2021 QCCQ 74, 2021 QCCQ 74

Leiffer c. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce 2021 QCCQ 74 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-162150-207 DATE: January 15, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE HENRI RICHARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ LYDIA LEIFFER Plaintiff v.

CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT On the demand for non-disclosure of an address ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff makes a demand for non-disclosure of an address in which she asks that her address be kept confidential. [ 2 ] In civil matters, public nature of procedure before the Courts of Justice is clearly established in

article 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( C.C.P. ): 11. Civil justice administered by the courts is public. Anyone may attend court hearings wherever they are held, and have access to court records and entries in the registers of the courts. An exception to this principle applies if the law provides for in camera proceedings or restricts access to the court records or to certain documents filed in a court record. Exceptions to the principle of open proceedings set out in this

chapter apply despite

section 23 of the Charter of human rights and freedoms (

chapter C-12 ). [ 3 ] The Court can only make an exception to the principle of open proceedings pursuant to

article 12 C.C.P. : 12. The court may make an exception to the principle of open proceedings if, in its opinion, public order, in particular the preservation of the dignity of the persons involved or the protection of substantial and legitimate interests, requires that the hearing be held in camera, that access to a document or the disclosure or circulation of information or documents specified by the court be prohibited or restricted, or that the anonymity of the persons involved be protected. [ 4 ] Essentially, the Plaintiff alleges that she lives alone and has been a victim of harassment in the past.

With respect, these grounds are not sufficient to thwart the public nature of procedure since the events to which the Plaintiff refers are in no way related to the present case. [ 5 ] Accordingly, the Court concludes that the public nature of procedure must be maintained, given the absence of sufficient grounds for making an exception to this principle. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : DISMISSES the Plaintiffs’s demand for non-disclosure of an address. __________________________________ Henri Richard, J.C.Q.