2018 QCCA 1984, 2018 QCCA 1984

Robinson c. E.R. 2018 QCCA 1984 COUR D'APPEL CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC GREFFE DE MONTRÉAL N o : 500-09-027281-187 (500-17-100911-174) PROCÈS-VERBAL D'AUDIENCE DATE : Le 30 août 2018 CORAM : LES HONORABLES FRANCE THIBAULT, J.C.A. ROBERT M. MAINVILLE, J.C.A. SUZANNE GAGNÉ, J.C.A. APPELANT AVOCAT RICHARD ROBINSON Me JEAN-PIERRE SHEPPARD (Robinson Sheppard Shapiro s.e.n.c.r.l.) INTIMÉE AVOCATES E... R... Me JULIA GARZON M e cÉleste perreault-lévesque (Ménard, Martin Avocats) En appel d'un jugement rendu le 21 décembre 2017 par l'honorable Martin Castonguay de la Cour supérieure, district de Montréal.

NATURE DE L'APPEL : Demande de citation à comparaître refusée - Outrage Greffière d’audience : Elisabeth Lepage Salle : Antonio-Lamer (RC-14) AUDITION 11 h 42 Ouverture de l’audience. 11 h 43 Échanges entre la juge Thibault et Me Sheppard sur l’ Application to strike and remove exhibits from respondent’s brief qui a été déposée cette semaine. 11 h 45 Argumentation de Me Sheppard. 11 h 51 Remarques du juge Mainville. 11 h 56 Commentaires de la juge Gagné. 11 h 59 Commentaires du juge Mainville. 12 h 02 La juge Thibault demande à Me Garzon sa position sur la requête.

Réponse de Me Garzon. 12 h 03 Échanges entre la juge Thibault et Me Garzon. 12 h 10 Argumentation de Me Garzon. 12 h 13 Commentaires de la juge Gagné. 12 h 14 Échanges entre le juge Mainville et Me Garzon. 12 h 16 Remarques de la juge Thibault. 12 h 27 Réplique de Me Sheppard. 12 h 32 Suspension. 12 h 46 Reprise de l’audience. PAR LA COUR : Les conclusions 1, 2 et 5 de la requête pour faire retirer des pièces du mémoire de l’intimée sont accueillies, sans frais de justice. L’appel est rejeté avec frais de justice. Voir arrêt page 3. 12 h 48 Fin de l’audience (

s) Elisabeth Lepage Greffière d’audience PAR LA COUR ARRÊT [ 1 ] The Appellant appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Martin Castonguay, J.S.C.), which denied his application pursuant to

article 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an order that the Respondent appear at a contempt of court hearing. * * * * * [ 2 ] The contempt proceedings were initiated by the Appellant on the allegation that the Respondent had violated the terms of a confidentiality order which had been issued on November 8, 2017, by the Honourable Lukasz Granosik, J.S.C. That confidentiality order was issued ex parte at the explicit request of the Respondent, who was seeking to have her identity protected with respect to court proceedings she initiated seeking substantial compensation from the Appellant for alleged sexual harassment.

[ 3 ] Shortly after the initiation of these proceedings and the issuance of the confidentiality order, the Respondent carried out interviews with various journalists in which she discussed the proceedings. These interviews generated considerable media attention on November 9 and 10, 2017. [ 4 ] On December 1, 2017, the Appellant applied to the Superior Court to quash the confidentiality order. On January 15, 2018, the Honourable Christine Alary, J.S.C., granted that application and quashed the confidentiality order on the grounds that (

a) it was not in the public interest and (

b) the Respondent had disclosed to the public sufficient details about her identity which precluded her from an order to protect that identity. [ 5 ] On December 20, 2017, the Appellant also applied to the Superior Court for an order that the Respondent appear at a contempt of court hearing for allegedly violating the terms of the confidentiality order.

After a very short hearing, the Honourable Martin Castonguay, J.S.C., denied the application on the ground that the Respondent could not be found guilty of contempt if she had renounced to the benefit of the very order that she herself had sought. * * * * * [ 6 ] The Appellant submits that it was an error of law to conclude that the Respondent could unilaterally renounce the benefit of the confidentiality order and thus render herself immune from contempt proceedings if she violated the terms of that order.

He also challenges the fairness of the hearing held before the Superior Court. [ 7 ] We need not decide those grounds of appeal, nor any other of the issues raised by the Appellant or the Respondent since we are all of the view that the appeal should be dismissed solely for the following reasons. * * * * * [ 8 ] The power to find an individual guilty of contempt of court in a civil law matter is exceptional and our Court has consistently discouraged its routine use to obtain compliance with a court order [1] . As recently stated by Justices Abella and Gascon in Morasse v.

Nadeau-Dubois , contempt proceedings are enforcement measures of last resort which should only be used where it is genuinely necessary to safeguard the administration of justice [2] . [ 9 ] Consequently, where other remedies are readily available for redressing an alleged failure to comply with a court order, then contempt proceedings need not be authorized [3] .

While exhausting judicial remedies may not be a precondition to contempt in all cases where alternative remedies exist [4] , in many cases the proportionality of using contempt rather than the alternative should be considered. [ 10 ] In this case, an alternative judicial recourse was readily available, namely an application to quash the confidentiality order.

That is precisely what the Appellant sought before resorting to contempt proceedings and, as a matter of fact, the confidentiality order was indeed quashed by the Superior Court. [ 11 ] Since an efficient alternative judicial remedy was readily available to safeguard both the administration of justice and the interests of the Appellant, it was not necessary to resort to contempt proceedings in this case. We therefore conclude that it is not appropriate, in the circumstances, to overturn the decision of the Honourable Castonguay. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 12 ] DISMISSES the appeal, with legal costs.

FRANCE THIBAULT, J.C.A.

ROBERT M. MAINVILLE, J.C.A. SUZANNE GAGNÉ, J.C.A.