Case information

Administrative law — Judicial review — Orders to hold in camera hearings and banning disclosure, publication and release — Whether this case raises question of public importance or important issue of law (or issue of mixed law and fact) within meaning of s. 40(1) of Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S 26, that warrants decision by Court.

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.

(SEALING ORDER)

The applicant is a physician specializing in anesthesiology. In certain proceedings instituted by the intervener the assistant syndic of the disciplinary council of the Collège des médecins du Québec (council), the applicant asked the council to make preliminary orders to hold in camera hearings and banning disclosure, publication and release under s. 142 of the Professional Code, CQLR, c. C 26. The council responded to that request and made the preliminary orders required. The respondent media companies, MédiaQMI inc. and Groupe TVA inc., were authorized to intervene in the proceedings to seek the revocation of the preliminary orders. Because of that intervention, new orders to hold in camera hearings and banning disclosure, publication and release were made, and certain documents were given to counsel for the respondents in return for an undertaking not to disclose the content of the documents. Further to the applicant’s undertaking to resign from the roll of the order, the intervener the assistant syndic of the Collège asked to withdraw certain proceedings that had been instituted. Correlatively, the applicant asked that the documents originally given to counsel for the respondents be returned because the debate surrounding them had become moot. The respondents objected to the return of the documents. The applicant and the respondents filed applications in the Superior Court for judicial review of the council’s decision on these matters. The Superior Court allowed the applicant’s application in part and dismissed the respondents’ application. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondents’ appeal and set aside the Superior Court’s judgment.