The entity administers the reproduction of such works by issuing licences and collecting and distributing royalties to affiliated copyright owners.

[1] Teachers in elementary and secondary schools across Canada frequently make photocopies of excerpts from textbooks and other published works that form Access Copyright's collection.

Access Copyright wanted to revise the royalty scheme in the agreements as between the provinces and the Ontario School Boards (the "Coalition").

[2] Although the copies made at the teachers' initiative for student instruction fell under the allowable purpose of "research or private study", the Board concluded that they did not constitute fair dealing and were therefore subject to a royalty.

[4] The Coalition appealed the fair dealing issue to the Supreme Court maintaining that the Board's conclusion was not in accordance with the test in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 SCR 339 and was therefore unreasonable.

The majority, McLachlin CJ and Abella, LeBel, Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ, agreed with the Coalition and remanded the matter to the Board for reconsideration.

The dissent, Deschamps, Fish, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ, held that there was no reviewable error made by the Board and that the appeal should not be allowed.

The first is to determine whether the dealing is for the allowable purpose of "research or private study", "criticism or review", or "news reporting" under the Copyright Act.

If the Board's approach was followed, "schools would be required to buy sufficient copies for every student of every text, magazine and newspaper in Access Copyright's repertoire that is relied on by a teacher."

The majority concluded that photocopying short excerpts is reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose of "research" and "private study" for the ultimate users, the students.

For example, if a copy was made of materials that were tailored to the learning needs or interests of a single or small number of students, this would be considered "private study".

[21] Under the "character of the dealing" factor, the Board correctly focused its analysis on the fact that multiple copies of the same excerpt were made at one time for dissemination to the whole class.

[23] The dissent agreed with the majority that the Board erred when it concluded, without supporting evidence by Counsel, that the photocopies competed with the original, thus making the dealing unfair.