Lac d'Amiante du Québec ltée v. 2858-0702 Québec Inc. et al., 2001 SCC 51

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 13, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2001 SCC 51;(2001), 274 N.R. 201 (SCC);[2001] CarswellQue 1864;EYB 2001-25653;[2001] SCJ No 49 (QL);204 DLR (4th) 331;108 ACWS (3d) 44;274 NR 201;[2001] 2 SCR 743;AZ-50100126;JE 2001-1735

Lac d'Amiante Que. v. 2858-0702 Que. (2001), 274 N.R. 201 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.R. TBEd. SE.004

2858-0702 Québec Inc. et Lac d'Amiante du Canada ltée (appelantes) c. Lac d'Amiante du Québec ltée (intimée) et Société Radio-Canada, Southam Inc., Corporation Sun Média, La Presse ltée et Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec (intervenantes)

(27324; 2001 SCC 51)

Indexed As: Lac d'Amiante du Québec ltée v. 2858-0702 Québec Inc. et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

September 13, 2001.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the defendants for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in de­fending itself against claims made by victims of asbestos exposure. The defendants ex­amined on discovery one of the plaintiff's senior officials. During the examination, the de­fendants requested production of a large number of documents. The plaintiff objected, arguing irrelevancy.

The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the objection. The plaintiff compiled the docu­mentation requested. Before giving it to the defendants, counsel for the plaintiff informed counsel for the defendant that their client wanted a confidentiality arrangement to prevent the documents from being disclosed or given to third parties. The defendants rejected that arrangement and moved to dismiss the action under arts. 75.1 and 398 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Que.) for failure to produce the documents requested at the examination on discovery. The plain­tiff then filed a "Motion to Suspend Pro­ceedings or Order Confidential Certain Documents and Information and to Declare that Documents Cannot Be Used for any Other Purposes than the Present Action". The motion was based on arts. 13, 20, 46 and 331.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, Biron, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported [1999] R.J.Q. 970, allowed the appeal. The defend­ants appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1860.8

Freedom of speech or expression - Limi­tations on - Confidential information - [See first Quebec Procedure - Topic 4006 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7125

Federal or provincial legislation - Particu­lar rights - Right to privacy - [See first Quebec Procedure - Topic 4006 ].

Quebec Procedure - Topic 2

General - Sources of Quebec civil pro­cedure - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the constitutional, civil law and common law sources of Quebec civil procedure - See paragraphs 28 to 34.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 3

General - Effect of codification - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the effects of the codification of Quebec civil procedure - The court held that a Quebec court could not create a positive rule of civil procedure simply because it con­sidered it appropriate to do so - Although Quebec civil procedure was mixed, it was nonetheless codified, written law, governed by a tradition of civil law interpretation - In the civil law tradition, Quebec courts had to find their latitude for interpreting and developing the law within the legal framework comprised by the Code of Civil Procedure and the general principles of procedure underlying it - Also, civil pro­cedure was subject to the general prin­ciples found in the Civil Code of Québec - See paragraphs 35 to 40.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 4

General - Sittings of the courts - What constitute - [See first Quebec Procedure -Topic 4006 ].

Quebec Procedure - Topic 4003

Discovery - General - Nature of - [See first Quebec Procedure - Topic 4006 ].

Quebec Procedure - Topic 4006

Discovery - General - Confidentiality rule -The Supreme Court of Canada, applying a civil law method of analysis, held that a rule of confidentiality could be found in Quebec procedural law on the basis of the evolution of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure rules respecting discovery since 1867, the protection of privacy principles found in the Quebec Civil Code and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the abuse of rights provi­sions in the Civil Code - The court deter­mined that a discovery was essentially exploratory in nature and that it did not constitute a "sitting" of the court which had to be public by virtue of art. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Hence, the discovery phase of an action was situated out of the public sphere and it was legit­imate to give greater weight to the protec­tion of privacy by imposing confidentiality on the information disclosed - As a result, the media's right of access to information had to be consistent with the respect of privacy - The media and the public could not have access to the information dis­closed - See paragraphs 41 to 75.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 4006

Discovery - General - Confidentiality rule -The Supreme Court of Canada held that the rule of confidentiality continued to apply, during and after the trial, to infor­mation obtained at the examination on discovery which was not used for the purposes of the trial - However, the court retained the power to relieve the persons concerned of the obligation of confiden­tiality where it was necessary to do so, in the interests of justice - The rule of confi­dentiality applied only to information obtained solely from that examination, however, and not to information that was otherwise accessible to the public - See paragraphs 76 to 78.

Cases Noticed:

Goodman v. Rossi (1995), 83 O.A.C. 38; 24 O.R.(3d) 359 (C.A.)A, refd to. [para. 11].

Harman v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [1983] A.C. 280, refd to. [para. 11].

Scotia McLeod Inc. v. Champagne, J.E. 90-1439 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Scotia McLeod Inc. v. Bourse de Montréal et autre, [1991] R.D.J. 626; 40 Q.A.C. 151 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

General Instrument Corp. v. Tee-Comm Electronics Inc., [1993] R.D.J. 374 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Kyuquot Logging Ltd. v. British Columbia Forest Products Ltd. (1986), 5 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Farrah v. Quebec (Attorney General) and Transport Tribunal, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 638; 21 N.R. 595, refd to. [para. 30].

Crevier v. Quebec (Attorney General) and Aubry, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220; 38 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 30].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 725; 191 N.R. 260; 68 B.C.A.C. 161; 112 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 30].

Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; 217 N.R. 1; 206 A.R. 1; 156 W.A.C. 1; 121 Man.R.(2d) 1; 158 W.A.C. 1; 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 483 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 31].

Videotron Ltée et Premier Choix: TVEC Inc. v. Industries Microlec Produits elec­troniques Inc. et autres, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1065; 141 N.R. 281; 50 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 33].

Charpentier v. Lemoyne (Ville), [1975] C.A. 870 (Que.), refd to. [para. 36].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. and Knapp v. Quebec Police Commission, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 618; 28 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 37].

Doré v. Verdun (Ville), [1995] R.J.Q. 1321 (C.A.), affd. [1997] 2 S.C.R. 862; 215 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 40].

Frenette v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. - see Métropolitaine (La), compagnie d'assurance-vie v. Frennette, Hôpital Jean-Talon et un autre.

Métropolitaine (La), compagnie d'as­surance-vie v. Frenette, Hôpital Jean-Talon et un autre, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 647; 134 N.R. 169; 46 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 42].

Sezerman v. Youle (1996), 150 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 436 A.P.R. 161; 135 D.L.R.(4th) 266 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Robinson v. Films Cinar Inc., [2001] Q.J. No. 2515 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Mulroney v. Canada (Procureur général), [1996] R.J.Q. 1271 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 66].

Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa inc. et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591; 224 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 68].

Wirth Ltd. v. Acadia Pipe & Supply Corp. et al. (1991), 113 A.R. 298; 79 Alta. L.R.(2d) 345 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 77].

Statutes Noticed:

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12, sect. 5, sect. 23, sect. 24 [para. 24].

Civil Code of Québec, L.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 3, art. 6, art. 7, art. 35, art. 36 [para. 24]; art. 37 [paras. 24, 68].

Code of Civil Procedure, 1897 (Que.), art. 286 [para. 45]; art. 288 [paras. 46, 48]; art. 289 [para. 47].

Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-25, art. 13, art. 20, art. 46, art. 50 [para. 24]; art. 396 [para. 50]; art. 398 [para. 24]; art. 398.1 [paras. 24, 52].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Baudouin, Jean-Louis, and Deslauriers, Patrice, La responsabilité civile (5th Ed. 1998), p. 127 [para. 73].

Brierley, John E.C., and MacDonald, Rod­erick A., Quebec Civil Law: An Intro­duction to Quebec Private Law (1993), pp. 49 to 54 [para. 29]; 52, 53 [para. 33].

Brisson, Jean-Maurice, La formation d'un droit mixte: l'évolution de la procédure civile de 1774 à 1867 (1986), pp. 32, 33 [paras. 32, 39].

Brisson, Jean-Maurice, La procédure civile au Québec avant la codification: le droit mixte, faute de mieux (1989), pp. 93, 94, 95 [para. 39].

Cudmore, Gordon D., Choate on Discovery (2nd Ed. 1993) (Looseleaf 2001, Release 1), pp. 3-16 to 3-16.8 [para. 60].

Dainow, Joseph, The Civil Law and the Common Law: Some Points of Compari­son" (1967), 15 Am. J. Comp. L. 419, pp. 424, 426 [para. 37].

Deleury, Edith, and Tourigny, Christine, L'organisation judiciaire, le statut des juges et le modèle des jugements dans la province de Québec (1993), p. 191 [para. 29].

Ducharme, Léo, L'administration de la preuve (3rd Ed. 2001), pp. 271 et seq. [para. 53]; 296, 297, 298 [para. 55].

Ducharme, Léo, La proclamation de l'exis­tence en droit québécois de la règle de common law de l'engagement implicite de confidentialité; Lac d'Amiante, une décision judiciaire erronée (2000), 79 Can. Bar Rev. 435, generally [para. 56].

Ducharme, Léo, Le nouveau régime de l'interrogatoire préalable et de l'assigna­tion pour production d'un écrit (1983), 43 R. du B. 969, generally [para. 53].

Ferland, Denis, and Emery, Benoît, Précis de procédure civile du Québec (3rd Ed. 1997), vol. 1, pp. 68 [para. 36]; 512 to 515, 517 to 519 [para. 67].

Matthews, Paul, and Malek, Hodge M., Discovery (1992), p. 252 [para. 60].

Popovici, Adrian, Dans quelle mesure la jurisprudence et la doctrine sont-elles sources de droit au Québec? (1973), 8 R.J.T. 189, pp. 193, 199 [para. 37].

Sarna, Lazar, Examination on Discovery: The Full Disclosure Rule (1984), 44 R. du B. 179, generally [para. 53].

Stevenson, W.A., and Côté, J.E., Civil Procedure Guide (1996), p. 816 [para. 60].

Tancelin, Maurice, How can a legal system be a mixed system? (1980), pp. 1, 9, 10 [para. 32].

Watson, G.D. et al., Civil Litigation, Cases and Materials (4th Ed. 1991), pp. 793, 794, 795, 829 [para. 59].

Wright, Charles Alan, Miller, Arthur R., and Marcus, Richard L., Federal Practice and Procedure (2nd Ed. 1994), vol. 8, pp. 542 to 556 [para. 61].

Counsel:

Philippe Casgrain, Q.C., Gérard Dugré and Catherine Pilon, for the appellants, 2858-0702 Québec Inc. and Lac d'Ami­ante du Canada ltée;

James A. Woods, Christopher Richter and Vikki Andrighetti, for the respondent, Lac d'Amiante du Québec ltée;

Marc-André Blanchard and Judith Harvie, for the interveners, Société Radio-Canada, Southam Inc., Corporation Sun Média, La Presse ltée and Fédération profession­nelle des journalistes du Qué­bec.

Solicitors of Record:

Fraser, Milner, Casgrain, Montréal, Que­bec, for the appellants, 2858-0702 Qué­bec Inc. and Lac d'Amiante du Canada ltée;

Woods & Partners, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondent, Lac d'Amiante du Québec ltée;

Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson, Montréal, Quebec, for the interveners, Société Radio-Canada, Southam Inc., Corpo­ra­tion Sun Média, La Presse ltée and Fédé­ration professionnelle des journali­stes du Québec.

This appeal was heard on January 18, 2001, by McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastara­che, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on Sep­tember 13, 2001, by LeBel, J.