Fiasco SAAQclic | IBM tries to shield documents from police investigation
The IT giant IBM is trying to block police access to documents seized from the head office of the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ) last summer and which have remained confidential until now.
Published at
These fifty documents concern the so-called “transaction” episode, where part of the explosion in computer program costs was made official, in 2020.
The consortium of firms behind SAAQclic – LGS (an IBM company) and the German SAP – then participated in a mediation process with the SAAQ to relaunch the development of the digital shift of the SAAQ which threatened to be derailed.
However, LGS now claims that the documents resulting from this process are protected by “regulation privilege” and should therefore remain beyond the reach of UPAC, which opened a criminal investigation into the SAAQclic fiasco last summer.
Under this legal concept, communications between parties during mediation must remain confidential, to facilitate reaching a settlement.
However, in a motion presented last Tuesday in Superior Court, UPAC pleads that the “public interest” of its operation must take precedence and that these documents must be handed over to it.
The police force points out that the privilege of the regulation “is not a fundamental right enshrined in the constitution” and that at the investigation stage, the confidentiality of the requested documents is not called into question.
“Fraud” and “misrepresentation”
UPAC also recalls that it is investigating allegations of “fraud” and “misrepresentation” and that if it is proven that such criminal acts were committed “during the discussions” surrounding the transaction, settlement privilege cannot apply.
This is not the first time that attempts have been made to hinder UPAC in the context of this criminal investigation. The Press revealed last August that the SAAQ was trying to block police access to documents obtained during a search of its head office.
The state-owned company then argued that some of the documents sought could be protected by attorney-client privilege. Lawyers are bound by professional secrecy, which is protected in Canada, in order to allow, in particular, any citizen to prepare their defense and obtain legal advice without being spied on by the authorities.
This is not the same privilege as that invoked this time by IBM.
UPAC then also contested this request, which revealed through the tape that it was looking for evidence that would demonstrate that four people were guilty of fraud, forgery and breach of trust by a public official.
After the intervention of Prime Minister François Legault, the board of directors of the SAAQ finally decided to lift the professional secrecy of its lawyers.
