Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Unauthorized clandestine recording of a telephone call with ACQ employees and its subsequent online diffusion without their consent
• Alleged defamatory statements against ACQ and its employees in three widely viewed social media videos, attacking their reputation and integrity
• Tension between the defendants’ claimed freedom of expression and the ACQ’s rights to dignity, honour and reputation under the Quebec Charter and Civil Code
• Use of a provisional injunction under article 511 C.C.P. to prevent serious and possibly irreparable harm to ACQ’s image while the underlying dispute continues
• Evidentiary weight of the sworn declaration and exhibits (videos, screenshots, demand letter) establishing a prima facie appearance of unlawful conduct and reputational harm
• Balance of convenience and urgency clearly favouring immediate removal of the videos and a ban on further dissemination or similar content

Factual background

The Association de la construction du Québec (ACQ) is a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote and defend the interests of construction contractors in Quebec and to offer them various services and support. It represents a significant institutional actor in the construction sector. Construction de l’Avenir (1996) inc. is a construction company active in the promotion, construction and renovation of residential, commercial and industrial projects. One of its ultimate beneficiaries and former president is Jean-Marie Lamontagne, who has been in a long-running dispute with elements of the construction industry and institutions surrounding it. Union Nationale is a Quebec political association, and its leader since August 2022 is Jonathan Blanchette, who also administers the party’s social media accounts. Within this context, Lamontagne turned to Blanchette as a public platform to denounce what he perceives as “magouilles” in the system, seeking to use social networks and live broadcasts to air his grievances about ACQ, its representatives and the construction system more broadly.

The telephone call and clandestine recording

On 15 January 2026, around 9:30 a.m., a telephone conversation took place between Lamontagne and two ACQ employees: Me Jean-Francis Thériault, in-house counsel in the ACQ’s legal affairs department, and Emmanuelle Allaire, a labour relations adviser. Unknown to them, Lamontagne recorded the entire call without informing or obtaining the consent of ACQ, Me Thériault or Ms. Allaire. Less than an hour later, at about 10:10 a.m. the same day, he sent the recording to Blanchette. This recording later became the core audio segment used in an online interview and was incorporated into material that ACQ alleged to be defamatory and damaging to its reputation.

The recordings and online videos

Five days later, on 20 January 2026 at around 7:00 p.m., Blanchette hosted a live interview with Lamontagne that lasted 1 hour, 56 minutes and 3 seconds, streamed simultaneously on Union Nationale’s YouTube and Facebook accounts. During this broadcast, Blanchette, with Lamontagne’s participation, deliberately played the recorded 15 January call with ACQ’s representatives, again without any prior consent from ACQ or the individuals recorded. The video, later referred to as “video 1,” was widely disseminated. By the time ACQ brought its motion, it had been viewed more than 4,200 times on YouTube and more than 25,000 times on Facebook and had generated over 600 public comments. ACQ alleged that the content of the interview and recording contained defamatory statements aimed at discrediting its reputation and that of its employees. Having learned of video 1, ACQ sent a formal demand letter dated 28 January 2026 to all defendants, requiring complete removal of the video from social media. The defendants refused or neglected to comply, leaving the video accessible and continuing to accrue views and comments. On 10 February 2026, Blanchette streamed a second live video (video 2) on YouTube and Facebook, specifically addressing the cease-and-desist letter and thus prolonging the public controversy. In less than 24 hours, video 2 was viewed more than 25,000 times. On the eve of the hearing of ACQ’s motion, a third video (video 3) was published by Blanchette. In this third broadcast, he publicly denounced the injunction proceedings and invited his followers to download and re-upload the very first video that ACQ was trying to have removed, effectively encouraging redistribution and replication of the contested content.

Positions of the parties

At the hearing, the court first heard submissions from counsel for ACQ, then allowed Blanchette and Lamontagne, under oath, to express their positions on the motion. The defendants categorically opposed the requested injunction. They insisted that they were exercising their freedom of expression by denouncing what they perceive as systemic problems and corruption in the construction sector and in the institutions surrounding it, including the ACQ and its legal representatives. Blanchette described himself as an activist “whistleblower” seeking to expose wrongdoing and “end the schemes” he believes exist in the system. Lamontagne, for his part, expressed a determination to continue fighting publicly against what he calls a corrupt construction system and declared that “no one will muzzle” him. Against this, ACQ argued that the clandestine recording and public dissemination of the call, along with the commentary in the three videos, caused immediate, serious and ongoing harm to its image and that of its employees, justifying urgent court intervention.

Legal framework and key issues

The court analyzed the motion under article 511 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, which governs interlocutory injunctions. Under that provision, an interlocutory injunction may be granted where the applicant appears to have a right to it and where it is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm or to avoid the creation of a factual or legal situation likely to render the final judgment ineffective. The court also had to consider the usual criteria for provisional and interlocutory relief: the apparent right, the seriousness and irreparability of the alleged prejudice, the balance of convenience and the urgency of intervention. A central issue concerned defamation. The court reiterated that whether a statement is defamatory is assessed according to an objective standard: whether an ordinary citizen, viewing the statements as a whole, would conclude that the remarks tend to discredit the reputation of another. The judge also recalled that freedom of expression, while fundamental, is not absolute and is limited by the rights of others, notably the right to protection of reputation, particularly where the mode and purpose of diffusion are to expose or harm a person or organization. ACQ’s rights were anchored in the protection of dignity, honour and reputation set out in article 4 of the Charter of human rights and freedoms of Quebec, and in articles 3, 35 and 36 of the Civil Code of Québec, which protect personality rights and privacy, including against unauthorized recording and dissemination of private communications. In addition, the fact that the January 15 call had been clandestinely recorded, then used in a planned broadcast without consent, raised a strong prima facie appearance of unlawfulness.

Court’s analysis of the evidence

The judge reviewed the allegations of ACQ’s application, the sworn declaration of Me Thériault and exhibits P-1 to P-16, including the corporate information, political party documentation, videos and screenshots. On that basis, the court found that ACQ had established, on a prima facie (first-glance) basis, the truth of the key facts alleged: that Blanchette authored and broadcast the three videos, that these included the surreptitiously recorded call, and that they contained statements capable of damaging ACQ’s and its employees’ reputation. Blanchette did not deny that he was the author or publisher of the videos identified in the exhibits. The judge accepted that the content of the three videos, taken as a whole, was of a nature to harm ACQ’s reputation and that of its employees. The court emphasized the risks arising from the defamatory nature of the statements and from the continued availability and shareability of the videos. Because the recordings could be repeatedly viewed, commented on, downloaded and re-posted, the reputational harm risked compounding over time, particularly in light of Blanchette’s explicit call in video 3 for followers to download and republish video 1. The judge considered that ACQ had a clear appearance of right to the removal of the videos and of the illicit content resulting from the clandestine recording and unauthorized diffusion. ACQ also had a clear right to the protection of its dignity, honour and reputation under the Charter and Civil Code.

Urgency and balance of convenience

Turning to the criteria of urgency and balance of convenience, the court noted that the alleged harm was not historical or hypothetical but immediate and ongoing, as the videos remained online and could be continuously accessed and shared. With each passing day, ACQ’s prejudice increased as views, comments and potential republications multiplied. The judge accepted that this harm to ACQ’s image and reputation risked being irreparable, particularly because reputational damage, once widely disseminated online, cannot easily be reversed or fully compensated. The court also considered the risk of recurrence to be high, given the defendants’ conduct and Blanchette’s public invitation to download and re-share the contested material. On the other hand, at this preliminary stage, the court found that the defendants and the public would suffer no significant prejudice if the videos were taken down, pending a full hearing on the merits. The temporary restriction on their ability to publish these specific recordings and related defamatory content did not extinguish freedom of expression generally but constrained a particular form of unlawful or harmful expression. Accordingly, the judge concluded that the balance of inconveniences weighed clearly in favour of ACQ, and that the urgency and risk of irreparable harm justified immediate interlocutory intervention.

Outcome and orders

The Superior Court granted ACQ’s application for a provisional injunction, issuing several orders effective for 10 days from the date of judgment. First, the court ordered all defendants, their agents, representatives, officers and employees to immediately and completely remove the first video broadcast on 20 January 2026—an interview between Blanchette and Lamontagne lasting 1 hour, 56 minutes and 3 seconds, entitled “La FTQ-Construction fait encore parler d’elle. Un entrepreneur harcelé. 20 janvier 2026”—from all platforms, websites and social networks, specifically including named YouTube and Facebook accounts. Second, it ordered the immediate and complete removal of the second video, broadcast on 10 February 2026 and lasting 1 hour, 30 minutes and 48 seconds, titled “L’eau et le territoire, Péd…. !!! Objectif de l’organisation, Mise en demeure ACQ, DGEQ,” from all online platforms and social media accounts identified. Third, it ordered immediate and complete removal of the third video, broadcast on 12 February 2026 and lasting 1 hour, 56 minutes and 38 seconds, titled “Mise-en-demeure-date-d-audience-13-fevri,” from all similar platforms and accounts. Beyond removal, the court ordered the defendants to cease and abstain, directly or indirectly, publicly or privately, from communicating, re-diffusing, circulating, sharing or otherwise transmitting the 15 January 2026 call recording, the three videos, or any similar content, including any form of copy, transcript, reproduction or partial or complete excerpt of these elements, whether on TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp, X (formerly Twitter) or any other medium. The court also ordered the defendants not to publish or broadcast court hearings or stenographic notes of those hearings, except as part of appellate proceedings where production of such material may be required. The judgment authorized service of the orders by email at any time, including outside standard hours and on non-business days, ordered provisional execution notwithstanding appeal, dispensed ACQ from posting security and scheduled a follow-up hearing to set the next procedural steps. The court ordered that costs of justice would follow the result on the merits, meaning that no specific amount of costs, damages or other monetary relief was fixed in this provisional judgment. As a result, the successful party at this stage is the Association de la construction du Québec, which obtained the provisional injunction and all associated orders, but the total monetary award or costs in its favour cannot yet be determined from this decision, since damages and costs are expressly left to be decided at a later stage.