Newsletters

172

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.

172

Articles in the same category

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 […]

The Quarrelsome Litigant: When the Right to Sue Becomes a Scourge

Access to the courts is a fundamental right, but what happens when a person uses it not to assert legitimate rights, but to harass others or clog the system to excess? This is quarrelsomeness: the tendency to exercise one’s right to litigate in an excessive or unreasonable manner. Far from being a marginal phenomenon, it […]

Before Buying a Product, Read This: The Rules Are Changing on October 5!

On October 5, 2026, the final amendments to the Regulation amending the Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act (the “Regulation“) are expected to come into force, completing the implementation of the new “good working order” warranty in the province of Quebec. When this warranty applies, the merchant or manufacturer will be required to repair […]

No Notice of Default, No Termination

In Pavage Wemindji Inc. v. Compagnie de Construction et de Développement crie ltée, the Quebec Superior Court emphasized that a valid notice of default (mise en demeure) is not just a formality—it’s a precondition to exercising remedies like contract termination in many cases under Quebec civil law. The Decision The plaintiff, Pavage Wemindji Inc. (“Wemindji”), […]