Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The case centers on the interpretation of article 5-15.02 of the local agreement governing teacher leaves without pay.
   
• An arbitrator concluded that the school board's directive restricting leave replacements violated the local agreement.
   
• That arbitral award was later overturned when the Superior Court allowed the school board's application for judicial review.
   
• Justice Healy identified two questions warranting appellate scrutiny, including whether the reasonableness standard from Vavilov was properly applied.
   
• Potentially conflicting case law on similar local-agreement provisions also supported referring the matter to the Court of Appeal.
   
• Leave to appeal was ultimately granted, with costs to follow the outcome of the appeal.
   

Facts of the case

The dispute arises from a grievance filed by the Syndicat de l'enseignement de Lanaudière against the Centre de services scolaire des Samares. The grievance concerned a directive issued by the Centre de services scolaire to the principals of its elementary and secondary schools, instructing that replacements for leaves without pay not taken from the priority list would remain unfilled, and that no hires would be made for vacant replacement positions sought at 20%, 40%, or other percentages, except for maternity leaves and pre-retirements. The union grieved that the Centre de services scolaire had not sought substitutes meeting the applicable capacity criteria before refusing leaves without pay under article 5-15.02 of the local agreement, and had improperly cited a shortage of teachers as a ground for refusal, a ground not recognized under the local agreement. An arbitrator, Jean Ménard, ruled in the union's favour, finding that the directive and related measures did not comply with article 5-15.02. The Centre de services scolaire then applied to the Superior Court for judicial review of the arbitral award, and the Honourable Pierre Labelle, on May 14, 2026, allowed that application. The union subsequently sought leave to appeal the Superior Court's decision to the Court of Appeal.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Article 5-15.02 of the local agreement grants a teacher who requests it a leave of absence without pay of one year, full-time or part-time, entitling the replacement teacher to a part-time contract, on condition that the Centre de services scolaire finds a substitute meeting the capacity criteria defined in clause 5-3.13. The application for leave to appeal was brought under article 30 para. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which grants discretion to a single judge to grant leave and is not limited to the grounds listed as examples in paragraph 3 of that article. Justice Healy also considered the standard of review framework from Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, and Bell Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 66, as well as articles 13, 47, and 50 of the Regulation of the Court of Appeal of Quebec in Civil Matters, governing the technological filing of documents, the content of factums, and page limits, and article 376 of the Code of Civil Procedure, concerning the consequences of an appellant's failure to timely file its factum.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Healy identified two questions meriting the Court's attention. First, he considered whether the Superior Court's decision complied with the standard of review established in Vavilov. While the parties and the Superior Court agreed that the reasonableness standard applied, the union argued that the Superior Court had exceeded that standard and, in practical effect, substituted a correctness analysis, noting by analogy the approach in FIQ - Syndicat des professionnelles en soins de santé de l'Ouest de l'Île de Montréal (FIQ-SPSSODIM) v. Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Ouest-de-l'Île-de-Montréal (CIUSSS), 2019 QCCA 1118. Justice Healy observed that judicial review is not a de novo appeal and that the Superior Court, sitting in judicial review, is not a "court of error," and found it in the interest of justice for the Court to examine whether the decision conformed to the deference required under Vavilov. Second, the union argued that the Superior Court's decision was incompatible with other decisions interpreting similar local-agreement provisions, raising an ambiguity or conflict in the case law, particularly regarding which party bears the burden of proof concerning a labour shortage. Justice Healy concluded that this, too, raised a question of general interest warranting referral to the Court of Appeal.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Healy granted the Syndicat de l'enseignement de Lanaudière's application for leave to appeal against the Superior Court's decision, and directed that the appeal proceed with factums, subject to the applicable Rules of the Court of Appeal of Quebec. Costs were ordered to follow the outcome of the appeal; no specific monetary amount was determined or awarded at this stage, as the decision addresses only the granting of leave to appeal.