Quebec Civil Procedure Code, confidentiality rule, preliminary interrogations, Supreme Court of Canada, civil procedure, Common Law, Quebec Charter, Canadian Charter
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 4
Abstract
Supreme Court of Canada rules on implicit confidentiality rule in Quebec Civil Procedure Code during preliminary interrogations.
Extract
[...] Although important for interpretation, it does not have the same creative status as in Common Law.Paragraph 37) 17. The procedural law grants to the courts: - A regulatory power to adopt rules of practice (art C.p.c.). - Inherent powers to manage situations not provided for by law or rules of practice (art and 46 C.p.c.).Paragraph 37) 18. No, a Quebec court does not have the same creative power as a Common Law court in civil procedure. It must fit within the framework defined by the Civil Procedure Code.Paragraph 39) 19. [...]
[...] Amiante Québec requests that the confidentiality of the documents be maintained. - Paragraph 6 : Québec Inc. and Amiante Canada request the dismissal of the action. Amiante Québec requests that the confidentiality of the documents be maintained. The confidentiality request by Amiante Québec applies to four types of documents: lawyer invoices, settlements with victims and insurers, and employee information. 5. The applicants' (Québec Inc. and Amiante Canada) request to the Superior Court was to dismiss the action for failure to produce the documents.Paragraph 6. [...]
[...] This appeal focuses on the question of whether the Quebec Civil Procedure Code implicitly establishes a rule of confidentiality for information obtained during preliminary interrogations. The judgment in this case was rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada, by the judge LeBel (Paragraph 1). 2. The appeal comes from the Court of Appeal of Quebec. (Paragraph 3. Judge Barbeau rendered the judgment in the Superior Court.Paragraph 4. Summary of paragraphs : - Paragraph 2 : Amiante Québec is suing Québec Inc. and Amiante Canada to recover the costs incurred to defend against asbestos victims' claims. [...]
[...] In his opinion, Amiante Québec has not demonstrated the need for confidentiality.Paragraph 7. The Court of Appeal overturns the judgment of the Superior Court and concludes that there is a rule of confidentiality. (Paragraph 8. The judges Mailhot, Fish and Biron all wrote a separate opinion in the Court of Appeal.Paragraph 9. Yes, there was dissent in the Court of Appeal by the judge Biron. (Paragraph 10. Dispositions of the Civil Procedure Code and new concordances : Ancient articles (C.p.c.) New articles (C.p.c.) 13 32 20 8 46 49 47 55 50 58 396 229 397 230 398 231 398.1 232 399.1 233 400 234 401 Abrogé 402 235 403 236 405 238 11. [...]
