PLAYING HOOKY: Federal Court Grants Default Judgment Against Tutoring Company for Copyright Infringement

The Federal Court released its decision of Rayman v. Red Crayon Inc., 2026 FC 951 on July 15, 2026 in respect of a default judgment for copyright infringement. The Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion, finding the Defendant had infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright in six works directed to after-school and summer camp STEM curriculum and lesson plan materials (the “Works”).

The Plaintiff, a clinical associate of cardiac surgery at London Health Sciences Centre, had entered into a consulting agreement with the Defendant, Red Crayon Inc., a for-profit after school tutoring company. Through this consulting agreement, the Defendant was to pay the Plaintiff, who would assume the role as Director of STEM at Red Crayon Inc., $50,000 per year. The agreement specified that the Plaintiff was to be an independent contractor as opposed to employee of the Defendant and further stated that the agreement would not result in the transfer of either party’s intellectual property rights to the other party. The Plaintiff created the Works following the parties signing the agreement in May 2021, with the Defendant thereafter posting the Works to their online database for franchisees, tutors, and students.

However, by November 2023, the Defendant had stopped paying the Plaintiff and would not respond to emails or a demand letter, leading to the Plaintiff commencing an action for copyright infringement in October 2025. Following the Defendant’s failure to file a statement of defence, the Plaintiff brought a first motion for default judgment, which was denied on the basis that the motion judge was not satisfied the service requirements for pleadings had been met, as well as insufficient evidence to explain how the Works were infringed. As the motion judge’s order allowed the Plaintiff to refile the motion with better evidence, the Plaintiff subsequently brought a second motion for default judgment, leading to the decision at hand.

The Court first determined that the Plaintiff had properly served the claim onto the Defendant, in that a “person apparently in charge” had received the claim in accordance with Federal Court Rule 130(1)(a)(ii) – something the motion judge took issue with at the first default motion. The Court found that the Plaintiff’s new evidence addressed how service to a front desk employee satisfied the service requirements, as it provided that service was affected at the Defendant’s registered corporate address, and that the main receptionist had agreed to accept legal documents for the corporation. The Court was thus satisfied the Defendant was in default.

Second, the Court determined that the Defendant has infringed copyright of the Plaintiff’s Works. At the first motion, the motion judge found that the Plaintiff had not adequately explained how the Defendant’s franchisees, tutors, and students could access the Works. The Plaintiff’s new evidence described in a more fulsome way how such individuals could access the Works in the Defendant’s online database, including screenshots of the Works as they appear in the database. From this evidence, and because the consulting agreement did not grant the Defendant any license or assignment to the Works (meaning that the Defendant’s right to use and display the Works was contingent upon payment to the Plaintiff), the Court found that the Plaintiff provided sufficient evidence of copyright infringement.

The Court then assessed the question of damages. The Plaintiff had requested the maximum amount of statutory damages available under section 38.1 of the Copyright Act ($20,000 per work, for a total damages award of $120,000 for the Works). The Court found that the Defendant had been acting in bad faith by failing to remove the Works from their online database following receipt of the claim, and that failure to respond to the Plaintiff’s emails and demand letter, as well as its disregard for Court processes, were aggravating factors. The Court also considered the Plaintiff’s actual damages of $75,000 in failed payments to be a relevant consideration. Ultimately, the Court concluded that awarding the maximum amount of statutory damages would be disproportionate to the infringement, particularly considering that the Plaintiff’s actual damages were in relation to services beyond just creation of the Works. An award of $13,000 per work infringed, for a total of $78,000 was thus awarded. The Court also declined to award punitive damages requested by the Plaintiff, as the consulting agreement expressly provided that neither party to the agreement could be liable for punitive damages arising from breach of the contract.