Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Université de Sherbrooke sought a stay of execution of two Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT) decisions while its judicial review application was pending.
• Three criteria govern a stay request: a serious question to be tried, irreparable or serious prejudice, and the balance of inconvenience, with urgency not being a separate requirement.
• Both TAT decisions are subject to the reasonableness standard of review, which the Court found increases the burden on the first criterion.
• Quebec Superior Court Justice Claude Dallaire concluded the University's challenge to the TAT's finding of a subordination link with DESS postdoctoral trainees was unlikely to succeed, though not frivolous.
• No personal, irreparable, or imminent prejudice to the University itself was demonstrated, since most alleged harms belonged to the trainees rather than the institution.
• Weighing the balance of inconvenience, the Court favoured the union, given the postponement's impact on freedom of association and collective bargaining rights.

Facts of the case

Université de Sherbrooke applied to the Quebec Superior Court to stay execution of two decisions of the Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT) rendered by an administrative judge while it pursued judicial review. The dispute originated when the Syndicat des auxiliaires de recherche et d'enseignement de l'Université de Sherbrooke (SAREUS), affiliated with the Alliance de la fonction publique du Canada (AFPC), filed a certification application on September 25, 2025, seeking to represent postdoctoral trainees at the University who were not yet unionized. These trainees fell into two groups: "regular" trainees, who the University already treated as salaried employees subject to source deductions, and trainees enrolled in the University's Diplôme d'études supérieures spécialisées (DESS) program, a third-cycle program unique to the University, combining theoretical coursework with a practical research component. The University paid DESS trainees 100% of their grants and scholarships without deductions, treating them solely as students. On March 13, 2026, the TAT ruled that DESS trainees were also "salariés" under the Quebec Labour Code, finding a subordination link existed between them and the University when they conducted research, and ordered a secret ballot vote. That vote, held April 8 to 22, 2026, favoured union representation, leading to a second TAT decision on May 1, 2026, formally certifying the union to represent all 245 postdoctoral trainees, including 85 foreign students. The University filed its judicial review application on April 14, 2026, and amended it on May 29, 2026, to include the May 1 decision, simultaneously filing its stay request on the same date.

Policy terms and regulatory provisions at issue

The case turned on whether DESS trainees met the Labour Code's criteria for "salarié" status: performance of work, remuneration, and a subordination link to the employer. The University argued the absence of sufficient reasoning by the administrative judge made the March 13 decision unreasonable, and that recognizing both student and employee status was logically inconsistent given the program's particular characteristics. It also invoked section 209.2(1)(a)(iii) of the Règlement sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés, which requires an employer to report a salary "less advantageous" than what was stated in a foreign worker's job offer, arguing that source deductions and union dues could trigger work-permit complications for the 85 foreign DESS trainees. The union countered that the applicable test was the section 530(2) C.p.c. rule that contested decisions remain executory pending review, and relied on case law establishing that gross versus net salary distinctions do not alter the underlying "salary" figure relevant to immigration documentation.

The Court's reasoning and analysis

Justice Dallaire confirmed that three criteria govern a stay request — a serious question to be tried, irreparable or serious prejudice, and balance of inconvenience — and that urgency is not an independent fourth criterion, following the Court of Appeal's guidance in Groupe CRH Canada inc. c. Beauregard, 2018 QCCA 1063. On the first criterion, the Court noted that because the TAT decisions must be reviewed under the reasonableness standard, the University's burden was heavier than the generally low threshold for a "serious question." Reviewing the 21-page March 13 decision, the Court found it intelligible, logically structured, and sufficiently reasoned, noting the administrative judge had analyzed the relevant criteria — performance of work, remuneration, and subordination — and explained why DESS enrollment did not preclude employee status. The Court found the University's chances of success on judicial review limited, though not impossible. On the second criterion, the Court held that the prejudices the University alleged — reduced net income and possible work-permit complications for trainees — belonged to the trainees, not the University itself, and that a party cannot invoke a stay based on harm to third parties. The Court also found the alleged immigration and tax consequences speculative, since the University had taken no concrete steps with tax or immigration authorities to confirm such risks. On the third criterion, the Court found the balance of inconvenience favoured the union, given the constitutional dimension of freedom of association and the risk that further delay—given postdoctoral trainees typically remain only about two years—would deprive many trainees of any benefit from the certification before they left their positions.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court rejected the University's request for a stay of execution of both TAT decisions, dated March 13, 2026, and May 1, 2026, finding none of the three required criteria were satisfied. The Tribunal declared both decisions immediately executory notwithstanding appeal, meaning the Syndicat des auxiliaires de recherche et d'enseignement de l'Université de Sherbrooke (SAREUS)/AFPC was the successful party. The judgment ordered the University to comply immediately with both decisions and awarded costs ("avec frais de justice") against the University; however, the document does not specify a monetary amount for these costs, so no exact figure can be determined from the text provided.