Jean-Pierre De Montigny, former president and chief operating officer of Desjardins Securities, is suing his ex-employer for $3.1 million representing proper notice, reimbursement of earned but unpaid remuneration and moral damages.

In his suit filed in Quebec Superior Court, De Montigny maintains that Desjardins Securities never respected its obligations regarding his remuneration and that he was dismissed from his duties by Alban D’Amours, president and CEO of Desjardins Group, without valid reason.

In addition, De Montigny says D’Amours did not have the legal authority either to accept his resignation or to dismiss him. In fact, at the time of De Montigny’s dismissal on May 1, 2005, D’Amours was no longer a member of the board of directors of Desjardins Securities and could not legally act as CEO, as he did not have the necessary regulatory approval to do so. Only the board of Desjardins Securities or a senior company officer were legally authorized to dismiss De Montigny or to accept his resignation. The board was never informed of this decision until after the fact.

Demontigny says that management of Desjardins Group failed to support him regarding a complaint filed by Market Regulation Services Inc. (RS) in early 2005.

According RS, Desjardins Securities had committed certain technical violations. D’Amours, Pierre Brossard and Pierre Tardif (the latter chairman of the board of Desjardins Securities), wanted to see the matter resolved as quickly as possible in order to protect the reputation of Desjardins Group. However, De Montigny wanted to bring the matter before the appropriate authorities for a full hearing.

At the time, De Montigny felt that the penalty proposed by the regulatory agency and the impact on his reputation were disproportionate relative to the alleged violations. The board of Desjardins Securities confirmed, in a resolution, that a fine seemed inappropriate given that MMontigny had made the necessary changes and that he was acting in good faith and honestly.

Against his will, De Montigny agreed to the payment of the fine levied by the regulatory agency in order to avoid a confrontation between Desjardins Securities and Desjardins Group. He agreed to the payment of the fine because Desjardins Group representatives had assured him that the matter would be managed in such a way that his reputation would not be compromised.

However, contrary to what had been promised, De Montigny says the communications prepared by Desjardins Group focussed on his responsabilities, which affected the relationship of trust. In addition, direct interventions in Desjardins Securities’ affairs by representatives of the parent, undermined De Montigny’s authority. Desjardins Securities’ business plan was also being questioned.

Frustrated by all of these events, De Montigny offered his resignation to D’Amours in March 2005. D’Amours initially refused to acceptDe Montigny’s resignation and subsequently put in motion efforts to address MDe Montigny’s concerns. But D’Amours changed his mind on May 1, 2005, telling De Montigny that although he did not believe that his performance justified such a measure, the pressure from the network had become excessive. While De Montigny was in D’Amours’ office, a news release announcing his resignation was issued and his temporary replacement had already moved into his office.

“The offensive and inconsiderate way in which the dismissal was carried out, i.e. without any warning, discussion or possibility for explanations, while Mr. De Montigny’s replacement had already been orchestrated, clearly constitutes abusive behaviour by (Desjardins Securities),” the lawsuit states.