Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on whether the employee engaged in conduct incompatible with medical representations justifying her work absence.

• The Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT) concluded that the employer's evidence lacked objectivity and was based on impressions and incomplete investigation.

• The Superior Court reversed the TAT's decision, citing failure to analyze post-dismissal evidence and internal contradictions in the TAT’s reasoning.

• The Court of Appeal emphasized judicial deference to administrative tribunals on factual assessments.

• It found that the Superior Court improperly substituted its view without access to the full evidentiary record from the TAT.

• The TAT’s findings were held to meet the standard of reasonableness, and its ruling reinstating the employee was restored.

Facts and procedural history

Suzie Tremblay was dismissed by her employer, Rio Tinto Alcan Inc., after the company suspected she was exaggerating or falsifying her physical limitations while on medical leave. The employer based its decision primarily on video evidence showing her participating in CrossFit and other physical activities, as well as a medical file review. Tremblay challenged her dismissal by filing a complaint under Article 124 of the Loi sur les normes du travail, alleging unjust dismissal.

The Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT) heard the case over four days, during which it received testimony from seven witnesses. It ruled in favor of Tremblay, concluding that the employer failed to prove she had engaged in dishonesty or misrepresented her condition. The TAT noted that the employer’s investigation was incomplete, relied on subjective impressions, and lacked corroboration from objective medical analysis. The tribunal found that Tremblay’s actions did not contradict the medical representations she made to her healthcare providers.

Rio Tinto Alcan then brought a judicial review application before the Superior Court. The reviewing judge found the TAT’s decision unreasonable, citing its failure to consider certain post-dismissal evidence, such as the testimony of a gym owner and an occupational therapy report. The court annulled the TAT’s ruling and returned the matter for reconsideration.

Decision of the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal overturned the Superior Court’s judgment, siding with Tremblay. The appellate court reaffirmed that judicial review of administrative decisions, particularly on factual matters, requires a high level of deference. It emphasized that the TAT is a specialized tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction over complaints made under Article 124 LNT, and that it is best placed to evaluate witness credibility and the evidentiary record.

The court found that the Superior Court had improperly relied on an incomplete evidentiary record, including summaries from an advocacy document rather than full transcripts or complete exhibits. It held that these documents, while informative of the parties’ positions, did not allow the court to override the tribunal’s factual findings. The Court of Appeal also rejected the employer’s argument that the TAT ignored crucial evidence. Instead, it noted that the tribunal had referenced the post-dismissal events and explained why they did not alter its assessment.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal ruled that the TAT’s decision was reasonable and adequately supported by the evidence. It restored the original decision in Tremblay’s favor, rejected the judicial review, and awarded legal costs against the employer.