Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from a copyright infringement judgment, upholding a $23,891.52 profits award where no proved expense deductions were shown.
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the finding that Limedas was not created in the course of employment, so Nexus did not own the copyright under s. 13(3).
The Federal Court granted a Norwich order compelling Cogeco to disclose subscriber names and addresses tied to IP addresses used in alleged BitTorrent copyright infringement.
The Federal Court granted default judgment in part, finding Matsumoto owned copyright in two photographs reproduced without authorization and awarding damages, punitive damages, costs, and a permanent injunction.
The application is dismissed because Re:Sound sought to raise a new statutory argument on judicial review that was not raised before the Board and the Court declined to remit for a second hearing; alternatively, the Board's exclusion of free trials and its 73.7% repertoire-use adjustment fell within the Board's reasonable exercise of discretion and did not disclose a reviewable error.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed the defendants’ discovery motion, holding the disputed questions sought legal positions or argument rather than proper factual answers.
The Federal Court struck McQuaig’s copyright claim without leave to amend, finding he lacked standing because the pleaded facts showed he was not the copyright owner.
The Federal Court awarded the successful plaintiff lump sum costs of $367,853.16, including disbursements, and post-judgment interest at 4.0%.
The Federal Court imposed jail terms for contempt of an Anton Piller order, giving Marshall six months and Antonio four months, with further incarceration capped at five years less one day unless they comply.
The Federal Court erred to the extent it dismissed certification solely for perceived flaws in the litigation plan that were remediable, but there is no basis in fact that a class proceeding is the preferable procedure because the common questions would not materially advance the case in light of authorities (ESA; Voltage v. Doe FCA) requiring proof that a subscriber personally undertook or controlled the infringing acts; the proposed use of the notice-and-notice regime to solicit class participation violated s.41.25(3) and exceeded the regime’s limited deterrence purpose; accordingly certifi…
Source excerpt
Explore more
