Case information

Labour relations — Union — Duty of representation — Dismissal — Grievance — Continuing nature of grievance — Employee’s duty to cooperate — Access to justice — Rule of law — Whether Court of Appeal erred by [TRANSLATION] “disregarding and/or refusing to intervene” to correct (i) “undisputed error of law” relating to continuing nature of grievance for his dismissal and (ii) error of law relating to question of public order with respect to prescription provided for in Act respecting the Syndical Plan of the Sûreté du Québec, CQLR, c. R 14, thereby violating “the principles of access to justice” and “of the rule of law”, as well as “acquired right to an appeal as of right”.

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.

The applicant, Mikel Golzarian, who had been hired as an officer of the Sûreté du Québec in 1992, was on sick leave beginning in 1997. In 1998, he filed a complaint with the Commission des droits de la personne et de la jeunesse, which concluded that he had been discriminated against and proposed measures of redress, but the Sûreté du Québec refused to implement them. In 2002, the Sûreté du Québec terminated Mr. Golzarian’s employment. His union, the respondent Association des policières et policiers provinciaux du Québec (“APPPQ”), submitted a grievance to contest Mr. Golzarian’s dismissal and referred it to arbitration. Mr. Golzarian’s grievance was dismissed in 2004 after he refused to appear at the arbitration hearing. Mr. Golzarian had chosen to go to court to assert his claims against his employer. His actions were unsuccessful. In 2003, Mr. Golzarian brought an action in damages against the respondent for breach of its duty of representation. The Superior Court dismissed that action. It concluded that, given M. Golzarian’s half hearted cooperation, he had not shown that the union had committed a fault against him. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Golzarian’s appeal. It held that there was ample support in the evidence for the trial judge’s findings and that the judge had committed no error in determining that the APPPQ had not breached its duties.