Indeed, it is simply wrong to suggest categorically, as one well-known lawyer for educators recently did to the Supreme Court of Canada no less, that anything more than one sentence is "substantial". As I indicated several months ago, David Vaver explains this issue very well in his discussion of “Taking a Particle Does Not Infringe” at p. 184-188 of his 2011 book. Indeed, Vaver states that even where the writing is of the quality of Dickens or Shakespeare, it is “simply nonsense” to suggest that “the taking of even a single sentence” may infringe copyright.
If the Federal Court of Appeal is somehow persuaded that quoting 11 words of news can be substantial, this could have interesting consequences for Google News in Canada. Here’s an example of a snippet from this morning, which is 40 words long:
The National Post also mounts a serious attack on the Federal Court’s findings on fair dealing.