Abel v. Asselin

Abel v. Asselin

The court held that the employees filed a valid complaint under Part III of the Canada Labour Code days after the employer's assignment in bankruptcy, which interrupted the three‑year prescriptive period under the Civil Code of Québec; the inspector’s payment order was therefore not prescribed and the referee erred in rescinding it; delay did not amount to inordinate prejudice. The matter is remitted to the referee for redetermination consistent with these findings.

Citation
2014 FC 66
Parties
Applicants: Sylvain Abel et al.; Respondents: Denis Asselin; Jean Asselin; Nathalie Asselin, in their capacity as directors of Transport Asselin Ltée
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review Under Federal Courts Act / Judgment Allowing Application and Remittal to Referee for Redetermination
Outcome
Application for judicial review allowed
Legal Topics
Limitation/prescription, Wage Recovery, Directors' Liability, Application of Provincial Law to Federal Statutes, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Labour Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Insolvency Law Conflict of Laws Limitation/prescription Wage Recovery Directors' Liability +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sylvain Abel et al.

Applicants

Denis Asselin; Jean Asselin; Nathalie Asselin, in their capacity as directors of Transport Asselin Ltée

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review Under Federal Courts Act / Judgment Allowing Application and Remittal to Referee for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector's payment order under s.251.1 CLC was prescribed
  2. 2 Whether Quebec's Civil Code prescriptive rules apply suppletively to a federal labour regime
  3. 3 Whether the filing of a complaint with HRSDC interrupted prescription under the CCQ

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the employees filed a valid complaint under Part III of the Canada Labour Code days after the employer's assignment in bankruptcy, which interrupted the three‑year prescriptive period under the Civil Code of Québec; the inspector’s payment order was therefore not prescribed and the referee erred in rescinding it; delay did not amount to inordinate prejudice. The matter is remitted to the referee for redetermination consistent with these findings.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review allowed

Orders

  • Referee's decision rescinding the payment order set aside
  • Matter referred back to the referee for redetermination in accordance with the Federal Court's reasons