Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Motion for partial dismissal (irrecevabilité partielle) targeting the claim for punitive damages

• Alleged breach by a former employee of contractual non-compete and non-solicitation clauses

• Whether an intentional violation of property rights could support a punitive damages claim under article 49 of the Quebec Charter

• Tribunal’s obligation to accept factual allegations as true at this stage of proceedings

• High threshold for granting dismissal — only where legal basis is clearly and manifestly absent

• Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the punitive damages claim could proceed to trial

Facts of the case
9027-3616 Québec inc. filed an action against its former employee, Monique Sarrazin, who had worked on a commission basis. The company alleged that after resigning, Ms. Sarrazin violated her contractual obligations, particularly the non-compete and non-solicitation clauses of her employment contract. The company further claimed that Ms. Sarrazin wrongfully solicited its clients and sought $5,000 in punitive damages, arguing this conduct represented an intentional and unlawful violation of its property rights — namely, its clientele — under article 49 of the Quebec Charter.

Motion for partial dismissal
Ms. Sarrazin brought a motion for partial dismissal (irrecevabilité partielle), contesting the punitive damages claim. She argued that the legal basis for such damages was absent because no statutory provision or judicial authority would support awarding punitive damages for breach of contract alone in these circumstances. Her position relied on prior judgments, including Médias Transcontinental, suggesting that such contractual violations do not typically qualify as infringements of property rights under the Charter.

Tribunal’s analysis
The Tribunal reiterated that, on a motion for dismissal, the facts alleged in the initiating pleading must be taken as true. It is not the Tribunal’s role at this stage to assess the likelihood of success or the merits of the allegations. The motion should only be granted where it is clear and obvious that the legal foundation is absent. The Tribunal found that Québec inc. had explicitly alleged a written non-compete and non-solicitation clause, as well as intentional conduct described as the “theft” of clientele. Given those allegations, it could not be said that the claim for punitive damages was clearly unfounded. Prior judgments cited by the defence arose from trials on the merits, which was not the procedural context here.

Outcome
The Tribunal dismissed the motion for partial dismissal and ruled that the punitive damages claim could proceed to trial. The Court emphasized that the assessment of whether punitive damages are ultimately warranted must await the presentation of evidence at trial. Costs of the motion are to follow the final outcome of the case.