Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Union sought judicial review of an arbitration decision dismissing a grievance filed on behalf of Lucie Hamiaux, who was passed over for a permanent compliance officer position in favour of a less senior employee, Mathieu Veillette.
• Central to the dispute was whether Hamiaux possessed sufficient relevant experience under the collective agreement to qualify for the posting, even after the employer conducted a second, more generous evaluation.
• At issue was whether the arbitrator acted unreasonably by declining to address the union's argument regarding the unreliability of the employer's witnesses and irregularities surrounding Veillette's appointments.
• Both parties agreed the applicable standard of review was reasonableness, as established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.
• Procedural irregularities surrounding Veillette's appointment — including his failure of the case analysis test on two occasions and the absence of a required union agreement — were considered but ultimately held irrelevant to Hamiaux's qualification for the permanent role.
• Questions arose as to whether the arbitrator misapplied or reversed the burden of proof, which all parties had agreed fell on the employer to establish Hamiaux's lack of qualification.

Facts of the case

The Union des employés et employées de service, section locale 800, FTQ (the Union) filed a grievance on behalf of Lucie Hamiaux against her employer, the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs et des travailleuses du Québec (FTQ) (the Employer), after the Employer awarded the permanent position of compliance officer (Responsable de la conformité) to Mathieu Veillette rather than to Hamiaux, who held greater seniority. The position became available in October 2022 when its incumbent announced a retirement effective June 2023. It was posted from October 21 to 27, 2022, to allow for a knowledge transfer period running from November 2022 to June 2023. The role was classified as a professional category position requiring a bachelor's degree and four years of relevant experience. The primary responsibility of the compliance officer was to organize, coordinate, and support a team of employees.

Hamiaux ranked first on the seniority list among applicants but was not selected because the Employer determined she did not meet the relevant experience requirements. Isabelle Gendron, a human resources business advisor, conducted the candidate evaluation. Because Hamiaux did not hold a university degree, she was required to have a minimum of 11.7 years (140.4 months) of relevant experience. Of her nearly 19 years with the Employer, Gendron initially recognized only 3.629 years of relevant experience. Following the filing of the grievance, the Employer agreed to revisit its evaluation and, applying additional criteria, revised the figure upward to 8.365 years — still short of the minimum required. As the second candidate also did not qualify, Veillette's candidacy was considered. Since Veillette already occupied the temporary compliance officer role, he was deemed qualified for the permanent position without undergoing a formal evaluation, interview, or testing process. The permanent position was awarded to him on November 7, 2022. It came to light during cross-examination of Gendron that Veillette had failed the case analysis test on two occasions, and that the Employer was aware of this at the time of his appointment. No agreement had been reached with the Union as required under Article 5-3.14 of the collective agreement when the standard posting process is not followed.

Contractual clauses and collective agreement provisions at issue

Several provisions of the collective agreement were central to the dispute. Article 4.2.09 established that the burden of proving Hamiaux's lack of qualification rested with the Employer — a point acknowledged by all parties. Article 5.3.04 provided that the absence of a bachelor's degree must be compensated by nine additional years of relevant experience, setting the minimum threshold Hamiaux was required to meet. Article 5-3.14 required that any departure from the standard job-posting process be subject to an agreement with the Union — a step the Employer did not take when appointing Veillette to the permanent role.

Reasoning and analysis

The arbitrator, Me Jean-Yves Brière, Ad. E., dismissed the grievance on October 29, 2024. He adopted what he described as the more generous jurisprudential approach — one that permits arbitral intervention not only where an employer's decision is unreasonable, abusive, arbitrary, discriminatory, or made in bad faith, but also where it is tainted by an error serious enough to have materially affected the outcome and caused an injustice. Applying this framework, he focused his analysis exclusively on whether the Employer had correctly assessed Hamiaux's relevant experience, since that was the stated basis for rejecting her candidacy. He declined to examine the circumstances surrounding Veillette's temporary appointment, finding that the grievance concerned Hamiaux's rights and that no evidence established a causal link between Veillette's irregular appointment and the rejection of her application. He further noted that even had Veillette's candidacy been set aside, this would not have had the effect of qualifying Hamiaux for the position. Taking the most favourable evaluation of her experience, the arbitrator concluded that Hamiaux still fell short of the minimum experience requirements under the collective agreement.

On judicial review, the Superior Court examined two grounds raised by the Union. First, the Union argued that the arbitrator failed to address its primary argument concerning the unreliability of the Employer's witnesses, rendering the decision unreasonable. The Court rejected this, finding that the arbitrator's reasoning explained why witness credibility regarding Veillette's appointment was immaterial to the analysis. The Court cited Vavilov and Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62, both of which establish that a decision-maker is not required to address every argument raised, provided the overall reasons allow the reviewing court to understand the basis of the decision. Second, the Union argued that the arbitrator failed to conduct any analysis of whether an injustice had resulted from the Employer's errors. The Court disagreed, finding that the arbitrator had rendered a decision consistent with established arbitral jurisprudence — including Association internationale des machinistes et des travailleurs et travailleuses de l'aérospatiale, section locale 2468 c. Rolls-Royce Canada Limitée, 2024 CanLII 122016 (QC SAT) — and that the Employer had discharged its burden of proof through the testimony of three witnesses and several key exhibits.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Superior Court, per the Honourable Justice Sylvain Lussier, dismissed the application for judicial review on June 1, 2026, finding the arbitrator's decision reasonable in both its reasoning and outcome. The Employer, the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs et des travailleuses du Québec (FTQ), was the successful party. No monetary award, damages, or costs were ordered; the Court explicitly stated that the dismissal was rendered without costs, given that the matter involved an employee who had not been awarded a posting.