Voltage Pictures et al v. Salna et al., 2019 FC 1412
Justice Boswell - 2019-11-13
Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:
The applicants ... are film production companies who allege that their copyrights in several films have been infringed online. They claim that the respondents, and others like them, have engaged in illegal uploading and downloading of Voltage's films using peer-to-peer networks. Voltage has brought a motion for an order to certify its underlying application as a respondent class proceeding (a so-called "reverse class application") under Rules 334.14(2), 334.14(3) and 334.16 of the Federal Courts Rules, and on terms and conditions under Rule 334.17. ... For the reasons that follow, Voltage's amended motion for certification is dismissed. ... I agree with CIPPIC's submissions that Voltage's pleadings do not disclose a reasonable cause of action with respect to primary infringement. While Voltage alleges that its forensic software identified a direct infringement in Voltage's films, Voltage has failed to identify a Direct Infringer in its amended notice of application. Without an identifiable respondent, the action could not appropriately go forward as a class proceeding; thus, it is plain and obvious that Voltage's claims cannot succeed.
Decision relates to:
- T-662-16 - VOLTAGE PICTURES ET AL v. JOHN DOE ET AL