Listen to this post

Special thanks to Jose (Pepe) Larroque, Carlos Martin Del Campo and Javiera Medina-Reza.

The Mexico Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare (STPS) has announced that it will carry out an estimated 42,000 inspections in 2023. The inspections carry the possibility of significant fines and penalties issued per violation, per employee. It is imperative for global employers with operations in Mexico to train personnel and response teams on best practices for managing potential inspections and mitigating risk, including maintaining all necessary information and documents that must be supplied during an inspection.

In this Quick Chat video, our Labor & Employment partners in Mexico along with the Managing Partner for Baker McKenzie’s Mexico offices discuss what to expect from an inspection and outline the penalties for noncompliance. They also share insights from the field, discuss the potential defenses and warn against the possible registration cancelation for specialized service providers.

Click here to watch the video.

Listen to this post

On March 20, 2023, Bill 79, Working for Workers Act, 2023, carried on a first reading in the Ontario legislature. If passed, Bill 79 will significantly amend several employment-related statutes and expand on legislative changes introduced in the Working for Workers Acts, 2021 and 2022.

Summary of Key Changes

The most important potential changes include:

  • Mass Termination: Employees who work remotely from home will be included in the count for mass termination provisions under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA“). The result is that remote employees will receive the same eight-week minimum notice of termination or pay-in-lieu as their in-office colleagues. Currently, the meaning of “establishment” under the mass termination provisions only encompasses the physical location at which an employer carries on business, and does not include an employee’s private residence. If Bill 79 is passed as currently drafted, the proposed amendments to the mass termination provisions will come into force on the later of July 1, 2023, or the date on which Bill 79 receives Royal Assent.
  • Health and Safety: The maximum fine that may be imposed on a corporation convicted of an offence under the Occupational Health and Safety Act will increase from $1.5 million to $2 million.
  • Reservist Leave: The Employment Standards Act, 2000 will be amended to entitle an employee who is in treatment, recovery or rehabilitation in respect of a physical or mental health illness, injury or medical emergency that results from participation in certain operations or activities to reservist leave. Further, reservists who are deployed to emergency operations inside Canada will be entitled to take this leave immediately regardless of the length of their employment, and the length of employment required to take this leave for all other reasons will be reduced from three months to two months.
  • Personal Information in Post-Secondary Education: Section 15 of the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act will be amended to permit the collection, disclosure and use of personal information for purposes related to certain employment programs and services. This includes disclosing personal information to persons or entities that administer, evaluate or deliver employment programs or services funded by the Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development for the purpose of administering and delivering those programs or services.
  • Temporary Foreign Workers: The Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act, 2009 will be amended to increase penalties employers and people who are convicted of taking possession of or retaining a foreign national’s passport or work permit. For individuals, the penalty will increase to a fine of not more than $500,000 and/or imprisonment for a term of not more than 12 months. For corporations, the penalty will increase to a fine of not more than $1,000,000.
  • Job Information Transparency: Employers will be required to provide employees starting a new job with information about their job, such as pay, work location and hours of work, and the date by which that information needs to be provided. These draft regulations have not been published yet, but we will continue to monitor this significant amendment closely.

Continue Reading Bill 79, Working for Workers Act, 2023 Carries on First Reading, with Potential for Major Changes Ahead
Listen to this post

We are pleased to share a recent Benefits Canada article, “Employers can’t rely on original termination clauses when employee responsibilities increase: court,” with quotes from George Avraam. A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision upheld a motion judge’s award of over $400,000 to an employee on the basis of the changed substratum doctrine. The case involved a unique set of facts where an executive-level employee’s job changed without a formal promotion.

Click here to view the article (originally published in Benefits Canada) and read our blog post further discussing the case here.

Listen to this post

Special thanks to Oscar Ramirez (articling student in our Toronto office) for co-authoring this blog.

In Celestini v. Shoplogix Inc., 2023 ONCA 131, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently upheld a motion judge’s award of over $400,000 to an employee on the basis of the changed substratum doctrine.

What is the changed substratum doctrine?

The changed substratum doctrine recognizes that the employment relationship evolves over time such that sometimes it may be inappropriate to apply the provisions of an out-dated employment contract to a job that has changed significantly. The doctrine applies in situations where the employee’s duties have fundamentally expanded to a point where the underlying employment contract has substantially eroded, or it can be implied that the employment contract could not have been intended to apply to the employee’s latest role.

Factual background

In 2005, Mr. Celestini became Shoplogix Inc.’s Chief Technological Officer through a finance arrangement with a venture fund. As part of the deal, he would step down as Shoplogix’s CEO and serve as its CTO under a written employment contract, which he signed in 2005. The employment contract limited Mr. Celestini’s entitlements upon termination of employment.

In 2008, Mr. Celestini and Shoplogix entered into an Incentive Compensation Agreement (“ICA“) which significantly altered Mr. Celestini’s bonus entitlements. Shoplogix did not amend the 2005 employment contract at this time.

There was an expansion of Mr. Celestini’s workload and responsibilities that coincided with the execution of the ICA and a change in leadership. His new responsibilities included: “managing important aspects of sales and marketing; directing managers and senior staff who were reassigned to report to him; travelling to pursue international sales; handling all of the company’s infrastructure responsibilities; and soliciting investment funds.”

In 2017, Shoplogix terminated Mr. Celestini without cause. Shoplogix took the position that Mr. Celestini’s rights were governed by the employment contract he signed in 2005. But Mr. Celestini argued that the termination provisions in the 2005 contract were unenforceable because of the substantial changes to his position, and he was therefore entitled to reasonable notice at common law. He claimed he was entitled to common law damages for wrongful dismissal on the basis that Shoplogix breached the implied term to provide reasonable notice of termination.

Continue Reading The Changed Substratum Doctrine Strikes Again – Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Massive Damages Award Where Employee’s Duties Significantly Expanded
Listen to this post

Ontario’s provincially-regulated employers will have to determine whether they must provide naloxone kits at their workplace by June 1, 2023.

Naloxone is a drug that can temporarily reverse the effects of an opioid overdose, and naloxone kits are designed to combat opioid addiction and overdose.

Last year, Ontario’s Bill 88, Working for Workers Act, 2022 introduced significant changes to a number of employment-related statutes. One of those changes was the new obligation under Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (the “OHSA”) requiring employers to provide naloxone kits when they become aware of a risk for a worker of having an opioid overdose at the workplace. The Government of Ontario has provided some guidance on the requirements that you can find here.

The first step for employers is to assess whether these requirements will apply to their workplace. The OHSA requires that employers provide and maintain a naloxone kit where an employer becomes aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, that there may be a risk of a worker having an opioid overdose at a workplace where that worker performs work for the employer. An employer will only have to comply with the new naloxone kit requirements if that applies.

An employer who must provide a naloxone kit in their workplace must follow the new requirements outlined by the OHSA. Notably, they must:

  • provide and maintain/store a naloxone kit, the contents of which are prescribed by the OHSA;
  • provide at least one naloxone kit in each workplace in which they are aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, of the risk of one of their workers having an opioid overdose (note that employers may have to provide more kits at the workplace if that is a reasonable precaution in the circumstances); and
  • at any time there are workers in the workplace, ensure a worker is trained to use the naloxone kit and administer naloxone (complying with the training requirements that are outlined in the OHSA), and ensure that the kit is in the vicinity of a worker trained to use the kit.

Key Takeways

These requirements will impose significant new obligations on employers; Ontario employers should be familiar with what triggers these naloxone kit obligations. Employers should first determine whether the legislation applies to their workplace. If so, then the employer should ensure that they meet all of the applicable OHSA requirements when they come into force on June 1, 2023 to avoid penalties under the OHSA. Impacted employers will also have to consider how these new requirements intersect with their decisions on managing worker impairment from drugs and meet their duty to accommodate employees under Ontario’s Human Rights Code. Employers should also consider how naloxone kits fit into their emergency procedures.

If the new requirements do not apply to an employer’s workforce, then we recommend that such employers still be familiar with what triggers these obligations in case they apply in the future.

Also note that Ontario’s Workplace Naloxone Program is currently providing support to employers who are required to comply with new requirements by providing free naloxone training for up to two workers per workplace and/or one free nasal spray naloxone kit per workplace.

If you have any questions or need assistance with any of the above, please contact someone from our team.

Listen to this post

Special thanks to Sarah Adler, Immigration Legal Counsel.

In our latest Global Immigration and Mobility Video chat, our immigration and mobility attorneys explore the most recent changes in Canadian immigration law introduced in 2022; as well as some updates and anticipated changes to consider as we look ahead towards 2023. The 10-minute video covers the following:

  • Updates to the National Occupational Classification Codes
  • Prevailing wages
  • Compliance and location of work requirements
  • Processing times of immigration applications
  • Expansion of the GTS LMIA Category B occupations list 
  • Resumption of Express Entry selection draws
  • Expanded work authorization opportunities

Click here to watch the video.

Listen to this post

In a recent episode of Canadian Justice, Andrew Shaw joined a panel about the complicated employment law issues surrounding working remotely and return to work policies following the pandemic. Andrew discussed a hybrid work model, providing reasonable notice to employees of the requirement to return to work, employee time theft and much more.

Click here to watch the interview.

This interview was originally posted in The News Forum.

Listen to this post

Special thanks to Sarah Adler, Immigration Legal Counsel.

Our webinar was designed to bring Canadian in-house counsel and human resources leaders up to speed on the top labour, employment and human rights law developments of 2022 and to prepare them for what’s on the horizon in 2023.  

Using our “quick hits” format, we helped Canadian in-house counsel and human resources leaders track what to keep top-of-mind for 2023 complete with practical takeaways to help navigate the new landscape.

Apply our Annual Canadian Employer Update Takeaways Checklist: Going into 2023 to help your organization’s leadership prepare for some of the most important employment law developments.

Among other topics, we covered:

  • COVID-19 case law updates on vaccinations, masking and workplace health and safety policies
  • Terminations, reductions in force and ways to reduce employer liability in a changing economy
  • Changes to public sector wage caps in Ontario
  • A selection of cross-Canada legislative changes including:
    • Working for Workers (again) in Ontario
    • Paid Sick Leave in BC
    • French Language and Privacy amendments in Quebec
  • Immigration – The solution to labour shortages in a post COVID-19 world?

Click here to view the webinar recording.

Listen to this post

Special thanks to Brendan O’Grady (a senior associate in our Litigation & Government Enforcement Practice Group) and Anton Rizor (articling student in our Toronto office) for co-authoring this blog.

In Flesch v Apache Corporation, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) upheld the certification of an employee class action arising out of the cancellation of long-term incentive compensation plan. This case is significant because the court discussed its gatekeeping function in the certification of class actions, and it serves as a warning to employers who seek to amend or cancel incentive plans.  

Background

In July 2017, the Apache Corporation (“Apache”), an American oil and gas company, announced the closure of its Canadian operations. Through a series of amalgamations, Apache’s Canadian subsidiary, Apache Canada, was sold to the company that became Paramount Resources (“Paramount”). Apache cancelled all awards under its long-term compensation plan, including restricted stock units, stock options, and performance awards. Apache advised the over 300 transferred employees that they would participate in Paramount’s compensation plan.

The employees alleged that Paramount’s plan was less remunerative. They claimed damages for breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The chambers judge granted the employee group’s application for class action certification against Apache, Paramount, and individual board members. They appealed certain aspects of the certification.

Decision

The majority of the ABCA upheld the certification, affirming the chambers judge’s reasoning on most grounds. It rejected the appellant’s argument that there was no basis in fact to conclude that they were common employers because they were subsidiaries or affiliates. The court also rejected Paramount’s argument that they should not be included as a defendant because Apache could be held liable.

The ABCA overturned the certification of the unjust enrichment claim as a common issue because it had no reasonable prospect of success.

One element of the test for certification is whether the pleadings disclose a cause of action. The requirement has a lower bar than the other elements. It will be satisfied unless, assuming the facts are true as pleaded, it is “plain and obvious” that the claim cannot succeed. The majority applied this standard test.

In a concurring decision, Justice Slatter held that the court should exercise a more robust gatekeeping function at certification. He noted that “cluttering up class action proceedings with collateral and marginally relevant causes of action” does not serve the objectives of Alberta’s class action regime. Instead, mirroring the Federal Court Rules and jurisprudence, Justice Slatter held that the court should raise the standard to require “pleadings to disclose a reasonable cause of action.” He envisioned that the court would apply a generous test to the main cause of action and the more rigid standard to secondary causes of action.

Takeaways

  • Justice Slatter suggested an enhanced gatekeeping function for courts for certifying class actions. While Justice Slatter concurred in the result, his reasoning was not part of the majority decision, so it’s not clear to what extent his comments will impact future decisions. It will be interesting to see whether other courts follow his suggestion.
  • Employers need to be aware of the risk of class proceedings associated with revising or cancelling incentive compensation programs. This is especially important in the context of workforce transitions.
  • A successor company may not be shielded from class proceedings based on the conduct of prior employers.
  • Employers and their directors need to be aware that class proceedings can be certified against individual managers of incentive programs for breach of fiduciary duty.

Listen to this post

To wrap up 2022 and prepare for 2023, we highlighted key developments in Canadian labour and employment law:

1. COVID-19 Update

Workplace Vaccination Policies

Mandatory vaccination policies remained a prevalent issue in 2022. The first decisions to provide guidance on this topic came out of unionized workplaces, with many upholding vaccination policies.

In Toronto District School Board v CUPE, Local 4400, Arbitrator Kaplan upheld the employer’s vaccination policy which stated that unvaccinated employees would be placed on unpaid leaves of absence. Arbitrator Kaplan found that the policy was a reasonable exercise of management rights and that it did not violate the individual’s right to life, liberty or security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom. Similarly, in Power Workers’ Union v Elexicon Energy Inc., Arbitrator Mitchell found an employer’s policy which required employees to be vaccinated with three doses to be reasonable in the circumstances.

While most labour arbitration decisions to date have favored employers, some have not. In FCA Canada Inc. v Unifor, Locals 195, 444, 1285, Arbitrator Nairn held that a  policy which required two doses of the vaccine was no longer reasonable in light of evolving scientific evidence. She cautioned that the reasonableness of mandatory vaccination policies would be assessed on a case-by-case basis by looking at a workplace’s particular circumstances in the context of the changing nature of the pandemic.

In the non-unionized context, the British Columbia Supreme Court in Parmar v Tribe Management Inc. confirmed an employer’s right to place an employee on an unpaid leave of absence for failing to comply with a mandatory vaccination policy. The Court found the employer’s policy to be reasonable given the state of the pandemic at the time it was introduced, and in light of the employer’s health and safety obligations. The Court found that Ms. Parmar was not constructively dismissed when she was placed on unpaid leave for non-compliance with the policy.

Employers should monitor public health directives and review their mandatory vaccination policies regularly to ensure that they remain reasonable and appropriate as circumstances change.

Status of COVID-19 Leaves of Absence

Several provinces implemented paid and unpaid job-protected leaves at the onset of the pandemic for employees who were unable to work for reasons related to COVID-19. Most of these programs have ended or are set to expire within the next few months.

In Ontario, the paid Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (IDEL) still provides workers with up to three days of paid infectious disease emergency leave until March 31, 2023. Employees are also entitled to take unpaid leave if they are not performing their duties because of reasons related to a designated infectious disease. However, deemed IDEL came to an end on July 30, 2022, so non-unionized employees are no longer deemed to be on IDEL if their hours are temporarily reduced or eliminated because of COVID-19. More information on this topic can be found on our blog post here.

In British Columbia, employees are still entitled to an unpaid COVID-19-related leave for as long as they are unable to work. The legislative amendment providing employees with an additional three days of paid COVID-19-related leave was repealed in December 2021. However, all employees based in the province may now take up to five paid sick days per calendar year for any injury or illness, including COVID-19.

In Alberta, all employees who are required to quarantine due to COVID-19 are still eligible for up to 14 days of unpaid, job-protected leave.

2. Employment Terminations Update

Reductions in Force (“RIFs”)

With a drastic slowdown in economic growth in the second-half of 2022, many employers engaged in restructuring. As the market continues to consolidate, this is a trend we believe will continue into 2023.

With group terminations in particular, employers must carefully navigate legislative and contractual obligations to reduce liability. Examples of things employers need to look out for when restructuring include: group termination obligations regarding notice and notification to employment standards directors where appropriate; avoiding discrimination claims by applying objective criteria when selecting employees for redundancy; ensuring employees are provided with their minimum contractual and statutory entitlements to wages, benefits, incentives, etc.; and effectively dealing with any spin-off litigation.

Our In Focus video series titled “Implementing a Reduction in Force in Canada: Mitigating Risks Arising from Major Workforce Changes” addresses these issues and liabilities in greater detail – we encourage any employer considering a RIF to watch these videos.

Sexual Misconduct

In Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited Group, the Ontario Court of Appeal redefined wilful misconduct as that term is understood under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA“) and confirmed the modern day approach to assessing sexual harassment in the workplace.

The Ontario Court of Appeal determined that an employee who slapped a female co-worker on her behind did not commit wilful misconduct under the ESA, and was therefore entitled to his minimum entitlements thereunder, but was not entitled to common-law notice.

The Court of Appeal reiterated that proving wilful misconduct under the ESA is more onerous than proving just cause at common-law and found that, in order to prove wilful misconduct under the ESA, an employer must prove that the employee’s misconduct was both intentional and preplanned. Please refer to our full blog here for a more detailed analysis of this case.

3. Bill 124 Struck Down for Being Unconstitutional

In Ontario English Catholic Teachers Assoc. v. His Majesty, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that Bill 124, Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act (the “Act“), was void and of no effect.

Bill 124, originally introduced in June 2019, limited salary increases for public sector employees to 1% per year during a three-year “moderation period”. For a detailed blog post on Bill 124, please go here.

Labour organizations challenged the constitutionality of Bill 124 on the basis that it limited the freedom of association, freedom of speech and equality rights of their members under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ontario denied any infringement and argued, in the alternative, that if Bill 124 did infringe on any Charter rights, it was saved by s. 1 of the Charter.

The Court sided with the labour organizations and struck down the Act for being unconstitutional. The Court held that while the Act did not breach the organizations’ freedom of speech and equality rights, it did violate the right to freedom of association because it substantially interfered with collective bargaining. The Court also found that Bill 124 was not a reasonable limit on a right that could be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Charter. The consideration of remedies was deferred to a further hearing.

The Ontario government announced that it would appeal this decision. At this time, Bill 124 is not in effect.

4. Immigration Compliance Changes

Immigration, Refugee, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) incorporated new compliance requirements in its regular audits on employers engaging in the Temporary Foreign Work Permits program. These requirements aim to enhance protections for temporary foreign workers (TFWs) in Canada. Notably, audits now require documentation which had not previously been asked of employers, including proof that TFWs received a pamphlet with information on their rights in Canada, and proof that the company complied with recruitment law in the applicable province, among other things. Please consult our full blog post here for more information on these changes.

5. Federal/Ontario Legislation

Competition Act Changes

The Government of Canada amended the federal Competition Act to criminalize wage-fixing and no-poach agreements between employers, effective June 23, 2023.

The amendments introduced provisions criminalizing any agreement between employers to fix, maintain, decrease or control wages (wage-fixing agreements) or terms and conditions of employment, or which prohibit employers from soliciting or hiring each other’s employees (no-poach agreements). This prohibition will apply to all employers, regardless of whether they compete directly with each other.

The criminalization of no-poach, wage-fixing and other employment-related agreements is something all employers should be wary of. Employers can face fines and executives can potentially face prison time. Consistent with amendments that will remove the existing cap on criminal fines that apply to anticompetitive, buy-side competitor agreements (currently CAD $25M), the employment-related prohibitions will similarly have no maximum. In addition, private parties can also pursue civil actions, including class actions, against employers for breach of these provisions.

Before the amendments come into effect, employers should review existing agreements, conduct a risk assessment, and update internal policies and compliance programs. We have provided more detail on these changes and recommended actions for employers in our blog post here.

Bill 26 – Strengthening Post-secondary Institutions and Students Act, 2022

On December 8, 2022, Bill 26 – Strengthening Post-secondary Institutions and Students Act, 2022, received royal assent. Most of the changes mentioned below will come into effect on July 1, 2023, and will transform how post-secondary institutions and private career colleges address sexual misconduct by faculty and staff.

Key changes include the following:

  • Amending the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act (the “Act“) to include a definition of “sexual misconduct,” defined as sexual relations, sexual touching, or remarks of a sexual nature that constitute an offence under the Criminal Code, that infringes the right of a student to be free from a sexual solicitation or advance under the Human Rights Code, and/or that contravenes an institution’s sexual abuse and misconduct policies or any other rule or requirement of the institution respecting sexual relations between employees and students.
  • Amending the Act to stipulate that any discharge or discipline by an institution for sexual misconduct is for just cause.
  • Preventing an institution from rehiring an employee who was discharged or who resigned after they were found to have committed sexual misconduct.
  • Preventing institutions from entering into agreements which would preclude the institution from disclosing that an allegation has been made against an employee who committed an act of sexual misconduct.
  • Requiring all institutions to have an employee sexual misconduct policy.

In light of these upcoming changes, post-secondary institutions and private career colleges in Ontario should review their policies to ensure compliance. We have provided more detail on this legislative change in this blog post.

Bill 88 – Working for Workers Act, 2022

On April 11, 2022, Bill 88 received royal assent, introducing significant changes to a number of employment-related statutes and introducing the Digital Platform Workers Rights Act, 2022.

The most significant changes introduced by Bill 88 are:

  • It made certain business consultants and information technology consultants exempt from the hours of work provisions, overtime provisions, and termination pay and severance obligations of the Employment Standards Act, 2000.
  • It required employers with twenty-five or more employees to develop and implement a written electronic monitoring policy by October 11, 2022, and make copies of the policy available to all of their employees.
  • It enacted the Digital Platform Workers Rights Act, 2022, which establishes rights for workers who perform digital platform work. This new Act provides that digital platform operators must provide workers with:
    • information on how pay is calculated;
    • the right to a recurrent pay period and pay day, minimum wage for each work assignment performed by a worker, and amounts earned and tips and other gratuities;
    • the reasons for being removed from a platform, and be given two weeks’ written notice if access is removed for more than twenty-four hours;
    • the right to be free from reprisal and to resolve work-related disputes with platform operators in Ontario; and
    • record-keeping obligations for platform operators, director liability provisions, and detailed complaints and enforcement provisions.

Please refer to our full blog post here for more details regarding Bill 88.

6. Quebec Legislation

Bill 59 – An Act to modernize the occupational health and safety regime

In October 2021, the Quebec Government passed Bill 59, which makes substantive changes to statutes involving health and safety in the workplace. These changes will gradually come into effect, with some already in force since October and others coming into force from now until 2024.

The Bill introduces new provisions to the Act respecting occupational health and safety (the “AOHS”), including the following:

  • Workplaces with 20 or more workers must establish and implement a prevention program that is specific to the workplace. Workplaces with less than 20 employees must establish an action plan to eliminate or reduce dangers to health, safety, and wellbeing.
  • All workplaces with 20 or more workers must establish a health and safety committee. Committees must include at least one individual that represents the workers and another that represents the employer.
  • Employers are obligated to take necessary measures to ensure the protection of a worker exposed to violence in the workplace.
  • The AOHS applies to teleworking, where applicable.

The Bill also introduces new provisions under the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases, such as a presumption of reinstatement for a worker who has suffered an employment injury and a Regulation that contains a list of diseases that are presumed to have been contracted in the workplace.

More information can be found in our blog post here.

Bill 64 – An Act to modernize legislative provisions as regards the protection of personal information

On June 12, 2020, the Quebec government introduced Bill 64. The first round of requirements brought on by Bill 64 came into force on September 22, 2022.

The Bill proposes to modernize the existing framework applicable to the protection of personal information by amending various public, and private sector Quebec laws, to align closer with the requirements under the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the European General Data Protection Regulation.

The Bill will also significantly impact Quebec’s private sector laws on privacy – the Act respecting the protection of personal information in the privacy sector.

Key provisions of the proposed Bill include:

  • Greater fines and administrative penalties for privacy violations.
  • Requiring businesses to appoint an individual to be responsible for overseeing the protection of personal information.
  • Requirements for breach notifications when a “confidentiality incident” presents a “risk of serious injury” to the impacted individual.
  • A mandatory obligation for organizations to conduct a privacy impact assessment.
  • Requiring organizations to conduct a privacy impact assessment to ascertain whether information transferred outside of Quebec will receive a level of protection equivalent to the one granted under the Act.
  • More details around the type of disclosures that must be available to individuals upon collecting their information.
  • Additional rights to a person to whom personal information relates.

Additional information on Bill 64 can be found in our detailed post here.

Bill 96 – An Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec

On June 1, 2022, Quebec passed Bill 96, An Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec. Bill 96 introduces significant changes to the Charter of the French Language and other laws.

Among the changes, Bill 96 requires employers to:

  • Provide mandatory employment documentation in French, as well as written communications unless an employee requests that such communications be in another language. This includes things like job application forms, group benefits information, and training documents, with no exception.
  • Provide individual employment contracts that are contracts of adhesion in French (i.e., contracts where the terms are imposed on the employee and which are non-negotiable).
  • Make job postings available in French in a comparable manner as their non-French version.

Most of these amendments came into force on June 1, 2022, but parties have one year from the Act’s effective date to translate any required documents to French. Employers that fail to implement these and the many other requirements imposed by Bill 96 could face fines up to $30,000 for a first offence. For our full blog outlining the new requirements imposed by Bill 96, please go to our blog here.