Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Employment law - Unjust dismissal - Whether Court of Appeal erred in refusing to recognize that Respondent had engaged in unjustified whistleblowing to Applicant’s principal and only client in violation of arts. 1472 and 2088 of Civil Code of Québec and that only valid penalty in circumstances was termination of employment relationship given Respondent’s deliberate and repeated refusal to retract his statements or co-operate with investigation - Whether Court of Appeal erred in refusing to recognize that Respondent had duty to co-operate with investigation initiated by his employer and that repeated refusal to co-operate with investigation constituted insubordination for which only possible punishment was termination of employment relationship - Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that no specific evidence had been adduced before Commissioner to show that reinstatement was inappropriate or impracticable even though it clear from evidence that Respondent continued to stand by his accusations and called representatives of Applicant’s client liars.

This application originated in a complaint filed by Mr. Hamilton for dismissal without good and sufficient cause under s. 124 of the Act respecting labour standards, R.S.Q., c. N-1.1. He had been working for nearly six years at a mine site operated by Québec Fer et Titane, which had been a client of the Applicant ETI Canada inc. for more than 25 years, when the Applicant dismissed him on the ground that he had breached his duty of loyalty by contacting senior officers of Québec Fer et Titane, without the Applicant’s knowledge, about alleged embezzlement by an employee of Québec Fer et Titane and by refusing to confirm those allegations in writing. The Commission des relations du travail found that Mr. Hamilton had not been insubordinate in refusing to provide a written version of his allegations, since ETI Canada had not been prevented from completing its internal investigation and this refusal did not amount to a refusal to perform a task in the performance of his duties. With regard to the duties of loyalty and confidentiality relied on by ETI Canada, the Commission recognized that Mr. Hamilton had been careless in not checking whether his allegations were true and had committed a fault in failing to consider his employer’s interests, but it concluded that this did not justify dismissing him, especially since the evidence did not show that his statements had disrupted business in a way that had harmed ETI Canada or that they had damaged the reputation of the employee in question. The Commission therefore substituted a written reprimand for the dismissal while criticizing ETI Canada for being inconsistent in its handling of discipline. The Superior Court held that the Commission’s decision was patently unreasonable. The Court of Appeal restored the Commission’s decision on the basis that the trial judge had reviewed the merits of the case and had substituted his opinion for that of the Commission.