Newsletters

338

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.

 

338

Authors

Articles in the same category

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”), […]

Public Contracts: When Does a Penalty Clause Cross the Line?

Penalty clauses are a practical tool for owners: instead of having to prove actual losses when a contractor falls short, they can rely on a pre-agreed sum. For contractors, however, the stakes are equally significant — a lump-sum penalty can consume a substantial portion of the contract’s value. Still, the mechanism has its limits. Courts […]

Not So Intelligent!

Since the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence tools, growing concerns have emerged regarding their use in judicial proceedings. Recent decisions have relied on section 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure to sanction parties who make improper use of such tools. More specifically, this provision has been invoked on several occasions to address the use or citation […]

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 […]