Operation Claude Robinson

AT A GLANCE

This section was created to allow you to quickly understand the contents and tone of Judge Claude Auclair of the Superior Court’s judgement which was pronounced on August 26, 2009. The order and integrity of the paragraphs have been respected. Omissions are indicated by this symbol: […]. Numbering was performed by us.

We invite you to read the whole judgement by downloading it (Word format, French only)… It is an unofficial copy published on jugements.qc.ca—the only official copies are in the court house registers.

[1]    In this case, everything has been contested from the start: the claimant’s author status, the ownership of his rights, the recognition of a work, the similarities, the plagiarism and the damages claimed.

[2]    The defendants, Ms. Micheline Charest and M. Ronald Weinberg, deny knowing the claimant, M. Claude Robinson, and his work Les Aventures de Robinson Curiosité. Did they forget that the main character, Robinson Curiosité, is curious in nature?

[3]    Cut to the quick, hurt and curious, the claimant starts an investigation of which details can sometimes seem blown out of proportion, in order to prove his work was plagiarized, which leads us to conclude a case that lasted 13 years, needed over 40 witness testimonies, 20 765 pages from various documents, 23 previously-filed interrogations, 4 expert reports, over 53 viewing hours of various episodes and a rogatory commission in France. […]

[4]    The claimant watches the first Sucroë airing in Montreal on September 8, 1995, and an ad promoting it a few days earlier. […]

(Note: Robinson Sucroë is the name of the plagiarized work, as acknowledged by the Court.)

[5]    There is no question in the Court’s mind that Cinar and its directors, Charest and Weinberg, had access to Curiosité and to exhibit P-18, key conditions to carry out their service contract.

[6]    After Charest had denied knowing the claimant and his work, Curiosité, following a phone call from the RCMP on October 26, 1995, and after Cinar, in response to a formal demand sent on October 2, 1995, by Me De Kinder—the claimant’s attorney—denied ever knowing him, on November 14, 1995, Weinberg states to the police that he remembers him, in these words:

“Now I remember Claude Robinson, I met him, he had a project with a name similar I think it was Robinson Curiosity but nothing specific.”

[…]

[7]    Furthermore, Charest and Weinberg participated in the MIP-TV 87 event. It seems highly unlikely that they did not have prior notice of the promotional journal that was distributed in Cannes less than one year after their contract had expired, knowing the claimant was present since they had met him twice. The fact that they persist not to recognize the claimant is another way to camouflage their cheating.

[8]    The Court concludes that they had access to the drawings, scenarios and bible (P-18 and P-27), since they were both documents they had received from the claimant to fulfill their service contract. They also had access to the promotional journal distributed in Cannes. […]

(Note: Claude Robinson hired Micheline Charest and Ronald Weinberg in 1986, for a six month contract, to promote his work to American broadcasters and distributors. In 197, he presents his project to Christophe Izard among others, the future “author” of Robinson Sucroë, at the MIP-TV 97, a television and audiovisual show, in Cannes.)

[9]    The Court does not believe Izard. He does not tell the truth, and his behaviour does not inspire us to give credibility to his testimony. Of course, he has produced many shows in the past. However, his greed has not helped him at all. […]

[10]     If Izard, recipient of the Légion d’honneur, can sign SACD documents with honour after providing information he knows to be false, he will not mind using the work of other creators. […]

[11]     The Court is under the impression that the defendants do not know which way to turn. At another instance, Izard states the name Boum Boum was inspired from Les Pierrafeu, while in the French version, its name is Bam-Bam. It would be so easy to tell the truth.

[12]     These twisted explanations only strengthen the Court’s conviction that Izard copied two names from characters created by the claimant: Gertrude and Boum Boum.

[13]     Considering this lack of reserve, what should be made of the other declarations he made before the Court? […]

[14]     From this testimony, The Court understands that the claimant’s work had so much style and character that, even fifteen years after Willenson’s solicitation in the United-States, he still remembers it.

[15]     The Court must acknowledge the claimant’s talent and the considerable efforts he deployed to create his characters, define their personalities, their interactions, the locations, the themes to develop, as well as the theme song.

[16]     In the Court’s mind, it is clear that the claimant exercised his talent and judgement to create his children’s television show. He has drawn upon his and his co-writers’ personal knowledge. The project shows the claimant exercised judgement when targeting his audience, defining the show’s content as he aims for curiosity, educative content and entertainment.

[17]     The Court believes the claimant exercised his talent and judgement to write scenarios and synopsises, to draw and plan the whole work and to write the theme song, and that it is indeed an original work […]

[18]     Curiosité is a television show for children aged between 5 and 9. Each 30-minute episode is independent and composed of real beings and puppets. The show’s purpose is to be entertaining, educative by using gags that serve the scenario, as specified by the following: With its inhabitants, it’s never boring at Curious Island. Burlesque and crazy adventures are always happening. Everything makes way for discoveries and knowledge.

[19]     Regarding Sucroë, this work can be described this way: it is a cartoon-type episodic show that is extravagant, caricatural and entertaining in essence, where various themes are central to each of the 26 episodes.

[20]     Upon review, the Court believes Curiosité is a literary work composed of various works: dramatic due to its scenarios, artistic due to its drawings and musical due to its theme song.

[21]     The Court does not hesitate to conclude that Curiosité is an original work within the meaning of the CA (Note: Copyright Act), composed of drawings, synopsises and scenarios that are found in exhibits P-18, P-27 and P-30, and that the work comprises various other works such as drawings, scenarios and the theme song. Regarding the personalities of the characters created, they emanate from the global nature of the creation.

[22]     However, Dr. Perraton was clear and precise on this aspect and answered within the limitations of his mandate. The defendants’ strategy is obvious: to improve their position by having the claimant’s expert perform their work. Does this recognize the weakness of their own expert’s report, Ms. Dansereau?

[23]     Obviously, rigor was not a criterion. Of course, some mistakes can appear in a work of this magnitude, but it is important to deploy all the necessary efforts, which Ms. Dansereau has not done. She took her work lightly and now wants the Court to give it any credibility.

[24]     After months of preparation, hearings and deliberations, the Court is well placed to assess the task’s scope. Despite Ms. Dansereau’s talent, it is impossible for her to have performed a serious report in so little time. The Court ascertains there are serious gaps in her study, report and testimony. […]

[25]     Several witnesses have testified there were structural problems and a total lack of organization regarding the production of Sucroë.

[26]     On his end, Sander states to the RCMP that there are structural problems and a total lack of organization regarding the production of Sucroë. But, he is not the only one to do so. Haillard, defence witness, acknowledges lack of structure and organization, and the hardships that resulted. It is what justified Sander to submit that the only possible explanation for this disorganization was plagiarism […]

[27]     […] a strong unanimity emerges, except for Ms. Dansereau, all assessing that the similarities are substantial. However, Ms. Danserau, while refusing to admit there are similarities, precises that to avoid confusion, she had changed the title of the show.  […]

[28]     Following a careful and alert review, the Court concludes that the characters present in Curiosité have been retrieved in Sucroë, as well as some of the claimant’s drawings, such as, Robinson’s and the “L” house, and the characteristics of the following characters (Note: A list of six characters follows.) […]

[29]     The Court concludes that the defendants reproduced the essence, the substance and the vital part of Curiosité […] and does not hesitate to conclude that Curiosité was plagiarized, in contravention of CA regulations. […]

[30]     All these actions taken by the defendants reveal their bad faith. They applied some of the recommendations they made to the claimant to Sucroë, and then deny knowing him and try to minimize the links they have to him and his work in a shocking manner. Yet, they persist to claim they did not have access to the work.

[31]     Deceit was the rule of thumb. […]

(Note: The judge orders all copies, original artwork, drawings, etc., from Robinson Sucroë to be handed to Claude Robinson within 30 days. He also orders the claimant to destroy them within 60 days.)

[32]     This delay will allow the claimant, to organize a private party to destroy them, thus ending his nightmare. He will be able to seize this occasion to start a new chapter, find happiness within himself and take care of his loved ones who suffered with him during the past thirteen years.

[33]     The proof reveals the true creative character of the claimant before he knew his work had been plagiarized. He states that due to the emotional shock that occurred when he found out, the thirteen years that followed were infernal for him and his loved ones.

[34]     Several witnesses testified before the Court that prior to September 1995, when Sucroë first aired, the claimant was a joyful person who was passionate about his work—an extremely creative and innovative person. He was a hard-working and respected man in his milieu who had good relationships with his clients. […]

(Note: The judgement quotes the testimony of Dr. Louis Côté, psychiatrist. An extract follows.)

In addition to the initial feeling surprise, as well as symptoms of anorexia, weight loss, vomitus, physiological reactions manifesting through his beard turning white and sleep disorders with recurring nightmares he has presented, Mr. Robinson is also affected by the following symptomatology: he presents revival symptoms of his initial state of shock under the form of an intense emotional distress accompanied with cries and a feeling of paralysis each time he tries to sit at his computer, which is closely linked to the work that was plagiarized. His psychological distress is strong enough to prevent him from working at his computer. The same symptoms break out when he tries to watch television—the device that is closely linked to the shock he suffered. His feelings of psychological distress manifest through important anxiety feelings, concentration disorders, confusion, suppression of his ability to concentrate and painful physical sensations.” […]

[35]     Charest, Weinberg and Izard have tried to deceive the Court when it comes to their implication in the creation of Sucroë by pretending they simply oversaw the financial aspect. […]

[36]     The way they conduct their business is based on cheating, lying and dishonesty. They do not hesitate to tamper with contracts in order to inflate production costs and thus obtain grants and modify the level of their involvement in order to qualify by virtue of the bilateral agreement between France and Quebec.

[37]     They shamelessly produced false statements about Canadian content and authors.

[38]     How can we qualify such a behaviour?

[39]     In the present case, the defendants’ behaviour is outrageous, premeditated and deliberate. Even during the process, they kept on dissimulating their wrongful acts.

[40]     The objective of these punitive damages is to prevent similar cases and to punish these white-collar criminals, in order to deter them from repeating their stratagem and punish their scandalous, immoral and despicable behaviour.

[41]     In this case, the exemplary damages will send a clear message to producers: fraud, counterfeiting, copying, and lying to the Court will not be tolerated, and creators are protected. They are often destitute and do not have the persistence, energy nor the determination required to face a judicial guerrilla, without taking the costs implied into account.

[42]     The defendants—Charest, Weinberg and CINAR—were aware of the importance of Curiosité for his creator. They knew how passionate he was about it, and how much energy, effort and passion he had invested in it. They flouted him without scruples.

[43]     There are few individuals who, in the face of adversity, keep on fighting and strive to see the truth triumph. This aspect plays in favour to grant the claimant exemplary damages. […]