[5] In this case, the LSUC, which maintains and operates the Great Library at Osgoode Hall, engaged in two relevant behaviours.
The court said that, according to S. 80(1)[9] of the Copyright Act, making a personal copy of a sound recording for one's own private purposes is not infringement.
[10] The record companies went further, suggesting that the individuals were involved in authorization of copyright infringement, since they were members of a peer (shared) network.
The court uses an analogy: there is no difference between a library full of copyrighted materials with a self-service photocopier, per CCH, and making a shared folder on the Internet.
"[12] Some experts, such as University of Toronto Law Professor Ariel Katz, suggest that the analogy to CCH is flawed, since library use is far more constrained and requires higher transaction costs than does Internet use.
If a person turns a blind eye or honestly but mistakenly believes the goods are non-infringing, he will still be presumed to have the requisite knowledge.
According to Vaver, the case stands for the following: that an exclusive licensee cannot sue the importer of non-copyrighted materials (i.e. the chocolate bars) based on the incidental copyrighted subject matter associated with it (i.e. the wrappers).
According to intellectual property expert and professor, Ariel Katz, S. 27(2)(e) is not meant to prevent parallel importation and the resulting market arbitrage.