Les principles applicables en matière de secret professionnel

par Karim Renno
Renno Vathilakis Inc.

Si vous êtes un jeune avocat, stagiaire ou étudiant et qu'on vous demande de faire une recherche sur le secret professionnel, commencez par la décision rendue récemment par l'Honorable juge Alexandre Boucher dans Baazov c. Autorité des marchés financiers (2018 QCCS 454). Dans celle-ci, il fait une revue remarquable des principes juridiques applicables avec amples références à la jurisprudence pertinente.

Dans cette affaire, le juge Boucher doit déterminer si des documents saisis par l'AMF sont protégés par le secret professionnel. 

Ces documents ont été saisis par l'AMF dans le cadre d'une perquisition à la résidence et la place d'affaires du Demandeur en vertu de mandats émis dans le contexte d'une enquête faite sous l'égide de la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières.

Après analyse, le juge Boucher en vient à la conclusion que presque tous les documents en question sont couverts par le secret professionnel. Sa présentation des principes juridiques applicables est claire, logique et très instructive:

[7] Solicitor-client privilege is a fundamental rule of our legal system intended to ensure that a client in need of legal advice is able to communicate freely and confidently with a lawyer. The privilege must be afforded strong and generous protection. The privilege strictly protects the confidentiality of a (1) communication between solicitor and client, (2) which entails the seeking or giving of legal advice, (3) and which is intended to be confidential by the parties (Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson, 2016 SCC 21 (CanLII), [2016] 1 SCR 381 at paras. 17-19; Canada (Attorney General) v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada, 2015 SCC 7 (CanLII), [2015] 1 SCR 401 at para. 96; Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v. Blood Tribe Department of Health, 2008 SCC 44 (CanLII), [2008] 2 SCR 574 at para. 9; Maranda v. Richer, 2003 SCC 67 (CanLII), [2003] 3 SCR 193 at para. 11; R. v. McClure, 2001 SCC 14 (CanLII), [2001] 1 SCR 445 at paras 17 and 45; Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2004 SCC 31 (CanLII), [2004] 1 SCR 809 at paras. 14–21; Descoteaux v. Mierzwinski, 1982 CanLII 22 (SCC), [1982] 1 SCR 860 at p. 872–874; R v. Solosky, 1979 CanLII 9 (SCC), [1980] 1 SCR 821 at p. 837). 

[8] The privilege extends to legal advice given by a foreign lawyer (Adam M. Dodek, Solicitor-Client Privilege, Markham, LexisNexis, 2014, p. 71-78). 

[9] No search warrant can enable the seizure of documents protected by solicitor-client privilege. Seized documents found to be privileged are to be returned to the holder of the privilege (Lavallée, Rackel & Heintz v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 61 (CanLII), [2002] 3 SCR 209 at para. 49). 

[10] The solicitor-client privilege must not be interpreted too narrowly: “[g]enerally, solicitor-client privilege will apply as long as the communication falls within the usual and ordinary scope of the professional relationship. The privilege, once established, is considerably broad and all-encompassing” (Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2004 SCC 31 (CanLII), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809, para. 16). 

[11] In the same vein, it is not required that a communication consists specifically in seeking or giving legal advice as long as it occurred within the “continuum” of communication directly related to the request for and tendering of legal advice. A communication will be protected if it is “part of that necessary exchange of information of which the object is the giving of legal advice” (Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v Canada (Information Commissioner), 2013 FCA 104 (CanLII) at paras. 25–28; Redhead Equipment v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 SKCA 115 (CanLII) at paras. 34-35; R. v. Tate, 2016 QCCS 5046 (CanLII) at paras. 30-31). 

[12] That being said, not every aspect of relations between a client and a lawyer is protected by the solicitor-client privilege. For instances, the privilege does not apply when the lawyer is acting as a business counsellor as opposed to a legal counsellor. Furthermore, the involvement of an outsider may imply waiver of professional secrecy (Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v. Blood Tribe Department of Health at para. 10; Foster wheeler Power Co. v. SIGED inc. 2004 SCC 18 (CanLII), [2004] 1 SCR 456 at para. 37, 49). 

[13] Moreover, the privilege does not apply to a communication that is in itself criminal or made in furtherance of a crime or made with the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime. It should be kept in mind that the solicitor-client privilege is directed to the integrity of the justice system and is not intended to facilitate criminal activities (Descoteaux v. Mierzwinski, at p. 881; Maranda v. Richer, at para. 36; R. v. Campbell, 1999 CanLII 676 (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 565 at paras. 55-60; Paciocco, David M., and Lee Stuesser. The Law of Evidence, 7th ed. Toronto: Irwin Law, 2015 at p. 247-249).

Référence : [2018] ABD 51