Newsletters

179

Achieving Orderly Layoffs During COVID-19

A few short weeks ago one of the central questions for employers was “how long can a temporary layoff last in Quebec before it becomes a termination, triggering notice pay obligations under the Labour Standards Act?” [LSA]

Obligations however continue to accrue and arise even during periods of layoff, obligations that are important for employers to bear in mind.

An example: While Section 82 of the LSA provides that a layoff that lasts less than six months is not a termination, and doesn’t trigger payment of statutory notice, employers must think ahead of various other delays and notices that must be respected and that continue to run during the layoff, delays which may trip them up at the time when either they are ready to begin recalling employees to work or deciding how many and which employees are to be either recalled to work or severed from their employment.

Among these obligations is the notice to the Minister of Employment and Social Solidarity and the CNESST in the event of what the LSA deems a “collective dismissal”. The number of employees that it takes to trigger a “collective dismissal” includes employees laid off within a two-month window. The requirement may be triggered with as few as ten employees laid off within a two-month window.

If attention isn’t paid to the number of employees laid off, the dates when they were laid off, who was or was not recalled and the dates of their recall to work, etc., the employer may wind up, several months into a layoff, triggering a “collective dismissal”, even though the layoffs happened progressively, and too late to give the required notice under Sections 84.0.1 et seq. of the LSA to the Minister. That notice varies between 8, 12 or 16 weeks depending on the number of employees involved. While there may be defenses available, costs for violation are far from negligible.

There is an old adage that says that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Employers cannot remain asleep at the switch!

Remember also that while you, as the employer, have the right to determine how a progressive recall to work will be effected, including who will be recalled to work, to which job, and in what number, consideration should always be given to various factors. Whether recalling “x” rather than “y” may lead to unintended consequences, even in situations where seniority is not an obligatory criterion to be born in mind. Recalling “x” rather than “y” may allow the employee who was not recalled to argue that what was a layoff became a constructive dismissal. Many factors need to be considered, including:

  • seniority;
  • balancing work teams and shifts;
  • the way to advise employees of their recall;
  • the compulsory or voluntary nature of the recall;
  • the employee’s refusal to come back to work alleging possibility of infection;
  • determining wages if employees are recalled to positions other than those occupied before the layoff.

These are all relevant questions that need to be sought out. Problems can be avoided with careful consideration of these and other issues through seeking out and using professional advice. The trick to all of this is to stay alert to the challenges that are bound to arise.

179

Articles in the same category

Ruin Finds a Reason

In Société d’assurance Beneva Inc. c. Ville de Sherbrooke, 2026 QCCA 1301, the Court of Appeal delivers a decision as concise as it is compelling on liability arising from the ruin of an immovable, in a case involving the rupture of a water main. Its impact could extend well beyond underground pipe failures. The Facts […]

There Is No Point in Submitting a Bid Without Conducting Your Research First

In 9329-0146 Québec Inc. (M. Potvin Excavation) v. City of Saint-Constant, 2026 QCCA 1199, the Quebec Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principles governing a contracting authority’s duty to provide information and a bidder’s corresponding duty to seek clarification where necessary. The Facts  In May 2020, the City of Saint-Constant issued a public call for bids […]

2026 World Cup: FIFA Can Commercialise the Tournament, But Not Trust

Introduction With 48 teams, 104 matches, three host countries and 39 days of competition, the 2026 World Cup was already destined to make history because of its sheer scale. On the field, with a transformed VAR system (Video Assistant Referee) and FIFA’s new regulations, every player action was subjected to microscopic scrutiny. Off the field, […]

An Insurer Is Not Required to Uncover What the Insured Was Required to Disclose

In Kayembe-Kabeya v. Industrielle Alliance, assurance et services financiers inc., 2026 QCCS 1714, the Superior Court sets the record straight on the principle of contractual “utmost good faith”. The Facts In September 2019, Ms. Ricady Mede (hereinafter “Mede”) purchased a life insurance policy from Industrielle Alliance (hereinafter the “Insurer”). A few months later, she died of […]

When it’s too late for latent defects…

The Superior Court recently rendered a judgment in Reinert v. Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc., 2026 QCCS 2276, dealing with timeliness to give notice in cases of latent defects. The Facts In 2013, Ms. Sylvie Reinert and Mr. Denis Leclerc retained Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc. (“CMB”) for the construction of a residential building on a vacant lot in Lévis. […]

Insurance Math: One Claim, Two Fires, Three Points of Origin, Zero Recovery: When Circumstantial Evidence Speaks Louder Than a Confession

In Chatel v. Desjardins Insurance, 2026 QCCS 712, the Quebec Superior Court reaffirmed a principle of insurance law: direct evidence is not required to establish an intentional fault. Mr. Chatel claimed $532,000 under his homeowner’s insurance policy following two fires that occurred four days apart. The first caused partial damage to his residence, while the second […]