Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The core issue was whether a soccer referee qualified as a “worker” under Quebec’s workplace injury legislation

• The Tribunal administratif du travail concluded the referee was an employee due to the association's control over work

• The Court of Appeal assessed the reasonableness of this conclusion in light of the administrative law standard

• Quebec Civil Code article 2085 and LATMP provisions were applied to analyze the contractual relationship

• The employer's argument for an independent contractor status was rejected due to operational subordination

• The appeal was dismissed, affirming the tribunal’s classification and upholding CNESST’s compensation authority

Facts of the case

The case arose when a soccer referee suffered an injury while officiating a match organized by the Association régionale de soccer (03). The injured referee submitted a claim for benefits to the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST), seeking recognition as a “worker” under Quebec’s Loi sur les accidents du travail et les maladies professionnelles (LATMP). CNESST accepted the claim, which led to a challenge by the Association on the basis that the referee was not an employee but rather an independent contractor.

The Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT) upheld CNESST’s decision, finding that the referee performed duties under the direction and control of the Association, meeting the legal definition of an employee. This included elements such as assignment of matches, enforcement of game rules under supervision, and mandatory adherence to association procedures.

The Association brought the matter before the Quebec Court of Appeal, arguing that the tribunal erred in its interpretation and application of the legal tests for employment status. It maintained that referees operate autonomously and are not subject to the legal subordination required under article 2085 of the Civil Code of Québec and section 2 of the LATMP.

Legal framework and appellate review

The appeal focused on whether the tribunal’s decision was reasonable under the standard set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov. The appellate court emphasized that administrative tribunals have expertise in applying statutory definitions and that their decisions should be respected unless unreasonable.

The court reviewed the tribunal’s reasoning, including the factual matrix considered in determining the referee’s work relationship. The evidence showed that the Association controlled match scheduling, performance evaluations, and compliance with standardized regulations. Payment terms, even if per game, did not negate the presence of legal subordination in how work was carried out.

The court also reaffirmed that section 9 of the LATMP allows the CNESST to make an initial determination of worker status and that the tribunal has the authority to uphold or overturn it based on a contextual analysis.

Outcome

The Quebec Court of Appeal found no basis to intervene and dismissed the appeal. The tribunal’s conclusion—that the referee was legally an employee for the purposes of workplace injury compensation—was deemed reasonable and supported by the evidence.

This decision confirms that worker status under Quebec’s workplace safety regime is based on practical control and subordination, not solely on contractual labels or payment structure. It further affirms the deference owed to specialized administrative tribunals in factual and mixed law-fact determinations.