Quebec is currently facing a major shortage of physicians. To remedy the situation, several ministers in the CAQ government announced in early 2024 that significant changes would be implemented to reduce physicians’ administrative burden. And so, on May 31, 2024, Minister of Labour Jean Boulet introduced Bill 68, An Act mainly to reduce the administrative burden of physicians. The provisions of the Bill In its current form, the new Act would comprise 13 sections, many of which would introduce major amendments to the Act respecting labour standards1(ALS) by restricting the right of employers to require documents attesting to the reasons for certain absences. Under the current legislation, an employer may be entitled to require a document from an employee who misses work owing to sickness in order to assess the reasons for the absence, its duration, or the employee’s ability to return to work. This is because, under the terms of a contract of employment,2every employer is entitled to expect their employee to fully perform the work agreed upon.In addition, there is a consensus in case law that the supporting document provided to an employer should typically indicate a specific medical diagnosis, an estimated duration of absence (prognosis) and other details relevant to handling the employee’s absence. In keeping with these principles, the existing section 79.2 of the ALS provides that an employer informed of an absence owing to sickness, an organ or tissue donation, an accident, domestic violence, sexual violence or a criminal offence may request that the employee furnish a document attesting to any one of these reasons where the circumstances warrant it, particularly as regards the duration of the absence or its repetitive nature. According to arbitral jurisprudence3 and that of the Administrative Labour Tribunal4 (ALT), unwarranted refusal to provide such a document may constitute valid grounds for imposing an administrative or disciplinary measure, depending on the circumstances. That said, if Bill 68 were to come into force, it would drastically change the status quo. The Bill would introduce an additional paragraph to section 79.2 of the ALS specifying that: “. . . no employer may request the document referred to in the first paragraph for the first three periods of absence not exceeding three consecutive days taken annually.” In other words, it would be prohibited for an employer to require a supporting document, including a medical certificate, for the first three short-term absences (less than four days) that may occur during the same calendar year. For the time being, the Act does not provide for an exception in cases where absences are excessive or otherwise questionable. Conditions under which employers will be entitled to require a medical certificate Under the Bill, employers retain the right to require a medical certificate where the absence is likely to last four consecutive days or more. What is more, the provision does not deny employers the right to investigate situations that appear questionable. The aforementioned prohibition would also apply to employers whose employees are governed by the Act respecting labour relations, vocational training and workforce management in the construction industry.5 Furthermore, the Bill includes an amendment to the provisions relating to family or parental leave and absences. The third paragraph of section 79.7 of the ALS would be amended so as to prevent employers from requiring a medical certificate to justify such absences. However, this amendment in no way affects their right to require any other type of documentation, particularly as regards obligations relating to daycare services or educational institutions. Where an offence is committed, the penal provisions already included in sections 139 to 147 of the ALS will apply. As these amendments are of public order and take precedence over any contract, policy or collective agreement, any measure imposed on an employee that would contravene any of these new obligations may be deemed invalid or result in a prohibited practice complaint. The Bill will affect insurers and employee benefit plan administrators The Bill also introduces new restrictions on insurers and employee benefit plan administrators. They may no longer be entitled to require that an insured, a participant or a beneficiary receive a medical service, such as a consultation, in order to reimburse the cost of services or a technical aid, or to continue paying disability benefits. Conclusion Bill 68 has not yet been debated and the National Assembly has not yet assented to it, but the existing version of the Bill—including the proposed amendments to the ALS—could come into force as early as January 1, 2025. CQLR, c. N-1.1. Civil Code of Québec, CQLR, c. CCQ-1991, art. 2085. See in particular the case law cited in Linda Bernier, Guy Blanchet and Éric Séguin, Les mesures disciplinaires et non disciplinaires dans les rapports collectifs du travail, 2nd ed. Cowansville, Éditions Yvon Blais, loose-leaf, updated to May 30, 2024, paras. 1.055 et seq. See in particular : Marchessault et CPE Les Petits Adultes, 2019 QCTAT 1632, paras. 37–38; Labourdette et Protecteur du citoyen, 2019 QCTAT 4831, para. 52. CQLR, c. R-20.

Telework is not a new phenomenon. According to the International Labour Organization, its rise dates back to the 1970s when a major oil crisis prompted many companies to keep their employees at home to reduce their energy consumption1. That said, since the Covid pandemic, teleworking has become widespread. Now, nearly a quarter of Canadian companies (22.5%) expect that 10% or more of their workforce will continue to telework after business is back to normal2. Needless to say, this mode of work is here to stay. However, teleworking can be a real headache for employers when it comes to injury prevention and occurrence. A more permissive caselaw The Act Respecting Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases3(the "AIAOD") may apply to homeworkers4. In fact, the courts have long held that a home can be considered a workplace within the meaning of this Act, where there is part of the work that is performed by the employee with the knowledge and consent of the employer5. In fact, before the pandemic, there were two opposing lines of caselaw regarding the acceptance of workplace injuries when they occurred in the home of the worker who was duly authorized to work remotely. One accepted them, the other denied them. However, it was all a question of circumstances. If the situation fell within the sphere of professional activities, it was accepted, even if it could be considered as part of the personal sphere. 6 However, since the pandemic, in 2020 and 2021, the Administrative Labour Tribunal (the "ALT") has issued several decisions expanding the boundaries of this sphere of professional activities. Several so-called "comfort" activities have been admitted in the context of teleworking, such as falling while walking during a health break7or on the stairs at home at the beginning of the lunch hour8. Similarly, going to the bathroom9, going outside to smoke10, getting a soft drink11, a coffee12, or a dish from the microwave13 could qualify as comfort activities within the sphere of work activities at work, even when teleworking. Although the restrictive trend could still be applied, it is important to note that each situation must be analyzed individually, taking into account the location of the event, the existence and degree of authority over the worker, the purpose of the exercise and its usefulness with respect to the performance of the work. In short, given the increased use of telework, employers should expect to see an increase in such claims. This observation should guide them in the organization of this new work method, especially considering the new amendments to the Act Respecting Occupational Health and Safety (the "AOHS"). Impact of amendments to the Act Respecting Occupational Health and Safety In 2021, the AOHS underwent a number of important changes. One of them is that the Act and its prevention obligations apply to both the worker who teleworks and the employer14. This means that the worker's home or open workspaces are now the employer's responsibility. For example, the obligation set out in section 51(7) of the AOHS, namely that the employer must provide safe equipment and ensure that it is maintained in good condition, applies in this case to the telework environment where the worker is located. This new reality entails obligations for employers and will undoubtedly have an impact on the courts' interpretation of the acceptance of an employment injury. Indeed, as shown in the previous section, recent decisions tend to demonstrate that accidents that occur at home in the context of telework are mostly admissible. Moreover, the new obligation set out in the AOHS according to which the telework environment is under the responsibility of the employer in matters of prevention related to occupational health and safety is likely to be interpreted by the courts as being more conducive to the recognition of workplace injuries. The link is certainly not direct, but the trend in caselaw and the amendment to the AOHS lead us to believe that this will be the case. Recommendations in light of the evolution of caselaw and amendments to the AOHS In light of the above, it would be advisable to establish or revise a telework policy in order to ensure that the obligations of the employer and those of the worker with respect to the telework workplace are clearly defined. For example, depending on the activities that may be carried out, it will be important to define the notion of workplace in a telework environment. To do so, each employer will have to ask itself many questions, such as: Do you want to allow teleworking in a cooperative teleworking location? What measures can be put in place to ensure that prevention obligations are met and that occupational injuries are avoided? Who will be responsible for ensuring that the employer's obligations regarding prevention are met in a context where the employee works remotely? How to manage employees who are outside the country? In short, all these questions will have to be analyzed in the context of drafting or rewriting a telework policy. The members of the Labour and Employment Law team remain available to assist you in your reflection and in the revision of your policy, if necessary. International Labour Organization, Challenges and Opportunities of Teleworking for Workers and Employers in the ICTS and Financial Services Sectors, Geneva, 2016. Statistics Canada, Canadian Survey on Business Conditions: Impact of COVID-19 on businesses in Canada, May 2020. CQLR, c. A-3.001. Club des petits déjeuners du Québec c. M.C. Frappier, 2009 QCCLP 7647. Quebecor Media Inc. et Marco Delgadillo, 2011 QCCLP 4843. Desrochers et Agence de revenu du Canada, 2011 QCCLP 7562; Futura manufacturier de portes & fenêtres inc. et Rossignol, 2020 QCTAT 2562; Benoît et NCH Canada inc, 2021 QCTAT 856. Laverdière et Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs (Opérations régionales), 2021 QCTAT 5644. Air Canada et Gentile-Patti, 2021 QCTAT 5829. Lefèbvre (Re), 2006 CanLII 70745 (QC CLP). Miljours et Ameublement Branchaud, 2016 QCTAT 809. Cormier et Société des Entreprises Innues d'Ekuanitshit (2009), 2019 QCTAT 3752, Robillard et DPCP, 2020 QCTAT 2933. Giroux et Pro Mec Élite inc, 2014 QCCLP 2853. Beaudry et Ministère de la Sécurité publique (Santé-sécurité), 2004 CanLII 92916 (QC CLP). AOHS, sec. 5.1.