STEM director created works under consulting agreement with company that stopped paying him
Canada’s Federal Court has awarded damages to a director of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) for an educational services provider’s infringement of his copyright in quick reference guides he developed under a consulting agreement between them.
In Rayman v. Red Crayon Inc., 2026 FC 951, the plaintiff was a clinical associate at the London Health Sciences Centre’s cardiac surgery division, while the defendant was a for-profit after-school supplementary education franchise.
Under the parties’ consulting agreement executed on May 21, 2021, the plaintiff would serve as STEM director.
Thus, the plaintiff began working to develop the defendant’s STEM program on LEGO education kits. Independently, he created guides for the defendant’s franchisees and tutors to use the LEGO kits more effectively.
Sometime in November 2023, the parties’ relationship broke down. Even though it stopped paying the plaintiff’s invoices or replying to his emails, the defendant kept using the works he developed.
In an Oct. 15, 2025, statement of claim against the defendant, the plaintiff alleged copyright infringement in the six works the defendant contracted him to create. After the defendant failed to file a defence, the plaintiff moved for default judgment.
Motion judge’s ruling
Last Apr. 22, a judge dismissed the motion. The motion judge saw evidentiary gaps in the plaintiff’s materials, which prevented her from granting default judgment.
Specifically, the judge determined that the plaintiff failed to comply with the service requirement in r. 130(1)(a)(ii) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, and provided insufficient evidence to explain how the defendant accessed and infringed the works.
The judge permitted the plaintiff to refile the motion with better evidence. The plaintiff brought a renewed motion.
Defendant in default
The Federal Court found that the plaintiff filled the evidentiary gaps, including by clarifying or correcting the evidence of infringement.
Based on the evidence submitted, the court confirmed that the defendant was in default for failing to respond to the statement of claim within the time required under r. 204 of the Federal Courts Rules.
Thus, the court found the plaintiff entitled to default judgment. Specifically, the court awarded the plaintiff:
- a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from further copyright infringement
- $78,000 in total statutory damages for copyright infringement, comprising $13,000 per work under s. 38.1 of the Copyright Act, 1985
- $5,000 in lump sum costs
- pre-judgment interest
Copyright infringement
The Federal Court declared that the plaintiff owned the copyright in the six works. Based on the evidence presented, the court ruled that the defendant infringed the plaintiff’s copyright in the works under s. 27(1) of the Copyright Act.
The court held that the consulting agreement did not grant the defendant any licence or assignment to use the works.
The court added that the defendant could no longer use the works after it ceased paying the plaintiff in November 2023 because the defendant’s right to use and keep displaying the works was conditional on its payment of a fee for service.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest intellectual property law news on the main page!
