L'intérêt du public à connaître certaines informations n'est pas une considération pertinente dans le cadre d'un interrogatoire préalable

par Karim Renno

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt s.e.n.c.r.l./s.r.l.

Bien que la pertinence soit un concept large, et ce particulièrement lors d'un interrogatoire préalable, le simple intérêt du public à connaître une information ne la rend pas pertinente. C'est ce que l'on retient du jugement rendu récemment par l'Honorable juge Dionysia Zerbisias dans Poulin c. Presse (La) Ltée. (2011 QCCS 1537).


Dans cette affaire, la juge Zerbisias est appelée à trancher des objections découlant d'un interrogatoire préalable. La trame de fond du litige est décrite comme suit par la juge:

[2] Plaintiffs sue Defendant for moral and exemplary damages of $300 000 arising out of the alleged breach of his privacy rights which are protected by S. 5 of the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (R.S.Q., c. C-12) and Arts. 35 and 36 C.C.Q.

[3] The alleged breach was the disclosure in the press in September 2010 of Plaintiff's private telephone conversation with another individual, surreptitiously wiretapped by unknown sources, without the consent or knowledge of the participants to the telephone conversation. Plaintiff alleges that this was a voluntary and express breach since the actions of Defendants occurred after an earlier disclosure by them, in October 2009, of the very same conversation whereupon Plaintiff had formally objected, and warned Defendants, in writing, to cease and refrain from the breach of his rights.

En plaidoirie, les Défendeurs plaident qu'on doit leur donner beaucoup de latitude puisqu'ils doivent pouvoir établir le contexte complet dans lequel la conversation téléphonique a eu lieu et parce qu'il est dans l'intérêt du public de connaître les réponses à certaines questions. La juge Zerbisias ne retient pas cette position et elle rappelle que la pertinence s'apprécie uniquement eu égard des allégations dans une procédure, pas l'intérêt général du public à connaître l'information:

[9] Defendants may not in the context of their alleged defense pose questions which are unrelated to the object of the demand, nor seek to elicit information which is unknown to the public; nor seek to secure and obtain personal and private information from Plaintiff; nor seek to continue their investigation into the affairs of Plaintiff; nor seek to obtain information which they did not possess at the time of the publication; all in the alleged “public interest” in order to justify their breach of Plaintiff's right.

[10] Simply put, the questions which Defendants pose and to which Plaintiff objects, seek to elicit information to expand their investigation into Plaintiff's conduct and general affairs, questions which they claim are justified in the interests of the public. Their questions are not pertinent to the issue, nor will they be useful to the judge seized of the merits. Examples of these questions, to name a few, delve into the nature of Plaintiff's personal and professional relationship with the other individual on the line; the revenues of the engineering company of which Plaintiff is President; the number and value of contracts the company secured from the City of Montreal or SHDM; whether Plaintiff had dealings with a Mr. Accurso and whether he had visited his boat, and who was present with them; whether Plaintiff was interrogated by the police with regard to the alleged telephone conversation; how long he had known Mr. Trépanier; why he had not sued other parties, etc.

Le texte intégral du jugement est disponible ici: http://bit.ly/fC17WN

Référence neutre: [2011] ABD 120