Desputeaux v. Editions Chouette (1987) inc., 2003 SCC 17

• Judge: Gonthier, Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 21, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2003 SCC 17;(2003), 301 N.R. 220 (SCC);23 CPR (4th) 417;223 DLR (4th) 407;AZ-50167394;[2003] 1 SCR 178;120 ACWS (3d) 717;JE 2003-626;[2003] ACS no 15;301 NR 220;[2003] SCJ No 15 (QL)

Desputeaux v. Editions Chouette Inc. (2003), 301 N.R. 220 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2003] N.R. TBEd. MR.044

Les Éditions Chouette (1987) inc. et Christine L'Heureux (appelantes) c. Hélène Desputeaux (intimée) et Me Régis Rémillard (mis en cause) et Centre d'arbitrage commercial national et international du Québec, Union des écrivaines et écrivains québécois, Conseil des métiers d'art du Québec et Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels du Québec (intervenants)

(28660; 2003 CSC 17; 2003 SCC 17)

Indexed As: Desputeaux v. Editions Chouette (1987) inc.

Supreme Court of Canada

Gonthier, Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.

March 21, 2003.

Summary:

L'Heureux and Desputeaux, representing themselves as co-authors of the Caillou character and stories, signed a licence con­tract in which they assigned certain repro­duction rights to Éditions Chouette inc. L'Heureux and Desputeaux waived any claims based on their moral rights in respect of Caillou. In 1996, difficulties arose in respect of the interpretation and application of the licence contract. Desputeaux claimed sole authorship. L'Heureux and Éditions Chouette said that it was a joint effort. Éditions Chouette brought a motion for declaratory judgment. It sought to secure recognition of its entitlement to exploit the reproduction rights. Desputeaux replied with a motion for a declinatory exception. She sought to have the parties referred to an arbitrator.

The Quebec Superior Court allowed the declinatory exception and referred the case to arbitration.

The arbitrator ruled that Éditions Chouette held the reproduction rights sought and that it alone had the right to use the Caillou character. Desputeaux applied to annul the award.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported [1997] Q.J. No. 716, dismissed the application. Desputeaux appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [2001] R.J.Q. 945; 16 C.P.R.(4th) 77, allowed the appeal. L'Heureux and Éditions Chouette appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and upheld the arbitrator's award.

Arbitration - Topic 102

Right to arbitration - What matters arbitrable - Section 37 of the Copyright Act (Can.) provided: "The Federal Court has concurrent jurisdiction with provincial courts to hear and determine all proceed­ings, other than the prosecution of offences under section 42 and 43, for the enforce­ment of a provision of this Act or of the civil remedies provided by this Act" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 37 did not preclude arbitration pursuant to prov­incial legislation - See paragraphs 38 to 46.

Arbitration - Topic 102

Right to arbitration - What matters arbitrable - [See Quebec Procedure - Topic 8403 ].

Arbitration - Topic 941

The submission - Scope of submission - General - [See Quebec Procedure - Topic 8427 ].

Arbitration - Topic 944

The submission - Scope of submission - Jurisdiction of arbitrators - [See Quebec Procedure - Topic 8428 ].

Arbitration - Topic 4621

The hearing - Procedure at the hearing - General - [See Quebec Procedure - Topic 8655 ].

Arbitration - Topic 5687

The award - Enforcement of award - By entry as a judgment - General - Homologation - [See Arbitration - Topic 8308.4 and second Quebec Procedure - Topic 8701 ].

Arbitration - Topic 8308.4

Judicial review - Grounds - General - Effect of award on third parties - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Code of Civil Procedure (Que.) did not consider the effect of an arbitration award on third parties to be a ground on which it may be annulled or its homologation re­fused - See paragraphs 61 and 62.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8702

Federal power to establish courts - Scope of power - [See Courts - Topic 5681 ].

Copyright - Topic 6023

Practice - Jurisdiction - Concurrent juris­diction - [See first Arbitration - Topic 102 ].

Courts - Topic 5681

Provincial courts - General - Jurisdiction or powers - The Supreme Court of Canada held: "Unless Parliament assigns exclusive jurisdiction over a matter governed by federal law to a specific court, the courts constituted by the province pursuant to its general power to legislate in relation to the administration of justice will have jurisdic­tion over any matter, regardless of legislat­ive jurisdiction" - See paragraph 43.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 8403

Arbitration - General - Public order provi­sions - Article 2639 of the Civil Code of Québec provided: "Disputes over the status and capacity of persons, family matters or other matters of public order may not be submitted to arbitration. An arbitration agreement may not be opposed on the ground that the rules applicable to settle­ment of the dispute are in the nature of rules of public order" - The Supreme Court of Canada, after discussing the scope and application of "public order" with respect to arbitration, held that ownership of copy­right was arbitrable - See paragraphs 47 to 60.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 8427

Arbitration - Arbitration agreements - Scope of - The Supreme Court of Canada held: "The arbitrator's mandate must not be interpreted restrictively by limiting it to what is expressly set out in the arbitration agreement. The mandate also includes everything that is closely connected with that agreement, or, in other words, ques­tions that have 'a connection with the question to be disposed of by the arbitra­tors with the dispute submitted to them' [...] Since the 1986 arbitration reforms, the scope of arbitration agreements has been interpreted liberally" - Hence, the court ruled here that questions submitted to an arbitrator on the subject of the interpreta­tion of a licensing agreement respecting reproduction rights of a work subject to copyright, required the arbitrator to also adjudicate on copyright ownership - See paragraphs 20 to 37.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 8428

Arbitration - Arbitration agreements - Jurisdiction of arbitrator - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the parties to an arbitration agreement had virtually unfet­tered autonomy in identifying the disputes to be sent to arbitration - That agreement comprised the arbitrator's terms of refer­ence and delineated his task, subject to the applicable statutory provisions - The pri­mary source of the arbitrator's competence was the content of the arbitration agree­ment (art. 2643, Civil Code of Québec) - If an arbitrator stepped outside that agree­ment, a court could refuse to homologate, or could annul, the arbitration award (arts. 946.4(4) and 947.2, Code of Civil Pro­cedure (Que.)) - See paragraph 22.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 8655

Arbitration - The hearing - Procedure - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure (Que.) governing an arbitration proceeding did not require that the arbitrator hear testimonial evidence - The methods by which evidence could be heard were flex­ible and were controlled by the arbitrator, subject to any agreements between the parties - Nonetheless, an arbitration award could be annulled where "the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case" - See paragraphs 70 and 71.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 8701

Arbitration - The award - Homologation - [See Arbitration - Topic 8308.4 ].

Quebec Procedure - Topic 8701

Arbitration - The award - Homologation - The Supreme Court of Canada stated: "The legislature has affirmed the autonomy of arbitration by stating, in art. 946.2 [of the Code of Civil Procedure (Que.) (C.C.P.)], that 'the court examining a motion for homologation cannot enquire into the merits of the dispute'. (That provision is applicable to annulment of an arbitration award by the reference to it in art. 947.2 C.C.P.) In addition, the reasons for which a court may refuse to homologate or annul an arbitration award are exhaustively set out in arts. 946.4 and 946.5 C.C.P." - See paragraphs 65 to 69.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 8711

Arbitration - The award - Annulment - [See Arbitration - Topic 8308.4 and second Quebec Procedure - Topic 8701 ].

Cases Noticed:

Productions Musicales Donald K. Donald Inc. v. Guns N'Roses Missouri Storm Inc., [1994] R.J.Q. 1183; 63 Q.A.C. 54 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; 224 N.R. 241, consd. [para. 43].

Siddall (William) & Sons Fisheries v. Pembina Exploration Canada Ltd. et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 206; 92 N.R. 137; 33 O.A.C. 321, consd. [para. 44].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Pembina Exploration Canada Ltd. - see Siddall (William) & Sons Fisheries v. Pembina Exploration Canada Ltd. et al.

Automatic Systems Inc. v. Bracknell Corp. et al. (1994), 74 O.A.C. 111; 113 D.L.R.(4th) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 47].

Resorts International Hotel Inc. v. Auerbach, [1992] R.J.Q. 302; 43 Q.A.C. 75 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Goulet v. Compagnie d'assurance-vie Transamerica du Canada, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 719; 284 N.R. 139, refd to. [para. 52].

Laurentienne-vie, compagnie d'assurance inc. v. Empire, compagnie d'assurance-vie, [2000] R.J.Q. 1708 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Mousseau v. Société de gestion Paquin ltée, [1994] R.J.Q. 2004 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

Condominiums Mont St-Sauveur inc. v. Construction Serge Sauvé ltée, [1990] R.J.Q. 2783 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Procon (Great Britain) Ltd. v. Golden Eagle Co., [1976] C.A. 565 (Que.), refd to. [para. 53].

Société Seagram France Distribution v. Société GE Massenez, Cass. civ. 2e, May 3, 2001, Rev. arb. 2001.4.805 (note Yves Derains), refd to. [para. 54].

Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain inc. (2002), 285 N.R. 267 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 57].

Compagnie nationale Air France v. Mbaye, [2000] R.J.Q. 717 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

International Civil Aviation Organization v. Tripal Systems Pty. Ltd., [1994] R.J.Q. 2560 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 69].

Régie intermunicipale de l'eau Tracy, St-Joseph, St-Roch v. Constructions Méri­dien inc., [1996] R.J.Q. 1236 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 69].

Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec v. Régie de l'assurance-maladie du Québec, [1987] R.D.J. 555; 21 Q.A.C. 313 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

Tuyaux Atlas, une division de Atlas Turner Inc. v. Savard, [1985] R.D.J. 556 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

Entreprises H.L.P. inc. v. Logisco inc., J.E. 93-1707 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Moscow Institute of Biotechnology v. Associés de recherche médicale cana­dienne (A.R.M.C.), J.E. 94-1591 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 70].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 2638, art. 2639, art. 2640, art. 2643, art. 2848 [para. 8].

Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-25, art. 943, art. 943.1, art. 944.1, 944.10, art. 946.2, art. 946.4, art. 946.5, art. 947, art. 947.1, art. 947.2 [para. 8].

Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, sect. 2, sect. 13, sect. 14.1, sect. 37 [para. 8].

Professional status of artists in the visual arts, arts and crafts and literature, and their contracts with promoters, Act res­pecting the, R.S.Q. 1977, c. S-32.01, sect. 31, sect. 34, sect. 37, sect. 42 [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Antaki, Nabil N. Le règlement amiable des litiges. Cowansville, Qué.: Yvon Blais (1998), p. 103 [para. 35].

Bachand, Frédéric, Arbitrage commercial: Assujettissement d'un tribunal arbitral conventionnel au pouvoir de surveillance et de contrôle de la Cour supérieure et contrôle judiciaire d'ordonnances de pro­cédure rendues par les arbitres (2001), 35 R.J.T. 465, generally [para. 68].

Baudouin, Jean-Louis, et Jobin, Pierre-Gabriel, Les obligations, 5e éd., 1998, pp. 151 to 152 [para. 52].

Blessing, Marc, Arbitrability of Intellectual Property Disputes (1996), 12 Arb. Int 191, pp. 202 to 203 [para. 18].

Brierley, John E.C., La convention d'arbi­trage en droit québécois interne, [1987] C.P. du N. 507, para. 62 [para. 46].

Brierley, John E.C., Chapitre XVIII de la convention d'arbitrage, articles 2638-2643, dans La réforme du Code civil: obligations, contrats nommés, t. 2, 1993, 1067, pp. 1081 to 1082 [para. 52].

Brierley, John E. C., Une loi nouvelle pour le Québec en matière d'arbitrage (1987), 47 R. du B. 259, p. 267 [para. 52].

Brun, Henri, et Tremblay, Guy, Droit constitutionnel, 4e éd., 2002, p. 777 [para. 43].

Fortier, L. Yves, Delimiting the Spheres of Judicial and Arbitral Power: "Beware, My Lord, of Jealousy" (2001), 80 Can. Bar Rev. 143, generally [para. 52].

Gaillard, E., and Savage, J., eds., Fou­chard, Gaillard, Goldman on Interna­tional Commercial Arbitration (1999), pp. 955 to 956, no. 1649 [para. 54].

Goudreau, Mistrale, Le droit moral de l'auteur au Canada (1994), 25 R.G.D. 403, p. 404 [para. 58].

Grantham, William, The Arbitrability of International Intellectual Property Dis­putes (1996), 14 Berkeley J. Int L. 173, pp. 199 to 219 [para. 18].

Racine, Jean-Baptiste, L'arbitrage commer­cial international et l'ordre public, t. 309, 1999, pp. 539, 543 [para. 54].

Royer, Jean-Claude, La preuve civile, 2e éd., 1995, pp. 490 to 491 [para. 62].

Thuilleaux, Sabine, L'arbitrage commercial au Québec: droit interne -- droit interna­tional privé (1991), pp. 36 [para. 52]; 115 [para. 35].

Counsel:

Stefan Martin and Sébastien Grammond, for the appellants, Éditions Chouette inc. and L'Heureux;

Normand Tamaro, for the respondent, Desputeaux;

Pierre Bienvenu and Frédéric Bachand, for the intervener, Centre d'arbitrage nation­al et international du Québec;

Daniel Payette, for the interveners, Union des écrivaines et écrivains québécois and Conseil des métiers d'art du Québec;

Louis Linteau, for the intervener, Regrou­pement des artistes en arts visuels du Québec.

Solicitors of Record:

Fraser Milner Casgrain, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellants, Éditions Chouette inc. and L'Heureux;

Tamaro, Goyette, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondent, Desputeaux;

Ogilvy Renault, Montréal, Quebec, for the intervener, Centre d'arbitrage national et international du Québec;

Boivin Payette, Montréal, Quebec, for the interveners, Union des écrivaines et écrivains québécois and Conseil des métiers d'art du Québec;

Laurin Lamarre Linteau & Montcalm, Montréal, Quebec, for the intervener, Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels du Québec.

This appeal was heard on November 6, 2002, by Gonthier, Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on March 21, 2003, by LeBel, J.