On November 2, 2023, in response to certain controversy, the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) sought to clarify the application of the new disclosure rules, in force since June 22, 2023. The CRA’s comments relate, in particular, to the impact of reporting obligations on severance agreements, a topic we initially covered a few weeks ago1. We believe it is appropriate to go over these clarifications. As a reminder, the disclosure rules generally apply to so-called avoidance transactions carried out to obtain a tax benefit and presenting one of the following three generic hallmarks: contingent fee arrangements, confidential protection or contractual protection. At first glance, the interpretation of these hallmarks suggests that severance agreements involving an employee’s undertaking to indemnify their employer are subject to reporting obligations. However, in response to questions from a number of legal experts, the CRA commented on the disclosure rules, specifying, in particular, that a tax indemnity granted under a severance agreement is not subject to the reporting obligation where it occurs in a business or financial context between persons dealing at arm’s length, and acting freely and prudently. In this regard, the CRA pointed out that the contractual protection included in such an agreement would not be considered a generic hallmark insofar as it does not cover a tax treatment giving rise to an unwarranted benefit. The CRA gave as an example a settlement reached between an employer and employee further to dismissal, harassment complaints or other employment-related recourses, providing for severance pay or warranted damages. Even if the employee were to undertake to reimburse the employer in the event of unexpected tax treatment, this type of agreement would not give rise to reporting obligations. Although the CRA’s clarifications were meant to clear things up, they did not definitively establish how the mandatory disclosure rules apply to severance agreements. A certain level of uncertainty remains with regard to severance agreements with no real legal basis awarding tax-free damages to an employee. In such a case, it would be difficult to argue that the business context warranted a favourable tax treatment for the employee. In the case of an agreement providing for the payment of unwarranted damages, and where contractual protection extends to the tax treatment of the amount paid, the avoidance transaction may, despite the CRA’s comments, require disclosure to the tax authorities. One thing is certain: tax indemnity clauses may well disappear from severance agreements.  Ultimately, the new rules reinforce the principle that the granting of tax-free damages should be limited to circumstances that warrant it. Quebec case law has long established that the mere fact of losing one’s job does not give rise to damages, barring exceptional circumstances. In short, the CRA’s guidelines do not have the force of law, and may be amended or revoked at any time. Consequently, maintaining a cautious and conservative approach will be crucial when determining whether the new mandatory disclosure rules apply to severance agreements. Our team of employment law and tax professionals is available to answer your questions about these major changes and help you make informed decisions when negotiating severance agreements. Termination agreements: New reporting requirements apply!

On June 22, 2023, the federal government significantly expanded the reporting requirements for certain so-called avoidance transactions, in particular with respect to termination agreements.1 The new rules will make it easier for the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to detect certain avoidance schemes, conduct tax audits and issue notices of assessment and penalties more quickly when warranted. The reporting requirements now apply to reportable transactions defined as avoidance transactions, which are primarily aimed at obtaining a tax benefit. If these avoidance transactions involve one of the three markers set out by the Minister of Finance: contingent fee arrangement, confidential protection or contractual protection, they must be reported to the CRA in accordance with the rules in force. These enhanced rules cover a large number of transactions, in particular those which are part of agreements made specifically in the context of end-of-employment negotiations. In settlements between an employer and an employee following termination, harassment complaints or other employment-related disputes, damages may be awarded as part of the negotiation process. However, the award of these damages, which are normally granted in situations where the employee has suffered personal or moral harm, may not always have a strong legal foundation. In some cases, these damages may be part of a tax-driven strategy: while severance payments are taxable as employment income or as a retirement allowance, damages may be tax-exempt. This type of agreement allows the employer to pay less while maximizing the net amount for the recipient. An agreement providing for the payment of a tax-free amount for damages usually includes an undertaking by the employee to indemnify the employer when a tax audit concludes that the payment should be taxable. The new reporting requirements are likely to prevent these types of settlements in cases where it is reasonable to conclude that their main purpose is to obtain an unfair tax benefit. These avoidance transactions also exhibit the hallmark of contractual protection, which refers to a protection or guarantee against any failure of the transaction to produce a tax advantage. This is the case when the employee agrees to compensate the employer following a tax recalculation. Such contractual agreements now meet the new reporting criteria. In these transactions, the reporting obligation is incumbent on the employee (i.e., the person who obtains the tax benefit), the employer (i.e., the person who completes the transaction), and the advisor who obtains fees for setting up the transaction. They have 90 days from the time they entered into the transaction to submit Form RC312 to the CRA. Failure to do so will result in penalties and an extension of the normal reassessment period. As a result, it is inevitable that these updated rules will be taken into account when negotiating termination settlements, and it will be particularly important to review all agreements made since June 23, 2023. Our team of employment law and tax professionals is available to answer your questions about this major change and help you make informed decisions when negotiating termination agreements. Bill C-47: An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023

Suppose that your best employee, the up-and-comer you’ve been training for several years, resigns. It’s terrible news for you, especially amid a labour shortage. And, to top it off, their new employer is your main competitor. How long has the employee been planning to leave? Did they plan during working hours? Using your company’s resources? What about the knowledge and contacts gained over the past few years: Will the employee share them with your competitor? If they did so, would it be illegal? At this point, one of your main concerns would be whether the resigning employee’s employment contract contains restrictive covenants, such as non-competition, non-solicitation or confidentiality undertakings. If it did, it would bode well for you provided that the covenants are valid and enforceable. You would otherwise have to rely on the duty of loyalty provided for in article 2088 of the Civil Code of Québec, a safety net that employers have relied on until a recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Québec limited its scope. Sahlaoui c. Médicus1 Mr. Sahlaoui, an orthotist-prosthetist, had been working for Médicus for about ten years, during which time he had built a relationship of trust with clients thanks to the quality of his services. He informed Médicus that he was resigning to start a competing company, Evo. Accusing Mr. Sahlaoui of breaching his duty of loyalty, Médicus sued him and his new company, claiming damages for one year’s lost profits, for hardship and inconvenience. The Superior Court awarded Médicus damages in the sum of $135,238, plus interest. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed Médicus’ recourse in its entirety and reaffirmed the right to freedom of work, concluding that the former employee, both before and after his resignation, had not breached his duty of loyalty. The Court thus considers that the duty of loyalty provided for in the Civil Code of Québec must be assessed in two stages, namely during and after employment. Duty during employment In the course of employment, an employee’s duty of loyalty is significant, especially for key employees and those with a great deal of professional discretion. The close ties that Mr. Sahlaoui had developed with clients during his employment were not enough to convince the Court that he had held a key position in his employer’s business, which, it should be noted, had approximately 350 employees at 15 branches. The Court is of the opinion that seeking new work does not in itself constitute a breach of the duty of loyalty, as it is an extension of the freedom of work. There are legitimate limits to the openness and transparency required under the terms of an employment contract, such that an employee may keep both their intention to change jobs and the steps taken to do so secret.2 On the other hand, the employee, while still employed, must not prepare their departure during working hours with tools provided by the employer. Stealing or hacking confidential information, withholding or misappropriating the employer’s business opportunities, taking client lists and recruiting clients for the employee’s benefit are examples of disloyal acts that the Court mentions. The judges cite with approval a 2007 decision of their court, which held that retaining or “refusing to turn over a former employer’s property in some cases constitutes outright theft, regardless of the notion of loyalty.”3 Duty after employment The Court of Appeal believes that the duty of loyalty is considerably reduced after an employee’s departure. The duty of loyalty set out in the Civil Code of Québec does not impose restrictions on an employee equivalent to those resulting from a well-drafted non-competition clause,4 particularly in terms of duration, because the duty of loyalty remains in effect for only a reasonable amount of time, which rarely exceeds a few months (three to four months).5 In this case, although Mr. Sahlaoui had signed a loyalty, confidentiality and non-competition undertaking to govern his post-employment conduct, the Court disregarded it because such undertaking did not meet the requirements for restrictive covenants established by the courts. Mr. Sahlaoui’s actions were therefore analyzed in terms of the duty of loyalty set out in article 2088 of the Civil Code of Québec. As the Court of Appeal points out, an employee who is not subject to a non-competition clause (or a non-solicitation or confidentiality clause having a term that exceeds the end of employment) may use their personal professional experience, i.e., their expertise, knowledge, network and skills acquired and developed with the former employer, as they see fit. Such employee may compete with their former employer, by soliciting its clientele, for example, without committing a fault.6 In short, the duty of loyalty under the Civil Code of Québec does not prohibit competition, but requires that it be exercised in moderation and only for a short time after employment ends. What it means Because the duty of loyalty is “rather minimal,” to quote the Court of Appeal, any organization would be well advised to protect itself by using restrictive clauses and having a clear plan of action for when an employee leaves to join the competition. To be enforceable, restrictive covenants must be specific and contextual. They must not exceed what is reasonable to protect the legitimate interests of the employer. The following questions are worth considering: When preparing an employment contract, is it possible to predict whether the employee in question will have direct relations with clients or suppliers? Will the employee learn, for example, the manufacturing processes or techniques that the organization strives to safeguard? If so, what restrictive clauses should be included in the employment contract, in particular regarding the nature of the employee’s tasks, reporting level and unique expertise? What needs to be protected? Examples include the confidentiality of information and the business’ reputation and services. The business should also protect itself against competition and solicitation of its clientele, suppliers and employees. To avoid unpleasant surprises, it is important to understand the purpose of each restrictive clause. They should also not be confused between them or thought to encompass the restrictions of another. Do the restrictive clauses meet the reasonable criteria necessary to be enforceable? Will they withstand contestation to the extent possible? Once the employee’s departure is announced, who will take over with clients or suppliers in order to maintain their trust? What security measures will be put in place when the departure is announced to ensure and preserve the confidentiality of certain information? The absence of restrictive covenants at the time of hiring is not disastrous, as the parties may negotiate such undertakings during the course of employment. While an employee cannot be forced to accept them, it is easier to reach an agreement when discussing a salary increase, promotion or other consideration, always making sure that the restrictive clauses are reasonable in light of the employee’s work context and the employer’s legitimate needs and rights. The parties may also agree to certain restrictions as part of an exit agreement. The Médicus decision has, at the very least, clarified the scope of the duty of loyalty provided for in the Civil Code of Québec. The members of our Labour and Employment Law group are available to advise you and answer your questions. Sahlaoui c. 2330-2029 Québec inc. (Médicus), 2021 QCCA 1310, see paragraph 59. See paragraph 35. Concentrés scientifiques Bélisle inc. c. Lyrco Nutrition inc. 2007 QCCA 676. See paragraph 44. See paragraph 48. See paragraph 53.

An employer grievance is a means that employers can use to obtain compensation for material damages caused by pressure tactics or to recover overpayments resulting from a union’s wrongdoing. Such a recourse can also be filed to claim damages and legal fees from a union that has abused the grievance arbitration process, in particular by raising grounds that are unfounded or filing applications that are dilatory, or doing either in bad faith. Although not very common, abuse of process does exist and can be sanctioned. However, an employer can successfully raise abuse of rights when a union’s actions are reckless, manifestly ill-founded, done in bad faith or dilatory. Two recent cases The decision in Régie intermunicipale de police Richelieu Saint-Laurent et Fraternité des policiers et policières Richelieu Saint-Laurent1 is an interesting example: The arbitrator ordered the union to reimburse the employer part of the legal costs that it had incurred, as well as the sums paid to three of its witnesses. The case can be summarized as follows. As a result of pressure tactics, three police were summoned to a disciplinary hearing before the discipline committee.  The parties agreed in writing to reschedule the hearings before the committee. The officers were finally met in 2014, after which they filed grievances to contest the disciplinary measures taken against them. Arbitration was set for May 2018 and a pre-trial conference was held prior to the hearing. At the hearing, the union raised a preliminary exception on the grounds that the disciplinary measures had been imposed outside the time limit set out in the collective agreement. The employer invited the union to make verifications, maintaining that the parties had agreed to postpone the hearing before the discipline committee. The union upheld its preliminary exception. The employer then filed a grievance, claiming damages arising from the union’s time-barred and unfounded preliminary exception. In January 2019, the parties presented their arguments on the preliminary exception and the employer grievance. On February 14, the union withdrew its preliminary exception during deliberations. The arbitrator allowed the employer grievance in part. He concluded that the exception filed by the union was unfounded and that the latter’s conduct was a clear example of an abuse of legal process. The employer was compensated for the costs incurred in defending itself against the abuse of rights. In Syndicat des professeures(eurs) de l'UQAM (SPUQ) et Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM),2 the parties had recently renewed their collective agreement and agreed to a clause providing for a reduction in the salary of professors over 70. Shortly after the collective agreement came into force, grievances were filed challenging the discriminatory nature of the clause. UQAM filed an employer grievance alleging abuse of the grievance process by the union. The evidence showed that the union had agreed to the clause even though it knew that it was discriminatory, with the intention of challenging it in arbitration. The union had even asked that the age of the professors be added to the clause, which made its discriminatory nature even more obvious, thereby maximizing its chances of success at arbitration. The arbitrator allowed the employer grievance and ordered the union to reimburse the arbitrator’s fees and disbursements, as well as the professional fees charged by the employer’s lawyer to represent it during arbitration of the union grievance. He concluded that the union’s actions violated the duty to bargain in good faith and constituted an abuse of rights on the union’s part. Key takeaway and helpful tips Abuse of process can take many forms: the use of an unfounded declinatory exception, for example, or the filing of an abusive grievance arising from collective bargaining in bad faith. When confronted with situations not seen in the ordinary course of labour relations, an employer must determine whether there has been abuse of rights. Should abuse of rights be found, the employer could exceptionally claim the professional fees of its lawyers, the cost of summoning witnesses and possibly other damages resulting from the union’s wrongful conduct by filing an employer grievance. However, employers must bear in mind that an ill-founded union grievance, dismissed on the basis that the union’s interpretation of the facts or collective agreement differs from that of the employer, will not necessarily be deemed abusive. In order to win the case, the employer will have to prove that the union’s actions were reckless, manifestly ill-founded, in bad faith or dilatory. It goes without saying that an abuse of procedure by an employer could also be sanctioned by damages. The members of our Labour and Employment Law team are available to advise you and answer your questions. 2021 QCTA 319. 2021 QCTA 296.