Newsletters

317

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.

 

317

Authors

Articles in the same category

New CAI Guidance on Preventing Confidentiality Incidents: A Practical Roadmap for Businesses in Quebec

On January 30, 2026, Quebec’s privacy regulator, the Commission d’accès à l’information (“CAI”), published fresh guidance aimed at strengthening how organizations prevent confidentiality incidents involving personal information. Confidentiality incidents are one of the most significant privacy risks facing organizations today. In Quebec, these incidents are governed by several laws, including the Act respecting the protection […]

Not-So-Latent Defects for a Poorly Equipped Tradesman

In Beaudoin v. Boucher, 2025 QCCA 1646, rendered last December 19, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of an action in latent defects brought by the buyers of a residential property. The Court reiterated the buyer’s duty to pursue further inspections when confronted with serious indicia of defects, particularly where they possess recognized expertise […]

When Love and Construction Contracts Go Out the Window…

In Gélinas v. LG Constructions TR inc., rendered on October 30, 2025, the Court of Appeal comments on the legal framework governing a contractor unilaterally terminating two construction contracts. In particular, the Court clarifies the application of article 2129 of the Civil Code of Quebec (“C.C.Q.”), which provides, when applicable, that a client is bound […]

Finally Properly Interpreted, the Policy Had a Heart

In a recent decision, Morissette v. BMO Société d’assurance vie, the Superior Court reviewed the principles applicable to the interpretation of insurance policies. Facts In June 2003, the Plaintiff took out a health insurance policy (hereinafter “Policy”) with BMO Société d’assurance vie (hereinafter “BMO”). The Policy provides, among other things, that $150,000 will be paid […]

When the Remedy Becomes the Dispute: Medical Liability Under Scrutiny

In the case N.L. v. Mathieu, 2025 QCCS 517, the Superior Court dismissed a medical liability lawsuit filed by a teacher against her former family doctor, in which she sought over $1.9 million in damages. The plaintiff accused her doctor of having inappropriately prescribed medication over several years, without proper follow-up and without informing her […]

Bill 89 and the Future of Labour Disputes in Quebec

Passed by the National Assembly on May 29, 2025, Bill 89 (An Act to give greater consideration to the needs of the population in the event of a strike or a lock-out, hereinafter the “Bill”) will come into force on November 30, 2025. The Bill, which has faced strong opposition from unions, will bring significant […]