2018 QCCQ 10081, 2018 QCCQ 10081

Colet c. Kateri Memorial Hospital Centre 2018 QCCQ 10081 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-701213-177 DATE: December 5, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ARMANDO AZNAR, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ SUZANNE COLET Plaintiff v.

KATERI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL CENTRE Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff claims from Defendant an amount of 15 000 $ in damages following the termination of her employment contract on September 23, 2016.

According to her, the dismissal by Defendant was not made for good and sufficient cause. [ 2 ] Defendant contests Plaintiff’s demand and in the contestation filed into the Court record, it alleges the following: “The dismissal was justified and no fault was commited by the defendant as within their rights to terminate the the contract at anytime, without further notice or compensation of any kind as we were still in the probationary period.

The damages are exaggerated.” [ 3 ] The evidence adduced at trial has revealed that Plaintiff, a registered nurse since 1976, was hired by Defendant, a hospital, to work as a mental health nurse. [ 4 ] The first contract of employment binding parties was entered into on April 1 st , 2016 and was for a determined period of time beginning on March 30, 2016 and ending on June 8, 2016 (exhibit P-17). [ 5 ] At the expiration of the term provided for in the above contract, Plaintiff continued to work for Defendant for a period of one month after which, on July 11, 2016, a new contract of employment was concluded between the parties (exhibit P-1).

This contract was for an indeterminate term commencing on July 8, 2016. [ 6 ]

Section 2 of this contract provided the following : “Subject to Sections 13 and 14 hereunder, this contract is for an indeterminate term, beginning on July 8, 2016.

However, this contract shall not become definitive before the expiry of a six (6) month probationary period during which either the Employee or the Employer shall have the option to terminate this contract at any time, without further notice or compensation of any kind.” [ 7 ] This being said, Plaintiff worked for Defendant for a period of approximately two and one half months namely until September 23, 2016 at which time, the contract of employment was terminated by Defendant.

More particularly, on that day, she was advised verbally and by letter that Defendant had decided to terminate the employment contract. [ 8 ] The termination letter was signed for Defendant by Tracy Johnson, Homecare nurse manager and Louise Lahache, Human resources manager. Both were present at the meeting during which the termination of the contract was announced to Plaintiff. [ 9 ] The evidence adduced at trial has established that Plaintiff was indeed advised on several occasions by Mrs.

Johnson that she had to be more careful in the application of the patients’ confidentiality policy as applied by Defendant. [ 10 ] At the hearing, Plaintiff did acknowledge the fact that Mrs.

Johnson did address her verbally on this matter during the execution of the first employment contract (exhibit P-17 A). [ 11 ] On this issue, during the execution of the second contract of employment (exhibit P-1) the evidence is contradictory inasmuch as Plaintiff stated that she was not formally put on notice to amend her working methods until she received written notice on or around September 22, 2016 (exhibit P-3) whereas Mrs. Johnson testified that she did advise Plaintiff on several occasions in this regard and more

particularly, verbally, on or around September 14, 2016 (exhibit D-2). [ 12 ] According to Mrs. Johnson’s testimony, between September 14 and September 22, 2016, a new incident involving Plaintiff and a patients’ confidentiality occurred. Defendant then decided to terminate her contract of employment. [ 13 ] Defendant’s evidence regarding this last incident is limited to Mrs.

Johnson’s testimony and was not corroborated in Court as no witnesses regarding this incident, filed against Plaintiff by a third party, testified at the hearing. [ 14 ] This being said, even if the evidence adduced at trial regarding the dismissal “for just cause” is not conclusive, in view of the testimony rendered at the hearing by Mrs. Johnson and Mrs. Lahache, the Court is convinced that Defendant was in good faith and did not act in an abusive intent when it decided to terminate the employment contract. [ 15 ] Furthermore, the evidence adduced at trial has established that Mrs. Johnson and Mrs.

Lahache acted in a respectful manner when they met with Plaintiff on September 23, 2016 to inform her of Defendant’s decision to terminate the employment contract. [ 16 ] Regarding the termination of the contract of employment, as mentioned previously, by virtue of

Section 2 of the contract (exhibit P-1) Defendant was entitled to terminate it within the six months probationary period specified therein without notice or compensation of any kind. [ 17 ] In addition to

Section 2 of the employment contract,

article 2091 C.c.Q. states the following : 2091. Either party to a contract with an indeterminate term may terminate it by giving notice of termination to the other party. The notice of termination shall be given in reasonable time, taking into account, in particular, the nature of the employment, the special circumstances in which it is carried on and the duration of the period of work. [ 18 ] In the present case, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant for a period of two and one half months before the contract of employment was terminated.

The evidence has revealed that she was paid one additional week of salary after the notice of termination was given. [ 19 ] This being said, considering the contents of

Section 2 of the employment contract, the Court is of the opinion that Defendant was entitled to unilaterally terminate the contract of employment without having to justify its decision. [ 20 ] Furthermore, considering that Plaintiff was paid one additional week of salary, the Court is of the opinion that the notice of termination given was reasonable in view of the nature of the employment and its duration as provided for in

article 2091 C.c.Q. [ 21 ] Consequently, Plaintiff’s demand is dismissed, without costs considering the circumstances of the present case. WHEREFORE, FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT : DISMISSES Plaintiffs demand, without costs. __________________________________ ARMANDO AZNAR, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: December 3, 2018