PRACTICE |
Parties |
Intervention |
CCH Canadian Limited v. Law Society of Upper Canada
A-806-99, A-807-99, A-808-99
Sharlow J.A.
10/5/00
9 pp.
Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Cancopy) applying to intervene in appeals from trial judgment ([2000] 2 F.C. 451) holding publishers (plaintiffs/appellants) having copyright in textbooks, other legal references, and such copyright infringed by Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) when made, distributed photocopies of excerpts, but not having copyright in case reports--Trial Judge also dismissing LSUC's counterclaim conduct, services constituting fair dealing under Copyright Act, ss. 29, 29.1; not involving copying substantial part of any work belonging to publishers; exempt from copyright infringement as matter of public policy--Cancopy collective society representing more than 4500 authors, publishers, 31 organizations representing authors, publishers--LSUC saying publishers members of Cancopy--Before asserting counterclaim herein, LSUC commencing action in Ontario Superior Court, naming Cancopy, publishers as defendants--That action stayed by consent--Cancopy wishing to make submissions on whether LSUC entitled to rely upon exception of fair dealing under ss. 29, 29.1; whether library exception (ss. 30.1, 30.2) valid ground for refusing LSUC's claim for declaratory relief; whether LSUC exempt from copyright infringement as matter of public policy, overriding public interest; whether LSUC's claim for declaratory relief aided by one or more constitutional principles--Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1990] 1 F.C. 74 (T.D.), approved on appeal, [1990] 1 F.C. 90 (C.A.), setting out questions to be asked in determining whether party should be permitted to intervene--At issue herein whether Cancopy will be directly affected by outcome, whether merits of case can be fairly determined without participation of Cancopy--Cancopy's status in Ontario litigation not sufficient to justify intervention in appeals--Cancopy also claiming Court's decision with respect to public interest defence, library exceptions could adversely affect licensing arrangements, economic returns to copyright owners Cancopy represents--Cancopy's interest merely jurisprudential--Not in position to make any submissions that cannot be made with equal effect by publishers, or having perspective on issues so different from that of publishers that Court will derive any assistance from participation--Copyright Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42, ss. 29 (as am. by S.C. 1997, c. 24, s. 18), 29.1 (as enacted idem), 30.1 (as enacted idem), 30.2 (as enacted idem).