Monthly Archives: December 2012

Small Claims Sunday #5

Posted on by

Apologies for the hiatus. I have been unusually busy the last month due to starting an internship. I might only have time to cover one decision every Sunday for now.

Membrane de PVC Duradek Québec inc. c. Lévesque, 2012 QCCQ 12094 (payment for construction work)
Plaintiff is suing for payment of the balance on a sales & installation contract of membranes to cover 3 “galeries”. The contract was concluded in May 2011, and Defendant paid $2015,90 deposit. However, by July 2011, only 2 of the 3 “galeries” were completed. Plaintiff refused to finish the work until a second instalment was paid. Defendant contests the amount, and claims Plaintiff did not have the proper construction registrations.
Result: The Court had to answer many questions before reaching a verdict:
– Is the contract valid?
Articles 46 and 50 of the Loi sur le bâtiment state that constructors must be registered, and a contract with a non-registered constructor may be nullified.

46. Nul ne peut exercer les fonctions d’entrepreneur de construction, en prendre le titre, ni donner lieu de croire qu’il est entrepreneur de construction, s’il n’est titulaire d’une licence en vigueur à cette fin.

Aucun entrepreneur ne peut utiliser, pour l’exécution de travaux de construction, les services d’un autre entrepreneur qui n’est pas titulaire d’une licence à cette fin.

50. La personne qui n’est pas elle-même un entrepreneur qui a conclu un contrat pour l’exécution de travaux de construction avec un entrepreneur qui n’est pas titulaire de la licence appropriée peut en demander l’annulation. […]

However, the court did not consider the installation of the membrane to be “construction work”, and declined to apply the principles above.

– When does the work have to be paid?
2111 CCQ states the client does not have to pay until the work is delivered; so did the Defendant’s contract. Plaintiff was wrong in asking Defendant to pay before the work was completed.

– Given the behaviour of the parties, should the contract be terminated (résilié)?

1604. Where the creditor does not avail himself of the right to force the specific performance of the contractual obligation of the debtor in cases which admit of it, he is entitled either to the resolution of the contract, or to its resiliation in the case of a contract of successive performance. […]

Yes. The Court will not order the complete cancellation of the contract, as substantial work has been done, but only resiliation, which is valid for the future.

– Amount owed to Plaintiff
Duradek claims: $4 064.51
Court deducts: $750 for corrective work defendant will have to have done.
Court deducts: $2 015.90 for the deposit
Court adds: $604.20 for the third membrane specifically ordered for the job.

– Amount owed to Defendant
Court awarded $500 to compensate for loss of profit from the sale of the building.
Court also awarded $600 for inconveniences to Defendant, including having to find a new contractor to correct the work, having to answer to the buyer about the work, and hassles dealing with Plaintiff.

– Since when are interests owed?
For Plaintiffs, from the date the action was filed at court, given the lack of formal notice.
For Defendants, from the date the counter-claim was filed.

Brace yourselves, copyright shakedowns are coming!

Posted on by

News have been going around lately that Voltage Pictures is targeting thousands of IP addresses belonging to TekSavvy users for alleged copyright enforcement. Voltage is seeking a court order to force TekSavvy to disclose the identities of the users behind these IP addresses.

Unfortunately, TekSavvy has so far refused to oppose the motion, as opposed to the ISPs targeted last time someone tried to get a similar motion.

Everybody should know though that we have looked into all angles to determine what our position should be in this situation and after spending a significant amount of time and soliciting a considerable amount of advice from numerous respected sources, we found that we simply could not comment on the merits of the case. Our place is to ensure that we provide adequate notice and also to make known to others that these requests have occurred and that the best way to make sure to avoid being involved is to simply not engage in such activities. If somehow you end up involved and you feel its not right, the place to voice your concern is the hearing on Monday. If you intend to appear, please let us know also.

Now, I don’t think this is a particularly good response, although I see where this is coming from. You have here an independent ISP whose position in the market is catering to tech-savvy people. One might suppose that a larger proportion of its users engage in file sharing, compared to other mainstream ISPs. It would then be understandable that TekSavvy feels it needs to take position against illegal filesharing, as opposed to fighting for its users, so as to not seem like it condones the activities of its users.

That being said, I do think this position is misguided. TekSavvy doesn’t have to comment on the merits of the case. Last time around, in 2005, a similar disclosure request was rejected by the Court after the ISPs fought for their users. Ultimately, the argument retained by the Court was one of privacy: there had been too much time elapsed between the moment the rightholders obtained the IP addresses and the moment it asked for disclosure.

[43]If there is a lengthy delay between the time the request for the identities is made by the plaintiffs and the time the plaintiffs collect their information, there is a risk that the information as to identity may be inaccurate. Apparently this is because an IP address may not be associated with the same individual for long periods of time. Therefore it is possible that the privacy rights of innocent persons would be infringed and legal proceedings against such persons would be without justification. Thus the greatest care should be taken to avoid delay between the investigation and the request for information. Failure to take such care might well justify a court in refusing to make a disclosure order.

Apart from that, the Federal Court of Appeals pretty much overruled the other arguments of the lower court, which were based on the actual substance, or merits of the case.

The current case is set to resume in January, so one can hope that there is enough pressure for TekSavvy to reconsider its position. Ultimately, it is up to the company to look at the facts of the case and make a good legal and PR decision.