The Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2025 adds a new section to B.C.’s Employment Standards Act that generally prevents employers from requiring a ‘‘specified health record’’ when an employee takes short-term health‑related leave. The amendment defines key terms (health practitioner; health‑related leave; specified health record) and replaces narrow references to medical practitioners and nurses with a broader category of ‘‘specified health practitioner.’u00a0
The Act delegates substantial detail to regulation: the government will prescribe which health professions qualify, which types of leave are covered, what ‘‘specified circumstances’’ mean for short-term absences (including how consecutive and cumulative days are counted), and what exceptions apply. The changes also update related sections on acceptable proof for certain leaves.
Taken together, the bill reduces routine sick‑note demands, widens the roster of practitioners who can produce supporting documents, and shifts the operational work of defining limits and exceptions into regulation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill prohibits employers, in regulation‑defined short‑term circumstances, from requesting a health practitioner’s note or other specified health record to prove an employee’s health‑related absence. It also broadens who counts as an acceptable practitioner and expands the types of documents that qualify as proof. The regulation‑making power establishes the precise professions, covered leave types, the definition of ‘‘short‑term,’’ and any exceptions or limits.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are employees who take short, health‑related absences (including employees with caregiving responsibilities or intermittent conditions), employers who manage attendance and leave, health practitioners who produce records, and the Employment Standards Branch that enforces the Act. The regulation power also impacts occupational regulators that may be listed as designated professions.
Why It Matters
This is a practical shift away from routine medical notes as a default gatekeeping tool for short absences, which changes privacy and access dynamics for workers who face barriers obtaining practitioner notes. At the same time, the bill makes the details—and potential carve‑outs—a matter of secondary legislation, so much of the operational effect will depend on forthcoming regulations rather than the statute alone.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act inserts a standalone prohibition into the Employment Standards Act that, subject to regulations, prevents employers from requesting a ‘‘specified health record’’ for health‑related leave taken under ‘‘specified circumstances’’ on a short‑term basis. The purpose of the subsection is practical: to remove a common administrative and financial barrier—obtaining a medical note—for short absences related to illness, injury, or health care for prescribed individuals.
The statutory language does not outlaw all requests for medical information; it targets a category of records and ties the ban to the circumstances defined by regulation.
To make this operational, the bill adopts a broad working definition of ‘‘health practitioner.’’ Beyond traditional categories such as medical practitioners and nurses, it includes practitioners authorized under the Health Professions and Occupations Act, prescribes additional professions by regulation, and expressly allows recognition of equivalent practitioners licensed in other jurisdictions. It also replaces specific references in related leave‑verification sections so that documents produced by the newly defined ‘‘specified health practitioner’’ qualify where the Act previously named only a few professions.Crucially, the Lieutenant Governor in Council gets explicit authority to fill the gaps: which professions count, which kinds of leave and which individuals (for whom leave can be taken) are covered, how ‘‘short‑term’’ and ‘‘specified circumstances’’ are measured (by consecutive, non‑consecutive, or cumulative periods), and what exceptions employers may still rely on.
That means enforcement and day‑to‑day impacts will depend heavily on regulatory drafting—how tightly or loosely the government defines the exceptions and the measurement windows.Practically, employers should expect to update policies and training: they will no longer be able to routinely demand a medical note in the circumstances the regulations set out, and they must avoid asking for ‘‘specified health records’’ in those cases. Employees gain a lower‑friction path to taking short health‑related leave and stronger privacy protection from routine disclosure of clinical information.
Health practitioners outside the previously listed professions may now be a source of acceptable documentation, which affects who employees can ask for proof and how practitioners respond to record requests.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Act bars employers from requesting a ‘‘specified health record’’ for health‑related leave taken under regulation‑defined short‑term ‘‘specified circumstances.’, The statutory definition of ‘‘health practitioner’’ is broadened to include professions under the Health Professions and Occupations Act, additional prescribed professions, and equivalent out‑of‑jurisdiction practitioners.
Sections 52.12 and 52.13 are amended to accept ‘‘note, document or other record’’ produced by a ‘‘specified health practitioner’’ rather than limiting proof to medical practitioners or nurses.
Section 127 gains an explicit delegation: regulations may prescribe designated professions, specify which types of leave and individuals are covered, define short‑term measurement windows (consecutive, non‑consecutive, cumulative), and establish exceptions or limits to the prohibition.
The Act comes into force by regulation, so the exact scope, exceptions and enforcement mechanics depend on forthcoming regulations rather than the statutory text alone.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Ban on asking for specified health records in short‑term cases
This new section creates the core rule: where ‘‘specified circumstances’’ (to be defined in regulation) apply to short‑term health‑related leave, employers must not request and employees are not required to provide ‘‘specified health records.’' The provision is narrowly framed—other leaves (sections 50, 51, 52.1, 52.11) and regulation‑listed absences remain outside its reach—so its practical coverage will mirror the regulatory choices about which leaves are considered short‑term and which individuals are protected. Employers must therefore map their attendance rules to the eventual regulations to know when the prohibition applies.
Update to occupational statute reference for practitioner lists
This technical change swaps the citation from the Health Professions Act to the Health Professions and Occupations Act where the statute anchors who counts as a health practitioner. The practical effect is to align the Employment Standards Act with the province’s current licensing statute so that modern regulated professions (and any classes the government later prescribes) can be included without further legislative amendment.
Wider roster of acceptable practitioners and records
Section 52.12, which governs proof for certain job‑protected leaves, is amended to replace narrow lists (medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, registered nurse) with ‘‘specified health practitioner’’ and to allow broader document types ‘‘produced by a specified health practitioner at the request of the employee or eligible person.’' That change expands who can provide acceptable evidence and what form that evidence can take—moving away from a single‑form sick note toward a more flexible range of practitioner‑produced records.
Parallel change to proof rules for other leaves
This is the companion change to section 52.13, replacing language that limited acceptable proof to notes from certain clinicians with the broader ‘‘note, document or other record’’ produced by a specified health practitioner. Together with the 52.12 amendments, the bill harmonizes the statute so that the definition of acceptable medical proof is consistently broader across related leave provisions.
Regulations will set professions, covered leave types, measurement windows and exceptions
The new paragraph (u.2) in section 127 gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council explicit powers to: prescribe which professions count for the health practitioner definition; specify individuals and types of leave covered by ‘‘health‑related leave’’; define ‘‘specified circumstances’’—including how to measure consecutive, non‑consecutive and cumulative short‑term periods—and to create exceptions to the no‑record rule with limits or conditions. This is the operational lever: the statute draws the boundary but asks regulations to map the operational terrain, which concentrates substantive policy choices in secondary legislation.
Starts by regulation
The Act does not come into force automatically; it will be brought into force by order in council. That means regulators and employers must await the regulations before the ban on asking for specified health records becomes binding and before they can determine the precise scope and exceptions.
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 with intermittent or short‑term health needs who currently face cost and access barriers to obtaining medical notes—they gain reduced administrative and financial friction when taking short absences.
- Workers in rural, remote, or underserved areas and those without established primary‑care relationships—broadening acceptable practitioner types and recognizing out‑of‑jurisdiction practitioners lowers gatekeeping hurdles.
- Employees with privacy concerns or sensitive medical conditions—removing routine demand for clinical records reduces workplace disclosure of health information.
- Health privacy and labour advocates—this statutory change strengthens an access‑and‑privacy‑oriented default that aligns with efforts to minimize unnecessary medical disclosure.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers (particularly those that relied on medical notes to manage staffing and absence fraud risk) will lose a routine verification tool and may incur higher administrative uncertainty and dispute‑resolution costs.
- Small businesses and HR teams must revise attendance policies, train managers and potentially face heavier casework when absences require individualized follow‑up or accommodation planning.
- Employment Standards Branch and regulators will need to craft detailed regulations, produce guidance, and handle enforcement and adjudication work that shifts from clear documentary standards to facts‑in‑dispute.
- Health practitioners (including newly recognized or out‑of‑jurisdiction providers) may see more requests for record production when exceptions apply and must navigate new expectations about what constitutes an acceptable ‘‘specified health record.’
- Employers that contract with third‑party absence‑management or insurance vendors may face integration and compliance costs when those systems are rebuilt to reflect the broader record types and new verification rules.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between lowering access barriers and protecting worker privacy on one hand, and preserving employers’ ability to verify and manage absences on the other: the bill reduces routine medical‑note requirements (improving access and privacy) while making verification less certain for employers—forcing policymakers to decide how much ambiguity and enforcement burden to accept in exchange for greater worker protection.
Delegating the operational boundary to regulation concentrates consequential choices outside the statute. The Act frames a protective default but leaves it to secondary legislation to define ‘‘specified circumstances,’’ the measurement windows for ‘‘short‑term’’ leave, and the scope of any exceptions employers may use.
That creates two implementation risks: regulations can either preserve the statute’s protective tilt or significantly narrow it with tightly drawn exceptions, and stakeholders will have limited time to contest fine points once regulation drafting begins.
The bill reduces a binary documentary standard (produce a medical note) and replaces it with a looser requirement around practitioner‑produced records and regulatory definitions. That increases ambiguity: employers will need to determine whether an available document counts as a ‘‘specified health record,’’ whether a practitioner’s out‑of‑jurisdiction credential is acceptable, and when cumulative short absences hit a regulatory threshold.
Expect a bump in disputes at the Employment Standards Branch and possible litigation until administrative practice settles. There is also an operational burden on health practitioners who will be asked to produce records on employees’ behalf and on regulators who must coordinate with health‑profession regulators to identify which professions will be designated.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.