Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Characterisation of the employment relationship as a fixed-term versus indeterminate contract subject to a probationary period and performance review obligations.
• Assessment of whether the employer had serious and sufficient grounds to terminate the employee and whether statutory notice under the Loi sur les normes du travail was respected.
• Evaluation of evidence on the employee’s performance, attitude, and expressed career goals, including testimony from supervisors and review of call-quality monitoring.
• Validity of a separate reimbursement agreement for training and professional expenses in light of alleged vitiated consent and misrepresentation by the employer.
• Interaction between the main employment contract, which did not require post-training service or reimbursement, and the later reimbursement engagement imposing a three-year commitment.
• Application of Civil Code provisions on error and misrepresentation (arts. 1399, 1400, 1407 C.c.Q.) to declare the reimbursement engagement null and defeat the employer’s counterclaim.

Facts and background

The dispute arises from an employment relationship between Gergana Karadzhova and J. Gérard Fortin et Associés inc., an insurance brokerage participating in a work-study program in property and casualty insurance (PRÊT) with the Coalition pour une relève en assurance de dommages. The employee was engaged as a student-worker to perform brokerage-related tasks, notably soliciting clients by telephone, preparing quotations, ensuring follow-ups and documenting client files. The parties signed a written employment agreement on 24 February 2023. That contract provided that the employee was offered an 11-month job as a student-worker, while also stating that the overall agreement was of indeterminate duration starting 27 March 2023, subject to a three-month probationary period. It also contemplated an annual performance review in November, the employer’s payment of mandatory continuing education and professional dues, and stated that any changes to the contract had to be recorded in writing and signed by both parties and annexed to the agreement. It further specified that termination by the employer required written notice consistent with minimum standards legislation.
In the course of the work-study arrangement, the employee’s performance and integration were monitored by supervisors, including Karine Boudreault (director of administrative support and damage insurance broker) and Johanne Lefebvre (director of business development). The employee’s duties involved a significant client-facing component by telephone, a key aspect of brokerage work. Early feedback in June 2023 was, according to the employee, generally positive and encouraging, and she believed she had successfully completed the probationary period and held a fixed-term position until 29 February 2024.

Deterioration of the employment relationship

Over time, the employer’s assessment diverged from the employee’s perception. Ms. Boudreault oversaw training and verified recorded calls with clients to assess quality. She testified that the firm’s presentation on the work-study program portal made clear it sought damage insurance brokers to join its brokerage team, and that the firm had no claims department and no positions for claims adjusters (experts en sinistres).
Ms. Lefebvre, who supervised the employee daily, acknowledged the employee’s meticulousness in file note-taking and her initial willingness to learn, but reported significant concerns about her comfort and effectiveness on the phone. Observations by brokers paired with the employee in August and September (14 August, 18 August and 9 September) suggested she only partially met expectations and lacked the qualities required to integrate into the existing brokerage team. It also emerged that the employee did not enjoy speaking with clients, treating this central task as a burden. The supervisor further described the employee as frequently sad, often in tears and seemingly unhappy at work, a description the employee did not deny.
Tension increased when, in September 2023, the employee expressed a desire to become a claims adjuster. Ms. Lefebvre repeatedly explained that such a path was not possible within J. Gérard Fortin, which had no claims department. On 7 November 2023, in a performance discussion, Ms. Lefebvre raised issues with errors in emails and highlighted the employee’s negative attitude or lack of enthusiasm in telephone communications with clients. On 21 November 2023, during a videoconference meeting, the employee advised she had an interview at Intact Assurance for a claims adjuster role. At that point, Ms. Lefebvre concluded the relationship could not continue and told the employee to leave. The next day, the employee confirmed that the Intact interview had gone well and even thanked Ms. Lefebvre for their conversation.

Training costs and reimbursement agreements

Separate from the core employment contract, the parties entered into additional written engagements relating to training materials and professional formation. On 20 April 2023, the employee signed an agreement concerning AMF (Autorité des marchés financiers) manuals, under which, if she chose to end her employment, she would return the manuals to the employer. When her employment later ceased, she offered to return the books, but the employer refused on the basis that they were no longer up to date.
More significantly, on 16 October 2023, the employer asked the employee to sign an engagement regarding the cost of a damage insurance broker training program. Under this engagement, the employee agreed to remain employed by J. Gérard Fortin et Associés inc. for three years after completing an AEC in insurance and the AMF examinations. If she chose to leave before the end of this three-year period, or if the employer terminated her employment, she would be required to reimburse, on a pro rata basis, the amounts paid by the employer for the broker training and related expenses. The document enumerated these costs as session and program fees, the cost of books, and AMF fees (registration, exams and internship), totalling $1,589.24.

The competing claims

The employee brought a small claims action alleging that the employer unilaterally terminated her fixed-term employment contract prematurely, suddenly, abusively, humiliatingly and without serious and sufficient cause. She claimed $10,500 corresponding to salary she said should have been paid from 21 November 2023, the date of termination, to the scheduled end of the term on 29 February 2024. She also alleged that the employer was seeking to recover training-related expenses without applying the agreed pro rata calculation.
The employer defended on the basis that the employee had been hired through the PRÊT program for 11 months in an alternating work-study structure and that she did not meet the firm’s performance standards or expectations, especially in relation to client communication and interest in brokerage work. For these reasons, it maintained, she was laid off on 21 November 2023. The employer also filed a counterclaim for $1,589.24, representing session and program fees, book costs and AMF fees it had paid on the employee’s behalf, invoking the October 16, 2023 engagement as the contractual basis for reimbursement.

Legal issues and applicable standards

The court framed four core questions: whether the employee had shown that the employer terminated without serious and sufficient reasons and in an abusive manner; whether, if so, she was entitled to the $10,500 claimed; whether the reimbursement engagement had been signed under false representations; and whether the employer, as plaintiff in reconvention, had a right to reclaim its training expenses.
On the termination issue, the court applied the contractual clause stating that if the employer wished to end the employment contract, it had to give written notice in accordance with the Loi sur les normes du travail. Referring to section 82 of that statute, the court noted that the applicable minimum notice was one week and observed that the employee herself admitted in her pleading that she had received one week’s notice. On this basis, and given the performance evidence, the court concluded that the employer had complied with statutory notice requirements.
On the reimbursement engagement, the court turned to the Civil Code provisions governing consent and vitiating factors. It quoted articles 1399 and 1400 C.c.Q., which require consent to be free and informed and recognise that error affecting the nature of the contract, the object of the prestation or any essential element can vitiate consent, as well as article 1407 C.c.Q., which grants a party whose consent is vitiated the right to seek nullity and, in some cases, damages or a reduction of their obligation. The analysis focused on whether the employee’s consent to the three-year commitment and reimbursement obligation had been obtained under misrepresentation or undue pressure, and whether this engagement was coherent with, or contradicted by, the original employment contract.

Findings on termination of employment

The evidence persuaded the court that the employer had serious reasons to end the employment relationship. The testimony of Ms. Boudreault and Ms. Lefebvre established that the employee did not possess the desired profile for a damage insurance broker in the firm’s environment, particularly given her discomfort with client calls and repeatedly expressed wish to pursue a different career path as a claims adjuster, a role not available at the employer. The court found that the employee was not meeting expectations, was unhappy in her position and did not wish to remain in a brokerage role, all of which supported the employer’s decision to terminate.
Crucially, the court rejected the allegation that the dismissal was abusive, sudden or without serious cause. It emphasised that the employer had provided performance feedback, attempted to clarify the nature of the available roles and, when the employee announced an interview for a different career track at another insurer, reasonably concluded that the employment relationship could not continue. Because the employee admitted to having received a week’s notice, consistent with the statutory requirement, the court held that the employer owed her no further sums. The claim for $10,500 in lost wages was therefore dismissed.

Findings on the reimbursement engagement and counterclaim

The court undertook a close reading of the original employment contract and noted that it did not impose any obligation on the employee to remain with the firm for three years, nor did it require her to reimburse training or professional expenses if the employer ended the relationship or decided not to hire her permanently after the 11-month work-study period. There was also no clause stating that an employee who was not retained after the training period would have to reimburse the employer’s outlays.
Against that background, the October 16, 2023 engagement stood as a separate and more onerous commitment. The employee testified that she signed because she felt she had no choice; she did not, in reality, wish to bind herself to three more years of work for the employer but agreed in order to avoid having to reimburse the training costs. She further argued that, in hindsight, the employer already knew by that date that she did not meet its expectations and would not be kept on as a broker. The court accepted this reasoning, finding that in October 2023 the employer had for some time considered that she did not satisfy the job requirements and would not be retained as part of the team.
The judge asked rhetorically why, if the employer did not truly foresee a long-term employment relationship, it required the employee to sign a three-year commitment. The only plausible explanation, the court found, was that the employer’s real and predominant intention was to secure an engagement that would allow it to recover training and related costs. On that basis, the court held that the employee’s consent had been vitiated by false representations regarding the true purpose and effect of the engagement. Applying articles 1399, 1400 and 1407 C.c.Q., it concluded that the October 16, 2023 engagement was null and could not support the employer’s counterclaim. Consequently, the claim for $1,589.24 in training, books and AMF-related expenses was dismissed.

Outcome and overall result

In the result, the court rejected both the main claim and the counterclaim. The employee’s action for $10,500 in lost wages under an alleged fixed-term contract was dismissed with costs, on the basis that the employer had serious and sufficient reasons to terminate and had complied with the statutory one-week notice requirement. The employer’s reconventional claim for $1,589.24 in training and associated expenses was also dismissed with costs after the court declared the October 16, 2023 reimbursement engagement null for vitiated consent. Overall, no party obtained a monetary award: neither damages nor reimbursement were ordered in favour of either side, and the judgment does not specify any quantifiable amount for costs. As a result, there is no determinable total sum granted in favour of a successful party, since each party succeeded only in resisting the other’s monetary claim and no positive monetary recovery was awarded.