The Supreme Court of Canada recently denied leave to appeal from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal in the latest chapter of Tommy Wiseau’s Room Full of Spoons litigation saga.1 The Federal Court of Appeal had affirmed an order dismissing Mr. Wiseau’s action for breach of section 41.1(1) of the Copyright Act — which deals with circumvention of technological protection measures (TPMs) — on the ground of cause of action estoppel. Mr. Wiseau’s action for circumvention of TPMs, and his previous unsuccessful action for copyright infringement, did not raise separate and distinct causes of action. With the closing of this latest chapter, this article briefly revisits the Federal Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the action for circumvention of TPMs, from which leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been denied.
Background
The appellant, Wiseau Studio, LLC (Wiseau) claims to own copyright in the cult-classic movie called “The Room.” In 2017, the appellant brought an unsuccessful action for copyright infringement, among other claims, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the producers of a documentary about the making of “The Room,” which contained footage from that movie. The Superior Court dismissed the action in 2020, and the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Wiseau Studio, LLC’s appeal from that decision in 2021. For a more detailed summary of the lengthy litigation history between these parties, see our previous article about the Room Full of Spoons saga.
In 2022, Wiseau commenced yet another action in the Federal Court, alleging a breach of section 41.1(1) of the Copyright Act, which deals with the circumvention of TPMs. Wiseau alleged that the defendants obtained the footage from “The Room” used in their documentary by circumventing TPMs installed on the Blu-ray discs containing the movie and downloading the footage from those discs. However, the action was struck by Associate Judge Horne on the ground of cause of action estoppel.2 Our detailed summary of that decision can be found here.
In 2023, Wiseau appealed the Associate Judge’s order to strike the action, arguing that cause of action in the Ontario action was separate and distinct from the cause of action before the Federal Court. The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Associate Judge’s decision.3
Federal Court of Appeal Decision
Wiseau appealed that order of the Federal Court on one point, namely, whether the cause of action in the Ontario action, is in fact separate and distinct from the cause of action for circumvention of TPMs. In its appeal, Wiseau argued that its action relates to a relatively new provision of the Copyright Act (section 41.1) and thus, deserves adjudication through a fulsome trial. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Federal Court applied the appropriate standard of review, identified the correct legal test for cause of action estoppel, and made no palpable and overriding error in its analysis of whether the two causes of action are separate and distinct.
The Federal Court of Appeal also held that even if it were to accept that section 41.1 of the Copyright Act is a relatively new provision, the newness, in itself, would not warrant adjudication in the absence of a justiciable claim.
Leave to Supreme Court of Canada Denied
Wiseau Studio, LLC filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in November 2024. On May 1, 2025, the Supreme Court denied the application for leave. While the denial of application for leave is not a decision on the merits of the proposed appeal, it nonetheless ends this latest chapter of the Room Full of Spoons litigation saga.
Takeaways
Although the decisions below concerning the claim for circumvention of a TPM arose out of a unique and lengthy litigation history, they nonetheless provide an important reminder to carefully consider the causes of action that may be asserted in a particular proceeding. In the context of proceedings for copyright infringement, litigants should take care to consider the possible application of other causes of action that might be available under the Copyright Act, among other potential claims.
_____________________________
1 Wiseau Studio, LLC v. Harper, 2025 CanLII 38342 (SCC), refusing leave to appeal from Wiseau Studio, LLC v Harper, 2024 FCA 157
2 Wiseau Studio, LLC v. Harper, 2022 FC 568
3 Wiseau Studio, LLC v. Harper, 2023 FC 354