May 09, 2019
Marcotte, Schrager, Samson (ad hoc)
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court dismissing an application to disclose sealed exhibits. Dismissed with dissenting reasons.
A few days before the hearing of this application, which was brought by the intervener, the respondent discontinued his originating application and expressed his intention to remove his exhibits from the record. Finding that there was no longer a dispute between the parties and that the respondent had the right to remove his exhibits, the trial judge authorized their removal.
Article 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CQLR c. C-25.01), which requires the parties to remove their exhibits once the proceeding has ended, creates no substantive right, as it is a purely procedural rule intended to reduce the quantity of archived documents. The trial judge therefore had the discretion to grant or dismiss the application. In this respect, Schrager J.A. would have allowed the exhibits to be removed because they were no longer part of a pending court proceeding and were once again private, as they had been before proceedings began. Marcotte J.A., for her part, would have sent the file back to the Superior Court for a ruling on the dispute regarding the sealing of the exhibits in light of the Dagenais/Mentuck test.
*Summary by SOQUIJ
Text of the decision: Http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca
An RSS feed allows you to keep up to date with any recent updates published on a website. By subcribing to our RSS feed, you will automatically receive the latest news related to your RSS feed and view them at any time.