Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The court confirmed that Jean was remunerated with a fixed annual salary, not an hourly wage, making overtime pay inapplicable under Article 55 of the Labour Standards Act (LNT).

• Her flexible work schedule and absence of required timesheets further supported that she was not compensated based on hours worked.

• CNESST’s claim relied solely on the 35-hour workweek clause in Jean’s contract, which the court found insufficient to establish a right to overtime.

• The court held that no evidence showed Jean was denied paid holidays or annual vacation as required by law.

• CNESST did not meet its burden of proof regarding the alleged overtime, with the only record being an imprecise personal log from Jean.

• The entire claim was dismissed, and the court questioned the decision by CNESST’s legal department to pursue litigation in what it described as a clear, unambiguous case.

Facts of the case and judicial findings

Militza Jean was employed as a research associate by the Corporation de l’école Polytechnique de Montréal. During the period from January 1 to July 17, 2021, she was working under two successive fixed-term contracts. These contracts set her salary on an annual basis—$80,783 for the term ending May 31, 2021, and $94,660 for the term starting June 1, 2021. Her contracts also referred to a 35-hour workweek and tied her role to research activities under Professor José M. Fernandez, who left the institution abruptly in May 2021.

The Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST) brought a claim on Jean’s behalf, seeking $52,477.67. This amount included alleged unpaid overtime, holiday pay, annual vacation pay, and a 20% indemnity under Article 114 of the LNT. The core argument from CNESST was that Jean, although salaried, was effectively working more than 35 hours per week and should thus receive overtime pay and other benefits based on that premise.

École Polytechnique countered that Jean was not entitled to overtime pay since she had a fixed annual salary and not an hourly wage. The employer also stated she was granted full autonomy in setting her work schedule, that no timesheets were required or submitted, and that she received all her entitled vacation and holidays. The evidence included Jean’s pay records, which showed she was already receiving a “prime au marché” (market premium), and testimony from several administrators confirming that associates were never compensated for overtime and that performance-related pay adjustments followed a separate protocol.

Legal interpretation and application

The court began its analysis by reaffirming that Article 55 LNT, which governs overtime compensation, applies only when there is a “salaire horaire habituel” (usual hourly wage). Referring to authoritative case law, including Godin c. Aréna des Canadiens inc., the court concluded that this article does not apply when an employee is compensated via a fixed annual salary that is not tied to hours worked.

Jean’s role, as confirmed by contract and consistent practice, was compensated on this fixed annual basis. There was no evidence of a salary that fluctuated with the number of hours worked. The court emphasized that associates like Jean were given flexibility in managing their time and that the absence of time tracking aligned with her compensation structure.

The court also addressed CNESST’s failure to meet its burden of proof. Under Articles 2803, 2804, and 2845 of the Civil Code of Québec, it is the claimant’s responsibility to prove the existence and scope of unpaid hours. Jean’s own document logging extra hours was described by the court as imprecise and insufficient. Moreover, the court noted that Polytechnique had no knowledge or obligation to monitor her overtime, as none was contractually expected or required.

On the question of paid holidays and vacation time, the court found that Jean had, in fact, benefited from more days off than the minimum required under Article 60 of the LNT. As such, the court held that Article 59.1 LNT excluded her from those statutory provisions due to superior contractual entitlements. The claim for the 20% indemnity under Article 114 was rendered irrelevant in light of these findings.

Outcome and judicial remarks

In a strongly worded conclusion, the court rejected the CNESST’s claim in its entirety and awarded costs to the employer. The judgment criticized the Commission’s decision to pursue the claim, describing it as “étonnant” (astonishing), especially given the clarity of the legal and factual issues. The judge expressed particular surprise that CNESST’s legal department allowed the matter to proceed to trial, given the well-established jurisprudence and the nature of Jean’s employment contract.

Ultimately, the court’s ruling reinforces the legal principle that salaried employees—particularly those with flexible, project-based roles and no hourly wage structure—are not automatically entitled to overtime compensation, even if they occasionally work beyond standard hours. The claim failed not only on legal grounds but also due to insufficient evidence, underscoring the importance of both contractual clarity and evidentiary rigor in employment disputes.