This is the English version of an article initially published in La référence, under the rerference EYB2025BRH2777.
Summary
The author comments on this decision in which the Superior Court, in the context of an action for dismissal without cause, examines the legitimacy of the reasons for dismissal given by the employer and the circumstances surrounding this dismissal. The court found that the reasons given by the employer were insufficient and that the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed. Accordingly, the plaintiff was awarded pay in lieu of notice, moral damages, and compensation for the loss of a job opportunity.
INTRODUCTION
Employers often face tough decisions when managing their day-to-day business. Employee care and management are undoubtedly crucial elements in any company, regardless of its circumstances. The ruling in Vaes c. Service d’administration PCR ltée1 serves as a reminder of the importance of diligently managing relationships with one’s workforce. Failure to do so can result in civil liability and, in some cases, substantial damages.
I– FACTS
Mr. Vaes (the “Employee”), a former employee of Groupe Robert inc. (the “Employer”), was dismissed after nearly three years in various positions within the company.
When the Employee received a particularly attractive job offer from a third-party company, the Employer insisted on keeping him on, offering him a management position in a department that was “in severe crisis. “This offer and the prospect it presented convinced the Employee to refuse the third party’s offer of employment and remain in the Employer’s service. However, just three and a half days after the Employee assumed his new duties, the Employer reversed its decision, claiming it had made a mistake in offering him the position. He was subsequently demoted and returned to his former duties, before being officially dismissed six months later.
It was in this context that the Employee brought a civil action, alleging dismissal without cause and abusive treatment.
II– DECISION
The Superior Court ruled in favour of the Employee, finding that the Employer did not have just cause to dismiss him and that he was entitled to reasonable notice of termination.
In reality, the Employer never actually informed the Employee of the reasons for his termination. It was only when he heard the Employer’s defence that he learned of the various allegations the Employer was making against him (particularly regarding his performance), allegations which he had never previously heard.
In its analysis, the court commented on the quality and nature of the evidence presented by the Employer to explain its decision to proceed with the termination. Questioning the choice and absence of several central witnesses (including the Employee’s supervisors), the court noted that the Employer had summoned no direct witness who could report concrete facts to help the court understand its position. In the absence of such evidence, the Employer had not met its heavy burden of proof.
In addition to a reasonable notice of termination equivalent to three months’ salary (for three years of continuous service), the court awarded the Employee substantial moral damages of $25,000 for the abusive nature of his dismissal and the Employer’s lack of respect, which amounted to an abuse of rights. The Employee had been humiliated and demoralized, and even suffered from depression and anxiety. The court also noted the Employer’s sophisticated organizational structure in questioning the manner in which the termination took place.
The court was of the opinion that the employee had a job offer from a potential employer, the content of which, although not final, was quite comprehensive. This offer was refused due to the Employer’s fault in offering the Employee a position and conditions of employment that it was unable to provide. The Employer’s lack of due diligence justified an award of $88,683.62 to the Employee, representing the difference between the amount he could have earned in his new job and various amounts deducted by the court.
III– AUTHOR’S COMMENTARY
This decision underscores the employer’s obligation to manage all dismissals with rigour, transparency, and respect. Promises or assurances made to an employee about their future within the organization can bind the employer and lead to serious consequences if there is a change of heart.
The decision also emphasizes the importance of effective management of internal processes and careful consideration when making any major decisions, including whether to hire or promote an employee.
Given that the burden of proving “just cause” for dismissal rests with the employer, it is particularly important to prepare the case for termination well in advance. The courts will not hesitate to condemn employer misconduct, which is why it is crucial to have uniform termination procedures in place and to document any case involving termination in advance. Identifying and preparing key witnesses who can enlighten the court on the reasoning behind the termination decision is crucial to an employer’s success in a legal proceeding.
It should be noted that the decision was the subject of an appeal, which was summarily dismissed on a motion to dismiss the appeal.2
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, every employer is called upon to make difficult business decisions that can have a direct impact on its staff. That said, how those decisions are made and how they are subsequently implemented remain important aspects that employers should not overlook.
1 EYB 2024-556208 (C.S.).
2 EYB 2025-563990.