Newsletters

491

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.
–>

491

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 […]