Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Characterization of the termination as an administrative dismissal at the end of a probationary period rather than an unjust or abusive dismissal.
• Assessment of whether the employer provided ongoing feedback and a fair opportunity to improve, despite the absence of a formal warning meeting.
• Evaluation of conflicting testimony regarding Ms. Svet’s performance, attitude toward criticism, and ability to meet the job’s legal and professional vocabulary requirements.
• Consideration of the allegation that criticism of her vocabulary amounted to prohibited discrimination based on language and ethnic origin.
• Application of the civil burden of proof under articles 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q. to determine whether unjust dismissal, bad faith or abuse by the employer was proven.
• Determination of the employer’s good faith and enhanced managerial discretion during probation, and resulting rejection of any claim for damages.

Factual background

Irina Svet was hired as an administrative assistant by the Ordre des psychologues du Québec to work within its Bureau du syndic. She had completed an Attestation d’études collégiales in administrative assistance in 2015 and had worked in similar roles, but she did not have prior legal experience. During the interview, she informed the selection committee, composed of two lawyers from the Bureau du syndic, that she lacked relevant legal background. Despite this, her application was retained and she was hired by letter dated 30 November 2023, with employment to begin on 8 January 2024. A three-month probationary period was clearly stipulated, and she was told that telework would not be appropriate during this initial period.
Shortly after starting, Ms. Svet had to be absent because of surgery. In her day-to-day work, she mainly collaborated with the lawyers of the Bureau du syndic. According to their testimony, her work contained frequent errors. They initially adopted an indulgent and supportive approach, recognizing her lack of legal experience. The lawyers described giving her regular feedback and guidance as part of a continuous learning process rather than through one isolated, formal warning meeting.
Tensions gradually emerged regarding how she received criticism and her interpersonal interactions. The lawyers recounted that she reacted defensively to feedback, including an instance where she blamed a lawyer for allegedly mis-noting a deadline and another where she disputed responsibility for an altered electronic document in a disciplinary file, asserting that another person had manipulated it and was lying. The syndic’s coordinator also noted that telework remained a central preoccupation for Ms. Svet and was aware of a tense exchange between her and one of the lawyers.
The director general of the Ordre further testified that, following an accidental triggering of the alarm system, she received from Ms. Svet a long, moralizing email, which contributed to the employer’s assessment of her attitude. In light of these incidents, the syndic, as her immediate superior, began compiling information to evaluate her performance and aptitudes as the end of the probationary period approached.

Termination of employment and letter of end of employment

On 9 April 2024, the director general and the syndic met with Ms. Svet to inform her that the Ordre was ending her probationary period and consequently terminating her employment as an administrative assistant within the Bureau du syndic. She was handed a letter of termination that listed the reasons, including performance issues, certain problematic attitudes, uneven work quality, and difficulties in acquiring the required skills.
At the meeting, she asked to know the sources of the information behind these criticisms and denied all the allegations. She did not challenge the manner in which the meeting was conducted, acknowledging that the representatives of the Ordre behaved respectfully and that the syndic even helped her carry her personal belongings to her car. She did, however, find the contents of the termination letter to be inaccurate and hurtful.
Following the dismissal, she received an indemnity in lieu of notice equal to two weeks of salary, which is double the minimum provided under section 82 of the Loi sur les normes du travail. She did not challenge the sufficiency of the notice or indemnity. Instead, she focused on the alleged injustice and harshness of the dismissal itself and the assertions made in the letter of end of employment.

Plaintiff’s allegations and claimed damages

Ms. Svet commenced a small-claims action before the Cour du Québec, claiming $15,000 in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages for what she characterized as unjust dismissal. She claimed that the expectations of her role were never clearly explained, that she was not given warnings or a reasonable period to adjust, and that the termination came as a shock. She asserted that she suffered anxiety, loss of self-esteem, and required medical follow-up as a result.
She further alleged that the employer’s criticisms of her vocabulary amounted to prohibited discrimination based on her language and ethnic origin. In her view, references to insufficient vocabulary were illegitimate and targeted her personal characteristics rather than genuine performance shortcomings. In a demand letter sent through her lawyer in May 2024, she described the termination letter as “brutal,” denied all reproaches, and accused the Ordre of abusive and bad-faith conduct.
In her testimony, she portrayed herself as motivated and engaged, explaining that she asked many questions out of a desire to learn and that colleagues had told her she learned quickly and had good reflexes. However, no other witness supported this self-assessment at trial.

Employer’s position and evidentiary record

The Ordre defended the action on the basis that this was an administrative dismissal at the end of a probationary period, grounded in performance and attitude issues. It argued that Ms. Svet did not meet the requirements of the position and that the employer, particularly during probation, enjoyed a broader management prerogative to end the employment where the trial was not conclusive.
Key witnesses for the Ordre, including the lawyers from the Bureau du syndic and the director general, gave consistent testimony about the frequency of errors, the ongoing feedback process, and Ms. Svet’s difficulty accepting criticism. They described a workplace climate in which they felt they were “walking on eggshells” around her and could not foresee meaningful improvement. With respect to vocabulary, the employer’s evidence emphasized not ethnic or linguistic bias, but the lack of legal and professional terminology needed to carry out tasks specific to a regulatory, disciplinary environment, combined with the repetition of similar mistakes.
The court found these witnesses to be credible and noted a certain restraint in their testimony, which nonetheless confirmed the main concerns leading to the termination. Their version of continuous feedback and a non-conclusive probation was preferred over Ms. Svet’s portrayal of a sudden, unexplained dismissal.

Legal framework: burden of proof and probationary dismissal

The court applied the general civil rules on the burden of proof under articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec. It was up to the plaintiff to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the unjust nature of her dismissal and the existence of the damages she claimed. The employer’s conduct, including any alleged bad faith or abuse of rights, also had to be demonstrated by the person asserting it.
In the context of an employment contract with a probationary period, the court referred to doctrine and case law recognizing that the employer has an enhanced latitude to terminate employment if, during probation, the employee’s performance or aptitudes appear deficient or incompatible with the requirements of the position. The concept of “motif sérieux” in article 2094 C.c.Q. is interpreted more flexibly at the probationary stage than after its expiry. Jurisprudence confirms that, provided the employer does not act in bad faith or abusively, it may dismiss a probationary employee who does not meet job standards or whose integration is unsatisfactory.
Good faith is presumed under article 2805 C.c.Q., and it is for the employee to rebut that presumption by proving bad faith or abuse. The court considered this framework central to assessing whether the dismissal was unjustified or discriminatory, or whether it remained within the permissible boundaries of an administrative termination at the close of probation.

Analysis of alleged discrimination and unjust dismissal

Regarding the claim of discrimination based on language and ethnic origin, the court rejected the suggestion that references to vocabulary were discriminatory. It accepted the employer’s explanation that the concerns related to Ms. Svet’s inadequate mastery of legal vocabulary and the terminology specific to the professional regulatory context, combined with persistent errors despite ongoing feedback. The evidence did not show that she was targeted because of her language or ethnicity; instead, the criticism focused on her ability to perform the role’s specialized tasks.
On the broader allegation of unjust dismissal and abuse of rights, the court found that the employer had conducted a continuous training and feedback process during the probationary period. Even though there was no single formal warning meeting with a documented performance-improvement plan, the ongoing exchanges were sufficient in the circumstances. The court concluded that her defensive posture toward criticism, interpersonal tensions, and inability to reach the required competence level justified the employer’s decision not to confirm her at the end of probation.
The court also noted that the manner of termination did not reveal bad faith. The meeting was respectful, she received an indemnity more generous than the statutory minimum, and there was no evidence of humiliation or malicious intent in the delivery of the termination letter. While naturally unpleasant for any employee, a detailed negative assessment culminating in dismissal does not in itself amount to abuse of rights.

Outcome and monetary consequences

In light of the evidence and the applicable legal principles, the court held that the dismissal was an administrative termination at the end of a probationary period, not an unjust, abusive or discriminatory dismissal. It found that Ms. Svet had not met her burden of proof to establish bad faith, abuse, or prohibited discrimination by the Ordre des psychologues du Québec. Consequently, her claim for $15,000 in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages was dismissed in its entirety.
The successful party in the proceedings was therefore the Ordre des psychologues du Québec. The court rejected the action and ordered Ms. Svet to pay judicial costs of $364, corresponding to the court fee associated with the filing of the defence. There was no damages award in her favour; instead, the only monetary order made was this $364 in costs payable to the Ordre, which represents the total monetary amount granted in favour of the successful party.