Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Memorandum of Fact and Law (National Post) Mar 7 13

Memorandum of Fact and Law (National Post) Mar 7 13

Ratings: (0)|Views: 152 |Likes:
Published by hknopf

More info:

Published by: hknopf on Mar 12, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/06/2013

pdf

text

original

 
BETWEEN:
Court
File
No.
A-
394
-12
andA-
395
-12
FEDERAL
COURT
OF
APPEAL
RICHARD
WARMAN
nd
NATIONAL
POST
COMPANY
Appellants
-
and
-
MARK
FOURNIER
nd
CONSTANCE
FOURNIER
Respondents
MEMORANDUM
OF
FACT
AND
LAW
OF
THE
APPELLANT, NATIONAL
POST
COMPANY
CASSELS
BROCK
&
LACKWELL
LLP
2100
Scotia
Plaza
40
ing
Street
West
Toronto,
ON
M5H
3C2
CaseyM.
hisick
LSUC
:
46572R
Tel:
416.869.5403
Fax:
416.644.9326
cchisick
@casselsbrock.comJason
Beitchman
LSUC
:
564770
Tel:
416.860.2988
Fax:
647.259.7993
jbeitchman
@casselsbrock.com
Solicitors
for
the
Appellant,
National
Post
Company
 
2
TO:
BRAZEAU
SELLER
LLP
Barristers
and
Solicitors
55
etcalfe StreetSuite
750
Ottawa
ON
K1
P
L5
James
Katz
Tel:
613.237.4000
xt.
267
Fax: 613.237.4001
Solicitors
for
the
Applicant,
Richard
Warman
AND
TO:
MARK
FOURNIER
2000
Unity
Road
Elginburg
ON
KOH
NO
Tel:
613.929.9265
Fax:
609.379.8793
Respondent
AND
TO:
CONSTANCE
FOURNIER
2000
Unity
Road
Elginburg
ON
KOH
NO
Tel:
613.929.9265
Fax:
609.379.8793
Respondent
 
BETWEEN:
Court
File
No.A-
394
-12
and A-
395
-12
FEDERAL
COURT
OF
APPEAL
RICHARD
WARMAN
nd
NATIONAL
POST
COMPANY
-
and
-
MARK
FOURNIER
nd
CONSTANCE
FOURNIER
TABLE
OFCONTENTS
Appellants
Respondents
Page
No.
OVERVIEW..................................................................................................
..............................1
PART
-
SUMMARY
OF
FACTS
.................................................................
..............................3
1.
THE
COPYRIGHT
WORK
......................................................................
..............................3
2.
THE
RESPONDENTS'
INFRINGING
CONDUCT
.........................................
..............................3
3.
THE
DECISION
OF THE
APPLICATION
JUDGE
.........................................
..............................5
PARTII
POINTS
N
ISSUES
.....................................................................
..............................8
PARTIII
-
SUBMISSIONS
...........................................................................
..............................8
1.
STANDARD
OF
REVIEW
.......................................................................
..............................8
2.
THE
RESPONDENTS
INFRINGED
COPYRIGHT
N
THE
KAY
WORK
..........................................9
2.1
The
ull
-text
reproduction
of
he
Kay
Work
nfringed
copyright
.....
.............................10
2.1.1
The
statutory
limitation
period
is
no
bar
to
a
inding
of
infringement
..................11
2.2
The
application
judge
erred
in
concluding
the
excerpts
were
not
a
"substantial
part"
ofthe
Kay
Work
...........................................................................
.............................13
2.2.1
The
reproduction
was
uantitatively
substantial
...................
.............................14

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
mrubenst liked this
mrubenst liked this
mrubenst liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->