Newsletters

96

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.

96

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 […]