Federal Court awards costs of over $367,850 in copyright infringement case

In a recent intellectual property proceeding, the Federal Court of Canada awarded the plaintiff $367,853.16 in total costs, including all fees and disbursements, plus four percent post-judgment interest from the date of its judgment. 

The case of Yelda Haber Ve Görsel Yayincilik A.S. v. GLWiZ Inc, 2025 FC 1387, involved a calculation of costs. 

The Federal Court’s prior decision on July 9 had ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff $5,958,000 in statutory damages for copyright infringement of 22 of the plaintiff’s programs – 2,974 total episodes – and its live television channel. 

The plaintiff requested a lump sum cost award of $512,417 in legal fees and $73,680.16 in disbursements. 

Lump sum costs

The Federal Court deemed a departure from Column V of Tariff B warranted and a lump sum cost award appropriate because: 

• The parties were sophisticated commercial entities 
• This was a complex intellectual property proceeding, though it required no expert witnesses 
• Costs at the high end of Column V of Tariff B would not fulfill the goals of indemnification and a reasonable contribution to the litigation costs 

Quantum of costs

The plaintiff requested 50 percent of its actual legal fees, while the defendants pushed for an award of only 25 percent. 

Given that this was a copyright case rather than a complex drug patent proceeding, the court set a lump sum award starting at 25 percent of the plaintiff’s actual legal fees, then considered whether the circumstances justified raising or lowering that rate. 

The Federal Court ultimately decided on a five percent upward adjustment to 30 percent of the plaintiff’s actual legal fees. In reaching this decision, the court noted the following factors. 

First, despite the plaintiff's objections, the defendants successfully adjourned the trial in mid-November 2024. 

Second, while the defendants had initially denied infringement, they conceded infringement in a last-minute change to their defence last January. They alleged that: 

• They were innocent infringers under s. 38.1(2) of the Copyright Act, 1985, because they had mistakenly but reasonably thought they had a valid licence from a third party to use the plaintiff’s programs 
• A statutory damages award above $200 per work would lead to an amount grossly disproportionate to the infringement under s. 38.1(3) of the Copyright Act 

Third, this change in the defendants’ defence required a last-minute discovery involving their representative. 

Fourth, under 10 days before the rescheduled trial began, the defendants produced additional documents. They mentioned a technical bug that permitted users to access content they had disabled in response to the plaintiff’s 2019 cease and desist letter. 

The court determined that the defendants: 

• knew about this technical bug in 2021 and deliberately refrained from disclosing it earlier in the proceeding 
• deliberately infringed the plaintiff’s copyright in the live channel, which fell beyond their innocent infringer argument 
• failed, in bad faith, to verify the validity of their licence with the third party or properly investigate the plaintiff’s copyright breach allegation in its cease and desist letter 

From $1,024,834, 100 percent of the adjusted actual legal fees, the court deducted $31,316 in legal fees for two motions subject to prior costs orders. 

The court concluded that 30 percent of the amount of $993,518 would be $298,055, which represented the amount of legal fees the plaintiff could recover. 

Disbursements

The plaintiff requested $73,680.16 in disbursements, essentially comprising: 

• costs associated with trial transcripts 
• travel expenses for counsel, witnesses, and supervising counsel from the plaintiff 
• translation of documents 
• photocopies 
• examination fees and discovery transcripts 
• private investigator fees 
• courier and process server fees 
• court filing fees 
• corporate search fees 

Regarding the plaintiff’s claim for $4,882 in photocopying charges, the Federal Court reduced the amount recoverable to $1,000 upon finding that the proposed photocopying charges did not represent a reasonable and necessary expense. 

The court explained that the amount recoverable for photocopying should reflect the law firm’s actual costs incurred to make photocopies, since firms were “not in the business of making a profit on [their] photocopy equipment.” 

The court accepted the rest of the plaintiff’s proposed disbursements as reasonable and necessary. The court deemed the plaintiff entitled to $69,798.16 in disbursements, after reducing $3,882 in recoverable photocopying charges.