Newsletters

380

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 respecting labour relations, vocational training and workforce management in the construction industry.

A Common Practice

The ALS stipulates that an employee must inform their employer of their absence as soon as possible, specifying the reason. If the absence is prolonged or frequent, the employer may request a document attesting to the reason.

Employers regularly request medical certificates justifying an employee’s absence, whether the absence is long or short-term, and sometimes for minor ailments such as a cold or gastro-enteritis.

New Bans

The aim of Bill 29 is to regulate and limit this practice. Firstly, it prohibits employers from requiring a medical certificate for an employee’s first three absences each year, when they are absent for three days or less.

This prohibition applies when an employee is absent for the following reasons:

  1. Illness
  2. When their presence is required with a family member or a person for whom they are acting as a caregiver due to a serious illness, a life-threatening illness or a serious accident
  3. Their minor child is suffering from a serious, life-threatening illness
  4. Their minor child has suffered serious bodily injury resulting from a criminal act, and the parent’s presence becomes necessary
  5. When the minor child has disappeared
  6. In the event of the death of a minor child, spouse, father or mother

The ALS also provides that an employee may be absent for up to ten non-consecutive days per year for reasons related to the care, health or education of their child, or to help a person for whom they are acting as a caregiver.

The employer may request a document attesting to the reasons for the absence, but from January 1, 2025, it will be forbidden to require this document to be a medical certificate. 

Points to Remember

An employer must not require an employee to provide a document attesting to the reasons for their absence for the first three times the employee is absent for three days or less in a year. 

An employer may require a supporting document when an employee is absent from work for reasons relating to their child or a person for whom they are acting as a caregiver, but this document must not be a medical certificate.

 

380

Authors

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”), […]