MAMMA MIA, LET THE CLAIM GO: Copyright Claim Respecting Queen Music Videos Struck with Leave to Amend

A case management judge of the Federal Court partially struck out a claim brought by the trustee of Bruce Gowers’ estate against Queen Productions Limited, Sony Music Entertainment, and Sony Music Entertainment Canada Inc, as provided in the January 14, 2026 decision of Rosenstein v Queen Productions Limited, 2026 CanLii 3372. Mr. Gowers was a British director and producer, known for directing live music and award specials, as well as music videos for renown performers including Queen, The Rolling Stones, Rod Stewart, Rush, and Michael Jackson.

The trustee brought a claim for copyright infringement of several Queen music videos, which had been uploaded to YouTube and for which the plaintiff claimed copyright ownership in. The defendants brought a motion to strike under Rule 221(1)(a), (c), and (f), alleging that (i) the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim; (ii) the claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action; and (iii) the claim was scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of court process. Ultimately, the Court agreed there was no reasonable cause of action pled for claims against the Sony defendants or for the secondary infringement cause of action, but gave the trustee leave to amend the claim to correct the identified defects.

With respect to the lack of jurisdiction allegation, the Court found it was not plain and obvious that the Federal Court lacks jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim. As evidence may be adduced in motions to strike concerning jurisdictional questions, the parties’ evidence and submissions centered on whether, based on YouTube’s infrastructure, the reproductions could be said to actually occur in Canada or were rather centered in the United States. The Court found that the evidence before it was either inadmissible as being hearsay, such that there was no evidence in support of the defendant’s argument on this point of the motion, or if admissible, the mixed evidence was indicative that it was not plain and obvious that reproductions were not occurring in Canada.

Regarding the allegation that the claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, the Court found that the claim and particulars following the claim focused on Queen Productions Limited’s actions and did not include sufficient material facts with respect to the Sony defendants. As such, the claims against the Sony defendants were struck for lack of material facts. Similarly, the Court found the claims in respect of secondary infringement also lacked materials facts and thus struck that cause of action from the claim.

Lastly, the Court dismissed the defendants’ allegations that the claim was scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The defendants’ arguments on these grounds rested on the timing of the plaintiff’s registration of copyright in the music videos, which seemed to have occurred close to or during litigation despite the videos being made in the 1970’s, as well as the fact that the music videos had been uploaded to YouTube years before the commencement of the action. The Court reasoned that there is no time limitation to file copyright registration (although registration close to or during litigation may reduce the weight given to the presumption of ownership and copyright subsistence afforded by the Act), and noted there was no dispute that Bruce Gowers played a role in the creation of the videos (such that this was not a case where there was no factual basis for the claim of copyright ownership). The Court further explained that at least some activities alleged to be infringing were ongoing or recent, and the claim itself states that Mr. Gowers was not aware the videos had been uploaded until 2019.

Ultimately, the Court granted leave to amend the defects in respect of deficient material facts plead against the Sony defendants as well as secondary infringement, explaining that it was not clear that the lack of material facts on these allegations could not be cured by amendments.

The main takeaway of this decision: plead sufficient material facts, or risk your claim biting the dust.