Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Cégep sought leave to appeal a Superior Court decision that upheld an arbitrator’s ruling on unpaid work following legal strike days.

• The dispute centered on whether requiring teachers to make up strike-day classes without additional pay violated the collective agreement.

• The arbitrator found the employer’s directive effectively added uncompensated work and breached the agreement’s terms.

• The Superior Court held that the arbitrator’s decision was reasonable and based on specific, undisputed facts.

• The Court of Appeal emphasized the high bar for overturning arbitral rulings grounded in factual findings and pandemic-related context.

• Leave to appeal was denied as the proposed questions did not raise novel, conflicting, or principle-based legal issues.

Employer denied leave to appeal arbitration ruling on post-strike teacher compensation

Facts of the case

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Syndicat des enseignantes et des enseignants du Cégep de Drummondville held two legal strike days on March 30 and May 13, 2021. In response, the Cégep issued a directive stating that all missed educational services would be delivered, but no additional compensation would be provided for the rescheduled classes. The directive emphasized that while teachers were not being asked to make up for lost "availability hours," they were still expected to fulfill their teaching duties (referred to as “volet 1” in the collective agreement) within the limited remaining availability period.

This led to a wave of grievances—24 individual, one collective, and one union grievance—all arguing that the employer had improperly demanded the full teaching workload be completed without any added pay, despite reduced work periods.

Arbitrator’s decision and judicial review

Arbitrator André C. Côté ruled in favour of the union. He concluded that the Cégep's approach violated the collective agreement by forcing teachers to deliver full workloads in less time without compensation. Citing the agreed-upon temporary suspension of “volet 2” (pedagogical coordination activities) during the pandemic, the arbitrator found that the Cégep failed to either reduce other duties or provide compensation for the rescheduled work.

The Cégep filed a judicial review application, arguing the arbitrator's reasoning was flawed and inconsistent with established legal principles on strikes and make-up work. The Superior Court dismissed the application, holding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable, factually grounded, and appropriately responsive to the specific pandemic-era context and the employer’s own directives.

Appeal and Court of Appeal decision

The Cégep then sought leave to appeal the Superior Court ruling, arguing the case raised issues of contradictory jurisprudence, legal error on the remedy, and significant implications for all CEGEPs in Quebec. It claimed the arbitrator erred by awarding compensation that neutralized the effects of a legal strike and that the Superior Court failed to address these errors properly.

Justice Judith Harvie of the Quebec Court of Appeal rejected the motion. She found that the application failed to meet the strict criteria under article 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires that an appeal raise a significant legal issue—such as a question of principle, novelty, or conflicting case law—or that the decision result in a grave and flagrant injustice. The arbitrator’s decision was anchored in the pandemic-specific facts and applied existing legal principles reasonably. No injustice was found.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Cégep’s request for leave to appeal, confirming that the arbitrator’s ruling stood. This case highlights the courts’ deference to specialized labour tribunals in interpreting collective agreements and addressing exceptional circumstances like pandemic-related workload changes. It also reinforces the high threshold for appellate review of labour arbitration decisions grounded in contextual factual findings.