Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Philippe Pichet, former director of the Service de Police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM), sought judicial review of a Cour du Québec judgment that dismissed his constructive dismissal claim as prescribed.
• Central to the dispute was whether Pichet filed his challenge within the 30-day limitation period under article 89 of the Loi sur la police.
• Determining the start date of the prescriptive period was treated as a question of fact, not a pure question of law, making it reviewable only for manifest and determinative error.
• Evidence established that Pichet knew, as early as January 6, 2021, that the Ville de Montréal had no intention of reinstating him in a meaningful capacity.
• Judicial admissions made by Pichet in pleadings and cross-examination were found to confirm his awareness of the alleged constructive dismissal well before the 30-day window preceding his May 17, 2021 filing.
• The Superior Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the Cour du Québec's decision to be coherent, well-reasoned, and grounded in the evidence.

Facts of the case

Philippe Pichet served as director of the SPVM from August 2015 to June 18, 2018. His tenure coincided with a turbulent period in the SPVM's history, marked by two public inquiries — commonly referred to as the Chamberland and Bouchard reports — examining the protection of journalistic sources during police investigations and internal investigation practices at the SPVM. On November 30, 2017, Me Michel Bouchard submitted a report to the Minister of Public Security, Martin Coiteux, recommending measures to restore public confidence, including invoking article 275 of the Loi sur la police to address the climate of tension within the SPVM. On December 6, 2017, Minister Coiteux and Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante announced Pichet's suspension as SPVM director. Simultaneously, Martin Prud'homme, then director of the Sûreté du Québec, was appointed interim director of the SPVM and provisional administrator. On May 29, 2018, Pichet initiated proceedings under article 89 of the Loi sur la police against the Attorney General of Quebec, Martin Coiteux, and the Ville de Montréal, seeking reinstatement and alleging that his suspension amounted to a constructive dismissal. On June 18, 2018, Pichet entered into a transaction with the Ville de Montréal settling that dispute, maintaining his employment as a senior officer at the rank of inspector-chief and renouncing the position of director.

Contractual and statutory provisions at issue

The transaction of June 2018 was central to the dispute. Pichet later alleged that the Ville de Montréal never intended to honor the agreement — specifically, that it never genuinely reinstated him in the role of inspector-chief and instead maneuvered him toward retirement. The statutory framework turned on articles 87 and 89 of the Loi sur la police: article 87 allows a municipality to dismiss a police director by council resolution at an absolute majority, while article 89 permits a challenge to such a decision before a panel of three Cour du Québec judges, with the application to be filed within 30 days of service of the decision. Because Pichet's case involved an alleged constructive dismissal — not a formal council resolution — the courts had to determine when the 30-day period began to run. The applicable principle, drawn from Lamothe c. Ville de Montréal (2021 QCCQ 4088) and consistent with Tribunal administratif du travail jurisprudence, is that the period begins when the officer knew or ought to have known that his rights were not being respected.

Reasoning and analysis

Pichet filed his Contestation d'une destitution on May 17, 2021. The Cour du Québec, sitting as a panel of three judges after a 10-day hearing, concluded that Pichet knew well before April 17, 2021 — the date 30 days prior to his filing — that the Ville de Montréal had no intention of genuinely reinstating him. The court identified several key markers: Pichet's own lawyer had written to demand reinstatement as early as January 6, 2021; by February 2021, Pichet acknowledged in pleadings and cross-examination that he understood his reinstatement was not genuine; and by March 26, 2021, Pichet had already met with his counsel to draft the constructive dismissal proceedings. The Cour du Québec also rejected Pichet's argument that the prescriptive period should run from April 22, 2021 — the date his salary was reduced from the director's base rate of $260,835 to the inspector-chief rate of $166,131 — finding that the transaction of June 2018 entitled him only to the director's salary until he became eligible for retirement, not until his actual retirement. The court found that Pichet's use of April 22, 2021 as a start date was a tactical response to the 30-day limitation, not a genuine reflection of when he first knew of the alleged breach. His further argument that the prescriptive period should run from November 2023 — when he was notified of his radiation for disability — was dismissed as a confusion between the 30-day period under article 89 of the Loi sur la police and the two-year period for psychological harassment complaints under article 123.7 of the Loi sur les normes du travail.

On judicial review, the Superior Court considered the applicable standard of review. Pichet argued for the correctness standard, asserting that the limitation question was a pure question of law. The Superior Court disagreed, relying on Donaldson c. Autorité des marchés financiers (2020 QCCA 401), which confirms that while the choice of prescriptive regime is a question of law, determining the start date of prescription is a question of fact — or at most a mixed question — reviewable only for manifest and determinative error. The court further noted that the Cour du Québec's jurisdiction under article 89 of the Loi sur la police is final and that the Superior Court's role is supervisory, not appellate. It also confirmed, following the decision of Justice Enrico Forlini on April 1, 2026 (2026 QCCS 1276), that the judicial review hearing was to be conducted on the record before the Cour du Québec and could not take into account events occurring after that proceeding. The Vavilov framework (Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration) c. Vavilov, 2019 CSC 65) was applied to confirm that the reasonableness standard governs.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Superior Court, per Justice Sylvain Lussier, found the Cour du Québec's judgment to be clear, intelligible, grounded in the evidence, and solidly reasoned — well within the range of acceptable outcomes. The application for judicial review was dismissed. The Ville de Montréal was the successful party. No monetary award was granted; costs were expressly not ordered, with the court directing that each party bear its own costs given the circumstances of the file.