Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Determining whether the Superior Court correctly applied the reasonableness standard when reviewing the Tribunal administratif du travail's (TAT) decision.
   
• Assessing how the statutory presumption under section 17 of the Labour Code operates once an employee shows they exercised a protected right.
   
• Considering whether the "poison drop" theory was properly applied where a licit motive for dismissal cohabits with an illicit one.
   
• Evaluating the weight an administrative tribunal may give to the speed and adequacy of an employer's internal harassment investigation as an indicator of pretext.
   
• Reviewing the interplay between an employer's obligation under section 81.19 of the Act respecting labour standards and an employee's protection against anti-union reprisals.
   
• Applying the deferential framework from Vavilov to a specialized labour tribunal's factual findings on pretext.
   

Facts of the case

Gérard Keuylian was dismissed by his employer, 9465812 Canada limitée, in March 2017. The dismissal followed a period of tension after a union certification drive began in September 2016, during which Mr. Keuylian was identified as one of the organizers. Employer representatives reacted negatively to the unionization, and a union complaint alleging intimidation and interference was filed in October 2016 and later amended in January 2017. In late February 2017, a new financial director, Ms. Lacaille, joined the company and later alleged that Mr. Keuylian had made inappropriate comments and physical contact toward her; Mr. Keuylian denied these allegations. An internal investigation followed, conducted by two managers who did not meet with Mr. Keuylian or take any written statements from him. He was dismissed on March 23, 2017, and at the time held the position of union president. He filed a complaint under section 15 of the Labour Code alleging the dismissal was in retaliation for his union activities. On April 26, 2018, the TAT ("TAT-1") upheld the union's complaint for interference and awarded punitive damages of $1,000, but dismissed Mr. Keuylian's individual complaint, finding the dismissal was based on the alleged sexual harassment. Following a first judicial review in 2020, the matter was returned to the TAT ("TAT-2"), which concluded in 2023 that the harassment allegation was a pretext and that the true reason for dismissal was Mr. Keuylian's union activity. The employer sought judicial review of that decision, and on September 5, 2025, the Superior Court allowed the employer's application, quashed the TAT-2 decision, and remitted the matter to a different TAT member. Mr. Keuylian appealed that judgment to the Court of Appeal.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The case centres on section 17 of the Quebec Labour Code, which creates a simple presumption in favour of an employee who shows they exercised a right under the Code, shifting the burden to the employer to prove the sanction was imposed for another good and sufficient cause. Section 15 of the Code prohibits an employer from sanctioning an employee for exercising such a right. The employer relied on section 81.19 of the Act respecting labour standards, which requires employers to maintain a workplace free of harassment and to act on complaints. The "poison drop" theory, drawn from the Supreme Court's decision in Plourde, provides that a presumption under section 17 is not rebutted where an illicit motive cohabits with a licit one, since the illicit motive is said to "contaminate" the entire decision. The reasonableness standard of review, as set out in Vavilov, also framed the analysis, requiring courts to assess whether a tribunal's decision reflects an internally coherent and rational chain of reasoning that is justified in light of the relevant factual and legal constraints.

Reasoning and analysis

The Court of Appeal found that the Superior Court judge erred by isolating TAT-2's treatment of the speed of the employer's investigation and treating it as though it were the sole basis for the finding of pretext, rather than reading TAT-2's decision as a whole. TAT-2 had relied on numerous additional indicators, including inconsistent witness testimony, the employer's failure to follow its own harassment policy, its differing treatment of a prior complaint involving another employee, and the absence of any opportunity for Mr. Keuylian to respond before being dismissed. The Court of Appeal noted that while section 81.19 obliges an employer to act promptly on harassment allegations, this obligation did not prevent TAT-2 from examining how the investigation was carried out as one factor among several bearing on pretext. On the question of the presumption, the Court of Appeal held that the Superior Court misread paragraphs 106 and 107 of the TAT-2 decision as converting the simple presumption under section 17 into an irrebuttable one; read in context, TAT-2 had simply concluded, based on the record as a whole, that the true cause of dismissal was Mr. Keuylian's union activity, consistent with the "poison drop" principle that an illicit motive cohabiting with a licit one prevents the presumption from being rebutted. The Court also observed that the employer was not limited to a binary choice between inaction and dismissal, since it could have suspended Mr. Keuylian while conducting a more thorough investigation.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal brought by Mr. Keuylian, reversed the Superior Court's judgment of September 5, 2025, and dismissed the employer's application for judicial review, with costs awarded in both the first instance and on appeal. This result restores the TAT-2 decision finding that Mr. Keuylian's dismissal was based on a pretext and that the true cause was his union activity. The decision does not specify a monetary amount awarded to Mr. Keuylian in these proceedings; the only quantified sum in the underlying record — $1,000 in punitive damages — was awarded to the union under a separate complaint in the 2018 TAT-1 decision, not to Mr. Keuylian personally.