Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review was sought of two decisions of the Tribunal administratif du travail ("TAT"), the second of which (TAT-2) refused internal review of the first (TAT-1).
• The dispute centred on whether Mr. Sadry retained class III (severe) or class II (moderate) functional limitations in the lumbar region following his August 24, 2020 workplace injury.
• Reasonableness, per the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, was the agreed standard of review.
• Sufficiency of reasons was the core issue: Mr. Sadry argued TAT-1 was silent on his persistent pain, his principal argument for class III limitations.
• Competing medical evidence included Dr. Browman's expert opinion (class 3), Dr. Shedid's Bureau d'évaluation médicale opinion (class 2), and Dr. Godin's opinion (class 1).
• The Superior Court found TAT-1's reasoning rational, intelligible, and coherent, and dismissed the judicial review application without costs.

Facts of the case

Rachid Sadry suffered a workplace injury on August 24, 2020 that left him with physical sequelae in the lumbar region. He admitted at the TAT hearing that he retained a 2% permanent impairment for his lumbar sequelae, as recognized by Dr. Daniel Shedid, neurosurgeon and member of the Bureau d'évaluation médicale, and that his lesion was consolidated as of October 13, 2021, with sufficiency of care and treatment at that date. The dispute concerned only the functional limitations flowing from that injury. Before TAT-1, Mr. Sadry sought recognition of class 3 (severe) functional limitations under the IRSST scale, relying principally on an expert report by Dr. Catherine Browman, orthopedic surgeon, who justified those limitations by his significant and persistent painful symptomatology. He testified to pain when walking, sitting, or standing, reported to evaluating physicians, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and a CNESST rehabilitation counsellor, and his evidence was corroborated by his spouse's testimony. TAT-1 instead concluded he retained class 2 (moderate) limitations, and TAT-2 refused internal review, finding TAT-1 was not affected by a defect of a nature to invalidate it. Mr. Sadry then applied to the Superior Court of Québec for judicial review of both decisions.

Positions and medical evidence at issue

Dr. Browman's conclusion, quoted in the judgment, stated that in her humble opinion, and contrary to what Dr. Shedid retained, faced with a significant and persistent painful symptomatology, class 3 functional limitations should be retained. Mr. Sadry also invoked the preventive role of functional limitations, which serve to minimize the risk of relapse when a worker feels pain performing certain movements. The Commission asked that the class 2 limitations determined by the Bureau d'évaluation médicale member be recognized as consistent with the preponderant evidence. TAT-1 also considered the opinion of Dr. Lévi, the treating physician, which it could not retain because it was silent on the existence and justification of lumbar limitations, his notes showing he never examined the lumbar region during the September 30 and November 2, 2021 visits, and the opinion of Dr. Claude Godin, the Commission's designated health professional, who had granted class 1 limitations. TAT-1 retained the class 2 limitations described by Dr. Shedid, including avoiding repetitive and frequent lifting, carrying, pushing, or pulling of loads of more than 5 to 15 kg, repetitive or frequent flexion, extension, or torsion of the lumbar spine even of low amplitude, frequently climbing several staircases, walking on uneven or slippery terrain, and repetitive or frequent crouching, crawling, climbing, or exposure to low-frequency vibrations or jolts to the spine.

The court's reasoning and analysis

All parties agreed the applicable standard of review was reasonableness under Vavilov, and that the exercise consisted of determining whether TAT-1 was unreasonable; if so, TAT-2 would have to be annulled. Mr. Sadry argued TAT-1 was insufficiently reasoned and globally incoherent on the impact of his persistent pain, invoking paragraph 103 of Vavilov, which holds that a decision is unreasonable when it is impossible to understand, reading the reasons in correlation with the record, the decision-maker's reasoning on a central point. The court noted that no one questioned the pain Mr. Sadry described: no physician suggested he had exaggerated or lied, his credibility was never raised as a reason for preferring one medical opinion over another, and TAT-1 stated it believed him regarding his specific pain in prolonged standing. In that context, not addressing the probative force of his pain evidence was not a deficiency in the reasons, since the question was not in dispute. The court further held that TAT-1's exercise lay at the heart of its specialized jurisdiction, and that it was not for the Superior Court to substitute its opinion for that of the administrative decision-maker. While TAT-1 recognized that pain can justify functional limitations to protect a worker against aggravation and recurrence, it concluded the evidence was not probative as to the link between the proposed limitations and the pain in question, without calling the pain itself into question, noting in particular that Dr. Browman did not specify why class 3 limitations were necessary rather than the class 2 limitations granted by Dr. Shedid, whose clinical examination of the lumbar region reached essentially the same findings. The court found this reasoning succinct but neither opaque nor incoherent; it was rational, logical, and flowed from the evidence submitted.

Ruling and outcome

The Superior Court concluded that Mr. Sadry had not demonstrated any insufficiency in TAT-1's reasons, nor any deficiency in its intelligibility, coherence, or rationality, and that the decision was therefore not unreasonable and did not warrant the court's intervention. Justice Carole Therrien accordingly dismissed the application for judicial review, a result in favour of the defendant Tribunal administratif du travail and the mises en cause, Fruits de mer Starboard inc. and the CNESST. No monetary award was made in their favour: the judgment was rendered without costs given the nature of the application, so the amount granted to the successful parties is nil.