Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Termination for “motif sérieux” under art. 2094 C.c.Q. upheld at trial; appellate court declines to interfere due to deference and incomplete record

• Trial judge’s reasons criticized for reproducing a party’s submissions, yet deemed sufficiently intelligible to permit appellate review

• Progressive discipline analyzed and applied; banking context and code of ethics weighed in assessing proportionality and trust

• Evidentiary gap (no transcript of the appellant’s testimony) constrains appellate intervention on factual findings and credibility

• Costs issue: trial judge failed to decide a request under art. 340 C.p.c.; appeal allowed in part to substitute “sans frais de justice” by consent

• “Cadre” characterization questioned but not determinative; modulation of sanctions turns on responsibilities and context rather than title alone

Facts and background
Ciprian Ciomag worked for the Royal Bank of Canada as a commercial credit advisor in the agricultural sector from 2011 to spring 2017. His role included risk rating borrowers, structuring transactions within internal policies, and approving certain credits or policy exceptions within set limits. Relations with his director deteriorated; the employer faulted him for repeatedly refusing to follow directives tied to credit policy and for escalating disputes to higher authorities. After warnings and meetings failed to change his conduct, RBC terminated his employment without notice on May 18, 2017. Post-termination, the bank discovered he had taken confidential documents, including a client credit file. In July 2017, he sued, claiming dismissal without serious cause, seeking six months’ salary in lieu of notice and $15,000 in moral damages. After a six-day trial, the trial judge rejected his claim, finding insubordination, breach of loyalty/confidentiality, and that progressive discipline supported dismissal given an irreparably broken bond of trust.
 

Issues on appeal
On appeal, Mr. Ciomag alleged (1) insufficient reasons and concerns with the trial judge’s extensive reproduction of the bank’s written submissions; (2) legal error in finding a serious reason under art. 2094 C.c.Q. and in applying progressive discipline; and (3) failure to decide his request regarding court costs under art. 340 C.p.c. in light of his financial situation.
 

Appellate analysis
The Court of Appeal expressed concern about the extent to which the trial reasons reproduced a party’s submissions without attribution but held that, read as a whole, the reasons were sufficiently intelligible to permit review and did not, on the arguments advanced, rebut judicial impartiality. On the merits, the court confirmed the proper analytical framework—nature of the misconduct, context, and proportionality of the sanction—and emphasized deference to trial fact-finding, particularly absent the transcript of the appellant’s two days of testimony. The trial judge’s conclusions on insubordination, breach of confidentiality, and proportionality in the banking context were therefore not shown to be affected by a palpable and overriding error. While the trial judge’s reference to Mr. Ciomag as occupying a “cadre” role drew some doubt, the Court noted that progressive discipline applies to all employees but is modulated by responsibilities; on the facts, the principle was considered and respected. Separately, the court found the trial judge erred by failing to decide the appellant’s request under art. 340 C.p.c. regarding costs.
 

Outcome and disposition
The appeal was allowed in part solely on the costs issue. By consent of RBC, the Court varied the judgment to provide “sans frais de justice” in first instance and on appeal. Otherwise, the trial judgment stands, and no appellate intervention was warranted on the finding of serious cause under art. 2094 C.c.Q. Hearing occurred on January 22, 2025; deliberation followed on January 24, 2025; judgment issued August 1, 2025.