Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Existence of a serious cause (motif sérieux) justifying immediate dismissal without notice under articles 2091 and 2094 C.c.Q., based on a client’s sexual harassment complaint against the employee.
• Weight and reliability of the employer’s evidence, including the client’s explanatory email describing sexualized gestures and comments toward a Sodexo employee, and the impact on the trust relationship.
• Assessment of alleged abuse of rights by the employer in terminating the contract instead of reassigning the employee to other duties and in communicating reasons for termination to Service Canada.
• Determination of whether the employer’s conduct and communications constituted defamation and an unlawful violation of the employee’s right to reputation under the Quebec Charter and article 35 C.c.Q.
• Evaluation of the claim for punitive damages based on alleged intentional and cavalier conduct in the dismissal, and of the counterclaim for abusive proceedings under article 51 C.p.c.
• Consideration of causation and proof regarding the employee’s extensive claim for financial, moral, and reputational damages versus her short service, work history, and personal circumstances.

Facts of the case

Nettoyage Express inc. is a Baie-Comeau based cleaning company founded in 1960 that provides residential, commercial, and industrial cleaning services, including laundry, sewing, carpet rental and sales, as well as pick-up and delivery. Its growth accelerated after securing a major contract with Minerai de fer du Québec (the Client) in 2018.
Marilyne Hébert Gaudreault was hired on 8 June 2022 under a verbal, open-ended (indeterminate term) employment contract. Her main assignment was as a truck driver performing pick-up and delivery of clothing and other items between Baie-Comeau and Fermont for the benefit of the Client and its subcontractor, Sodexo. The route of about 750 kilometres required her to leave Baie-Comeau on Sunday, sleep at the Client’s facilities, complete deliveries on Monday morning, then return Monday afternoon. The schedule was arranged so that she would take Tuesday off and work in the Baie-Comeau laundry from Wednesday, completing roughly 35 hours per week at $19 per hour.
The position required no special training beyond a valid driver’s licence. At the time of hire, the employee had no diploma, had not completed high school, and had no specific vocational training. The evidence also showed she tended, over the years, to occupy jobs only for short periods and herself admitted she did not “find her place” anywhere.

The sexual harassment complaint and termination

On Sunday 14 August 2022, the employee carried out her usual trip to Fermont and, according to her, performed her work as usual, returning on Monday. She took Tuesday off. When she reported to the employer’s office on Wednesday, she was immediately approached by the director’s assistant, Vicky Carrière, who handed her a termination letter in person.
The letter stated that she was being immediately dismissed because of a sexual harassment complaint by an employee of Minerai de fer du Québec. The complainant’s identity was kept confidential, but the letter indicated that the Client’s superintendent could provide further information if the employee wished. The employee did not contact the superintendent. Instead, she read the letter in a common area and communicated its contents to those present before leaving.
The decision to dismiss was made by the owner and sole shareholder, Marie-Josée Vézina, after a call from the Client had been relayed by Carrière. The Client reported an incident of sexual harassment attributed to the employee and advised that she should no longer be allowed on its premises. The employer immediately treated this as serious misconduct and ordered dismissal for gross fault. Vézina testified that, given the nature of the allegation (sexual harassment), the importance of the Client for the company’s survival, and the fact that a large, serious client took time to call about such conduct, she adopted a “zero tolerance” stance and instructed Carrière to prepare a letter and terminate the employee’s contract on the spot.
The court recognized the centrality of the Client contract to Nettoyage Express’s financial health and stability. Since 2018, this relationship had increased staff from seven to twenty-five employees and permitted salary increases and modernization of equipment. It was the first time the Client had ever intervened in this way with respect to one of the employer’s workers.

The rectified description of the complaint

The Client subsequently sent an explanatory email detailing the events behind the complaint. The judgment notes that it was unnecessary to reproduce the email, but confirms that it describes gestures and comments of a sexual nature directed at a Sodexo employee and characterizes the conduct as more than an isolated episode. The complainant decided to file a complaint for the first time on 15 August 2022, and the employer was informed of the complaint for the first time on that date.
Initially, the judgment had mistakenly indicated the complaint date as 15 August 2021. In a subsequent rectification judgment of 7 July 2025, the court corrected paragraph 31 so that the complaint date is properly recorded as 15 August 2022, aligning it with the surrounding chronology and the events immediately preceding the dismissal.

Legal framework on termination and serious cause

It was common ground that the parties were bound by a verbal, indefinite-term contract of employment. Under article 2091 of the Civil Code of Québec, either party to such a contract may terminate it by providing reasonable notice that takes into account the nature of the job, the context in which it is performed, and the duration of service. However, article 2094 C.c.Q. allows unilateral termination without notice if there is a serious reason.
The court applied the well-established two-pronged test, drawn from Robillard c. Actuaires-conseils Bergeron & associés inc. and subsequent cases, for determining whether a “motif sérieux” exists. This test requires that, subjectively, the employer must view the reason as sufficiently grave to justify immediate termination without notice, and, objectively, that reason must be serious enough, on a normative standard, to justify such a drastic measure.

Evaluation of serious cause and client complaint

The court carefully examined the nature of the employee’s role, the importance of the Client, the seriousness of the alleged conduct, and the loss of confidence. As the sole driver assigned to the Baie-Comeau–Fermont route, the employee was performing the only available circuit for the Client and its subcontractor. When the Client, described as a serious and significant business partner, explicitly requested that she not return to its premises and provided articulated reasons for that position grounded in alleged sexual harassment, the employer faced a direct and immediate threat to the continuity of its core contract.
Although the truth of the underlying allegations of sexual harassment was not definitively proven at trial, the court emphasized that it was undisputed that a complaint of sexual harassment was made against the employee and that the Client had requested that she no longer attend its site, providing reasons for that demand. The employer first received the complaint verbally and later in writing by email; the later written communications were admissible as confirming and detailing the same underlying facts that justified the dismissal decision at the time it was taken. Jurisprudence allows an employer, in such a context, to rely not only on the reasons stated at the time of dismissal but also on additional, relevant facts discovered after the dismissal that occurred before it.
Importantly, the court held that the employer had no obligation, in the circumstances, to investigate the veracity of the Client’s complaint. Given the seriousness of the allegation, the Client’s clear instruction that the employee not return, and the centrality of the contract to the business, the employer could lawfully take the complaint at face value. The fear of losing a major contract based on a serious, substantiated client dissatisfaction—distinct from mere whims or minor grievances—can constitute just cause for dismissal.

Reassignment, wrist pain, and alleged abuse of rights

The employee argued that the “real” reason for her dismissal was not the complaint but the fact that she had reported wrist pain, implying the employer sought to rid itself of a potentially injured worker. She also claimed that the employer failed in its duty to consider reassignment to other positions at the Baie-Comeau facility, where she believed the risk of alleged harassment would be minimal given that most employees were women.
The court rejected the theory that wrist pain was the true motive. Vézina testified credibly that the employee wished to continue working despite her limitations and had signed a release to that effect, and the court found it was in fact the Client’s complaint that drove the decision. The timing of the health issues and the complaint was seen as a coincidence rather than evidence of a hidden motive.
On reassignment, the court held that the existence of a serious reason for dismissal made the employer’s failure to reassign or to apply a progressive discipline approach non-faulty. The misconduct alleged, and the resulting loss of trust, were incompatible with maintaining the employment relationship, even in another position. In any event, there was no proof that a full-time alternative role was available; when the employee worked in the laundry, it was to supplement her driving duties to fill a full-time schedule, not because there was a distinct, vacant full-time laundry position.

Communications with Service Canada and reputation

The employee also claimed that the employer committed a grave fault and abused its rights by stating on the Record of Employment (ROE) to Service Canada that the dismissal was due to a sexual harassment complaint and by adding that she was an employee with “several problems.” She argued that this allegedly led to a denial of employment insurance benefits and contributed to reputational damage.
The assistant, Carrière, testified that this was the first time she had both delivered a termination letter and completed an ROE. She candidly explained that she simply wrote what had actually occurred: the employee had been dismissed following a client’s sexual harassment complaint. She believed, albeit mistakenly, that the employee would still qualify for benefits. The extra remark that the employee had “several problems” was unnecessary, but the court accepted that the record and exhibits demonstrated that the employee indeed had significant personal issues, even though the judgment declined to spell them out.
The court concluded that there was no causal link between the wording of the ROE and any compensable damage. The document was confidential and provided only to Service Canada; it was not disseminated more broadly. Although the employee initially claimed amounts linked to a denial of benefits, she later amended her claim to withdraw those sums after ultimately receiving benefits retroactively. The employer had no control over Service Canada’s internal decision-making and bore no responsibility for the processing of the application. The fact that Vézina, in hindsight, would have completed the ROE differently did not amount to a legal fault, and she was under no obligation to seek correction.

Defamation, Charter rights, and punitive damages

On the defamation claim, the employee sought $50,000 for damage to her reputation, relying on article 4 of the Quebec Charter (right to dignity, honour, and reputation) and article 35 C.c.Q. (respect of reputation and private life), and also pursued punitive damages under section 49 of the Charter, alleging a cavalier, abusive dismissal.
The court reiterated that defamation consists of a wrongful interference with another’s reputation, which can occur even if the statements are true; the essential question is whether there is fault and resulting harm. Fault may be intentional or unintentional: a person can violate another’s right to reputation without intending to cause harm.
After reviewing the evidence, the court found no bad faith on the employer’s part. Communicating the reasons for termination to Service Canada on a confidential document was not defamatory conduct. Only the Client and the employer’s management were aware of the complaint. The termination reasons were not otherwise disseminated by the employer. No potential employer contacted Nettoyage Express about the employee, and none was given negative information. Instead, the evidence showed that the employee herself chose to disclose the existence and content of the complaint to colleagues, family members, and other third parties. She was under no obligation to reveal those reasons but did so on her own initiative.
Given the lack of wrongful communication and the absence of proof of reputational harm attributable to the employer, the court rejected both the moral damages claim and the request for punitive damages. The employee had failed to show an unlawful and intentional breach of a Charter-protected right that would justify a punitive award. The judgment also highlighted the overall weakness of her credibility and the absence of convincing evidence to support her assertions.

Causation and overstatement of claimed damages

The employee claimed a total of $134,580 in compensatory and punitive damages. The court considered that, even if liability had been established, the claim was substantially overstated. The request for a full year’s lost wages was found to be grossly exaggerated in light of her very short tenure of about two months, the nature of her position, and existing jurisprudence. Cases she relied on were distinguishable on key points such as length of service and type of employment.
Furthermore, there was no adequate causal link between the contract termination and the range of life difficulties and financial problems she described. The court found that much of her situation stemmed from broader personal circumstances, not solely from this dismissal. She had not sought other employment after 17 August, choosing instead to wait for sickness unemployment insurance, then found a job two months later and left it. In the court’s view, the employer could not be made responsible for damages that it had not caused.

The counterclaim for abusive proceedings

Nettoyage Express counterclaimed for $16,944.45, alleging that the employee’s lawsuit constituted an abuse of process under article 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The employer argued that the employee had launched an obviously ill-founded and exaggerated claim in the Superior Court, forcing it to incur significant legal fees, and that her $50,000 defamation claim was wildly disproportionate, especially as she admitted that the employer had never communicated the reasons for her dismissal to anyone. It also pointed to other proceedings brought by the employee before different bodies—claims under the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases, the Act respecting labour standards (s. 122), and a claim to have a workplace injury recognized—as evidence that she was engaging in a pattern of vexatious litigation to harm the company economically.
The court acknowledged that the claim was weak and that the employee’s behaviour was close to being reprehensible. However, it found no convincing proof of “outrageous” or truly abusive conduct within the meaning of the case law on abusive proceedings. The other proceedings in different forums had not been sufficiently proven to form an established pattern of harassment or bad faith. In this action, the employer faced only pecuniary prejudice in the form of defence costs, and although the claim was poorly founded and the damages inflated, it still had some arguable basis and was not entirely frivolous or devoid of any chance of success.
Balancing the criteria under article 51 C.p.c., the court concluded that the threshold for a finding of abuse of process was not met and dismissed the counterclaim.

Overall outcome and rectified ruling

In the main judgment of 5 May 2025, the Superior Court found that Nettoyage Express had met its burden to show a serious reason for immediate dismissal, grounded in the Client’s sexual harassment complaint and the resulting rupture of trust. It rejected all of the employee’s claims for wrongful dismissal, abuse of rights, defamation, and punitive damages. In parallel, it also rejected the employer’s counterclaim for abusive proceedings. Each party was ordered to bear its own legal costs, with no indemnity or cost-shifting in favour of either side.
The subsequent rectification judgment of 7 July 2025 did not alter the substantive outcome. It simply corrected the date of the Client’s complaint in paragraph 31, confirming that the complainant first filed a complaint on 15 August 2022 and that the employer was informed for the first time on that same date, thereby harmonizing the facts with the events immediately preceding the dismissal. Taken together, the decisions mean that the employer effectively prevailed in defending itself against all of the employee’s monetary and reputational claims, while its own counterclaim was also rejected. No damages, indemnities, or quantified costs were awarded to any party; the total monetary award in favour of each side is zero, and each party is left to absorb its own legal expenses.