Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Central employment law issues concern dismissal without just and sufficient cause, refused reinstatement, and the employer’s insistence on psychometric testing as a condition of continued employment.
• The status and enforcement of decisions of the Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT) are key, including reinstatement orders, an indemnity decision, and the TAT’s express reservation of jurisdiction over implementation disputes.
• A prior Superior Court judgment on an earlier contempt application gives rise to res judicata (chose jugée), barring a second, substantially identical contempt request regarding the same reinstatement order.
• The evidentiary assessment focuses on whether, assuming the facts as alleged, there is a prima facie violation of the TAT reinstatement order sufficient to justify a contempt citation, given that the employee was placed back on payroll and later dismissed again.
• Strict contempt of court standards apply, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt of both non-compliance with a filed order and intent, as well as recognition that contempt is an exceptional, penal-like remedy.
• The Court concludes that ongoing disagreement about the modalities of reinstatement and psychometric testing should have been addressed before the TAT, not via contempt, and therefore dismisses the application with costs against the employee.

Background and employment relationship

Mr. Marcel Abdallah worked as Director of Construction Projects for the Office municipal d’habitation de Kativik, now designated as the Office d’habitation du Nunavik (OHN). On 19 February 2016, the employer terminated his employment. He alleged that he had suffered psychological harassment, that he had been the victim of a disguised dismissal, and that his dismissal was without just and sufficient cause. To challenge these measures, he filed three complaints before the Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT): one for psychological harassment, one for disguised dismissal, and one for dismissal without just and sufficient cause.

Before the dismissal, the employer had removed several important duties from Mr. Abdallah, including responsibility for the RAM program for 2016, and required him to undergo a series of psychometric tests with an industrial psychologist. The employer viewed this as part of a process of redefining his functions in light of operational changes and a difficult work climate. According to the TAT’s later findings, the workplace was characterized by ongoing conflicts between Mr. Abdallah and other employees, and the employer considered psychological assessment necessary to better align his responsibilities with his aptitudes and to address persistent labour-relations problems. Mr. Abdallah refused to undergo the full battery of tests, even after being informed by the employer that the testing was not optional.

The TAT’s 2020 decision on harassment, disguised dismissal and unjust dismissal

In a decision dated 20 January 2020, notified to the OHN on 21 January 2020, the TAT disposed of the three complaints. It first rejected the complaint for psychological harassment. The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of several tasks and the transfer of responsibility for the RAM program in 2016 did not constitute vexatious conduct or an unreasonable exercise of management rights, when viewed in the context of employee workload, new internal functions, and Mr. Abdallah’s management style. The employer’s demand that he submit to psychometric testing was also found not to be harassing; rather, the TAT accepted that the employer wished to redefine his functions and assign responsibilities more closely matched to his skills, while attempting to solve a chronic conflict-ridden work environment under his supervision.

The disguised dismissal complaint met the same fate. The TAT concluded that the partial removal of his tasks fell within the employer’s right of direction and was driven by operational difficulties and a broader project to reformulate his role. The psychometric tests were part of this redesign process, intended to assist in identifying suitable duties rather than to force him out.

However, the TAT upheld the complaint for dismissal without just and sufficient cause. It found that the employer had dismissed Mr. Abdallah because he deliberately refused to obey the order of his superior to attend the industrial psychologist’s appointment and complete a series of psychometric tests. This refusal, in the TAT’s view, constituted insubordination that warranted disciplinary action but did not justify outright dismissal in the circumstances. The Tribunal therefore annulled the dismissal, substituted a two-month unpaid suspension, and ordered that he be reinstated in his job with all rights and privileges within eight days of notification of the decision. The TAT emphasized that he was the principal manager of a service with an unhealthy work climate, that he bore responsibility to remedy it, that he tended to see himself as a victim and blame colleagues, and that his refusal to cooperate with the psychometric evaluation was unjustified. It underscored that the suspension was meant to impress upon him that he had to change his behaviour, failing which his employment relationship would be in jeopardy.

Judicial review efforts and the employer’s implementation steps

On 29 January 2020, shortly after the TAT’s decision, the OHN sought judicial review in the Superior Court and requested a stay of execution. The stay was refused in a judgment of 4 March 2020, and the employer ultimately discontinued the judicial review on 1 June 2020.

Meanwhile, by letter of 10 March 2020, the employer advised Mr. Abdallah’s counsel that he was placed back on the payroll effective 9 March 2020 and instructed him to attend the offices of the employer’s consultants in Montréal on 13 March 2020 to complete the psychometric tests that had been required before his first dismissal. He complied in part by taking four of the nine scheduled tests but refused to complete the remaining ones. The parties exchanged correspondence about the conditions of his return to work, including the testing and the specific functions he would perform upon resuming his duties. Despite these exchanges, they did not reach agreement on the modalities of his reinstatement.

Throughout this period, Mr. Abdallah continued to receive his salary, even though he had not actually returned to the North to perform his functions. At the time of a later TAT decision in 2022, he was still being paid without having been fully physically reinstated to his previous workplace.

The 2022 TAT decision on indemnity and continuing difficulties

On 9 August 2022, the TAT rendered a further decision fixing the indemnity payable to Mr. Abdallah following the earlier finding that he had been dismissed without just and sufficient cause. In that second decision, the Tribunal noted that, although the employer had resumed paying his salary from 9 March 2020 and had not fully reinstated him in his actual employment, it was not necessary to reissue a reinstatement order. The reinstatement ordered in January 2020 remained in force and executory, and the obligation to comply with it persisted.

The TAT also set out an overview of the events that had occurred since the 2020 decision, including his partial compliance with psychometric testing, the parties’ exchanges over reinstatement conditions, and the fact that he was still not back in his position in the North. Importantly, in its 2020 and 2022 decisions, the TAT reserved its jurisdiction to resolve any difficulties arising from the implementation of the reinstatement order, signalling that disputes about how reinstatement should occur could be brought back before it.

The second dismissal in 2023 and the related complaint

On 17 February 2023, the OHN sent a letter to Mr. Abdallah informing him of a second dismissal. This second termination was based on his continued failure to complete the psychometric tests, despite multiple requests and extensions from the employer. In response, he filed a new complaint challenging this second dismissal before the competent division of the Tribunal. A hearing was scheduled for June 2024, but he later withdrew (desisted from) that complaint in 2025, leaving the second dismissal standing without adjudication on its merits.

The first contempt application and the 2023 Superior Court judgment

Before the present judgment, Mr. Abdallah had already brought an earlier application before the Superior Court seeking an order citing the OHN for contempt of court (outrage au tribunal) in relation to the TAT’s 20–21 January 2020 reinstatement decision. In a judgment dated 27 May 2023, the Superior Court dismissed that application.

In that earlier judgment, the Court outlined the legal framework for contempt in the context of administrative tribunal orders. It noted that contempt is an exceptional, penal-like remedy designed to protect the administration of justice. The Court must first look at the order allegedly breached, ensure that no more suitable remedies exist, and then determine, on a prima facie basis and taking the alleged facts as true, whether the supposed violation could justify a contempt conviction. To obtain an actual finding of contempt, the applicant must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, both the non-compliance with the order and the intention to act in defiance of it.

The Court also drew on section 51 of the Act instituting the TAT, which provides that TAT decisions are binding and executable, that forced execution occurs through filing the decision in the Superior Court registry, and that a person who knowingly violates an order to do or not do something, once filed, may be found in contempt and punished by fine or imprisonment. In the 2023 judgment, the Court observed that the evidence indicated that Mr. Abdallah had been put back on the payroll as of 9 March 2020, that the employer continued to require psychometric testing, that he had taken only part of the tests, and that a second dismissal had been imposed on 17 February 2023 for failing to complete them. Given the existence of the second dismissal and his complaint challenging it, the Court concluded that the alleged breaches of the TAT reinstatement order did not, in those circumstances, support a contempt finding. It also pointed out that there was insufficient prima facie proof that the employer had actual knowledge that the TAT’s decision had been filed with the Superior Court and thus carried the same force as a Superior Court judgment for contempt purposes.

The second contempt application and the plea of res judicata

In the current proceeding (2025 QCCS 4415), Mr. Abdallah once again seeks an order requiring the OHN to appear on an accusation of contempt of court for allegedly refusing to comply with the TAT’s reinstatement order and for imposing what he characterizes as unjustified conditions on his reinstatement, notably the psychometric tests. The application was served on 15 September 2025, and a hearing took place on 14 November 2025, where both parties argued the preliminary question of whether the OHN should be cited for contempt.

The employer raised several defences. It argued that the matter was barred by res judicata (chose jugée) under article 2848 of the Civil Code of Québec, because the same issue had been resolved in the 27 May 2023 judgment. It also submitted that the application was late and that the wrong procedural vehicle was used, since the TAT had explicitly reserved jurisdiction to address implementation difficulties associated with its reinstatement orders.

The Superior Court accepted the res judicata argument. It found identity of parties (Mr. Abdallah and the OHN), identity of cause (alleged failure to respect the TAT’s reinstatement order), and identity of object (a request for a contempt citation). The earlier 2023 judgment had already dismissed a contempt application based on the same factual matrix—namely, the employer’s alleged failure to reinstate him and its insistence on psychometric testing leading to a second dismissal. The only material change since 2023 was that he had desisted from challenging the second dismissal. For the Court, this difference did not reopen the contempt question, because the prior judgment rested primarily on the existence of the second dismissal and the resulting inference that he had, at least in some sense, been reinstated, and on the broader conclusion that contempt was not an appropriate vehicle given the nature of the dispute.

Assessment of the psychometric testing condition and proper recourse

In his new application, Mr. Abdallah maintained that he had never been truly reinstated after the first dismissal and that the second dismissal was invalid because, in his view, the employer had never complied with the original reinstatement order. He argued that the employer used the psychometric testing requirement and other conditions as obstacles to prevent his effective return to work.

The Court addressed this argument by returning to the TAT’s 2020 decision. It recalled that the TAT had already examined the testing requirement and had concluded that Mr. Abdallah’s refusal to attend the appointment with the industrial psychologist and undergo the psychometric tests, without valid reason, constituted insubordination. The Tribunal had expressly stated that this insubordination warranted sanction and had used the two-month unpaid suspension both as a penalty and as a warning that failure to change his behaviour would put his employment in peril. From this perspective, the psychometric testing could not be treated as a novel or illegitimate condition erected by the employer after the fact; it was a remedial measure that had already been examined and effectively endorsed in the TAT’s original decision.

The evidence before the Superior Court, taken at face value, showed a long-running disagreement about the modalities of reinstatement, including the scope of duties and the completion of the psychometric tests, rather than a clear, deliberate refusal by the employer to comply with a filed court order. The Court noted that, in its 2020 and 2022 decisions, the TAT had reserved jurisdiction precisely to resolve implementation difficulties relating to reinstatement. Consequently, the more appropriate avenue for Mr. Abdallah would have been to return to the TAT for guidance or enforcement, rather than seeking to invoke the extraordinary remedy of contempt before the Superior Court.

Final decision, successful party and financial outcome

Applying the stringent prima facie standard for authorizing a contempt citation, the Superior Court held that, even assuming the facts as alleged by Mr. Abdallah, the evidence did not disclose a violation of the TAT’s reinstatement order that could reasonably result in a contempt conviction. In light of the res judicata effect of the 27 May 2023 judgment and the nature of the continuing disagreement between the parties, the Court refused to issue an order citing the employer for contempt. It therefore dismissed the application for issuance of an order to appear on an accusation of outrage au tribunal. The Court awarded costs against Mr. Abdallah, making the Office d’habitation du Nunavik (formerly the Office municipal d’habitation de Kativik) the successful party in this Superior Court proceeding. The judgment does not specify the amount of costs, and while it refers to an indemnity fixed by the TAT in its 2022 decision, no monetary figure is reproduced in the text provided, so the total amount of any monetary awards, damages and costs in favour of the successful party cannot be determined from this document.