Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 OCTOBER 2012

Are There New Evidenciary Rules In Quebec For Proving Constructive Dismissal?

Farber vs. Compagnie Royal Trust, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 846, requires that for a change in working conditions be considered constructive dismissal, the element changed must be "substantive".

CanadaEmployment and HR
Théodore Goloff
Théodore Goloff

Introduction

Farber vs. Compagnie Royal Trust, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 846, requires that for a change in working conditions be considered constructive dismissal, the element changed must be "substantive". Clearly, substantiveness must have an objective dimension. An ex-employee Plaintiff seeking to characterise an ostensible resignation as the result of a constructive dismissal must convince the Court that the condition of employment allegedly unilaterally and illegally changed by the employer was substantive enough to warrant a conclusion of almost frustration of contract. In St-Hilaire vs. Nexxlink, 2012 QCCA 1513, Quebec's highest court seems to have suggested new evidentiary considerations to be taken account of.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from