Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over the interpretation of Article 327(3°) of the LATMP regarding cost imputation for workplace injury benefits.

• Central issue was whether an employee with medical restrictions remained capable of performing her employment.

• Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT) determined the worker could still fulfill her job duties despite limited physical restrictions.

• CNESST argued that recent legislative amendments, specifically the definition of "son emploi," were improperly ignored by the TAT.

• The Court found that the TAT had appropriately considered the legislative context and jurisprudence.

• Permission to appeal was denied as the issue raised no principle of law transcending the parties' private interest.

Facts and procedural history

The case stems from a workplace injury suffered by a special education technician employed by the Centre de services scolaire des Premières-Seigneuries. Following the incident, a healthcare provider imposed a medical restriction prohibiting the worker from performing physical restraint on students. However, no work stoppage was prescribed. The CNESST had imputed the costs of medical services related to the injury to all employers under Article 327(3°) of the Loi sur les accidents du travail et les maladies professionnelles (LATMP).

Initial tribunal decision

The employer contested this imputation before the Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT), arguing the employee was still able to perform her work. The TAT agreed, finding that the restriction did not prevent her from carrying out the essential duties of her job, as physical restraint was not a core function but rather an occasional measure.

Judicial review before the Superior Court

The CNESST sought judicial review of the TAT decision before the Superior Court. The reviewing judge upheld the tribunal’s conclusion, rejecting CNESST’s claim that the decision was unreasonable or legally flawed.

Application for permission to appeal

Following the Superior Court’s ruling, the CNESST applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. It argued that the TAT had failed to properly consider a 2022 legislative amendment that introduced a new definition of “son emploi” under Article 2 of the LATMP. According to CNESST, this new definition required that the worker be capable of performing all of her duties for Article 327(3°) to apply.

Analysis by the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal rejected CNESST’s position. It found that the TAT had acknowledged and applied the relevant jurisprudence, including the amended definition. The court further emphasized that CNESST did not participate in the TAT hearing, undermining its argument that the tribunal overlooked critical legal context.

The Court held that the case did not raise a legal issue of public or precedential importance. It cited the Supreme Court’s guidance in Vavilov, stating that differences in tribunal interpretations do not, in themselves, justify appellate intervention.

Conclusion and outcome

The Court concluded that the TAT's decision was reasonable, legally sound, and fell within an accepted interpretive framework. It held that the matter concerned a narrow factual dispute, with no broader legal implications warranting further review. As such, the Court denied permission to appeal, and the original tribunal decision stood.

Final result

The Centre de services scolaire des Premières-Seigneuries prevailed. The CNESST’s application was rejected, and the cost imputation decision in favor of the employer was upheld.