Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether the employer interfered with union activities by arranging a secondment without the union’s knowledge

• Validity of the Administrative Labour Tribunal’s interpretation and application of section 12 of the Labour Code

• Reasonableness of the Superior Court’s decision to overturn the Tribunal's ruling

• Application of judicial review standards to specialized administrative decisions

• Existence of conflicting case law on nearly identical facts raising concerns about legal consistency

• Threshold for granting permission to appeal in matters involving judicial review of administrative decisions

Facts and procedural background

The Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux (APTS), a certified union, filed a complaint under section 12 of Quebec’s Labour Code. The complaint alleged that the employer, Santé Québec—through its regional health authority (CISSS de la Montérégie-Ouest)—had undermined union activities by secretly arranging a secondment agreement with a unionized employee. This was done without the union’s knowledge, and the union viewed it as a form of interference prohibited by law.

The Administrative Labour Tribunal (TAT) agreed with the union, concluding in December 2023 that the employer had indeed interfered with union representation by bypassing the union’s role in the staffing decision. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the union, upholding the complaint under section 12.

The employer challenged this ruling before the Superior Court. In May 2025, the Superior Court overturned the Tribunal’s decision, finding it unreasonable. The judge held that the Tribunal had misinterpreted the law and overstepped its role, effectively substituting its view of how the employer should have acted. As a result, the Tribunal's decision was annulled.

Appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal

The union sought permission to appeal the Superior Court’s ruling. Under article 30 of Quebec’s Code of Civil Procedure, permission to appeal from judicial review judgments is not automatic and is granted sparingly. The applicant must show that the appeal raises a serious issue—such as a question of principle, new law, or conflicting jurisprudence—and that it serves the interests of justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the union’s request met the necessary threshold. It acknowledged that the appeal raised legitimate concerns about how section 12 of the Labour Code should be interpreted, especially in the context of conflicting decisions from the Superior Court on almost identical facts. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring consistency and predictability in labour law, particularly where judicial review interacts with administrative expertise.

Although the Court did not rule on the merits of the case, it granted permission to appeal. It also set deadlines for both parties to file their written arguments and evidence, and referred the case for a hearing of 45 minutes per party.

Outcome

The Court of Appeal granted the union’s application for permission to appeal the Superior Court’s judgment. This procedural victory allows the union to argue its case in full before the Court of Appeal. While not a final ruling on the underlying legal dispute, the Court’s decision indicates that the issues at stake are significant enough to warrant appellate review.