Leah Garvin

Following a prior summary judgment establishing liability for copyright infringement, the court conducted an uncontested assessment of damages.

The defendant operated a language training service that collected confidential federal public service language test questions from students and used them to train others, thereby infringing Crown copyright and undermining the integrity of the testing system.

The plaintiff elected statutory damages under s. 38.1 of the Copyright Act and sought the statutory maximum for six compromised tests plus punitive damages.

The court considered the defendant’s bad faith, deterrence objectives, and lack of evidence regarding profits.

Statutory damages were awarded at varying levels per infringement but punitive damages were declined.

The federal Crown brought a motion to strike an action for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation relating to a construction contract for the replacement of a dam in Quebec.

The court held that the contractual claim arose in Quebec because the project, contract administration, and relevant decisions occurred there.

Although the alleged negligent misrepresentation claim was connected to Ontario because tender documents were obtained and relied upon in Ontario, the contract constituted a complete code governing compensation for extra costs and delays.

Interpreting the contract, the court concluded that the parties had excluded concurrent liability in tort.

As a result, the negligent misrepresentation claim was struck and the remaining contractual claim, which arose in Quebec, could not be heard in Ontario under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.

The Superintendent of Bankruptcy appealed a deputy registrar’s decision granting an absolute discharge to bankrupt individuals who had failed to comply with surplus income payment obligations under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The bankrupts had outstanding surplus income payments exceeding $10,000 and had not pursued mediation or other statutory remedies available under the Act.

The court held that s.172(2) of the BIA mandates specific responses where a bankrupt has failed to comply with payment requirements imposed under s.68 and does not permit an absolute discharge in such circumstances.

The deputy registrar exceeded jurisdiction by disregarding the statutory scheme and granting an absolute discharge despite non‑compliance.

The court annulled the discharge and ordered mediation, with a rehearing before a judge if mediation failed.