Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Arsène Mamert Ekpini sought judicial review of two TAT decisions rejecting his complaints of psychological harassment and constructive dismissal against Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) Canada Inc.
• Procedural fairness was at issue, specifically whether the administrative judge demonstrated bias and whether the CNESST lawyer's conduct compromised Ekpini's right to a fair hearing.
• Ekpini alleged that his former lawyer concealed material information — namely, that Investissements PSP had requested his removal from the account — but the lawyer denied this under oath, corroborated by her written exchanges.
• Reasonableness of both TAT decisions was challenged, with Ekpini contending that TAT-1 relied on fictitious evidence and that TAT-2 misunderstood his grounds for revision.
• The court applied the reasonableness standard from Vavilov, deferring to the administrative judge's factual findings absent a fundamental misapprehension of the evidence.
• No procedural unfairness or reviewable error was established to justify overturning either TAT decision.

Facts of the case

Arsène Mamert Ekpini worked as a technical support analyst in information technology for Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) Canada Inc. In 2022, he was assigned to a position serving a major client, Investissements PSP, during which he felt psychologically harassed by his managers and a coworker. He filed a complaint with the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST) against his employer. Around the same time, TCS sought to transfer him to another client. Ekpini refused the transfer, took the position that he had no choice but to leave his employment, and filed a second complaint alleging he had been dismissed in reprisal for the harassment complaint.

Proceedings before the TAT

After three days of hearings, both complaints were rejected by the Tribunal administratif du travail in a decision of approximately fifteen pages (TAT-1). Ekpini applied for revision of that decision before the same tribunal, and that application was likewise dismissed (TAT-2). He then brought an application for judicial review before the Superior Court, seeking to have both decisions annulled. He argued that the administrative judge had been biased, that his CNESST lawyer had concealed information and acted against his interests, and that both decisions were unreasonable.

Legal issues and the court's reasoning and analysis

The court framed the case around two central questions: whether there had been a breach of procedural fairness, and whether the TAT decisions were unreasonable.

On the question of bias, the court noted that judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals benefit from a strong presumption of impartiality, which Ekpini bore the burden of rebutting. Reviewing the hearing recordings and transcripts submitted by Ekpini himself, the court found that the administrative judge had listened to and assisted him with diligence, patience, and respect, and that her decision reflected a careful analysis of the evidence. The bias argument was rejected.

On the conduct of the CNESST lawyer, the court found that Ekpini's accusations were purely speculative. The relevant facts arose from the testimony of Jacques Morin, a consultant at Investissements PSP at the time of Ekpini's assignment, who disclosed that PSP had asked TCS to remove Ekpini from the account due to difficulties in his working relationships with the team. Ekpini suspected his former lawyer had hidden this from him, but she denied it under oath, and her written exchanges with Morin corroborated her account. Notably, by the time Morin testified, Ekpini had already terminated his lawyer's mandate and chose himself to call Morin as a witness, having been duly informed that he had that choice. This ground was also rejected.

Turning to the reasonableness of TAT-1, the court applied the framework from Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, under which the reasonableness standard is presumed to apply. TAT-1 analyzed the evidence over 27 paragraphs divided into three subjects before drawing an overall assessment. The administrative judge concluded that Ekpini's account rested solely on his subjective perceptions, which were contradicted or put into context by documentary evidence and witness testimony, and that his perception did not correspond to that of a reasonable person in the same circumstances. She further found that he demonstrated no capacity for self-reflection, described his managers as incompetent and opportunistic, and attributed criticism from colleagues to jealousy. Based on a recording of Ekpini's final conversation with his manager and their written exchanges, she also found that no dismissal had occurred. The Superior Court held that Ekpini had not discharged his burden of showing that TAT-1 rested on a fundamental misapprehension of the evidence — in fact, the court found that evidence Ekpini claimed was never filed had actually formed part of the record.

As for TAT-2, the court acknowledged that the revision decision may have mischaracterized one of Ekpini's grounds by treating it as mere dissatisfaction with his lawyer's representation rather than an allegation of fraudulent concealment. The court noted that under applicable authority, exceptional circumstances such as misrepresentation by counsel can justify revision of a decision. However, because Ekpini's allegations against his lawyer were found to be speculative and unsupported, any such error in TAT-2's characterization would not have changed the outcome, as TAT-1 was free of any substantive or procedural defect.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Superior Court, per Justice Dominique Poulin, dismissed Ekpini's application for judicial review. Costs were ordered against Ekpini, though no specific monetary amount was stated in the judgment. The successful parties were the respondents: the Tribunal administratif du travail, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) Canada Inc., and the CNESST.