Newsletters

233

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.

 

233

Authors

Articles in the same category

Same Approach, Same Result…

In a recent decision, Michel Grenier v. Me Julie Charbonneau, Roger Picard and Conseil de discipline de l’Ordre des psychologues du Québec, rendered on June 4, 2025, the Superior Court revisited the principles applicable to the immunity of members of a professional order’s disciplinary council to rule on a Motion to Dismiss. The delay to […]

Reversing the Burden One Step at a Time…

In civil liability cases involving personal injury, the burden of proof and witness credibility often become pivotal. This was the case in Lamothe c. Beaudoin, rendered on April, 15, 2025, by the Superior Court of Québec, where the plaintiffs—Lamothe and Simon—sought damages following Lamothe’s fall down a staircase in the defendants’ property. Relying on the […]

Fire Destroys a Building: Are the Firefighters to Blame?

In a decision rendered on April 11, 2025, the Court of Appeal ruled on the issue of relative immunity for a municipal fire department’s actions in the case of Leduc v. Durham-Sud Municipality. During the night of March 17 to 18, 2019, a duplex owned by the plaintiffs in the Municipality of Durham-Sud (“Municipality”) was […]

An Automobile Accident Is Not Necessarily an Automobile Accident

Our readers will recall that many decisions have been rendered in recent years analyzing, in very specific cases, what might constitute an automobile accident under the Automobile Insurance Act (AIA). Several decisions have been rendered by both the Supreme Court of Canada[1] and the Court of Appeal[2]. The Administrative Tribunal of Québec (TAQ) recently rendered […]

Nothing Lasts Forever (Not Even a Lifetime Warranty)

In a recent judgment, Hamann v. Matériaux de construction Oldcastle Canada inc., 2024 QCCA 1705, the Québec Court of Appeal (the “CA”) confirmed a ruling of the Québec Superior Court (the “SC”) dismissing an originating application because of the applicant’s failure to institute proceedings within three years of discovering damage to his roof tiles, which […]

1, 2, 3, and the Dishwasher Goes…

No, it was not a former Minister of Energy who made it disappear, but rather a planned obsolescence, carefully concealed in the complexities of the manufacturing components so that the product purchased becomes defective, coercing you to replace it sooner. Fortunately, the Government has responded, and we explain how. Introduction In June 2023, the Minister […]