In the work place, after a querulous employee's employment is terminated, he/she can actually exercise no less than eight (8) recourses against his/her ex-employer:

· recourse protecting Union activities by virtue of Article 16 of the Labour Code;

· recourse against illegal practices by virtue of Article 123 of the Labour Standards Act;

· recourse against unjustified termination of employment by virtue of Article 124 of the Labour Standards Act;

· recourse in cases of psychological harassment by virtue of Article 123.6 of the Labour Standards Act;

· recourse against prohibited measures by virtue of An Act Respecting Occupational Accidents and Professional Disease;

· recourse protecting the official language by virtue of Article 45 of the Charter of the French Language;

· recourse against unlawful discrimination by virtue of Article 74 of the Charter of Human Freedoms and Rights; and

· an action in damages by virtue of Article 2091 of the Civil Code of Quebec, whether at the Quebec or Superior Court, depending on the amount of the damages claimed.

You think that this type of situation is unlikely?   Think again!

The phenomenon of querulous employees is in full swing; so much so that there now exists a "Public Registry of Querulous Cases³" where 90 people have already made the list!

Beware!   One must not confuse querulous employees with employees exercising in good faith their right to contest a decision made by their ex-employer.   Only employees abusing and multiplying recourses qualify as querulous employees.

The right for the employees to exercise said rights as provided in the above-mentioned laws is facilitated by the fact that there are no costs involved for the employee, except in the case of litigation at the Quebec or Superior Court.   This easy access encourages querulous employees to use and abuse the system.

Moreover, a querulous, if slightly skilful, employee having premeditated his/her actions can successfully benefit from the numerous presumptions contained in the laws regulating labour relations.

These presumptions result in shifting the onus of the proof on the employer, who will then have to convince the Tribunal that there existed just and sufficient cause for the termination of the employment.

In such a context, it can be dangerous for an employer to represent himself before any Tribunal without the help of a lawyer, especially knowing that the employee will generally benefit from the services of a lawyer at no cost whatsoever.   As a matter of fact, the Labour Standards Commission provides de services of lawyers specialized in the field of labour litigation, and those services are totally free of charge for employees filing a complaint with the Commission.

Faced with the evaluation of the necessary costs to protect their rights, some employers give in to the querulous employee's "judicial extortion" by offering a contractual sum in order to obtain from the employee the withdrawal of his/her numerous complaints.

What can we do to protect ourselves when faced with the danger of quarrels?

The first line of protection is an adequate hiring process.   Often enough, a simple telephone call to check up on the candidate's references can avoid problems, as long as the employer has obtained, clearly and in writing, prior permission⁴ from the candidate to do so.

The Internet site⁵ of the Labour Standards Commission, through its registry of   decisions, allows for the identification of employees⁶ having exercised a recourse in the past by virtue of the Labour Standards Act, and who are susceptible to do so again in the future.

We draw your attention to the fact that: the Labour Standards Act strictly prohibits an employer to refuse employment to a candidate for the sole reason that he/she has exercised his/her right to a recourse, as provided by this law.   Therefore, you can never be too cautious at the hiring level.

In a case where the hiring process did not filter out the querulous employee, the only recourse left for the employer would be at the Superior Court, by means of a Motion to declare an employee's abuse of the recourses; only this could end the flow of frivolous attacks on the part of the employee.

In order to do so, the petitioning employer must bring forth convincing proof of the ex-employee's querulous behaviour⁷.   In order to obtain an intervention by the Court, it must be demonstrated that the ex-employee has undertaken an inordinate number of recourses, and provide prima facie proof of the blatant lack of cogency of said recourses.   There are other ways for a petitioning employer to make his case, such as: file a joint motion with another ex-employer who has experienced the same problems with a querulous employee, detect indications of ill-faith and premeditation or bring forth cases of jurisprudence which have failed on appeal or administrative review can also improve the quality of the proof.

Once the proof has been established, the Superior Court can forbid to the ex-employee the introduction or even the continuation⁸ of any and all recourses not previously authorized by the Chief Justice of the same Court.   This type of ordinance can affect the quasi-totality of contract-related lawsuits and can even have a general effect enabling the protection of future employers of the querulous employee.

In conclusion, let us simply emphasize the Rule that stipulates that any legal action filed by an employee previously identified as a querulous employee and whose actions were not authorized prior to filing, is deemed non existent.   It is therefore possible, when faced with an employee wrongly and knowingly making ill use of the various protections provided for employees in the Province of Quebec, to considerably restrain the possibility for those employees to forge ahead with the introduction or continuation of a series of abusive recourses against his/her ex-employer.