J'ai édité mon lien, si cela ne fonctionne pas et compte tenu des difficultés d'accès au site pour certains , je reproduis le jugement rendu:
SUPERIOR COURT
(Criminal Division)
CANADA
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
DISTRICT OF MONTREAL
No: 500-36-003388-041
DATE:
June 22nd, 2005
PRESIDING :
THE HONOURABLE CAROL COHEN, J.S.C.
MICROSOFT CANADA CO.
Appellant
v.
ORDRE DES INGÉNIEURS DU QUÉBEC
Respondent
JUDGMENT
[1] Can Appellant Microsoft Canada Co. («Microsoft») authorize or encourage individuals who are not members of the Respondent Order of Engineers to use the title Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer?
[2] Quebec Court Judge Claude Millette answered no on April 5th, 2004, and fined the company $1,000 under section 188 of the Quebec Professional Code[1].
[3] Microsoft has now appealed its conviction to the Quebec Superior Court, sitting in criminal division.
The facts
[4] In 2002, the American software company Microsoft Corporation, along with its Canadian affiliate, Microsoft Canada Co., had put into place a certification process in Canada and elsewhere, in order to designate individuals who had successfully completed a course of training in relation to the company's software products and who could support these products with Microsoft customers. These individuals were designated Microsoft Certified Systems Engineers (in French, Ingénieur certifié système Microsoft) and the company specifically authorized use of this title, along with the corresponding initials «M.C.S.E.».
[5] In the words of Patricia Meta[2], Training and Certification Manager for Microsoft at the time, the certification Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer was awarded to persons who had «attained the skills required to support our software properly», in order to «identify these people in the market place» :
We would suggest that people working with our software be certified so that a customer could recognize that they have actually taken the examinations from Microsoft and they have some representation that they have skills with our software.[3]
[6] Although the certification was specifically in relation to Microsoft software, Microsoft Certified Systems Engineers were neither usually nor necessarily Microsoft employees. It was also not a requirement that these individuals hold degrees in engineering nor that they become, or remain, members of local professional orders, such as the Respondent Order of Engineers[4].
[7] One such individual, Alain Filion, received his certification as a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer in 1998. Mr. Filion, who did not hold a university degree in engineering and was not a member of the Order of Engineers, testified at trial that he used this certification along with the words «systems engineer» on his business cards, and when servicing Microsoft clients. He described the training he received from Microsoft in order to attain this certification as follows :
Q. Voulez-vous dire à la Cour ce qu'est un systems engineer dans votre domaine, monsieur Filion?
R. Bien, c'est une certification qui est donnée par Microsoft. On doit, bien sûr, passer une série d'examens sur les plateformes Microsoft.
Q. N'allez pas trop vite.
R. O.K., on doit passer une série d'examens. On doit suivre des cours qui représentent une somme de travail, je dirais, à peu près équivalent à celle d'un bac, O.K., qui est concentrée sur les produits Microsoft, sur l'architecture des produits Microsoft, les systèmes d'exploitation Microsoft de réseau, les serveurs, d'une part; les poste clients, d'autre part, qui connectent à des serveurs pour utiliser des applications connectées sur des bases de données, ces choses-là, pour aller sur Internet, la messagerie. Ça inclut aussi tout le développement d'applications custom qu'on peut faire: système comptable, système financier, toutes ces choses-là, qui utilisent des technologies Microsoft.
Alors, la certification de system engineer qui est donnée chez Microsoft est une certification qui fait en sorte que les gens qui détiennent cette certification-là sont confidents … sont confiants avec leurs produits, puis ils sont efficaces chez les clients. Alors, ces gens-là ont prouvé … prouvent à la clientèle qu'ils sont capables de supporter, puis d'être à l'aise avec les technologies qui sont en place chez les clients.[5]
[8] In July 2002, Mr. Filion received an undated[6] letter in both French and English from Microsoft, which Ms. Meta testified she had signed on behalf of the company and forwarded to all Microsoft Certified Systems Engineers in Canada. The French version of this letter began as follows :
À compter de ce jour, Microsoft Canada Co. annonce son intention de continuer à utiliser le mot «ingénieur» dans la désignation ingénieur système certifié Microsoft. Nous désirons aviser toute personne qui détient la certification d'ingénieur système certifié Microsoft qu'elle peut continuer à utiliser le terme ingénieur dans le cadre du titre d'ingénieur système certifié Microsoft.
Dans un effort constant pour clarifier la situation, Microsoft a évalué tout au long de l'année dernière l'utilisation du terme «ingénieur» tel qu'il figure dans sa désignation d'ingénieur système certifié Microsoft. Nous avons examiné les questions d'ordre juridique soulevées par le Conseil canadien des ingénieurs professionnels et par les associations provinciales d'ingénieurs qui s'opposent à notre prise de position. Selon nous, le terme «ingénieur système» est largement utilisé au sein de l'industrie des technologies de l'information, il a atteint une notoriété propre et il ne sous-entend pas qu'une personne est ingénieur. […][7]
(emphasis added)
[9] The English version of the letter was almost identical, although it is worth noting that the term «aviser», in French, underlined in the first paragraph above, appears in English as «instruct» rather than the more literal translation of «advise» :
Effective immediately, Microsoft Canada Co. is announcing its intention to continue to use the word «engineer» as part of the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE) designation. At this time we would like to instruct anyone holding the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer certification to feel free to continue to use the term as part of the designation description.
In an ongoing effort to clarify this issue, Microsoft has spent the past year evaluating the use of the term «engineer» as it is referenced in our certification designation Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE). We have considered the legal issues raised by the CCPE and the Provincial Engineering associations that are in opposition to our position. Our view is that the term systems engineer is a well-recognized title that has been used for many years in the IT industry and it does not represent that one is a professional engineer. […][8]
(emphasis added)
[10] On July 25th, 2002, Microsoft also issued a newswire and a press release in almost similar terms, publicly announcing its intention to continue using the word «engineer» in its designation Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer. The press release began as follows :
MISSISSAUGA, ON, le 25 juillet /CNW/ - Microsoft Canada Co. annonce aujourd'hui qu'elle continuera à utiliser le mot «ingénieur» dans la désignation ingénieur système certifié Microsoft. […][9]
[11] Ms. Meta explained the reasoning behind this press release and behind the letters she signed on behalf of the company in July 2002 :
Q. As P-6. Now, Mrs. Meta, would you tell the Court why Microsoft Canada sent the letter P-1, P-2, the email P-5 and the … and issued the newswire or the public release P-6 at that particular time?
A. We were informing our community that they could continue to use their certifications in Canada.
Q. Why so?
A. There had been some talk or suggestions that … looking at our position in the past and also looking at a global change for our certification name, we did our research and did look into the situation and we were just updating or informing our certified people that we were going to continue to use the Microsoft Certified System Engineer title.[10]
[12] In fact, Mr. Filion testified that he did not change his use of the title Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer following his receipt of these letters, and that he continued to use the title much as he had before :
Q. Quand vous avec reçu la pièce P-1, quelle a été votre réaction, monsieur Filion? Qu'est-ce que vous saviez du contenu de cette lettre-là antérieurement, avant de l'avoir reçue?
R. Bien, rien de bien, bien spécial. On a reçu ça, moi, j'ai mis ça dans le dossier Microsoft, puis j'ai pas vraiment fait autre chose avec ça.[11]
[13] Proof was made at trial concerning contemporaneous efforts between Microsoft and the Order of Engineers to resolve their differences as to the use of this designation and Microsoft also attempted to produce a series of exhibits which would establish current use of the word «engineer» in Canada. The trial judge granted an objection to the production of these last documents on the grounds that such use was not pertinent to the charge and the Court will deal with this objection below, as the first judge's refusal to permit these documents was raised as part of the present appeal.
The law
[14] The term «engineer» is defined in the Engineers Act[12] (the «Act») as any member in good standing of the Order of Engineers (the «Order») :
1. In this act and in the regulations made thereunder, unless the context indicates a different meaning, the following words mean :
(a) "Order": the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec constituted by this act;
[…]
(c) "member": a person entered on the roll of the Order;
(d) "engineer": a member of the Order;
(e) "roll": the list of the members in good standing of the Order drawn up in accordance with the Professional Code and this act.
[…]
5. Nothing in this Act shall:
[…] c) deprive members of the Ordre des ingénieurs forestiers du Québec of the right to use the title of forest engineer […][13]
[15] Section 22 of the Act provides that no person who is not a member in good standing of the Order may assume the title of engineer, alone or qualified, and creates an offence under the Quebec Professional Code (the «Code») [14] with respect to those who do so :
22. Any person not a member in good standing of the Order who :
1) performs any of the acts contemplated in section 3 of this Act,
2) assumes the title of engineer alone or qualified, or makes use of any abbreviation of such title, or of any name, title or designation which might lead to the belief that he is an engineer or a member of the Order,
3) advertises himself as such,
4) acts in such a manner as to lead to the belief that he is authorized to fulfil the office of or to act as an engineer,
[…]
is guilty of an offence and is liable to the penalties provided in section 188 of the Professional Code (chapter C-26).[15]
(emphasis added)
[16] The Code, which governs engineers and other professionals, creates other offences with respect to individuals who use designated titles, including the title of engineer, without the credentials established and regulated by their professional orders, and with respect to those who encourage such unauthorized use by non-members of the Order, through «authorization, advice, an order or encouragement» :
32. No person shall claim in any manner to be an advocate, notary, pharmacist, optometrist, veterinary surgeon, agrologist, architect, engineer, land-surveyor, forest engineer, chemist, chartered accountant, radiology technologist, denturologist, dispensing optician, chiropractor, hearing-aid acoustician, podiatrist, nurse, acupuncturist, bailiff, midwife or geologist, or use one of the above titles or any other title or abbreviation which may lead to the belief that he is one, or initials which may lead to the belief that he is one, or engage in a professional activity reserved to the members of a professional order, claim to have the right to do so or act in such a way as to lead to the belief that he is authorized to do so, unless he holds a valid, appropriate permit and is entered on the roll of the order empowered to issue the permit, unless it is allowed by law.
The prohibition relating to the use of any titles, abbreviations or initials mentioned in the first paragraph or in an Act constituting a professional order extends to the use of such titles, abbreviations and initials in a feminine form.
[…]
188.1 Every person is guilty of an offence and is liable, for each offence, to the fine prescribed in section 188 who knowingly
1) without being a member of a professional order, allows himself to be announced or designated by a title, an abbreviation of that title or initials reserved for members of the order, or by a title, an abbreviation or initials that may lead to the belief that he is a member of the order;
2) announces or designates a person who is not a member of a professional order by a title, an abbreviation of that title or initials reserved for members of the order, or by a title, an abbreviation or initials that may lead to the belief that the person is a member of the order;
3) through authorization, advice, an order or encouragement, otherwise than by seeking or obtaining professional services form a person who is not a member of a professional order whose members practise an exclusive profession or engage in a professional activity that is reserved under section 37.1, causes a person who is not a member of the professional order
(a) to engage in professional activities reserved for the members of the order;
(b) to use a title or an abbreviation of that title reserved for the members of the order, or a title or abbreviation that may lead to the belief that the person is a member of the order; […][16]
[17] Finally, section 188 of the Code provides penalties for offences created both under the Code itself and under the Act :
188. Every person who contravenes a provision of this Code, or of the Act or letters patent constituting an order or of an amalgamation of integration order is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine of not less than $600 nor more than $6 000.[17]
The first judgment
[18] Appellant Microsoft was charged under section 188.1 of the Code with having authorized, advised, ordered or encouraged Mr. Filion, who was not a member of the Order, to use the title engineer, alone or qualified, contravening the above-cited sections of the Act and the Code. The sole count brought against Microsoft on June 16th, 2003 read as follows :
Le ou vers le 25 juillet 2002, à St-Jérôme, district de Terrebonne, a sciemment amené, par une autorisation ou un encouragement, une personne qui n'est pas membre de l'Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec, à savoir monsieur Alain Filion, à utiliser le titre d'ingénieur, commettant par là l'infraction prévue à l'article 188.1 du Code des professions, L.R.Q., c. C-26 et se rendant ainsi passible de l'amende prévue à l'article 188 du Code des professions.
[19] The first judge found Microsoft guilty as charged in a lengthy oral judgment, of which the following extracts bear reproduction :
[…] depuis ce matin que j'ai l'article 22 sous les yeux et je dois vous avouer que je ne vois pas comment je peux y déroger ou vous donner raison. Je dois vous dire que j'adhère totalement à la thèse de maître Frère.
Il est bien possible, et j'en suis conscient, que le terme "ingénieur" tel qu'il est prévu … tel qu'il est stipulé dans la loi ne correspond peut-être pas ou ne correspond peut-être plus à la réalité commerciale ou technologique moderne. Parce que c'est exact que le terme "ingénieur" a été utilisé, si j'ose dire, à toutes les sauces.
[…]
Mais je n'ai pas à me poser ces questions-là, je n'ai qu'à prendre le texte de l'article 22 et qui m'apparaît très clair. […]
Evidemment, la première question que j'ai à décider est : Est-ce que, factuellement, la poursuite a bien démontré que Microsoft Canada a amené, par une autorisation ou un engagement, monsieur Filion à utiliser le titre d'ingénieur.
[…]
[…] comme le texte de l'article 188 est alternatif et comporte le terme "autorisation". Et dans le cas d'un autorisation ou d'un ordre, il me semble que le lien de causalité est beaucoup plus évident, il va de soi. Lorsqu'une personne donne un ordre à quelqu'un de faire quelque chose et que cette personne le fait, je ne pense pas qu'il soit nécessaire d'argumenter longtemps sur le lien de cause à effet. Et de la même façon dans … en ce qui concerne une autorisation.
Et ceci m'apparaît d'autant plus évident lorsqu'on lit le texte du communiqué, si j'ose dire, ou de la lettre qui a été envoyée à monsieur Filion en juillet deux mille deux (2002). […] Donc, puisque… à mon avis, cette lettre constitue clairement une autorisation, puisqu'on y énonce, et je cite […]
[…]
C'est clairement une autorisation que l'on donne et même si monsieur Filion, ça a semblé hésitant à ce chapitre, il m'apparaît évident que c'est une autorisation, parce que Microsoft fait référence à un titre qu'elle a, elle-même, décerné suite à un cours qu'elle dispense; il m'apparaît évident que, sans cette autorisation, monsieur Filion n'aurait pas pu continuer à utiliser le titre en question, puisque Microsoft Company a senti le besoin de lui donner cette autorisation.
Alors, à mon avis, le lien de causalité entre ce document et les agissements subséquents de monsieur Filion est indéniable, puisque si on lui avait intimé l'ordre de cesser, si, au lieu de lui donner l'autorisation de l'utiliser, on lui avait enlevé cette autorisation, il n'aurait pas pu. Alors, c'est évident que le document a permis la continuation de l'utilisation du titre en question.
Ceci étant, je reviens à ce que je disais tantôt, je reviens au texte de l'article 22 de la Loi sur les ingénieurs . […]
[…] l'article 22 érige en infraction, sous-paragraphe 2e, le fait de prendre le titre d'ingénieur seul ou avec qualificatifs.
Quant au reste du paragraphe, à mon avis, il paraît évident que la périphrase s'énonçant comme suit : "pouvant faire comprendre qu'il est ingénieur ou membre de l'ordre" s'applique aux termes qui précèdent : "ou d'un nom, titre ou désignation" sinon – et ce n'est pas du français – prend le titre d'ingénieur pouvant faire comprendre qu'il est ingénieur. A l'inverse, évidemment, si on se limitait "ou se sert d'une abréviation de ce titre, ou d'un nom, titre ou désignation" et si on s'arrête là, évidemment, ceci n'a aucune signification. Et on pourrait ériger en infraction le fait d'utiliser une désignation qui laisserait comprendre qu'on est ingénieur, puisque la première partie du deuxième paragraphe n'inclut que le fait de prendre le titre d'ingénieur.
Comme je vous le dis, ça ne correspond peut-être pas à la réalité technologique, mais je dois constater ce fait brutal, c'est que monsieur Filion, avec l'autorisation de Microsoft, utilise, prend le titre d'ingénieur avec d'autres qualificatifs, qui correspondent sans doute – et je ne mets nullement ça en doute – à des cours bien spécifiques qui sont dispensés par Microsoft et qui ne sont, peut-être, pas dispensés dans les facultés d'ingénierie, les universités. J'en suis conscient. Mais la loi étant ce qu'elle est, à mon avis, je ne peux pas y déroger.
Avec tout le respect pour l'opinion contraire, je vous dirai que je ne partage absolument pas l'opinion des Cours américaines dans les décisions que vous m'avez citées. Et j'oserais dire que ces décisions semblent relever d'une conception beaucoup plus libérale, du capitalisme et de la libre concurrence. Mais malheureusement, notre loi est très restrictive et je ne vois pas comment on pourrait passer outre.
C'est exact qu'il n'est pas nécessaire d'être ingénieur pour faire de l'informatique, pas plus qu'il est nécessaire d'être ingénieur pour faire un tas de choses. Mais à l'inverse, même si on fait de l'informatique, on ne peut pas dire 'ingénieur', à moins d'être un membre de l'Ordre. Je pense que c'est comme ça qu'il faut interpréter la loi.
Le législateur a décidé, et je pense que tout le monde est d'accord là-dessus, dans le but de protéger le public, peut-être à tort, peut-être cette législation est-elle trop restrictive, mais le législateur a décidé que, pour protéger le public on ne pouvait permettre à qui que ce soit d'autre qu'un membre de l'Ordre des ingénieurs de prendre le titre d'ingénieur, que ce terme soit utilisé seul, nous dit l'article 22, ou avec des qualificatifs. Et c'est exactement ce que monsieur Filion fait ici, avec l'autorisation de Microsoft.[18]
[20] In sum, the first judge concluded that both Mr. Filion and Microsoft had contravened the law (although only the latter was charged in this file), Mr. Filion for having assumed the qualified title of engineer while not a member of the Order[19], and Microsoft for having authorized, advised, ordered or encouraged such improper use[20]. The judge excluded evidence and arguments as to the actual use of the word engineer or as to confusion in the eyes of the public with respect to the title Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, in particular as the proof showed that Mr. Filion had in fact assumed the qualified title of engineer and that Microsoft had in fact authorized or even ordered use by Mr. Filion (and others) of such a qualified title.
Discussion
[21] The law is clear as to the limited criteria for intervention by a court sitting in appeal from a conviction such as this one. In the words of Justice Estey of the Supreme Court in Harper :
An appellate tribunal has neither the duty nor the right to reassess evidence at trial for the purpose of determining guilt or innocence. The duty of the appellate tribunal does, however, include a review of the record below in order to determine whether the trial court has properly directed itself to all of the evidence bearing on the relevant issues.[21]
[22] The Court will begin, therefore, with the issue of whether all pertinent evidence was admitted at trial.
[23] The following four sets of documents, furnished to the undersigned for the purpose of the present appeal, were deemed inadmissible by the first judge for the purpose of the charge against Microsoft :
1. List of Canadian University Programs in Software Engineering that do not lead to title of "Professional Engineer" and copies of University website.
2. List of French occupational titles from Human Resources Development Canada's National Occupational Classification that use the term "Engineer" but do not require licensing as a Professional Engineer and copies of Human Resources Development Canada website.
3. List of English occupational titles from Human Resources Development Canada's National Occupational Classification that use the term "Engineer" but do not require licensing as a Professional Engineer and copies of Human Resources Development Canada website.
4. List of IT Companies that use the designation "Systems Engineers" and copies of the IT Company websites.
[24] The undersigned has examined these documents and can see no error whatsoever in the first judge's refusal to consider them in relation to the charge brought against Microsoft.
[25] Microsoft was charged with having authorized, advised, ordered or encouraged Mr. Filion to use the title engineer (as part of the designation Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer), although he was not a member of the Order, contrary to section 22 of the Act and sections 32 and 188.1 of the Code. Microsoft was not charged with having authorized, advised, ordered or encouraged Mr. Filion to use another title, which might lead to the belief that he was an engineer.
[26] In fact, the proof showed that even Mr. Filion's use of the precise title engineer caused no confusion – he testified that no client had ever inquired as to whether he was in fact a member of the Order and that no complaints had ever been filed against him as a result of his use of this title[22].
[27] The trial judge himself remarked that he would not necessarily have concluded, merely from Mr. Filion's use of the designation Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, that he was a member of the Order, although he was careful to point out that the law did not allow for such a nuance to be made in the present case :
Autant je vous disais ce matin que, pour un profane, ingénieur de systèmes peut, peut-être, laisser croire qu'on est ingénieur, puis je suis prêt à concéder que M.C.S.E. ou Microsoft Certified Engineer, en tout cas, en ce qui me concerne, ne me laisse pas croire que ce monsieur est membre de l'Ordre des ingénieurs.
Sauf que c'est la loi. Il y aurait peut-être lieu de l'amender, mais ce n'est certainement pas mon domaine. Il ne relève certainement pas de ma juridiction de faire quelque commentaire que ce soit sur cette loi.[23]
[28] The undersigned agrees completely with this approach. Once use of the title "engineer", alone or qualified, by Mr. Filion had been established, the actual perception of the word "engineer", its everyday usage or even the possibility of confusion (or the absence of confusion) in the eyes of the public became irrelevant. The trial judge rightly held that the applicable statutes, as drafted, left no room for manoeuvre here.
[29] The title "engineer", alone or qualified, is reserved for use by members of the Order of Engineers, in virtue of sections 22 of the Act and 32 of the Code. The charge against Microsoft, brought pursuant to section 188.1(3) of the Code, was for having authorized, advised, ordered or encouraged such illicit use of a reserved title by a non-member of the Order.
[30] The various sections of the law must be read precisely and must be read together. The trial judge rightly stated that he must first establish (pursuant to section 22 of the Act) whether Mr. Filion, who was not a member of the Order, had used the reserved title "engineer" and then proceed to determine whether such use was authorized, advised, ordered or encouraged by Microsoft (contrary to section 188.1 of the Code). And the trial judge did find that the proof established, beyond a reasonable doubt, both that Mr. Filion, a non member of the Order, had used the reserved title "engineer", as part of the designation Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, and that Microsoft had authorized, ordered or encouraged such use, given the wording of the letters P-1 and P-2. There is no reason whatsoever for the Court to intervene in appeal, as a review of the record below indicates that the trial judge properly directed himself to all of the evidence bearing on all relevant issues.
[31] The other arguments raised by Microsoft in appeal are similar and equally unpersuasive.
[32] In its factum, Microsoft submits that the trial judge erred in refusing to establish common usage of the word "engineer" in everyday parlance, and more particularly in the technology field, arguing that it is wrong to restrict use of the word "engineer" to members of the Order :
As appears below, the word "engineer" is commonly used in everyday parlance to describe a number of jobs which have absolutely nothing to do with professional engineering. The public is well acquainted with such usage of the word and is therefore unlikely to be misled by it. Accordingly, a strict prohibition against the use of the word "engineer" is unnecessary for the protection of the public and incompatible with the purpose of the legislation.
[…]
Indeed, given that the purpose of the legislation is to protect the public, interpreting the legislation as prohibiting the use of any combination of words which includes the word "engineer" to describe anyone other than members of the Order is nonsensical.[24]
[33] This distinction – between the word engineer, and common usage of that word, and the title engineer, and usage of that title by Mr. Filion – is key in the present case. The trial judge, even though he acknowledged that the word or term "engineer" has been used "à toutes les sauces", found, as a matter of fact, that Mr. Filion had used the title engineer and, more importantly, that Microsoft had authorized use of the title engineer, by authorizing and encouraging use of the designation Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer.
[34] Moreover, sections 22(2) of the Act and 32 of the Code contain several, distinct infractions, with the help of the connective "or", which distinguish between improper use of the title engineer, alone or qualified, and improper use of a word, such as a name, title or designation, which might lead to the belief that a person is an engineer or a member of the Order. These distinct infractions are clear from the wording of the applicable statutes :
22. Any person not a member in good standing of the Order who :
[…]
2) assumes the title of engineer alone or qualified, or makes use of any abbreviation of such title, or of any name, title or designation which might lead to the belief that he is an engineer or a member of the Order […][25]
32. No person shall claim in any manner to be an […] engineer, […], or use one of the above titles or any other title or abbreviation which may lead to the belief that he is one, or initials which may lead to the belief that he is one […][26]
(emphasis added)
[35] Given that the use by Mr. Filion fell under the first part of these articles, namely use of the title of engineer, there was no need to consider the second part, that is, no need to consider widespread use of the word "engineer". In any event, there was no evidence that Microsoft had encouraged or authorized anyone, including Mr. Filion, to use the word "engineer" alone or even the term "systems engineer", which appears on Mr. Filion's card, only that Microsoft had encouraged or authorized Mr. Filion, and others, to use the title Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer.
[36] Microsoft also attempted to distinguish between the charges brought against it under section 188.1 of the Code and the offence created by section 22 of the Act, arguing that it never used the title "engineer" itself and therefore, that section 22 did not apply here :
Microsoft Canada itself never assumed or used any title or designation and was not and could not be charged with an offence under section 22 of the Act.
Rather, Microsoft Canada was charged with committing an offence pursuant to subsection 188.1 of the Code
[37] Once again, the Court cannot agree with Microsoft's submission. As noted above, the various sections of the Act and the Code are meant to be read together. While it would be possible to imagine a scenario in which a charge could be brought only under section 188.1 of the Code, for encouraging or authorizing use of a title or abbreviation reserved for members of a professional order (section 188.1(3)(b)), it is difficult to conceive of a situation in which that would occur in the case of the Order of Engineers, given the precision of section 22 of the Act, which clearly and unambiguously defines what title is reserved for members of the Order (that is, the title of engineer, alone or qualified).
[38] Finally, the jurisprudence produced by Microsoft does not help its arguments in appeal. Most of the cases arose in other jurisdictions – elsewhere in Canada and in the United States – and were decided with respect to very different provisions of law. As there is no ambiguity whatsoever in the statutes applicable here, the Court sees no reason to have recourse to that jurisprudence.
[39] In conclusion, the undersigned finds nothing which would indicate an error by the trial judge, either in his appreciation of the evidence before him or in his interpretation of the applicable statutes. The appeal must therefore be dismissed, although without costs, given the trial judge's finding that Microsoft's intention was not to contravene the law.[27]
[40] FOR ALL OF THESE REASONS, THE COURT :
[41] DISMISSES the appeal, without costs.
__________________________________
CAROL COHEN, J.S.C.
Mtre Silvana Conte
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, llp
Attorneys for Appellant Microsoft Canada Co.
Mtre Phillipe Frère
Lavery De Billy
Attorneys for Respondent Québec Order of Engineers/Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec
Date of hearing:
November 25, 2004
Salut
Connexion
Inscription
FAQ
Rechercher
Pile
