Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Roderik Diepen and Stephanie Ansell, both managers at Traffic Tech Inc., were dismissed by company president Brian Arnott following a late-night dispute at his cottage on November 20, 2020.
• The Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT) found that both employees were victims of psychological harassment in the workplace and were dismissed without just and sufficient cause after two years of continuous service.
• Traffic Tech Inc. sought judicial review of the TAT's decision, arguing primarily that the tribunal misapplied the standard of proof and failed to consider key evidence.
• Central to the harassment finding was the abrupt dismissal and the dangerous boat ride back to the marina in the middle of the night, during which the TAT found the employees were placed in life-threatening conditions.
• Reasonableness was the applicable standard of review, requiring deference to the TAT's findings of fact and law unless the decision was unjustified, non-transparent, or unintelligible.
• The Superior Court rejected Traffic Tech Inc.'s application, holding that its arguments amounted to a re-reading of the evidence rather than identifying any genuine unreasonableness in the TAT's decision.

Facts of the case

Roderik Diepen and Stephanie Ansell, a couple who both held managerial positions at Traffic Tech Inc., also maintained a personal friendship with company president Brian Arnott and his partner. Mr. Diepen had worked for Mr. Arnott in various capacities since 1998, while Ms. Ansell had been hired in 2009 and was serving as billing director at the time of her dismissal. On November 20, 2020, at Mr. Arnott's invitation, the couple attended a social gathering at his cottage. The evening involved extended alcohol consumption over several hours. Around two o'clock in the morning, Mr. Arnott — who had just returned from a business trip — initiated a work-related conversation with Mr. Diepen. The discussion deteriorated quickly, reportedly because Mr. Diepen expressed disagreement and Mr. Arnott took offense. Mr. Arnott then dismissed both Mr. Diepen and Ms. Ansell on the spot, told them to finalize the details with their supervisor, and expelled them from his cottage. Despite the late hour, he returned them to the marina by boat — driving at high speed, leaving them exposed on the deck in the cold without life jackets, before they were able to sober up in their car at the marina.

Statutory provisions at issue

The case turned on provisions of the Loi sur les normes du travail (L.n.t.). Under Article 81.91, every employee has the right to a workplace free from psychological harassment, and Article 81.19 obliges employers to take reasonable steps to prevent and stop harassment once it is brought to their attention. Article 81.18 defines psychological harassment as vexatious conduct — whether repeated behaviours or a single serious act — that is hostile or unwanted, and that undermines the employee's dignity or psychological or physical integrity, resulting in a harmful work environment. A single serious incident can constitute harassment if it produces a continuous harmful effect on the employee. Article 124 of the L.n.t. further provides that an employee with two years of continuous service in the same enterprise cannot be dismissed without just and sufficient cause.

Reasoning and analysis

The Superior Court first confirmed that the reasonableness standard governed judicial review of the TAT's decision, a point conceded by both parties. Under this standard, the court owes deference to the TAT and may not substitute its own assessment of the evidence; it may only intervene where the decision lacks justification, transparency, or intelligibility, or where significant flaws undermine the outcome.

On the psychological harassment question, the TAT had found that the workplace nexus requirement was satisfied: although the dismissal occurred at a social gathering, the conversation between Mr. Arnott and Mr. Diepen was professional in nature and thus took place within the employment relationship. The TAT also found that the words used by Mr. Arnott — including "you're done," "go work for the competition," and "speak to your boss about next steps" — were unambiguous and constituted an outright dismissal that left two members of the same family without income during a global pandemic. The TAT further concluded that the boat ride back to the marina, during which Mr. Arnott allegedly denigrated the employees and operated the vessel recklessly, placed their lives in danger and constituted a single serious act of psychological harassment with continuous harmful effects. Traffic Tech Inc.'s subsequent insistence that Mr. Diepen and Ms. Ansell return to work "as if nothing had happened" was found to be a failure to fulfill its obligation to stop the harassment.

On the dismissal question under Article 124 of the L.n.t., the TAT definitively concluded that the employees had in fact been dismissed — not that they merely believed they had been. Their conduct in the days that followed was consistent with that of dismissed employees: they contacted their respective supervisors, retained legal counsel, and declined to return to work while remaining professional. Ms. Ansell recovered her belongings the day after the incident. The "floating period" — Traffic Tech Inc.'s attempt in the weeks following November 21, 2020 to convince the employees that no dismissal had occurred — was characterized by the TAT as a source of severe ongoing stress rather than evidence that the dismissal never happened. The Superior Court upheld each of these findings, noting that Traffic Tech Inc.'s submissions amounted to proposing an alternative reading of the evidence rather than identifying any genuine legal error.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Superior Court dismissed Traffic Tech Inc.'s application for judicial review and remitted the files to the Tribunal administratif du travail to determine the appropriate remedies. Mr. Diepen and Ms. Ansell were the successful parties. No specific monetary amount was awarded at this stage of the proceedings, as the question of damages and remedies was expressly referred back to the TAT for determination. Costs of the judicial review proceedings were awarded against Traffic Tech Inc.