Ville de Candiac v. McCrory

Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Ville de Candiac sought judicial review of a July 2, 2025 arbitral award that found the city had violated its collective agreement with the union.
• Central to the dispute was whether the employer could unilaterally impose a non-standard work week and schedule when posting two new Specialized Labourer – Class 3 weekend positions.
• Article 23 of the collective agreement, which sets a 39-hour work week from Monday to Friday for covered employees, was the primary contractual provision at issue.
• The employer argued its management rights under the collective agreement allowed it to create new positions with different schedules, particularly since the agreement was allegedly silent on the matter.
• Rejecting that argument, the arbitrator found Article 23 constituted a complete code on hours and scheduling, leaving no room for unilateral employer action.
• Reasonableness of the arbitral decision under the Vavilov standard was the sole question before the Superior Court.

Facts of the case

Ville de Candiac, a Quebec municipality, employed specialized labourers – class 3 under a collective agreement with the Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, section locale 1377 (SCFP Local 1377). These workers were assigned to the public works department, where their duties included parks and green space maintenance. Prior to the summer of 2023, weekend work in this classification was covered almost exclusively through overtime, a practice that had become increasingly difficult to manage — sometimes requiring up to 30 calls before a volunteer could be found. The employer attributed growing weekend demand to increased use of municipal facilities during the pandemic and an expansion of recreational services offered by the City. Concluding that two permanent weekend positions were necessary, the City sought budgetary approval and then entered into negotiations with the union in the fall of 2022. A tentative agreement was reached in February 2023 but was rejected by employees at a general assembly held in mid-April 2023. The City proceeded to post the two new Specialized Labourer – Class 3 positions — first internally, then externally on July 5, 2023. These positions provided for a 36-hour work week spread over three days (Friday to Sunday), with a daily schedule of 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. including two paid 30-minute meal breaks — conditions that differed materially from those established under the collective agreement for existing employees in the same classification. The union filed a grievance, seeking cancellation of the postings, compliance with the collective agreement, and punitive damages of $5,000, plus $100 per day the employer continued the practice.

Contractual clauses at issue

The key provisions were Articles 3.2, 9.02, and 23 of the collective agreement. Article 3.2 recognized management's exclusive right to administer the City's affairs and personnel, but expressly qualified that right as subject to compatibility with the agreement's provisions. Article 9.02 contemplated the employer's ability to create new positions or add employees to existing ones through a posting process. Article 23 established the standard work week for covered employees — including Specialized Labourers – Class 3 — as 39 hours per week, distributed Monday to Friday, along with specific daily schedules. The only express exceptions in Article 23 were for filtration plant operators and caretakers. The union contended that Article 23 amounted to a complete code on working hours and scheduling, leaving no discretion for the employer to unilaterally impose different conditions. The employer countered that the new positions were genuinely novel and that the collective agreement was therefore silent on their scheduling, preserving its management rights.

Reasoning and analysis

Arbitrator Me Michael McCrory, applying established principles of Quebec labour arbitration, examined whether the collective agreement contained provisions that restricted, limited, or displaced the employer's discretionary management rights with respect to the scheduling of the two new positions. He found that, regardless of whether the positions were characterized as "new" or as additions to an existing classification, they fell within the scope of the collective agreement — a point the employer itself acknowledged in the postings and in testimony at the hearing. Crucially, the arbitrator determined that Article 23 served as a comprehensive code on work weeks and daily schedules for all covered employees, with only two express exceptions, neither of which included Specialized Labourers – Class 3. He further noted that in implementing the new schedule, the employer had also been compelled to modify other conditions — including the calculation of vacation, sick leave, and the replacement of statutory holidays with a bank of hours — all of which fell under the collective agreement, reinforcing the conclusion that the employer had acted unilaterally in a domain governed by the parties' negotiated terms. The employer's argument that Article 23 was merely a general provision that could not restrict the creation of new positions was rejected; the arbitrator found its language left no room for unilateral deviation.

On judicial review before the Quebec Superior Court, Justice Sylvain Lussier applied the reasonableness standard as defined in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. The Court found the arbitrator's reasoning to be structured, consistent, well grounded in the collective agreement's text, and coherent in its logic. It rejected the employer's submission that the arbitrator had added to the collective agreement or had improperly fettered management rights, noting instead that the arbitrator had properly interpreted the agreement as a whole under Articles 1426 and 1427 of the Civil Code of Québec. The Court also emphasized that a simple disagreement with an arbitral conclusion does not establish unreasonableness, and that courts owe deference to arbitrators in their exclusive jurisdiction to interpret collective agreements under Article 100 of the Labour Code.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Superior Court dismissed Ville de Candiac's application for judicial review, finding the July 2, 2025 arbitral award to be reasonable. The underlying arbitral award — which had been upheld — granted the union's grievance, declared the employer in breach of the collective agreement, and annulled the July 2023 job postings for the two Specialized Labourer – Class 3 (weekend shift) positions. The arbitrator had reserved jurisdiction on the amounts owing, including interest, and had rejected the union's claim for $5,000 in punitive damages. Accordingly, no specific monetary amount was ordered or awarded at the judicial review stage; the Court's order was limited to costs in favour of the union as the successful mis en cause. The SCFP Local 1377 was the successful party.