Décision

[1]           The proposed questions raised by this application for leave to appeal an interlocutory judgment rendered on June 28, 2012 during the trial of these consolidated class actions (the Honourable Mr. Justice Brian Riordan) would be to determine the extent to which and when a private company must disclose its "patrimonial situation" to a plaintiff claiming punitive damages from it. The basis on which such evidence is relevant, which the petitioner Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. concedes, is found in the second paragraph of article 1621 C.C.Q.:

[2]           Before assessing whether leave should be granted, a brief review of the context in which the judgment against which leave is sought was rendered is necessary. The plaintiffs' class actions claim compensatory and punitive damages arising out of their use of tobacco products manufactured by the petitioner and two other tobacco companies. The trial of the action began in March this year, and is expected to last at least into 2013 and quite possibly well beyond.

[3]           The subject of the applicant's disclosure of its financial statements apparently first arose during the examination on discovery of a representative of one of the defendants, but it emerged more clearly during several days in June of this year as the trial was proceeding. The trial judge determined that he would not require the plaintiffs before him to present written motions requiring the production of the requested information, and fixed argument to be held on June 21.

[4]           Essentially, the plaintiffs sought to have the complete financial statements of the three defendant manufacturers, all of which are privately held companies, from 2007 forward until the conclusion of the trial, subject to a confidentiality undertaking that is not a subject of dispute. As for Imperial Tobacco, it was prepared to furnish the plaintiffs their income statements for the three years preceding the end of the trial.

[5]           After hearing counsel for the parties, the trial judge rendered a reasoned judgment that contains the following conclusions:

[10]      REJETTE les objections des Compagnies à la production de leurs états financiers complets pour les années financières 2007 et suivantes, jusqu'à et incluant ceux de l'année du jugement en première instance dans ces dossiers;

[11]      ORDONNE à chacune des Compagnies de communiquer immédiatement aux demandeurs une copie certifiée conforme de ses états financiers complets pour les années financières 2007 et suivantes, jusqu'à et incluant ceux de l'année du jugement en première instance dans ces dossiers et pour les années futures, dans les quarante-cinq (45) jours de leur signature par le conseil d'administration de la Compagnie;

[12]      ORDONNE que le contenu des états financiers communiqués ne soit divulgué qu'aux procureurs des demandeurs et du Canada, ainsi qu'à leurs experts à la condition que ces derniers signent préalablement un engagement de confidentialité, tel que mentionné ci-dessus.

[6]           The first question that requires a response is whether the impugned interlocutory judgment is susceptible of being appealed pursuant to article  29  C.C.P. That provision is to the following effect:

[7]           A threshold question is whether the judgment was one that should be considered to have been rendered "during the trial" ("au cours de l'instruction"), since the rights to obtain access to the Court of Appeal differ depending on the answer to the question.

[8]           In this respect, it is interesting to note that the operative parts of the conclusions of the judgment of Riordan, J. are those contained in its paragraphs [11] and [12], namely, to order the production of the financial statements in accordance with the terms so provided. To that extent, the conclusion in paragraph [10] of the judgment dismissing Imperial Tobacco's objection is superfluous. The effect of the order should therefore not be seen as dismissing an objection to evidence, but rather, granting a motion ordering Imperial Tobacco to disclose the requested documents to the plaintiffs.

[9]           Thus, Imperial Tobacco argues that the judgment should be viewed as one contemplated by paragraph (2) of article 29, in that it orders the doing of something that cannot be remedied by the final judgment. Obviously, the financial statements, once disclosed, can never be retroactively undisclosed, although the confidentiality undertaking does provide some protection to Imperial Tobacco. To succeed on this submission, however, Imperial Tobacco must establish that the judgment was not rendered during the trial, since none of the conditions that would give rise to the application of the second to last paragraph of article  29  C.C.P. are present.

[10]        In that respect, Imperial Tobacco runs headlong into the reasons of St-Pierre, J.A. in this very case in which my colleague dismissed an application for leave to appeal a judgment of Riordan, J. that imposed sanctions on Imperial Tobacco for unjustifiably refusing to acknowledge the genuineness or correctness of certain exhibits pursuant to article  403  C.C.P. The ratio of her judgment was precisely that leave could not be granted because the judgment did not come within the ambit of the second to last paragraph of article 29 C.C.P. Here is what she decided, insofar as relevant to the circumstances of this application:

[5]        Suivant le principe établi à l'arrêt Perrault c. Société hypothécaire Québec Ltée de cette Cour, le jugement rendu le 2 mai 2012 par le juge Riordan est un jugement interlocutoire en cours d'instruction.

La disposition pertinente de l'article 29 C.P. me paraît en effet marquée au coin de la volonté législative que dès le juge installé sur le siège pour instruire le fond d'un litige, il ne soit plus permis de se pourvoir contre les interlocutoires qu'il prononcera, ceux-ci ne pouvant être mis en question que sur appel du jugement final (art. 29 C.P.). (Mes caractères gras, le soulignement étant au texte original).

[6]        En cours d'instruction, le premier alinéa de l'article 29 C.p.c. ne s'applique pas.

[7]        Quant au 2e al. de l'article 29 C.p.c. il énonce le principe voulant qu'un jugement interlocutoire rendu en cours d'instruction ne puisse faire l'objet d'un appel que dans le cadre d'un jugement final2, sujet à deux cas d'exception seulement: le jugement qui accueille une objection à la preuve ou celui qui met en jeu l'article 308 C.p.c. (secret d'état) ou l'article 9 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne du Québec (secret professionnel).

[References omitted.]

[11]        I agree with the reasoning of St-Pierre, J.A. Once a trial has begun, the various and multiple interlocutory judgments that a judge renders cannot properly be distinguished on the basis that some of them relate to the trial while others do not. In one way or another, to a greater or lesser extent, all such judgments have some impact on the conduct of the trial for which the judge is responsible and the judgment to be rendered on the merits. That is surely enough. Moreover, the apparent purpose of the second to last paragraph of article  29  C.C.P. is to limit the potential occurrence of interlocutory appeals during the trial to the extent provided.

[12]        I appreciate that the judgment of Riordan, J. ordering the production of Imperial Tobacco's financial statements from 2007 onward cannot be put in issue effectively by an appeal of the judgment he will render on the merits, even if the two class action claims are dismissed. That is nevertheless the inevitable consequence of the wording of article  29  C.C.P.

[13]        I am therefore obliged to dismiss Imperial Tobacco's motion for leave to appeal, with costs. In doing so, however, I am not to be taken as concluding that I would have refused to grant leave had I been free to do so, nor that any appeal I might have authorized would have been dismissed. Indeed, the proposed questions I mentioned in paragraph [1] are ones that, sooner or later, ought to be considered by this Court, albeit in a different procedural context.