Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on alleged unauthorized disclosure of a psychological report in an employment context.

• Plaintiff claimed his right to privacy was violated under the Civil Code and the Québec Charter.

• Defendant maintained that any disclosure was consensual and aimed at workplace accommodation.

• The court emphasized the burden of proof on the plaintiff under the balance of probabilities.

• Testimonies of the employer’s representatives were consistent and deemed credible.

• The court found the plaintiff failed to prove a fault or breach sufficient to establish liability.

Background and employment relationship

Guillaume Hurtubise was employed as a drafter by Hydrotech Mining Inc. for approximately 16 months. During his tenure, he began experiencing difficulties interacting with colleagues and performing his duties. These challenges stemmed in part from a psychological condition for which he received a diagnosis later in life. In an effort to seek understanding and support, he submitted a confidential psychological report to Denis Giguère, the company’s director of human resources. Hurtubise expressly instructed that the contents of the report remain confidential and only be discussed with him directly.

The September 3 meeting and alleged disclosure

Tensions escalated in the workplace, particularly between Hurtubise and his supervisor, Xavier Brossard. A meeting was scheduled on September 3, 2021, to address incidents involving Hurtubise. Giguère attended the meeting at Brossard’s request. During the discussion, Giguère asked Hurtubise whether he was comfortable discussing aspects of his psychological profile to help contextualize his conduct. According to both Giguère and Brossard, Hurtubise gave clear verbal consent and actively participated in the conversation.

Hurtubise, however, later claimed that Giguère had disclosed the contents of the report without proper consent. He alleged that approximately 90% of the information had been shared without his approval. He subsequently sent several emails to other employees at various levels of the company discussing the situation and his psychological condition, which the court later noted contributed to the widespread awareness of the issue internally.

Legal claims and grounds for damages

Hurtubise filed a claim before the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec, seeking $12,500 in damages plus court costs. He claimed:

• $5,000 for legal fees incurred while attempting to resolve the matter amicably,

• $5,000 for moral damages due to emotional distress,

• $2,500 in interest, and

• $2,500 in exemplary damages.

He also sought an additional $10,000 under article 91 of the Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels dans le secteur privé (LPRPSP), alleging that the unauthorized disclosure constituted a penal breach of privacy protections.

Issues in dispute

The central issue was whether the defendant had unlawfully breached the plaintiff’s right to privacy by disclosing sensitive psychological information without valid consent. The court also had to determine whether such a breach, if proven, entitled the plaintiff to damages under the Civil Code or the Québec Charter.

Court’s analysis and credibility of testimony

The court carefully reviewed the testimonies of Giguère, Brossard, and Hurtubise. It found that Giguère had taken steps to respect the confidentiality of the report and only made general references to the existence of supportive context, without revealing sensitive or specific psychological details. Most importantly, the court concluded that Hurtubise had verbally agreed during the meeting to the limited discussion of his condition, and there was no evidence of coercion or deception.

The court also highlighted the internal emails sent by Hurtubise himself to a broad group of employees, which included references to his psychological report. This undermined his claim that the employer was the source of any broader disclosure within the company.

Burden of proof and standard of evidence

In civil matters, the burden rests on the plaintiff to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities. While the court acknowledged Hurtubise’s sincerity and vulnerability, it found that he failed to present clear, convincing evidence of any unauthorized disclosure. The defendant’s version of events was internally consistent and supported by credible testimony, whereas the plaintiff’s perception of the meeting, though genuine, was insufficient to meet the legal standard.

Outcome and final decision

The court rejected all claims against Hydrotech Mining Inc., concluding that no fault had been established under article 1457 of the Civil Code or article 49 of the Québec Charter. It further noted that the Small Claims Division had no jurisdiction to impose penalties under article 91 of the LPRPSP, which falls under penal law and requires action by the Commission d'accès à l'information.

The plaintiff’s request for damages was denied in its entirety, and he was ordered to pay $364 in legal costs to the defendant.