Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The sole issue was whether the emails and documents PPS sought were relevant evidence that Ms. Buron had to make available.
   
• PPS brought an incidental application under articles 169 para. 2 and 251 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relying on the duty of cooperation and proportionality rather than seeking injunctive relief.
   
• Relevance to the dispute was the governing test, assessed broadly at the exploratory stage but without authorizing a "fishing expedition."
   
• Because the originating application claimed damages and did not seek ownership of the documents, any production had to be tied to that damages claim.
   
• PPS's allegation that deleting emails from the work mailbox also erased them from its server through Zoho CRM synchronization rested on a sworn statement that was not cross-examined.
   
• Copies of emails and attachments about PPS's clients, suppliers and partners were ordered produced within 25 days, with Ms. Buron free to file a sworn statement if she no longer holds some or all of them.
   

Facts of the case

Productions Première-Scène inc. (PPS) and Chantale Buron had a business relationship for a few years before PPS retained her as Director of Casting and Sponsorships on October 1, 2025. That arrangement ended on April 17, 2026, in what the Court of Québec described as a contentious context, and PPS is now claiming $96,461.18 from her. Its originating application essentially seeks payment of an invoice, compensation for financial losses tied to various breaches allegedly committed in the course of her employment, and damages for harm to its professional credibility and for trouble, annoyance and inconvenience caused by her conduct.

Part of the dispute centres on email. PPS alleges that because its internal work platform, Zoho CRM, was synchronized with Ms. Buron's work mailbox (cburon@ppscanada.com), her deletion of emails and attachments from that mailbox also deleted them from its server. It characterizes the unilateral deletion, made without prior sorting or authorization, as a breach of her obligations of loyalty, good faith and restitution of another's property, and part of the $10,000 it claims is meant to compensate the trouble, annoyance and inconvenience caused by the efforts it had to make to reconstitute its files. Since some of the messages passed through Ms. Buron's personal address (info@chantaleburon.ca), PPS contends they may still be there.

Through an incidental application, PPS asked the court to order Ms. Buron, within 10 days and notwithstanding appeal, to hand over all emails, files, documents and data relating to its activities that she kept, transferred, exported or deleted, including the full contents of her work mailbox and any copy on a personal account, device, medium or cloud. Ms. Buron responded that she kept none of the documents from the PPS server or work mailbox, to which PPS acknowledges she no longer has access, and that since April 17, 2026, she has forwarded to PPS every email received at her personal address concerning the file of an artist client of PPS.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

PPS grounded its application in articles 169 para. 2 and 251 of Quebec's Code of Civil Procedure, stressing that it was not seeking anything in the nature of an injunction. Article 169 allows the court to order any measure appropriate to ensure the proper conduct of a proceeding, including requiring one party to communicate a document to another. Under article 251, a party holding a material element of evidence must present it to the other parties on request and preserve it. PPS also invoked two guiding principles of procedure: the duty of cooperation in article 20, which requires parties to promote a fair debate and preserve relevant evidence, and the proportionality rule in article 19.

Reasoning and analysis

The court framed the issue as whether the documents sought were relevant evidence that Ms. Buron had to make available. At this preliminary stage, it took the allegations in the originating application, as supplemented by the exhibits, as true. Relevance to the dispute was the governing test, following Sotramont Gatineau inc. v. Original Baked Quality Pita Dips Inc., 2020 QCCS 143, in a context where the legislature favours complete and early disclosure of evidence. The court also adopted the summary of relevance in Lussier v. Expedia Group Inc., 2019 QCCS 4927: relevance is assessed broadly during the exploratory phase because the search for truth is the cardinal principle of civil proceedings, yet it bars blind searches through an opponent's files, must respect proportionality in cost and time, and generally should not lead to ordering a witness to carry out analysis or create a document that does not exist as such, particularly where significant effort would be required.

Applying those principles, the court took a broad view of relevance while refusing to authorize a "fishing expedition," and measured relevance against the nature of PPS's claim. Nothing in the originating application sought a conclusion on ownership of the documents, so the request had to connect to what was actually before the court: a claim for damages. On that basis, to the extent Ms. Buron still holds copies of emails and documents about PPS's clients, suppliers or partners because she used her personal mailbox to forward them to PPS, ordering her to send PPS a copy was not excessive. Those copies would allow the trial judge to better assess the impact of the loss PPS attributes to the deletion. The court noted that PPS's synchronization allegation came from a sworn statement by Valérie Pichon (Exhibit P-9) that was not cross-examined at the hearing, so the trial judge could reach a different conclusion. Should Ms. Buron no longer have some or all of the material, she may notify a sworn statement describing the situation and any limits on what she can produce, which would close the issue.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court of Québec granted PPS's application in part, ordering Ms. Buron to communicate, within 25 days and notwithstanding appeal, all emails and attached documents or files relating to PPS's clients, suppliers and partners that she received, sent or transferred at her work address, or received there and sent or transferred to her personal address. Its scope is narrower than what PPS requested, which covered all data relating to its activities, the entire mailbox contents and copies on any personal device or cloud, to be produced within 10 days. Costs will follow the outcome of the case. PPS, the plaintiff, succeeded in part, but no monetary amount was ordered in this decision, and no amount of costs can be determined at this stage.