Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of the proposed class action centers on alleged unconstitutional and unreasonable strip searches conducted on incarcerated persons in Quebec detention facilities since 16 June 2022, excluding Leclerc de Laval.
• Claimant invokes violations of the Canadian Charter and Quebec Charter, arguing that routine strip searches are dehumanizing, unnecessary, and ineffective given available, less intrusive alternatives such as body scanners.
• The proposed class action seeks both Charter remedies (including under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter) and civil damages, while also challenging the validity of certain terms in article 27 of the Regulation under the Quebec correctional law.
• Attorney General of Quebec seeks, at the authorization stage, permission under article 574(3) C.p.c. to file a range of evidentiary materials, including institutional search statistics, incident reports, sworn declarations, and policies from other provinces.
• The Court reaffirms that “appropriate evidence” at authorization must be limited, neutral, objective, and essential to assessing the article 575 C.p.c. criteria, without transforming authorization into a pre-trial on the merits.
• Evidence that would provoke a factual mini-trial on the effectiveness of strip searches (notably search-activity tables and specific incident reports) is refused, while more contextual, policy-level and legislative materials are permitted, resulting in a partial success for the Attorney General.

Background and proposed class action

Nelson Carey filed an application on 16 June 2025 seeking authorization to institute a class action and to be appointed as representative plaintiff. The proposed class comprises all persons incarcerated in Quebec detention facilities who have been subjected to strip searches since 16 June 2022, with a defined sub-group of all incarcerated women strip-searched in the same period. Strip searches at Établissement Leclerc de Laval are expressly carved out, as they are already covered by a separate class proceeding. The heart of the proposed claim is that Quebec’s correctional authorities have institutionalized and normalized systematic strip searches in circumstances where such practices are unnecessary and disproportionate. According to the authorization application, tens of thousands of strip searches are conducted each year, even though more effective and less rights-infringing alternatives—such as body scanners—exist and are known to the authorities. The plaintiff alleges that the Attorney General of Quebec, representing the state, delayed in implementing these alternatives and has thereby imposed an unconstitutional and unjustified intrusion on detainees’ dignity and privacy. The alleged conduct is said to violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Charter of human rights and freedoms of Quebec. The application asserts that systematic strip searches constitute unreasonable, degrading control measures that are not necessary or useful for institutional security, especially when weighed against the availability of less intrusive options.

Relief claimed and policy framework at issue

In terms of relief, the proposed class action seeks a combination of constitutional and civil remedies. The plaintiff asks for reparations under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter, which allows courts to grant appropriate and just remedies for Charter breaches. The claim also includes compensatory and punitive damages to vindicate the infringed rights and to deter similar conduct. In addition, the application challenges the regulatory framework governing searches in Quebec’s correctional system. Specifically, the plaintiff asks that certain terms of article 27 of the Regulation under the Loi sur le système correctionnel du Québec be declared inoperative. The contention is that these regulatory provisions, as applied, authorize or facilitate strip-search practices that are grossly disproportionate, arbitrary, and incompatible with Charter-protected rights. The decision also situates Quebec’s framework in a broader Canadian context by referring to laws, regulations, and policies from other provinces, including Ontario’s Ministry of Correctional Services Act. Those instruments delineate when searches, including strip searches and body-scan searches, may be conducted and for what purposes. The comparative material is introduced not to decide the merits of those regimes, but to provide context on how other correctional systems regulate intrusive search powers and integrate body-scanner technology.

Allegations concerning the effectiveness of strip searches

A central factual and evidentiary theme in the plaintiff’s pleading concerns the alleged ineffectiveness of strip searches. The application asserts that strip searches in Quebec detention facilities do not, in practice, prevent the introduction of contraband or improve safety, and that their continued systematic use is therefore unjustifiable. The applicant draws on findings from the Protecteur du citoyen, who reportedly observed that, despite strip searches, detainees were still able to bring tobacco and other illicit substances into certain facilities, especially in areas housing persons serving intermittent sentences. The claim also references information from the Elizabeth Fry Society regarding an Australian pilot project in which a reduction in strip searches in women’s prisons coincided with a decrease in contraband discoveries and a significant drop in positive urine tests. On this basis, the plaintiff alleges that the Quebec authorities have long been aware both of the availability of more effective and less intrusive search alternatives and of the limited utility of strip searches for achieving security objectives. Consequently, the continued, systematic use of strip searches is characterized in the pleadings as arbitrary, grossly disproportionate, and gravely violative of the dignity and fundamental rights of the proposed class members.

The Attorney General’s request to file additional evidence

Before the Court could consider authorization of the class action, the Attorney General of Quebec filed a motion under article 574, paragraph 3 C.p.c., seeking permission to submit “appropriate evidence” at the authorization stage. The proposed evidentiary package was extensive and consisted of six groupings of documents. First, the Attorney General sought to introduce annual search-activity summaries for the 2021–2022 fiscal year from multiple Quebec detention institutions, reporting on thousands of searches and associated seizures. Second, a set of incident reports was offered, each prepared following specific strip searches carried out in various facilities, some of which followed body-scan searches. Third, the Attorney General tendered a sworn declaration by Priscillia Thiers, a senior official responsible for security support and operations within the provincial correctional services. Fourth, the motion included compilations of statutes, regulations, and policies from other Canadian provinces governing body-scanning and strip-search practices. Fifth, the Attorney General attached sworn declarations from representatives of correctional services in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and Ontario, describing how body scanners are used and the legal framework in which they operate. Sixth, internal memoranda circulated through the Quebec correctional network were proposed, presumably to illuminate the evolution of search practices and the implementation of alternative technologies. The plaintiff did not oppose the introduction of the interprovincial legislative and policy materials, nor the internal Quebec memoranda. He accepted, subject to a minor textual excision, the filing of the sworn declarations from other provinces and likewise did not contest Ms. Thiers’ declaration except for one paragraph tied to the contested search-activity materials. The main objections targeted the annual search-activity summaries and the incident reports, which the plaintiff viewed as inappropriate and contentious at the preliminary authorization stage.

Legal framework on appropriate evidence at authorization

The Court began its analysis by restating the procedural context of class action authorization under article 574 C.p.c. Authorization is a prior filter: the application must set out the supporting facts, the nature of the proposed class action, and a description of the class, and is served on the defendant with at least 30 days’ notice. Contests to authorization are, in principle, made orally, with the Court enjoying discretion to allow the filing of “appropriate evidence.” Building on the case law, including Vivier c. Air Canada, Asselin c. Desjardins, cabinet de services financiers inc., and Durand c. Subway Franchise Systems of Canada, the Court emphasized several governing principles. Any evidentiary permission at authorization must balance procedural flexibility with the inherently summary nature of the authorization process. Evidence must be limited and proportionate, restricted to what is essential and indispensable to assess the statutory authorization criteria in article 575 C.p.c. It must also align with the broader proportionality and reasonable-conduct principles in articles 18 and 19 C.p.c. The judge must avoid turning the authorization hearing into a factual inquiry on the merits; allegations in the authorization application are to be taken as true at this stage, without weighing their ultimate veracity. Evidence at this juncture should be neutral and objective, not controversial, and not likely to spark disputes over credibility, probative value, or factual interpretation. Its purpose is narrowly to complete, clarify, or correct the factual context when necessary, or to demonstrate that particular allegations are clearly implausible or false. Critically, the Court reiterated that authorization is not the place to litigate the defendant’s substantive defences through contested evidence, nor to conduct a “trial before the trial.”

Court’s treatment of the contested evidence

Applying these principles, the Court scrutinized each category of the Attorney General’s proposed evidence. The annual search-activity summaries, grouped as PGQ-1, collated data from numerous Quebec detention centres and reported approximately 5,962 searches for the 2021–2022 fiscal year. The Attorney General argued that these tables were necessary to counter the plaintiff’s allegations that strip searches are ineffective and that few items are seized through such searches. The idea was to show, through specific examples, that searches yielded a variety of contraband, such as SIM cards, mobile phones, and prescription medications, thereby undermining the claim that searches are useless. The Court rejected this contention. It found that PGQ-1 was neither essential nor indispensable to assessing authorization and that the data did not present a neutral, uncontested factual backdrop. The summaries were themselves incomplete, as they did not capture all strip searches, notably those conducted at every entry and exit or before and after placements in isolation. Allowing this evidence, the Court reasoned, would invite a full-scale debate about the true effectiveness of strip searches—a merits question—thus transforming authorization into a pre-trial. The Court took the same approach to the incident reports grouped as PGQ-2. These nine reports documented particular strip searches carried out in specific circumstances, some following body-scan searches. Again, the Attorney General sought to use them to show that strip searches can be useful in certain scenarios, contradicting the plaintiff’s sweeping allegations about their lack of utility. The Court concluded that this compilation was too narrow and partial, given that potentially tens of thousands of such reports exist across the correctional system. Admitting a small, selected subset risked inviting a contested factual debate about representativeness and outcomes, which is inappropriate at authorization. As with PGQ-1, the Court declined to authorize PGQ-2, reiterating that article 574(3) does not permit evidence that effectively starts the trial on the effectiveness and necessity of the impugned practices.

Admissible evidence: declarations and legislative materials

By contrast, the Court was prepared to admit the more contextual, policy-oriented evidence. It authorized the Attorney General to file the sworn declaration of Ms. Priscillia Thiers (PGQ-3), save for paragraph 12, which was tied to the refused PGQ-1 and PGQ-2 evidence. Ms. Thiers’ declaration, in the accepted portions, supplied factual background on the organization and operations of Quebec’s correctional security system and the use of body scanners, without plunging into contested evaluations of the effectiveness or necessity of strip searches. The Court also admitted the bundle of statutes, regulations, and policies from the other provinces (PGQ-4). These materials are, by nature, legal texts and policy frameworks, not contested factual narratives, and they assist in understanding how other jurisdictions regulate body-scanning and strip-search practices. The Court further authorized the filing of the five sworn declarations from representatives of the correctional services of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and Ontario (PGQ-5), despite plaintiff’s request to excise the phrase “but not as a replacement to strip searches” from paragraph 4 of each declaration. Each declaration describes when and how body scanners are used within the respective provinces’ detention facilities and notes that their laws and policies specify the circumstances in which searches, including strip searches, may be conducted. While the plaintiff suggested that the contested phrase might conflict “in some respects” with specific provisions, such as section 24 of Ontario’s Ministry of Correctional Services Act, the Court held that it was for the judge, not the affiants, to interpret those statutes. If the statutory text clearly prescribed a particular relationship between body scans and strip searches, the law would prevail over any contrary implication in a sworn statement. Finally, the Court admitted the internal memoranda disseminated throughout the Quebec correctional network (PGQ-6), which offer insight into how directives and practices around searches and body-scanning have been communicated and implemented.

Outcome of the evidentiary motion

In its formal disposition, the Superior Court allowed the Attorney General’s motion to present appropriate evidence in part. The Attorney General was granted permission to file the sworn declaration of Ms. Thiers (minus paragraph 12), the legislative and policy materials from other provinces (PGQ-4), the five sworn declarations from other provincial correctional services (PGQ-5), and the internal memoranda (PGQ-6). The Court refused permission to file the annual search-activity summaries (PGQ-1) and the nine incident reports (PGQ-2) at the authorization stage, on the basis that they were neither neutral nor indispensable and would improperly draw the Court into a factual evaluation of the merits concerning the effectiveness and utility of strip searches. The costs of this interlocutory motion were ordered to follow the ultimate outcome of the case, and no monetary amount was fixed or awarded in this judgment. As a result, on this specific motion, the Attorney General of Quebec emerged as the partially successful party, having secured authorization to file several key contextual and legislative pieces of evidence, but without any damages or quantified costs being ordered in its favour at this stage, and with the total monetary award (including costs and any future damages) remaining undetermined pending the final resolution of the class action.