2014 QCCQ 12353, 2014 QCCQ 12353

Karman c. Gatineau (City of) 2014 QCCQ 12353 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF GATINEAU TOWN OF GATINEAU Civil Division No: 550-32-021791-147 DATE: December 17 th , 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SERGE LAURIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Gabor Karman […] Ottawa, On […] Applicant v. City of Gatineau P.O.

Box 1970, station Hull Gatineau, Qc J8X 3Y9 Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Mr. Karman is suing the City of Gatineau for it’s refusal to provide mailing addresses for 2 informers (witnesses) of a sexual assault complaint made against him for which he was acquitted. [ 2 ] Mr.

Karman is suing for damages because he believes the city’s decision not to release the information he requested was unfounded and prevented him to sue the informers for false testimony leading to false accusations. QUESTION IN DISPUTE [ 3 ] The Court has to decide if the City of Gatineau committed a fault by not giving the information requested by Mr. Karman. In that event and if Mr. Karman establishes the link between the fault and the prejudice, the Court will determine the monetary value of the prejudice. THE FACTS [ 4 ] In Court file 550-01-065071-120, Mr.

Karman is charged with the following: On or about May 21, 2012, in Gatineau, district of Hull, did commit a sexual assault on M-P.D. (1994-10-15), committing thereby the offence punishable on

summary conviction provided by section 271(1)

b) of the Criminal code . [ 5 ] Mr. Karman, is charged and arrested on this accusation. He informs the police officers that the Zellers store has evidence of his innocence on their security tapes. [ 6 ] On October 22 nd 2013, Mr. Karman is acquitted on charges of sexual assault and breach of undertaking. [ 7 ] He finally decides to take actions against the informers who wrongfully accused him.

[ 8 ] He addresses three different requests to the City of Gatineau, but only produces to the Court the last one dated February 19 th 2014. In this document he asks for the mailing addresses of two informers in order to proceed against them in small claims Court for rendering false allegations that resulted in his arrest. [ 9 ] The City of Gatineau replies in a letter dated March 3 rd , 2014 signed by Mr. Louis Picard who is the person responsible for access to information. In this letter, Mr. Picard mentions that he cannot fulfill Mr.

Karman’s request following sections 53 and 59 of An a ct respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information [1] . [ 10 ] Following this refusal, Mr. Karman claims he suffered from anxiety and depression. He produces a

summary of a medical visit with Dr. Krishnaprasad from February 19 th , 2014. The doctor’s diagnosis is chronic anxiety depression and he explains that his patient went through a lot of stress when his life was threatened with a jail sentence on an accusation he was eventually acquitted for when challenging the Court for a trial. Dr. Krishnaprasad submits his patient is now afraid to even go outside his house and has difficulty getting gainful employment. POSITION OF THE PARTIES [ 11 ] Mr. Karman mentions he was entitled to access the information he requested according to

section 59.9 of the Act because of the exception that states: « (…) a public body may release personal information without the consent of the person concerned (…) to a person involved in an incident that has been the subject of a report by a police force or by a person or body acting in conformity with

an Act that requires a report of the same nature; in the case of information on the identity of any other person involved in the incident, except a witness, an informer or a person whose health or safety could be endangered by the release of such information. » [ 12 ] He also claims the informers were not endangered by the release of such information since he was acquitted of the criminal accusations. [ 13 ] On the other hand, Mr. Picard sustains he was unable to release the informations based on the same

section of the Act because the informers were victims in the criminal file. ANALYSIS [ 14 ] The Court finds useful to state the following sections of the Civil Code of Québec [2] . « 2803. A person seeking to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based. A person who claims that a right is null, has been modified or is extinguished shall prove the facts on which he bases his claim. 2804. Evidence is sufficient if it renders the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence, unless the law requires more convincing proof. » « 1457.

Every person has a duty to abide by the rules of conduct incumbent on him, according to the circumstances, usage or law, so as not to cause injury to another. Where he is endowed with reason and fails in this duty, he is liable for any injury he causes to another by such fault and is bound to make reparation for the injury, whether it be bodily, moral or material in nature. He is also bound, in certain cases, to make reparation for injury caused to another by the act or fault of another person or by the act of things in his custody. » « 1463.

The principal is bound to make reparation for injury caused by the fault of his agents and servants in the performance of their duties; nevertheless, he retains his remedies against them. » [ 15 ] Also, the Court believes necessary to quote sections 53 and 59 of An a ct respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information.

« 53. Personal information is confidential, except in the following cases: (1) the person to whom the information relates consents to its disclosure; in the case of a minor, consent may also be given by the person having parental authority; (2) where it relates to information obtained by a public body in the performance of an adjudicative function; the information remains confidential, however, if the body obtained it when holding a sitting in camera or if the information is contemplated by an order not to disclose, publish or distribute. » 59.

A public body shall not release personal information without the consent of the person concerned. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a public body may release personal information without the consent of the person concerned in the following cases and strictly on the following conditions: (1) to the attorney of that body if the information is necessary to prosecute an offence against

an Act administered by that body or to the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, if the information is necessary to prosecute an offence against

an Act applicable in Québec; (2) to the attorney of that body, or to the Attorney General where he is acting as the attorney of that body, if the information is necessary for purposes of judicial proceedings other than those contemplated in paragraph 1; (3) to a body responsible by law for the prevention, detection or repression of crime or statutory offences, if the information is necessary to prosecute an offence against

an Act applicable in Québec; (4) to a person to whom the information must be disclosed because of the urgency of a situation that threatens the life, health or safety of the person concerned; (5) to a person authorized by the Commission d'accès à l'information, in accordance with

section 125, to use the information for study, research or statistics purposes; (6) (paragraph repealed); (7) (paragraph repealed); (8) to a person, body or agency, in accordance with sections 61, 66, 67, 67.1, 67.2, 68 and 68.1; (9) to a person involved in an incident that has been the subject of a report by a police force or by a person or body acting in conformity with

an Act that requires a report of the same nature; in the case of information on the identity of any other person involved in the incident, except a witness, an informer or a person whose health or safety could be endangered by the release of such information. » [ 16 ] According to the law, Mr. Karman has to establish, beyond the balance of probabilities, the facts that assert his rights: the fault, the injury and the link between the fault and the injury. He also needs to demonstrate that Mr. Picard is an employee of the City of Gatineau.

The fault [ 17 ] To establish the fault Mr. Karman has to prove that Mr. Picard did not behave like a reasonable person would have, facing the same circumstances. [ 18 ] The Court researched decisions from the Access to information Commission regarding the release of personal information of a witness or an informer and found the decision B.S. c .

Montréal SPVM [3] : « [43] Le rapport comprend deux sortes de renseignements qui concernent uniquement le témoin et le dénonciateur. [44] D’une part, le rapport contient des rubriques où figurent les renseignements sur l’identité de ces tiers, soit leur nom, adresse, numéro de téléphone, date de naissance, langue, race et sexe. [45] L’article 59 al. 2 (9) confère un pouvoir discrétionnaire au SPVM lui permettant de communiquer au demandeur, à

titre de personne impliquée dans un événement ayant fait l’objet d’un rapport par un corps de police, un renseignement d’identification d’une autre personne impliquée dans le même événement, et ce, sans son consentement : 59. Un organisme public ne peut communiquer un renseignement personnel sans le consentement de la personne concernée.

Toutefois, il peut communiquer un tel renseignement sans le consentement de cette personne, dans les cas et aux strictes conditions qui suivent: […] 9° à une personne impliquée dans un événement ayant fait l'objet d'un rapport par un corps de police ou par une personne ou un organisme agissant en application d'une loi qui exige un rapport de même nature, lorsqu'il s'agit d'un renseignement sur l'identité de toute autre personne qui a été impliquée dans cet événement, sauf s'il s'agit d'un témoin, d'un dénonciateur ou d'une personne dont la santé ou la sécurité serait susceptible d'être mise en péril par la communication d'un tel renseignement. [46] Cependant, cet

article prévoit expressément qu’un renseignement d’identification d’un témoin ou d’un dénonciateur doit demeurer confidentiel. Ainsi, le SPVM ne peut communiquer ces renseignements au demandeur sans le consentement du témoin ou du dénonciateur. [47] D’autre part, le rapport contient, à la

section intitulée « Faits », des renseignements faisant état de la perception du dénonciateur, alors que les mesures prises par le SPVM à l’égard du dénonciateur et du témoin sont décrites sous l’intitulé « Mesures prises » du rapport. [48] L’ensemble de ces renseignements concerne uniquement le dénonciateur et le témoin. Il s’agit donc de renseignements que l’article 54 de la

Loi sur l’accès qualifie de personnels au sujet de ces tiers. 54. Dans un document, sont personnels les renseignements qui concernent une personne physique et permettent de l'identifier. [49] Le SPVM ne peut donner communication de ces renseignements au demandeur. En effet, l’article 53 de la

Loi sur l’accès prévoit que des renseignements personnels concernant des tiers sont confidentiels et qu’un organisme ne doit pas les divulguer à moins que les tiers concernés ne consentent à leur divulgation : 53. Les renseignements personnels sont confidentiels sauf dans les cas suivants: 1° la personne concernée par ces renseignements consent à leur divulgation; si cette personne est mineure, le consentement peut également être donné par le titulaire de l'autorité parentale; […] [50] La

Loi sur l’accès prévoit que le droit à la protection des renseignements personnels d’une personne prime le droit d’accès aux documents d’un organisme public exercé par une autre personne selon l’article 9 de la

Loi sur l’accès. [51] Par conséquent, le SPVM doit garder confidentiels les renseignements sur l’identité du dénonciateur et du témoin, ainsi que les renseignements personnels les concernant figurant aux sections intitulées « Faits » et « Mesures prises » du rapport. » [ 19 ] Considering this decision is based on the same grounds invoked by Mr. Picard, the Court concludes that the City of Gatineau did not commit a fault. Mr.

Picard had an appropriate behaviour as would a reasonable person facing the same circumstances and fulfilled his duties dictated by the Act. [ 20 ] The Court believes it is not relevant to rule on the other elements of the burden of proof since Mr. Karman was unable to establish, beyond the balance of probabilities, that Mr. Picard committed a fault in the execution of his functions. FOR THOSE GROUNDS, THE COURT:

[ 21 ] REJECTS the demand, with costs. __________________________________ Serge Laurin, J.c.Q. Date of hearing: December 3, 2014