The Tribunal Administratif du Travail (TAT) has ordered Hydro-Québec to pay nearly $250,000 to a former executive who was the victim of psychological harassment and constructive dismissal*. The Tribunal described the employer’s handling of the case as “deficient, ill-advised, and erratic.”

An Executive Abandoned by His Employer

In 2017, after nearly ten years as a unionized employee, Mr. Barry was promoted to a first-level management position. From the outset, his supervisor warned him that the team he would lead was “difficult” and that he might even face racist remarks due to his skin coloUr.

His mandate: restore order and improve the unit’s operations. However, his interventions—particularly with underperforming employees—quickly sparked discontent within the team.

While Mr. Barry was on vacation, his supervisor met with employees who had complaints about him and agreed to hold monthly meetings with them, without informing him. Upon his return, Mr. Barry learned of this arrangement through others: his team now had direct access to his supervisor, effectively bypassing his authority.

Shortly thereafter, the employer relied on internal survey results and informal complaints to impose a plan presented as “support.” However, the Tribunal found it was actually a “corrective” plan, calling it “incomprehensible” and based from the outset on mere perceptions and opinions rather than objective facts.

He was then given an ultimatum: radically change his management style or return to his previous unionized position—a demotion. He chose to continue.

Despite his efforts, the corrective plan was extended. The criteria remained vague, and expectations were impossible to define. Mr. Barry was already psychologically exhausted.

From Burnout to Dismissal

It was agreed with one of his superiors that a workplace climate assessment would be conducted upon the latter’s return from vacation. However, the very next day, plans changed: Mr. Barry was unexpectedly informed that the assessment would take place immediately and was summoned to meet with an industrial psychologist. He tried to remind them of the prior agreement, but was forced to accept the invitation under threat of disciplinary action. Exhausted, he went on sick leave.

Surprisingly, the psychologist’s report was produced without Mr. Barry’s participation, despite his central role in the matter. At the hearing, the psychologist admitted that his conclusions and recommendations were “based on perceptions.”

Mr. Barry subsequently filed a psychological harassment complaint. The Tribunal noted that the handling of this complaint progressed at a “snail’s pace,” despite the seriousness of the allegations.

In September 2018, Mr. Barry was scheduled for a gradual return to work. Instead of supporting him, the employer surprised him by summoning him to explain alleged serious misconduct during his absence, without even inquiring about his health. Following the meeting, he was sent home, stripped of his office, access, and contact with his team. Officially, he was not suspended, but the Tribunal concluded that it was in fact an indefinite suspension.

In November 2018, the employer issued a dismissal letter. The stated reasons—incompetence, breach of trust, and disloyal behavior—were deemed by the Tribunal to be mere pretexts.

Harassment Complaint Dismissed

An external investigation had concluded that Mr. Barry’s psychological harassment complaint was well-founded. Yet the employer chose not to act on it. The Tribunal emphasized that this behavior was incompatible with the employer’s obligations to prevent and address harassment, and considered it a serious breach.

A Complete Management Failure

The Tribunal found that the employer had made Mr. Barry the scapegoat for a long-standing dysfunctional team. He was “abandoned by his employer,” and the management was such a “failure—deficient, ill-advised, and erratic—that it cannot be excused.”

In March 2025, Hydro-Québec was ordered to pay nearly $250,000 to Mr. Barry, including $50,000 in moral damages and $25,000 in punitive damages.

Key Takeaways for Employers

This case highlights several major pitfalls in personnel management:

• Support for newly promoted managers: Employees newly appointed to leadership roles must be supported and given time to adapt, especially when taking charge of a troubled team.
• Corrective plans: These must be based on clear, measurable, and realistic objectives. Without this, evaluations become arbitrary.
• Basis for disciplinary action: Criticism and sanctions must be grounded in established facts, not perceptions or hearsay.
• Harassment complaints: These must be handled with seriousness and diligence, especially when an external investigator finds them to be substantiated.

By acting contrary to these principles, the employer not only weakened an executive and harmed his health, but also exposed itself to significant public and financial consequences.

———–

* This case involves two decisions:

• 2023 QCTAT 3987, which addresses the merits of the case: https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qctat/doc/2023/2023qctat3987/2023qctat3987.pdf_
• 2025 QCTAT 1189, which deals with the amount of compensation awarded: https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qctat/doc/2025/2025qctat1189/2025qctat1189.pdf