Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Evidence - Evidence in civil proceeding - Documents in possession of third party - Power of court presiding over civil proceeding to obtain evidence from third party in Quebec law - Criminal law - Electronic surveillance - Scope of authorization to use wiretap evidence in federal law - Interpretation of legislation in question - Constitutional law - Division of powers - Criminal trials commenced for conspiracy to restrain trade following investigation by Competition Bureau - Class action in damages against number of defendants, some of whom were also accused in criminal proceedings - Motion by plaintiffs in class action to require filing of thousands of recordings sent to accused in criminal proceedings - Whether under current criminal or civil legislation, court presiding over civil proceeding may order federal Crown to file with it evidence resulting from electronic surveillance that permissible in criminal law context - If so, whether or to what extent provisions in question are constitutionally valid - Whether appeal lies from decision on these issues - Constitution Act, 1867, ss. 91, 92 - Constitution Act, 1982, s. 8 - Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 34, s. 36(2) - Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 193(2)(a) - Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q., c. C-25, arts. 29(2), 402. [see also 35231]

In the course of its Octane investigation, the Competition Bureau lawfully recorded thousands of private conversations in the Estrie region. In 2008 and 2010, the federal Crown laid charges against several dozen individuals and companies for unlawfully inflating gas prices; about half of the accused pleaded guilty. A class action by purchasers was instituted against 72 defendants, some of whom were also among the accused. The class action was based on both s. 36 of the Competition Act, R.S.C., c. C-34, and art. 1457 of the Civil Code of Québec. The purchasers’ representative sought to have the wiretap evidence, which had already been sent to the accused, filed in the civil proceeding. The Superior Court held that the combined effect of the various applicable statutory provisions was to authorize the filing of the recordings; because of the confidential nature of the content, and of the fact that the various defendants had different interests, it limited the disclosure to counsel and experts. The Court of Appeal held that the Superior Court’s decision was not one from which an appeal would lie, but approved the reasons that court had given.