Newsletters

155

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.

155

Authors

Jean Denis Boucher, CRIA

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

Articles in the same category

An Insurer Is Not Required to Uncover What the Insured Was Required to Disclose

In Kayembe-Kabeya v. Industrielle Alliance, assurance et services financiers inc., 2026 QCCS 1714, the Superior Court sets the record straight on the principle of contractual “utmost good faith”. The Facts In September 2019, Ms. Ricady Mede (hereinafter “Mede”) purchased a life insurance policy from Industrielle Alliance (hereinafter the “Insurer”). A few months later, she died of […]

When it’s too late for latent defects…

The Superior Court recently rendered a judgment in Reinert v. Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc., 2026 QCCS 2276, dealing with timeliness to give notice in cases of latent defects. The Facts In 2013, Ms. Sylvie Reinert and Mr. Denis Leclerc retained Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc. (“CMB”) for the construction of a residential building on a vacant lot in Lévis. […]

Insurance Math: One Claim, Two Fires, Three Points of Origin, Zero Recovery: When Circumstantial Evidence Speaks Louder Than a Confession

In Chatel v. Desjardins Insurance, 2026 QCCS 712, the Quebec Superior Court reaffirmed a principle of insurance law: direct evidence is not required to establish an intentional fault. Mr. Chatel claimed $532,000 under his homeowner’s insurance policy following two fires that occurred four days apart. The first caused partial damage to his residence, while the second […]

The Quarrelsome Litigant: When the Right to Sue Becomes a Scourge

Access to the courts is a fundamental right, but what happens when a person uses it not to assert legitimate rights, but to harass others or clog the system to excess? This is quarrelsomeness: the tendency to exercise one’s right to litigate in an excessive or unreasonable manner. Far from being a marginal phenomenon, it […]

Before Buying a Product, Read This: The Rules Are Changing on October 5!

On October 5, 2026, the final amendments to the Regulation amending the Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act (the “Regulation“) are expected to come into force, completing the implementation of the new “good working order” warranty in the province of Quebec. When this warranty applies, the merchant or manufacturer will be required to repair […]

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”), […]