On March 29th, Smart & Biggar intervened on behalf of the Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia in the appeal of Keatley Surveying Ltd v Teranet Inc.
The intervenors were represented by partners Steven Garland and Theodore Sum, with senior associate Laura Easton, and associate Matt Campbell.
This appeal concerned a class action brought on behalf of approximately 350 land surveyors of Ontario whose plans of survey were scanned and copied into the respondent Teranet’s digital database and made available online as a part of their management of the Province of Ontario’s electronic land registry system (ELRS).
The key question on appeal involved the interpretation of section 12 of the Copyright Act, which sets out, amongst other things, when the copyright in publications will vest in the Crown. This interpretation will determine whether it is the Crown or land surveyors who own the copyright in plans of survey that are made publicly available by Teranet.
More broadly, this case will likely have implications on a number of fronts, including across all levels of Government. For example, this case will likely have an impact on (a) how Governments at all levels in Canada structure, implement and manage government-related services and programs for the public, and make use of third-party contributions in connection with those services and programs, and (b) what rights Governments have to the copyright in works that are necessary for and published by or under the direction or control of Governments in furtherance of those public services and programs. In addition, this case will likely provide important guidance as to the circumstances under which third-party authors maintain their copyright in works published by or under the direction or control of the Government or see their copyright vest in the Government when works are published in connection with such public services and programs.
The Smart & Biggar team presented a balanced interpretation of section 12 of the Copyright Act for the Court to consider as it reaches its decision in the matter.
The preceding is intended as a timely update on Canadian intellectual property and technology law. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. To obtain such advice, please communicate with our offices directly.
Related Publications & Articles
-
Ghost in the machine: AI and patent protection
While there are arguments available that the current legal framework in Canada precludes the possibility of patenting AI-generated inventions (i.e., without any human input), it remains to be seen how...Read More -
All clear? The importance of trademark clearance searching in Canada
This article outlines the benefits of trademark searching, different types of searches, and specific Canadian considerations, emphasizing the importance of proactive trademark clearance.Read More -
Angelcare and Playtex seal another win against patent infringer Munchkin
On August 17, 2023, the Federal Court issued its decision in Angelcare Canada Inc. et al. v Munchkin Inc. et al. (2023 FC 1111) regarding the Plaintiffs’ entitlement to certain remedies for patent inf...Read More