Des demandes documentaires peuvent être abusives

par Karim Renno
Irving Mitchell Kalichman s.e.n.c.r.l.

Un des objectifs principaux de l'introduction des articles 54.1 C.p.c. et suivants au Code de procédure civile était de sanctionner les comportements disproportionnés et d'éviter les débordements dans le cadre des procédures civiles. Ce pouvoir accordé aux tribunaux civils s'exerce sur toutes les facettes d'un dossier, incluant la communication de la preuve. Par exemple, dans l'affaire Post-Graduate Students' Society of McGill University Inc. c. Canadian Federation of Students (2013 QCCS 2171), les demandes documentaires volumineuse d'une partie demanderesse ont été jugées excessives et abusives.

Dans cette affaire, la Défenderesse demande au tribunal de déclarer les demandes documentaires de la Demanderesse excessives et abusives. Cette dernière rétorquent que, au contraire, ces demandes sont raisonnables et sont formulées en raison du refus systématique de la Défenderesse de fournir l'information pertinente.

En concluant à l'abus, l'Honorable juge Paul Mayer prend plusieurs facteurs en considération dont le fait que la Demanderesse a inscrit sa cause pour enquête et audition (déclarant son dossier complet) mais continue pourtant à formuler des demandes documentaires importantes et la pertinence particulièrement tenue de plusieurs d'entre elles:

[33]        Firstly, the requests for documentation in this file have gotten out of hand.  The rules of proportionality set out in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 C.P.C. are not being respected.  PGSM has not ensured that this latest procedure was proportionate in terms of the costs and time required with respect to the nature and ultimate purpose of the case. 

[34]        Secondly, when PGSM inscribed the case for proof and hearing in June 2011, it confirmed that the case was ready to be heard. 

[35]        Article 274.1 C.P.C. and Article 77 (a) of the Rules of practice have a two fold objective: (i) the declaration certifies that the case is ready to be heard, and (ii) it ensures that no further document will be produced without authorization of the Court. 

[36]        An Article 274.1 declaration cannot be conditional or under reserve.  The case must be entirely ready. 

[37]        Yet, a year after the case was inscribed to be heard, PGSM requested more than 100 documents under the guise of saving time during the yet to be scheduled hearing on the merits. 

[38]        In doing so, PGSM ignored the basic and fundamental rule that it had signalled that it was ready to proceed.  It acted as if the Code of Civil Procedure did not exist.  In requesting further documentation during the hearing of March 2012, it derailed the legal process and breached its judicial undertaking to proceed with the trial.  

[...] 

[44]        All of this, for close to nothing.  During the two day hearing before the undersigned, nearly half of the requests for documents were withdrawn.  Objections were maintained with respect to all of the balance, save for one. 

[45]        Precious Court time was wasted and expensive legal fees were incurred. 

[46]        Hence, the Court concludes that the request of June 7, 2012, was a frivolous and unnecessary exercise and a breach of PGSM’s judicial contract.  Nothing has been gained from this procedure.  PGSM has offered no reasonable or convincing justification for such blameworthy conduct. 

[47]        In proceeding in this matter, PGSM was not acting in good faith.

Le texte intégral du jugement est disponible ici: http://bit.ly/119i4c6

Référence neutre: [2013] ABD 211