Source: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2125/index.do?iframe=true
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:54:21+00:00

Document:
Neutral citation: 2004 SCC 13.
2003: November 10; 2004: March 4.
Copyright — Infringement — Photocopying — Fax transmissions — Law Society providing custom photocopy service and maintaining self-service photocopiers in library for use by patrons — Legal publishers bringing copyright infringement actions against Law Society — Whether publishers’ headnotes, case summary, topical index and compilation of reported judicial decisions “original” works covered by copyright — If so, whether Law Society breached publishers’ copyright — Whether Law Society’s fax transmissions of publishers’ works constitute communications “to the public” — Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, s. 3(1) (f).
Copyright — Infringement — Exception — Fair dealings — Law Society providing custom photocopy service and maintaining self-service photocopiers in library for use by patrons — Legal publishers bringing copyright infringement actions against Law Society — Whether Law Society’s dealings with publishers’ works “fair dealings” — Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, s. 29 .
Copyright — Works in which copyright may subsist — Meaning of “original” work — Whether headnotes, case summary, topical index and compilation of reported judicial decisions “original” works covered by copyright — Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, s. 2 “every original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work”.
Under s. 29 of the Copyright Act , fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study does not infringe copyright. “Research” must be given a large and liberal interpretation in order to ensure that users’ rights are not unduly constrained, and is not limited to non-commercial or private contexts. Lawyers carrying on the business of law for profit are conducting research within the meaning of s. 29 . The following factors help determine whether a dealing is fair: the purpose of the dealing, the character of the dealing, the amount of the dealing, the nature of the work, available alternatives to the dealing, and the effect of the dealing on the work. Here, the Law Society’s dealings with the publishers’ works through its custom photocopy service were research-based and fair. The access policy places appropriate limits on the type of copying that the Law Society will do. If a request does not appear to be for the purpose of research, criticism, review or private study, the copy will not be made. If a question arises as to whether the stated purpose is legitimate, the reference librarian will review the matter. The access policy limits the amount of work that will be copied, and the reference librarian reviews requests that exceed what might typically be considered reasonable and has the right to refuse to fulfill a request.
The Law Society did not authorize copyright infringement by providing self‑service photocopiers for use by its patrons in the Great Library. While authorization can be inferred from acts that are less than direct and positive, a person does not authorize infringement by authorizing the mere use of equipment that could be used to infringe copyright. Courts should presume that a person who authorizes an activity does so only so far as it is in accordance with the law. This presumption may be rebutted if it is shown that a certain relationship or degree of control existed between the alleged authorizer and the persons who committed the copyright infringement. Here, there was no evidence that the copiers had been used in a manner that was not consistent with copyright law. Moreover, the Law Society’s posting of a notice warning that it will not be responsible for any copies made in infringement of copyright does not constitute an express acknowledgement that the copiers will be used in an illegal manner. Finally, even if there were evidence of the copiers having been used to infringe copyright, the Law Society lacks sufficient control over the Great Library’s patrons to permit the conclusion that it sanctioned, approved or countenanced the infringement.
Applied: Muzak Corp. v. Composers, Authors and Publishers Association of Canada, Ltd.,  2 S.C.R. 182; De Tervagne v. Belœil (Town),  3 F.C. 227; not followed: Moorhouse v. University of New South Wales,  R.P.C. 151; referred to: Moreau v. St. Vincent,  Ex. C.R. 198; Goldner v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1972), 7 C.P.R. (2d) 158; Grignon v. Roussel (1991), 38 C.P.R. (3d) 4; Théberge v. Galerie d’Art du Petit Champlain inc.,  2 S.C.R. 336, 2002 SCC 34; Bishop v. Stevens,  2 S.C.R. 467; Compo Co. v. Blue Crest Music Inc.,  1 S.C.R. 357; Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex,  2 S.C.R. 559, 2002 SCC 42; University of London Press, Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press, Ltd.,  2 Ch. 601; U & R Tax Services Ltd. v. H & R Block Canada Inc. (1995), 62 C.P.R. (3d) 257; Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991); Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc. v. American Business Information, Inc.,  2 F.C. 22; Édutile Inc. v. Automobile Protection Assn.,  4 F.C. 195; Slumber-Magic Adjustable Bed Co. v. Sleep-King Adjustable Bed Co. (1984), 3 C.P.R. (3d) 81; Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. William Hill (Football) Ltd.,  1 All E.R. 465; Composers, Authors and Publishers Association of Canada Ltd. v. CTV Television Network Ltd.,  S.C.R. 676; CBS Inc. v. Ames Records & Tapes Ltd.,  2 All E.R. 812; Hubbard v. Vosper,  1 All E.R. 1023; Associated Newspapers Group plc v. News Group Newspapers Ltd.,  R.P.C. 515; Sillitoe v. McGraw-Hill Book Co. (U.K.),  F.S.R. 545; Beloff v. Pressdram Ltd.,  1 All E.R. 241; Pro Sieben Media AG v. Carlton UK Television Ltd.,  F.S.R. 610.
Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, ss. 2 “computer program” [am. c. 10 (4th Supp.), s. 1(3) ], “dramatic work” [am. 1993, c. 44, s. 53(2)], “every original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work” [idem], “library, archive or museum” [ad. 1997, c. 24, s. 1(5)], “work”, 2.1 [ad. 1993, c. 44, s. 54], Part I, 3(1) [am. 1988, c. 65, s. 62; am. 1993, c. 44, s. 55; am. 1997, c. 24, s. 3], 5(1) [repl. 1994, c. 47, s. 57(1); am. 1997, c. 24, s. 5], Part III, 27 [repl. 1997, c. 24, s. 15], 29 [idem, s. 18(1)], 29.1, 29.2, 30, 30.2 [ad. idem], Part IV, 34(1) [repl. idem, s. 20(1)].
Kierans, Patrick E., and Rowena Borenstein. “Injunctions — Interlocutory and Permanent”. In Ronald E. Dimock, ed., Intellectual Property Disputes: Resolutions & Remedies, vol. 2. Toronto: Thomson/Carswell, 2002, 15-1.
(3) Were the Law Society’s dealings with the publishers’ works “fair dealing[s]” under s. 29 of the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42 , as amended?
(1) Did the Law Society’s fax transmissions of the publishers’ works constitute communications “to the public” within s. 3(1) (f) of the Copyright Act so as to constitute copyright infringement?
(2) Did the Law Society infringe copyright by selling copies of the publishers’ works contrary to s. 27(2) of the Copyright Act ?
(3) Does the Law Society qualify for an exemption as a “library, archive or museum” under ss. 2 and 30.2(1) of the Copyright Act ?
(4) To the extent that the Law Society has been found to infringe any one or more of the publishers’ copyrighted works, are the publishers entitled to a permanent injunction under s. 34(1) of the Copyright Act ?
6 With respect to the main appeal, I conclude that the Law Society did not infringe copyright by providing single copies of the respondent publishers’ works to its members through the custom photocopy service. Although the works in question were “original” and thus covered by copyright, the Law Society’s dealings with the works were for the purpose of research and were fair dealings within s. 29 of the Copyright Act . I also find that the Law Society did not authorize infringement by maintaining self-service photocopiers in the Great Library for use by its patrons. I would therefore allow the appeal.
9 In Canada, copyright is a creature of statute and the rights and remedies provided by the Copyright Act are exhaustive: see Théberge v. Galerie d’Art du Petit Champlain inc.,  2 S.C.R. 336, 2002 SCC 34, at para. 5; Bishop v. Stevens,  2 S.C.R. 467, at p. 477; Compo Co. v. Blue Crest Music Inc.,  1 S.C.R. 357, at p. 373. In interpreting the scope of the Copyright Act ’s rights and remedies, courts should apply the modern approach to statutory interpretation whereby “the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament”: Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex,  2 S.C.R. 559, 2002 SCC 42, at para. 26, citing E. A. Driedger, Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983), at p. 87.
The Copyright Act is usually presented as a balance between promoting the public interest in the encouragement and dissemination of works of the arts and intellect and obtaining a just reward for the creator . . . .
In interpreting the Copyright Act , courts should strive to maintain an appropriate balance between these two goals.
3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, “copyright”, in relation to a work, means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever, to perform the work or any substantial part thereof in public or, if the work is unpublished, to publish the work or any substantial part thereof . . . .
12 Part III of the Copyright Act deals with the infringement of copyright and exceptions to infringement. Section 27(1) states generally that “[i]t is an infringement of copyright for any person to do, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, anything that by this Act only the owner of the copyright has the right to do.” More specific examples of how copyright is infringed are set out in s. 27(2) of the Act. The exceptions to copyright infringement, perhaps more properly understood as users’ rights, are set out in ss. 29 and 30 of the Act. The fair dealing exceptions to copyright are set out in ss. 29 to 29.2 . In general terms, those who deal fairly with a work for the purpose of research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting, do not infringe copyright. Educational institutions, libraries, archives and museums are specifically exempted from copyright infringement in certain circumstances: see ss. 29.4 to 30 (educational institutions), and ss. 30.1 to 30.5 . Part IV of the Copyright Act specifies the remedies that may be awarded in cases where copyright has been infringed. Copyright owners may be entitled to any number of different remedies such as damages and injunctions, among others.
13 This case requires this Court to interpret the scope of both owners’ and users’ rights under the Copyright Act , including what qualifies for copyright protection, what is required to find that the copyright has been infringed through authorization and the fair dealing exceptions under the Act.
14 Section 5 of the Copyright Act states that, in Canada, copyright shall subsist “in every original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work” (emphasis added). Although originality sets the boundaries of copyright law, it is not defined in the Copyright Act . Section 2 of the Copyright Act defines “every original literary . . . work” as including “every original production in the literary . . . domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression”. Since copyright protects only the expression or form of ideas, “the originality requirement must apply to the expressive element of the work and not the idea”: S. Handa, Copyright Law in Canada (2002), at p. 209.
15 There are competing views on the meaning of “original” in copyright law. Some courts have found that a work that originates from an author and is more than a mere copy of a work is sufficient to ground copyright. See, for example, University of London Press, Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press, Ltd.,  2 Ch. 601; U & R Tax Services Ltd. v. H & R Block Canada Inc. (1995), 62 C.P.R. (3d) 257 (F.C.T.D.). This approach is consistent with the “sweat of the brow” or “industriousness” standard of originality, which is premised on a natural rights or Lockean theory of “just desserts”, namely that an author deserves to have his or her efforts in producing a work rewarded. Other courts have required that a work must be creative to be “original” and thus protected by copyright. See, for example, Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991); Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc. v. American Business Information, Inc.,  2 F.C. 22 (C.A.). This approach is also consistent with a natural rights theory of property law; however it is less absolute in that only those works that are the product of creativity will be rewarded with copyright protection. It has been suggested that the “creativity” approach to originality helps ensure that copyright protection only extends to the expression of ideas as opposed to the underlying ideas or facts. See Feist, supra, at p. 353.
16 I conclude that the correct position falls between these extremes. For a work to be “original” within the meaning of the Copyright Act , it must be more than a mere copy of another work. At the same time, it need not be creative, in the sense of being novel or unique. What is required to attract copyright protection in the expression of an idea is an exercise of skill and judgment. By skill, I mean the use of one’s knowledge, developed aptitude or practised ability in producing the work. By judgment, I mean the use of one’s capacity for discernment or ability to form an opinion or evaluation by comparing different possible options in producing the work. This exercise of skill and judgment will necessarily involve intellectual effort. The exercise of skill and judgment required to produce the work must not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise. For example, any skill and judgment that might be involved in simply changing the font of a work to produce “another” work would be too trivial to merit copyright protection as an “original” work.
17 In reaching this conclusion, I have had regard to: (1) the plain meaning of “original”; (2) the history of copyright law; (3) recent jurisprudence; (4) the purpose of the Copyright Act ; and (5) that this constitutes a workable yet fair standard.
1. a. existing from the first, primitive, innate, initial, earliest; . . . 2. that has served as pattern, of which copy or translation has been made, not derivative or dependant, first-hand, not imitative, novel in character or style, inventive, creative, thinking or acting for oneself.
“Original”’s plain meaning implies not just that something is not a copy. It includes, if not creativity per se, at least some sort of intellectual effort. As Professor Gervais has noted, “[w]hen used to mean simply that the work must originate from the author, originality is eviscerated of its core meaning. It becomes a synonym of ‘originated,’ and fails to reflect the ordinary sense of the word”: D. J. Gervais, “Feist Goes Global: A Comparative Analysis of the Notion of Originality in Copyright Law” (2002), 49 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 949, at p. 961.
19 The idea of “intellectual creation” was implicit in the notion of literary or artistic work under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886), to which Canada adhered in 1923, and which served as the precursor to Canada’s first Copyright Act , adopted in 1924. See S. Ricketson, The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works: 1886-1986 (1987), at p. 900. Professor Ricketson has indicated that in adopting a sweat of the brow or industriousness approach to deciding what is original, common law countries such as England have “depart[ed] from the spirit, if not the letter, of the [Berne] Convention” since works that have taken time, labour or money to produce but are not truly artistic or literary intellectual creations are accorded copyright protection: Ricketson, supra, at p. 901.
20 In the international context, France and other continental civilian jurisdictions require more than mere industriousness to find that a work is original. “Under the French law, originality means both the intellectual contribution of the author and the novel nature of the work as compared with existing works”: Handa, supra, at p. 211. This understanding of originality is reinforced by the expression “le droit d’auteur” — literally the “author’s right” — the term used in the French title of the Copyright Act . The author must contribute something intellectual to the work, namely skill and judgment, if it is to be considered original.
21 Although many Canadian courts have adopted a rather low standard of originality, i.e., that of industriousness, more recently, some courts have begun to question whether this standard is appropriate. For example, the Federal Court of Appeal in Tele-Direct, supra, held, at para. 29, that those cases which had adopted the sweat of the brow approach to originality should not be interpreted as concluding that labour, in and of itself, could ground a finding of originality. As Décary J.A. explained: “If they did, I suggest that their approach was wrong and is irreconcilable with the standards of intellect and creativity that were expressly set out in NAFTA and endorsed in the 1993 amendments to the Copyright Act and that were already recognized in Anglo-Canadian law.” See also Édutile Inc. v. Automobile Protection Assn.,  4 F.C. 195 (C.A.), at para. 8, adopting this passage.
The “sweat of the brow” doctrine had numerous flaws, the most glaring being that it extended copyright protection in a compilation beyond selection and arrangement — the compiler’s original contributions — to the facts themselves. Under the doctrine, the only defense to infringement was independent creation. A subsequent compiler was “not entitled to take one word of information previously published,” but rather had to “independently wor(k) out the matter for himself, so as to arrive at the same result from the same common sources of information.” . . . “Sweat of the brow” courts thereby eschewed the most fundamental axiom of copyright law — that no one may copyright facts or ideas.
24 Requiring that an original work be the product of an exercise of skill and judgment is a workable yet fair standard. The “sweat of the brow” approach to originality is too low a standard. It shifts the balance of copyright protection too far in favour of the owner’s rights, and fails to allow copyright to protect the public’s interest in maximizing the production and dissemination of intellectual works. On the other hand, the creativity standard of originality is too high. A creativity standard implies that something must be novel or non-obvious — concepts more properly associated with patent law than copyright law. By way of contrast, a standard requiring the exercise of skill and judgment in the production of a work avoids these difficulties and provides a workable and appropriate standard for copyright protection that is consistent with the policy objectives of the Copyright Act .
25 For these reasons, I conclude that an “original” work under the Copyright Act is one that originates from an author and is not copied from another work. That alone, however, is not sufficient to find that something is original. In addition, an original work 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 characterized as a purely mechanical exercise. While creative works will by definition be “original” and covered by copyright, creativity is not required to make a work “original”.
27 On appeal, the Law Society did not challenge the trial judge’s findings with respect to the three works in which he found copyright did exist, with the exception of questioning whether the monograph constituted a “work” within the meaning of the Copyright Act . The Federal Court of Appeal adopted the “sweat of the brow” approach to originality and found that if a work was more than a mere copy, it would be original. On this basis, Linden J.A., writing for the majority, held that all of the remaining works were original and therefore covered by copyright ( 4 F.C. 213). The Law Society appeals, contending that the headnotes, case summary, topical index and reported judicial decisions are not “original” within the meaning of the Copyright Act and, therefore, are not covered by copyright.
33 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. Copyright protects originality of form or expression. A compilation takes existing material and casts it in a different form. The arranger does not have copyright in the individual components. However, the arranger may have copyright in the form represented by the compilation. “It is not the several components that are the subject of the copyright, but the over-all arrangement of them which the plaintiff through his industry has produced”: Slumber-Magic Adjustable Bed Co. v. Sleep-King Adjustable Bed Co. (1984), 3 C.P.R. (3d) 81 (B.C.S.C.), at p. 84; see also Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. William Hill (Football) Ltd.,  1 All E.R. 465 (H.L.), at p. 469.
37 Under s. 27(1) of the Copyright Act , it is an infringement of copyright for anyone to do anything that the Act only allows owners to do, including authorizing the exercise of his or her own rights. It does not infringe copyright to authorize a person to do something that would not constitute copyright infringement. See Composers, Authors and Publishers Association of Canada Ltd. v. CTV Television Network Ltd.,  S.C.R. 676, at p. 680. The publishers argue that the Law Society is liable for breach of copyright under this section because it implicitly authorized patrons of the Great Library to copy works in breach of the Copyright Act .
38 “Authorize” means to “sanction, approve and countenance”: Muzak Corp. v. Composers, Authors and Publishers Association of Canada, Ltd.,  2 S.C.R. 182, at p. 193; De Tervagne v. Belœil (Town),  3 F.C. 227 (T.D.). Countenance in the context of authorizing copyright infringement must be understood in its strongest dictionary meaning, namely, “[g]ive approval to; sanction, permit; favour, encourage”: see The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993), vol. 1, at p. 526. Authorization is a question of fact that depends on the circumstances of each particular case and can be inferred from acts that are less than direct and positive, including a sufficient degree of indifference: CBS Inc. v. Ames Records & Tapes Ltd.,  2 All E.R. 812 (Ch. D.), at pp. 823-24. However, a person does not authorize infringement by authorizing the mere use of equipment that could be used to infringe copyright. Courts should presume that a person who authorizes an activity does so only so far as it is in accordance with the law: Muzak, supra. This presumption may be rebutted if it is shown that a certain relationship or degree of control existed between the alleged authorizer and the persons who committed the copyright infringement: Muzak, supra; De Tervagne, supra; see also J. S. McKeown, Fox Canadian Law of Copyright and Industrial Designs (4th ed. (loose-leaf)), at p. 21-104, and P. D. Hitchcock, “Home Copying and Authorization” (1983), 67 C.P.R. (2d) 17, at pp. 29-33.
49 As an integral part of the scheme of copyright law, the s. 29 fair dealing exception is always available. Simply put, a library can always attempt to prove that its dealings with a copyrighted work are fair under s. 29 of the Copyright Act . It is only if a library were unable to make out the fair dealing exception under s. 29 that it would need to turn to s. 30.2 of the Copyright Act to prove that it qualified for the library exemption.
50 In order to show that a dealing was fair under s. 29 of the Copyright Act , a defendant must prove: (1) that the dealing was for the purpose of either research or private study and (2) that it was fair.
51 The fair dealing exception under s. 29 is open to those who can show that their dealings with a copyrighted work were for the purpose of research or private study. “Research” must be given a large and liberal interpretation in order to ensure that users’ rights are not unduly constrained. I agree with the Court of Appeal that research is not limited to non-commercial or private contexts. The Court of Appeal correctly noted, at para. 128, that “[r]esearch for the purpose of advising clients, giving opinions, arguing cases, preparing briefs and factums is nonetheless research.” Lawyers carrying on the business of law for profit are conducting research within the meaning of s. 29 of the Copyright Act .
54 In Canada, the purpose of the dealing will be fair if it is for one of the allowable purposes under the Copyright Act , namely research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting: see ss. 29 , 29.1 and 29.2 of the Copyright Act . As discussed, these allowable purposes should not be given a restrictive interpretation or this could result in the undue restriction of users’ rights. This said, courts should attempt to make an objective assessment of the user/defendant’s real purpose or motive in using the copyrighted work. See McKeown, supra, at p. 23-6. See also Associated Newspapers Group plc v. News Group Newspapers Ltd.,  R.P.C. 515 (Ch. D.). Moreover, as the Court of Appeal explained, some dealings, even if for an allowable purpose, may be more or less fair than others; research done for commercial purposes may not be as fair as research done for charitable purposes.
58 The nature of the work in question should also be considered by courts assessing whether a dealing is fair. Although certainly not determinative, if a work has not been published, the dealing may be more fair in that its reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a wider public dissemination of the work — one of the goals of copyright law. If, however, the work in question was confidential, this may tip the scales towards finding that the dealing was unfair. See Beloff v. Pressdram Ltd.,  1 All E.R. 241 (Ch. D.), at p. 264.
59 Finally, the effect of the dealing on the work is another factor warranting consideration when courts are determining whether a dealing is fair. If the reproduced work is likely to compete with the market of the original work, this may suggest that the dealing is not fair. Although the effect of the dealing on the market of the copyright owner is an important factor, it is neither the only factor nor the most important factor that a court must consider in deciding if the dealing is fair. See, for example, Pro Sieben Media AG v. Carlton UK Television Ltd.,  F.S.R. 610 (C.A.), per Robert Walker L.J.
62 At trial, the Law Society claimed that its custom photocopy service does not infringe copyright because it is a fair dealing within the meaning of s. 29 of the Copyright Act . The trial judge held that the fair dealing exception should be strictly construed. He concluded that copying for the custom photocopy service was not for the purpose of either research or study and therefore was not within the ambit of fair dealing. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the fair dealing exception should be interpreted restrictively. The majority held that the Law Society could rely on the purposes of its patrons to prove that its dealings were fair. The Court of Appeal concluded, however, that there was not sufficient evidence to determine whether or not the dealings were fair and, consequently, that the fair dealing exception had not been proven.
64 The Law Society’s custom photocopying service is provided for the purpose of research, review and private study. The Law Society’s Access Policy states that “[s]ingle copies of library materials, required for the purposes of research, review, private study and criticism . . . may be provided to users of the Great Library.” When the Great Library staff make copies of the requested cases, statutes, excerpts from legal texts and legal commentary, they do so for the purpose of research. Although the retrieval and photocopying of legal works are not research in and of themselves, they are necessary conditions of research and thus part of the research process. The reproduction of legal works is for the purpose of research in that it is an essential element of the legal research process. There is no other purpose for the copying; the Law Society does not profit from this service. Put simply, its custom photocopy service helps to ensure that legal professionals in Ontario can access the materials necessary to conduct the research required to carry on the practice of law. In sum, the Law Society’s custom photocopy service is an integral part of the legal research process, an allowable purpose under s. 29 of the Copyright Act .
67 The character of the Law Society’s dealings with the publishers’ works also supports a finding of fairness. Under the Access Policy, the Law Society provides single copies of works for the specific purposes allowed under the Copyright Act . There is no evidence that the Law Society was disseminating multiple copies of works to multiple members of the legal profession. Copying a work for the purpose of research on a specific legal topic is generally a fair dealing.
70 The availability of a licence is not relevant to deciding whether a dealing has been fair. As discussed, fair dealing is an integral part of the scheme of copyright law in Canada. Any act falling within the fair dealing exception will not infringe copyright. If a copyright owner were allowed to license people to use its work and then point to a person’s decision not to obtain a licence as proof that his or her dealings were not fair, this would extend the scope of the owner’s monopoly over the use of his or her work in a manner that would not be consistent with the Copyright Act ’s balance between owner’s rights and user’s interests.
71 I agree with the Court of Appeal that the nature of the works in question — judicial decisions and other works essential to legal research — suggests that the Law Society’s dealings were fair. As Linden J.A. explained, at para. 159: “It is generally in the public interest that access to judicial decisions and other legal resources not be unjustifiably restrained.” Moreover, the Access Policy puts reasonable limits on the Great Library’s photocopy service. It does not allow all legal works to be copied regardless of the purpose to which they will be put. Requests for copies will be honoured only if the user intends to use the works for the purpose of research, private study, criticism, review or use in legal proceedings. This further supports a finding that the dealings were fair.
74 Under s. 27(1) of the Copyright Act , a person infringes copyright if he or she does something that only the owner of the copyright has the right to do without the owner’s consent. On appeal to this Court, the Law Society submits that six of the items that the respondent publishers have claimed were copied in infringement of copyright were copied at the request of Jean Cummings, a lawyer who had been asked by Canada Law Book’s Vice-President to obtain copies of these works from the Law Society. As such, the Law Society contends that the copies were made with the consent of Canada Law Book and therefore were not an infringement of copyright.
77 At trial, the publishers argued that the Law Society’s fax transmissions of copies of their works to lawyers in Ontario were communications “to the public by telecommunication” and hence infringed s. 3(1) (f) of the Copyright Act . The trial judge found that the fax transmissions were not telecommunications to the public because they “emanated from a single point and were each intended to be received at a single point” (para. 167). The Court of Appeal agreed, although it allowed that a series of sequential transmissions might constitute an infringement of an owner’s right to communicate to the public.
(2) Did the Law Society Infringe Copyright in the Publishers’ Works by Selling Copies to Section 27(2) of the Copyright Act ?
80 Under s. 27(2)(a) of the Copyright Act , it is an infringement of copyright to sell a copy of a work that the person knows or should have known infringes copyright, a practice known as secondary infringement. The majority at the Court of Appeal rejected the allegation of secondary infringement on the ground that it was not established that the Law Society knew or should have known it was dealing with infringing copies of the publishers’ works. The publishers appeal this finding on cross-appeal.
(3) Does the Law Society’s Great Library Qualify for an Exemption as a “Library, Archive or Museum” Under Sections 2 and 30.2(1) of the Copyright Act ?
(4) Are the Publishers Entitled to a Permanent Injunction Under Section 34(1) of the Copyright Act ?
85 Under s. 34(1) of the Copyright Act , the copyright owner is entitled to all remedies, including an injunction, for the infringement of copyright in his or her work. An injunction is, in principle, an equitable remedy and, thus, it is within the Court’s discretion to decide whether or not to grant an injunction. See P. E. Kierans and R. Borenstein, “Injunctions — Interlocutory and Permanent”, in R. E. Dimock, ed., Intellectual Property Disputes: Resolutions & Remedies (2002), vol. 2, 15-1, at p. 15-4.
89 My conclusions on the cross-appeal follow from those on the main appeal. No secondary infringement of copyright by the Law Society is established. The Law Society’s fax transmissions did not constitute communications to the public and it did not sell copies of the publishers’ works. Were it necessary, I would conclude that the Great Library qualifies for a library exemption under the Copyright Act . Finally, in light of my finding that there has been no copyright infringement in this case, an injunction should not be issued in this case. I would dismiss the cross-appeal.
5. (1) Subject to this Act, copyright shall subsist in Canada, for the term hereinafter mentioned, in every original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work if any one of the following conditions is met: . . .
30.2 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a library, archive or museum or a person acting under its authority to do anything on behalf of any person that the person may do personally under section 29 or 29.1 .

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.