Lafresiére vs Hotels

This case involved a dispute between Mr. Lafresiére and Hotels regarding the wrongful termination of Mr. Lafresiére's employment and the procedural fairness of the disciplinary process.

TLDR:

• Mr. Lafresiére was dismissed by Hotels for alleged misconduct.
• The Magistrate upheld the dismissal, citing failure to attend a disciplinary hearing.
• The Supreme Court overturned the Magistrate's decision, citing procedural flaws and inadequate pleadings.
• The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Lafresiére, awarding him the agreed quantum of the claim.

Mr. Lafresiére was employed by Hotels and was subject to an internal audit that led to allegations of misconduct. He was subsequently dismissed for failing to attend a disciplinary hearing. Hotels claimed that they had no other option but to terminate his employment.

During the trial, Mr. Lafresiére argued that the dismissal was unjustified and that Hotels had not adequately pleaded the reasons for his dismissal. He also contended that other employees facing similar allegations were treated more leniently.

The Magistrate initially found in favor of Hotels, stating that Mr. Lafresiére's failure to attend the disciplinary hearing justified his dismissal. However, the Supreme Court found that the Magistrate had not adequately addressed the discrepancies between the Dismissal Letter and Hotels' pleaded defense.

The Supreme Court noted that the Magistrate failed to critically analyze the evidence and resolve factual disputes. The Court emphasized that the reasons for dismissal must be properly pleaded and consistent with the reasons given at the time of dismissal.

The Supreme Court ultimately quashed the Magistrate's decision and substituted a judgment in favor of Mr. Lafresiére, awarding him the agreed quantum of the claim.

The case highlights the importance of proper pleadings and procedural fairness in wrongful dismissal claims. Employers must ensure that the reasons for dismissal are clearly stated and consistent with the evidence presented in court.

Legal representatives: Mr. Duval for Mr. Lafresiére, Mr. Sauzier SC for Hotels.

Judicial Panel: Supreme Court Judges.

Case Citation Reference: [2018] SCJ 19