Newsletters

103

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.

103

Articles in the same category

When Love and Construction Contracts Go Out the Window…

In Gélinas v. LG Constructions TR inc., rendered on October 30, 2025, the Court of Appeal comments on the legal framework governing a contractor unilaterally terminating two construction contracts. In particular, the Court clarifies the application of article 2129 of the Civil Code of Quebec (“C.C.Q.”), which provides, when applicable, that a client is bound […]

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 […]