Quarterly Copyright Blog #6

For those who are interested in recent cases and developments concerning copyright and related matters, there have been several developments since the last entry.

INDU Committee Report 1

Section 92 of the Copyright Act provides that the Act must be reviewed every five years by a designated or established parliamentary committee. On 13 December 2017, the House of Commons designated the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (the Committee) to review the Act. A report was released on June 3, 2019, which presents 36 recommendations. It remains to be seen what actions will be taken as a result of the recommendations.

Shifting Paradigms -Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage 2

On 29 March 2018, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage directed the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to conduct a study on remuneration models for artists and creative industries, including rights management and the challenges and opportunities of new access points for creative content. In May 2019 the Committee released its report and made 15 recommendations for the consideration of the House of Commons or the Government.

Regulations Establishing Time Limits in Relation to Matters Before the Copyright Board. 3

The Government has published proposed regulations said to be a key element of the Government's plan to address decision-making delays of the Board, while preserving the independence of its decision-making process. The comment period for the regulations closed May 27, 2019. Concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of the regulations and submissions have been made by stakeholders. The final form of the regulations will be published in the Canada Gazette.

Arysta Lifescience North America, LLC v. Agracity Crop & Nutrition Ltd. 2019 FC 530 A judge of the Federal Court confirmed that in situations involving urgency an interim injunction may be granted but the onus of proof is on the moving party to demonstrate that it is a situation of urgency and the usual matters justifying the grant of an injunction before trial. The facts strongly favoured the plaintiff. In addition, there were concerns about the defendant's ability to pay any damage award if the injunction was not granted. The judge was satisfied that the plaintiff established, through clear and non-speculative evidence the defendant could not pay a damage award which satisfied the test of showing irreparable harm.

ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe...