Newsletters

139

In psychological harassment cases, workers can now kill two birds with one stone

Citizens sometimes consider government structure reorganizations as cause for headaches. However, those may also have clearly positive impacts, as we can see from this example.

Prior to January 1, when an instance of psychological harassment caused an employment injury, a worker could be involved in two proceedings, with distinct objects, but where the same witnesses were testifying on the same facts:

  • one before the Commission des relations du travail (Labour Relations Board), to rule on the existence of psychological harassment under the Labour Standards Act;
  • another before the Commission des lésions professionnelles, to rule on the existence of an employment injury under the Act Respecting Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases.

On January 1, 2016, the Administrative Labour Tribunal was created, with four divisions, including one on labour relations and one on occupational health and safety. This will allow joining the two above proceedings, which will then be heard by a single member of the Tribunal. This will save time by eliminating the need to repeat testimonies from one hearing to the other. Therefore, a single hearing will decide whether there was psychological harassment and whether it caused an employment injury.

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

139

Articles in the same category

When it’s too late for latent defects…

The Superior Court recently rendered a judgment in Reinert v. Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc., 2026 QCCS 2276, dealing with timeliness to give notice in cases of latent defects. The Facts In 2013, Ms. Sylvie Reinert and Mr. Denis Leclerc retained Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc. (“CMB”) for the construction of a residential building on a vacant lot in Lévis. […]

Insurance Math: One Claim, Two Fires, Three Points of Origin, Zero Recovery: When Circumstantial Evidence Speaks Louder Than a Confession

In Chatel v. Desjardins Insurance, 2026 QCCS 712, the Quebec Superior Court reaffirmed a principle of insurance law: direct evidence is not required to establish an intentional fault. Mr. Chatel claimed $532,000 under his homeowner’s insurance policy following two fires that occurred four days apart. The first caused partial damage to his residence, while the second […]

The Quarrelsome Litigant: When the Right to Sue Becomes a Scourge

Access to the courts is a fundamental right, but what happens when a person uses it not to assert legitimate rights, but to harass others or clog the system to excess? This is quarrelsomeness: the tendency to exercise one’s right to litigate in an excessive or unreasonable manner. Far from being a marginal phenomenon, it […]

Before Buying a Product, Read This: The Rules Are Changing on October 5!

On October 5, 2026, the final amendments to the Regulation amending the Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act (the “Regulation“) are expected to come into force, completing the implementation of the new “good working order” warranty in the province of Quebec. When this warranty applies, the merchant or manufacturer will be required to repair […]

No Notice of Default, No Termination

In Pavage Wemindji Inc. v. Compagnie de Construction et de Développement crie ltée, the Quebec Superior Court emphasized that a valid notice of default (mise en demeure) is not just a formality—it’s a precondition to exercising remedies like contract termination in many cases under Quebec civil law. The Decision The plaintiff, Pavage Wemindji Inc. (“Wemindji”), […]

Public Contracts: When Does a Penalty Clause Cross the Line?

Penalty clauses are a practical tool for owners: instead of having to prove actual losses when a contractor falls short, they can rely on a pre-agreed sum. For contractors, however, the stakes are equally significant — a lump-sum penalty can consume a substantial portion of the contract’s value. Still, the mechanism has its limits. Courts […]