Case information

Civil procedure — Abuse of process — Judicial review — Did the lower courts, by dismissing a valid application for judicial review without addressing the merits, and leaving the applicant without any remedy, violate the applicant’s constitutional right to access justice and obtain a remedy? — Considering that judicial review is fundamental to the justice system and the open-access principle, did the denial of judicial review at a preliminary stage, without ensuring an alternative remedy, amount to a jurisdictional error and a breach of the applicant's fundamental rights? — Does a court err in law by granting immunity to an international organization without adequately considering the limitations of functional immunity, specifically when such immunity is invoked to block access to judicial review or remedy, contrary to constitutional rights and principles of natural justice? — Does a court exceed its jurisdiction by submitting to a claim of immunity that is not legally recognized or applicable, thereby improperly shielding an international organization from judicial scrutiny and denying individuals their constitutional right to access justice and remedy? — Did the lower courts err in law by upholding a claim of solicitor-client privilege without conducting the necessary legal analysis — In particular, did the courts fail to consider whether the document in question met the established criteria for privilege, including confidentiality and waiver of privilege? — Did the judicial process adequately respect the applicant’s right to a full and complete defense? — Was the sanction of punitive damages justified and proportionate under the circumstances? — Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C 25.01, art. 51.

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.

On or about January 27, 2020, the respondent, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), filed with the Administrative Labour Tribunal (ALT) an Introductory Act in order to ratify a transaction entered into between it and the applicant, Ms. Itzia Sindali Sandoval Rio de la Loza (Ms. Sandoval), in the context of employment law disputes. Ms. Sandoval filed several complaints of harassment and reprisals against the CEC, when the latter was her employer. On September 17, 2021, the ALT ratified the transaction after concluding that there was no breach of consent. The ALT noted that Ms. Sandoval had had the opportunity to present voluminous evidence and to be heard. This initial decision by ALT was the subject of a judicial review by the ALT, who rendered two decisions on the file. A preliminary decision which concluded that the arguments submitted had not been formulated in the original proceeding and that only the documents originally filed in that proceeding were eligible for administrative review. A final decision concluded that there was no substantive defect such as to invalidate the initial decision of the ALT. The Superior Court of Quebec dismissed and declared abusive, within meaning of art. 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the application for judicial review filed by Ms. Sandoval. The application to dismiss filed by the CEC was granted and the application for declaration of abuse of procedure filed by Ms. Sandoval was dismissed. The Court of Appeal has dismissed the application for leave to appeal filed by Ms. Sandoval.