October 10, 2025
Express Case Law – October 2025
Express Case Law – October 2025
Welcome to the second edition of Express Case Law! In this issue, we take a look at some of the most important decisions of recent months: subjective perception, preventive measures, management rights, serious misconduct, and more.
Concrete examples, legal nuances, and useful insights for your practice. A must-read to fuel your reflections and support your legal interventions.
The decisions:
Gauthier c. Caisse Desjardins Pierre-Le Gardeur, 2025 QCTAT 803
In this decision, the Tribunal considered several appeals filed by a personal finance advisor, including a complaint of psychological harassment.
The plaintiff claimed, among other things, that she had been subjected to a training plan that she considered inadequate, undue pressure, assignments to problematic clients, regulatory compliance breaches, and a significant incident involving the unauthorized use of her access code by a manager. She also claimed that her employer’s lack of communication during her sick leave contributed to her psychological distress.
The Tribunal concluded that the alleged facts, taken individually or as a whole, did not meet the legal criteria for psychological harassment. The Tribunal found that most of the events described were based on the complainant’s subjective perception, such as her belief that the training plan was designed to make her fail[1] or her fear of being linked to the criminal world.[2]
The analysis highlights the employer’s proactive management of the complainant’s allegations. During the incident involving an aggressive customer, the immediate supervisor immediately requested that the customer be removed, a security report be filed, and an internal investigation be launched.
With regard to the training plan, the Tribunal noted that it had been developed by an experienced advisor and tailored to the needs expressed by the plaintiff. In addition, her immediate supervisor reiterated to her in writing that she would never be forced to act contrary to her compliance principles. The Tribunal found that the allegations that the employer had deliberately sought to cause her to fail were implausible.
The Tribunal acknowledged that it was inappropriate for a manager to use the plaintiff’s computer session to authorize funding. However, the Tribunal found that this had not resulted in any concrete consequences and that the concerns expressed by the plaintiff were subjective in nature.
Finally, with regard to the lack of communication during the sick leave, the Tribunal noted that the employer’s management framework called for collaboration between managers and absent employees. The immediate supervisor testified that he had deliberately chosen not to communicate with the plaintiff, believing that his presence could have aggravated the situation. The Tribunal concluded that this decision, although questionable, did not constitute vexatious conduct, especially since administrative follow-up was handled by the insurance company.
Takeaway
This decision serves as a reminder that diligent management of incidents and reports by employers can play a decisive role in assessing the merits of a complaint. It highlights the importance of documenting interventions and maintaining a management framework that complies with legal obligations.
It also reminds us that subjective perception is not enough, even though concerns may be sincere and based on difficult personal experiences. The alleged facts must be based on wrongful conduct and not solely on a person’s perception or feelings.
Ekpini c. Apptoza Inc., 2025 QCTAT 334
The plaintiff alleged that he had been the victim of psychological harassment by his managers, including his immediate supervisor, his project manager, and his director. He reported malicious and contemptuous behaviour, unfounded complaints aimed at damaging his reputation, and threats of dismissal. He believed that his supervisor constantly disparaged his work to colleagues and took deliberate action to harm him, such as disconnecting computer equipment or interfering with his orders.
However, the Administrative Labour Tribunal dismissed the complaint, concluding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the existence of psychological harassment. The facts cited were based mainly on subjective perceptions, often contradicted or nuanced by the evidence. The managers’ actions fell within the scope of legitimate management rights, and the complaints made by colleagues were well-founded, highlighting the plaintiff’s inappropriate behaviour. The plaintiff adopted a victim stance, showed no self-criticism, and his interpretation of events did not correspond to that of a reasonable person. The Tribunal therefore concluded that there was no psychological harassment.
Takeaway
This decision serves as a reminder that care must be taken to distinguish between psychological harassment and the exercise of managerial authority, as the line between the two can sometimes be blurred. Criticism directed at an individual may constitute harassment, whereas criticism of behaviour or actions generally falls within the scope of managerial authority. Each situation must be analyzed according to its specific context, bearing in mind that the employee’s perception alone is not sufficient to establish harassment—it is the objective assessment of the facts that prevails.
Mahfoud c. 9063-3090 Québec inc., 2025 QCTAT 978
In 2024, the Tribunal recognized that the complainant had been the victim of psychological harassment during his employment.[3] This decision concerns the request for compensation, to which the employer presented no defense or evidence. In order to assess the value of the damages caused to the complainant, the Tribunal examines several elements.
First, it examines the nature of the actions taken by the business owner or his spouse, which were intended solely to humiliate the plaintiff, including insults such as “You can take the money and wipe his *** with it”, asking him why he was wearing “homeless pants”, and telling him to “go *** himself”. Other abusive and hostile behaviours were also noted by the court, including excessive camera surveillance.
Next, the court also recognized significant moral damage, which resulted in a loss of confidence, chronic stress, hypervigilance, and a deterioration of the plaintiff’s personal life. Furthermore, the employer was found to be at fault for failing to fulfill its obligation to prevent and stop the harassment. Thus, the seriousness of the actions, their duration, and their impact on the plaintiff’s dignity justified the award of punitive damages.
Takeaway
Insults, threats, intrusions into the workplace, and degrading behaviour can have a major legal impact if they occur repeatedly. The court’s decision serves as a reminder that an employer’s failure to act in response to psychological harassment can result in severe penalties. Indeed, the seriousness of such acts can be punished not only by moral damages, but also by punitive damages, which serve to deter the repetition of such behaviour in the workplace.
Weslati c. 9415-5264 Québec inc., 2025 QCTAT 1767
This decision addresses a situation considered to be “a single serious act” constituting psychological harassment. The plaintiff in this case is a restaurant employee who worked long hours for $12 an hour and was paid weekly in cash. The altercation at the heart of the dispute occurred at the end of his shift in the evening when the plaintiff demanded his unpaid wages for two weeks, angering the owner. The Tribunal accepted the plaintiff’s version of events, finding it credible, reliable, and consistent, particularly in light of related criminal judgments. According to the evidence, the owner initially refused to pay the plaintiff, insulted him by calling him a “dog”, grabbed him by the coat, and pushed him outside.
When the plaintiff returned to announce that he was quitting his job and demand his pay under threat of filing a complaint with the CNESST, the owner verbally assaulted him again, shouting “Get out of here, you ***!”, » grabbed him by the neck, and punched him in the face, while yelling that he was going to kill him and bury him. After falling and breaking free, the owner headed toward the bar, yelling that he was going to kill him, and grabbed what appeared to be a shawarma knife. Terrified, the plaintiff fled in his car, suffering physical injuries as well as shock and anxiety that required medical attention. It should be noted that the owner had already been found guilty of simple assault against the plaintiff by the Court of Quebec for these same events, his appeal having been rejected by the Superior Court.
Takeaway
This decision clearly illustrates that a single serious act, even if not repeated, such as physical assault accompanied by death threats and insults uttered by the employer, may be sufficient to constitute psychological harassment within the meaning of the law. The Tribunal points out that the seriousness of the acts, their context, and the employer’s failure to take preventive measures may justify upholding a complaint, even if the acts are not repeated.
[1] Paras. 256 and 257.
[2] Para. 262.
Article by
