Canadian Artists' Representation v National Gallery of Canada
Background. Exhibition rights under Canadian copyright law. In 1988, the "Copyright Act" was amended to provide for an exhibition right "to present at a public exhibition, for a purpose other than sale or hire, an artistic work created after June 7, 1988, other than a map, chart or plan." Such fees were to be negotiated directly with individual copyright holders or their authorized agents. Section::::"Status of the Artist Act". In 1992, the Parliament of Canada passed the "Status of the Artist Act" (""SAA""), which provided for Canadian artists to be represented by  recognized professional associations in negotiating terms of compensation on their behalf with federal "producers" who commission artists' services. Accordingly, Canadian Artists' Representation ("CARFAC") and "Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels du Québec" ("RAAV") have been recognized with respect to rights relating to visual artists. The case at hand. In 2003, CARFAC and RAAV commenced negotiations with the National Gallery of Canada ("NGC") in order to establish a scale agreement under the "SAA". They sought to include minimum fees for the use of existing works of visual artists. The NGC expressed reservations and stated that they wished to receive legal advice  on that issue, but over the next four years proceeded to draft an agreement that included such works. In 2007, the NGC, obtained a legal opinion upon which it relied to state that CARFAC/RAAV did not have the authority to negotiate for such fees, as it did not have written authorization from each artist covered by the agreement. On that basis, the NGC presented a revised draft scale agreement from which all references to existing works were removed. After trying to negotiate further, CARFAC and RAAV filed a complaint with the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal that  the NGC had breached s. 32 of the "SAA" by failing to bargain in good faith. The tribunal and court below. Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal. The Tribunal found in favour of CARFAC and RAAV, ruling that: Federal Court of Appeal. In a 2-1 decision, the Tribunal's order was set aside. In the majority ruling Noël JA stated: In dissent, Pelletier JA argued that granting a producer the right to use an existing work was similar to the service provided by hotels and car rental agencies by allowing others to use their property, and therefore the  Tribunal's interpretation of "provision of services" was reasonable. Because scale agreements do not apply to works for which the copyright has been assigned to a collective society, but rather only where the artist alone has the right to grant licences to use his or her work, there was no conflict between the two Acts. Applying "Royal Oak Mines", he concluded that an objective assessment supported the Tribunal's finding that the NGC had negotiated in bad faith. At the Supreme Court. Immediate decision. In a rare move, judgment was given immediately after the hearing. McLachlin CJ declared: Reasons given . In a unanimous decision, Rothstein J held that: Impact. Following the initial decision, the National Gallery issued a press release, announcing: Before the Supreme Court issued its ruling, concern was expressed as to whether the parties would have fared better if they had continued negotiations, as well as pointing out that a ruling in CARFAC/RAAV's favour would be expensive for the NGC and other galleries across the country. As well, it will also have serious implications for more obscure artists who may want to waive their minimum fee and negotiate freely with the gallery. Canadian Artists' Representation v