(Montreal) The Court of Appeal agrees to hear star host Paul Arcand and journalist Félix Séguin, as well as their employers Cogeco Média and Groupe TVA, in particular, who are seeking to obtain documents for their defense on the sidelines of a $12 million defamation lawsuit filed against them in 2019.
Posted at 5:18 p.m.
The decision was handed down on Monday by Judge Michel Beaupré, of the Court of Appeal, which authorizes the highest court in the province to review the first instance decision which had denied them access to certain police investigation documents.
The lawsuit is brought by the former head of operations of the Permanent Anti-Corruption Unit (UPAC) André Boulanger and the investigator Caroline Grenier-Lafontaine, who are claiming these sums as compensatory and punitive damages, believing that they have been defamed by the media and journalists targeted.
Diffusion of leaks
This lawsuit stems from the publication and dissemination of information relating to police leaks, an initial investigation by UPAC into these leaks entitled Project A and an investigation by the Bureau of Independent Investigations (BEI) into Project A.
Paul Arcand, Félix Séguin and their respective employers have requested access to numerous documents from the UPAC, the BEI, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP) to ensure their defense in this lawsuit, which has been dragging on for almost three years. .
According to them, these documents would demonstrate that their journalistic work was done rigorously and that the facts they disclosed in connection with the police leaks were accurate.
Derailment of trial
Last May, we learned that the trial of former ministers Nathalie Normandeau and Marc-Yvan Côté and four co-defendants had been derailed because of these leaks. The reasons given by Judge André Perreault in 2020 to order a stay of proceedings, reasons which had until then been redacted, were based on the Oath investigation of the BEI.
This directly pointed the finger at the former big boss of UPAC, Robert Lafrenière, as well as Mr. Boulanger and Mr.me Grenier-Lafontaine, in particular, as being themselves at the origin of the leaks they were investigating.
It was this information and others related to it that the prosecuted journalists and media had reported.
Veracity and management of illegal information
On April 5, however, Judge Clément Samson of the Superior Court refused the journalists and media prosecuted access to the investigation documents.
The magistrate considered, in particular, that the upcoming trial “will not relate to the veracity of the suspicions or insinuations conveyed by the media, but rather to the way in which they managed the information obtained”.
Judge Samson thus affirmed that the reports had to be analyzed according to the information held by the media and not that held by the police, adding that “it is not up to the media to continue the police investigation to determine whether the plaintiffs are or not at the source of the leaks that occurred”.
According to him, the documents in question were therefore not relevant and were akin to “a fishing trip” more likely to delay the debate than to enlighten it.
In addition, the judge asserted the illegal nature of the information obtained by the media, given the confidentiality of police information. According to him, they had to know the illegal nature of this information and know that their dissemination could have a negative impact on the Oath investigation of the BEI.
Irreparable harm
In contrast, Beaupré J. considers that the Court of Appeal has a duty to examine these questions.
He considers that “by rejecting their request for communication of documents […] the judgment causes them irreparable harm”. As a result, he continues, the judgment is “affected by an error likely to potentially lead to intervention by the Court”.
In this case, Judge Beaupré was above all against Judge Samson’s reasoning according to which “it does not matter whether the information is true or false as to the plaintiffs’ involvement in the disclosure of confidential information, which is the defendants’ compliance with journalistic standards”.
However, recalls Judge Beaupré, as argued by the media and as ruled by the Supreme Court, “it is recognized that the veracity of allegedly defamatory information and its disclosure in circumstances where the public interest is at stake constitute means of defence”. The veracity of the information, in fact, “is a factor that they have the right to submit in defense to the judge who will be seized of the merits”.
Protection of sources, full answer and defense
In the end, Judge Beaupré said that he “agreed” with the applicants according to whom “the general context of the case and the questions raised by the proposed appeal deserve the Court’s attention. […] In particular because in the background, the debate on the right to disclosure of the documents in dispute by the third parties BEI and UPAC is in more than one respect situated at the confluence of the protection of journalistic sources, a part, and of the right of journalists sued for defamation to a full answer and defence, on the other hand”.
Finally, the magistrate considers that it would be appropriate “for this detour of the parties before the Court to proceed quickly”, in order to be able to move forward on the merits of the dispute once the question of the delivery or not of the documents will be settled. .