Pour avoir droit à une indemnité de départ… il est important de ne pas démissionner (!)

Par Me Paul-Matthieu Grondin

Dans Znaty c. Kotz et al., le demandeur tente d’établir son droit à une indemnité de départ, malgré son départ volontaire de la compagnie.

Sa prétention principale est le refus allégué de sa démission, ainsi qu’un climat de business as usual, qui se serait installé après sa « démission » puisqu’il continuait à se rendre au travail.

Le juge de la cour supérieure ne le voyait pas du même œil :

[28]        As of December 2014, Znaty was 67 years old. At that time, he testified that he was tired and needed to stop.  He informed Levy and Kotz that he no longer wanted to work and announced his retirement.  He voluntarily chose to put an end to his employment relationship. At the hearing, Znaty presented his announcement as an “attempted” retirement.  The Court determines that Znaty succeeded in his attempt and fully and voluntarily retired and did so without conditions.  Several elements confirm Znaty’s own testimony adduced at the hearing.

[29]        First, Znaty made his own decision to abandon employment.  He knew or ought to have known the consequences of such a decision. It remains contradictory to now claim a notice period for work which Znaty claimed he no longer wanted or suited. Znaty voluntarily relinquished any right to claim severance or a notice period for changes to his relationship, if any, after that date.

(…)

[47]        Znaty was no longer an employee of EvoPlus as of December 2014 and did not become an employee of Kotz then or at any subsequent moment.  Articles 2091 and 2092 Civil Code of Québec, CQLR c CCQ-1991 (“C.C.Q.”) therefore do not apply to the facts raised by Znaty.  The case law principles provided by Znaty regard dismissal without cause and the calculation of damages in lieu of notice. Those principles remain valid but do not apply to Znaty’s situation.  While the party sued as an employer has the burden to prove that it had just cause to terminate employment, the party suing as employee has the burden to prove that it had the status as employee. 

Ainsi, ce jugement sert de rappel à tous qu’un contrat de travail n’est pas qu’une fioriture.