Newsletters

142

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.

142

Articles in the same category

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”), […]

Public Contracts: When Does a Penalty Clause Cross the Line?

Penalty clauses are a practical tool for owners: instead of having to prove actual losses when a contractor falls short, they can rely on a pre-agreed sum. For contractors, however, the stakes are equally significant — a lump-sum penalty can consume a substantial portion of the contract’s value. Still, the mechanism has its limits. Courts […]

Not So Intelligent!

Since the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence tools, growing concerns have emerged regarding their use in judicial proceedings. Recent decisions have relied on section 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure to sanction parties who make improper use of such tools. More specifically, this provision has been invoked on several occasions to address the use or citation […]

So? Is it settled or not?

In an interim decision in Djaferian v. Spanoudakis,rendered on February 20, 2026, the Superior Court had to determine whether an offer made 15 months earlier, prior to the institution of proceedings, could still be accepted and result in a transaction. Summary of Facts and Timeline The Plaintiff, a co-owner who sustained water damage to his private […]

Office Parties and the Employer’s Duty to Prevent Harassment

In De Sousa and Corporation interactive Eidos, 2026 QCTAT 4, the Quebec Administrative Labour Tribunal (ALT) appears to have broadened the scope of an employer’s obligation to prevent harassment. The decision arose from a complaint filed by a former employee who had been sexually assaulted at her home by a colleague following an office party organized by the […]

Should Economic Losses Be Considered Property Damage?

The Quebec Court of Appeal in Zurich, Compagnie d’assurances SA c. CRT Construction inc., recently overturned the Superior Court’s decision on the interpretation of a construction insurance policy. Facts CRT Construction Inc. (“CRT”) was retained by the City of Montreal (“City”) to perform major construction work at the Atwater water treatment plant. At the City’s request, CRT […]