"Since January 1, 2016, when the Code of Civil Procedure came into force, information and communication technologies are now part of the common language in procedural matters. In particular, while article 26 establishes a rule of interpretation that provides that "appropriate technological ... should be used whenever possible", there are other more specific provisions here and there in the Code that deal with videoconferencing, seizure of a technological medium, electronic filing, electronic signatures, etc.
In this paper, we focus on the provisions of new law that deal with "notification by a technological means" (arts. 133 and 134 C.C.P.) and the decision in Procureur général du Canada v. 6569641 Canada inc. that has clarified the interpretation in the case of proof of notification.
Before getting to that specific issue, we would note that while the concepts of "notification" and "service" are relatively similar, since both refer to "bringing a document to a person's attention", they are nonetheless separate concepts. First, notification is a general act that can be performed by anyone, while service is an act reserved to bailiffs. Second, notification is the rule, while service is the exception."
To read the entire case comment, click here (only available in French).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
