Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over whether the Quebec civil courts or a grievance arbitrator had jurisdiction over a university professor’s claim for reputational harm

• Evaluation report included a reference to an incivility complaint, prompting the professor’s civil action

• The court assessed whether the matter stemmed from the interpretation or application of the collective agreement

• Determination that the evaluation process and related disciplinary steps were governed entirely by the collective agreement

• The court reaffirmed that even defamation-like claims may fall under arbitral jurisdiction if arising from workplace processes

• Appeal dismissed, confirming exclusive jurisdiction of the grievance arbitrator and not the civil courts

Facts and procedural background

Richard Marc Lacasse, a long-time associate professor at Université du Québec à Rimouski (UQAR), was subject to a routine evaluation in 2021 under the collective agreement binding the university and the professors’ union. The evaluation process included a meeting with a peer committee during which he presented his accomplishments. Shortly after, a member of that committee, Sylvie Morin, filed a complaint of incivility against him based on his conduct during the evaluation meeting.

The final evaluation report acknowledged his strong performance but also mentioned the existence of the incivility complaint. This report was read aloud to the entire departmental assembly, as required by the collective agreement. Lacasse took issue with this public disclosure, asserting it was defamatory and outside the committee’s mandate. He demanded $50,000 in damages through a civil court proceeding against the university and the individual committee members.

Jurisdictional issue and legal argument

The central issue was whether the civil courts had jurisdiction or whether the claim should be heard by a grievance arbitrator under the collective agreement. The defendants invoked a declinatory exception, arguing the dispute was rooted in the collective agreement and thus within the exclusive jurisdiction of a grievance arbitrator.

The trial judge agreed, finding the complaint and disclosure arose directly from the evaluation process governed by the collective agreement. The professor appealed, arguing that the harm to his reputation and the personal conduct of the defendants were beyond the scope of the collective agreement and therefore justiciable before the courts.

Court of Appeal analysis and outcome

The Court of Appeal rejected Lacasse’s arguments. It held that all relevant events—including the evaluation meeting, the complaint, the drafting and disclosure of the report, and the employer’s response—were clearly governed by provisions of the collective agreement. The court emphasized that even though the claim referenced reputational harm and defamation, these arose within the context of the workplace and were therefore subject to grievance arbitration.

It was further noted that the grievance process had in fact been initiated by the union on Lacasse’s behalf, seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. The court confirmed that the arbitrator could assess the propriety of the conduct and impose remedies, including damages, if warranted.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with legal costs, reinforcing the principle that unionized employees must address employment-related grievances—including those involving personal harm—through the mechanisms provided in their collective agreements.