May 29, 2025
Express Case Law – May 2025
Express Case Law – May 2025
Welcome to the first edition of Express Case Law! In this issue, we take a look at some of the most important decisions of recent months: sexual misconduct, psychological harassment, management rights, abuse of power, and much more. Concrete examples, legal nuances, and useful reflections for your practice.
A must-read to fuel your reflections and support your legal interventions.
The decisions:
Syndicat des métallos, section locale 6869 c. Arcelormittal, 2025 QCTA 18
In this decision, the arbitrator rejected a grievance contesting the dismissal of Mr. Nadeau, a diesel mechanic in an iron ore mine. He was dismissed because he had sexually touched a young female student employee, Ms. B., on his last day of work. It should be noted that Mr. Nadeau had previously been the subject of a harassment investigation and had received a letter referring to the employer’s harassment policy. In the circumstances, the arbitrator decided that the sanction was proportionate, since his conduct was serious and unacceptable.
In fact, accepting Ms. B.’s credible version, the arbitrator concluded that there had been voluntary touching of Ms. B.’s buttocks on at least two occasions on a single day. More specifically, although the parties were not required to work together, Mr. Nadeau visited Ms. B.’s workstation on three occasions. On the first occasion, he offered her a hug to warm her up, which he did without waiting for her response and slid his hands over her buttocks. On his second visit, he touched Ms. B. again, grabbing her by the shoulders and once again sliding his hands down to brush against her buttocks. Ms. B. sent him a written message saying she was uncomfortable with him touching her in this way. The employer terminated Mr. Nadeau’s employment following his investigation.
Takeaway:
This decision reaffirms zero tolerance of sexual gestures between colleagues, especially in a male-dominated work environment. The arbitrator considers that Mr. Nadeau’s actions are all the more serious because they were directed at a young student, and that Mr. Nadeau, being an older man with 27 years’ experience in the organization and physically imposing, had a form of authority and influence over her, which he used abusively.
This decision is also a reminder of the importance of prevention in high-risk environments, such as industrial or male environments, where certain attitudes (sexual jokes, physical contact, etc.) can sometimes be trivialized.
Affane c. BonTerra Ressources inc., 2025 QCTAT 957
In this decision, the court concluded that the plaintiff had been the victim of psychological harassment. More specifically, the court noted that the plaintiff had, on a number of occasions, been referred to as “Osama Bin Laden” in front of other colleagues. It qualified these remarks as unwanted, since they were “denigrating and racist”, and concluded that the plaintiff had been subjected to vexatious conduct. The court pointed out that making fun of a colleague by repeatedly calling him an international terrorist violates the plaintiff’s dignity and also creates a harmful work environment.
In addition, the court concluded that the employer had breached its obligations under section 81.19 of the Act respecting labour standards. In fact, the court indicated that, apart from the internal investigation in which the employee at the source of the remarks admitted to having made them, the evidence of the sanctions imposed was very imprecise. It noted that the supervisor was aware of the situation several weeks before the formal complaint was lodged, and did not intervene.
In addition, the plaintiff had also made other accusations against his managers that he felt had contributed to the harassment he was experiencing at work, particularly in relation to disciplinary measures. However, the Tribunal held that these situations were more akin to a reasonable exercise of management rights. The Tribunal also answered the question of whether the plaintiff had suffered an employment injury, and concluded that the plaintiff’s dismissal was not unlawful, since it was linked to the employer’s dissatisfaction during his probationary period.
Takeaway:
This decision confirms that the repetition of comments with a discriminatory connotation can, on its own, be sufficient to constitute psychological harassment. Indeed, words that may be mistakenly perceived as mere “teasing” are, in reality, objectively offensive to a reasonable person, particularly when they are repeated and made in the presence of colleagues.
Secondly, this decision reminds us of the importance for an employer to intervene proactively and seriously in the face of such allegations, failing which the employer could be found not to have fulfilled its legal obligations. In this case, the lack of rigour in the internal investigation and the absence of any clear disciplinary action, despite the employee’s admission, show that the employer did not fulfill its obligation of means. This reminds us of the importance of documenting internal procedures and measures.
Deraspe c. Résidence Plaisance des Îles inc., 2024 QCTAT 4546
In this case, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint of psychological harassment. The complainant, who was hired as a socio-sanitary and maintenance supervisor, alleged that several events that occurred between May and September 2021 constituted harassment against him, including: modifications to his duties, a change in his work schedule, a change in the general manager’s attitude and her refusal to meet with him, the imposition of a reprimand followed by a suspension without pay for investigation, and the fact that the letter of dismissal was sent to him directly rather than through his lawyer.
The court found that the complainant’s allegations corresponded to a reasonable exercise of management rights, and did not characterize any behaviour as hostile or unwanted. Moreover, it emphasized that the complainant’s testimony reflected a reading of events that was grossly disproportionate or disconnected from the objective reality of the facts demonstrated. It should also be mentioned that the court concluded that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that he had suffered an employment injury.
Takeaway:
This decision is a reminder that the exercise of management rights does not constitute psychological harassment, as long as it is exercised in a reasonable, objective and respectful manner. In this respect, it is to an employer’s advantage to justify and document its interventions (organizational changes, disciplinary measures, etc.).
In this decision, the arbitrator upheld a grievance filed on behalf of Mr. Christian Foisy against the Sûreté du Québec, and concluded that Mr. Foisy had been subjected to administrative harassment or abuse of authority as defined in the organizational policy. Although the arbitrator found some situations that were legitimate decisions and normal conflicts between Mr. Foisy and his manager, he also found some problematic situations on the part of his manager, notably the sending of emails including insults such as “Am I an idiot?”, an impatient and exasperated reaction by the manager during a call, and criticism of Mr. Foisy’s management in front of his employees. Moreover, the arbitrator found that the manager’s assignment of Mr. Foisy to the multi team constituted administrative harassment. Indeed, while Mr. Foisy’s shortcomings constitute a concrete reason, the evidence reveals that internal procedure was not respected (Mr. Foisy was not formally notified in writing of his shortcomings in a satisfactory manner prior to this assignment, he was not given the opportunity to improve before this measure, and his file was not presented for discussion to the joint sub-committee).
The evidence also revealed that this condition did not appear to meet a real organizational need, and had a negative impact on Mr. Foisy’s working conditions, as the nature of the work did not interest him, and the position offered fewer opportunities for overtime work, penalizing him financially. Ultimately, the arbitrator concluded that the manager had exercised his management rights “unduly” to harm Mr. Foisy’s career.
Takeaway:
This decision reaffirms that an employer must not only have valid reasons to intervene, but must also rigorously adhere to applicable internal policies and procedures. Even in the presence of real shortcomings on the part of an employee, any administrative measure must be documented, progressive and consistent with the mechanisms provided for. Failing this, the intervention may be perceived as arbitrary or abusive, especially if it leads to a deterioration in working conditions or appears to be motivated by personal rather than organizational considerations.
Article by
