Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Characterization and enforceability of a fixed-term employment contract that incorporates an employer’s internal “Politique de conditions de travail” by reference
• Scope and effect of a three-month probationary (période d’essai) clause allowing the employer to terminate if performance is unsatisfactory during the trial period
• Assessment of whether the employer’s termination before the end of the fixed term was abusive or instead validly based on documented performance problems
• Evaluation of factual evidence on the employee’s alleged failure to meet job requirements, including delegation of tasks and accounting errors, versus the employee’s claim of dismissal without cause
• Application of the civil burden of proof in damages claims (articles 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q.), requiring the plaintiff to establish fault, damages, and causation on a balance of probabilities
• Determination of costs and judicial fees following dismissal of the claim, including allocation of the 118 $ court stamp in favor of the successful party

Facts of the employment relationship

Svitlana Palyukh was hired by Mon resto Saint-Michel, a non-profit organization (OBNL) operating in Montréal, under a written “Contrat de travail” dated 11 November 2024. She was engaged as a regular full-time employee in the position of administrative assistant to management, for a fixed period running from 11 November 2024 to 31 March 2025. The contract set out that she would work as a “salariée régulière à temps plein” and identified her tasks through an attached job description (Annexe 1), which formed an integral part of the agreement. The contract expressly stated that it applied “selon les conditions qui prévalent dans la Politique de conditions de travail de Mon Resto Saint Michel,” thereby incorporating the employer’s policy on working conditions into the contractual framework. The contract also stipulated that remuneration was subject to annual review according to the salary policy and financial means of the organization, and that the contract would automatically renew from year to year following an assessment of the organization’s financial capacity.

Claim brought before the Small Claims Division

Palyukh filed a claim in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec seeking 5,000 $ in damages against Mon resto Saint-Michel. She alleged loss of employment and abusive termination of the fixed-term contract. According to her version of events, she was dismissed without cause and contrary to the terms of the contract that had guaranteed her employment to 31 March 2025. Her monetary claim covered salary for February and March 2025, calculated at 20 $ per hour for 35 hours per week, as well as an amount for inconvenience and non-pecuniary harm. A formal demand letter was sent on 28 April 2025, and the employer responded through its director general, Kartti Hamid, referring specifically to the applicable Policy on conditions of work as governing her situation.

Employer’s defence and reliance on the probation policy

Mon resto Saint-Michel contested the claim. The employer acknowledged that Palyukh had been hired on a fixed-term contract from 11 November 2024 to 31 March 2025. However, it argued that the contract expressly subjected the employment relationship to the “Politique de la condition de travail” (Policy on conditions of work) of the organization, which included a probation period clause. The employer relied particularly on article 3.5 of the Policy concerning the probation period (période d’essai). Under article 3.5, a three-month probation applied to the appointment of a regular employee. During this trial period, the general management was required to meet the employee midway for an initial evaluation, and, if necessary, could extend probation and adjust evaluation mechanisms. Importantly for the dispute, the clause provided that in certain cases, during or at the end of the probation period, management could terminate the contract if it considered the employee unable to meet the requirements of the position. Mon resto Saint-Michel’s position was that, because the contract incorporated the Policy, including article 3.5, it had the contractual right to terminate Palyukh’s employment within the three-month probation when she failed to satisfy the job’s demands.

Performance concerns and end of employment

The evidence before the Court showed that Palyukh’s employment ended on 31 January 2025, which was before the scheduled expiry date of 31 March 2025 but still within the three-month probation period. The employer’s evidence was that Palyukh did not meet the required performance standards. She was said to have regularly delegated her responsibilities to other employees working in different sectors, refused to complete tasks assigned to her, and demonstrated a lack of understanding of some fundamental accounting elements. This led to numerous errors in the accounting work entrusted to her. According to the employer, several meetings and discussions were held between Palyukh and those responsible at Mon resto Saint-Michel to address these issues, but there was no improvement in her performance or compliance with job expectations. These performance-related concerns formed the substantive basis for the employer’s decision to terminate her employment during the probation period.

Burden of proof and legal framework for damages

In resolving the dispute, the Court emphasized the general civil law rules of evidence applicable to a claim for damages. Referring to articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec, the judge reiterated that a party who wishes to assert a right must prove the facts supporting that right on a balance of probabilities. This includes, in a damages action, proving the defendant’s fault, the damages suffered, and the causal link between the fault and the damages. The Court underlined that it is not enough for the plaintiff to allege that the termination was abusive; she must establish, by preponderant evidence, that the employer committed a fault in ending the contract and that this fault directly caused the damages claimed. Where the employer invokes a contractual clause such as a probation provision, the analysis turns on whether that clause validly applied and whether the employer acted within its contractual and legal rights in relying on it.

Court’s assessment of the evidence and outcome

After considering the evidence and the contractual and policy documents, the Court concluded that Palyukh had not discharged her burden of proof. The judge found that, given the applicability of article 3.5 of Mon resto Saint-Michel’s 2024 Policy on conditions of work, which allowed the employer to terminate the contract during probation if the employee did not meet job requirements, the employer’s decision to end the contract on 31 January 2025 fell within the scope of that clause. The employer’s evidence of ongoing performance deficiencies and unsuccessful corrective meetings went unrebutted in a way that would establish an abuse of rights or wrongful termination under the fixed-term contract. As a result, the Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove, on a preponderance of evidence, that the employer’s conduct was wrongful or that she was entitled to the claimed salary and additional damages. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the action brought by Svitlana Palyukh and ordered that her claim be rejected. In terms of monetary consequences, no damages were awarded to her. Instead, the successful party, Mon resto Saint-Michel, obtained an order for costs in the amount of 118 $, corresponding to the judicial stamp, as the total quantified amount in its favor.