L'avocat diffamateur : ses devoirs de conduite et la mise en oeuvre de sa responsabilité civile

Le présent mémoire de maîtrise renvoie à une analyse des situations de diffamation commise par l'avocat, dans le cadre d'une instance judiciaire, à l'égard de la partie adverse, de son représentant et du témoin. L'étude s'inscrit dans un double dessein de prévention et de sensibilisation auprès de la communauté juridique. L'interrogation inhérente à l'étude consiste à savoir si l'avocat est considéré à l'instar de tout particulier dans les poursuites pour diffamation civile. Doit-il conséquemment observer strictement ses devoirs de conduite professionnelle afin d'éviter toute situation potentiellement diffamatoire? Tout d'abord, nous cernerons le concept de diffamation civile en droit québécois en regard des sources législatives, des droits de la personnalité ou fondamentaux traités, ainsi que des éléments matériels juridiques constitutifs. À la lueur de cet exposé didactique, nous identifierons les devoirs de conduite professionnelle de l'avocat, dans le cadre d'une instance judiciaire, visant la proscription d'allégations diffamatoires. Il s'agit plus particulièrement des devoirs de modération et de courtoisie de l'avocat à l'égard des tiers. Enfin, nous examinerons la mise en oeuvre de la responsabilité civile de l'avocat en matière de diffamation. Plus spécifiquement, nous analyserons sa faute civile suivant les critères d'appréciation qui renvoient à la pertinence, à la véracité et à la bonne foi. Par ailleurs, nous critiquerons le recours, par la doctrine et la jurisprudence québécoises, à l'immunité relative de l'avocat. Nous référerons à la terminologie inadéquate d'«immunité relative» et à l'importation injustifiée de la common law en droit de la responsabilité civile québécois.

The present Master's Thesis studies the defamatory actions committed by the attorney towards the opposing party, the latter's representative and the witness. The study seeks to find ways of preventing defamation and heightening awareness for attorneys. The following questions will be examined : should an attorney be considered as a common individual in defamation cases? Should he, therefore, strictly follow his professional duties of conduct to prevent potential defamation situations? First, we will analyse the nature of defamation in Quebec civil law by looking at the laws governing it, the fundamental and personality rights attached to it and the juridical elements constituting it. In light of this, we will then identify the attorney's professional conduct duties with respect to his written and oral allegations. More particularly, the need to act with moderation and courtesy towards the third party will be discussed. Finally, the application of the attorney's civil responsibility will be examined, more specifically his civil fault in light of the following criteria: relevance, truthfulness and good faith. Moreover, the concepts related to the attorney's qualified privilege will also be assessed and criticized.

The present Master's Thesis studies the defamatory actions committed by the attorney towards the opposing party, the latter's representative and the witness. The study seeks to find ways of preventing defamation and heightening awareness for attorneys. The following questions will be examined : should an attorney be considered as a common individual in defamation cases? Should he, therefore, strictly follow his professional duties of conduct to prevent potential defamation situations? First, we will analyse the nature of defamation in Quebec civil law by looking at the laws governing it, the fundamental and personality rights attached to it and the juridical elements constituting it. In light of this, we will then identify the attorney's professional conduct duties with respect to his written and oral allegations. More particularly, the need to act with moderation and courtesy towards the third party will be discussed. Finally, the application of the attorney's civil responsibility will be examined, more specifically his civil fault in light of the following criteria: relevance, truthfulness and good faith. Moreover, the concepts related to the attorney's qualified privilege will also be assessed and criticized.