Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Determination of whether the employer violated the Loi sur les normes du travail by underpaying overtime and vacation indemnity.

• Assessment of CNESST's evidentiary burden under Articles 2803 and 2804 of the Code civil du Québec.

• Examination of whether the employer’s reliance on third-party hospital assignments relieved her of legal liability.

• Consideration of whether CNESST’s claim for an additional 20% under Article 114 LNT was justified.

• Evaluation of the employer’s failure to produce documents or rebut the CNESST’s evidence.

• Judicial discretion in applying statutory financial penalties for non-compliance with public order labour standards.

Facts and procedural background

In Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité au travail v. Siriba, 2025 QCCQ 1216, the CNESST initiated legal action against Anne-Marie Siriba, who operates a placement agency employing workers assigned to various hospitals. Acting under Article 105 of the Loi sur les normes du travail (LNT), the CNESST launched a proactive investigation into her business practices and uncovered violations of Québec labour standards.

The CNESST alleged two main infractions: first, that Siriba had paid overtime hours at the regular rate instead of at time-and-a-half as required under Article 55 LNT; and second, that she failed to pay the accrued vacation indemnity (4% of earnings) to employees who left her company, contrary to Article 74 LNT. The claim involved 26 employees and totaled $39,749.51. Additionally, the CNESST sought an extra $7,949.90 under Article 114 LNT—a 20% surcharge intended to support enforcement.

Employer’s position and legal issues

At trial, Ms. Siriba admitted that she paid overtime hours at the regular rate. However, she argued that the hospitals were aware of the 40-hour weekly limit and should be held accountable for any hours assigned beyond that. She claimed that her agency should not be financially responsible for those overages.

The court framed the litigation around two key questions: (1) whether the CNESST had proven its claim and the amount owed; and (2) whether it was entitled to the 20% surcharge under Article 114 LNT. The CNESST submitted payroll records and evidence for each of the 26 workers. The employer did not submit any documents to support her position.

Court’s analysis and decision

The Court confirmed that the CNESST had met its burden of proof under Articles 2803 and 2804 of the Code civil du Québec. It found that the violations were established on the balance of probabilities, and that the overtime and vacation indemnities were owed. The total amount of $39,749.51 was confirmed as valid and not prescribed, given the interruption of limitation periods by the CNESST’s investigation notice.

The Court further emphasized that the LNT is a law of public order under Article 93. Employers cannot contract out of or shift responsibility for compliance. Even though the employees worked in third-party hospitals, the legal responsibility to ensure proper pay remained with Ms. Siriba as their direct employer.

Regarding the 20% penalty under Article 114 LNT, the Court acknowledged that this amount is discretionary and not a punitive sanction but a financing tool for CNESST enforcement. Such claims are often denied when an employer acts in good faith or raises a novel or complex legal issue. In this case, the judge found that Ms. Siriba knowingly failed to follow mandatory labour standards and offered no documentation or credible legal justification. Accordingly, the Court exercised its discretion in favor of awarding the additional 20%.

Final judgment

The Court of Québec granted the CNESST’s claim in full. Ms. Siriba was ordered to pay:

• $47,699.41, composed of:

  • $39,749.51 in unpaid overtime and vacation indemnities for 26 workers;

  • $7,949.90 representing the 20% surcharge under Article 114 LNT;

• Plus interest from February 20, 2023 (the date the formal notice was mailed);

• And costs of the proceeding.

This decision reinforces the non-delegable nature of employer obligations under Québec’s labour law regime and confirms the CNESST’s authority to enforce wage compliance across indirect work arrangements like placement agencies.