Executive Summary: Key legal and evidentiary issues

• Whether the immunity provisions in the Charte de la Ville de Montréal properly shielded employees of the Bureau de l’inspecteur général (BIG) from compelled testimony and document production

• The limits of discovery rights when dealing with protected municipal investigative functions

• Whether maintaining objections at discovery would cause irreparable prejudice to the requesting party

• The relevance of allegations of improper conduct to the application of statutory immunity

• Whether leave to appeal interlocutory rulings on objections should be granted under articles 31 and 357 C.p.c.

• The court’s role in balancing proportionality and judicial efficiency when dealing with interim procedural appeals

Facts of the case

9150-2732 Québec inc. (Groupe TMD) is a contractor engaged by the City of Montréal for snow removal services. In 2021, Groupe TMD sued the City, the Bureau de l’inspecteur général (BIG), and certain individual public officials for nearly $9 million, alleging contractual faults and wrongful interference relating to changes in how snow was measured for payment purposes. The plaintiff claims that a new system adopted between 2018 and 2021 harmed its rights and that the BIG conducted an improper investigation into its activities.

During discovery, Groupe TMD posed several questions and sought documents from the BIG and its employees. The Superior Court ruled that 23 objections raised by the defendants should be maintained, citing immunity protections under articles 57.1.14 and 57.1.24 of the Charte de la Ville de Montréal. These provisions aim to protect the confidentiality of BIG investigations and safeguard whistleblowers and information sources. Groupe TMD sought leave to appeal the objections ruling, arguing that immunity should not apply when misconduct is alleged.

Outcome

The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal. The court found that maintaining objections at the discovery stage does not irreparably prejudice the requesting party, as the trial judge remains free to revisit such rulings at trial. The appellant did not demonstrate that the trial judge had erred in applying immunity, nor did the record suggest any manifest error. The Court also emphasized that upholding immunity provisions in such contexts is essential to preserving their protective purpose. Groupe TMD failed to show that its appeal had a reasonable chance of success, and the request for leave was dismissed with costs.