Obviously, the relationship between Dominic Paquet and his former manager is not in good shape.
In a lawsuit filed in Montreal on October 13, Dominic Paquet claims that the rights to his first one-man show, Dominic Paquet, were allegedly obtained by his former manager “without his consent.” He estimates at $25,125.72 the sums he would not have received from his manager, the latter’s company (Productions Fou du Roy), and the production and distribution company ComedieHa.
Dominic Paquet is also demanding $25,000 in lawyer fees, citing the “multiple faults” and “bad faith” of his former manager. He asks the court to order ComedieHa to stop paying royalties to Sébastien Roy and finally demands the retrocession of all the rights to his show.
In the lawsuit, we learn that Dominic Paquet stopped working with Sébastien Roy in March 2014, after nine years of collaboration, to do business with Entourage, which took a smaller commission and which, according to him, offered “much more service.” The comedian took it for granted that the royalties from his show would then be paid to Entourage, while the Entourage team believed that Dominic Paquet received them directly.
According to the lawsuit, agreements regarding the recording of the show and the transfer of rights were concluded “without the knowledge” of Dominic Paquet. The show, captured in January 2010, was broadcast during the pandemic on Prize 2, a channel belonging to the TVA Group.
Contacted by La Presse, Sébastien Roy’s lawyer, Me Daniel Payette, indicated that his client had learned of the existence of the procedures in the media, and that he had not yet received notification in this regard.
If these procedures are similar to a formal notice received recently, writes Me Payette, “they have no factual or legal basis”. He assures that his client has “accounted for and remitted all the sums collected for him for a long time. An artist cannot blame his agent for not making a claim on his behalf, when he no longer has any mandate to do so,” he continues.
“If third parties owed royalties to Mr. Paquet for some new exploitation of Mr. Paquet’s work – which we do not know – it is from this third party that we must ask,” writes Me Payette.
“Any procedure therefore appears inadmissible, ill-founded, designed to attract a certain amount of publicity and put pressure on well-known companies, and it will therefore obviously be strongly contested,” concludes the lawyer.
