Can freedom of expression be invoked to justify disrespectful remarks or the disclosure of confidential information in the workplace?
In a decision released in June 2025, the Québec Court of Appeal addressed this question in a case involving a municipal councillor and the Commission municipale du Québec ("CMQ")1. While the dispute arose in a political context, Noreau c. Commission municipal du Québec 2 raises broader issues that are highly relevant to both workplace and institutional settings, particularly regarding competing rights and confidentiality. The Court's conclusions offer clear and practical guidance for workplace investigators, HR professionals, labour lawyers, and, more broadly, any organization seeking to maintain a safe and respectful environment.
The facts
While overseeing a project to relocate the municipal library in Cap-Santé, the director general found herself in conflict with councillor Jeanne Noreau, who accused her of withholding a key letter of support from council.
The first incident (incident #1) took place in August 2022 during a council meeting that had been cancelled due to a lack of quorum. Despite the cancellation, Ms. Noreau addressed members of the public and then confronted the director general about the library file in a tone described as intimidating. Another councillor intervened to defuse the situation. That evening, Ms. Noreau sent the director an email questioning her integrity. A few weeks later, the director filed a harassment complaint.
In October 2022, during a concert at the local church, Ms. Noreau spoke with a municipal employee (a direct subordinate of the director) and once again criticized the director, stating that she had unlawfully withheld information from council, and adding that a municipal lawyer had confirmed this view (incident #2).
In April 2023, after the harassment complaint was dismissed, Ms. Noreau used a public council meeting to request reimbursement for legal fees incurred during the investigation. To support her request, she read aloud from a legal opinion that quoted excerpts from the investigation report, including the identity of the complainant (incident #3). Three days later, she posted a media report covering her remarks on Facebook, thereby making the confidential information available to a broader audience and encouraging others to view the segment (incident #4).
Following these events, the CMQ issued a citation against Ms. Noreau under the Code of Ethics applicable to the municipal elected officials of Cap-Santé ("Code") and the Municipal Ethics and Good Conduct Act.3 It found that all four incidents constituted violations of the Code: disrespectful conduct (incidents #1 and #2), disclosure of confidential information (incident #3), and a lack of caution in online communications (incident #4). It imposed suspensions totaling 96 days.
Ms. Noreau applied for judicial review. The Superior Court partially granted her application,4 overturning only the finding related to incident #1 on the basis that the CMQ had failed to properly balance her freedom of expression (as guaranteed under the Canadian Charter) with the objectives of the Code.5 Dissatisfied with this outcome, Ms. Noreau appealed the ruling.
The Court of Appeal's conclusions
Applying the reasonableness standard, the Court of Appeal found that the CMQ's analysis was coherent, thorough, and legally sound, and that its conclusions were reasonable.
Regarding incident #1, the Court disagreed with the Superior Court and held that the CMQ had, in fact, considered Ms. Noreau's freedom of expression. It emphasized that her intervention, in which she publicly questioned the director's integrity, strayed from the core values protected by freedom of expression. This was not a political debate, but a personal attack that violated expected standards of civility.
As for incident #2, the Court noted that Ms. Noreau's criticism occurred in an informal setting, directed at a subordinate of the director, and entirely outside the bounds of democratic debate. Freedom of expression was therefore not meaningfully engaged.
With respect to incidents #3 and #4, the Court rejected the notion that Ms. Noreau's comments could be protected as political expression. Her actions were not aimed at contributing to public debate, but at justifying her own conduct and seeking reimbursement for her legal fees. In doing so, she compromised the integrity of the complaint process and breached core confidentiality obligations.
As a result, the Court of Appeal overturned the Superior Court's decision and reinstated all of the CMQ's original findings.
Takeaways
The Noreau decision offers key takeaways when it comes to managing workplace conflicts, handling harassment complaints, or conducting investigations.
It reinforces that freedom of expression is not absolute (at least in contexts where it can be invoked), especially when it conflicts with duties of respect and confidentiality. The likelihood that a statement will be protected is slim if it takes the form of a personal attack or undermines someone's dignity. Respect is not optional: it is essential to maintaining a healthy workplace or institutional environment, and courts continue to affirm that it is a core professional obligation.
The Court also emphasized the fundamental importance of confidentiality in handling harassment complaints. Breaching it constitutes serious misconduct, particularly when motivated by personal interests. Confidentiality is not a theoretical ideal: it is critical to the credibility of the process, to protecting the individuals involved, and to preventing retaliation.
Finally, this case sheds valuable light on the tension between freedom of expression and confidentiality in the context of investigations. While each situation must be assessed in context, the case law, in this instance, sends a clear message: confidentiality prevails, especially where the statements in question do not contribute to genuine public debate and instead undermine trust in institutional processes.
More broadly, this decision deserves to be recognized as an important reference on the protection of confidentiality in the handling of complaints. Few appellate rulings have addressed these issues so directly in the context of internal or institutional investigations. Noreau therefore stands as a key precedent for anyone seeking to understand where the boundaries lie when someone involved in a complaint chooses to speak publicly about it.
Footnotes
1 The CMQ is the body responsible for adjudicating ethical breaches by municipal elected officials in Québec.
2 Noreau c. Commission municipal du Québec, 2025 QCCA 755 (CanLII) (only available in French).
3 CQLR c E-15.1.0.1.
4 Noreau c. Commission municipale du Québec, 2024 QCCS 4221 (CanLII) (only available in French).
5 Note that not all workers in Canada can invoke their right to freedom of expression in the workplace. The Canadian Charter protections generally apply only where public bodies or state action are involved; in this case, Ms. Noreau was entitled to raise her Charter rights because she was a municipal councillor sanctioned by a public body under statutory and regulatory authority. That said, in Québec, the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms protects the freedom of expression of all workers, including those in the private sector.
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.
