Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff claimed moral damages due to employer's alleged psychological harassment following a workplace injury.

• Defendant contested jurisdiction, arguing the claim fell under the exclusive domain of the labour tribunal.

• Evidence showed employer communications were legally insufficient but not malicious or abusive.

• Court evaluated whether employer conduct violated rights protected by the Civil Code of Québec.

• Plaintiff failed to prove that employer conduct reached the threshold for civil liability.

• The claim was dismissed, with the court declining to grant moral or punitive damages.

Facts and procedural background

Ms. Sonia Goulet was an employee of Swissport Canada Inc. when she sustained a workplace injury. Following the incident, she alleged that the company’s treatment of her was psychologically harmful and caused undue stress during her convalescence. Goulet brought an action in small claims court, seeking $15,000 in moral damages and an additional $5,000 in punitive damages. She alleged violations of her dignity and psychological integrity stemming from the company’s failure to properly inform her of her rights and its alleged attempts to coerce her into resigning while she was still under medical leave.

The company did not dispute that Goulet was injured but argued that the claim fell outside the jurisdiction of the small claims court and instead belonged before the Tribunal administratif du travail. Swissport further denied any wrongdoing or abusive conduct and maintained that its actions followed internal procedures related to workplace injury and disability management.

Court’s analysis and findings

Presiding Judge André Dufour examined whether Goulet’s allegations supported a civil claim based on moral injury and employer misconduct under the Civil Code of Québec. The court acknowledged that the employer failed to clearly communicate essential information, such as Goulet's right to maintain her employment during a disability-related absence. However, the court found no evidence of malice, coercion, or systematic harassment.

The employer’s communication style and internal documentation may have been deficient, but the judge emphasized that these shortcomings did not constitute a violation of Goulet’s fundamental rights under Articles 1, 4, or 10 of the Code. The court also found that Swissport did not take deliberate steps to create a hostile work environment or psychologically injure Goulet. While the plaintiff’s frustration and anxiety were genuine, the evidence did not meet the burden of proof required to justify an award of moral damages.

As for punitive damages, the court determined that there was no intentional infringement of protected rights, which is a necessary condition under Article 1621 C.c.Q. The case thus lacked the egregious conduct required to justify exemplary damages.

Outcome

The Court of Québec dismissed Sonia Goulet’s claim in its entirety. It held that while the employer’s handling of the situation was imperfect, it did not amount to a civil fault or violation of fundamental rights. No damages—moral or punitive—were awarded, and each party bore their own costs.