Respondent Louis Marquis (« Marquis »), engineer employed by Hydro-Québec (« Hydro »), created a software in the course of his employment. Hydro authorized its subsidiary, Nouveler Inc., to create a new corporation for marketing this new software.

Auxilium Technologies Inc. (« Auxilium ») was thus created, later to become Transénergie Technologies Inc.

Marquis was granted a leave of absence by Hydro and was hired as general manager of Auxilium. He had a one-year employment contract that provided that he would be entitled to become a shareholder of Auxilium upon renewal of the contract.

Marquis was dismissed before the expiry of his contract. He filed proceedings for wrongful dismissal and the Superior Court granted him an amount of $532,402.58. Of this amount, $360,000 represented the value of the shares that he would have been able to subscribe.

Auxilium appealed the decision but only on the grounds that the value of the shares should not have been granted. The Court of Appeal confirms the decision of the Trial Judge with respect to the grant of the value of the shares but reduces the amount to take into account the fact that Marquis is maintained in his employment with Hydro and that he enjoys other benefits.

9027-1719 Québec Inc. is a company incorporated in October 1995. It does business as a transport broker under the name G.R. International ("GR"). Its shareholders and directors are Jacques Hamon and his wife Louise Tremblay.

Transport Myrco Inc. («Myrco») is the owner of a transport truck. At the filing of the proceedings, its shareholders and directors are co-defendants André Legault («Legault») and Bernard Légaré («Légaré»).

Caradon Indalex («Caradon») is a company who regularly uses brokerage and transportation services. Pierre Bouchard ("Bouchard") is its shipping manager.

In March 1996, an exclusive 2-year contract is signed between GR and Caradon through Legault and Légaré.

A few weeks later, Legault and Légaré attempt to take control of GR. They file minutes and other documents with the Inspector General of Financial Institutions, pretending to be shareholders and directors of GR. These inscriptions and declarations will be declared void by order of IGFI in 1998, except for the articles of amendment, these articles being subject to the procedure provided for in Section 123.144 Q.C.A.

GR notified Caradon of the internal fraud and the latter terminated the contract. GR is claiming damages over $400,000 following termination.

The Court finds that defendants’ liability is obvious but reduces the amount of damages to $24,000.

Respondents, Garage Réjean Roy Inc. («Garage»), Automobiles Carrier & Fils Inc. («Automobiles») and 2173-9221 Québec Inc. («2173») are asking the Court to dismiss the motion for interlocutory injunction presented by National Réseau de locations d’autos (Canada ) Inc. («National») on the grounds that they are not in any manner signatories of the franchise agreement between Réjean Roy («Roy») for Location d’autos et de camions SRS Enr. («Location») and Tilden, predecessor in right of National.

National alleges that the confusion created by Roy with respect to all his companies makes them concerned with the proceedings.

The franchise agreement provides 2 obligations in particular. The first is to maintain a distinct telephone number for the exclusive use of vehicle rental and to transfer this number to Tilden (now National), upon termination of the contract. The second obligation prohibits any direct or indirect association with a competitor.

In July 2002, National finds out that Roy is also operating under a competitor’s banner, Pelletier Location d’Autos. In November 2002, National and Roy agree to terminate their agreement. National requests the transfer of the telephone number but Roy refuses. National files injunction proceedings.

The Court examines the transcripts of Roy’s examination and finds that the latter creates confusion between his various companies and uses all phone numbers indistinctively. Location does not have any distinct telephone number.

Considering the criteria of Article 165(4) C.P.C., the Court denies the motion for dismissal.

In 1993, the organization Québec Cité Médiévale, which will later become Les Médiévales de Québec Inc., organized public festivities in Quebec city. The festivities were successful with the public but turned out to be a financial disaster.

With new partners and suppliers, the directors decided to organize similar festivities again in 1995. To avoid financial problems, they granted the management of the event to various corporations.

Jacques Robidas accepted the responsibility to organize and manage the event called La Grande Chevauchée, a ride from Boston to Quebec City in which participated a large number of horse riders.

The second edition of the festivities is like the first: a tremendous success with the public but a financial disaster. Robidas ends up with unpaid invoices of over $65,000.

He decides to file proceedings not only against the corporation but also against its directors personally based on Article 317 C.C.Q., which allows the lifting of the corporate veil in case of fraud.

At the same time, during a friendly encounter, Robidas tells Vaillancourt, a reporter for Le Soleil, of his intent regarding the legal proceedings. Vaillancourt is familiar with the event and has participated in La Grande Chevauchée. The next day, Robidas gives Vaillancourt a copy of his demand letter. An article appears in the daily newspaper Le Soleil where Robidas alleges being victim of fraud. The name of all respondents is indicated in the article.

Parent undertakes proceedings in defamation. The other respondents proceed by way of cross demand.

The Superior Court dismisses the claim filed by Robidas against the directors and condemns him to pay damages for defamation. The Court of Appeal increases the amount with respect to Parent.

Gianni Versace S.p.A. («Versace») is a company incorporated under the laws of Italy. It is the registered owner of trade-marks, copyrights and other distinctive elements (the "Versace Intellectual Properties").

Versace is in the business of designing, manufacturing and selling a variety of wares bearing one or more of the Versace Intellectual Properties, including high end fashion apparel, accessories, eye-wear, toiletteries, housewares, luggage, etc… (the "Versace merchandise"). Authentic Versace merchandise is constructed using innovative technology and subject to rigorous quality and design controls. It is always sold in association with one or more of the Versace Intellectual Properties.

Versace’s annual advertising and promotional expenditures worldwide are in the tens of millions of dollars (U.S.) and more than one million of dollars (U.S.) is expended in Canada alone. The Versace Intellectual Properties have become well known in Canada and have come to be associated in the minds of Canadian consumers with Versace. Authentic Versace merchandise is elusive to the vast majority of the population due to its expensive price point.

1154979 Ontario Limited ("1154979") is an Ontario corporation incorporated in 1995 that imports and sells at wholesale various merchandises imported from Italy.

In October 2002, an individual in a Ford Explorer who offered to sell him a "genuine Versace leather jacket" approached Mario Iafrate, an investigator, in the parking lot of a Home Depot store in Toronto. This started a police investigation, which led to 1154979 and following which counterfeit jackets were seized and criminal charges filed.

Versace now seeks an Order authorizing the destruction of the jackets seized by the police bearing or depicting unauthorized reproduction of the Versace Intellectual Properties. 1154979 requests that the merchandise be released as the criminal charges against it and its directors were dismissed.

The Court considers the blatant copying and concludes that it is patently evident that consumers who purchase counterfeit Versace products would likely be disappointed with the inferior quality of the goods and, being unaware that the goods were counterfeit, would not be inclined to purchase legitimate Versace merchandise.

The Court orders, in particular, that all merchandise be delivered to Versace’s counsel to be preserved and maintained pending further order and that the parties be authorized to inspect the merchandise and take photographs.

Plaintiffs Terra Nova Shoes Ltd. and Terra Nova Footwear Limited ("Terra Nova") filed proceedings against Defendants Nike Inc. and Nike Canada Inc. ("Nike"), alleging trade-mark infringement and passing off. The central allegation is the likelihood of confusion between Terra Nova’s TERRA trade-marks used primarily for safety boots and Nike’s use of model names incorporating the word "terra" for its athletic shoes.

Nike denies any likelihood of confusion.

During the course of examinations for discovery, it became clear that the respective sales of the parties are made through different channels of trade, except for one category of retailers, the Family Shoe Stores that sell both types of footwear.

Nike requested further information and asked further questions, which Terra Nova refused to answer on the technical ground that the questions should have been asked during the first round of discoveries.

Nike brought a motion to compel answers. Prothonotary Lafrenière granted the motion in part but dismissed the motion with respect to the questions. Nike is appealing the decision.

The Court states that the standard of review to be applied is that the Prothonotary’s discretionary order should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly wrong, in the sense that his exercise of discretion was based on a wrong principle of law or a misapprehension of the facts.

While the Court agrees that the questions are relevant, the Court cannot say that the Prothonotary’s decision is "clearly wrong". Discovery is not a never-ending process that knows no boundaries. Rather, it is a tool enabling a party to better prepare for trial.

The appeal is dismissed.

Mark Cardwell («Cardwell») is a reporter and writer. In 1997, he concluded a publishing contract with Sogides Limitée ("Sogides") and assigned to the latter all his copyrights in a biography of Raymond Malenfant, which he plans to write. Pierre Turgeon assists him during negotiations of the contract.

Notwithstanding his contract with Sogides, Cardwell later assigned to Les Éditions Trait d’Union Inc. ("Trait d’Union"), represented by Pierre Turgeon, the right to publish and sell a book entitled "Le Toffe de La Malbaie", a biography of Raymond Malenfant. The book is published under the title "L’Ascension" and the authors are indicated as Mark Cardwell and Robert Juster.

Sogides had Cardwell’s work seized before judgment. Trait d’Union and Pierre Turgeon filed a motion to have the seizure quashed, which was granted by the Superior Court on the grounds of insufficiency of the allegations of the affidavits.

The Court of Appeal reverses the decision of the Superior Court and maintains the seizure. It is obvious that Cardwell only wrote one biography of Raymond Malenfant. It is not enough, when examining the sufficiency of the affidavits, for an editor to add the name of an author and to change the title of a work for the seizure to be quashed.

The appeal is granted.

Michel Drapeau («Drapeau») is the composer of the original music of the theater performance "Le Dortoir". He is appealing a decision of the Superior Court having dismissed his claim and concluded that he had not created the work called "Le Dortoir" in collaboration with Gilles Maheu ("Maheu").

The judgment of the Court of Appeal reproduces the agreement between Drapeau and Carbone 14 regarding the use of copyrights.

The Court reminds the definition of section 2 of the Copyright Act regarding a work of joint authorship. The Court concludes that the music composed by Drapeau has a distinct existence from the theatre performance, which leads to the conclusion that the part of creation done by Drapeau is distinct from the creation of Maheu.

The appeal is dismissed.