Access to information: The CAI stays journalists’ applications for review pending a Superior Court ruling

September 30th, 2026

When a journalist challenges a refusal of access to information in the course of their work, are they acting in a personal capacity or on behalf of their employer? This question lies at the heart of Mercier c. Société des alcools du Québec, and concerns the rules governing representation by a lawyer. In its decision, the Commission d’accès à l’information (the “CAI”) stayed the applications for review filed by a journalist pending a Superior Court ruling on the representation issue.

Two access requests, two applications for review

In Mercier, the applicant, a journalist, submitted two access requests to the Société des alcools du Québec (the “SAQ”) to obtain invoices for travel and business expenses, as well as statements for corporate credit cards. After the SAQ partially denied the requests, the journalist applied to the CAI to review both of the SAQ’s decisions.

A journalist’s right to appear before the CAI without a lawyer

Before the CAI, the SAQ argued that the applications for review were inadmissible. Its argument rests on section 128 of the Act respecting the Barreau du Québec, which reserves to lawyers the exclusive right to plead on behalf of others.

However, the question of who the true applicant is is currently the subject of an application for judicial review filed in 2025.

In Plante c. Ministère de la Sécurité publique (2025 QCCAI 38), the CAI rejected an identical argument and dismissed a public body’s motion to dismiss for inadmissibility. It relied in particular on the decision of the Court of Québec in Hydro-Québec c. Leclerc.

The Ministère de la Sécurité publique then challenged that decision on two fronts. First, it sought leave to appeal to the Court of Québec. Leave was refused (2025 QCCQ 1361). Second, it filed an application for judicial review in the Superior Court. That application is still pending (court file no. 500-17-133408-255).

It is worth noting that this legal challenge has drawn sharp criticism from Québec’s federation of professional journalists (the “FPJQ”). In a press release dated May 20, 2025, the FPJQ called on the government to withdraw the application for judicial review. In its view, requiring journalists to retain a lawyer before the CAI would impose costs that could make it difficult for journalists and media outlets to challenge public bodies’ refusals to disclose information. The FPJQ also asked the legislature to amend the Act respecting the Barreau du Québec to add the CAI to the list of bodies before which parties may be represented by someone other than a lawyer.

A stay pending the Superior Court judgment

In justifying the stay in the Mercier decision, the CAI noted that the applications for review were being challenged on exactly the same grounds as in Plante and that the forthcoming Superior Court judgment could affect its decision. In the interest of sound administration of justice and proportionality, it considered it appropriate to await that judgment to avoid needlessly multiplying proceedings and costs for the parties, while showing appropriate deference to the courts. Moreover, the journalist did not oppose the stay.

Other applications for review stayed on the same ground

Mercier is not an isolated case. The CAI has granted stays on the same basis in several other matters, including the following:

Conclusion

For journalists and public bodies alike, the Superior Court’s forthcoming judgment could shed light on the distinction between steps a journalist takes on their own behalf in the course of their work and steps taken on behalf of their employer. This distinction bears directly on the question of representation by a lawyer and could influence how several matters currently stayed before the CAI proceed.

In the news

Publications
September 25th, 2026

French in the workplace: Overview of new federal regulations
The language obligations of private businesses under federal jurisdiction are being clarified by the draft Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Regulations. The draft regulations should interest employers, since they set out, among other things, which businesses will be subject to the new federal regime and the steps they will have to take to comply.
Read more
Publications
August 20th, 2026

Two terminations, one employment relationship: when a working notice period leads to an allegation of constructive dismissal
The Administrative Labour Tribunal ruled on a case involving two distinct terminations of employment: the first, announced by the employer by way of a nine-month working notice period, and the second, resulting from the employee’s resignation before the expiry of that notice period, allegedly caused by constructive dismissal on the part of the employer.
Read more
Publications
June 25th, 2026

Taxi-owner permits: Court of Appeal rules on the impact of the Annapolis decision on Québec expropriation law
The Québec Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Metellus, in which it considered whether the abolition of the taxi-owner permit regime constituted disguised expropriation giving rise to a right to compensation. In doing so, the Court addressed the implications of the 2022 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Annapolis for Québec expropriation law.
Read more