Alberta’s Bill 220 would expand the Employment Standards Code’s unpaid bereavement leave provision. Employees with at least 90 days of service would be able to take up to three days of leave each calendar year not only after a family member’s death, but also after a miscarriage or stillbirth affecting the employee or certain people close to the employee.
The amendment treats qualifying pregnancy loss as a workplace leave event without creating a paid benefit. Employers would still receive notice that is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances, while employees would gain a statutory basis for time away from work during an event the existing provision does not expressly cover.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces section 53.983 of Alberta’s Employment Standards Code. It preserves up to three days of unpaid leave for the death of a family member and adds the same entitlement for an employee’s own miscarriage or stillbirth, or for a spouse’s or common-law partner’s pregnancy loss when the employee is the person’s spouse, common-law partner or intended parent.
Who It Affects
Employees must have worked for the same employer for at least 90 days to qualify. Employers covered by the Code would need to administer the additional leave category and accommodate notice given as soon as is reasonable and practicable.
Why It Matters
The bill broadens Alberta’s minimum employment standards by recognizing pregnancy loss as a distinct reason for protected time away from work. It does so through unpaid leave, limiting the direct wage cost while creating a clearer statutory entitlement for affected employees.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 53.983 would continue to provide up to three days of unpaid bereavement leave in a calendar year when a family member dies. The bill does not remove the existing 90-day service threshold, so the entitlement would remain tied to the employee’s length of service with the same employer.
The new categories cover two different situations. An employee could take the leave following the end of the employee’s own pregnancy through miscarriage or stillbirth.
The employee could also take it following the end of another person’s pregnancy, but only where the employee is that person’s spouse or common-law partner, or is someone who would have been a parent of a child born from the pregnancy.The second category reaches beyond a traditional spousal relationship. It can include an intended parent whose connection to the pregnancy is parental rather than marital, although the provision does not define in further detail how employers should verify that status.
The bill also expressly gives “common-law partner” the meaning already assigned elsewhere in the Code, reducing the risk of a separate definition being applied to this leave.Employees must give the employer as much notice as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances before taking the leave. The bill does not require medical documentation, advance notice that would be impossible in an emergency, payment during the leave, or more than three days in a calendar year.
It would come into force on January 1, 2022.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The three-day entitlement remains unpaid; the bill does not create wage replacement or employer-funded benefits.
The 90-day service requirement continues to apply, measured by employment with the same employer.
The leave is available for the employee’s own miscarriage or stillbirth, not only for the death of a family member.
For another person’s pregnancy loss, the employee must be the person’s spouse or common-law partner, or someone who would have been a parent of the child.
The employee must provide as much notice as is reasonable and practicable, and the amendment would take effect January 1, 2022.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Amendment to the Employment Standards Code
Section 1 identifies the Employment Standards Code as the statute being amended. The provision is narrow: it changes one existing employment leave entitlement rather than creating a standalone workplace-loss framework.
For employers, that means the main compliance task would sit within existing leave administration processes, payroll coding and attendance records rather than a new regulatory regime.
Expanded unpaid bereavement leave entitlement
Section 2 repeals and replaces section 53.983. The replacement keeps the existing entitlement of up to three unpaid days in a calendar year after a family member’s death and adds qualifying miscarriage and stillbirth events.
The provision covers an employee’s own pregnancy loss and the loss of a pregnancy carried by the employee’s spouse or common-law partner. It also covers a person who would have been a parent of the child, which extends eligibility to an intended parent even where that person is not the pregnant individual.
Common-law partner definition
The replacement section imports the meaning of “common-law partner” from section 53.9(1)(a) of the Code. Employers therefore must apply the Code’s existing relationship definition rather than develop a separate test for this leave.
Notice standard
The bill retains the requirement that an employee give as much notice as is reasonable and practicable before taking the leave. The flexible standard recognizes that pregnancy loss may occur without warning, but it leaves the adequacy of notice dependent on the circumstances of each case rather than prescribing a fixed deadline.
Effective date
Section 3 provides that the amendment comes into force on January 1, 2022. Employers would need their leave policies, manager guidance and recordkeeping systems to reflect the expanded qualifying events from that date.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Employees who experience a miscarriage or stillbirth receive an express statutory right to take time away from work without having to fit the event into a general personal-leave category.
- Spouses and common-law partners of people experiencing pregnancy loss gain recognition as employees who may need bereavement leave in their own right.
- Intended parents who would have become parents of the child can qualify even when they are not the person who carried the pregnancy.
- Employers and human-resources teams gain a clearer statutory framework for handling pregnancy-loss absences instead of relying entirely on policy discretion or informal accommodation.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers must absorb the operational effects of up to three additional days of employee absence, including scheduling changes, temporary coverage and recordkeeping.
- Managers and human-resources staff must assess relationship and intended-parent eligibility under a provision that gives limited procedural guidance and does not specify documentation requirements.
- Employees receive no statutory pay during the leave, so those who cannot afford unpaid time may remain unable to use the entitlement fully.
- Employees with less than 90 days of service remain outside the provision, which limits access for newer hires experiencing a qualifying loss.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill recognizes pregnancy loss as a legitimate reason to step away from work while deliberately keeping the entitlement short and unpaid. A flexible, low-burden rule may preserve privacy and limit compliance costs, but it may not provide meaningful support for employees who need longer leave or cannot afford to take it.
The bill establishes eligibility but leaves several administration questions open. It does not say what evidence an employer may request to confirm a miscarriage, stillbirth, spousal or common-law relationship, or intended-parent status.
That flexibility may protect privacy and avoid forcing employees to disclose sensitive medical details, but it can also produce inconsistent employer practices and disputes over documentation.
The three-day annual cap applies across the covered events and remains unpaid. An employee could therefore face a serious loss requiring more time than the statute provides, while an employee dealing with multiple qualifying events in one calendar year would have to use the same limited allotment.
The bill also does not address job-protected benefits continuation, interaction with employer policies, or whether other statutory leaves could supplement these days.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.