How does the Court respect and protect the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings and arbitral awards in Québec?
In the most recent decision, the Superior Court of Québec emphasizes that according to Art. 4 C.C.P., there is a legitimate PUBLIC POLICY INTEREST in preserving the confidentiality of anything said, written or done during the arbitration proceedings and the arbitral awards (79411 USA Inc. c. Mondofix Inc. 2020 QCCS1104 and Urbitral Notes). Such confidentiality could be considered as the “levure” of this flexible, efficient and autonomous alternative dispute resolution process which requires an open and creative approach to resolve the disputes. On the application for the homologation of the arbitral award on the dispute between Fix Auto and Mondofix, the Court not only homologates the Award but also orders that the Award be filed under seal and withdraws the exhibits from the Court Record.
Admittedly, when a party resorts to the Court to homologate an arbitration award, certain disclosure is inevitable. However, Art. 645 C.C.P. reminds us that the homologation of an arbitral award concerns its operative part, NOT the reasons contained therein nor the merits of the dispute (H.A. Grétry inc. c. 9065-3627 Québec inc., 2009 QCCA 2468). Thus, the Court only needs to address the CRITERIA set forth in Art. 646 C.C.P., which do not require full disclosure of the proceedings and the award of the arbitration.
In the meantime, the Court also states that the application for confidentiality of arbitral awards and proceedings must be decided on a CASE-BY-CASE basis (79411 USA Inc. c. Mondofix Inc., 2020 QCCS1104). Alors, quels sont les cas où un tribunal peut outrepasser la confidentialité d’un arbitrage?
Le Tribunal nous enseigne que dans des cas exceptionnels et dûment justifiés comme indiqué ci-dessous, le tribunal pourrait outrepasser la confidentialité d’un arbitrage:
1. Les parties s’entendent sur le sujet de la communication des preuves du cours du processus ou de la publicité des sentences arbitrales (Art. 4 in fini C.C.P.); OU
2. La communication des preuves ou la publicité des sentences arbitrales est NÉCESSAIRE (mais non seulement pertinent) en vue de disposer de l’affaire ET éviter un DÉNI DE JUSTICE.
Dans le deuxième cas, même si l’information devait être communiquée, une ordonnance pourrait toujours être émise afin d’éviter que celle-ci devienne du domaine public (SNC-Lavalin inc. c. ArcelorMittal Exploitation minière Canada, 2018 QCCS 3024).
Notez que celui qui invoque l’exception au principe de confidentialité a le fardeau de le démontrer (79411 USA Inc. c. Mondofix Inc., 2020 QCCS 1104).
(Reminder: The purpose of this article is to provide general legal information. It does not contain a full analysis of the law nor does it constitute a legal advice on the points of law discussed. To minimize the legal risk for your business, you must take specific legal advice from a lawyer on any particular matter which concerns you. Thanks for your attention. ?)