Employment And Labour Law - Review Of Landmark Decisions Rendered In 2024 | Québec

1. Golf des Quatre Domaines inc. v Bélanger, 2024 QCCA 620

• The employee began working for the employer in 1999, initially in an assistant position. Over time, she advanced within the organization and was promoted to General Manager in January 2018.
• In March 2018, the parties signed a first written employment contract, which allowed either party to unilaterally terminate the agreement, provided a specific notice period was given. The contract also stipulated that if the employee was dismissed as General Manager, she could return to her prior role as assistant under the conditions applicable to that position.
• In May 2018, an addendum to the employment contract was signed. It included the following provision : "This is to confirm that a lump sum of CA$10,000.00 will be paid to the employee for the first payable in December of each year for a five-year contract from this day, i.e. for the years 2018 to 2022 inclusive. In the event of voluntary departure or dismissal, the amount for the current year will be paid and the amounts for subsequent years will be cancelled." [translated by authors].
• In November 2018, the employer terminated the contract and invited the employee to return to her previous role.
• In November 2019, the employee filed a claim for constructive dismissal, arguing that the parties were bound by a five-year fixed-term contract and that the employer owed her salary for the remaining years of the agreement.
• The Superior Court concluded that the parties were, by a fixed term agreement, referencing the "five-year contract" expression used in the 2018 addendum. Ruling that the employee had been constructively dismissed, the Tribunal ordered the employer to compensate her for the unpaid balance of the five-year period, ruling that she had been constructively dismissed.

• The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's determination that the employee was constructively dismissed. It found that the employer had unilaterally and significantly altered her employment terms without valid cause or appropriate notice when it demoted her.
• However, the Court of Appeal identified a manifest error in the trial judge's reasoning regarding the contract's classification. Specifically, the Court noted that the March 2018 agreement contained unilateral and discretionary termination rights for both parties, a hallmark of undefined term contracts.
• The Court determined there was nothing in the evidence supporting that the parties were intending to transform the initial indefinite-term contract into a fixed-term one when signing the 2018 addendum. Importantly, the addendum did not alter the unilateral termination provisions of the original contract.
• Constructive dismissal in the context of an undefined-term employment contract entitles the affected employee to compensation in lieu of reasonable notice. In this case, the Court of Appeal set the notice period at 20 months.

2. Syndicat de l'enseignement de la région de la Mitis v Centre de services scolaire des Monts-et-Marées, 2024 QCCA 1280

• The employee began working for the appellant employer in 2001 and maintained a clean disciplinary record until her dismissal.
• During the 2015-2016 school year, she chose to teach a multi-grade intercycle class encompassing three grade levels, which proved to be highly challenging. Concerns raised about her performance included disorganization, noncompliance with established guidelines, and the use of sarcasm towards students. Despite the principal's recommendations, she elected to teach the same group the following year, continuing to encounter difficulties. Additional criticisms arose, including non-compliance with ministerial guidelines, lack of professionalism, bullying of certain students and personal use of social media during class.
• On February 22, 2017, she was suspended with pay pending an investigation into these issues and was subsequently dismissed for "insubordination and/or misconduct and/or neglect of duty and/or incapacity."
• The union filed a grievance contesting the dismissal.
• The arbitrator categorized the dismissal as administrative and upheld the termination, concluding that the employer had satisfied the criteria established in Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. v Laplante (Costco).
• The Superior Court dismissed the union's application for judicial review, finding no reviewable error in the arbitrator's categorization of the dismissal as administrative or in the contextual application of the Costco criteria.

• The Court of Appeal rejected the union's argument that the arbitrator unreasonably characterized the dismissal as administrative rather than mixed (both administrative and disciplinary).
• While some of the employee's shortcomings might initially have been viewed as disciplinary in nature, her responses during the investigation led the employer to determine that she appeared unable to recognize her deficiencies and challenges, which pointed more to a performance issue. As a result, even with continued support, it was unlikely that her practices would have significantly improved. Given this context and the grounds for dismissal cited, the arbitrator could reasonably conclude that the case involved administrative incapacity rather than intentional misconduct.
• The Court also dismissed the union's assertion that the dismissal was unreasonable on the basis that the employer had not explicitly warned the employee that her job was at risk if her performance did not improve. The arbitrator's reliance on the Costco criteria as a framework to be applied globally and contextually, rather than as strict conditions, aligns with a minority trend in case law and was not unreasonable.

3. 4036409 Canada inc. v Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, 2024 QCCA 1250

• The employer provides manpower to a paper mill operating 24/7. Employees worked a schedule staggered over two weeks (36hours one week, 48hours the other), each shift being 12 hours, including a 60-minute paid meal break.
• All working hours were compensated at regular rate.
• An anonymous monetary complaint was filed with the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité au travail (CNESST), alleging that the employer was not paying overtime in accordance with the Act respecting labour standards.
• At the trial-court level, the Superior Court ruled in favour of the employees, concluding that:
  • The employer could not rely on staggered working hours without prior authorization from the CNESST.
  • Paid meal breaks had to be included in the calculation of hours worked for overtime purposes.
  • The workweek, for overtime calculations, began on Monday.

• Staggered hours: The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the employer could not benefit from staggered hours, as it had not secured prior authorization from the CNESST. Furthermore, individual agreements under the third paragraph of section 53 cannot be applied retroactively, which was the case here.
• Paid meal breaks: The Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge's decision regarding the inclusion of paid meal breaks in the calculation of hours worked for overtime. It noted that employees were not required to work during their breaks, except in the event of an emergency. Although employees were encouraged to remain on-site due to the short duration of the breaks and the plant's layout, they were not obligated to eat at their workstations and generally took their meals in the cafeteria.
• Workweek: The Court also overturned the trial judge's conclusion about the obligation to have the workweek starting on Monday. Even though punch cards reflected a Monday-to-Sunday workweek, the employer could adopt a different seven-day period (e.g., Saturday to Sunday) for calculating overtime hours.

4. Ouellet v Tribunal administratif du travail, 2024 QCCS 621 (application for leave to appeal granted)

• On December 20, 2020, the worker, a patrol sergeant for the Service de police de la Ville de Québec, submitted a medical certificate confirming her pregnancy and indicating the risks associated with her job for both her and her unborn child. On the same day, the employer removed her from work without offering her an alternative reassignment.
• On January 8, 2021, the worker formally requested reassignment to safe tasks.
• On February 10, 2021, after analysis, the employer refused the reassignment. On the same day, the worker filed a complaint with the CNESST under section 227 of the Act respecting occupational health and safety (AOHS), alleging reprisals and discrimination due to her pregnancy.
• On April 29, 2022, the CNESST dismissed the complaint, ruling that no sanctions or measures had been imposed on the worker.
• On December 16, 2022, the Administrative Labour Tribunal (ALT) upheld the CNESST's decision, asserting that reassignment was not a right guaranteed under sections 40 and 41 of the AOHS.
• On January 12, 2023, the worker filed for judicial review of the ALT's decision, arguing that the Tribunal had erred in adopting an overly restrictive interpretation of sections 40 and 41 of the OHSA and had failed to consider the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation in Dionne v Commission scolaire des Patriotes.
• The worker maintained that the employer had a duty to assess whether a safe and available position existed, and if such a position was found, to reassign her during her pregnancy.
• The employer, in contrast, argued that there was no legal obligation to reassign the worker to another position.

• The Superior Court found the ALT's decision unreasonable for the following reasons:
  • The ALT had adopted an overly restrictive interpretation of the right to reassignment, neglecting the employer's obligation to respond to reassignment requests. It also failed to consider important aspects of the Dionne decision, which established that after a reassignment request, the employer must assess whether reassignment is possible.
  • The ALT did not properly analyze the reasons behind the employer's refusal to reassign the worker, which prevented a determination of whether this refusal could be considered discriminatory. This omission impacted the reasonableness of the ALT's decision.
  • The Court also felt the ALT failed to address the worker's main arguments regarding the employer's duty and that the worker's complaint under section 227 should be assessed in light of her rights under sections 40 and 41 of the AOHS.
• The Court granted the appeal for judicial review and returned the case to the ALT for a new analysis in accordance with the AOHS.