Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20050309

Docket: T-42-02

Citation: 2005 FC 338

BETWEEN:

COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC.,

DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.,

METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS, INC.,

PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION,

TRISTAR PICTURES, INC.,

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION,

UNITED ARTISTS PICTURES, INC.,

UNITED ARTISTS CORPORATION,

UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC.,

WARNER BROS., a division of

TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT CO., L.P.

Plaintiffs

- and -

SERGE GAUDREAULT

Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered from the bench in Montreal, Quebecon March 4, 2005)

HUGESSEN J.

[1]                The plaintiffs are the owners of copyright in a number of motion picture films.

[2]                They say that the defendant has sold and distributed "black boxes" or decoders which are used for the purpose of decoding encrypted television signals in breach of their copyright.

[3]                They sue the defendant for breaches of the Copyright Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42, and
the Radiocommunication Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. R-2 and they now move for summary judgment on that action.

[4]                Apart from affidavit evidence of a wholly general nature of the alleged illegal activities by the defendant which, in my view, is not sufficiently specific to allow me to give judgment in favour of the plaintiffs on a motion such as this, the plaintiffs rely, as subsection 18(3) of the Radiocommunication Act allows them to do, on a plea of guilty entered by the defendant to two charges under sections 9 and 10 of that Act. I set out here the text of section 18:

18. (1) Any person who




(a) holds an interest in the content of a subscription programming signal or network feed, by virtue of copyright ownership or a licence granted by a copyright owner,


(b) is authorized by the lawful distributor of a subscription programming signal or network feed to communicate the signal or feed to the public,

(c) holds a licence to carry on a broadcasting undertaking issued by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission under the Broadcasting Act, or


(d) develops a system or technology, or manufactures or supplies to a lawful distributor equipment, for the purpose of encrypting a subscription programming signal or network feed, or manufactures, supplies or sells decoders, to enable authorized persons to decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed

may, where the person has suffered loss or damage as a result of conduct that is contrary to paragraph 9(1)(c), (d) or (e) or 10(1)(b), in any court of competent jurisdiction, sue for and recover damages from the person who engaged in the conduct, or obtain such other remedy, by way of injunction, accounting or otherwise, as the court considers appropriate.


(2) In an action under subsection (1) against a person,

(a) a monetary judgment may not exceed one thousand dollars where the person is an individual and the conduct engaged in by the person is neither contrary to paragraph 9(1)(e) or 10(1)(b) nor engaged in for commercial gain; and

(b) the costs of the parties are in the discretion of the court.


      (3) In an action under subsection (1) against a person, the record of proceedings in any court in which that person was convicted of an offence under paragraph 9(1)(c), (d) or (e) or 10(1)(b) is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the person against whom the action is brought engaged in conduct that was contrary to that paragraph, and any evidence given in those proceedings as to the effect of that conduct on the person bringing the action is evidence thereof in the action.



      (4) For the purposes of an action under subsection (1), the Federal Court is a court of competent jurisdiction.

      (5) An action under subsection (1) may be commenced within, but not after, three years after the conduct giving rise to the action was engaged in.


      (6) Nothing in this section affects any right or remedy that an aggrieved person may have under the Copyright Act.

18. (1) Peut former, devant tout tribunal compétent, un recours civil à l'encontre du contrevenant quiconque a subi une perte ou des dommages par suite d'une contravention aux alinéas 9(1)c), d) ou e) ou 10(1)b) et:

a) soit détient, à titre de titulaire du droit d'auteur ou d'une licence accordée par ce dernier, un droit dans le contenu d'un signal d'abonnement ou d'une alimentation réseau;


b) soit est autorisé, par le distributeur légitime de celui-ci, à le communiquer au public;


c) soit est titulaire d'une licence attribuée, au titre de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, par le Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes et l'autorisant à exploiter une entreprise de radiodiffusion;

d) soit encore élabore un système ou une technique ou fabrique un équipement destinés à l'encodage de signaux d'abonnement ou d'alimentations réseau, les fournit à un distributeur légitime, ou fabrique, vend ou fournit des décodeurs permettant à des personnes autorisées à cet effet de décoder de tels signaux ou alimentations.


Cette personne est admise à exercer tous recours, notamment par voie de dommages-intérêts, d'injonction ou de reddition de compte, selon ce que le tribunal estime indiqué.






      (2) Le plafond des dommages-intérêts accordés, au terme d'un tel recours, à l'encontre d'une personne physique n'ayant pas contrevenu aux alinéas 9(1)e) ou 10(1)b) et n'ayant pas posé les actes en cause dans un but lucratif est de mille dollars; les frais des parties sont laissés à la discrétion du tribunal.



      (3) Dans tout recours visé au paragraphe (1) et intenté contre une personne, les procès-verbaux relatifs aux procédures engagées devant tout tribunal qui a déclaré celle-ci coupable d'une infraction aux alinéas 9(1)c), d) ou e) ou 10(1)b) constituent, sauf preuve contraire, la preuve que cette personne a eu un comportement allant à l'encontre de ces dispositions; toute preuve fournie lors de ces procédures quant à l'effet de l'infraction sur la personne qui intente le recours constitue une preuve à cet égard.



    (4) La Cour fédérale est, pour l'application du paragraphe (1), un tribunal compétent.


      (5) Les recours visés au paragraphe (1) se prescrivent dans les trois ans suivant la date de l'infraction en cause.


      (6) Le présent article ne porte pas atteinte aux droits ou aux recours prévus par la Loi sur le droit d'auteur.

[5]                The defendant's affidavit evidence alleges and asserts that his guilty plea was entered solely for the purpose of avoiding the costs and inconvenience of a trial. He was fined $5,000.00 as a result of that plea.

[6]                The plaintiffs invite me to give little credit to that allegation and in other circumstances I might be inclined to do so, but the plaintiffs, unfortunately for them, have failed to cross-examine the defendant on his affidavit as they had the opportunity to do and as the Rules permit. In my view, one cannot simply discredit sworn evidence out of hand where one has neglected to cross-examine the deponent of that evidence.

[7]                In those circumstances, while I do not necessarily find that the defendant's affidavit evidence is true or credible, neither can I discredit it entirely. I find it to be "evidence to the contrary" within the meaning of subsection 18(3) and since the evidence of the guilty plea is, as I have already said, in my view, the only evidence of sufficient specificity to justify the Court in finding that the defendant has in fact committed the acts with which the plaintiffs charge him, I am obliged to dismiss the motion for summary judgment. I shall do so, however, without costs.



_________________________
                                   Judge

Ottawa, Ontario

March 9, 2005



FEDERAL COURT

NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                           T-42-02

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC. and others

                                                            - and -

                                                            SERGE GAUDREAULT

PLACE OF HEARING:                     Montreal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:                       March 4, 2005

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:        HUGESSEN J.

DATED:                                              March 9, 2005

APPEARANCES:

                                                                              Daniel Ovadia          FOR PLAINTIFFS

                                                                              Louis Savoie            FOR DEFENDANT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

                                                                              OVADIA, SAUVAGEAU FOR PLAINTIFFS
MONTREAL, QUEBEC

DK

                                                                                    JUTRAS ET ASSOCIÉS          FOR DEFENDANT
DRUMMONDVILLE, QUEBEC

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.