Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Limitation period for contractual and employment claims under article 2925 C.c.Q. is central, with the court finding the action prescribed.
• Email correspondence in early May 2021 serves as decisive evidence of when the plaintiff was informed of the contract’s termination.
• Characterization of the claim as a contractual/employment wrongful dismissal action brought it squarely under the three-year prescription regime.
• The court emphasizes that the prescription period runs from the date the employee is notified of termination, not from later consequences.
• Public-order nature of prescription rules (art. 2884 C.c.Q.) prevents any contractual modification of the three-year period.
• Failure to interrupt prescription by filing before expiry leads to outright dismissal of the claim, with no examination of the merits.

Facts of the case

Namdar Kabolinejad entered into a fixed-term employment contract with Ericsson Canada Inc. for an internship scheduled from 3 May 2021 to 27 August 2021. The position was intended to be performed in Canada, and the arrangement appears to have been organized through his educational institution, which was also informed of developments in the relationship. Shortly after the contract was concluded, Ericsson discovered that, for the intended period of employment, Mr. Kabolinejad would not be physically present in Canada but would instead be in the Middle East. This became a key factual element because the employer considered physical presence in Canada essential to the internship. Email correspondence starting on 4 May 2021 shows Ericsson informing Mr. Kabolinejad that they needed to reconsider the contract in light of his location and that if he would indeed be in the Middle East, they would have to void the agreement. Over the next several days, Ericsson reiterated that the decision came from the hiring manager, asked about arranging the return of the company laptop, and made clear that the internship could not proceed if he was travelling to the Middle East. On 11 May 2021, Ericsson sent further emails confirming that it would not be possible to continue the internship if he was travelling outside Canada, that they would need to void the contract, and that the internship had been offered on the basis it would be completed in Canada. Ericsson explained that there were tax implications and privacy law reasons preventing the internship from being carried out from abroad, and advised that the school had been made aware of the situation. By that date, the employer had clearly communicated that the internship would not go ahead and that the contract was effectively terminated.

Procedural history and nature of the claim

Mr. Kabolinejad later brought a claim in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec against Ericsson Canada Inc. and an individual defendant, Tenneil McNew Dutton. The essence of his action was a contractual and employment-related claim arising out of the termination of his internship, akin to a wrongful dismissal or termination without cause claim. The relevant contractual relationship was for a fixed period in 2021, but the judicial demand was not filed until 14 May 2024. Ericsson responded by bringing a preliminary application seeking dismissal of the claim on the basis that it was prescribed, arguing that the applicable limitation period had expired before the proceedings were instituted.

Legal framework on prescription

The court anchored its analysis in Québec’s law of extinctive prescription. Article 2925 of the Civil Code of Québec provides a three-year prescription period for actions to enforce personal rights or movable real rights where no other period is specified. The court noted that this three-year period applies both to contractual recourses seeking to enforce a personal right and specifically to claims for damages arising from dismissal without cause in the employment context. The judge relied on prior Court of Appeal jurisprudence to confirm that wrongful dismissal and similar employment-contract disputes fall squarely within this three-year prescription regime. The judgment also referred to article 2884 C.c.Q., which states that parties cannot validly agree to a prescription period different from that set by law, underscoring that the rules on prescription are of public order and cannot be contracted out of or altered by agreement. Finally, the court recalled that prescription can be interrupted by the filing of a judicial demand before the expiry of the period, in accordance with article 2892 C.c.Q., but only if that filing occurs within the prescribed time.

Determination of the starting point for prescription

A critical evidentiary issue was pinpointing when the prescription period began to run. The court held that the clock starts when the creditor—in this case, the employee—has knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the claim. Here, the decisive event was when Mr. Kabolinejad was informed of the termination of his internship contract. Based on the email trail, the judge concluded that, at the very latest, by 11 May 2021 Ericsson had unequivocally confirmed that the contract would be voided and that the internship would not proceed because of his being in the Middle East. This meant that all operative facts underlying a potential wrongful termination or contractual damages claim were known to the plaintiff by that date. Consequently, the three-year prescription period under article 2925 C.c.Q. began to run no later than 11 May 2021.

Application of the limitation period and absence of policy clauses

The court then compared the starting date of prescription with the date on which the action was filed. Since the judicial demand was instituted on 14 May 2024, it was filed after the expiry of the three-year period calculated from 11 May 2021. No act capable of interrupting prescription had occurred within those three years, and there was no basis in law for suspending or extending the period on the facts presented. Although Ericsson mentioned generally that tax implications and privacy law concerns made it impossible to maintain the internship outside Canada, the judgment does not refer to any specific policy document or contractual clause whose terms were analyzed or interpreted by the court. The legal reasoning stays focused on prescription rather than on the substantive validity of any internal policy or the merits of the termination decision itself.

Outcome, successful party, and monetary consequences

Having found that the limitation period had expired, the court concluded it had no choice but to grant Ericsson’s application and dismiss the claim. The judge allowed the request for dismissal, rejected Mr. Kabolinejad’s action, and ordered that this be done with court costs. As a result, Ericsson Canada Inc. and the co-defendant, Tenneil McNew Dutton, are the successful parties. No damages or other monetary award were granted to the plaintiff, and while the judgment awards “frais de justice” in favor of the defendants, it does not specify any exact dollar amount for those costs, so the precise monetary total ordered in their favor cannot be determined from the decision.