J’ai attiré votre attention à quelques reprises sur l’érosion importante de la nécessité de retrouver des questions communes, similaires ou connexes aux membres proposés du groupe pour autoriser un recours collectif à la lumière des enseignements récents de la Cour d’appel (dans Dell’Aniello c. Vivendi Canada inc. (2012 QCCA 384), la Cour d’appel indique qu’il suffit d’une seule question collective, dans la mesure où cette question n’est pas insignifiante). Si la barre est beaucoup plus basse qu’elle ne l’était jadis, elle existe toujours. Ainsi, lorsque le recours proposé ne se prêtera pas à une analyse collective en raison de sa nature fondamentalement individuelle, l’autorisation sera refusée comme ce fût le cas dans Agostino c. Allstate du Canada, compagnie d’assurances (2013 QCCS 3049).
Dans cette affaire, suite un changement dans le plan de rémunération applicable à certains employés de l’Intimée, le Requérant désire intenter un recours collectif au nom de ces employés alléguant congédiement déguisé.
L’Honorable juge Yves Poirier, après une analyse des principes juridiques applicables à l’autorisation d’un recours collectif, souligne que l’utilité de l’instution tient de la possibilité de résoudre collectivement des questions d’importance. Or, à son avis, le congédiement déguisé est un sujet, de par sa nature, qui nécessite une analyse fondamentalement individuelle de la réclamaration d’un employé. Il en vient donc à la conclusion que n’est pas rencontré le critère de l’article 1003 a):
[36] A claim for constructive dismissal is ultimately an individual claim. An assessment and examination of the actual terms and conditions of the individual’s contract of employment marks the beginning of the Court’s inquiry. A Petitioner in claim for constructive dismissal must demonstrate, based on his or her own unique circumstances, that changes were implemented unilaterally by his or her employer and without reasonable notice of the change, and without the employee’s agreement or the employer’s entitlement to do so pursuant to the terms of the employment contract itself. At minimum, the Petitioner must establish that the changes were made to essential terms and conditions of the employee’s employment contract and that the impact of these changes was substantial and to the employee’s disadvantage.
[37] Furthermore, the employee must further establish, based on their own individual circumstances, that he or she resigned or left employment with the employer as a result of these changes within a reasonable period of time, and without condoning or acquiescing to the changes. Moreover, there must be further individual assessment of whether the Petitioner failed to stay in his or her position which may constitute a failure to mitigate and whether or not the individual mitigated any claimed damages through employment or self-employment after he or she left.
[…]
[44] Ultimately, as per the criteria set out in Farber, the Court must consider the impact of the change on the individual employee, considering the number of different employment agreements, the number of roles under Allstate’s new business model and the various bonus plans that could have been offered to the proposed class members. An objective comparison of the positions is not possible for every class member at once in order to conclude that Allstate’s new business model substantially altered each member of the class’ respective employment agreements.
[45] In particular, the comparative analysis of the positions in question and their attributes called for by Farber, may very well lead the Court to the conclusion that in some cases, no substantial modifications occurred to the essential terms of the employment agreement that occurred, or even that Allstate’s new business model represented a promotion to some proposed class members. However, this would require individual fact-finding for the various proposed class members.
[46] Thus, the proposed common issue, that is, «whether by the advent of the new business model of the Respondent, did the Petitioner and the members of the group see imposed upon themselves substantial changes to essential conditions of their employment contract», will not avoid duplication of fact-finding or legal analysis as each proposed class member would be the subject of individual enquiries and would necessitate a multitude of trials to address such questions.
[47] The claims of the members do not raise identical, similar or related questions of law or fact.
