On October 28, 2025, the government passed An Act to improve certain labour laws,1 also referred to as Bill 101. The reform has the stated objective of improving efficiency in grievance arbitration, in particular by reducing processing times, implementing a more structured case management system, and ensuring more thorough case preparation. The explanatory notes expressly state the intention to “determin[e] the rules relating to the communication of evidence before the hearing of the grievance.”2 In this context, the Labour Code3 was amended to introduce, among other things, section 100.3.1, which now requires parties to disclose in advance the evidence they intend to present, as well as the list of witnesses:  100.3.1. The party that intends to produce an exhibit or other evidence at the hearing must provide a copy of it to the other parties and the arbitrator within the time agreed upon at the pre-hearing conference or at least 30 days before the beginning of the hearing, except in an urgent situation or unless otherwise decided to ensure the proper administration of justice.  The party must, in the same manner, provide a list of the witnesses it intends to call and a list of those whose testimony it intends to present in the form of affidavits, unless there is valid cause not to disclose their identities.  The party must also file with the arbitrator proof that the copy has been provided to the other parties.  This change has significant practical implications. For decades, the issue of advance disclosure of evidence in grievance arbitration has given rise to conflicting jurisprudence. A majority view held that the arbitrator could not require a full exchange of evidence outside the hearing, while a minority view recognized a broader scope for intervention in the interest of fairness and the proper administration of justice.4 Several authors have criticized the role of surprise in arbitration. They found that a lack of advance disclosure leads to unnecessary debates, causes delays and adjournments, and contributes to making the process more cumbersome. Author and arbitrator Marc Mancini aptly summarizes the issue. He points out that the fact that rules governing the advance disclosure of evidence in grievance arbitration are virtually nonexistent can, in certain cases, encourage games of hide-and-seek between the parties.5  Section 100.3.1 is therefore triggering a cultural shift. Advance disclosure is no longer merely a cooperative practice that takes place only when the parties consent to it. It is a legislative obligation, subject to only two exemptions: an urgent situation or when a decision is otherwise rendered to ensure the proper administration of justice.  Under this new framework, an initial interlocutory judgment—eagerly awaited by legal practitioners—has clarified the scope of the obligation and, above all, how strictly the exemption for the proper administration of justice is enforced. It was rendered by arbitrator Isabelle Leblanc on June 22, 2026, in Syndicat des professeures et professeurs du Cégep Marie-Victorin and Cégep Marie-Victorin.7  Background on the ruling  The dispute arose in the context of workplace disciplinary measures that included a dismissal. The employer requested an exemption from the requirement to disclose certain documents in advance—primarily messages exchanged on social media and via text—which it preferred to disclose either during or after the complainant’s testimony. The union opposed the exemption, citing the very rationale behind the reform.  In her ruling, the arbitrator first notes that advance disclosure is now the rule and that parties can no longer treat it as a matter of procedural discretion. Advance disclosure, she states, is a strict procedural duty that may be waived only in urgent situations or for the proper administration of justice.  She frames the duty within Bill 101, stating that the reform aims to reduce processing times, enable the parties to better prepare their cases, and promote the resolution of disputes based on evidence known to both sides.  A ruling that’s open to interpretation, yet still sends a clear message  This ruling should be interpreted carefully. The arbitrator herself highlights the unique aspects of the case, in particular that the complainant was either the sender or the recipient of the messages the employer sought to use. The complainant was therefore already aware of the messages, even though he claimed to have deleted them and no longer to have them in his physical possession prior to his testimony.  From a practical standpoint, the arbitrator highlights the risks that inefficiency can entail. She notes that failure to provide advance disclosure may hinder the search for the truth, not because the facts are actually disputed, but because the normal limitations of memory may affect responses. She also notes that failure to provide advance disclosure impacts the efficiency of the hearing due to the time required to review the messages in the hearing room, especially given their volume.  From a legal standpoint, the arbitrator rejects the employer’s argument, one based on having a full and complete defence. She deems the concept inapplicable in arbitration and shifts the focus to the concept of the right to be heard. In her view, withholding evidence in the name of the right to be heard would amount to encouraging a practice that undermines the other party’s right to properly prepare and defend itself.  She specifies that the employer would have to demonstrate a real, concrete, and disproportionate infringement of his rights, constituting a heavy burden of proof that was not met in this case. She suggests that exemptions should not be viewed as merely a way out when advance disclosure is uncomfortable or strategically disadvantageous.  It is important to remember that each case is unique. Section 100.3.1 grants the arbitrator discretion based on the principle of the proper administration of justice, and it is possible that other arbitrators may reach different conclusions depending on the facts.  Rethinking disciplinary investigations and how we gather versions of the facts  A practical lesson emerges clearly from this ruling and is of direct interest to human resources and labour relations managers. The arbitrator points out that the employer already has a forum to assess the employee’s credibility: the investigation conducted prior to imposing the disciplinary measure. She highlights that, while evidence is not generally disclosed during investigations, this is often a deliberate choice rather than a necessity. She adds that the employer is not precluded from challenging the employee’s credibility and that it may do so during the investigation.7  Bill 101 and this ruling therefore call for a more rigorous structure for disciplinary investigations, not only to establish the facts but also to verify the consistency and reliability of the explanations before a decision is made. In many cases, this means the better planning of meetings aimed at gathering the versions of the facts. It is essential to ensure that the relevant questions are asked during the investigation, that the answers are accurately recorded, and that the person in question can clearly explain the allegations against them, especially when the employer intends to rely on this evidence. This way, there is less risk that a late review of evidence will slow down proceedings with delays and interruptions.  In light of these lessons, it appears that the following practices deserve consideration when conducting disciplinary investigations:  Clarifying from the outset what the allegations are and what needs to be verified, and then adjusting the investigation as findings emerge;  Preparing an agenda to gather the parties’ versions of the facts and identify the documents to be discussed;  Documenting responses accurately and completely, including nuances, corrections, and explanations;  Submitting written materials during the investigation, when applicable, to obtain comprehensive and contemporaneous explanations;  Addressing any contradictions or grey areas during the investigation, rather than letting them become more pronounced during the hearing; and  Ensuring that the disciplinary decision reflects the facts known at the time it is made and that the investigation file provides a clear explanation of the decision.  We will closely monitor future rulings under section 100.3.1, as the jurisprudence will clarify, over time, the practical scope of the exemption for the proper administration of justice, as well as its limits in disciplinary matters. In this ever-changing environment, we remain available to assist employers from the investigation stage through to arbitration in order to minimize the risk of contestation and strengthen their case.  SQ 2025, c. 28. Idem., Explanatory Notes. CQLR, c. C-27. Marc Mancini, Frédéric Poirier and Stéphanie Lalande, La preuve et la procédure en arbitrage de griefs, 3rd ed., Wilson & Lafleur, Montréal, 2026, pp. 117–127. Marc Mancini, “Et si la Règle de Browne c. Dunn s’appliquait en arbitrage de griefs au Québec : analyse réflexive sur les enjeux de divulgation de la preuve”, in Sébastien Beauregard et al., 50e anniversaire de la conférence des arbitres du Québec - Un demi-siècle de réflexion et d’évolution, Wilson & Lafleur, Montréal, 2024, pp. 74–83, 93. Syndicat des professeures et professeurs du Cégep Marie-Victorin and Cégep Marie-Victorin, 2026 QCTA 284 (Ms. Isabelle Leblanc). Idem., para. 58.

This bulletin addresses the same subject as a first bulletin we published on March 10, 2025, regarding Bill 89 tabled by the government. The bill was assented to on May 30, 2025, with a number of amendments and clarifications. The bill provides for major amendments to the Labour Code (L.C.) to improve the way in which the needs of the population are taken into account during labour disputes by introducing two new mechanisms, in particular. Firstly, it grants the Minister of Labour the power to refer parties to binding arbitration when the Minister considers that a strike or lockout is causing or threatening to cause serious harm to the public after unsuccessful mediation or conciliation. Secondly, it creates a framework for a new category of services to be maintained, those “ensuring the well-being of the population,” under which critical services will be maintained during strikes or lockouts. Having followed the parliamentary proceedings closely, we noted that a number of significant amendments were made to the bill since it was introduced. The time limit to negotiate services ensuring the well-being of the population was changed from fifteen to seven clear working days and the date of entry into force of the new provisions postponed to November 30, 2025. During the parliamentary debates, the Minister gave a few examples of what could fall under the concept of “social, economic or environmental security” for the population. Social security could be at stake in situations affecting the development of a vulnerable person, or in cases linked to poverty, isolation or food insecurity, among others. Economic security could also be compromised in similar circumstances, particularly when they affect the ability to get to work or earn wages. The concept of environmental security may include natural disasters or a significant deterioration in environmental quality, in particular. Although it will ultimately be up to the courts to rule on the scope of these new provisions, we believe that the points raised in parliamentary committee will affect how they are interpreted. The following table illustrates the main differences between the general essential services framework that apply to the public services covered by the Act and the new measures that can be put in place to protect the population:   Essential services among public services  Services ensuring the well-being of the population Special powers granted to the Minister Scope of application (subject to exclusions)  Public or comparable services (ss. 111.0.16 and 111.0.17 L.C.) Parties designated by the government by order (s. 111.22.4 L.C.) Any dispute, but does not apply to certain sectors or organizations listed in s. 111.32.1 L.C. Process by which dispute is rendered subject to mechanism ALT decision (s. 111.0.17 L.C.) ALT decision (s. 111.22.5 L.C.) Notice from the Minister to the parties (s. 111.32.2 L.C.) Application criteria Possibility of endangering public health or safety (s. 111.0.17 L.C.) Disproportionate impact on the social, economic or environmental security of the population, particularly that of persons in vulnerable situations (s. 111.22.3 L.C.) Labour conflict that causes or threatens to cause serious or irreparable harm to the public and unsuccessful intervention of a conciliator or mediator (s. 111.32.2 L.C.) Effect once subject to mechanism Right to strike temporarily suspended until legal requirements are met (s 111.0.17 L.C.)   Right to lockout prohibited in public services (s. 111.0.26 L.C.)   Continuation of strike or lockout after a decision making the dispute subject to the mechanism is rendered, unless exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise pending a decision by the ALT on whether the minimum services to be maintained are sufficient (s. 111.22.11 L.C.) Right to strike and lockout ceasing at the time indicated on the Minister’s notice (s. 111.32.2 L.C.) Procedure 1. Mandatory negotiation between the parties (s. 111.0.18 L.C.) 1. Mandatory negotiation between the parties within seven clear working days of an ALT decision (s. 111.22.7 L.C.) Parties consulted for 10 days on choice of arbitrator. If this fails, appointment by the Minister (s. 111.32.3 L.C.)   At any time, the parties may agree upon one of the matters of the dispute. The agreement shall be recorded in the arbitration award, which shall not amend it (s. 111.32.4 L.C.). Procedure 2. Forwarding of the agreement to the ALT for sufficiency assessment. If no agreement is reached, the union must forward a list of which services must be maintained (s. 111.0.18 L.C.). 2. Forwarding of the agreement to the ALT for sufficiency assessment (s. 111.22.8 L.C.) Dispute referred to arbitration, with necessary adaptations (ss. 111.32.2 and 111.32.5 L.C.) Procedure 3. ALT can help the parties to reach an agreement (s. 111.0.18 L.C.) 3. ALT can help the parties to reach an agreement (s. 111.22.7 L.C.) n/a ALT’s main role Sufficiency assessment, recommendations to parties in the event of insufficiency (s. 111.0.19 L.C.) Sufficiency assessment, determination of services to be maintained in case of insufficiency or if no agreement is reached (ss. 111.22.8 and 111.22.9 L.C.) Rule on the conditions of employment in dispute. Term and amendment of decisions The ALT’s decision to require a certified association and an employer to maintain services applies to each negotiation stage.   The ALT may also amend or revoke its decision at any time (s. 111.0.17.1 L.C.). The ALT’s decision to require a certified association and an employer to maintain services applies to the negotiation stage in progress.   The ALT may also amend or revoke its decision at any time, after the parties have submitted their views (s. 111.22.10 L.C.). Save for some exceptions, the award binds the parties for no less than one year or more than three years. The parties may, however, agree to amend the content, wholly or in part (s. 92 L.C.).   The arbitrator may at any time correct an award containing a mistake in writing or calculation or any other clerical error (s. 91.1 L.C.). Entry into force October 30, 2019 November 30, 2025 November 30, 2025 Note that we summarized the information above to make it concise. Given the complexity of the provisions in question and the many nuances and clarifications that may apply, you should read the specific provisions of the Labour Code or contact your legal advisors before making any decisions. We are available to answer any questions you may have about the impact of these new provisions on your business or to help you address such matters.

On February 19, 2025, the government introduced Bill 89, a piece of legislation that is essentially designed to regulate strikes and lockouts to limit their impact on the population. The Bill proposes major changes to the QuebecLabour Code,1 including granting special powers to the Minister of Labour to force binding arbitration on the parties in order to break a bargaining deadlock. It also introduces a new category of “services ensuring the well-being of the population,” i.e., services that may be maintained in the event of a labour dispute. Special powers granted to the Minister The Bill would allow the Minister to force the partiesinto binding interest arbitration provided that conciliation or mediation has failed and the Minister considers that the labour dispute is causing or threatens to cause serious or irreparable harm to the population. Such powers would not apply to labour disputes in the public and parapublic sectors.2 The strike or lockout would end at the time indicated in the notice sent to the parties. If the parties cannot agree on the choice of arbitrator, the Minister will appoint an arbitrator ex officio.3 The parties would still have the option to settle the dispute outside of arbitration, and the arbitrator would have no power to amend the resulting settlement agreement.4 Failing agreement, the arbitrator would break the deadlock by ruling on the employees’ working conditions. The new powers are similar to those of the Federal Minister of Labour, who can refer disputes to the Canada Industrial Relations Board under the Canada Labour Code.5 The Board then investigates the matter and decides on the necessary steps to resolve the issue. This mechanism has been used to order employees back to work in major disputes, such as the Canada Post mail strike in December 2024.Services to be maintained to ensure the well-being of the population The Labour Code currently provides that essential services must remain available during labour disputes to safeguard the health and safety of the public.6 However, it does not cover certain cases where a strike could cause major social or economic disruption. From 1982 to 2019, it was solely up to the government, on recommendation of the Minister, to pass orders in council directing the parties to maintain essential services. This gave the executive branch discretionary power to assess whether an anticipated strike posed a significant danger.7 The main goal was to protect the public against social and economic turmoil.8 In 2019, that power was taken away from the government and given to the Administrative Labour Tribunal (“ALT”). The ALT now decides whether certain services must remain available during a strike and, if so, assesses whether the essential service levels are adequate. However, in some cases, the ALT has applied a strict interpretation of the criteria for determining which essential services must be maintained. This is what happened, for example, with public transit in the Capitale-Nationale region, where bus service was not deemed essential during a drivers’ strike.9 Bill 89 parallels that jurisprudential trend by introducing a new category of protected services - those “ensuring the well-being of the population ”. These are defined as the services “minimally required to prevent the population’s social, economic or environmental security from being disproportionately affected, in particular that of persons in vulnerable situations”.10 This provision would apply to all strikes or lockouts, except those occurring in a government department or agency where employees are appointed under the Public Service Act11 or in an institution within the meaning of the Act respecting the process of negotiation of the collective agreements in the public and parapublic sectors.12 This notion is similar to the concept of “minimum services” recognized in international labour law, particularly by the International Labour Organization’s Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee considers that minimum levels may be set for certain services that are not essential “in the strict sense of the term” when a strike has the potential to paralyze a critical sector or trigger a severe national crisis that would jeopardize the well-being of the population, or when such measures are necessary to ensure that the basic needs of the population are met.13 > It is certainly still too early to determine which sectors would fall under the new category in Quebec and be subject to the new interpretation criteria. However, while each case is different, sectors where international law provides for minimum service levels could qualify, as they have a direct impact on daily life. Such services include education during extended strikes, public transit, basic banking, energy infrastructure management, passenger and freight services, and solid waste collection.14 The Bill would allow the government to issue an order in council designating parties for whom the ALT can determine whether services must be maintained in the event of a dispute. It would then be up to the ALT to order the parties to maintain those services, but the parties themselves would first need to attempt negotiations around the services they deem necessary. If no agreement is reached, the ALT will make the final decision. In all cases, an assessment will be conducted to determine whether the level of service is adequate. Moreover, the ALT would be granted various investigative15 and remedial powers16 in the matter. The Bill also introduces various other provisions17 and prohibits changes to the working conditions of employees providing such services, unless the parties have reached an agreement.18 Furthermore, the Bill includes penal provisions and states that employers declaring a lockout in a public service organization are required to inform the other party and the Minister of Labour in writing at least seven clear working days19 in advance. Conclusion Bill 89 is still at the introduction stage, and its approval will depend on the upcoming parliamentary process. The Bill may still be amended before it becomes law. That said, the Bill has sparked strong reactions from trade unions, with some representatives saying they plan to challenge the new measures in court if they are adopted and enforced.20 We will be closely monitoring the Bill’s progress and potential impact on the legal framework governing labour relations in Quebec.   CQLR, c. C-27.   Bill 89, s. 5 amending the Labour Code by adding section 111.32.2. However, this would not apply to labour relations in the public and parapublic sectors. Bill 89, s. 5 amending the Labour Code by adding s. 111.32.3.   Bill 89, s. 5 amending the Labour Code by adding s. 111.32.4.   R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2. The existing provisions mainly apply to public services and comparable services, as well as to the public and parapublic sectors. Fernand Morin, Rapports collectifs de travail, 2nd ed., Montréal, Éditions Thémis, 1991, p. 697: [TRANSLATION] “This provision applies only to businesses designated by an order in council and only while collective bargaining is underway (s. 111.0.17 of the Labour Code).According to this section: (i) It is the Minister’s responsibility to assess whether an anticipated work stoppage poses a danger and to take initiative in bringing the matter before the government.”   National Assembly of Québec, Commission permanente du Travail, de la Main-d’œuvre et de la Sécurité du revenu (standing committee on labour, workforce and income security), 3rd Session, 32nd Legislature, June 10, 1982, “Étude du projet de loi no 72 - Loi modifiant le Code du travail, le Code de procédure civile et d’autres dispositions législatives” (consideration of Bill 72 – An Act to amend the Labour Code, the Code of Civil Procedure and other legislation), p. B-6440: [TRANSLATION] “For example, I was listening to the MNA for Sainte-Anne—I know other people share those same concerns—who was saying that we should introduce the concept of—this isn’t exactly how he put it, but I was going to say—economic or social turmoil.The idea is embedded in the legal framework governing public health and safety, but falls under the jurisdiction of the executive branch.It’s a key element.”    Réseau de transport de la Capitale et Syndicat des employés du transport public du Québec Métropolitain inc., 2023 QCTAT 2525. Bill 89, s. 4 amending the Labour Code by adding s. 111.23.3. CQLR, c. F-3.1.1. CQLR, c. R-8.2. International Labour Office, Freedom of association – Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, 6th ed., Geneva, 2018, at paras. 830 to 866.  The Supreme Court has recognized the relevance of the comparison: Saskatchewan Federation of Labour c. Saskatchewan, [2015] 1 SCR 245, at para. 69. Jean Berner, Les services essentiels au Québec et la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, Québec, Presse de l’Université Laval, 2018, p. 35. Bill 89, s. 4 amending the Labour Code by adding s. 111.22.13. Bill 89, s. 4 amending the Labour Code by adding s. 111.22.15. The powers in question are those provided for in sections 111.17 to 111.22.1 of the Labour Code. Bill 89, s. 4. Bill 89, s. 4 amending the Labour Code by adding s. 111.22.12. Bill 89, s. 1 amending s. 111.0.23 of the Labour Code. Radio-Canada, Québec solidaire soupçonne la CAQ de vouloir se venger du secteur public, February 19, 2025, https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2142088/greves-limites-projet-loi-quebec, accessed February 21, 2025

Employers are regularly faced with complex mental health situations, particularly when their employees are absent due to illness or injury, or when accommodation measures need to be considered. In such cases, they usually request supporting documentation specifying the diagnosis in question. Diagnosing a mental disorder used to be an act reserved exclusively for doctors,1 although the Code of ethics of psychologists does mention “psychological diagnosis.”2 The Act to amend the Professional Code for the modernization of the professional system and to broaden certain professional practices in the field of health and social services,3 also known as Bill 67, which received assent on November 7, recognizes that certain health professionals other than physicians are qualified to make mental health diagnoses. These legislative changes are in keeping with the goal of making professional care and services more accessible to the public, and are in line with the position the Collège des médecins du Québec has taken in recent years.4 The professionals involved and the new authority granted in terms of diagnosis5 Psychologists (including neuropsychologists): Mental disorders Neuropsychological disorders, if a training certificate has been issued to the professional Guidance counsellors: Mental disorders, if a training certificate has been issued to the professional Intellectual disability Speech therapists and audiologists: Language disorders and learning disorders related to language Sexologists: Sexual disorders, if a training certificate has been issued to the professional Nurses: Mental disorders, with the exception of intellectual disability, if the nurse has university training and clinical experience in psychiatric nursing It should be pointed out, however, that this legislative change is not intended to create a new activity reserved for these professionals. Rather, its aim is to recognize that some mental health assessments, and the clinical conclusions arising from them, are really diagnoses.6 Impact on employers When a diagnosis of a mental disorder is made, it is possible that the professional concerned, such as a psychologist or neuropsychologist, might recommend the appropriate treatment, including stopping or returning to work.7 These legislative changes8 could make it more complicated for employers and insurers to refuse to implement this recommendation solely because the healthcare professional is not a physician. We believe it is also possible that these changes will lead to new requests for reasonable accommodation with regard to several increasingly frequent mental issues (e.g. attention deficit disorder with or without hyperactivity, autism spectrum disorder, intellectual giftedness, major depressive disorder, etc.), without a physician necessarily being involved at the diagnosis stage. The expansion of professional practices to promote access to care and services for employees could therefore have the effect of increasing the number of requests submitted to employers in connection with mental disorders. It will be important to monitor how employers and others position themselves and adapt their policies in relation to diagnoses established by the professionals concerned. By way of illustration, it’s possible that some employers may decide to require that an employee with a mental health issue undergo more frequent medical examinations, insofar as circumstances allow. Entry into force The changes introduced by Bill 67 came into force on November 7, 2024.9 Professionals who already met the regulatory requirements on that date are deemed to be qualified to make diagnoses.10 Medical Act, CQLR, c. M-9, s. 31; Professional Code, CQLR, c. C-26, s. 31 to 34; Bernard Cliche, Éric Latulippe, François Bouchard, Paule Veilleux and Isabelle Royer, Le harcèlement et les lésions psychologiques, 2nd ed., Cowansville, Éditions Yvon Blais, 2012, p. 329 and 330: [translation:] “The diagnosis of a mental disorder is reserved exclusively to physicians.” See also the arbitration case law, including Gatineau (Ville de) et Association des pompiers et pompières de Gatineau, 2016 QCTA 236. Code of ethics of psychologists, CQLR, c. C-26, r. 212, s. 38. SQ, 2024, c. 31. Collège des médecins du Québec, Projet de loi no 67 et élargissement des pratiques : notre position (Bill 67 and the expansion of practices: our position), September 18, 2024 [online: Projet de loi no 67 et élargissement des pratiques : notre position | Collège des médecins du Québec]. Bill 67, s. 4 and 45. Remarks by the sponsor of Bill 67, Ms. Sonia Lebel, during the bill’s committee stage, October 10, 2024. In the case of psychologists, for example, section 37(e) of the Professional Code already stipulated that they could “determine, recommend and carry out interventions or treatments with a view to fostering the psychological health and restoring the mental health of a person”. Before Bill 67 came into force, an arbitration award established a link between a professional’s ability to make a diagnosis and their ability to recommend a work stoppage: Aliments Cargill ltée et T.U.A.C., section locale 500, D.T.E. 2010T-817 (Arbitration Tribunal), par. 98 to 103. Bill 67, s. 87. Bill 67, s. 85.