Bill 106 amends section 22.2 of Prince Edward Island’s Employment Standards Act by removing a cross-reference and replacing subsection 22.2(9) with a provision that forbids employers from requiring a medical practitioner’s certificate when an employee requests a leave under that section. The literal change: an employee who requests a leave under s.22.2 cannot be compelled to produce a doctor’s note certifying inability to work due to illness or injury.
This is a targeted but practical change: it reduces a common documentation requirement that can impose costs, privacy intrusions, and access barriers for employees. At the same time the bill is silent about alternative verification methods, enforcement mechanics, and how the change interacts with other workplace policies or insurance regimes — issues employers, unions, and HR teams will need to sort out during implementation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill deletes a cross-reference in s.22.2(3) and replaces s.22.2(9) with an explicit ban on employers requiring a medical practitioner’s certificate when an employee requests a leave under s.22.2. It does not add other verification tools or new enforcement provisions.
Who It Affects
Employees who request leaves under section 22.2 (the group the statute covers) will no longer have to provide doctor’s notes; employers, HR departments, and insurers who relied on such notes for verification or short-term sick-pay decisions are directly affected.
Why It Matters
Removing the medical-certificate requirement reduces privacy and access burdens on workers and removes a frequent HR gatekeeping tool. The absence of alternative verification rules creates ambiguity that will matter for scheduling, discipline, and benefits administration.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 106 makes a small textual change with an outsized practical effect: it amends section 22.2 of the Employment Standards Act so that employers cannot demand a medical practitioner’s certificate when an employee asks for the leave covered by that section. The explicit prohibition replaces the prior subsection and removes the statutory basis for requesting a doctor’s note as a condition of taking the leave.
The bill is narrowly framed. It does not redefine who is eligible for the leave, how long the leave lasts, or whether the leave is paid.
It only addresses documentation: the employer “shall not require” a medical certificate. The change therefore removes one commonly used verification mechanism while leaving all other substantive elements of s.22.2 intact.Because the bill does not specify acceptable alternative evidence, employers must rework their operational responses.
They will need to decide whether to accept employee attestations, require non-medical documentation, rely on attendance records, or use other internal controls. The legislation also does not add new enforcement tools or penalties; enforcing the prohibition will fall within the existing compliance and adjudication framework of the Employment Standards Act.Practically, employers should expect to revise policies, update employee communications, and train managers on how to handle leave requests without medical notes.
Employees who previously faced barriers to getting medical documentation — for example, due to cost, rural access, or appointment delays — will face fewer formal hurdles to obtaining the leave. At the same time, HR and labour relations teams may see disputes or complaints that test the outer limits of what the ban allows (for example, whether it covers long-term or intermittent absences).
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill changes subsection 22.2(3) by deleting the words “subsections (1), (4) and (9)” and replacing them with “subsections (1) and (4)”.
It repeals subsection 22.2(9) and substitutes a new subsection stating: when an employee requests a leave under s.22.2, the employer shall not require a certificate signed by a medical practitioner that the employee was unable to work due to illness or injury.
The prohibition applies specifically to requests for leave under s.22.2; the bill does not amend other sections of the Act that may permit or regulate documentation for different types of leave.
The legislation does not specify alternative forms of acceptable proof, nor does it create new verification processes or administrative procedures for employers to follow.
Bill 106 adds no new enforcement mechanism or penalties; compliance and disputes will proceed under the existing Employment Standards Act framework.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Clean up of cross-reference in s.22.2(3)
This paragraph removes a reference to subsection (9) from the list of subsections named in s.22.2(3). Practically, that means whatever rule in (3) applies to the remaining listed subsections will no longer extend to the newly worded (9). The change is largely technical: it detaches the forthcoming prohibition on requiring medical certificates from whatever procedural or substantive effect (3) originally created for (9). Employers and lawyers should check the original text of s.22.2(3) to see precisely which interactions are affected, because cross-reference edits can shift who has responsibilities or rights under linked provisions.
New s.22.2(9): ban on requiring medical practitioner certificates
This is the operative policy change. The new subsection flatly states that an employer cannot require a medical practitioner’s certificate when an employee requests a leave under s.22.2. It is broad in language — “shall not require” — and does not carve out exceptions for length of leave, type of illness, or employer size. Because the clause specifies a prohibition rather than prescribing what evidence is acceptable, it removes a commonly used verification tool without prescribing replacements. HR teams will need to interpret whether employer requests for other non-medical documentation are permissible and how to handle absenteeism and benefits administration without medical notes.
Legislative intent and scope
The explanatory notes repeat that the amendments remove the s.22.2(9) reference in subsection (3) and substitute the new prohibition on medical certificates. Those notes confirm the change is intentional and limited to documentation requirements — they do not expand the leave entitlement itself. For implementation, the notes are helpful to signal intent (privacy/access relief) but they do not resolve operational questions about enforcement or interaction with employer policies, collective agreements, or insurer requirements.
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 requesting leave under s.22.2 — they no longer must secure and pay for a doctor’s note, lowering financial and access barriers to taking statutory leave.
- Workers in rural or underserved areas — reduced dependence on timely access to medical practitioners removes a common geographic barrier to obtaining leave.
- Health-care providers — fewer administrative demands for routine medical certificates may free clinician time and reduce paperwork burden.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers and HR departments — they lose a familiar verification tool and must redesign attendance and leave-management practices, which can increase administrative complexity and short-term costs.
- Small businesses and operations with tight staffing — absence verification changes can complicate scheduling and contingency planning, increasing operational risk.
- Insurers and benefits administrators — absence verification linked to short-term disability or employer-paid sick leave may require renegotiated procedures or additional documentation not contemplated by the bill.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between employee privacy and access — removing a medical-note requirement protects workers from cost, delay, and privacy intrusions — and employers’ operational need to verify and manage absences to prevent misuse and maintain service continuity; the bill resolves the privacy side explicitly but leaves employers without clear, statutory alternatives for reasonable verification.
The bill solves a discrete problem — over-reliance on medical notes — but leaves several consequential questions unanswered. It does not define what constitutes a valid non-medical attestation, whether employers may require other forms of evidence (for example, statutory declarations or employer-prepared statements), or how the prohibition interacts with existing collective agreements, insurance contracts, or workers’ compensation processes that currently condition benefits on medical documentation.
Those gaps create room for contested interpretations and likely administrative guidance or adjudication.
Implementation risk is asymmetric: employees gain immediate relief from a documentation burden, while employers inherit ambiguity about how to protect business needs like predictable staffing and prevention of misuse. The bill also makes no change to enforcement mechanisms; if disputes arise over whether an employer unlawfully required a medical certificate, the matter will be resolved through the Employment Standards Act’s existing complaint and adjudication channels, which could increase case volume without additional resourcing.
Finally, the removal of the cross-reference is technical but material: in some contexts cross-reference edits can change how other subsections operate together, so careful textual comparison with the current Act is necessary to spot any unintended interpretive consequences.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.