Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The dispute centers on whether Conrad Duguay was dismissed outright on May 23, 2024, or merely suspended pending a decision.
• Conflicting affidavits from Duguay and Gilles A. Noël created a genuine credibility contest the court had to resolve.
• Noël's dismissal letter referenced unspecified "disciplinary meetings" and "formal warnings" that were absent from his own affidavit.
• A discrepancy between the June 7, 2024 dismissal letter and the June 10, 2024 record of employment further undermined Noël's credibility.
• Canadian wrongful dismissal law requires progressive discipline unless a single incident is exceptionally serious.
• Personal liability of Gilles A. Noël remained a genuine issue requiring trial, unlike the liability of the corporate defendant.

Facts of the case

Conrad Duguay, 56 at the time of his dismissal, had worked as a deckhand ("homme de pont") for Pêcheries Emi-Louis V. Ltée for more than 20 years, working aboard the vessel Lady Sylvia N. in the snow crab fishery. On May 23, 2024, Duguay went to the port of Shippagan, New Brunswick, alone, to load roughly 60 boxes of frozen bait ("bouette") onto the boat. Rather than using the boat's crane, he lifted each box and dropped it about six feet onto the vessel's aluminum deck. When Gilles A. Noël, the defendant and president of the corporate defendant, arrived around 1:00 p.m. and saw this, he became angry and confronted Duguay. The two men's accounts of what followed diverge sharply: Duguay says Noël fired him on the spot and told him to take his belongings and leave the boat; Noël says he only told Duguay to gather his things while he decided what to do, without using any words of dismissal, suspension, or termination. Duguay continued to receive pay after May 23, including a wage adjustment on June 27, 2024. A formal dismissal letter, signed by Noël, was dated June 7, 2024, and received by Duguay by mail on June 17, 2024. The letter cited persistent, unacceptable insubordination as the reason for termination, with an effective date of June 6, 2024. Notably, a record of employment issued on June 10, 2024, gave the reason for termination as "shortage of work/end of season or contract" (code "A") rather than dismissal (code "M").

Employment directives and statutory provisions at issue

The case turned on whether Noël had a valid cause for dismissal under New Brunswick employment law, and specifically whether Duguay had been subjected to progressive discipline and clear prior warnings before termination. Noël's affidavit alleged repeated insubordination over the prior seven to eight fishing seasons, including: transferring bait boxes from the dock to the deck without using the crane (creating a risk of deck damage or contamination); improperly sorting crab, including small crab and females, in violation of paragraphs 53(a) and 53(b) of the Atlantic Fishery Regulations, 1985 (SOR/86-21); carelessly throwing non-conforming crab overboard (having struck a fellow deckhand in the eye during the 2022 season); raising the heat in the wheelhouse and sleeping quarters; disregarding docking procedures; and repeatedly challenging the authority of Vanessa Noël, the defendant's daughter, who held delegated authority over the crew. Duguay's statement of claim also invoked section 30(2) of New Brunswick's Employment Standards Act, arguing that his dismissal was invalid because he was never given written reasons for termination at the time it occurred.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Cloutier found Noël's testimony not credible. The dismissal letter referred to prior "disciplinary meetings" and "formal warnings," yet Noël's own affidavit contained no specifics about any such meetings or warnings — only repeated, undated assertions that he had warned Duguay "on several occasions." The court also found it significant that, three days after sending the dismissal letter, the record of employment listed "shortage of work/end of season or contract" as the reason for termination rather than dismissal, even though Noël, as president of the corporate defendant since 2000, was found to be closely involved in the company's operations and likely aware of this discrepancy. Weighing the evidence, the judge accepted Duguay's account that he was told on May 23, 2024, to leave the boat and take his belongings immediately, finding this version more consistent with the surrounding circumstances than Noël's account of a mere temporary suspension. The judge gave little weight to the testimony of deckhand Samuel Mallet, an employee of the corporate defendant, and placed no evidentiary weight on the continued payment of wages after May 23, noting these were made by direct deposit during a period covered by notice. Turning to the substantive law, the court applied the principle from Henry v. Foxco Ford Ltd., 2004 NBCA 22, that an employer relying on just cause must generally show progressive discipline unless a single incident is serious enough to justify summary dismissal, as well as the two-step test from McKinley v. BC Tel, 2001 SCC 38, and the proportionality principle. The court concluded that most of the behaviour alleged against Duguay reflected performance issues rather than misconduct, that the dismissal letter's allegations were generic and undated, and that there was no evidence of prior formal warnings or progressive discipline. No damage was caused to the boat, no bait was rendered unusable, and no contamination occurred as a result of the May 23 incident. The court also rejected Duguay's argument under section 30(2) of the Employment Standards Act, finding that receiving written reasons by mail on June 17, 2024 fell within a reasonable period following the May 23, 2024 dismissal.

Ruling and outcome

The court held that the defendants had not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that Duguay's dismissal was justified, and granted Conrad Duguay's motion for summary judgment on liability against the corporate defendant, Pêcheries Emi-Louis V. Ltée, finding it liable to pay Duguay reasonable notice. However, the court could not resolve the question of Gilles A. Noël's personal liability on the record before it, finding this remained a genuine issue requiring a trial, and so dismissed the summary judgment motion as against Noël personally. The defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment was also dismissed. No costs were awarded. The portion of Duguay's motion seeking document production and discovery was adjourned to be heard, if necessary, as a procedural motion. The decision does not specify a monetary amount owed to Duguay, as the summary judgment addressed only liability; the quantum of reasonable notice, along with Noël's personal liability, remains to be determined.