2011 QCCA 308, 2011 QCCA 308

Canon Canada inc. c. Tétrault 2011 QCCA 308 COUR D'APPEL CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC GREFFE DE MONTRÉAL N o : 500-09-020247-094 ( 500-17-048682-093 ) PROCÈS-VERBAL D'AUDIENCE DATE: 10 février 2011 CORAM: LES HONORABLES PIERRE J. DALPHOND, J.C.A. MARIE-FRANCE BICH , J.C.A. NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, J.C.A. APPELANT(ES) AVOCAT(

S) CANON CANADA INC. Me Paul Venne DUFRESNE, HÉBERT, COMEAU INC. INTIMÉ(ES) AVOCAT(

S) ROBERT TÉTRAULT Me Charles Caza DUNTON, RAINVILLE MISE EN CAUSE AVOCAT(

S) COMMISSION DES RELATIONS DU TRAVAIL SUSAN HEAP, ès qualités de juge administratif PIERRE FLAGEOLE, SYLVAIN BAILLY ET GAÉTAN BRETON, ès qualités de juges administratifs. Julie Goineau (stagiaire) COMMISSION DES RELATIONS DU TRAVAIL En appel d'un jugement rendu le 19 novembre 2009 par l'honorable Gérard Dugré de la Cour supérieure, district de Montréal.

NATURE DE L'APPEL : Révision judiciaire Greffière: Marcelle Desmarais Salle: Antonio-Lamer AUDITION 10 h 50 La cour fait un résumé de la preuve aux avocats. 10 h 52 Me Paul Venne suite aux propos de la Cour n'a rien à ajouter. 10 h 53 Argumentation par Me Charles Caza. 11 h 10 Suspension de la séance. 11 h 32 Reprise de la séance. 11 h 32 Suite de l'argumentation de Me Charles Caza. 12 h 22 Réplique par Me Paul Venne. 12 h 32 Fin de l'argumentation de part et d'autre. 12 h 32 Suspension de la séance. 12 h 41 Reprise de la séance. PAR LA COUR: Arrêt – voir page 3.

Marcelle Desmarais Greffière d'audience PAR LA COUR

ARRÊT [1] Clearly, the legality of the dismissal of Respondent Tétrault was an issue to be determined by the Commissioner and theapplicable standard, upon judicial review, is that of reasonableness. [2] Attorney for Respondent has conceded at the hearing that the first fifteen pages of the judgment a quo wrongly state theapplicable law. The Court agrees. [3] Nevertheless, Respondent argues that the Superior Court was right in annulling the Commissioner's ruling, as the latterwould have applied the wrong criteria in deciding whether or not the dismissal was justified.

Respondent contends that his dismissal wasfor disciplinary reasons, not for administrative reasons. [4] Appellant's main complaint was that Respondent was not meeting his sales targets under his Sales Compensation Plan. Thesituation lasted for the last four years of his employment.

Respondent attempted to show that the decline in his sales was attributable toother factors, such as a general decline in Appellant's sales, but the Commissioner made a finding of fact that such was not the case andfound that the dismissal was for administrative reasons and was justified. [5] It is appropriate to quote the matter of A.U.P.E. v. Lethbridge Community College ([2004] 1 S.C.R. 83) at par. 44: Further, one must consider whether the distinction between culpable and non-culpable conduct is relevant in the particular context.

Thetheory underlying culpable discharge, namely that the employer is engaged in a contractual relationship with the employee and is thusentitled to the "benefit of the bargain", does not in my opinion differ greatly from that underlying non-culpable discharge. A failure tomeet the obligations and reasonable expectations of employment whether by virtue of culpable misconduct or deficient performance of anon-culpable character equally constitutes a disruption of the employment relationship.

Arbitrator Hope's comments in Re City ofVancouver and Vancouver Municipal and Regional Employees Union (1983), (BC LA), 11 L.A.C. (3d) 121 (B.C.), atp. 140, on this point are apt: It must be remembered that the question of whether conduct is culpable or non-culpable is an elusive question directed at drawinginferences as to an employee's state of mind on the basis of his conduct. In the final analysis it is the conduct and not the state of mindwhich determines the issue of continued employment.

An employee who cannot perform is no better off than an employee who will notperform, if the rights of the employer are to be respected. [6] The only issue before the Superior Court was whether or not the Commissioner's decision was unreasonable in light of theevidence adduced before her, which established that failure to meet 80% of sales targets for three years was considered a sufficient causefor dismissal by the employer. [7] Respondent fails to convince the court that the Commissioner's findings are unreasonable.

The Superior Court was wrong inquashing the Commissioner's decision on the basis of legal criteria which are clearly erroneous and contradict the teachings of the courts,specialized tribunals and authors. Its judgment must be set aside. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [8] MAINTAINS the appeal, with costs; [9] REVERSES the Superior Court's decision of November 19, 2009; [10] DISMISSES the Motion for Judicial Review, with costs. PIERRE J. DALPHOND, J.C.A. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.C.A.

NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, J.C.A.