proceeding for copyright infringement may be brought either by action or by application.
[4] Section 34 of the Act reads as follows:
|
34. (1) Where copyright has been infringed, the owner of the copyright is, subject to this Act, entitled to all remedies by way of injunction, damages, accounts, delivery up and otherwise that are or may be conferred by law for the infringement of a right.
|
34. (1) En cas de violation d'un droit d'auteur, le titulaire du droit est admis, sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente loi, à exercer tous les recours -- en vue notamment d'une injonction, de dommages-intérêts, d'une reddition de compte ou d'une remise -- que la loi accorde ou peut accorder pour la violation d'un droit.
|
|
(2) In any proceedings for an infringement of a moral right of an author, the court may grant to the author or to the person who holds the moral rights by virtue of subsection 14.2(2) or (3), as the case may be, all remedies by way of injunction, damages, accounts, delivery up and otherwise that are or may be conferred by law for the infringement of a right.
|
(2) Le tribunal, saisi d'un recours en violation des droits moraux, peut accorder à l'auteur ou au titulaire des droits moraux visé au paragraphe 14.2(2) ou (3), selon le cas, les réparations qu'il pourrait accorder, par voie d'injonction, de dommages- intérêts, de reddition de compte, de remise ou autrement, et que la loi prévoit ou peut prévoir pour la violation d'un droit.
|
|
(3) The costs of all parties in any proceedings in respect of the infringement of a right conferred by this Act shall be in the discretion of the court.
|
(3) Les frais de toutes les parties à des procédures relatives à la violation d'un droit prévu par la présente loi sont à la discrétion du tribunal.
|
|
(4) The following proceedings may be commenced or proceeded with by way of application or action and shall, in the case of an application, be heard and determined without delay and in a summary way:
|
(4) Les procédures suivantes peuvent être engagées ou continuées par une requête ou une action :
|
|
(a) proceedings for infringement of copyright or moral rights;
|
a) les procédures pour violation du droit d'auteur ou des droits moraux;
|
|
(b) proceedings taken under section 44.1, 44.2 or 44.4; and
|
b) les procédures visées aux articles 44.1, 44.2 ou 44.4;
|
|
(c) proceedings taken in respect of
(i) a tariff certified by the Board under Part VII or VIII, or
(ii) agreements referred to in section 70.12.
|
c) les procédures relatives aux tarifs homologués par la Commission en vertu des parties VII et VIII ou aux ententes visées à l'article 70.12.
Le tribunal statue sur les requêtes sans délai et suivant une procédure sommaire.
|
|
(5) The rules of practice and procedure, in civil matters, of the court in which proceedings are commenced by way of application apply to those proceedings, but where those rules do not provide for the proceedings to be heard and determined without delay and in a summary way, the court may give such directions as it considers necessary in order to so provide.
|
(5) Les requêtes visées au paragraphe (4) sont, en matière civile, régies par les règles de procédure et de pratique du tribunal saisi des requêtes si ces règles ne prévoient pas que les requêtes doivent être jugées sans délai et suivant une procédure sommaire. Le tribunal peut, dans chaque cas, donner les instructions qu'il estime indiquées à cet effet.
|
|
(6) The court in which proceedings are instituted by way of application may, where it considers it appropriate, direct that the proceeding be proceeded with as an action.
|
(6) Le tribunal devant lequel les procédures sont engagées par requête peut, s'il l'estime indiqué, ordonner que la requête soit instruite comme s'il s'agissait d'une action.
|
|
(7) In this section, "application" means a proceeding that is commenced other than by way of a writ or statement of claim.
|
(7) Au présent article, « requête » s'entend d'une procédure engagée autrement que par un bref ou une déclaration.
(My emphasis.)
|
[5] The defendant argued in its notice of motion that the plaintiffs were trying to exclude the defendant from the distribution network for products legally imported by the defendant and put on the Canadian market by it.
[6] Following the defendant in this respect the plaintiffs, on the pretext of a copyright action, raised a question of competition with the related difficult question of the exhausting of intellectual property rights. Section 34(4) of the Act could only apply in the event of copyright infringement and would in no respect cover competition proceedings. The defendant accordingly asked the Court to dismiss the plaintiffs' application.
[7] The Court clearly cannot allow the defendant's application at this stage, since it has not been clearly established in law and in fact that the above-stated position of the defendant is clear and obvious.
[8] The defendant will be free to argue on the merits the distortion of copyright alleged against the plaintiffs.
[9] Additionally, the Court clearly cannot allow the defendant's application and order that the plaintiffs' application proceed as an action.
[10] Section 34(4)(a) of the Act clearly provides for the right to initiate a proceeding under the Act by application. It was up to the defendant to persuade the Court to exercise its discretion under s. 34(6) of the Act to have the application tried as an action. In this regard I feel, like the plaintiffs, that use of the case law developed under a section with similar wording, namely s. 18.4(2) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, is relevant.
[11] The leading case in this regard appears to be Macinnis v. Canada (Attorney General) (C.A.), [1994] 2 F.C. 464.
[12] I do not consider that the defendant has submitted by affidavit such evidence as would permit the Court to conclude that the requirements indicated in Macinnis have been met.
[13] I do not consider that, apart from theoretical arguments, the defendant has presented evidence that the essential procedural requirements in the case at bar would be prejudicially beyond its scope if the plaintiffs' instant application goes forward. Further, I do not see how the fact of the plaintiffs' proceeding going forward under the Act as an application, not an action, limits the legitimate arguments or grounds for defence which the defendant might have.
[14] Finally, the reasons of convenience or otherwise put forward by the defendant in argument - and not in an affidavit - relate only to the defendant's interests. This being the case, the Court clearly cannot order that any hearing be moved to this Court in Montréal. The plaintiff is certainly free to plead in the language of its choice and the defendant does not appear to object to the parties approaching the Court through, inter alia, written applications.
[15] The defendant's motion is accordingly dismissed, with costs which the Court sets at $200.
|
|
Richard Morneau
prothonotary
|
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
|
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20030120
Docket: T-1821-02
IN THE MATTER of Sections 27(2), 34(1), (3), (4), (5), 35, 38, 38.1 and 39.1 of the Copyright Act and Rule 300(b) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998
Between:
KRAFT CANADA INC.
KRAFT FOODS SCHWEIZ AG
and
KRAFT FOODS BELGIUM SA
Plaintiffs
and
EURO EXCELLENCE INC.
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: T-1821-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: IN THE MATTER of Sections 27(2), 34(1), (3), (4), (5), 35, 38, 38.1 and 39.1 of the Copyright Act and Rule 300(b) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998
Between:
KRAFT CANADA INC., KRAFT FOODS SCHWEIZ AG and KRAFT FOODS BELGIUM SA
Plaintiffs
and
EURO EXCELLENCE INC.
Defendant
WRITTEN MOTION CONSIDERED IN MONTRÉAL WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
DATED: January 20, 2003
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
Arthur B. Renaud for the plaintiffs
Timothy M. Lowman
François Boscher for the defendant
Éric Franchi
Pierre-Emmanuel Moyse
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Sim, Hughes, Ashton & McKay for the plaintiffs
Toronto, Ontario
François Boscher for the defendant
Éric Franchi
Pierre-Emmanuel Moyse
Montréal, Quebec
Email this Content