Wall v. 679927 Ontario Ltd. et al., (2007) 256 N.S.R.(2d) 34 (SC)

• Judge: MacAdam, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: May 23, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2007), 256 N.S.R.(2d) 34 (SC);2007 NSSC 197

Wall v. 679927 Ont. (2007), 256 N.S.R.(2d) 34 (SC);

    818 A.P.R. 34

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.032

David H. Wall (plaintiff) v. Horn Abbot Ltd., 679927 Ontario Limited (formerly Horn Abbot Productions Limited), Christopher Haney, Charles Scott Abbott, John Haney and Edward Martin Werner (defendants)

(S. Sn. No. 101331; 2007 NSSC 197)

Indexed As: Wall v. 679927 Ontario Ltd. et al.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

MacAdam, J.

June 22, 2007.

Summary:

The plaintiff alleged that in late November or early December 1979 he was picked up hitchhiking by the defendant, Christopher Haney, and that during that encounter he told Haney about his idea for a board game based on trivia. The plaintiff claimed that Haney stole his idea for the game and that Haney and the other defendants produced and marketed the game "Trivial Pursuit" for themselves. On November 14, 1994, the plaintiff issued a statement of claim, alleging breach of contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, copyright infringement, fraud, theft and deceit. The defendants denied that the hitchhiking encounter occurred. They also raised defences based on limitations and laches. Following a nonsuit motion, the action was dismissed against all defendants except Chistopher Haney and Horn Abbot Ltd. The issues of liability and damages were to be tried separately. The trial was to consider solely whether the plaintiff had established a cause of action against the defendants.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's action could not succeed. With respect to the limitations issues, the court held that the claims for breach of contract, conversion, fraud, theft and deceit were dismissed, not having been commenced within the six year limitation period and the maximum four year discretionary extension under the Limitations Act. The equitable causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of confidence were not barred by laches or by the application of statutory limitation periods by analogy. With resect to the copyright claims, which were subject to a three year limitation period in the Copyright Act, the court held that claims related to breaches that occurred more than three years preceding the commencement of the action were barred, but ongoing breaches within the three years and following the commencement of the proceeding were not. With respect to the causes of action alleged, the court held that the plaintiff did not have a claim in copyright, that he had not established the elements of equitable or legal fraud or deceit, and that there was no fiduciary relationship between the plaintiff and Haney. The court held that the claim for breach of confidence was established based on the plaintiff's version of the 1979 hitchhiking encounter. However, the court concluded that the plaintiff's claim could not succeed where the cumulative evidence regarding the alleged 1979 encounter was so marked with inconsistencies and contradictions as not to be credible.

Copyright - Topic 1000

Works subject to copyright - General principles - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court stated that copyright subsists in an original work upon its creation in fixed material form, but does not protect the ideas as such - See paragraph 485.

Copyright - Topic 1000

Works subject to copyright - General principles - The plaintiff alleged that in 1979 he was picked up hitchhiking by the defendant, Haney, and that during that encounter he told Haney about his idea for a board game based on trivia - The plaintiff claimed that Haney stole his idea for the game and that Haney and the corporate defendant produced and marketed the game "Trivial Pursuit" for themselves - The plaintiff sued the defendants for, inter alia, copyright infringement - The plaintiff claimed that during the 1979 hitchhiking encounter Haney made notes and pictorial representations based on what the plaintiff conveyed and that Haney acted as an "agent or amanuenses" in recording and fixing the plaintiff's ideas about the game and his concept for the design of the board - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had no claim for copyright infringement - The court was not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that what, if anything, was allegedly drawn by Haney during the 1979 hitchhiking encounter was capable of copyright registration in Canada - If the plaintiff's account of the meeting was correct, his contribution went beyond offering a general idea that there should be a board game based on trivia and his contributions would be substantial and original - However, more difficult was the question of whether the ideas allegedly discussed by the plaintiff and Haney took on a sufficiently fixed material form - The court stated that "nothing arose from the meeting between [the plaintiff] and Haney but ideas, albeit fairly specific ones, about how the game should be played. To that extent, the defendants' submissions about 'ideas' versus 'expression' appears well-taken" - See paragraphs 486 to 537.

Copyright - Topic 6007

Practice - Limitation of actions - The plaintiff alleged that in late November or early December1979 he was picked up hitchhiking by the defendant, Haney, and that during that encounter he told Haney about his idea for a board game based on trivia - The plaintiff claimed that Haney stole his idea for the game and that Haney and the corporate defendant produced and marketed the game "Trivial Pursuit" for themselves - On November 14, 1994, the plaintiff issued a statement of claim, alleging, inter alia, copyright infringement - Section 41 of the Copyright Act contained a three year limitation period - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that although claims related to breaches of copyright that occurred more than three years preceding the commencement of the action were barred, ongoing breaches within the three years and following the commencement of the proceeding were not - See paragraphs 450 to 456 and 474.

Equity - Topic 2061

Equitable defences - Laches - General - The plaintiff alleged that in late November or early December 1979 he was picked up hitchhiking by the defendant, Haney, and that during that encounter he told Haney about his idea for a board game based on trivia - The plaintiff claimed that Haney stole his idea for the game and that Haney and the corporate defendant produced and marketed the game "Trivial Pursuit" for themselves - On November 14, 1994, the plaintiff issued a statement of claim, alleging breach of contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, breach of copyright, fraud, theft and deceit - The defendants pleaded laches with respect to the equitable claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of confidence - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that the circumstances did not warrant the dismissal of the equitable causes of action on the basis of laches - The plaintiff had contacted a lawyer about the matter in 1985 or 1986 - The court stated that, although impecuniosity by itself was not a justifiable excuse, the failure of that lawyer to advise the plaintiff of the possible availability of a contingency fee arrangement that might have enabled him to pursue his claim, might explain why the lawsuit was not earlier instituted - The court further stated that any prejudice arising from the long delay in initiating the proceeding would be far outweighed by the juristic injustice in arbitrarily failing to assess the plaintiff's claim - See paragraphs 467 and 472.

Equity - Topic 2067

Equitable defences - Laches - Limitation period - The plaintiff alleged that in late November or early December 1979 he was picked up hitchhiking by the defendant, Haney, and that during that encounter he told Haney about his idea for a board game based on trivia - The plaintiff claimed that Haney stole his idea for the game and that Haney and the corporate defendant produced and marketed the game "Trivial Pursuit" for themselves - On November 14, 1994, the plaintiff issued a statement of claim, alleging breach of contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, breach of copyright, fraud, theft and deceit - The defendants pleaded laches with respect to the equitable claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of confidence - They also raised the issue of limitation by analogy - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that the circumstances did not warrant the dismissal of the equitable causes of action on the basis of laches or the application of statutory limitation periods by analogy - The court stated, inter alia, that "Absent statutorily mandated limitations on prosecuting his claim, of which there are none in respect to the equitable claims advanced by [the plaintiff], the less than two years between the statutorily mandated limitation period and the commencement of this proceeding, taking into account the six year limitation period and the maximum four year possible extension, is yet another factor and circumstance to be considered in weighing whether the doctrine of laches and/or the application of limitation by analogy should be applied, so as to bar the plaintiffs equitable claims" - See paragraph 466.

Equity - Topic 3607

Fiduciary or confidential relationships - General principles - Relationships which are not fiduciary - The plaintiff alleged that in 1979 he was picked up hitchhiking by the defendant, Haney, and that during that encounter he told Haney about his idea for a board game based on trivia - The plaintiff claimed that Haney stole his idea for the game and that Haney and the corporate defendant produced and marketed the game "Trivial Pursuit" for themselves - In 1994, the plaintiff issued a statement of claim, alleging, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty - The plaintiff submitted that at the time of the meeting, he was a teenager, while Haney was a 29-year-old photo editor at the Montreal Gazette - He claimed that Haney gave him the impression that he was in a position to assist him in bringing his game to market, and were it not for those considerations, he would not have disclosed his idea, in confidence, to Haney - The plaintiff submitted that Haney incurred a fiduciary obligation when he agreed to assist him - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that there was no fiduciary relationship between Haney and the plaintiff - The fact that the plaintiff was younger and unemployed was not the basis of a relationship from which a fiduciary obligation arose - The relationship between the plaintiff and Haney did not contain the three general characteristics of a fiduciary relationship outlined in International Corona Resources v. LAC Minerals (S.C.C.) - See paragraphs 544 to 547.

Equity - Topic 3902

Fiduciary or confidential relationships - Breach of confidence - What constitutes - The plaintiff alleged that in 1979 he was picked up hitchhiking by the defendant, Haney, and that during that encounter he told Haney about his idea for a board game based on trivia - The plaintiff claimed that Haney stole his idea for the game and that Haney and the corporate defendant produced and marketed the game "Trivial Pursuit" for themselves - The plaintiff sued the defendants, alleging, inter alia, breach of confidence - The plaintiff claimed that the circumstances in which the information was conveyed imported an obligation of confidence, which was acknowledged by Haney, who then made an unauthorized use of the confidential information to the plaintiff's detriment - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that on the plaintiff's evidence, there was undoubtedly the communication of confidential information in circumstances of confidence and the development and marketing of the game would amount to a misuse of that confidential information - However, the court went on to hold that the plaintiff's claim could not succeed where the cumulative evidence regarding the alleged 1979 encounter was so marked with inconsistencies and contradictions as not to be credible - See paragraphs 549 to 556.

Estoppel - Topic 1361

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Laches or delay - General - [See Equity - Topic 2061 ].

Estoppel - Topic 1368

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Laches or delay - Limitation period - [See Equity - Topic 2067 ].

Evidence - Topic 257

Inferences and weight of evidence - Weight - Contradictory evidence - The plaintiff alleged that in late 1979 he and a friend were picked up hitchhiking by the defendant, Haney, and that during that encounter he told Haney about his idea for a board game based on trivia - The plaintiff claimed that Haney stole his idea for the game and that Haney and the corporate defendant produced and marketed the game "Trivial Pursuit" for themselves - The plaintiff sued the defendants, alleging breach of contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, breach of copyright, fraud, theft and deceit - The defendants denied that the 1979 encounter occurred - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's action could not succeed where the cumulative evidence of the alleged encounter with the individual defendant was so marked with inconsistencies and contradictions as not to be credible - The court stated that inconsistencies and contradictions were not, of themselves, necessarily fatal to the credibility of a witness or group of witnesses - However, where the evidence was only consistent as to its inconsistencies, it was difficult, if not impossible, to place fact finding weight on it - See paragraph 615.

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 6

Fraudulent misrepresentation (deceit) - General principles - What constitutes deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation - [See Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 51 ].

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 7

Fraudulent misrepresentation (deceit) - General principles - What constitutes fraud - [See Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 51 ].

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 8

Fraudulent misrepresentation (deceit) - General principles - What constitutes equitable fraud - [See Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 51 ].

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 51

Fraudulent misrepresentation (deceit) - Elements - General - The plaintiff alleged that in 1979 he was picked up hitchhiking by the defendant, Haney, and that during that encounter he told Haney about his idea for a board game based on trivia - The plaintiff sued the defendants, claiming that Haney stole his idea for the game and that Haney and the corporate defendant produced and marketed the game "Trivial Pursuit" for themselves - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held, inter alia, that "to the extent that equitable and/or legal fraud and deceit are alleged against any of the defendants, I am not satisfied the necessary elements have been established by the plaintiff. There was no misrepresentation by Haney to [the plaintiff]. To the extent Haney is alleged to have made misrepresentation to others, that is for them to pursue, not [the plaintiff]. There is no 'unconscious use of power', no 'extortion' nor an 'unconscionable acceptance of benefit'. Neither have the requirements for 'deceit' as outlined 3 Com Corp, supra, been made out in the evidence" - See paragraph 568.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 520

Equitable limitation periods - Laches - General - [See Equity - Topic 2061 and Equity - Topic 2067 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 641

Equitable limitation periods - Application of a statute by analogy - General - [See Equity - Topic 2067 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 642

Equitable limitation periods - Application of a statute by analogy - When applicable - The plaintiff alleged that in late November or early December 1979 he was picked up hitchhiking by the defendant, Haney, and that during that encounter he told Haney about his idea for a board game based on trivia - The plaintiff claimed that Haney stole his idea for the game and that Haney and the corporate defendant produced and marketed the game "Trivial Pursuit" for themselves - On November 14, 1994, the plaintiff issued a statement of claim, alleging breach of contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, breach of copyright, fraud, theft and deceit - The defendants pleaded laches with respect to the equitable claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of confidence - They also raised the issue of limitation by analogy - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that the circumstances did not warrant the dismissal of the equitable causes of action on the basis of the application of statutory limitation periods by analogy - The court stated that "Notwithstanding the obvious similarities between the plaintiff's claim in contract and conversion with the claim for breach of fiduciary duties and breach of confidence, there is an essential distinguishing feature. The former relate to the violations of legal rights; the latter to violations of obligations of fundamental justice, the right of persons to rely on promises and commitments made to them, and on which they themselves have acted. Although limitation by analogy has been applied to equitable claims, to do so in the present instance would be unjust" - See paragraphs 470 to 471.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 2023

Actions in contract - Actions for breach of contract - When time commences to run - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 2078 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 2078

Actions in contract - Actions for damages - When time begins to run - The plaintiff alleged that in late November or early December1979 he was picked up hitchhiking in Cape Breton by the defendant, Haney, and that during that encounter he told Haney about his idea for a board game based on trivia - The plaintiff claimed that Haney stole his idea for the game and that Haney and the corporate defendant produced and marketed the game "Trivial Pursuit" for themselves - On November 14, 1994, the plaintiff issued a statement of claim, alleging, inter alia, breach of contract, conversion, fraud, theft and deceit - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that the above causes of action were dismissed, not having been commenced within the six year limitation period and the maximum four year discretionary extension under the Limitations Act - The court held that it was not until the plaintiff was aware that the game was being produced and marketed that the full extent of his cause of action was evident - That occurred while the plaintiff was in British Columbia in the early 1980s - In view of the legal disability caused by the plaintiff's absence from Nova Scotia, the limitation period commenced to run from the date that he returned to Nova Scotia in late 1982 or early 1983 - See paragraphs 390 to 459.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 3010

Actions in tort - General principles - When time begins to run - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 2078 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 4408

Statutory causes of action - Copyright infringement - [See Copyright - Topic 6007 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9108

Persons under disability and exemptions and exclusions - Suspension of time - Until return to province - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 2078 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hartman Estate, Re (2006), 205 O.A.C. 369; 263 D.L.R.(4th) 640 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 399].

Kovacs v. Dempsey Estate (2000), 187 N.S.R.(2d) 160; 585 A.P.R. 160 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 400].

K.A.S. v. Reddick (1997), 160 N.S.R.(2d) 5; 473 A.P.R. 5 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 401].

Layes v. Chisholm and Stewart (1999), 174 N.S.R.(2d) 139; 532 A.P.R. 139 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 401].

Rushton v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (N.S.) (1992), 118 N.S.R.(2d) 107; 327 A.P.R. 107 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 402].

Capobianco v. Regina District Health Board et al. (1997), 160 Sask.R. 157 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 405].

Cecill v. Holt Renfrew & Co., 2001 CarswellBC 583; 2001 BCPC 54, refd to. [para. 405].

Ferguson (R.B.) Construction Ltd. v. Ormiston et al. (1989), 91 N.S.R.(2d) 226; 233 A.P.R. 226 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 410].

Clarke v. Milford, Freeman, Caldwell, Leslie and Jones Milford and Freeman (1984), 64 N.S.R.(2d) 361; 143 A.P.R. 361 (T.D.), revsd. (1987), 78 N.S.R.(2d) 337; 193 A.P.R. 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 410].

Faulds v. Harper (1885), 11 S.C.R. 639, refd to. [para. 419].

Bulli Coal Mining Co. v. Osborne, [1899] A.C. 351 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 421].

Pigott v. Nesbitt Thomson Co., [1941] S.C.R. 520, refd to. [para. 421].

Pigott v. Nesbitt Thompson Co., [1938] 4 D.L.R. 593 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 421].

Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874), 5 P.C. 221 (Ont. P.C.), refd to. [para. 428].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, consd. [para. 429].

Jarvis, Re, [1985] 2 All E.R. 336 (Ch.D.), refd to. [para. 433].

Susin v. Genstar Development Co., [2001] O.T.C. 956; 14 C.L.R.(3d) 292 (Sup. Ct.), affd., [2003] O.A.C. Uned. 561; 27 C.L.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 436]

Prkacin et al. v. Winter, [2005] O.T.C. Uned. 413; 2005 CarswellOnt 1650 (Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 437].

Warren v. People's Finance Co. (1961), 27 D.L.R.(2d) 567 (Man. C.A.), consd. [para. 438].

Canada Permanent Trust Co. v. Lloyd, [1968] S.C.R. 300, refd to. [para. 442].

Canadian Microtunnelling Ltd. v. Toronto (City), [2002] O.T.C. 239; 28 M.P.L.R.(3d) 109 (Sup. Ct.), affd. (2004), 4 M.P.L.R.(4th) 120 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2005), 346 N.R. 190 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 445].

Ellement v. Upenieks, [2006] O.T.C. Uned. 474; 2006 CarswellOnt 2697 (Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 447].

Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc. v. American Business Information Inc. (1996), 113 F.T.R. 123 (T.D.), affd. [1998] 2 F.C. 22; 221 N.R. 113; 154 D.L.R.(4th) 328 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1998), 228 N.R. 200; 1998 CarswellNat 3212 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 452].

Grignon v. Roussel et al. (1991), 44 F.T.R. 121; 38 C.P.R.(3d) 4 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 481].

Moreau v. St. Vincent, [1950] Ex. C.R. 198, refd to. [para. 482].

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. 483].

Kantel v. Grant, [1933] Ex. C.R. 84, consd. [para. 497].

Neudorf v. Nettwerk Productions Ltd. et al., [2000] 3 W.W.R. 522; 26 B.C.T.C. 161 (S.C.), consd. [para. 498].

New Brunswick Telephone Co. v. John Maryon International Ltd. et al. (1982), 43 N.B.R.(2d) 469; 113 A.P.R. 469; 141 D.L.R.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 498].

University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd., [1916] 2 Ch. 601, refd to. [para. 499].

Childress v. Taylor (1991), 945 F.2d 500 (2d Cir.), refd to. [para. 505].

Preston v. 20th Century Fox Canada Ltd. and Lucas et al. (1990), 38 F.T.R. 183; 33 C.P.R.(3d) 242 (T.D.), affd. (1993), 164 N.R. 304; 53 C.P.R.(3d) 407 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 509].

Dolmage v. Erskine, [2003] O.J. No. 161 (Small Claims Ct.), consd. [para. 511].

Baigent & Anor v. Random House Group Ltd. (The Da Vinci Code), [2006] EWHC 719, affd. [2007] EWCA Civ 247, consd. [para. 512].

Plews v. Pausch, 2006 ABQB 607, consd. [para. 514].

Milliken & Co. et al. v. Interface Flooring Systems (Canada) Inc. (2000), 251 N.R. 356; 5 C.P.R.(4th) 209 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 526].

Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84, refd to. [para. 538].

International Corona Resources Ltd. v. LAC Minerals Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574; 101 N.R. 239; 36 O.A.C. 57, consd. [para. 538].

Hodgkinson v. Simms et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 377; 171 N.R. 245; 49 B.C.A.C. 1; 80 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 542].

Amertek Inc. et al. v. Canadian Commercial Corp. et al. (2005), 200 O.A.C. 38; 256 D.L.R.(4th) 287 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 543].

Alberta Productions Corp. v. Canada Lands Co. CLC Ltd. (2001), 292 A.R. 8; 2001 ABQB 747, refd to. [para. 551].

Ben-Israel v. Vitacare Medical Products Inc. et al. (1999), 122 O.A.C. 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 551].

Derry v. Peek (1889), 14 A.C. 337, refd to. [para. 558].

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 559].

Kitchen v. Royal Air Force Association et al., [1958] 1 W.L.R. 563, refd to. [para. 559].

3Com Corp. et al. v. Zorin International Corp. et al. (2006), 211 O.A.C. 222 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 564].

White v. The King, [1947] S.C.R. 268, refd to. [para. 569].

R. v. Sparks (A.) et al., [2006] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 113; 2006 NSPC 45, refd to. [para. 570].

R. v. Al Jamail (J.J.), [2006] A.R. Uned. 792; 2006 ABPC 292, refd to. [para. 570].

R. v. Norman (D.L.) (1993), 68 O.A.C. 22; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 153 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 571].

Jones v. National Coal Board, [1957] 2 Q.B. 55, refd to. [para. 573].

McCarthy v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal (N.S.) et al. (2001), 193 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 602 A.P.R. 301 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 574].

R. v. Burdett, [1814-23] All E.R. Rep. 80, refd to. [para. 577].

R. v. Atkinson (1866), 17 U.C.C.P.R. 295 (U.C. Ct. C.P.), refd to. [para. 578].

R. v. Nerlich (1915), 34 O.L.R. 298 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 578].

Rex v. Findlay, [1944] 2 D.L.R. 773 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 616].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bingham, The Judge as Juror: The Judicial Determination of Factual Issues, The Business of Judging: Selected Essays and Speeches (2000), pp. 4 [para. 572]; 13 [para. 576].

Ellis, Mark Vincent, Fiduciary Duties in Canada (Looseleaf), p. 1/8.5-9 [para. 541].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1976), vol. 16, para. 925 [para. 431].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. - Reissue), vol. 16(2), para. 416 [para. 560].

Handa, Sunny, Copyright Law in Canada (2002), pp. 193, 194 [para. 481].

Harris, Lesley Ellen, Canadian Copyright Law (3rd Ed. 2001), p. 78 [para. 511].

Hughes, Roger T., Copyright and Industrial Design (2nd Ed.) (2007 Looseleaf Update), §12 [para. 484].

Mew, Graeme, The Law of Limitations (2nd Ed. 2004), generally [para. 461]; pp. 39, 40 [para. 427]; 41 [para. 442]; 43 [para. 420]; 121 [para. 424].

Morton, James C., Limitation of Civil Actions (1988), generally [para. 454]; p. 78 [para. 453].

Snell, E.H.T., Principles of Equity (31st Ed. 2005), generally [para. 464]; p. 197 [para. 561]; paras. 5 to 19 [para. 432].

Spry, Ian C.F., Principles of Equitable Remedies: Specific Performance, Injunctions, Rectification and Equitable Damages (5th Ed. 1997), pp. 226 to 228 [para. 435].

Counsel:

Kevin A. MacDonald, for the plaintiff;

John C. Cotter, for the corporate defendants;

William L. Ryan, Q.C., and Christa M. Hellstrom, for the individual defendants.

This action was heard on various dates between May 23, 2006, and January 6, 2007, at Sydney, Nova Scotia, before MacAdam, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on June 22, 2007.