Canada: Certification Granted In Lawyers' Copyright Infringement Class Action

An Ontario lawyer successfully moved for certification of a class action alleging that the Carswell database search and retrieval service known as "Litigator" infringes the copyright of the authors of legal documents that have been filed in Canadian courts.  In Waldman v. Thomson Reuters Corporation,Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice stressed that the merits of the action would be considered on another day; at the certification stage, the court's "gatekeeper" function was limited to ensuring that the technical and procedural elements of the test for certification were satisfied.  In this case, His Honour found that the test was met.  


The action represents a challenge to the manner in which Thomson Reuters Corporation's legal publishing branch, Carswell, carries on the business of making court documents available for search and retrieval through its "Litigator" subscription service.  The action arose after a document filed by the representative plaintiff, lawyer Lorne Waldman, was made available on the service.  The document was a factum that was filed in support of Maher Arar's intervention in the Court of Appeal for Ontario, in Bouzari v. Islamic Republic of Iran (a claim for damages for acts of torture).  Mr. Waldman had registered copyright in the document.  Without Mr. Waldman's permission, Carswell copied the factum and made it available to its subscribers through the Litigator service.

The Litigator Service

Carswell's Litigator service enables subscribers to examine documents copied from court files from across Canada – including pleadings, notices of motion, affidavits, and facta – along with embedded material: a citation; a hyper-link to other motions and proceedings; a classification by legal issue; highlighting of relevant procedural rules; links to related cases; hyperlinks to the full text of a decision and secondary sources; and redactions where necessary. Subscribers may download, edit, and print the documents. 

Carswell estimates that approximately 10,000 lawyers have access to the database, which includes approximately 100,000 documents associated with 12-13,000 lawyers and 6,500 law firms.  Carswell does not ask the lawyers or the law firms that filed the documents for permission to post them on Litigator, but says it will respond to requests to remove them.

The Court noted that Litigator is not the only source for copies of court documents. Factums filed with the Supreme Court of Canada are available online; as are primary and secondary legal materials filed with Legal Aid Ontario. The Canadian Bar Association also operates the National Class Actions Database, which provides court documents from class proceedings. None of these services are for-profit services.  It was also noted that lawyers also share these kinds of documents among themselves, for free.

Lawyers (and members of the public) are also able to attend at a court office and obtain copies of publicly-filed court documents for a service fee.  

The Relevant Concepts in Copyright Law

The Court noted that copyright is a creature of the Copyright Act, (the Act) and the rights and remedies it provides are exhaustive. It is an infringement of copyright for anyone to do anything that the Act only permits owners of a literary work to do, including authorizing the exercise of an owner's rights. The Act also prohibits "secondary" infringement of copyright, which includes selling or renting out copies of works that the defendants knew, or should have known, infringed copyright. 

For the purposes of Waldman's claim, a class member would have to prove the following: that copyright exists in a document; that he or she is the owner of the copyright in the work; that Thomson has done a thing that only the owner of the copyright has the right to do; and that the class member did not consent to Thomson's conduct.  Conversely, Thomson could argue in its defense that it has the copyright owner's express or implicit consent to make the works available for a fee; it can rely on a specific exemption, such as fair dealing; and it can show a business or professional custom, or public policy reason, that allows copying.

Finally, the Act provides that an author of a work has "moral rights" under the Act that cannot be assigned (although they can be waived): these are the right to the integrity of the work and a right to be associated with the work as its author by name (or to keep his or her association anonymous). Mr. Waldman alleged that the moral rights of class members were infringed by the use of their works in association with Litigator. 

The Parties' Allegations and Defences

Mr. Waldman alleged that Carswell has committed primary and secondary copyright infringement. He also alleged that Carswell had infringed his "moral rights", as well as those of the class as a whole, by asserting that they are the owners of copyright in the works. He pleaded that Thomson encourages its subscribers to infringe copyright.  He claimed $50 million in compensation for the proposed class members and punitive damages of $1 million, as well as disgorgement of any profit made by Thomson in infringing copyright and a permanent injunction restraining Thomson from dealing with the class members' court documents.

Thomson denied any wrongdoing and raised a variety of defenses.  For example, Thomson argued that the subscribers of Litigator are subject to terms and conditions that accord with the Act; that it did not engage in copyright infringement; that its conduct constituted "fair-dealing"; that it had the consent and/or an implied licence to copy and sell copies of court documents; and that it had a right supported by s. 2(b) (freedom of expression) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to copy and sell the works.

Thomson also disputed that Mr. Waldman was the author or the sole author of the factum in issue, and argued, in any event, that once the document was filed with the Court of Appeal, Mr. Waldman accepted that the factum could be accessed and copied for a fee, and he consented or implicitly licensed the factum's reproduction and communication to the public.  Finally, Thomson raised a public policy defense, arguing that it relied on the public interest in an open court system and the public interest in the availability and dissemination of publically available materials as an exception to copyright under the Act.

The Court Examines its Gatekeeper Role

As a threshold matter, Thomson argued that the Court should play a gatekeeper role to deny certification to a proposed class proceeding that is of little social utility or that arguably is socially detrimental.  In this case, Thomson argued that the Litigator service advances the open court principle and that the copyright claim was actually contrary to the public interest as well as the interests of the class: lawyers.  Thomson relied on recent judicial statements suggesting that the certification motion is an important screening mechanism for claims that are not appropriate for class actions, and could protect the defendant from being unjustifiably embroiled in complex and costly litigation.1

Justice Perell rejected this argument, finding that the Court's gatekeeper function is actually quite modest, because the Ontario legislature has already made a conscious attempt to avoid setting the bar for certification too high; indeed, if anything, the appellate courts have lowered the bar to certification in recent years.  The Court's gatekeeper function and screening function is limited to determining whether the certification criteria are satisfied.


In certifying the class action, the Court revised the definition of the class and the common issues.  As proposed, class members included lawyers from both the private sector and the public sector, lawyers from in-house law departments, and also self-represented litigants, clients and affiants, on the understanding that all of these persons could be authors of documents in the database.  Thomson objected to this class definition, in part, because it was unmanageable; a court document may have multiple co-authors, including senior and junior lawyers, lawyers from more than one law firm, and clients as authors.  The Court agreed that the proposed class was over-inclusive, finding that Mr. Waldman's interests were aligned with those of lawyers in private practice; among other considerations, the other potential class members probably had no commercial interests to protect.  Accordingly, the class was limited to lawyers and paralegals in private practice and licensed to practice law in Canada who were authors and owners of copyright in work that was included in Litigator.

With regard to the common issues, the Court made revisions in this case to avoid questions which were tautological or would pre-suppose the determination of individual issues; for example, two of the proposed common issue questions involved whether Litigator contains works authored or owned by class members; if there was copyright in these documents, the answer to these questions would always be "yes".  On the other hand, the Court found that several of the proposed common issues could be productively dealt with; for example, Thomson's defenses, which could be established by general practice evidence.  

Accordingly, the Court approved the following common issues:

Thomson's Conduct

  • Did Thomson through its Litigator service reproduce, publish, telecommunicate to the public, sell, rent, translate, or hold itself out as the author or owner of court documents?
  • Did Thomson through its Litigator service authorize subscribers to reproduce, publish, telecommunicate to the public, sell, rent, translate, or hold themselves out as the author or owner of court documents?


  • Did Thomson have the copyright owner's implicit consent to reproduce, publish, telecommunicate to the public, sell, rent, translate, or hold itself out as the author or owner of court documents?
  • Does Thomson have a public policy defence to copyright infringement or to the violation of moral rights based on (a) fair dealing, (b) the open court principle, (c) freedom of expression, (d) the necessity of using the idea of the court document as it is expressed, or (e) a business or professional custom or public policy reason that would justify reproducing, publishing, telecommunicating to the public, selling, renting, translating, or holding itself out as the author or owner of court documents?


  • Does Thomson's conduct justify an award of aggravated, exemplary, or punitive damages?
  • Are Class Members entitled to injunctive relief against Thomson under s. 34 (1) of the Copyright Act?

Notably, the Court could find no basis for certifying a common issue in relation to the quantification of damages, which would involve individualized assessments.  Nonetheless, for the reasons the Court canvassed in Robinson v. Medtronic Inc., [2009] OJ No 4366 (SCJ), aff'd [2010] OJ No 3056 (Div Ct), the Court held that where the ultimate determination of the entitlement and quantification of punitive damages must be deferred until the conclusion of the individual trials, the question of whether the defendants' conduct was sufficiently reprehensible or high-handed to warrant punishment is capable of being determined as a common issue.

Finally, the Court allowed that a number of material individual issues would remain to be addressed.  In particular, the Court held that unless Thomson's defences succeeded, there would necessarily have to be individual issues trials to determine: (a) whether a particular document is a literary work; (b) who is the author(s) of the literary work; (c) who is the owner of the copyright; (d) what is the quantification of compensation for infringement; and, (e) if Thomson's conduct qualifies for condemnation, what is the quantification of the punitive damages. Further, if the common issues judge decided that the consent to copying defence was not proven systemically or innately across the class, the issue of whether a Litigator document was reproduced without the consent of the copyright owner would also be an individual issue.

Thomson raised a number of arguments at the "preferability" stage of the analysis, including that the proceedings would be inefficient; that the proposed class members confront no economic or social barriers to making claims to enforce their legal rights; and that its behaviour does not need to be modified, because the Litigator service, on the contrary, facilitates the open court principle, freedom of expression, the administration of justice, and the professionalism of the legal profession.  The Court rejected these arguments, finding that (besides the manageability issue) Thomson was inviting the Court to conclude that it was innocent from the outset: "A necessary premise of Thomson's argument is that the Court will, on the merits, decide that Thomson committed no legal wrong and that its Litigator service is not an infringement of copyright or a violation of individual class members' moral rights." Absent that premise, a class proceeding was a reasonable means to provide access to justice to class members. 

The Court acknowledged that complex issues might nevertheless remain to be determined in individual trials.  First among these could be the question of authorship.  Because court documents may reflect the work of multiple authors – including clients – the Court agreed with Thomson that solicitor and client privilege would have to be waived in relation to contested documents, if the trial reached this stage.


This case reaffirms the courts' reluctance to give credence to arguments about the merits of a claim which would undermine the rule that the facts set out in the statement of claim are assumed to be true and provable.  To the extent the defendant wishes to challenge the merits of a proposed class action at an early stage, Justice Perell's holding confirms implicitly that a summary judgment motion may be one of the only available options.


1.See Arabi v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, [2006] OJ No 2072 (SCJ) at para 9, aff'd [2007] OJ No 5035 (Div Ct) and Robertson v. Thomson Corp. (1999), 43 OR (3d) 161 (Gen Div) at p 391.


To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.