Search by
Background and parties
Jean-Charles Boily, a lawyer by training and long-time manager, was hired in April 2019 as directeur général / chef de la direction of La Fabrique de la Paroisse Notre-Dame de Montréal, which administers, among other things, the Basilica Notre-Dame in Montréal. He was 57 years old at the time of dismissal and had been in the role a little over four years when his employment was terminated on 18 April 2023. The case is a civil action in wrongful dismissal before the Cour supérieure du Québec (2026 QCCS 601), where Boily sues his former employer, the Fabrique, for an allegedly insufficient indemnity in lieu of notice and for extra-contractual damages relating to the manner of his dismissal and the handling of his performance evaluation and potential bonus.
Employment contracts and evolution of remuneration
Boily was initially hired under a fixed-term contract dated 3 April 2019 (P-1), running from 8 April 2019 to 7 April 2020. P-1 provided an annual base salary of 150,000 $, a retirement payment of 25,000 $ and a maximum bonus of 25,000 $ tied to objectives agreed with the board. After a six-month probation period, the Fabrique could terminate “sans cause juste et suffisante” with a minimum of three months’ salary. Before P-1 expired, the parties negotiated a new contract to convert the relationship into an indefinite-term employment. On 24 February 2020, they signed contract P-2, negotiated mainly with board member Ted Di Giorgio, and formally signed by the board chair and parish priest, Miguel Castellanos. P-2 converted the mixed fixed/variable structure of P-1 into a largely fixed package: an annual salary of 183,000 $, an annual 27,000 $ retirement contribution, both indexed as for other directors, plus group insurance or reimbursement, five weeks of vacation (with incremental days up to six weeks), and other fringe benefits such as a health check-up, professional dues reimbursement and 17 weeks’ salary for long-term illness. Of particular importance, P-2 included a termination clause obliging the Fabrique, in the absence of serious cause, to provide “un préavis de départ d’un minimum de 3 mois du salaire en vigueur plus 1 mois additionnel par année de services.” At the time of dismissal, Boily’s annual salary had increased to 196,953.75 $ through a 2.5 % raise and a further 5 % increase, with parallel increases to his retirement contributions and a quantified value for insurance contributions, bringing his total annual compensation package to 229,841.25 $.
The “boni éventuel” clause and bonus expectations
Although P-2 folded the former contractual bonus into the fixed salary, the last paragraph of the contract still mentioned a potential discretionary bonus in the following terms: Boily was entitled to the enumerated fringe benefits, “[a]vec possibilité de discuter en temps opportun, d’un boni éventuel, mais à l’entière discrétion du conseil.” This language became a point of contention. Boily testified that, during negotiations, he had insisted he not be excluded from future bonuses if the Fabrique later set up a formal performance evaluation and bonus scheme for directors and managers. In his view, the “boni éventuel” clause preserved his eligibility when such a system came into force. Di Giorgio’s evidence differed: he stated that the employer originally wanted to preserve a significant variable component but reluctantly accepted Boily’s request to roll the bonus into fixed salary, and that the “boni éventuel” reference was added at Boily’s insistence, strictly as a discretionary possibility with no binding obligation to create or award any bonus. The court ultimately held it did not need to decide the exact legal effect of the bonus clause because Boily was not actually suing for payment of a bonus. However, it analysed the clause as context for his “abus de droit” claim and to understand the board’s discussions and misunderstandings about his entitlement. The judge emphasised that the wording “en temps opportun” and “à l’entière discrétion du conseil” gave the board wide latitude as to if and when discussions would occur, what criteria would apply, and whether a bonus would be granted in any given year. The court also noted that Boily had effectively placed his fixed remuneration almost at the top of the budget envelope the Fabrique was prepared to allocate, making it implausible that the employer simultaneously undertook a firm obligation to revisit bonuses each time bonuses were paid to other cadres. The negotiation history showed the Fabrique’s intent to avoid tying Boily’s conditions wholesale to those of other directors, except where expressly stipulated (e.g., insurance and indexation). Against that backdrop, the bonus clause was interpreted narrowly and, in case of doubt, in favour of the party assuming the obligation (the Fabrique) and against the drafter (Boily).
Performance evaluation framework and rollout of bonuses to cadres
In October 2022, the board considered “rémunération des cadres” and decided that a more formal evaluation process was required. It asked that an evaluation grid be prepared, that directors evaluate managers in their departments, and that Boily, as directeur général, evaluate the directors. The board also stated it would itself evaluate Boily. Minutes recorded that a budget envelope would be set and that any bonuses would be paid to eligible cadres based on the evaluations. Following these instructions, an evaluation grid was prepared and used in autumn 2022. The board spent roughly an hour at its 29 November 2022 meeting discussing evaluations and a proposal by the HR director for salary increases and bonuses. It then adopted a resolution authorising salary increases up to 5 % for eligible cadres effective 1 January 2023, and bonuses for eligible cadres linked to performance. During this meeting, Boily raised the issue of his own evaluation and bonus eligibility. A board member responded that he had no right to a bonus because his fixed salary already included one; Boily objected, pointing to the contractual “boni éventuel” language. He left the meeting with the impression that key board members had not read his contract and felt shaken by their apparent refusal to acknowledge the clause. The board then asked him to perform an improvised self-evaluation on the spot, with no form or criteria, and told him that his evaluation would be completed by the following meeting.
Tensions over evaluation and the December 2022 board meeting
At the 8 December 2022 board meeting, the first substantive agenda item was “Bonis aux cadres et augmentations salariales en 2023 – suite.” Castellanos immediately attempted to defer that discussion to the end of the meeting, but Boily insisted his evaluation be addressed first. An extended, and to Boily “absurd”, debate followed about when his evaluation should be discussed. The board members again told him he had no right to a bonus because it was already built into his salary, a position Di Giorgio now expressly endorsed. Boily reiterated his desire for a formal evaluation, both as a sign of respect and as a way to understand expectations and potentially receive a bonus. He was visibly upset and at one point stood up to leave the room, saying, “En passant, je ne démissionne pas”, prompting Castellanos and another board member to respond that if he left, they would interpret it as a resignation. He remained. The tone shifted when Di Giorgio acknowledged that there was indeed a bonus clause in P-2 but commented that he disliked the clause and that the Fabrique was “prise avec”. Castellanos remarked that the clause had been added at the last minute, which Boily perceived as an insinuation that he had tried to trap the employer, something he denied. The meeting then continued on other business. Afterward, Boily received no evaluation from the board. Evidence from Di Giorgio was that the board’s evaluation process had started in autumn 2022 and culminated in February 2023 with a decision to dismiss Boily. He said that in December it was already clear no bonus would be awarded to him and that concerns about his leadership were emerging, but that the evaluation exercise was not complete and required more reflection. Castellanos, in his prior examination, had instead testified that the board had already evaluated Boily before the last December 2022 meeting and had not communicated the result, without characterising it as preliminary. It was undisputed that Boily nonetheless received the maximum 5 % salary increase for 2023, higher than the previous year’s 2.5 %, underscoring the mixed signals he was receiving.
Events leading up to the dismissal
In early April 2023, about a week before the dismissal, Boily received a brief email from Castellanos instructing him, in his capacity as chief executive, to invite all directors to meet with the board on Tuesday 18 April at 3 p.m. at a specified address. Finding the request “inusitée” and unsettling, Boily asked for clarification and was told that the purpose was to “voir ensemble la situation actuelle de notre institution.” He complied but felt deeply embarrassed because the unusual invitation naturally triggered questions from the directors that he could not answer. Shortly thereafter, Castellanos called Boily. According to Boily, Castellanos adopted a casual tone, joking about the good weather. Boily, “excessivement nerveux,” directly asked whether his position was at stake. Castellanos answered “Non,” saying the meeting was to discuss the Fabrique’s affairs. Boily sensed he was not being told the truth. This account was not contradicted at trial and was not challenged in Castellanos’s pre-trial examination.
The dismissal meeting and manner of termination
Boily described 18 April 2023 as the most humiliating day of his career. The Fabrique’s cramped offices made it impossible to avoid colleagues: he crossed paths with the directors he had summoned to the meeting and told one of them, when asked what was happening, “On va donner un spectacle de mon congédiement.” Castellanos first ushered the directors into a conference room adjacent to his office, then called Boily into his office, where board members Di Giorgio and Marie-Félicité Gignac were also present. Castellanos read a short dismissal letter formally confirming that Boily’s employment ended that day and thanking him for his contribution and wishing him success in future projects. There was no discussion beyond the reading of this letter; Castellanos quickly left to meet the directors. No evidence was led as to what was said in that subsequent meeting. After he left, Gignac read a second letter offering contractual severance equal to 7.027 months of salary (3 months plus one month per year of service, calculated at 4 years and 10 days), plus accrued but unused vacation pay, “en règlement complet et final de toute réclamation.” Boily refused to sign. Gignac then escorted him out of the building and through the secured parking, where Boily believed maintenance staff from the Basilica saw him being walked out by a board member. He experienced this as a public and demeaning exit. In early May 2023, the Fabrique nevertheless paid him accrued vacation (21,967.82 $), the 7.027-month severance (115,332.46 $) and 8,605.86 $ for retirement contributions, without a release.
Post-dismissal unemployment and mitigation efforts
Following dismissal, Boily undertook extensive efforts to find new work. He applied to around sixty potential employers and secured about ten interviews. He reported that his age and seniority level made the process difficult, forcing him to lower expectations and apply for roles further afield from his recent duties and from his residence in Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville. He remained without employment income for twenty months, from April 2023 until January 2025, living on the severance received and substantial withdrawals from his RRSPs. The court noted that the 20-month unemployment period exceeded even the 18-month notice Boily was claiming and that the Fabrique did not challenge the adequacy of his mitigation efforts. Boily first accepted a lower-paid role as director general of FADOQ – Région Estrie from January to August 2025, a position that required him to reside away from his family during the week and paid significantly less than his remuneration at the Fabrique. He then became director general of Accueil Bonneau and its foundation in September 2025. Even this more suitable Montréal-based role did not restore him to his Fabrique compensation level.
Issues before the court
The court structured its analysis around five main questions: the length of reasonable notice (délai-congé) in the circumstances; the monetary value of the indemnity in lieu of that notice, taking into account all components of remuneration; whether the Fabrique committed a fault in the way it dismissed Boily and, if so, the quantum of moral damages; whether punitive damages were warranted under the Quebec Charter for an alleged intentional violation of Boily’s right to dignity and reputation; and whether there was a separate “abus de droit” related to the board’s handling and non-communication of Boily’s 2022 performance evaluation and associated possibility of a bonus.
Determination of reasonable notice (délai-congé)
On the first issue, the court reaffirmed that an employer may unilaterally terminate an indefinite-term employment contract without serious cause, provided it grants reasonable notice (délai-congé) or pays an indemnity in lieu, a rule of public order under articles 2091 and 2092 C.c.Q. The length of notice is determined case by case, considering a wide range of factors: the nature and level of the position, seniority, age, level of remuneration, recruitment circumstances, the difficulty for the employee to find comparable work, and whether the employee had warning that his job was in jeopardy. For higher-level employees, the court stressed that mechanistic rules such as “one month per year of service” cannot replace a contextual analysis, and that Quebec jurisprudence generally views 24 months as an exceptional maximum. Boily argued that 18 months were appropriate, given his age, top-of-pyramid role, and the proven difficulty in securing new employment. The Fabrique maintained that the contractual minimum—three months plus one per year of service, yielding 7.027 months—was generous by reference to case law and Boily’s own drafting of the clause as a seasoned lawyer. The judge rejected this argument, clarifying that the clause fixed only a minimum and that no employee can contract out of reasonable notice, even if he personally viewed the clause as adequate when signing. Applying the relevant factors, the court gave particular weight to: Boily’s age (57), which reduced his attractiveness on the executive labour market; the seniority of the position as the organisation’s first executive reporting directly to the board; and the concrete evidence that despite diligent efforts, he needed more than 20 months to obtain another job. At the same time, the court noted that Boily’s prior job search when he joined the Fabrique (he had not been actively solicited away from a secure post), his reasonably versatile profile and his comparatively moderate executive compensation, by market standards, militated against going to the very high end of the notice spectrum. Comparing similar decisions, it fixed the reasonable notice at 13 months.
Calculation of the indemnity in lieu of notice
The indemnity in lieu of notice had to reflect not only base salary but all pecuniary benefits that would have accrued during the notice period, including retirement contributions and the monetary value of employer-funded insurance. With Boily’s total annual package assessed at 229,841.25 $, the monthly value was 19,153.44 $. Multiplied by 13 months, this produced a gross notice indemnity of 248,994.72 $. The court then deducted the 115,332.46 $ already paid by the Fabrique as contractual termination pay, leaving a residual amount of 133,662.26 $, rounded to 133,663 $ in the operative part of the judgment. Legal interest and the statutory additional indemnity were made payable from 7 May 2023, a date chosen 15 days after Boily’s formal demand letter, rather than the shorter period he had initially set.
Moral damages for abusive manner of dismissal
The court drew a clear distinction between the ordinary moral harm that inevitably accompanies job loss—non-compensable because dismissal without cause is permitted under article 2091 C.c.Q.—and additional moral harm arising from a separate, “characterised” fault in how the employer exercises its right to terminate. An employer must act in good faith, with honesty and consideration, and must not unnecessarily aggravate the normal trauma of losing one’s job. In Boily’s case, the court found a serious breach of these standards on two fronts. First, the Fabrique’s lack of transparency and delay between completing its evaluation and announcing the dismissal, coupled with what the court credited as false reassurance from Castellanos that Boily’s position was not in danger, amounted to an abuse of right. The board had finished its internal assessment of Boily by late 2022 or, at the latest, February 2023 and decided on dismissal, yet waited more than two months to inform him, justifying the delay only by a desire to have Di Giorgio physically present in Montréal—a reason the court found unreasonable in a world with easy videoconferencing, especially when Di Giorgio played no special role during the dismissal meeting itself. Second, the court condemned the choreography of the dismissal: summoning the directors and Boily at the same time, having the directors present in the adjoining room while Castellanos summarily read the dismissal letter, and then immediately escorting Boily out under the gaze of staff, when there was no evidence of misconduct justifying such abrupt measures. This, in the court’s view, was “brutale, cavalière et humiliante” and failed to “garder l’humain au cœur du processus.” Boily credibly testified to feeling humiliated and having his self-confidence shaken. On these facts, the judge concluded that the Fabrique had committed an abuse of right in the manner of dismissal and awarded the full 20,000 $ Boily claimed as moral damages, again with interest and statutory indemnity from 7 May 2023.
Rejection of punitive damages for alleged Charter violation
Boily also sought 10,000 $ in punitive (exemplary) damages under article 49 of the Quebec Charter, arguing that the public handling of his dismissal and the “spectacle” in front of directors and employees constituted an intentional and illicit infringement of his right to dignity, honour and reputation under article 4. The court reviewed the stringent test for punitive damages: there must be not only an illicit infringement of a protected right but also an intentional component, in the sense that the author either desired the harmful consequences to reputation and dignity or acted in full knowledge that those consequences were the immediate and highly probable result of its acts. The judge accepted that the Fabrique’s conduct was clumsy, inconsiderate and abusive in a civil-law sense, but held there was no proof that the Fabrique or its board intentionally sought to damage Boily’s reputation or that they appreciated, at the time, the likely reputational fallout of the way they proceeded. Di Giorgio’s testimony—that the directors’ simultaneous presence was meant to “control the message” and quickly inform them of the leadership change, that the use of Boily to send the invitations was intended to avoid arousing suspicion, and that the escort through the parking was explained by logistical constraints with an access card—was seen as evidence of poor judgment rather than explicit malice. The record was also silent on what was actually said to the directors in the post-dismissal meeting and on any concrete consequences for Boily’s reputation in the market. In the absence of clear proof of an “atteinte illicite et intentionnelle” to a Charter-protected right and of actual reputational damage, the claim for punitive damages was dismissed.
Claimed separate “abus de droit” for non-communication of evaluation and bonus
Finally, Boily sought an additional 15,000 $ for a distinct “abus de droit” centred on the board’s failure to complete and communicate his 2022 performance evaluation in a timely manner and its refusal to entertain discussions about a bonus. He argued that the board had “promised” in its October and November 2022 meetings to evaluate him and that it had a duty to share those results and consider him for an eventual bonus when other cadres were being evaluated for bonuses. The court rejected this as an independent cause of action. It held that the statements in the minutes concerning an intended evaluation were expressions of the board’s prerogative to supervise its chief executive, not contractual undertakings creating a separate legally enforceable right. The P-2 contract did not contain a formal evaluation mechanism nor any binding obligation to align Boily’s bonus treatment with that of other cadres; the “boni éventuel” language remained discretionary. The delays in evaluation and the absence of communication of results were therefore part and parcel of how the Fabrique exercised its right to terminate employment, and any unreasonableness on that front had already been taken into account in the moral-damages award. To grant additional damages under a separate heading of “abus de droit” for the same conduct would result in impermissible double recovery. This head of claim was therefore dismissed.
Disposition and overall outcome
In conclusion, the court partially granted Boily’s action. It found that the Fabrique lawfully terminated his indefinite-term employment without serious cause but failed to provide adequate reasonable notice and acted abusively in the manner of dismissal. It fixed reasonable notice at 13 months, ordered the Fabrique to pay a further 133,663 $ as indemnity in lieu of notice after crediting amounts already paid, and awarded 20,000 $ in moral damages for the humiliating and non-transparent way it handled the dismissal. Both sums carry legal interest and the statutory additional indemnity from 7 May 2023. The court dismissed Boily’s claims for punitive damages under the Quebec Charter and for a separate “abus de droit” arising from non-communication of his performance evaluation. Costs were awarded in Boily’s favour, but the exact monetary amount of costs and of interest and indemnity components cannot be determined from the judgment’s text. Overall, the successful party is Jean-Charles Boily, who obtains a total principal award of 153,663 $ plus interest, statutory indemnity and court costs in respect of his wrongful dismissal.
Download documents
Plaintiff
Defendant
Court
Quebec Superior CourtCase Number
500-17-125471-238Practice Area
Labour & Employment LawAmount
$ 153,663Winner
PlaintiffTrial Start Date