In a recent decision of the Québec Administrative Labour Tribunal1 (“Tribunal”), the complainant challenged his dismissal following an altercation with a co-owner of the company, with whom he had an adversarial employment relationship. The Tribunal dismissed the complaint and, among other considerations, relied on events that occurred after the dismissal to justify the measure imposed by the employer.
Background
In September 2020, the complainant was hired to work as a production manager. Over time, the relationship between the complainant and the company's personnel and co-owners deteriorated due to the complainant's disparaging remarks, leading some colleagues to resign or consider resigning. On numerous occasions, the situation at work deteriorated to the point that the employer asked the complainant to return home to reflect on his actions.
Six months before his dismissal, an altercation took place between the complainant and one of the company's co-owners. Following this event, he was asked to avoid speaking to that co-owner.
Another altercation subsequently occurred, this time between the complainant and the second co-owner, during which the complainant threatened to file complaints with regulatory bodies in the construction industry. The complainant then took the employer's courtesy vehicle to leave the workplace, driving closely by the co-owner as he left. After this event, the complainant was dismissed.
A few months after his dismissal, the complainant posted a Google review alleging, among other things, that the employer treated its employees like “slaves.” A few days later, the employer sent a formal demand letter, which required him to delete this publication. The complainant claimed that he had since deleted this comment and did not apologize for his actions. On the day before the hearing, the employer noted that three months earlier, the complainant had published a new comment online in which he once again made negative comments about the company.
Decision
The Tribunal found that the dismissal was imposed for good and sufficient cause, even if no progressive discipline had been applied. In fact, on several occasions during his employment, the complainant was asked to return home to reflect on his actions and behaviour. Moreover, the Tribunal noted that the complainant nevertheless continued to be disrespectful towards the company's personnel and co-owners.
As for the event that took place just before his dismissal, the Tribunal found that the complainant had made comments and acted towards his immediate superiors in a manner that was disparaging, threatening, derogatory and disrespectful. Moreover, the fact that he drove his vehicle very close to the co-owner underscored the complainant's lack of respect, even for his immediate superior. According to the Tribunal, this alone constituted serious misconduct, justifying the employer's decision to disregard progressive discipline.
The Tribunal also carefully considered comments posted online by the complainant after his dismissal. Citing Cabiakman v. Industrial Alliance Life Insurance Co.,2 the Tribunal stated that although the facts arose post-dismissal, they could be admitted as evidence if they were relevant and demonstrated that the employer's decision to dismiss the employee was justified at the time it was made.
In this case, the Tribunal noted that the two comments posted online revealed his contempt for the employer and exemplified how the complainant did not change his disrespectful and disparaging attitude towards his employer. In fact, despite the formal demand letter sent after his dismissal, the complainant nevertheless posted a second negative message.
Accordingly, the comments published online after his dismissal, along with the complainant's refusal to take responsibility for his actions during the hearing, demonstrated that his disrespectful comments and behaviour could not have been corrected through other disciplinary measures.
Takeaways
This decision serves to highlight the principles that apply when terminating employment without progressive discipline, as well as the admissibility of post-dismissal facts as evidence, especially when those facts are relevant and establish that the employer's decision to dismiss an employee was justified at the time it was made.
Although the Tribunal did not address this issue, it is important to point out that negative online postings may also constitute a breach of the post-employment duty of loyalty in certain Canadian jurisdictions.
When terminating an employee's employment in circumstances similar to this case, it is therefore crucial to continue monitoring online postings about the employer.
Footnotes
1. Barthell c. Éléments chauffants Tempora inc., 2025 QCTAT 829.
2. [2004] 3 SCR 195, para 67.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
