Employers are regularly faced with complex mental health situations, particularly when their employees are absent due to illness or injury, or when accommodation measures need to be considered. In such cases, they usually request supporting documentation specifying the diagnosis in question. Diagnosing a mental disorder used to be an act reserved exclusively for doctors,1 although the Code of ethics of psychologists does mention “psychological diagnosis.”2 The Act to amend the Professional Code for the modernization of the professional system and to broaden certain professional practices in the field of health and social services,3 also known as Bill 67, which received assent on November 7, recognizes that certain health professionals other than physicians are qualified to make mental health diagnoses. These legislative changes are in keeping with the goal of making professional care and services more accessible to the public, and are in line with the position the Collège des médecins du Québec has taken in recent years.4 The professionals involved and the new authority granted in terms of diagnosis5 Psychologists (including neuropsychologists): Mental disorders Neuropsychological disorders, if a training certificate has been issued to the professional Guidance counsellors: Mental disorders, if a training certificate has been issued to the professional Intellectual disability Speech therapists and audiologists: Language disorders and learning disorders related to language Sexologists: Sexual disorders, if a training certificate has been issued to the professional Nurses: Mental disorders, with the exception of intellectual disability, if the nurse has university training and clinical experience in psychiatric nursing It should be pointed out, however, that this legislative change is not intended to create a new activity reserved for these professionals. Rather, its aim is to recognize that some mental health assessments, and the clinical conclusions arising from them, are really diagnoses.6 Impact on employers When a diagnosis of a mental disorder is made, it is possible that the professional concerned, such as a psychologist or neuropsychologist, might recommend the appropriate treatment, including stopping or returning to work.7 These legislative changes8 could make it more complicated for employers and insurers to refuse to implement this recommendation solely because the healthcare professional is not a physician. We believe it is also possible that these changes will lead to new requests for reasonable accommodation with regard to several increasingly frequent mental issues (e.g. attention deficit disorder with or without hyperactivity, autism spectrum disorder, intellectual giftedness, major depressive disorder, etc.), without a physician necessarily being involved at the diagnosis stage. The expansion of professional practices to promote access to care and services for employees could therefore have the effect of increasing the number of requests submitted to employers in connection with mental disorders. It will be important to monitor how employers and others position themselves and adapt their policies in relation to diagnoses established by the professionals concerned. By way of illustration, it’s possible that some employers may decide to require that an employee with a mental health issue undergo more frequent medical examinations, insofar as circumstances allow. Entry into force The changes introduced by Bill 67 came into force on November 7, 2024.9 Professionals who already met the regulatory requirements on that date are deemed to be qualified to make diagnoses.10 Medical Act, CQLR, c. M-9, s. 31; Professional Code, CQLR, c. C-26, s. 31 to 34; Bernard Cliche, Éric Latulippe, François Bouchard, Paule Veilleux and Isabelle Royer, Le harcèlement et les lésions psychologiques, 2nd ed., Cowansville, Éditions Yvon Blais, 2012, p. 329 and 330: [translation:] “The diagnosis of a mental disorder is reserved exclusively to physicians.” See also the arbitration case law, including Gatineau (Ville de) et Association des pompiers et pompières de Gatineau, 2016 QCTA 236. Code of ethics of psychologists, CQLR, c. C-26, r. 212, s. 38. SQ, 2024, c. 31. Collège des médecins du Québec, Projet de loi no 67 et élargissement des pratiques : notre position (Bill 67 and the expansion of practices: our position), September 18, 2024 [online: Projet de loi no 67 et élargissement des pratiques : notre position | Collège des médecins du Québec]. Bill 67, s. 4 and 45. Remarks by the sponsor of Bill 67, Ms. Sonia Lebel, during the bill’s committee stage, October 10, 2024. In the case of psychologists, for example, section 37(e) of the Professional Code already stipulated that they could “determine, recommend and carry out interventions or treatments with a view to fostering the psychological health and restoring the mental health of a person”. Before Bill 67 came into force, an arbitration award established a link between a professional’s ability to make a diagnosis and their ability to recommend a work stoppage: Aliments Cargill ltée et T.U.A.C., section locale 500, D.T.E. 2010T-817 (Arbitration Tribunal), par. 98 to 103. Bill 67, s. 87. Bill 67, s. 85.

On November 15, 2024,1 in Bouchelaghem v. Université Laval,2 Superior Court Mr. Robert Dufresne granted an application for dismissal on the grounds of res judicata and abuse. His judgment is a reminder of the importance of the presumption of judgments’ validity and stability, principles linked to the authority of res judicata. To put Mr. Justice Dufresne’s decision in context, it is important to explain plaintiff’s first recourse, which led to an initial judgment by Mr. Justice Bernard Tremblay, J.S.C., granting an initial application for dismissal.3 First recourse The plaintiff was as a doctoral student outside Canada and the United States. In July 2019, she began a residency program in family medicine. On November 24, 2020, the program’s Promotion Committee for the Faculty of Medicine decided to exclude the plaintiff from the program due to her results in the residencies completed to that date.4 On December 2, 2020, Plaintiff appealed this exclusion before the Faculty of Medicine’s Appeals Committee.5 On February 4, 2021, this committee held a hearing that ended with the Promotion Committee’s decision being upheld.6 On February 8, 2021, the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine communicated the Appeal Committee’s decision to the plaintiff.7 That same day, the plaintiff contacted the Dean to complain about the Appeal Committee’s decision.8 On February 18, 2021, the Dean reiterated to the plaintiff the contents of the Appeal Committee’s decision and informed her that the decision was final.9 All internal remedies had been exhausted. On May 17, 2022, the plaintiff filed an application against Université Laval for annulment of the final decision rendered on February 8, 2021, by the Appeal Committee, titled Demande introductive d'instance associée [à un] pourvoi en contrôle judiciaire (“Originating application associated with an appeal for judicial review”). In this 442-paragraph proceeding, she sought reinstatement in the family medicine residency program, plus damages. While a challenge to an exclusion decision must be made within a reasonable time,10 usually 30 days according to jurisprudence, the plaintiff initiated her appeal almost 15 months after her exclusion from the residency program. On September 28, 2022, the University therefore filed an application to dismiss her case, on the grounds that the delay in initiating it was unreasonable and that the plaintiff did not cite any valid exceptional circumstances in her proceedings to justify this delay.  On May 15, 2023, Mr. Justice Tremblay, J.S.C., concluded that the plaintiff’s recourse qualified as an application for judicial review and that it had been filed late.11 For these reasons, he declared the recourse inadmissible and dismissed it in its entirety, since he also considered that the damages claimed by the plaintiff arose directly from her exclusion from the residency program.12 Dissatisfied with Mr. Justice Tremblay’s decision, the plaintiff served the University with a Demande de permission d’en appeler d’un jugement mettant fin à l’instance (“Application for leave to appeal a judgment ending the proceeding”). On September 19, 2023, Ms. Justice Gagné, J.C.A., dismissed the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal,13 thereby confirming the finality of the initial decision and giving res judicata to Mr. Justice Tremblay’s ruling. Second recourse On January 30, 2024, the plaintiff initiated a new action against Université Laval, this time titled Demande introductive d'instance en dommages et intérêts (“Originating application for damages”), in which she claimed a total amount of nearly $9.5 million from the University. This 213-paragraph proceeding largely repeated the allegations made in the first recourse, generally accusing the same parties of the same faults. However, the plaintiff had removed all allegations relating to the application for judicial review and the justification for her delay in pursuing a recourse, choosing instead to group her complaints against each representative or member of the University. The University filed a Demande en irrecevabilité pour cause de chose jugée et en rejet pour abus (“Application for dismissal on the grounds of res judicata and abuse”)against this new recourse, considering that the plaintiff was attempting to revive a dispute that had already been decided by the Quebec courts, and that she had already availed herself of her right of appeal. In response to the University’s application for dismissal, the plaintiff amended her originating application to add thirteen (13) defendants, namely the individuals targeted by her allegations.  The hearing on the defendants’ application for dismissal on the grounds of res judicata and abusetook place on October 9 and November 7, 2024, before Mr. Justice Dufresne. The law The principle of res judicata is codified in article 2848 of the Civil Code of Québec. To establish the legal presumption of validity of judgments (res judicata), two conditions must be met: Triple identity must be established to ensure that the same cause, between the same parties applying for the same purpose, has already been decided.  The judgment in a contentious matter must be rendered by a competent court and must be final.14 Before beginning his analysis of the triple identity, Mr. Justice Dufresne first examined this second criterion. He noted that the judgment in a contentious matter was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, since Mr. Justice Tremblay was seized of the application for dismissal. He also concluded that the judgment had become final as more than thirty days had elapsed since its pronouncement and permission to appeal had been refused. The second criterion is therefore satisfied.15 Mr. Justice Dufresne then proceeded to analyze the triple identity criterion. He found it had been established that the parties were legally identical in both recourses. Hundreds of allegations were compared between the first and second recourses, as were dozens of exhibits produced in support of both proceedings.16 He also noted that the plaintiff formulated the same complaints in both recourses, although the way of describing those to whom they were addressed was somewhat different. He put it this way: “[24] The faults, failures and complaints raised before Mr. Justice Tremblay, J.S.C., against the defendants are the same as those raised in the present case. Those responsible are identified. Whether they are identified as managers, employees or civil servants, does not change the fact that, legally, the defendant is the same in both recourses." As recognized in jurisprudence, adding defendants to a recourse does not prevent the court from finding that the parties are identical, since this identity does not have to be perfect.17 As for identity of cause, Mr. Justice Dufresne noted that although the vocabulary is sometimes different, the complaints of bad faith, falsification of documents, illicit and illegal application of standards, violation of certain fundamental rights, and discrimination are repeated or renewed from one proceeding to the next. In both recourses, the plaintiff raises the same issues (which she confirmed when examined by the judge on this subject during her closing arguments).18 The second recourse again sought compensation for the harm resulting from the plaintiff’s exclusion from her residency program. Mr. Justice Tremblay had already ruled that the plaintiff’s damages stem from her exclusion from the program. He had already concluded, in his judgment of May 15, 2023, that the entire recourse is inadmissible.19 Finally, on the question of identity of purpose, Mr. Justice Dufresne wondered whether the new recourse would expose the court to contradict an earlier decision. He soon discovered that this was indeed the case; allowing the plaintiff’s recourse would require rejecting the conclusions of the previous judgment.20 The abusive nature of the recourse Mr. Justice Dufresne then considered whether the plaintiff’s recourse was abusive. He considered this to be the case, since the plaintiff was repeating the allegations of a recourse that had already been dismissed. He concluded that she has not acted in good faith and that she was trying to harm the people she holds responsible for her exclusion: “[41] These modifications, by adding defendants and increasing the amount claimed, constitute an excessive and unreasonable use of proceedings. This only serves to harm these people, whom the plaintiff holds culpably responsible for her exclusion from the Program. This is a misappropriation of the ends of justice, whereby the plaintiff is attempting to take justice into her own hands to make these people pay for their faults. Moreover, the plaintiff appears to meet many of the criteria for being declared quarrelsome.” [Our translation] In closing, Mr. Justice Dufresne reminds us that article 51 C.C.P. allows the Court to act, even of its own motion, when a party engages in vexatious or quarrelsome behaviour. He considers that the plaintiff meets several criteria that would allow her to be declared quarrelsome. He mentions having examined these criteria and having considered doing so, but given that the plaintiff did not have the opportunity to present her arguments on the question of quarrelsomeness at the hearing, he concludes that he could not act in violation of the audi alteram partem principle. He grants the University’s application for dismissal on the grounds of res judicata and abuseand dismissed the plaintiff’s recourse in its entirety. Conclusion The principle of res judicata, codified in article 2848 of the Civil Code of Québec, is a pillar of our legal system. Once a court has rendered a final decision, that judgment cannot be called into question again. In the Bouchelaghem case, Mr. Justice Dufresne had to examine numerous allegations and exhibits, and he came to the conclusion that despite the different wording of the allegations and the addition of thirteen parties as defendants, the nature of the plaintiff’s second recourse remains in practice identical to the first. This judgment is a reminder that excessive and unreasonable use of proceedings, with the aim of harming the opposing party, can lead to a party being declared quarrelsome and having to pay additional costs, at the initiative of the judge hearing the case, even without an application from the party subject to the complaints. The plaintiff applied for leave to appeal Mr. Justice Dufresne’s judgment. We will see what happens to this application...21 The case was pleaded on October 9 and November 7, 2024. 2024 QCSC 4232. The plaintiff filed an application for permission to appeal this decision on December 30, 2024. The hearing is scheduled for February 11, 2025. Bouchelaghem v. Université Laval, 2023 QCSC 4483. Bouchelaghem v. Université Laval, 2023 QCSC 4483 para. 8. Id., para. 9. Id., para. 10. Id., para. 10. Id., para. 149. Id., para. 151. An application for judicial review must be filed within a reasonable time, in accordance with article 529 para.3 C.C.P. Bouchelaghem, supra note 3, para. 116 and para. 162 to 165. Id., para. 120 to 125. Bouchelaghem v. Université Laval, 2023 QCCA 1443. Bouchelaghem v. Université Laval, supra note 2, para. 16. Id. Bouchelaghem v. Université Laval, supra, note 2, para. 23. Bouchelaghem v. Université Laval, supra, note 2, para. 8. Bouchelaghem v. Université Laval, supra, note 2, para. 27-28. This was also noted by Ms. Justice Gagné, J.C.A., in her judgment dismissing the application for leave to appeal, supra, note 13, para. 6. Bouchelaghem v. Université Laval, supra, note 2, para. 36. The application for leave to appeal will be heard on February 11, 2025.