Government Affairs and Public Law Litigation

In the Henry decision rendered on January 16, 2026,1 the Professions Tribunal reiterated what framework applies to a guilty plea in disciplinary matters. In this case, the professional had pleaded guilty during his conviction hearing. After having ascertained that his pleas were made freely and voluntarily, the Disciplinary Council of the Ordre des dentistes (the “Council”) declared him guilty. However, the Council had not ensured that the professional admitted to the facts relating to the key elements of the offences at issue. During the penalty hearing, the professional raised questions about his guilty pleas. Although the Council had considered whether his pleas were valid and whether to withdraw them and return the case to a conviction hearing, the hearing continued and penalties were imposed on the professional. On appeal of the Council’s decision, the Professions Tribunal concluded that the Council had erred in accepting the professional’s guilty pleas when it had become clear that he denied the facts put forward in support of the charges against him. The Professions Tribunal concluded that the Disciplinary Council of the Ordre des dentistes had erred in accepting the appellant’s guilty plea when it had become clear that he denied the facts put forward in support of the charges against him.   The Professions Tribunal reasons were based on the following: The Professional Code2 contains no specific provisions governing the entering of a guilty plea.3 In the absence of specific rules, disciplinary law can draw inspiration from the criteria developed in criminal and penal law.4  By pleading guilty, the professional waives their right to a formal investigation and associated procedural safeguards.5  Pleading guilty is a significant decision in disciplinary proceedings, as it inevitably brings the investigation to a close and has detrimental consequences on the professional who pleads guilty.6 This decision serves as a reminder of the two-prong test7 a Disciplinary Council must use to accept a guilty plea: Admission by the professional: The professional must have formally admitted to the key legal elements of the offence.8 To be valid, a guilty plea must be voluntary, unequivocal and made with full knowledge of its effects and consequences.9 Acceptance by the Council: The Council may only accept the plea after ensuring that the professional knows and understands the nature of the offence they are charged with and the effects of their guilty plea. The Council must also confirm that the professional admits to the facts relating to the key elements of the offence in question.10 This decision also introduces the requirement to submit a joint statement of the facts11 or provide an account of the facts that led to the offences in order to properly contextualize them.12 Failure to comply with these requirements could result in the professional’s guilty plea being contested or dismissed by the Disciplinary Council. More recently in the Fernandez decision,13 the Disciplinary Council of the College des médecins was called upon to rule on whether the requirements of the Henry decision applied, in particular regarding the filing of a joint statement or account of the facts giving rise to the offences. In this case, the Council had taken cognizance of the Henry decision after having accepted the professional’s guilty plea, and no joint statement had been filed. After allowing the parties to present their observations, the Council declared itself satisfied with the parties’ claims that the Fernandez case differed from the Henry case in that Dr. Fernandez had admitted to the facts relating to the essential elements of the charge, that he had filed a 17­­-page statement, and that the Syndic had filed documents containing the accounts of eight patients. It will be interesting to follow how case law will develop on this issue to confirm what direction the various disciplinary councils will take. The members of Lavery’s professional and disciplinary law team regularly represent professional orders and professionals. They are available to advise you and answer your questions. Summary A guilty plea may expedite the disciplinary process, but it has the effect of depriving the accused professional of certain procedural safeguards. It is important to ensure that the conditions of validity and acceptance of a guilty plea are met, otherwise it may be dismissed or overturned on appeal. Summary evidence must be taken before a professional pleads guilty, whether it be through the filing of a joint statement of facts, the presentation of an account of the facts by one of the parties or the submission of documentary evidence. Henry c. Dentistes (Ordre professionnel des), 2026 QCTP 1 2 CQLR C-26. Henry c. Dentistes (Ordre professionnel des), 2026 QCTP 1, para. 24 Id. Id. Id., para. 27 Id., para. 25 Id., para. 26 Id., para. 28 Id., para. 27 and 29. Id., para. 30 Id., para. 31 Médecins (Ordre professionnel des) c. Fernandez, 2026 QCCDMD 5

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.

Understanding the House Agreement On June 6, 2025, a landmark settlement catalyzed a major turning point and reshaped the dynamics of American collegiate sports. By approving the House v. NCAA settlement, U.S. courts authorized universities to directly compensate their athletes for the use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL), which represents a significant departure from previous restrictions. In practical terms, NIL rights grant athletes’ exclusive control over their personal brand, enabling them to generate revenue from the commercial use of their identity. In addition to establishing a new legal framework, this settlement provides for a retroactive payout of $2.8 billion to be shared among Division I athletes, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)’s top tier, who have competed since 2016. Building on the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in NCAA v. Alston, this development stems from the Court's determination that the NCAA’s restrictions on certain education-related benefits constituted antitrust violations. While Alston laid the groundwork for the commercialization of NIL agreements, the subsequent years were plagued by legal uncertainty and a lack of consistency in regulations surrounding the compensation of collegiate athletes. As states and universities implemented divergent policies and internal rules, former Alabama head coach Nick Saban posed a question that remains unanswered to this day: “Where does it end?” A Uniform National Framework at Last The House v. NCAA settlement establishes the first nationwide framework for compensating collegiate athletes. Starting in the 2025-2026 academic year, Division I programs will be permitted to allocate up to $20.5 million annually distributed among their athletes, covering both athletic potential and NIL monetization. This represents a major shift, as universities themselves, not just third-party sponsors, will now be able to directly fund their athletes. Simultaneously, an independent entity, the College Sports Commission LLC, has been established to oversee NIL agreements valued at $600 or more. The Commission will have the authority to approve, modify or reject deals that exceed fair market value or deviate from their intended purpose. For instance, NIL deals cannot reward athletic performance, influence recruitment or transfer decisions, nor serve as disguised salaries, practices commonly known as pay-for-play incentives. To ensure prompt and confidential resolution of disputes, the agreement introduces an expedited arbitration mechanism. Managed by an independent panel, this procedure requires parties to submit their documents within a short timeframe, with decisions to be rendered within 45 days of case initiation, and with no possibility for appeal. The goal is to safeguard athletes’ rights while preventing an overload of NIL-related cases in civil courts. In the wake of this recognition, the introduction of direct payments and the consolidation of the NIL framework are also reshaping traditional career paths for collegiate athletes. Increasingly, collegiate athletes are choosing to delay their entry into professional drafts, particularly in the NBA and NFL, to benefit from the financial and strategic advantages that college sports now offer. For athletes who are not guaranteed an early draft selection, staying in school can mean earning substantial income, sometimes comparable to that of professional athletes, while retaining greater control over the development of their athletic careers. In an increasingly competitive market, this new leverage is redefining the balance of power between athletes, universities, and professional franchises. This reform also resonates with the journeys of several Quebec athletes who came up through the NCAA, such as Bennedict Mathurin and Luguentz Dort, both of whom reached this year’s NBA Finals. Their stories illustrate how American college sports can serve as a powerful gateway that now financially recognizes and rewards its athletes. The fact that these players grew up in Montréal-North before rising through the NCAA makes it clear that Quebec is claiming its place in this evolving landscape, not only as a pool of talent, but also as a fertile soil for cultivating collegiate careers that are both inspiring and financially profitable. What Lies Ahead? While this reform represents a milestone, it also prompts significant new legal challenges. A pending appeal challenges the $2.8 billion retroactive payout, arguing that it could violate Title IX’s mandate for gender equity in federally funded education programs. Critics warn that, without clear safeguards, the distribution may exacerbate rather than reduce existing disparities between men’s and women’s sports. Furthermore, the Johnson v. NCAA case is currently pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where collegiate athletes are seeking to be recognized as university employees, which would entitle them to a minimum wage and other labour protections. With over 350 universities and approximately 200,000 athletes impacted, the implementation of this reform is likely to vary significantly across institutions. Collegiate athletics is entering a new era of remunerated athletes but remains for the moment in a state of transition and uncertainty.

The PUT is a crucial component of provincial finances and has a significant impact on the operating costs of the many companies providing essential services. The PUT was introduced in Quebec in fiscal 2004–2005 to replace the municipal property tax on specific infrastructure used by companies in certain key sectors. Such infrastructure includes telecommunications network facilities, gas distribution systems, and energy production, transmission and distribution systems. The latest Quebec budget provides for gradual changes, including an increase in applicable rates over the next decade. The rate applicable to electricity production, for example, will rise from 0.7% in 2027 to 1.5% by 2035. However, this increase does not apply to transmission and distribution operations. The rate applicable to telecommunications will also rise from 0.7% to 1.5%. Lastly, the rate that applies to gas distribution will rise from 0.75% to 1.5% by 2035 on the first 750 million dollars in revenue. The portion of revenue exceeding that amount will be subject to a 1.5% rate as of 2027. As part of the changes introduced in the latest budget, the PUT exemption has been expanded to include certain municipal or public bodies performing government functions in Canada, as well as the corporations owned by such entities. A PUT exemption will also be granted on a pro rata basis to entities operating jointly with other non-eligible entities, based on the distribution of voting rights or income and loss shares. An anti-avoidance rule has been established to ensure that such distribution remains reasonable and in keeping with the spirit of the law. These adjustments apply as of calendar year 2025, with declaratory provisions covering the aforementioned exemptions. Through such provisions, companies having met the criteria set out for previous years should be able to claim back the PUT. To do so, they will have to submit their application by June 30, 2026, or the deadline by which they are required to file their tax returns. While it is true that this measure aims to ensure that the PUT reflects the changing infrastructure needs of public utility companies and to optimize their tax contribution, the impact it will have on stakeholders in the targeted sectors will be considerable, and they will have to adjust operations to cope with future increases. Read our first bulletin on the 2025 provincial budget titled “Provincial Budget 2025: New Refundable Tax Credit for Research, Innovation and Commercialization (CRIC)” Read our second bulletin on the 2025 provincial budget titled “Provincial Budget 2025: Major Changes to the Tax Credit for the Development of E-Business (TCEB)”