Newsletters

128

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.

128

Authors

Jean Denis Boucher, CRIA

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

Articles in the same category

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 […]

The Court of Appeal delves deep into the parties’ intentions and claimant hits a wall…

The Facts In the context of a project for the construction of a ten-storey condo building, the excavation contractor subcontracts the design and installation of a Berlin-type retaining wall (the “Wall”) to Phénix Maritime inc. (“Phénix”) which, in turn, subcontracts the design to Les Investigations Marcel Leblanc inc. (“IML”). Problems arise that substantially delay the […]

New CAI Guidance on Preventing Confidentiality Incidents: A Practical Roadmap for Businesses in Quebec

On January 30, 2026, Quebec’s privacy regulator, the Commission d’accès à l’information (“CAI”), published fresh guidance aimed at strengthening how organizations prevent confidentiality incidents involving personal information. Confidentiality incidents are one of the most significant privacy risks facing organizations today. In Quebec, these incidents are governed by several laws, including the Act respecting the protection […]

Not-So-Latent Defects for a Poorly Equipped Tradesman

In Beaudoin v. Boucher, 2025 QCCA 1646, rendered last December 19, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of an action in latent defects brought by the buyers of a residential property. The Court reiterated the buyer’s duty to pursue further inspections when confronted with serious indicia of defects, particularly where they possess recognized expertise […]