Newsletters

269

What are your obligations towards an employee on probation?

You just hired a new employee. In the employment contract, or under a verbal agreement, you specify that the employee will be on probation for a period of six months. What are the consequences of such a condition?

Salary

The question of compensation is easily answered: an employee on probation has a right to be paid. Under s. 57, para. 4 of the Labour Standards Act, “[a]n employee is deemed to be at work […] during any trial period or training required by the employer.”

The end of probation

As an employer, a reasonable application of your management rights allows you to supervise your new employee, to inform her of your objectives and to help her achieve those and, eventually, if the performance is not convincing, to terminate the employment.

The rules on termination do not differ whether the employee is on probation or not. If the termination occurs during the first three months of service, you do not have to give a notice, by application of s. 82.1 of the Labour Standards Act. But if the termination occurs after three months of uninterrupted service (and within the planned six-month probation), a one-week notice is required, except under exceptional circumstances (if the employee has committed a serious fault, for instance).

What about temporary leaves of absence?

Here, things can become delicate. Under your original agreement, you simply stated that the employee would be on probation for six months. What happens if, during this period, your employee takes a two-week sick leave?

Normally, a probation period is reserved for training and for performing the work; in other words, for job-related activities. The sick leave should therefore be excluded from the six months, and the probation period should be suspended.

For added certainty, probation periods should be measured in hours worked. A six-month probation for a job with 40-hour weeks could therefore be counted as 960 hours worked, including all time spent training and performing the work.

Lessons to be learned

The purpose of a probation period is to ascertain whether an employee is able to hold a given position. This could apply equally to a new hire or to an employee being promoted to a new position.

A probation can therefore be an effective way of making sure that you have found the ideal candidate for a position. Just keep in mind, however, that an employee on probation, just like a “regular” employee, is entitled to some legal protection.

A commentary by Jacques Bélanger, from our Labour and Employment Law Group.
<|--

Click here for a PDF version of this text.
–>

269

Articles in the same category

Finally Properly Interpreted, the Policy Had a Heart

In a recent decision, Morissette v. BMO Société d’assurance vie, the Superior Court reviewed the principles applicable to the interpretation of insurance policies. Facts In June 2003, the Plaintiff took out a health insurance policy (hereinafter “Policy”) with BMO Société d’assurance vie (hereinafter “BMO”). The Policy provides, among other things, that $150,000 will be paid […]

When the Remedy Becomes the Dispute: Medical Liability Under Scrutiny

In the case N.L. v. Mathieu, 2025 QCCS 517, the Superior Court dismissed a medical liability lawsuit filed by a teacher against her former family doctor, in which she sought over $1.9 million in damages. The plaintiff accused her doctor of having inappropriately prescribed medication over several years, without proper follow-up and without informing her […]

Bill 89 and the Future of Labour Disputes in Quebec

Passed by the National Assembly on May 29, 2025, Bill 89 (An Act to give greater consideration to the needs of the population in the event of a strike or a lock-out, hereinafter the “Bill”) will come into force on November 30, 2025. The Bill, which has faced strong opposition from unions, will bring significant […]

Latent Defects: Notice Must Be Given, but to Whom, When and How? The Court of Appeal Answers

On this past September 26, in the context of a claim for latent defects, in the matter of Meyer v. Pichette (Estate of Morin), 2025 QCCA 1193, the Court of appeal confirmed a Superior Court judgment which dismissed proceedings in warranty brought against former vendors as sufficient notice of the defects was not provided prior […]

You Should Not Believe Everything you Read on Social Media…

In a recent decision, Boucal v. Rancourt-Maltais, the Superior Court reviewed the principles applicable to defamation cases. Facts The Defendant is a member of a private Facebook group called “Féministes Bas-St-Laurent”. In this group, Ms. Khadidiatou Yewwi allegedly posted testimony about the Plaintiff. Stating that she was troubled by the testimony and had herself heard […]

The Window of Conflict and Police Officers

In the case of Souccar v. Pathmasiri, rendered on June 11, the Quebec Superior Court was called upon to decide on a civil liability claim regarding an allegedly abusive arrest and detention. The dispute arose from a condominium disagreement concerning the installation of windows. Police Intervention In July 2016, window installers hired by the condominium […]