2021 QCCA 1393, 2021 QCCA 1393

Attorney General of Quebec c. Celik 2021 QCCA 1393 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029612-215 ( 500-22-250440-180 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: September 21, 2021 THE HONOURABLE STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A.

APPLICANT COUNSEL ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC Mtre Marie-hélène Hébert ( Bernard, Roy (Justice-Québec) ) By videoconference RESPONDENTS COUNSEL Cesur Celik June Tyler Tyler Celik Deniz Celik Mtre François Mainguy ( Langlois Avocats ) By videoconference DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment terminating the proceeding rendered on June 7, 2021 by the Honourable Louis Riverin of the Superior Court , District of Montreal (Art. 30 al. 2 et 357 C.p.c. ) . Clerk at the hearing : Mélanie Camiré Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 9:26 Commencement of the hearing.

Identification of counsel. 9:27 Submissions by Mtre Hébert. 9:49 Submissions by Mtre Mainguy. 10:02 Technical issues have arisen and the courtroom is disconnected from the videoconference.

10:03 Resumption of the hearing by videoconference. Continuation of Mr. Mainguy’s arguments. 10:09 Reply by Mtre Hébert. 10:15 Recess of the hearing. 10:52 Resumption of the hearing. Mtre Hébert tells the judge that her client undertakes to pay the respondents' extrajudicial costs up to $25,000 without any admission whatever, including the Respondents’ financial situation. 10:54 Comments by Mtre Mainguy. 10:55 BY THE JUDGE: Judgment will be issued on minutes of the hearing during the day and forwarded to the parties as soon as it is available. Conclusion of the hearing.

Mélanie Camiré, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Attorney General of Quebec (“AGQ”) seeks leave to appeal from the judgment rendered by the Court of Quebec, Civil Division, District of Montreal (the Honourable Louis Riverin) on June 7, 2021, which ordered him to pay $10,000 to each of the Respondents Cesur Celik and June Tyler, and $5,000 to each of the Respondents Tyler Celik and Deniz Celik. [1] [ 2 ] The Respondents are the parents and brothers of Koray Kevin Celik, who died on March 6, 2017, during a police intervention.

The Bureau des enquêtes indépendantes (“BEI”) was charged with investigating his death. On August 9, 2018, the BEI issued a press release announcing that it had completed its investigation and delivered its report to the Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales.

The Respondents, alleging that the press release was one-sided and presented only the police version of the events, sued the BEI and claimed moral and punitive damages. [ 3 ] The trial judge, after examining the mission of the BEI and the regulation providing for the communication of information to the public, concluded that the BEI committed a fault in issuing a press release which “relate un seul point de vue, qui laisse croire qu’il prend position en faveur de la version policière” [2] .

He considered that the BEI did not act in accordance with the regulation and breached its obligations of independence, transparency and impartiality. [ 4 ] Considering the value of the subject matter of the dispute in appeal, leave to appeal is required (Art. 30, par. 2(1°) C.C.P. ). Leave can be granted if the appeal raises an issue “that should be submitted to that Court, for example because it involves a question of principle, a new issue or an issue of law that has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions” (A rt. 30, par. 3 C.C.P. ).

The interests of justice and the principle of proportionality must also be considered (A rt. 9 and 18 C.C.P. ). [ 5 ] The AGQ raises several grounds of appeal. In particular, he argues that the trial judge erred in law in concluding that the BEI exceeded its jurisdiction and in limiting the power of the BEI to issue press releases. He also submits that the trial judge erred in deciding that the BEI should have taken into account the fact that the family disagreed with the content of the press release, since the BEI should not be influenced in the exercise of its duties.

He also contests the trial judge’s conclusion that the BEI was not neutral in regards to the content of its press release and the causal link between the issuance of the press release and the damages alleged by the Respondents. [ 6 ] With respect to the motion for leave, the AGQ argues that there is no precedent dealing with the law or the regulation governing the BEI, its operations and its mission.

He considers that this judgment creates a precedent which could have significant practical consequences on the way in which the BEI executes its mission to communicate information to the public and how it exercises its duties in an independent fashion. [ 7 ] The Respondents argue that the issues are limited to this press release and do not merit leave. Moreover, they argue that leave should not be granted because the amount at issue is only $30,000 and that an appeal, which they estimate to cost $25,000, would be disproportionate.

The AGQ answered this argument by undertaking at the hearing, without any admission whatsoever, to pay the Respondents’ extrajudicial costs, up to a maximum of $25,000. [ 8 ] In my view, leave to appeal should be granted because the appeal raises new questions which are of public interest and which should be considered by the Court.

The AGQ’s undertaking on the Respondents’ extrajudicial costs is sufficient to resolve my concerns about the proportionality of an appeal. [3] FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 9 ] PRAYS ACT of the Attorney General of Quebec’s undertaking to pay the Respondents’ extrajudicial costs, up to a maximum of $25,000, and ORDERS him to respect that undertaking;

[ 10 ] GRANTS the motion for leave to appeal; [ 11 ] GRANTS the Attorney General of Quebec leave to appeal from the judgment rendered by the Court of Quebec, Civil Division, District of Montreal (the Honourable Louis Riverin) on June 7, 2021; [ 12 ] THE WHOLE, with legal costs to follow. STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A.