This bill modernizes the Labour Standards Act for Newfoundland and Labrador. It inserts a new Part (VII.9) creating unpaid leave rights for employees who need extended medical care, recovery from long‑term injury or illness, or who donate organs; it also revises the rules that apply to members of the reserve force.
Separately, the bill requires employers to advance anticipated work expenses, updates indemnity and enforcement language, replaces references to “Trial Division” with “Supreme Court,” and converts gendered pronouns throughout the Act into gender‑neutral language.
The changes matter for HR, payroll and legal teams in virtually every employer covered by the Act. The new leave entitlements and notice procedures create operational obligations (long absences, reinstatement rules, evidence requirements) while the expense‑advance and indemnity provisions change short‑term cash‑flow and potential liability exposure.
Employers should review policies, update contracts and prepare processes for medical proof, notices and re‑employment timing.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends multiple sections to adopt gender‑neutral wording, replaces court references, clarifies director indemnities and requires employers to advance anticipated business expenses. It adds Part VII.9 establishing unpaid leave for long‑term illness, long‑term injury and organ donation and adjusts reserve force unpaid‑leave rules and related notice obligations.
Who It Affects
All employers and employees covered by the Newfoundland‑Labrador Labour Standards Act, particularly HR/payroll teams, members of the reserves, employees recovering from long‑term medical conditions or donating organs, and corporate directors who may be indemnified by their employers.
Why It Matters
The bill creates measurable operational and legal obligations: specific leave lengths, proof and notice thresholds, reinstatement duties, and short‑term cash advances for work expenses. Those obligations change how employers manage staffing, budgeting and documentation for long absences.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds a new Part (VII.9) that gives most employees who have worked for the same employer for at least 30 continuous days a statutory right to unpaid leave for extended medical care or recovery. For ordinary long‑term illness, long‑term injury or organ donation, the basic entitlement is up to 27 weeks in any 52‑week period when a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner certifies the need and provides start and estimated end dates.
There is a separate, much longer entitlement where the long‑term illness or injury results from a criminal offence: the employee may take up to 104 weeks in a 104‑week period if they provide a medical certificate and proof satisfactory to the employer that the condition resulted from a criminal offence. That 104‑week route excludes employees who were parties to the offence or who contributed by gross negligence.
The Act requires leaves under the new Part to be taken in minimum two‑week blocks, counts any week in which the employee returns to work as a full week, and prevents an immediate repeat of the 27‑week leave without a six‑month gap.Reserve force leave is recalibrated: the bill replaces the prior numeric cross‑reference and expressly allows reservists to take up to a total of 24 months of unpaid leave within a 60‑month period, but it excludes leave taken due to a national emergency. The notice regime for reservists now requires at least 30 days written notice of intention to take leave and sets a process for notifying employers if the anticipated end date changes; if an employee fails to give proper advance notice of the new end date the employer may defer re‑employment for up to four weeks.Other discrete changes matter in practice.
Section 34.1 now obliges an employer to advance to an employee the amount the employee may reasonably expect to incur for work‑related expenses. Section 37.4 clarifies when an employer may indemnify current and former directors for costs related to civil or administrative proceedings and sets the honesty/good‑faith and reasonable‑grounds tests.
The bill also modernizes terminology by changing references to the Trial Division to the Supreme Court and by systematically substituting gender‑neutral terms throughout the Act. Finally, the new leave provisions include explicit employer duties on reinstatement and place the evidentiary burden on employers who dismiss employees while they are taking or intend to take the new leave.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Part VII.9 gives employees with 30 days’ continuous service up to 27 weeks of unpaid leave in a 52‑week period for extended care, recovery from a long‑term illness or long‑term injury, or for organ donation with a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner’s certificate.
An employee whose long‑term injury or illness resulted from a criminal offence may take up to 104 weeks in a 104‑week period with medical certification and proof satisfactory to the employer; this does not apply if the employee was a party to the offence or was grossly negligent.
Reserve force members may take up to 24 months of unpaid leave within a 60‑month period; leave taken because of a national emergency is excluded from that total.
Leaves under the new Part must be taken in minimum two‑week periods, any week in which an employee returns to work counts as a full week, and an employee who used the full 27 weeks must wait six months after return before taking another such leave.
Section 34.1 requires employers to advance employees the amount the employee may reasonably anticipate incurring for work‑related expenses.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Expense advance — employer must advance anticipated work expenses
The bill replaces the existing provision with a clear duty: when employees must incur expenses in connection with their work, the employer must advance the amount the employee can reasonably anticipate. Practically this creates a short‑term cash‑flow obligation for employers and a documentation expectation for employees: employers will need a policy or procedure to calculate reasonable anticipated amounts and a recordkeeping process to reconcile advances against actual expenses.
New unpaid‑leave scheme for long‑term illness, injury and organ donation
This new Part defines organ donation and establishes two different leave tracks: a 27‑week maximum in a 52‑week period for extended care/recovery and organ donation, and a 104‑week maximum in a 104‑week period where the injury or illness resulted from a criminal offence and the employee produces satisfactory proof. It sets notice (two weeks), minimum leave‑block size (two weeks) and reinstatement rules, and it prevents immediate repetition of the 27‑week leave without a six‑month gap. These are employer‑facing obligations affecting scheduling, benefit accrual and return‑to‑work planning.
Reserve force leave — duration and notice changes
The amendments change a numeric cross‑reference and then replace the reserve‑leave subsections with a new structure allowing reservists up to 24 months of unpaid leave in a 60‑month period, while excluding national emergency leave. The notice requirement for reserve leave is standardized to at least 30 days’ written notice; if the expected end date changes the employee must inform the employer as soon as possible and provide written notice of the new date within four weeks, and the employer may defer re‑employment up to four weeks where the employee misses that deadline.
Director indemnity clarified
The bill replaces s.37.4(2) to authorize employer indemnification of current and former directors (and their estates) for costs, charges and expenses from civil or administrative actions connected to their role, subject to two conditions: the director acted honestly and in good faith with a view to the employer’s best interests, and for monetary penalties the director had reasonable grounds to believe the conduct was lawful. The change narrows uncertainty about corporate indemnities but leaves open how courts will assess “reasonable grounds.”
Court references updated — Trial Division → Supreme Court
The Act’s enforcement and review provisions are updated to replace obsolete references to the Trial Division with the Supreme Court. This is primarily a drafting correction aligning the Act with current judicial nomenclature; it does not change the forum for judicial review or enforcement but eliminates ambiguity that could complicate filings and enforcement.
Gender‑neutral language replacement
The bill systematically replaces gendered pronouns (his/her, he/she) with neutral terms (the employee, the person, the director’s etc.). This is a housekeeping but legally useful change: it reduces interpretive friction, aligns the statute with contemporary drafting practice, and avoids inadvertent gendered readings in administrative decisions and litigation.
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 recovering from long‑term illness or injury and organ donors — they gain explicit statutory unpaid‑leave rights, minimum leave‑block rules and reinstatement protections that make long absences more predictable and legally protected.
- Members of the reserve force — the revised language and new 24‑month/60‑month rule clarifies and potentially extends modern reservist leave entitlements compared with the prior cross‑reference.
- Employees required to incur work expenses — they receive a statutory right to an advance of reasonably anticipated work‑related costs, reducing out‑of‑pocket burdens.
- Directors and former directors — clarified indemnity rules make it easier for employers to cover defense costs where directors acted honestly and in good faith, lowering personal financial risk for directors.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers (especially small employers) — face increased administrative and cash‑flow burdens from long unpaid leaves, the need to advance anticipated expenses, manage reinstatements and keep medical and notice records.
- HR and payroll departments — must implement new processes for notice tracking, medical certification review, leave accounting (minimum two‑week blocks, whole‑week counting) and for deferral/rehiring timing where reserve leave dates change.
- Employers who choose to indemnify directors — while indemnity is permissive, employers that provide it may incur substantial legal costs or settlement obligations if directors face actions; assessing when indemnity applies can create litigation risk.
- The provincial enforcement system — the Director of Labour Standards will likely face new complaint types and evidence disputes (medical proof, whether a condition resulted from a criminal offence), increasing enforcement workload.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances stronger job protection for employees facing long‑term medical issues and reservist obligations against increased operational and financial burdens on employers: it protects workers from dismissal and secures long‑term unpaid leave rights, but those protections shift scheduling, cash‑flow and evidentiary costs to employers and create ambiguous proof and benefit‑accrual questions that are likely to generate disputes.
The bill leaves several practical and legal questions unresolved. For the crime‑related 104‑week entitlement, the statute requires “proof satisfactory to the employer” that the injury or illness resulted from a criminal offence; the absence of a defined evidentiary standard creates room for disputes about what qualifies as satisfactory proof (police reports, court outcomes, victim services letters, etc.) and gives employers discretion that could lead to inconsistent outcomes or litigation.
Operationally, the new unpaid leaves are unpaid but come with reinstatement protections; the Act also says the leave does not count towards application of certain Act‑conferred rights unless the employer and employee agree. That combination invites conflict: employers can avoid advancing seniority or benefit accruals during leave, while employees will argue continuity of employment for protection against dismissal and for return‑to‑work rights.
Small employers may struggle more: prolonged unpaid absences (27 or 104 weeks) create scheduling, replacement hiring and training costs that the statute does not address, increasing the risk of constructive dismissal claims or pressure to settle disputes.
Finally, the indemnity language conditions indemnification on honesty/good faith and reasonable grounds for believing conduct was lawful for monetary penalties, but those standards will fall to courts to interpret. Employers that indemnify directors may face exposure where the factual line between lawful and unlawful conduct is contested.
The Act also references future regulations in a few places (e.g., cross‑references elsewhere); absent implementing guidance, employers and the Director will need to develop administrative practices that may be challenged in tribunals or court.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.