Il est fait exception au secret professionnel du notaire dans le cas où, après avoir été consulté quant à la préparation d’un testament, il ne le prépare pas et le testateur décède, étant entendu qu’un autre notaire a rencontré le testateur et préparé le testament plus tard

par Karim Renno
Renno Vathilakis Inc.

L'Honorable juge Brian Riordan vient de rendre une décision très intéressante en matière de secret professionnel d'un notaire dans l'affaire Spector c. Tanzer (Estate of) (2016 QCCS 3623). En effet, dans cette affaire, il répond à la question de savoir si le notaire qui rencontre une personne pour les fins de préparer son testament - mais qui ne le prépare finalement pas - est relevé de son secret professionnel afin de pouvoir témoigner des dernières volontés de son client.

Dans cette affaire, le juge Riordan est appelé à trancher des objections qui lui sont soumises à l'avance à l'égard du secret professionnel du notaire. Il formule ainsi la question qu'il doit trancher:

Est-ce que le privilège du notaire est levé dans le cas où, après avoir été consulté quant à la préparation d’un testament, il ne le prépare pas et le testateur décède, étant entendu qu’un autre notaire a rencontré le testateur et préparé le testament plus tard ?

Après analyse, le juge Riordan en vient à la conclusion que l'exception au secret professionnel reconnu en common law à cet égard doit également trouver application en droit québécois. Il en va selon lui ainsi en raison du rôle de la Cour de rechercher la volonté du testateur et de s'assurer de sa capacité à tester:

[16]      It is the Court's duty to attempt to respect the legitimate final wishes of citizens.  Article 703 of the Civil Code provides for that when it declares: 

Art. 703. Every person having the required capacity may, by will, provide otherwise than as by law for the devolution upon his death of the whole or part of his property.

[17]      The key phrase there is "having the required capacity" and the heirs of an earlier will almost always raise doubts as to that capacity at the time the testator made a subsequent will.  Whether the specific question is his mental capacity alone, or that combined with the possible presence of undue influence, the cloud of the testator's cognitive ability inevitably darkens the landscape.   

[18]      It is in light of that concern that courts have seen fit to raise the curtain on the testator's communications about his will with a notary.  As Justice Laberge noted, it is in the testator's interest to do that.  If he had not the aptitude to change his will or, although still capable on his own, if his cognitive senses were in a weakened state, and the notary observed activity that led him to believe that the testator was being unduly influenced, then the new will must be presumed not to reflect his true wishes.  It is part of the Court's duty to protect against such a result. 

[19]      It follows that all relevant evidence needs to come out.  That would necessarily include that which could come from a notary who was consulted in relation to the later will but who did not execute the mandate. 

[20]      In the present case, this seems particularly important given that it concerns the deceased's "legal advisor in the context of a prolonged professional relationship" who, for some reason, did not execute the mandate.  That said, the Court does not believe that this is an essential condition to removing the privilege.  If the evidence can assist the court in determining the testator's final wishes, that is enough. 

[21]      We respect the Chambre's argument that exceptions should be interpreted restrictively, but they must also be interpreted completely.  The Court's duty is to protect the testator's interest.  To do that, we shall dismiss the anticipated objections and allow Notary Malus to answer all questions related directly or indirectly to Mr. Issie Tanzer's will.

Référence : [2016] ABD 330