Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Central issue concerned whether terminating a five-year fixed-term employment contract during a six-month probation period, after only a few days of work, amounted to a wrongful dismissal engaging employer liability.
• Evidence about the claimant’s limited technological skills and difficulty using key administrative and accounting software weighed heavily in assessing his aptitude for the role of director general.
• The court examined the claimant’s work attendance, intention to work fewer hours than the 35-hour week in the contract, and his abrupt departure when told the contract was not yet signed, as indicators of attitude and integration problems.
• Legal analysis focused on the employer’s right under a fixed-term contract and article 2094 C.c.Q. to terminate without notice for a “motif sérieux,” particularly in the context of a probationary period and urgent operational needs.
• Allegations of age discrimination failed due to a complete absence of persuasive evidence linking the claimant’s age to the termination decision.
• The claim for moral damages was rejected because no abusive, vexatious, or malicious conduct was proven in the manner of termination.

Factual background

Réjean Bernard was hired as director general of the Association des archivistes du Québec (the Association) following an organizational crisis caused by the simultaneous departure of two employees in the summer of 2022. The Association, a modestly sized organization, urgently needed a leader who could combine strategic oversight with hands-on operational management, particularly in day-to-day administrative and financial tasks. The parties agreed on a fixed-term employment contract for five years that included a six-month probationary period. The contract provided for a normal work week of 35 hours and stipulated a 30-day notice in the event of termination outside the framework of a serious motive. Mr. Bernard began his duties in mid-September 2022. Only a few days after he started, the Association terminated his employment on 20 September 2022 and paid him the equivalent of one week’s salary. In November 2022, Mr. Bernard brought a small claims action, initially claiming CAD 4,900 for wrongful termination. Shortly before the hearing, he amended his claim to CAD 15,000, composed mainly of lost remuneration he said was owed for the six-month probationary period and an additional CAD 1,000 for moral damages. To justify the increased claim, he calculated the value of the probation period at 24 weeks at CAD 1,225 per week (CAD 29,400), from which he deducted the week already paid and income earned elsewhere, resulting in an adjusted figure that he reduced to stay within the court’s jurisdiction.

Contractual framework and probation period

The court analyzed the relationship under the rules governing fixed-term employment contracts in the Civil Code of Québec, particularly article 2094 C.c.Q., which permits an employer to terminate a contract without notice for a “motif sérieux.” In principle, a fixed-term contract binds the parties until its term, unless there is such serious cause. The six-month probation clause was important: it expressly allowed the employer to assess the employee’s suitability for the position during an initial period. The court emphasized that jurisprudence recognizes an employer is not obliged to wait until the end of probation to end employment, provided the decision is grounded in real reasons, assessed in good faith, and based on a genuine evaluation of the employee’s performance and fit. The presence of a contractual 30-day notice clause did not override the legal rule permitting termination without notice where a serious motive exists.

Evidence about performance and operational requirements

From the outset, Mr. Bernard was expected to manage administrative and financial operations and to work with existing technological tools and software, including accounting-related systems. While the director general role undeniably had a strategic component, the evidence showed that, in the Association’s specific context—small size, recent staff losses, urgent continuity needs—the position also required immediate, concrete involvement in daily operations. The court found that this reality required Mr. Bernard to be relatively autonomous from the first days, including in handling the tools already in place. The evidence, including exchanges with the vice-president for associative affairs, showed that Mr. Bernard struggled with some essential software, particularly accounting tools. Interview notes produced in evidence suggested he had a generalist, “learned on the job” technological profile without strong mastery of the critical systems. While he had not claimed to be a technology expert, the employer could reasonably expect a sufficient level of comfort to take minimal charge of operations early on. The court accepted that, although Mr. Bernard made some efforts to learn certain tools, these efforts remained insufficient given the Association’s immediate needs.

Conduct, presence, and attitude in the first days

Beyond technical skills, the court carefully examined Mr. Bernard’s attitude and conduct during his first days in the role. The court found that he expressed an intention to work fewer hours per day—about six hours—than the full-time schedule contemplated in the contract, which provided for a 35-hour work week. There was no proof of any clear agreement modifying the contractual hours. Evidence also indicated irregular presence at the workplace and absences during those initial days, aggravating the employer’s concerns about his commitment and integration. Mr. Bernard contended that he worked remotely during some of this time, but the court noted that this arrangement had not been clearly defined or validated with the employer. A particularly significant incident occurred when he learned that the Association’s president had not yet signed the contract. Despite the vice-president’s invitation to remain in post pending clarification, Mr. Bernard chose to leave the workplace. Although the court acknowledged that this reaction could be linked to understandable anxiety about his contractual status, it still viewed it as showing limited flexibility and adaptability in a situation calling for a minimum of collaboration and trust. Individually, each of these elements—technological challenges, hour-reduction intentions, irregular presence, and abrupt departure—might not have justified termination. Taken together, and in the context of a very recent hiring and urgent organizational pressures, they convinced the court that Mr. Bernard was having difficulty integrating and that there was a real mismatch between the Association’s needs and the way he approached his new role.

Legal assessment of the termination decision

The court characterized the termination as a management decision based on an assessment of suitability rather than a disciplinary dismissal for serious misconduct. It stressed that this was not a case of alleged gross fault but of an employer evaluating performance and fit during probation. In the specific circumstances—probationary period, pressing operational needs, and the combination of performance and attitude concerns—the court found that the Association was entitled to conclude that Mr. Bernard did not meet expectations. Nothing in the evidence suggested the decision was arbitrary, malicious, or made in bad faith; rather, it stemmed from a genuine appraisal of his ability to fulfill the post’s immediate demands. Consequently, the court held there was a sufficiently serious motive to justify termination during the probation period without triggering contractual liability or additional notice obligations.

Discrimination and moral damages claims

Mr. Bernard also alleged that his age played a role in the termination, effectively invoking a discriminatory motive. The court rejected this argument, finding no persuasive evidence of age-related remarks, behaviour, or surrounding circumstances from which such a motive could be inferred. On the contrary, the evidence showed that the termination was based on concerns about his competencies and capacity to integrate into the specific functions for which he was hired. His claim for moral damages likewise failed. The court held that awarding moral damages would require proof of a distinct wrongful manner of termination—such as abusive, vexatious, or malicious conduct—over and above the decision to end the employment itself. The record contained no such evidence; there was no indication that the Association or its administrators acted in an unduly harsh or humiliating way in communicating or implementing the decision.

Outcome and financial consequences

In conclusion, the court found that, although Mr. Bernard’s employment ended very quickly, the termination rested on serious reasons tied to his unsuitability for the position as demonstrated in his first days of work. Because the employer acted within its rights under the fixed-term contract and the Civil Code, the termination did not amount to a wrongful breach, and the claim for damages was dismissed. As a result, the court rejected the action in full and did not award any of the CAD 15,000 sought (including the claimed moral damages). The successful parties were the defendants—the Association des archivistes du Québec and the two individual administrators, Julien Bréard and Carole Saulnier—and the judgment ordered the dismissal of the claim with legal costs payable by Mr. Bernard, without specifying any exact monetary amount for those costs.