Imperial Oil v. Jacques et al., (2014) 463 N.R. 170 (SCC)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Wagner, JJ.
• Citation: (2014), 463 N.R. 170 (SCC),2014 SCC 66
• Date: 24 April 2014

Imperial Oil v. Jacques (2014), 463 N.R. 170 (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: [2014] N.R. TBEd. OC.020

Imperial Oil (appellant) v. Simon Jacques, Marcel Lafontaine, Automobile Protection Association, Attorney General of Quebec and Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada (respondents) and Attorney General of Ontario, Couche-Tard Inc., Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc., Dépan-Escompte Couche-Tard Inc., Céline Bonin, Richard Bédard, Carole Aubut, Ultramar Ltd, Luc Forget, Jacques Ouellet, Pétroles Therrien Inc., Distributions Pétrolières Therrien Inc., Irving Oil Inc./Irving Oil Operations Ltd., Olco Petroleum Group Inc., Coop fédérée, Robert Murphy, Gary Neiderer, 9142-0935 Québec Inc., 9131-4716 Québec Inc., Groupe Denis Mongeau Inc., France Benoît, Richard Michaud, Luc Couturier, Guy Angers, Philippe Gosselin & Associés Ltd., André Bilodeau, Carol Lehoux, Claude Bédard, Stéphane Grant, Pétroles Cadrin Inc., Daniel Drouin, Pétroles Global inc./Global Fuels Inc., Pétroles Global (Québec) inc./Global Fuels (Quebec) Inc., Provigo Distribution Inc., Christian Payette, Pierre Bourassa, Daniel Leblond, Dépanneur Magog-Orford Inc, 2944-4841 Québec Inc., Société coopérative agricole des Bois-Francs, Gestion Astral Inc., Lise Delisle, 134553 Canada Inc., Garage Luc Fecteau et fils Inc., Station-Service Jacques Blais Inc., 9029-6815 Québec Inc., Garage Jacques Robert Inc., Gérald Groulx Station Service Inc., Services Autogarde D.D. Inc., 9010-1460 Québec Inc., Armand Pouliot, Julie Roberge, Station-Service Pouliot et Roberge s.e.n.c., 9038-6095 Québec Inc., 9083-0670 Québec Inc., Gestion Ghislain Lallier Inc., 2429-7822 Québec Inc., 2627-3458 Québec Inc., 9098-0111 Québec Inc., 2311-5959 Québec Inc., Gaz-O-Pneus Inc., C. Lagrandeur et fils Inc., Universy Galt Service Inc., Valérie Houde, Sylvie Fréchette, Robert Beaurivage, 9011-4653 Québec Inc., Pétroles Remay Inc., Variétés Jean Yves Plourde Inc. and 9016-8360 Québec Inc. (interveners)

Couche-Tard Inc., Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc., Dépan-Escompte Couche-Tard Inc., Céline Bonin, Richard Bédard, Ultramar Ltd, Pétroles Therrien Inc., Distributions Pétrolières Therrien Inc, Irving Oil Operations Ltd., Olco Petroleum Group Inc., Coop fédérée, Robert Murphy, Gary Neiderer, 9142-0935 Québec Inc., 9131-4716 Québec Inc. and Groupe Denis Mongeau Inc. (appellants) v. Simon Jacques, Marcel Lafontaine, Automobile Protection Association, Attorney General of Quebec, Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada, France Benoît, Richard Michaud, Luc Couturier, Guy Angers, Philippe Gosselin & Associés ltée, André Bilodeau, Carol Lehoux, Claude Bédard, Stéphane Grant, Pétroles Cadrin Inc., Daniel Drouin, Pétroles Global inc./Global Fuels Inc., Pétroles Global (Québec) inc./Global Fuels (Quebec) Inc., Provigo Distribution Inc., Christian Payette, Pierre Bourassa, Daniel Leblond, Dépanneur Magog-Orford Inc., 2944-4841 Québec Inc., Société coopérative agricole des Bois-Francs, Gestion Astral Inc., Lise Delisle, 134553 Canada Inc., Garage Luc Fecteau et fils Inc., Station-Service Jacques Blais Inc., 9029-6815 Québec Inc,, Garage Jacques Robert Inc., Gérald Groulx Station-Service Inc., Services Autogarde D.D. Inc., 9010-1460 Québec Inc., Armand Pouliot, Julie Roberge, Station-Service Pouliot et Roberge s.e.n.c., 9038-6095 Québec Inc., 9083-0670 Québec Inc., Gestion Ghislain Lallier Inc., 2627-3458 Québec Inc., 2429-7822 Québec Inc., Universy Galt Service Inc., 9098-0111 Québec Inc., 2311-5959 Québec Inc., Gaz-O-Pneus Inc., C. Lagrandeur et fils Inc., Valérie Houde, Sylvie Fréchette, Robert Beaurivage, 9011-4653 Québec Inc., Pétroles Remay Inc., Variétés Jean-Yves Plourde Inc., 9016-8360 Québec Inc., Carole Aubut, Luc Forget and Jacques Ouellet (respondents) and Attorney General of Ontario (intervener)

(35226; 35231; 2014 SCC 66; 2014 CSC 66)

Indexed As: Imperial Oil v. Jacques et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Wagner, JJ.

October 17, 2014.

Summary:

The Competition Bureau of Canada investigated allegations of a conspiracy to fix gasoline pump prices in Quebec. Pursuant to judicial authorizations obtained under Part VI of the Criminal Code, the Competition Bureau intercepted and recorded more than 220,000 private communications. As a result of the investigation, charges were laid against 54 accused. Some of the appellants in these appeals were among the accused. Parallel with the criminal proceedings, the respondents instituted a class action against a number of persons, including the appellants, alleging that they had breached the duties imposed on them by art. 1457 of the Civil Code of Québec, and s. 36 of the Competition Act.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported as 2009 QCCS 5603, authorized the bringing of the class action. The respondents moved for the disclosure of documents under art. 402 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They requested that the federal Director of Public Prosecutions and the Competition Bureau disclose to them the recordings of the private communications that had already been disclosed to the accused in the parallel criminal proceedings. The appellants contested the motion.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported as 2012 QCCS 2954, granted the motion. Bélanger, J., ordered that the recordings be disclosed solely to the lawyers and experts, and that they screen the recordings to protect the privacy rights of third parties having nothing whatsoever to do with the proceedings. The appellants moved for leave to appeal.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in two separate judgments, reported as 2012 QCCA 2265 and 2012 QCCA 2266, declined to review the merits of Bélanger, J.'s decision, and dismissed the motions. The appellants appealed. They generally argued that disclosure of the intercepted private communications would be inconsistent with s. 193 of the Criminal Code and ss. 29 and 36 of the Competition Act and that, as a result, art. 402 could not serve as a basis for disclosure.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Abella, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeals. Section 193(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, which set out an exception to the criminal offence provided for in s. 193(1), applied. Bélanger, J.'s decision was therefore correct in that regard. There was no factual or legal impediment to disclosure of the documents requested under art. 402 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Considering the controls imposed on the disclosure process and the scope of the disclosure, Bélanger, J.'s order was "perfectly consistent" with the applicable principles. McLachlin, C.J.C., was of the view that the power to obtain disclosure of the intercepted private communications arose solely from art. 402, not s. 193(2)(a) of the Criminal Code. Abella, J., was of the view that the communications could only be disclosed in a civil case where they had already been made public in a criminal trial, or where the targets of the interception had either consented to the disclosure or otherwise waived their privacy interests.

Courts - Topic 553

Judges - Powers - To compel disclosure - The Supreme Court of Canada considered the controls imposed on the disclosure process and the scope of the disclosure, including where, as in the civil case at bar, the documents requested by a party resulted from a criminal investigation - See paragraphs 82 to 87.

Criminal Law - Topic 5275.1

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications - Access to recordings and transcripts of intercepted communications - [See third, fourth and fifth Practice - Topic 4604 ].

Evidence - Topic 2

General and definitions - Rules of evidence - Application of - [See Practice - Topic 4601 ].

Practice - Topic 4601

Discovery - Production of documents by nonparties - General (incl. procedure) - The Supreme Court of Canada, in its analysis of the disclosure of evidence at the pre-trial "exploratory stage", stated that "[t]he Quebec legislature, aware of the importance of the exploratory stage in the civil process, had already established a framework for it by enacting a series of rules of general application that empower judges to order the disclosure of documents relating to the issues between the parties. It is these rules, and not, as the appellants argue, the various federal statutes on which they rely, that the parties can use to request the disclosure of documents. In this sense, they form the basis for the 'right of access' to information. The rules, which are now codified in ch. III of Title V of the Code of Civil Procedure, include art. 402, the first paragraph of which reads as follows: '402. If, after defence filed, it appears from the record that a document relating to the issues between the parties is in the possession of a third party, he may, upon summons authorized by the court, be ordered to give communication of it to the parties, unless he shows cause why he should not do so.' The courts have given this article a large and liberal interpretation ... As a result, although judges have great discretion in exercising their power to oversee the application of art. 402, they will generally favour disclosure." - See paragraphs 27 and 28.

Practice - Topic 4604

Discovery - Production of documents by nonparties - When ordered - The question raised by these appeals was whether a party to a civil proceeding brought under s. 36 of the Competition Act and art. 1457 of the Civil Code of Québec could request the disclosure of recordings of private communications intercepted in the course of a criminal investigation - The appellants argued that disclosure would be inconsistent with the provisions of the Criminal Code and the Competition Act and that, as a result, art. 402 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) could not serve as a basis for disclosure - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "Although the right to disclosure granted to each of the parties to a civil proceeding must be understood broadly, it is nevertheless not unlimited. First, ... the scope of disclosure must sometimes be limited to avoid harming the interests of third parties. Second, it should be mentioned that under art. 402, para. 1 C.C.P., the court may refuse to order a third party to disclose documents in his or her possession if that party 'shows cause why he should not do so'. In exercising its discretion, the court may consider, inter alia, the relevance of the documents to the issues between the parties, the extent to which the privacy of a party or of a third party to the proceedings is invaded and the importance of remaining sensitive to the duty to protect a person's privacy that flows from the Charter of human rights and freedoms (s. 5) and the Civil Code of Québec (arts. 35-36)." - See paragraph 29.

Practice - Topic 4604

Discovery - Production of documents by nonparties - When ordered - At the pre-trial stage of civil proceedings brought under s. 36 of the Competition Act and art. 1457 of the Civil Code of Québec, a motion judge made an order for disclosure of private communications that had been intercepted for the purposes of a criminal investigation - The order was made under art. 402 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) - The appellants argued that s. 29 of the Competition Act confirmed that the recordings were confidential, and that s. 29 could not be applied to require the Competition Bureau to disclose the results of its electronic surveillance - They added that s. 36 of the Act created no right to disclosure - Finally, although s. 36(2) provided that evidence given in criminal proceedings that resulted in conviction could be evidence in an action under s. 36, the appellants argued that the disclosure order should have drawn a distinction between the defendants in the civil action that had been convicted in the criminal proceedings and those that had not been - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "These arguments must fail. ... [D]isclosure of the intercepted private communications was ordered not under s. 36 of the Competition Act but under art. 402 C.C.P. As for s. 29, it provides for confidentiality of the Competition Bureau's record of investigation, and in particular of the types of information referred to in s. 29(1)(a) to (e) ... Private communications intercepted under Part VI [Criminal Code] are not among the types of information referred to in s. 29(1) (a) to (e), so s. 29 does not prohibit their disclosure. " - See paragraphs 35 to 37.

Practice - Topic 4604

Discovery - Production of documents by nonparties - When ordered - Under art. 402 of Quebec's Code of Civil Procedure, an objection to disclosure could be based on an immunity from disclosure that was either provided for in legislation or established by the courts - In the pre-trial stage of civil proceedings, a motion judge made an order for disclosure of private communications that had been intercepted for the purposes of a criminal investigation - The order was made based upon art. 402 - The appellants argued that disclosure of the communications was inconsistent with Part VI of the Criminal Code and that, as a result, art. 402 could not serve as a basis for their disclosure - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "The objective here is not to upset the balance made possible by Part VI by placing strict controls on the interception of private communications. Rather, it is to decide whether communications already intercepted by the state can be disclosed to individuals who are parties in civil trials in order to serve other legitimate purposes, such as truth-finding, procedural fairness and ensuring the efficiency of the judicial process." - See paragraph 40.

Practice - Topic 4604

Discovery - Production of documents by nonparties - When ordered - At the exploratory stage of this civil proceeding, a motion judge made an order for disclosure of private communications that had been intercepted for the purposes of a criminal investigation - The order was made under art. 402 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) - The appellants argued that disclosure was inconsistent with s. 193 of the Criminal Code - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "art. 402 C.C.P. allows prima facie for access to wiretap information. Given the general prohibition laid down in s. 193(1), however, the question becomes whether one of the exemptions provided for in s. 193(2) applies in the instant case. ... [T]he respondents submit that s. 193(2)(a) allows for the disclosure of recordings of intercepted private communications without the consent of the originator of the communications or the person intended by the originator to receive them. They are right. The exemption set out in s. 193(2)(a) empowers a person who is in possession of such recordings to disclose them. However, the disclosure is made in the manner and to the extent provided for in the court order authorizing the disclosure. ... [T]he ordinary sense of the words of s. 193(2)(a), the context of that provision and its object lead to the conclusion that the exemption applies in this case. ... [W]iretap information may be disclosed at the exploratory stage of any civil proceeding. ... Nothing in its [s. 193(2)(a)] words justifies limiting its application to the time when evidence is being given." - See paragraphs 46 to 51.

Practice - Topic 4604

Discovery - Production of documents by nonparties - When ordered - Under art. 402 of Quebec's Code of Civil Procedure, an objection to disclosure could be based on an immunity from disclosure that was either provided for in legislation or established by the courts - At the exploratory stage of this civil case, a motion judge made an order for disclosure of private communications that had been intercepted for the purposes of a criminal investigation - The order was made under art. 402 - Section 193(1) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to disclose intercepted communications - The exceptions were set out in ss. 193(2) and 193(3) - The appellants argued that the exceptions set out in s. 193(2) had to do with fighting crime, and that s. 193(2)(a) should therefore be interpreted in light of that objective - The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed - "[T]he language of s. 193(2)(a) requires that its objectives be defined broadly. It is clear that this provision does not apply solely to proceedings related to the fight against crime." - The Court also rejected the argument that the interpretation given to s. 193(2)(a) by the courts below could not be reconciled with s. 193(3) - Nor did the Court see any merit in the argument that, based on the previous versions of s. 193(2)(a), the provision had never had the function of allowing litigants to obtain disclosure of wiretap information for the purpose of a civil proceeding - See paragraphs 53 to 66.

Practice - Topic 4604

Discovery - Production of documents by nonparties - When ordered - At the exploratory stage of this civil case, the motion judge (Bélanger, J.) made an order for disclosure of private communications that had been intercepted for the purposes of a criminal investigation - A defendant (Imperial Oil) had argued that it had "innocent third party" status because it was not charged in the parallel criminal proceedings or "targeted" by the wiretap operation - On appeal, it submitted that its special status precluded Bélanger, J., from ordering the disclosure of recordings that involved it in any way - The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed - "[T]he court must encourage the fullest possible disclosure of evidence at the exploratory stage unless a specific exception applies. ... We agree with the appellant that the impact of disclosure on the rights of innocent persons requires that care be taken in considering motions for disclosure. However, this rule of caution cannot constitute a cause why evidence should not be disclosed in all circumstances. First, ... the harm allegedly faced by Imperial Oil differs from the harm faced by the persons concerned in the cases it cites. ... Bélanger, J.'s order limits disclosure to the professionals participating in the proceedings. Second, it should not be forgotten that the protection of the innocent, and more specifically of their right to privacy, is not absolute. The scope of this protection depends on the specific circumstances of each case and must always be assessed in light of the various interests at stake ... In the instant case, since ... the potential harm has been considerably reduced by the measures taken by the judge to control the disclosure process and the scope of the disclosure, the search for truth must prevail." - See paragraphs 75 to 79.

Practice - Topic 4604

Discovery - Production of documents by nonparties - When ordered - The question raised by these appeals was whether a party to a civil proceeding brought under s. 36 of the Competition Act and art. 1457 of the Civil Code of Québec could request the disclosure of recordings of private communications intercepted in the course of a criminal investigation - Based on art. 402 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the motion judge ordered that the requested recordings be disclosed solely to the lawyers and experts in the civil proceedings, and that they screen the recordings to protect the privacy rights of third parties having nothing whatsoever to do with the proceedings - The appellants argued that disclosure was inconsistent with the provisions of the Criminal Code and the Competition Act and that, as a result, art. 402 could not serve as a basis for disclosure - The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that there was no factual or legal impediment to disclosure of the documents requested under art. 402 - However, "[t]he fact that there is no impediment to disclosure does not dispose of the case ... The interests at stake in a case such as this require us to consider the controls imposed on the disclosure process and the scope of the disclosure" - In the end result, the Court held that the disclosure order "is perfectly consistent with these principles. Its scope is limited so as to protect the right to privacy of all those whose communications were intercepted. The limits also ensure that disclosure of the information will not hinder the efficient conduct of the criminal proceedings or violate the right of the defendants still facing criminal charges to a fair trial. Finally, there is no indication that the order imposes an undue financial and administrative burden on the third party in question in this case." - See paragraphs 82 to 87.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 4147

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Documents in possession of third party - [See Practice - Topic 4601 and seventh Practice - Topic 4604 ].

Words and Phrases

For the purpose of giving evidence in any civil ... proceedings - The Supreme Court of Canada interpreted the words "for the purpose of giving evidence in any civil ... proceeding" in s. 193(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See paragraphs 48 to 51.

Cases Noticed:

Jacques v. Petro-Canada, 2009 QCCS 5603, refd to. [para. 4].

Michaud v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 3; 201 N.R. 241, dist. [para. 7].

Glegg v. Smith & Nephew Inc. et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 724; 334 N.R. 201; 2005 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 8].

D.P. v. Wagg (2004), 187 O.A.C. 26; 71 O.R.(3d) 229 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Nikolovski (A.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197; 204 N.R. 333; 96 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

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. 24].

Jones v. National Coal Board, [1957] 2 Q.B. 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Technologie Labtronix Inc. v. Technologie Micro Contrôle Inc., [1998] R.J.Q. 2312 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Blaikie v. Commission des valeurs mobilières du Québec, [1990] R.D.J. 473, refd to. [para. 26].

Autorité des marchés financiers v. Panju, 2008 QCCA 832, refd to. [para. 28].

Fédération des infirmières et infirmiers du Québec v. Hôpital Laval, 2006 QCCA 1345, refd to. [para. 28].

Westfalia Surge Canada Co. v. Ferme Hamelon (JFD) et Fils, 2005 QCCA 514, refd to. [para. 28].

Westinghouse Canada Inc. v. Arkwright Boston Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co., [1993] R.J.Q. 2735, refd to. [para. 28].

Lac d'Amiante du Québec ltée v. 2858-0702 Québec Inc. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R 743; 274 N.R. 201; 2001 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 28].

Communauté urbaine de Montréal v. Chubb du Canada compagnie d'assurances, [1998] R.J.Q. 759, refd to. [para. 28].

Kruger Inc. v. Kruger, [1987] R.D.J. 11 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Industries GDS inc. v. Carbotech inc., 2005 QCCA 665, refd to. [para. 30].

Corporation de financement commercial Transamérica Canada v. Beaudoin, [1995] R.D.J. 633 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Union Canadienne compagnie d'assurance v. St. Pierre, 2012 QCCA 433, refd to. [para. 33].

A.M. v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157; 207 N.R. 81; 85 B.C.A.C. 81; 138 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 33].

Goulet v. Lussier, [1989] R.J.Q. 2085 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Lyons, Prevedoros and McGuire, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 633; 56 N.R. 6; 58 A.R. 2, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Tse (Y.F.A.), [2012] 1 S.C.R. 531; 429 N.R. 109; 321 B.C.A.C. 1; 547 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. TELUS Communications Co., [2013] 2 S.C.R. 3; 442 N.R. 1; 2013 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Welsh (1977), 15 O.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Subilomar Properties (Dundas) Ltd. v. Cloverdale Shopping Centre Ltd., [1973] S.C.R. 596, refd to. [para. 48].

Air Canada et al. v. Liquor Control Board (Ont.) et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 581; 214 N.R. 1; 102 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 48].

Tide Shore Logging Ltd. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co. (1979), 13 B.C.L.R.(3d) 316 (S.C.), consd. [para. 68].

Ault et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2007] O.T.C. Uned. P22; 88 O.R.(3d) 541 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 69].

Canada (Procureur général) v. Charbonneau, 2012 QCCS 1701, consd. [para. 70].

Law Society of Upper Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), [2008] O.T.C. Uned. 164; 89 O.R.(3d) 209 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 71].

Board of Commissioners of Police for City of Thunder Bay and Sundell, Re (1984), 15 C.C.C.(3d) 574 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 71].

Children's Aid Society of Thunder Bay (District) v. S.D. (2011), 2 R.F.L.(7th) 202; 2011 ONCJ 100, refd to. [para. 71].

MacIntyre v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), Grainger and Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 175; 40 N.R. 181; 49 N.S.R.(2d) 609; 96 A.P.R. 609, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Durette, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 469; 163 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 77].

Vickery v. Prothonotary, Supreme Court (N.S.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 671; 124 N.R. 95; 104 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 283 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [para. 79].

Phillips v. Vancouver Sun et al. (2004), 192 B.C.A.C. 250; 315 W.A.C. 250; 27 B.C.L.R.(4th) 27; 2004 BCCA 14, refd to. [para. 79].

Marché Lionel Coudry inc. v. Métro inc., 2004 CanLII 73143 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].

Southam v. Landry, 2003 CanLII 71970 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].

Daishowa inc. v. Commission de la santé et de la sésurité du travail, [1993] R.J.Q. 175 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 85].

S.M. v. S.G., [1986] R.D.J. 617 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Commisso, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 121; 49 N.R. 26. refd to. [para. 93].

Ontario (Minister of Correctional Services) v. Goodis et al., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 32; 350 N.R. 154; 214 O.A.C. 377; 2006 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Araujo (A.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992; 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257; 2000 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 102, footnote 7].

National Broadcasting Co. v. United States Department of Justice (1984), 735 F.2d 51 (2nd Cir.), refd to. [para. 105].

Motion to Unseal Electronic Surveillance Evidence, In re (1993), 990 F.2d 1015 (8th Cir.), refd to. [para. 105].

Statutes Noticed:

Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C-25, art. 402 [para. 27].

Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, sect. 29(1) [para. 36].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 193(1) [para. 41]; sect. 193(2)(a) [para. 42]; sect. 193(3) [para. 58].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Baudouin, Jean-Louis, Secret professionnel et droit au secret dans le droit de la preuve: Étude de Droit Québécois comparé au Droit Français et à la Common-Law (1965), p. 173 [para. 26].

Bellemare, Daniel A., L'écoute électronique au Canada (1981), p. 153 [para. 65].

Brown, Henry S., Supreme Court of Canada Practice 2014 (2013), pp. 83, 84 [para. 15].

Côté, Pierre-André, Beaulac, Stéphane, and Deviant, Mathieu, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (4th Ed. 2011), p. 295 [paras. 48, 49].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 47].

Ducharme, Lćo, and Panaccio, Charles-Maxime, L'administration de la preuve (4th Ed. 2010), pp. 7 [para. 25]; 365 [para. 26]; 426, 427 [para. 33]; 428 [para. 32]; 437 [paras. 82, 84]; 438 [para. 84]; 455 [para. 32].

Ducharme, Lćo, Rapports canadiens - première partie: la vérité et la législation sur la procédure civile en droit québécois, in Travaux de l'Association Henri Capitant des amis de la culture juridique française (1987), vol. 38, p. 657 [para. 25].

Ferland, Denis, and Emery Benoît, Précis de procédure civile du Québec (4th Ed. 2010), vol. 1, pp. 627 [para. 82]; 639 [para. 30].

Fishman, Clifford S., and McKenna, Anne T., Wiretapping & Eavesdropping: Surveillance in the Internet Age, (3rd Ed. 2007) (2012 Looseleaf Update), vol. 4, §41:69 [para. 105].

Grammond, Sébastien, La justice secrète: information confidentielle et procès civil (1996), 56 R. du B. 437, pp. 457, 458 [para. 30].

Hubbard, Robert W., Brauti, Peter M., and Fenton, Scott K., Wiretapping and Other Electrnic Surveillance: Law and Practice (2000) (Looseleaf Update 2014, Release 30), vol. 1, pp. 1-20, 1-21 [para. 66]; 6-40.62 [para. 72].

Marseille, Claude, La règle de la pertinence en droit de la preuve civile qućbćcois (2004), pp. 1 [para. 31]; 3 [para. 24]; 21 [para. 31].

Québec, Civil Procedure Review Committee, Rapport du Comité de révision de la procédure civile: une nouvelle culture judiciaire (2001), p. 138 [para. 26].

Royer, Jean-Claude, and Lavallée, Sophie, La preuve civile (4th Ed. 2008), pp. 485 [para. 26]; 487 [paras. 28, 31]; 489 [para. 28]; 490, 491 [para. 30]; 493 [para. 26].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), p. 1 [para. 47].

Tessier, Pierre, La Vćritć et la justice (1988), 19 R.G.D. 29, p. 32 [para. 24].

Counsel:

Billy Katelanos, Paule Hamelin and Guy Régimbald, for the appellant, Imperial Oil;

Jean-Philippe Groleau, Louis-Martin O'Neil, Louis Belleau, Julie Chenette, Sylvain Lussier, Elizabeth Meloche, Sidney Elbaz, Rachel April Giguère, Marie-Geneviève Masson, Pascale Cloutier and Fadi Amine, for the appellants, Couche-Tard Inc. et al.;

Louis P. Bélanger and Julie Girard, for the appellant, Ultramar Ltd;

Pierre LeBel, Guy Paquette, Nicolas Guimond and Claudia Lalancette, for the respondents, Simon Jacques et al.;

Dominique A. Jobin, Patricia Blair, Émilie-Annick Landry-Therriault and Jean-Vincent Lacroix, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Quebec;

François Lacasse and Stéphane Hould, for the respondent, the Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada;

Deborah Calderwood and Megan Stephens, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario.

Solicitors of Record:

Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Montreal, Quebec, and Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant, Imperial Oil;

Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg, Montreal, Quebec; Louis Belleau, Montreal, Quebec; Chenette, Boutique de litige, Montreal, Quebec; Osler Hoskin & Harcourt, Montreal, Quebec; McMillan, Montreal, Quebec; Langlois Kronström Desjardins, Montreal, Quebec; Miller Thomson, Toronto, Ontario; Miller Thomson Pouliot, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellants, Couche-Tard Inc. et al.;

Stikeman Elliott, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant, Ultramar Ltd.;

Bernier Beaudry, Quebec, Quebec; Paquette Gadler, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondents, Simon Jacques et al.;

Attorney General of Quebec, Quebec, Quebec; Chamberland Gagnon, Quebec, Quebec, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, the Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario.

These appeals were heard on April 24, 2014, before McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Wagner, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court delivered the following judgment and reasons for judgment, in both official languages, dated October 17, 2014:

LeBel and Wagner, JJ. (Rothstein, Cromwell and Moldaver, J.J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 88;

McLachlin, C.J.C. (concurring in the result) - see paragraphs 89 to 91;

Abella, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 92 to 107.