Administrative Reorganization And Termination In Québec: Mind The Evidence

Key Takeaways:

• Employers relying on an administrative reorganization must demonstrate a clear and concrete link between the organizational change and the elimination of the position.
• A termination letter referencing performance concerns or a loss of confidence may undermine a claim that the termination was purely administrative.
• Courts will closely examine whether contemporaneous documentary evidence supports the stated reason for the termination.
• Where a dismissal under section 124 of the ALS is established, reinstatement remains the presumptive remedy unless a genuine obstacle exists.

A decision rendered on June 10, 2026, by the Québec Superior Court serves a useful reminder for employers considering terminating employment for organizational reasons. In Adobe Systems Canada inc. v. Tribunal administratif du travail, the Superior Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Labour Tribunal (the “ALT”), which had found that an employee had been dismissed without good and sufficient cause despite the employer’s argument that the termination resulted from an administrative reorganization.

In this case, Adobe Systems Canada inc. (the “Employer”), sought judicial review of an ALT decision that had upheld a complaint filed under section 124 of the Act respecting labour standards (the “ALS”) and ordered the reinstatement of the employee, Mr. Chris Bobotis (the “Employee”). The Superior Court dismissed the application and confirmed that the ALT’s decision was reasonable.

The Facts

The Employer argued that the Employee’s termination resulted from an internal reorganization, in a context where certain investments related to virtual reality had ceased. According to the Employer, the matter therefore involved an administrative termination rather than a dismissal. The Employee, for his part, argued that his employment had in fact been terminated for reasons related to his performance.

The ALT accepted the Employee’s position. In particular, it placed significant weight on the fact that the termination letter referred to a loss of confidence, as well as on the vague and weakly supported nature of the evidence adduced in support of the alleged reorganization. According to the ALT, the organizational reasons advanced were not the true reason for the termination of the employment relationship.

The Employer sought judicial review of that decision.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court first reiterated that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness, given that the ALT is a specialized tribunal called upon to decide these types of disputes. Applying that standard, the Court concluded that the ALT’s decision was reasonable.

In particular, the Court held that the ALT could validly conclude that the evidence of reorganization was too vague and insufficiently developed to establish a genuine administrative layoff. Merely referring to a strategic shift or the discontinuation of certain investments was not, in itself, enough to demonstrate that the position had in fact been abolished or that the termination flowed directly from that reorganization.

The Court also noted that certain elements of the evidence supported the opposite conclusion. In particular, the termination letter referred to a loss of confidence, which pointed more to a personal reason related to the Employee than to a purely organizational decision.

It is also worth emphasizing that both the ALT and the Superior Court recognized that the Employer’s decision to cease investing in virtual reality may well have been genuine. However, that fact alone was not sufficient to demonstrate that the Employee’s services were no longer required. In other words, even assuming that an organizational change had in fact occurred, it was still necessary to establish a concrete connection between that reorganization and the actual disappearance of the need for the functions performed by the Employee. That is precisely the demonstration that was lacking in this case.

In that context, the Court found reasonable the ALT’s conclusion that the alleged reorganization was used as a pretext for dismissal.

The Court further confirmed that, once it was determined that the Employee had been dismissed without good and sufficient cause, the ALT was entitled to order reinstatement, which remains the normal remedy in such cases unless a real and serious obstacle prevents its implementation.

Comments

This decision highlights a difficulty frequently encountered in practice: the temptation to characterize as “administrative” a termination that, in reality, appears to stem from the employer’s dissatisfaction with the employee’s performance.

In principle, a layoff refers to a severance of the employment relationship for reasons not attributable to the employee, such as a restructuring, a genuine abolition of position or economic imperatives. A dismissal, by contrast, occurs when the employer terminates employment for reasons relating to the employee personally, including conduct, skills or performance.

In practice, this distinction is often at the heart of the dispute. Where an employer invokes an administrative reason, but the evidence instead reveals concerns relating to performance, the risk of recharacterization is very real.

Where an employer intends to rely on the abolition of a position or a restructuring, it must be able to establish concretely:

• the nature of the organizational change;
• its actual impact on the position in question; and
• the direct connection between that change and the termination.

This decision also underscores the importance of documentary consistency. A termination letter referring to a loss of confidence, performance issues or personal difficulties will be difficult to reconcile with a later claim that the termination instead resulted from an abolition of position or a reorganization.

Lastly, this case is a reminder that the risk of reinstatement remains very real under section 124 of the ALS. Where an employer fails to establish the validity of the reason invoked, it may be exposed not only to an adverse ruling, but also to an order reinstating the employee to his position.

The Appropriate Remedy

The decision is also noteworthy in that it reiterates the rationale applicable to the remedy where an employer’s position is rejected. In this case, the Employer argued that the Employee’s position had been abolished. However, once the ALT rejected that contention and concluded that the Employee’s functions remained necessary within the company, reinstatement naturally became the preferred remedy.

Put differently, the argument that no position remains available for an employee cannot succeed where the tribunal specifically concludes that the alleged abolition of the position has not been established. In the absence of evidence showing that operational needs have truly changed, or that a real and serious obstacle stands in the way of the employee’s return, reinstatement remains the primary remedy to be considered.

This case thus illustrates that, under section 124 of the ALS, reinstatement is not an exceptional measure. Rather, it is the default remedy, and departing from it must be justified by particular circumstances. Where an employer relies on an alleged abolition of position that is ultimately rejected by the tribunal, it will be all the more difficult to persuade the tribunal that reinstatement is inappropriate.

Practical Lessons for Employers

Before proceeding with a termination characterized as administrative, employers would be well advised to ask themselves the following questions:

• Is the reason for the termination truly organizational?
• Does the internal documentation clearly support that reason?
• Has the position genuinely been abolished, or do operational needs remain essentially the same?
• Is the termination letter consistent with the position that will be advanced if the decision is challenged?
• Are there elements in the record suggesting instead a performance or conduct issue?

Where the answers to these questions are ambiguous, there is a risk that a tribunal will conclude that the alleged reorganization was not the true reason for the termination.

In short, this decision highlights the crucial importance, in employment termination matters, of ensuring consistency between the reason invoked, the evidence adduced and the contemporaneous documentation. Failing that, what is presented as an abolition of position may well be recharacterized as a dismissal without good and sufficient cause, together with the consequences that follow.

To view the original article click here

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.