Labour and Employment

Following a series of urgent proceedings in late December and early January, the Quebec Superior Court issued an interesting decision1 on January 8, 2026, providing important clarifications on the scope of policies relating to intellectual property, confidential information and conflicts of interest, as well as on the duties of loyalty and confidentiality set out in employees’ employment contracts. The facts Concordia University (“Concordia”) sought a provisional injunction from the Court against a former employee and student, Mr. Oleg Khalimonov, as well as against Polaris Aerospace Inc. (“Polaris”), a company of which he was a director and shareholder. Mr. Khalimonov was employed by Concordia from September 2023 to December 2025. He had also been a student at the University since 2016 and, since 2023, he had served as Program Leader for Space Concordia, one of the University’s student associations. The group received significant public visibility with the launch of Starsailor in August 2025, described as the first rocket launch from Canadian soil in twenty-five years. These research and development activities are said to have generated significant intellectual property and attracted interest from commercial partners looking to invest in Concordia’s projects. In December 2025, Concordia was informed that Polaris was claiming in the market it had acquired Space Concordia’s intellectual property and as the entity behind the Starsailor project. On December 16, 2025, Concordia formally notified Mr. Khalimonov that his dual role with Polaris and Space Concordia raised serious concerns about potential breaches of his employment contract, the University’s Intellectual Property Policy, and its Conflict of Interest Policy. This process led to Mr. Khalimonov’s resignation as Program Leader for Space Concordia on December 18, 2025. On December 29, 2025, Polaris submitted a bid under the Launch the North initiative, a program of the Government of Canada’s Department of National Defense providing for a total of 105 million dollars in investments and grants over three years. Concordia asked the Court to order Polaris and Mr. Khalimonov to: Cease any use of proprietary or confidential information belonging to the University. Withdraw Polaris’s bid; and Remit any documentation in their possession relating to Space Concordia and/or the Starsailor project. Analysis of the criteria applicable to the provisional injunction The Court concluded that issuing the requested provisional injunction was appropriate and that Concordia had met its burden of proof. The evidence clearly showed that Mr. Khalimonov had played a central role in the University’s rocketry initiatives and that he had never formally disclosed to Concordia his simultaneous involvement with Polaris. He had undertaken to comply with strict obligations to Concordia regarding intellectual property and proprietary information, including keeping such information strictly confidential during and after his employment and acknowledging that any intellectual property developed in the course of his employment would remain Concordia’s exclusive property, with no vested rights accruing to him. Mr. Khalimonov also had to comply with university policies, including the Conflict of Interest Policy and the Intellectual Property Policy. The latter provided that the “Inventors” of “Qualifying Inventions” were deemed to have automatically assigned to Concordia the related intellectual property. The Court found that Starsailor constituted a “Qualifying Invention”, and that Mr. Khalimonov met the definition of an “Inventor” within the meaning of that policy. It also found that Polaris’s proposal used intellectual property and confidential information belonging to Concordia. In that context, the Court considers, on a prima facie basis, that Mr. Khalimonov had breached his obligations arising from his employment contract, the Intellectual Property Policy, and the Conflict of Interest Policy. The Court also concluded that refusing to grant the provisional injunction would result in the submission of competing proposals under the Launch the North initiative, creating significant uncertainty as to the ownership of the intellectual property upon which those proposals were based, and thereby causing irreparable harm to Concordia. It found that the balance of inconvenience favored Concordia and supported granting the requested provisional injunction, since the absence of a provisional injunction would likely lead to the disqualification of both Polaris’s and Concordia’s proposals due to unresolved competing claims regarding the intellectual property. Conclusions The Court granted Concordia University’s application for a provisional injunction and ordered, among other things, that Mr. Khalimonov and Polaris cease disseminating false statements suggesting that Polaris held any rights whatsoever in Concordia’s intellectual property, including in relation to Space Concordia’s rocketry projects. It also ordered Mr. Khalimonov and Polaris to cease using Concordia’s intellectual property (including for Space Concordia’s rocketry projects), as well as any confidential or proprietary information belonging to Concordia. Finally, it ordered the immediate withdrawal of Polaris’s submission filed under the Launch the North project. General Principles — Ownership of Inventions In Canada, except for inventions developed by federal public servants, ownership of inventions is derived from inventorship. Thus, the starting point for ownership of an invention lies with the inventor(s), who may subsequently transfer their rights. For Canadian federal public servants, inventions produced by a federal employee in the course of their employment are “vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada” and therefore belong to the federal government, pursuant to the provisions of the Public Servants Inventions Act. However, the Patent Act contains no comparable express provisions regarding ownership of an invention developed by an employee in the course of employment. The case law has established the general principle mentioned above: in the absence of a valid agreement relating to such rights in the context of employment ownership of an invention  vests in the employee who created it, unless the employee was “hired to invent.” The leading case in this respect is the Federal Court’s decision in Comstock2. In that case, the Court noted that the nature and context of the employer–employee relationship could be analyzed using various factors in order to determine whether an employee had indeed been “hired to invent.” Such a determination can be complex and remains uncertain, since each case depends on its particular facts. It is therefore always prudent to put in place an agreement governing ownership of inventions developed in the course of employment. Key Takeaway   Concordia University’s success in its application for a provisional injunction underscores the importance for employers of including robust intellectual property and confidentiality clauses in employment contracts. This decision is a reminder that it is not enough to rely on general principles: employers are well advised to draft comprehensive, clear, and operational provisions governing (i) the ownership and assignment of intellectual property rights, (ii) the definition and handling of confidential information, and (iii) the rules applicable during employment and after its termination. It is just as crucial that these policies and undertakings (intellectual property, confidentiality, conflicts of interest) be brought to the employee’s attention at the time of hiring, properly incorporated into or referenced in the employment contract, and easily accessible at all times. These contractual mechanisms complement the duties of loyalty and confidentiality set out in article 2088 of the Civil Code of Québec, which continue to apply after the end of the employment contract—but whose scope often remains insufficient in specialized sectors where intellectual property issues are decisive. In short, this case shows that, without well-structured contractual clauses, Concordia would have had much greater difficulty asserting its rights and obtaining the withdrawal of Polaris’s competing submission under Launch the North. Concordia University v. Polaris Aerospace Inc., 2026 QCCS 30. Comstock Canada et al. v. Electec Ltd. and Hyde, (1991) 45 F.T.R. 241 (TD).

The past year has brought its share of challenges, forcing Quebec businesses to navigate the pressures of the economic climate and the job market, but it was also marked by intense activity both in the legislative arena and at the bargaining table. When: March 27, 2026 Speakers: Richard Gaudreault, Geneviève Beaudin et Camille Rioux We will look at recent developments, legislative changes and strategic considerations related to key issues on our radar to ensure that labour relations drive value for your organization instead of being a drag on its productivity.The training is recognized by the Ordre des CRHA and the Barreau du Québec. Register to the webinar

With Christmas festivities just around the corner, employers must strike a balance between festive atmosphere, team spirit and legal obligations, particulary in terms of risk prevention. Although employers have always had responsibilities in relation to Christmas parties,1 the obligations regarding psychosocial risk prevention, introduced in October 2025, imposes new requirements.2 These obligations require that employers pay special attention to the psychological health of employees and specific measures to prevent psychosocial risks during company events, such as Christmas parties. But responsibilities do not fall on employers alone, employees also have a role to play during Christmas parties. To ensure that festive gatherings between colleagues are a success, everyone must do their part. 1. Employer’s obligations 1.1 Work accidents Although a Christmas party may take place outside what is considered regular working hours, an accident occurring during such an event may still be deemed to have occurred “in the course of work”, within the meaning of the Act respecting workplace accidents and occupational diseases.3 Because this concept is not defined in the law, case law establishes certain criteria to determine whether an activity in which a worker engaged at the time of the accident is closely related to their work. These criteria include: Where the incident occurred; the time of the incident; the remuneration for the activity in which the worker was engaged at the time of the incident the existence and degree of authority or subordination of the employer if the incident does not occur on the premises or during working hours; the purpose of the activity performed at the time of the incident, whether incidental, ancillary or optional to the employee’s working conditions; the nature of the connection or relative usefulness of the employee’s activity relative to the performance of their duties.4 None of these criteria is decisive on its own. They must be considered as a whole, taking the specific facts of each case into account. As an example of how broad the scope of this principle is, the Administrative Labour Tribunal (“ALT”) recently found that a worker who had injured herself while dancing during an activity organized by the employer’s social committee had suffered an accident “in the course of work”.5 The fact that the employer had allocated a budget for the event and granted time off to encourage employee participation made it possible to establish a link of usefulness and relevance to work.6 Conversely, in another decision, a worker who was running a stand serving hot drinks at an event held for city residents participated in a game called “The Christmas Tree Toss” with volunteers and employees after closing her stand.7 While performing her throw, she suffered an injury to ther right knee. After reviewing the aforementioned criteria, the ALT found that the accident had occurred as part of the worker's private life and not “in the course of work.” The gathering and participation in the event were not part of professional duties, and the event was intended for city residents. All attendees had left the premises, with only employees and volunteers left.8 1.2 Harassment and the importance of following procedures The Act respecting labour standards requires employers to take reasonable measures to prevent psychological and sexual harassment.9 In particular, all employers must develop a harassment prevention and management policy and make it available to their employees. Since September 2024, such policies must include recommendations on appropriate behaviour during work-related social activities, such as Christmas parties.10 More broadly, according to the Act respecting occupational health and safety, in Quebec, employers must take measures to prevent situations of physical or psychological violence, including spousal, family or sexual violence.11 Employers must strictly adhere to their internal procedures if this type of incident occurs. A grievance arbitrator made this point in a case where a plaintiff was dismissed from his employment after having refused to cooperate in an investigation regarding allegations of participation in events of a sexual nature and drug use after a Christmas party having been held by the plaintiff’s employer.12 Although the alleged acts took place in a hotel outside working hours and in a private setting, they had a negative impact on the work environment. The employer had been informed of persistent rumours that were detrimental to the proper functioning of the business. In this case, to warrant the holding of an internal investigation, the employer had been able to establish a sufficient link between the activities, which first appeared to have taken place in the employee’s private life, and its business. However, the fact that the employer had failed to obtain the plaintiff's version of events before taking disciplinary action, as required by its own procedure, affected the outcome. As a result, the contestation of the dismissal was allowed.13 To avoid this type of situation, employers must make it a point to follow their own internal complaint handling procedure. 1.3 Disciplinary offences Since office Christmas parties are connected to the workplace, employees are generally required to fulfill their obligations. Misconduct on their part could warrant disciplinary measures. For example, if an employee engages in harassment or insubordination, in particular while under the influence of alcohol, which can be a catalyst for problematic behaviour, their employer will be entitled to impose disciplinary measures. However, an employer cannot impose two penalties on an employee who committed a disciplinary offence. A grievance arbitrator has ruled that suspending an employee for three days for a sexually suggestive gesture made jokingly at a Christmas party, in addition to prohibiting the employee from attending subsequent Christmas parties for three years, constituted double punishment. The financial penalty linked to the suspension was deemed sufficient as a disciplinary measure for the alleged offence.14 2. Best practices for employers In order to minimize the risks associated with the Christmas holidays, employers could implement the following practices. To prepare for parties : Ensure that your harassment and alcohol and drug use policies are up to date, in accordance with applicable law. Prepare an incident-related risk analysis mechanism (and include psychosocial risks). Send employees a reminder before the event, pointing out that employer policies continue to apply and reminding them of expected behaviours and ways to get help or report problematic situations. Implement preventative measures regarding alcohol consumption. For example, employers should limit alcoholic consumption by providing coupons, offer a choice of non-alcoholic drinks, along with food, or close the bar at a specific time. Offer employees options at the event where alcohol will be consumed, such as taxi vouchers, ride-sharing services or accommodation. During the party : Employees comply with internal policies and respond immediately. Managers are present and able to respond quickly to inappropriate behaviour and document any incidents that occur. Preventive measures, such as closing the bar or distributing taxi vouchers, among others, are applied. After the party : Follow up with the organizing team to determine what went well and what did not, including any incidents that occurred, to apply corrective actions. Objectively assess all reports and initiate an impartial and confidential investigation if necessary, meeting with the parties involved to obtain each person’s version of the facts, in compliance with policies or rules arising form laws, collective agreements or contracts. Keep records of incidents that have occurred, as needed. Update policies and procedures in light of lessons learned. 3.Conclusion With Christmas parties just around the corner, it is worth remembering that for a party to be deemed successful by employers and employees alike, it is not only the festive atmosphere that counts, but also the effectiveness of the implemented preventive measures. Before holding your event, put the necessary risk prevention measures in place so that everyone can fully and safely take part in it. We invite you to read the following articles on these subjects: Lavery, “The Success of Employer-Organized Christmas Parties: It Is Everyone’s Business?” November 29, 2023, URL: The Success of Employer-Organized Christmas Parties: It Is Everyone’s Business?. Lavery, “The return of Christmas parties: What employers need to know,” December 9, 2022, URL: The return of Christmas parties: what employers need to know. We invite you to read the following article on this subject : "Occupational health and safety: Understanding employers’ new obligations", December 10, 2025, URL: Occupational health and safety: Understanding employers’ new obligations Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases, CQLR, c. A-3.001, s. 2. Cannara Biothech (Valleyfield) inc. et Boulanger, 2025 QCTAT 1771, para. 9. Ibid, para. 1. Ibid, paras. 23–29. Murphy et Ville de Léry, 2022 QCTAT 5309, para. 1 Ibid, paras. 40–46. Act respecting labour standards , CQLR c. N-1.1, s. 81.19. Ibid., s. 81.19, para. 1, subpara. 3. Act respecting occupational health and safety, CQLR, c. S-2.1, section 51 (16). Syndicat des salariés(es) de l'agroalimentaire de Ste-Claire (CSD) et Kerry Canada inc. (Richard Guay) , 2022 QCTA 224, para. 1.  Ibid, paras. 109–111. Teamsters Québec, section locale 1999 et Univar Canada ltée (Jean-Martin Gobeil), 2020 QCTA 344 paras. 77–80.

The reform of the occupational health and safety system that was initiated in 2021 has reached one of its final steps as new obligations for employers come into force. As of October 6, 2025, employers must comply with several provisions of the Act to modernize the occupational health and safety regime (“the AMOHSR”), as well as the Regulation respecting prevention and participation mechanisms in an establishment (“the Regulation”), in effect since October 1, 2025. As concerns about psychosocial risks are growing in our society and, in particular, in the workplace, the need, or even the obligation, for employers to take reasonable measures to protect the health, safety and physical and psychological integrity of workers has become very important. In fact, according to a study conducted by the Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST), statistics on psychosocial risks (violence, stress, harassment) show that there has been a 71.4% increase in injuries attributable to this type of risk since 2020.1 Thus, recent legislative and regulatory changes aim to strengthen the protection of workers’ physical and psychological health. They require employers to take a proactive approach in order to adapt to societal changes. It goes without saying that this approach also promises to reduce the costs arising from legal action, complaints, and claims for employment injuries made to the CNESST. Psychosocial risks in the workplace The recent amendments made by the AMOHSR explicitly recognize the importance of employers identifying, correcting and controlling psychosocial risks in the workplace, on the same footing as all other risks that may affect the health and safety of workers.  The main new features of the permanent regime The permanent regime establishing prevention and participation mechanisms in an establishment is enacted by the Regulation, under the Act respecting occupational health and safety (AMOHSR). It replaces the “interim mechanisms” that initially applied when the AMOHSR came into force. The main changes concern the obligations to prepare a prevention program or action plan, to implement it and to update it. The obligations of establishments with 19 or fewer workers a) To prepare and implement an action plan. The action plan is a prevention tool intended to eliminate, at the source, dangers to the health, safety, and physical and mental well-being of workers.2 The AMOHSR stipulates that the action plan must, at a minimum, include the following elements:3 “the identification of the risks that may affect the health of the establishment’s workers, including the chemical, biological, physical, ergonomic and psychosocial risks related to the work, as well as the risks that may affect the workers’ safety; the measures and priorities for action to eliminate or, failing that, to control the identified risks, giving precedence to the hierarchy of preventive measures established by regulation as well as the scheduling to accomplish the measures and priorities; the supervision and maintenance measures to ensure that the identified risks are eliminated or controlled; the identification of the individual protective means and equipment that, in addition to being in compliance with the regulations, are those best adapted to meet the needs of the establishment’s workers; and the occupational health and safety training and information.” b) To designate a health and safety liaison officer. The liaison officer plays a key role in the establishment’s worker participation mechanism. In particular, this person collaborates on the preparation and implementation of the action plan. The liaison officer issues written recommendations to the employer and participates in the identification and analysis of risks, including psychosocial risks, that may affect the health and safety of workers.4 Obligations of establishments with 20 or more workers a) To prepare and implement a prevention program. The prevention program includes all the elements of the action plan, but is more complex and offers a long-term overview of how prevention is organized in the workplace.5 The AMOHSR specifies the minimum elements that the prevention program must include.6 In short, this program includes the following in addition to what is provided for in the action plan: Pre-employment medical checkups and medical examinations during employment Establishing and updating a list of dangerous substances and contaminants Maintaining an adequate first aid service to respond to emergencies The AMOHSR amended this program, which was initially provided for under the AROH, to explicitly include the protection of workers’ mental health by adding the analysis of psychosocial risks. b) To establish a health and safety committee. The health and safety committee (“HSC”) plays an important role, particularly in developing the prevention program, identifying risks, including psychosocial risks, and analyzing the workplace; it proposes measures to correct and control these risks.7 In the absence of an agreement between the employer and the workers, the Regulation provides for the makeup of the HSC, the procedures and methods for appointing the workers’ representatives, and the rules of operation of the HSC.  c) To designate a health and safety representative. The health and safety representative is a member of the HSC and assists it in its mandates, including workplace inspections, receiving and analyzing accident reports, and identifying hazards, including psychosocial risks, for workers.8 In the absence of an agreement between the members of the HSC, the Regulation stipulates the minimum time required for the performance of the health and safety representative’s duties (which depends on the number of workers and the level of the establishment).9 The training obligation The health and safety liaison officer must participate in a theoretical training course developed by the CNESST within one year of their appointment as liaison officer.10 The health and safety representative and the members of the HSC must also complete a theoretical training course of a minimum duration of one day, delivered by the CNESST or by a person or organization recognized by it, within 120 days of their appointment.11 Note that the CNESST offers employers an information tool through its occupational health program which focuses on three increasingly prevalent psychosocial risks: violence, harassment and exposure to a potentially traumatic event. This program provides an overview of the identification of these risks and offers, as an example, a table of preventive measures that can be taken depending on the risk and the psychosocial factor concerned. 12 Conclusion By putting an emphasis on psychosocial risks and adapting the prevention mechanisms, these additions to the health and safety regime aim to guarantee a healthy and safe working environment. The legislation gives employers a transition period to comply with the new obligations. As of October 6, 2025, employers have one year to implement either the prevention program or the action plan.13 Both must be updated annually.14 These new obligations are part of a trend among legislators to enhance workplace prevention measures, focusing in particular on worker participation, training, and information sharing. To that end, the Regulation respecting the measures to prevent or put a stop to sexual violence was published in draft form on October 29, 2025.15 Employers will have new obligations regarding the information they must provide to workers, particularly concerning workplace risks that have been identified or analyzed in relation to situations of sexual violence.16 Furthermore, under this draft regulation, a procedure for handling complaints or reports will need to be established, as well as specific training on situations of sexual violence.17 Companies must assess and adjust their practices in order to meet these new obligations. Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, Statistiques sur les risques psychosociaux liés au travail (statistics on work-related psychosocial risks), October 2025. S. 147 AMOHSR inserting s. 61.2 of the Act respecting occupational health and safety (“the AROH”). Ibid; CNESST, Contenu du plan d’action (content of an action plan). S. 167 AMOHSR inserting s. 97.2-97.3 of the AROH. CNESST Comment se préparer à nos nouvelles obligations en santé et en sécurité au travail? (how to prepare for the new occupational health and safety obligations) October 2025, p. 7. S. 144 AMOHSR amending s. 59 of the AROH; CNESST. Contenu du programme de prévention. S. 150 AMOHSR replacing s. 68 of the AROH; s. 154 AMOHSR amending s. 78 of the AROH. S. 161 AMOHSR replacing s. 87 of the AROH; s. 163 AMOHSR amending s. 90 of the AROH.   Section 7 of the Regulation. S. 167 AMOHSR inserting s. 97.5 of the AROH. Sections 34-36 of the Regulation. CNESST. Programme de santé au travail(occupational health program), October 2025. Section 4 of the Regulation. Section 5 of the Regulation. GAZETTE OFFICIELLE DU QUÉBEC, October 29, 2025, Vol. 157, No. 44 Section 3 of the draft Regulation respecting the measures to prevent or put a stop to sexual violence (“Draft Regulation”). Sections 4-6 of the Draft Regulation.