Plews v. Pausch et al., (2006) 427 A.R. 284 (QB)

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: August 08, 2006
• Citations: (2006), 427 A.R. 284 (QB);2006 ABQB 607

Plews v. Pausch (2006), 427 A.R. 284 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] A.R. TBEd. OC.110

John Plews (plaintiff) v. Holger Pausch and the Governors of the University of Alberta (defendants)

(0103 25631; 2006 ABQB 607)

Indexed As: Plews v. Pausch et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

August 8, 2006.

Summary:

The plaintiff brought an action alleging that the defendant, Pausch, breached his fiduciary obligation as the plaintiff's Ph.D. supervisor by publishing an article making use of the plaintiff's research information without the plaintiff's consent. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant, University of Alberta, was vicariously liable for the breaches of duty of its employee.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the plaintiff's action.

Copyright - Topic 4541

Infringement of copyright - Acts not constituting an infringement - General - [See Education - Topic 4383 ].

Education - Topic 4383

Universities - Professors - Duties - Ph.D. supervisor - The plaintiff claimed that when he was discussing the choice of a Ph.D. dissertation with the defendant, his Ph.D. supervisor, he spoke about a Foucauldian analysis of the treatment of physiognomy in German literature - The plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached his fiduciary obligation as a Ph.D. supervisor by publishing an article making use of the plaintiff's research information without the plaintiff's consent - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the plaintiff's claim - The only communication of ideas between the plaintiff and the defendant prior to the termination of the supervising relationship was too vague to constitute an idea that could be plagiarized - The defendant did not breach any informal copyright interest which the plaintiff had in the expression of his ideas - Nor did the defendant breach any duty of confidentiality - In order to create an obligation of confidentiality, an idea had to have achieved a considerable degree of particularity - The ideas exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant did not have the degree of particularity that entitled them to protection - While the defendant owed the plaintiff fiduciary obligations as his Ph.D. supervisor, the defendant did not breach any fiduciary obligation in relation to the plaintiff.

Equity - Topic 3606

Fiduciary or confidential relationships - General principles - What constitutes a fiduciary relationship - [See Education - Topic 4383 ].

Equity - Topic 3902

Fiduciary or confidential relationships - Breach of confidence - What constitutes - [See Education - Topic 4383 ].

Cases Noticed:

Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84; 1987 CarswellOnt 347, refd to. [para. 8].

International Corona Resources Ltd. v. LAC Minerals Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574; 101 N.R. 239; 36 O.A.C. 57, refd to. [para. 8].

University of Alberta v. Pylypiuk et al. (2002), 310 A.R. 300; 2002 ABQB 22, refd to. [para. 8].

Saltman Engineering Co. v. Campbell Engineering Co., [1963] 3 All E.R. 413 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Seager v. Copydex Ltd., [1967] 2 All E.R. 415 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Cadbury Schweppes Inc. et al. v. FBI Foods Ltd. et al., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 142; 235 N.R. 30; 117 B.C.A.C. 161; 191 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 8].

B.P.I. Resources Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. and Anderson (1989), 95 A.R. 211; 67 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97 (C.A.), affing. (1986), 72 A.R. 6; 46 Alta. L.R.(2d) 321 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

P.A.B. v. Children's Foundation et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534; 241 N.R. 266; 124 B.C.A.C. 119; 203 W.A.C. 119, refd to. [para. 8].

Boudreau v. Lin et al. (1997), 38 O.T.C. 39; 150 D.L.R.(4th) 324 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 8].

Athey v. Leonati et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458; 203 N.R. 36; 81 B.C.A.C. 243; 132 W.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 8].

Fraser et al. v. Thames Television Ltd. et al., [1983] 2 All E.R. 101 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Gray et al. v. Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. 864; 2003 CarswellBC 1390 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1; 1990 CarswellOnt 1019, refd to. [para. 9].

Blasser v. Royal Institution for the Advancement of Learning, 1985 CarswellQue 88 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Dhillon v. Faculties Council Academic Appeals Committee of the University of Alberta et al. (2000), 259 A.R. 63; 2000 CarswellAlta 516 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 10].

Haldorson v. York University (1996), 95 O.A.C. 311 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 11].

Baigent v. Random House Group Ltd., [2006] E.W.J. No. 10 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Maudsley v. Palumbo, [1995] E.W.J. No. 41 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 12].

CCH Canadian Ltd. et al. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339; 317 N.R. 107; 2004 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 13].

Counsel:

Ellery Lew and Samantha Babad (Witten LLP) for the plaintiff;

Anthony W. Slemko and R. Justin Matthews (Parlee McLaws LLP), for the defendants.

This action was heard on May 1-5, 8, 9 and 26, 2006, before Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on August 8, 2006.