Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Characterization of the relationship as a fixed-fee subcontract for a “travailleur autonome” rather than an employment contract with hourly/overtime entitlements.
• Interpretation of the contract terms providing a weekly lump-sum remuneration of 1 350 $ with no express provision for hourly pay, overtime, or vacation.
• Credibility conflict regarding alleged promises by the administrative supervisor to pay overtime and the alleged weekly transmission of timesheets.
• Legal effect of the subsequent lump-sum “vacation” payments (approx. 4 000 $) and whether they constitute a binding transaction under articles 2631 et seq. C.c.Q. settling the overtime dispute.
• Treatment and legal significance of the rejected reconventional demand and the defendant’s claim of payment in error.
• Sufficiency of proof that the plaintiff company cumulatively held two posts or performed additional compensable duties beyond the contractual scope of night supervision.

Factual background

Les Entreprises Patrick Poirier inc. was created by Patrick Poirier after he was initially hired personally by Les Entreprises Michel Gauthier. On 14 June 2022, Poirier was engaged by the defendant as a night foreman (“contremaître”) for snow removal operations, on the basis of a fixed work week of 50 hours for a weekly remuneration of 1 350 $. Shortly thereafter, on 14 September 2022, Poirier incorporated Les Entreprises Patrick Poirier inc., and the contractual relationship continued with the corporation as a subcontractor. Because the arrangement was then treated as one with a “travailleur autonome” (independent contractor) rather than an employee, the defendant no longer made source deductions at payroll.

In practice, Poirier’s role was to supervise nighttime snow removal, resolve urgent operational issues such as equipment breakdowns and fuel supply, and generally ensure smooth overnight operations. During the day, supervision and coordination were handled by the defendant’s administrative supervisor, Kim Tran, and in the evening she would transfer calls and responsibilities to Michel Gauthier before the night shift, where Poirier resumed responsibility.

At some point, Éric Gauthier, who normally had responsibilities within the company, went on medical leave. Poirier claimed that in December 2023, during the temporary absence of Éric, Michel Gauthier asked him to “replace” Éric, resulting, according to Poirier, in a significant increase in workload and working hours.

The plaintiff’s claim

The plaintiff company, Les Entreprises Patrick Poirier inc., alleged that it had not been paid for substantial overtime hours worked by Poirier in his role as night foreman. According to Poirier, his contractual work week was 50 hours, but after Éric Gauthier’s departure he actually worked between 60 and 96 hours per week without compensation for the additional hours. He stated that calls previously directed to Éric were redirected to him both day and night. Poirier testified that he recorded his hours in a notebook and then transcribed them onto timesheets, which he claimed to have submitted regularly to Ms. Tran.

On 2 June 2023, the plaintiff terminated the contract, citing excessive workload. On 20 June 2023, it submitted invoice 007 in the amount of 8 773,17 $ (including taxes) for 33 hours of overtime allegedly worked by Poirier as foreman. Later, after reassessing the hours, Poirier issued a second invoice, no. 073 dated 2 January 2024, for 2 352,31 $, alleging he had initially forgotten to include 62 additional hours worked in 2022. Together, these invoices formed the basis of a total claim of 11 125,52 $.

Poirier maintained that Ms. Tran acknowledged his overtime and told him it would be paid when Éric returned. He also relied on testimony from his former partner, Marie-Claude Marcou, who stated that during the winter of 2022 Poirier answered many more calls at night than usual, suggesting a significant increase in work time.

The defendant’s position and the alleged transaction

The defendant, Les Entreprises Michel Gauthier, denied owing any amounts for overtime. It argued that all sums due under the contract had been paid and that the arrangement, as reflected in the contract with the incorporated company, was a fixed weekly fee for a subcontractor, not an hourly employment relationship. According to the defendant’s witnesses, the plaintiff’s company did not “hold two positions” but fulfilled only the night foreman role for which the weekly fee was paid, regardless of whether the actual hours worked in a given week were more or less than 50.

Kim Tran contradicted Poirier’s account. She testified that he never submitted timesheets to her and that, from the outset, he was engaged as a night foreman under a contract specifying night supervision. She acknowledged that Poirier raised the issue of overtime, but she said she explicitly told him that he would not be paid overtime because he was a subcontractor on a 50-hour-per-week fixed-fee contract, not an hourly-paid employee. She did, however, say she would discuss his concerns with Michel Gauthier.

Both Michel and Éric Gauthier testified consistently. Éric confirmed that before he went on leave, the operational structure was clear: Ms. Tran and Michel shared day and evening duties, while Poirier had been hired specifically to supervise the night operations. In his view, Poirier did not accumulate two posts; he held one post (night supervision) that was remunerated at a flat weekly rate of 1 350 $, whether Poirier worked 20 or 50 hours in a week.

Michel Gauthier stated that the contract with Les Entreprises Patrick Poirier inc. designated the company as a subcontractor, remunerated on a weekly basis, and that there was no provision for overtime. However, when Ms. Tran reported that Poirier believed he had done some extra hours during Éric’s absence, Michel agreed “to be nice” to offer some additional compensation in the form of vacation pay rather than recognizing a right to overtime. Following this decision, Ms. Tran arranged payments corresponding to three weeks and two days of what were labelled vacation pay, issued by way of three invoices: 969033, 969038, and 969025, each for 1 625 $. A letter dated 27 June 2023, signed by Michel Gauthier, confirmed these payments.

Poirier later acknowledged receipt of the 27 June letter in an 15 August 2023 correspondence, in which he advised Michel that since his full claim had not been settled, he intended to bring the matter to the CNESST. However, because Les Entreprises Patrick Poirier inc. is a corporation and not an individual “salarié,” the CNESST declined to represent it. The present small claims action then followed, in which the plaintiff company pursued the combined amount of its two invoices totalling 11 125,52 $.

The reconventional demand

The defendant attempted to file a reconventional demand, claiming reimbursement of 3 250 $ allegedly paid in error to the plaintiff. The clerk refused to accept this reconventional claim for lack of justification, though the file confirms that the defendant did pay the required court fees. In the hearing, the defendant maintained that the additional sums paid to the plaintiff were erroneous and should be recovered.

The court addressed this reconventional aspect to clarify that, even if the reconventional demand had been formally accepted, it would not have succeeded on the merits, because the payments at issue formed part of a negotiated settlement (transaction) between the parties.

Legal characterization of the relationship and contractual terms

The court first determined the nature of the underlying contract. It found that there was a valid and binding contract between Les Entreprises Patrick Poirier inc. and Les Entreprises Michel Gauthier. The plaintiff company was engaged as a subcontractor, in the capacity of an independent contractor (“travailleur autonome”) rather than a salaried employee. The contract provided for a fixed weekly remuneration of 1 350 $ and contained no clause providing for hourly pay, overtime, or vacation pay.

Given this framework, the legal starting point was that Poirier’s company was compensated by a lump sum each week for assuming responsibility for night supervision, regardless of the actual hours worked. There was no contractual promise to pay additional amounts for weeks in which the actual hours exceeded 50, nor any clause guaranteeing statutory overtime or vacation benefits that apply to employees.

Assessment of the evidence and credibility

The central evidentiary conflict concerned Poirier’s assertion that he had submitted weekly timesheets to Ms. Tran and that she had committed, on behalf of the defendant, to pay overtime once Éric returned. On this point, Ms. Tran and Michel Gauthier “catégoriquement” contradicted Poirier’s version of events. The court also placed weight on the consistent evidence of Éric Gauthier, who confirmed that Poirier was always intended to be a night foreman remunerated by a fixed weekly salary, and that he never held two posts.

The court ultimately found the testimony of the defendant’s witnesses—Ms. Tran, Michel Gauthier, and Éric Gauthier—credible and corroborative. Their evidence supported the conclusion that the plaintiff’s company was never promised overtime and that no contractual right to overtime or vacation was created beyond the fixed weekly remuneration. Poirier’s evidence regarding the timesheets and alleged promises of overtime payment was not accepted.

The alleged settlement and the concept of transaction

The court then analyzed the legal significance of the additional payments made to the plaintiff in the form of “vacation” compensation. After hearing Michel Gauthier’s testimony that he understood Poirier might have worked some extra hours during Éric’s absence and that he therefore instructed Ms. Tran to pay Poirier some vacation time “to be nice” and bring the matter to a close, the court concluded that these payments formed part of a negotiated settlement.

Ms. Tran explained that she communicated this proposal to Poirier and subsequently transferred approximately 4 000 $ to Les Entreprises Patrick Poirier inc.’s account, which the plaintiff accepted. On this basis, the court held that the parties had entered into a transaction within the meaning of articles 2631 and following of the Civil Code of Québec. A transaction is a contract whereby the parties settle an existing dispute or prevent a potential dispute by making mutual concessions. Here, the defendant did not concede liability for overtime; instead, it agreed to pay a discretionary amount characterized as vacation pay in order to settle the plaintiff’s demands arising from the alleged extra hours.

The court concluded that this transaction settled the issue of overtime and that the plaintiff, having accepted the negotiated payments, could not later successfully claim further sums for the same alleged overtime.

Effect on the reconventional claim

Regarding the defendant’s attempt to recover part of the sums paid to the plaintiff, the court emphasized that the same transaction barred any effort to characterize those payments as made “by error.” Since the payments were the product of a deliberate agreement aimed at resolving the dispute over extra hours, the defendant could not plausibly claim that they were erroneously made. Therefore, even if the reconventional demand had been procedurally accepted by the clerk, it would have been dismissed on the merits for the same reason: the existence of a valid transaction settling the matter.

Outcome

In light of the contractual characterization, the absence of any contractual provision for hourly pay or overtime, the court’s preference for the credibility of the defendant’s witnesses, and the finding that a binding transaction had been concluded through the additional “vacation” payments, the court held that the plaintiff’s claim for unpaid overtime was unfounded. The court found that Les Entreprises Patrick Poirier inc., as an independent subcontractor, had no right under the contract to further overtime payments beyond the agreed weekly fee and the sums already paid pursuant to the settlement.

Accordingly, the Court of Québec (Small Claims Division) dismissed the introductory demand of Les Entreprises Patrick Poirier inc. in its entirety, with costs. The reconventional claim advanced by Les Entreprises Michel Gauthier was not accepted procedurally and, in any event, would have failed substantively due to the existence of the transaction. As a result, the successful party is Les Entreprises Michel Gauthier. No monetary judgment was ordered in its favour, only costs were awarded, and the exact amount of those costs cannot be determined from the decision.