Par Me Paul-Matthieu Grondin avec la collaboration de Juliette Fucina
Dans l’affaire Morgan c. Atwater Badminton and Squash Club Inc., qui date déjà de plus de 10 ans, la Cour supérieure est amenée à déterminer si le contrat qui lie les parties est à durée déterminée ou indéterminée, afin d’établir s’il y a lieu ou non d’octroyer une indemnité de départ au demandeur.
Cette décision de 2012 donc concerne un entraîneur professionnel de badminton qui a été à l’emploi de la défenderesse pendant 17 ans, avant d’être informé, en juin 2010, que son contrat prendrait fin en août. Au soutien de sa demande, le demandeur plaide que l’avis de trois mois qu’il a reçu est insuffisant, et que les circonstances justifient qu’il obtienne une indemnité de départ de 21 mois. La défenderesse soutient quant à elle que le contrat était à durée déterminée, excluant ainsi l’application de l’article 2091 C.c.Q. relatif au délai de congé.
Le contrat de travail initialement signé entre les parties en septembre 1993 a pris fin en mai 1994. Or, il a ensuite été renouvelé pour une nouvelle période de neuf mois, jusqu’en mai 1995, puis pour une période de trois ans, jusqu’en août 1998. Pendant les quatre années suivantes, le demandeur a poursuivi ses fonctions chez la défenderesse sans qu’aucun nouveau contrat ne soit signé. À partir de mars 2002, les parties ont conclu une série de contrats presque tous identiques jusqu’en septembre 2009, le dernier ayant pour terme le 31 août 2010.
Après analyse, la Cour conclut que, malgré les termes écrits, les faits révèlent une relation d’emploi continue et stable, incompatible avec un contrat à durée déterminée. La stabilité de l’emploi, les attentes des parties, le nombre d’années de service et la succession des contrats démontrent plutôt l’existence d’un contrat à durée indéterminée. Compte tenu de ces éléments, et des perspectives limitées d’emploi dans le domaine du demandeur, la Cour estime raisonnable de lui accorder une indemnité de départ de 21 mois.
Notons que cette cause a été portée en appel, où on a confirmé la quasi-totalité de la décision de la Cour supérieure.
Voyez plus spécifiquement la manière dont la juge de la Cour supérieure motive sa décision :
[28] Mr. Morgan’s last employment agreement was for a specific term[11]. Generally, when a fixed term is encountered, it is to be respected[12].
[29] However, the reality of Mr. Morgan’s employment with the Club[13] and the reasonable expectations of the parties in the context of the employment relationship[14] lead to the conclusion that he was under a contract for an indeterminate term. The successive renewals of Mr. Morgan’s fixed term employment contracts over the years indeed transformed his employment contract into one with an indeterminate term.
[30] More particularly, Mr. Morgan was the Club’s employee from September 1993 to August 31, 2010. Although he was formally under a fixed term contract when his employment was terminated, the reality of his employment relationship with the Club was different.
[31] For instance, the renewal discussions which took place between 1993 and 2010 were fairly brief, informal and not systematically held in advance of the expiry of the term of the contract[15]. The changes to the contract were also relatively minor over those 17 years.
[32] The continuation of the employment relationship was never an issue. In fact, the possibility of a non-renewal had never been seriously raised at any time before June 2010. Until then, neither Mr. Morgan nor the Club had a sense that the renewal of the employment relationship between Mr. Morgan and the Club was systematically in jeopardy upon reaching the formal termination date of the current written contract. Given the important role of a badminton professional in a badminton club, both the Club and Mr. Morgan could reasonably assume that the relationship would continue beyond the formal term, except if he was explicitly and clearly informed otherwise.
[33] Over the years Mr. Morgan systematically came to work after August 31, the formal expiry date of his contracts, whether a new written contract had been explicitly signed or not. The Club also expected him to do so. Mr. Morgan actually continued his employment with the Club from 1998 to 2002, even though no written contract was signed.
[34] In this context, in the fall of 2010, Mr. Morgan could legitimately and reasonably expect that his employment contract be renewed after the expiry of its formal term, as had been the case over the previous 17 years.
[35] Moreover, the Record of Employment of Mr. Morgan, as filed and prepared by the Club, indicates that Mr. Morgan was its employee from September 1, 1990 to August 31, 2010[16]. The Club had never previously issued a Record of Employment at the expiry of a written employment contract. It likely never did so because Mr. Morgan was considered by both parties to be continuously employed until August 31, 2010[17].
[36] Mr. Morgan is therefore entitled to a reasonable notice.
[41] Despite all his attempts, Mr. Morgan found no job in his area of expertise. He currently works for a lawn care company on a seasonal basis, from April to October.
[42] Although undeniable, Mr. Morgan’s expertise is very narrow. The job opportunities, even for a badminton professional of his profile, are very limited, in Montreal or elsewhere.
[43] In this context, a long notice period was necessary for Mr. Morgan to make the appropriate job search or retraining efforts, maximize his chances of finding alternate employment and minimize his economic loss. Given this specificity, the length of Mr. Morgan’s employment with the Club and Mr. Morgan’s age (47 years old), a 21-month notice would have been reasonable.