Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether Mr. Borsellino was still employed after the date listed on his record of employment.

• Legitimacy of the CNESST's wage claim based on unrebutted documentary and testimonial evidence.

• Admissibility and evidentiary weight of worksite photos and emails confirming ongoing work.

• Impact of the employer’s failure to appear or maintain legal representation at trial.

• Application of Articles 82 and 83 of the Loi sur les normes du travail for termination notice compensation.

• Enforcement of Article 114 authorizing the addition of a 20% penalty to unpaid wage claims.

Facts and procedural background

In Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail v. Futuris Technologies inc., the CNESST sued Futuris Technologies inc. in the Court of Québec to recover unpaid compensation on behalf of employee Domenico Borsellino. The CNESST claimed a total of $13,439.96, which included unpaid wages for six weeks of work ($8,076.90), two weeks of notice compensation under Articles 82 and 83 of the Loi sur les normes du travail (LNT) ($2,692.30), and accumulated vacation pay ($465.97). Pursuant to Article 114 LNT, the CNESST added a 20% penalty ($2,239.99) to the total wage claim.

At the hearing, Futuris’s legal counsel appeared but declared that he no longer had contact with his client and did not possess a valid mandate. The company’s president, Mr. Sobhi F. Tadros—named as Futuris’s only witness in pre-trial proceedings—did not appear. The hearing proceeded in the absence of the defense.

Evidence and legal findings

Mr. Borsellino had received a record of employment from Futuris stating that his employment ended on March 26, 2022. However, he contested this and testified that he continued working for an additional six weeks until May 13, 2022, on a construction project. To corroborate his claim, he submitted email correspondence with Mr. Tadros sent between April and May 2022. These emails included photographic updates of the construction site, indicating ongoing work.

During the CNESST investigation, Mr. Tadros admitted that four weeks of wages were still owed but denied the final two weeks, citing Futuris’s financial difficulties. The Court gave no weight to this explanation due to the lack of evidence or testimony and found Mr. Borsellino’s version credible and supported by documentary proof. The Tribunal accepted that the March 26 employment end date was false and that Mr. Borsellino had in fact worked until May 13.

The Court concluded that all of the CNESST’s claimed amounts were owed, including the two weeks of notice compensation under Articles 82 and 83 LNT and the 20% penalty under Article 114. The only argument from Futuris—that the job ended in March—was deemed frivolous and unsupported.

Outcome and ruling

The Court of Québec rendered judgment in favor of the CNESST and ordered Futuris Technologies inc. to pay a total of $13,439.96, broken down as follows:

• $11,199.97 (unpaid wages, notice, and vacation pay) with interest from the date of the formal demand;

• $2,239.99 (20% penalty under Article 114 LNT) with legal interest from the date of service.

The judgment also included an order for costs in favor of the CNESST.

This ruling underscores strict judicial enforcement of Québec’s labour standards, particularly the requirement for timely wage payment, notice upon termination, and the penalties applicable under the Loi sur les normes du travail when an employer fails to comply.