Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The application concerns a request under article 251 of the Code of Civil Procedure for third-party production of documents held by the Sureté du Québec and the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions.
   
• Olymbec sought disclosure of investigative and criminal-file materials to support a personal liability claim against El-Aaraj arising from cannabis-related activities on its leased premises.
   
• El-Aaraj opposed the request, characterizing it as a fishing expedition that lacked relevance and proportionality.
   
• Neither the SQ nor the DPCP objected to the disclosure and both offered their cooperation.
   
• Quebec courts have recognized "Wagg-type" applications, drawing on Ontario Court of Appeal jurisprudence, as a mechanism for obtaining pre-trial access to criminal-file materials in civil proceedings.
   
• Ultimately, the Court found the requested documents relevant and likely to advance the litigation, subject to redaction safeguards protecting privileged and third-party information.
   

Facts of the case

Développement Olymbec inc. owns a commercial building in Montreal that it leased to 10355852 Canada inc. for cannabis cultivation activities authorized under the Cannabis Act. On or about October 24, 2023, the Sureté du Québec conducted a raid on the leased premises, leading to charges in two separate criminal files. In one of those files, a joint statement of facts was filed. Following the raid, the premises were left damaged and the tenant stopped paying rent; it subsequently went bankrupt. Olymbec brought a damages action against Chadi El-Aaraj personally, as the tenant company's sole shareholder and director, alleging his knowledge of and/or involvement in the criminal activity. El-Aaraj denied any knowledge or fault. After being refused informal access to certain documents, including the joint statement of facts, Olymbec applied to the Court for an order compelling the SQ and the DPCP to produce a range of investigative materials. The SQ and DPCP did not object. The accused individuals named as impleaded parties, Daniel Farella and Cynthia Larosa, were served but did not appear or raise objections.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The application centered on article 251 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits a party in possession of physical evidence to be required to produce it, and which similarly requires a third party holding relevant documents or evidence to produce, present, or preserve them if the court so orders. The Court also referenced article 20 C.C.P., reflecting the legislature's intent to promote continuous exchange of information between parties. El-Aaraj's opposition rested on relevance and proportionality principles, arguing the request amounted to an improper fishing expedition rather than a legitimate pre-trial disclosure request.

Reasoning and analysis

The Court held that provisions permitting third-party document production must be interpreted broadly and liberally, though the exercise remains discretionary and guided by principles of natural justice. It characterized Olymbec's request as a "Wagg-type" application, following Quebec jurisprudence that draws on the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in D.P. v. Wagg, under which the Attorney General may raise objections on behalf of the DPCP. Since the Attorney General raised no objection here, that procedural safeguard was satisfied. The Court emphasized that such applications are generally granted absent sufficient grounds for refusal, noting that the search for truth remains the cardinal principle of civil proceedings, tempered by proportionality and efficiency. It observed that parties are masters of their own evidence and that courts should defer to a requesting party in cases of doubt, particularly at the pre-trial stage when a complete evidentiary picture is not yet available. While acknowledging its role as guardian against abuse of process or improper fishing expeditions, the Court found that Olymbec's request was sufficiently precise and targeted, distinguishing it from a blind or exploratory search. It concluded that an additional order was warranted to protect privileged information and the privacy of third parties unconnected to the litigation.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court granted Olymbec's application, ordering the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions and the Sureté du Québec to produce, within sixty days, a detailed list of documents from the relevant criminal files, including search and arrest warrants, investigation reports, seizure reports, disclosed evidence, the joint statement of facts, and the pre-sentencing report, while excluding materials from an unrelated file. The Court further ordered that any privileged, personal, or third-party-sensitive information be redacted before disclosure to Olymbec, and required Olymbec and the impleaded parties Richard Stern and Derek Stern to abide by general confidentiality obligations applicable to civil proceedings. The deadline for setting the matter down for trial and judgment was extended to October 15, 2026, and the parties were exempted from filing an amended case protocol. Legal costs on the application were awarded in favour of Olymbec, with no specific quantum stated in the judgment — the monetary amount of costs is Not Specified.