LEEL 570 Lecture Notes - Lecture 13: Racialization, Affidavit, Montreal Locomotive Works
27 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Employment Law: Feb 5 and 7
Feb 5: Recruitment and the Law: the Contractual Relationship in a Public Law Framework
These cases allow us to tease the borders btwn this section and next thursday's section
Legislative context:
Relevant legislation:
oLoi sur la santé et la sécurité du travail (LSST)
oLoi sur les accidents du travail et les maladies professionnelles (LATMP)
Violations of both now brought to CNESST
oComplaint under ither LSST, s.227, or LATMP, s.32, first goes to a conciliator-decision
maker
oAn appeal would now go to Tribunal administratif du travail
Re Henriquez (2006) QC CLP
Transition case to Part III – who is a "worker" is also a recruitment qustion, and it is informed by
public policy...
The social context is important to understanding this case
Facts: H was working without a permit, had an accident on the job. He is a refugee immigrant
from the Dominican Republic. When he got a social insurance card and other documents saying his
request was received, but it seems he did not actually fill out the proper paperwork.
Consider Mr. Henriquez's trajectory (paas 18ff)
Consider how H came to understand about CAN, about border crossings, about his status in
CAN, and about his ability to work, legally or otherwise, in CAN
oDoes any of this make sense without knowing the broader social context
oConsider Lacolle
No issue as to whether there would be considered to be a K of employment, rather
oIssue = what it means to be a worker when the underlying consideration assumes
capacity to enter into the relationship at all (by virtue of the fact that he needs a valid work
permit if he is not a citizen)
CSST – not a "worker"
Why did the CSST initially decide that H was not a "worker" within the meaning of the LATMP?
Was he recruited? (e.g. para 7)
Where does responsibility lie for obtaining a valid work permit, and who bears the
consequences?
Nul de nullité absolue...
If the employee is incapable (by virtue of fed immigration law) of entering into
an emmployment K, then it is absolute nullity
oThis view has been changing incrementally
What then is the basis for considering the K of employment "nul de nullité absolue, en raison
de l'incapacité de l'employé" (para 39) due to a violation of fed immigration law? (nullité ab initio)
Pauzé v Gauvin (1954) SCC, public order under the CCLC
But since then, Art 1385 CCQ; arts 1411, 1413, 1416 – 1422 CCQ as well as general provisions of
the Code
Exhaustive jurisprudential and doctrinal review (see Cumyn at para 87)
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
There is a disproportionality
Attempt to avoid the nefarious consequences of annulling a K for those contracting in good faith
(para 55)
Theory of nullity of Ks
Does the LATMP exclude those who do not hold a valid work permit from the definition of
"worker"?
"worker" means a natural person who does not work for an employer for remuneration under a
K of employment or of apprenticeship, except
o(1-3) mentioned in decision, notably domestics; (4 & 5) - post-judgment modification
"K of employment" - where does the CLP turn for a definition? Does H meet the definition?
Immigration legislation becomes framework for interpretation
Public order, the K of employment and proportionality
Modern approach to "nullity"
Still v. M.N.R. (1997) (FCA)
oRelevant facts at para 50ff
oOffers an interpretation of the relationship that allows the judge at the fed CA
(Robertson) to refuse to apply the classical theory of illegality in K relations
What are the factors that lead Judge Robertson to this in Still? (para 56)
Public order
oWhy are the "consequences" of the declaration of nullity relevant to determining
whether a nullity exists?
Is there an integral necessity to the nullity analysis? Seems to be more relevant
to look at the immigration legislation
Raison pour qu'un tribunal refuse...
"Le fait qu'un si grand nombre de lois rattachent le droit ou l'admissibilité à
des prestations à l'existence d'un contrat de louage de
services est une raison suffisante pour qu'un tribunal
refuse l'invitation de déclarer automatiquement qu'un contrat de travail est nul en raison de
son illégalité, et plus encore si le jugement déclaratoire es fondé sur les principes de
la théorie classique de l'illégalité"
Public interest in Still:
1. Une personne ne devrait pas pouvoir tirer profit de som méfait
2. Il ne convient pas d'accorder réparation si cela a pour effet d'affaiblir les... loi... en cause
In Still, given the objectives of the Employment Insurance Act, Ms Still's good faith and
the disproportionate character of the harm in relation to the infraction – Ms Still should receive EI
payments (para 64)
oWhat is the significance of proportionality to Still?
Pay attention to how the language of "legality/illegality" is used in Still
Public Interest and the CVL
How does the CLP apply this public interest reasoning to the LATMP in Re Henriquez?
Is this reasoning comparable in the CVL?
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Transsystemia at the FCA
Consider para 57 of Re Henriquez reproducing para 44 of Still:
o"on peut soutenir que
la Cour devrait appliquer la théorie de l'illégalité en CML telle qu'elle est compromise
et appliquée dans chaque province... Vu le caractère bijuridique de la Cour fédérale, nous
ne saurions perdre de vue le fait que les affaires émanant du
Qc doivent être tranchées en vertu des dispositions relatives à l'illégalité qui figurent au CCQ"
Softening of the theory of nullity in CCQ
Relevance of art. 1417 CCQ:
o"A K is absolutely null where the condition of formation sanctioned by its nullity
is necessary for the protection of the general interest"
Art 1420 CCQ on relative nullity:
o"the relative nullity of a K may be invoked only by the person in whose interest is
established or by the other contracting party, provided he is acting in good faith and suffers
serious injury therefrom; it may not be invoked by the court of its own motion"
How does the Fortin v Chrétien case align with the public interest reasoning in Still? (paras 84 &
85)
Internal proportionality framing
À l'instar de la CML
Para 88: "il apparaît donc que le droit civile moderne, à l'instar de la
CML, veut qu'un contrat passé en contravention d'une loi d'ordre public n'entraîne pas nécessairem
ent la nullité absolue du contrat"
Para 154, citant Pineau et Gaudet: "la nullité absolue, à l'instar de la nullité relative, ne rend
le contrat qu'annulable"
Application to Mr. Henriquez
1. Objectives of the legislative framework:
a. Exhaustive review of the objectives of the fed legislaiton
b. Objective of the LATMP: "une loi réparatrice et éminemment sociale, qui
vise l'indemnisation des conséquences d'une lésion professionnelle" (para 121)
2. Was H in good faith? (paras 122ff: pas très précis... mais plausible)… that's enough for this case
a. Is his goof faith what should matter? (art 1420 CCQ)
3. Proportionality
a. Art 124 LIPR – what od the employer? (paras 130-132)
b. Art 125 LIPR – what of the employee? Negligence? (para 135) & value added of Art 133?
(para 136)
c. What are the consequences? Para 141ff -
"ces conséquences deviennent source d'injustice... lorsqu'elles découlent d'une théorie stricte d
es nullités" (para 142)
CONCLUSION: H is a "worker" within the meaning of the LATMP (s.2)
PN v. FR and another (No.2) (2015) BCHRT
Is this an employment law case?
oYes – there is an employment relationship
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
