Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdiction of the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, over a wrongful termination / notice-of-dismissal claim framed in contract rather than under labour standards legislation.
• Characterization of the claim as a contractual recourse grounded in articles 1458 and 2085 et seq. C.c.Q., seeking three months’ notice, instead of a CNESST labour standards complaint.
• Distinction between claims exclusively falling under specialized labour tribunals (harassment, union representation, workplace accidents) and those that remain within the jurisdiction of courts of general civil law.
• Evidentiary focus on the employment contract of 10 May 2023 as the legal basis for the claim, rather than statutory minimum entitlements under the Loi sur les normes du travail.
• Application of article 35 C.p.c. concerning exclusive jurisdiction of other bodies and the limits of that exclusion when the plaintiff asserts purely contractual damages.
• Consequences of the clerk’s initial rejection and the judge’s power to revise that decision to allow the action to proceed in small claims without costs.

Background and employment relationship

The dispute arises from an employment relationship between François Gauthier (the plaintiff) and Intact Corporation financière (the defendant). On 10 May 2023, the parties entered into a contract of employment that governed Gauthier’s work for Intact. The contract, and in particular the legal obligations it created on termination of employment, forms the foundation of the plaintiff’s recourse. After the employment relationship ended, Gauthier claimed that he was entitled to a three-month notice period (préavis de départ de trois mois) or its monetary equivalent. Rather than proceeding under the public labour standards regime, he chose to file a claim before the Cour du Québec, Division des petites créances, seeking to recover an amount within the small-claims ceiling (no more than $15,000).

Clerk’s initial refusal and jurisdictional objection

Before the case could proceed on the merits, the court clerk (Greffier) examined the claim and, on 23 February 2026, issued a decision refusing its admissibility in the Small Claims Division. The clerk concluded that the dispute arose from an “employment relationship” and involved “several breaches of legal obligations,” and that such matters fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of another body, namely the CNESST, pursuant to article 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.p.c.). On that basis, the clerk determined that the Court of Québec, including its Small Claims Division, lacked jurisdiction because the law would have assigned the matter “formally and exclusively” to another tribunal or administrative body. As a result, Gauthier’s claim was rejected at the intake stage, without a full hearing.

Plaintiff’s response and legal characterization of the claim

Gauthier sought revision of the clerk’s decision, arguing that his claim was not a labour standards complaint under the Loi sur les normes du travail. He asserted instead that his recourse was based on the Civil Code of Québec, specifically invoking the contractual regime set out in articles 1458 and 2085 and following. In essence, he framed the dispute as a straightforward contractual claim: the employer allegedly failed to provide appropriate notice of termination under the employment contract, and he was seeking damages equivalent to three months’ notice. The court accepted that the legal basis for the proceeding was the employment contract of 10 May 2023, not the statutory minimum standards enforced by the CNESST. Importantly, the claim did not include allegations of psychological harassment, union representation failures, or workplace accidents—categories that would typically fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of specialized labour tribunals.

Exclusion of specialized labour and administrative tribunals

In its analysis, the court carefully distinguished the plaintiff’s claim from other types of employment-related disputes that must be brought before specialized bodies. It noted that claims involving psychological harassment under the Loi sur les normes du travail must be addressed to the Commission des relations du travail or the Tribunal administratif du travail, and that alleged failures by a union to meet its duty of fair representation under the Code du travail lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of those same specialized institutions. Similarly, claims arising out of workplace accidents are reserved for specialized labour tribunals. The judgment canvassed prior case law confirming that matters of harassment, union representation, and workplace accidents cannot be pursued in the Court of Québec, including its Small Claims Division, because legislation assigns them to specific administrative forums. At the same time, the court acknowledged case law where courts of general jurisdiction retained competence over certain issues tied to the internal life of employee associations and their relations with members, illustrating that not every employment-related dispute is absorbed entirely by the labour tribunal system.

Scope of the court’s jurisdiction over contractual employment claims

Having excluded harassment, union representation, and workplace-accident elements from the case, the court returned to the core of Gauthier’s demand: a claim in contract seeking a three-month notice period following termination of employment. The judge emphasized that the plaintiff’s recourse is firmly grounded in the Civil Code’s rules on contractual liability and contracts of employment. While the plaintiff could, if he wished, initiate a CNESST process to claim statutory minimum termination pay, he is not confined to that avenue alone. The judgment stresses that article 35 C.p.c. only removes the court’s jurisdiction when another body has exclusive authority. Here, the CNESST’s jurisdiction over minimum standards does not preclude a civil action seeking superior contractual or civil-law remedies. Consequently, the Court of Québec, Division des petites créances, retains jurisdiction to hear Gauthier’s contractual claim for damages, provided the claimed amount falls within the small-claims limit, which it does.

Outcome and implications for the parties

In light of this analysis, the court found that the clerk erred in treating the claim as exclusively within the CNESST’s domain. The judge concluded that Gauthier’s recourse is a contractual action in damages for inadequate notice of termination, not a labour standards complaint that must be pursued before a specialized labour or administrative tribunal. The decision therefore revises and overturns the earlier ruling by the clerk, holds that the action is admissible, and authorizes the filing of Gauthier’s small-claims demand. The ruling is rendered “without costs,” meaning no party recovers legal costs at this stage, and no damages or monetary compensation are yet awarded. The successful party in this procedural decision is the plaintiff, François Gauthier, whose claim is now allowed to proceed on the merits; however, the court does not fix any amount of damages or other monetary relief, so the total monetary award in his favour at this stage cannot be determined and remains at zero pending a future judgment on the substance of the case.