Ministère de l'Emploi et de la Solidarité sociale
Consolidated Statutes and Regulations Consolidated Statutes Consolidated Regulations Annual Statutes and Regulations Annual Statutes Annual Regulations Additional information Québec Official Publisher What’s new? Information note Policy of the Minister of Justice Laws: Amendments Laws: Provisions not in force Laws: Provisions brought into force Annual Statutes: PDF versions since 1996 Regulations: Amendments Annual Regulations: PDF versions since 1996 Court Decisions

C-27 - Labour Code

Section 17
Disposition versions

Full text
17. If it is shown to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the employee exercised a right arising from this Code, there is a simple presumption in his favour that the sanction was imposed on him or the action was taken against him because he exercised such right, and the burden of proof is upon the employer that he resorted to the sanction or action against the employee for good and sufficient reason.
R. S. 1964, c. 141, s. 16; 1969, c. 47, s. 7; 1969, c. 48, s. 6; 1977, c. 41, s. 1; 1983, c. 22, s. 5; 1999, c. 40, s. 59; 2001, c. 26, s. 8; 2006, c. 58, s. 2; 2015, c. 15, s. 237.
17. If it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commission that the employee exercised a right arising from this Code, there is a simple presumption in his favour that the sanction was imposed on him or the action was taken against him because he exercised such right, and the burden of proof is upon the employer that he resorted to the sanction or action against the employee for good and sufficient reason.
R. S. 1964, c. 141, s. 16; 1969, c. 47, s. 7; 1969, c. 48, s. 6; 1977, c. 41, s. 1; 1983, c. 22, s. 5; 1999, c. 40, s. 59; 2001, c. 26, s. 8; 2006, c. 58, s. 2.
17. If it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commission, on being referred the matter, that the employee exercises a right arising from this Code, there is a simple presumption in his favour that the sanction was imposed on him or the action was taken against him because he exercised such right, and the burden of proof is upon the employer that he resorted to the sanction or action against the employee for good and sufficient reason.
R. S. 1964, c. 141, s. 16; 1969, c. 47, s. 7; 1969, c. 48, s. 6; 1977, c. 41, s. 1; 1983, c. 22, s. 5; 1999, c. 40, s. 59; 2001, c. 26, s. 8.
17. If it is shown to the satisfaction of the labour commissioner having cognizance of the matter that the employee exercises a right arising from this Code, there is a simple presumption in his favour that the sanction was imposed on him or the action was taken against him because he exercised such right, and the burden of proof is upon the employer that he resorted to the sanction or action against the employee for good and sufficient reason.
R. S. 1964, c. 141, s. 16; 1969, c. 47, s. 7; 1969, c. 48, s. 6; 1977, c. 41, s. 1; 1983, c. 22, s. 5; 1999, c. 40, s. 59.
17. If it is shown to the satisfaction of the labour commissioner having cognizance of the matter that the employee exercises a right arising from this Code, there is a presumption in his favour that the sanction was imposed on him or the action was taken against him because he exercised such right, and the burden of proof is upon the employer that he resorted to the sanction or action against the employee for good and sufficient reason.
R. S. 1964, c. 141, s. 16; 1969, c. 47, s. 7; 1969, c. 48, s. 6; 1977, c. 41, s. 1; 1983, c. 22, s. 5.
17. If it is shown to the satisfaction of the labour commissioner seized of the matter that the employee exercises a right accorded to him by this code, there shall be a presumption in his favour that he was dismissed, suspended or transferred because he exercised such right, and the burden of proof that the employee was dismissed, suspended or transferred for another good and sufficient reason shall be upon the employer.
R. S. 1964, c. 141, s. 16; 1969, c. 47, s. 7; 1969, c. 48, s. 6; 1977, c. 41, s. 1.
17. If it is shown to the satisfaction of the investigation commissioner seized of the matter that the employee exercises a right accorded to him by this code, there shall be a presumption in his favour that he was dismissed, suspended or transferred because he exercised such right, and the burden of proof that the employee was dismissed, suspended or transferred for another good and sufficient reason shall be upon the employer.
R. S. 1964, c. 141, s. 16; 1969, c. 47, s. 7; 1969, c. 48, s. 6.
© Gouvernement du Québec