L’impact de la COVID dans l’obligation de mitiger ses pertes dans une fin d’emploi

Par Me Paul-Matthieu Grondin

Dans la décision Hadida c. Dehumidified Air Solutions de la Cour supérieure, un gestionnaire aguerri en matière de ressources humaines s’est fait remercier de ses services après seulement deux mois d’emploi. On lui accorde pourtant 8 mois d’indemnité de départ, ce qui peut sembler très généreux a priori. Ceci est notre troisième billet au sujet d’une de cette décision.

En fin d’emploi, on doit essayer de se retrouver un autre boulot le plus rapidement possible afin de « mitiger son préjudice ». Cela dit, en temps de COVID, qu’en est-il?

Ça semble évident, mais il était beaucoup plus difficile de se trouver un emploi dans plusieurs secteurs (dont celui des ressources humaines) en 2020, alors que les restrictions sanitaires étaient en place, et même peu après. Les tribunaux ont généralement tenu compte de la COVID comme d’un motif expliquant qu’il était plus difficile de se trouver un emploi.

Voyez les explications du juge dans la présente affaire :

[100]     In accordance with Article 1479 C.C.Q., Mr. Hadida was obliged to mitigate his damages. In the Court’s view, he did so. Mr. Hadida made consistent efforts to find equivalent employment in his field of human resources after his termination at DAS.

[101]     It is important to note that Mr. Hadida testified that his sudden and unexplained termination at DAS made it very difficult for him to find equivalent replacement employment. The way that DAS effected his termination had a significant negative impact on his efforts to find new employment.

 [102]     Mr. Hadida testified that he regularly looked for a position. He submitted as an exhibit a list of employers to whom he had applied for the period covered by the requested termination period of twelve (12) months.

[103]     After his termination on March 30, 2020, Mr. Hadida explained that the dramatic beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic was in full force. It was mentioned at the trial that that period corresponded with government decrees declaring a health emergency, the ordering of closing of businesses, a curfew in Quebec and with massive government aid to employees.

[104]     Similarly, Mr. Lane stated that 2020 was a disastrous year for DAS since sales and revenues plummeted.

[105]     Approximately one (1) year after Mr. Hadida’s termination, namely in April 2021, various restrictions were lifted and the economy slowly started to improve. However, Mr. Hadida does not claim for that subsequent period. 

[106]     Mr. Hadida states that he was looking for a position that was in his area of Human Resources and received no offer. The only offer received was almost immediately rescinded before he could start since the potential employer had lost its funding[50].

[107]     The Court is of the view that Mr. Hadida respected his obligation to mitigate his damages.