2022 QCCQ 9940, 2022 QCCQ 9940

Duhamel c. Aléo Canada Inc. 2022 QCCQ 9940 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-710945-199 DATE: December 12, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ BENJAMIN DUHAMEL Plaintiff/Cross-defendant v. ALÉO CANADA INC.

Defendant/Cross-plaintiff ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff is suing defendant in damages, for “failure to provide (him) with reasonable notice of termination of employment”. [ 2 ] Defendant denies liability, and is counter-suing for loss of business and defamation.

THE FACTS [ 3 ] On December 11, 2018 a contract of employment intervened between plaintiff, a software engineer, and defendant (contract, exhibit P-2). [ 4 ] On March 14, 2019, defendant undertook to reimburse plaintiff his continuing education fees for courses to be taken at Concordia University. [ 5 ] On April 5, 2019, plaintiff was dismissed for the following reasons: « Suite à plusieurs feedback de l’équipe qu’il a intégré il y a deux mois, il a été constaté les points suivants : 1. Benjamin ne montre pas une performance suffisante, et sa vitesse d’apprentissage n’est pas assez encourageante.

Beaucoup plus d’itérations de corrections sont nécessaires que ce qui seraient attendus compte-tenu des nombreuses guidances et le mentorat reçus. 2. Plusieurs approches de mentorat ont été donné à Benjamin. Mais le manque de notes et d’attention de sa part ne facilite pas son apprentissage. 3. Il se place souvent en attente d’une réponse à un courriel.

Malgré les ressources mises à sa disposition, il ne gère pas ses tâches de façon efficace. 4. Benjamin reste très en retrait et passif au cours des discussions d’équipes, il ne montre pas l’intérêt attendu. A noter que l’équipe a forcé la tenue des réunions en anglais (alors qu’avant elles étaient toutes tenues en français) pour aider Benjamin à participer et bien

comprendre ces discussions. 5. Benjamin passe beaucoup de temps sur son téléphone, et son langage non verbal (nonchalance, regard porté ailleurs, bâillements au cours de discussions) porte clairement à montrer qu’il n’est pas intéressé par son travail. A noter que l’équipe a porter soin de ne pas juger son attitude en respectant et tenant compte que Benjamin est une personne très introvertie, et des efforts d’inclusions ont été clairement démontrés.

Mais son manque de performance et son attitude désintéressé m’amène à conclure que Benjamin n’est pas, à CAE, à la place qui le permettra de s’épanouir et de se développer professionnellement. Je vous informe que je rencontrerai Benjamin le 5 avril en début d’après-midi pour l’informer que CAE met fin à ses demandes de service auprès lui, avec effet immédiat (selon les informations que j’ai reçu en interne). Je suis disponible pour fournir de plus amples informations.

Merci » (exhibit D-1) [ 6 ] On April 11, 2019, plaintiff made the following admission: “ … I also understand your decision to not attempt to place me at another company, given my abrupt dismissal at CAE, although I am confident in my professionalism and engineering ability – I think I would likely do the same thing in your shoes.” (email, exhibit D-2) [ 7 ] Defendant paid plaintiff 2 weeks notice, as well as his vacation pay (« relevé d’emploi », exhibit D-6; admission in demand letter P-1; and testimony of Catherine Thibault-Leduc). [ 8 ] On August 24, 2019, plaintiff sent defendant 2 demand letters, one claiming damages in the amount of $37,800.00 for “six months wages, which are to be considered a combination of material, moral and punitive damages” (exhibit P-1), and another for $1,975.00 “for the reimbursement of tuition expenses”. [ 9 ] On September 17, 2019, plaintiff filed a claim against defendant for $2,678.00, alleging the following: “7.

The Defendant still owes the Plaintiff an amount of $1,975.00. 8. In addition to the amount claimed above, the Plaintiff claims an amount of $703.00 for the following reasons: Cost of filing the small claims application ($103), as well as the cost of seeking leg al co unsel for this issue prior to filing this claim ($300). Also costs involved taking work off and driving to Montreal (if applicable) (approximately $400). 9. The total amount claimed by the Plaintiff is $2,678.00. 10.

The total amount claimed by the Plaintiff is broken down as follows: $1,975 - Tuition reimbursement promised by ALÉO Canada $ 300 - Legal counsel costs to decide on a course of action (claim was also made with CNESST, but denied due to technicality) $400 - Cost to take off work, and cost of gas to drive to Montreal if there is a hearing. $103 - cost of filing claim in small claims court. 11.

The Plaintiff makes the following clarifications to the facts set out above: The reason I was abruptly terminated from ALÉO Canada was because I was notified that CAE no longer desired my services as an on-site engineering consultant, and since I was terminated by CAE so soon after starting ALÉO Canada did not wish to take a risk in re-assigning me to another one of their customers, and instead decided to try to cut their losses. Mr.

Mallol's insistence that the tuition would have only been reimbursed if at the end of the course I was an employee of ALÉO Canada had never been communicated to me, and one can see from the email chain that the reimbursement was to be included in the paycheque on April 12, 2019, way before the end of class (approximately June).” [1] [ 10 ] Three months later, that is to say on December 16, 2019, plaintiff filed a second claim against defendant (the claim at bar), this time in the amount of $15,000.00, for the following reasons: “5.

The Plaintiff claims an amount of $15,000.00 for the following reasons: Maximum amount allowed under small claims jurisdiction. Actual loss is higher, but reduced to ease the process. 6. The total amount claimed by the Plaintiff is broken down as follows: I was not working for exactly 3 months after being terminated from the company. My salary was 70,000/year with 8% vacation accrual is $18,900 reduced to $15,000.” [ 11 ] On January 28, 2020, defendant filed a contestation and a cross-application.

The latter states: « L’attitude non professionnelle de Mr Duhamel pendant ses heures de travail et son intervention désastreuse chez notre client CAE inc, nous a fait perdre un contrat, notre réputation et notre image a été entachée et malmenée. » [ 12 ] On September 23, 2020, a hearing by default was held in file no. 1. [ 13 ] On September 25, 2020, the following judgment by default was rendered by special clerk Me Julie Langlois: « JUGEMENT par défaut

Motifs du jugement : ATTENDU QUE la

partie défenderesse a fait défaut de répondre à l'assignation de la demande ; ATTENDU QUE l'audition par défaut a eu lieu le 23 septembre 2020 ; ATTENDU QUE la

partie demanderesse était à l'emploi de la

partie défenderesse et que selon les représentations non-contredites, les cours de soir des employés étaient remboursés par l'employeur après approbation et sur présentation d’une facture détaillée et preuve de paiement ; CONSIDÉRANT que la

partie demanderesse a soumis les documents demandés et qu’une représentante de la

partie défenderesse affirmait que le paiement serait effectué sur la prochaine paie, ce qui n’a pas été fait ; ATTENDU QUE le dépôt de toute réclamation en justice entraîne nécessairement certains déboursés et perte de temps qui ne peuvent toutefois être légalement condamnés, les frais d'avocat, ainsi que les frais de déplacement ne seront pas octroyés ; ATTENDU que le timbre judiciaire ne peut être octroyé en double ; ATTENDU QUE la

partie demanderesse a prouvé par prépondérance de preuve l’essentiel de sa demande pour une somme de 664,52$ ( C.c.Q., art. 2803 et 2804 ). PAR CES MOTIFS : X CONDAMNE la

partie défenderesse à payer à la

partie demanderesse la somme de 1 975,00 $ en capital, avec les intérêts au taux de 5 % l'an, plus l'indemnité additionnelle prévue à l’

article 1619 du Code civil du Québec , à compter du 4 octobre 2019, date d'assignation, et les frais judiciaires au montant de 103,00$. » [ 14 ] On October 27, 2020, defendant filed a late contestation, but did not file a motion for revocation of judgment. [ 15 ] On November 20, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of execution, and served it on alleged garnishee CAE Inc., a client of defendant’s, who in turn filed a negative declaration under s. 711 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ANALYSIS

A) APPLICATION [ 16 ]

Section 538 C.P.C. states as follows: 538. A plaintiff may voluntarily reduce the amount claimed to $15,000 or less, but cannot divide a claim exceeding that amount into two or more claims not exceeding that amount, under pain of dismissal of the application.

However, a plaintiff is not deemed to have divided a claim if it arises from a credit contract providing for repayment by instalments or from a contract involving the sequential performance of obligations, such as a lease, an employment contract , a disability insurance contract or other similar contract, and if the amount claimed in the application does not exceed $15,000. (emphasis added) [ 17 ] The issue of claim division is a matter of public order, and the Court must therefore examine this question before addressing the merits of the case. [2] [ 18 ] More specifically, the Court must decide if, by instituting 2 separate recourses, one for tuition expenses and another for reasonable notice of termination, plaintiff divided his claim, the whole contrary to s. 538 C.P.C. [ 19 ] The answer is yes. [ 20 ] In Svotelis v.

Khan , [3] the Court decided that: « [6] Lorsque les deux recours impliquent les mêmes parties, repose sur les mêmes faits et le même fondement juridique et que le montant total des deux réclamations est supérieur à 7000,00$, le demandeur ne peut diviser sa créance. Il doit intenter son recours devant la Chambre civile de la Cour du Québec. » [ 21 ] Plaintiff’s claims are between the same parties and are essentially based on the same facts. Indeed, the legal foundation and source of both claims is the contract of employment.

Plaintiff did not file Appendix B of the contract, which detailed his compensation and « other benefits ». However, plaintiff did state that he “was informed that the company had a tuition reimbursement program for approved expenses” (claim, par. 1). Accordingly, these expenses were part of the employment contract. [ 22 ] Moreover and more importantly, with regards to the 2 nd paragraph of s. 538 C.P.C., when plaintiff filed his claim on September 17, 2019, his employment contract had already been terminated, and he was in a position to calculate the totality of the monies owed to him by defendant.

Instead, he chose to file one claim, then another, thereby dividing his claim for an amount exceeding $15,000.00 (s. 536 and 538 C.P.C.). [ 23 ] This is not a case of sequential performance of obligations, in the context of an employment contract where different amounts are owed for obligations performed at several different times or on a continuing basis ( s. 1383 Civil Code of Québec ). [4]

[ 24 ] Furthermore, it is clear from the judgment rendered in file no. 1, that the reimbursement of tuition fees was as much a part of plaintiff’s terms of employment, as was his salary. [ 25 ] Accordingly, in virtue of s. 538 C.P.C., the application must be dismissed.

B) CROSS-APPLICATON [ 26 ] The cross-application is also unfounded for the following reasons. [ 27 ] The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear cases alleging defamation, in the Small Claims Division, as s. 537 C.P.C. states: 537 . This Title does not apply to applications arising from the lease of a dwelling, applications for support or applications alleging defamation. […] [ 28 ] With regards to the allegations of loss of business, defendant did not prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that plaintiff committed a fault which would have caused the alleged loss.

Furthermore, defendant failed to prove the alleged loss itself ( s. 2803 and 2804 C.C.Q.). WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DISMISSES the application; DISMISSES the cross-application; EACH PARTY paying its own costs. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. Dates of hearing: June 7 and September 26, 2022 [1] File n o 500-32-710097-199, hereinafter referred to as “file no. 1”.