Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Characterization of “emploi convenable” (suitable employment) for an injured worker under Quebec’s workplace injury and rehabilitation regime, including priority of a job offered by the pre-injury employer.
• Reasonableness of treating a 247 km commute (with a 3-hour drive) twice weekly as an excessive distance and a decisive constraint making the employer’s warehouseman positions in Laval unsuitable.
• Weight given to the worker’s personal circumstances (age 63, rural residence in Aumond, prior 163 km commute to Gatineau, functional limitations) in assessing whether an otherwise suitable position is “appropriate” and realistically accessible.
• Application of the Vavilov/Dunsmuir reasonableness standard to TAT-1’s factual and legal assessment, and TAT-2’s refusal to revise that decision, including the limits of “revision” versus an appeal.
• Interpretation of statutory and jurisprudential benchmarks on distance (notably the 50 km reference radius) when determining whether an employment option on the broader labour market is reasonably reachable.
• Determination that no reviewable error or “vice de fond ou de procédure” existed in TAT-1 or TAT-2, leading the Superior Court to uphold both administrative decisions and reject the employer’s judicial review with costs.

Facts of the case

Jean-Claude Riel was employed as a construction labourer (manœuvre en construction) by Transelec / Common inc. in Gatineau, Quebec, when he suffered a workplace injury on 25 April 2016. He injured his lower back and left hip, with the accepted diagnosis being a lumbar sprain and a sprain of the left hip. These injuries left him with a permanent impairment and functional limitations restricting his ability to perform physically demanding work and to travel long distances.
Riel lives in Aumond, a rural municipality in the Haute-Gatineau region of Outaouais. At the time of the injury, he was already commuting a significant distance: approximately 163 km (about two hours and fifteen minutes) to Gatineau. However, he only made this trip twice a week because the employer paid for his accommodation near the worksite during the work week. His established pattern, therefore, was a long but stable pre-injury commute with employer-provided lodging.

CNESST decisions and initial rehabilitation framework

Following the injury, the CNESST rendered two important decisions. First, it determined that Riel was not capable of resuming his pre-injury job as a construction labourer and that no other suitable position was available for him with the employer under the CNESST’s analysis. Transelec / Common disagreed and maintained that a warehouseman (magasinier) position within its operations was a suitable job that should be recognized and prioritized.
Second, CNESST identified the job of gas station cashier (caissier de station-service) as an “emploi convenable” for the worker. This determination took into account his education, work experience, functional limitations, and the local labour market. The employer challenged this, insisting its own warehouseman posts should be deemed the appropriate suitable employment under the statutory scheme, which gives priority to employment with the pre-injury employer when feasible. The worker, for his part, argued that neither the warehouseman positions nor the gas station cashier position properly respected his aptitudes and functional limitations, particularly with regard to travel and physical constraints.

Legal framework on suitable employment and distance

The dispute is rooted in Quebec’s workplace injury and occupational health and safety legislation, including the changes brought about by the law modernizing the health and safety regime, which amended the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases. The core statutory notion is “emploi convenable” (suitable employment), which incorporates several elements: the worker’s residual capacities, training, experience, and the availability of work, along with the requirement that the employment be “appropriate.”
Within this framework, rehabilitation measures under articles 145 and following, and article 166, focus on facilitating the worker’s reintegration into the labour market. The law and jurisprudence prioritize a return to the pre-injury employer, with reasonable accommodations where necessary, but only if the job offered is truly suitable. If no suitable job is available with the employer, then CNESST identifies suitable work on the broader labour market, considering schooling, work history, functional limitations, and realistic hiring prospects.
Distance plays an important role in this analysis. Jurisprudence such as Duguay and Constructions du Cap-Rouge inc., Methot and Produits forestiers Arbec inc., Anglehart and Constructions & Expertises PG inc., and Thibodeau and I.T.R. Acoustique inc. has developed practical benchmarks. A radius of approximately 50 km from the worker’s home is generally considered a reasonable search area for employment, although this is not an inflexible rule. Courts and tribunals treat distance as a contextual factor: age, prior mobility, rural versus urban residence, and the worker’s physical ability to travel daily or regularly must all be weighed in determining whether a job remains “appropriate” in reality, not just in theory.

The TAT-1 decision: suitability of the warehouseman job

The first Tribunal administratif du travail decision (TAT-1, by Judge Chénier, 16 March 2023) was tasked with two questions: whether the warehouseman position at Transelec / Common was suitable employment, and, failing that, whether the gas station cashier job was suitable. TAT-1 began by recognizing the legislative preference for reintegration with the employer and examined in detail the employer’s proposed accommodations for the warehouseman role. On the evidence, the tribunal found that the worker’s functional limitations could, in principle, be respected in the warehouseman job, so the dispute turned on whether the job remained appropriate when distance and practical accessibility were properly considered.
For Riel, taking the warehouseman job in Laval would mean a new commute of approximately 247 km from Aumond, involving roughly three hours of driving, again twice a week with employer-funded lodging during the work week. This represented an additional 84 km per trip compared to the pre-injury commute to Gatineau. Relying on the legislative and jurisprudential guidance that a 50 km radius is the usual “reasonable” benchmark, and considering his age (63), rural residence, work history, and medical and functional limitations, TAT-1 concluded that the extra distance and time on the road created an excessive and unreasonable constraint. Therefore, even if functionally feasible on paper, the Laval warehouseman role was not an “emploi convenable” for this worker because the distance rendered it inappropriate in his specific circumstances.

The TAT-1 decision: suitability of the gas station cashier job

TAT-1 then assessed whether the gas station cashier position identified by CNESST constituted suitable employment. The tribunal reviewed the worker’s interests, aptitudes, residual capacity, functional limitations, and personal constraints. It carefully compared these with the duties of a gas station cashier at a self-service station within his region.
On this record, TAT-1 found that the cashier duties did not conflict with the worker’s recognized functional limitations. The tasks avoided heavy lifting and physically strenuous work that could aggravate his lumbar and hip conditions. The tribunal also concluded that the working conditions did not endanger his safety or integrity, and that performing the duties would not pose a significant risk of worsening his health. Additionally, there was a genuine hiring potential for such roles within his local labour market, which fit within the typical 50 km radius from his home. Accordingly, TAT-1 determined that, as of 11 June 2021, Riel was capable of performing the gas station cashier job in his region, and that this job qualified as suitable employment under the statutory scheme, given his overall profile and the labour market reality.

The TAT-2 decision: scope of revision and absence of a fatal error

The employer sought revision of TAT-1’s decision, arguing principally that the tribunal had arbitrarily relied on distance and had failed to justify why the added 84 km made the warehouseman role unsuitable, when the worker already travelled long distances and received lodging. The revision application proceeded before TAT-2 (Judge Gauthier), whose decision (8 April 2024) is referred to as TAT-2.
TAT-2 first delineated the limited scope of revision under article 49 of the Act establishing the Tribunal administratif du travail (LITAT). Revision is available only in exceptional cases involving a “vice de fond ou de procédure” of such gravity that it invalidates the decision. It is not meant to be a disguised appeal or a second opportunity to re-weigh the evidence. TAT-2 emphasized that it could not substitute its appreciation of the facts for that of TAT-1 or lightly revisit the tribunal’s weighing of distance and worker-specific factors.
Applying this strict standard, TAT-2 held that TAT-1’s reliance on distance was neither arbitrary nor unsupported by evidence. The decision was grounded in the statutory criteria of appropriate employment and reasonable possibility of hiring, and in the well-established 50 km reference radius coupled with the worker’s particular profile. TAT-2 also rejected the employer’s contention that TAT-1 had failed to consider the worker’s prior travel pattern and employer-paid lodging; those factors were expressly acknowledged but were reasonably outweighed by the increased distance, the worker’s age, rural context, and medical limitations.
TAT-2 therefore concluded that no fatal error of law or fact tainted TAT-1’s reasoning. The refusal to treat the Laval warehouseman job as suitable employment, and the designation of the gas station cashier job as suitable, were within the range of acceptable outcomes. As a result, the employer’s revision request was dismissed, and TAT-1’s decision stood.

The Superior Court’s judicial review: standard of review and deference

Transelec / Common inc. then brought a judicial review in the Quebec Superior Court (2025 QCCS 4448), challenging both TAT-1 and TAT-2. The parties agreed that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness under the Supreme Court of Canada’s Vavilov framework, and the Court accepted this. This meant the Court’s task was not to decide anew whether the warehouseman job was suitable or what distance was reasonable, but rather to determine whether TAT-1’s and TAT-2’s decisions were coherent, intelligible, and justifiable in light of the legal and factual constraints.
The Court reiterated that the Tribunal administratif du travail, particularly its occupational health and safety division, is a specialized body with exclusive jurisdiction over these disputes, protected by a privative clause. It can decide all questions of fact and law necessary to exercise its jurisdiction, and its decisions are final and not subject to appeal, save in narrow circumstances. In line with Dunsmuir and subsequent jurisprudence, the Court emphasized that its role was one of restraint, avoiding any attempt to “redo” the fact-finding or to re-balance the evidence.
Examining TAT-1, the Court found that the tribunal clearly set out the statutory framework, articulated the meaning of “emploi convenable,” and anchored its reasoning in both the legislation and the relevant case law on distance and suitable employment. It explicitly recognized that the worker’s functional limitations could be accommodated in the warehouseman job, and then turned to distance as a contextual constraint, drawing on the 50 km benchmark from jurisprudence and on the worker’s specific situation—age 63, rural residence in Aumond, pre-injury commute of 163 km with employer lodging, and the new 247 km commute to Laval. The Court held that the conclusion that these additional travel demands rendered the job inappropriate for this particular worker fell well within the range of reasonable outcomes.
Turning to TAT-2, the Court accepted that the revision decision faithfully applied the restrictive standard under LITAT. TAT-2 correctly treated the employer’s arguments as a disagreement with how the evidence had been weighed, not as a demonstration of any foundational legal or factual defect. The Superior Court found no illogic, gap, or fatal flaw in TAT-2’s analysis, and no misapprehension of the standard of revision.

Outcome and successful party

In its final paragraphs, the Superior Court dismissed the employer’s application for judicial review and ordered costs against Transelec / Common inc. The result is that both TAT-1 and TAT-2 decisions are fully upheld. The warehouseman position in Laval remains classified as not being suitable employment for Riel due to the unreasonable commuting distance and its impact in light of his age, rural location, and health limitations. Conversely, the gas station cashier job is confirmed as suitable employment available in his region as of 11 June 2021.
The successful parties at the judicial review stage are the Tribunal administratif du travail and, in practical terms, the worker, Jean-Claude Riel, whose position regarding the non-suitability of the Laval warehouseman job is maintained. The Court’s disposition is “rejet de la demande de pourvoi en contrôle judiciaire… avec frais.” However, the judgment does not specify any exact dollar amount for costs, damages, or other monetary awards. Accordingly, while costs are awarded against the employer in favor of the successful side, the total monetary amount ordered in their favor cannot be determined from this decision.