On April 2, 2026, the National Assembly of Québec assented to Bill 9, An Act respecting the reinforcement of laicity in Québec. While it primarily targets the public sector, it nonetheless contains provisions that apply directly to the private sector and that significantly modify the duty of religious accommodation of Québec employers.
Quick Hits
- On April 2, 2026, the National Assembly of Québec assented to Bill 9, which enacts the new Loi favorisant le vivre-ensemble et encadrant les accommodements pour un motif religieux (roughly translated as “Law promoting social cohesion and regulating accommodations for religious reasons”), whose chapter on accommodations expressly applies to the private sector.
- The accommodation threshold shifts from “undue hardship” to “more than minimal hardship”—a major tightening of the duty of accommodation.
- Québec is taking the opposite path from the one the United States recently took in Groff v. DeJoy (2023).
- This new religious accommodation regime is protected by a double notwithstanding clause, with respect to both the Québec Charter of human rights and freedoms and the Constitution Act, 1982.
Background
Bill 9 reinforces the laicity framework in Québec established by the Act respecting the laicity of the State (commonly known as “Law 21”). It extends laicity obligations to new bodies—including private sector bodies such as childcare centres (CPE), subsidized day care centres, educational institutions accredited for purposes of subsidies, private health institutions under agreement, intermediate resources, and family-type resources (s. 19, amending Schedule I of the Act respecting the laicity of the State). It also prohibits religious practice in places under the authority of these bodies, subject to certain exceptions, and extends the prohibition on wearing religious symbols to their personnel (s. 20, amending Schedule II).
Application to the Private Sector: Key Takeaways
A New Accommodation Regime Applicable to the Private Sector
The most significant point for private sector employers is the adoption of the new Law promoting social cohesion and regulating accommodations for religious reasons, enacted by section 27 of Bill 9.
The explanatory notes of Bill 9 are unequivocal: “The enacted Act […] provides for the application of that framework to the private sector” (explanatory notes, p. 3). [Emphasis added.] Section 5 of the act confirms this scope by providing that the chapter on accommodations “applies to any request for an accommodation on a religious ground arising from the application of the right to equality,” without any restriction to the public sector. [Emphasis added.]
This means that every private sector employer in Québec—and not only bodies subject to the Act respecting the laicity of the State—must comply with the new framework when processing a request for religious accommodation.
The New Threshold: ‘More Than Minimal Hardship’
The most notable change concerns the threshold at which an employer may refuse a religious accommodation. In Canadian law, the traditional test is that of “undue hardship.” Section 6 of the act enacted by section 27 of Bill 9 now provides that an accommodation may be granted only if it “does not impose more than minimal hardship” [emphasis added] with regard to:
- respect for the rights of others,
- human health and safety,
- the proper operation of the body having received the request, and
- the related costs.
This threshold is significantly more restrictive. This means that an employer may now refuse an accommodation as soon as it creates a hardship exceeding a minimal level, whereas the “undue hardship” test required demonstrating a much more significant burden.
A Parallel and a Contrast With Our American Neighbors
This shift is all the more remarkable in that it runs contrary to the recent evolution of American law. Historically, the Supreme Court of the United States had interpreted the concept of “undue hardship” in an undemanding manner such that an employer could refuse a religious accommodation as soon as it imposed a de minimis cost. In other words, the duty of religious accommodation in the United States had long remained minimal.
In June 2023, the Supreme Court reversed this approach in Groff v. DeJoy. It unanimously raised the threshold by holding that an employer must demonstrate that the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in costs related to the conduct of its business, a standard significantly more demanding than the de minimis previously required.
Québec therefore appears to be taking a diametrically opposite path by lowering the religious accommodation threshold to “more than minimal hardship.”
Additional Criteria for Absences From Work
Section 7 of the act provides for specific criteria to be considered when a request for accommodation on religious grounds involves an absence from work:
- the frequency and duration of absences,
- the size of the administrative unit and its ability to adapt,
- the consequences on the work performance of the requester and their colleagues,
- possible arrangements (e.g., schedule modification, making up hours), and
- fairness with regard to the employment conditions of other personnel members.
Section 6 also imposes an obligation of cooperation on the requester in seeking a solution.
Protection by the Notwithstanding Clause
The act enacted by section 27 of Bill 9 benefits from a double notwithstanding clause. Section 13 provides that it applies despite sections 1 to 38 of the Québec Charter of human rights and freedoms. Section 14 provides that it has effect notwithstanding the provisions of sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the Constitution Act, 1982. This double protection is intended notably to shield the new provisions applicable to the private sector with respect to religious accommodation against potential challenges based on the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by those texts.
Interpretive Questions to Watch
The new standard of “more than minimal hardship” raises several questions that will need to be clarified by the courts:
- How will Québec courts concretely define the threshold of “more than minimal hardship”? Will it approach the de minimis standard as it was applied in the United States before Groff v. DeJoy?
- How will this new threshold interact with existing constitutional and quasi-constitutional obligations, given the notwithstanding clause?
- Could the criterion of “fairness with regard to the employment conditions of other personnel members” alone justify a refusal of an accommodation involving a leave of absence?
- How will private sector employers not subject to the Act respecting the laicity of the State, but subject to the new accommodation regime, need to adapt their internal policies?
Next Steps
Private sector employers in Québec may want to promptly review their policies and processes for handling requests for religious accommodation to bring them into compliance with the new legal requirements. The new accommodation regime enacted by section 27 of Bill 9 came into force on the date of assent, that is, April 2, 2026 (s. 29). Employers may want to carefully monitor jurisprudential developments that will clarify the scope of the new “more than minimal hardship” threshold.
Listen to this post here.
