Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Characterisation of the two chefs’ departure as either dismissals or voluntary resignations, with close scrutiny of their conduct, intentions and credibility versus that of the employer.
• Determination whether the termination of ten staff members amounted to a “licenciement collectif” under the Loi sur les normes du travail (L.n.t.), triggering statutory collective dismissal notice and indemnity obligations.
• Assessment of the employer’s reliance on an “événement imprévu” to excuse non-compliance with collective dismissal notice requirements, and whether the employer’s own actions could qualify as such an event.
• Evaluation of whether 9136-6633 Québec inc. (Taj Construction) operated as an “agent payeur” and thus was solidarily liable alongside Groupe Ubora inc. for amounts owing under the L.n.t.
• Clarification of the chefs’ remuneration structure (annual salary versus hourly pay) for purposes of calculating notice, collective dismissal indemnities, and vacation/holiday entitlements.
• Exercise of the court’s discretion to grant the CNESST’s additional 20% indemnity under article 114 L.n.t., considering the employer’s good faith, the complexity of the legal issues, and the broader public-order nature of labour standards.

Background and facts of the Ubora restaurant dispute

Ubora was a high-end restaurant project in an industrial area of Saint-Hubert, on Montréal’s South Shore, launched in December 2021. The concept, developed jointly by real estate developer Elie Akoury and his company Groupe Ubora inc., together with two young chefs, Marie-Ève Lemieux and Chloé Desruisseaux, was a refined dining experience with a private room, wine cellar, and creative upscale menu. Despite the quality of the cuisine, the restaurant struggled with low traffic almost from the outset. The parties had envisaged a premium concept, but disappointing revenues led Mr. Akoury to revisit the business model. In January 2023, they held a key meeting. On the employer’s version, this was when he seriously proposed that the chefs buy the restaurant inventory and continue operating the business as owners, paying rent, with roughly six months to explore financing. The chefs, by contrast, saw the January meeting as a strategic reset after staff turnover, focused on rebuilding the team and boosting customer traffic, with only a general discussion—rather than a firm plan—about them investing some funds, not purchasing all inventory. Following this meeting, the chefs actively worked on reducing operating costs and improving visibility, including social media promotion. They noticed some improvement in customer traffic during winter 2023. The turning point came after the two-week construction holiday in summer 2023. On 7 August, while the restaurant was still closed, Mr. Akoury contacted the chefs for a meeting. At their request, it was scheduled for 8 August 2023 at 9:00 a.m. at the restaurant so they could immediately begin preparations for the reopening the next day and an important event slated for the following Saturday. They had already placed food orders and instructed their sous-chef, Maude Babineau-Champagne, to arrive at 10:00 a.m. to start prep work. At the 8 August meeting, the parties sharply disagreed on what was said. According to Mr. Akoury, the session was meant to evaluate the inventory in view of its sale to the chefs. When he learned they did not intend to purchase it and refused to adapt the menu to a more affordable business-lunch concept, he said the chefs became angry, rejected his proposals, and announced their resignation. The chefs testified instead that, when they reiterated their refusal to buy the inventory and to pivot to “soups, salads and sandwiches” for the lunch crowd, Mr. Akoury lost his temper, declared the project over, demanded the immediate return of their access cards and company credit cards, told them to gather their belongings, and ordered them and the sous-chef out of the premises on the spot. The restaurant closed suddenly that day. In the same context, eight other employees were dismissed. No statutory collective dismissal notice was given to the Minister, and no individual notice or compensatory indemnity was paid to the ten affected employees. The chefs, shocked and in tears, later returned to the restaurant attempting to negotiate a more orderly winding-down—both to preserve their reputations and to use already ordered stock and honour the planned private function, but Mr. Akoury refused to revisit his decision. The CNESST, on behalf of the ten employees, brought a claim seeking collective dismissal indemnities, individual termination-related amounts and unpaid vacation/holiday sums, as well as the additional 20% indemnity under article 114 L.n.t. The defendants were Groupe Ubora inc. and 9136-6633 Québec inc. (Taj Construction), the latter alleged to be an agent payor because it had been used to issue payroll cheques.

Credibility assessment and characterisation of the chefs’ departure

A central factual issue was whether the chefs had resigned or been dismissed on 8 August 2023. The court first evaluated witness credibility. The chefs gave concordant, detailed, and emotionally charged but not exaggerated accounts of the history of the restaurant, the January 2023 discussions, and the events of 8 August. Their testimony was corroborated at key points by the sous-chef. By contrast, Mr. Akoury was only partially convincing. He denied having lost his temper, although even his own account acknowledged disappointment and frustration over the chefs’ refusal to buy the inventory and adapt the menu, in a context described by all as highly tense. His behaviour in court—requiring repeated judicial admonitions to remain calm and stop reacting to testimony—supported the chefs’ portrayal of him as agitated and impulsive in the August confrontation. The court also drew an adverse inference from the absence of any video footage of the meeting, despite Akoury’s admitted practice of monitoring the restaurant with cameras and his acknowledgment that the meeting location was in view of them. The unexplained failure to produce potentially decisive recordings undermined his version. Applying well-established Quebec jurisprudence on resignation (démission), the court reiterated that resignation requires both a subjective element (clear intention to quit) and an objective element (conduct consistent with that intention). Because resignation entails serious consequences—loss of employee status, forfeiture of notice, and potential ineligibility for employment insurance—courts are reluctant to infer it from ambiguous circumstances or impulsive words spoken in anger. The court emphasised that:

• The chefs never expressed a genuine intention to quit; they had continued to invest time, energy and planning in the restaurant, including placing orders and organising a large weekend event.
• Their behaviour on 7–8 August—returning to work on a scheduled day off, ordering stock, scheduling staff and planning upcoming service—was wholly inconsistent with preparations to resign.
• Even if they had uttered words such as “if it’s like that, we’re leaving,” such statements, spoken in a heated and emotionally charged exchange, would not amount to a clear and deliberate resignation. Courts treat “resignations” under the influence of shock, anger or despair with caution, often concluding there is no true resignation unless the employee later confirms that intention calmly and consistently. In this case, the chefs’ subsequent conduct—crying, attempting to reopen discussions to find a more professional closure, and promptly filing a CNESST complaint—confirmed their wish to keep working or at least to end the relationship on reasonable terms, not to abandon their roles without notice. The court also pointed out that, legally, even if the chefs had decided to resign, they would ordinarily owe a reasonable “délai-congé” (notice) under article 2091 C.c.Q. The restaurant had an important event looming and food already ordered; an immediate departure would have been highly disruptive. It was therefore implausible that a prudent employer in Akoury’s position would simply accept an instantaneous resignation without attempting to negotiate a notice period or transitional arrangement. In law, if an employer forces an employee who offers reasonable notice to leave immediately, the employer’s decision can convert a voluntary departure into a unilateral termination. Overall, the court found no proof, on a balance of probabilities, that the chefs had freely and knowingly chosen to resign. Instead, it held that they were dismissed—congédiées—on 8 August 2023 when Mr. Akoury unilaterally brought their employment to an abrupt end and ordered them off the premises.

Collective dismissal and the “unforeseen event” exception

Once the chefs’ termination was characterised as a dismissal, it followed that ten employees had been dismissed on the same day. That triggered the L.n.t. provisions on licenciement collectif, which apply when at least ten employees of the same establishment are laid off within a two-month span. For such collective dismissals for economic or technological reasons, the employer must give written notice to the Minister within statutory timeframes (in this case, eight weeks, given the number of employees). Failing that, the employer owes each employee an indemnity equivalent to their usual wages for the notice period, unless one of the limited exceptions in article 84.0.5 L.n.t. applies—force majeure or an “événement imprévu” that makes timely notice impossible. The defendants did not rely on force majeure. Instead, they argued that the chefs’ sudden departure was an “unforeseen event” excusing compliance with the collective dismissal notice requirement. The court rejected this defence. Conceptually, an unforeseen event is meant to be something external to the employer, not caused by its fault, whose consequences could not reasonably have been predicted and that makes compliance with statutory notice impossible within the relevant timeframe. By contrast, the conflict that exploded on 8 August, culminating in the closure, was shaped by the employer’s own decisions—its business strategy, its reaction to the chefs’ refusal to buy the inventory or change the menu, and its choice to immediately shut down and send everyone home. That sequence did not qualify as an external, unforeseeable occurrence beyond the employer’s control. Even assuming, hypothetically, that the chefs had impulsively announced a resignation, the court reasoned that Mr. Akoury still had options other than overnight closure: he could have tried to negotiate a notice period, temporarily closed to recruit other staff, or explored alternative arrangements with the kitchen team. Instead, he effectively chose the most abrupt path, “putting the key in the door” without seeking to mitigate the effects. In these circumstances, the employer could not transform its own strategic choice into an “événement imprévu” enabling it to escape a public-order obligation designed to protect employees affected by mass layoffs. The court therefore held that there had indeed been a collective dismissal within the meaning of the L.n.t., that no valid unforeseen event excused the lack of prior notice to the Minister, and that the employees were entitled to the statutory compensatory indemnity.

Agent payor, corporate roles and solidary liability

Another key issue was whether 9136-6633 Québec inc. (referred to in the reasoning as Taj Construction) acted as an “agent payeur” and could therefore be held solidarily liable with Groupe Ubora for the sums owing to the CNESST. Initially, Groupe Ubora handled payroll through its own cheques, although Taj Construction, another company controlled by Akoury, advanced funds to cover salaries and certain suppliers, later being reimbursed. From March 2023 onward, however, Taj Construction began directly issuing payroll cheques to Ubora employees, ostensibly because Groupe Ubora had run out of pre-printed cheques and was in a banking transition that never materialised. Akoury maintained that this was only an internal cash-flow arrangement, with Taj always reimbursed and not a true employer. The court did not accept that this removed Taj from the scope of liability. Relying on prior Court of Appeal and trial decisions, it emphasised that labour standards law is remedial and employee-protective. It is directed at whoever pays wages, not only the legal “employer” in a strict corporate sense. Where a third party systematically pays salaries—even if later reimbursed—courts can and do treat that entity as an agent payor, solidarily liable with the operating employer for unpaid statutory entitlements. On the facts, Taj Construction had consistently advanced funds and, at least from March 2023, issued the actual salary cheques employees received. From the workers’ perspective, Taj was plainly a payor; under the protective logic of the L.n.t., that sufficed for solidary responsibility. The court thus concluded that 9136-6633 Québec inc. was an agent payor and would be condemned solidarily with Groupe Ubora inc. for the amounts due.

Remuneration structure of the chefs and calculation of entitlements

The method of calculating the chefs’ entitlements depended on whether they were paid an hourly wage or a fixed annual salary. The CNESST’s investigator had initially treated them as hourly employees, influenced by pay-stub entries referencing “vacation” and the absence of formal written employment contracts—features she associated with hourly, rather than salaried, arrangements. However, at trial both chefs testified, and Mr. Akoury confirmed, that they had negotiated an annual remuneration of $75,000 each at the outset, which was to include one month of vacation. Later, a 2% tip-sharing arrangement was added in favour of the kitchen team. Taken together, this evidence convinced the court that, notwithstanding the initial administrative treatment, the true agreement was for an annual salary. That classification directly affected the calculation of notice, collective dismissal indemnities, and related holiday amounts. Based on updated figures presented by the Commission at the close of the hearing—and not contested by the defendants—the court approved a schedule of amounts for each of the ten employees, covering statutory notice (both individual and collective where applicable), unused holidays and other related sums.

Additional 20% indemnity under article 114 L.n.t.

Finally, the court considered whether to award the discretionary additional 20% indemnity under article 114 L.n.t. This amount, payable to the CNESST itself, is not a punitive fine but a legislated funding mechanism to support the Commission’s enforcement of labour standards. Appellate jurisprudence indicates that it should generally be granted unless there are particular circumstances, such as where the employer, acting in good faith, raises a serious, novel, or complex legal issue. Mere good faith, however, is not enough on its own to avoid the surcharge, given the public-order character of the L.n.t. In this case, the dispute did raise complex and principled questions about resignation versus dismissal, the contours of “événement imprévu,” and agent-payor liability. The court acknowledged the seriousness of these issues. Nonetheless, it noted that the matter required a three-day trial and substantial judicial analysis because the employer refused to pay amounts that were, in the court’s view, clearly due once the proper legal framework was applied. While the judge stopped short of branding the employer’s conduct as bad faith, she found that its intransigence and the resulting procedural burden weighed against relieving it of the article 114 obligation. The CNESST’s request for the 20% additional amount was therefore granted.

Outcome and financial consequences

In conclusion, the court held that the two chefs had been dismissed, not resigned; that together with the eight other dismissed employees there had been a collective dismissal under the L.n.t.; that no valid “unforeseen event” exempted the employer from its statutory collective dismissal notice obligations; that 9136-6633 Québec inc. was an agent payor and solidarily liable; and that the chefs were annual-salary employees, affecting how their entitlements were computed. On that basis, the Cour supérieure allowed the CNESST’s claim in full. It ordered Groupe Ubora inc. and 9136-6633 Québec inc., solidarily, to pay the CNESST a principal sum of $63,686.79 with interest under article 114 L.n.t. from the date of mailing the demand letter, plus an additional $12,737.36 with legal interest from the date of service, for a total monetary condemnation of $76,424.15, together with judicial costs. The CNESST is thus the successful party, having obtained a judgment confirming the employees’ rights to collective dismissal and related indemnities and securing a total award of $76,424.15 in its favour, exclusive of ongoing interest and taxable costs whose precise amounts cannot be determined from the judgment alone.