Allen v. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. | Ariel Katz Research Assistant | June 21, 2016

H2O

This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.

Allen v. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd.

by Ariel Katz Research Assistant
1

[1997] O.J. No. 4363

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) [Divisional Court]

Allen v. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd.

Jim Allen, Respondent (Plaintiff) and Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, Appellant (Defendant)

O’Driscoll, Flinn, Sedgwick JJ.

Heard: October 2, 1997

Judgment: November 3, 1997

Docket: Toronto 740/95

2

Counsel: Paul Schabas, for the Appellant.

3

Jerry Levitan and Aleem Bharmal, for the Respondent.

4

Headnote

5

Copyright --- Ownership — Engraving, photograph or portrait

6

Newspaper reproduced magazine cover which featured freelancer’s photograph without permission — Freelancer claimed copyright infringement and won at trial and newspaper appealed — Newspaper did not reproduce photo alone but as part of magazine cover which was entitled to be recognized as original artistic work created and produced by work, skill and judgment of magazine, not freelancer — Magazine cover was separate and distinct artistic work from photograph in this case — Photo was one component of cover and important one in creating overall effect of cover which magazine intended to create — It was overall effect of cover which fulfilled statutory requirement of originality for purposes of copyright in this case — Freelancer’s copyright in photograph was not infringed by reproduction of entire magazine cover in newspaper and he did not own or have legal interest in copyright in magazine cover — Appeal allowed.

7

Copyright --- Defences to infringement — Fair dealing

8

Newspaper reproduced magazine cover which featured freelancer’s photograph without permission — Freelancer claimed copyright infringement and won at trial and newspaper appealed — Newspaper argued that defence of fair dealing protected reproduction by newspaper of magazine cover regardless of subsistence of copyright in cover and its ownership — According to ss. 27(2)(a) of Copyright Act, acts did not constitute infringement of copyright when there was fair dealing with any work for purposes of private study, research, criticism, review or newspaper summary — Test of fair dealing was essentially purposive — Trial judge erred in basing his decision that defence of fair dealing did not apply solely on factor that newspaper used photograph of entire cover of issue of magazine without apparently considering other factors including nature and purpose of use — Nature and purpose of use by newspaper in this case was to illustrate current news story thus defence of fair dealing applied in circumstances of case — Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, ss. 27(2)(a).

9

Table of Authorities

10

Cases considered by Sedgwick J.:

11

Conde Nast Publications Inc. v. Vogue School of Fashion Modelling (1952), 94 U.S.P.Q. 101 (U.S. Fed. Ct.) — referred to

12

Express Newspapers plc v. News (U.K.) Ltd., [1990] 3 All E.R. 376, 1 W.L.R. 1320 (Eng. Ch. Div.) — referred to

13

Hubbard v. Vosper, [1972] 2 Q.B. 84, [1972] 1 All E.R. 1023 (Eng. C.A.) — considered

14

Reader’s Digest Association Inc. v. Conservative Digest Inc. (1987), 3 U.S.P.Q. 1276 (U.S. Ct. App.) — referred to

15

Sands & McDougall Pty Ltd. v. Robinson (1997), 23 C.L.R. 49 (Australia H.C.) — referred to

16

Slumber-Magic Adjustable Bed Co. v. Sleep-King Adjustable Bed Co. (1984), [1985] 1 W.W.R. 112, 3 C.P.R. (3d) 81 (B.C. S.C.) — considered

17

Walter v. Lane, [1900] A.C. 539 (U.K. H.L.) — referred to

18

Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States (1974), 417 U.S. 907 (U.S. Cl. Ct..) — considered

19

Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States (1975), 420 U.S. 376 (U.S. Cl. Ct.) — considered

20

Zamacoïs v. Douville, 3 Fox Pat. C. 44, 2 C.P.R. 270, [1943] 2 D.L.R. 257, [1944] Ex. C.R. 208 (Can. Ex. Ct.) — considered

21

Statutes considered:

22

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11

23

s. 2(b) — considered

24

Copyright Act, 1956, c. 74

25

s. 6(2) — referred to

26

Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42

27

s. 13(2) — considered

28

s. 27(2)(a) — considered

29

s. 27(2)(a.1) [rep. & sub. 1993, c. 44, s. 64(1)] — referred to

30

s. 29.2 [en. 1997, c. 24, s. 18(1)] — considered

31

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43

32

s. 19(1)(a) — pursuant to

33

s. 128 — referred to

34

APPEAL by defendant newspaper from judgment reported at (1995), 129 D.L.R. (4th) 171 (Ont. Gen. Div.) in favour of plaintiff for $900 general damages for infringement of copyright in photograph pursuant to ss. 19(1)(a) of Courts of Justice Act.

35

Sedgwick J.:

36

1      This is an appeal by the defendant (Toronto Star) from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) released on October 13, 1995, [(1996), 26 O.R. (3d) 308 (Ont. Gen. Div.)], in favour of the plaintiff (Allen) for $900 general damages for infringement of copyright in a photograph. This appeal comes to the Divisional Court under ss. 19(1) (a) of the Courts of Justice Act.

37

2      Allen is a freelance photographer. His services were engaged by Saturday Night, a magazine with nation-wide circulation, to shoot a cover photo of a national political figure, Sheila Copps, M.P., then a member of an active group of opposition Members of Parliament known as the “Rat Pack”.

38

3      The cover of the November 1985 issue of Saturday Night bore a photograph of Ms. Copps dressed in leathers astride a motorcycle, identified by counsel as a Harley-Davidson. The photo used on the cover was taken by Allen in the course of his engagement by Saturday Night.

39

4      On March 11, 1990, the Toronto Star, a daily newspaper, published a feature article about Ms. Copps, then a candidate for the national leadership of her party. The article was illustrated by two photographs. One of them was a photo of the cover of the November 1985 issue of Saturday Night. The other was a photo of Ms. Copps in 1990 in more conventional clothing speaking in Toronto to a group identified in the newspaper as Chinese Canadians.

40

5      The publication by the Toronto Star of that photograph resulted in this action being brought by Allen on October 16, 1991, for infringement of his copyright in the 1985 photo of Ms. Copps. Allen was successful at trial. The learned trial judge concluded:

41

...by reproducing the Saturday Night magazine cover of November 1985 the defendant infringed the copyright in the photograph owned by Allen and accordingly I will be awarding damages for such infringement. (supra. p.316).

42

6      Allen was awarded general damages in the amount of $900, calculated to be the amount of the fee to which he would have been entitled for the use of the photograph, according to the learned trial judge’s view of the evidence as to the custom of the industry. Allen was awarded pre-judgment interest on that amount in accordance with section 128 of the Courts of Justice Act, from October 16, 1991 to October 26, 1995, together with his party/party costs fixed at $10,400 (plus GST). Allen’s claim for aggravated or exemplary damages in the amount of $10,000 was dismissed.

43

7      Saturday Night has not objected to the reproduction of its November 1985 cover.

44

8      The Toronto Star appeals this judgment on three grounds:

45

(1) its reproduction of the 1985 magazine cover did not infringe the admitted copyright interest of Allen in the 1985 Copps photo itself, or any copyright interest in the magazine cover.

(2) its reproduction of the 1985 magazine cover does not infringe any copyright interest in the photo or the cover because the “fair dealing” defence set out in ss. 27(2)(a) of the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, (then in force), applies.

(3) if the “fair dealing” defence does not apply, then ss. 27(2)(a) of the Copyright Act infringes s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and should be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter.

46

9      There is no cross-appeal by Allen against the dismissal of his claim for aggravated or exemplary damages.

47

(1) Copyright Ownership

48

10      The Toronto Star acknowledges that Allen owns the copyright in the 1985 photograph of Ms. Copps. However, it asserts that Allen is not the owner of the separate and distinct copyright which exists in the entire cover of the November 1985 issue of Saturday Night. Any copyright in the entire cover would belong to the magazine Saturday Night, which has not objected to the reproduction of the cover by the Toronto Star.

49

11      The learned trial judge rejected this submission. He stated that if he accepted it:

50

I would be indulging in hair splitting of a somewhat advanced nature which I am not prepared to do as clearly the photograph dominates the Saturday Night cover. [supra p. 316]

51

12      Copyright may subsist in original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works and may subsist in collective works, in which works or parts of works of different authors or contributors are incorporated.

52

13      Copyright may subsist separately in a compilation of elements which may themselves individually be the subject of copyright. The issue of ownership of copyright in the compilation itself was considered by McLachlan J. (as she then was) in Slumber-Magic Adjustable Bed Co.v. Sleep-King Adjustable Bed Co. (1984), 3 C.P.R. (3d) 81 (B.C. S.C.).

53

14      In that case, the issue was whether copyright subsisted in the plaintiff’s advertising brochure even though a number of the elements of the brochure (including photographs) were similar to those found in the brochures of competitors (the defendants). The court held that it did. McLachlin J. concluded:

54

..., the fact that elements of the [the plaintiff’s] brochure were similar to elements of other brochures, does not negate the fact that it has copyright in the arrangement of ideas, original or otherwise, which was solely the product of its own work, skill and judgment. (p.85)

55

She explained:

56

The question is whether the plaintiff had copyright in the brochure? In my opinion, it did. The defendants suggest that there is no copyright in the brochure because it used ideas and elements which are also found in the brochures of other competitors. That, however, does not defeat a claim for copyright. It is well established that compilations of material produced by others may be protected by copyright, provided that the arrangement of the elements taken from other sources is the product of the plaintiff’s thought, selection and work. It is not the several components that are the subject of the copyright, but the over-all arrangement of them which the plaintiff through his industry has produced. The basis of copyright is the originality of the work in question. So long as work, taste and discretion have entered into the composition, that originality is established. In the case of a compilation, the originality requisite to copyright is a matter of degree depending on the amount of skill, judgment or labour that has been involved in making the compilation: Ladbroke (Football), Ltd. v. William Hill (Football), Ltd., [1964] 1 All E.R. 465 (H.L.). Where copyright is claimed in a compilation it is not the correct approach to dissect the work in fragments and, if the fragments are not entitled to copyright, then deduce that the whole compilation is not so entitled; rather, the court should canvas the degree of industry, skill or judgment which has gone into the over-all arrangement: Ladbroke, supra. See also T.J. Moore Co. Ltd. v. Accessoires de Bureau de Quebec Inc. (1973), 14 C.P.C. (2d) 113 (Fed. Ct. T.D.); Jarrold v. Houlston (1857), 3 K & J. 708, 69 E.R., 1294 (Ch.Div.); MacMillan & Co., Ltd. v. Cooper (1923), 40 T.L.R. 186 (P.C.).

The proposition that arrangements of common ideas may be copyright is subject to certain limitations. First, it appears that the compiler can claim no copyright unless he or she had a right to use materials constituting his compilation: T.J. Moore Co. Ltd. v. Accessoires de Bureau de Quebec Inc., supra. at 116. Secondly, in so far as component ideas may be in the public domain, they themselves may be copied with impunity, without breaching the compiler’s copyright, which rests not in the components, but in the over-all arrangement: Fox, The Canadian Law of Copyright and Industrial Designs, 2nd ed. (1967), p. 118 (pp. 84, 85).

57

15      In our view, the issue whether copyright may subsist in a magazine cover as distinct from its constituent elements is governed by the same considerations. Indeed, in the courts of the United States, magazine covers have been expressly held to be the proper subject of copyright: The Conde Nast Publications Inc. v. Vogue School of Fashion Modelling, 94 U.S.P.Q. 101 (U.S. Fed. Ct. 1952) at 106-7; Reader’s Digest Association Inc. v. Conservative Digest Inc., 3 U.S.P.Q. 1276 (U.S. Ct. App. 1987) at 1280.

58

16      In the law of copyright, the statutory requirement of originality does not imply inventive originality. It is enough that the work is the production of something in a new form as a result of the skill, labour and judgment of the author: Express Newspapers plc v. News (U.K.) Ltd., [1990] 3 All E.R. 376 (Eng. Ch. Div.), 381; Sands & McDougall Pty Ltd. v. Robinson (1997), 23 C.L.R. 49 (Australia H.C.); Walter v. Lane, [1900] A.C. 539 (U.K. H.L.).

59

17      In the case before us, the terms were oral of Allen’s engagement by Saturday Night to shoot the cover photo of Ms. Copps. Both parties presented evidence at trial as to the custom of the industry as to the usual terms of such engagements as well as to the way in which a magazine cover is created and produced, and as to ownership of copyright in the cover.

60

18      Allen was engaged by Saturday Night to shoot the cover photo of Ms. Copps for its November 1985 issue. The idea for the photograph of Ms. Copps in leathers astride a motorcycle originated with Saturday Night. The photo was to highlight the point of a feature article about her in that issue. Allen was given detailed instructions as to Saturday Night’s requirements for the cover photo. Ms. Copps cooperated with Allen during the photo shoot.

61

19      The photo used on the magazine cover (one of many taken by Allen during two film shoots) was selected by the art director of Saturday Night. The photo chosen was integrated into the cover by the art director in consultation with the editor of Saturday Night. The cover, including its layout and type sizes, styles and positioning, as well as the cover text, was the work of the art director in consultation with the editor.

62

20      Allen was not involved in, and had no control over, this process by which the magazine cover was created. His photo of Ms. Copps became a part of the cover, which was the very purpose for which it was taken under the terms of his engagement by Saturday Night. He was acknowledged in the November 1985 issue as the cover photographer.

63

21      In his view, Allen had granted Saturday Night the “first rights” to the photograph:

64

He [the art director] has the right to use my transparency in any way, shape or form he feels fit to put onto that cover for his first time usage. [Trial Proceedings, Vol. I, p. 145, 1. 22-4]

65

22      After the photos were taken and the cover photo chosen by the art director, Allen received $1,800 from Saturday Night in payment. He also received back the original photographs and transparencies. He did not request or receive the printing plates used by Saturday Night to reproduce the cover.

66

23      As to the owner of copyright in the photograph, Allen retained the right to use or permit others to use the photo after its first use by Saturday Night. His consent would be required to any subsequent use of the photo. In fact, he received payments from several newspapers and periodicals for subsequent uses of the photo. We agree that the terms of Allen’s engagement by Saturday Night constitute an “agreement to the contrary” within the meaning of s. 13(2) of the Copyright Act and that Allen is the owner of copyright in the photograph.

67

24      That Allen owns copyright in the photograph is not contested by the Toronto Star. That Allen owns or has a copyright interest in the cover of Saturday Night is strenuously contested. Witnesses who testified at trial were divided in their views as to the custom of the industry in matters of copyright in magazine covers.

68

25      Some stated that the cover belongs to the publisher and that the consent of the cover photographer is not sought or required to reproduce the cover for promotional, news or other purposes. Once a magazine cover is published, some witnesses considered it to be in the public domain as part of an historical record, so that no one’s consent is sought or required to reproduce the cover for any purpose. This was the view of witnesses now or formerly employed by Saturday Night, Toronto Star, Globe & Mail, Toronto Life - all newspapers or periodicals.

69

26      In evidence, Allen stated his “position” that the consent of the cover photographer is required to reproduce the magazine cover, although he acknowledged that he was not given the printing plates for the magazine cover after publication. Another photographer (Patrick Lacroix) agreed, a third (Steve Pigeon) said no one owned the cover, although another (Nigel Dickson) acknowledged that the magazine owns the cover, and George Haroutian, a publisher and art director, agreed that if he wanted to use a magazine cover, he would contact only the magazine, letting them get necessary clearances for the cover [Trial Proceedings, Vol. II, p. 141, 1. 17-23; p. 143, 1. 27-32].

70

27      On March 11, 1990, the Toronto Star chose to illustrate its feature article on Ms. Copps with a reproduction of the November 1985 Saturday Night cover reduced in size. The article appeared on an inside page of an inside section of the newspaper. The Toronto Star did not reproduce the photo alone, but as a part of the magazine cover which is, in our view, entitled to be recognized as an original artistic work created and produced by the work, skill and judgment of Saturday Night.

71

28      The magazine cover is a separate and distinct artistic work from the photograph in this case. The photo is one component of the cover, and an important one in creating the overall effect of the cover which Saturday Night intended to create. The photo tells part of the story, but by itself is not meaningful without the linkage of words and imagery associating Ms. Copps with her role in Parliament at that time as a member of the “Rat Pack”. It is the overall effect of the cover which fulfils the statutory requirement of originality for purposes of copyright in this case. Saturday Night bargained with Allen for the taking of the photo it ultimately chose for the cover of its November 1985 issue and used the photo in the way it was authorized to do by Allen, according to his own evidence.

72

29      Allen’s copyright in the photograph is not infringed by the reproduction of the entire magazine cover in the March 11, 1990 edition of the Toronto Star and, in our view, Allen does not own or have a legal interest in the copyright in the magazine cover.

73

(2) Fair Dealing

74

30      The second ground of this appeal is whether the defence of fair dealing protects the reproduction by the Toronto Star of the cover of the November 1985 issue of Saturday Night, regardless of the subsistence of copyright in the cover and its ownership.

75

31      On March 11, 1990, the “fair dealing” defence was set out in ss. 27(2) (a) of the Copyright Act, as follows:

76

(2) The following acts do not constitute an infringement of copyright:

(a) any fair dealing with any work for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review or newspaper summary;

77

32      This provision has since been amended twice: by the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, S.C. 1993, c.44, s. 64(1), in force January 1, 1994, as ss. 27(2) (a.1); then by an Act to amend the Copyright Act, S.C. 1997, c.24, s. 18, in force September 1, 1997, as s. 29.2.

78

33      Submissions were addressed to us by both counsel on different points that were, to an extent, based on the amended provisions. In our view, the provisions as amended are not germane to this appeal, either directly or indirectly as evidence of a previous legislative intent.

79

34      Section 29.2, which is the current provision of the Copyright Act, provides that fair dealing for the purpose of news reporting does not infringe copyright if the source and the author of the work reproduced are mentioned. At the time of the alleged infringement by the Toronto Star, however, there was no statutory or other legal requirement for crediting the author of a copyright or work (such as a photograph) in relation to the defence of fair dealing.

80

35      At trial, the Toronto Star contended that reproduction of the cover of Saturday Night constituted fair dealing as defined in s. 27(2) (a) of the Copyright Act as a “newspaper summary”. According to the learned trial judge, Allen relied on the ejusdem generis rule of construction of s. 27(2) (a) and submitted that “publishing the whole photograph even in its Saturday Night magazine form does not fit the fair dealing defence” (supra, p. 315). The learned trial judge commented:

81

The fair dealing defence raised by the defendant is an interesting issue which in my view has no application to the case at bar as I accept the plaintiff’s submissions with respect to it. (supra, p. 316)

82

36      On a fair reading of the statute, we think that the fair dealing defence as expressed in s. 27(2) (a) of the Copyright Act in force on March 10, 1990, applies in this case.

83

37      The use by the Toronto Star on March 10, 1990 of a photographic reproduction of the November 1985 cover of Saturday Night was related to then current news, the leadership aspirations of Ms. Copps. The other photo used to illustrate the feature article on Ms. Copps portrayed her in a more traditional political appearance in 1990. It was apt for the newspaper to contrast the image she was willing to project in 1985. The change in her image was the thrust of the article.

84

38      The cover was not reproduced in colour as was the original. The cover was reproduced in reduced form. The news story and accompanying photos received no special prominence in the newspaper. They appeared on an inside page of an inside section. These factors are indications that the purpose of its reproduction of the cover was to aid in the presentation of a news story and not to gain an unfair commercial or competitive advantage over Allen or Saturday Night.

85

39      In our view, the test of fair dealing is essentially purposive. It is not simply a mechanical test of measurement of the extent of copying involved. We were referred to the case of Zamacoïs v. Douville (1943), 2 C.P.R. 270 (Can. Ex. Ct.), a decision of Angers J. in the Exchequer Court of Canada. To the extent that this decision is considered an authority for the proposition that reproduction of an entire newspaper article or, in this case, a photograph of a magazine cover can never be considered a fair dealing with the article (or magazine cover) for purposes of news summary or reporting, we respectfully disagree.

86

40      In Hubbard v. Vosper, [1972] 1 All E.R. 1023 (Eng. C.A.), the Court of Appeal of England considered the scope of the defence of fair dealing under s. 6(2) of the (U.K.) Copyright Act (1956), in relation to criticism or review of literary works. The following passage from the judgment of Lord Denning M.R. has a broader application:

87

It is impossible to define what is “fair dealing”. It must be a question of degree. You must consider first the number and extent of the quotations and extracts. Are they altogether too many and too long to be fair? Then you must consider the use made of them. If they are used as a basis for comment, criticism or review, that may be a fair dealing. If they are used to convey the same information as the author, for a rival purpose, that may be unfair. Next, you must consider the proportions. To take long extracts and attach short comments may be unfair. But, short extracts and long comments may be fair. Other considerations may come to mind also. But, after all is said and done, it must be a matter of impression. (p. 1027)

88

Megaw L.J. considered the quantitative argument which appears to have been accepted by the learned trial judge in this case in determining the issue of fair dealing against the Toronto Star. Megaw L.J. said:

89

It is then said that the passages which have been taken from these various works ... are so substantial, quantitatively so great in relation to the respective works from which the citations are taken, that they fall outside the scope of ‘fair dealing’. To my mind this question of substantiality is a question of degree. It may well be that it does not prevent the quotation of a work from being within the fair dealing subsection even though the quotation may be of every single word of the work. Let me give an example. Suppose that there is on a tombstone in a churchyard an epitaph consisting of a dozen or of 20 words. A parishioner of the church thinks that this sort of epitaph is out of place on a tombstone. He writes a letter to the parish magazine setting out the words of the epitaph. Could it be suggested that that citation is so substantial, consisting of 100 per cent of the ‘work’ in question, that it must necessarily be outside the scope of the fair dealing provision? To my mind it could not validly be so suggested. In this present case, having considered what we have been shown of the passages taken from the various works in relation (because I think this test must also be applied) to the nature and purpose of the individual quotations, I find myself unable to say that the plaintiffs have made out a case that the quotations are so substantial that this does not fall within the fair dealing provision ... (p. 1031)

90

41      Similarly in Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States, 417 U.S. 907 (U.S. Cl. Ct. 1974) in the U.S. Court of Claims, Judge Davis spoke to the quantitative point:

91

It has sometimes been suggested that the copying of an entire copyrighted work, any such work, cannot ever be “fair use”, but this is an overbroad generalization, unsupported by the decisions and rejected by years of accepted practice. There is, in short, no inflexible rule excluding an entire copyrighted work from the area of “fair use”. Instead, the extent of the copying is one important factor, but only one to be taken into account, along with several others.

92

42      The decision of the Court of Claims was upheld on an equal division of the U.S. Supreme Court (Justice Blackmun taking no part in the decision), 420 U.S. 376 (U.S. Cl. Ct. 1975). At issue was the photocopying of journal articles for research workers by the National Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Health which was held not to infringe copyright in the photocopied articles. (Referred to in B. Torno: Fair Dealing: The Need for Conceptual Clarity on the Road to Copyright Revision, Consumer & Corporate Affairs Canada, 1981.)

93

43      In our view, the learned trial judge erred in basing his decision that the defence of fair dealing did not apply solely on the factor that the Toronto Star used a photograph of the entire cover of the November 1985 issue of Saturday Night, without apparently considering other factors including the nature and purpose of the use.

94

44      Bearing in mind the nature and purpose of the use by the Toronto Star on March 10, 1990 of the photograph of the November 1985 cover of Saturday Night to illustrate a current news story, the defence of fair dealing applies in the circumstances of this case.

95

45      Therefore, we do not need to consider the third ground of appeal advanced by the Toronto Star based on section 2(b) of the Charter.

96

46      The appeal is allowed with costs fixed in the amount of $3,000, payable if demanded.

97

Appeal allowed.

Close

Annotated Text Information

June 21, 2016

Allen v. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd.

Allen v. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd.

Author Stats

Ariel Katz Research Assistant

Research Assistant

University of Toronto, Faculty of Law

Expand
Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large