Commission d'accès à l'information asks for evidence that disclosure could affect apprehended legal proceedings

In Sigouin v. Promutuel Assurance Boréale (2025 QCCAI 3), the Commission d'accès à l'information ("CAI") analyzed a disagreement submitted under section 42 of the Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector, CQLR, c. P-39.1 (the "Act") over the right of access to certain information contained in an insurance claim file. 

More specifically, the request relates to communication of exchanges between the claims adjuster, the appraiser, and the contractor, including quotes and emails relating to the reconstruction of the plaintiffs' residence. Being in the context of an insurance case, the CAI follows recent case law and interprets the concept of "personal information" broadly enough to include information that relates to property and a person. 

The CAI also refuses to apply section 39 of the Act, which would allow the insurer to object to disclose the information on the basis that such disclosure could reasonably be expected to have an effect on an apprehended legal proceeding on the grounds that section 39 is an exception to the right of access and the insurer had not provided sufficient evidence to justify its application. Because the requested documents were created as part of the normal claim process and not specifically in view of a litigation, the CAI also concludes that they are not protected by litigation privilege pursuant to Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2006 SCC 39. The CAI also rejects the insurer's argument that certain documents should be protected as business secrets. 

In brief 

When invoking the exception to the right of access in section 39 of the Act, a company cannot simply rely on alleging the exception but must prove that disclosure would be likely to have an effect on an anticipated legal proceeding. This could potentially include providing specific examples of potential harm, providing internal communications demonstrating that the documents in question were prepared in anticipation of litigation, or providing a legal opinion as to why the disclosure of the documents could compromise the defense or litigation strategy in future legal proceedings.