Newsletters

83

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.

83

Authors

Jean Denis Boucher, CRIA

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

Articles in the same category

Bill 56 — Family Law Reform and Parental Union Regime

The National Assembly of Quebec has adopted Bill 56 entitled An Act respecting family law reform and establishing the parental union regime, which will come into force on June 30, 2025. This initiative will introduce the parental union regime which will apply to de facto spouses that will become parents of the same child after […]

When Water Rules Out Any Possibility of Compensation

The Superior Court recently ruled on the interpretation of an exclusion clause for damages resulting from a flood, in Gestion Michel Bernard inc. v. Promutuel Chaudière-Appalaches, Société mutuelle d’assurance générale[1]. Summary of the Facts The Plaintiffs are the owners of a building located in Beauceville and the operators of a restaurant located in that building. […]

Estate Planning: Don’t Overlook Your Safe Deposit Box

Whether you have an estate plan in place or are in the process of estate planning or you have procrastinated about estate planning, you may wish to consider the pros and cons of a safe deposit box (also commonly called a safety deposit box) in your estate plan. At one time, safe deposit boxes were […]

The Duty to Inform in a Commercial Transaction

“The [person drafting] the documents for a transaction has a duty to inform the co-contracting parties of any changes he makes to these documents.’’ [1] – this is how the Honourable Ian Demers, J.C.S., began his judgment dated April 23, 2024, in Maçons Patrimoniaux Inc. v. Aliston Investissement Inc., 2024 QCCS 1447. In this case, […]

Medical Certificates and Bill C-68: What Are the Consequences for Employers?

Scope of Application and Entry into Force The Act mainly to reduce the administrative burden of physicians (“Bill 29”) was passed on October 8, 2024. These provisions amend the Act respecting labour standards (the “ALS”) and will come into force on January 1, 2025. These new prohibitions also apply to employees governed by the Act […]

A Heritage Building, Arson and Deadly Fire: Was the 15 Day Notice to the City Required?

Facts On March 16, 2023, a fatal fire destroyed a heritage building in Old Montréal owned by Plaintiff Mr. Émile Benamor. It is alleged that the fire was caused by a third party and was of a criminal nature. The plaintiff brought an action against the City of Montréal claiming $7 575 000, for the […]