Quebec E-Discovery Legislation and Case Law Digests - Civil Law (to 2008)
Quebec Case Law
See below Disclaimer
Last Updated July 3, 2008
This digest is maintained by the members of the Sedona Canada Working Group (WG7); it was originally created by the members of the eDiscovery sub-committee of the Task Force on the Discovery Process in Ontario and is a supplement to the eDiscovery Guidelines. It is available at The Discovery Task Force E-Discovery Guidelines and Resources Page and the Canadian eDiscovery Portal webpage on the LexUM website.
An act to establish a legal framework for information technology, R.S.Q., chapter C-1.1 (2001, c-32) states the following:
Document: Information inscribed on a medium constitutes a document. The information is delimited and structured, according to the medium used, by tangible or logical features and is intelligible in the form of words, sounds or images. The information may be rendered using any type of writing, including a system of symbols that may be transcribed into words, sounds or images or another system of symbols.
Database: For the purposes of this Act, a database whose structuring elements allow the creation of documents by delimiting and structuring the information contained in the database is considered to be a document.
One of the objects of the act is to ensure "the coherence of legal rules and their application to documentary communications using media based on information technology, whether electronic, magnetic, optical, wireless or other, or based on a combination of technologies".
Bill c-32 also amended the Code of Civil Procedure to insert a provision for technology-based documents in s89.4:
"the contestation of a technology-based document on the ground of a violation of integrity ; in such a case the affidavit must state precisely the facts and reasons suggesting a probable violation of the document's integrity. Failing such affidavit, the writings are held to be admitted or the formalities to have been fulfilled, as the case may be."
Paragraph 12 of An act to establish a legal framework for information technology, R.S.Q., chapter C-1.1 (2001, c-32) states the following:
"A technology-based document may fulfil the functions of an original. To that end, the integrity of the document must be ensured and, where the desired function is to establish
that the document is the source document from which copies are made, the components of the source document must be retained so that they may subsequently be used as a reference ;
that the document is unique, its components or its medium must be structured by a process that makes it possible to verify that the document is unique, in particular through the inclusion of an exclusive or distinctive component or the exclusion of any form of reproduction ;
that the document is the first form of a document linked to a person, its components or its medium must be structured by a process that makes it possible to verify that the document is unique, to identify the person with whom the document is linked and to maintain the link throughout the life cycle of the document."
Section 4.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads:
"In any proceeding, the parties must ensure that the proceedings they choose are proportionate, in terms of the costs and time required, to the nature and ultimate purpose of the action or application and to the complexity of the dispute; the same applies to proceedings authorized or ordered by the judge." (2002, c. 7, s. 1.)
Section 4.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads:
"Subject to the rules of procedure and the time limits prescribed by this Code, the parties to a proceeding have control of their case and must refrain from acting with the intent of causing prejudice to another person or behaving in an excessive or unreasonable manner, contrary to the requirements of good faith. The court sees to the orderly progress of the proceeding and intervenes to ensure proper management of the case" (2002, c. 7, s. 1.)
Section 402 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads:
If, after defence filed, it appears from the record that a document relating to the issues between the parties is in the possession of a third party, he may, upon summons authorized by the court, be ordered to give communication of it to the parties, unless he shows cause why he should not do so.
The court may also, at any time after defence filed, order a party or a third person having in his possession any real evidence relating to the issues between the parties to exhibit it, preserve it or submit it to an expert's appraisal on such conditions, at such time and place and in such manner as it deems expedient.
Groupe TVA Inc. c. Bell Expressvu, s.e.c., 2005 IIJCan 18670 (QC C.S.) Date : 2005-05-26 Dossier : 500-17-022586-047. Claudette Picard, j.c.s. Plaintiff sought to preserve evidence in the form of backup tapes, held by Iron Mountain, of the Master Customer Database, the Management Information System and the subscription database and anything else needed to determine the number of decoders at any given address in early 2000.
Section 438 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads:
Anyone who, expecting to be a party to a legal proceeding, has reason to fear that some evidence that he will need may become lost or more difficult to present may, by motion, ask:
that the witnesses whose absence or incapacity he fears be heard before the hearing;
that anything movable or immovable, the condition of which may affect the outcome of the expected legal proceeding, be examined by a person of his choice.
Section 752 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads:
In addition to an injunction, which he may demand by a motion to institute proceedings, with or without other conclusions, a party may, at the commencement of or during a suit, obtain an interlocutory injunction.
An interlocutory injunction may be granted when the applicant appears to be entitled to it and it is considered to be necessary in order to avoid serious or irreparable injury to him, or a factual or legal situation of such a nature as to render the final judgment ineffectual.
1965 (1st sess.), c. 80, a. 752; 2002, c. 7, s. 102.
NEW Bouchard c. Société industrielle de décolletage et d'outillage (SIDO) ltée, 2007 QCCS 2272 (CanLII) Date : 2007-05-16 Dossier : 460-17-000736-066. François Tôth j.c.s. Wrongful dismissal. Allegations of collusion. Concerned about destruction of evidence. Plaintiff was in possession of backup tapes and wanted to turn them over to an expert for preservation and to search for evidence. Court rejected motion to retain the backup tapes, but required defendant to preserve them against alteration or destruction. " Il existe un intérêt cependant à ce que le contenu d’un serveur soit conservé afin de démontrer qu’un document a déjà existé et qu’il a été détruit." (However, there is interest in preserving the contents of a server in order to show that a document has existed and that it has been destroyed.) (Translation P.D.) Quotes Celanese on the role played by Anton Piller orders in preventing unscrupulous defendants from destroying evidence.
Bombardier inc. c. Davies, 2007 QCCS 1771 (CanLII)2007-4-2 Pierre-C Gagnon, j.c.s. Plaintiff's motion for a safeguard order following the execution of an Anton Piller order. Nice description of the role of the custodian of the seized material and that of the supervising solicitor in extraction of relevant information. Based on Celanese.
K8E K8E (KUEI) Productions artistiques et culturelles inc. c. Thivierge, 2006 QCCS 6034 (IIJCan) Date : 2006-12-21 Dossier : 200-17-007780-067. Suzanne Ouellet, j.c.s. Request for a seizure before judgment under article 733 of CCP and an interim injunction against the destruction of information stored on computers, as well as any copies on backup media or other off-line device. The plaintiff is a producer of two television series and the defendant is a former employee who has refused to return the devices until he receives remuneration, which is in dispute. The seizure before judgment was rejected, but the Court ordered the defendant not to modify, alter, copy, transfer, erase or otherwise affect the integrity of the files in any way. Decision based on the balance of inconvenience - the tapes are essential to the plaintiff and without them, the company would be unable to sell the series internationally or pay back the investment made by provincial and federal governments. Therefore the request met the test of "irreparable damage" since there would be no remedy. The second test is urgency - the defendant might destroy the goods when served with the notice for the interlocutory injunction.
Groupe TVA Inc. c. Bell Expressvu, s.e.c., 2005 IIJCan 18670 (QC C.S.) Date : 2005-05-26 Dossier : 500-17-022586-047. Claudette Picard, j.c.s. Order to preserve the information, including "la copie de sauvegarde des données permettant à Groupe TVA Inc. de déterminer le nombre d'abonnés de Bell ExpressVu Société en commandite, recevant le service spécialisé LCN, incluant ceux s'identifiant comme abonnés de type francophone, les redevances mensuelles et les rapports mensuels s'y rattachant, pour la période du 1er octobre 2001 jusqu'au jour du prononcé du jugement et la copie de sauvegarde des données nécessaires à la détermination du nombre de décodeurs assignés à une même adresse pour la période du 5 décembre 2000 jusqu'au jour du prononcé du jugement." (the data backup copies that would permit TVA to determine the number of ExpressVu subscribers receiving special services, particularly in the French language, the monthly royalties and the relevant monthly reports, for the period from October 1, 2001 until judgement, as well as the backup copy of the data necessary to determine the number of decoders assigned to the same address for the period from December 5, 2000 to the date of judgment.)
Multiculturel Alpha c. Guay, 2005 IIJCan 35281 (QC C.Q.) Date : 2005-09-23 Dossier : 200-22-033428-053. Charles C. Grenier, j.c.q. A petition for preservation that was not granted because the action had already started.
Section 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads:
The courts or judges may condemn any person who is guilty of contempt of court.
Directory Management America.COM Inc. c. Mondoux, 2003 IIJCan 28979 (QC C.S.) 2003-04-04 Dossier : 505-05-007825-026. Jacques R. Fournier, J.C.S. Motion concerning contempt of court. Respondent had not turned over materials, including a hard disk from the computer, within the 10 days proscribed in the order. Moreover, when the disk was finally received it had been wiped and Linux operating system installed. Experts could not determine for sure that the defendant had been the agent of the destruction.
Echostars Satellite Corp. c. Lis, 2004 IIJCan 16270 (QC C.S.) 2004-05-28 Dossier : 500-17-018292-030;500-17-018293-038;500-17-018294-036. Motion for an accusation of contempt of court in a TV piracy case. Under an Anton Piller order, the defendants' premises were searched. Four laptop computers were found, each without a hard drive, and a fifth brand-new computer with the hard disk intact. Supposition that the hard disks had been removed in effort to destroy evidence.
Syndicat des spécialistes et professionnels d'Hydro-Québec c. Hydro-Québec, 2003 IIJCan 20475 (QC A.G.) 2003-09-02. Arbitral tribunal. Appeal of a dismissal for cause related to inappropriate use of email and internet services including conducting private business and browsing pornography. Petitioner had lied under oath.
Centre local de développement des Etchemins c. Conseil de développement économique des municipalités bilingues du Manitoba, 2004 IIJCan 40388 (QC C.S.) 2004-10-22 Dossier : 200-17-004620-043. Jean Bouchard, j.c.s. Motion to make documents (including computers and emails) seized under an Anton Piller order available to the plaintiff so they can make their case to the Labour Relations Board.
NEW Gennium Pharmaceutical Products inc. c. Rioux, 2007 QCCS 5471 (CanLII) 2007-11-05 Dossier : 500-17-038049-071 Marc-André Blanchard, j.c.s. The judge rejects the defendant's motion (s. 165 (4) Ccp) to dismiss the "special rule to appear before the court to hear proof of the acts with which he is charged and to urge any grounds of defence that he may have" (s.53 Ccp), on the basis that it is unfounded in law, even if the facts alleged are true. The facts are as follow. An Anton Piller order was rendered against the defendant in accordance with the terms quoted in the judgement. On the day of the execution of the order, the defendant was asked if he had any other electronic material, including USB key, to which he answered negatively. A couple days later, the defendants counsel sent a USB key to the plaintiff's counsel which, in turn, sought a contempt order. (summary by Dominic Jaar)
Lixo Investments Ltd. c. Acmon inc., 2006 QCCS 5535 (IIJCan) Date : 2006-12-08 Dossier : 500-11-029257-066. Maurice Laramée J.C.S. Plaintiffs, who are the minority shareholders of Defendant, failed to prove some of the essential requirements of an Anton Piller order: which are, firstly; that Defendant has elements of proof or documents relevant to the litigation in his possession and, secondly; that there is any reason to suspect or fear that Defendant may destroy such proof or documents. Court concluded that it was a fishing expedition and denied the extension of the Anton Piller.
Refplus inc. c. Kehar, 2006 QCCS 2452 (IIJCan) Date : 2006-05-04 Dossier : 500-17-017038-038. Michel Déziel j.c.s. Defendant sought to annul and quash an Anton Piller order, declare the search and seizure illegal, declare all evidence seized pursuant to the order excluded from evidence in all civil proceedings, and to declare all proceedings estopped due to the alleged abusive and illegal manner in which the Plaintiff has acted. The court determined that the original order met the three conditions for an Anton Piller order, pointing out that the defendant had lied about whether he had plaintiff's information and appeared to be in the act of removing it when the order was exercised, vindicating the allegation that there was a serious risk of destruction and the need for an ex parte order. The process conformed to the order - the defendant had the right to seek counsel (which he did) and although the lawyers said they would contest the Anton Piller order, they did not ask for it to be suspended while they sought a judge; they consented to the execution of the order; an independent lawyer isn't an absolute requirement, according to existing jurisprudence, although it is recommended; the use of a locksmith was ordered by the court and was not following a refusal; the order did not require an inventory of the seized material, although one should be produced as soon as possible; it was appropriate to seize boxes of documents from the defendant's car; the order needed to be executed as soon as possible, which happened to be Friday night; and, although there were two representatives from the plaintiff, there were present one at a time. The motion was rejected.
Transport Canmer inc. c. Morel, 2006 QCCS 1061 (IIJCan) 2006-02-23 Dossier : 500-17-029625-061. Roger E. Baker j.c.s. The court quashes the Anton Piller based on the new information provided by the defendants in an affidavit.
Nadeau c. Nadeau, 2004 IIJCan 49666 (QC C.S.) 2004-12-23 Dossier : 200-05-010444-987.Claudette Tessier-Couture j.c.s. Issuance of an Anton Piller order during the proceedings based on the fact that the defendants did not collaborate to the examinations and the production of exhibits and because the defendants had destroyed documents that might have been pertinent.
Centre local de développement des Etchemins c. Gagnon, 2004 IIJCan 16204 (QC C.S.) 2004-06-09 Dossier : 200-17-004620-043. Frank G. Barakett j.c.s. Extension of original Anton Piller order of May 31st, 2004, issued by Gérald Boivert j.c.s.
Julien Inc. c. Québec métal recyclé (F.N.F.) Inc., 2002 IIJCan 37829 (QC C.S.) Citations parallèles :  R.J.Q. 1079 2002-02-26 Dossier : 200-05-016578-028. Julien inc. (Julien) présente au juge en son cabinet une demande d’émettre une injonction provisoire ex parte de type « Anton Piller ». Request for an Anton Piller order to retrieve information from a computer based on the belief that the defendant will delete or destroy the information. NEW (addition from Dominic Jaar) The Court also ordered the plaintiff to notify the defendant before the execution of the order to give the defendant the opportunity to file a motion to quash the order...judgment gave a good overview of the Canadian and Quebec case law re Anton Piller orders.
Shermag Inc. c. Zelnicker, 2004 IIJCan 21212 (QC C.S.) Date : 2004-08-04 Dossier : 450-17-001218-040. Paul-Marcel Bellavance j.c.s. Litigation following notice of the termination of an employment contract. The plaintiff believed that the defendant had started forming a future partnership while still in the employ of the plaintiff, yet after being advised of the termination. Confronted by the plaintiff, the defendant threatened to use the information at his disposal to harm the plaintiff's business. In the request for the Anton Piller order, the plaintiff asked "qu'il soit ordonné au défendeur, sous peine d'outrage au Tribunal, de laisser entrer chez lui un représentant de la demanderesse, un technicien informatique, tout huissier de justice, de leur donner plein accès à ses filières et équipement informatique, de fournir tout mot de passe ou code, d'extirper les informations pertinentes aux dossiers et enfin, et c'est ce qui a principalement provoqué la prise en délibéré de la requête, d'enlever les documents pertinents." (that the defendant give full access to all files and IT equipment, providing all passwords or codes and to eradicate all pertinent documents (from his systems) and remove all pertinent documents") Only the originals and copies removed by the bailiff would remain after the destruction. In other words, prevent the defendant from using the documents by erasing them from his computers and removing any other copies. Prima facie evidence involved an email sent by the defendant to a competitor of the plaintiffs, along with visual designs sent to a company in China.
This case also touches on the problem of private information that may be disclosed in the course of the Anton Piller search of the defendant's residence. "Il y a aussi un danger que l'on retrouve dans l'appartement ou dans les ordinateurs des documents personnels ou des éléments de vie privée. Pour le même motif expliqué au paragraphe précédent, ce fait ne doit pas empêcher la présente procédure. Si on place dans un même ordinateur des éléments privés et professionnels, au cas de mauvaise foi dans sa vie professionnelle, on expose aussi sa vie privée. Toutefois, les personnes qui exécuteront le présent jugement, prendront soin de ne retenir et photocopier que ce qui est pertinent à la cause. Elles ont l'obligation d'ignorer et de garder confidentielle, toute autre information qu'elles pourraient apprendre. Une obligation générale de bonne conduite leur incombe". Essentially, if one mixes private and professional elements on the same computer and shows bad faith in professional life, one exposes one's personal life. However, those executing the order will take care only to retain or photocopy documents pertinent to the case and are obliged to ignore and keep confidential anything else they might learn. It is incumbent on them to behave properly.
Shermag Inc. c. Zelnicker, 2004 IIJCan 45775 (QC C.S.) Date : 2004-11-25 Dossier : 450-17-001218-040. Pierre C. Fournier j.c.s. Applicant granted access to the documents seized under the Anton Piller order to prepare for the trial. (addition from Dominic Jaar) The judge considered that the seized goods were deemed pertinent due to the fact that the defendants did not seek to quash the Anton Piller order.
Groupe AST (1993) Inc. c. Ross, 2002 IIJCan 32689 (QC C.S.) Date : 2002-05-28 Dossier : 200-05-016954-021. Georges Taschereau, j.c.s. Application for the reversal of an Anton Piller type injunction for two of the defendants. The applicants were not advised of the search and seizure in contravention of their rights under the Civil Code and the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The search and seizure was reversed, but for the other defendants the court: "ORDONNE à Jean-Yves Ross et Raymond Chabot SST inc., et à toutes personnes raisonnables en charge de leurs établissements ou domicile, de ne pas effacer, altérer, détruire, mutiler ou cacher tous programmes informatiques, fichiers, courriers électroniques, disques durs, CD Rom, disquettes, imprimés, notes, listes de clients, livres, manuels ou autres écrits provenant d'AST ou reproduisant des écrits provenant d'AST et de les remettre à la demanderesse, à ses représentants et procureurs ainsi qu'à tous huissiers de justice qui en feront la demande".
Raymond Chabot SST Inc. c. Groupe AST (1993) Inc., 2002 IIJCan 41255 (QC C.A.) Citations parallèles :  R.J.Q. 2715 2002-10-25
Dossier : 200-09-004085-020;200-05-016954-021. Seeking to reverse the order in the above case in the Court of Appeal. Granted in part, with some modifications to the safeguard order. In the course of the decision, the judge quotes Me Jacques A. Léger in an article appearing in 1989, in Les Cahiers de propriété intellectuelle: "Les ordonnances Anton Piller ont déjà été décrites comme « l’arme nucléaire » du droit; cela explique sans doute la fréquence de leur utilisation par les titulaires de droits exclusifs en matière de propriété intellectuelle, tels les brevets, les marques de commerce, droits d’auteurs, dessins industriels et secrets de commerce. En effet, en ces domaines où la réputation commerciale juxtapose l’intérêt économique en jeu, la partie plaignante aura facilement tendance à faire le maximum pour assurer le respect et la protection de ses droits." (i.e. Anton Piller orders have already been described as law's "nuclear bomb"; this undoubtedly explains the frequency of their use by those with exclusive rights to intellectual property, such as patents, trademarks, copyright, industrial design and trade secrets. In effect, in these areas where commercial reputation intersects economic interests, the applicant will tend to do the utmost to assure the protection of his rights.)
Tamec Inc. c. Publications Infosearch Inc., 2003 IIJCan 43244 (QC C.S.) Date : 2003-11-06 Dossier : 500-17-017077-036. Marie St-Pierre J.C.S. Extension on an Anton Piller order and an injunction. At the time of the original order the defendants had not been represented by counsel. Modified into a preservation order. The first part of the order reads: "de ne pas effacer, altérer, détruire, mutiler ou cacher quelques informations ou documents que ce soit relativement à ...collectivement « les documents » que ces documents soient : sur support papier, logiciels, disques durs, accessoires, supports, programmes informatiques, fichiers, courriers électroniques, disques durs, CD Rom, disquettes ou autre forme" (i.e. not to erase, alter, destroy, mutilate or hide information relative to the matter, collectively "the documents", whether these documents are in paper, software, hard disk, accessory, support, programs, files, electronic mail, CD ROM, diskette or other form). The court also orders the seized materials to stay under the control of the bailiff for the additional period of time.
Admaco Business Machines Ltd. c. Zeichmeister, 2005 IIJCan 11741 (QC C.S.) Date : 2005-04-08 Dossier : 500-17-024655-055. Marie St-Pierre J.C.S. An extension of an Anton Piller order and interim injunction again related to information technology. Added to demonstrate the continuing use of Anton Piller orders.
Financement Calico Inc. c. Sauro Plante, 2002 IIJCan 19836 (QC C.S.) Date : 2002-02-04 Dossier : 500-05-070329-022. Jacques Dufresne J.C.S. "ORDONNE que tous les biens enlevés en vertu de la présente ordonnance soient gardés et entreposés par le ou les huissiers instrumentant et ORDONNE au ou aux huissier(s) instrumentant de mettre sous scellé lesdits documents ou biens, de ne pas donner l'accès aux documents et autres biens saisis en vertu de la présente ordonnance à qui que ce soit et de quelque manière que ce soit jusqu'à ce qu'une ordonnance de la Cour vienne préciser les modalités d'accès aux divers documents et/ou biens saisis;" (i.e. orders that all goods removed under this order be guarded and stored by the bailiff(s) and orders the bailiff(s) to seal the documents and goods, and not to give anyone access to the documents or goods until the Court has defined what kinds of access will be given to the seized goods.)
NEW Saphie Number One Ltd. c. 6091636 Canada Inc., 2008 QCCS 2233 (CanLII) Date: 2008-05-28 Docket: 500-17-033937-064. A. Derek Guthrie J.S.C. Defendants motion to quash a provisional Anton Piller order. " Although today,huge chunks of information can evaporate at the click of a key, the stringent jurisprudential standards developed over the last 30 years for obtain more and more business (and even personal) records and information are retained in computer memories rather than on paper format, and even if in an Anton Piller order must not be relaxed.  Many of Plaintiff's allegations turned out to be not only incomplete, but often misleading and sometimes false. Confronted by the many facts and admissions extracted from Mr Peña during his examination, Plaintiff's only argument was that those facts were not material. The Court disagrees. In the Court's opinion, the examination of Mr Peña as well as his Undertaking responses demonstrate that Plaintiff violated the doctrine of full and frank disclosure!"
Duchesneau c. Bureau canadien d'investigation et ajustement (CBIA) inc., 2006 QCCQ 1474 (IIJCan) Date : 2006-02-15 Dossier : 500-22-110204-057. Jacques Paquet j.c.s. Reversal of an order for seizure before judgment. Article 734 not conceived with the intent of seizing the contents of a computer.
Transport Canmer inc. c. Morel, 2006 QCCS 1061 (IIJCan) Date : 2006-02-23 Dossier : 500-17-029625-061. Roger E Baker j.c.s. Defendant produced an affidavit declaring that Morel "brought to the Plaintiff a freight forwarding business that the Plaintiff did not conduct in any form prior to Morel joining the firm." further, Morel and his group brought it "from their old and former employer prior to the joining Canmer Inc, the present Plaintiff". the court concluded "The information and the material in the file before me now, does not merit nor warrant the issuance of a provisional injunction or an Anton Piller order." (para 22).
Nadeau c. Nadeau, 2005 IIJCan 12478 (QC C.S.) 2005-04-18 Dossier : 200-05-010444-987. Normand Gosselin j.c.s. The court quashed the AP order and ordered the plaintiffs to return the seized documents to their owner because the plaintiffs waited 5 years after they learned about the documents’ cleaning that was performed by the defendants before filling their motion. Moreover, since then, there was no evidence of documents spoliation or destruction. For that reason, the court found that there was no grave danger that vital evidence would be destroyed.
3469859 Canada Inc. c. St-Ours, 2004 IIJCan 39703 (QC C.S.) Date : 2004-09-24 Dossier : 500-17-022362-043. Jean-Pierre Senécal, j.c.s. The applicant seeks a further injunction in addition to the Anton Piller order given on 16 Sep 2004. Now that the respondent has counsel, they have vigorously denied the allegations made during the request for the original injunction and the court concludes that indeed the grounds were inadequate for the Anton Piller. The respondent's business is totally paralyzed by the seizures. The Court rephrases the order to say "refrain from altering, erasing, destroying, damaging, hiding or transferring any and all items referred to in paragraph ii) above". The disposal of the seized materials would be dealt with in court on 29 Sep 04.
Posesorsky c. 9076-3905 Québec Inc., 2003 IIJCan 566 (QC C.S.) Date : 2003-11-25 Dossier : 500-17-017994-032. Clément Gascon j.c.s. Reversal of an order to preserve evidence under Article 438 because procedures as described in Article 441 were not followed.
Citadelle, Cie d'assurance générale c. Montréal (Ville), 2005 IIJCan 24709 (QC C.S.) Date : 2005-07-11 Dossier : 500-05-000385-953. Nicole Morneau j.c.s. The parties didn't agree on the form of production, in paper or digitized. Sixteen suits against the city of Montreal were combined. A number of the plaintiffs would not accept electronic production of the more than 10,000 pages. Counsel for the defendants content that the two CDs rigorously conform to the requirements in Articles 2841 and 2842 of the Code civil du Québec. The applicants don't meet the conditions for paper discovery. Proportionality test. The Court declared that the production on CDs was sufficient, and noted that Montréal agreed to make the original documents available to the plaintiffs for inspection.
Peg Duncan & Dominic Jaar
December 7th, 2007
The information provided in this case law digest was gathered and organized for user convenience. Efforts have been made to ensure the quality of the information. Nonetheless, The Sedona Conference®, The Discovery Task Force and the Ontario Bar Association give no warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of information published on this page. Users of this page are responsible for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the content presented here. The Discovery Task Force and the Ontario Bar Association cannot be held responsible or liable for any damages or losses resulting from the use of this content