Defendant provided a custom photocopy service to members of the

legal profession and judges, which was within the limits of the
exception for "fair use" - Defendant did not authorize infringement
of copyright by providing self-service photocopiers - Defendant
having been successful in respect of the appeal and cross-appeal, it
was entitled to costs in all instances.
The Plaintiffs Were Canadian publishers of law reports, law
textbooks, and --other legal publications. The defendant Was a nonprofit corporation Governed That the legal profession of Ontario
pursuant to statutory authority. The defendant maintained and
operated a reference library for members icts and the Judiciary. The
defendant HAD free-standing photocopiers for the use of library
patrons using coins and prepaid cards. Each photocopy Above, the
defendant posted a notice Stating That Certain kinds of copying
might infringe copyright law and disclaiming liability by the
defendant for infringing copies made by library patrons. The
defendant has aussi Provided custom photocopying services by
making copies available in person, by email or by facsimile
transmission machines. The defendant's "Access to the Law Policy"
provided That, for a fee, single copies of library materials required
for research, review, private study, and criticism as well as for use in
court, tribunal and government proceedings Could Be Provided to
patrons of the library.
The Plaintiffs Alleged que la defendant infringed copyright by ict
photocopying Their policies and activities in the legal profession for
Supplying the Judiciary and limited copies of legal materials
published by the Plaintiffs and Held in the defendant's reference
library. In Particular, the Plaintiffs Referred to the defendant's
custom photocopying service and its free-standing photocopiers.
The Plaintiffs Brought action for injunctive Relief Regarding the
statements and for subsistence and ownership of copyright,
infringement of copyright and in specific publications or portions of
publications in the qui Allegedly Plaintiffs owned copyrights. The
defendant counterclaimed for a declaration That copyright is not
infringed When A single copy of a Reported decision, case summary,
statute, regulation or limited selection of text from a treatise is
made by ict staff or a boss of the free-standing photocopiers for the
purpose of research. The defendant aussi Sought solicitor-andcustomer costs, and injunctive Relief.
The shares Were allowed in hand and the counterclaims Were
Dismissed. A statement Was Granted That copyright subsisted in the
Plaintiffs 'annotated statute, textbook, and monograph published as
a chapter in a textbook, and que la defendant infringed the
Plaintiffs' copyright in the textbook and the monograph by
photocopying has substantial businesses portion and by distributing
the copy. The Plaintiffs Were In Their unsuccessful claim for a

declaration That copyright subsisted in the Plaintiffs' three Reported

judicial decisions, the three Headnotes To Those decisions, a case
summary, topical and a law report index. A general declaration and
permanent injunction Were refused. The declaration Sought by the
defendant in icts counterclaim Was refused as overly broad.
The Plaintiffs' appeal Was allowed in hand and the defendant's
cross-appeal Was Dismissed. Copyright Was Held to subsist in all of
the Plaintiffs' items. The defendant appealed and the plaintiff crossappealed.
Held: The appeal and the cross Was allowed Was Dismissed appeal
with costs to the defendant Throughout.
The purpose of copyright law is to balance the public interest in the
encouragement and dissemination Promoting of works of the arts
and intellect and has Obtaining just reward for the creator. The
"sweat of the brow" approach to originality is too low a standard. To
be "original" under the Copyright Act, the work must originate from
an author, not be copied from Reviews another work, and must be
the product of an author's exercise of skill and judgment. The
exercise of skill and judgment required to Produce the work must
not be so trivial That It Could Be caractris Purely as a mechanical
exercise. Creative works are by definition "original" and protected by
copyright, creativity goal is not required in order to render a work
"original." The Headnotes, case summary, topical index and
compilation of judicial decisions are Reported in original works qui
copyright subsists. Although the Reported judicial decisions, When
Properly Understood as a compilation of the headnote and the
Accompanying edited judicial Reasons are original works covered by
copyright, the judicial Reasons in and of Themselves, without the
Headnotes, are not original works in qui the Plaintiffs can claim
copyright.
The defendant About did not authorize copyright infringement by
Maintaining self-service photocopiers for use by library patrons and
posting a warning notice disclaiming liability for copies made in
infringement of copyright. Although authorization inferred from acts
Could Be That Were less than Direct and positive, a person About
did not authorize infringement by Authorizing the mere use of
equipment That Could be used to infringe copyright. The short
shoulds presume That a person authorizes an activity Who Does so
only insofar as it is in according with the law. This presumption
rebutted if Could Be That It was shown in some relationship or
degree of control Existed entre les Alleged authorizer and the
persons Who commitment committed the copyright infringement.
There Was No evidence que la photocopiers HAD beens used in a
Manner inconsistent with copyright law. The defendant's posting of a
notice warning That It Would not Be Responsible for Any copies

made in infringement of copyright About did not Constitute an

express Acknowledgment que la photocopiers Would Be used in an
illegal Manner. Given defendant is responsible que le for regulating
the legal profession in Ontario, it is more logical to Conclude Was
que la notice posted to library patrons That Remind copyright law
Governed the making of photocopies in the library. Even if There
Were evidence que la copies Were used to infringe copyright, the
defendant lacked Sufficient control of the library patrons to permit
the conclusion of That It sanctioned, approved, or countenanced the
infringement.
Fair dealing under s. 29 of the Act for the purpose of research or
private study Does not infringe copyright. "Research" must be Given
a broad and liberal interpretation in order to Ensure That users'
rights are not unduly constrained. It is not limited to non-commercial
or private contexts. Research for the purpose of Advising clients,
giving opinions, arguing cases, prepaid briefs and factums is
"research". Lawyers carrying on the business of law for profit are
Conducting research Within The Meaning of s. 29. Whether
something is fair is a question of fact and depends on the facts of
Each box. Reporting factoring in Determining whether a dealing is
fair include: (a) the purpose of the dealing, (b) the character of the
dealing; (c) the amount of the dealing, (d) alternatives available to
the dealing, (e) the kind of the work, and (f) the effect of the dealing
on the work.
The defendant's dealings with the Plaintiffs' works through the
defendant's custom photocopy services Were research-based and
fair. The defendant's "Access to the Law Policy" Placed Appropriate
limits on the types of copying que la defendant Was doing. The
defendant About did not infringe copyright when, pursuant to icts
access policy, it made a single copy of a Reported decision, case
summary, statute, regulation or limited selection of text from a
treatise. If a request About did not APPEAR to be for the purpose of
research, criticism, review or private study, Then Would not the copy
be made. If a question as to whether the M me Stated Was
Legitimate purpose, the reference librarian Would review the matter.
The access policy limited the amount of Work That Would Be copied.
The reference librarian reviewed requests That exceeded what
might be regarded Typically to be reasonable and the right to refuse
HAD FulFil to a request. The custom photocopy Service Was an
integral share of the legal research process, an allowable purpose
under s. 29 of the Act. The fair dealings Were.
There Was no secondary infringement. The facsimile transmissions
of single copies of the Plaintiffs' works to lawyers in Ontario Were
not communications "to the public by telecommunication." Although
a series of repeated facsimile transmissions of the Sami Numerous
work to different recipients might Constitute communication to the

public in infringement of copyright, There Was no evidence That

Occurred in this this box.
The defendant About did not infringe copyright by selling copies of
the Plaintiffs' works. There Was no primary infringement na There
Could Be No secondary infringement. A statement Was Granted que
la defendant Does not infringe copyright When a single copy of a
Reported decision, case summary, statute, regulation or limited
selection of text from a treatise is made by the defendant in
according with its "Access to the Law Policy" and que la defendant
About did not authorize copyright infringement by Maintaining a
copy in the library and posting a notice warning That It Would not Be
Responsible for Any copies made in infringement of copyright. No
injunctive Relief Was WARRANTED. Given que la defendant was
successful on the appeal and cross-appeal, It was Awarded
Throughout costs.
Applicants were casebooks publishers, law treaties and other legal
publications. The defendant was a non-profit corporation that
governed the legal profession in Ontario, pursuant to the powers
that were granted to him by law. He operated and managed a
reference library for its members and for judges. It was providing
self-service photocopiers users to the library using coin or prepaid
cards. The defendant asked above each copier notice that certain
types of photocopies could violate the copyright and he declined all
responsibility for copies that could be made in violation of copyright
by users of the library. It also provided a custom photocopy service
that distributed photocopies in person, by mail or fax. The
defendant had a "policy of access to legal information" which, for a
certain amount, provided to library users individual copies of library
materials for research purposes, revision, study and criticism, and
also for use in a court or a hearing before a government agency.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant violated their copyright by
its policies photocopy and its activities consisting of the provision,
the legal profession and judges, copies of legal documents issued by
the applicants and detained in reference library of the defendant.
Specifically, applicants have referred to the custom photocopy
service of the defendant and self-service photocopiers. They brought
actions for injunction and declaratory judgment with respect to
ownership and existence of copyright as well as the violation of
copyright that the plaintiffs alleged holding in respect of certain
publications or portions of publications. The defendant
counterclaimed for a declaration that copyright is not infringed by a
single copy of a reported decision, a summary of cases of a law,
regulation or an extract of a treaty made by an employee or by a
user self-service photocopiers for research purposes. The defendant
also asked for solicitor-client costs in addition to an injunction.

The shares were granted in part and counterclaims were rejected. It

was stated that the plaintiffs had a copyright in respect of the
annotated law, the manual and the monograph constituting a book
chapter; it was also stated that the defendant had infringed the
copyright of applicants with regard to the manual and the
monograph by photocopying a large part of them and distributing
copies made. Applicants have also been denied the statement that
they enjoyed a copyright in respect of the three decisions published,
added to the summary of the three decisions, the summary and the
topical index of the casebook. The general declaration and
permanent injunction were refused. We refused to pay the
defendant's statement that he was looking in his counterclaim on
the grounds that it was too general.
The appeal of the plaintiffs was allowed in part and the defendant's
cross-appeal was dismissed. All works of the applicants gave them a
copyright. The defendant appealed and the applicants have made a
cross-appeal.
Held: The appeal was allowed and the cross-appeal was dismissed
with costs throughout.
Copyright aims to strike a balance between, on the one hand
promotion in the public interest, the creation and dissemination of
artistic and intellectual works and on the other hand, obtaining a
just reward for the creator. Associate the criterion of originality in
the concept of work gives too low a standard. To be "original" under
the Copyright Act, the work must come from an author, not be a
copy of another work and it must be the product of skill and
judgment of author. The skill and judgment exercised to produce a
work must not be insignificant as to be classified as a purely
mechanical exercise. The creative works are by definition "original
[s]" and protected by copyright; however it is not necessary to be
creative for a work to be "original". Summary, summary, topical
index and compilation of reported judicial decisions are original
works that confer copyright. While the reported judicial decisions are
original works protected by copyright when viewed as a compilation
of the summary and edited judicial reasons, legal reasons in itself,
unaccompanied summary, not an original work in respect of which
the applicants can claim a copyright.
The defendant did not authorize violations of copyright by providing
self-service photocopiers in library users or by posting a notice that
he declined all responsibility for any copies made in violation of the
right author. Even if permission could be inferred from acts not really
direct and positive, a person could not authorize a violation simply
by allowing the use of equipment that can be used to violate
copyright. The court must presume that a person who authorizes an
activity does so in so far as it complies with the law. This

presumption may be rebutted by demonstrating the existence of a

relationship or degree of control between the person who granted
the authorization and persons who violated the copyright. There was
no evidence that the copiers had been used in an improper manner
to copyright. The notice posted by the defendant that he was not
responsible for any copies made in violation of copyright could not
be an express acknowledgment that the copiers would be used
illegally. Since the defendant has the responsibility to regulate the
legal profession in Ontario, it is logical to conclude that the notice
had been posted to remind users of the library Copyright governed
the photocopies made in the library . Even if there were proof that
the copies were used to infringe copyright, the defendant did not
have sufficient control over the library users to conclude that he had
sanctioned, approved or supported violation.
Under Art. 29 of the Copyright Act, fair use made of research or
private study does not infringe copyright. The term "research"
should be given a large and liberal interpretation in order not to
unduly restrict the rights of users. The search is not limited to
private or non-commercial contexts. The research for advising
clients, giving opinions, arguing cases and preparing briefs and
factums remains of "research." Lawyers practicing law for profit are
doing research within the meaning of art. 29. The question of
whether something is fair is a question of fact that depends on the
facts of each case. The determination of what is fair includes
consideration of the following factors: a) the purpose of use; b) the
nature of the use; c) the amount of the dealing; d) alternatives to
the dealing; e) the nature of the work; f) the effect of the dealing on
the work.
The use that the defendant was the works of applicants, through its
personalized copy service, was made for purposes of research and
was fair. "Policy of access to legal information" of the defendant
appropriately limited the type of photocopies made. The defendant
did not infringe copyright when, in accordance with its access policy,
it was a single copy of a reported decision, a summary of a law,
regulation or extract limited treaty. If the application does not
appear to have been made for research, criticism, review or private
study, they refused to make the copy. If in doubt about the
legitimacy of the stated goal, the reference librarian would decide.
The access policy limited the amount of work that could be copied.
The reference librarian examined applications generally exceeding
what could be considered reasonable and he could refuse an
application.