The bill adds a new long‑term illness and injury leave to New Brunswick’s Employment Standards Act that gives eligible employees a statutory, job‑protected absence when they cannot work because of illness or injury. The amendment sets basic procedural and return‑to‑work rules: employees must notify employers, employers may require a medical certificate, and employees are entitled to return to their former or an equivalent job without loss of accrued benefits.
This change creates a clear statutory pathway for extended, unpaid medical leave outside of workers’ compensation and disability benefits. Employers, HR teams, and benefits administrators will need to update leave policies and payroll processes; employees without private disability coverage gain an added layer of job protection while ill or injured.
At a Glance
What It Does
The statute allows an employee, after more than 90 continuous days’ employment, to take up to 27 weeks of unpaid absence in any 52‑week period for long‑term illness or injury. Leaves must be taken in blocks of at least one week, begin on the first day of the week the employee became incapable of working, and require the employee to notify the employer promptly of intended start and duration. Employers may request a certificate from a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or midwife, and must reinstate the employee to the same or an equivalent position without a pay decrease and without loss of benefits accrued before the leave.
Who It Affects
All employers and employees covered by New Brunswick’s Employment Standards Act are affected — there are no textual exemptions for employer size or sector. Practical impacts fall on HR, payroll, and benefits teams that manage leave documentation, medical certifications and return‑to‑work placement. Employees with chronic conditions, those awaiting long‑term disability or EI sickness benefits, and unionized workers will use this leave as part of their accommodation and job‑protection toolkit.
Why It Matters
The amendment fills a statutory gap between short‑term sick days and long‑term disability or workers’ compensation, creating a standardized, job‑protected option for extended medical absence. It shifts administrative burdens and legal obligations onto employers (including small businesses) while giving employees clearer legal footing to preserve employment during extended incapacity.
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 single, targeted leave provision into the Employment Standards Act that creates a discrete statutory right to unpaid time away from work for serious, longer‑term health problems. Eligibility starts after a short‑term employment threshold, and the statute defines the leave in weekly units: a “week” runs from midnight Saturday to the next Saturday, and any leave must be requested for periods of at least one week.
That weekly framing matters for timing, payroll cycles and how partial‑week incapacity will be classified.
Notice rules require the worker to inform the employer “without delay” of their intention to take leave, including the anticipated start date and how long they expect to be away. If an employee breaks their entitlement into multiple leave periods across the 52‑week window, they must give notice each time.
The statute also pins the start date of a leave to the first day of the week in which the employee became incapable of working, which affects retroactive leave claims and the counting of the 27‑week entitlement.Employers can require a medical certificate from a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or midwife to verify incapacity. On return, the employer must put the employee back into the position they held immediately before the leave or an equivalent job, with no pay cut and no loss of benefits the employee accrued up to the leave’s start.
The amendment explicitly states these duties are additional to — and do not replace — related obligations under the Workers’ Compensation Act, so overlapping claims and benefit coordination remain a live issue.Operationally, the new leave will require employers to adjust recordkeeping (tracking weeks used within rolling 52‑week periods), revise collective‑agreement language where applicable, and determine internal practices for handling medical certificates and benefit treatment during unpaid absence. Because the leave is unpaid, workers will often pair it with EI sickness benefits or private disability income; the statute does not itself create a wage‑replacement program.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The leave permits up to 27 weeks of unpaid absence for long‑term illness or injury during any 52‑week period.
Employees become eligible after more than 90 continuous days of employment with the same employer.
Leave may only be taken in periods of at least one week; a ‘week’ is defined as midnight Saturday to midnight the next Saturday, and a leave begins on the first day of the week the employee became incapable of working.
Employers may require a medical certificate from a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or midwife to verify incapacity.
On return, employers must reinstate the employee to the same or an equivalent position with no decrease in pay and with no loss of benefits accrued before the leave.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definition of ‘week’ for leave calculations
The provision sets a precise temporal unit: a week runs from midnight Saturday to midnight the following Saturday. That choice anchors how partial‑week absences are treated and how employers calculate leave entitlements within rolling 52‑week periods. Payroll systems and leave‑tracking tools that operate on other business‑week definitions will need adjustment to align with this statutory timetable.
Eligibility threshold and quantum of leave
This subsection creates the core entitlement: employees who have worked more than 90 continuous days may request up to 27 weeks of unpaid leave in any 52‑week period for long‑term illness or injury. The provision sets both the entry condition (90 days) and the maximum leave quantity (27 weeks), establishing a clear statutory ceiling and a short qualifying period that brings many employees within scope quickly.
Notice, fragmentation of leave, minimum durations, and start date
Employees must notify their employer without delay of their intention to take leave and provide anticipated start and duration; each separated period of leave requires fresh notice. The statute requires leave to be taken in minimum one‑week blocks and specifies that the leave begins on the first day of the week in which the employee became incapable of working. These mechanics constrain how employees may split their entitlement and create predictable administrative checkpoints for employers, but they also risk mismatches when incapacity begins mid‑week or is intermittent.
Medical certification
The bill permits employers to require a certificate from a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or midwife verifying incapacity. The text does not address who pays for the certificate, the permissible scope of medical inquiries, or standards for resolving disputed certifications — leaving room for policy or regulatory clarification and potential friction over privacy and the burden on clinicians.
Return‑to‑work and benefit protection
Upon return from leave, the employer must permit the employee to resume their previous position or an equivalent job with no pay reduction and no loss of benefits accrued up to the leave’s start. The provision protects accrued entitlements but is silent on whether benefits must continue during unpaid leave, whether seniority accrual pauses or continues, and how equivalence is determined in unionized contexts.
Relationship with Workers’ Compensation Act
The final subsection clarifies that the employer’s duties under this leave are additional to obligations under sections 42.3 and 42.4 of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Practically, employers and claims administrators must coordinate between statutory leave, WSIB/Workers’ Compensation entitlements, and disability insurance to avoid gaps or duplications in protection and to determine which rules control when claims overlap.
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 chronic or serious medical conditions: The statute gives them a clear, job‑protected option to remain employed during extended periods of incapacity, reducing the risk of losing employment while pursuing recovery or disability adjudication.
- Workers lacking employer‑provided disability coverage: Individuals who do not have private short‑ or long‑term disability insurance gain statutory protection that preserves their employment while they seek EI sickness benefits or other income supports.
- Older workers and those in physically demanding jobs: These groups face higher risks of longer recovery periods and will disproportionately use the leave to bridge medical recovery without forfeiting accrued benefits or their position.
- Unions and employee representatives: The leave creates a baseline entitlement that unions can rely on in collective bargaining and dispute resolution to protect members from dismissal during extended illness.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers covered by the Employment Standards Act: Businesses of all sizes must manage additional administrative tasks — tracking weeks within rolling periods, handling notice and certification, and arranging reinstatement or equivalent placements — with no textual employer‑size carveout.
- Small and medium‑sized enterprises (SMEs): Without pooled HR resources, SMEs face proportionally higher administrative and operational disruption when key staff are absent for extended periods.
- HR, payroll and benefits administrators: These functions must update systems and policies, reconcile benefit accrual questions, and coordinate with health‑care providers and insurers, increasing workload and potential legal exposure for mistakes.
- Medical practitioners, nurse practitioners and midwives: Those clinicians may face increased requests to provide certificates; the bill does not address compensation, documentation standards, or privacy boundaries for those records.
- Provincial employers and service providers: Public‑sector employers and agencies will need to integrate the new leave across programs and may face budgetary and staffing implications when public employees use extended leaves.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing meaningful job protection for employees with extended medical needs against the operational and financial burdens imposed on employers: the law preserves jobs and accrued benefits but does not provide wage replacement, leaving employers to absorb administrative and staffing costs while employees may still face income insecurity.
The amendment creates a clear entitlement but leaves several implementation questions unresolved. It protects ‘benefits accrued up to the commencement of the leave’ but does not say whether employers must continue to pay benefit premiums during unpaid leave, whether benefits will continue to accrue (for example, vacation or seniority), or how equivalence of positions should be determined in practice.
Payroll systems and collective agreements often hinge on these details; absent regulatory guidance or interpretive direction, employers and unions will have to negotiate or litigate these edge cases.
The bill also privileges a weekly unit and a start‑date rule that may not match the medical reality for many illnesses, such as intermittent flare‑ups or single‑day incapacities. Requiring minimum one‑week blocks and anchoring the leave to the first day of the week an employee became incapable can produce unintended incentives (for example, delaying a leave request until a full week elapses) and administrative complexity when incapacity begins mid‑week.
Finally, the statute permits employers to require medical certificates but says nothing about cost, scope, or privacy protections for those records, raising practical and ethical questions for clinicians and occupational health processes.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.