“Named Person”: a rare abuse-of-process finding against the State

The civil action brought by Named Person, in which Woods acts through Sebastian L. Pyzik and Charbel G. Abi-Saad, has resulted in a rare sanction against the State for abuse of process. 

On February 17, 2026, the Superior Court of Québec found that the State had committed an abuse of process in this matter. On March 3, 2026, the Court authorized publication of that judgment. 

In reasons delivered by the Honourable Lukasz Granosik, J.S.C., the Court held that the State had maintained allegations incompatible with findings already determined by the Québec Court of Appeal in the criminal case. It applied the doctrine of abuse by relitigation, as set out in Toronto (City) v. CUPE, Local 79, 2003 SCC 63, which bars a party from re-litigating binding judicial determinations in another forum. 

The Court found that portions of the State’s defence were in “direct contradiction” with the Court of Appeal’s judgment. It emphasized that the defendants cannot claim to have committed no fault where the Court of Appeal has already held otherwise. The Court concluded that “the fault is clear and of extreme gravity,” declared that the defendants had committed an abuse of process, ordered amendments to the defence, and authorized damages claim arising from that abuse. 

This decision carries particular significance:  

• It is the second time the State has been found to have acted abusively in the same matter, following the Québec Court of Appeal’s conclusions in the criminal proceedings in this exceptional litigation. 

• It is also the first decision made public since the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2024 ruling on open court principles in this case, under the constraints of informer privilege. 

• The decision reaffirms a basic principle: the authority of a judgment — here, that of the Court of Appeal — cannot be circumvented. Even in proceedings subject to confidentiality and informer privilege, the State remains bound by the courts’ determinations. 

This case also reflects the breadth and depth of Woods’ litigation team, which acts in a wide range of complex and sensitive matters, including cases involving state liability, abuse of process, and exceptional confidentiality constraints. 

Woods did not act in the criminal proceedings. The matter remains subject to informer privilege and confidentiality orders. 

To view the decision, click here.