Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Claims of wrongful dismissal, harassment, and discrimination were made by Saïdou Diop against Sun Life du Canada, compagnie d’assurance-vie.

• Sun Life raised prescription as a preliminary defense, arguing the claim was filed after the three-year limit under Article 2925 of the Civil Code of Québec.

• The court considered the effect of the COVID-19 emergency and Mr. Diop’s bankruptcy on the running of the prescription period.

• Mr. Diop argued impossibility to act under Article 2904 of the Civil Code of Québec, citing personal hardship.

• The court found that Mr. Diop’s circumstances did not meet the legal standard for impossibility to act.

• The claim was dismissed as prescribed, with no costs ordered against Mr. Diop.

Facts of the case

Mr. Saïdou Diop claimed $14,800 from Sun Life du Canada, compagnie d’assurance-vie. He alleged he was dismissed without valid reason on February 1, 2018, and also claimed to have been subjected to harassment and discrimination while employed by Sun Life. Mr. Diop filed his claim with the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec on December 28, 2022. After his dismissal, he experienced prolonged unemployment and relied on financial assistance. His lease was terminated by a Régie du logement decision on April 3, 2019, and he was only able to rent another apartment in June 2022. During this period, his belongings were stored.

Legal arguments and policy terms

Sun Life, as defendant, argued that Mr. Diop’s claim was prescribed, referencing Article 2925 of the Civil Code of Québec, which provides a three-year prescription period for personal rights. The court determined that the prescription period began on February 1, 2018, the date of Mr. Diop’s dismissal. By the time the claim was filed, nearly five years had passed. The court also considered the suspension of prescription between March 15 and September 1, 2020, due to the COVID-19 emergency, and the period of Mr. Diop’s bankruptcy from June 10, 2019, to November 20, 2020. Even with these suspensions, the court found the claim was still prescribed.

Mr. Diop argued that his personal situation made it impossible for him to act, invoking Article 2904 of the Civil Code of Québec. The court reviewed the documentation and found that, while Mr. Diop faced hardship, this did not constitute impossibility to act as defined by law, which requires being deprived of free will or being physically or psychologically unable to act.

Ruling and outcome

The court concluded that Mr. Diop’s claim was prescribed and dismissed it as being filed too late. The court specifically found that the suspensions for the COVID-19 emergency and bankruptcy did not render the claim timely, and that Mr. Diop’s circumstances did not meet the threshold for impossibility to act. The claim was rejected without costs, so Mr. Diop was not ordered to pay Sun Life’s legal fees. Sun Life du Canada, compagnie d’assurance-vie, was the successful party, and no monetary award, costs, or damages were granted or ordered in favor of either party.