Federal Court sets hearings for admiralty, copyright, patent cases

This coming week, hearings scheduled before the Federal Court involved matters relating to alleged patent infringement, the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, and an admiralty proceeding involving cargo damage.

Federal Court

The court set the cases of 1395804 Ontario Ltd. et al v. Attorney General of Canada, T-269-15; 1395804 Ontario Ltd. et al v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, T-477-15; 1395804 Ontario Ltd, operating as Blacklock's Reporter v. Bank of Canada, T-745-15; 1395804 Ontario Ltd. v. Canadian Transportation Agency, T-897-15; 1395804 Ontario Ltd., operation as Blacklock's Reporter v. Attorney General of Canada, T-1085-15; 1395804 Ontario Ltd. (Blacklock's Reporter) v. Attorney General of Canada, T-1234-15; 1395804 Ontario Ltd et al v. Library of Parliament, T-1726-15; 1395804 Ontario Ltd. v. The Attorney General of Canada, T-1862-15; and 1395804 Ontario Ltd v. Canada (Attorney General), T-2090-14 on July 29, Monday.

The plaintiff in these cases, an Ottawa-based online news agency, brought 10 copyright infringement actions against three Crown corporations or agencies and against seven federal government agencies or departments, including the Department of Finance.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants acquired its articles through single-use subscriptions or through third-party sources and violated its copyright by unlawfully distributing these articles within their respective organizations.

The prothonotary granted a stay in nine of the actions pending the disposition of the action involving the Department of Finance. Staying the proceedings would best achieve the interests of justice and the just, most expeditious, and least expensive determination of the disputed issues, the prothonotary decided.

The plaintiff moved to appeal and to set aside the prothonotary’s orders for being clearly wrong. On June 27, 2016, in 1395804 Ontario Ltd. (Blacklock’s Reporter) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 719, the Federal Court dismissed the motions filed by the plaintiff.

The court found the orders not clearly wrong. The court ruled that the orders were not based on a wrong principle or a misapprehension of the facts and that staying these nine actions would indeed be in the interests of justice.

The court scheduled 1395804 Ontario Ltd., operating as Blacklock's Reporter v. Attorney General of Canada, T-1391-14 on July 29, Monday. This action concerned the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, 1985 in the context of a third party’s use of content protected by a paywall.

The plaintiff alleged that Department of Finance officials violated its copyright by obtaining, reading, and disseminating two of its news articles without consent and without payment. The plaintiff asked for damages.

On Nov. 10, 2016, in 1395804 Ontario Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 1255 (CanLII), [2017] 2 FCR 256, the Federal Court dismissed the action brought by the plaintiff. The court held that the department’s admitted use of the articles amounted to fair dealing and that the circulation within the department had a proper research purpose.

The court set Adeia Guides, Inc. v. Videotron Ltd., T-841-21 on July 30, Tuesday. In this action, the plaintiff argued that the defendant infringed four Canadian patents by providing certain television or video services. The plaintiff then moved to add further allegations of infringement to the action.

Last May 21, in Adeia Guides, Inc. v. Videotron Ltd., 2024 FC 762, the Federal Court granted the motion filed by the plaintiff. The court ruled that the proposed amended pleading had a reasonable prospect of success and disclosed a cause of action beyond mere bald allegations.

The court scheduled QSL Canada Inc. v. Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., T-247-23 on July 31, Wednesday. This admiralty proceeding involved cargo damage. The plaintiffs in this case provided stevedoring services to both defendants.

One defendant then moved to enforce a contractual forum selection clause that set the litigation forum in the Pennsylvanian courts. The defendant claimed that this clause was binding. Last Oct. 26, in QSL Canada Inc. v. Cliffs Mining Company, 2023 FC 1429, the Federal Court dismissed the motion brought by the defendant.

The court held that the defendant failed to establish that the clause bound the parties, that the Pennsylvanian courts were a more appropriate litigation forum under the principles of forum non conveniens, and that the declaratory relief requested by the plaintiffs was inappropriate.