Newsletters

95

The Right to Refuse, A Dichotomy of Danger and Risk

Following the Québec government’s decision to allow the restart of commercial activities in the manufacturing, retail, and construction sectors, the question that keeps coming up is the application of the concept of the right of refusal. Numerous employers are wondering whether their employees can refuse to return to work after a recall, following the restart of the economy scheduled to take place between now and May 25th.

The right, which is codified by section 12 of the Act Respecting Occupational Health and Safety [“AOHS”], allows employees to refuse to perform work that they believe constitutes a danger to their health, safety or physical integrity or to that of their co-workers. A mechanism provided by the Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail [“CNESST”] makes it that in such a case only one of its inspectors may decide on the matter.

The public in general, and employers in particular, have associated this right of refusal with a possible refusal by a recalled worker to return to work as required. The question is whether this constitutes a right of refusal within the meaning of section 12 of the AOHS?

Here lies the dichotomy between the notions of danger and risk. Simply returning to work in the context of a pandemic is in and of itself a risk for any worker. Regardless of the sector of activity, returning to work will be a risk. When questioned on this subject at the April 28th press conference, Pierre Fitzgibbon, Minister of Economy and Innovation, dodged the question by emphasizing the health measures put in place by employers, based on CNESST directives, which he argued should reassure workers and thus encourage them to return to work.

While section 12 of the AOHS refers to “danger”, here, it is a question of “risk”. These two concepts are distinct and must be analyzed separately. The danger must be immediate, whereas risk is often related to a perception on the part of the employee.

The refusal of an employee to return to work when recalled is not, in our view, a refusal to work under the meaning of section 12 of the AOHS. This refusal should be treated differently and assessed according to different standards and rules. The questions that arise for every employer, and which make the issue so important if there is a refusal to return to work following a recall, are:

  • what are the consequences for the worker’s employment? and
  • what are the consequences for that employee’s entitlement to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit?

These are all issues that remain to be debated and will have to be analysed on a case-by-case basis.

95

Authors

Jean Denis Boucher, CRIA

Lawyer, Partner and Head of the Labour and Employment Law Group

Articles in the same category

Same Approach, Same Result… Yet Again!

Last June, we published a newsletter following the decision rendered in Michel Grenier v. Me Julie Charbonneau, Roger Picard and Conseil de discipline de l’Ordre des psychologues du Québec. This decision followed the filing by the Defendants of Motions to Dismiss, which were granted by the judge of the Superior court. At the time the […]

Is Planned Obsolescence Finally Coming to an End on October 5, 2025?

While a dishwasher from the 1980s can still run smoothly, many newer models seem to break down after just a few cycles! The 2023 adoption of the Act to Protect Consumers Against Planned Obsolescence and to Promote the Durability, Repairability and Maintenance of Goods1 (hereinafter the “Anti-Obsolescence Act“), which modified the Consumer Protection Act2 (the “C.P.A.“), aimed […]

Caution Regarding Appeal Deadlines in Bankruptcy and Insolvency Matters!

In its recent decision in Syndic de Bopack inc. (2025 QCCA 909), the Quebec Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principle that, in matters governed by the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the deadline for filing a notice of appeal is ten days from the date of the judgment. This principle is particularly important to bear in mind, as in […]

Who Must Be Represented by a Lawyer? Beware of Sanctions!

In civil matters, self-represented litigants are increasingly common before the Quebec courts. This possibility is expressly provided for in article 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”), which allows any person to be self-represented. However, this right is subject to several exceptions outlined in article 87 C.C.P., which provides mandatory legal representation in certain […]

Latent and Costly Defects

Can buyers of a property with latent defects resell it and claim from their seller the difference between the two transactions? This is one of the questions addressed by the Superior Court in Ouellette c. Blais, 2024 QCCS 1025, upheld by the Court of Appeal on May 26, 2025. The Facts: Charmed by a large […]

If it is Excluded, No Obligation to Defend Rules the Court of Appeal

The Québec Court of Appeal has just issued an important decision for the insurance industry: Intact Insurance Company v. Hydromec Inc., 2025 QCCA 803, overturning a Wellington-type order that had been granted at first instance. A quick reminder: a Wellington motion allows an insured to compel their insurer to take up their defense as soon […]