Date: 20050506
Docket: T-2221-04
Citation: 2005 FC 640
BETWEEN:
SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND
MUSIC PUBLISHERS OF CANADA
Plaintiff
- and -
MAPLE LEAF SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT LTD.
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an appeal by the Defendant from the Order of Prothonotary Lafrenière, dated March 14, 2005, which struck out portions of the Defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim on the ground that "this Court is required to strike pleadings that raise issues that are beyond the Court's jurisdiction, or which can only be pursued by way of judicial review". As a consequence, the Prothonotary ordered as follows:
1. The following portions of the Defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim are hereby struck, without leave to amend:
(a) The second and third sentences of paragraph 15 of the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, which sentences read:
MLSE states that, to the extent SOCAN Tariff 4A purports to apply to the authorization of a public performance of a musical work, the tariff is of no force or effect. The Copyright Board has no jurisdiction to approve fees or royalties for the authorization of a public performance of a musical work.
(b) The second and third sentences of paragraph 16 of the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, which sentences read:
MLSE states that, to the extent SOCAN Tariff 4B1 purports to apply to the authorization of a public performance of a musical work, the tariff is of no force or effect. The Copyright Board has no jurisdiction to approve fees or royalties for the authorization of a public performance of a musical work.
(c) The entirety of the Defendant's Counterclaim, being paragraphs 52 to 56 of its Statement of Defence and Counterclaim.
2. The Defendant shall amend its Statement of Defence and Counterclaim to comply with paragraph 1 of this Order, and shall serve and file its Amended Statement of Defence (without counterclaim), all within five (5) days of the date of this Order.
3. The Plaintiff is granted leave to file its Reply in this proceeding within ten (10) days of service of the Defendant's Amended Statement of Defence in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Order.
4. The Plaintiff is awarded its costs of this motion, fixed in the amount of $750.00 and payable by the Defendant in any event of the cause.
[2] The Defendant's appeal is with respect to subparagraphs 1(a) and (b) of the Prothonotary's Order. The Defendant does not oppose the striking of its Counterclaim in subparagraph (c).
[3] The parties agree that the standard of review, in this particular matter, is that of correctness.
[4] The Plaintiff's main action is brought pursuant to the provisions of the Copyright Act. The Plaintiff is a collective society that administers the granting of licences in Canada for the right to perform musical works in public and the right to "authorize" such performances. The Copyright Board has certified tariffs of royalties that the Plaintiff is entitled to collect from persons who engage in either of these activities. The Plaintiff has brought this action against the Defendant for unpaid tariff royalties owing in relation to music concerts that the Defendant is alleged to have "authorized" at its "Air Canada Centre" complex in downtown Toronto.
[5] The Defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim contained pleadings which alleged that the Copyright Board tariffs in question in this action are unenforceable against the Defendant to the extent that they target the right to "authorize". The Defendant based these pleadings solely on the ground that the Copyright Board is without jurisdiction to certify a tariff that targets the right to "authorize".
[6] As a result of the combined effect of subsections 18(1) and (3), 18.1(3) and (4), and 28(1), (2) and (3) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, it is clear and obvious that the Federal Court of Appeal would have jurisdiction to review the Copyright Board's jurisdiction to certify a tariff. Accordingly, the Federal Court is without jurisdiction "to entertain any proceeding in respect of" such matter. The above provisions of the Federal Courts Act read as follows:
18.(1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.
[. . .]
(3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section 18.1.
18. (1) Sous réserve de l'article 28, la Cour fédérale a compétence exclusive, en première instance, pour :
a) décerner une injonction, un bref de certiorari, de mandamus, de prohibition ou de quo warranto, ou pour rendre un jugement déclaratoire contre tout office fédéral;
b) connaître de toute demande de réparation de la nature visée par l'alinéa a), et notamment de toute procédure engagée contre le procureur général du Canada afin d'obtenir réparation de la part d'un office fédéral.
[. . .]
(3) Les recours prévus aux paragraphes (1) ou (2) sont exercés par présentation d'une demande de contrôle judiciaire.
18.1 (3) On an application for judicial review, the Federal Court may
(a) order a federal board, commission or other tribunal to do any act or thing it has unlawfully failed or refused to do or has unreasonably delayed in doing; or
(b) declare invalid or unlawful, or quash, set aside or set aside and refer back for determination in accordance with such directions as it considers to be appropriate, prohibit or restrain, a decision, order, act or proceeding of a federal board, commission or other tribunal.
18.1 (3) Sur présentation d'une demande de contrôle judiciaire, la Cour fédérale peut :
a) ordonner à l'office fédéral en cause d'accomplir tout acte qu'il a illégalement omis ou refusé d'accomplir ou dont il a retardé l'exécution de manière déraisonnable;
b) déclarer nul ou illégal, ou annuler, ou infirmer et renvoyer pour jugement conformément aux instructions qu'elle estime appropriées, ou prohiber ou encore restreindre toute décision, ordonnance, procédure ou tout autre acte de l'office fédéral.
(4) The Federal Court may grant relief under subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the federal board, commission or other tribunal
(a) acted without jurisdiction, acted beyond its jurisdiction or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
(b) failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe;
(c) erred in law in making a decision or an order, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record;
(d) based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it;
(e) acted, or failed to act, by reason of fraud or perjured evidence; or
(f) acted in any other way that was contrary to law.
(4) Les mesures prévues au paragraphe (3) sont prises si la Cour fédérale est convaincue que l'office fédéral, selon le cas :
a) a agi sans compétence, outrepassé celle-ci ou refusé de l'exercer;
b) n'a pas observé un principe de justice naturelle ou d'équité procédurale ou toute autre procédure qu'il était légalement tenu de respecter;
c) a rendu une décision ou une ordonnance entachée d'une erreur de droit, que celle-ci soit manifeste ou non au vu du dossier;
d) a rendu une décision ou une ordonnance fondée sur une conclusion de fait erronée, tirée de façon abusive ou arbitraire ou sans tenir compte des éléments dont il dispose;
e) a agi ou omis d'agir en raison d'une fraude ou de faux témoignages;
f) a agi de toute autre façon contraire à la loi.
28. (1) The Federal Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine applications for judicial review made in respect of any of the following federal boards, commissions or other tribunals:
[. . .]
(j) the Copyright Board established by the Copyright Act;
[. . .]
(2) Sections 18 to 18.5, except subsection 18.4(2), apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Appeal under subsection (1) and, when they apply, a reference to the Federal Court shall be read as a reference to the Federal Court of Appeal.
(3) If the Federal Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter, the Federal Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding in respect of that matter.
28. La Cour d'appel fédérale a compétence pour connaître des demandes de contrôle judiciaire visant les offices fédéraux suivants :
[. . .]
j) la Commission du droit d'auteur constituée par la Loi sur le droit d'auteur;
[. . .]
(2) Les articles 18 à 18.5 s'appliquent, exception faite du paragraphe 18.4(2) et compte tenu des adaptations de circonstance, à la Cour d'appel fédérale comme si elle y était mentionnée lorsqu'elle est saisie en vertu du paragraphe (1) d'une demande de contrôle judiciaire.
(3) La Cour fédérale ne peut être saisie des questions qui relèvent de la Cour d'appel fédérale.
[7] I agree with Plaintiff's counsel that it is immaterial that section 37 of the Copyright Act provides the provincial superior courts and the Federal Court with concurrent jurisdiction over copyright enforcement actions. The Copyright Act cannot confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court to review matters that the Federal Courts Act specifically removes from the Federal Court's jurisdiction:
26. The Federal Court has original jurisdiction in respect of any matter, not allocated specifically to the Federal Court of Appeal, in respect of which jurisdiction has been conferred by an Act of Parliament on the . . . Federal Court, . . .
26. La Cour fédérale a compétence, en première instance, pour toute question ressortissant aux termes d'une loi fédérale à . . . la Cour fédérale, . . ., à l'exception des questions expressément réservées à la Cour d'appel fédérale.
[8] I also agree with the Prothonotary's view that the Defendant's pleadings which he struck out constitute an improper collateral attack on a decision of the Copyright Board to certify tariffs.
[9] For all the above reasons, I find that the Prothonotary made no error in striking out these pleadings, as this Court is required to strike pleadings that raise issues that are beyond its jurisdiction, or which can only be pursued by way of judicial review.
[10] In the circumstances, I need not deal with the additional issue of res judicata raised by the Plaintiff as a further reason why the Defendant's appeal should be dismissed.
[11] Accordingly, the delay of five (5) days specified in paragraph 2 of the Prothonotary's Order shall expire at the end of the fifth day from the date of this Order, and the delay of ten (10) days specified in paragraph 3 of the impugned Order shall expire at the end of the tenth day following the service of the Defendant's Amended Statement of Defence.
[12] The costs of this motion are adjudicated in favour of the Plaintiff and are payable by the Defendant, upon taxation, in any event of the cause.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
May 6, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-2221-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND MUSIC PUBLISHERS OF CANADA v. MAPLE LEAF SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT LTD.
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: May 5, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
DATED: May 6, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Mr. A. Kelly Gill FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Mr. Glen A. Bloom
Ms. Melissa Fisher FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Toronto, Ontario
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP FOR THE DEFENDANT
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content