Former Quebec Premier Jean Charest will broaden his lawsuit against the Quebec government, which he accuses of having made an “abuse of process”.
A source close to the former leader of the Quebec Liberal Party (PLQ) confirmed the information to Duty Monday, two weeks after a judgment condemning the Quebec state to pay $385,000 in damages to Mr. Charest.
The same judgment authorized the former elected official to add – within 30 days – an allegation of abuse of process in his lawsuit against Quebec.
Mr. Charest first revealed his intentions in an interview with the TVA network. ” We will do it. It’s a special request called abuse of process, and it’s exceptional when the other party has abused the process to make you do additional costs and additional steps, “he told the network. of TV. He further criticized the Permanent Anti-Corruption Unit (UPAC) for having developed “a parallel justice system to convict people”.
Joined by The duty Monday, the lawyer of Mr. Charest, Jacques Jeansonne, did not wish to comment on the file. Mr. Charest had not responded to our interview request at the time these lines were written.
As for the Ministry of Justice, it declared on Monday that “no new procedure [lui] has been served in connection with this file” for the moment.
An expanded query
On April 4, the Superior Court of Quebec ordered the Quebec state to pay $385,000 to the former prime minister for having leaked private information concerning him during the Mâchurer investigation into the illegal financing of the Liberal Party of Quebec. .
In his decision, Judge Gregory Moore also authorized the former elected official to add an allegation of abuse of process in his lawsuit. In this, he was acceding to a request from Mr. Charest. The latter argues that the procedures targeting him were “unnecessarily complicated [es] since the State claimed that UPAC adequately protected personal information when it had in its possession a report saying the opposite “and which gave rise to corrective measures”, is it written in the Moore judgment.
The April 4 decision also states that “Mr. Charest believes that he has demonstrated that a series of directives and policies subject [l’UPAC] to the same obligations to protect confidential information as any government department and agency”. The judgment then specifies that the State has not yet had the opportunity to respond to the accusations of abuse of process, which it will be able to do at a management conference.