Cinar Corp v Robinson[2] is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada in the field of copyright law, which has impact in many key aspects of it, including:

[3] Robinson perceived that Sucroë was a blatant copy of Curiosity, and subsequently discovered that Cinar, together with several of its principals, were also involved in its production.

Robinson and Nilem commenced an action for copyright infringement against Cinar, its principals, and other parties connected with the production of Sucroë.

Under Canadian jurisprudence, the appellants (in this case, Ronald Weinberg and the succession[b] of his late wife Micheline Charest) had the burden of proving the loss of copyright, which they failed to discharge.

[9] The SCC did not interfere with the conclusions of the courts below, and agreed that the title to Curiosity had reverted to the plaintiffs in 1990 under the terms of the 1987 agreement, following the dissolution of the other corporation in question.

[24] On the other hand, it also agreed with the Quebec Court of Appeal in concluding that the CEO of France Animation could not be held personally liable for copyright infringement on any of the grounds argued.

[40][41][42][43] Evidence at the original trial revealed a series of financial improprieties at Cinar, including earnings misstatements, improperly handled related party transactions, and tax fraud,[44] which led to the ouster of its founders,[45] its delisting from Canadian stock exchanges and from Nasdaq,[46] its acquisition by the Cookie Jar Group (now part of DHX Media),[47][48] and numerous administrative and judicial proceedings.

[52][53] The SCC decision attracted considerable comment in the Canadian legal profession, not least because this was the seventh ruling to come down from the Court on copyright law in eighteen months.

"[56] Legal commentators have also pointed out certain areas for further consideration:[57] Cinar also extended the Court's earlier Monsanto[58] guidance for the accounting of profits to the field of copyright law.

[f] While some commentators suggested that Cinar did not offer a principled approach on the matter, others contend that lost profits from so-called "convoyed" goods are prima facie recoverable.

[60] The analysis by the trial judge and the Court of Appeal (which was supported by the SCC) has also attracted discussion as to the impact this case may have on derivative works, such as those used in remix recordings, especially in the context of incomplete creations such as Curiosity was.