Vauclair, Cournoyer, Lavallée

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court dismissing an action to recover damages. Dismissed.

At trial, the appellant union claimed from former members, as “promised contributions” within the meaning of article 2276 of the Civil Code of Québec (S.Q. 1991, c. 64), their share of a loan contracted to deal with a lock-out. The trial judge found that the union had failed to establish that its members had agreed to reimburse the line of credit though promised contributions. In his view, the approach chosen by the union to reimburse the loan was instead an increase in union dues.  

The judge’s conclusion that the union members had not agreed to reimburse the line of credit through “promised contributions” is based on the evidence, which shows that the notion of “promised contributions” appeared for the first time in the union leaders’ discourse after the respondents had withdrawn from it to join a competitor union. It is true that the judge erred in his interpretation of a decision rendered by the Canada Revenue Agency. However, this error is not determinative because it was not the basis of his decision. Last, in view of the conclusion that the former members had not agreed to make a promised contribution to reimburse the loan and the fact that this union debt was fully reimbursed on July 30, 2019, through an increase in the union dues of the employees who returned to work and the dues of the union’s new members, it is difficult, to say the least, to understand the legal basis of the union’s alternative claims, which are based on the restitution of prestations and unjust enrichment.

Text of the decision: http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca