Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Régis Beniey filed a claim for $95,000 against the Ville de Montréal and two of its representatives, alleging unlawful access to and use of his private medical information.
• Central to the incidental motion was whether exhibits P-1 to P-22 — comprising medical reports, CNESST documents, and related records — should be sealed from public access.
• Article 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure establishes the principle of public access to court records, while Article 12 permits exceptions where public order or the protection of personal dignity requires it.
• Article 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 16 of the Rules of the Court of Québec specifically restrict access to health-related documents filed under sealed envelope.
• The defendants opposed the second and third conclusions of the confidentiality motion, arguing they would unduly restrict the Ville de Montréal's management rights and the defendants' rights in judicial, administrative, or disciplinary proceedings.
• The court found the second and third conclusions disproportionately broad, as they failed to account for circumstances in which the defendants could have a legitimate interest in using the filed exhibits.

Facts of the case

In late April 2026, Régis Beniey, an employee of the Ville de Montréal, filed an originating application before the Court of Québec (Civil Division) claiming a total of $95,000 from the Ville de Montréal and two of its representatives, Marc Gauthier and Nathalie Desrochers. Beniey alleged that the defendants violated his privacy by accessing and using his medical information without authorization. The medical information at issue related to a workplace injury he sustained in the summer of 2025. Concurrently with his originating application, Beniey filed an incidental motion seeking a confidentiality order over exhibits P-1 to P-22, which he described as consisting of medical reports, CNESST forms and decisions, communications regarding his medical treatment, data relating to his incapacity for work, and disciplinary measures based on medical information he alleged was obtained unlawfully.

Policy terms and legislative provisions at issue

The motion was grounded in Article 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which authorizes the court to depart from the principle of open justice where public order — including the protection of personal dignity — or other important legitimate interests so require. This provision operates alongside Article 11, which enshrines the general principle that civil justice is public and that all may attend hearings and consult court records. Article 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure carves out a specific exception for health-related documents, providing that access to documents concerning a person's health or psychosocial situation is restricted when filed under sealed envelope. Article 16 of the Rules of the Court of Québec similarly restricts access to medical files and expert reports prepared by physicians, psychologists, social workers, or other psychosocial experts when deposited under sealed envelope, requiring court or judicial authorization for access.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court noted that while it is not bound by the absence of contestation on a confidentiality order — given the public order character of the principle of open justice — Beniey had nevertheless established his right to have the exhibits sealed. The defendants had not opposed the first conclusion of the motion, which sought to place exhibits P-1 to P-22 under sealed envelope accessible only to the parties and the court. However, the defendants did contest the second and third conclusions, which sought to prohibit the defendants and their representatives from using the exhibits for any purpose other than the present proceedings, and to subject all extracts, reproductions, or copies to the same restrictions. The court found the defendants' objections well-founded: those conclusions were unduly broad and failed to account for situations in which the defendants — particularly the Ville de Montréal as Beniey's employer — might have a legitimate interest in, or even a strict right to use, one or more of the filed exhibits. In the absence of more specific context in the motion, the court held it was not possible to issue a general preventive order prohibiting all use of the documents. The court further noted that if such documents were relevant to proceedings before another judicial or administrative body, it would be for that body to manage their use within its own file.

Ruling and outcome

The court, presided over by the Honourable Luc Huppé, J.C.Q., partially granted the incidental motion for a confidentiality order. Exhibits P-1 to P-22 were ordered to be kept under sealed envelope and made accessible only to the parties and the court. The remaining conclusions — seeking to restrict the defendants' use of the exhibits beyond the present proceedings — were dismissed. The order was granted without costs, and the court noted it may be revised at any time as the case develops. Beniey was partially successful on the confidentiality motion; no monetary award was made at this stage, as the judgment addressed only the incidental procedural matter and not the underlying $95,000 claim.