Montykola Investments Inc. v. Robert D. Sutherland Architects Ltd.

Montykola Investments Inc. v. Robert D. Sutherland Architects Ltd.

Because the respondent submitted the plan as part of the statutory planning process and did not restrict or withdraw permission before the Town acted, a reasonable person would infer an implied consent/licence permitting the Town to use and reproduce the plan in the development agreement that would run with the land; therefore no copyright infringement occurred and the appeal is allowed.

Citation
1996 NSCA 81
Parties
Appellant Landowner: Montykola Investments Inc.; Appellant Signing Officer: Dean Corkum; Appellant Signing Officer: Patricia Corkum; Respondent Architect/copyright Owner: Robert D. Sutherland Architects Limited
Court
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 April 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Copyright Infringement and Related Claims / Court of Appeal Decision (appeal Heard April 3, 1996; Judgment April 25, 1996)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Implied Licence, Development Agreements, Copyright Infringement, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Consent to Use
Source Language
English
Copyright Law Property Law Planning Law Corporate Law Implied Licence Development Agreements Copyright Infringement Piercing the Corporate Veil +1 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Montykola Investments Inc.

Appellant Landowner

Dean Corkum

Appellant Signing Officer

Patricia Corkum

Appellant Signing Officer

Robert D. Sutherland Architects Limited

Respondent Architect/copyright Owner

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Copyright Infringement and Related Claims / Court of Appeal Decision (appeal Heard April 3, 1996; Judgment April 25, 1996)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent's copyright in a conceptual site plan was infringed by the Town and Montykola
  2. 2 Whether submission of the plan in the statutory planning process constituted implied consent/licence to the Town's use and reproduction of the plan
  3. 3 Whether the signing officers (the Corkums) were personally liable by piercing the corporate veil

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondent submitted the plan as part of the statutory planning process and did not restrict or withdraw permission before the Town acted, a reasonable person would infer an implied consent/licence permitting the Town to use and reproduce the plan in the development agreement that would run with the land; therefore no copyright infringement occurred and the appeal is allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Trial judgment finding copyright infringement set aside
  • Appellants entitled to recover with interest the damages, interest and costs paid following the judgment at trial