Benoît Mailloux

Two employers closed their businesses and gave their unionized employees notice of termination in accordance with the Act respecting labour standards.

The unions filed grievances claiming additional termination pay based on the reasonable notice requirement in art. 2091 of the Civil Code of Québec.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the arbitrators did not have jurisdiction to hear the grievances because the individual right to reasonable notice of termination under the Civil Code is incompatible with the collective labour relations scheme.

The appellant was severely injured in a car accident and treated by the respondent orthopaedic surgeon.

The respondent failed to diagnose a spinal fracture, leading to delayed immobilization, and the appellant was eventually diagnosed with paraparesis.

The trial judge found no fault and no causation.

The Court of Appeal found the respondent committed a fault by failing to conduct proper neurological tests and immobilize the patient, but upheld the trial judge's conclusion that the accident itself, not the medical fault, caused the paraparesis.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, affirming the Court of Appeal's intervention on the standard of care and its factual findings on causation, and declined to apply a presumption of causation.

The appellant challenged a Quebec Court of Appeal decision upholding dismissal of his action for damages after his employer eliminated his regional manager role during restructuring and offered him management of a single underperforming branch without a guaranteed base salary.

The Supreme Court held that under Quebec civil law, constructive dismissal occurs where an employer unilaterally imposes substantial changes to the essential terms of employment, assessed objectively from the standpoint of a reasonable person at the time of the offer.

The Court found the offer constituted a significant demotion and materially undermined the employee's financial security, and that post-offer sales evidence was irrelevant because those results were not reasonably foreseeable when the offer was made.

The appeal was allowed and one year's remuneration in lieu of notice was fixed at $150,000, with interest, additional indemnity and costs.

The appeal concerned whether the exemption in s. 65(1) of the Act respecting Municipal Taxation for machines, apparatus and accessories used mainly for industrial production excludes all buildings within the meaning of the Civil Code.

The Court held that the provision must be interpreted in its own legislative context and that industrial production, not traditional civil law categories of immoveables, is the controlling consideration.

The introductory wording of s. 65 does not distinguish between immoveables by nature and moveable objects placed for permanency, and the terms land and building must be read through the statutory framework rather than rigid civil law classifications.

The Court restored the administrative decision that had excluded certain plant components from the assessment roll and allowed the appeal with costs throughout.