Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of copyright protection for architectural house plans as an original artistic work under the Canadian Copyright Act
• Determination of whether the constructed residence constitutes a substantial reproduction and thus plagiarism of Leguë’s model Ë_181
• Allocation of responsibility for copyright infringement between homeowners who commissioned plans and the third-party technologist firm that prepared them
• Application of the civil burden of proof and evidentiary standard under articles 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q. to allegations of unauthorized use of a protected work
• Assessment of homeowners’ good faith and whether they had a duty to verify the origin or lawfulness of the plans obtained from a professional firm
• Consequences of insufficient proof of direct involvement in the infringement, leading to dismissal of the claim and a modest costs award in favour of the defendants

Facts of the case

Leguë Architecture inc. is a business specializing in residential architectural design. It creates and markets house plans, which it makes available to potential clients through its website. The site showcases realistic images of house facades and interiors, accompanied by floor plans showing the layout and dimensions of the rooms, and also offers a custom design service. One of its models, identified as plan Ë_181, was created in 2020 or earlier by the company’s owner, Jeffrey Leguë. Leguë considers this model to be an original artistic work protected by copyright. In January 2024, Leguë discovered a recently built home in Notre-Dame-du-Mont-Carmel that, in its view, reproduced the concept of plan Ë_181. After conducting a comparative analysis, Leguë concluded that the new house was effectively a replica of its original design. According to Mr. Leguë, the allegedly copied elements included a central volume, roof slope, window layout, garage and elevations that were similar to the model, along with a cathedral ceiling. The terrace was located in the same place and the basement layout was also said to be the same. The differences noted were described as minor, involving choices of exterior cladding, window finishing, the relocation of a door and the inversion of the bathroom. Leguë claimed that these limited distinctions did not alter the overall impression of copying. The house in question belongs to the defendants, Simon Boisclair and Keven Demontigny, who had it built as their principal residence. After identifying the apparent similarities, Leguë sent a demand letter seeking payment of the base fees for the concept, quantified at 2,897.37 CAD, and then brought a small claims action for 5,500 CAD in damages for unauthorized copying of its plan.

Positions of the parties

The defendants did not seriously contest the visual resemblance between their house and Leguë’s model Ë_181 and, in fact, the court notes that it would have been difficult to deny the striking similarities. However, they firmly denied any wrongful conduct on their part and rejected any suggestion that they intentionally copied Leguë’s plans. Instead, they argued that if any copyright infringement occurred, responsibility lay solely with the architectural technologist firm they engaged. Boisclair and Demontigny hired Nabi-Tek inc., a specialized technologist practice with which one of them had already done business and in which they had confidence. In May 2023, they entered into a service contract with Nabi-Tek for the conception and delivery of house plans for a new construction, paid the required fees, and in July 2023 received plans that were signed and sealed by the professional. Nabi-Tek ceased operations soon afterward, and thus was not before the court. The defendants explained that they arrived at their meeting with the technologist without any detailed model or pre-existing plans, other than a hand-drawn sketch of the kitchen they wanted, showing a back kitchen and a large adjoining pantry. They also communicated their preferences for a double garage, a large, open, bright living area, substantial rear fenestration and a covered terrace. The technologist produced a preliminary plan, the defendants requested some modifications, and later obtained the final plans they then used for construction. They denied ever providing to Nabi-Tek any images or plans from Leguë, or otherwise instructing the firm to copy Leguë’s work. They maintained that they acted in good faith throughout by dealing with a professional firm, and that any copyright violation had to be attributed to Nabi-Tek’s conduct, not their own. Leguë, for its part, argued that the level of similarity between the built home and its model Ë_181 could only be explained if the defendants had used its design as a starting point. It suggested that, in line with common practice, the couple must have brought images or relied on Leguë’s model when explaining their needs to Nabi-Tek, so that the technologist effectively worked from Leguë’s protected concept.

Legal framework and copyright issues

The court began by affirming that Leguë’s concept and plans qualify as an original artistic work within the meaning of sections 2 and 5 of the Canadian Copyright Act and thus are entitled to statutory copyright protection. It cited the statutory definition of copyright and the exclusive rights of the copyright holder under section 3(1), which include the right to produce or reproduce the whole or a substantial part of the work in any material form. The court also referred to section 27(1) of the Act, which provides that it is an infringement of copyright to, without the owner’s consent, perform an act that only the copyright holder is entitled to perform. Within this framework, the key question was whether the construction of the Boisclair–Demontigny residence amounted to a substantial reproduction of Leguë’s original work. The judge concluded that while the two houses were not completely identical, the correspondences between them were both significant and precise. The visual elements demonstrated a strong similarity that went beyond coincidence or general stylistic resemblance. On that basis, the court held that there was manifest plagiarism and that Leguë’s copyright had indeed been infringed at some point in the process of creating and using the plans for the new house.

Burden of proof and evidentiary assessment

Once it accepted that an infringement of Leguë’s copyright had occurred, the court still had to determine who should bear legal responsibility. Here, the analysis turned to the rules on burden and standard of proof under Quebec civil law. Article 2803 of the Civil Code of Québec states that a party seeking to enforce a right must prove the facts that support its claim, while a party alleging that a right is null, modified or extinguished must prove that assertion. Article 2804 specifies that proof is sufficient when it makes the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence, unless the law requires a higher level of proof. Applying these provisions, the court emphasized that Leguë, as plaintiff, bore the burden of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the defendants themselves had used its work without authorization, either directly or through their instructions or conduct. The court recalled that decisions must rest on probabilities rather than mere possibilities, hypotheses or conjecture. In this case, the core factual issue was whether Boisclair and Demontigny had actually used Leguë’s model—by providing images, plans or specific indications referencing it—to guide Nabi-Tek in designing their house. While the resemblance between the two houses was undeniable, the judge found no direct evidence that the homeowners had brought Leguë’s plans or images to Nabi-Tek, nor evidence that they had knowledge that the technologist was copying Leguë’s work. The defendants’ account of their interactions with Nabi-Tek, including the initial meeting, the description of their preferences, the preliminary plan and subsequent revisions, was consistent and unshaken. Leguë’s contention that they must have relied on its model remained, in the court’s view, a hypothesis that was not supported by preponderant evidence.

Homeowners’ good faith and absence of fault

The judge also examined whether, even assuming the plans were infringing, the homeowners nonetheless could be held liable at a later stage, for example for using or dealing with infringing plans while they ought reasonably to have known of the infringement. In this respect, the court considered whether the facts brought the defendants within the situations contemplated by section 27(2) of the Copyright Act, which addresses infringement at subsequent stages such as selling, renting, distributing or exhibiting infringing copies, where the person knows or should have known of the infringement. The court concluded that Boisclair and Demontigny, acting as private individuals building their principal residence, were not under a duty to independently verify the origin and copyright status of the plans they lawfully acquired from a specialized professional firm. There was no evidence that they had reason to suspect that the plans originated from an unauthorized copy of an existing work. The court therefore accepted that they acted in good faith throughout, relying on the expertise and legitimacy of Nabi-Tek. In the absence of proof that they knew or should have known about any infringement, the judge found that they did not fall within the scenarios of secondary infringement under section 27(2). Without demonstrated fault or knowledge, and given the allocation of the burden of proof, the claim against them could not succeed.

Outcome and financial consequences

Considering all the documentary and testimonial evidence, the court held that Leguë had not met its burden of proving that Boisclair and Demontigny personally infringed its copyright or otherwise committed a civil fault. Even though the plans used for the house did reproduce Leguë’s protected work, the plaintiff failed to establish that the homeowners were the authors of, or complicit in, that infringement. As a result, the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, dismissed Leguë Architecture inc.’s action in its entirety. The plaintiff’s claim for 5,500 CAD in damages was rejected, and the court instead ordered Leguë Architecture inc. to pay the defendants, Simon Boisclair and Keven Demontigny, their legal costs in the amount of 213 CAD. Thus, the successful parties in this case are the defendants, and the total monetary amount ordered in their favour is 213 CAD in costs, with no damages awarded to the plaintiff.