Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The dispute concerned interpretation of a collective agreement regarding union leave (continuous vs. occasional).

• An arbitrator dismissed the employer’s grievance, but the Superior Court overturned the decision on judicial review.

• The union challenged that ruling, arguing judicial overreach and misapplication of administrative law principles.

• The Court of Appeal found no reviewable legal error and upheld the lower court’s finding that the arbitrator failed to resolve the central issue.

• The Court rejected claims that collective bargaining rights were undermined or that a novel question of public importance was raised.

• Leave to appeal was denied, with costs awarded against the union.

Background and collective agreement dispute

The case arises from a grievance related to the use of union leave by a school support employee who also served as a grievance officer for the Syndicat du personnel de soutien de la Commission scolaire des Sommets (CSN). The employer, Centre de services scolaire des Sommets (CSSS), challenged the nature of the employee’s union absences, alleging misuse and seeking clarification on whether the collective agreement permitted continuous or only occasional union leave.

The grievance was brought before an arbitrator, who ruled in favour of the union. The arbitrator held that the agreement allowed for the leave as used, rejecting the employer’s claim of abuse. Crucially, however, the arbitrator failed to classify the nature of the leave in question—whether it was “uninterrupted” or “occasional”—a distinction central to assessing the employer's claim.

Judicial review and appellate motion

CSSS sought judicial review of the arbitrator’s decision, and in April 2025, the Quebec Superior Court overturned the arbitration award. The court found that the arbitrator’s reasoning was incomplete and failed to address the key legal question raised by the grievance. It concluded that this omission rendered the decision unreasonable and remanded the matter to a new arbitrator for a proper analysis.

The union then applied for leave to appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal, arguing that the lower court erred by failing to respect arbitral discretion, improperly conducting a de novo review, and undermining the enforceability of freely negotiated collective agreements.

Court of Appeal’s analysis and decision

Justice Myriam Lachance, writing for the Court of Appeal, dismissed the motion for leave to appeal. She found that none of the criteria under Article 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure were satisfied. The issue did not raise a new or unresolved question of law, nor did it present a principle of general importance or conflict in jurisprudence.

The court affirmed that judicial review decisions must only be appealed sparingly and that the Superior Court had correctly applied the standard of reasonableness. The arbitrator’s failure to determine whether the union leave was of an “occasional” or “continuous” nature was a determinative analytical gap that justified judicial intervention. The appeal was viewed as a mere reiteration of arguments already considered and rejected.

Outcome

The Quebec Court of Appeal denied the union’s request for leave to appeal and ordered it to pay court costs. This decision reinforces the principle that arbitrators must engage directly with the core legal questions before them and that judicial review remains a viable mechanism to correct significant omissions, even in the context of labour arbitration.