Case information

Civil procedure — Striking of allegations — Confidential information — Professional secrecy of lawyers — Whether there can be waiver of right of professional secrecy by party holding that right through party’s inaction following violation of that right, in particular in context of broad, unauthorized dissemination of protected information — Whether broad, unauthorized dissemination of information covered by professional secrecy can otherwise strip it of its protected nature in judicial sphere — Civil Code of Québec, art. 2858 — Charter of human rights and freedoms, CQLR, c. C 12, s. 9.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) (SEALING ORDER) (CERTAIN INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC)

Further to the release of L’Oratoire Saint Joseph du Mont Royal v. J.J., 2019 SCC 35, whereby the Supreme Court authorized a class action in civil liability against the applicant, Province canadienne de la Congrégation de Sainte-Croix, and the intervener, Oratoire Saint Joseph du Mont-Royal, the respondent, J.J., served and filed, in September 2019, his originating application for a class action accompanied by exhibits in support of his allegations. The allegations in the application, which was amended twice, stated, among other things, that the applicants were aware of the sexual assaults at the time they occurred and that they had tried to cover them up. Letters containing information obtained by a lawyer were also filed as exhibits in support of the allegations. The letters, which were apparently written between 1990 and 2006, were the subject of media reports starting in 2010. The applicants filed an application to strike allegations and remove exhibits in April 2021. The applicants alleged that the exhibits that they requested be removed, that is, the letters and the various media reports stating their content, were protected by professional secrecy of lawyers. The Superior Court allowed the application to strike in part and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.