Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The court examined whether the union respected procedural fairness when suspending a member of its local executive.

• The APTS failed to inform the plaintiff of the specific allegation and denied him a chance to respond before deciding on suspension.

• The disciplinary process was found to be flawed and in breach of the union’s contractual and equitable obligations.

• The court accepted that the union’s actions caused serious emotional harm and psychological distress to the plaintiff.

• An unlawful and intentional violation of the plaintiff’s integrity under the Quebec Charter justified punitive damages.

• The court rejected the plaintiff’s request to declare the union’s legal defense abusive, finding no procedural misconduct during the litigation itself.

Facts and procedural background

In Bailleul c. Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux, Olivier Bailleul, a union executive member at a local level, sued the APTS after being suspended for allegedly moving confidential documents with the intent to consult them. The suspension was ordered by the APTS’s national council without informing Bailleul of the specific allegation beforehand or giving him a proper chance to respond. He later sought damages for moral harm and punitive relief, alleging that the union’s process was abusive and violated his rights to fairness and dignity.

The APTS justified the suspension on the basis that Bailleul had participated in the unauthorized transfer of confidential documents to the union’s national office. Bailleul admitted helping move boxes at the request of another union official but denied any intention to consult or misuse the documents. He claimed the documents were moved to protect them during renovations, a position supported by testimony and internal communications.

Court’s legal analysis and findings

The court found that the APTS’s internal regulations (called "statuts") created a contractual relationship with its members, obliging the organization to act fairly and equitably in disciplinary matters. According to the Civil Code of Québec and relevant jurisprudence, this included the right to prior notice, an opportunity to respond, and an impartial process. The APTS violated these standards by failing to inform Bailleul of the suspension request, refusing him any opportunity to respond to the allegation, and proceeding in secret.

The court ruled that the union’s disciplinary justification was unfounded. Bailleul had not consulted the documents, and in fact, had acted to safeguard them. The request for his suspension originated from a single colleague, and the union had reached a decision based on assumptions and internal conclusions, without a proper fact-finding process.

The court also accepted Bailleul’s uncontested and credible testimony regarding the personal impact of the suspension. He experienced emotional distress, anxiety, and a deep sense of injustice that affected him for years. The court concluded this amounted to an unlawful and intentional breach of his right to personal integrity under the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Damages and conclusion

The court awarded Bailleul $25,000 in moral damages for the psychological harm he endured and $13,000 in punitive damages for the intentional and unjustified violation of his integrity and fairness rights. However, the court dismissed a secondary claim seeking to declare the union’s legal defense abusive, finding that while the union’s actions leading to the suspension were flawed, its conduct during litigation did not meet the threshold for abuse under Quebec civil procedure.

This decision underscores that unions must respect procedural fairness and transparency, even when dealing with internal disciplinary matters. The ruling affirms that violations of equity and dignity within private associations can give rise to contractual and constitutional remedies.