Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over whether the plaintiff’s employment ended through dismissal or voluntary departure.

• Impact of the employer’s classification of departure on the plaintiff’s eligibility for employment insurance.

• Assessment of whether the employer committed a fault by misrepresenting the reason for departure on the Record of Employment.

• Evaluation of the plaintiff’s evidentiary burden to prove fault, damages, and causality under article 1457 C.c.Q.

• Examination of employer witnesses and consistency of the employer’s version of events.

• Determination that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof to establish liability and damages.

Facts of the case

Dinael Rodriguez Martinez worked as a delivery driver for Groupe Colabor inc. under an indefinite-term contract starting in May 2018. In late summer 2018, Rodriguez claimed that he was laid off due to lack of work and later discovered that his Record of Employment (ROE) indicated a voluntary departure with the reason listed as “return to home country.” This classification led to a denial of his application for employment insurance benefits. Believing this was incorrect and damaging, Rodriguez filed a claim seeking $17,504 for lost insurance payments and $3,500 for inconvenience and moral prejudice, adjusted down to $15,000 to comply with the small claims court limit.

The employer denied the allegations, asserting that Rodriguez had informed them of his intention to return to his home country for the winter. They claimed he voluntarily resigned, and that the ROE accurately reflected this. They also presented evidence that a replacement driver was hired shortly after Rodriguez’s departure, undermining the claim that work was lacking.

Outcome of the decision

The Court dismissed Rodriguez’s claim. Judge Sylvain Coutlée found that the plaintiff had not met the burden of proof required under article 2803 of the Civil Code of Québec. The decision hinged on conflicting versions of the reason for the end of employment. While Rodriguez asserted he had been laid off, the employer's version—supported by consistent testimony and the hiring of a replacement—was that Rodriguez voluntarily left to return to his country during the winter.

The Court accepted the employer’s explanation and noted that the ROE reflected the information given by Rodriguez himself. Since no convincing evidence showed that the employer had falsified the document or acted in bad faith, no fault was established. Without a proven fault, there could be no liability or damages under article 1457 C.c.Q.

In conclusion, the Court rejected the claim in full and issued no order for court costs.