Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The central dispute concerns the interpretation of clause 7 of a letter of agreement ("Lettre d'entente 7") signed in March 2021, which governs entitlement to a transition pay introduced by the Ville de Montréal when it restructured its payroll calendar.
• Firefighters who were absent and not receiving salary at the time of the payroll change were excluded by the Ville from receiving the transition pay, prompting the Association to file a grievance.
• An arbitrator's decision dated June 4, 2024 upheld the Ville's interpretation, finding that only firefighters actively at work and receiving salary at the time of the change were entitled to the transition pay.
• Judicial review of the arbitral decision was sought by the Association des pompiers de Montréal inc. (A.I.P., section locale 125) on June 28, 2024, on the ground that the decision was unreasonable.
• Reasonableness was the applicable standard of review, requiring the court to assess whether the arbitrator's decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible.
• Two factual errors were alleged against the arbitrator — one regarding the date of the last advance pay, and another concerning the inclusion of workers' compensation recipients — but neither was found to affect the arbitrator's ultimate conclusion.

Facts of the case

The Ville de Montréal decided to replace its payroll system and restructure its pay schedule, shifting from advance pay to pay based on hours already worked. Before the change, firefighters were paid in advance, which generated numerous corrections and adjustments at the time of each payroll deposit. To address this, the Ville delayed pay disbursements by two weeks relative to the original pay period. This shift created a four-week gap between two consecutive pays — double the usual two-week interval — for firefighters affected by the transition.

To bridge this gap and avoid a pay interruption, the Ville introduced a transition pay (paie de transition), described as an advance (avance) of one regular pay, to be repaid without interest by the employee upon leaving the Ville's employ. The change was presented to the Association on February 12, 2021, using an explanatory document. In March 2021, the parties signed Lettre d'entente 7, formalizing the modification to the pay calendar. On October 5, 2021, the Ville issued an administrative directive clarifying that firefighters not receiving salary at the last advance pay would not be entitled to the transition pay.

Contractual clause at issue

Clause 7 of Lettre d'entente 7 is the provision at the heart of the dispute. It reads, in relevant part, that firefighters "en poste au moment du changement" (in post at the time of the change) would receive one regular pay as a transition pay (advance), to be recovered without interest by the Ville upon the employee's departure. The disagreement between the parties centred on the phrase "les employés pompiers en poste au moment du changement." The Association argued this referred to all firefighters who held a position on October 7, 2021 — the date of the last advance pay — regardless of whether they were actively working and receiving salary. The Ville contended the phrase was limited to firefighters who were actually occupying their post and receiving salary at that time, thus excluding those on disability leave (paid by an insurer), maternity, paternity, parental or adoption leave, leave without pay, or deferred salary leave.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The Superior Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, consistent with the presumption established in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, and agreed to by both parties. Under this standard, the court's role is not to reassess the evidence itself but to determine whether the arbitrator's decision is justified, intelligible, and coherent in light of the applicable legal and factual constraints. The burden of demonstrating unreasonableness fell on the Association.

The court examined the arbitrator's reasoning in detail. The arbitrator had identified the core question, reviewed the evidence, summarized each party's position, and analyzed clause 7 in context — an approach aligned with the Supreme Court's guidance in Uniprix inc. c. Gestion Gosselin et Bérubé inc., 2017 SCC 43, which requires reading a disputed clause in the context of the full agreement and the circumstances of its conclusion. The arbitrator concluded that the phrase "en poste au moment du changement" clearly referred only to firefighters actively at work and receiving salary from the Ville, because the transition pay's sole purpose was to remedy a pay interruption — and those not receiving salary had no such interruption to remedy.

The Association raised two alleged factual errors. First, it contended the arbitrator incorrectly identified October 7, 2021 as the date of the last advance pay, when the Ville's witness had testified it was September 24, 2021. The court found this immaterial: the Association's own grievance and written submissions had referenced October 7, 2021, making it understandable that the arbitrator relied on this date. The court noted that regardless of which date was accurate, it had no bearing on the interpretation of clause 7. Second, the Association argued the arbitrator wrongly included workers' compensation recipients in the category of firefighters not entitled to transition pay, when evidence showed they had in fact received it. The court explained this was attributable to the Ville's administrative directive — issued for all Ville employees, not just firefighters — having listed that group as excluded. Under the applicable collective agreement, firefighters on workers' compensation actually continue to receive salary from the Ville and remit their CNESST benefits back to the Ville; it was therefore logical that they received the transition pay. Even if this constituted an error, it did not affect the arbitrator's conclusion.

The Association also argued that the arbitrator failed to address the situation of the two specific firefighters who had served as test cases and testified at the hearing, and that the arbitrator's finding of insufficient evidence to decide their individual cases was incorrect. The court rejected this argument, noting that the grievance was general in scope — its title referenced the modification of the pay calendar and Entente no. 7, without naming any individual — and that the two firefighters served only as representative witnesses. The arbitrator was not obligated to resolve their individual cases and had retained jurisdiction to do so if the parties could not agree on the application of the ruling. Finally, the Association's argument that the Ville's interpretation was incompatible with the collective agreement was dismissed, as the arbitrator was not required to address every argument raised.

Ruling and outcome

The Superior Court dismissed the application for judicial review filed by the Association des pompiers de Montréal inc. (A.I.P., section locale 125). The court found the arbitral decision to be reasoned, intelligible, logical, and rational, and one of the acceptable possible outcomes given the factual and legal constraints. The Ville de Montréal, as the successful party, was awarded costs ("frais de justice"). No specific monetary amount was stated in the judgment.