Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdictional question whether an unpaid wage claim arising from an employment relationship must be brought before the CNESST or can properly proceed in the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division.
• Characterization of the claim as a straightforward contractual wage recovery action, rather than a statutory labour standards, harassment, union representation, or workplace accident dispute reserved to specialized labour tribunals.
• Determination that the legal basis lies in the employment contract and the Civil Code of Québec (arts. 1458 and 2085 et seq.), not in exclusive remedies under the Loi sur les normes du travail.
• Consideration of the monetary threshold for small claims (up to $15,000) and confirmation that the amount sought fits within the Court’s pecuniary jurisdiction.
• Assessment of the clerk’s initial refusal to file the claim on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and whether that administrative screening properly interpreted article 35 C.p.c. on exclusive jurisdiction.
• Clarification that resort to CNESST is an available but non-exclusive avenue for recovery of unpaid wages, leaving the plaintiff free to choose the Small Claims Division for this type of monetary claim.

Facts of the case

Mayssa Gaci, the plaintiff, brought a proceeding before the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, seeking recovery of unpaid wages from the defendant, Idris Kahlat. She alleges that she was employed under a contract of employment that provided for hourly remuneration and that certain hours worked for the defendant were not paid. The amount in dispute does not exceed $15,000, which places the claim within the monetary limits of the small claims regime under article 536 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The essence of her claim is that, as an employee paid by the hour, she is owed specific sums for hours worked but not remunerated, and she seeks a judgment ordering payment of those unpaid wages.

Procedural background and clerk’s initial decision

Before the case could proceed on the merits, the court clerk examined the originating application and rendered an administrative decision on 24 February 2026. The clerk rejected the filing on the ground that the claim was not admissible in small claims because it was said to arise from “une relation d’emploi” and involve “plusieurs manquements à ses obligations légales.” On that basis, the clerk concluded that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of another body under article 35 C.p.c., specifically identifying the CNESST (Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail) as the competent forum. The practical effect was that the plaintiff’s small claims action was refused at the gate, without being formally instituted, on the premise that only the labour standards authority could deal with the dispute.

Request for revision and the plaintiff’s position

In response, Ms. Gaci filed a request for revision of the clerk’s decision before a judge of the Court of Québec. She explained that, after being told by the clerk that her matter was one for the CNESST, she contacted the CNESST directly by telephone. According to her, the CNESST then informed her that she should in fact turn to the Small Claims Division to claim the sums owed to her. Faced with these inconsistent indications from different public actors, she asked the court to revise the clerk’s decision so that her claim could be heard in small claims. Her position was that the dispute is about unpaid hours of work owed under an employment contract and that she should be allowed to choose the court route rather than the administrative labour standards route.

Nature of the claim and legal characterization

In assessing jurisdiction, the judge first clarified the true legal nature of the plaintiff’s recourse. The judgment notes that the underlying cause of action is a contract of employment based on hourly pay. The plaintiff is seeking the payment of hours worked but unpaid, not damages for other employment-related wrongs. The judge explicitly states that the plaintiff is not claiming damages for psychological harassment under the Loi sur les normes du travail, which would trigger the jurisdiction of the Commission des relations du travail (now within the Tribunal administratif du travail). Similarly, the claim is not framed as a complaint about harassment between employees, which would fall within the Tribunal administratif du travail’s jurisdiction, nor is it a proceeding alleging a union’s breach of its duty of fair representation under the Code du travail, a category of case the Court of Québec has recognized as being reserved to specialized labour tribunals. The judge also confirms that the plaintiff’s claim is not based on a workplace accident, which would again fall to the specialized labour tribunal regime. Having distinguished those categories, the court characterizes the present dispute as a civil action based on a contractual obligation between employer and employee, governed by the Civil Code of Québec, including articles 1458 and 2085 and following, which address contractual liability and contracts of employment. In essence, the plaintiff alleges that the employer failed to perform its contractual obligation to pay agreed wages for worked hours.

Jurisdictional analysis and interaction with CNESST

The central legal issue is whether such a wage recovery claim must be brought exclusively before the CNESST or whether the plaintiff can instead sue in the ordinary civil courts, including the Small Claims Division. The clerk had taken the view that because the dispute arose in an employment relationship and involved alleged breaches of legal obligations related to labour standards, the Court of Québec, including small claims, had no jurisdiction where legislation conferred exclusive jurisdiction on another body. In revisiting that conclusion, the judge carefully delimits the reach of article 35 C.p.c., which restricts the court’s competence when another jurisdiction or adjudicative body is formally and exclusively designated by statute. After reviewing the nature of the claim, the judge emphasizes that a worker has the right to pursue a CNESST remedy to be compensated for unpaid hours of work under the minimum standards regime but that this avenue is not exclusive for this type of monetary claim. The judgment states that CNESST does not have exclusive jurisdiction over actions like this one, where an employee simply seeks the payment of unpaid wages under a contract of employment. The court’s reasoning draws support from case law distinguishing between claims that fall squarely within the exclusive domain of labour tribunals (such as harassment complaints, unfair representation claims by unions, or workplace accident disputes) and those that remain within the general competence of civil courts, particularly where the life of the association or contractual relationships among members or between an association and its members is at issue. In this context, an ordinary contractual wage claim falls within the Court of Québec’s general jurisdiction, provided the monetary limits and procedural requirements are met.

Outcome and implications

Having identified the claim as a straightforward contractual wage recovery action within the monetary limit of small claims, the court holds that the plaintiff’s recourse is admissible before the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division. The judge therefore revises the clerk’s decision of 24 February 2026, authorizes the filing of Ms. Gaci’s small claims action against Mr. Kahlat, and orders that this be done without costs (“le tout sans frais”). As a result, the successful party in this decision is the plaintiff, Mayssa Gaci, because she obtains the procedural relief she sought: her action will be received and allowed to proceed on the merits. At this stage, however, the court does not adjudicate on the substance of her wage claim and does not fix or award any amount of unpaid wages or costs. The decision merely confirms the court’s jurisdiction and permits the claim to be filed. Consequently, while the pleadings indicate that the amount in dispute is up to $15,000, no specific monetary award, damages, or costs are granted in this judgment, and the exact total of any future monetary recovery cannot be determined from this decision alone.