Authors
Partner, Disputes, Montréal
Partner, Disputes, Toronto
Partner, Disputes, Calgary
Partner, Disputes, Montréal
Partner, Disputes, Toronto
Partner, Disputes | Insolvency and Restructuring, Montréal
Table of Contents
Privacy Jurisprudence Review
Société québécoise d’information juridique c. Commission d’accès à l’information, 2025 QCCQ 859
Facts
An individual filed an application for review with the Québec privacy commissioner (CAI) after the Société québécoise d’information juridique (SOQUIJ) declined her request that her personal information be anonymized on SOQUIJ’s website. SOQUIJ manages a database of judgments notably issued by the Tribunal administratif du logement (TAL) and the Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT).
SOQUIJ filed an application to dismiss, raising that the CAI lacked jurisdiction to rule on the application for review. It pointed out that the CAI already had in hand, at that time, all the relevant elements enabling it to grant, prior to a hearing on the merits, its application to dismiss. The CAI rejected the jurisdictional challengeand SOQUIJ appealed the decision.
Decision
The Court considered that the individual requiring anonymization from SOQUIJ had not, at any time, asked the TAL or TAT for any form of anonymization, in camera proceedings or measures to ensure the confidentiality of her identity. The Court held that the CAI could not impose the remedy sought, as it does not sit in appeal or review of these tribunals’ decisions. A hearing on the merits was neither necessary nor desirable to reach such a conclusion.
Thus, the issue before the CAI was to determine the identity of the body with jurisdiction to grant the remedy sought by the individual seeking anonymity. Only the TAT and the TAL could “rectify”, modify or anonymize the decisions they had rendered.
The personal information to which the rectification request relates is public information, as the individual seeking same did not ask the TAL or TAT to anonymize their decisions. In these circumstances, the remedy provided for in section 89 of the Québec Public Sector Act cannot be applied to rectify decisions rendered by jurisdictional bodies such as the TAT and TAL.
By refusing to grant the application to dismiss, and thereby refusing to decline jurisdiction, the CAI arrogated to itself a jurisdiction that falls more specifically on the TAT and TAL. Moreover, it erred when it concluded that personal information obtained in the exercise of a jurisdictional function, not covered by a non-disclosure, non-publication or non-dissemination order, remains covered by Chapter III of the Québec Public Sector Act, which includes section 89.
The CAI dismissed the application to dismiss on the grounds that it has general jurisdiction over SOQUIJ by virtue of its status as a public body under the Québec Public Sector Act. On appeal, the Courd found that the CAI erred as it must have jurisdiction over the essence of the dispute, which was not the case here. SOQUIJ’s appeal was granted in part, along with its jurisdictional challenge.
Key takeaway
This decision provides important insights into the jurisdictional limits of the CAI. It also reinforces the principle that confidentiality orders can only be issued by the tribunal or court hearing the claim. The CAI cannot retroactively impose such orders on decisions rendered by these tribunals or courts.
