Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Dockets: T-2090-14
T-269-15
T-1085-15
T-1862-15
T-117-17
T-132-17
T-133-17
T-134-17
T-943-17
Toronto, Ontario, January 29, 2019
BETWEEN:
Plaintiff
and
Defendant
Docket: T-897-15
AND BETWEEN:
Plaintiff
Page: 2
and
Defendant
Docket: T-1726-15
AND BETWEEN:
Plaintiff
and
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Defendant
Docket: T-1228-17
AND BETWEEN:
Plaintiff
Page: 3
and
Defendant
ORDER
UPON MOTION made by the Plaintiff, 1395804 Ontario Ltd., operating as Blacklock’s
1. An Order pursuant to Rules 75-79 and 201 of the Federal Courts Rules (Rules),
permitting Blacklock’s to amend its Statements of Claim, as set out in the form attached
2. An Order declaring that each of the below actions are converted from simplified to
ordinary procedure:
Page: 4
3. An Order pursuant to Rule 235 of the Rules providing leave to Blacklock’s to examine
5. Such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may seem just.
AND UPON reviewing the motion material filed on the motion and hearing submissions
of counsel;
These actions have been commenced by the Plaintiff over a number of years for claims of
copyright infringement. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have copied or distributed its
articles without consent and in breach of its copyright. One action (against the Department of
Finance, T-1391-14, judgment issued November 10, 2016) went to trial with the hope that it
could be dispositive of the other actions that were stayed for that purpose. This lead file was
dismissed with costs but was not, however, dispositive of the issues in the remaining cases. The
Page: 5
Plaintiff has thus proceeded with the older claims and has commenced new actions. Of note
regarding the Department of Finance case for the purposes of the within motion is the
commentary by Justice Barnes that any claim for circumvention of technological protection
measures (TPMs) must be pleaded separate and apart of claims for copyright infringement
measures. The Plaintiff had raised the allegation at the trial but could not proceed with it being
determined as it had not been properly plead. The TPM and other proposed amendments to the
With respect to items 2 and 3 above, the Court had the opportunity during the course of
the hearing to discuss the case management implications of granting or dismissing that relief. Of
particular concern is tying the hands of the Case Management Judge to direct the process to be
particularly having regard to the number of actions that have been commenced and are being
case managed together. As was discussed, some of the actions may be grouped and tried at the
same.
I am therefore satisfied that whatever amount of damages is being claimed in any particular
file, ought not automatically determine the procedure to be followed. All or part of the Federal
Courts Rules’ procedure for simplified actions can be of use in these actions to advance the
proceeding, including at trial, In some other instances or in different stages of the action, the
ordinary process for actions may be more appropriate. Some combination may be fashioned –
for example, written interrogatories may be exchanged, followed up with more limited focused
oral examination for discovery. At trial, some evidence in chief may be adduced by way of
affidavit, with the affiant present for cross-examination. Flexibility is key. Accordingly, with
Page: 6
respect to items 2 and 3 of the notice of motion, that part of the motion will be dismissed with
the direction that the parties will propose and discuss the timetable and procedure with the Case
Management Judge.
claims concerned allegations of copyright infringement through the various Defendants and/or
their employee(s) sharing articles that are on the Blacklock’s website/news service. The new
cause of action sought to be added relates to the Defendants’ access to the work and their alleged
offence under section 27 of the Copyright Act, and circumvention of TPMs is an offence under
section 41 of that Act. Each cause of action must be separately and clearly pleaded in a
statement of claim.
43.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a court may award a remedy for
any act or omission that has been done contrary to this Act only if
(a) the proceedings for the act or omission giving rise to a remedy
are commenced within three years after it occurred, in the case
where the plaintiff knew, or could reasonably have been expected
to know, of the act or omission at the time it occurred; or
(b) the proceedings for the act or omission giving rise to a remedy
are commenced within three years after the time when the plaintiff
first knew of it, or could reasonably have been expected to know of
it, in the case where the plaintiff did not know, and could not
reasonably have been expected to know, of the act or omission at
the time it occurred.
(2) The court shall apply the limitation or prescription period set
out in paragraph (1)(a) or (b) only in respect of a party who pleads
a limitation period.
With respect to the within motion and pleadings, where the proposed TPM amendment is
opposed (it is not opposed in some cases), the Defendant(s) submit that the above three year
limitation period to claim for the circumvention of TPMs has expired. The test whether or not
that is the case is discoverability – when the Plaintiff knew or reasonably ought to have known of
In the case of the Library of Parliament, Blacklock’s alleges that an employee, Gilles
the Library on September 22, 2013 to discuss the terms and conditions of use of a license and
met with Mr. Villeveuve on September 30, 2013. Blacklock’s then submitted its Access to
Information request to the journalist’s employer (the CBC) on June 28, 2015 and on September
21, 2015 learned that the article had been shared by the Library with the journalist. The within
motion to amend the Statement of Claim to include the TPM claim was filed on August 27,
2018. The Library submits that Blacklock’s knew or should have known of its potential claim in
September 2013 and certainly knew as of June 28, 2015 when it submitted its Access to
Information Request. Thus, the three year limitation period expired in September 2016 or at the
latest, June 28, 2018 – before Blacklock’s filed its Amended Statement of Claim on August 27,
2018.
In the case of VIA Rail Canada (VIA), Blacklock’s has pleaded that it received two
responses to its Access to Information Requests – the first on December 10, 2014 and the second
on July 11, 2016. It pleads in the proposed Amended Statement of Claim that it became aware of
Page: 8
VIA’s wrongful actions, including the alleged circumvention of the TPMs on those dates. VIA
thus submits that the limitation period for any claims relating to TPMs arising out of the first
ATI response expired on December 10, 2017, and that Blacklock’s must be limited to its
allegations of copyright infringement for the first date but can claim copyright infringement and
circumvention of TPMs arising out of the second request. VIA does not oppose amendments
With respect to the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA), the additional allegations of
circumvention of TPMs are also sought to be added. The CTA submits that the limitation period
with respect to this new cause of action against it has expired as Blacklock’s received the ATI
response on May 20, 2014, meaning that the limitation period expired on May 20, 2017.
With respect to the actions commenced against the Attorney General of Canada (AG and
AG files), they relate to various federal entities (Health Canada, National Energy Board, Parks
that for certain actions (T-943-17 – National Energy Board and T-134-17 - FINTRAC), the
Plaintiff is within the limitation period and does not oppose the amendments relating to the TPM
claims. Regarding actions where three years have passed since the Plaintiff made its ATI request
and received the response (T-2090-14, T-269-15, T-1085-15, T-132-17) and in T-1862-15 where
the Plaintiff has admitted that as of July 2, 2014 it knew that Parks Canada had a Blacklock’s
Reporter Level subscription, the AG submits that the limitation period has expired and in those
With respect to two files (T-117-17 – Health Canada and T-133-17 Transport Canada),
the AG submits that the Plaintiff is out of time for some, but not all amendments, depending
upon when Blacklock’s received its ATI response. As set out in the chart at paragraph 65 of its
written representations, of the first three claimed incidents, the limitation for two expired in 2017
(May 12, 2017 and December 14, 2017) and one in August 2018. The last claimed incident is a
proposed new claim/amendment and within the limitation period. For Transport Canada,
Blacklock’s has pled that it received two responses to ATI requests – the first on August 22,
2014 and the second on October 15, 2015. Those are the dates that are alleged to be the dates
when the Blacklock’s became aware of the Transport Canada’s wrongful actions, including the
alleged circumvention of TPMs. Thus the AG submits that the limitation period for any claims
arising out of the first ATI response expired on August 2017 but that the Plaintiff is within the
limitation period for the second response, but opposes the amendments on other grounds.
Whether any of the amendments relating to TPMs should be allowed on this motion must
not be determined in a manner that would usurp a trial on the merits. Pursuant to Rule 75 of the
Federal Courts Rules and the jurisprudence thereunder, it is well established that amendments to
pleadings should be permitted at any time if it assists the parties and the Court to identify or
clarify the issues that are properly in dispute, provide a framework for discoveries and trial and
generally to do justice as between the parties, considering whether any prejudice to one is
compensable in costs to the other. A factor to consider also is whether the proposed amendment
would survive a motion to strike if it had been in the pleading at first instance – whether it is
The test on a motion to amend pleadings is thus not an enormously onerous one but it is
one to be applied diligently. There is an important “gate-keeper” function that the Court hearing
the motion must fulfill to ensure the parties’ and judicial resources are not wasted on claims that
cannot be sustained. The Court is entitled to and indeed must take into account facts that give
rise or do not give rise to a sustainable cause of action. For the within motion, whether or not it is
clear or plain and obvious that a limitation period has expired and is time-barred– or whether in
the circumstances of that case, as Blacklock’s argues, the responses to the ATI requests are not in
and of themselves determinative of the issue of whether a limitation period has expired cannot be
determined on this motion. The matter requires that the limitation period defence be pleaded in
the statements of defence (ss.43.1(2) of the Copyright Act) and its determination is dependent
upon evidence relating to when Blacklock’s knew or reasonably ought to have known that its
TPM was being or had been circumvented. This issue cannot be determined at this juncture, but
may with evidence on a motion for summary judgment, or on a full record at trial.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that amendments relating to TPMs must be allowed. The new
cause of action – the circumvention of TPMs – does arise out of substantially the same facts as
the claim for copyright infringement. The Defendants may plead in response that the limitation
period has passed on the grounds that 3 years have passed since the Plaintiff received the
With respect to prejudice arising to the Defendants in permitting these amendments, I note in
that regard that the Plaintiff was well aware of its TPM rights in T-1391-14, the Department of
Finance case, as it sought to make the claim but only made the allegation at trial without the
cause of action having set out in its pleadings. It thus knew before the trial commenced in the
Page: 11
fall of 2016 that it wished to assert the TPM claim and at the trial knew it would need to be
expressly pleaded. Even with the change in counsel and ongoing discussions about resolving
some actions and moving others forward, there has been some delay that should be taken into
This category of proposed amendments deal with changes to the style of cause in some
files, and appear also to have been resolved to some extent at the hearing of the motion. The
FINTRAC and National Energy Board (T-134-17 and T-943-17 respectively) shall remain
named Defendants and The Attorney General of Canada shall be named in place of Parks Canada
in T-1862-15.
With respect to amendments clarifying Blacklock’s allegations and claim for copyright
infringement and TPM circumvention, these propose to add particulars regarding ownership of
copyright, activities for a commercial purpose and assignment of copyright to the Plaintiff from
authors. These amendments will assist the parties and the Court to identify the real areas of
controversy and issues in dispute under the Copyright Act between the parties, Blacklock’s
The Plaintiff seeks to add claims for punitive damages based upon allegations against
previous Department of Justice counsel representing the Attorney General of Canada in these
actions (Mr. Alex Kaufman). The allegations relate to actions taken in respect of a motion
Page: 12
brought by previous counsel for Blacklock’s (Mr. Yavar Hameed), affidavits prepared on behalf
of Blacklock’s in support of the motion, and plans to cross-examine the affiants. Blacklock’s
seeks to allege that Mr. Kaufman tampered and suppressed evidence by asking the affiants
whether they would make themselves available for cross-examination, or whether they would be
The issue of cross-examining these affiants arose because the affidavits that were
included in the motion record were not filed on their own but were appended as exhibits to the
affidavit of Mr. Hameed’s assistant, thereby shielding them from cross-examination. Following
discussion, whether this was improper and whether the affidavits should be struck, it was agreed
that these affiants could be cross-examined. There was a question, however, whether any or all of
them would be willing to be subject to cross-examination. Mr. Kaufman was advised by Mr.
Hameed that he did not represent the affiants and that Mr. Kaufman could contact them directly.
Mr. Kaufman did so, inquiring of the affiants whether they were prepared to be cross-examined
or whether on consent, the affiant wished to withdraw their affidavit. He directed them to the
Law Society of Ontario where they could get legal assistance. One of the affiants sought
independent legal advice and subsequently requested to withdraw his affidavit. There was no
None of what transpired gives rise even to the semblance of misconduct that would
warrant punitive damages, or to any cause of action. I am satisfied that it is plain and obvious
and without any doubt that this claim would necessarily fail. Those amendments shall not be
allowed.
Page: 13
1. The motion is granted in part, the amendments proposed pursuant to items A and B in the
reasons above are granted, without prejudice to the Defendants to bring a motion for
summary.
3. In the event the parties cannot agree on costs of the motion, they may file written
submissions no longer than 3 pages in length within 20 days of the date of this Order.
4. The parties shall, within 15 days of the date of this Order, consult with one another and
submit: (i) an update as to the status of each of the actions; (ii) a proposed timetable to
complete the remaining steps in each action, including whether any actions may be
grouped together for the purposes of trial; and (iii) dates and times of mutual availability
for a case management teleconference in the event the Case Management Judge requires
such teleconference.
“Martha Milczynski”
Prothonotary