Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Ji Min Li claimed $5,945.82 in unpaid vacation pay from his former employer, NDEX Systèmes inc., following his departure on 28 March 2023.
• Central to the dispute was whether the one-year prescription period under the Act respecting labour standards (L.n.t.) barred claims for vacation pay accrued in 2020 and 2021.
• By filing a complaint with the CNESST, Li was found to have elected his forum and the prescription regime governing it, limiting recovery to the period from 1 January 2022 to 28 March 2023.
• Prior to this lawsuit, the CNESST investigation resulted in NDE paying Li $6,819.98 in February 2024, covering unpaid vacation pay and a termination notice indemnity.
• Evidentiary weaknesses undermined Li's claim: his multiple inconsistent calculations and the finance director's email were deemed unreliable, as she lacked complete information about his vacation balance.
• Each party was ordered to bear its own legal costs.

Facts of the case

Ji Min Li was employed by NDEX Systèmes inc. (NDE) from 2018 until 28 March 2023, with an entitlement to vacation pay equivalent to 6% of his annual salary, as admitted by both parties. Upon his departure, Li received only $2,923.08 as vacation payment. Relying on an email from NDE's finance director indicating an outstanding balance of 36 vacation days worth $10,652.36, Li believed he was owed significantly more. After leaving NDE, he filed a complaint with the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST) seeking unpaid vacation pay and a termination notice indemnity. Following its investigation, the CNESST issued a demand letter on 24 January 2024, and NDE paid Li $6,819.98 in February 2024 — comprising $2,362.22 in vacation pay (covering 1 January 2022 to 28 March 2023) and $4,457.75 for the termination notice indemnity. Li then filed the present claim before the Small Claims Division of the Court of Quebec on 2 April 2024, seeking the remaining $5,634.53 plus 5% interest calculated between 13 April 2023 and 1 February 2024, for a total of $5,945.82.

Statutory and legal framework

The key legislative provision at issue was Article 115 of the Act respecting labour standards (L.n.t.), which provides that a civil action brought under the Act or its regulations prescribes in one year from each due date. The Court noted that this one-year prescription replaces the three-year prescription period under ordinary civil law (Article 2925 of the Civil Code of Québec), which applies only when a claim is grounded in a contract of employment rather than in the L.n.t. Also relevant was Article 560 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which exceptionally allows a judge of the Small Claims Division to raise prescription on the court's own initiative, even where the defendant has not pleaded it.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The Court first examined which prescription period applied. Because Li had filed his complaint with the CNESST — a recourse grounded in the L.n.t. — the Court found that he had chosen his forum and, consequently, the one-year prescription under Article 115 L.n.t. This meant that only vacation pay accruing within one year of the filing date could be claimed. Since the Small Claims demand was filed on 2 April 2024, amounts relating to 2020 and 2021 were prescribed. The Court also noted that even if the three-year civil prescription had applied, claims for 2020 would still have been time-barred. Li's argument that unpaid vacation amounts recorded in NDE's accounting books were imprescriptible was rejected: the mere presence of amounts in a company's books does not render them exempt from prescription.

On the merits, the Court found that Li had not met his burden of proof on the balance of probabilities. His multiple calculations were inconsistent with one another and contained erroneous supporting figures, which undermined their reliability. The finance director's email, on which Li heavily relied, was given no evidentiary weight because NDE credibly explained that vacation arrangements were made directly between employees and their immediate supervisors and were not automatically communicated to the finance director — meaning she lacked complete information when she sent the email in March 2023.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court dismissed Li's claim in its entirety. NDE, the defendant, was the successful party. No monetary amount was awarded to Li in these proceedings. The Court further ordered that each party bear its own legal costs, given the particular circumstances of the case.