This Act adds a new Division 8.1 to the Employment Standards Code that restricts an employer’s ability to require a sick note for short‑term absences and creates a statutory reimbursement duty when a note is required. An employer may only demand a sick note if the absence lasts more than one week or the employee has already been absent on more than 10 scheduled workdays in the same calendar year.
The bill also specifies which health professionals may issue sick notes (including physicians, nurses, midwives, psychologists and out‑of‑province equivalents), sets procedural timelines for evidence and reimbursement, and makes unpaid reimbursement amounts into wages enforceable by complaint. These changes shift administrative and financial obligations to employers while clarifying which providers qualify to verify short‑term illness or injury.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates Division 8.1, limiting when employers may require a sick note (absence >1 week or >10 scheduled workdays/year), prescribes who may issue the note, and requires employers to reimburse reasonable fees charged for sick notes within a fixed timeline.
Who It Affects
The rules apply to all Manitoba employers covered by the Employment Standards Code and to their employees; they also implicate a broad class of regulated health professionals who may be asked to provide documentation and provincial regulators who will prescribe additional classes and reimbursement rules.
Why It Matters
By legally restricting sick‑note demands and mandating reimbursement, the bill reduces costs and privacy intrusions for employees while creating new compliance and cash‑flow obligations for employers and opening enforcement pathways through employment standards complaints.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a stand‑alone “Sick Notes” division into Manitoba’s Employment Standards Code. At its core it narrows employers’ discretion: they cannot routinely insist on medical documentation for short absences.
The statute draws two bright lines — an absence must exceed one week, or the employee must have used more than 10 scheduled workdays for injury or illness in the calendar year — before an employer can demand a sick note. That removes daily or ad‑hoc documentation requirements that some employers have relied on.
When a sick note is legitimately required, the employee may obtain it from a defined list of health professionals who actually provided care for the condition. The list includes physicians, physician assistants, registered nurses and nurse practitioners, registered psychiatric nurses, licensed practical nurses, psychologists and midwives, plus equivalent practitioners in other jurisdictions and any additional classes the government prescribes.
That widens acceptable sources beyond physicians and creates clearer limits on who can be asked to produce verification.The bill places concrete reimbursement and timing rules on employers. If an employer requires a sick note, it must reimburse the employee for any reasonable charge the health professional imposes; the employee must provide evidence of the charge within 30 days and the employer must pay within 30 days after receiving that evidence.
If the employer misses that deadline, the unpaid amount becomes wages owing and the employee gets a six‑month window to file a complaint under the Code.Finally, the Act cleans up related provisions elsewhere in the Code: it updates language about pregnancy and organ‑donation certificates to name physician or midwife certificates where appropriate, prevents employers from using other sections to demand sick notes in conflict with the new division, and gives the minister regulation‑making power to specify additional classes of health professionals and rules on reimbursement. The Act comes into force 180 days after royal assent, giving employers and regulators a transition period to adjust policies and systems.
The Five Things You Need to Know
An employer may require a sick note only if the absence lasts more than one week or the employee has been absent on more than 10 scheduled workdays in the same calendar year.
The bill lists acceptable issuers: physicians, physician/clinical assistants, registered nurses (including nurse practitioners and psychiatric nurses), licensed practical nurses, psychologists, midwives, equivalent out‑of‑province practitioners and any classes the minister prescribes.
If an employer requires a sick note, it must reimburse the employee for any reasonable charge the health professional levies; the employee must provide evidence within 30 days and the employer must reimburse within 30 days after that evidence is provided.
Any unpaid reimbursement that is not paid within the 30‑day reimbursement window is deemed a wage owing and the employee may file a complaint under the Employment Standards Code within six months.
The Act amends related leave provisions (e.g.
pregnancy and organ‑donation certificates) to require physician or midwife certificates where appropriate, grants regulation‑making power about sick‑note classes and reimbursement, and comes into force 180 days after royal assent.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Clarifies scope of illness/injury language
This small amendment inserts “injured or” before “ill” in Clause 22(2)(b). It’s a wording change to ensure that references elsewhere to absences because of illness also clearly cover absences due to injury. Practically, it aligns the statutory vocabulary so the new sick‑note rules apply across both illness and injury‑related absences.
When employers can require a sick note, who can issue it, and reimbursement rules
This is the division that contains the bill’s spine. Section 51.2 sets the two thresholds that trigger an employer’s right to request a sick note, defines how partial‑day absences count toward the 10‑day threshold, and enumerates the classes of health professionals that may provide notes (with an explicit path for out‑of‑province equivalents and minister‑prescribed classes). Section 51.3 creates the reimbursement regime: employees must submit evidence of the fee within 30 days; employers must reimburse within 30 days after that evidence; failure to reimburse converts the amount to wages owing and opens the statutory complaint remedy. For employers, the section establishes concrete procedural deadlines they must build into payroll and HR workflows.
Updates pregnancy‑leave certificate language to permit midwife or physician certificates
Section 52 and related amendments replace the term “medical certificate” with “certificate issued by a physician or midwife,” and adjust subsection references accordingly. That change recognizes midwives as authorized certifiers for pregnancy‑related leave, while keeping pregnancy‑leave certification separate from the new sick‑note regime where a physician certificate may still be required for specific longer leaves under Division 9.
Defines physician’s certificate for organ donation and prevents conflicting sick‑note demands
The Act defines “physician’s certificate” specifically for organ‑donation leave to mean a certificate from a physician who provided care to the donor and is entitled to practise in that jurisdiction. It also amends other leave sections (like 59.12) to state expressly that an employer may not demand a sick note in a way that contradicts Division 8.1, ensuring the new limits govern across the Code.
Enforcement route, regulation‑making authority, and transition window
Section 92 is amended to make unpaid reimbursement amounts an actionable item under the Code’s complaint process. Section 144 expands regulation‑making authority to let the government prescribe additional classes of health professionals for 51.2(3)(f) and to make rules about reimbursement. The Act sets a 180‑day hiatus before coming into force to permit employers and regulators to adapt policies, and to allow the minister to issue any necessary regulations.
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 take short‑term sick leave: They face fewer routine demands for medical notes, reduced out‑of‑pocket costs because employers must reimburse fees, and quicker statutory recourse if reimbursement is delayed.
- Low‑wage and hourly workers: These groups are more likely to be deterred from taking paid or unpaid sick time by documentation costs; the reimbursement rule and higher threshold reduce that barrier.
- Non‑physician health professionals (nurse practitioners, midwives, psychologists, licensed practical nurses): The statute recognizes and expands the pool of acceptable certifiers, which can increase patient access to documentation and affirm other practitioners’ role in workplace certification.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers (especially small businesses): Employers must change attendance policies, pay the outlays for reimbursing sick‑note fees, and adjust HR/payroll timing to meet the 30‑day reimbursement deadline.
- Human resources and payroll departments: Operational systems must be updated to accept broader classes of certifiers, validate evidence within 30 days and process reimbursements — introducing administrative burden and potential cash‑flow timing issues.
- Provincial labour regulators and tribunals: The Manitoba Employment Standards Branch may see new complaints about unpaid reimbursements, threshold disputes, and whether a particular practitioner qualifies under the Act, increasing enforcement workload.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between protecting employees from intrusive, costly and routine sick‑note demands and employers’ legitimate interest in preventing abuse of leave and managing attendance; the bill favors employee protections and access to documentation but leaves employers with new compliance, verification and cash‑flow burdens and unresolved questions about what counts as a reasonable fee or an acceptable certifier.
The Act creates sharper rules but leaves significant questions for implementation. “Reasonable amount” is not defined, leaving disputes about what fee is reimbursable (clinic administrative fees, telehealth charges, or third‑party service fees). The minister’s power to prescribe classes of health professionals helps fill gaps but also creates reliance on future regulation — employers and health providers will need clear guidance on which additional practitioners qualify and how equivalency for out‑of‑province practitioners will be assessed.
Operational timing is another practical challenge. The bill imposes 30‑day windows both for an employee to produce evidence of a charge and for the employer to reimburse; missed deadlines convert reimbursements into wages for complaint purposes, but collecting, verifying and paying numerous small claims on a tight schedule will stress payroll workflows, particularly for micro and small employers.
The Act also attempts to reconcile its new limits with existing leave rules (maternity, organ donation) by specifying when physician or midwife certificates remain appropriate, but employers will need to map those interactions carefully to avoid inadvertently demanding an impermissible sick note.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.