{"id":1671,"date":"2016-06-12T18:05:52","date_gmt":"2016-06-12T23:05:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/danielcooperlawyer.com\/?p=1671"},"modified":"2023-05-17T18:37:18","modified_gmt":"2023-05-17T18:37:18","slug":"mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/","title":{"rendered":"McKinley v. BC Tel, [2001] 2 SCR 161, 2001 SCC 38 (CanLII)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Question en litige<\/strong>: \u00a0La malhonn\u00eatet\u00e9 d\u2019un employ\u00e9 constitue-t-elle n\u00e9cessairement, en soi, un motif valable de cong\u00e9diement sommaire? \u00a0D\u00e9cision compl\u00e8te.<\/a><\/p>\n

Les faits<\/strong>\u00a0: L\u2019employ\u00e9 a 17 ans de service et est \u00e2g\u00e9 de 48 ans.\u00a0 L\u2019employeur, B.C. Tel<\/em> a pris position qu\u2019il avait un motif valable de licenciement sommaire de l\u2019employ\u00e9, all\u00e9guant qu\u2019il avait \u00e9t\u00e9 malhonn\u00eate \u00e0 propos de son \u00e9tat de sant\u00e9 et les traitements m\u00e9dicaux pour celui-ci.<\/p>\n

D\u00e9cision\u00a0:<\/strong> Pour d\u00e9terminer si un employeur est en droit de cong\u00e9dier un employ\u00e9 pour cause de malhonn\u00eatet\u00e9, il faut appr\u00e9cier le contexte de l\u2019inconduite all\u00e9gu\u00e9e.\u00a0En l\u2019absence d\u2019une analyse des circonstances ayant entour\u00e9 l\u2019inconduite all\u00e9gu\u00e9e, de sa gravit\u00e9 et de la mesure dans laquelle elle a influ\u00e9 sur la relation employeur-employ\u00e9, il se pourrait bien que le cong\u00e9diement pour un motif aussi moralement d\u00e9shonorant que la \u00ab malhonn\u00eatet\u00e9 \u00bb soit lourd de cons\u00e9quences pour un employ\u00e9.\u00a0 Par exemple, pour donner droit \u00e0 un employeur de licencier un employ\u00e9 pour un motif valable pour un seul acte de malhonn\u00eatet\u00e9, aussi mineur qu\u2019il soit, peut \u00eatre trop s\u00e9v\u00e8re. Un constat d’inconduite ne donne pas en soi, lieu \u00e0 un motif valable. Au contraire, la question \u00e0 r\u00e9soudre est de savoir si, dans les circonstances, le comportement \u00e9tait tel que la relation de travail ne pouvait subsister\u00a0ou\u00a0si si la malhonn\u00eatet\u00e9 de l\u2019employ\u00e9 a eu pour effet de rompre la relation employeur\u2011employ\u00e9. Il existe un motif valable de cong\u00e9diement lorsque la malhonn\u00eatet\u00e9 viole une condition essentielle du contrat de travail, constitue un abus de la confiance inh\u00e9rente \u00e0 l\u2019emploi ou est fondamentalement ou directement incompatible avec les obligations de l\u2019employ\u00e9 envers son employeur.\u00a0Dans ce cas, malgr\u00e9 qu\u2019il n\u2019y a pas eu une divulgation compl\u00e8te de tous les faits importants de l\u2019employ\u00e9, cela n\u2019\u00e9tait pas n’a n\u00e9cessaire de sa part. Le tribunal a jug\u00e9 qu’il y avait aucune raison s\u00e9rieuse de licenciement parce que l’employ\u00e9 n\u2019a pas us\u00e9 de malhonn\u00eatet\u00e9 d’une mani\u00e8re qui porte atteinte, ou \u00e9tait incompatible avec sa relation de travail<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Question en litige: \u00a0La malhonn\u00eatet\u00e9 d\u2019un employ\u00e9 constitue-t-elle n\u00e9cessairement, en soi, un motif valable de cong\u00e9diement sommaire?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[26,22],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1671","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-congediement-cat","category-emploi-cat"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nMcKinley v. BC Tel, [2001] 2 SCR 161, 2001 SCC 38 (CanLII) | Alice Florian Avocate<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"fr_CA\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"McKinley v. BC Tel, [2001] 2 SCR 161, 2001 SCC 38 (CanLII) | Alice Florian Avocate\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Question en litige: \u00a0La malhonn\u00eatet\u00e9 d\u2019un employ\u00e9 constitue-t-elle n\u00e9cessairement, en soi, un motif valable de cong\u00e9diement sommaire?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Alice Florian Avocate\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-06-12T23:05:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-05-17T18:37:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Daniel Cooper\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u00c9crit par\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Daniel Cooper\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimation du temps de lecture\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Daniel Cooper\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/58a7105ec8b06a6bd011af9824ea121d\"},\"headline\":\"McKinley v. BC Tel, [2001] 2 SCR 161, 2001 SCC 38 (CanLII)\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-06-12T23:05:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-05-17T18:37:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/\"},\"wordCount\":381,\"articleSection\":[\"Cong\u00e9diement injuste\",\"Droit de l'emploi\"],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-CA\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/\",\"name\":\"McKinley v. BC Tel, [2001] 2 SCR 161, 2001 SCC 38 (CanLII) | Alice Florian Avocate\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2016-06-12T23:05:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-05-17T18:37:18+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/58a7105ec8b06a6bd011af9824ea121d\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"fr-CA\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Accueil\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"McKinley v. BC Tel, [2001] 2 SCR 161, 2001 SCC 38 (CanLII)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/\",\"name\":\"Alice Florian Avocate\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-CA\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/58a7105ec8b06a6bd011af9824ea121d\",\"name\":\"Daniel Cooper\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-CA\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/45739b30b813a38d8e327825efe4a4721b323ed3def6bb97fe975be207a80f19?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/45739b30b813a38d8e327825efe4a4721b323ed3def6bb97fe975be207a80f19?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/45739b30b813a38d8e327825efe4a4721b323ed3def6bb97fe975be207a80f19?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Daniel Cooper\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"McKinley v. BC Tel, [2001] 2 SCR 161, 2001 SCC 38 (CanLII) | Alice Florian Avocate","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/","og_locale":"fr_CA","og_type":"article","og_title":"McKinley v. BC Tel, [2001] 2 SCR 161, 2001 SCC 38 (CanLII) | Alice Florian Avocate","og_description":"Question en litige: \u00a0La malhonn\u00eatet\u00e9 d\u2019un employ\u00e9 constitue-t-elle n\u00e9cessairement, en soi, un motif valable de cong\u00e9diement sommaire?","og_url":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/","og_site_name":"Alice Florian Avocate","article_published_time":"2016-06-12T23:05:52+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-05-17T18:37:18+00:00","author":"Daniel Cooper","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u00c9crit par":"Daniel Cooper","Estimation du temps de lecture":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/"},"author":{"name":"Daniel Cooper","@id":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/58a7105ec8b06a6bd011af9824ea121d"},"headline":"McKinley v. BC Tel, [2001] 2 SCR 161, 2001 SCC 38 (CanLII)","datePublished":"2016-06-12T23:05:52+00:00","dateModified":"2023-05-17T18:37:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/"},"wordCount":381,"articleSection":["Cong\u00e9diement injuste","Droit de l'emploi"],"inLanguage":"fr-CA"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/","url":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/","name":"McKinley v. BC Tel, [2001] 2 SCR 161, 2001 SCC 38 (CanLII) | Alice Florian Avocate","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/#website"},"datePublished":"2016-06-12T23:05:52+00:00","dateModified":"2023-05-17T18:37:18+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/58a7105ec8b06a6bd011af9824ea121d"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"fr-CA","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/mckinley-v-bc-tel-2001-2-scr-161-2001-scc-38-canlii\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Accueil","item":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"McKinley v. BC Tel, [2001] 2 SCR 161, 2001 SCC 38 (CanLII)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/#website","url":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/","name":"Alice Florian Avocate","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"fr-CA"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/58a7105ec8b06a6bd011af9824ea121d","name":"Daniel Cooper","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-CA","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/45739b30b813a38d8e327825efe4a4721b323ed3def6bb97fe975be207a80f19?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/45739b30b813a38d8e327825efe4a4721b323ed3def6bb97fe975be207a80f19?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/45739b30b813a38d8e327825efe4a4721b323ed3def6bb97fe975be207a80f19?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Daniel Cooper"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1671","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1671"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1671\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4767,"href":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1671\/revisions\/4767"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1671"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1671"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawcf.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1671"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}