Category Archives: Québec

Québec Adopts its Charter of the French Language v. 3.0

Posted on by

The province of Québec recently sought to modernize its Charter of the French Language (the “Charter“), a piece of legislation many Quebecers still call “Bill 101” to this day. After partially amending this statute in 2019, the Québec government overhauled it earlier this month, by adopting Bill 96. Through this bill, Québec is expanding the obligations imposed on organizations and businesses, to use French whenever (and however) interacting with residents of the province.

Though I don’t want to get into all the details this morning, it seems worthwhile to provide you with an overview of the kinds of changes this new version of the Charter brings us, so here it is so as to provide you with an idea of what we’re now facing:

  • A general obligation that all organizations serve their clients in French, by providing them with any and all documents and documentation in French, as the case may be;
  • A major change of the rule as to the display of non-French trademarks, by doing away with the exception relating to the common law trademarks. From now on, only common law trademarks composed solely of French words will be tolerated under the Charter, while the rest of trademarks used in Québec will have to be actually registered to pass muster;
  • Reinforcement of the provisions relating to public display of trademarks (e.g. signage) by now requiring that the overall appearance provide substantially more space to French, as compared to other languages such as English (i.e. store fronts should show about twice as much content in French than other languages, not taking into account the trademark);
  • Introduction of a new rule stating that adhesion contracts must now be available in French as a condition of validity for the contracts that are actually entered into by Quebecers, I including but not limited to those for consumers;
  • Lowering from 50 employees to 25, the threshold above which organizations must adopt and apply a francization program;
  • Adoption of stricter rules as to job postings in French and when an organization may require that job applicants have language skills unrelated to French;
  • Addition of a new rule that all written documents and documentation provided by employers to their employees systematically be in French.

It also seems worthwhile to mention that Bill 96 also adds a very American twist to the Charter, by introducing a private right of action. Once in force, this will allow individuals to sue businesses that violate the Charter, so as to obtain either injunctions or (and yes, this is what’s going to have business owners pay attention) damages and punitive damages. As if often the case whenever such rights are introduced in a piece of legislation, class actions will be the first type of proceedings we can expect them to be used for.

I should mention, finally, that most changes outlined above will not come into effect for 3 years, so as to provide businesses with a transition period during which they can bring their organizations in line with the new rules. So, June 1st, 2025 is the deadline you should remember, to update all your practices and your way of doing things in Québec. Mark your calendars!

So, is your organization in-line with all this? Probably not. If it is not, then you now have less than 3 years to do your homework!

A Good Little Example of the Importance of Respecting the Moral Rights of Creators, in Canada, Yes Even After Securing a License as to a Work

Posted on by

A Québec lower court recently provided us with a good (albeit modest) example of the problem that moral rights can be for Canadian businesses, when handling third-party creations such a photographs, without first obtaining an adequate waiver from creators. The case at issue was: Lavigne (Valmedia) v. 9061-6632 Québec inc. (2021 QCCQ 13322).

This case stemmed from a relationship between a Québec publication called “Journal Accès” and a free-lance photographer who provided certain of his pictures for reuse in the publication at issue. This case was not concerned with whether the publication could publish the 3 photographs at issue, as the creator had consented to the publishing. The issue rather involved how the photographs were presented, upon actual publication, namely after making certain changes to the photos at issues and, worse yet, without acknowledging who the author was.

For the author, the problems in this case included the removal of his logo from the photos, Access’ failure to credit him for taking the 3 pictures at issue, in addition to the publication making unauthorized changes to the photographs, included adjusting colors and cropping them.

Moral rights are a idiosyncrasy of Canadian copyright law, though technically distinct from “copyrights” per se. In effect, “moral rights” generally allow authors to insist that third parties which handle their creations not modify them to any degree one might consider would affect their integrity in a manner that may be prejudicial to the author. Moral rights also allow creators to insist on being acknowledged as the author, whenever a work is used, unless the parties agreed otherwise.

In the case at issue, the photograph had agreed to the publication of his photos but had NOT agreed to the modification of these photos, nor that they could be published without acknowledging he was the author. This justified the photographer taking Accès to court (in small claims court, but still), to obtain redress further to the alleged violation of his moral rights.

At the end of the day, the judgement does confirm that there really was an issue with moral rights in this case, albeit only as to the issue of identifying the photographer as the creator of the photos at issue, and nothing else. Indeed, thought Accès did modify the photographs to a certain extent, including correcting colors and cropping the images, the judge essentially came to the conclusion that such changes were minor enough to be unlikely to have a real effect on the photographer’s reputation, notwithstanding whatever else he may be claiming.

That said, for the judge, the omission of the photographer’s logo, as originally included on the 3 photographs at issue, coupled with the omission of his name next to the photographs pretty clearly constituted a violation of this moral rights. That being the case, one could apply the rules relating to statutory damages, to come up with a “damages” figure, with or without actual evidence of prejudice from the plaintiff.

In practice, this lead the court to award very modest damages ($400.00). The decision is nevertheless worth mentioning, if only as a example of the continued importance of keeping moral rights in mind, whenever dealing with the use of Canadian works. Even when an organization has first obtained a license (or even an assignment), the issue of moral rights may rear its ugly head later on, unless a full waiver was obtained. Failing that, the full recourses contained in the Copyright Act may be brought to bear for things like modifications or even the simple failure to acknowledge who the original author was.

Christian Varin of the Fédération des inventeurs du Québec Found Guilty of Fraud

Posted on by

After years of hearing and reading about complaints against the (supposed) Fédération des inventeurs du Québec, a Québec court recently found the principal behind the entity at issue, Christian Varin, guilty of fraud. Finally.

The La Presse newspaper published an article about the judgement at issue this morning. The judge was not kind in his judgment, using expressions and words like charlatan, fraudster, lies, flagrant incompetence, scam, etc. In short, Varin and the entity he created (and alone controls) defrauded hundred of small time inventors who were often attracted to Varin by advertising on Google and who believed Varin when he told them he could protect their inventions for a fraction of what regular patent agents (something is not) charged. Lo and behold, this was all a lie, Varin charging for supposed international searches and filing legally insignificant provisional applications that inventors were given the impressions would actually protect their inventions.

At the risk of repeating myself, the protection of inventions by patent registration implies a long process that is both complex and costly, for a reason. Given how strong patent protection is, the government does not grant it lightly, nor to anyone who simply asks. A (valid) patent applicable is something that requires great care, including to determine exactly what the invention is, and then to describe it adequately. Anyone interested in attempting to patent an invention should also be aware that protection must be sought in each country where one hopes to obtain rights, something that will require substantial means to achieve.

Believe it or not, there really is a reason why patent agents are so few and why they can charge fees that are this high: dealing with inventions and patents really is quite complex. This is NOT something Joe Average can do willy-nilly on the corner of your kitchen table.

If anyone who is neither an attorney or a patent agent tells you they can protect your invention for a fraction of what others charge, walk away, or better yet, run.