11,309 result(s)
-
1.
Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright) v. British Columbia (Education) - 2017 FCA 16 - 2017-01-27
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsThe test for fair dealing was articulated in CCH as involving two steps. [...] To assist in determining whether the dealing is “fair”, this Court set out a number of fairness factors: the purpose, character, and amount of the dealing; the existence of any alternatives to the dealing; the nature of the work; and the effect of the dealing on the work. [...] Fair Dealing Utilisation équitable Research, private study, etc.
-
2.
Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency v. York University - 2017 FC 669 - 2017-07-12
Federal Court DecisionsB. Fair Dealing – Counterclaim [14] - [29] IV. The Parties [30] [...] B. Fair Dealing – Counterclaim [14] York’s own Fair Dealing Guidelines [Guidelines] are not fair in either their terms or their application. [...] - Guidance on fair dealing in key court decisions in 2012 led to the development of a series of fair dealing guidelines.
-
3.
York University v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency - 2020 FCA 77 - 2020-04-22
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsA. Fair dealing 75 (1) The purpose of the dealing 75 (2) The character of the dealing 87 [...] The second step assesses whether the dealing is “fair”. The onus is on the person invoking “fair dealing” to satisfy both aspects of the test under CCH. [...] They can satisfy the burden of establishing fair dealing by showing that the institution’s dealings were fair.
-
4.
Alberta (Education) v. Access Copyright - 2010 FCA 198 - 2010-07-23
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsVOLUME OF FAIR DEALING EXCEPTION Categories of Photocopies Volume [...] Fair Dealing A. The law [17] The relevant fair dealing provisions of the Act provide as follows: [...] (3) Was the dealing fair? [36] The Board’s Decision that category 4 copies do not qualify as fair dealing was reasonable for the following reasons.
-
5.
1395804 Ontario Ltd. (Blacklock's Reporter) v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 829 - 2024-05-31
Federal Court Decisions• fair dealing is an integral part of the scheme; it is not a defence; [...] Once again, fair dealing is an integral part of the Act: it is not merely a defence. [...] The fair dealing right is meant to be robust. One of the purposes of the fair dealing right is to bring balance to copyright law and avoids allowing a monopoly over the use of the works (CCH, para 70).
-
6.
Stross v. Trend Hunter Inc. - 2021 FC 955 - 2021-09-15
Federal Court DecisionsB. No “News Reporting” Fair Dealing Exception under Section 29.2 of Copyright Act [...] v The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2020 FCA 77 at paras 212-241 for the proposition that where a fair dealing defence is based on a system of fair dealing policies or practices, then the “purpose of the dealing” factor should focus on the safeguards in place to ensure that the dealing is fair. [...] Fair Dealing Utilisation équitable Research, private study, etc.
-
7.
CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada - 2002 FCA 187 - 2002-05-14
Federal Court of Appeal Decisionsi. The Purpose of the Dealing [151] The first factor to consider regarding fairness is the purpose of a dealing. [...] That fair dealing might apply in an overwhelming number of cases does not establish that every patron's dealing is fair. [...] FAIR DEALING [292] I have read the analysis of Linden J.A. on fair dealing.
-
8.
1395804 Ontario Ltd. (Blacklock's Reporter) v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2016 FC 1255 - 2016-11-10
Federal Court Decisions[t]he availability of a license is not relevant to deciding whether a dealing has been fair ... [...] ... [27] In mandating a generous interpretation of the fair dealing purposes, including “research”, the Court in CCH created a relatively low threshold for the first step so that the analytical heavy-hitting is done in determining whether the dealing was fair. [...] [33] I am satisfied that the Department’s acknowledged use of the two Blacklock’s articles constituted fair dealing.
-
9.
Stross v. Trend Hunter Inc. - 2020 FC 201 - 2020-02-06
Federal Court DecisionsThe second part of the test, requires a determination of whether the dealing is “fair”. [...] A. Part 1 of the Fair Dealing Test: was the dealing for the purpose of research or news reporting [...] B. Part two of the Fair Dealing Test: was the dealing “fair” [32] The heart of the fair dealing analysis is the second part of the CCH test: the determination of whether the dealing is “fair”.
-
10.
Warman v. Fournier - 2012 FC 803 - 2012-06-21
Federal Court Decisions[33] These factors militate in favour of a finding of fair dealing in this case. [...] The nature of the work favours a finding of fair dealing. The Kay Work is not currently published, which supports a finding of fair dealing because one of the purposes of copyright law is to promote wider dissemination of works: CCH, at para 58. [...] Also, the character of the dealing does not strongly support a finding of fair dealing.
-
11.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Conservative Party of Canada - 2021 FC 425 - 2021-05-13
Federal Court DecisionsFair Dealing Utilisation équitable Research, private study, etc. [...] This is a factor which may be more relevant to the second stage of the “fair dealing” analysis – character of the dealing. [...] As such, this factor points to fairness. (b) Character of the dealing
-
12.
Klimkowski v. Canadian Pacific Railway - 2017 FC 438 - 2017-05-03
Federal Court Decisions[3] In a decision dated June 10, 2015, the CHRC declined to deal with the Complaint [the CHRC decision]. [...] The decision was reasonable and there was no breach of procedural fairness. [...] [66] I am satisfied that the Section 40/41 Report addressed and reasonably concluded that the arbitration process was procedurally fair, and that no unfairness arose out of relying on that proceeding to not deal with the Complaint under the CHRA process.
-
13.
United Airlines, Inc. v. Cooperstock - 2017 FC 616 - 2017-06-23
Federal Court Decisions(2) Fair Dealing [106] - [108] (a) Is the dealing for an allowable purpose? [...] (b) Is the dealing fair? [121] (i) The Purpose of the Dealing [122] - [125] [...] The questionable purpose of the dealing, amount of the dealing, and effect of the dealing all weigh in favour of the conclusion that this dealing is not fair.
-
14.
Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Bell Canada - 2010 FCA 123 - 2010-05-14
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions29. Fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study does not infringe copyright. [...] This brings me to the second step of the exception: is the dealing fair? [...] (b) Fair dealing and previews of musical works [24] I do not intend to revisit the Board’s analysis of the six factors that help determine whether a dealing is fair, except for the third, the amount of the dealing.
-
15.
Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright) v. Canada - 2018 FCA 58 - 2018-03-22
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsIssues relating to procedural fairness, the Board’s evaluation of substantial copying and its application of fair dealing are also in issue. [...] (iii) The reasonableness of the Board’s assessment of fair dealing [130] In their submissions concerning the royalty rates that Access Copyright should receive, the respondents claimed fair dealing. [...] In effect, the Board obligated Access Copyright to disprove the respondents’ claims of fair dealing.
-
16.
Jean Pierre v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1423 - 2015-12-29
Federal Court Decisions• Did the Commission breach the duty of fairness it owed to Mr. Jean Pierre and its duty to comply with the rules of procedural fairness in examining his complaint? [...] A. Did the Commission breach the duty of fairness it owed to Mr. Jean Pierre and its duty to comply with the rules of procedural fairness in examining his complaint? [...] Its discretion to decide whether to deal with a complaint made that option available, and there was no breach of procedural fairness in this context.
-
17.
Zulkoskey v. Canada (Employment and Social Development) - 2015 FC 1196 - 2015-10-29
Federal Court DecisionsA. Did the CHRC Provide Adequate Procedural Fairness to the Applicant? [...] [34] The first two Baker factors point towards a lesser degree of procedural fairness. [...] This Baker factor suggests an increased level of procedural fairness.
-
18.
Gentile Holdings Ltd. v. The Queen - 2020 TCC 29 - 2020-02-12
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsA person with whom the transferor was not dealing at arm’s length. 4) The fair market value of the property transferred must exceed the fair market value of the consideration given by the transferee. [...] Pursuant to subsection 160(1) of the Act, fair market value must exist at the date the transfer was completed. [...] [33] To conclude, the Appellant has not discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant and 0699 did, in fact, deal with each other at arm’s length and, in addition, did not establish that the Appellant gave fair market value consideration in respect to the payment of the dividend.
-
19.
Petro-Canada v. Canada - 2004 FCA 158 - 2004-04-23
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions(a) where a taxpayer has acquired anything from a person with whom the taxpayer was not dealing at arm's length at an amount in excess of the fair market value thereof at the time the taxpayer so acquired it, the taxpayer shall be deemed to have acquired it at that fair market value [...]. [...] [54] There is a large body of jurisprudence dealing with the determination of whether a transaction is between two parties dealing at arm's length. [...] When dealing with interest expenses, the task can be objectified readily.
-
20.
Hood v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2019 FCA 302 - 2019-12-05
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsV. Did the Federal Court Err in Finding that Dr. Hood had been Treated Fairly by the Commission? [...] It is, however, evident from the Court’s reasons that it examined the process that had been followed by the Commission in dealing with Dr. Hood’s human rights complaint, and that it determined for itself whether she had been accorded the appropriate level of procedural fairness. [...] In these circumstances, I am satisfied that Dr. Hood was treated fairly by the Commission.
-
21.
2553-4330 Québec inc. v. Duverger - 2017 FC 128 - 2017-02-02
Federal Court DecisionsDid the Commission fail in its duty of procedural fairness? C. Was it reasonable for the Commission to decide to deal with the complaint? [...] (2) Procedural fairness [37] Regarding the New Report, Aéropro alleges that it was prepared: [...] The Court finds that there was no violation of procedural fairness. C. Was it reasonable for the Commission to decide to deal with the complaint?
-
22.
Brown v. Canada - 2003 FCA 192 - 2003-04-24
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions[14] Paragraph 69(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act provides that when a taxpayer has acquired anything from a person with whom the taxpayer was not dealing at arm's length at an amount in excess of fair market value at the time of acquisition, the taxpayer will be deemed to have acquired it at fair market value. [...] (a) where a taxpayer has acquired anything from a person with whom the taxpayer was not dealing at arm's length at an amount in excess of the fair market value thereof at the time the taxpayer so acquired it, the taxpayer shall be deemed to have acquired it at that fair market value; [...] It is structured to discourage non-arm's length parties from dealing with each other at prices other than fair market value.
-
23.
Netflix, Inc. v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada - 2015 FCA 289 - 2015-12-17
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsSecond, even if Netflix could prove that its free trials currently constitute fair dealing for an allowable purpose, it could not prove that all free trials always will constitute fair dealing for the life of the tariff. [...] The application to reply is moot to the extent that it concerns fair dealing. [...] [31] The Board then went on to reject Netflix’s arguments that its free trials constituted “fair dealing” in the same way iTunes free previews were.
-
24.
Stukanov v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2021 FC 49 - 2021-01-13
Federal Court DecisionsHe alleges that the Commission breached procedural fairness, and that the Commission’s decisions were unreasonable. [...] Did the Commission breach procedural fairness? B. Are the Commission’s decisions not to deal with Mr. Stukanov’s complaints unreasonable? [...] A. Procedural Fairness [30] Mr. Stukanov submits the Commission breached procedural fairness in multiple ways.
-
25.
Canada Post Corporation v. Canadian Postmasters and Assistants Association (CPAA) - 2016 FC 882 - 2016-07-28
Federal Court DecisionsA. Was there a breach of procedural fairness? B. Was the CHRC Decision reasonable? [...] Issues relating to procedural fairness will be reviewed on a standard of correctness. [...] [43] Even if I am wrong, and the failure to explicitly refer to the applicant’s submissions engages a procedural fairness issue, no breach of procedural fairness occurred here.