Case information

Civil procedure — Abuse of procedure — Application to dismiss — Civil liability — Liability of state bodies — Relative immunity — Exercise of functions and good faith — Applicant’s complete file provided by representative of Indemnisation des victimes d’actes criminels (“IVAC”) — Whether proceeding can be terminated even though case law is clear in this regard — Where judge asks that clear documents covered by subpoena be handed over, whether compensation officer can hand over crime victim’s complete file despite fact that it is protected by professional secrecy and is therefore confidential — Whether right to professional secrecy can be breached by government body that compensates crime victims — In this regard, whether IVAC can shield itself behind immunity, as argued, for this act committed — Whether IVAC can be relieved from its liability where such error is made — Whether victim file can be handed over in its entirety to victim’s assailant — Whether failure to comply with subpoena can be without consequences — Act respecting occupational health and safety, CQLR, c. S 2.1, s. 161.

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.

Since November 2018, the applicant has received benefits from Indemnisation des victimes d’actes criminels (“IVAC”), which falls under the jurisdiction of the respondent, the Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (“CNESST”). Believing that her complete file had been unlawfully given to her former spouse’s lawyer in the course of divorce proceedings, the applicant claimed $177,684.67 in damages from IVAC. The CNESST brought an application to dismiss, relying on the relative immunity provided for in s. 161 of the Act respecting occupational health and safety, CQLR, c. S 2.1.

The Superior Court granted the CNESST’s application to dismiss the applicant’s originating application for damages and to declare it abusive, and dismissed the originating application. It found that IVAC’s representative had been acting in the exercise of her functions when she appeared at the hearing and that she had provided the documents requested in the subpoena served on IVAC. In addition, the allegations were insufficient for a finding of bad faith. The action was therefore clearly unfounded, as it had no chance of success given the relative immunity provided for in s. 161 for the officer who had done the impugned act in good faith in the exercise of her functions. The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, since it was of the view that there was no weakness in the judgment and no question that warranted its attention.