2014 QCCA 1094, 2014 QCCA 1094

Skiba c. Playground, l.p. 2014 QCCA 1094 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-022151-112 (500-17-051199-092) DATE: 29 MAI 2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE JACQUES CHAMBERLAND, J.A. ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A. JULIE DUTIL, J.A. DARREN SKIBA APPELLANT - Plaintiff v.

PLAYGROUND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP RESPONDENT - Defendant JUDGMENT [ 1 ] THE COURT: On the appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Madam Justice Chantal Masse) rendered on October 7, 2011 that dismissed the appellant's amended action for damages arising out of the termination of his employment. [ 2 ] For the reasons of Hilton, J.A., with which Chamberland and Dutil JJ.A. agree: [ 3 ] DISMISSES the appeal, without costs. JACQUES CHAMBERLAND, J.A. ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A. JULIE DUTIL, J.A.

Mtre Jean-Philippe Mayer SORELLA MAYER For the appellant Mtre André Royer Mtre Justine Boulais Laurier BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS For the defendant Date of hearing: November 27, 2013 REASONS OF HILTON, J.A. [ 4 ] The issue this appeal raises is whether, after being forced to leave his employment because of downsizing, a senior employee

[ 4 ] The issue this appeal raises is whether, after being forced to leave his employment because of downsizing, a senior employee who was paid an annual salary can properly claim the value of overtime services he rendered during the latter course of his employment. I THE FACTS AND THE PROCEEDINGS [ 5 ] Darren Skiba has an academic background in accounting without, however, being a chartered accountant.

In 2003 he was recruited from a position he held in the State of Washington to become a Regional Accountant in the Vancouver office of the respondent Playground Limited Partnership, which at the time described itself as a division of Intrawest Corporation. In July of 2005 he accepted a promotion to become a Business Unit Manager in the Montreal office of Playground, and soon moved to Montreal with his family to take up his new position in September.

In that context, Playground considered him to be part of management, since his title included the word "Manager". [ 6 ] As the result of an internal restructuring Playground undertook in 2006, the position Mr. Skiba occupied became that of Director Finance & Operations – Business Unit. [1] Later that year, Mr. Skiba's immediate supervisor, Jean-Pierre Miramont, a Senior Vice-President of Playground, evaluated his performance with a view to determining whether he should occupy the newly created position. Despite the generally favourable assessment, Mr. Miramont concluded that Mr.

Skiba lacked certain required managerial skills, and thus informed him that henceforth he would hold the position of Financial Analyst. Nevertheless, Mr. Skiba's remuneration and associated benefits were unaffected. He was still considered as an important and reliable member of the Playground team, and his duties remained largely unchanged. [ 7 ] At the time, Mr. Skiba's salary was fixed at $76,000 per year. He was also eligible to receive a performance bonus, and entitled to participate in the various components of Intrawest's corporate benefits program. Mr.

Skiba reluctantly accepted his re-assignment, and indicated his intention to work diligently towards the goal of becoming Director Finance & Operations of a Business Unit. [ 8 ] While acting as a Financial Analyst, Mr. Skiba often worked in excess of 40 hours per week, as he had done in his previous position. He did so largely of his own volition as the result of the nature of his work, although on a few occasions he was specifically requested, for example, to work on weekends or while he was on holidays. During this period of time, he never requested to be paid overtime, or to be granted equivalent time off.

Moreover, Playground had no policy that contemplated the payment of overtime to someone in Mr. Skiba's situation. That being said, Playground was aware that Mr. Skiba was regularly working beyond eight hours per day and on weekends. Indeed, as one of his supervisors mentioned when expressing dismay at his subsequent termination: "This (working in excess of eight hours per day) is never done to impress, but simply is required from him to stay on top of our business." Nevertheless, Mr.

Skiba never provided Playground with any information as to the extent of the overtime hours he had accumulated while he was in its employ. [ 9 ] Towards the end of 2008, Mr. Skiba was informed that his employment would be terminated as of June 30, 2009 for economic reasons that were totally unrelated to his job performance, which had remained satisfactory. He was offered a termination package that nevertheless became academic since he was able to secure new employment at the same salary in February of 2009. [ 10 ] Mr.

Skiba and his wife Theresa Skiba instituted legal proceedings against Playground in June that year. He claimed damages totalling $112,560.50 arising out of his termination, while Mrs. Skiba claimed $15,000. [ 11 ] He later amended his recourse in October of 2009 to claim, subsidiarily, $211,658.39, calculated on the basis of $184,166.39 for unpaid overtime hours if he was not considered, to use the words of paragraph 83 of his amended recourse, a "cadre supérieur", and the balance of $27,492 as an indemnity related to his termination. The breakdown of the overtime hours Mr. Skiba alleged is as follows: 38.

Depuis le mois de juillet 2006, il est présent au bureau de 7 heures à 18 heures les jours de semaines, pour un total de 2046 heures supplémentaires non payées tel qu'il appert de 133 courriels envoyés des jours différents entre 6h35 et 8h12 du matin, pièce P-10A; 39. Durant la même période, il a travaillé les fins de semaines pour un total de 818 heures supplémentaires travaillées directement du bureau de la défenderesse ou avec l'ordinateur portatif de la défenderesse tel qu'il appert de 210 courriels envoyés les samedis et dimanches, pièce P-10A; 40.

Darren Skiba a aussi travaillé 496 heures après 18 heures, les jours de semaines directement du bureau de la défenderesse ou avec l'ordinateur portatif de la défenderesse, tel qu'il appert 927 [ sic ] courriels envoyés après 17h45, pièce P-10A; 41. Il a aussi travaillé 86 heures non payées, durant ses jours de vacances, de congé maladie et de congés parentaux directement du bureau ou avec l'ordinateur portatif de la défenderesse, tel qu'il appert de 113 courriels envoyés ses jours de vacances, de congés maladies ou en congés parentaux pièce P-10A; 42.

Ainsi, le demandeur Darren Skiba a travaillé 3447 heures supplémentaires sur une période de moins de 3 ans, tel qu'il appert du document Excel compilant ces heures supplémentaires produit comme Pièce P-10B; [ 12 ] In his amended proceeding, Mr. Skiba alleged the following facts describing the nature of his responsibilities:

Malgré le fait que Darren Skiba n'obtient pas le poste de DFO, JP Miramont lui demande de remplir les tâches du poste de DFO, tâches qu'il effectuera jusqu'à son départ de Playground en 2009; (…) 57. Depuis la fin de l'année 2006, ses fonctions et son rôle dans la compagnie vont alors bien au-delà de son

titre d'analyste financier et équivalent de facto à un poste de Director of Finance and Operations (DFO), le tout tel qu'il sera démontré lors de l'enquête et audition; 58. Au moment de son congédiement, Darren Skiba est alors le gérant d'opérations de facto pour les douze (12) sites de Playground en

conjonction avec Tony Leonard et J.P. Miramont, tel qu'il appert de la pièce P-4; 59. Bien qu'il exerce depuis l'automne 2006 la majorité des tâches du poste de Director, Finance and Operations (DFO), la faute de Playground le prive de ce poste et il ne peut donc l'inclure dans son curriculum vitae; [ 13 ] Prior to the commencement of the trial, Mrs. Skiba discontinued her claim, leaving only that of Mr. Skiba to be adjudicated. The trial judge dismissed his action in its entirety. Since Mr.

Skiba's appeal is limited to the issue of his entitlement to indemnification for unpaid overtime, it is only necessary to mention her reasons on that subject. She gave short shrift to them by noting succinctly that Mr. Skiba was not paid on an hourly basis and thus that the existing case-law [2] interpreting

section 55 of the Labour Standards Act [3] was inapplicable to his circumstances. [ 14 ] In this Court, Mr. Skiba has reduced the amount claimed for unpaid overtime from $184,166.39 to $140,198.12, although an explanation for this reduction is lacking in his factum. He has further abandoned his claim for an indemnity of $27,492 related to his departure. II ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION [ 15 ] Mr. Skiba's acknowledges his contract of employment did not entitle him to be paid overtime. Therefore, his claim hinges exclusively on his

interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act , which are set out below: 52. For the purposes of computing overtime, the regular workweek is 40 hours except in the cases where it is fixed by regulation of the Government. […] 52. Aux fins du calcul des heures supplémentaires, la semaine normale de travail est de 40 heures, sauf dans les cas où elle est fixée par règlement du gouvernement. […] 54. The number of hours of the regular workweek determined in

section 52 does not apply, as regards the computing of overtime hours for the purpose of the increase in the usual hourly wage, to the following employees: (3) the managerial personnel of an undertaking; (4) an employee who works outside an establishment whose working-hours cannot be controlled; […] 54.

La durée de la semaine normale déterminée à l'article 52 ne s'applique pas, pour le calcul des heures supplémentaires aux fins de la majoration du salaire horaire habituel, aux salariés suivants: 3° un cadre d'une entreprise; 4° un salarié qui travaille en dehors de l'établissement et dont les heures de travail sont incontrôlables; […] 55. Any work performed in addition to the regular work-week entails a premium of 50% of the prevailing hourly wage paid to the employee except premiums computed on an hourly basis.

Notwithstanding the first paragraph, the employer may, at the request of the employee or in the cases provided for by a collective agreement or decree, replace the payment of overtime by paid leave equivalent to the overtime worked plus 50%. Subject to a provision of a collective agreement or decree, the leave must be taken during the 12 months following the overtime at a date agreed between the employer and the employee; otherwise the overtime must be paid.

However, where the contract of employment is terminated before the employee is able to benefit from the leave, the overtime must be paid at the same time as the last payment of wages. 55. Tout travail exécuté en plus des heures de la semaine normale de travail entraîne une majoration de 50% du salaire horaire habituel que touche le salarié à l'exclusion des primes établies sur une base horaire.

Malgré le premier alinéa, l'employeur peut, à la demande du salarié ou dans les cas prévus par une convention collective ou un décret, remplacer le paiement des heures supplémentaires par un congé payé d'une durée équivalente aux heures supplémentaires effectuées, majorée de 50%. Sous réserve d'une disposition d'une convention collective ou d'un décret, ce congé doit être pris dans les 12 mois suivant les heures supplémentaires effectuées à une date convenue entre l'employeur et le salarié; sinon elles doivent alors être payées.

Cependant, lorsque le contrat de travail est résilié avant que le salarié ait pu bénéficier du congé, les heures supplémentaires doivent être payées en même temps que le dernier versement du salaire.

57. An employee is deemed to be at work (1) while available to the employer at the placeof employment and required to wait for work tobe assigned; […] 57. Un salarié est réputé au travail dans lescas suivants: 1° lorsqu'il est à la disposition de son employeursur les lieux du travail et qu'il est obligéd'attendre qu'on lui donne du travail; […] 59.0.1.

An employee may refuse to work (1) more than four hours after regular dailyworking hours or more than 14 working hoursper 24 hour period, whichever period is theshortest or, for an employee whose daily workinghours are flexible or non-continuous, more than12 working hours per 24 hour period; […] 59.0.1.

Un salarié peut refuser de travailler: 1° plus de quatre heures au-delà de ses heureshabituelles quotidiennes de travail ou plus de 14heures de travail par période de 24 heures, selonla période la plus courte, ou, pour un salarié dontles heures quotidiennes de travail sont variablesou effectuées de manière non continue, plus de12 heures de travail par période de 24 heures; […] [16] That being said, I believe the content of his contract is a relevant factor in determining the applicability of the Act to him. [17] The fact that Mr.

Skiba never even thought to raise the subject of being paid overtime while in the employ of Playground isitself evidence of his contemporaneous understanding of its unavailability to him.[4] It is also not unusual for an employee with theresponsibilities he had to have a bonus provision in a contract of employment, or to benefit from other workplace benefits, which in Mr.Skiba's case included ski passes for him and his wife at the Intrawest property at Mont-Tremblant. [18] As we have seen, subsection 54(3) of the Act precludes "the managerial personnel of an undertaking / un cadre d'une enterprise"from claiming overtime, absent, of course, a contractual stipulation to the contrary.

The real issue here is whether Mr. Skiba was as aquestion of fact performing managerial functions, rather than whether the overtime provisions of the Act extend to employees paid on anannual rather than hourly basis. [19] In that respect, the Act does not define the term "managerial personnel / cadre". Reference to doctrine and case law is thereforeessential to determine the ambit of its meaning. [20] To begin, the Act contemplates a distinction between "senior managerial personnel / cadre supérieur", to which it does not applyat all for present purposes,[5] and "managerial personnel / cadre d'une enterprise".

The following extract from Le congédiement en droitquébécois en matière de contrat individuel de travail recognizes that distinction: D’ailleurs, depuis la décision Les conseillers en placement Pemp Inc. c. Forget, [C.S., Montréal, (QC CS), no 500-05-004830-939, le 7 septembre 1994 (J.E. 94-1497)], plusieurs décisions ont été rendues sur la question.

Tout en rappelant quel’expression « cadre supérieur » doit être interprétée restrictivement, ces décisions tiennent compte en particulier de certains éléments defaits dans leur évaluation du statut de l’employé : 1) la position hiérarchique de l’employé est pertinente : il doit faire

partie de la haute direction. […] À cet égard, il peut existerdifférents niveaux hiérarchiques de cadres : cadre de premier niveau, cadre intermédiaire et cadre supérieur ; 2) il faut examiner la gestion du personnel (cadre ou non) de l’employé dont le statut est contesté. […] L’importance de son rôle, de sadiscrétion, de sa liberté d’action (sans dépendance), et des pouvoirs qui lui permettent notamment de lier l’entreprise envers des tiers,sont autant de facteurs traditionnels qui deviennent alors déterminants dans de telles circonstances; 3) les relations de l’employé avec le propriétaire : le cadre supérieur qui fait

partie de la haute direction relève, en règle générale,directement du président de l’entreprise ou de ses propriétaires (tel le conseil d’administration) ; 4) les conditions de travail du salarié ainsi que son arrivée et sa progression dans l’entreprise ; 5) la participation de l’employé à la gestion : le cadre supérieur doit participer à l’élaboration des décisions politiques de l’entreprise, àsavoir les stratégies et les politiques de cette dernière, ainsi qu’à la détermination des moyens pour assurer la rentabilité ou la croissancede l’entreprise […]; 6) il doit jouir d’une grande autonomie, d’une importante discrétion et d’un pouvoir décisionnel important, et non être un simpleexécutant des décisions et des priorités de l’employeur.[6] [21] Clearly, Mr.

Skiba would not have been considered to be part of senior managerial personnel, but that does not exclude himfrom being characterized as either a "cadre de premier niveau" or a "cadre intermédiare". [22] In Commission des normes du travail v. Beaulieu,[7] this Court recognized that distinction in respect of an employee who wasan engineer with responsibilities as a construction site supervisor for his employer, and whom a trial judge had considered as a member

of the senior managerial personnel: [22] L'appelante et les intimés soulignent avec raison certains passages de la décision du commissaire du travail Paul Dufault dansChabot c. Plomberie Albert Paradis Inc., (QC CT), [1993] C.T. 62, cités par A. Edward Aust dans son

article "Lesobligations de loyauté, de diligence et de coopération du cadre supérieur" (dans Développement récent en droit du travail, Cowansville(Qc), Éd. Yvon Blais, 1993).

Le commissaire Dufault souligne que l'on doit tenir compte de la structure de l'entreprise pour déterminer siune personne est un cadre supérieur (à la p. 67) : Pour décider si le plaignant est ou non un "cadre supérieur", il convient de ne considérer la nature de ses responsabilités et fonctionsqu'en regard de son seul rôle d'" employé ", en tenant compte du contexte d'exercice de celles-ci et notamment au plan de la structureorganisationnelle. [23] Il fait ensuite la distinction suivante d'avec les fonctions du cadre intermédiaire, tout en soulignant divers types d'autorité exercéspar les cadres (à la p. 70) : Le niveau décisionnel du cadre supérieur se situe donc à celui de l'élaboration de décisions politiques d'entreprise ainsi que de la prise dedécisions de programmes, de planification stratégique et de choix de mesures correctives d'ensemble à appliquer en fonctions desrésultats recherchés.

Le niveau décisionnel du cadre intermédiaire et subalterne est plutôt de type interprétatif : détermination d'objectifs particuliers, deprocédures et de méthodes de travail en fonction des paramètres ressortissant de décisions de plus haut niveau. [...] Dans la grande entreprise, il peut y avoir plus d'un cadre supérieur.

En fonction du développement et de la taille de l'entreprise, on peut yretrouver des cadres investis d'une autorité directe départementale (production, ventes, etc.), d'une autorité fonctionnelle ou de typeconseil (ressources humaines, financières, informatiques, etc.), d'une autorité divisionnaire ou régionale (le produit "A", la région deMontréal), d'une autorité par projet (structure matricielle)... […] [27] À mon avis, selon la preuve, Fortin n'est pas un cadre supérieur, mais plutôt un cadre moyen ou intermédiaire, "dont lesfonctions consistent à organiser et à coordonner la mise en application des politiques et des programmes tracés par la direction"(définition du terme "cadre moyen", Gérard Dion, Dictionnaire des relations du travail, 2e édition, P.U.L. (Qc), 1986, p. 60). […] [Emphasis added.] [23] It is apparent from the testimony of Andrew O'Brien, one of Mr.

Skiba's supervisors while in the employ of Playground, that hedid not consider him to be part of management because he did not have the word "manager" associated with his job title of FinancialAnalyst, as opposed to the position he occupied previously that carried the title of Business Unit Manager. [24] For example, Mr. O'Brien said this on cross-examination: Q : Now, at the time when you – let’s say we take for granted that it’s after the Clarity Role, so, at the time, I understand that MonsieurSkiba was a Financial Analyst, correct? A : Correct, yes. Q : So, at the time, he was considered a manager?

A : Uh… as a financial analyst? Q : Yes. A : Uh, I mean, you would only be considered a manager if you had « manager », I believe… Q : Yes? A : So technically, no, he wouldn’t have been considered a manager. [25] Despite Mr. O'Brien's belief, however, it is more important to evaluate the nature of the employee's duties and responsibilitiesthan the title associated with them. In that regard, the evidence reveals that Mr.

Skiba's responsibilities at the time of his terminationextended well beyond those of a non-managerial employee and were to a large degree an extension of those he exercised as a BusinessUnit Manager. [26] For example, in his testimony, Jean-Pierre Miramont, Mr. Skiba's first supervisor, spoke of that continuity in the followingfashion: R : (…) Le Financial Analyst était (…), d’une certaine manière, une continuité du « Business Unit Manager ». Q : Et celui du DFO? R : Beaucoup, beaucoup de toutes les mêmes tâches que le Financial Analyst, beaucoup des mêmes tâches.

[…] R: (…) ce n’est pas une rétrogradation. C’était une continuité, c’était une restructuration d’un rôle d’une manière parallèle, que - il n’était pas retrogradé. On n’a pas baissé de salaire, Darren. Darren a continué à faire son quotidien en tant que « Financial Analyst ». [ 27 ] Mr. Miramont's testimony is entirely consistent with Mr. Skiba's own description of his responsibilities I have reproduced at paragraph [12] above. [ 28 ] Also telling is the reaction of Mr. O'Brien when he sent an email to the Intrawest president in which he expressed his discontent at the prospect of Mr.

Skiba being terminated in light of the important responsibilities he performed for Playground: I am just very concerned that they are basing the decision (to terminate his employment) merely on his job title rather than the actual focus of his work. Even if JDE is fully implemented for June 30th, the accounting portion of Darren’s job only comprises about 20% of what he actually does. Since the last two rounds of cuts, Darren has picked up new roles to accommodate the shrinking team.

He is in effect the Operations manager for our 12 locations , owns and has the history on all agreements at each location, drives the reporting structure through STAR, Orbit and the weekly sales and closing report for Fortress that he took on from Jen Cartwright only two weeks ago. He manages all of our budgeting process for each location and has daily involvement with all marketing and MSO employees to make sure we have the right discipline in managing costs .

He drives all of my market analysis reports that I summarize and build strategies from on a quarterly basis and is essentially my firefighter for the 5 to 10 finance, legal and operations emergencies that arise weekly. [Emphasis added.] [ 29 ] In speaking of this email during his testimony, Mr. O'Brien said this: So, they [Playground] had let go other Vice-Presidents in other regions, and I went from running six resorts to sixteen resorts, overnight.

And my role, all of a sudden, increased significantly in terms of the management in what I had to do, and Darren being part of my team, also carried with him the extra task . But Darren – you know, Darren’s role during that time was really all of the – all of the – it started with strategy. So, strategy creation for all of these different resorts. So, we would work on strategy together. [Emphasis added.] [ 30 ] Both Mr. O'Brien and Mr.

Miramont thus confirmed the degree of similarity between the positions of Financial Analyst and that of Director Finance & Operations. [ 31 ] In short, it appears from the evidence, as Mr. Miramont affirmed and the allegations in Mr. Skiba's own proceedings show, that his designation as a Financial Analyst after having been hired with the title of Business Unit Manager was not a demotion, but rather, more in the nature of a continuum of his existing duties. In such circumstances, he remained part of Playground's managerial personnel, irrespective of the title attributed to the work he performed.

Indeed, the exemplary and dedicated manner in which he performed his duties is entirely consistent with what would be expected of managerial personnel, as is his contractual eligibility for a performance bonus and other workplace benefits. [ 32 ] Although the evidence is abundant that Mr. Skiba was not part of Playground's senior management, he was nevertheless, as the doctrine and case law have described, either a "cadre de premier niveau" or a "cadre intermédiare".

For present purposes, it is unnecessary to determine into which of these two categories he fell. [ 33 ] It follows that his claim for overtime pay was properly dismissed, albeit for different reasons than those of the trial judge, the correctness of which it is unnecessary to address. III PROPOSED DISPOSITION [ 34 ] I would dismiss Mr. Skiba's appeal. I would do so without costs, given that he is already exposed to costs in the Superior Court, and because his appeal raised a novel issue of general importance in the field of labour relations. ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A.