Newsletters

650

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.

650

Articles in the same category

An Insurer Is Not Required to Uncover What the Insured Was Required to Disclose

In Kayembe-Kabeya v. Industrielle Alliance, assurance et services financiers inc., 2026 QCCS 1714, the Superior Court sets the record straight on the principle of contractual “utmost good faith”. The Facts In September 2019, Ms. Ricady Mede (hereinafter “Mede”) purchased a life insurance policy from Industrielle Alliance (hereinafter the “Insurer”). A few months later, she died of […]

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”), […]