In 2002, the service de sécurité incendie de Montréal was heavily blamed for negligence and incompetence according to the Cour d'Appel du Québec.
Supreme Court of the United States | Quebec | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Supreme Court of India | Quebec City | High Court | Royal Court Theatre | High Court of Justice | International Criminal Court | New York Supreme Court | High Court of Australia | Supreme Court of Canada | European Court of Human Rights | United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit | International Court of Justice | United States District Court for the Southern District of New York | Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States | European Court of Justice | Permanent Court of Arbitration | New York Court of Appeals | Michigan Supreme Court | Crown Court | Supreme Court of California | Court of Appeal of England and Wales | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | court | United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | Quebec Liberal Party | Québec | Court of Common Pleas |
In August 2007, three justices of the Quebec Court of Appeal unanimously held that Keith Henderson, former Leader of the English-language rights group, the Equality Party, has standing to challenge the legality of the statute, which Quebec Superior Court has dubbed "Bill 99" in the absence of a short title for this particular statute.
According to Continental Casualty Company v. Combined Insurance Company (1967), the Quebec Court of Appeal decided that those who owned trade secrets (secrets de commerce) are entitled to seek protection and that Quebec courts are competent to grant remedies in the case the plaintiff can evidence its ownership of such trade secrets.
Henderson's lawyer, Brent Tyler, declared that the Quebec government, which is contesting Henderson's standing to sue re Bill 99, can apply to the Supreme Court of Canada for permission to appeal from the Quebec Court of Appeal decision.