Employment And Labour Montréal Newsletter – Issue 8 / October 2025

A strengthened framework to prevent psychosocial risks at work

Psychological health in the workplace is not a new concern for the Quebec legislature. Since 2003, the Act respecting labour standards has required employers to prevent — and, if necessary, stop — psychological harassment. Since 2021, the Act respecting occupational health and safety (AOHS) has also required them to protect workers from situations involving physical or psychological violence, including spousal, family or sexual violence.

With the most recent provisions of the Act to modernize the occupational health and safety regime (commonly known as Bill 27) in force since October 1, 2025, the obligation to prevent psychosocial risks — previously implicit — is now explicitly set out in the OHSA. Employers must now document and structure their prevention efforts in the same way they do for physical risks. The message from the legislator is clear: the mental health of workers is just as important as their physical health.

The concept of psychosocial risks covers a broad range of organizational, relational and contextual factors that can affect workers' mental health, dignity and well-being. Unlike situations of harassment or violence — which generally involve targeted, repeated or intentional acts — psychosocial risks often arise from how the work is structured, managed and experienced on a daily basis. Factors such as excessive workload or pace, lack of recognition or support, unclear roles, limited decision-making autonomy, poor communication, isolation, or a tense and conflictual work environment can, over time, erode psychological health and weaken team cohesion. In the long term, these conditions may lead to chronic stress, burnout or disengagement.

Therefore, preventing psychosocial risks requires a broader, systemic approach that goes beyond handling harassment complaints. It means addressing the root causes within the working conditions, management practices and organizational culture, to promote a healthy, respectful and balanced environment — one that supports both collective well-being and performance.

As of October 1, 2025, all employers must identify, assess and document psychosocial risks in their workplace, as well as implement concrete measures to prevent or mitigate them. Designated worker representatives must be involved throughout this process. As with physical risks, the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST) has now the authority to require more formal measures when the nature of psychosocial risks justifies it.

Beyond being a new legal requirement, these provisions offer employers an opportunity to reimagine occupational health and safety from a more human and preventive perspective. Proactively managing psychosocial risks can serve as powerful leverage for recruitment, engagement and performance. Organizations taking this approach often see reduced turnover, improved collaboration and stronger productivity driven by a healthier work climate.

The lawyers composing Dentons' Employment and Labour Law team are available to help you understand these new obligations, assess your practices, and develop tailored policies, action plans and prevention programs suited to your organization's needs.

Summary of decisions

Karim v. Groupe Hamelin inc., 2025 QCTAT 2720 (application for review requested)

The complainant, who held a position as Product Development Leader for a household goods manufacturer, alleged constructive dismissal following her employer's decision to end her teleworking arrangement. She argued that remote work had become an integral part of her working conditions since the COVID-19 pandemic, and that being required to return to the office constituted a unilateral and substantial change to an essential term of her employment.

The employer, however, maintained that telework had been implemented solely as a temporary measure in response to the pandemic. Once public health restrictions were lifted, the company gradually required employees to return to the office — initially part-time, then full-time — while showing flexibility towards the complainant. Due to her significant anxiety, she was temporarily allowed to continue teleworking. This arrangement was later revoked when the employer deemed her in-person presence necessary to ensure effective collaboration with her team. The complainant was instructed to return to the office three days weekly, and was informed that failure to comply would be treated as a job abandonment.

Seized with a complaint under section 124 of the Act respecting labour standards, the Administrative Labour Tribunal (ALT) confirmed that, in the absence of a specific agreement providing for telework, it constitutes a privilege rather than an acquired right. Therefore, employers are not legally obligated to grant or maintain telework arrangements, particularly if doing so impedes the proper functioning of their operations. The ALT found that the complainant's working conditions had not changed since her initial hiring and that no permanent telework agreement had been concluded. Hence, telework could not be considered as an essential condition of her employment. Consequently, the request to return to the office did not amount to a constructive dismissal. Rather, the ALT held that by refusing or failing to comply with the directive to work from the office three days weekly, the complainant had abandoned her position.

Succession de Batzibal v. Cultures Fortin inc., 2025 QCCA 940

In this case, the victim, a seasonal foreign worker employed by a Quebec agricultural company, tragically died in July 2021 while attempting to repair a flat tire on an employer-owned vehicle. The tire puncture happened on the way back from a friendly soccer game with colleagues in a neighbouring village. While changing the tire, the vehicle's jack failed, causing the vehicle to collapse and fatally injure the worker.

The CNESST's Administrative Review Division determined that the worker's death did not constitute a workplace accident. The ALT upheld that decision, finding that the accident had not occurred "in the course of employment." The Superior Court subsequently dismissed the application for judicial review, concluding that the ALT's decision was reasonable.

On appeal, the Quebec Court of Appeal - in a majority decision - overturned the lower rulings and held that the accident did constitute a workplace injury. The majority found that the ALT had misinterpreted the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases (AIAOD). Specifically, the ALT required a close link between the worker's duties and the accident, whereas the case law only requires a more or less close connection to employment or an act related to work and more or less useful to its performance. The Court emphasized that all the surrounding circumstances must be assessed to determine whether an event qualifies as a workplace accident under section 2 of the AIAOD. Moreover, as a remedial statute, the AIAOD must be interpreted broadly and liberally—an approach the ALT had failed to apply.

The Court of Appeal reiterated that six nonexhaustive factors guide the analysis of whether an accident occurred in the course of employment:

1. The location of the accident;
2. The time of the accident;
3. Whether the worker was remunerated for the activity being performed;
4. The existence and degree of the employer's authority or subordination when the event occurs outside the workplace or regular hours;
5. The purpose of the activity — whether it is incidental, ancillary or optional, relative to the employee's working conditions; and
6. The relationship and relative usefulness of the activity to the performance of the employee's duties.

These criteria are not exhaustive, however, and should not be applied in isolation, as this could lead to an erroneous result. The majority held that the ALT had confined its analysis to whether a direct link existed between the worker's duties and the accident, which led it to wrongly conclude that the event occurred within the sphere of the worker's personal activities.

The Court noted, amongst other things, that the vehicle involved was used for work purposes and that, had the repair succeeded, the employer would have directly benefited from it.

Accordingly, the majority concluded that it was unreasonable to find that the worker's death was not an occupational injury and allowed the appeal.

Chief Justice Savard dissented, finding no palpable and overriding error in the decisions of the lower Courts and would have dismissed the appeal.

Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs de l'Hôtel Le Concorde (CSN) v. 8815003 Canada inc., 2025 QCTAT 3303

This case involves a complaint filed by the hotel's union alleging that the employer violated section 12 of the Labour Code by communicating directly with employees during the collective agreement renewal negotiations. Specifically, the union claimed that the employer bypassed the bargaining table by sending its offers directly to employees and by making threatening remarks to pressure them into a vote.

The ALT first found that the employer had voluntarily distributed its salary offers to employees by email and through an internal work platform, despite the union's express objection to this approach. The employer argued that it merely sought to clarify its proposal in response to employees who claimed they had misunderstood it. The ALT, however, concluded that these communications interfered with the union's exclusive right of representation and undermined its credibility—particularly at a time when the union was in a vulnerable position.

A few days later, the employer circulated a second message that, according to the ALT, exerted undue pressure on the union to hold a vote on the offer. The message, described as paternalistic and threatening in tone, blamed the union for the negotiation impasse, raised the possibility of a lockout if no vote occurred and promised to triple the signing bonus if the offer was promptly accepted. The judge held that this communication exceeded the limits of the employer's freedom of expression and was clearly intended to weaken the union and divide employees.

The ALT also emphasized that these messages were sent by the General Manager using channels typically used for work instructions, meaning that employees could not realistically disregard them. Jurisprudence, however, requires that workers must not be made "captive" of such communications.

Accordingly, the ALT upheld the union's complaint, finding that the employer had deliberately hindered the union's activities by circumventing its exclusive representational role. Given the repeated and particularly harmful nature of these actions, the ALT ordered the employer to pay CA$10,000 in punitive damages.

Ville de Québec v. Ouellet, 2025 QCCA 825

In this decision, the Quebec Court of Appeal clarifies the employers' obligations under the Act respecting occupational health and safety (AOHS) regarding the reassignment of pregnant or breastfeeding workers. The respondent, a patrol sergeant with the Quebec City Police Department (the City), provided her employer with a medical certificate confirming her pregnancy and indicating that some of her duties posed risks to her health or that of her unborn child. On the same day, the City preventively removed her from work without offering the possibility of reassignment. When her subsequent request to be assigned to administrative duties was denied, Ms. Ouellet filed a complaint with the CNESST under section 227 of the AOHS, alleging that the City's refusal constituted a discriminatory measure prohibited by that provision.

The CNESST found the complaint inadmissible, concluding that the City had fulfilled its obligations by proceeding with the preventive withdrawal. It also held that, even if this measure had financial consequences for Ms. Ouellet, the refusal to reassign her did not constitute a "sanction" within the meaning of section 227 of the AOHS. The ALT upheld this decision, ruling that an employer is not obligated to act on a reassignment request or to reassign a pregnant or breastfeeding worker. The Superior Court, however, granted Ms. Ouellet's application for judicial review, finding the ALT's decision unreasonable, particularly because it failed to apply the Supreme Court of Canada's reasoning in Dionne v. Commission scolaire des Patriotes (Dionne). The City appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the legal framework established in Dionne was binding and should have guided the ALT's analysis. The Court confirmed that the submission of a certificate of preventive withdrawal by a pregnant worker constitutes a request for reassignment to tasks that do not involve health risks. Consequently, the employer is obliged to act upon such a request.

The Court also rejected the City's interpretation of the AOHS, emphasizing that the Act's purpose is not limited to preventive withdrawal. Rather, it primarily seeks to facilitate the reassignment of pregnant or breastfeeding workers and, only if reassignment is impossible, their preventive removal from work. Employers, therefore, have the duty to attempt a reassignment — though not an obligation of result — and must communicate their decision on the matter. However, the Act does not require that this communication be made in writing or through a formal process.

Finally, the Court of Appeal confirmed that section 227 of the AOHS applies to the exercise of all rights conferred by the Act. As such, pregnant or breastfeeding workers whose reassignment requests are denied may challenge the employer's decision before the CNESST under that provision.

Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail v. Association des entrepreneurs spécialisés en procédé industriel du Québec, 2025 QCCA 587

In this case, the CNESST appealed a Superior Court judgment rendered in a judicial review proceeding brought by the Association des entrepreneurs spécialisés en procédé industriel du Québec and the Association nationale des entreprises en recrutement et placement de personnel (the Associations). The Associations had challenged the validity of the Regulation respecting personnel placement agencies and recruitment agencies for temporary foreign workers (the Regulation).

The challenge was based on two main grounds:

• The definition of "staffing agency" in section 1 of the Regulation was said to be overly broad and imprecise, allegedly exceeding the limits of the government's regulatory authority and preventing employers from clearly understanding their rights and obligations; and
• By delegating the administration and enforcement of the licensing regime for placement agencies to the CNESST, the government allegedly unlawfully subdelegated powers that should have remained within the executive branch.

In the first instance, the Superior Court partially allowed the Associations' application. It declared the definition of "staffing agency" in section 1 ultra vires and invalid but rejected the argument of unlawful sub-delegation of governmental powers. The CNESST appealed the first finding, while the Associations filed a cross-appeal on the second.

On the appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the Superior Court's conclusion regarding the definition of "staffing agency."

The Court of Appeal first held that the trial judge had applied the wrong standard of review. In matters concerning the validity of a regulation, the applicable standard is reasonableness, not correctness. Regulations benefit from a presumption of validity, and Courts must, wherever possible, adopt an interpretation that upholds their consistency with the enabling statute.

The Court noted that the Regulation defines a staffing agency as any entity whose activities include offering personnel leasing services, that is, providing employees to a client company to meet its workforce needs. Therefore, the issue was whether the concept of "personnel leasing" was sufficiently precise. The Court found that this concept is well recognized in Quebec law: it refers to a situation where the employee's labour is the object of the contract, performed at the client's premises under the client's daily supervision. While the definition is broad, it remains clear enough to guide the application of the Regulation. The Court emphasized that the threshold of vagueness justifying the invalidation of a regulation is very high, and that the existence of "grey areas" in law does not make a provision invalid. Ambiguous or borderline cases must be resolved by the CNESST and the Courts on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific facts, contractual relationships and degree of control exercised by the client company. The Court further clarified that the Regulation applies to any entity that engages, even partially or occasionally, in personnel leasing activities to meet a client's labour needs.

The Court also rejected the Associations' argument that the definition of "personal placement agency" was ultra vires. The government, it held, had broad authority to define the term and reasonably chose to include entities that carry out personnel leasing activities, even if such activities are not their main business. This interpretation aligns with the protective and remedial purpose of the Act respecting labour standards (ALS). The Court noted that the Regulation does not cover subcontracting or the provision of services, but only the leasing of personnel — i.e., situations in which workers perform their duties under the supervision of a client company. Limiting the Regulation to specialized agencies would exclude certain employees from the protections provided by the ALS, including pay equity with client employees and the client's joint and several liability. The Court concluded that the Regulation's broad scope is consistent with the ALS' protective objectives.

With respect to the cross-appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the validity of sections 10 and 11 of the Regulation, rejecting the argument of unlawful sub-delegation. The issue was whether empowering the CNESST to administer the licensing regime infringed upon the government's exclusive powers. The Court found that it did not.

Although the CNESST is responsible for the operational management of the permit system (including issuing, suspending and revoking permits), it acts within a normative framework clearly defined by the government, which sets the applicable conditions and criteria. The CNESST therefore exercises a limited administrative discretion rather than a broad policymaking authority. This structure, the Court concluded, complies with the principles of administrative delegation and supports the objective of efficiently implementing the licensing system.

About Dentons

Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways. Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business challenge. Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons' global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries. www.dentons.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.