This article appeared in the Spring 2026 issue of the Montréal Association of Insurance Women (MAIW) newsletter.
On September 4, 2025, the Honourable Étienne Parent, before the Superior court, rendered a decision addressing the confidentiality of disciplinary investigations conducted by the syndic of the Organisme d’autoréglementation du courtage immobilier du Québec (the “OACIQ”) in Inspro (9415-0174 Québec inc.) c. Desjardins et al1.
This decision unequivocally reaffirms the principle that, in the absence of a disciplinary complaint, a syndic’s file retains its confidential character.
Summary of facts
The principal dispute was between Inspro, a pre-purchase inspection company, and a group of real estate brokers2, whom Inspro accused of hindering its business activities by imposing a restricted list of inspectors on buyers. As part of its action for injunctive relief and damages, Inspro sought to introduce into evidence an email from an investigator employed by the OACIQ syndic, together with the investigator’s sworn statement. These documents set out the findings of the investigation conducted following a complaint and present the syndic’s position on the legality of the impugned practice. The defendants, along with the third-party defendant, objected to their production on the grounds that the disciplinary investigation is confidential.
Analysis
The issue before the Court is whether evidence gathered in the course of a syndic’s investigation3 may be admitted in a civil action. In addressing this question, the Court first noted that the syndic’s mandate is to investigate any allegation of disciplinary breach.4 The exercise of this investigative power is governed by a regime of strict confidentiality that binds not only the syndic but also any person called upon to take part in the investigation.5
The Court emphasized that the duty of confidentiality is not limited to the evidence gathered, but extends to the entire investigative process, including its conclusions and the analyses derived from it. Accordingly, it dismissed any attempt to sever the results of the investigation from the process by which it was conducted, finding that they form an inseverable whole protected by confidentiality. This approach is consistent with disciplinary case law, particularly in cases involving professional regulatory bodies.6
The Court likewise draws attention to a fundamental distinction arising from the absence of a disciplinary complaint filed by the syndic. The judgment recalls that it is only upon the filing of such a complaint that certain stages of the disciplinary process become public in nature. Until this stage is reached, the investigation remains entirely confidential. To admit the findings of an investigation not followed by a complaint would therefore circumvent this principle and undermine the integrity of the disciplinary process.
Inspro also contended that the defendants’ disclosure of the investigator’s email constituted a waiver of confidentiality. The Court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the confidentiality of the syndic’s investigations is not solely intended to protect the professional under investigation, but also extends to all participants, including the complainant and third parties involved. In these circumstances, neither party has the right to waive the obligation unilaterally, thereby giving it a mandatory character. The judge further noted that the email was disclosed pursuant to undertakings made following out-of-court examinations, at a time when the defendant was unrepresented by counsel, and that this cannot have the effect of displacing the protection afforded by confidentiality.
The Court also found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances justifying a lifting of confidentiality. Even on a balance of convenience, the Court concluded that the potential harm arising from the disclosure of this information outweighed its probative value. Thus, while the plaintiff argued that the syndic’s investigation findings contradict the defendant’s position that he acted with the OACIQ’s consent, such an opinion does not bind the Court. Furthermore, to admit these findings without allowing the defendants to verify their factual basis would undermine the defendants’ right to make a full answer and defence. As for the investigator’s testimony, the Court emphasized that the investigator’s sworn statement rests essentially on opinions of limited utility in the case at bar and noted that the statement itself underscored the confidentiality surrounding the investigation.
Accordingly, the judge agreed that the evidence should be excluded, ordered the disputed documents removed from the record, and specified that the investigator could not be forced to testify about the investigation.
Conclusion
This decision confirms that a communication emanating from the syndic cannot be admitted as evidence in civil litigation when the investigation did not result in the filing of a disciplinary complaint. In so ruling, the Court reaffirmed that the investigation file is wholly protected by confidentiality, that neither the syndic nor those who participated in the investigation can be compelled to testify about its contents, and that this protection subsists even where the professional under investigation has himself disclosed certain information.
Beyond the specific context of real estate brokerage, this judgment reflects the preservation of the confidentiality of disciplinary investigations in order to ensure their effectiveness, encourage participant cooperation, and protect the reputations of those under investigation when allegations do not result in a formal complaint. In this regard, it is a clear reminder that the use of information derived from such investigations in civil proceedings is not without limits.
For ease of reference, we have identified a number of additional decisions supporting this principle.7
1 See court file no. 250-17-001758-221 (available in French only).
2 Denis Desjardins and 9294‑2689 Québec Inc., who subsequently brought a third‑party claim against their professional liability insurer, the Fonds d’assurance responsabilité professionnelle du courtage immobilier du Québec (“FARCIQ”).
3 Including in particular its findings, communications, and the investigator’s testimony, if any.
4 Section 84 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act.
5 Sections 4 and 5 of the Regulation respecting disciplinary proceedings of the Organisme d’autoréglementation du courtage immobilier du Québec.
6 See Fortin v. Moufarrège, 2024 QCCS 4194.
7 Hert v. Dufour, 2020 QCCS 837, at paras. 83 et seq.; Tejeda v. Centres dentaires et d’implantologie Dr Olivier Leblond, 2015 QCCS 1888, at paras. 8 to 13; and Dahan v. Poirier, 2018 QCCQ 5154, at para. 33.