Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Alleged professional fault by a family physician/clinic for not issuing a medical note requested to support late filing before the Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT).
• Central evidentiary dispute over whether any clear, written and sufficiently precise request for a medical document was ever made to the clinic.
• Medical records showed no consultation or evaluation on the key date the plaintiff claimed was medically relevant, undermining his version of events.
• Prior CNESST and TAT decisions already found the worker’s complaints and revision requests inadmissible for lateness, with no medical justification ever invoked in those proceedings.
• No causal link established between the clinic’s handling of the medical note request and the loss of the plaintiff’s labour/administrative recourses.
• Additional complaints about intimidation, improper sharing of the medical file with lawyers, and failure to transfer the file to another doctor were unproven or legally unfounded.

Background and parties

The case arises from a small claims action before the Cour du Québec, Civil Chamber, Small Claims Division, in the district of Montréal. The plaintiff, Jean-Louis Erolph, sued Clinique médicale Laurier and his longtime family physician, Dr Normand Geoffroy, for 15,000 $ in damages, alleging professional fault. He claimed the clinic and the doctor failed to provide a document needed to support a late filing in proceedings before the Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT). The defendants denied any fault and argued that no causal link existed between their conduct and the plaintiff’s alleged losses.

Factual context and medical relationship

Erolph had been a patient of Dr Geoffroy for many years. In November 2022, the physician informed his patients, including the plaintiff, that he would retire for health reasons effective 31 March 2023 and that he would be professionally inactive following a major surgery. During this transition period, the plaintiff maintains that he and his social worker repeatedly contacted the clinic to obtain a document intended to be used as proof of good faith in the justice system, particularly to justify a late procedural step (“hors délai”) before the TAT. According to the plaintiff, despite many approaches to the doctor’s secretary during his absence, the clinic refused to cooperate in providing the requested medical note. He asserted that, as a matter of law, every patient can request a document related to their medical follow-up and that the clinic has a duty to respond as best it can; he sought 15,000 $ in damages for the alleged breach of this obligation.

Requests for a medical note and the clinic’s response

The clinic acknowledged that, on or around 28 September 2022, an administrative assistant received a verbal request from Erolph for a note, but described the request as vague and lacking detail. Because of the lack of clarity, the clinic asked that he reformulate his request in writing, which he allegedly refused or neglected to do. The plaintiff appeared to want a note describing his situation as of 23 January 2019. However, the medical file showed that he was neither seen nor evaluated on that date; rather, the records indicated that he cancelled an appointment scheduled for 22 January 2019 because he did not have his health-insurance card. In light of this, the doctor maintained that, without a clear written request and in the absence of a consultation on the date the plaintiff wished to have documented, the clinic could not responsibly produce the kind of note the plaintiff sought.

Procedural history before CNESST and the TAT

The dispute with the clinic is rooted in earlier labour and administrative proceedings. On 19 September 2019, Erolph filed a complaint with the CNESST (Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail) alleging an illegal dismissal said to have occurred on 24 February 2019 (elsewhere referenced as 24 January 2019). On 9 April 2020, the CNESST found the complaint inadmissible because it had been filed outside the 30-day statutory delay from the date of dismissal. After reviewing the evidence and circumstances, the CNESST concluded the plaintiff had not shown a “reasonable ground” under article 352 of the LATMP and therefore could not be relieved from the consequences of missing the deadline. The plaintiff then filed a proceeding before the TAT on 29 July 2020 to contest that decision. The hearing was held on 18 June 2021, and on 28 June 2021 the TAT dismissed his demand as inadmissible because he had not respected the 45-day deadline to apply to the TAT and had provided no valid justification for an extension. Nearly a year later, on 2 June 2022, he filed a motion for review of the TAT’s 28 June 2021 decision. That review motion was heard on 28 November 2022. In his later small claims demand, and in a formal demand letter sent 14 February 2023, Erolph alleged that his difficulties in obtaining a medical note from the clinic in November 2022 prevented him from justifying the late filing of his TAT review request. However, in its 1 December 2022 decision on review, the TAT again found that the review motion was filed after the 30-day delay, that there was no valid justification to extend the delay, and it dismissed the review. Importantly, the TAT decision on review did not mention any medical reason offered for the delay, nor any medical certificate or note in support. The earlier CNESST and TAT decisions of 2020 and 2021 also contained no reference to medical justifications. This evidentiary gap proved central to the assessment of causation in the civil action against the clinic.

Allegations of intimidation and improper use of medical file

Beyond the issue of the missing note, Erolph complained that lawyers assisting the clinic tried to intimidate him, allegedly by sending him a letter. However, none of the documents he filed with the Court contained or evidenced such a letter. In fact, the communications in the record between the clinic’s counsel and the plaintiff were initiated by the plaintiff himself, who sought a copy of his medical file in preparation for trial after a case-management conference on 17 June 2025. The plaintiff also argued that the clinic should not have consulted lawyers or shared his medical file with them without his prior authorization. The Court recalled that, while lawyers cannot represent parties in person at small claims hearings (except in narrowly defined circumstances), both natural and legal persons are expressly allowed to consult counsel under article 542 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The exclusion in small claims applies to advocacy and representation at the hearing, not to behind-the-scenes legal advice. As for the transmission of his medical file to the clinic’s lawyers, the Court referred to clear jurisprudence establishing that when a patient sues a physician, the doctor may transmit a copy of the medical record to his or her lawyers, and that such conduct is not blameworthy. An attorney has the right—and often the duty—to review all relevant information, including confidential and personal medical data, in order to properly advise and represent a client. Those documents remain protected by professional secrecy; there was no evidence here that the lawyers had misused or improperly disclosed the information.

Complaint about transfer of the medical file

Erolph further faulted the clinic for not arranging the transfer of his medical file to another physician during Dr Geoffroy’s prolonged absence for health reasons, arguing that his ongoing care had been compromised. The evidence instead showed that the clinic had put a system in place during the doctor’s absence so that patients requiring medical evaluation could, upon request, be referred to another doctor. The plaintiff’s own medical record did not reveal any instance during this period where he reported a health problem requiring evaluation or asked that his file be transferred to another physician. This undercut his claim that the clinic had failed in a concrete duty toward him in relation to continuity of care.

Applicable legal principles on civil liability and burden of proof

The Court reiterated the basic rules on burden of proof and civil liability under the Civil Code of Québec. Articles 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q. require a plaintiff to prove the facts supporting the asserted right and to do so on a preponderance of evidence, such that the existence of the alleged fact is more probable than its non-existence. In a damages action, the plaintiff must establish three elements: a fault by the defendant, damage suffered, and a causal link between the fault and the damage. Article 1457 C.c.Q. imposes on every person a duty to follow the rules of conduct appropriate to the circumstances, usages or law so as not to cause injury to others; if a person of discernment breaches this duty, they are responsible for the prejudice caused and must repair it, whether bodily, moral or material. The entire analysis of the medical note issue, the alleged intimidation, the sharing of the medical file, and the non-transfer of the file to another doctor was structured around these principles.

Assessment of fault, causation and damages

On the factual record, the Court found that the plaintiff had not met his burden of proof. As to fault, it accepted that the clinic received an imprecise verbal request and reasonably insisted on a written, clarified demand before issuing a potentially significant medico-legal document. It also accepted that there was no visit or evaluation on 23 January 2019 to support the specific retroactive attestation the plaintiff appeared to seek. Regarding causation, the sequence of CNESST and TAT decisions demonstrated that his complaints and review efforts were rejected because of repeated non-compliance with statutory delays, and not because of any failure by the clinic to provide supporting medical documents. The administrative bodies never received nor discussed any medical justification for lateness, and the plaintiff could not show that a note from Dr Geoffroy (or any other doctor in the clinic) would have altered those outcomes. The additional allegations of intimidation, unauthorized disclosure of medical information, and failure to transfer the file were either unsupported by evidence or inconsistent with the legal framework that allows parties to consult lawyers and share necessary information with them. The Court therefore concluded that no actionable fault had been proven, and in any event, there was no demonstrated causal link between the clinic’s conduct and the financial or procedural losses the plaintiff claimed.

Outcome and monetary consequences

In the result, the Court held that Jean-Louis Erolph had not established, on a balance of probabilities, that Clinique médicale Laurier and Dr Normand Geoffroy committed a civil fault, nor that any of their acts or omissions caused the dismissal of his CNESST and TAT proceedings or any compensable injury. The small claims action was dismissed in its entirety. The successful party was the defendant, Clinique médicale Laurier / Dr Normand Geoffroy, and the only monetary consequence ordered was that the plaintiff pay 346 $ in judicial costs (the court stamp) in their favor; no damages or other amounts were awarded to the plaintiff.