Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The case centers on alleged failures by a union (SPGQ) to meet its duty of fair representation under Article 47.2 of Quebec’s Labour Code.

• Both initial and review decisions from the Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT) rejected the claimant’s allegations.

• The Superior Court upheld the TAT decisions as reasonable, applying the standard from the Supreme Court’s Vavilov decision.

• Claims of partiality and failure to consider evidence were dismissed as unsupported and lacking procedural significance.

• The Court of Appeal found no novel or contradictory legal question warranting leave to appeal under Article 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

• The request for appellate intervention was rejected as it failed to demonstrate a grave injustice or principle transcending the specific facts.

Background and union dispute

Claire Hébert filed complaints against her union, the Syndicat des professionnelles et professionnels du gouvernement du Québec (SPGQ), alleging multiple breaches of its duty to represent her fairly under Article 47.2 of the Code du travail. She claimed the union acted in bad faith, was arbitrary, or grossly negligent in handling her employment-related concerns. The complaints were submitted to the Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT), which issued an initial decision on September 21, 2023 (TAT-1), rejecting all claims after a detailed factual and legal analysis.

Review proceedings before the TAT

Hébert then sought internal review under Article 49 of the Loi instituant le Tribunal administratif du travail. On June 11, 2024, the TAT issued a second decision (TAT-2), rejecting her review request. The TAT held that none of the alleged procedural or substantive errors—relating to reimbursement of legal fees, consideration of evidence, or impartiality—warranted overturning the original decision. The tribunal emphasized that the initial ruling showed no signs of bias or procedural unfairness.

Judicial review at the Superior Court

Hébert sought judicial review at the Superior Court. On February 26, 2025, Justice Maxime Roy dismissed the review application. The court applied the reasonableness standard from Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, affirming that both TAT decisions were intelligible, transparent, and justified. It found that the tribunal reasonably interpreted the facts and legal provisions, and rejected Hébert’s assertions of bias and failure to assess evidence. The court also declined to find any procedural abuse by Hébert.

Court of Appeal decision on leave to appeal

Hébert then applied for leave to appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal. Justice Jocelyn F. Rancourt reviewed the application and issued a judgment on May 20, 2025. The Court ruled that Hébert had not raised any issue of principle, novel legal question, or point of jurisprudential conflict under Article 30 of the Code de procédure civile. Furthermore, her arguments failed to demonstrate a “grave injustice” as required for exceptional leave. The Court concluded that the dispute involved the routine application of labour law principles and did not merit appellate scrutiny.

Conclusion

The Quebec Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, confirming the previous rulings of both the Tribunal administratif du travail and the Superior Court. This decision underscores the difficulty of challenging administrative tribunal rulings and the high threshold for judicial intervention in labour disputes, especially when the decisions are procedurally sound and legally reasonable.