Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdictional conflict over whether the Cour du Québec (Small Claims) or the Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT) has exclusive authority to hear a duty of fair representation claim against a union.
• Characterisation of the plaintiff’s allegations as a complaint that the union breached its statutory duty under article 47.2 of the Code du travail through refusal or inadequate representation over many years.
• Reliance on the statutory complaint mechanism in articles 47.3 and 47.5 of the Code du travail, including the six-month delay and the remedial powers assigned specifically to the TAT.
• Use of prior case law (Nardone, D.B., Ulysse) to affirm that breaches of the union’s duty of fair representation generally fall within the TAT’s exclusive jurisdiction, with only narrow exceptions.
• Consideration and rejection of the “loss of all recourses” exception from Dupuis, because the plaintiff had in fact succeeded on her grievance before the TAT.
• Consequent dismissal of the small claims action, with the court declining jurisdiction and awarding costs against the plaintiff, leaving her free to pursue remedies before the competent administrative tribunal.

Factual background

Marie-Claude Grégoire was an employee of the Commission scolaire des Hautes-Rivières at the time of the events in dispute. Her employment relationship was governed by a collective agreement, and her interests as an employee were represented by the Syndicat de l’enseignement du Haut-Richelieu, the certified association for employees of the school board. Over a period of approximately 13 years, Ms. Grégoire alleges that she suffered psychological harassment, abuse of power and attacks on her reputation at the hands of her employer. She says these issues persisted for many years without being properly addressed.
A central part of her complaint concerns the conduct of the union itself. According to Ms. Grégoire, for about ten years the union either refused to represent her or represented her inadequately when she attempted to pursue grievances or other recourses related to the alleged harassment and abuse. Faced with what she perceived as a failure by the union to meet its obligations, she eventually turned to a private law firm between 2021 and 2023 to advise and represent her.
The legal fees charged by that firm totalled 13,335 dollars, and it is precisely this amount that she claimed from the union in the Small Claims Division of the Cour du Québec. In her view, the union’s breach of its duty of fair representation forced her to hire private counsel and incur these expenses; accordingly, she sought reimbursement from the union as damages.

Procedural context and positions of the parties

The proceedings were brought before the Cour du Québec, Division des petites créances, where Ms. Grégoire appeared as plaintiff and the Syndicat de l’enseignement du Haut-Richelieu as defendant. In its defence, the union denied any liability for the claimed legal fees, disputing that it had acted with negligence or bad faith in its dealings with her.
More fundamentally, the union challenged the jurisdiction of the Cour du Québec to hear the dispute. It argued that the matter, properly characterised, was a complaint for breach of the union’s duty of fair representation as set out in the Code du travail, and that the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate such complaints belongs to the Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT), not to the civil courts. This jurisdictional objection became the central question the judge had to determine.

Statutory framework and policy provisions at issue

At the core of the dispute lies article 47.2 of the Code du travail, which codifies the union’s duty of fair representation toward employees in the bargaining unit, whether or not they are union members. This provision requires an accredited association not to act in bad faith, arbitrarily, in a discriminatory manner, or with gross negligence toward the employees it represents. Ms. Grégoire’s allegations that the union refused or mishandled her representation over many years were treated by the court as invoking exactly this statutory duty.
Articles 47.3 and 47.5 of the Code du travail specify the procedural route and the time limits for complaints tied to this duty. Article 47.3 sets out that an employee who has been dismissed, disciplined, or who believes they have been the victim of psychological harassment and who believes the union has contravened article 47.2 must, if they wish to rely on that provision, file a written complaint and ask the competent tribunal to order that their claim be referred to arbitration. Article 47.5 provides that any complaint under article 47.2 must be made within six months of the employee becoming aware of the conduct complained of, and it empowers the tribunal to authorise the employee to submit the underlying claim to an arbitrator, with the union paying the costs incurred by the employee.
Another key statutory instrument is the Loi instituant le Tribunal administratif du travail. Article 5 of that law assigns to the TAT’s labour relations division the authority to hear and determine matters arising from the application of the Code du travail, subject to certain specific exceptions not applicable in this case. This allocation is understood in the case law as granting the TAT exclusive jurisdiction over duty of fair representation complaints under article 47.2.

Analysis of jurisdiction and reliance on case law

The judge began by recalling the plaintiff’s burden of proof on a balance of probabilities under articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec. However, the decision turns less on factual findings about the union’s conduct and more on the legal characterisation of the claim and the proper forum to hear it.
The court noted that Ms. Grégoire’s allegations fall squarely within the statutory framework of the union’s duty of fair representation: she complains of psychological harassment by the employer and alleges that the union either refused or mishandled her representation, including in relation to those harassment issues. These are exactly the types of situations contemplated by articles 47.2 and 47.3 of the Code du travail. As such, any recourse for breach of that duty must generally follow the statutory complaint mechanism and be brought before the TAT.
To support this conclusion, the judge referred to prior authorities. In Nardone c. Rouillard, the Cour du Québec held that the TAT is the sole forum competent to hear complaints concerning the duty of fair representation, even beyond the specific scenarios listed in article 47.3. Authors Coutu and Fontaine were cited to the effect that the creation of the TAT and the adoption of the Loi instituant le Tribunal administratif du travail merely confirmed that the administrative tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over implementation of the Code du travail, including the general duty of union representation under article 47.2.
The court also relied on the Québec Court of Appeal’s judgment in Syndicat des professionnelles et professionnels du gouvernement du Québec c. D.B. There, the Court of Appeal affirmed that any claim grounded in a contravention of article 47.2 belongs to the TAT (and, before its creation, the Commission des relations du travail), subject only to narrow exceptions. One such exception, drawn from the earlier decision in Dupuis, allows a civil action before “tribunaux de droit commun” when, because of the union’s fault, the employee has lost all possible recourses, including the statutory complaint under article 47.2, and has never had an opportunity to be heard on the merits.
The Superior Court’s reasoning in Ulysse c. Université de Montréal was also mentioned. In that case, the court concluded that all complaints against the union, which arose out of the employment relationship and the union’s representational duties (including allegations of harassment, leaves, expenses, disability insurance and dismissal), were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the TAT, particularly where the employee had already filed several complaints with that tribunal.

Application to Ms. Grégoire’s situation

In applying these principles, the judge observed that Ms. Grégoire’s claim against the union was not an independent civil liability action detached from the statutory labour framework. Rather, it was an attempt to recover private legal fees on the basis that the union breached its statutory duty of representation under article 47.2. That type of allegation, by its very nature, falls under the Code du travail and the mechanisms created by that statute, which in turn are entrusted to the TAT.
The court considered whether Ms. Grégoire might fall within the exceptional scenario recognised in Dupuis, in which an employee may turn to the ordinary civil courts if, owing to the union’s fault, they have lost all recourses and have never obtained a hearing on the substance of their underlying complaint. This exception, however, did not apply. The judge noted that she had in fact pursued a grievance and obtained a favourable outcome before the Tribunal administratif du travail, as recounted in paragraph 5 of her own claim. Because she had not been deprived of all recourses and had already succeeded before the appropriate labour tribunal on the underlying dispute, her situation did not justify departure from the TAT’s exclusive jurisdiction.
On that basis, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the action. The proper forum for any complaint that the union violated its duty of fair representation, including claims related to psychological harassment and related grievances, is the Tribunal administratif du travail pursuant to article 5 of the Loi instituant le Tribunal administratif du travail and the relevant provisions of the Code du travail.

Ruling and outcome

Having determined that the matter fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal administratif du travail, the Cour du Québec, sitting in Small Claims, formally declined jurisdiction. It therefore rejected Ms. Grégoire’s introductory application against the Syndicat de l’enseignement du Haut-Richelieu. Her substantive claims about the union’s alleged negligence, bad faith or other failings, and her request for reimbursement of 13,335 dollars in legal fees, were not adjudicated on their merits in this forum.
The judgment specifies that the dismissal is “with costs” against the plaintiff, meaning Ms. Grégoire is condemned to pay the legal costs associated with the proceedings. At the same time, the court expressly reserved her rights so that she may, if she wishes, bring her complaint before the competent tribunal, namely the Tribunal administratif du travail. In practical terms, the successful party in this case is the defendant union, which obtained dismissal of the action and an order for costs in its favour. However, the judgment does not state any precise monetary figure for those costs; the only quantified amount mentioned is the 13,335 dollars claimed by the plaintiff, which was not awarded. As a result, the exact total of the monetary award and costs in favour of the successful party cannot be determined from the text of this decision.