Millennium Funding, Inc. v. Bell Canada

Millennium Funding, Inc. v. Bell Canada

Appeal dismissed. Although the CMJ erred by unduly limiting the potential scope of a copyright misuse defence and by suggesting policy issues could not inform such a defence, Bell failed to plead sufficient material facts to support misuse, abuse, champerty, conspiracy or claims against counsel; the impugned paragraphs were properly struck without leave to amend and the CMJ’s order stands; costs awarded to the Plaintiffs in the cause.

Citation
2023 FC 764
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: Millennium Funding, Inc.; Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: Outpost Productions, Inc.; Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: Bodyguard Productions, Inc.; Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: Hunter Killer Productions, Inc.; Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: Rambo V Productions, Inc.; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: Bell Canada; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: Bell Aliant; Defendant by Counterclaim: Aird & Berlis LLP
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Rule 51(1) of the Federal Courts Rules of an Order Striking Portions of a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim (motion to Strike) Arising From a Statutory Damages Claim Under the Copyright Act S.41.26 / Interlocutory Appeal From Case Management Judge Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Notice and Notice Regime, Copyright Misuse, Statutory Damages, Motion to Strike, Champerty and Maintenance, Abuse of Process, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Norwich Orders, ISP Liability, Charter Ss.7 and 12 Challenge
Source Language
English
Copyright Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Tort Law Internet/technology Law Notice and Notice Regime Copyright Misuse Statutory Damages +7 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Millennium Funding, Inc.

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Outpost Productions, Inc.

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Bodyguard Productions, Inc.

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Hunter Killer Productions, Inc.

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Rambo V Productions, Inc.

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Bell Canada

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Bell Aliant

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Aird & Berlis LLP

Defendant by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Rule 51(1) of the Federal Courts Rules of an Order Striking Portions of a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim (motion to Strike) Arising From a Statutory Damages Claim Under the Copyright Act S.41.26 / Interlocutory Appeal From Case Management Judge Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Case Management Judge err in striking allegations of misuse of copyright?
  2. 2 Did the Case Management Judge err in striking allegations against Aird & Berlis LLP?
  3. 3 Did the Case Management Judge err in striking allegations of champerty and maintenance?

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed. Although the CMJ erred by unduly limiting the potential scope of a copyright misuse defence and by suggesting policy issues could not inform such a defence, Bell failed to plead sufficient material facts to support misuse, abuse, champerty, conspiracy or claims against counsel; the impugned paragraphs were properly struck without leave to amend and the CMJ’s order stands; costs awarded to the Plaintiffs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of Case Management Judge dated June 23, 2022 striking portions of Bell’s Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim without leave to amend is upheld
  • Costs awarded to the Plaintiffs in the cause