Newsletters

506

Good and sufficient cause, serious reason, serious fault: different words, same idea

Perhaps you have already been in the situation where the Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail [“CNESST”] files a complaint for dismissal without a good and sufficient cause1 under s. 124 of the Act respecting labour standards [“L.S.A.”] as well as a civil suit for dismissal without a serious reason, under art. 2014 of the Civil Code of Quebec, or without a serious fault, under s. 82.1 L.S.A.

What happens if the Tribunal administratif du travail2 rules that the employee was dismissed for a good and sufficient cause while a civil suit launched by the employee or the CNESST is still pending?

In a recent decision,3 the Court reiterated a well-known rule under which res judicata applies between both cases, even though the case before the Tribunal administrative du travail raises the criterion of good and sufficient cause while the civil claim is based on a potential serious reason. Since both cases arise from the same termination, and the same facts, the civil suit will be dismissed. The “serious reason” and “good and sufficient cause” are similar criteria. The outcome must therefore be the same: a dismissal for good and sufficient cause is done for a serious reason.

The same finding is generally applicable to the concept of serious fault, in s. 82.1 L.S.A.: good and sufficient cause may include a serious fault. However, in such cases, the CNESST sometimes adopts a more subtle stance by giving a restrictive construction to the notion of serious fault.

1Some statutes and regulations also use the expression “just and sufficient cause”.

2The quasi-judicial tribunal that has jurisdiction over unfair dismissal complaints made by the CNESST under s. 124 L.S.A.

3Faucher c. Dominique Turcotte inc., 2016 QCCQ 46.

Commentary by Jacques Bélanger, from our Labour and Employment Law Group.

506

Articles in the same category

Finally Properly Interpreted, the Policy Had a Heart

In a recent decision, Morissette v. BMO Société d’assurance vie, the Superior Court reviewed the principles applicable to the interpretation of insurance policies. Facts In June 2003, the Plaintiff took out a health insurance policy (hereinafter “Policy”) with BMO Société d’assurance vie (hereinafter “BMO”). The Policy provides, among other things, that $150,000 will be paid […]

When the Remedy Becomes the Dispute: Medical Liability Under Scrutiny

In the case N.L. v. Mathieu, 2025 QCCS 517, the Superior Court dismissed a medical liability lawsuit filed by a teacher against her former family doctor, in which she sought over $1.9 million in damages. The plaintiff accused her doctor of having inappropriately prescribed medication over several years, without proper follow-up and without informing her […]

Bill 89 and the Future of Labour Disputes in Quebec

Passed by the National Assembly on May 29, 2025, Bill 89 (An Act to give greater consideration to the needs of the population in the event of a strike or a lock-out, hereinafter the “Bill”) will come into force on November 30, 2025. The Bill, which has faced strong opposition from unions, will bring significant […]

Latent Defects: Notice Must Be Given, but to Whom, When and How? The Court of Appeal Answers

On this past September 26, in the context of a claim for latent defects, in the matter of Meyer v. Pichette (Estate of Morin), 2025 QCCA 1193, the Court of appeal confirmed a Superior Court judgment which dismissed proceedings in warranty brought against former vendors as sufficient notice of the defects was not provided prior […]

You Should Not Believe Everything you Read on Social Media…

In a recent decision, Boucal v. Rancourt-Maltais, the Superior Court reviewed the principles applicable to defamation cases. Facts The Defendant is a member of a private Facebook group called “Féministes Bas-St-Laurent”. In this group, Ms. Khadidiatou Yewwi allegedly posted testimony about the Plaintiff. Stating that she was troubled by the testimony and had herself heard […]

The Window of Conflict and Police Officers

In the case of Souccar v. Pathmasiri, rendered on June 11, the Quebec Superior Court was called upon to decide on a civil liability claim regarding an allegedly abusive arrest and detention. The dispute arose from a condominium disagreement concerning the installation of windows. Police Intervention In July 2016, window installers hired by the condominium […]