Perhaps it is based on the fact that Quebec law is known in French as the "Code civil" as opposed to the English-based "Common law" and so, would have little to do with what the English speaking world know as "civil cases".
Je crois bon de préciser ici que les personnes à qui l'ordonnance a été signifiée auraient pu refuser de fournir les informations demandées. Devant un tel refus, Groupe AST (1993) inc. n'aurait pu insister davantage, mais aurait dû plutôt utiliser la procédure d'outrage au tribunal pour faire valoir ses droits. Il n'y a pas de preuve au dossier indiquant que Groupe AST (1993) inc. aurait obtenu les informations par la force, après un premier refus. Si tel avait été le cas, il y aurait eu lieu d'annuler l'existence de l'ordonnance Anton Piller, vu que ses limites auraient été dépassées. En l'absence de preuve à ce sujet, je considère qu'i n'y a pas lieu pour notre Cour d'intervenir à cet égard.
It means that the defendant would be under contempt of the court if he refused to answer questions or let them get what they wanted under the warrant. But, if he refused, and that the plaintiff "uses force" to fulfill the warrant then the limits of the Anton Piller would be overstepped and it would be voided.
From what I understand, under Quebec civil law the maximum sentence for contempt of court is up to 5000$ and up to a year.
Still (see paragraph [106]), it seems to me (my French is not as good as it should be) that the generic point remains untouched:
>Par ailleurs, le paragraphe 29 n'autorise pas un huissier à interroger des témoIns comme bon lui semble. Il ordonne plutôt ...
>Furthermore, paragraph 29 does not authorize a bailiff to examine witnesses as he sees fit. Rather, he directs ...
Imagine that I have an Anton Piller order to find and seize for preservation something at a high risk of destruction, let's say all sugar in your house ;).
I can ask you where you keep the sugar, biscuits, cakes, sweets, mints and lollipops, besides soda beverages and chocolate. (and if you refuse to respond you are passible to be held in contempt of the Court)
I can also check whether you have hidden your sugar in the bathroom or in the bedroom.
What I cannot ask you is whether you are member of a club of sugar addicts, and the name of all its members, where you bought those nice looking cupcakes, how much meat and bread do you eat everyday, etc.
The scope of an Anton Piller order is just for presevation of evidence and specifically of evidence at high risk of destruction.
