Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa Inc.
Canada Supreme Court
1 S.C.R. 591, 157 D.L.R. (4th) 577, 78 C.P.R. (3d) 288 (1998)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Gilbert Duclos (defendant) was a photographer. Duclos photographed a teenager, Pascale Claude Aubry (plaintiff) without her knowledge or permission while she was sitting on the steps of a building in Montreal. Éditions Vice-Versa Inc. (publisher) (defendant) published the photograph in an arts magazine, and Aubry learned about its publication from a friend who saw the magazine and recognized Aubry. Aubry’s schoolmates taunted her about the photograph. Aubry sued in the Court of Quebec for $5,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. Duclos and the publisher argued that the photograph’s publication should be protected because of its artistic value. The trial court found for Aubry and awarded her $2,000 for invasion of privacy and injury to her reputation, but because the photograph was not defamatory and the trial court did not find that the defendants acted with malice, the trial court did not award punitive damages. The matter was appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal, which affirmed the trial court’s decision. Duclos and the publisher appealed to the Canada Supreme Court, arguing that there was no causal connection between the photograph and the damages.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache, J.J.)
Dissent (Major, J.)
Dissent (Lamer, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.