Your Quebec Business Partner

This article is part of our two-part series on what foreign buyers of, and investors in, business ventures need to know about the Charter of the French language (the “Charter”) in the context of a cross-border transaction involving operations and employees in Quebec. This first instalment will focus on French language matters during the due diligence process. The upcoming second part will address the importance of language compliance during and after the deal-making process. While much has been said about the impact of the Charter on business operations and commercial activities in Quebec, we are here to tackle the Charter's crucial considerations within the realm of merger and acquisition transactions. This is a direct address to foreign dealmakers, not just those conducting business in Quebec. Lavery understands that the new Charter requirements may appear daunting and potentially deter prospective foreign dealmakers. Let us help you understand how to address French language issues in the context of a merger and acquisition transaction in this two-part series.  1. Your First Step: Initiating an Access to Information Request with the Quebec French Language Board One of the initial steps that should generally be taken is submitting an access to information request to the Quebec French Language Board (“OQLF”), which is the administrative body responsible for defining and conducting the province’s policy on linguistic matters. This allows for the uncovering of any undisclosed complaints or claims related to language matters that may have been processed by the OQLF. By making an access to information request to the OQLF, a party can also obtain information about the status of the francization procedures of the target corporation (e.g., whether it has registered with the OQLF, has obtained a francization certificate or is required to implement a francization program). Depending on the size of the workforce of the target corporation in Quebec, Charter obligations will vary. The francization process refers to the steps that must be taken by corporations to comply with Title II, Chapter 5 of the Charter. For enterprises with a workforce of at least 25 employees in Quebec, registration with the OQLF is mandatory as of June 1, 2025.1 Following registration, the enterprise must provide an analysis of its linguistic situation within a period of three (3) months. The ultimate objective of the linguistic analysis program is to obtain certification of francization confirming that French is widely used within Quebec operations. If the OQLF deems that the use of French is not widespread, the corporation will be required to develop and adopt a francization program, which may entail, for example, a requirement to translate into French various types of materials applicable to employees or relating to Quebec operations. For corporations with a small number of employees in Quebec (less than 25), there is no requirement to register with the OQLF or to demonstrate the widespread use of French in Quebec. In such cases, risks associated with language matters usually arise on a complaint basis. Depending on the scope and materiality threshold of the due diligence, a buyer/investor may elect to focus less on French language matters during the employment due diligence investigation if the corporation has a limited number of employees in Quebec. 2. Main Compliance Considerations: Employment Agreements and HR Documentation Among other requirements, the Charterentitles Quebec staff to receive written communications from their employer in French. As such, during due diligence, it is important to revise employment-related policies and documentation and inquire as to whether this documentation has been made available to employees in French. Particular attention shall also be paid to the language of employment agreements. Further to recent amendments of the Charter, employers must now generally provide employees, since June 1, 2022, with a French version of their employment agreements prior to execution. Employees may agree to be bound by the English version only if, after being provided with a French version, they specifically request to be bound by the English version. If a French version was not provided prior to execution, the enforceability of the employment agreements could be at risk (including any restrictive covenants contained therein, such as non-competition, non-solicitation and intellectual property assignment clauses). Post-closing, steps shall be undertaken to ensure that all template employment agreements that target Quebec employees are translated into French. If the dynamics of the deal allow for it, these steps can also be taken prior to closing during the deal-making process. 3. Contract Checkpoint: Analyze the Target Corporation’s Agreements and Understand Its Business Relationships As a foreign buyer/investor, it is essential to consider the nature of the target corporation’s commercial transactions, whether they involve businesses or individual consumers.  If such transactions involve the execution of contracts of adhesion, i.e., contracts predetermined by one party that are not negotiable, it is essential to ensure that a French version of these contracts exists. The reason is simple: since June 1, 2023, the Charter mandates that an adhering party must be presented with the French version of a contract of adhesion before the parties can expressly agree to be bound by a version in another language. For example, a standardized service agreement that is not open to negotiation would be subject to such requirement. If the target corporation has not complied with the above-described requirement, the adhering party may request the annulment of the agreement under the provisions of the Charter. As a consequence, the risks associated with the enforceability of contracts of adhesion must be taken into account during the due diligence process. Further, if the due diligence investigation reveals that the target corporation has not prepared a French version of its contracts of adhesion, the buyer or investor may request that such versions be prepared as part of the closing deliverables of the merger and acquisition transaction. As part of the due diligence process, a prudent foreign buyer/investor shall also carefully consider the language in which real estate agreements are drafted as well as the language of registrations made in the Quebec register of personal and movable real rights (“RPMRR”) and the Quebec land register (“Land Register”). As of June 1, 2022, contracts for the sale or exchange of residential properties—particularly those with fewer than five dwelling units or the contracts for the sale or exchange of a fraction of an immovable held in co-ownership must be drafted in French. This requirement extends to promises to contract and preliminary agreements made between the buyer (if the buyer is a natural person) and the builder or developer. While parties do have the option to draft these documents in another language if they explicitly choose to do so, if such contracts are intended for registration in the Land Register, they must be accompanied by a certified French translation. This would be the case, for instance, if they were originally drafted and signed in English. Since September 1, 2022, the Charter provides that all applications for registration in the RPMRR and the Land Register must be drawn up exclusively in French.  Applications for registration in the RPMRR are made using a prescribed form. As such, only the information required by the form (e.g., description of the property covered by a movable hypothec) needs to be translated into French. The rule applies differently for registration in the Land Register as the entire deed, in which case a summary or extract thereof must be submitted. Given this context, it is imperative to analyze the target corporation’s real estate contracts to identify any documents that may require translation. 4. Trademark Compliance Check Before the publication of the Regulation to amend mainly the Regulation respecting the language of commerce and business in its final form on June 26, 2024 (the “Regulation”), there was considerable concern regarding the use of unregistered trademarks in a language other than French. The Regulation has reintroduced the exception for “recognized” trademarks, which includes trademarks that are registered with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office and common law marks. For more information on the French language rules applicable to the use of trademarks in a language other than French as a result of the adoption of the Regulation, we invite you to refer to the following article [include hyperlink] written by our intellectual property experts. In this context, the due diligence process regarding trademarks remains unchanged. Registration of trademarks within a transactional framework remains of critical importance to protect an owner’s rights. Although the exception provided by the Charter for common law trademarks can be relied upon, it is highly recommended to proceed with the registration of such trademarks to prevent any debates as to whether a trademark qualifies as a common law mark. Post-closing, any of the target corporation’s trademarks should ideally be registered. 5. On Website Watch: Review of Target’s Commercial Documentation and Website A cautious buyer/investor will want to request that the target corporation provide all commercial publications that it makes available to the public (whether in a paper or electronic format). In accordance with the Charter, any catalogues, brochures, commercial directories, order forms and any other documents of the same nature that are available to the public must be available in French. Moreover, such documents must be equally accessible to their counterparts in another language. During the due diligence investigation, it is crucial for a buyer/investor to thoroughly review the target corporation's website to ensure compliance with the Charter. The buyer/investor shall examine if all commercial publications and relevant documents of a commercial nature are available in French. In practice, a buyer/investor may decide to completely translate the target corporation’s website. A cautious buyer/investor will also carefully analyze the French version of the target’s commercial documentation to ensure that it meets the same standards of accessibility and quality as the version in the other language. Conclusion Understanding and prioritizing compliance with the Charter is essential for foreign buyers and investors engaging in business transactions involving operations and employees in the province of Quebec. By proactively addressing the linguistic considerations outlined in the Charter, dealmakers can navigate potential challenges and ensure a smoother entry into the Quebec market. From initiating access to information requests with the OQLF to reviewing employment agreements, contracts, and commercial documentation, thorough due diligence is key to mitigating risks and demonstrating a commitment to linguistic compliance. Join us for part two of this article to learn about Charter considerations at the closing and post-closing stages. Currently, registration with the OQLF is mandatory for enterprises with 50 employees or more working in Quebec.

In a decision rendered on September 16, 2024,1 the Administrative Labour Tribunal (the “ALT”) found that a company (the “employer”) had violated the Charter of the French language2 (the “CFL”) by requiring knowledge of languages other than French as part of a hiring process. This is one of the first decisions ruling on the new complaint mechanisms introduced by Bill 96, An Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec3 (“Bill 96”), aimed at amending the CFL.  The Legislative Changes Made in 2022 On May 24, 2022, the Quebec government passed Bill 96, which received royal assent on June 1, 2022. This law made significant amendments to the CFL and other laws. Even before the amendments introduced by Bill 96 were adopted, the CFL prohibited employers from requiring that a person have knowledge or a specific level of knowledge of a language other than French to keep or obtain a position, unless the nature of the duties required such knowledge. Bill 96 has clarified the scope of employer obligations in this respect. In particular, employers must have taken all reasonable means to avoid imposing such a requirement,4 and, if they do impose it, they must indicate the reasons justifying this requirement in their job postings.5 Bill 96 also made it possible for job applicants and employees to challenge employers’ requirements respecting knowledge of a language other than French. The CFL now stipulates that if an employer does not meet the “necessity” conditions described below, requiring knowledge of a language other than French will be deemed a prohibited practice. The notion of a complaint for “prohibited practice” already exists in the Act respecting labour standards,6 notably in section 122. It enables employees to file a complaint if they believe they have been subjected to sanctions, discriminatory measures or reprisals for exercising a right provided under this law. The amendments introduced by Bill 96 have thus broadened the concept of prohibited practice to also include the exercise of certain language rights. The CFL was further amended to allow employees to directly file a complaint with the Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (the “CNESST”)7 if they believe that an illegal requirement to know a language other than French is being imposed on them. These are the issues addressed by the ALT in this decision. The facts On March 3, 2023, the complainant, Byung Chan Kim, filed a complaint for prohibited practice under the CFL. He believed that he was not granted a position posted by the defendant, the employer, because it required knowledge of a language other than French as part of a hiring process. The complainant came across a job posting in the defendant’s procurement and logistics department, which it had published in January 2023. The posting appeared exclusively in Korean in an online newspaper aimed at the Korean community. The complainant submitted his application in February along with his resume, which was written in French only. A representative of the defendant requested the complainant to provide an English version of the document, which the complainant provided. The complainant then participated in an interview, during which the defendant’s representative asked the complainant to speak in English and Korean because he did not understand French. Since the complainant’s application was not selected, he filed a complaint for prohibited practice based on the provisions of the CFL. Presumption of Prohibited Practice Section 46 of the CFL prohibits an employer from requiring knowledge of a language other than French, except when such a requirement is necessary for the performance of duties. The provision reads, in part, as follows: 46. An employer is prohibited from requiring a person, in order for the person to be able to keep a position, or to obtain a position through, in particular, recruitment, hiring, transfer or promotion, to have knowledge or a specific level of knowledge of a language other than the official language, unless the nature of the duties requires such knowledge; even in the latter case, the employer shall first take all reasonable means to avoid imposing such a requirement. [...] The second paragraph of section 45 of the CFL equates the requirement for knowledge of a language other than French in the context of employment to a prohibited practice: 45. The fact that an employer requires a person to have knowledge or a specific level of knowledge of a language other than the official language to keep a position or to obtain a position, in particular through recruitment, hiring, transfer or promotion, is considered a prohibited practice under the first paragraph, unless the employer shows, in accordance with sections 46 and 46.1, that the performance of the duty requires such knowledge and that he first took all reasonable means to avoid imposing such a requirement. Based on these provisions, the ALT confirmed that a person in a hiring process, and therefore not bound to the employer by an employment agreement, bears the burden of demonstrating that the following conditions exist to benefit from a presumption of prohibited practice. They must:8 apply to a position in response to a job posting by the employer;9 demonstrate that the employer requires knowledge, or a specific level of knowledge, of a language other than French to access the position;10 and file a complaint within 45 days after the occurrence of the practice complained of.11 The ALT concluded that the complainant did indeed prove that all the conditions to apply the legal presumption of prohibited practice were met, such that it is presumed that the language requirements associated with the employer’s job posting violated the CFL. At that stage, it was a simple presumption. The presumption in favor of the complainant places the burden of proof on the employer, requiring it to demonstrate why the language requirement associated with the position was necessary, and that all reasonable means were taken to avoid imposing it. In order to prove the second criterion, the employer must show that it conducted an analysis of reasonable means before imposing the language requirement, and that it had indicated the reasons justifying this requirement in the job posting. Assessment of Language Requirements The defendant argued that the requirement for knowledge of English and Korean is necessary because the position includes tasks such as acquiring equipment on the international market, and because the defendant’s representative and employees communicate in Korean. In its analysis of these arguments, the ALT reaffirmed that the legislator has provided that any law must be interpreted in a manner that promotes the use and protection of the French language.12 Thus, the ALT emphasized that, to achieve the objectives of the law, a narrow interpretation must be made of the exceptions set out in the CFL, and that the criteria set out in sections 46 and 46.1 of the CFL are cumulative for each language requirement involving a language other than French. The ALT further noted that any decision to require knowledge of a language other than French to access a position must be based on a thorough and well-documented understanding of the actual constraints of the service in question.13 In this case, the ALT found that the defendant had failed to meet its burden of proof. First, the reasons justifying the English and Korean language requirements were not included in the job posting, an omission which in itself contravenes section 46 para. 2 of the CFL. Furthermore, the defendant failed to provide evidence regarding the nature of the positions already held within the company and the tasks associated with them, nor did it demonstrate the English language proficiency that was already required of employees. Lastly, according to the evidence, all employees in the company’s supply and logistics department spoke Korean. However, the defendant failed to prove that it had ascertained, prior to publishing its job posting, that the knowledge of English and Korean already required of other employees was insufficient. It also failed to demonstrate that it had limited the number of positions involving tasks requiring knowledge of either of these languages to the greatest extent possible. As a result, the ALT concluded that the defendant had not taken all reasonable measures to avoid imposing these requirements and, therefore, did not succeed in rebutting the presumption of prohibited practice. Limited Defence The defendant claimed that it was not because the complainant had insufficient knowledge of languages other than French that he was not hired, but rather because he lacked the skills required for the position. However, the ALT concluded that the CFL does not allow a defendant to raise an additional defence, such as having another just and sufficient cause that does not relate to the requirement for knowledge of a language other than French, to be used to avoid the application of the presumption. Since the defendant failed to prove that the performance of the task required knowledge of a language other than French, and because it failed to previously take all reasonable measures to avoid imposing such a requirement, the simple presumption became an absolute presumption, and the defendant cannot counter it with any other defence. Consequently, when a hiring process includes language requirements other than French and does not comply with the conditions of section 46.1 of the CFL, the process becomes irreparably tainted by an unlawful motive. The ALT thus confirmed that the only way to rebut the presumption of section 45, paragraph 2, and section 46 of the CFL, is to demonstrate that the performance of the duties requires knowledge of a language other than French, and that the employer has preemptively taken all reasonable means to avoid imposing such a requirement. The ALT therefore upheld the complainant’s complaint and reserved its powers to determine the appropriate remedies. Conclusion This decision marked a significant turning point in the application of the CFL. The ALT emphasized the importance of complying with the new provisions introduced by Bill 96, which aims to strengthen the language rights of Quebec workers. This decision serves as a reminder to employers of the obligation to clearly justify any language requirement and to demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable measures to avoid imposing conditions contrary to the CFL. Furthermore, this decision unequivocally rules out the possibility of defending against such a complaint with a defence based on the existence of another just and sufficient cause to justify the employer’s decision. It is crucial for businesses in Quebec to ensure compliance with these rules to prevent potential litigation, while respecting the fundamental right of workers to carry on their activities in French. Moreover, in light of this decision enforcing the prohibition on imposing language requirements under the amended CFL, it will also be pertinent to monitor how the ALT might eventually interpret the notion of “unreasonable reorganization” of a business. Indeed, the CFL stipulates that the first paragraph of section 46.1 must not be interpreted in a way that imposes on an employer an unreasonable reorganization of its business. Such an interpretation could provide employers with a way to avoid being bound by the conditions provided by the CFL. It will be important to closely follow any subsequent developments. Kim c. Ultium Cam, 2024 QCTAT 3295. CQLR, c. C-11. SQ  2022, c. 14.  S. 46 para. 1 of the CFL. S. 46 para. 2 of the CFL. CQLR, c. N-1.1. S. 47 of the CFL. S. 47.2 para. 2 of the CFL, which refers to the Labour Code, CQLR, c. C-27, s. 17 with the necessary modifications. S. 46 of the CFL. S. 46 of the CFL. S. 47 of the CFL. Interpretation Act, CQLR, c. I-16, s. 40.3. Gatineau (Ville de) c. Syndicat des cols blancs de Gatineau inc., 2016 QCCA 1596.

Nearly four years after the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (the “CUSMA” or the “Agreement”) came into force, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announced on November 25, 2024, that he would impose 25% tariffs on all products entering the U.S. from Canada and Mexico, starting on the first day of his presidency, that is, January 20, 2025. Mr. Trump added that the tariffs would remain in effect until Canada and Mexico strengthened their border policies, which he blames for the increase in illegal immigration and the trafficking of devastating drugs in the United States. As a reminder, under the current provisions of the CUSMA, most products made in Quebec and Canada can be sold on U.S. markets without tariffs applying. President Trump has repeated his intention to implement such customs tariffs on several occasions since his announcement at the end of November. However, no real measure has yet been taken to impose these customs tariffs. Still, should he choose to go ahead with his threat, there appears to be several legislative provisions on which his administration could rely to implement these tariffs. His administration could invoke the CUSMA’s essential security exception, which allows a party to the Agreement to apply any measure deemed necessary to protect its essential security interests, the national security exception in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which President Trump’s first administration used in 2018 to introduce tariffs on U.S. imports of certain steel and aluminum products, or the provisions of the National Emergencies Act. Needless to say, the announcement sent shockwaves through the political and business communities in Canada and Quebec what with the close commercial ties that the U.S. has with Canada, including with Quebec. In the first quarter of 2024 alone, Quebec’s merchandise exports to the U.S. reached CAN$21.2 billion, which accounts for nearly 74.6% of the province’s international merchandise exports and makes the U.S. Quebec’s main trading partner on the world stage. The imposition of 25% tariffs would therefore significantly affect Quebec businesses. It would make them less competitive on the U.S. market, on which they rely heavily to export their products. The measure could be particularly detrimental to the Canadian forestry industry, which is already severely affected by tariffs of nearly 15% on lumber. The U.S. economy would also be considerably affected by such protectionist tariffs. While in the short term, tariffs could benefit certain domestic manufacturers and producers, in the longer term, they are likely to harm the U.S. economy as a whole. Many U.S. manufacturers would face higher costs of inputs, and established supply chains would be disrupted, in particular in the automotive and steel industries. To continue to make profits, many U.S. companies could be forced to pass on the additional costs to their end consumers by raising the prices of their products, which would undoubtedly result in another wave of inflation. Worth mentioning also are the retaliatory measures that the Canadian government may want to implement in response to such tariffs, which could affect certain parts of the U.S. economy. Although the CUSMA provides for dispute resolution mechanisms, they are unlikely to lessen the impact of the measures that the Trump administration is considering in the short term, as a final decision under these mechanisms could take a long time to be issued. The new U.S. administration could use the announcement made on November 25 as leverage in future CUSMA renewal negotiations, the preparatory discussions for which are slated to begin next year, or in negotiations for a separate trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada that would exclude Mexico. Canadian businesses would do well to encourage their various trade associations to take steps to lobby both American decision-makers and their corporate customers in the U.S. and remind them of the harmful effects that the announced tariffs may have on American businesses. While we wait for a more detailed announcement with information concerning specific tariff exemptions in particular, we suggest that businesses choose their future trading partners with great care. In an increasingly protectionist global economic context, a strategy involving the diversification of trading partners is the best way for businesses to offset the risks associated with a particular country’s tariff policies. The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement signed by Canada and the European Union in 2017, which our firm helped to negotiate, may prove to be an interesting solution in this respect. Our team of commercial law and tax professionals is available to help you find solutions to the issues arising from this announcement. With our expertise, we can assist you in your commercial negotiations and help you develop strategies to mitigate the impact that the announced tariff increase may have on your business.

The “Doing Business in Quebec” guide is a comprehensive, practical resource for any company hoping to thrive in Quebec’s competitive and regulated business landscape. Discover our guide Doing Business in Québec Download You’ll find some key information on: sources of funding to support your activities; requirements under the Act respecting the legal publicity of enterprises, to make sure your business is compliant; mergers and acquisitions, including practical information on how to carry out these complex transactions in Quebec; tax issues, including income tax, employer costs, consumption tax, and tax incentives, to help you streamline your finances; labour, about which a whole section will walk you through employment contracts, worker rights, compensation for work accidents, union relations, and immigration considerations, for effective HR management; intellectual property protection, which is critical to securing your innovations and brands; French language requirements, new regulations on trademarks and laws on consumer protection and privacy. The “Doing Business in Quebec” brochure is a guide to setting up or expanding in Quebec. In it, you’ll learn how to confidently navigate the Quebec legal system. Whether you’re a foreign or local company, find out how to set up the right type of legal entity for your needs, such as a branch, a subsidiary or a partnership, and understand the advantages and processes associated with each option. Any foreign corporation wishing to do business in Quebec should be able to rely on a reputable law firm to help it get established and give it advice on all provincial and Canadian legal and regulatory matters. Whether in the area of business law, labour and employment law, tax law, business finance or directors’ and officers’ liability, the Lavery team can assist you at every stage as you set up your business in Quebec by providing you with the best advice and helping you navigate the Quebec and Canadian legal landscape. Aside from specific legal expertise, Lavery works with a large network of major business partners. We can introduce you to them to expand your network and smoothly transition your business to Quebec.