Santé Québec (Centre universitaire de santé McGill) v. Tribunal administratif du travail

Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Gabriella Bradshaw, a medical technologist at the CUSM, filed a complaint under article 16 of the Quebec Labour Code alleging that her employer issued a written notice against her in reprisal for exercising a right under the Code.
• Central to the dispute was whether an employee's right to be accompanied by a union representative at a meeting with her employer is a right arising from the Labour Code or solely from the collective agreement.
• The Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT) found that the union representative's intervention during the July 17, 2024 meeting was a contributing cause of the written notice, tainting the entire disciplinary measure with an illicit motive.
• Applying the presumption under article 17 of the Labour Code, the TAT held that once an illicit motive is established, the employer cannot rebut the presumption even if a legitimate reason also exists.
• Before the Superior Court, the applicable standard of review was reasonableness, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Vavilov.
• Judicial review was sought by the employer on grounds that the TAT's interpretation of the Code was unreasonable in light of the Court of Appeal's decision in Donohue St-Félicien.

Facts of the case

Gabriella Bradshaw was employed as a medical technologist at the Centre universitaire de santé McGill (CUSM), which, as of December 1, 2024, operates under the name Santé Québec. Her union, the Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux (APTS), represented employees in her category. During her annual performance review on April 3, 2024, Bradshaw's supervisor, Rebecka Lang, raised concerns about her attendance, noting that she had been absent seven times due to illness over the preceding seven months. Despite that discussion, Bradshaw continued to be absent. In July 2024, Lang consulted Human Resources and the Attendance Management office, which confirmed that two periods totalling eight days of absence in April were attributed to pregnancy-related complications — a condition known to management — but that no documentation had been received for the remaining ten absences since their April meeting.

On July 17, 2024, Bradshaw was convened to a meeting regarding her absenteeism, attended by management and Human Resources. She was informed of her right to be accompanied by a union representative, and Alexandro Lebrun Espindola, a union advisor with the APTS, fulfilled that role. During the meeting, Lebrun Espindola intervened and instructed Bradshaw not to answer a question he described as "intrusive and ridiculous." Following the meeting, on July 24, 2024, Bradshaw was issued a written notice requiring her to provide a medical certificate for any subsequent absences over the next two months, and warning that failure to comply could result in further administrative or disciplinary measures. On August 23, 2024, Bradshaw filed a complaint under article 16 of the Labour Code, alleging that the written notice was a retaliatory measure taken against her because she had exercised her right to union representation.

Relevant legal provisions and clauses at issue

The complaint engaged articles 15 and 17 of the Quebec Labour Code. Article 15 prohibits an employer from imposing discriminatory or retaliatory measures against an employee for exercising a right under the Code, and empowers the TAT to order reinstatement or the cancellation of a sanction along with corresponding indemnities. Article 17 establishes a simple presumption in the employee's favour once it is shown that she exercised a Code right: the burden then shifts to the employer to prove that the measure was taken for another just and sufficient cause that is not a pretext. The employer's primary position was that the right to union accompaniment derived not from the Code but from the collective agreement, relying in particular on the Court of Appeal's decision in Le syndicat national des travailleurs de St-Thomas Didyme (CSN) c. Donohue St-Félicien et al., [1982] CA 98.

Reasoning and analysis

The TAT concluded that the presumption under articles 15 and 17 was triggered by the close temporal connection between the July 17 meeting — at which Bradshaw exercised her right to union representation — and the issuance of the written notice on July 24. It further found that the employer's written notice explicitly referenced its inability to assess Bradshaw's good faith because her union representative had advised her not to answer a question, thereby making the union's involvement a direct basis for the measure. The TAT held that this illicit motive contaminated the entire written notice, applying the "drop of poison" principle confirmed by the Quebec Court of Appeal in Silva c. Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal - Pavillon Notre-Dame, 2007 QCCA 458, and later affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Plourde c. Compagnie Wal-Mart du Canada, 2009 CSC 54. On the question of whether union accompaniment is a Code right, the TAT distinguished Donohue on the basis that the Court of Appeal in that case had only examined whether the right arose from the collective agreement and had not resolved whether it could also flow from the Code. The TAT supported its interpretation by reference to decisions of the Tribunal du travail, the Commission des relations de travail, and the TAT itself, including Chapdelaine, Ngalle Bosso, Daouzli, and Poudrier.

On judicial review, the Superior Court applied the reasonableness standard as articulated in Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration) c. Vavilov, 2019 CSC 65. Justice Sylvain Lussier found that the TAT's decision met the Vavilov standard: the administrative judge had explained why Donohue was not conclusive on the question before her, grounded her interpretation in a line of consistent precedent from her own tribunal and its predecessors, and reached a result that fell within the range of possible outcomes. The Superior Court emphasized that it was not sitting on appeal and could not substitute its own interpretation for that of the TAT on a matter within the TAT's exclusive jurisdiction. The employer's subsidiary argument — that it had established an independent, legitimate cause for issuing the notice — was also dismissed, as the TAT had reasonably concluded that once an illicit motive is found to have played a role, the employer cannot rebut the presumption even where a concurrent valid reason exists.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Superior Court dismissed the employer's application for judicial review of the TAT's decision dated April 10, 2025, with costs. The successful parties were Gabriella Bradshaw and the APTS as mis-en-cause. No specific monetary amount was ordered by the Superior Court in this decision; the quantum of any indemnity to which Bradshaw may be entitled as a result of the TAT's underlying ruling is not specified in the document under review.