Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over whether the employee was entitled to overtime pay under the Loi sur les normes du travail (LNT) or if such pay was included in his annual salary.

• Determination of whether the end of employment was a resignation by the employee or a dismissal by the employer.

• Assessment of the employer’s obligation to pay statutory notice (préavis) and vacation pay following the termination.

• Consideration of whether the employer should pay the indemnity under article 114 LNT.

• Evaluation of the evidentiary value of the employment contract, emails, and testimony regarding the circumstances of the employment’s end.

• Analysis of the good faith of the employer in contesting the CNESST’s claim.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties

The Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST) acted as the plaintiff, representing Ralph Onofrio, who worked as a building manager for Gestion T.O.R. Inc. from January 31, 2023, to August 14, 2023. After his employment ended, Onofrio filed a complaint with the CNESST, alleging that the employer refused to pay him for overtime hours and to provide notice of termination, claiming he was dismissed.

Employment contract and dispute

The employment contract stated an annual salary of $125,000 and specified that any overtime was included in this amount. The CNESST argued that Onofrio was, in fact, paid on an hourly basis and thus entitled to overtime under the Loi sur les normes du travail (LNT). The employer argued that the contract clearly included overtime in the annual salary and that Onofrio was not authorized to work additional hours beyond what was covered by his salary.

Termination of employment

A key issue was whether Onofrio resigned or was dismissed. The employer claimed Onofrio resigned during a confrontation, referencing testimony and email exchanges. Onofrio denied resigning, stating he intended to return to work and refused to hand over company property. The court reviewed the testimony and correspondence between the parties.

Legal analysis and findings

The court found that the employment contract provided for an annual salary that included overtime, and that Onofrio did not have authorization for the overtime hours he claimed. The court rejected the claim for overtime pay. Regarding the end of employment, the court determined that Onofrio did not clearly resign and that the employer’s abolition of his position constituted a dismissal. The court found that the employer did not prove Onofrio’s resignation and that Onofrio was entitled to notice of termination and vacation pay.

Outcome and award

The court partially granted the CNESST’s claim. Gestion T.O.R. Inc. was ordered to pay $2,352.90 to the CNESST, representing notice and vacation pay, plus legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.c.Q., from February 26, 2024, the date of the mise en demeure. The court denied the claim for overtime pay and the indemnity under article 114 LNT, finding the employer acted in good faith. Costs were awarded against the employer.