Newsletters

February 23, 2016

604

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.

604

Articles in the same category

Insurance Law

May 11, 2026

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”), […]
Insurance Law

May 6, 2026

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 […]
Insurance Law / Newsletters

April 24, 2026

Not So Intelligent!

Since the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence tools, growing concerns have emerged regarding their use in judicial proceedings. Recent decisions have relied on section 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure to sanction parties who make improper use of such tools. More specifically, this provision has been invoked on several occasions to address the use or citation […]
Insurance Law / Newsletters

April 2, 2026

So? Is it settled or not?

In an interim decision in Djaferian v. Spanoudakis,rendered on February 20, 2026, the Superior Court had to determine whether an offer made 15 months earlier, prior to the institution of proceedings, could still be accepted and result in a transaction. Summary of Facts and Timeline The Plaintiff, a co-owner who sustained water damage to his private […]
Labour and Employment Law / Newsletters

April 1, 2026

Office Parties and the Employer’s Duty to Prevent Harassment

In De Sousa and Corporation interactive Eidos, 2026 QCTAT 4, the Quebec Administrative Labour Tribunal (ALT) appears to have broadened the scope of an employer’s obligation to prevent harassment. The decision arose from a complaint filed by a former employee who had been sexually assaulted at her home by a colleague following an office party organized by the […]
Insurance Law / Newsletters

March 24, 2026

Should Economic Losses Be Considered Property Damage?

The Quebec Court of Appeal in Zurich, Compagnie d’assurances SA c. CRT Construction inc., recently overturned the Superior Court’s decision on the interpretation of a construction insurance policy. Facts CRT Construction Inc. (“CRT”) was retained by the City of Montreal (“City”) to perform major construction work at the Atwater water treatment plant. At the City’s request, CRT […]