Skip to main content
Welcome to
super saver spring
offer ends april 20
save over $140
save over 85%
$0.99
per week for 24 weeks
Welcome to
super saver spring
$0.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

The Supreme Court of Canada will resolve a bitter battle between two Quebec women for legal guardianship over Caillou, an imaginary child immortalized worldwide in novels and an animated television show.

The high court agreed Thursday to hear arguments from lawyers for Caillou's co-creators, illustrator Helene Desputeaux and author Christine L'Heureux.

The two have been embroiled in a five-year court fight for sole intellectual property rights over Caillou, who resembles a young Charlie Brown and has become a star among youngsters in 72 countries. L'Heureux wrote the first series of Caillou books and founded Editions Chouette, the company which publishes the stories.

Story continues below advertisement

Desputeaux, the original Caillou illustrator, argues that she has not yet received all of the royalties due to her from sales of Caillou books and other products based on the bubbly bald child.

An arbitrator and a Quebec Superior Court judge have both ruled in favour of L'Heureux and Editions Chouette. But the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the ruling last April.

Lawyers for L'Heureux sought and were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. No date for the hearing has been set.

L'Heureux said Thursday that the spat is dragging down the image of the smiling character, who routinely urges children to "get along" through play and perky songs.

Aside from questions of intellectual property rights there's also a large, but undisclosed, sum of money at stake in the Caillou dispute. The worldwide success of the character has led to a successful line of toys that generate substantial revenues. Caillou's adventures have also been translated into 15 languages and thousands of books have been sold worldwide. The character is seen on television and video in 72 countries.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies